Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Hitler 1933, Le Pen 2015? The same horrible story

While the raise of fascism in Italy or Spain was caused mostly by paramilitary or military violence, we cannot, we must not ever ignore that the right-wing wolf under the "democratic" sheep skin was key in their rise in both states, giving them the economic resources and the political power that allowed them to thrive. Fascism and conservatism are just the same thing in two different modalities: the same individuals and their networks of economic and political power switch between one and the other at their convenience. 

Good cop, bad cop. The same dungeon and the same torture. 

But this reactionary hubris of the oligarchies and their political and media cronies is probably best understood in the case of Hitler's raise to power, which is sometimes claimed to be a democratic rise by popular election, what is not really true. 


Austerity policies cause Fascism

Not worth the paper it was printed on.
Hungarian worthless currency in 1946.
Another typical myth about the raise of fascism is that it was propelled by hyper-inflation. This is again false. While German hyper-inflation was going on, the Nazis were weak. It was only when hyper-inflation was drastically tackled by hyper-austerity measures very similar to the ones we suffer now, when Hitler found his niche in popular discontent. 

And what politics did he apply when he rose to power? Military Keynesianism (heavy state expenditure), which was totally unsustainable in the mid-run and therefore required of a sustained imperialist expansion, which was designed to head East: against the Soviet Union primarily, which was meant to become "the India of Germany", the great colonial empire that would sustain Germany as great power able to feed and cloth its own population at the expense of those supposedly "sub-human" Slavs.

But between Germany and the USSR was Poland and, not geographically but conceptually, Great Britain. The British bourgeois oligarchies had been toying with fascism in Europe for more than a decade and were happy with it... as long as it did not become a competitor. Nazi Germany dared to try and was therefore involved in a Western war it did not desire at all. 

While the Soviet war effort and sacrifice no doubt saved Europe from Nazism later on, initially it was the inter-imperialist competition between London and Berlin, the same one that triggered World War I, which delayed the blow against Russia. 


The dirty facts of Hitler's rise to power or how the conservatives put him there

But back to Hitler's rise. Which are the facts? Did he really reach power "democratically" as some claim?

First of all the Weimar's Right courted the Nazis and did not outlaw them, even if there were plenty of reasons to do so, as they openly advocated for a coup and the destruction of the Republic. Instead they attacked the socialdemocrat government of Prussia, putting the largest and most central German lander under federal (right-wing) control by means of an institutional coup, using the same Presidential emergency powers that Hitler would use later on (not even with Nazi support Von Pappen held a majority in the Reichstag).

In the elections of June 1932, in which the Nazis resorted to populist violence measures such as supporting a worker strike with their SA militia, the Nazis managed to get a plurality of the vote (37%) and of seats (230). However they lost the Presidential election as everybody else rallied around Hindenburg, much as they did around Chirac in France a decade ago, out of fear of something much worse. 

The socialdemocrats, as the rest of the Weimar bloc, were being electorally punished but were still the second force (133 seats), while the communists managed to gain third position (89 seats). 

In such circumstances no stable government could be formed so back to the ballots. In November 1932, the Nazis lost some ground, while only the communists and the DNVP (national-conservatives) gained support. The Nazi plurality (193 seats) was not that strong anymore compared with that of the wider Left (221 seats, even if divided in two parties). The Weimar "moderate" Right Wing held the key to power with 169 seats (split in many parties).

This resulted in the appointment of Hitler as vice-Chancellor of a coalition government.

On January 1933 Hitler was made Chancelor with conservative support (again a coalition government). 

On February 1933, the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed the communists, what was used as pretext to persecute many KPD members and also to weaken their popular appeal. It was also pretext for the general abolition of most human rights and civil liberties: a state of emergency ensued.

Nazi patrol 1933
The last "elections" were held on March 1933, in which the Nazis openly resorted to large scale violence and coercion against communists and socialdemocrats alike, banning newspapers, etc. SS militiamen patrolled the streets menacingly, while all the resources of the Big Capital were poured onto the Nazi campaign. Even with such methods, Hitler could not assure a majority for the NSDAP (288/647 seats). 

The KPD was then banned and their seats declared null. A new Nazi-Conservative coalition ensued with Hitler as Chancellor.

The Enabling Act allowing the Cabinet (i.e. Hitler, Hindenburg's influence as President was almost never exerted) to enact laws without need of Parliament approval, required of 2/3 of the votes: 431. With the 81 communist seats and the opposition of the 120 socialdemocrat ones, Hitler needed everybody else to pass the dictatorship bill. 

He got that support: not just his national-conservative allies voted for but also the Catholic (Christian-Democrats of today), the Bavarian Right, the all-German Right, etc. Every single right-winger representative voted for Hitler's dictatorship (but for two absent deputies). Only the SPD voted against (the communist were already banned and several socialdemocrat deputies were in prison already).

The next months were of formal change to the III Reich. All thanks to the "moderate" Right Wing and the bourgeoisie in general (never mind the gullibility of wide sectors of the working class, of course).


Germany 1932, France 1914

At this point all avenues are open but the fact that Marine Le Pen and her National Front, which advocates not just for racism and xenophobia but also against the right to abortion and for sending women back to the kitchens and for the suppression of human rights in general, have won the elections with 25% of the vote is extremely dangerous. 

The notorious socialdemocrat (social-liberal) defeat of this Sunday (only 14% of support) and the weakening of real Left parties, which have been dragged by the PS collapse in popular appeal, it seems, puts one of the most crucial European states in the same situation, more or less, as Germany in 1932.

In all logic Hollande will have to call for early elections because his support is obviously way too weak to continue without them, nor with them. Then the French Nazis will almost certainly get a plurality of the Parliament and force the hand of the conservatives. Alternatively the conservatives (second force in these elections) can benefit from the Nazi scare and get power for themselves within a coalition, maybe even one including the PS. Their policies will satisfy nobody, no doubt, so in the next elections, whenever they are, the Nazis will win (or hopefully not but very likely they will). 

At least this is one of the most likely chain of events. Once Le Pen is in power, she will never allow democracy again and the French Republic will enter a long shadowy night of darkness and fear unknown since the German occupation. And it will no doubt affect its neighbors as well.

Which is the solution? I say round them up before it is too late. But it is already too late probably. Fascism is best eradicated when young and weak, when it grows it becomes a clearly unmanageable problem. That is why we say once and again: zero tolerance against fascism!

We must get ready for the worst because it will come no doubt. Fascism and freedom cannot coexist, so Europe will be dragged to wars of all kind.

Be strong, be prepared. No pasarán!

21 comments:

  1. "First of all the Weimar's Right courted the Nazis and did not outlaw them, even if there were plenty of reasons to do so, as they openly advocated for a coup and the destruction of the Republic."

    Would you feel the same should have been applied to the other parties opposed to democracy? Aside from von Papen and Hitler, Hugenburg's DNVP and the KPD were both opposed to democracy, as was the BVP. Hidenburg himself was a monarchist opposed to democracy. Parties explicitly opposed to democracy took more than 60% of the vote in the 1932 election. Truly pro-democracy parties never managed to take a majority of the vote after 1922. Pretty hard for democracy to survive in that situation.

    I would argue that Hidenburg actually set most of the precedents that eventually led to the Weimer's downfall by trying to rule by decree and appointing governments that did not have the support of the Reichstag. I would argue that Hindenberg's victory over Wilhelm Marx (supported by the Centre Party and the SPD) in 1925 is when Weimer Germany's descent into autocracy truly began.

    I think you're pretty off base in characterizing it as a simple left-vs-right situation though. If anything, 3-bloc politics would be a better description, with the KPD on one side, the monarchist/fascist DNVP, NSDAP and BVP as the leading parties, and the Weimer Coalition of Centre Party, SPD and DDP.

    The KPD and SPD were not aligned, nor did they ever serve together in government. If anything they were bitter enemies, with the KPD referring to the SPD as "social fascists."

    The Centre Party of course played its own role in the rise of the Nazis. Brüning, while a committed democrat and the last Weimar Chancellor to support it, also set the precedent of ruling by degree rather than by legislation. Kaas, the leader of the Centre Party and apparently a coward, is the one who made the truly grievous error of supporting the enabling act, over Brüning's objections.

    Here is what Kaas said about his motives at the time:

    "On the one hand we must preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What is left is only to guard us against the worst. Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government's plans would be carried through by other means. The President has acquiesced in the Enabling Act. From the DNVP no attempt of relieving the situation is to be expected."

    Brüning called the act "most monstrous resolution ever demanded of a parliament" in private but remained silent during the debate itself (and voted with his party).

    FYI you have Hugenburg as Hindenburg when you mention the DNVP (though Hindenburg obviously had a lot of connections there).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why you consider communism as "opposed to democracy" at all. True that Leninism (and hence Stalinism and Trotskyism) evolved in that direction but Communism as such is not against democracy but for the radicalization of democracy: direct democracy via popular councils ("soviet" in Russian), economic democracy. Anarchists are also communists: libertarian communists.

      You are acting exactly as the bourgeois parties did: "fuck the commies, welcome fascism". You may not realize but that's exactly what happened then and what is happening now. The commies of today are not anymore (with few annoying exceptions) totalitarian; they are eurocommunists (almost social-democrats), autonomists (almost anarchist) or other less defined grassroots variants. Whatever the case, whatever qualms against the rather weak KPD, can't justify the support for Hitler.

      And that's exactly what is all this about, yesterday as today: imposing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by any means necessary, be it the soft parliamentary dictatorship, or the hardcore fascist one. The private property of the bourgeoise elites won't be challenged.

      "The KPD and SPD were not aligned"...

      I know well. Actually the treacherous SPD and all the socialdemocrats almost everywhere have always played in favor of the bourgeoisie. The German case is one of the most clear ones, with the SPD being central in repressing the German Revolution of 1918-19 and murdering the Spartakist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, by using the Freikorps death squads, which would become the seed of the Nazis later on.

      So I do also blame the SPD for not joining the Revolution and instead supporting the bourgeois regime so actively and criminally.

      "you have Hugenburg as Hindenburg when you mention the DNVP"

      I mentioned Hindenburg as the President of Germany before Hitler. And it is correct: Hindenburg was President until his death in 1934. However what I have wrong is that the Enabling act did not give the powers to the President but to the Cabinet, i.e. to Hitler (I'll correct that now). For a year or so Hindenburg was anyhow the only remaining formal check to Hitler's power as his superior but did nothing about it other than grumbling.

      He never objected the Nazi laws, except very mildly one of the anti-Jewish ones, which he managed to ammend in favor of war and public service veterans. He even thanked Hitler personally for the Night of the Long Knives, which among others got his long-term aid and key figure in Hitler's rise, Schleicher, killed, go figure!

      I'll correct that detail.

      Delete
    2. I think by the end Hindenberg was simply senile. This is the sentence I was referring to though "the DNVP of Hindenburg gained support." Hindenburg was not a member any specific party. He was definitely most closely associated with the DNVP, but the parliamentary party was led by Hugenburg in that election.

      "I don't know why you consider communism as "opposed to democracy" at all. True that Leninism (and hence Stalinism and Trotskyism) evolved in that direction but Communism as such is not against democracy but for the radicalization of democracy: direct democracy via popular councils ("soviet" in Russian), economic democracy. Anarchists are also communists: libertarian communists."

      I'm not referring to all communists, but rather the KPD specifically. They were very closely tied to the Soviet Union, particularly later on. I recognize that parties of the left today behave very differently.

      What you describe from a political standpoint would be more correctly referred to as indirect democracy actually, and it's very much prone to being hijacked by autocrats, as there is very little connection between the voters on the "bottom" and the leaders on the "top." Each layer you put between the voters and the government distorts popular will in some way, but this was especially the case given the majoritarian way the lower councils elected the higher ones.

      Suppose you have 5 councils of 5 people each electing one representative for a higher council. On 3 of the 5 councils, representatives vote 3-2 for "slate A." On the other 2 councils, representatives vote 5-0 for someone from "slate B." So now you have a higher council where slate A has a 3-2 majority, even though representatives voted 16-9 in favour of slate B. If the higher council then goes on to elect a representative to an even higher council, they send someone from slate A, even though most of the people they represent actually prefer slate B.

      "The German case is one of the most clear ones, with the SPD being central in repressing the German Revolution of 1918-19 and murdering the Spartakist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, by using the Freikorps death squads, which would become the seed of the Nazis later on. "

      Yet had people actually wanted a socialist government, they still could have voted for it. The early KPD wanted to impose a system of government on Germany without the consent of the German people. That is antidemocratic.

      You mentioned banning fascist parties. I have to say that I am strongly opposed to governments banning political parties of any sort. A government that can ban "fascist" party needs only to label a party it dislikes (like FdG for example) as "fascist" to ban it. Frankly, I do not believe that the government gets to decide which ideas are too dangerous to be allowed to exist, and such a pretext is exactly what allowed the Gestapo to arrest and imprison members of my own family.

      BTW, fun fact for you - the Canadian Communist Party was the only one to side with Trotsky over Stalin at Communist International (though the supporters of Trotsky were eventually purged from the party anyways).

      Delete
    3. I did not realize I wrote ""the DNVP of Hindenburg gained support". I'll correct that too.

      Your criticism of the KPD and the soviet system under Lenin and Stalin is at least largely correct. It would not be the case if the soviets would have actual power, as they must, instead of delegating in a distant state power and being manipulated by a single party. But that would be anarchism or something quite similar (yet also what Marx supported, although a bit incoherently sometimes).

      I have to disagree about the issue of "layers". Actually representatives elected for 4-years or so without any popular organism to control their behavior and recall them if they fail to obey the people's mandate is for me tyranny. How often you elect a politician who does not honor his/her promises? But there are no popular power recall mechanisms to control for that, nor even for preliminary debate. The politicians claim that they do "constituency work" but what is it? Corporate lobbying or just free time in their posh club. Where is the popular power to control our "representatives" or, as they should be, our delegates? Nowhere. So it is not democracy but a varnish layer to hide the oligarchic tyranny.

      The direct participation system allows, at least in principle, for direct control by the people. And what happened when they tried to restore the soviets in the 90s? They dissolved them and created a bourgeois "representative" republic.

      Free soviets are way too dangerous for any power-mongering oligarchy. And that's why we urgently need them: real democracy from neighborhood level.

      I don't care if the delegate is chosen by mass elections, it must be recalled if he/she dishonors the popular mandate and replaced by a better person. Otherwise it is tyranny of the liars.

      "The early KPD wanted to impose a system of government on Germany without the consent of the German people. That is antidemocratic."

      There was no democracy of any kind in Germany in 1918. Except the councils of workers and soldiers which was created ad-hoc in the German Revolution (which was one of several shaking Europe in those years). Would not be for the Poles (socialdemocrats again) the Red Army would have managed to help the German Working Class and History would have been radically different. With an advanced working class, Germany could and would have built another type of socialism than the poor Bonapartist patch available for agricultural Russia (which however, dialectics never stops, has done so much for the emancipation of the colonies and semi-colonies of Earth, even with all its defects).

      That's why I hate so much the socialdemocrats: they are class traitors of the worst kind. The class of smiling corrupt backstabbing liars that get everything messed up.

      "A government that can ban "fascist" party needs only to label a party it dislikes"...

      I don't think that's, like most things, something to be delegated to any government: it must be done from the grassroots popular power, as everything. Only real democracy can defeat fascism, this time forever, I hope.

      What can I say: a lot of people is slept at the wheel like you seem to be and that will result unavoidable in more pain and maybe extinction for Humankind. Intolerance against the intolerants is necessary to save tolerance itself.

      Delete
    4. This may be a double post (browser crashed and I'm not sure if it went through) so if so sorry.

      "I have to disagree about the issue of "layers". Actually representatives elected for 4-years or so without any popular organism to control their behavior and recall them if they fail to obey the people's mandate is for me tyranny. How often you elect a politician who does not honor his/her promises?"

      My province actually has provisions for recall. No one has been recalled in practice, but the threat of recall has called people to resign just prior to the paperwork being finalized.

      We also have the ability to initiate a referendum on any issue if enough signatures are gathered. This actually led to the reversal of a major tax reform in 2012. The reform itself was pretty benign IMHO (replacing the sales tax with a European style VAT) but it went against what the government had promised at the election, and I feel that the fact that people were actually able to hold the government to account on that was a good thing.

      What I would propose to you that rather than indirectly elected layers, that each and every level of government should be directly elected, but with a constitutionally entrenched right to recall. I would also suggest constitutional guarantees of the powers of local, regional and state governments. Devolution is something I wholeheartedly support, and something that is especially necessary in diverse countries.

      "Only real democracy can defeat fascism, this time forever, I hope. "

      This is my belief and hope too.

      "What can I say: a lot of people is slept at the wheel like you seem to be and that will result unavoidable in more pain and maybe extinction for Humankind. Intolerance against the intolerants is necessary to save tolerance itself."

      Oh trust me, I'm plenty intolerant towards fascists lol. In terms of being asleep at the wheel, I don't think there is much for me to lose sleep over in terms of fascism in Canada at least. Not yet, and I hope not ever, but we'll see.

      Delete
    5. "My province actually has provisions for recall. (...) We also have the ability to initiate a referendum on any issue"...

      Most "democracies" in fact actively fight against such fundamental rights and many seem to think that "democracy" means a four year unchecked ticket to totalitarian power and massive corruption.

      I know it's a simplification but I often say that I want economic democracy like in Cuba (or rather former Yugoslavia) and political democracy like in Switzerland. Actually I want to be more radical than both but it's a good illustration anyhow.

      Switzerland is a democracy or almost, at least in political terms (they still need to collectivize the economy to be a full democracy) but most other so-called "democracies" are closer to Kuwait than to Switzerland, i.e. mere concessions of the oligarchy for the sake of social peace.

      I think rather than revising your terms, which I don't always understand well (I'm not in your mind) that delegates should be elected for 1 year terms, not more, by direct vote but recallable by their politically organized constituency (republic of whatever federative level) if they fail to represent it as they must. The 1 year term is necessary to preven four year rampage dictatorships of the liars. Every law must be approved in referendum and the republics can opt-out anyhow if they don't like it.

      Furthermore. Accumulation of any kind of property must be banned, first and foremost corporations with no personal accountability by the owners. If we are to tolerate some sorts of privilege (property) for whatever reasons, the owners must be 100% accountable and they would be capped from accumulating more than a reasonable X wealth in any case (taxes go up to 100% from that level upwards). Only public banks can exist in any case, assuming we still need that dangerous coupon system called "money".

      Power must be very much decentralized, even if not purely anarchist maybe. The constituent units are the people (of course) and their most direct structures: the villages and neighborhoods.

      "... I don't think there is much for me to lose sleep over in terms of fascism in Canada at least."

      Well, we are talking Europe here. Thinking at country level is of no help. Personally, would I be offered a chance to fight against fascism in Ukraine, Thailand or France, I'd join (even if my health is not good enough anymore) because they must be stopped at any cost (the worst cost is that they are not stopped).

      Some activists from Germany and Russia have already organized antifascist militias to fight in Ukraine. And, please don't cry me a CNN river: US and Israeli mercenaries have been helping the Nazis there since day one. Volunteers are totally legitimated and internationalism is necessary because what is happening Ukraine is an instance of what may happen in the rest of Europe any day and we have to act before it is too late.

      As for North America, I consider the USA a quasi-fascist state since the Patriot Act, being ruled by emergency decree and obviously abusing human rights at home and abroad all the time. Not sure how exactly it affects Canada but I know that Canada is the most pro-Zionist state on Earth after Israel itself and that is class A fascism and crimes against Humankind.

      Don't feel so safe because you probably are not.

      Delete
    6. Re: CNN. Lol. Don't worry I won't. I try to read news sources that don't have a stake in the issue at hand. For the Ukraine I've been reading Al-Jazeera and haven't been disappointed. Let's be honest here though - both sides are pretty much fascists in the Ukraine. :/

      What I wish is that more countries would recognize the right of self-determination, and that the countries that do were more forceful in fighting for its recognition worldwide. How much better off would people in Tibet or or elsewhere be if they had the right to decide for themselves what country they want to be a part of? Not that it would solve every problem for every group, but it would at least force an improvement for some, and avoid this needless fighting. Crimean Tatars would still be pretty screwed though I guess.

      I'd make a distinction between run-of-the-mill fascists and less run-of-the-mill fascists like Hitler. I'm sure Pinochet and Dolfuss were terrible for everyone under their rule, but I don't think he posed a threat to world peace, and personally I'd prefer to not term the Ukraine into a proxy war between NATO and Russia. Though it already has really.

      Re: Israel/Canada - Canada's definitely taken a turn to the cheerleader for Israel since the Conservatives took power. I don't think that makes the Conservatives fascists, nor do I think ultimately their shilling is even very helpful to Israel itself. Rather I think it just helps Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu (and there's a party that DOES scare the shit out of me). That's pretty new and not likely to persist past 2015 though. I'd expect us to go back to support of Israel's existence coupled with vague ambivalence towards Israel's actions after that. Not ideal either, but back into the mainstream.

      I don't think guilt-by-association works when it comes to countries (or anyone else for that matter). Canada's one of the most pro-Israel countries right now. We're also one of the most pro-Cuba countries, and the largest market for their exports. Where does that place us? Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say. There's all sorts of other examples like this internationally.

      I don't think it's correct to label Israel as fascist. Approve or disapprove of it (and I realize you disapprove), it's society and government don't share much in common with fascist states. It still has multiple political parties representing a wide spectrum of opinion. It still has reasonably free press. I could go on but you get the picture. Fascists also didn't typically set up pseudo-client/hostile states on their borders to dominate militarily. Whatever Israel is, I don't think it falls under that category.

      In terms of economics, if I had to choose anywhere in Latin America to live through the last 60 years, it would be Cuba. In terms of providing health , education and the necessities of life, Castro did well. Or at least from it seems that way from what I've seen as a tourist
      That being said, there's a reason people still risk their lives to cross to Florida in makeshift rafts. People like their comforts. They like having things like the internet, cell phones, a car and all those other trappings, and they're willing to go a long way to get it. I don't think you'd be able to convince many people to swap so much prosperity for more equality. There may be intermediate positions which have more equality and are equally prosperous though. Something I feel like some European countries are trying to pursue at least.

      Re: Terms - the trouble is politicians also suffer from short sightness. Maybe elect 1/4 of the MPs each year?

      Re: Switzerland - their federal nature could be tweaked, with more devolution rather than mutual vetos. The latter has been shown to increase income inequality unfortunately. Otherwise I do really like their political system. The system used in Northern Ireland (with its all-party executive and whatnot) seems pretty decent too.

      Delete
    7. "I wish is that more countries would recognize the right of self-determination".

      They will not. It is the state vs the peoples, exactly the same as it is the corporations against the peoples. Objective interests are confronted, even if subjective awakening can be delayed by means of systematic propaganda, making the peoples or parts of them believe that their interests are the same or joined to those of the corporations and their states.

      "Crimean Tatars would still be pretty screwed though I guess."

      AFAIK they are better off now in Russia than before in Ukraine: they have negotiated a good deal with the pro-Russian leadership in which their rights are greatly improved. Hence that Crimean Tatars also voted for annexation to Russia in large numbers.

      " Canada's one of the most pro-Israel countries right now. We're also one of the most pro-Cuba countries"...

      Really? I never heard anything like that. Being part of NATO and so intimately mingled socio-economically with the USA, it seems extremely difficult to see how that may work (Canadian companies that trade with Cuba should be subject to ban in the USA).

      "Where does that place us?"

      Canada is infamous globally for being the Zionist lapdog #1. That's where your state is placed AFAIK. It is also infamous for its aggressive imperialist mining companies, which destroy many environments and threaten many peoples. Otherwise it doesn't matter: it is perceived as a mere semi-autonomous region of the USA. With all respect: that's how I perceive Canada, sincerely, and the way most people in the International Left does AFAIK.

      ...

      Delete
    8. ...

      "I don't think it's correct to label Israel as fascist."

      It is a racist, theocratic, apartheid and genocide colonial regime. Call it what you will but for me it falls 99% in the category fascist, just like old apartheid South Africa, Saudi Arabia or China. Palestinian Natives do not have any rights in their own homeland. Half have already been deported, the other half (as many as Jews) are brutally discriminated against by the colonial regime.

      → http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/2014/05/palestines-apartheid-in-figures-and.html

      Like Nazi Germany it has a gigantic version of the Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza, like Nazi South Africa it has a version of the Bantustan in the West Bank, like all Nazi regimes the oppressed ethnicities have no rights and are being driven out or outright murdered.

      I feel bad even using the term "Israel": it is like speaking of a horrible demon.

      "It still has multiple political parties representing a wide spectrum of opinion."

      Multiple fascist parties for the privileged ethnic elite only. Some people seem to think that Labor Zionism is something different but in fact it is just like the SA, the pseudo-left inside the Nazi Party.

      "Fascists also didn't typically set up pseudo-client/hostile states on their borders to dominate militarily".

      Not sure what you're talking about but what was the General Governorate, what were the South African Bantustans, the Jewish ghettoes? That's exactly what the Palestinian entity is: a barely semi-autonomous colonial protectorate. Today precisely Abbas talked about how "sacred" is the police collaboration with the Zionist regime. The "two state" rant is just political makeup for the bantustanization of Palestine, nothing else.

      Let's talk about one state because objectively there's nothing else, nor will ever be.

      "... there's a reason people still risk their lives to cross to Florida in makeshift rafts."

      They don't anymore. I sufficed that Cuba freely allowed emigration for the USA to forbid it totally.

      "Terms - the trouble is politicians also suffer from short sightness. Maybe elect 1/4 of the MPs each year?"

      No there must be a permanent popular recall sword of Damocles on any delegate and officer. This exists in terms of corporative lobbying, which is pressing the politicians every single day. I say: ban lobbying (and corporations themselves, wealth even) and return that power to the People. Who commands must command obeying the People, and who represents the People must be tightly assured to represent us.

      So they cannot be allowed to lie and deceive as, unbelievably, is assumed as "normal" for political delegates to do. That's simply not acceptable: it only allows for corruption and social ethical decay.

      All the power to the People!

      Delete
    9. "All the power to the People!"

      Here's the trouble with that argument though - people don't want to ban wealth. Give power to the people - sure, I'm 100% on board with that. But if we do respect the will of the people, then that means

      There's a pretty well studied link between property rights and productivity though. Just look at how poorly farm collectivized farms do all over the world.

      What should be changed is the distribution of that wealth.

      "No there must be a permanent popular recall sword of Damocles on any delegate and officer."

      I'm fine with that too. Would you do both though? Regular elections for at least part of the legislature every year, and then the right to recall people who aren't up for re-election if they betray voters?

      Federally (but not locally/provicinially) in Canada only individuals are allowed to contribute to political causes, and even then only up to a strict limit of $1,200 (roughly half of which is reimbursed by the government). I think that could be tweaked a lot (lower limit and base funding per vote for parties), but I do think banning donations from anyone but a person is very important.

      "They don't anymore. I sufficed that Cuba freely allowed emigration for the USA to forbid it totally."

      "Multiple fascist parties for the privileged ethnic elite only."

      I don't think Balad would like that characterization. The fact that 20% of the electorate are Israeli Arabs shows that things are more complex than that too.

      "They don't anymore. I sufficed that Cuba freely allowed emigration for the USA to forbid it totally. "

      Yes, but its telling that so many want to leave. Same thing happened with the GDR.

      Re: Bantustans - I think you're missing my point. I'm saying there are bad things that Israel is doing that a fascist country would not. Good or bad, Israel is very different in character.

      Delete
    10. Re: Refugee totals - It's worth remembering that roughly an equivalent number of Arab Jews were made refugees during the Arab Israeli wars too. Not that Palestinians should be responsible for that.

      I mentioned before that my family came to Canada as refugees in 1939 and left occupied Sudetenland in 1938. Palestinians became refugees in 1948 - just 10 years later. My family was never able to return home either, yet here I am with a job, a home and a decent standard of living. The fact that Palestinian refugees were treated so much worse than people like myself is particularly troubling. The fact that Israelis and Palestinians have been pawns in proxy wars between the US and the USSR and Iran for the last 60 years certainly hasn't helped.

      Delete
    11. The figure of emigrant Arab Jews to Palestine was much smaller, of the order of 500,000 and today may represent with descendants some 800,000 colonial settlers.

      In most cases they were not "expelled" (no pogroms, no putting them in the airport, not anything), just decided that in such circumstances they were better off in a Jewish-dominated Palestine than being a minority in a poor country like Morocco or Yemen.

      Here we are talking of 6 million Palestinian deportees to outside of Palestine (mostly still awaiting their right to return in refugee camps just outside the colonial occupation lines) and other 6 million Palestinians prisoner in small portions of their national land and 6 million of Jewish colonial immigrants, mostly from Europe and North America (one million of which do not even live in Palestine at all).

      International Zionism controls way too well too many resources (it was together with US Gestapo why I left Wikipedia: simply unbearable secret service control of recent history articles, totally POV: US Imperial POV).

      "The fact that 20% of the electorate are Israeli Arabs shows that things are more complex than that too."

      They have never ever formed part of any government. When they raise their voice they are threatened with illegalization, etc. They are only tolerated for as much as they reluctantly collaborate with the occupation.

      The real Native Palestinian electorate is 67%, not 20%, but the Zionist entity does not allow for all the annexed populations nor all the exiles to vote. Those exiles are from Tel Aviv and other parts of the country where the Zionists made a genocide: they have the right to return and the right to vote.

      It is Nazism with a pretext.

      Delete
    12. "Yes, but its telling that so many want to leave. Same thing happened with the GDR."

      Not at alll. It's more like what happens with Mexico and Honduras: they leave for economic reasons, not ideological ones. Doctors do not desert, even if they are traveling through the world often, for example: it's the people who dream with barbies and hamburgers who leave, legally.

      Russians did not usually abandon their country either, only Germans did, and when they did, they went back home with bags packed of that empty nothingness we find in our supermarkets. Once you open the border and remove the police state, most people return, unless there is no economic hope. You can't live in a commercial center: you only shop there, if at all.

      You have a lot of confused ideas about how things really are and that is because of the propaganda (and probably your willingness to accept it acritically).

      "Re: Bantustans - I think you're missing my point."

      Was Apartheid South Africa a Nazi state. I think so. Maybe you do not.

      Was bombing of the Warsaw Ghetto (=Gaza Strip) a Nazi genocidal act. Yes.

      Was a racist regime that deported all those who were not in the privileged category characteristic of Nazism. Yes.

      The only thing that Israel lacks to be identical to Nazi Germany is the death camps. But it has secret prisons, military "justice" and millions with zero rights, exactly like Nazi Germany. Only the ovens are missing, only that. It is clearly more racist type of fascism than Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain Nazi (Fascist states are not necessarily racist, only the Nazis are).

      "... people don't want to ban wealth."

      Let's vote about it. At the very least they do want to heavily tax it. At the very least. And they want to make sure that the right of housing, the right to food, the right to education and the right to health care are assured before anyone's luxuries and caprices.

      "There's a pretty well studied link between property rights and productivity though".

      Propaganda junk. We are seeing every single day how extremely effective and social-oriented public services are privatized (gifted to cronies of the political elites) and become a complete disaster. That applies to banks as to health care and everything else. Public services are not about making money: they are about delivering what they must deliver.

      "... recall people who aren't up for re-election if they betray voters?"

      They all must be subject to reelection. Why to allow them to escape public validation? Either the People rules or a corrupt bureaucracy does. Let the delegates be validated or removed every year and the problem of lying politicians should vanish.

      It is a most serious problem you must admit: one that challenges every idea about what is good government. A liar should never be allowed to continue in office: it's not just ethically distasteful but also a phenomenon of social corruption that can only lead to doom.

      Delete
    13. Re: Colonial settlers - I don't think one can really blame European Jews for feeling more than a little unsafe in Europe, or even in North America. My family were admitted to Canada specifically because we were facing persecution and not Jewish. Canada's unofficial policy was "no Jews is too many" and Canada wasn't unusual in this regard unfortunately. Which is why IMHO it's the entire world that bears responsibility for the plight of Palestinians.

      Re: Cuba and sanctions - the sanctions are purely an American thing, not a NATO thing. All sorts of German and French and British people travel there too. The issue of trying to apply the sanctions to Canadian countries is definitely an area of disagreement between Canada and the US that becomes an issue whenever the US tries to push the issue.

      For whatever reason, Canada's always maintained cordial relations with Cuba. I'm not entirely sure why. Trudeau and Castro were close personal friends (and Castro came up here for Trudeau's funeral). Before that I'm not entirely sure. Canada was also the first Western country to shift it's diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China too.

      I think part of it goes back to what you said re: us being an appendage of the US. There's a desire (or was a desire) to differentiate us from the US. Lately we seem to be trying to out US the US.

      "Propaganda junk. We are seeing every single day how extremely effective and social-oriented public services are privatized (gifted to cronies of the political elites) and become a complete disaster."

      Not talking about public services. I'm talking about things like farms, factories and the like.

      "Let's vote about it. At the very least they do want to heavily tax it. At the very least. And they want to make sure that the right of housing, the right to food, the right to education and the right to health care are assured before anyone's luxuries and caprices. "

      Well, your neck of the woods just did vote on it. Fine with the rest of what you said there though.

      And agreed completely with your points re: recall.

      Delete
    14. In general though, re: our discussion on how to fight fascism, I'd go with Adenauer 's suggestion that the best way to do that is to provide a more appealing alternative.

      Something that the left in your area seems to have done a reasonable job of. Not so much in France unfortunately. Perhaps FdG should take further steps to distance themselves from Hollande's government.

      Delete
    15. "Not at alll. It's more like what happens with Mexico and Honduras: they leave for economic reasons, not ideological ones. Doctors do not desert, even if they are traveling through the world often, for example: it's the people who dream with barbies and hamburgers who leave, legally. "

      That's the crux of my argument though. People like their BBQs and hamburgers. A lot.

      Delete
    16. "I don't think one can really blame European Jews for feeling more than a little unsafe in Europe, or even in North America."

      Cry me a river, really. How are supposed Palestinians to pay for that? If Israel would have been created out of Germany after WWII... but nope: deporting Jews outside Europe was precisely Hitler's initial plan and the Zionists actually collaborated with the Nazis in it.

      The main problem with Zionism is that it's all about Jews and nobody else matters, certainly not the native inhabitants of Palestine, who, mind you, are much more directly related to ancient Jews than the so-called Jews, a religious sect whose members seem mostly of Anatolian origin and whose ethnic identity seems quite dubious (religion should not be but a personal choice, never the base of ethnic identification, which must be secular, linguistic and cultural).

      I'm totally bored of the cry-baby pseudo-justification of Zionism as caused by Hitler or whatever other more or less real persecution. Such people should immediately agree with the creation of New Afrika out of the USA (Black Americans have it much worse, even today). And those who think that religious distinctiveness is enough to forge a country, should advocate for the secession of Utah as well. But I do not.

      "Which is why IMHO it's the entire world that bears responsibility for the plight of Palestinians".

      At the very least the Western World but mostly for their support of Zionism. I'm 100% for solving the discrimination problems of Jews and Roma (why Roma don't have a "Zionism" of their own? Because they don't have influence either) but at home: Polish Jews in Poland, German Jews in Germany, Russian Jews in Russia, Yemeni Jews in Yemen.

      No one hardship nor oppression can justify the oppression of others. In North America, I guess being forged on the robbery of the Native American land, this kind of fallacious reasoning may be considered "normal" but it is not and can't ever be accepted.

      Israel is a criminal state founded on a crime, not the crime of (some) Europeans against Jews but the crime of Zionists (Jews and Goyim alike) against the Native Palestinian People. And that crime must be repaired. Justice must prevail.

      I do not really accept the idea that crimes might justify anything. That kind of though only belongs to evil people.

      Zionism is based on the same racist principles of Hitler, just replace "Aryan" or "German" by "Jewish" and everything is exactly the same. All those out of that category are expendable.

      I feel shame of you for having to even discuss this obviousness, really. I feel shame as human for the existence of that cruel oppression machine that Israel is but even more for how much it gets away with thanks to the control of the propaganda machinery.

      Delete
    17. "the sanctions are purely an American thing, not a NATO thing."

      Nope. It is a US imposed system on the whole World: the Helms-Burton law imposes sanctions not just to Cuba but on any company dealing with Cuba, with the obvious hope of dissuading all kind of business with the island.

      "Adenauer 's suggestion that the best way to do that is to provide a more appealing alternative" [to Fascism]

      Isn't anything more appealing than a sad totalitarian police state? You have to do things really badly for Fascism to appear as an option at all. People like their freedom, you know.

      Fascism does not even offer anything: just an empty pseudo-ideology of "us" versus "them". It is pure manipulation via scapegoating.

      "Something that the left in your area seems to have done a reasonable job of."

      Actually not enough. While in the electoral arena they are doing poorly (mostly they remain semi-hidden within the "conservative" cover of the PP however), their militias are more and more active and nobody is doing almost anything to stop them.

      The attacks have become so much a routine in Spain that I don't even report them anymore - but they happen. Yesterday for example a see of United Left was attacked and a few days ago a dozen of them marched through Valladolid in spite of mass cry out, under police protection (as usual).

      Ukraine's Borotba party lamented these days in a conference in Greece not having armed themselves. Now they and the CPU are being destroyed by the fascists through the country (massacres and what not). Again I don't have time to discuss all this except sparingly but it is quite clear that when the fascists begin to show up, the Left must take strong steps to stop them on their heels and send them back to the sewers where they belong.

      For France it may well be too late. And this fascism can be exported again, even to where the people is clearly against it, as happened in 1936, manu militari. I'm extremely worried for Europe, really.

      "Perhaps FdG should take further steps to distance themselves from Hollande's government."

      Absolutely. But politics implies some doses of pragmatism, when you are a small force you have to make agreements in order to implement at least part of your program.

      This question happens in Spain as well: in Andalusia United Left is allied with the Social-Democrats (with ups and downs in achievements), while in nearby Extremadura it has instead allowed the Conservatives to rule because of lack of willingness to negotiate by the Social-Dems. In both cases they have been punished by the voters. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      We could criticize the policies of the Left in France and learn something from that exercise but what we must really criticize and very strongly is all those people who are voting for the Fascists because they will drag us to doom - not just France: all Europe.

      "People like their BBQs and hamburgers. A lot."

      People like a lot of things. Most people value much more health care for example than hamburgers. Not saying that Cuba is ideal but Cubans have nearly all they could wish for, something that US Americans do not - just that they don't seem to realize, even if the harder reality certainly makes more and more to understand what is prioritary and what is secondary.

      Delete
    18. "Nope. It is a US imposed system on the whole World: the Helms-Burton law imposes sanctions not just to Cuba but on any company dealing with Cuba, with the obvious hope of dissuading all kind of business with the island."

      Right. But it's imposed only by the US, and they've had a hard time enforcing it beyond their own borders. Other NATO countries won't enforce US sanctions for them in this case.

      "Israel is a criminal state founded on a crime, not the crime of (some) Europeans against Jews but the crime of Zionists (Jews and Goyim alike) against the Native Palestinian People. "

      I would argue that it was in part a crime of an international community that by and large either endorsed the partition plan or proposed no credible alternative, and then proceeded to put no effort whatsoever into seeing the that plan actually implemented. Europeans and other Western countries can take special blame also for the state of Jewish refugee camps in Europe at the time, and the unwillingness to settle these refugees in their own lands.

      So the world decided to trade one dispossessed diaspora for another.

      "Fascism does not even offer anything: just an empty pseudo-ideology of "us" versus "them". It is pure manipulation via scapegoating. "

      That's the trouble though. It can be a compelling narrative for some. It's hardly a unique narrative either (it can be us vs the elites or whatever). I'd rather a more benign force use it or stamp it out at least.

      "I'm 100% for solving the discrimination problems of Jews and Roma (why Roma don't have a "Zionism" of their own? Because they don't have influence either) "

      Unfortunately Roma and Jews still often end up taking the place of "the other" even in Europe today (and elsewhere - Canada recently cracked down on Roma refugee claims, much to my disgust). Re: a Roma "Zion" - I imagine the more nomadic lifestyle doesn't lend itself well to this. It also doesn't help that everywhere is already taken.

      "The main problem with Zionism is that it's all about Jews and nobody else matters, certainly not the native inhabitants of Palestine, who, mind you, are much more directly related to ancient Jews than the so-called Jews, a religious sect whose members seem mostly of Anatolian origin and whose ethnic identity seems quite dubious"

      I think you're missing the point here though. Ethnic labels are always of pretty dubious usefulness when it comes to genetics anyways. What matters is that the label "Jew" whatever it means has exposed people to discrimination and repression. You mentioned earlier substituting the word "Jewish" for German or Aryan in the context of Zionism. The difference there is that when Germans are subject to discrimination (ie in Czechoslovakia post-WW2) there has always been somewhere willing to take the refugees in. Not so for Jews.

      I'm not saying this solution is or ever was the correct one. Far from it. I don't think recognize that there was and is a problem has to diminish one's horror at what is happening in Palestine today.

      Re: FdG and abstentionism vs pragmatism, it's a tough thing to figure out isn't it. There's definitely a lot of trade-offs.

      What you mention re: militias though troubles me greatly.

      Delete
    19. Re: America and healthcare - I don't think America is a very good standard to compare to on anything though. They're clearly the most dysfunctional developed country in the world IMHO. Every other developed country does provide universal healthcare in some form and generally has less income inequality.

      "No one hardship nor oppression can justify the oppression of others. In North America, I guess being forged on the robbery of the Native American land, this kind of fallacious reasoning may be considered "normal" but it is not and can't ever be accepted."

      There's a lot of interesting stuff I could go into there. The treaty for the local band was only signed a year back, and the circumstances where I live are a bit unique in this regard. It's not an argument I'm unsympathetic to. In the Canadian context though, a lot of the really bad/scary stuff actually happened after most of the treaties were signed. When discussing First Nations in Canada though, one thing to keep in mind is that generalizations often fall apart, and that goes all the way back to the beginning of colonization.

      The treaty texts themselves can be a pretty interesting ready if you enjoy that sort of thing. A lot of them include a narrative of how they were negotiated and signed. Here's one for example: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028863/1100100028864

      I do think in general though, what matters more than "who got here first" is "who is here today." I don't think a Scottish person should have special privileges in Scotland, nor should I be able to go back to the Czech Republic and kick out whoever is now living in my ancestral home. If we keep going back in history to see who was where first, and what point do we stop? Borders and ethnic identities have always been shifting, and unfortunately that has led to a lot of migrations and displacements.

      What matters more to me is the plight of people who are living and breathing today. That is where First Nations people in Canada are by and large being horribly failed. That is also by and large where Palestinian people are being failed.

      "I'm 100% for solving the discrimination problems of Jews and Roma (why Roma don't have a "Zionism" of their own? Because they don't have influence either) but at home: Polish Jews in Poland, German Jews in Germany, Russian Jews in Russia, Yemeni Jews in Yemen."

      Ideally multiethnic states would always be equal and just for all, but that seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Fully on board with the sentiment. I'm open to the idea of Jewish nationalism in some for for the same reasons I'm open to the idea of Quebecois or Basque nationalism. Sometimes multiethnic states fail to protect everyone, and when they do, what then?

      I must confess that normally, my hopes are that any given multiethnic state will find a way to make itself work for everyone in its borders, but when it comes to Basque nationalism, my sympathies lie firmly on the side of independence. I'm not entirely sure why.

      Delete
  2. BTW you've probably seen this quote before from Otto Wels, but it's one of my favourites. From his speech against the Enabling Act while in the Reichstag:

    "You can take our lives and our freedom, but you cannot take our honour. We are defenseless but not honourless."

    My grandfather and his family were actually Social Democrats in the Sudetenland before coming to Canada as political refugees in 1939, so it's something I hold dear to my heart.

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Comment moderation before publishing is... ON