At 25/04/02 10:41 -0400, Charles wrote:
> It is very important for people to take account of the distorting impact > of hindsight on assessment of the non-aggression pact. In 1939, the Nazis > were not the Nazis. They were more like the Italian Fascists. Bad , but > not genocidal, superduper, mass murderers. They were not necessarily > worse than the British or Americans. Britain and France were equally > cupable with Germany for the biggest mass slaughter in history up to that > time that had occurred in WWI. Afterall, America had existing Jim Crow, > lynching, Indian concentration camps. The Nazis were not doing anything > worse than that in 1939. Mass internment of Jews in German concentration camps did not exist before the internment of Austian Jews after the Anschluss in 1938. It was the social democrats and the communists who were interned. And rough justice for those categories was common among capitalist countries. These points Charles is making are important for overcoming the idealist view of history - that the twentieth century was a struggle to overcome the evil of two supremely evil individuals, Hitler and Stalin. Yes the dangers and roots of fascism lay in many countries. Yes if we are to understand German Nazism we must understand the particularity of contradictions too. That includes the fact that the German Nazi party had some successful economic policies which were somewhat Keynesian in nature. They also borrowed ideas from the USA, including cheer leaders, mass choreographed displays, and other methods for guiding the dangers of popular democracy. There are not or should not be simplistic lessons from history. But overcoming an idealist version of history may be important in addressing the problems of the present. Mass control of the population by finance capital and mass manipulation by fascist demagogues remain present dangers. It is not easy to define the nature of a popular front or a united front against fascism and for peace and justice, because so much depends on how to handle the internal contradictions. But the aim itself is not wrong. Nor is it a feature of marxism that temporary alliances with sections of other classes are by definition wrong. But exactly which and when is also part of the inevitable argument. As Engels noted, "The development of the proletariat proceeds everywhere amidst internal struggles". To the extent any of this can be relevant for a left list on political economy, Michael, as is well known, nevertheless imposes draconian policies against personal incivility and challenges. Chris Burford
