Explaining Hitler through Marx

"Men make their own history. But they do not make it just as they please; they do not make under circunstances chosen by themselves, but under given circumstances directly encountered and inhereted from the past."
- Karl Marx

Atividade da aula de inglês: comentar essa passagem.

Marx's approach to History, known as "historic materialism," implies that its driving force is the struggle between classes. That means that, although men indeed "make their own history," that does not happen in the void; instead, it takes place within a given historic, cultural and social context.

The state of affairs in Europe as a whole, and in Germany in particular, at the time Hitler rose to power, can be traced back to events that took place decades or even centuries before.

In the Middle Age, the European feudal social system provided security to the people. The person would be born and live predictably in the same social group -- and religion would ensure them that that was right. The sense of security, therefore, stemmed from being part of a group - be it social (i.e., peasants) or religious.

Two social transformations, however, would join forces to weaken this base of security. The emergence of Enlightenment ideal -- especially the idea of individuality -- compounded with a new economic system - Capitalism -- would change fundamentally European societies.

These changes were made possible, according to a Marxist perspective, only because a new social class was emerging -- the bourgeoisie. For its economic strength to have a political expression, a new set of values was required. Individualism and secularism would legitimize the new ruling class and, at the same time, weaken the traditional elite (clerics and nobles).

Another new class emerged as an offspring of Capitalism -- the working class. They sold their labor to the owners of the means of production. They would be gathered in urban centers, away from their traditional rural homelands, and without time for leisure or for religious duties. Never before, according to Hobbsbawn, was thee a social group so disenfranchised religiously and culturally.

At the end of the 19th century, Germany was arguably the most industrialized nation in all of Europe, and its workers had the best legislation, which was put there by Bismarck's social reforms. The Versailles Treaty, instead of solving problems that led up to the Great War, gave in to French revanchism. When Hitler came to power in the 1930's, his neurotic personality found fertile ground for self-destructive attitudes in the humiliated and insecure German society -- making it possible for him to lead his nation to near suicide.

The challenges facing the new government

The re-election of President Lula da Silva puts into evidence some of the mains issues facing the Brazilian society today.

In 2002, when Lula and his Workers' Party (PT) won the elections Brazil witnessed the first genuine power change since the military coup of 1964 interrupted the country's political process, postponing its maturing.

The first term of President Lula was historic in itself. But it was al the more meaningful in the measure that it was able to keep the country's economy stable while at the same time promoting a long-needed wealth distribution by means of a series of innovative and efficient public policies.

President Lula's apporval ratings and expressive vote are all the more impressive in face of the systematic smearing and violent rhetoric to which his government and his party were subject to for over a year, by opposition parties and the big corporate media.

In his new term, President Lula will have to once again conciliate a progressist agenda in a conservative society - which is particularly well represented in the political system. Moreover, he will have to deal with an elitist media, which voices the economic interests of the hegemonic sectors of Brazilian society, while trying to stand for the unrepresented majority, who have no material means to voice their desires - except for voting.

So, in a few words, what is at stake at this point in Brazil's history, is a deepening, a maturing, of our democracy. We are back to the stage when the military seized power in the 1960's, when the social movements were more organized. President Lula's government is a turning point: from now on, upcoming governments will have to take into account the demands of the voiceless majority, with effective policies.

As for the traditional economic elite, they will have to grasp this new government. The old idea that "the pie must grow in order to be shared" no longer holds. The press failed miserably in its purpose to de-moralize PT and de-stabilize the government: society as a whole has got to reflect upon this, in face of the huge concentration of the media in the hands of a few economic groups, with particular political agendas.

President Lula has a conciliatory nature. That will come in handy, as he will need to find a common ground to democratically promote social transformation, expanding social rights for the poor; a process of democratization of the media must come in parallel to that process. Most of all, President Lula must act as a bridge between the two groups - the haves and the have-nots - and to make the former understand that the benefits of the latter are also in their best interests.

economics, warfare, and the forging of the modern war state

In the light of the following quotations, comment on the relations between economics, warfare, and the forging of the modern war state.

"What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war."


It is a commonplace to say that wars are necessarily, and always, economically motivated. The notion that wars are fought only to fulfill a country's material needs is widely accepted and generally goes undisputed.

As we take a look back on history, one easily realizes that matters are more complicated than that. In general, a war breaks out as a consequence of not one, but several aspects of human relations. The emergence of the modern nation-state well illustrates this point.

Nation-building processes were only possible in the XIX century thanks to the development of the capitalistic economy, which brought about a new social class -- the bourgeoisie -- with new interests. THe aspiration for political autonomy was the consequence of the appearence of a different economic order.

That's true. But it is also true -- and it would be intellectually naïf to deny it, and scientifically incorrect -- that other factos played an important role in nation-building. THe bourgeoisie sought political independence from large empires for their own ethnic community.

In previously more politically organized territories, such as Bismarck's Prussia, cultural mogoneinety was a fact and was not at stake; here, political issues, social cleavages within Prussia itself, were a more determining factor.

Political actors, whether they are a king or an elected official, must act rationally. That means they need to gain and keep legitimacy in order to maintain a grip on power. This basic political rule, which is backed by historic facts, leads us to realize that rulers will make use of force outside their borders, to achieve the goals (be they political or economic) of the government, but only as long as this action does not put at risk the state's ultimate goal -- it's own existence.

Leaders like Hitler, who take their country to political suicide, are exceptions that confirm the rule. Had Hitler acted in a rational manner and pondered the consequences of his decision to attakc Germany's eastern neighbor Russia, he would not have done it at all.

When a ruler opts to start a war, he takes into consideration not only economic factors, but social and political ones as well. To reduce war-making as a mere tool to achieve economic goal is to oversimplify something which is anything but simple.



Comentário do professor-
Very interesting, but what about Weil's quotation?

Two cheers for democracy

Discuss the following statement in the light of the American government´s efforts to get countries to adopt democracy.

"Two cheers for democracy: one because it admits variety, and two because it permits criticism." (E. M. Forster)



Liberal democracy is an imperfect political regime exactly because it genuinely reflects human imperfection. Different countries have different kinds of democracy because historic and cultural aspects will lead to particular democratic systems.

There is little doubt that democracy is the best way for a society to organize itself politically. The problem with President Bush's policy of imposing democracy in the Middle East is not due to anti-democratic feelings. Rather, it is due to the fact that Bush's approach undermines the historic and cultural basis from which democracy can organically stem.

Democracy is an on-going process in which groups struggle for political power in order to defend their own interests and world-view. Democracy institutionalizes conflict. These politically organized groups are the parties which, in order to bear ligitimacy, must establish roots in society. Hence, democracy can only be legitimate and organical if there is an organized civil society, willing to respect democratic rules and institutions.

The reason many people are skeptical about the US policy of "regime change" is in part the fact that imposition is not the natural outcome of the historic process.

Countries like Chile, South Korea, Russia and Brazil have passed from autocratic regimes to democratic ones. In all of these cases, these were processes from whithin. Each took different time-frames, and led to particular forms of democracy. Today they vary in degree of democratic openness, but they all claim to have a democratic system.

There is no reason to believe that something similar could not take place in the Middle East. Perhaps a better approach would be to reinforce Western ties with the civil society in the region, for example by means of cultural and academic exchange programs between its citizens. This could have much better and lasting results, in the long run, than the use of violence which, so far, has only provoked more violence.

Iraq's neighbor, Iran, may be a role model of a gradual, organic and legitimate regime change. Nowadays, the sole threat to continuing political openness is Western meddling in Iran's domestic affairs (that has been, by the way, the same source of legitimacy that has kept alive thus far the backward Castro regime).

To understand the basis of democratic regimes - the strength of civil society - is the key to finding creative, peaceful and productive ways to lead other nations through the democratic path. It's perhaps too late for Iraq, but elsewhere, as in Lebanon, signs are promising.


(Bernardo Jurema)