This is a much more intelligent analysis than we recently received from the old SDSers. It is not that I agree with everything Yale Law Prof and History Department prof, Samuel Moyn, says, though I do agree with most of it. What I find compelling was Moyn's ultimate historiography analysis.
For me, though, I have come to the conclusion the Weimar-modern America analogy works--but not for the reasons the SDSers, and other historians and political writers, think. Their version of the analogy is one most historians believe, which is the rise of Hitler in 1932-1933 was "the" fault of the Communists not joining the Social Democrats in a coalition government in the end days of the Weimar Republic.
My historically based analysis and conclusion is German President Hindenburg awarded Hitler his power in the Reichstag because the German business class, German monarchists, and German Catholic clergy threw in with Hitler, and pressured Hindenburg to give Hitler power. The Social Democrats had offered nothing to the Communists to join them, which was beyond insulting because of the experience the Communists had in the 1920s with the Social Democrats, when the Communists had significant political power inside much of Germany. At that time, the Social Democrats joined a coalition with the business class and right wing Catholic parties to destroy the Communist movement, undermining worker solidarity. In doing so, the Social Democrats ironically helped create the conditions which led to the rise of Nazism. There is also no showing a German Social Democratic government leadership, if they took over power in Germany, would have alleviated the suffering of German workers in the spreading Great Depression, which would have resulted in a likelier harsher pro-Nazi backlash within a year or two. This is why I think the Weimar era analogy works better than Moyn may think, though Moyn is more about taking down the analogy as usually used by most Cold War and post-Cold War historians, and those pundits inside the American corporate media orbit.
For me, though, I have come to the conclusion the Weimar-modern America analogy works--but not for the reasons the SDSers, and other historians and political writers, think. Their version of the analogy is one most historians believe, which is the rise of Hitler in 1932-1933 was "the" fault of the Communists not joining the Social Democrats in a coalition government in the end days of the Weimar Republic.
My historically based analysis and conclusion is German President Hindenburg awarded Hitler his power in the Reichstag because the German business class, German monarchists, and German Catholic clergy threw in with Hitler, and pressured Hindenburg to give Hitler power. The Social Democrats had offered nothing to the Communists to join them, which was beyond insulting because of the experience the Communists had in the 1920s with the Social Democrats, when the Communists had significant political power inside much of Germany. At that time, the Social Democrats joined a coalition with the business class and right wing Catholic parties to destroy the Communist movement, undermining worker solidarity. In doing so, the Social Democrats ironically helped create the conditions which led to the rise of Nazism. There is also no showing a German Social Democratic government leadership, if they took over power in Germany, would have alleviated the suffering of German workers in the spreading Great Depression, which would have resulted in a likelier harsher pro-Nazi backlash within a year or two. This is why I think the Weimar era analogy works better than Moyn may think, though Moyn is more about taking down the analogy as usually used by most Cold War and post-Cold War historians, and those pundits inside the American corporate media orbit.
Moyn's essay is well worth the read, as he makes a far more important point that Trump is not an aberration, and it is a dangerous mistake for what remains of our Republic to treat defeating Trump as the main task in trying to solve our nation's structural problems. Moyn nails the fact the NeverTrumper Republicans, mostly neo-cons who gave us the Bush II administrations, have coalesced into the power corridors of the Democratic Party, and Biden is therefore emblematic of the DC consensus that led us to Trump as the reaction. It is another reason I am finding it more comforting for me to say no to Biden, at least through this summer. Yeah, I think people may want to read Moyn's essay.
