> What they are arguing is that a specific authoritarian
> conception of the state as an organ which should
> stand above particualr interests and represent the
> interests of the "Volk" is more or less compatible
> with Nazi positions.
But that's a silly argument. It's technically true, but what conclusion do you draw from that? Because MOST people probably think of the state that way. As good Marxists, we presumably know that the state is either an instrument for one class to hold down another, or that it is at least "contested terrain" for contending class interests (a Gramscian nuance on traditional Marxist theory). But presumably "even under socialism" we would need some sort of decision-making body that has the final word, and that would mediate between competing interests (because these would still exist). That's a reasonable function for the state, and if Nazis also believed that, that's because it's so obvious that even they can recognize it. This is sort of like pointing out that Nazis liked Beethoven and Goethe, and that therefore "Beethoven and Goethe are more or less compatible with fascism." It's meaningless.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories