[lbo-talk] Derrida on Heartfield

[wrobert at uci.edu]

When we read Lukacs on liberalism and the popular front, FDR and the new
deal in relationship to the communists, and the Strassers' weird radical
Nazism, this static and reductionist understanding of the conflicts of the
inter war period loses a lot of currency.  There are points that you're
right on this, but these antagonisms are much more dynamic than you make
them out.  robert wood
>
> I think it's kind of interesting that each member of the three worldviews
> that were duking it out in Europe in the 20th century (liberalism,
> communism, and fascism) viewed the other two as basically reducible to the
> same thing. For a liberal, fascism and communism are both totalitarianism
> and so basically the same. For a fascist, liberalism and communism are
> both soulless regimes of mediocrity and so basically the same. For a
> communist, liberalism and fascism are both capitalist ideologies and so
> basically the same.
>
> People who engage in black and white thinking don't like triads.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Derrida on Heartfield
>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 3:18 PM
>> Or it could be retrospectively viewed
>> like liberalism, where the ideology
>> that ends up "winning" (if not in the way that it expected
>> to) is the
>> authentic, natural trajectory of human history and all the
>> others are
>> indistinguishable barbarisms.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>