"One of the factors that is often very significant, and even decisive, in defining those broader historical circumstances are social movements. The cooperative movement in Scandinavia that gave rise to the specifically Scandinavian forms of social democracy led to stable societies where, throughout the twentieth century, fascism was never particularly popular. With no shortage of charismatic leaders there, fascism just failed to ever really take root, not counting the years of German occupation."
Here's one for historical fiction -- What if Henry Ford had decided to buy lots of Hitler's art instead of outfitting the Brownshirts???
Also re: his and the Nazi Party's rise to power is the generous support he and the Nazi party got from General Electric Corp., Standard Oil Corp., and several others. Their money armed the Brownshirts, and lifted them from common street thugs to an organized, uniformed terror. Corporate money and technology transfers (du Pont's tetraethyl lead, Standard Oil's coal to liquid fuels) kept the Luftwaffe in the air. (Charles Higham, "Trading With the Enemy") And good old Jim Crow laws on the books in the U.S. helped provide the basis for the Nazi's race laws against the Jews (James Q. Whitman, "Hitler's American Model") Without all that, Hitler would have remained a Bavarian nutjob and frustrated artist....who knows, with enough of Ford's money he may have gone to Paris for lessons and made something of himself.
And this P.S. from Veterans For Peace: has anybody factored in how the horrors of World War I fucked with a young Adolph's mind? It may not have needed much of a push, but the dehumanization he and thousands of future Nazis experienced certainly didn't make them better people.
great thoughts, all. i wrote a song about henry ford, too... and yes, the impact on the minds and politics of the people in the countries that participated in ww1 would be impossible to overstate. very much including adolf.
You make many good points, but I'd argue that the organization of workers and the use of violence are not exclusive. The use of violence you criticize here is largely *adventurist violence*, i.e. actions that are too extreme and not in the right time and place for the masses; as you correctly say, the material conditions of society compel people to either engage in violence or peaceful work.
That being said, we need not dismiss violence as a whole; as the capitalist-imperialist robbery and extermination of working people and oppressed nations intensifies, and as the reality of bourgeois "democracy" being dictatorial becomes much more obvious, people will pick up extremism and violence. Rather than dismissing violence and "substituting it" with organization, proletarian organizers will likely use both; a political organization must have the support and power of the people, and it must be able to channel the masses' violent energy *toward good purposes*. Assassinations themselves don't change modes of production, *revolutions* do; revolutions are both organized and violent, as we should all know. Organization without violence strengthens the bourgeois state by justifying its existence and rejecting proletarian power; violence without organization also strengthens the bourgeoisie, and it too justifies the bourgeois dictatorship and the rejection of proletarian power.
And despite myself being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, what I'm talking about can apply to anarchists who believe in decentralized organizing. That is still organizing, and it still requires links with the masses; this sort of organizing also rejects bourgeois power, and thus it can call for violence if conditions are right.
Insightful piece, David. This is the sort of nuance that is often missing in these discussions, and shows the importance of having experienced movement folks influencing younger radicals. Thank you.
Spot on, David! Particularly liked this bit:
"One of the factors that is often very significant, and even decisive, in defining those broader historical circumstances are social movements. The cooperative movement in Scandinavia that gave rise to the specifically Scandinavian forms of social democracy led to stable societies where, throughout the twentieth century, fascism was never particularly popular. With no shortage of charismatic leaders there, fascism just failed to ever really take root, not counting the years of German occupation."
Here's one for historical fiction -- What if Henry Ford had decided to buy lots of Hitler's art instead of outfitting the Brownshirts???
Also re: his and the Nazi Party's rise to power is the generous support he and the Nazi party got from General Electric Corp., Standard Oil Corp., and several others. Their money armed the Brownshirts, and lifted them from common street thugs to an organized, uniformed terror. Corporate money and technology transfers (du Pont's tetraethyl lead, Standard Oil's coal to liquid fuels) kept the Luftwaffe in the air. (Charles Higham, "Trading With the Enemy") And good old Jim Crow laws on the books in the U.S. helped provide the basis for the Nazi's race laws against the Jews (James Q. Whitman, "Hitler's American Model") Without all that, Hitler would have remained a Bavarian nutjob and frustrated artist....who knows, with enough of Ford's money he may have gone to Paris for lessons and made something of himself.
And this P.S. from Veterans For Peace: has anybody factored in how the horrors of World War I fucked with a young Adolph's mind? It may not have needed much of a push, but the dehumanization he and thousands of future Nazis experienced certainly didn't make them better people.
great thoughts, all. i wrote a song about henry ford, too... and yes, the impact on the minds and politics of the people in the countries that participated in ww1 would be impossible to overstate. very much including adolf.
You make many good points, but I'd argue that the organization of workers and the use of violence are not exclusive. The use of violence you criticize here is largely *adventurist violence*, i.e. actions that are too extreme and not in the right time and place for the masses; as you correctly say, the material conditions of society compel people to either engage in violence or peaceful work.
That being said, we need not dismiss violence as a whole; as the capitalist-imperialist robbery and extermination of working people and oppressed nations intensifies, and as the reality of bourgeois "democracy" being dictatorial becomes much more obvious, people will pick up extremism and violence. Rather than dismissing violence and "substituting it" with organization, proletarian organizers will likely use both; a political organization must have the support and power of the people, and it must be able to channel the masses' violent energy *toward good purposes*. Assassinations themselves don't change modes of production, *revolutions* do; revolutions are both organized and violent, as we should all know. Organization without violence strengthens the bourgeois state by justifying its existence and rejecting proletarian power; violence without organization also strengthens the bourgeoisie, and it too justifies the bourgeois dictatorship and the rejection of proletarian power.
And despite myself being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, what I'm talking about can apply to anarchists who believe in decentralized organizing. That is still organizing, and it still requires links with the masses; this sort of organizing also rejects bourgeois power, and thus it can call for violence if conditions are right.
Insightful piece, David. This is the sort of nuance that is often missing in these discussions, and shows the importance of having experienced movement folks influencing younger radicals. Thank you.
I endorse this message.
Violence puts us onto a path that is wildly uncontrollable and unpredictable.