|
I would like to thank Trich Ganesh for the
excellent comments/critique of my earlier, short comment. I agree wholeheartedly
that it was not "ideology" or "psychology" that created the various fascisms and
genocides of the 1930's, but rather that it was fundamentally a major crisis of
capitalism that could only be solved by:
1) the destruction of major means of
production as Marx said (no, I don't mean that this was all planned in advance
by the capitalists to destroy the means of production to ease their crisis, but
these kinds of massive wars have the effect of destroying those means of
production until the crisis is eased)
and, as a related point,
2) the elimination, destruction of what Hitler
called the "useless eaters", who were a dangerous potential source of rebellion
and in any case, were "using up" resources that the Nazis needed to "pay off"
those who were loyal to them. This is going on today, in a more diffuse
but just as deadly way, with the massive destruction of human life in the
so-called "Third World", especially Africa and the Indian subcontinent, as well
as in parts of Eastern Europe. One could argue that the mass incarceration of
working class youth in the U.S. is an aspect of this, although much less
intense.
What was my point about ideology,
then?
Simply that the existence of the various
(often contradictory) aspects of this fascist ideology, including especially the
racism, did help win various segments to support, or at least tolerate the
destruction of their working class sisters and brothers. In that sense, the
ideology can be very important, in fact, decisive in certain
circumstances. My point was in response to someone who had emphasized the
"practical application" of biological determinism. I was simply arguing that
while the experiments that the Nazis did
killed thousands, it was their ability to
convince many Germans and Central & Eastern Europeans to support the racist
ideology that help strengthen the Nazi regime, and therefore, probably helped
kill millions. The ideology of bio-determinist
racism was even more deadly than the actual experiments which were based on
it. Without the support given by the widespread acceptance of aspects of that
ideology, the Nazi regime would have been weaker. That's what I meant when I
said that the "bad ideology helped kill millions." Ideas can be decisive
at critical points.
But Trich's point is extremely important. It
is always necessary to examine just what those "critical points" are, and in the
case of Nazi Germany, it has to be discussed in the context of the crisis
of capitalism. Otherwise, we end up with these silly psychological reductionist
theories about how "Hitler (supposedly) hypnotized a whole nation."
Thanks again for the
clarification,
Alan Spector
P.S. -- A controversial but useful (and little
known) book on this is Dutt "Fascism and Social Revolution", which represented
major parts of the line of the Third International until it was supplanted by
the softer theories of Dimitrov. That book, and other hard to find books
can often be found at addall.com (no commercial here, just some
info....)
===========================================
2)the
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:58
PM
Subject: Re: Biological
Reductionism/Ideology
Alan, your message is perhaps a little cryptic. I am not sure
what is "bad ideology" (as distinct I suppose from "good" ideology). Perhaps
you may want to clarify.
Regarding the Nazi genocides - of Jews, of
Gypsies, of homosexuals, and the systematic elimination of all communist
opposition to the regime - I think it had more to do with the effects of the
concrete experience of the crisis of capitalism, the tearing of the social
fabric through the effects of unfettered free enterprise.... Fascism and
Nazism were differential responses - with different specificities in Italy and
Germany - taken by the 'self-protecting society' to the utopian logic of a
seemingly unstoppable 'self- regulating market' (to use Polanyi's concepts).
Something surely similar - despite its specific differences - took place in
Rwanda (cf. Mamdani's attempts to understand those 'massacres'), as well as in
India (the communal violencia of the the 1990s in particular). One may extend
the similarity to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, that we read about so
much. One motivation behind pointing out these geographically different, - and
yet perhaps not so 'geographically different' if we seek to subsume these
different spaces under the category of the 'periphery' of the world system
(and hence also 'peripheral', not central?!) along with the somewhat
categorical reductionism it itself entails- uncompromising instances, of
apparently ununderstandble practices of genocidal violence, is to highlight
the logic of capital accumulation and its uneven geographical development, one
of the effects of which is to 'unplug' large parts of the world economy from
the world supply system (to use Arrighi's terms). One outcome of this
unplugging process is to make redundant these same geographies. One response
to this redundancy - the concrete effects of which are felt on the livelihood
of people living in communities that experienced 'incorporation' into the
world economy during the course of their earlier history- is violence arising
out of the competition for resources rendered scarcer by the unplugging. How
else may one account for these acts of senseless and vindictive violences? By
saying that the oppressed take on the role of oppressors? By saying that
people in some parts of the world are 'naturally' more animalistic than people
in other parts of the world? By arguing that 'bad ideology' is at work?
Regarding the last, the 'bad ideology' that you refer to is surely not
unconnected with the Enlightenment Project itself, the fetishization of
'progress' (cf. the powerful critiques of the concept of progress in the
various works of Walter Benjamin) and the religious faith in instrumental
reason (cf. the critique of Weber), and the continued exercise of this faith
('reason riding piggy-back on capital', to use Chatterji's words).
I
apologize for this lengthy response. My shorter response would have been that
perhaps by 'bad ideology' you refer to the working of Zweckrationalitat
in the context of the Nazi genocides.
In another sense I think the
pointer you make to ideology is correct, but perhaps for different reasons.
Ideology is effective, that is say, ideology has material effects, but its
effectivity is to be 'measured' in relation to the ways in which it helps
reproduce the conditions and relations of production necessary for the endless
accumulation of capital. What if all of us are always "in" ideology (as
Althusser argued)? What implications does this have for the worldwide
struggle?
Apologies again for the length of this response.
TKG.
From: "Alan Spector"
<spectors@netnitco.net>
Copies to: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK"
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: S J Gould on new genome findings
Date sent: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
21:46:55 -0600
The Nazis attempted to carry out their
biological reductionist theories, and
thousands of people died in medical
experiments and forced breeding placed.
But I would argue that more
people were killed as a result of the "bad
ideology" of the Nazis than from
those gruesome, inhuman experiments. It was
the ideology that justified not
only those experiments, but much of the war
effort that killed tens of
millions.
Alan
Spector
========================================
----- Original
Message -----
From: "Richard N Hutchinson"
<rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: "Boris Stremlin"
<bc70219@binghamton.edu>
Cc: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK"
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 9:40
PM
Subject: Re: S J Gould on new genome findings
>
Boris-
>
> Perhaps my message was too condensed.
>
>
My point is that if Gould is right, we have nothing to fear from
genetic
> engineering. Personally, I'm still very worried about what it
might lead
> to -- I'm afraid the reductionist biology agenda might be
much more
> dangerous than simply a bad ideology.
>
>
RH
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Boris Stremlin
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard N Hutchinson
wrote:
> >
> > > I only hope Gould is right, but
unfortunately capitalism is pouring
> > > billions into the search
for traits and behaviors encoded in genes,
and
> > >
the reductionist approach may bear ominous fruit...
> >
> >
Three quick points -
> >
> > 1) The finding that the number
of genes is approximately 1/4 to 1/5 the
> > size previously
estimated is not Gould's, but that of the "reductionist
> >
establishment"; he is merely commenting on its obvious significance.
>
>
> > 2) the fact that reductionism may bear ominous fruit in some
cases is no
> > reason to accept a reductionist world-view.
>
>
> > 3) "capitalism" has also poured billions into neo-classical
economics,
to
> >
ominous ends in some circumstances.
> >
> > --
> >
Boris Stremlin
> > bc70219@binghamton.edu
> >
>
>
>
|