Canada And "The New Fascism" (Part One)

I will define "the new fascism" in another column. But for the moment, I will answer doubters who want to say that if governments, if universities, if media believe the new practices are good, who is the madman calling them a part of "the new fascism"? Alas, when the old fascism reared its head after the First World War, brilliant people hailed it as the way of the future. Supporters of the general idea had names like T.S. Eliot, D. H, Lawrence, Ezra Pound (who supported fascism to his death), and the charming Edward V111 who leapt into history for abdicating the British throne for the woman (a U.S. divorcee) he loved. So much attention has been paid to that part of his life, little is paid to the fact that -- named the Duke and Duchess of Windsor after the abdication -- they were shipped quickly and quietly as far away as possible because they were such warm sympathizers with the Adolf Hitler circle. For too long, moreover, the fascist thugs of Sir Oswald Mosely were protected by English police in England as they attacked labour and Leftwing groups. While police looked the other way and judges refused to convict them, the Mosely fascists appeared to be untouchable. In 1936, fascist principles had, to some degree, become important to the governments of Bulgaria, Greece, Austria, Japan, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. And a fascist government took power in Spain in 1939. From the U.S., IBM and Ford, as well as other U.S. corporations worked for Nazism up to and through the Second World War. We need not question, then, if "mainstream" thinkers and actors -- supporting kinds of fascism -- may be wrong. They have been. And they are. Professor de Kreuze was asked if the difference in wages paid in China and Canada are the reason the industry in Huntington (and throughout Canada) is on the rocks or soon will be. Oh no, he replied. There are three reasons. The Chinese now do better quality work than formerly. They can deliver high quality fashion goods rapidly. And, oh yes, the wage difference matters. Professor de Kreuze is, of course, (a) talking through his hat (b) following the line of "the new fascism", and (c) thoroughly misrepresenting the situation. If Chinese workers were paid sixteen dollars an hour, or if the Chinese textiles and/or fashion goods were admitted only after their costs had been levelled with Canadian wages by tariffs, the Canadian industry would not be in the condition it is now. Why is the attack on the Huntington workers and owners a part of "the new fascism"? It is so because the destruction of the livelihoods and communities of textile and garment producers in Canada is undertaken on behalf of a corporate/governments alliance which is willing to push the faces of Canadians into the mud. The destruction of the livelihoods and communities of textile and garment producers in Canada is being undertaken to make Corporation owners wealthy. That is the primary fact. It is being done as a part of an international move to make the greed of corporations the fundamental priority of the whole family of nations. In short, there is now a super-government beyond national governments whose constituency is made up of capitalists and corporations wishing to control the markets and the economies of the world. Professor de Kreuze remarked casually that Canada can do nothing about the destruction of the textile and garment trades in Canada. The destruction, he mused, has been ordered by a more powerful government. The argument is that Chinese workers are having a door opened to a better life. In fact, Chinese workers are very often exploited, subject to dangerous work-places, and forced to work and live in polluted environments. The World Trade Organization procedure that lets Chinese textiles and garments into Canada doesn?t do anything to improve the lot of Chinese working people. In fact, it guarantees they will live and work in oppressive conditions. There is a worse face to all this. North American -- especially U.S. -- corporations are moving into China to take advantage of the low-wage, low-safety, pollution prevalent conditions in order to increase corporate wealth. They will buy Chinese industries, begin industries, share ownership with Chinese, or buy direct from Chinese producers. Whatever the case, they will make massive profits on Chinese-produced goods while still offering them more cheaply than Canadian-produced goods. They will engage in that activity -- we will be told -- because they are deeply concerned with efficiency and their primary goal - which is to get cheaper goods to Canadians. They will say nothing about the fact that they are making massive profits from exploiting oppressed Chinese and by destroying Canadian industries and communities. U.S. corporations -- I have mentioned IBM and Ford -- took advantage of the growth of fascism in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s to increase their wealth -- even in the years of war against fascism. The J. P. Morgan family "funded the rise of Italian fascism". "Throughout WW11, Rockefeller's Chase Bank stayed open in Nazi-occupied Paris, providing services for Germany's embassy and its businesses." "In Oct. 1942, the U.S. government charged Prescott [Bush] with running Nazi front groups in the U.S. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all the shares of Union Banking Corp. were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush, as being in effect held for enemy nationals." ("Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism", in Press for Conversion, Issue 53, March 2004, Ottawa, pp. 27, 45, 53) Finally, a comment by Professor de Kreuze of the Rotman School of Management should give us all pause. In effect, he told CBC listeners that Canada is in the straits it is in now because it was concerned to look after its workforce rather than finding efficiencies. Put simply, instead of turning its workforce into an oppressed, slavey group that would guarantee corporate owners huge profits, Canada (and -- to their credit -- owners like those in Huntington, Quebec) tried to find a way to make profit, maintain a secure and healthy workforce, and support communities marked by humane values and decent living standards. But they didn't make an environment in which big corporations could make massive and obscene profits. If I read him correctly, that is folly to people like Professor de Kreuze -- as it is folly to the super-government that is symbolized by the World Trade Organization.