America 2004 is Germany 1930

[Guerrilla Rebel]

America 2004
Is
Germany 1930
by: Norman D. Livergood






We who live in the post-World War II period possess an immensely valuable symbol, even if we don't understand it or use it effectively: the example of Nazi Germany.

"The German experiment, except to those who are its victims, is particularly interesting, and, like the offer of a strong man to let himself be vivisected, should make a great contribution to political science. For the Germans are the most gifted and most highly educated people who ever devoted the full strength of a modern state to stopping the exchange of ideas; they are the most highly organized people who ever devoted all the coercive power of government to the abolition of their own intellectual life; they are the most learned people who ever pretended to believe that the premises and the conclusion of all inquiry may be fixed by political fiat."

Walter Lippmann. (1936), The Good Society

The 2004 election revealed that American citizens are as intellectually and morally incompetent as the Germans in 1930. Such incompetence and ignorance always lead to tyranny. The United States is exactly at the same point in national degradation as the German nation in the 1930s when Hitler assumed absolute power and began his regime of mass murder and war crimes against the people of the world.

We've been conditioned to see Germany under Hitler as an unquestionably horrible example of dictatorial tyranny and inhuman barbarity--and to see our present American culture as completely opposite to that of Nazi Germany. And we like to think that if a tyranny such as that in Germany under the Nazi regime were present and growing in America we'd unquestionably be able to see it.

So it's a shock when we realize: most people living in Nazi Germany didn't see the tyranny! They thought it was the best time of their lives!

to read the rest, go here
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/germany1930.htm

[Eastside Revolt]

Well, the closest similarity that I see, is the blind assumption that the status-quo is always right.

[Frederick_Engles]

hmm America has certainly moved to the right but I suspect that over the next few elections they will move slowly left

[Pawn Power]

I don't think it is to that extreem. Germany at that time was in a massive depression from the reparations put on them from WWI. But is you look at the time poriod fascism was not uncommon, besides Hitler there was also Franco in spain and Mussolini in Italy.
I don't think the U$ is going to tern into Nazi Germany but a portion of the country is certainly leaning right these days.
I also wouldent be suprised is a big war like WWII is on the way..

[Paradox]

Well, when you look at the ideas they proposed in "PATRIOT II," it's getting closer. They want to restrict access to information regarding companies that use hazardous chemicals, chemicals which could pose environmental and health risks. They also want to strip people of their citizenship if they support even the lawful activities of groups deemed "terrorist." Not to mention all the surveillance powers they have, and want to extend. All you need now are some concentration camps. Good thing we don't have any of those. Oh, wait! We have Indian reservations! And don't forget the prisons. Plus all the thousands of Arab/Muslim immigrants who were detained since 9/11. Add in Hamid Karzai and the war in Iraq, and well, you get the picture. Doesn't look to good right now. But, hopefully, things will get better. I doubt that the people of the u.$. will become that blind, but you never know.

[Skeptic]

Dear Comarades:Here is a brief discussion on Fascism in the USA taking place on the Another World is Possible website. One of the most important aspects of this discussion is that Fascism is not a different system from bourgeois democracy, it is just an openly terroristic form of rule by the rich. We are currently in the process of becoming a Fascist country. Fascism is coming like a freight train in my opinion. Tell me what you think about this discussion Che-Lives people.


thread on fascism
« Thread started on: Today at 09:02am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new thread has started up on fascism--the participants are casting about for a definition. Do we have one we could offer that's on point?

http://cafeutne.org/motet/bin/motet?show+-...litics+352+-25- (http://cafeutne.org/motet/bin/motet?show+-ujgR5P+-ila+Politics+352+-25-)
Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raise your hands in the air like you're born again, but make a fist for the struggle we were born to win
--Boots from the Coup
kasam0
Guest
Re: thread on fascism
« Reply #1 on: Today at 1:10pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let me mention some initial ideas:

Capitalist society is a dictatorship of the capitalist class.

But such dictatorships can take different political forms.

In some countries, the bourgeois class staged capitalist revolution against feudalism, and established their state through the 1800s and 1900s. In some of those countries, they established bourgeois democratic states -- their dictatorship was exercised through a system of elections, laws, constitutions, etc.

However, in times of acute crisis, change and even revolutnoary attempts -- when their rule is in question, where their legitimacy is in tatters, where they need to mobilize society in a grim and determined way for war -- the capitalist class has repeatedly turned to other *forms* of political rule.

In particular, fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most powerful sections of the monopoly capitalist class.

(this is the definition adopted by the RCP.)

There are several things to say about this:

1) Capitaism is a dictatorship of the ruling class, no mater which particular form they adopt and use to impose their rule, policies and interests.

2) However in times of crisis and counterrevolution, the ruling class sometimes tried to drop its usual framework of legality and elections and "democratic rights" -- and rule in *openly* terroristic ways. They arrest critics wholesale, they suppress the press, they unleash vigilante gangs to kill opponents, they crush opposition organizations, they dump their old ways of ruling, they rewrite their laws -- all to exercise a more open, unrestrained, direct and brutal terror over the people.

3) This definition is in opposition to an older definition used by communists, which said "fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary wing of the ruling class." this idea that there was a "most reactionary wing" suggested that there was also a "more progressive wing" that could be united with in a strategic sense.

This view (associated with Dimitrov, the Communist International in stalin's time) is criticized and rejected in the founding statement of the Revolutionary internationalist Movement:

"In 1935 an extremely important Congress of the Communist International was held in the midst of a severe world economic crisis, the growing threat of a new world war and imperialist attacks on the Soviet Union, the coming to power of fascism in Germany and the smashing of the German Communist Party, and the establishment of fascism or menace of the same in a number of other countries. It was necessary and correct for the Communist International to try to develop a tactical line concerning all of these questions.

Because the Seventh Congress of the Comintern has had such a deep influence on the history of the international movement it is necessary to make a sober and scientific evaluation of the Report of the Congress in the light of the existing historical conditions at the time. In particular the reasons for the defeat of the German Communist Party must be deeply studied. Nevertheless certain conclusions can be drawn now, and must be in light of the present tasks of today's Marxist-Leninists and three clear deviations must be identified.

First the distinction between fascism and bourgeois democracy in the imperialist countries, while certainly of real importance for the Communist Parties, was treated in a way that tended to make an absolute of the difference between these two forms of bourgeois dictatorship and also to make a strategic stage of the struggle against fascism. Secondly, a thesis was developed, which held that the growing immiseration of the proletariat would create in the advanced countries the material basis for healing the split in the working class and its consequent polarisation that Lenin had so powerfully analysed in his works on imperialism and the collapse of the Second International. While it is certainly true that the depth of the crisis undermined the social base of the labour aristocracy in the advanced capitalist countries and led to real possibilities that the Communist Parties needed to make use of to unite with large sections of the workers previously under the hegemony of the Social Democrats, it was not correct to believe that in any kind of a strategic sense the split in the working class could be healed. Thirdly, when fascism was defined as the regime of the most reactionary section of the monopoly bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries, this left the door open to the dangerous, reformist and pacifist tendency to see a section of the monopoly bourgeoisie as progressive.

While it is necessary to sum up these errors and to learn from them it is just as necessary to recognise the Communist International, including in this period, as part of the heritage of the revolutionary struggle for communism and to beat back liquidationist and

Trotskyite attempts to seize upon real errors to draw reactionary conclusions. Even during this period the Communist International mobilised millions of workers against class enemies and led heroic struggles against reaction such as the organising of the International Brigades to fight against fascism in Spain in which many of the best sons and daughters of the working class shed their blood in an inspiring example of internationalism. "


Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



kasam0
Guest
Re: thread on fascism
« Reply #3 on: Today at 1:31pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to urge everyone to read AND DISTRIBUTE this leaflet:

http://rwor.org/a/1258/elections-editorial.htm

Which digs into the things that are keeping us all awake at night: where are we at, what is happening, how do we stop the steamroller of war and fascism!!

This leaflet opens with a very important sumation:

"yes, it is as bad as you think. Almost certainly, it is worse."

This is a very important and sobering assessment.
And we need to dig into it together.

Are progressive people mainly "freaking out" without reason (as Serivian seemed to suggest on Che-lives) -- or is the main problem that many people still "don't get" how serious this moment is, how determined the ruling class is to push ahead with extreme changes, and how quickly this could happen?

Chairman avakian wrote in New Situations and Challenges, shortly after 9/11/01: (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1140-1147/1143/ba-newsituation.htm)

THINGS ARE BOUND TO BE VASTLY DIFFERENT...THE AMERICA WE HAVE KNOWN WILL NOT EXIST IN THE SAME WAY ANYMORE

As I spoke to earlier, there are both things that the U.S. imperialists have had on their agenda and had on track for a while which they put on the fast track, and there are also real contradictions and real necessity and real forces opposing them that they have to deal with. They have both freedom and necessity, and both have taken a new shape in the aftermath of September 11. And while we must grasp this as fully as we can at this point, and act on this, it is also important for us to continue digging into this and learn more about the dynamics driving them, the underlying material economic forces, the political and geostrategic factors, and the interconnection of these different economic, political, and social forces.

But a crucial point to emphasize here again is the imperialists have set things in motion that can't be easily reversed, and may not be easily controlled. And we can say with a great deal of certainty that at the end of all this—whenever and however what has been set in motion is finally resolved—things are bound to be and will be vastly different, not only internationally, but also within what has been the United States. Whether in a very terrible way, or in a very positive way in terms of the advance of the proletarian revolution worldwide, and perhaps even getting to the point where power is seized by the masses of the people in the U.S. itself—things will be radically different and the America we have known will not exist in the same way anymore.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 02:49 PM
hmm America has certainly moved to the right but I suspect that over the next few elections they will move slowly left
I assume you're talking about hte one lined spectrum?

There&#39;s actually a phrase called the "swing-left." After a right winged government gives tax cuts, goes into a deficit, etc, a more leftist government comes in and is forced to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit and regain fiscal responsibilty. However, this leads into a cycle, because after the "more leftist" government raises taxes, the people start to dislike them again and then they vote the right winged party back into power. It&#39;s bloody annoying, but that&#39;s how most people&#39;s minds work <_< .

[LSD]

The United States is not Nazi Germany.
The United States is not equivilent to Nazi Germany.

Saying so dishonours the millions who did die under a genuinely fascist government.

Is the United States shifting to the right? Yes, but it has a lot more "shifting" to do before it even approaches the Germany of the thirties.

The USA PATRIOT act is nothing compared with Hitlers "Law to remedy the misery of the people and the Reich"

Tell me, have you read the "Law to Protect American Blood and American Honour"? No?? Oh wait, right, it doesn&#39;t exist.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 06:02 PM
The United States is not Nazi Germany.
The United States is not equivilent to Nazi Germany.

Saying so dishonours the millions who did die under a genuinely fascist government.

Is the United States shifting to the right? Yes, but it has a lot more "shifting" to do before it even approaches the Germany of the thirties.

The USA PATRIOT act is nothing compared with Hitlers "Law to remedy the misery of the people and the Reich"

Tell me, have you read the "Law to Protect American Blood and American Honour"? No?? Oh wait, right, it doesn&#39;t exist.
You&#39;re right saying it IS Nazi Germany is just idiotic. Even being the equivilent is just as ignorant. Yes there are many parallels. But right winged governments are going to have parallels. That&#39;s why I like politicalcompass.org, but Comrade RAF doesn&#39;t like it, as it doesn&#39;t go with what he says, so I just don&#39;t know.

But as you can see according to one theory using the one line spectrum...the Rebublicans are SOOO right wing they don&#39;t even exist IN the spectrum itself.

[LSD]

You&#39;re right saying it IS Nazi Germany is just idiotic. Even being the equivilent is just as ignorant. Yes there are many parallels. But right winged governments are going to have parallels. That&#39;s why I like politicalcompass.org, but Comrade RAF doesn&#39;t like it, as it doesn&#39;t go with what he says, so I just don&#39;t know.

But as you can see according to one theory using the one line spectrum...the Rebublicans are SOOO right wing they don&#39;t even exist IN the spectrum itself.

Wow, I&#39;m impressed.

You managed to crowbar in that personal attack out of nowhere&#33;

That&#39;s really an impressive skill, I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll do great things with it one day.

[Latifa]

I didn&#39;t read the article but if AmeriKKKa was really 1930s Germany two things would be on the horizon --
1. An economy surge. Not likely.
2. A World War. Very possible.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 08:05 PM
Wow, I&#39;m impressed.

You managed to crowbar in that personal attack out of nowhere&#33;

That&#39;s really an impressive skill, I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll do great things with it one day.
How is it a personal attack? It&#39;s the truth, he doesn&#39;t like it, and therefore probably disagrees with his beliefs :rolleyes: .

[LSD]

How is it a personal attack? It&#39;s the truth, he doesn&#39;t like it, and therefore probably disagrees with his beliefs

It was completely irrelevent to the conversation, and was clearly intended to be hostile.

Seriously, man, calm down.

[WarPigs4538]

I know i will sound ignorant to some by saying this but who cares how right or left a person seems to be? It is how they act that ultimately shapes the world around them.

I believe the analogy between Bush and Hitler is apt in several ways. First, Bush hates criticism. That is why he is now appointing cabinet members who are, in effect, mindless "yes-men".

Second, Bush doesn&#39;t know how to deal with social and domestic problems so he creates an enemy that he can use as a scapegoat. Hitler had Jews. Bush has terrorists. If one looks at the way Bush encourages people to watch for terrorists, one quickly will realize that the so-called "terrorists" can just be someone who thinks or looks different than they are supposed to. Remember, If you don&#39;t wear Abercrombie and Fitch, have blonde hair, listen to pop, love football and vote Republican, you are considered a terrorist.

Also, ask yourself this. why is Bush so good at catching terrorists? HE THINKS JUST LIKE THEM. He touts what he believes as the only way to think or do things. In the same way a Muslim extremeist claims they are doping it for Allah, Bush uses God as a reason for many actions.

Remember, Hitler didnt go to being a crazy authoritarian ruler overnight. He consolidated power gradually, as Bush has been doing, so as not to arouse suspicion. Bush&#39;s actions have made it clear, HE WANTS IT ALL NO MATTER THE COST.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 22 2004, 03:57 PM

How is it a personal attack? It&#39;s the truth, he doesn&#39;t like it, and therefore probably disagrees with his beliefs

It was completely irrelevent to the conversation, and was clearly intended to be hostile.

Seriously, man, calm down.
Sure it is....Not everyone here agrees with politicalcompass and would bash my reference to it. When it&#39;s the Mods/admins doing it, just goes to show you the mindset of the people running this Anarchist/Socialist/Communist/whatever site.

For instance he claims I use it like a "gospel":
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...opic=30359&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30359&st=0)

And that&#39;s supposed to be taken lightly? It provides a much better alternative to Comrade RAF&#39;s opinion.

[LSD]

I believe the analogy between Bush and Hitler is apt in several ways. First, Bush hates criticism. That is why he is now appointing cabinet members who are, in effect, mindless "yes-men".

That characterization describes many if not most US presidents. People generally don&#39;t like critisim, it doesn&#39;t make them dictators.


Second, Bush doesn&#39;t know how to deal with social and domestic problems so he creates an enemy that he can use as a scapegoat. Hitler had Jews. Bush has terrorists.

Several problems with this analogy.




1) Hitler claimed that all Jews were a racial threat and a drain on German society. It was an issue of blood and race.

Bush hasn&#39;t said anything close to this. He has, in fact, gone out of his way to continualy remind the American peopel that "all Arabs are not the enemy", in this respect he is actually more moderate than many of his political colleagues.

Remember that terrorists are by definition criminals. A civilian terrorist is a contradition in terms. Now, this is not to say that Bush hasn&#39;t confined and killed innocent people, but it does mean he is not engaging in a policy social discrimnation.




2) Hitler&#39;s scapegoats were integrated in the society. They were the "threat among us". Bush has certainly raised fears of "sleeper cells" and the likes, but he hasn&#39;t released films showing the "prominent members of our society who are terrorists"&#33;




3) Bush is not really using terrorists as a "scapegoat". He hasn&#39;t blamed them for even half of the myriad of things which Hitler ascribed to the Jews:

The Jews caused symphalis, the Jews caused the depression, the Jews lost the war, the Jews caused the education crisis, the Jews caused the emmigration of German labour, the Jews caused the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire, the Jews run England...and France....and America....and Poland....

All that Bush has claimed the terrorists are responsble for is....terrorism, which, quite frankly, they are&#33;






If one looks at the way Bush encourages people to watch for terrorists, one quickly will realize that the so-called "terrorists" can just be someone who thinks or looks different than they are supposed to. Remember, If you don&#39;t wear Abercrombie and Fitch, have blonde hair, listen to pop, love football and vote Republican, you are considered a terrorist.

No, you&#39;re not.

This kind of rhetoric is just that. Sure there&#39;s a greater degree of paranoia in the United States, but this is just blatant hyperboly.


Also, ask yourself this. why is Bush so good at catching terrorists? HE THINKS JUST LIKE THEM. He touts what he believes as the only way to think or do things. In the same way a Muslim extremeist claims they are doping it for Allah, Bush uses God as a reason for many actions.

Bush is "good at catching terrorists" because he has a 200 billion dollar intelligence budget, nothing more.

"mindset" doesn&#39;t catch criminals.


Remember, Hitler didnt go to being a crazy authoritarian ruler overnight. He consolidated power gradually, as Bush has been doing, so as not to arouse suspicion.

No he really didn&#39;t.

Hitler claimed effective dictatorial powers less than a year after becomming Chancellor. He proclaimed himself Reichschancellor, Reichspresident, and Fuhrer in less than two.

Bush has been in power for comming on four years.

By this time in Hitler&#39;s reign, he had murdered his political rivals, arrested all opposition parties, founded the concentration camps, removed Jews from all government and business posts, remilitarized the Rineland, established the Gestapo, quadroupled the army, and begun plans for the invasion of Austria.

hmm....seems like Bush is moving a lot slower, doesn&#39;t it?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

The whole Bush/ Hitler comparison has no effect except for making whoever is argueing for it look immensly stupid. Yep, as Lysergic said, if Bush wants to achieve the levels of oppresion that Hitler did, he&#39;s gonna need to start doing it really fast.. only four years left.

[pandora]

Actually this was spray painted on the sidewalk in NYC&#39;s Lower East Side back in the 80&#39;s "This is Germany 1933."
Always made me think, don&#39;t think it was time yet than, but do now. Perhaps past that. Hitler wasn&#39;t elected, well Bush wasn&#39;t either. But Hitler officially wasnt&#39; elected stole the post.

[Red Heretic]

ehh... I thought Hitler had a majority vote?

[LSD]

Always made me think, don&#39;t think it was time yet than, but do now. Perhaps past that. Hitler wasn&#39;t elected, well Bush wasn&#39;t either. But Hitler officially wasnt&#39; elected stole the post.

Hitler was legally appointed Chancellor by the duly elected President Paul Von Hindenberg. Hitler was the leader of the largest party in the Reichstagg and upon his coalition with the Nationalist party, he and Hugenberg had a majority.

Hindenberg&#39;s appointment was perfectly proper and legal. Hitler did not "steal the post".


ehh... I thought Hitler had a majority vote?

The Nazi party recieved more votes than any other.

The position of Chancellor was not directly voted for.

[ComradeChris]

Like I said. They are both Right-wing and have similarities. So of course people are going to find parallels.

[komon]

they have learned from germany.and ussr is not here anymore.