[Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two

[S. Artesian]

What's new and different about this?  From 2003, and essentially nothing but 
a rehash of arguments.

While the article talks a lot about "property relations," it never gets down 
to analyzing those relations and the "fit" of the "socialized" property 
relations of  Russia in the overall configuration of capitalism-- and 
certainly those "socialized" relations were used to prop up international 
capitalism.

Instead of inquiry into that, we get concluding paragraphs about 
civilization hanging in the balance and depending on the allies, etc. which 
sounds suspiciously like FDR, or the "Great Patriotic War" propaganda.

So WW2 was really different?  So does that mean, Irish and Indian militants 
should have joined with the Allies, abandoned their struggles in order to 
unite against this "fundamentally distinct" threat? And if so, why so, based 
on property relations.  Should workers not have struck?  And if not why not, 
based on property relations?

I don't have the answers to all those questions, but I do not believe that 
WW2 was fundamentally distinct from WW2 because of the existence, or the 
threat to the existence, of the USSR.  The origin of the war was in the 
accumulation of capital.  The conclusion of the war required the destruction 
of constant and variable capital.  The war did that, just as WW 1 did.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "G K Milner" <gkmilner at eftel.net.au>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Cc: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:37 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two