Deleuze-Guattari

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harry Cleaver:

> Although I might not put it in the same words, I don't object to
>this kind of description, except that it leaves too much out and, in
>particular, the analysis of some of the behaviors refered to. For example,
>it seems to me that if the "message has an enormous appeal", then it must
>be explained why it does, as opposed to other messages. Obviously, when we
>oppose fascist arguments in such historical contexts as you describe
>we do so because we think it is possible that other arguments might
>counter, or outweigh, or be more attractive to people.
>

Germany entered a pre-revolutionary situation after WWI. The working-class
was radicalized. So was the middle-class. Most of the class antagonism of
both classes was directed against big business. The working-class hated the
bourgeoisie because it did not pay a living wage. The middle class
shopkeeper hated the big retail chains because it was squeezing him out.
So, there was a general anti-capitalist sentiment. Nazism exploited the
anti-capitalist mood of the shopkeeper. So, from the middle class down,
there was desire for revolutionary change. The message of the social
democracy was business as usual. Vote for us and we will make things better
within the framework of bourgeois democracy in the Weimar Republic. The
message of the Communists was that the social democrats were "social
fascists" and just as bad as the Nazis. This disoriented the working class
base of the left parties. Meanwhile, the Nazis acted in a consistent and
single-minded manner to seize power, while being funded by big business
behind the scenes. The audacity of the Nazis, their populist rhetoric and
their violence helped to carve out a large political space, while the
timidity of the social democrats and the insanity of the Stalinists helped
to shrink their appeal. This is how Hitler came to power. This pattern was
repeated through much of Europe during this period. There were fascist
movements everywhere. The reason they succeeded in Italy, Spain and Germany
is that the relationship of class forces and the desperation of the
economic situtation made their success more assured than in Great Britain
or the Scandanavian countries.

The 1930s are a deeply tragic period because the openings for socialism
were greater than at any time in the century but the official parties of
the left had abandoned Marxism. The reason D&G should be rejected is that
they reject Marxism as well. The Marxism they reject is the bogus Marxism
of the social democracy and Stalinism, not the real thing. This is Harry's
mistake as well.

>
>Louis: I don't understand in what sense it is "secondary"? "Movements" are
>made up of people interacting socially and politically, those interactions
>are the interactions of individuals and have grown out of the previous
>context of their lives. It seems to me that an adequate answer to the
>question of how fascism as a movement arises MUST include an analysis of
>the internal social-political-psychological dynamics that generated
>something that it makes sense to call a movement.

An analysis of internal social-political-psychological dynamics? How about
this:

"Now picture to yourself the French bourgeois, how in the throes of this
business panic his trade-crazy brain is tortured, set in a whirl, and
stunned by rumors of coups d'etat and the restoration of universal
suffrage, by the struggle between parliament and the executive power, by
the Fronde war between Orleanists and Legitimists, by the communist
conspiracies in the south of France, by alleged Jacqueries in the
departments of Nievre and Cher, by the advertisements of the different
candidates for the presidency, by the cheapjack solutions offered by the
journals, by the threats of the republicans to uphold the constitution and
universal suffrage by force of arms, by the gospel-preaching emigre heroes
in partibus, who announced that the world would come to an end on the
second Sunday in May, 1852 -- think of all this and you will comprehend why
in this unspeakable, deafening chaos of fusion, revision, prorogation,
constitution, conspiration, coalition, emigration, usurpation, and
revolution, the bourgeois madly snorts at his parliamentary republic:
'Rather an end with terror than terror without end!'"

This is Marx's explanation in the 18th Brumaire why the French bourgeoisie
backed Louis Napoleon who instituted a dictatorship *against* capital in
order to *preserve the rule* of capital. As Robert Tucker points out in his
prefatory remarks, Marx's analysis is a prototype for a Marxist analysis of
fascism. This is the sort of analysis that holds up well after 100 years or
so. I expect that D&G's "analysis" of fascism will have a much shorter
shelf life.

>
>Louis: Sure, once again, black nationalism can hardly be understood
>without taking into account "the rise of a black proletariat in the
>northern states". But what was going on with individuals and in the
>interactions of individuals that led some into black nationalism and some
>back into the church and the civil rights movement, and some, for that
>matter, to seek assimilation and abandon struggle. Like novelists and some
>poets, D&G seek to grasp the "devil in the details", and the
>interconnections and causalities running between the macro and the micro,
>or molecular.
>

What do I need D&G for? I can read Richard Wright. Any Marxist worth his
salt will study culture. CLR James, the Trotskyist, became good friends
with Wright, the Stalinist, since they shared a positive attitude toward
black nationalism and a love of great literature. James is a good example
of the sort of Marxism that is more than adequate to the task of explaining
movements. I recommend Scott McLemee's collection "CLR James on the Negro
Question" for some terrific insights on black nationalism from a Marxist
standpoint. James was perceptive enough to see that Marcus Garvey's
movement was not simply hatred of white people. He put the movement into
the context of the colonial revolution. CLR James is what we need, not the
word-salads of D&G.


>It's not a question of "philosophical profundity". Its a question
>of why Russian workers and peasants reacted the way they did in those
>years and not the way they did in other wars, where they also suffered, or
>in other famines where their poverty deepened and they starved, e.g., in
>the early 20s. Sure war "focuses ones awareness" as you yourself
>experienced. But then why do some volunteer with gusto and a will, and
>others turn to revolutonary activity? The answer is not one of
>"personalities" or of "social class" or some such, it's more
>differentiated and changing.

Questions like this will not be answered by Marxism. Marxism is not
economic determinism. As I tried to explain in my post on the Holocaust,
there are trends in society that can not been tied immediately to some or
another aspect of capitalism. This does not invalidate historical
materialism, it simply requires us to be *good* historical materialists.

Mass psychology--and there is such a thing--is not timed to the business
cycle or wars. There are lags in consciousness that don't seem to have a
pat explanation. For example, the student movement of the 1960s was highly
radical in a way never seen before. German college students were
ultra-nationalists, but students at elite universities such as Harvard and
Columbia, who had the same class origins, fought on the front lines against
US imperialism. There is no *pat* explanation, but there are explanations,
however, that are consistent with an adroit historical materialist approach.

The American student movement of the 1960s was very much related to the
transformation of the American universities into industrial complexes. The
revolt at Berkeley, an elite institution, was based partly on the
alienation of the average student in Clark Kerr's institution. It was also
tied to the Civil Rights struggle, which was beginning to inspire white
students. You don't need D&G to understand this. All you need is a good
understanding of Marxism and a solid understanding of American society.

>Tomatoes and tomahtoes are the same no? Domination is the
>constraint on desire. Capital (dead labor) is a constraint on the working
>class (living labor +). The argument is that you can't really even
>understand domination/constraint unless you understand the autonomous
>force (living labor, working class subjectivity, being for-itself) that is
>being constrained. Most Marxism has focused on the constraint, failed to
>focus on the force being constrained and wound up offering deficient
>explanations of domination.
>

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a bunch of graceless
jargon.

Louis Proyect