Some reflections on ideology, Zionism, and fascism

In response to an excellent and timely piece by Richard Seymour, debunking the myth that fascism was a leftist political movement, I provided some brief thoughts of my own, when the subject turned to Zionism. I've done a little reading in this area of late, and this are my current thoughts, ever provisional:

I think there's a tendency to simplify Zionism. Zionism came in many different forms - left and right, religious and secular. The ruling ideology of Israel is probably best understood as simply violent national chauvinism, perhaps with a few Zionist features thrown in, but not strictly identifiable with Zionism.

I think also that the tendency for the lunar right to support Israel is tactical, in many cases. Paxton makes the point that if fascism were to come to the US, it would steer clear of the repugnant symbols of the fascism of old (i.e. jackboots, swastikas, etc). It makes sense that budding fascist groups would view Muslims as the enemy, and would therefore support the IDF's efforts against 'terrorism'.

...

Maybe the ruling powers in Israel have some fascist tendencies. However, when we look at the most belligerant of Israeli hawks, look at their rhetoric and, more importantly, their actions, there's little that's specifically 'Zionist' about it. They might as well be chauvinist thugs from Russia or anywhere else.
Obviously, we cannot ever accept Zionism as a legitimate solution if we are universalist and internationalist. That goes without saying. But I wonder if Zionism is to the ruling Israeli elite what German Romanticism was to the Nazis - a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition.

Human trafficking

Here is a great resource for anybody interested in the sex trade, and human trafficking.


Courtesy of Hossam.

GFC hits Ireland

Shane MacGowan forced to get teeth.


From this:



To this:




Let's remember the good old days, of lilting folk songs:




And, for your patience, for those of you of my generation, you'll remember tolerating Mr Valentine's antics in order to hear this unzud classic:

'The fashionable ideas of the left'

I've had previous occasion to disagree with Mark Richardson, self-identified 'traditional conservative'. He's at it again today in a post on racism:

There's a fashionable idea on the left that whites invented the concept of race in order to gain an unearned privilege by oppressing others. Therefore, whites are held to be uniquely guilty of preventing the emergence of human equality.

It's hard to know if Richardson is being disingenuous here, or if he's just plain ignorant. Anyway, for his enlightenment, I left him the following response:

Firstly, the notion of race did emerge in its most elaborate form in Europe. This wasn't done to obtain 'privilege' or other such nonsense, but to justify brutality at the expense of colonised peoples. It's a recurring pattern you can find in relation to England, Nazi Germany, imperialist France, fascist Italy, etc. There's overwhelming evidence that this was the case, and I am quite happy to point you to numerous references if you think otherwise.

Secondly, whilst it's quite possible to find examples of various kinds of non-white racism, there is no historical precedent for the racism exhibited by Europe toward the rest of the world. Remember, by the 19th century, pretty much the entire world (with a couple of notable exceptions) was the property of one European power or another. This might give you some idea as to why the ideologies underpinning European racism are of somewhat more interest than racism by Inuits or Khmers.

Finally, as you know full well, 'diversity' has always been evident in Australia, from the time of the Aboriginals onwards. It cannot be got rid of. What we are seeing today, albeit, in the form of limited, localised examples (Cronulla, Camden), are thick-headed would-be brownshirts trying to impinge on the rights of those they see as the enemy (typically Muslims or middle-easterners). There people, whilst on the margins, have nonetheless formed organised groups to further their cause. Can you point us to any nascent fascist groups run by Vietnamese or Somalians that are promoting racist hate, or is post yet another ugly exercise in quashing strawmen and pinning moral responsibility exclusively to minorities?

POSTSCRIPT:
Looking at the output of Richardson and his followers, 'traditional conservatives', I'm struck by the preoccupation with themes of racial and cultural purity homogeneity, the need to restore patriarchal arrangements, the reduction of relations between the sexes (and the nations) to biology, the strident opposition to both leftism and liberalism, the niggling sense of grievance and resentment, as if White Australian Males were the most oppressed group on the planet...
Let me be very clear - I'm not suggesting Mr Richardson is a fascist. But take these precise views, add the slightest hint of radicalism to them, and what you'd end up with is a creed that is formally indistinguishable from the brownshirts of old.

Tell Me Lies about Vietnam

Where else but in The Australian do we see a shameless attempt to re-fight old culture wars, and bring back to life the long-since discredited spectre of the 'domino theory'? A fellow named Colebatch has decided that the domino theory was 'largely borne out' in events in South East Asia and Eastern Europe. Colebatch avers that we cannot allow 'Western military defeat' in Afghanistan, whatever this means, as Europe, having a large minority of Muslims, would be in strife - 'jihadist elements would be encouraged everywhere.'

This is the sort of imperialist bullshit that one expects to find on the stupidest of right-wing blogs (or in The Australian). There are lies and distortions from almost the first line. Take the claim that the domino theory was demonstrated in 1975, because 'Cambodia and Laos fell as, and plainly because, Saigon fell'. Putting aside the mass carnage wrought by US forces on all three Indochinese countries in this period, (strengthening support for the Khmer Rouge in particular), Cambodia went down the revolutionary path in spite of the Communists winning the war in Vietnam. It was actually the latter who eventually liberated Cambodia in 1979. Opposition between Vietnam and Cambodia was itself sympomatic of the Sino-Soviet split, wherein Cambodia was backed by China (and armed by Western Europe and the US), whilst the Vietnamese were backed by the Soviets. Hardly an example of 'domino theory'.

This shoddy, dishonest logic is at work throughout the piece, where Colebatch makes vague and sinister claims that defeat in Afghanistan (a campaign largely concerned with aerial bombings these days) will have 'consequences' for the West, because of the latter's supposedly latent radical Muslim population. In addition to the shameless bigotry, Colebatch insists that this scenario 'puts Australia's commitment of an additional 450 troops there into perspective'.

Indeed it does, but not in the way that Colebatch thinks. Once the 'good war' to Iraq's fiasco, Afghanistan has, for a long time, been a 'quagmire', where Coalition forces have supported all manner of butchers, warlords, and (despite official rhetoric) Islamists, for reasons that were dubious in the beginning, and utterly unjustifiable now. Casuistry such as the domino theory aside, there can be no military solutions to what are longstanding political problems.

Chomsky on 2009

Here's a wide-ranging interview transcript with the indefatigable Noam Chomsky. Some highlights:

On the economy:

In fact, if you look today, it's quite striking to see the advice that the Western powers are following, the programs that they're following, and compare them to the instructions given to the third world.

So, say, take Indonesia again. Indonesia had a huge financial crisis about ten years ago, and the instructions were the standard ones: "Here is what you have to do. First, pay off your debts to us. Second, privatize, so that we can then pick up your assets on the cheap. Third, raise interest rates to slow down the economy and force the population to suffer, you know, to pay us back." Those are the regular instructions the IMF is still giving them.

What do we do? Exactly the opposite. We forget about the debt, let it explode. We reduce interest rates to zero to stimulate the economy. We pour money into the economy to get even bigger debts. We don't privatize; we nationalize, except we don't call it nationalization. We give it some other name, like "bailout" or something. It's essentially nationalization without control. So we pour money into the institutions. We lectured the third world that they must accept free trade, though we accept protectionism.

On party politics in the US:

I mean, we basically are a kind of a one-party state. I think C. Wright Mills must have pointed this out fifty years ago. It's a business party, but it has factions—Democrats and Republicans—and they're different. They have somewhat different constituencies and different policies. And if you look over the years, the population has—the majority of the population has tended to make out better under Democrats than Republicans; the very wealthy have tended to make out better under Republicans than Democrats. So they're business parties, but they're somewhat different, and the differences can have an effect. However, fundamentally, they're pretty much along the same lines.

On healthcare in the US:

I mean, for decades, the healthcare issue has been right at the top of domestic concerns, for very good reasons. The US has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs and some of the worst outcomes. It's also the only privatized system. And if you look closely, those two things are related. And the privatized system is highly inefficient: a huge amount of administration, bureaucracy, supervision, you know, all kinds of things. It's been studied pretty carefully.

On the potential for a rise in fascism:

Now, if you listen to early Nazi propaganda, you know, end of the Weimar Republic and so on, and you listen to talk radio in the United States, which I often do—it's interesting—there's a resemblance. And in both cases, you have a lot of demagogues appealing to people with real grievances.

Grievances aren't invented. I mean, for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history. It's a rich country, but real wages have stagnated or declined, working hours have shot up, benefits have gone down, and people are in real trouble and now in very real trouble after the bubbles burst. And they're angry. And they want to know, "What happened to me? You know, I'm a hard-working, white, God-fearing American. You know, how come this is happening to me?"

That's pretty much the Nazi appeal. The grievances were real. And one of the possibilities is what Rush Limbaugh tells you: "Well, it's happening to you because of those bad guys out there." OK, in the Nazi case, it was the Jews and the Bolsheviks. Here, it's the rich Democrats who run Wall Street and run the media and give everything away to illegal immigrants, and so on and so forth. It sort of peaked during the Sarah Palin period. And it's kind of interesting. It's been pointed out that of all the candidates, Sarah Palin is the only one who used the phrase "working class." She was talking to the working people. And yeah, they're the ones who are suffering. So, there are models that are not very attractive.

The Bubble

This post is largely unreferenced, though I've been reading a number of sources in recent days, including Business Spectator, and the highly recommended Bubblepedia, and these are my reflections.

Banks, property developers and governments, State and Federal, have been colluding to keep the housing market inflated. This has failed in the top end of the market, where housing prices have already dropped significantly (good news for those who need a bargain house in Toorak), but has kept the lower end of the market (often defined as reaching $400 or $500k!), dominated by first home buyers, in a bubble.

Everybody, from real estate spruikers, to government ministers, has been saying that now is the time for first home buyers to jump into the housing market, as the market has hit its 'bottom', and will only be going up.

The behaviour of these people belies their words. For instance, the government has struck an agreement with banks to guarantee mortgages for 12 months, in the instance of the borrower being unemployed. Banks themselves appear to be tightening their lending criteria. The first home buyers grant has been extended until June 2009, and lobbyists are campaigning for it to be continued, and even extended to other parts of the market.

So why are first home buyers being asked to sign themselves up for a mortgage now? The answer is greed. With all other home buyers and investors slowing down their purchasing activity, first home buyers are being asked to play the patsy for property developers and banks, perpetuating the housing bubble.

All this would be one thing if we held to the belief that housing prices will rise forever. If they continued to rise at about 8% per year, as they have, until recently, then nobody would have anything to lose. The borrower would have no negative equity, and the banks would not be exposed to any great risk in the event of a default, as the house would have risen in price anyway.

Despite the Pollyanna attitude of some industry spruikers, there are some good reasons to believe that the market will not continue to magically inflate.

For starters, the RBA has already dropped the cash rate to 3.25%, a discount which the banks are not passing on in any case. Whilst in theory, the RBA can go even lower than this, it is difficult to see the use of monetary policy if the RBA is at odds with the banks.

Secondly, the much-mooted housing shortage is, at least in part, a fabrication. Yes, there is a dire shortage of housing for those sleeping rough, or couch-surfing, or living in caravans, or on the years-long government waiting lists. These people, however, are not like to be purchasing a home in the near future, and the shortage of housing for them is not pushing up housing prices for everybody else. A recent stat in the Age's Good Weekend stated that 77$ of Australian homes have a spare bedroom. I'll believe there is a genuine housing shortage when I see shanty towns on the outskirts of Melbourne.

Unemployment rose half a per cent in March 2009, to hit 5.7%. This doesn't take into account under-employment. For years, governments have considered you 'employed' if you didn't receive benefits, or if you worked an hour a fortnight. Unemployment is tipped by many forecasters to hit around 7.5% by the end of the year. Some have said it will double from current levels. All of this will eat into demand.

The first home owner's grant is due to expire, and arguably, has not actually increased demand at all, but rather, brought it forward by placing an end-date on the handouts. Even if this waste of money is extended, it is unlikely to be able to keep house prices afloat indefinitely. Housing in Australia is among the least affordable in the world, when considered in relation to income. Virtually every developed nation has suffered massive drops in housing prices since the GFC. It is difficult to see how Australia can escape the same outcome.

In view of this, first home buyers who purchase now are exposing themselves to enormous risk, and are propping up the housing bubble at their own expense. Many of them will be among the most vulnerable to unemployment in the coming recession.

It is in the interest of banks, therefore, to pretend that the bubble cannot burst, and to keep the housing market inflated. Should you have deflation in the market, coupled with rising unemployment and defaulting borrowers, the housing market will crash even further. Banks will face severe losses, mortgage guarantee or no. This is especially so when we look at the risks some of the big banks have been taking. I read recently that about 20% of all first homeowners have a loan-to-value-ratio (or LVR) of between 95-100%. Anotyher 25% have a LVR of between 90-95%.

In short, Australian banks have been gambling, and have exposed themselves to something akin to the sub-prime fiasco in the US. (Of course, the big banks in Australia have fewer 'toxic assets', as I understand it, because they have been less inclined than their US counterparts to bundle loans into securities). If it were simply a matter of a few banks failing, most people would allow their passing to go unlamented. After all, the deregulation of the Keating era, supposed to bring greater competition, and therefore better prices and service, has failed. The punter on the street knows that if you walk into a bank and blink, you get hit with 17 different kinds of fees.

The problem is that, by now, we know how this tune goes. If banks go bust, the Australian economy will be held to ransom. Government and taxpayers will become a utility of the banks, rather than the reverse. Banks will have gambled, and lost badly, and the taxpayer will be left to foot the bill.

So whatever happens, there are no winners. Either we have the rather unlikely outcome of the housing bubble continuing, in which low-income earners are barred from ever owning a home. Alternatively, we have a crash, and the greed of banks and others will be paid for by ordinary Australians. Naturally, this is an over-simplification, and there are some other complexities, but these are the basic parameters of the current situation. And yes, the speculation on the part of banks, and the greed of develops and investors, acting as parasites on first home buyers by gamlbing on assets is part and parcel of neoliberalism.