hitler's surge to power

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
hitler's surge to power
Printer-friendly version


i thought the forum had disappared. great!


i think hitler was a passable orator, but nothing special really. i think perhaps history made him such a succesful tyrant. i was reading a bio on wikipedia and his party had just 55 members when he became its leader in 1919. obviously we communists aren't going to model ourselves in his successes in wresting control of germany, but i wondered if there was anything to learn from that very fact.


thanks in advance fro any replies :-)

lem_, there's a good piece

lem_, there's a good piece from the ICC's International Review of 2004. It's on this website under the title "January 1933, democracy opens the door to fascism"

hi baboon, thanks, i read

hi baboon,


thanks, i read it - i was familair with the argument, even if it's been a while since exposure to the tenacity with which the ICC espouse it.

i was more interested in the character of hitler than the decomractic process and obvious problems that the defeat of communism in germany aroused.

in a personal level, i can't agree that nazism is no worse than democractic capitalism, even-though i can agree that it is not different in kind. i assume everyone is aware of why i might construct that continuum - the fact that in terms of civilian dead no-one seems as ruthless (or better, proposed to it) as the nazis. which is not to say that i support anti-fascist movements... a lot of the time the communist left functions as a kind of super ego for me, i may have different ideas of reality, or elaborate its insistences in different ways, but i still follow its demands.


A fascism seems a greater danger to me personally

B i am not an anti-fascist, because quelling fascism is not as internationally important as keeping a proletrian party (i am not aligned to any) distinct from the forms of capital that would rather keep deomcracy alive.


edit just to add that my reasoning is that there's no need to use politics to individually oppose every possible tragedy. make sense? if it were possible, in an ideal world, to do so while supporting a communist party, then i'd probably jump at the chance. but looking at history, it seems likely that the world doesn't work like that...

so does the entire argument

so does the entire argument hinge on whether democractic capitalism is no worse than nazism?

i don't think i can see it... perhaps if you were saying that the former will just find another way to turn against its slaves just as viciously, like stalinism. but some forms of capitalism are less undesirable than others, and i'd probably say that assuming otherwise is almost ununderstandable.