10 maj

Uvodna Reč – Stvar 8

Tekst je objavljen u 8. broju Časopisa Stvar                                                          

English version below

UVODNA REČ

Mnogi analitičari su u proteklih nekoliko godina došli do zaključka da je ekonomska kriza, koja je postala najočiglednija 2008. godine, rezultirala ojačanjem pokreta i partija koji se mogu označiti kao „ekstremno/radikalno desničarski“, „neofašistički“ ili „postfašistički“. Primeri su bili mnogobrojni i odnosili su se na celu Evropu, od britanskog UKIPA-a do Kotlebine Narodne partije, od francuskog Nacionalnog fronta do Andresa Breivika i mađarskog Jobbika. Sa aspekta leve teorije, simultanost intenziviranja ekonomske krize i rast pomenutih političkih organizacija nije bila slučajna. U tom segmentu, mnogim teoretičarima je bilo samorazumljivo da se napravi paralela između strukturalne krize kapitalizma & nastanka fašističkih/nacističkih pokreta u prvom delu 20. veka i današnjih tendencija, kao da se istorija ponavlja. Ipak, postavlja se pitanje ne treba li naglašavati i suštinske razlike između njih. Nisu li se raniji, polufeudalni ili poluaristokratski kapitalizmi u mnogome razlikovali od savremenog, kasnog kapitalizma? Ne razlikuje li se današnja politička konstelacija u velikoj meri od one epohe u kojoj je klasični radnički pokret (i njegovo navodno otelovljenje u Sovjetskom savezu) predstavljao neprijatelja br. 1? Nadalje, nema li značajnih razlika između nekadašnjeg antisemitizma i današnje islamofobije? Zadatak levih teorija je da pruže otpor isuviše jednostavnim analizama.

Stvar broj 8 

U srpskoj javnosti se učvrstilo jedno uverenje, zasnovano na crno-beloj slici sveta, prema kojem  ili podržavaš antifašizam ili, ako možda slučajno kritički propituješ antifašizam, podržavaš anti-antifašizam, odnosno fašizam. U toj noći gde su sve krave crne i bele možeš biti ili antifašista ili fašista, nijansi nema, a mišljenja još manje. Naravno, kada se polazi od ovako krajnje uprošćenog uverenja, etiketa fašiste ili antifašiste postaje komično promenljiva i sveopšte primenjiva – tako klize etikete i optužbe za fašizam se jedne strane crno-belog sveta na drugu, pa čas liberali i levičari optužuju svaku desničarsku politiku i ideologiju za fašističku, čas se desničari sami imenuju antifašistima i zahtevaju rehabilitaciju četničkih „antifašističkih“ vođa, čas se svako huliganstvo, navijaštvo ili bilo kakvo neprijateljsko ponašanje imenuje fašističkim, a čas i neke levičarske grupe koje ne smatraju da se moraju prepoznavati primarno kao antifašističke – lako postaju označeni fašistima! Uzgred, među uglavnom olako i nekritički upotrebljene označitelje se mogu uvrstiti „radikalizam“ i „ekstremizam“, koji vrlo često služe samo stigmatizaciji onome što se ne uklapa u dovoljnoj meri u mainstream ideologeme. Svim ovime ne samo da se relativizuje i obesmišljava pojam fašizma, već se zanemaruju i analitična teorijska propitivanja fašizma i tendencija fašizacije…

Dominantna kritika fašizma – ne samo u Srbiji – i dalje je ideološki oblikovana kao liberalna, a to drugim rečima znači da se glavne karakteristike fašizma svode na totalitarizam, nacionalizam, rasizam, kolektivizam, etatizam i slične izme. Pojavni izmi fašizma nisu međutim isto što i njegovi povesni uzroci i strukturalne determinacije. Ako bi se liberalna kritika usudila da duboko uđe u ove uzroke na istom mestu našla bi ne samo fašizam nego i samu sebe, odnosno građanski liberalizam. Kada se, međutim, na ovaj način kritikuje liberalna kritika fašizma, onda se čuje da se time „promoviše“ neka vrsta anti-antifašizma, kao da se hoće reći da je liberalizam jedini ideološki subjekt koji nosi zastavu antifašizma, i da je svaka kritika upućena takvoj ideološkoj poziciji istovremeno i obaranje antifašističke zastave. Slične floskule poput „anti-antifašizma“ u stvari su namerene da zamute ionako mutnu vodu, prikrivajući pojmovnu zbrku, a možda i neeksplicirane (političke) ciljeve. Jer ako je reč o tome da se u jednostavnoj logičkoj operaciji poništivanja duple negacije tzv. „anti-anti-fašizam“ lako svede na „fašizam“ onda nismo daleko odmakli ni u istraživanju uzroka i dinamike fašizma, a ni u antifašističkoj borbi. Međutim, osnovno pitanje ovde nije samo hegemonija liberalne ideologije i buržoaske forme mentis u tumačenju društvenih procesa, nego i to koliko sama levica, u svojoj pojmovnoj konfuziji, zamoru i dezorijentisanosti, ne uspeva da se oslobodi dogmi svog „protivnika“. Osnovno je pitanje, dakle, koliko liberalizam, u ovoj ili onoj formi, i dalje oblikuje pojmovni horizont levice. A pitanje fašizma možda je najpogodniji teren da levica pokaže koliko ume da čita istoriju, trenutnu društvenu stvarnosti, te da u njoj interveniše.

Jedan od signala mrtvouzice u koju upada leva misao, a još više levi aktivizam, jeste iskazana nesposobnost da se oblici fašizma tumače u terminima klase i klasne borbe. Pa onda iz perspektive koja ne vidi i ne razume klasnu dinamiku i kategorija kao „narod“ se može pojaviti kao čisto etno-nacionalistička, retrogradna, konzervativna, skoro na korak od fašizma (pritom nije jasno kako poricanje „naroda“ kao takvog može objasniti šta je to „narodno“ u narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi). Možda bi povodom toga valjalo preraditi Horkhajmerovo toliko puta ponovljeno geslo i reći: ko ne govori o klasi treba da ćuti i o narodu. Upravo primer antifašističke borbe jugoslovenskih naroda pokazuje da je antifašizam istovremeno i borba za drugačije društvo, radničku demokratiju i emancipaciju – dakle borba obespravljenih i eksploatisanih koja polaže nade u one koji pate, kako bi to rekao Marks.

U tom smislu, i istorijski revizonizam, za koji nam aktuelni događaji daju brojne primere, ne treba redukovati samo na Drugi svetski rat ili bližu prošlost. Osnovno pitanje u pokušaju rehabilitacije bilo koje ličnosti ili događaja jeste koje interese i društvene aktere u sadašnjem trenutku zastupa takva rehabilitacija i kako se ona smešta unutar klasne borbe. „Otkrivanje istorijskih istina“ i „ispravljanje istorijskih nepravdi“ je danas u Srbiji deo ideološke borbe u kojoj je cilj da se socijalna i radnička prava još više ponište, vladajuća klasa stabilizuje, kapitalizam još jače ukoreni, a politika privatizacije nastavi nesmetano i agresivnije. Ono što bi možda trebalo prvo revidirati jeste sam pojam istorijskog revizionizma tako da se on sagleda kao deo jedne globalne antiemancipatorske, antidemokratske i antiplebejske prakse, kojom ne samo da se interesi prošlosti žele zastupati u sadašnjosti, nego se i „jednim potezom“ želi eliminisati čitava revolucionarna tradicija, počevši sa 1798. pa do 1917. i 1944, te tako kriminalizovati i jakobinizam i boljševizam, i razne narodne revolucije kao „isto zlo“. Na taj način, zastupanje interesa prošlosti u sadašnjosti radi na tome da se sadašnjost nikad ne otvori ka budućnosti. Naš je zadatak da pružimo otpor i idemo u suprotnom smeru.

Iz svih ovih razloga, ovim brojem smo pokušali da damo nove impulse u razumevanju fašizma i njegovog kompleksnog ali suštinskog odnosa sa kapitalizmom. U samom naslovu ovog temata sadržana je ideja da fašizam nema samo jedan oblik, a pogotovo da se on ne može svesti na istorijsku pojavu fašizma koja je vladala u Evropi od 20-tih godina prošlog veka pa do kraja Drugog svetskog rata. Redukovanje fašizma na taj jedan oblik ne samo da je povesno netačno, nego – što je još bitnije – umanjuje mogućnost da primetimo nove fašistoidne opasnosti koje vrebaju ovde i sada. Ono što ostaje kao veliko i otvoreno pitanje jeste kako ćemo zvati te nove oblike fašizma i u kojoj vezi oni stoje sa istorijskim naci-fašizmom. Možemo reći da je 9. maja 1945. (po moskovskom vremenu) pobeđen jedan fašizam, ali nisu nadvladane sve one objektivne istorijske determinacije koje rađaju fašizam u raznim njegovim oblicima. Stoga, kada se istog tog 9. maja (po briselskom vremenu) slavi i dan Evrope, trebalo bi podsetiti da temelji na kojima počiva današnja Evropska unija, neoliberalni kapitalizam i tehnokratski birokratizam, jesu i temelji preteće fašizacije društava, dovodeći nas u situaciju u kojoj moramo prvo znati i umeti prepoznati nove oblike takvih antidemokratskih i antisocijalnih tendencija.

Kolektiv

 

FOREWORD     

In the past few years many analysts have come to the conclusion that the economic crisis that became most apparent in 2008, resulted in the strengthening of parties that could be classified as „extreme/far-right“, „neofascist“ or „postfascist“. There were many examples and all of them concerned Europe, from the British UKIP to Kotleba’s People’s Party, from the French National Front to Andreas Breivik and the Hungarian Jobbik. From the standpoint of leftist theory, the simultaneous intensification of the economic crisis and the rise of these political organizations was not a coincidence. In this context, many theorists thought it obvious to draw a parallel between the structural crisis of capitalism and the appearance of fascist/nationalist movements in the first part of the 20th century and the contemporary tendencies, as if history repeated itself. However, one must raise the question of whether one should also point out the essential differences between these two phenomena. Aren’t the earlier, semi-feudal or semi-aristocratic capitalisms different in many respects from the contemporary late capitalism? Isn’t our modern political landscape very different from the time when the classical worker’s movement (and its alleged embodiment in the Soviet Union) was presented as the No. 1 enemy? Furthermore, aren’t the earlier anti-Semitisms and modern islamophobia different kinds of phenomena? The task of Leftist theory is to resist such simplified analyses.

       In the Serbian public, there is a deep-seated belief based on a black-and-white view of the world, according to which you either support anti-fascism, or, in case you perhaps wish to critically think anti-fascism, you support anti-anti-fascism, meaning – fascism. In the night in which all cows are black or white, you can either be an anti-fascist or a fascist, there are no shades of grey, and even less critical thought. Of course, this simplified approach makes the labels „fascist“ or „anti-fascist“ comically fluid and universally applicable. The labels and accusations of being a „fascist“ flow from one side of the black-and-white world to the other. On the one hand, liberals and leftists accuse any right-wing politics or ideology as fascist, and on the other, right-wingers label themselves as anti-fascist while demanding for the rehabilitation of Chetnik „anti-fascist“ leaders. In a single stroke, every hooliganism, sporting-fandom or antagonism becomes „fascist“, and other leftist groups that do not want to  advocate „anti-fascism“ as their first goal become labelled as „fascist“. By the way, some other simple and non-critical labels which also appear are „radicalism“ or „extremism“, and often serve to stigmatize everything that cannot be appropriated into the mainstream ideology. All of this does not only relativize and banalize the concept of „fascism“, but it also ignores the analytical and theoretical examinations of fascism and fascist tendencies.

The dominant critique of fascism – not only in Serbia – is ideologically still liberal, which means that the main characteristics of fascism become reduced to totalitarianism, nationalism, racism, collectivism, etatism and similar -isms. The apparent –isms of fascism however are not the same thing as its historical conditions and structural determinations. If liberal critique dared to dig deeper into these causes it would find not only fascism, but also itself in the form of bourgeois liberalism. At the same time, such a critique of liberal critique of fascism is often seen as a „promotion“ of some form of anti-anti-fascism, as if liberalism were the only ideological subject that carries the flag of anti-fascism, and that consequently any critique of such a position signifies the burning of this flag. Labels such as „anti-anti-fascism“ are in fact an attempt to muddle the water, to conceal the conceptual mess and perhaps even non-explicated (political) goals. If the goal is to reduce the so called „anti-anti-fascism“ to „fascism“ in a movement of a simple logical double negation, then we haven’t made any progress in the examination of causes and dynamics of neither fascism nor of anti-fascist struggle. The main question here is not only the hegemony of liberal ideology and bourgeois forma mentis in the interpretation of social phenomena, but also the fact that the Left itself, through such conceptual confusion, fatigue and lack of focus, cannot liberate itself from the dogmas of its „adversary“. Consequently, the main question is to what degree liberalism, in one way or another, still shapes the conceptual horizon of the Left. The question of fascism is perhaps the best way to reveal how carefully can the Left read history, contemporary social reality and how can it intervene in it.

One of signs of the Left's tendency to reach a dead-end in its theoretical struggle and even more in its activism is the incapacity to interpret fascism in terms of class and class-struggle. From the perspective that ignores or misunderstands class dynamics, the category of the „people“ can appear as merely ethno-nationalist, retrograde, conservative or even just a step from fascism (while it is not clear how the denunciation of the „people“ as such explains what is “people” in People’s Liberation Struggle). One would perhaps have to paraphrase Horkheimer’s often repeated motto and say: whoever does not talk of class, should keep silent about the people. Precisely the example of Yugoslavian people's anti-fascism struggle shows that anti-fascism is at the same a struggle for a different society, for worker's democracy and emancipation – therefore, a struggle of those who are exploited and without rights and that places its hopes in those who suffer, as Marx put it.

In this sense, the historical revisionism that is numerously exemplified by the actual events should not be reduced only to the Second World War or the recent past. The main question in the attempt to rehabilitate any person or event, is which contemporary interests and social actors are represented in it. The „revelation of historical truths“ and the „correction of historical injustices“ is today in Serbia a part of an ideological struggle that aims to annul social and worker's rights, to consolidate the ruling class, to entrench capitalism, and to continue to uninterruptedly and aggressively pursue the politics of privatization. The first thing that should be revised perhaps is the concept of historical revisionism itself, in order to see it as an element in global anti-emancipatory, anti-democratic and anti-plebeian practice, which seeks not only to represent the interests of the past in the contemporary world, but to also „with one move“ eliminate the revolutionary traditions from 1789 up to 1917 and 1944, and to criminalize Jacobinism and Bolshevism as well as various people’s revolutions under the category of the „same evil“. In this way, the representation of the past interest in the present times attempts to block any opening of the present toward the future. Our task is to resist this and move in the opposite direction.

For all of these reasons we wanted in this issue of our journal to give new impulses for the understanding of fascism and its complex but essential relationship with capitalism. The title of this issue reflects the idea that fascism does not have only one specific shape, and that it certainly cannot be reduced to the form of fascism which ruled in Europe from the twenties of the past century until the end of Second World War. The reduction of fascism to this specific form is not only historically inaccurate, but – what is also more pertinent – it diminishes the possibilities for grasping new fasciscoid dangers that threaten us here and now. What remains an important and unanswered question is how we will call these new forms of fascism and in what relationship do they stand with historical Nazi-fascism. We could say that one form of fascism was defeated on 9. May of 1945 (according to Moscow time), but not the objective historical conditions that give birth to fascism in its shapes. Therefore, when the day of Europe is celebrated on this same day of 9. May (according to Brussel time), one should remember that the conditions which sustain the modern European Union, neoliberal capitalism and technocratic bureaucratism are the conditions for the fasciscoisation of society. This brings us into the situation in which we must first know and be capable to recognize new forms of anti-democratic and anti-social tendencies.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share
Translate »