Re: fascism in the world system

Now - from optimistic utopia to the most grim topic in history. In response
to Eric Mielants
>
>> WSN'ers,
>>
>> I have a specific question. What is 'the' position of World-system people
>> (IF there is a consensus) on fascist (nazi and far right) movements in
the
>> 20th century? Can someone please refer to me to some literature on this?
>> More specifically, are fascist movements considered by world-system
>> theorists as 'as systemic as you can get' (let's say the ultimate last
>> stage of capitalism) or are they considered as anti-systemic
(anti-systemic
>> does not necessarily imply that they are ethically 'good' movements, but
>> just that they oppose the system) in the sense that racist ideology is so
>> important for them that fascists historically relegate capitalist
>> accumulation to a secondary position? While it is true that Hitler, for
>> example, needed support of 'big capitalists' to come to power, it seems
>> that by 1942 many of them felt 'betrayed' by him: they could not control
>> him, and SOME of the nazi decisions can be said as being so wacko extreme
>> that they actually obstructed the 'smooth' ceaseless accumulation of
>> capital instead of furthering it. Again, this is an open question.
>> Did anyone so far analyze the historical role of the far-right in the
20th
>> century as either 'pro-system' or 'anti-system'?


    The literature on this is briefly gigantic - there must literally be
thousands upon thousands of books on this. A good point to start with might
be E. Nolte's classic "Der Faschismus in seiner Epoche" (there is I believe
an English translations) to be used with the greatest of caution though as
E. Nolte (with the ritual terms of abhorance) in reality rather sympathises
with national-socialism. All the same Nolte brings out two things:

    a.) The central tenent of National Socialist and Fascist (Italy)
ideology was anti-communism. Anti-communism in spite of the
`anarcho-socialist' dollop to speak with Wagar, which was particularly
embraced by Mussolini, was the only really common point of all fascist and
`fascistisant' movements of the interbellum ranging from the Action
Francaise in France to the Fallange in Spain. Otherwise fascism embraced a
wide spectrum of ideologies ranging from the extreme catholicism in Portugal
to the neo-paganism of some groups around Himmler in the SS (never a
mainstream of the NSDAP, let alone in Nazi Germany though - every German
soldier in World War II had on his collar the words: "Gott mit Uns" - God is
on our side - and the Nazi's were forced to abort the euthanasia-program
because of protests from the German church - a telling comment on the
attitude of the church towards the Holocaust - a few brave people of course
excepted -), from the monarchism of the Action Francaise to the extreme
anti-monarchism of the group around Strasser in the NSDAP.

    b.) Nolte also clearly brings out that even if particularly Mussolini's
Fascists did have ties to anarcho-syndicalist groups the mainstay of Fascist
ideology is firmly based - and is absolutely no deviation from - mainsteam
extreme right wing ideology in the nineteenth century. Centred around such
groups as the pro-Bourbon movement in France or - excusez le mot - the
Unionists in Ireland. Such groups were always strongly represented in the
army - note particularly in the colonial army with people like Gallieni to
some extent also Petain - The army was shaken in the early twentieth century
by cases like the Dreyfus-affair in France, the Social Democratic majority
in the German diet or the Asquith government in Britain and therefore began
to drift ever more to the right. Indeed the governments in 1914 saw the
increasing drift of the army to the extreme right as a very serious danger -
which is why for example the French army was in 1914 commanded by Francois
Joffre (a rather undistinguished commander rather than say the legendary
Gallieni or the flamboyant Foch since he was the only `leftist',
non-extremist clerical, general available.)

    It should be noted that the extreme right was in many ways rather
`feudal' than 'capitalist' though - It had at best a snobbish disregard for
industrial capitalism, and at worst hated it. The extreme right was almost
always pro-imperialist - but - except in Britain kept a far distance between
itself and various pro-imperialist shipping and industrial lobbies such as
the Deutsche Kolonialverein - it was mostly pro-monarchist - but not
necessarily so in France where there was the memory of the
Boulanger-fiasco - it was pro-landlords or (in France) pro-great farmers. It
was first and foremost anti-French revolution, it was almost always
anti-semitic (also in Britain although that's a point British historians
nowadays rather painfully avoid to adress) mostly anti-big industry, often
anti-catholic (and in Germany pro-protestant - but in France by contrast the
right was ultra-clerical) and always anti-socialist (but not necessarily
anti-working class - for the `national-feeling' working-class was often seen
as a potenial ally against the international
plutocratic/Socialist/Judeo/Catholic conspiracy).

    Now, these might appear to be from our present perspective `wacko ideas'
but we live in a world which is very different from 1900 and because then
`mainstream' ideas are so utterly alien to us now, it is very tempting to
associate the ideas of the NSDAP - which really derived from those 1900
ideas with an infusion of extremism derived from the trenches of World War
I - from extreme groups such as the Aryan brotherhoods, which flourished in
the Sudetenland and Vienna around 1910 and from brochures of which Hitler
undoubtebly got much of his ideas. Yet in a for me quite shocking booklet
called "Hitler war kein Betriebsunfall" the great - and very courageous ! -
German historian Fritz Fischer showed that the National Socialist ideas
including the National Socialist racist doctrines were in 1900 held by large
parts of the ruling classes in Germany - in particular by the court and the
military.

    I found particularly shocking that Fritz Fischer lists a long series of
passages on "the Jewish/black/yellow danger to European civilisation", "the
danger of racial mixture to the Aryan stock", "the capitalist/plutocratic
threat to European culture", the "conspiracies, plotted by the elders of
Zion together with the Vatican and the Socialist international, against the
German nation" - uttered not by Goebbles but by ... his imperial majesty
William II.  Again, another example, Erich Ludendorff - supreme commander of
the German forces during World War I and comrade in arms of Hitler during
the 1923 Putch- wrote many booklets after the war, blaiming the German
defeat on the American/Anglo/Jewish//Bolshevist/plutocratic conspiracy and,
of course, the Socialist `stab in the back'. Ludendorff was becoming that
extreme in fact - that Hitler by 1925 painstakingly kept his distance from
him - not to alienate his more moderate working-class voters.

    To that extent the extreme right was a very complex movement and it is
difficult to say whether it was pro- or anti-systemic because the system
itself was not a monolyth. For in Europe unlike in the US there was the old
ruling class: the landlords, financial capital (mostly), the clergy, the
land-army, the court, the judiciary and the colonial armies and there was
the new ruling class: industrial capital, agro-industry, the fleet and
technical arms - such as the artillery.

    In general - it could be said facism was mainly constructed on segments
from the old ruling classes e.g. in Germany financial capital, part of the
land-army, the judiciary (for the massive and enthusiastic collaboration of
the lawyers with the Nazi-terror is a very dark chapter in German history
which German historians still rather shun to treat) and parts of the
Junker-class but not necessarily on the industrial bourgeoisie. For the
industrial bourgeoisie deeply distrusted the more anti-capitalist utterings
of Hitler of which there was no lack and not only to pander towards the
workers. Hitler himself was of petty-bourgeoise descent and like most German
`spiesbuerger' he had a deep dislike and distrust for 'capitalists'. And in
particular for the petty pursuit of profit against the heroic sacrifice in
the army. National-socialism had an anti-capitalist component, then, but it
was never, ever against the army the `saviour of the German nation' - Hitler
did not necessarily  have to court Krupp but he HAD to court Hindenburg -
though the army was easily bribed by 1934 by offering an astronomic
expansion of the defence-budget. Pre-1945 Germany was still a nation
belonging to an army, rather than an army belonging to a nation - as, I
believe, Voltaire said about Prussia. The system in Germany ... that was
first and foremost the army, then the bureaucracy, then the judiciary and
only THEN the bourgeoisie.


    Thus, the industrial bourgeoisie typically supported moderate
`pro-industry' - parties and - up to the successes of 1932 - not necessarily
the NSDAP. But, actually, I would probably have to reverse Eric's order of
things. Hitler did NOT come to power through subsidies from the German
industry - the NSDAP was funded by its memberships and by collections from
the middling bourgeoisie rather than from industry - Hitler was above all a
brilliant fund-raiser. - Although some groups (e.g. the Thysen-concern)
began to give subsidies to the NSDAP after the electoral successes of the
early 30's, to hedge their bets. (Better give some support to the NSDAP in
case it comes in power and then really begins to carry out the
anti-capitalist program it has announced). And throughout the 1930's most of
German industry kept its distance from the Nazi-regime; partly out of sheer
social snobbery - because the new Nazi-dignitaries were at best lower-middle
class if not to the industrial bourgeoisie the drag of society -. Partly,
too, because the German industry much resented the efforts of Reichsmarshall
Herman Goering to build up his own industrial empire through the
`Reichswerke Herman Goering' (which by 1939 accounted for 30% of German
industrial production.) There was a fight for orders between the old
industry and the new Nazi-industry and - although all industry profited from
the expansion of the defense-budget - Herman Goering profited most ...

    The big scramble for profits only really began in World War II. German
big capital - IG-Farben (present Bayer), Porsche, Krupp, Thysen or BMW - was
by 1942 far from resenting Hitler an enthusiastic supporters of the war and
of the party. That was partly because German industry made huge profits.
Ever wondered why the German army had up to 15 different types of tanks in
production in 1943 - entailing a huge waste of resources because the
component of all these tanks were not exchangeable - so that most
Panzer-division had often half their tanks in repair-shops? That was because
each producer of cars produced its own type of tank to make monopoly-profits
on army delivery contracts. It was partly because the Wehrmacht was
systematically liquidating foreign competitors on behalf of the German
industry - one other major cause for the grotesque waste of resources by
Germany during World War II. Ever wondered why, for example, the German
occupation-forces transferred, say, Peugeot workers to Germany to work in
BMW-plants - where they were only 60% as productive than they were in
France - instead of simply continuing to operate Peugeot factories, which
were idle or producing anti-aircraft guns for .... Brazil ? (Ditto for
example for Fiat in 1944?) Well - because the German auto-lobby wanted to
liquidate its competitor.  Ditto for the steel-industry in the Ukraine - as
the Ruhr steel-industry insisted the potential Russian competitor be
liquidated, the industry of the Ukraine stood idle, instead of it
contributing to the German war-effort - thus actually obviating the entire
purpose of `Fall Barbarosa'. And it was partly because German industrial
enterprises all garnered their share in the plunder of the occupied
territories - thus, whenever the Wehrmacht overruns a territory you see a
frantic bout of bidding for shares in confiscated factories and mines -
whether that be the Norwegian aluminum-industry or Cockeril-Sambre in
Belgium; the result often being that the whole industry was idle because the
Germans couldn't agree on who was going to take over the production.

    Far from ferociously opposing Hitler's `wacko schemes' in winter 1943
the IG-Farben was engaged in a ferocious fight with ..... the SS on whether
IG-Farben was to rent or to own its new plants in the `industrial plant'
Auschwitz-Birkenau; on whether it was to hire `laborers' on a daily basis or
to permanently engage its `workers' in Birkenau, on how much and - more
importantly - to whom it was to pay salaries - if it was necessary to pay
salaries - rather not. But finally IG-Farben did pay for the delivery of
workers to the administration of Auschwitz, which then could be `invested'
by the SS in more efficient killing ... It was also busily discussing
whether it could plan its own productions or if that was to be coordinated
with the SS-owned plants in Birkenau and so on, and so forth. At any rate
the main concern of IG-Farben was then that the profits from Birkenau were
under no circumstance to go to the SS alone  ... So much for the supposed
opposition of the German industry against Hitler - or against undoubtedly
the most `extreme' scheme in history ...

    Far from being opposed to `wacko-extreme' measures like the Holocaust
then, German industry actually enthusiastically seconded it. First because
otherwise the profits would have only gone to SS-enterprises; secondly -
ponder about that and henceforth dear WSN'ers don't accuse me of harboring
any illusions on the humanitarian intentions of big capitalism - because the
Holocaust MADE A PROFIT. For example, unlike for war-transports, the
Reichsbahn was neatly paid per transport to transfer Jews to the
gas-chambers; one cause why Eichman c.s. insisted as many people as possible
were to be pushed into single carriage was to push the cost per transport
down. Again, German banks enthusiastically collaborated with the holocaust
because they could thus get their hands on Jewish bank-assets; much of these
assets already during World War II being transferred into Swiss
bank-accounts.

    Was Fascism anti- or pro-systemic then? Probably neither - German big
industry joined World War II rather than plan to initiate it (for that was a
responsibility of party and army) but it was only too willing and only too
enthusiastic to join the `New Order' when it promised big profits after
1939. And for the sake of these profits it was both willing to throw aside
its inherited snobbery and, indeed, its human decency, inherited or not, for
by 1944 IG-Farben managers were perfectly well aware of the purpose of
Auschwitz - they were gladly shown around the death-camp if they liked so; I
could go on detailing the quarrels between several construction-companies on
the competitive bidding for the most solid and efficient gas-chamber or the
fight between several companies on who was to deliver the `desinfection -
gas'. But I better cease writing on this disgusting topic - profiting on
genocide is really the lowest you can stoop in human dignity. - For, as
Theodor Adorno said after Auschwitz no poem can be written anymore - and I
don't want to cause that so shortly before the happy Christmas - the last
one of this century which has seen so much human suffering and which we
perhaps should gladly say goodbye ...

Peace to all
R.J. Barendse