2) World War II could have been prevented if fascism had been successfully fought. Leon Trotsky has some of the best writing on the topic, but the tendencies of intra-imperialist rivalries are bound to boil over in conflict eventually. It’s part of the logic of the nation state and class society.

***
The rest of your points can’t be refuted in the comment box, but I obviously think your characterization of “a move towards big government” is extremely simplistic.

The state is nothing more than “armed bodies of men” that is inherently coercive. It’s a reflection of class rule, which is inherent in capitalism. Working people have historically gained concessions from the capitalist class through class struggle — some public goods, etc, i.e. social security, health care, education, etc. But if anything the latest series of crises should have taught you that state intervention is needed to ameliorate capitalist crisis.

Personally I would ideally like to see the current state smashed and its replacement with a more libertarian one — a workers’ state.

If you want a good treatise on democratic socialism: http://theactivist.org/blog/archives/towards-freedom-the-theory-and-practice-of-democratic-socialism

Nice having this discussion, obviously we disagree on some (all) the fundamental points, but I do understand the libertarian “anarcho-capitalist” viewpoint.

The influence of the Israeli-lobby in the United States is **highly** overstated. It’s a populist myth and Pat’s comments had anti-Semitic overtones.

I’m an anti-Zionist, but US foreign policy is determined by the interests of our own ruling class and not that of some global Jewish conspiracy. The fact that Israel is a useful ally and has concurrent interests doesn’t mean that Jewish money and influence shapes US policy. And even if that’s not said literally people who rail on about the Israeli lobby are propagating this notion.

Two:

Hitler had begun mass killings by 1939 and it was clear from the start that his only goal was genocide and conquest. If he didn’t want war in 1939, he wanted it in 1941 or 1942. I don’t like when the Hitchenses of the world idealize World War II, as some grand perfect war, a people’s victory against fascism. I reject this narrative because left-wing forces were fighting fascism in Italy in the early 1920s, in Spain and Germany in the ’30s, but no one came to their aid. Not the Stalinists (a bit of an overstatement) nor the Western “democracies”. So I don’t like giving Stalin and Churchill the credit for the victory against fascism. But if we were in 1939 and the “cat was already out of the bag” you best believe I would have supported a militant fight against fascism. I do understand Buchanan’s argument, but I will say that solidarity and anti-fascism is something right-wing isolationists can never understand.

And I’ll go further and say that it’s important for mobilizations against specific wars be connected to a movement towards systemic change. To me this means against imperialism and capitalism and for internationalism and the unity of the working class. To the small, “libertarian” contingent this means anti- some Semitic conspiracy or a bad batch of leaders that don’t protect our sacred Constitution. I want our message to be the dominant one on the anti-war movement, not yours. Anti-war movements on the street serve the purpose of politicization through agitating and educating the public.

Anyway, Pat Buchanan is not anti-war. He supported the conflict in Vietnam, did he not? Didn’t he support the Contras and the death squads in Central America? He’s a reactionary, plain and simple. The fact that a portion of the left can end up with the same talking points as this man is just a symptom our intellectual and moral decay.

would anyone here disagree with that? You don’t think our foreign policy is determined heavily by israel and their lobby here?

http://original.antiwar.com/author/buchanan/

I realize you all have big differences with Pat in regards to alot of cultural issues but my biggest issue is war and Pat is by far the best on this, at least in the mainstream media. He was virtually the only commentator to come out strongly against war with Iraq and has done similarly about Iran, which if you’ll recall was not far from happening at various points throught Bush’s term.

and I think you are missing the point on his ww2 column. his point was that if they hadn’t given poland the war gaurentee there would have been no ww2 and, thus, no holocaust.

saying hitler didn’t want war isn’t being pro hitler. saddam didn’t want war. that’s obvious is it not? at least not with the united states in 2003!

anyway again, I understand you have valid disagreements with him but he is the only guy we have up there trying to prevent wars and without him it’s just two sides of the same coin.

The things he says are completely mind boggling.