Posted by Duncan on May 29, 2002 at 15:42:22 from 205.188.193.172 user Duncan.
In Reply to: Caravan Suspicions posted by Andy Morley on May 27, 2002 at 07:12:56:
Trying my hardest not to put my own views onto AR, he was VERY anti-fascist. Still, whether consciously, consistently or otherwise, depending on your take on earlier matters, from a particular brand of leftist perspective not entirely dissimilar to that of British Trotskyism in the late 30s. His position was a million miles from a Stalinist view however. He basically shared that view expressed by British leftists all around the country at the outbreak of WWII, which may seem quite contradictory now, that he was 'against War and Fascism'. He actually thought that it was right to attempt the policy that became known as appeasement, whether it should work or not. He felt consistency and the moral high ground were important in anti-fascist foreign policy (thus he would not have supported appeasement in fact, but rather the attempt at a peaceful solution, and the even-handedness of criticism of both German and Czech oppression in the Sudetenland). That's very 'trot', by the way, avoiding opting for 'lesser evils' where possible. But everything in open forums would suggest that AR believed Hitler to be mad, and an enemy to 'Art' (this is important if, like me, you take AR to be essentially a socialist of the arts, but as that is almost certainly - with some educated guesswork - posthumously putting ideas into his head, I shall leave it there). But there are quotes to that effect in his letters.
AR was, above all, a DEMOCRAT. His particular take on democracy during the Russian Revolution might not be pleasing to all readers (ie. that workers' soviets, etc. were more democratic than a western parliament ever could be) but fascism was not only against democracy it was perfectly content to sell itself as being so. AR was consistently opposed to it throughout, as someone who would never 'lose faith in democracy' or in 'the people'.