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

[Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nestor, thanks for your deep explanation of the rise of German fascism.
I really would like to learn more about the origins of Peronism, since, from
a Latin american  perspective, you seem to provide an explanation quite
different from the standard accounts of the nature of Peronist movement.
Sorry for bringing into discussion my case here, "Kemalism", in every
second, but I find some drastic similarities and contrasts between
_Kemalism_ and _Peronism_, (Turkish versus Argentinean capitalist
development), although Kemalism was never able to mobilize a working class
constituency as strongly as Peronism did.  So it was not as populist.


What about the institution of military, btw? How did Peron maintain his
relations with the *military*, given that he was a military man? Since
military ousted him, it seems, they must have paradoxically perceived
Peron's populism as a dangerous means to boost working classes, and thus to
bring about social and political unrest. By analogy, Turkish kemalists who
were in coalition government in the 1980s (social democrats, I mean) were
ousted for similar reasons, although they were *not* anti-militaristic per
se. Then, Kemalists justified the military coup on the grounds that they had
lost the military to the right wing. Now, new generation of Turkish
socialists are arguing that Kemalism has always been militaristic, so
nothing was lost or new.  Military is the institutional child of Kemalist
bourgeois ideology. How about the *military* in the case of Peronism?

The other issue is what about Peron's strategy of *women's rights*? For
example, Kemalists in Turkey granted women voting rights in 1934 in order to
distance themselves from fascist Germany and Italy, and to look liberal and
modern to the West, despite being authoritarian What about Peron fellow?


comradely,


Xxxx
















Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:

> 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,
> >
> > Xxxx
>
> 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

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________