======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
Fascism is the attempt of capital to re-articulate its rule in a different,
extra-parliamentary form under conditions of deep economic crisis and intense
class struggle. I think we have to be clear here by what is meant by 'class'
and 'class interests'.
Millions of proletarians actually supported Hitler, Mussolini and Franco but
their support ran contrary to their class interests. Fascism always appeals to
the sections of the petit bourgeoisie ruined in such crises and cultivates this
class as its social base. Kuche, Kuchen, Kirche. Fascist dictatorship does not,
and cannot, rest on the historic interests of the proletariat. It must be
rooted in the interests of capital but its social base is this petit
bourgeoisie. In Germany, the indebted landowning descendants of the Junkers
also formed an indispensable element in the rise of Fascism. Hitler’s SS was
saturated with assorted princelings, barons and small businessmen.
What are the historic roots of anti-semitism in Europe? In the feudal order in
Europe, the Jews could not hold land in fief and were also excluded from the
feudally-mediated Guild system of petty handicraft. This meant that they were
forced to living by trade (such as hawking and tinkering) or by money lending
(usury, money capital), buying and selling, etc. Trade and usury, as they
developed, began to serve to undermine the feudal order itself, acting as a
dissolving influence on it. The emergence of anti-semitism in Europe in this
period is associated with this conflict between the growth of commodity and
money capital on the one hand and the increasingly precarious position of the
old feudal nobility and declining Guilds.
The Jews lived by means of money or commodity capital and therefore they were
seen as the personifications of the threat to the interests of this top layer
of the feudal system. This is the historical root of anti-semitism in Europe.
The fact that the account of events in the New Testament were conveniently used
as an ideological justification for expulsion and persecution does not mean
that this persecution was rooted in that text.
The text was used as an ideological cudgel to expel and massacre the Jews in
the interests of the the feudal nobility and guildmasters. It is no accident of
history that later pogroms and persecutions were often engineered by elements
of the aristocracy in alliance with the reactionary layers of the petit
bourgeoisie.
During the Middle Ages, England was the most anti-semitic of European
countries. [The first recorded evidence of the Jews in England is in the 11th
century when William brought them from France to set up a system of credit and
develop trade.] The massacre of the Jews in York in 1190 and the expulsion of
the total Jewish population from England in 1290 by Edward Longshanks (Edward
I, “Hammer of the Scots” ) are the most noted events in the history of
anti-semitism in England. Edward appropriated all the loans of the expelled
Jews so that all re-payments with interest went directly into the treasury of
the Crown.
The Jews were only formally re-admitted under Cromwell in the 1650s. He saw
them as encouraging of wealth, thrifty and conducive to the development of
trade and capitalism. Their re-admittance complimented his Puritan ethic which
serviced and facilitated the accumulation of capital. Many saw Cromwell as an
avenging Old Testament prophet, especially in the republican Army with its
dominating doctrine of predestinarianism : "This is the end of days. We are
doing the Lord's work on Earth in our battles". Even today in England, in some
synagogues, prayers are still said for Old Nol.
We can see how the historic roots of anti-semitism found particular expression
in the nobility and petit bourgeoisie because commodity and money capital
undermined the Guild system and the ’divinely-ordained’ feudal order with the
nobility seated at its apex. The Crown and nobility often had to go to the
Jewish money-lender in medieval England in order to finance wars, profligacy,
luxury, etc. And the conflicts of this relationship were exacerbated when
loans, payments and re-payments, etc, could not be made, etc. Edward tried to
solve the whole problem by a mass expropriation and expulsion.
The main objective of all forms of fascism is to destroy the organised power of
the class movement of the proletariat. In Germany, the KPD, Social-Democrats,
trade unionists, etc. It is no accident of history that the communists were the
first into the concentration camps. A major reason why German fascism targetted
the Jews was not because some were businessmen or "running the economy", etc,
but because many people of Jewish background were prominent in the
revolutionary movement and in the intelligentsia. Behind all the Nazi ideology
lurked real class interests at work. Hitler equated "Bolshevism" with a "Jewish
plot".
The German workers' movement was an incredible and powerful organisation. A
society within a society. The new society germinating within the womb of the
old. The most advanced history has witnessed so far. It was not simply a
political movement but a complex mass socio-economic organisation numbering in
millions. It had its own insurance organisations, hospitals, schools,
kindergartens, leisure facilities, etc. Every Friday evening - when workers
were paid their wages - thousands of workers would actually queue up around the
HQs of the KPD and SPD to pay in their subscriptions. There were so many in the
queues that they had to be arranged concentrically around the party buildings.
Millions ready for revolution. At times armed.
>From 1919 to 1933 the German workers rose in revolt five times in struggle to
>put an end to the rule of capital. Defeated five times. Capital had to smash
>all this to smithereens. It used Hitler's NSDAP to do this. It could not have
>done this without a series of international defeats for the proletariat aided,
>of course, by the Social-Democrat traitors and Stalinism which put the caste
>interests of the Soviet bureaucracy and "socialism in one country" above all
>else. Even at the time of Krystallnacht, millions opposed Hitler's maneouvres.
>The German economy was still in deep crisis. It only started to pick up in the
>wake of Roosevelt's reflationary "New Deal", its global effects and the
>beginnings of re-armament. In my opinion, without this, Hitler's regime could
>not have survived. It was the impetus which developments in world economy gave
>to German capitalism which enabled Hitler to consolidate his rule and pursue
>his genocidal program.
In the Ukraine today, in this historically specific situation, why do we have
Fascist elements participating in the current struggles of a mass popular
movement? Well, it's always a long contradictory story, is it not? And a
complex one. But let me suggest - as a preliminary - that I think it would be a
mistake to label all nationalists as "fascists". [Putin is a nationalist and so
is Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein. But I would not label them
"fascists".] And this, if anywhere, must apply to the Ukraine where it has
lived in the shadow of its "Great Russian Chauvinist" neighbour to the east
since the middle of the 17th century. The Ukraine is Russia's oldest colony.
Ulster is Britain's oldest colony. 'A nation that enslaves another nation can
never itself be free'. (Marx)
The region has, since this time, been characterised by an east-west division
but it would be simplistic to overplay this division today because there have
been large pro-Maidan demonstrations in the east but not covered by the US/EU
media. In the 19th century, the west was controlled by the Austro-Hungarian
empire and the east by Russia. Before that the region was carved up by Poles,
Lithuanians and Mongols and before them was a Varangian territory, etc. Ukraine
acquired a political unitary status after the Russian Revolution, succumbing to
Soviet control as a Soviet republic. Between 1918 - 1921, a Makhnovist
Anarchist federation existed in the south east which was later suppressed by
the Bolsheviks. But we won't digress here into the legion of mistakes made by
the Bolsheviks.
I think the weight of this history hangs heavily over the whole region. It is
within this wider historical context that we have to evaluate what we
understand by "Ukrainian nationalism" and "self-determination". An empiricistic
elaboration and joining together of factual material is insufficient and
inadequate. It is difficult, but we have to make the effort to try to locate
the underlying historical forces which are at work, and specifically class
forces as Louis has mentioned in his posts.
Undoubtedly, there are fascist elements participating in the current struggle.
But the major threat to an independent proletarian movement in the Ukraine
arises from this "Great Russian Chauvinism" which is no more "anti-imperialist"
or "socialist" than the US or EU. The Crimea already occupied, chauvinistic
thugs and gangs patrolling the streets and troops massing on the eastern
border. Putin will not accept insurrection in Ukraine because he fears that it
threatens to spread beyond into Russia. And if it takes hold in the east, he
will start to shit his Gucci pants.
Of course, this is not to downplay the geopolitical strategic manoeuvrings of
the US and EU but, on the whole, a mass proletarian movement in the Ukraine
(with current lessons learnt on organisation) - which I think will emerge as
the world crisis of capital deepens - will have a greater degree of freedom to
operate without the interference of the "Great Russian Chauvinist". We must
oppose its intervention. Which does not mean we support a US/EU position.
I have been following, with interest, the debate on the Ukrainian question -
which appears to be generating enough heat to invite a "qualitative leap" of
one sort or another - and hope to make a contribution later when I have made
more extensive and intensive preliminary studies.
In the meantime comrades, please switch on the air-conditioner.
Fraternally
Shaun May
http://shaunpmay.wordpress.com
http://spmay.wordpress.com
Take it easy (favourite motto of Engels)
Doubt everything (favourite motto of Marx)
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
Groucho Marx
'Sir, if you were my husband, I would put poison in your coffee.' Nancy Astor.
'Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.' Winston Churchill.
Blenheim Palace, 1912
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
