Re: Deleuze-Guattari

[john gulick <jlgulick@xxxxxxx>]

Louis said:

>The important question for Marxists is why these irrational ideologies get
>a mass following. I explain this in terms of economic crisis. Fascism
>arises at a time when there is great unemployment and/or hyperinflation and
>in societies that have a rather well-developed working-class movement, such
>as Italy, Spain and Germany. The fascist movement gains a middle-class base
>because it stresses a "national socialism", one that rises above the class
>antagonisms of Bolshevism. This message has an enormous appeal to the
>shopkeeper and farmer, who were ruined by the capitalist class and
>inconvenienced by working-class militancy. A mobilized middle-class and
>lumpen-proletariat is financed and supported by the big bourgeoisie through
>the back-door. This mass movement attacks the trade unions and left parties
>until the workers are defeated. The regime that arises out of this violent
>struggle soon cuts its ties to the middle-class mass movement. This is a
>historical materialist presentation of the rise of fascism which I find
>useful. I can of course fill in the details, if you'd like.

Little young me said:

I thought recent reputable historical research has shown that a sizable
percentage of the German working class (formally defined) supported the
Nazis (although of course this percentage mushroomed when the Depression
took hold) -- especially workers from certain regions, in certain trades and
industries, with certain wartime experiences, from certain religious
backgrounds, etc. (I don't mean to sound like I'm doing a positivistic factor
analysis here). Louis, I think your formula is too formulaic. Logically there's
no reason why an ideology of transcending the perpetual strife of class warfare
(as well as the petty bickering and compromise of bourgeois politics in the
face of crisis, another conditioning feature which you fail to mention)
cannot appeal to a significant portion of the working class.


Louis said:

>So the combination of four years of trench warfare,
>strike-breaking, police repression and rural deprivation made socialism
>seem like a good idea to millions of suffering Russians. I regret that this
>lacks philosophical profundity, but it sort of makes sense to me.

Little young me said:

I don't think socialism (much less Bolshevism) appealed to the vast majority
of peasants (and of course Russia was mostly peasants at the time) -- to the
extent that they espoused any political philosophy it was one of communal
self-reliance and resistance to the predations of the state (the draft) and
state-backed landlords (rents). The Bolsheviks were best organized to
supplant the collapsing Tsarist State and Provincial Government and
seemingly best
equipped to withdraw from WWI, and thus relieve the peasants from wartime
death and famine. To the extent that there was outright proactive support
(as opposed to support by default) for the Bolsheviks it was because they
had made nebulous promises for land reform. This is a big difference from
explicit and conscious support for socialism, whether it be NEP "socialism" or
forced draft industrialization "socialism".

I'm not anything approaching an expert or even a learned dilettante on Germany
or Russia but this is my understanding of the inter-war situation in the
two countries.

Best,

John Gulick
Ph. D. Candidate
Sociology Graduate Program
University of California-Santa Cruz
(415) 643-8568
jlgulick@xxxxxxx