violence, dictatorship and markets (fwd)

randy wrote:

>Dear WSNers: Kohler's point about Nazis and Stalinists being similar in
>some
>ideological respects, violence and dictatorship seems correct to me.

kohler's point was not only about Nazis and Stalinists. it was also about
the similarities between the propoganda tactics of socialists and
fascists in pre-war germany. it was a comment largely based on the
biased analysis of positivist social scientists. the problem with this
sort of analysis is that it takes the centrist (liberal) position as
normal and non-problematic, whereas it "stigmatizes" the socialist
position by establishing a "guilt by association" with fascists. moreover,
it makes "historical projections" about socialist movements in
general. a closer look at the socialist parties show that they have harldy
ANY smilarities with fascists. socialists/communists denounce the
capitalist order, and all the other diseases stemming from capitalism,
racism, sexism, including fascism. during the IIWW commmunist patriots
saved the lives of many from Hitler's mass crime. they helped jews to
leave the country (some of whom were jewish socialists already).some
escaped to USSR too, and continued their lives in Russia, who welcomed
those people..if Stalin is nothing but another Hitler, then why did
Stanin wage a war aganist Hitler and save the lives of many? If Stalin
did not stop Hitler, the east europe would be in the hands of the
fascists forever. 

>let's
>leave that aside to get to the heart of matter. The question for Marxists
>on
>this list is how to use the good parts of Marx and avoid those aspects
>that led
>to the errors of Stalinism. (I take it we have agreement that Stalin was
>a nasty
>fellow and that Stalinism is a bad system. If not, we are beyond the
>realm of
>reasoned argument.)

stalin may have errors, but if i were a non-german living under
Hitler, i would still prefer to live under Stalin. stalin did not attempt
at "systemic mass crime based on race" or natural elimination of some
"inferior races" (using Hitler's language) or superiority of one "blood"
over another "blood". "systematic racism" of this sort only emerged in 
advanced capitalist societies, which is still continuing in different
forms in different places (genetic engineering in the US).

during the cold war, the west (and the US), where the centrist positions
were prevailing, created a social construction of communists as enemies
and dictators of the world. the west presented itself as an icon of
democracy and protector of human rights and liberties, whereas it
supported fascist reginmes in different parts of the world. the US's
illegitimate intervention in the third world (particulary in the Reagan
years) aimed to replace socialists governments with military dictatorhips
to perpetuate US hegemony and counter-balance socialism. however, in the
"liberal" and "progressive" US, so called, we saw:

1776: the founders of the US as slave owners, filling their bank
accounts (See _The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution_) 

1925: monkey trial, which brought the issue of the teaching of  
evolution in public shools. the trial was lost on the grounds that
"whoever teaches anything against the god and creation will be punished".
The United States of America.

1953: public education still based on racial segration: "seperate but
equal" thesis (Brown case). The United States of America
 
1965: african americans finally gaining "voting rights". The United States
of America

1999, August: Kansas state banning the teaching of evolution in public
shools.it was dropped from the school's cirriculum. The United states of
America.

1999, Sept: the florida state governor banning afffirmative action. The
United States of  America.

this is a "dictatorship of capitalism", not socialism.

>Marx was very clear that he thought a dictatorship of the proletariat was
>necessary to keep markets from being reinstated.

Marx did not say such a thing. he said that the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" was an outcome of the collapse of capitalism, emerging from
the existing objective contradictions. he did not use "dictatorship" in a
"dictatorial" sense. he meant to imply that there were no class
contradictions any longer when the capitlist class was wiped out because
there was no rationale for this class to exist. "dictatorship 
of the proleteriat" was just a rhetorical device to theorize the end- 
point of capitalism. it serves for the purposes of analogy to capitalist
class "hegemony".

>Randy Groves


Mine Doyran
Phd, Politics
SUNY/Albany