Download sp161 - The Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons

Fascism and its class nature: A brief introduction
by MIM(Prisons)
Dimitroff wrote that fascism "is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in
relation to other nations and countries." (1) This is opposed to the civilized and professional
manner in which healthy imperialism exports finance capital and extracts profits from the
majority of the world that is proletariat and peasants. We write this both in relative terms and
tongue-in-cheek. Of course, imperialism kills millions of people, more than any other political
system to date, including fascism because of its length of existence. Yet, the day-to-day
operations of healthy imperialism pass as reasonable professional activity. Fascism, in contrast,
fools no one.
It is for this reason that the imperialists do not favor fascism under normal conditions, they do
not want their brutality and exploitation exposed bare for the world to see. To do so heightens
the class struggle.
Some influenced by the writings of J. Sakai et al. today repeat the line that fascism is a
movement of the petty bourgeoisie, or outside the contradiction of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie,
which Dimitroff attacked in his essay cited below. Sakai goes so far as to put oppressed nation
organizations at war with the imperialists in the fascist camp. This is a critical error in this line.
So if fascism is so bad for the imperialists, how can they be behind it? As Stalin said, it is forced
upon them. Specifically, the contradiction is found in the declining rate of profit that Marx
exposed as an inherent characteristic of capitalism even before imperialism was
well-developed. While imperialism expanded the means of extracting profits from the laboring
classes beyond the simple model explained in the beginning of Capital by Marx, the imperialists
are still limited by the inherent contradictions in capitalism. These contradictions include the
class struggle of the proletariat who seeks to free itself from imperialist exploitation. When profit
rates approach zero, production slows to a stop, and imperialism resorts to what Marx called
"primitive accumulation." Therefore, we expect fascism to raise its head again, probably doing
more damage than in the 1930s and 40s, as the class struggle heightens.
MIM Thought more fully developed the theses of Engels and Lenin that whole nations are
bought off by imperialist plunder. These nations' vast majority are allies of imperialism, though
not actually part of the imperialist class. This class will feel the crunch of imperialist crisis more
acutely than the imperialists themselves, as the imperialists pass the costs along to the majority
of the oppressor nations. It is for this reason that the labor aristocracy are on the streets calling
for oppression, forced exploitation, occupation and even extermination of oppressed nations,
and therefore appear as the initiators of the movement for fascism. But in the fundamental
contradiction of capitalism, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie
has always been seen by Marxism as an impotent, vacillator between the two sides. This has
not changed, but the concentration of the petty bourgeoisie as whole nations that are parasitic
on the world has increased their visibility as a class. A class that too many dogmatists still wrap
up in the proletariat camp.
Fascism is a mass movement in the First World. It is not so in the Third World. The mass
support in oppressor nations is indicative of their alliance with imperialism, not their opposition
to it.
MIM(Prisons) upholds the MIM line on fascism as defined in the congress resolutions that
follow.
We also provide an article below on the role of the imperialist country working class and petty
bourgeoisie in Nazi Germany by the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO). We
preface this article with our assessment of LLCO at this time. For more on the history of
fascism, also see MIM Theory 6: The Stalin Issue and Arms & Empire by Richard Krooth.
notes: 1.Georgi Dimitroff. Working Class Unity - Bulwark Against Fascism, 1935.
2002 MIM Congress
"Theses on fascism in 2002"
1. The victory of fascism in our times by filthy scum that rose to power in Italy and Austria, the
commemorations of Nazis and Nazi collaborators in the Baltic countries, Le Pen's run-off victory for
president in France in 2002, and the fascist surge in Belgium and Denmark demonstrates that contrary to
bourgeois propagandists, the capitalist countries did not learn any lessons against fascism during World
War II. Rather fascism arises as a sign of the decay of imperialism that the world continues to suffer
under, because capitalism as a system is incapable of learning the true lessons of peace.
The pivot for fighting fascism and anti-Semitism is grasping the global pattern and local dynamics of
parasitism. Those political leaders and movements which seek to increase imperialist country parasitism
whether from the "left" or the "right" are feeding the flames of fascism. Whether stirred from the "left" or
"right," parasitic movements give birth to ultra-nationalism as a simple answer to alleged immigration
"problems" and oppressor nation joblessness. It hardly matters what exact program stirs these fascist
forces to life, because fascist activists and supporters are not politically conscious in a detailed way in
most cases anyway. Today, those contending for parliamentary power, including fascists, are more or less
synonymous with parasitism and for this reason there is a special meaning to opposing "democracy," by
which we mean majority rule within imperialist countries. It is in "democracy" where outsiders like Le
Pen can posture their way into power only by offering more parasitism than the current elected officials
like Chirac or Jospin.
Since neither Chirac's nor Le Pen's coalition in France opposes parasitism, the question of who to side
with if anyone can only be strategic or tactical. It is not a question of ideological principle to support
either. The proletariat of France should seek advantage however it can in the struggle between Le Pen and
Chirac.
During World War II, siding against fascism automatically was part of a larger calculation of the global
balance of forces. Today, if France and much of Europe goes fascist but the United $tates does not, there
may be positive or negative impacts overall for the proletariat. Opposing fascism in the united $tates is
perhaps more urgent strategically for the international proletariat than the rise of fascism in Europe.
2. MIM approves the following resolution for release as part of Congress documents. A more detailed
analysis will appear in MIM Theory.
Imperialism has been overthrown in one country. It was not France in 1968. It was in the Soviet-occupied
zone of Germany in 1945. In the imperialist countries, it is not general strikes, large wage increases or "30
for 40" that should be studied. It is the example of the downfall of Nazi Germany that is still the most
relevant example of revolutionary history in the imperialist countries. It is a measure of the chokehold of
revisionism in the imperialist countries, that the Soviet occupation of a zone of Germany is not widely
upheld as an example of the road forward.
Although the German communists aided by the USSR during World War II set up anti-militarist and
anti-Hitler committees, anti-militarism never took hold amongst a majority of Germans and the vast
majority of the German population had to be persuaded by weapons instead of reason. Although Stalin
considered the idea that the war should slow down in order to give the German people yet another few
months to change their minds, in the end the only correct decision was to hasten the military conflict and
thereby bring an end to much genocide.
3. In the essence of U.S. Government activity outside U.$. borders, the united $tates carries out a
combination of genocide against the people and bribery of local ruling class lackeys. It is elementary that
any proletarian movement in the imperialist countries must oppose their own governments' oppression in
the Third World, not least of all because any peaceful world will require that genocide be relinquished as
a tool of "foreign policy." Today there remain a majority of elected "democratic" politicians in the
imperialist country who are too spineless or backward to say openly that those who commit genocide in
the Third World will find that the oppressed people will "kill them back." It is the duty of communist
parties in the imperialist countries to cultivate the truth that contrary to the Amerikkkans who killed
almost all the Native peoples in North America and contrary to Hitler who systematically killed many
peoples and planned to kill many more, genocide does not bring lasting peace. Even in the killing of the
most militarily defenseless victims as in the white settlers who killed Indians, the history of violence lasts
to this day to produce the likes of the Columbine tragedy, where serial killers run amok spraying bullets
everywhere--at a frequency not seen in countries without that history of genocide by gun-toting cowboys.
Today, the proletariat must be merciless to any politician who continues like the ostrich with its head in
the sand to believe that modern weapons of militarism will not spread to the victims of genocide. Quite
the contrary, the profit-system guarantees that where there is demand, there will be supply.
Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan or the West Bank, it is clear that without openly adopting fascism, the
essence of u.$. imperialism and its allies today is genocide and any tally of the victims of U.$.
imperialism will show that it has implemented much more of Hitler's genocidal plans than Hitler did.
4. For tactics of opposing fascism, it is important to cultivate the scientific non-voter, who is often
maligned by so-called "democratic" forces as "apathetic." The scientific non-voter is often conscious that
s/he has not investigated a political situation and therefore does not vote--and in this way believes he or
she is demonstrating minimal responsibility. The scientific non-voter is often disgusted by politicians who
posture for votes and bribery. In contrast with "democracy" activists who believe that the votes of
willfully ignorant but decadent people will somehow add up to social progress, the scientific non-voter is
one reason why we communists should not pander to those who want "majority rule" in the imperialist
countries. If communists do not make it clear that they believe politics requires strong scientific and
leadership efforts, the scientific non-voter is liable to turn to hard-line fascism.
As communists we should already know that there is no way to prevent a general distrust and disgust
regarding parliamentary politics. The only question is whether those disgusted with politicians posturing
for votes without standing for principles and difficult solutions will be diverted by fascists, brow-beaten
by parliamentary cretins or won over by communists. We communists are here to say that politics is like
any other area of life in that science really does matter and it is not a matter that the truth will arise
through a majority vote of those who know very well that they do not pay much attention to the subject at
hand. Majority input can only be helpful in most times in imperialist countries when the majority
recognizes that it does not put in enough effort to be worthy of deciding whether someone should live or
die in the West Bank for example. When the majority has realized clearly that only in exceptional
political turmoil do the people themselves study political and social matters closely, the majority may
decide to fall behind principled scientific leaders and support them in those areas where the majority does
have knowledge and other kinds of power.
5. [Passed as amendment] Since U.$. imperialism is enemy #1 in the world, various tactical or strategic
alliances cannot be ruled out as being contrary to proletarian interests, although each has limited
usefulness to the international proletariat. One related road of conflict will involve the European Union
(EU) in opposition to the Amerikkkan New World order, with the EU speaking as a whole. We suspect
that this would be an imperialist reform movement within the New World Order; although other forces
could also hide behind an EU conflict with the United $tates. Since overthrowing European imperialism
entirely is not on the agenda, for now, MIM is pro-EU as a matter of opposing extreme European
nationalism and old-style fascism. We point out that the New World Order can never be unified or
peaceful.
2002 MIM Congress
"Relationship between fascism in oppressor and oppressed countries"
The fight against fascism for the world's majority of people is principally advanced by the fight against
U.$. imperialism. Even though Unkle $am may not implement fascist measures against the exploiter
majority within U.$. borders, the United $tates is the main prop for fascism in the oppressed nations. The
U.$.-led New World Order holds that Amerikkkans have the right to arrest nationals of other countries,
including government leaders such as Manuel Noriega of Panama. The Amerikkkan New World Order
regularly violates the sovereignty of other nations through bombings, invasions and assassinations. In
various countries in the Third World, the United $tates arms, trains and otherwise aids fascists in power
who suspend parliaments, carry out coups and execute opponents. Within U.$. borders, the rulers
imprison the lumpenproletariat which it treats in the same way roughly speaking as the Third World. For
the majority of people within U.$. borders, U.$.-style fascism is happy to allow the candidates of their
choice to contest for seats in the Congress. It will be a measure of the success of the Third World
proletariat when Unkle $am feels compelled to suspend the currently meaningless "democratic" contests
held within the Amerikkkan majority, because it would mean that the class struggle has created a crack in
the social base of imperialism. Things such as the "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" mean
that the rulers will indeed face challenges from the Third World proletariat that may go so far as to
change economic conditions in the United $tates, some day. Likewise, I$rael may not suspend parliament
for the exploiter majority, but it certainly seeks pro-I$rael puppets amongst Palestinians and desperately
wishes for fascist puppets who would kill their own people on behalf of I$rael, to quell the intifadah.
2002 MIM Congress
"Definition of fascism"
Here MIM culls some of the defining characteristics of fascism from classic texts of the Third
International: Dimitrov's report to the 7th world congress of the COMINTERN (1) and Dutt's "Fascism
and Social Revolution."(2) Applying these principles today, we can say that even though the imperialists
have not implemented fascist measures against the exploiter majority in First World countries, the
imperialists are the principal prop of fascism in the oppressed nations. This is why MIM wages a
concerted fight against nationalist social-democracy and fascism in Europe. Both are strains of militant
parasitism; both support the status quo of oppression in the Third World.
1. Fascism is "the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most
imperialist elements of finance capital."(Dimitrov, p. 2)
2. Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution; it
"expresses the weakness of the bourgeoisie itself, afraid of the realization of a united struggle of the
working class, afraid of revolution, and no longer in a position to maintain its dictatorship over the masses
by the old means of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarianism."(Dimitrov, p. 2) "The conditions
[which give rise to fascism] are: instability of capitalist relationships; the existence of considerable
declassed social elements, the pauperization of broad strata of the urban petit-bourgeoisie and of the
intelligentsia; discontent among the rural petit-bourgeoisie, and finally, the constant menace of mass
proletarian action."(Dutt, p. 88)
3. Fascism concentrates each imperialist bloc into a single economic unit while at the same time
increasing between-bloc antagonisms and advancing towards war. (Dutt, pp. 72-73)
4. Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy (e.g. reducing the problem of parasitism to the "Jewish
Question") and anti-science obscuratinism (e.g. Dutt, pp. 54-58 or any Jerry Bruckheimer film). Fascism
hypocritically adopts Marxist critiques of capitalism, and bourgeois democracy.(Dimitrov, pp. 6-7) It does
this to "utilize the discontent of the petit-bourgeois, the intellectual, and other strata in society."(Dutt, p.
89)
5. Still, fascism may not completely dispense with bourgeois democracy--e.g. banning revolutionary
parties or even competing bourgeois parties--depending on "historical, social and economic
conditions."(Dimitrov, p. 4)
6. Both bourgeois democracy and fascism are forms of the class dictatorship of finance or comprador
capital (in imperialist and semi-colonial countries, respectively)--that is, both use organized violence to
maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the oppressed. Hence, any differentiation between bourgeois
democracy and fascism is a strategic or tactical matter--not a matter of Marxist principles.
7. The difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism is a matter of quantitative changes leading to
a qualitative change. The qualitative differences are relevant to us in terms of their effect on our policies
towards non-proletarian classes. "The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one
bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the
bourgeoisie--bourgeois democracy--by another form--open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious
mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing
the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of seizure
of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the
bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance of, for
the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present
increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries--measures which suppress the democratic
liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of
the revolutionary movement."(Dimitrov, pp. 4-5; emphasis in the original)
8. Social democrats of the Second International ilk paved the way for the fascists by closely identifying
itself with the national interests of their respective imperialists states, denying internationalism, placing
their faith in bourgeois democracy and scuttling the extra-legal struggle for state power. Hence they
earned the epithet "social fascists."
9. The COMINTERN United Front policy was based on its assessment that "[f]ascism is the most
viscious enemy of the working class and working people, who constitute nine-tenths of the people in [the]
fascist [and proto-fascist] countries."(p. 12) Furthermore, the working class in these countries constituted
a unified proletariat. Fascism was eroding the material basis for differences between communist and
social-democratic workers.(E.g. Dimitrov, pp. 24-34)
10. The labor aristocracy is majority in the imperialist countries and not proletarian. The fact that the
imperialist allow the labor aristocracy bourgeois democracy is an example of the alliance between these
two classes and consistent with the following observation from Dutt: "Fascism strives to establish
political and organizational unity among all the governing classes of capitalist society (the bankers, the
big industrialists and the agrarians), and to establish their undivided, open and consistent
dictatorship."(Dutt, p 89; emphasis added)
Notes:
1. George Dimitrov, Against Fascism and War, New York: International Publishers, 1986.
2. R Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution, New York: International Publishers, 1934.
Osama Bin Laden and the Concept of "Theocratic Fascism"
Osama Bin Laden or his followers are not just scaring the wits out of the bourgeoisified people of the
imperialist countries. He and his followers are also winning the praise of Third World peoples. At this
particular point in history, it is a given that the imperialists are going to demonize someone in the
Mideast. We have to ask ourselves why it is that an Arab, African or Iranian Maoist leader did not obtain
this honor now given to Osama Bin Laden.
A bourgeois research organization found that the peoples of Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and the
Palestinian Authority regard Osama Bin Laden as one of three leaders they most trust to "do the right
thing."(1)
The people of Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%) also view Osama Bin Laden as more peaceful than the
united $tates.(2) It goes to show that attacks on U.$. interests will be supported by the Third World
masses and even the foreign policy bourgeoisie of u.$. imperialism knows it. It's an important lesson to
take a materialist approach to the masses and ask them who they trust more, their Maoist leaders or the
u.$. imperialists.
A motley crew of counterrevolutionaries, labor bureaucrats and centrists calling themselves
"Marxist-Leninist" are responsible for Islamic militants' outflanking the communists in the minds of the
exploited of many Third World countries. We have two choices in this matter: 1) we can believe the
Islamic scriptural hocus-pocus and that it is somehow God's will. 2) we can realize that communists in
many Middle East and Third World countries surrendered nationalist credentials in the Third World the
way a Mao or even a Ho Chi Minh never allowed. The Islamic movement is becoming the preferred
expression of the struggle against imperialist super-exploitation in many countries while the
"Marxist-Leninists" and "Maoists" lose the battle to represent the super-exploited, by their failure to
concretely expose super-exploitation and target the super-exploiting enemies.
Obvious sell-outs
The bourgeois press made it no secret that after September 11 2001, the CIA landed in Afghanistan with
paper bags full of money to buy off political leaders.(3) This sort of thing has gone on throughout the
Mideast and even many of the most stupid and reactionary pseudo-Marxists ranging from Trotskyists to
neo-Hoxhaites have figured out that much along with the fact that NGOs (non- governmental
organizations) are playing a similar role throughout the Third World.
Along these lines the Iraqi "Communist Party" volunteered to serve in George Bush's occupation regime
in Iraq. It's important to understand that this goes against not just "MIM Thought," but also the universal
teachings of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This is so obvious that it is almost not worth mentioning.
Clandestine sell-outs
In addition to the obvious, in-daylight sellouts in the Middle East, there are also clandestine sell-outs.
Like the Liberals in the Iraqi CP and the CP=U$A that supports it, there are many in the Middle East and
other places who have decided that attacking "theocratic fascism" takes higher priority than attacking u.$.
imperialist interests.
No doubt Russia and China have their cynical geo-political interests involved in enticing u.$. imperialism
into becoming the world's two-fisted liberal against Islam. Those thrilled with this idea should see their
new allies. One is Christopher Hitchens(4) denouncing "theocratic fascism." The other is the practically
John Birch society rag "Front Page Magazine"(4) which has called for a Congressional investigation of
MIM. Hitchens is hawking his credentials as a journalist in favor of a war crimes trial for Henry Kissinger
et. al. regarding Vietnam while simultaneously talking up G.W. Bush. Even worse, J. Sakai is calling
September 11 2001 the work of "Pan-islamic fascism pressing home their war."(5) Since none of these
Liberals ever claimed to buy into Lenin's theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism
dominated by finance capital, we cannot say we are surprised. They are all entitled to define fascism in
whatever useless way that they want.
The real problem comes when a similar approach comes out of many "communists" with an half-assed
reading of Dimitrov and Stalin, because Stalin targeted the fascist imperialists "first" during World War
II. Many Third World wannabe compradors with a Liberal streak adopt Marxist-Leninist or even Maoist
camouflage while claiming to target "theocratic fascism" "first." What they did not read in the definition
of fascism used by Dimitrov and Stalin is that fascism is a strategy of "finance-capital." In other words,
fascism stems from imperialism, not some local tradition of Islam or the like, which is really just
obtaining its strength from taking up the nationalism of the oppressed nations. There are no imperialist
countries in the Middle East except for I$rael. None have reached the stage of having the banking
organization that coordinates global business, so fascists in the Middle East are only there as puppets of
u.$. imperialism.
The pseudo-anti-fascist struggle by Third World Liberals is clandestine in two aspects. First, Liberals are
hiding in many parts of the world inside communist parties, because full-blown consistent Western
Liberalism has no chance, no electoral popularity in many Third World, Middle East and ex-Soviet bloc
localities. It's the opposite in the majority-exploiter countries where liberalism is mainstream, so that the
accusation usually runs the other way around--that communists might be adopting liberal camouflage in
the majority-exploiter countries.
Secondly, the Third World Liberals are clandestine in hiding their line of attacking local reactionaries
through alliance with the government agencies of imperialism. What these Liberals masquerading as
communists have done is hijack the proletarian banner for a bourgeois-democratic pipedream. They have
no idea why even for as large a country as China, Mao said, socialism is the "only way out." The
clandestine Liberals hope no one notices that they are working with George W. Bush's state apparatus.
Between the open sell-outs like the Iraqi "CP" and the clandestine sell-outs who are really just two- fisted
Liberals seeking like-minded support in the united $tates, "Marxism-Leninism" and even Mao's image
have been dimmed.
Confusion-spreading sell-outs
Another road to selling the struggle short and making Osama Bin Laden look like a giant is the "tail wags
the dog thesis" that I$rael calls the shots in Russia and the united $tates-- e.g. the line of the Syrian
"Communist Party." In reality, this line reflects the political flabbiness of the Middle Eastern bourgeoisie.
Rather than admit that the united $tates is the root of national oppression in the Middle East, the
bourgeoisie attempts to pin everything on I$rael with its handful of millions of exploiters instead of the
united $tates with its over 200 million exploiters. The absolutely shameful thing is that this goes on
among those calling themselves "Marxist-Leninist" even as U.$. troops stand in Iraq.
Connected to this approach of downsizing the enemy to be more manageable is the line that "we are a
small country. We cannot take on u.$. imperialism. I$rael is about all we can handle!" The truth is this
shows a lack of global perspective, something even the bourgeois internationalists such as Clinton and
Bush Sr. have more of than most of the Arab bourgeoisie. Even nutcase Donald Rumsfeld knows that he's
stretched thin globally so he has ordered a third of the troops out of Korea. For that matter, even Osama
Bin Laden thinks more globally than some of our spineless "communists" and comprador bourgeoisie.
Osama Bin Laden organized in several Arab and non-Arab countries. So it is not true that a small country
ever has to worry about taking on all of u.$. imperialism for starters. Iraq is showing how to take on the
bulk of the u.$. armed forces as we speak.
Politically subtle sell-outs
Should the oppressed of the Middle East decide to bolt from all the sorry excuses regarding an oppressive
reality, there is one last hurdle before getting on the road to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist liberation. The
centrists stand at the door.
Although there is a MIM saying that the imperialist countries owe huge reparations and have populations
of hundreds of millions of exploiters, the centrists say there are 10% or 50 or 60 million enemies in the
imperialist countries. They echo the CP=U$A on the class structure almost precisely. The centrists
assuage the flabby Arab bourgeoisie by telling them tall tales about Amerikan workers about to flip over
to the Arab side any day, thereby justifying the Arab bourgeoisie's focus on the Jews.
The centrists are also there dampening the struggle for reparations, again counseling that Arabs not offend
Amerikan workers too much. When it comes to Western exploiters operating in their countries, the
centrists are there with a bleeding heart for Amerikans they call "exploited," in the oil, food transport and
military contractor businesses.
The centrists of the imperialist countries combine with Third World leaders to present a social-imperialist
future, one complete with aspiring social-imperialist leaders and aspiring social- imperialist compradors.
Together they are arranging a new neo-colonialist deal for the future, because it is always easier to
re-engineer a deal for division of surplus-value than to take down imperialism and all its attendant
exploitation.
All of this must be combated without subtlety. 1) Westerners in the Middle East are exploiters. MIM calls
on them to read the writing on the wall and leave. 2) A demand for reparations must go forward to bring
out the global proletariat to target the real source of its problems. 3) The comrades in the West must do
whatever else they can to make sure that the comrades in the Middle East do not find themselves
outflanked in representing the super-exploited masses of the plundered countries.
Islam vs. Maoism
In reality, Islam has no record of success relative to Maoism. That's both in terms of kicking out
oppressors and speed of social progress. If we purge the rot from our Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement
and adhere to its universal principles we will get back on course and earn the proper enmity of the
imperialists.
The Iranian theocrats denounce "Great Satan," the united $tates all the time, but these leaders were not
able to stop the Iran-Iraq war that bled oppressed and exploited people for the benefit of u.$. imperialism.
Of course, Saddam Hussein deserves much of the blame for that war serving U.$. imperialism. On the
other hand, the only principle that can unite the Arab and Iranian people against u.$. imperialism is a
secular one, and the Iranian side is more to blame in that question. The religious sects unable to build an
alliance against u.$. imperialism because of their supposed religious divisions (but in reality their
subordinated class positions) only prove that they are in league with "Great Satan."
MIM is clear that fascism is the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most
imperialist elements of finance capital. Finance capital is a crucial part of this definition; this means that it
is impossible to have fascism without imperialism. The imperialists export fascism to many Third World
countries via puppet governments. And imperialist countries can turn to fascism themselves. But it is
important to note that there is no third choice for independent fascism in the world: they are either
imperialist or imperialist-puppets. Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan had all reached the banking stage of
capitalism and had a real basis for thinking they could take over colonies from the British and French.
The vast majority of the world's fascist-ruled countries have been U.$. puppets. None would survive
without u.$. backing--whether El Salvador or apartheid South Africa. Today possible exceptions would be
Russia and China. They could go fascist and claim to have reached the finance-capital stage of capitalism;
although in China we would probably see some debate the point by saying that China is too dependent on
the united $tates to be counted as independently social-fascist. Even white-ruled South Africa was a
candidate for fascism but fell out.
The notion that Iraq or Osama Bin Laden could go fascist misses that they were both u.$. puppets.
Saddam Hussein proved to have no independent imperialist basis. As far as we know about Osama Bin
Laden, he also cannot operate banks globally in the manner of imperialist finance-capital. Today Saddam
Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are both independent. They may have aspired to fascism, but they are in
fact not fascists, because they are neither imperialists nor their stooges. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein are simply unscientific competitors on our turf.
Khruschev/Gorbachev appeal to the West
The battle against fascism globally has two scientific components: 1) for the leaders; 2) for the masses.
The communist scientific leaders must know the root causes of economic development, as specifically
stemming from the labor theory of value. Labor occurs along with poverty thanks to exploitation. The
same can be said of entire countries. There is no positive record of independent fascist economic
development.
The uninformed intellectuals of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s reacted badly against social-fascist
Brezhnevism and actually believed Gorbachev Liberalism was going to bring economic progress. The
root error was a misunderstanding of the political economy of economic development. In the ex-Soviet
bloc, China and the whole developing world, we must win the battle for the intellectuals on questions of
economic development. They must understand that there is no tool better than Marxism for understanding
economic development. Key to that Marxist understanding is labor appropriation and its connection to the
distribution of wealth in the world. Genocide and slavery started it and super-profits sustain the great
Amerikan economic miracle. It is not the case that "free markets" and "democracy" bring prosperity. It is
now 2004, 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the notion that the ex-Soviet people were going
to leap into Bloomingdale's by taking up free-market capitalism is achieving the same skeptical embrace
that intellectuals gave Brezhnevism.
Among the masses, we must be even more concrete than in the questions of surplus-value, labor
appropriation and uneven economic development. Among the masses of the ex-Soviet bloc, China and the
whole developing world, we must unleash their enthusiasm for proletarian internationalism by giving
detailed demands for reparations their due. This must be done before revolution in order to unleash the
full revolutionary potential of the exploited masses who will otherwise fall for Amerikan consumer
propaganda.
The fascists excel often by copying Leninism and adding nationalism. There is no reason to let
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism take a backseat to fascism or Islamic nationalism or any mystical competitor
in the oppressed nations or ex-Soviet bloc. Many of these competitors will crowd into our turf of standing
up for the oppressed nations, but none will have Marx's insight into economic injustice. No matter what
"spiritual" tradition they are from, they won't be able to recognize economic injustice when they see
it--not compared with Marxism.
What is more--no imperialist country fascist is going to back the demand for reparations--and this will
give the international communist movement a leg up over fascism. So we MIM communists say it again:
we don't want to hear about any Third World comrades letting fascists or Islamic nationalists get the
upper hand in nationalist credentials! Our Third World comrades can point to us. The fascist comrades in
imperialist countries will make it evident what self-defeating projects Hitler-type fascism and
Limonov-style national bolshevism are. They have no real prospects of cooperation.
In this battle for the hearts of the exploited and oppressed, we must not repeat errors that communists
have already made. Lenin broke with all the parasitic European social-democracy when he formed the
Third International.
When Khruschev came to power, the socialist bloc had unprecedented power. It had only to stay united
on the road of Lenin and Stalin to keep moving forward. Yet at that very moment of communism's
greatest political power, Khruschev chose to orient himself toward the Western labor aristocracies by
abandoning the Third World armed struggles. Information about this continues to seep out into the public.
Khruschev's splittest activities very much pleased much of the Liberal rot accumulating in Western
"communist" parties. According to Gromyko--no blazing Stalin supporter himself--Khruschev gave birth
to "Eurocommunism"--the watered down "communism" which a good chunk of the labor aristocracy
adhered to in Western Europe.(6)
From Khruschev to Gorbachev and the very end of the Soviet Union, each step rightward came with the
justification by the Soviet Politburo that it would make the European "communist" parties more popular.
Indeed, Gorbachev openly courted U.$. public opinion so successfully that 74% of the U.S. public gave
him the highest possible rating during the coup(7) that marked the turning point ending Gorbachev's rule
in 1991. (When Reagan retired his approval rating was said to be 68%. It hit a high point of 73% after an
assassination attempt and during the latter stages of his senility. (7)) The truth is that abandoning Stalin
and socialism was in fact popular with the Western "communist" parties and u.$. public opinion.
It's important not to repeat Khruschev's history. Had Khruschev written off the entire Western "working"
class, the worst that could have happened is that the West would have threatened the Soviet Union with
nuclear annihilation--and had more backing from the Western "workers" than usual. Yet, the Soviet
Union could have handed back an amazing punishment as well, a punishment that even our labor
aristocracy would understand. Instead of catering to Yugoslavia and Western European public opinion,
Khruschev should have taken advantage of his military position to neutralize those while turning up the
heat by staying on Stalin's road for the Third World. Chasing after Western labor aristocracy popularity,
Khruschev broke with Mao, perhaps the single greatest crime against the international communist
movement from within.
Khruschev became known for his speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. The speech attacked Stalin and consolidated Mao's proletarian internationalist duty to break away
from the Soviet Union. Today, Gorbachev and Yeltsin are called "children of the 20th Congress;"(8)
though there continue to be those calling themselves "communist" too dense, pig-headed or accustomed
to bribery to admit it or understand its implications.
When Gorbachev made his final moves to destroy the Soviet Union, he had the assistance of a right-hand
man accused of Trotskyism during the Stalin era--Yegor Ligachev.(9) Only after it was too late did
Ligachev admit he was wrong in supporting Gorbachev. Trotsky, Khruschev and Gorbachev are
connected together in history for their condemnation of Stalin and contributions to the dissolution of the
Soviet Union.
It is only fitting that Ligachev was there for the demise, because it was grandpa of labor aristocracy-based
revisionism Trotsky who had excoriated Stalin for not making the Soviet Union more appealing to the
Western workers. From the days of Trotsky's delaying negotiations with Germany on peace in World War
I (despite Lenin's insistence contrary) till his death, Trotsky always had an unrealistic sense of how much
Western European workers could help the Soviet Revolution. Here is what he said about the treaty with
the Germans: "It was necessary to give the European workers time to absorb properly the very fact of the
Soviet revolution, including its policy of peace."(10) That's his explanation for why he delayed making
peace with the Germans despite orders from Lenin. Trotsky wanted to wait for the Western workers as
usual. That's exactly the same substance of what Khruschev and Gorbachev were to say later.
The CIA itself has noted that in the end the Soviet leaders did manage to move public opinion in the
West: "Polls in Europe showed that Gorbachev's popularity exceeded that of any Western leader of the
20th century. Time chose him Man of the Decade, and he received the Nobel Peace Prize for 1990--a
token of the West's gratitude for his helping to end the Cold War. Critical assessments in the media and
the scholarly journals were rare."(11) Bush Sr. had to answer the following question: "Q. Mr. President,
despite your recent success at the NATO summit, Mr. Gorbachev seems to enjoy far greater popularity in
Western Europe than you do. Why do you think that is, and what can you do about it?"
Bush answered, "You know something? I don't really care about that. I'm not interested in that. I am
delighted that he enjoys popularity in Europe."(12) Hence, it cannot be questioned that the USSR had
effective tactics to change Western public opinion, but their tactics added up to a strategy of alliance with
the labor aristocracy of the imperialist countries, so the entire goal of the struggle was lost. It's a case
where political line should have said that the strategy is wrong and therefore the tactics effective but still
not desirable for the international proletariat. The tactics worked; the strategy was left somewhat
shrouded to those of cloudy politics, but the line was impermissible. That is evident to anyone who had
hoped the Soviet Union would go down the socialist road. Khruschev and Gorbachev did succeed in
producing a big change in Western exploiter opinion and the result was state-capitalism followed by open
free market capitalism.
Now what we have is this: Gorbachev won higher approval ratings from the Amerikan public than
Reagan did and Osama Bin Laden has higher ratings in the Third World than any Soviet leader including
Khruschev and after. What good did that do? This whole result proves that socialism does not win with
pragmatism. It's a profound lesson, that yes, tactically it is possible to maneuver a formerly socialist state
into popularity with the Western labor aristocracy; however, the game is not worth the candle.
Notes:
1. http://www.iht.com/articles/98482.html
2.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030618-060033-9862r
3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61461-2002Nov15?language=printer
4.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2870
Hitchens is all over the Internet with
the phrase "theocratic fascism," e.g., http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020415&s=hitchens
5.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/fascism/shock.html
6. "USTINOV: It's not a secret that
the westerners never loved us. But Khrushchev gave them such arguments, such material, that we have
been discredited for many years.
"GROMYKO: Basically thanks to him the so-called 'Eurocommunism' was born."
http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=616
7. http://www.worldandischool.com/public/1991/november/school-resource19556.asp ;
A discussion of
Reagan's ratings and how they became dramatically better with the labor aristocracy by bombing Libya is
here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html
Gorbachev's approval ratings were higher than Reagan's and Bush's, even moreso then than in retrospect.
8. http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1987.html ;
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_14/b3827024_mz005.htm ;
There are 26 Google
entries mentioning Gorbachev and his like as "children of the 20th Congress" in which Khruschev
denounced Stalin.
9. Yegor Ligachev, Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin: The Memoirs of Yegor Ligachev (Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1990), p. 10.
10. Trotsky, My Life http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-lif/ch32.htm
11. CIA, 1999, http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19335/art-1.html
12. Bush presidential library, http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1989/89070601.html
The labor aristocracy is the main force for fascism
(Passed unanimously.)
"The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by
another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois
democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this
distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of
the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the
fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself.
But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of
fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in
bourgeois-democratic countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working
people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary
movement."
So there is a qualitative difference says Dimitrov.
"Fascism is not a form of state power 'standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,'
as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured
the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power
standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance
capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself."
This is correct because fascism can only occur in imperialist countries. It is not correct if Dimitrov meant
to deny the agency and independent interests of the labor aristocracy. The labor aristocracy in the
oppressed nations is pro-Liberal in its outlook and seeks to grow by hooking a ride with the Western
imperialists with cushy jobs in multinational corporations. The labor aristocracy in the declining
imperialist countries heads inevitably to fascism to provoke a change in imperialist treatment of migrant
workers.
Third World dictators can only be fascist as puppets. There is no genuine Third World fascism question,
because there is no dominance of finance capital.
So we can say finance capital dominates the system, the petri dish in which fascism grows. Middle classes
cannot accomplish authentic fascism in the Third World.
It is only the finance-capital dominated petri dish where fascism grows. Today, the labor aristocracy of
ONLY the imperialist countries is the "main force" of fascism, as Mao said the peasants were the "main
force" of proletarian revolution guided by proletarian thought in China through the CCP.
The thought of finance capital guides fascism and the labor aristocracy as a wing of parasitism. It was
never finance capital marching in the streets for fascism. It was once deluded proletarians and labor
aristocracy. Today, fascism has a relative handful of deluded proletarian followers in the Third World
who want to be imperialist puppets and who have never succeeded in liberating a country. However, the
real social force for fascism in this world is First World labor aristocracy and it deserves even more focus
than the Third World puppets doing imperialist bidding.
Another resolution:
Fascism imposed by an oppressor nation on another oppressor nation is possible even if both are
majority-exploiter.
Review: Monkey Smashes Heaven 1 & 2
by MIM(Prisons) March 2012
Monkey Smashes Heaven 1 & 2
Leading Light Communist Organization
MIM(Prisons) has six cardinal principles, all of which we believe the Leading Light Communist
Organization (LLCO) upholds to the degree that we consider them fraternal. As such, we distribute some
of their better work, which is likely why you are reading this review. LLCO is one of very few who work
within the legacy of the MIM to a significant degree.
This is our first review of the Leading Light Communist Organization by that name, but the theoretical
journal Monkey Smashes Heaven predates the LLCO. We reviewed them in 2009 in Maoism Around Us
and addressed them later that year in What is sectarianism?
The latter article criticized MSH's nihilist approach to the struggles that comrades from the Maoist
Internationalist Party - Amerika went through in their last days. Unfortunately, their sectarianism has only
increased since forming LLCO. In their 10 criteria set forth in the beginning of MSH 1 for who they
consider to be a communist, the number one point is you must uphold their ideology called
"Maoism-Third Worldism", now "Leading Light Communism." This amounts to saying, "we see you as
fraternal if you think exactly like us." Cardinal principles should be a handful of the most important issues
of the day that define the communist movement. The expectation that the only correct political
organizations are those that share identical ideologies leads quickly to the Trotskyist requirement that
revolution must be led by a single global organization imposing its will on all countries.
As we addressed already in "Maoism Around Us", we do not recognize an advancement of revolutionary
science beyond Maoism as MSH claims Leading Light Communism is. After reviewing MSH 1 and MSH
2, MIM(Prisons) still fails to see the unique contributions that MSH/LLCO claim to have made to
constitute a new stage of revolutionary science. They state this repeatedly in their journals, without
explaining what exactly distinguishes Leading Light Communism from Maoism.
The one partial explanation they do provide on p. 51 of MSH 1 is that they were the first to scientifically
explain that there "is no significant revolutionary class or socioeconomic group in the First World." MIM
was the first to put together a lot of the theories on the labor aristocracy into a coherent class analysis of
the First World. Yet even they acknowledged that the main points were not new to Lenin, and even
Engels had talked about the buying off of whole nations. LLCO has written some interesting new articles
on the subject, but has not advanced the theoretical concepts in any way. Where LLCO disagrees with
MIM is on the question of internal semi-colonies being potentially revolutionary in the First World. The
buying off of internal semi-colonies was most thoroughly addressed in MIM's "On the Internal Class
Structure of the Internal Semi-Colonies" and recognized as early as 1992 in MIM Theory 1. We have yet
to see LLCO address this issue in any detail. We have yet to see them explain the revolutionary
nationalism of just a couple generations ago and why it could not happen again, or even surpass previous
experiences. They simply dismiss the possibility with no analysis or explanation.
While opportunistically presenting as the heir apparent to MIM on Wikipedia, they almost never cite
MIM or use MIM language except to criticize MIM. In reading the first two print editions of their journal
LLCO takes similar approaches to the theoretical contributions of Marx, Lenin and Mao. This takes their
sectarianism to another level of knocking down all of their predecessors as inadequate in the face of their
supposedly advanced analysis.
Finally, their sectarian thinking leads to a cultish approach to organizing, rather than teaching people how
to think and solve problems. While always being sure to hype LLCO as the most advanced, they rarely
explain why. It is the job of the vanguard to raise the scientific understanding of others through struggle,
not to simply encourage them to follow the leading light.
We won't list all the things we agree with in the first two issues of MSH here. The articles from MSH that
we choose to distribute in our own study packs can speak for themselves in how correct they are. We
generally agree with the content of those articles except for the points above, and we distribute them
because they add new insight into the topics of study.
Hitler’s Beneficiaries (2005) by Gotz Aly
Jun 7, 2011
Hitler’s Beneficiaries (2005) by Gotz Aly reviewed by Prairie Fire
(llco.org)
Gotz Aly’s book Hitler’s Beneficiaries (2005) is a groundbreaking book. Aly breaks with the dogmatic
view held by many myth-makers on the “left” that the German working class despised Hitler’s tyranny. It
dispenses with the shared mythology found among almost all First Worldists, be they Trotskyist or
Marxist-Leninist or whatever. Aly thoroughly shows that Hitler’s regime did not survive at the expense of
German working class, but because of it. Hitler’s regime was able to stay in power, even when it was
losing the war, because it was popular among ordinary Germans:
“Precisely because so many Germans did in fact benefit from Nazi Germany’s campaigns of plunder, only
marginal resistance arose. Content as most Germans were, there was little chance for a domestic
movement that would have halted Nazi crimes. This new perspective on the Nazi regime as a kind of
racist-totalitarian welfare state allows us to understand the connection between the Nazi policies of racial
genocide and the countless, seemingly benign family anecdotes about how a generation of German
citizens ‘got through’ World War II.” (2)
Aly explains how the fascist regime’s imperial conquests were used to elevate the standard of living of
ordinary Germans. This made the regime quite popular and dulled any resistance to its policies, including
its radical racist policies. Nazi policy makers were very aware of the connection between imperial
conquest, expropriation of the wealth of oppressed peoples, and domestic social peace. So much were
they aware of this connection that they often sought to micro-manage every aspect of the plunder and
exploitation of the conquered lands in order to assure continued German popular support. Aly’s book is
important for those seeking to understand the relationship between the First World and Third World
today. Just as the average German reaped benefits from German conquests, so too do First World workers
reap huge benefits from the imperialist world system. Just as the Nazi regime designed a system to
expropriate the wealth of oppressed peoples and other countries to benefit the German population, so too
do policy makers today in the First World seek to benefit the populations of the First World at the
expense of the Third World. The book is an important one for those seeking to understand how class
structure changes due to imperialism.
Popular, Young and Radical
The word “Nazi” gets thrown around to mean all kinds of things. It is almost always associated with
brutal, unpopular dictatorship. Though the Nazi regime was a brutal and unpopular dictatorship toward
those that it oppressed, most Germans did not perceive it that way. Most Germans were not on the
receiving end of its jackboot. According to Aly:
“The Third Reich was not a dictatorship maintained by force. Indeed, the Nazi leadership developed an
almost fearful preoccupation with the mood of the populace, which they monitored carefully, devoting
considerable energy and resources toward fulfilling consumer desires, even to the detriment of the
country’s rearmament program.” (25)
Aly paints another picture of the regime, at least as it was experienced by Germans. Hitler’s regime was
very popular, radical, and young. It was not perceived as representing the old, stale, conservative order. It
was seen as very new and different. The Nazi revolution was seen as exciting. It was a revolution for and
by the young. For example:
“When Hitler came to power in 1933, Joseph Goebbels was thirty-five years old. Reinhard Heydrich was
twenty-eight; Albert Speer, twenty-seven; Adolf Eichmann, twenty-six; Josef Mengele, twenty-one; and
Heinrich Himmler and Hans Frank, both thirty-two. Hermann Göring, one of the eldest among the party
leadership, had just celebrated his fortieth birthday.” (13-14)
Later, during World War 2, according to one survey, the average age of mid-level party leaders was 34,
and within the government 44. (14) Nazi leaders were some of the youngest in the world. Germans in
their 20s and 30s were deciding major state policies. The Nazi young were shaping the world. They were
deciding the fates of peoples and nations. Most Germans did not see the regime as oppressive and stogy,
they saw the regime as redesigning a young and brave new world:
“For most young Germans, National Socialism did not mean dictatorship, censorship, and repression; it
meant freedom and adventure.” (14)
Even during the war, the regime was popular:
“The German leadership created and maintained a kind of wartime socialism aimed at attracting the
loyalty of ordinary citizens.” (53)
The regime was not dominated by conservative pessimism, but by youthful optimism about overcoming
the old divisions between Germans. The regime saw the traditional divisions and inequality between
Germans as a big part of the problems that faced the nation. The youthful spirit of the regime meant that it
was more likely to take on ambitious social programs to overcome these divisions. The regime put a
premium on unity and social peace, at least among Germans. This peace was more often than not bought
at the expense of other peoples. Even though the Nazi ideology preached inequality between the races, it
placed great importance on equality among Germans. This was the “socialist” aspect of “National
Socialism.” Although, in reality, there was nothing truly socialist about the Nazi regime. There is no such
thing as “National Socialism,” the only true socialism is internationalist. Real socialism does not merely
represent the interests of a single nation’s workers. Real socialism represents the interests of the
proletariat, which is the international revolutionary class. Socialism and communism should not be
confused with nationalism.
Debt, Taxation, Aryanization
As the Nazi regime began its rearmament program, it borrowed extensively. As the regime rearmed, and
even as it went to war, it sought to shift the burden away from ordinary Germans. The regime sought to
keep the social peace. During World War 1, between 1914 and 1918, the average German’s standard of
living fell almost 65 percent. The Third Reich did not want a repeat of this situation as they planned for
World War 2. (35) In 1939, one Nazi law stipulated: “Previous standards of living and peacetime income
levels are to be taken into account when calculating degrees of family support for members of the
Wehrmacht.” (69) The Nazi regime sought a “socially just sharing of the burden” in the years leading up
to the war and after. (38) The regime accomplished this in many ways. For example, the Nazis regime’s
taxation policies were redesigned to lift the burden from the ordinary German. (55) The Nazi hierarchy
rejected tax policies that would alienate their popular support. (50) The Nazis implemented progressive
taxation designed to create popular support. One Nazi report was happy of the successes in 1943: “People
meet their financial obligations, mortgages are paid off, and court-ordered repossessions are on the
decline.” (58) Tax breaks were especially extended to farmers and subsidies were extended (55) At the
same time, the Nazis increase the tax burden on the wealthy. “The trend toward soaking businesses and
the wealthy gained further momentum in the fiscal year 1942-43.” (62) Hitler also increased the burden
on those who made “effortless income” through investments in the stock market. (65) Industrialists
complained that the Nazi regime was siphoning off 80 to 90 percent of business profits in 1943. Even
though this figure is an exaggeration, it gives a sense about the Nazi’s orientation to keep the social peace
at home. (68)
In addition, the Nazis kept the social peace by increasing welfare and state benefits. They voted for an
increase in social programs and in pension payments, especially for small-time pensioners. They called
for “blue- and white-collar workers to be put on equal footing” to give them a preliminary taste of the
harmonious future to come. This future would be achieved by “generous reform of the social welfare state
in the interest of working people.” Over and over, the more ideological wing of the regime often
intervened against the more pragmatic wing. Social peace and social benefits often won out over fiscal
responsibility. Despite budget problems, people like Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, Heinrich Himmler,
and Food and Agricultural Minister Herbert Backe intervened for ordinary Germans. Hitler was able to
stay aloof from the debate. (57)
As it rearmed, made war, and sought to keep the social peace, the regime went into massive debt so much
so that it faced eventual financial collapse. The Nazis borrowed from domestic and foreign sources.
Eventually, they would strong-arm occupied countries into “loaning” the regime large sums. The Nazis
had no intention of paying these sums back and entered them as revenue in their books. (266) The Nazis
used whatever financial tricks were available to hide the true extent of their borrowing. In 1938, Göring
stated, “I know no other way to keep my Four Year Plan and the German economy going.” (45) The
borrowing reached a point where the only solution to keeping the German economy afloat was to
cannibalize the Jewish population and, eventually other peoples. The cannibalization of Jewish assets was
referred to as “Aryanization.” Aly writes:
“Forced to come up with ever more creative ways of refinancing the national debt, they turned their
attention to property owned by German Jews, which was soon confiscated and added to the so-called
Volksvermogen, or collective assets, which by no means restricted to German society, implied the
possibility of dispossessing those considered ‘alien’ (Volksfremden) or ‘hostile’ (Volksfeinden) to the
ethnic mainstream.” (41)
Aly writes:
“[The state] distributed material goods that improved the popular mood. The political leadership
unambiguously directed civil servants ‘to act, in light of their special responsibility toward all the people,
with corresponding understanding of the concerns and needs of family members of front-line soldiers.’”
(70)
Aryanization was the transfer of Jewish assets into the hands of the regime and into the hands of ordinary
Germans. (41) The regime sought the “definitive removal of Jews from economic life” and “transforming
Jewish wealth in Germany into assets that will deny [the Jews] any economic influence.” (44)
“Aryanization was essentially a gigantic, tans-European trafficking operation in stolen goods. It may have
taken different forms in different countries, but the ultimate destination of the revenues generated was
always the German war chest. These funds enabled the Reich to defray its main financial burdens.” (184)
Aryanization took various forms from outright plunder of assets and terror against Jewish people to legal
and quasi-legal measures. Banks and other financial institutions helped the process. “The bank directors
were not the ones doing the actual plundering here, but they acted as accessories, helping maximize the
efficiency of the dispossession campaign.” (50) Often, the transfer was thinly disguised. For example, the
regime forced Jews to surrender their assets for government stocks and bonds. On paper, the Jews were
compensated. (43) Göring stated:
“The Jew is being driven from the economy and is surrendering his economic assets to the state. In return
he is being compensated. His compensation is noted in the ledger sheet and accrues a certain amount of
interest. That is what he has to live on.” (45)
In the end, the population would be driven into exile and liquidated in the Holocaust, never redeeming
their property. For example, in 1938, Jewish liquid assets, according to one calculation, which excluded
real-estate and business assets, totaled 4.8 billion reichsmarks which could be confiscated by the
Reich. The process was repeated again and again. This helped keep the state solvent. The state also took
preemptive measures when Jews sought to flee or transfer assets out of Germany. In 1938, the state
issued an edict that the proceeds of the expulsion of Jews go directly to the Reich. Jewish goods were
sold at cheap prices to the public, while at the same time financing the regime’s war-chest and social
democratic policies. (43-47) Librarian Gertrud Seydelmann recalled the auctions of Aryanized goods in
Hamburg’s working-class districts:
“Ordinary housewives suddenly wore fur coats, traded coffee and jewelry, and had imported antique
furniture and rugs from Holland and France… Some of our regular readers were always telling me to go
down to the harbor if I wanted to get hold of rugs, carpets, furniture, jewelry, and furs. It was property
stolen from Dutch Jews who, as I learned after the war, had been taken away to the death camps…” (130)
Aly writes:
“The Reich and its citizens also benefited from the increased availability of capital, real estate, and goods
ranging from precious stones and jewels all the way down to the cheap wares sold at flea markets. The
dispossession of the Jews also stabilized the economies and calmed the political atmosphere in occupied
countries, greatly simplifying the task of the Wehrmacht. Goods sold off at less than their actual worth
provided an indirect subsidy to both German and foreign buyers.” (248)
The regime sought to justify the plunder of Jewish assets with their racist, but also social democratic,
ideology. Those who pushed for social democratic reform were also those who pushed the most genocidal
policies. The two were linked. (57) In 1938, Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick stated:
“Assets currently in Jewish hands are to be regarded as the property of the German people. Any
destruction of or decrease in their value means a decrease in the collective assets of the German people.”
(45-46)
Selling off of Jewish goods also slowed down inflation, associated with the war. It also eased the tax
burdens on ordinary Germans, yet more benefits accrued from plunder. (186) The Aryanization of assets
helped keep the economy afloat, increased the luxuries available to the German population, and helped
keep government benefits flowing. The policies were popular with ordinary German tax payers. The
Aryanization of Germany would later become the model for a more ambitious Aryanization throughout
occupied Europe. (46-48)
War, Occupation, Plunder
Even during the height of the war, Germans were, generally, satisfied with their lot. Just as the Nazis
cannibalized Jewish assets in order to increase social peace, they also transferred value from those
countries they occupied to Germany. Aly writes:
“[O]nce the Nazi state undertook what became the most expensive war in world history, the majority of
Germans bore virtually none of the costs. Hitler shielded the average Aryan from that burden at the cost
of depriving others of their basic subsistence.” (9)
“The Nazi regime required the constant military destabilization of the periphery in order to maintain the
illusion of financial stability at the center of the Reich.” (40)
The regime designed elaborate methods to offset war costs and also to keep value flowing from the
occupied countries to Germany in order to keep Germans happy. One way that they accomplished this
was by requiring occupied countries to pay for their own occupation.
“Over the course of World War II, Germany mandated unprecedented contributions, along with
compulsory loans and population-based ‘quotas,’ on the defeated countries of Europe. These financial
tributes soon exceeded the total peacetime budgets of the countries in question, usually by more than 100
percent and in the second half of the war by more than 200 percent.” (77)
“By 1943 the majority of the Reich’s additional war-related revenues came from abroad, from foreign
slave laborers in Germany, and from the dispossession of Jews as ‘enemies of the state.’ These sources of
income underwrote a significant portion of Germany’s military efforts.” (79)
These occupation costs were used to exact more and more tribute from the defeated. For example, the
French complained that the tribute paid to Germany for occupation costs was being used for things that
had nothing to do with occupation. (78) In Greece, plundering wiped out “some 40 percent of real Greek
income” in 1941. (248) This was part of a larger process of shifting the burdens of the war away from
Germans onto other peoples.
Another way that the Germans offset their costs and plundered occupied peoples was through
requisitioning materials needed on the spot from occupied peoples. Germans introduced Reich Credit
Bank certificates, a kind of promissory note for services and goods used by the occupation forces. These
were used so that the military did not have to forcibly confiscate goods. The certificates gave the plunder
the appearance of legality, an air of legitimacy. The introduction of certificates was the introduction of a
second currency:
“German bayonets forced the defeated enemy to accept ultimately worthless pieces of paper as a de facto
equivalent of their own currency. The damage to the French economy was scarcely noticeable at first,
while the German economy earned a tidy profit.” (88)
This was repeated elsewhere in occupied areas. This second currency made the short term transfer of
value easier, but it also had the side-effect of destabilizing the local currencies of occupied peoples. This
made long-term transfer of value more difficult because the introduction of a second currency controlled
by the Germans wrecked the economies of the occupied peoples. The introduction of the certificates
helped streamline the short-term plunder of occupied peoples. Later, in 1943, these certificates were
withdrawn to stabilize the franc in France. (87) This was part of an ongoing conflict between policy
makers. Some sought to transfer as much value back to Germany as immediately as possible to offset war
costs and keep Germans happy. Others recognized that there would be a bigger pay off to Germans if the
economies of occupied countries were kept stable. More value could be siphoned off to Germany in the
long term.
Plunder was also carried on through other financial manipulations that benefited Germans at the expense
of occupied peoples. The Nazi occupation forces disguised their plunder of the occupied peoples through
currency manipulations that favored Germans. The Germans consciously manipulated currency exchange
rates in their favor. Currency manipulation benefited both the German economy and soldiers in the
occupied countries. Germany relied on the importation of raw materials to maintain its war effort and
domestic production. Currency manipulation made the purchase and export of materials to Germany
cheaper. It gave German soldiers in the occupied areas more purchasing power to buy more goods for
themselves and allowed them to send more to Germany. Manipulating foreign currencies both kept
German consumers well supplied and it added to Germany’s war-chest. (76-81)
Plunder in Hand and Mail
German soldiers emptied the shelves of occupied countries. They plundered and stole. However, they also
paid for goods that were radically undervalued. German policy was designed to crash the economies of
the occupied countries to aid in value transfer to Germany. An intended effect of this was to increase the
purchasing power of German soldiers. The goods they acquired were consumed by soldiers themselves or
sent back home to Germany through military packages. Also soldiers carried goods back with them when
they could. Many Germans look back fondly of the abundance of foreign luxuries made possible by the
war. Germans who received goods from the occupied lands “boasted and bragged.” Aly quotes a German
who lived through the period:
“I remember a number of nice things.. that friends and relatives would proudly unpack from parcels
received from ‘abroad’… People had more respect for the sender and compared him favorably with those
who hadn’t sent anything back.” (97)
Laws were changed to encourage the smooth flow of value to Germany. Deputy Finance Minister
Reinhardt intervened to settled complaints on Germany’s northern and eastern borders. He invoked a
decree by Hitler: “It is the Fuhrer’s will that as many foodstuffs as possible be brought back home from
the occupied eastern territories and that customs authorities take a hands-off approach.” (106) Also, the
customs border between Germany and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Monrovia was abolished. This
prompted a “purchasing frenzy” among German soldiers. One official wrote, “the luggage nets of the
express trains are packed to the roof with heavy suitcases, bulky packages, and stuffed bags.” Everyone,
even those of high rank, were packaging their luggage with “the most extraordinary consumer goods –
furs, watches, medicines, shoes – in nearly unimaginable quantities.” (97) One historian describes what
the French called “potato beetles”:
“Loaded with heavy packages, German soldiers departed from the Gare de l’Est for home leave. They had
been acquired in countless petty transactions, but they did significant damage to the French national
economy, playing a significant role in the development of the black market and inflation. They were the
reason it was increasingly difficult for everyday French people to procure the basic necessities.” (98)
In 1942, when debate arose over the failure to enforce customs policies, Göring intervened, “Mr.
Reinhardt, desist with your customs checks. I’m, no longer interested in them… I’d rather have unlimited
amounts of goods smuggled in than have customs duties paid on nothing at all.” The Nazi elite intervened
against the bureaucracy and in favor of the ordinary German. Thus ordinary Germans benefited in a very
direct and tangible way from the occupation of defeated peoples.
Conflicts again arose between those bent on helping the ordinary Germany by the immediate plunder and
those with a more long-term approach. In these debates, Göring stated:
“It has been said that we need to restrict soldiers’ access to their pay, or it will cause inflation in France.
But inflation is what I want to see more than anything else… The franc should be worth nothing more
than a sheet of a certain type of paper used for a specific purpose. That will hit France exactly the way we
want to hit France.” (105)
Throughout the war and occupations, debates arose within the regime about how best to transfer value out
of the defeated and occupied countries. Bureaucrats weighed the pluses and minuses of short-term and
long-term strategies. However, throughout, the Nazis were very aware to design occupation policies to
benefit the German state, but also to benefit the ordinary German and keep the social peace.
Slavery
An estimated 8 to 12 million slave laborers, mostly from Eastern Europe, worked for the Nazi regime.
They worked under dangerous and inhuman conditions, often in the German arms industry. In the most
infamous cases, especially in the East, German and German-backed enterprises and organizations
“worked to death [their forced laborers] in conditions of virtual slavery.” (161) Even capitalists
complained on occasion. For example, conditions were so bad for forced laborers that sometimes German
companies protested their treatment. For example, in East Prussia, German companies complained that
Polish workers were being so brutally exploited that there was no incentive to work. They complained to
the Nazi regime that the system was so brutal that it was hindering the ability to produce. Sometimes
these workers received a nominal “pay” that was 15 to 40 percent lower than the average German pay.
They “paid” the workers as part of public relations to shield themselves from criticism. However, the
reality is that the authorities invented a number of schemes to cheat their workers and confiscate this
“pay.” For example, when Germans occupied northern Italy, in September 1943, they put more than half a
million POWs to work in the Reich as forced laborers. “Pay” was deposited into an account supposedly
set up for the workers’ families to be able to withdraw the funds. However, the pay never made it back to
the families of the forced laborers. Rather, the funds were secretly converted into German treasury bonds
to pay for external occupation costs. (156-161)
The Germans stole the possessions of forced laborers. For example, when forced laborers were
conscripted in the Ukraine, “Possessions left behind as well as any cash” were handed over and sold.
“Animal inventory (horses, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, geese, etc.) as well as hay, straw, and field crops”
were offered up for sale to the economics command of the local Wehrmacht division. The money from
the sale of the assets of forced laborers eventually made their way to the German treasury. In theory, these
funds would be transferred back to their owners at a later date. The reality is the funds only made their
way into German accounts. This pattern was repeated over and over. The plunder, exploitation and
taxation of German forced laborers ended up benefiting the German populace. It gave the cash-strapped
German welfare programs a boost. (163-164)
Fat Germans and the Starving East
The Nazis also enacted policies of total plunder, designed to both aid Germans and to destroy enemy
populations. In 1941, Göring issued a statement,“As a general principle for occupied territories, only
those who work for us should be assured of receiving the food they need.” He advocated “ruthless
conservation measures” to ensure the flow of food to Germany. Some of the first to be affected by these
policies were Soviet POWs. Goebbels noted: “The catastrophic starvation there exceeds all description.”
In Riga, German soldiers discussed their “assignment to let Russian POWs starve and freeze to death.”
By, February 2, 1942, 2 million of the 3.3 million Red Army prisoners, 60 percent, had died in the hands
of the German camps or in transit. (174-175)
The policy of starving Soviet POWs and Jews was also applied to Soviet cities. Göring addressed an
audience in 1942, telling them that “we are feeding our entire army from the occupied territories.” He
went on to announce that food rations would be increased and there would be a “special allocation” for
Christmas. Göring proclaimed: “From this day on things will continue to get better since we now possess
huge stretches of fertile land. There are stocks of eggs, butter, and flour there that you cannot even
imagine.” He also announced that there would be an “opening up of space in the East” that would allow
for a return of “near-peacetime conditions.” He promised that the war would be fought to “successful
conclusion without major privations.” One report stated that “Göring spoke to the heart and stomach.”
(175) Aly shows some representative statistics showing how much food was transferred:
[figures omitted]
In 1942, one official wrote that his job was to relieve “the home front as much as possible from the need
to send supplies.” All that was left over that “the Wehrmacht couldn’t find a use for” was to be sent back
to Germany.
“Huge amounts of wheat, sunflower seeds, sunflower oil, and eggs are being transported for distribution
to the Reich. If, as my wife wrote me, the few weeks of food production should see the successful
delivery of sunflower oil, I can say with pride that I was directly involved in the operation.” (178-179)
In 1942, extra food sent back from the front was directed especially toward Germans engaged in hard
physical labor, pregnant women, and Aryan senior citizens. Ordinary German citizens also benefited.
Their access to food and purchasing power increased as a result of the plundering of food. One German
recalled after the war, “During the war we didn’t go hungry. Back then everything worked. It was only
after the war that things turned bad.” (178-179)
German National “Socialism”
Nazis sought to advance the interests of Germans by creating a great German-centered empire. This
vision was linked to the subjugation of other peoples, including the genocide of the Jews and Eastern
peoples. Other countries were to be subdued, their populations made to work for the benefit of Germans.
Eastern peoples would be enslaved and exterminated, so their land could be settled. Hitler once compared
his Eastern ambitions with the genocidal Western expansion of the United States in North America. This
vision aimed at German social peace, at elevating the standard of living of ordinary Germans. Aly writes:
“The constant Nazi talk of needing more space and colonies, of Germany’s place on the world stage and
eastward expansion, as well as of the imperative of ‘de-Jewification,’ was aimed at hastening a rise in the
German standard of living, which the domestic economy alone could never have supported.” (317)
Himmler, in his capacity as Reich commissioner for settlement projects, stated:
“The territories in question have been conquered by armed campaigns as part of a war waged by all
Germans [so that] the fruits of this victory may benefit the entire German people.” (306)
Reducing class differences was a big part of the plan to settle Germans in Eastern Europe. (30-31)
Reducing divisions and social peace among Germans were a big part of Nazi ideology. Hitler
promised equality to all members of the Volk. During the war, every member of the Volk was to be
provided for. In 1940, an observer from the Social Democratic Party reported that in Berlin: “The
working classes thoroughly welcome the fact that ‘the better off’ have, in practical terms, ceased to be
that.” Rationing policies during the war strove for equality among Germans. (322)
Elevating ordinary Germans was a big part of Nazi policy. Their loyalty was secured through progressive
taxation policies designed to lift the burden from working and lower-strata Germans. Their loyalty was
bought by increasing their wages, purchasing power, and access to consumer goods. Nazi policies sought
to increase the benefits to ordinary German workers. They sought to expand privileges once reserved for
the upper classes to the lower classes. For example, the Berlin regional warden of the German Labor
Front was very energetic in his promotion of benefits to labor:
“In 1938 we want to devote ourselves more and more to reaching all those comrades who still think that
vacation travel isn’t something for blue-collar workers. This persistent misconception must finally be
overcome.” (21)
In 1943, at the height of the war, Nazis were fixated on keeping Germans happy. Martin Bormann stated:
“The spending power of the broad masses is what’s important!” (57) Nazi policy did much to shift the
burden off of ordinary Germans to the conquered peoples, but also to the upper classes in Germany:
“From the fall of 1941 onward, the political leadership blocked all proposals by finance experts to levy
supplementary wartime taxes on the wages and everyday consumer spending of average Germans. They
had no such scruples about taxing the upper classes.” (312)
All of these popular measures combined in National “Socialism.” The Nazi regime kept Germans well
fed. It turned genocide and the conquest of other peoples into a gold rush. Ordinary Germans willingly
participated. “[C] oncern for the welfare of Germans was the decisive motivation behind policies of
terrorizing, enslaving, and exterminating enemy groups.” (309) Aly holds that it was the Nazi appeal to
the stomach more than ideological pronouncements about the “master race” that kept the German
population loyal. “The Nazi regime profited from the basic satisfaction of ordinary Germans, regardless
of whether they felt a sense of attachment to or… distance from the party ideology.” (311) Because the
regime sought to advance the interests of ordinary Germans, real resistance to the regime “from below”
never materialized. Aly dismisses the myth-making that has surrounded a German supposed “resistance”
to Hitler.
“Germans were kept passive and generally content by a lavish social welfare system that was paid for by
these riches. The improvement in the public mood that came with increases in people’s material
welfare…” (304)
“Nothing less than massive popular greed made it possible for the regime to tame the majority of
Germans with a combination of low taxes, ample supplies of consumer goods, and targeted acts of terror
against social outsiders. The best strategy in the eyes of the public-opinion-conscious Nazi leadership was
to keep all Germans happy.” (324)
“Later, when the fighting was over, the fateful collaboration of millions of Germans vanished, as if by
magic, to be replaced by a wildly exaggerated — and historically insignificant — record of resistance to
Hitler.” (319)
This lack of resistance was also reflected in the size of the Gestapo:
“[T]he Gestapo in 1937 had just over 7,000 employees, including bureaucrats and secretarial staff.
Together with a far smaller force of police, they sufficed to keep tabs on more than 60 million people.
Most Germans simply did not need to be subjected to surveillance or detention.” (29)
The parallels today are obvious. Just as Hitler elevated the German population on the backs of the
defeated peoples, First World peoples live on the backs of the Third World peoples. Just as people waited
in vain for a German worker’s revolution against Hitler, they wait in vain for First World worker’s
revolution. The Nazis were not defeated internally, the Nazis were defeated externally, by the Red Army.
German workers did not opposed the Nazi regime because they benefited from it. They willingly joined in
the cannibalization of other peoples. Today, First World peoples as a whole join with their own rulers
against the peoples of the Third World. We are in the middle of yet another world war, a war by the First
World against the Third World.This war only benefits the First World at the expense of the Third World.
Just as Hitler was defeated by the Red Army, so too must the First World be defeated by a global people’s
war led by Leading Light Communists.
Metaphysics versus Materialism
Karl Marx famously critiqued the idea that history should be explained as a series of great men. Instead of
looking at history as the result of great men or cabals of great men, Marx looked at history scientifically.
Marx looked at the world through the lenses of power. Marx traced historic and social phenomena back to
power systems of classes, nations, and genders. Marx called this historical materialism. Aly applies
historical materialism to the question of how Nazism could have happened.
“So complex an answer to the question of how Nazism could have happened does not lend itself to mere
antifascist sloganeering or didacticism of museum exhibits. It is necessary to focus on the socialist aspect
of National Socialism, if only as a way of advancing beyond the usual projections of blame onto specific
individuals and groups — most often the delusional, possibly insane Fuhrer but also the cabal of racist
ideologues or the members of a particular class, like bankers and business tycoons, or certain Wehrmacht
generals or the elite killing units. The chief problem with such approaches is they all suggest that a special
group of evil ‘others’ bears culpability for Nazi crimes.” (8)
Aly extends our understanding of the relationship between fascism and social democracy. Aly’s book
develops the analysis of the Comintern in the 1930s. Whether Aly is aware of it or not, Aly stands in the
tradition of Marxists like Rajani Palme Dutt and the theories of “social fascism.” Aly casts aside “leftist”
dogma. Rather Nazism is explained by ruthlessly looking at its material origin. The Nazis represented an
alignment of social forces, which included German workers. German workers supported the Nazis. The
Nazis returned the favor. In many ways, the Nazi’s politics was very similar to their social democratic
opponents. It was Lenin who criticized the German and French social democrats when they supported the
war efforts of their imperialist homelands in World War 1. The revisionists placed their own peoples,
their own workers, ahead of the global proletariat by doing so. Lenin, by contrast, advocated the policy of
revolutionary defeatism. Lenin sought the defeat of the Czarist empire in the hope that a defeat for his
imperialist homeland could lead to a revolutionary situation. Contrary to Lenin, the revisionists of the
Second International were the social imperialists and social fascists of their day. They were socialist in
name, but in reality, they were imperialists. Even the Nazis’ official party name was the “National
Socialist German Workers’ Party.” Today, First Worldism is the main form of social imperialism and
social fascism. Like the Nazis in World War 2 and the social democrats of World War 1, First Worldists
may use Marxist and socialist rhetoric, they may even claim to care about the Third World, but, in reality,
they seek to advance the interests of their populations at the expense of the vast majority of humanity.
First Worldism raises the red flag to oppose the red flag. Like Lenin before, Leading Light Communism
represents the interests of the proletariat and oppressed as a whole. Just as Lenin made the break with the
kind of narrow, unimaginative, dogmatic thinking of his day, so does every real revolutionary scientist, so
too does Leading Light Communism.
The First Worldist outlook is not based on scientific analysis, it is based on dogma. Aly helps demonstrate
the bankruptcy of First Worldist chauvinism and the vulgar “workerism” that simply assumes that
everyone who makes a wage or receives a salary has a common interest in socialism. Such “workerism”
makes the assumption that all employees have a common class interest and can be aligned for socialism.
To maintain that all of those who are employed, both in the First World and Third World, are part of the
same class is pure metaphysics. The entire twentieth century has shown us that this is simply not the case.
The reason that “communism” is considered dead today is that people can easily see that the rhetoric of
those claiming to be “communist” does not correspond with reality at all. Even radical Islam, and its jihad
against the West, draws the lines of friends and enemies more accurately than First Worldist so-called
Marxism. By contrast, Leading Light Communism looks at the real world. Leading Lights look at the
actual historical record; Leading Lights look at the actual way social forces align, not how we imagine
them to align. Leading Light Communism has brought science back to communism. The Leading Lights
have elevated revolutionary science to a whole new stage. Aly’s book is a powerful weapon in the
struggle against dipshitism posing as Marxism.
Source
Aly, Gotz. Hitler’s Beneficiaries. Holt Paperbacks, USA: 2005