John Foot - Blood and Power: The rise and fall of Italian fascism

The rise of global far-right and fascist parties and movements is something of great concern to working people. It is, perhaps, the most dangerous time that the left has faced since the 1930s. While fascists and right-wingers have evolved and changed, as this penetrating article by Richard Donnelly shows, their core purpose remains intact. They aim for the complete destruction of democratic structures and the left, while using radical, right-wing, rhetoric to gain support through a critique of the system.

In organising to stop the right activists should learn from the past. Two strands of fascism dominated European politics. One of these was Hitler's Nazis in Germany. The other was Mussolini's fascists in Italy. The latter is not discussed as often as the former, so John Foot's Blood and Power is an important read.  Foot begins:

Italy invented fascism. Out of the chaos of the First World War, in which nearly 600,00 Italian soldiers lost their lives, a new movement emerged which preached hatred for politicians and love for the fatherland. Fascists embraced violence, both in their language and on their streets.

The violence was needed. In the early 1920s the myriad of local fascist leaders out of whome Mussolini was to emerge was the sole leader faced a powerful foe - the working class movement and mass socialist organisations. As Foot says, the fascists were "overshadowed" by a "socialism uprising" at the end of World War One. One cannot downplay the scale or significance of the Italian workers' movement in this phase. The opening chapters of Foot's book are a sweeping, but powerful and inspiring account of a working class in open and confident confrontation with the state.

While Italian fascism was nationalist and racist, and later embraced antisemitism, it's core ideology was one of counter-revolution and patriotism. It was the perceived threat (even after the struggle had receded) from the workers' movement that gave Mussolini's fascists a chance to organise and a ideology to coalesce around. Italian fascism cannot be understood without seeing the centrality of counter-revolutionary politics. In 1914, for instance, the northern Italian city of Ravenna had been the centre of a major workers' revolt against World War One. The story itself is inspiring. But in July 1922 it was the scene of a brutal counter-revolutionary strike by the fascists:

Thousands of armed blackshirts descended on the city... The 'march on Ravenna' was carried out like a military invasion. It took place out in the open, during the day, and was accompanised by a selective purge - the victims being socialists, republicans and trade unionists... At least nine people were killed in Ravenna alone... but the attacks ranged across a vast area.

By the summer in Ravenna and Cremona, Ferrara, Bologna and countless other places, the fascists squads were in control, and "the state, police prefects, army and carrabinieri were all reduced to the role of onlookers, and often took sides, providing logistical assistance to the violent gangs".

The speed at which fascist gangs did defeat democracy and the left is breathtaking. In city after city, town after town, village after village fascist gangs smashed, murdered and broke local and regional organisations of trade unions and socialists, democratic organisations and elected bodies. It was systematic. One thing that should be recognised by all activists today, is that democratic organisation in any form - whether it was local councils or national government, was in no way a barrier to the fascists. Their deployment of extreme violence at the slightest provocation (and usually with no provocation at all) saw democratic institutions fall almost instantly. It seems incredible, but democracy as a set of ideas and institutions could not (and often did not try) to stop fascism. Foot writes:

Local democratic institutions fell, one by one, to fascist pressure. Forty [fascist] councillors had been elected to the provincial administration of Cremona... in May 1922. But this formal, democratic procedure was completely ignored by the local fascists. They did not recognise elections. In that same month, local fascist leader... Roberto Farinacci, insisted that he be allowed to speak as the 'forty-first councillor'. Farinacci had not even been a candidate in the elections... When asked who had elected him, he replied, 'I elected mysefl'. It was the last meeting of that provincial council.

He concludes "Election results and democracy had come up against fascist violence and the latter had won".

This begs the question, could the fascists have been stopped. There's no doubt that the left could and done so. Tom Behan's remarkable book The Resistable Rise of Mussolini shows how this happed in one location. The key was left unity and militant mass mobilisation. Certainly there was resistance and the fascists were held back temporarily in places. But there was not enough. One problem was clearly that the left (in a broad sense) did not understand that everyone was threatened. Too many liberals and moderates thought the fascists were only targetting the revolutionary left, but "moderates were often targeted in the same way, and with even more violence, than those on the far left". Tragically, in a number of key cases, such as when the fascists took out the left stronghold Bologna in November 1920, the leader of the radical left, the Mayor Ercole Bucco, backed down from armed defence, despite having a massive majority in the city. Foot concludes:

Bucco's actions that night also seemed to confirm the overall historical judgement on maximalism. They talked the talk, but were incapable of organising a real revolution. Local fascists on the other hand, were emboldened. 

Time and again the left was to fail. In January 1921 the Socialist Party left split, and the Italian Communist Party walked out. Foot regards this as a mistake. He says that "at a time of mass fascist violence directed against socialists, the main political organisations... divided into two, weakened any sense of opposition or even defence". This was, of course, a dangerous time. The trick would have been if the Communist Party had been able to respond in a way that would have built left unity in an anti-fascist alliance while maintaining independence. This failed to happen, and probably it was too late after January 1921. Had the CP prepared the ground by organising like this, the split could have been much more productive in terms of anti-fascist mobilisations. I was reminded of Clara Zetkin's analysis of fascism in Italy:

Fascism... is not at all the revenge of the bourgeoisie against the militant uprising of the proletariat. In historical terms, viewed objectively, fascism arrives much more as punishment because the proletariat has not carried and driven forward the revolution that began in Russia.  

At the start of this review I mentioned the ideology of Italian fascism. It is notable that while the fascists were appalling racists, many Jewish people were members. Mussolini's alliance with Hitler and his adoption of a vicious antisemitism shocked them. Italian fascism was not more benign than in Germany. Jewish people were hounded, murdered, arrested and lost everything. Many were sent to Concentration Camps, particularly later in the war. Foot's analysis of fascism in power is an important counter to those today who argue that Mussolini was not as vicious. The Italian fascist state was a violent, repressive and murderous entity - and its violence extended into Africa with the occupation of Ethiopia.

Nonetheless fascism in Italy was weak. It seemed extremely powerful, but the contradictions of economic and imperilaist policies undermined its position. By the time it had entered the war, the longer anti-fascist and anti-war traditions of the working class were beginning to make themselves felt. When Mussolini's regime eventually fell, it was a surprisingly quick series of events. This period, and the subsequent German take over of Italy, is well told by Foot.

Foot's book concludes with an analysis of Italian fascism in the context of contemporary Italian politics. It is clear that the failure of the Italian state to properly come to terms with, or confront, the legacy of Italian fascism - including its failure to prosecute or challenge many of its key figures - has left a belief that Mussolini's time was "wonderful". Foot's expose reminds us that it was for a few people - those who were frightened by the rise of a powerful workers' movement. But the reality for millions was the opposite. 

It is an excellent (and extremely readable) account of a period of history we ought to study more. I would have liked more accounts of anti-fascist resistance and further analysis of how the left could have stopped fascism. Nonetheless this is a very useful read.

Related Reviews

Zetkin - Fighting Fascism: How to struggle and how to win
Paxton - The Anatomy of Fascism
Trotsky - The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany
Sparrow - Fascists Among Us: Online hate and the Christchurch Massacre

Lis Angus - That Other Family

How would you react if suddenly, out of the blue, you discovered that everything you were certain about your parents was untrue? This is what happens to Julie Walker in Lis Angus' latest thriller. Julie lives a happy life as the mother of three teenage kids, happily maried to husband Matt, with a decent job at Ottawa's main public library. One day she meets Frances Boyle at work. Frances brings with her some photos of her family and there in the middle, unmistakably is Julie's father. It turns out that Julie's beloved father had two entirely separate families.

For most people this would be a shattering revelation. Frances wants to meet Julie's mother - to her, she's the other woman. With Julie's and Frances' father dead, only her mother can offer an explanation to both women. Before Frances can meet her though, Julie heads out to talk to her mum. To her surprise, when she tries to gently break the news, Julie's mum knows all about the other family. Shock piles on shock for Julie. How could these secrets have been kept quiet for so long. Then her mum spills the beans. The other family is no ordinary family. They're part of a major criminal gang. The sort of criminals bound by honour and committed to revenge. Had they known of the other family the lives of Julie's mum and dad would have been worthless.

Despite some waryness from Julie, Frances bonds with her and her family. Julie's worries seem to disappear. Then, one early morning while Julie's family is out, their house explodes.

So begins Julie's quest for the truth. She's desperate to protect her family. But every turn she's met with official disbelief - even Matt isn't sure things are real. As the threats get closer again, Julie's faced with betrayal and violence from an unknown enemy. Why are the Walkers' being targetted? More importantly, who is targetting them?

Lis Angus is a thriller writer based in Ontario. That Other Family is her second novel, and it is full of delightful twists and turns, tension and a genuinely original plot. The novel is set in an area that Lis knows well. Her acknowledgements include a thanks to an Ottawan librarian for showing her around the library which features in the book! But the landscape and the small towns and villages around the city are clearly drawn from personal knowledge. It makes for an even more realistic story.

That Other Family is a tight piece of writing that lovers of thrillers will enjoy. But there is no morose detective solving the crime, no muscley heroes despatching the bad guys. Instead there's a mother fighting for her family and that's the best sort of hero.

Related Reviews

Macleod - No Great Mischief
Hammett - The Thin Man
Matsumoto - Tokyo Express
Burnet - His Bloody Project: Documents relating to the case of Roderick Macrae

Alistair Macleod - No Great Mischief

Preparing for a trip to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton one is struck how the interconnected history of Indigenous people and immigrants remain central to the region, and indeed the formation of modern Canada as a whole. Alistair Macleod's No Great Mischief focuses on the immigrant experience, those who left Scotland to settle in Nova Scotia, to work its land and mines and build a better life. It is a sweeping history of shared identity and the challenges of building a new life.

The novel begins however, in the modern era, with Alexander MacDonald, a successful dentist, visiting his alcoholic, elder brother Calum. Through a series of flashbacks we begin to construct their shared history, the tragedies that have left the MacDonad children orphans, and the struggles they have fought in the Uranium mines and the fields of Canada. Tragedies outnumber the good times. These are lives, like most immigrants, of long days of hard work, of low pay and accidents. Their are good times, often fuelled by music, dance, poetry and drinking. But while the flashbacks return as far back as 1779 when the first MacDonalds fled Scotland to settle, it is perhaps only Alexander who has broken free of the endless cycle of poverty and death.

Immigrant identity looms everywhere over the novel. Strangers who share the characteristic red hair of the MacDonalds, and claim heritage to the original clann Chalum Ruaidh, stop each other in the street to bond over shared history and family. It's a fierce defensive mechanism that brings conflict with other immigrants groups in the mines and the fields. It creates a culture that pervades contemporary Nova Scotia in many different ways. 

The book is hard to characterise. It's focus on groups in the rugged landscape means that the place itself is part of the story. The rocky coasts and barren landscape. There is, for me, a frustrating lack of presence of Indigenous people whose culture would have been in conflict with the immigrant experience. Perhaps the story would have benefited from inclusion of some of the great working class struggles that Nova Scotia has seen - particularly in the mines. But this is a celebration of brotherhood and solidarity in other ways, the fight to preserve identity and to stand true to who you are. Its a lovely book that will linger as I explore Cape Breton.

V.I. Lenin - Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

Lenin's short book on Imperialism is perhaps the best known of his extensive writings. So well known, in fact, that the edition I've just read is number 96 of the Penguin "Great Ideas" series. Make of that what you will. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism remains a key reference point because of the continuation of imperialism itself. It is a succinct presentation and defence of the Marxist understanding of Imperialism, defended by Lenin principly (and deliberately) through reference to bourgeois commentators and statistical sources and defended by Lenin from critiques on the left, most prominently Karl Kautsky.

The book is itself limited, or rather it is very much of its time. Lenin acknowledged this because he was writing for the censor. Written in 1916 it needed to bypass Tsarist censorship and thus Lenin's conclusions and language are deliberately mitigated. Michael Kidron, his his own discussion of Lenin's work noted more critically that "have all been lost sight of in an uncritical, almost universal, acceptance of its central themes. This is all the more strange since much of what he analysed has clearly either gone or become much less important than in his day."

Kidron goes on to make some sharp criticisms of Lenin's work. Recognising it as a brilliant piece of revolutionary work at the time, but acknowleding that it has its limits and is very much of its time. Lenin himself acknowledges this in one of the prefaces written after the Revolution when he notes that the book was limited by lack of research material while writing in exile. Kidron's criticisms focus on the changing role of banks and finance capital, which was central to Lenin's analysis and he argues, a over generalisation from the German economic situation. The changing importance of capital export from developed economies to the developing world is also something noted by Kidron.

These criticisms remain important and Marxist theorists such as Alex Callinicos have continued to develop the theory of imperialism for a new years, 60 years after Kidron's critique and over a century since Lenin's. Nonetheless Lenin's book remains crucial to understanding modern imperialism because it offers a Marxist account of the interaction between capitalist development and imperialist structure. Lenin argues that his left critics, such as Kautsky continually misunderstand imperialism prescisely because of their neglect for context.

So what does Lenin argue? Imperialism, says Lenin, arises out of a stage in capitalist development when monopoly capitalism (existence of gigantic firms that have swallowed up most, or all, of their competitors) comes to dominant and can obtain massive profits from exporting capital into delveloping countries. This is faciliated, Lenin argues, when banks have reached such proportions that they control finance capital and can deploy it to further their own interests and those of other capitalists. This then goes further, as Lenin writes, "the 'personal union' between the banks and industry is completed by the 'personal union' between both and the state."

This union between capital and the state means that the state itself can and must intervene in the interest of its own national capital in the world. While this can lead to war, Lenin also highlights that imperialism is more than war. It is the intervention of the state in trade, economic relations and colonial development, in the interests of its capital. Two countries, he writes

England and France are the oldest capitalist countries, and... possess the most colonies; the other two, the United States and Germany, are the front rank as regards rapidty of development the degree of extension of capitalist monopolies in industry. Together these four countries own 479,000,000,00 francs... nearly 80 percent of the world's financial capital. Thus... the whole world is more or less the debtor to and tributary of these four international banker countries, the four 'pillars' of world finance capital.

Such a relationship rests on the ability of the state to deploy military power if required, as Thomas Friedman famously said in 1999:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

It is this analysis that makes Lenin's work such a crucial starting point for anyone trying to analyse the modern world. Think of US intervention in the Middle East, or Russia and Ukraine's war. We cannot understand these without understanding the "economic essence of imperialism", to use Lenin's words. Take Ukrain and Russia. Russian aggression began the conflict, but it was Nato and Western interests attempt to hold back Russia's economic interests that identify the conflict as a proxy imperialist one. 

But there are aspects to contemporary imperialism that remain absent from Lenin's book. One of these is the question of "sub imperialism", those nations who have broken from colonial domination and now exert their own economic and political interests, sometimes militarily. Israel in the wider Middle East, or Iran and UAE in Syria and Sudan. Lenin's work is dominated by an attempt to explain World War One and link this understanding to a fight against "opportunists" whose siding with their nation state had so badly damaged the socialist movement. Nonetheless, understanding how the development of capital in post-colonial countries and regions has led to sub-imperialist clashes, hinges on the same recognition as Lenin developed in understanding the rise of the Great Powers in the colonial era. If Lenin's work doesn't anticipate these developments, it does, at every stage recognise that colonialism needed to be resisted by those workers and peasants in colonial states. Had he lived to see this era, he would no doubt have analysed it as succinctly and clearly as he does in this work.

Related Reviews

Lenin - The Development of Capitalism in Russia
Lenin - The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution 1905-1907
Lenin - Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Lenin - Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?
Callinicos - Imperialism and Global Political Economy

V.I. Lenin - The Development of Capitalism in Russia

First published in 1899 with a new edition in 1908, Lenin's The Development of Capitalism in Russia is a systematic exploration of the Russian economy at the start of the century. It is based on an extremely detailed reading of official studies and statistics for the Russian economy, something that can prove daunting to the reader as Lenin repeatedly cites figures for machinery, land, farms, workers and almost every aspect of the economy. Lenin is challenging those, particularly the Russian radical Narodniks, who were arguing that Russia was not capitalist, or could not be capitalist. Instead Lenin deploys arsenals of statistics to prove quite the opposite. Russia was seeing the rapid development of capitalism in every part of the economy and those parts of the economy that were organised in older ways, were being squeezed by new markets, trade with the cities and production for profit.

One of the things that Lenin is keen to argue for, is the progressive nature of capitalist relations over those that preceed this. This theme runs through the book. For instance, in discussing the migration of labour around Russia aslabrouers seek work and better wages he writes:

Like the diversion of the population from agriculture to the towns, non-agricultural migration is a progressive phenomenon. It tears the population out of the neglected backward, history-forgotten remote spots and draws them into the whirlpool of modern social life. It increases literacy among the population, heightens their understanding, and gives them civilised habits and requirements.

Lenin cites studies and statistics to back up these claims. His argument is not just, however, that capitalist relations improve the lives and conditions (and outlook) of the producers, but also that the capitalist mode of production is an advance on the old feudal order, improving output, quality and developing the means of production rapidly. He thus rails against those, such as the Narodniks, who argue that capitalism is not a development, but rather a worsening of the situation for ordinary producers. They celebrate the older social relations, the small production units, the family farms and manufacturers, failing to recognise the historic significance of the emergence of capitalism out of feudalism. Lenin writes:

[The Narodnik economists] deny the progressive nature of capitalism in Russia, pointing to the fact that in agriculture our entrepreneurs readily resort to labour-service and in industry to the distribution of home work and that in mining they seek to secure the tying down of the worker, legislative prohibition of competition by small establishments, etc., etc. The illogicality of such arguments and their flagrant distortion of historical perspective are glaring. Whence, indeed, does it follow that the efforts of our entrepreneurs to utilise the advantages of pre-capitalist methods of production should be charged to our capitalism, and not to those survivals of the past which retard the development of capitalism and which in many cases are preserved by force of law?

He continues:

Should we not... be surprised at the fact that, under the circumstances, there are people who are capable of idealising the pre-capitalist economic order in Russia, and who shut their eyes to the most urgent and pressing necessity of abolishing all obsolete institutions that hinder the development of capitalism.

This is not to say that Lenin ignores the way that capitalism exploits working people. While arguing that "the drawing of women and juveniles into production is, at bottom, progressive" he continues that "the capitalist factory places these categories of the working population in particularly hard conditions" and argues for legislation that will reduce hours of work, improve conditions and so on. But he is very clear that it would be wrong to argue for the banning of women and young people from working in factories. The reason is, he argues, that the entry of these sections of the population into industry is smashing apart the old patriarchal order:

By destroying the old patriarchal isolation of these categories of the population who formerly never emerged from the narrow circle of domestic, family relationships, by drawing them into direct participation in social produciton, large-scale machine industry stimulates their development and increases their independence, in other words, creates conditions of life that are incomparably superior to the patriarch immobility of pre-capitalist relations.

It is remarkable to see how Lenin understands these dynamics, celebrating the shattering of old social relations and the emergence of new relations as capitalism develops new towns, new technology and draws millions into new forms of production.

Lenin tracks the way this takes place, first noting how emerging capitalist relations in the countryside have created stratas among the peasantry, the richer ones taking more land and beginning to employ other peasants as workers, then expanding their interests into other forms of production. He writes:

The separation of industry from agriculture takes place in connection with the differentiation of the peasantry, and does so by different paths at the two poles of the countryside: the wrll-to-do minority open industrial establishments, enlarge them improve their farming methods, hire farm labourers to till the land, devote and increasing part of the year to industry and... find it more convenient to separate their industrial from their agricultural undertakings.

Lenin emphasises the importance of the parallel processes of the "depeasantising" of the peasantry as labowners move from "labour-service" to wage labour, together with the transition of agriculture "into commodity production". This was the start, but it is inseparable from the development of capitalist industrial production. The parallels with the development of capitalism in England as analysed by Marx, are clear for all to see.

Lenin also follows Marx by noting that in addition to capitalism's exploitation of workers, it also impacts other relations. Here, for instance, Lenin discusses how the relationship between agriculture and industry could be mutually beneficial:

The growth of agricultural technical trades is extremely important as regards the development of capitalism. Firstly, this growth represents one of the forms of the development of commercial farming, and is, moreover, the form that shows most vividly the conversion of agriculture into a branch of industry of capitalist society. Secondly, the development of the technical processing of agricultural produce is usually connected intimately with technical progress in agriculture: on the one hand, the very production of the raw material for processing often necessitates agricultural improvement (the planting of root-crops, for example); on the other hand, the waste products of the processing are frequently utilised in agriculture, thus increasing its effectiveness and restoring, at least in some measure, the equilibrium, the interdependence, between agriculture and industry, the disturbance of which constitutes one of the most profound contradictions of capitalism.

Marx's writing on the "metabolic rift" between human society and nature, emerged from his critique of capitalist agriculture, and here Lenin shows his awareness of this, through a recognition that a rational use of the by-products of food processing could be used to offset one of capitalism's most profound contradictions.

In mentioning Marx, we should finish of this review by noting that Lenin's work (like Marx's Capital) has little to say about socialism. This is because Lenin, again like Marx, is engaged in a project of understanding capitalism in order to progress the radical and revolutionary movement against it. The Development of Capitalism in Russia is in effect a polemic against those who fail to grasp either the development of capitalism itself in that country or its historical significance. 

Lenin's sharp awareness of the development and growth of the working class in rural and urban areas is a recognition in the emergence of a force in Russia that could challenge both capitalism and the remnants of the old order. A few years after the completion of the first edition of this book, that working class would explode onto Russia's historical stage in the revolution of 1905, the dress rehearsal for the revolution of 1917. Lenin would further develop these ideas in his articles on the agrarian programme for the left.

Few today read The Development of Capitalism in Russia. This is a shame. It is a book that has perhaps been unduly neglected for Marxists studying the development of capitalism. Much of the material here has clear parallels with the emergence of capitalism in Europe. The book is, in places, a difficult read - mostly because Lenin backs up every single argument with multiple statistics and figures. Some of the editions of this work have some beautiful pull outs of tables, and facsimilies of Lenin's original drafts. The figures however should not deter the reader. There's much of interest here.

Related Reviews

Lenin - The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution 1905-1907
Lenin - Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Lenin - Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?

Willa Cather - O Pioneers!

I stumbled upon Willa Cather's O Pioneers!' due to my interest in the people and history of the North American praire. First published in 1913, but in part based on the authors' own experiences as a youngster in the late 1800s, it feels like a very modern novel. 

Alexandra Bergson is the capable and highly intelligent daughter of her and her brothers' beloved widowed father. On his death she takes over the running of the land and through a series of carefully planned decisions manages to turn the farm into a highly successful concern. She carefully questions the other farmers, reads the news and keeps abreast of the market, planting crops that are considered marginal, until they become highly profitable. Quickly the farm expands, but Alexandra herself defies convention - she doesn't marry and prefers an austere lifestyle. Eventually she falls out with her brothers who are convinced that despite her leadership on the farm, most of the land is rightfully hers.

The book, like many others of its type, tells a number of shorter stories centred on the lives and loves of the people in the area. There are two great arcs though, the first centres on Alexandra and her relationship to the land. The land is a key character in the novel - the changing seasons as well as the industrialisation of the farms as they change from early, amateur efforts into a managed landscape. The other arc traces the love between Alexandra's younger brother Emil and her, married, friend Marie. 

These stories form the heart of the novel. The praire is a tough place to farm. As the novel opens many farms are failing and families are heading back to the cities to try for jobs in factories and industry to improve their lot. The reader knows, of course, that two decades after this novel is set the Dustbowl and the Great Depression will decimate the farms again. But Alexandra draws the farm into prosperity in a time when farming in North America could boom. 

But what struck me reading the book was the novel's treatment of three issues that feel very modern. The first of these is gender and sexuality. It is very likely that Willa Cather herself was LGBT+. It is hard not to see some of her life in Alexandra's decisions which seem to defy the traditional relationships of the community around her. 

Secondly is the question of Mental Distress. One of the people who work on Alexandra's farm is Ivar. A many who hate the killing of animals, who prefers to live alone and prefers a cave to a house. He is a wizard with horses and animal care, he advises Alexandra how to look after their pigs when others are dying of disease. But his unusual behaviour and frequent mood swings and depressions lead some to think that Ivar is dangerous and threatening. Once again, in defiance of the community around her, Alexandra refuses to accept this and promises to become Ivar's ward if the doctors come to take him away. This kindness brings its rewards towards the end of the novel. But the most interesting thing is how this kindness and rejection of the stigma of mental health feels so unusal for a novel of this time period.

Finally, the question of immigration is central to the story. Almost everyone in the book is a Swedish-American immigrant. The religion, politics and culture of the old world is transplanted to the New, and evolves. At the back of many of the older members of society are their hopes and dreams, and memories, of Europe.

There is one big ommission - Native Americans play no role in the book. I didn't see a single reference, which is disappointing given the great themes of land and labour.

While the nostalgia that is at the heart of the motive power of O Pioneers! can feel a little thick at times, this is still a powerful and moving book. I look forward to reading the follow up books in Cather's trilogy.

Related Reviews

Norris - The Octopus
Williams - Butcher's Crossing
Cronon - Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West
McDonald - The Red Corner: The Rise & Fall of Communism in Northeastern Montana

Fred Wien & Rick Williams - Contested Waters: The Struggle for Rights & Reconciliation in the Atlantic Fishery

In 2020 Indigenous fishers from the Mi’kmaw First Nation in Nova Scotia came under attack from settler fishers. The Indigenous fishers were exercising their treaty rights, as granted by the Canadian Supreme Court, to catch lobster for ceremonial, personal use and to make a "moderate" living. The White settlers physically attacked Indigenous fishers, racially abused them, destroyed equipment and boats and threatened supporters. The Canadian police stood by and watched. 

Why did this happen? What was the background? How have Indigenous fishers won their rights? And how can we ensure that all fishers are able to support their livelihoods in Nova Scotia and beyond, in a sustainable and equitable way? These are the questions that are addressed in Contested Waters, a collection of essays by fishers, Indigenous leaders and activists, politicians and scientists. 

The first thing to understand is that fishing is not a peripheral part of the economy of the Canadian economy. In 2018, "the fishery generated almost $870 million in employment income flowing through fishing communities in the three Maritime provinces and Quebec." The industry is growing rapidly, and income is growing fast as the cost of fish increases. This does not mean that more fish are being landed. This point is also crucial as some see the industry as growing exponetially in terms of its impact on the maritime ecology.

Indigenous people have responded to this in a number of ways. The most significant and dramatic change has been the consortium of six First Nations who have bought a 50 percent ownership in Clearwater Seafoods, "the largest shellfish processing company in Canada". This enables those Nations to profit from the regions fishing through becoming a clearing house for fishing catches and a reseller. Other Nations have formed networks to similar manage the fishing. Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick, "to build up a fleet of more than seventy inshore vessels harvesting lobster, snow crab and a few other species". In 2021 this fllet brough in $19 million and $16 million in lobster and crab for the Nation. Other Nations have successfully managed quotas and licenses to bring new Indigenous fishers into the industry and manage the economic benefits.

These changes have been possible in part, because of the activism that forced the Canadian Supreme Court to recognise Indigenous fishing rights, in the so called Marshall Decision. Marshall runs like a thread through the book, and there is a fascinating chapter by L. Jane McMillan, Fishing with Donald Marshall Jnr, whose arrest for asserting his right to catch eels saw a "wrongful prosecution, conviction and denial of his appeals". It was, she rights, "emblematic of the systemic discrimination and racism expereinced by Canadian Indigenous Peoples during the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries."

One of the key outcomes of the Marshall Decision was the "Indigneous right to a moderate livelihood". The problem was that this has never been clarified, and indeed it is awfully nebulous. As one group of authors' right on this, the outcome has led to further confusion even as it as asserted the rights of the First Nations:

Criticism... has persisted among Indigenous communities that there has been insufficient effort by Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure the Treaty Rights the Court affirmed in the Marshall decisions can be integrated and respected within current regulatory regimes. As a result, Indigenous communities, like the Sipekne'katik First Nation in Nova Scotia, have moved forward with their own self-regulated fisheries. In respnse, there has again been tension and even violence.

As they conclude "there's further work to do for all parties to agree on just what an Indigenous moderate livelihood looks like and how an Indigenous moderate livelihood fishery can be implemented in Atlantic Canada.

One chapter, A Mi'kmaw Approach to Managing Fisheries looks at the history of Indigenous fishing practices and the alternative they pose to commerical fishing. This discusses how fish and eels are respected, not caught when they are breeding or vulnerable and not collected in too large quantities:

Eelers, regardless of age or having children, spoke of wanting to make sure that the eels would be around for the next seven generations due to the important lessons eeling can teach about respect and the environment.

They continue:

Many respondents felt htat commerical fishing for eels had caused the decline of populations.. Several participants shared their anger and frustration with the non-Indigenous elver fishery and that it is allowed to continue when the eel population is low.

While it is worth celebrating this approach to natural resources, it is clear that it clashes with reality of commerical fishing for profit. An additional problem is caused because the First Nations themselves are engaging in the industry in a commerical way. This means that there will be a tension between the First Nations' ethos and the need to compete with non-First Nations fishing. This is reflected in the book's chapter on "commerical harvesting". The authors note:

The progressive expansion of First Nations fisheries holds some potential to destabilise the fisheries co-management system and harvester trust in it. Whether fairly and correctly or not, harvesters at the wharf level feel their livelihoods and the sustainability of thewir communities are threatened. They are putting increasing pressure on their leaders and organisations to advocate for the interests as publicly and aggressively as they see Indigenous leaders advancing their cause and defending their rights. These feelings of powerlessness and uncertainty about the future are exacerbating the miustrust and polaristaion between communities and seeding the ground for future conflict.

The authors go on to hope tha tther ewill be new forms of dialogue and engagemetn that can solve these issues. While it is clear that there are real dialogues taking place between communities and places to try and resolve tensions, I'm unsure that this will be enough. Part of the problem is that fishing is extremely profitable, but little of the value makes it back to the communities who need it. While Indigenous communities remain poor, non-First Nation communities also rely on government support during the non-fishing season. In these situations it is easy for politicians and corporations to blame others, rather than offering support and help. Tensions will likely break out again. This contradition is brought out by Fred Wien and Jeff Denis who, in a chapter on "overcoming racism" conclude:

An effective anti-racism strategy must come to grips with the underlying tensions and issues,. The fundamental issue is one of a gruop legitimately seeking reater participation in accessing a limited resource where existing interests are entrenched and the struggle is defined in zero-sum terms. Strategies need to be purused that involve measures such as making room for First Nations fishers in such away that the livelihoods of non-Indigenous fishers are taken into consideration... it also involves clarifying and obtaining acceptance of the ground rules for the fishing effort, how the moderate livelihood fishery will be managed and by whom and how sustainability of the resource will be ensured.

Firstly racism must be confronted. But at the same time ordinary fishers on the Atlantic Coast, both from the First Nations and non-Indigenous communities need to recognise that they have more in common than divides them. This means recognising that the fight has to be to ensure that both communities benefit from the hard and dangerous work at sea, and that both communities have to be tasked with managing, democratically, the resources. It also means acknowledging that fishing for profit will always lead to resource depletion as corpoations try to maximise profits. That has to be fought and challenged.

This will not be easy. There are people who are racist and prepared to use violence. They need to be exposed and challenged. While the book is perhaps overly optimistic about doing this within the framework of existing institutions and organisations, the authors clearly feel hopeful. The challenge however will be for ordinary fishers and their supporters to unite and resist both the commerical destruction of fisheries and the disunity caused by hundreds of years of government racism towards Indigenous peoples.

Related Reviews

Palmer - Colonialism & Capitalism: Canada's Origins 1500-1890
Nikiforuk - Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

Trevor Royle - Fighting Mac: The Downfall of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald

Sir Hector Macdonald was an unusual soldier in the British Army in the late 19th and very early 20th century. He distinguished himself at the Battle of Omdurman, being more competent than the usual British officers in killing African soldiers who mostly carried swords when facing artillery and machine guns. But what distinguished him was not just his ability to command troops in an era when officers were often incompetent. This was true at Omdurman, but it was doubly true in the First Boer War when Macdonald's superiors demonstrated astonishing limitations in the field of command.

What made Macdonald unusual was that he had come from a poor crofter's background and risen through the ranks on the back of his competence. 

This was very unusual in the period. The British Army had only just got rid of the Purchasing of Commissions as a means to becoming an officer, and ordinary troops being promoted upward was not yet common. It meant that "Fighting Mac" as he was known, was famous and popular, and was the source of patriotic pride for thousands of Scotsmen. His poor background made it extremely difficult to survive in this atmosphere. Being a British Officer then still required the soldier to purchase his own uniforms and so on, as well as dine out and be seen. There was enormous pressure on Macdonald and it is fair to say, at least in Trevor Royle's telling, that Fighting Mac struggled with the fame and the spectacle.

But at the height of his fame Macdonald was laid low by scandal and committed suicide. The scandal itself concerned "very grave charges". Royle argues that these were "homosexual" in origin. It seems likely that Macdonald was gay. While he married young and had a son, his relationship with his wife was distant - during his military career they hardly ever met and almost no one knew they were married. In fact this was possibly deliberate. At the time Macdonald's regiment did not allow officers to be married. Homosexuality was illegal at the time, and while there may have been suspicions within the army about Macdonald, nothing was proved. Royle details the repression and secrecy of gay men, and some of the scandals at the time that meant there was "a good deal of public interest" in homosexuality during Victoria's reign. It was considered "an illness bordering on insanity" and would have destroyed Macdonald's career and damaged anyone associated with him - since he had been close to members of the Royal Family this would have been a problem for the establishment.

In 1902 Macdonald was posted to command the troops in Ceylon. He arrived in March, and was "a man who may have been under suspicion" for his sexuality. Whether or not he was actually "under suspicion" or not, he did not improve his situation by "spurning polite society". Lack of funds meant he did not entertain, he was rude to the gentlemen who served in the local milita, and he befriended "a number of Burgher families - old Ceylonese familes of mixed European, usually Portugese and native Celonese origins". Macdonalds friendsship with the Burgher community and particularly a "family called de Saram" outraged the English colonial class. As Royle put's it, he was to "pay for his lack of allegiance to the white planter class".

The scandal erupted when Macdonald was suspected of "spending too much time" with the de Saram family children, especially their two sons. Rumours were that there was a "sexual relationship" between the boys and the General. While homosexuality "was an accepted and natural fact of life amongst the native Ceylonese... the de Sarams were a strict Burgher family whose code of morals proably owed more to their Portugese ancestry than to local customs".

Two versions of what caused the scandal exist. Both of them involve Macdonald being caught in some sexual relationship with boys on a train. Macdonald was sent back to England when the news borke, by his commanding officer, and then returned to Ceylon to try to clear his name. On the way back he stopped in Paris, and shot himself in a hotel room.

It was a huge scandal and Macdonald was buried with indecent haste, quickly and without ceremony. Thousands of Scots were shocked and heart broken, disbelieving the rumours and wanting to celebrate his life and patriotism.

There is no doubt that MacDonald was treated badly by the Army command. It is possible that this was in part because of his class background. It is also because Macdonald's senior officers were foolish. Royle asks whether MacDonald could have got away with the accusations and survived the scandal. He answers yes, pointing out that similar scandals had been dealt with without soldiers committing suicide or the public hearing of them:

If Macdonald had been possessed of influence in high places or indeed of more wordliness, or a guinea or two, then he could have taken legal or political advice and perhaps have put a damper on the charges. 

Royle further suggested that Macdonald misplaced faith in the army and his belief in "honour" made him think that suicide was the only way out. It was the only way to "regain the army's trust in him".

From a 21st century perspective though it is difficult to see this in the same way as Royle does, writing in 1982. But there is a repeated conflation of homosexuality with pedestry. While Macdonald may have been gay, the scandal was actually around "the fact that he liked little boys perhaps too much" to quote Royle. While Royle doesn't claim Macdonald as a tragic victim of homophobia and certainly not as a hero for the LGBT+ movement today, the conflation of homosexuality with abusive and inappropriate relationships sits badly today. 

Macdonald was, no doubt, a victim of prejudice, and Royle is right to say that he had been forced to "live a lie". We do not know the full evidence for the scandal that destroyed him, and General Macdonald was probably a victim of forces in the British military who hated him for his background. But he was also a man who used his position in society to abuse boys. 

Trevor Royle's book details the case well, and Macdonald's career is interesting, as is the material on the scandal and the awful position of gay men in Victorian society. But the book feels very dated with phrases such as "latent homosexual" being particularly noticeable. 

Related Reviews

Royle - The Wars of the Roses
Ziegler - Omdurman
Holmes - Redcoat

Stephen Graham Jones - My Heart is a Chainsaw

My Heart is a Chainsaw is the first in a trilogy of horror novels by Stephen Graham Jones. As I mentioned in my earlier review of his book The Only Good Indians there is a strong tradition of such works being used to discuss wider social and political themes. My Heart is a Chainsaw uses the genre in a very meta way to discuss big issues and more individual ones.

The book is set in a lakeside town of Proofrock, Idaho. It's a small town on Indian Lake. Jade Daniels is about to graduate, but her childhood has been hard. In her final semester she attempts suicide. Coming back to Proofrock she becomes convinced that the town is about to experience a slasher killing, as portrayed in a myriad of films that Jade is obsessed by. Jade's internal monologue, and increasingly frequently, her conversations with others, is peppered with references to events, plot devices and tropes of the slasher movie genre. She even identifies a "final girl" in Letha Mondragon a beautiful new girl in the school. Letha is popular, bright and the daughter of the fabulously wealthy Theo who is developing the far side of Indian Lake into a exclusive and expensive new housing area. The lake will be the playground of the rich and Proofrock will be the source of their labour and services.

As the victims begin to pile up there's alot of ambiguity about who is doing the killing. Jade is convinced it is a slasher and for a time people think the killer might be her. The reality is both more sinister and in keeping with the tropes of the genre. 

The book carefully ties up the horror with the wider social problems of poverty, boredom and abuse inherent to a poor, forgotten rural community. The rich, with their yachts and wealth, form a nice counter-point to the reality of Proofrock. Indeed their chosen name for their development Terra Nova, might echo the way that settlers viewed indigenous people and their lands when Europeans arrived. 

One of the most important themes of slasher movies for Jade is revenge. For her, the slashers are fighting injustice - literarily. The murders they commit are supposed to rectify some ancient evil or balance out some horror. But Jade divorces the events from her personal history. She doesn't get that she is the centre point of the story, believing that Letha in all her "final girl" glory of beauty and innocence, isn't the protagonist Jade thinks she is. As a result the finale takes everyone by surprise and allows Jones to keep misdirecting the reader while Jade stumbles through the chaos. A great read, but one that's really too gory for me.

Related Reviews

Jones - The Only Good Indians