Re: Clemenceau une autre fois plus (was Re: Deutschland Schon Wieder)

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: Clemenceau une autre fois plus ,
el 15 Jul 00, a las 15:38, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dijo:

>
>
> >Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
>
> > >En relaci¢n a Re: Deutschland Schon Wieder,
> > >el 14 Jul 00, a las 21:56, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dijo:
> >
> > >> During the debates about war reperations, I remember Keynes
> > >> arguing that the allies, particulary the British, should be less
> > >> coercive with
> > > enforcing payment of reperations on Germany, or change the
> > > priority of
> > >> payments at least-- an idea, which was actually championed by
> > >> American international bankers who were agents for reperation
> > >> payments created under the Dawes plan of US.  It seems Keynes'
> > >> bourgeois anticipation matched with the German nationalist
> > >> critique of liberal order at that
> > > >time.
> >
> > >Blaming the German "unfinished bourgeois revolution" for Fascism,
> > >useful and right as it is for comrades struggling in Germany, is a
> > >partial truth, and provides an alibi for the bourgeoisies of the
> > >remaining imperialist countries.
>
> Comrade Nestor, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was not
> blaming the German "unfinished bourgeois revolution" for being
> responsible for the rise of fascism. I don't subscribe to Kautskian
> version of orthodoxy/ mechanistic theory of stages.  My suspicion is
> that it was not the *lack* of capitalism, but rather its very
> existence, even in immature form, that brought about fascism in
> Germany. Fascism is one form of capitalism; not absence of
> capitalism. Therefore, my Keynes example was meant to illustrate the
> fact that the imperialist allies, despite the inter-imperialist
> conflict between the French and the British at some moments during
> negotiations for war reparations, under the Dawes plan, were indeed
> aiming  to restructure German industrial capacity/capitalism, and
> hence directly/indirectly enforcing Germany into fascism, despite
> bourgeois Keynes' warning.

No misunderstanding at all, on my side at least.  Maybe my poor
English took you to misunderstand me. Because, in fact, I do fully
agree with your comments above. And that is precisely what I wanted
to stress in my intervention. Fascism in Germany was as much a child
of German bourgeoisie as it was of British and French bourgeoisies.
My "Subject" line tried to recall Keynes's account of the greedy and
cruel attitude of Clemenceau.


>From that time on, Germany was already
> entering into a capitalist phase of development with a state monopoly
> bourgeoisie *benefitting* from massive flows of capital channeled into
> German economy.
>
> On the other hand, of course, I can not end up blaming the German
> bourgeoisie for what it did, not for it what *failed*, but for what it
> *actually* *accomplished*, that is, fascism, which was reinforced by
> *international capital*, not always in *conflict*, but also in
> *allience* with German capitalism. American Ford had investments in
> Germany. During the Nazi regime, his name was being  published on the
> front page of anti-semite publications that were deliberately involved
> in the creation of international jew conspiracy. Rise of fascism was
> not a simply a *function* of Germany's victim position in the
> international political economy (Germany was never technically
> imperialized to begin with).

Moreover, I would add, in the line of José's posting on Peronism,
that in imperialized ("globalized"?) countries nationalisms have
little or nothing to do with Fascism, and when they have something to
do it is just as a thin ideological layer or as a clumsy reaction of
hatred against the "democratic" imperialist powers of the West (the
enemy of my enemy, etc.).  This formal and limited relationship
cannot be predicated on the structure and meaning of the movement
itself.

I am preparing a long and explanatory letter on the origins of
Peronism and the FALSE assumption that Perón came to power in order
to put a safety valve to an upsurge of working class militancy. He
rather boosted it, in fact. The bourgeoisie in Argentina knew this
very well: by October 10, 1945, for example, when a cold coup within
the military government forced Perón to resign and reaction seemed to
have already won the battle against this Colonel, workers who went to
claim for the wage rises that had been recently awarded under Perón's
order were greeted by the words  "Go, tell Perón to pay the rise!". A
week after that, we had the great political appearance of the
Argentinian working class in the October 17, 1945, demonstration.


 Germany was too aiming to become another
> capitalist/imperialist power.

It was a capitalist/imperialist power, before WWI. You are a little
shy in this characterization

>
>
> regards,
>
> Mine

Regards from someone who looks at your postings with great interest,


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
NUEVA DIRECCIÓN ELECTRÓNICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000
NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx