Deleted posts on "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi"

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
libriincogniti
Offline
Joined: 14-12-17
Aug 11 2019 22:46
Deleted posts on "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi"

We uploaded several texts clarifying the issues that others have had with the International Communist Party and the text "Auschwitz and the great alibi". They were all removed without comment. Why? We don't know. Mike Harman seems to have taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of truth:

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 12 2019 02:57

I've never read it but weren't there allegations that the article "Auschwitz and the Great Alibi" purportedly written by Bordiga but published anonymously promoted holocaust denial?

proletarisch
Offline
Joined: 11-08-19
Aug 12 2019 07:15

The allegations came from people who went off hearsay or people with ulterior motives.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Aug 12 2019 08:43
libriincogniti wrote:
We uploaded several texts clarifying the issues that others have had with the International Communist Party and the text "Auschwitz and the great alibi". They were all removed without comment. Why? We don't know. Mike Harman seems to have taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of truth

Actually, it was me who unpublished (not deleted) your articles. I'm actually someone on this site that has defended hosting Bordigist texts as being broadly 'of interest' to libertarian communists (even if in no way libertarian themselves) but, if I'm being honest, I think we already have too many texts on this incredibly tedious discussion about an incredibly tedious article. And unlike Mike, I have a lot less patience to get into protracted back-and-forths over the minutae of debates like these.

We're discussing this internally (though a lot of us are away/busy atm). We'll get back to you as soon as we can, though I realise the international proletariat awaits with bated breath.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 12 2019 11:01

If you search for "Auchwitz the great alibi" on duckduckgo then you get the 4th unpublished article as the second response.

libriincogniti
Offline
Joined: 14-12-17
Aug 12 2019 13:49
Quote:
I'm actually someone on this site that has defended hosting Bordigist texts as being broadly 'of interest' to libertarian communists (even if in no way libertarian themselves)

It appears that this site doesn't host "Bordigist" texts to let them speak for themselves, but rather to paint a certain picture of what "Bordigism" would constitute - as further evidenced for example by this:

https://libcom.org/library/bordigism-adam-buick

Quote:
I think we already have too many texts on this incredibly tedious discussion about an incredibly tedious article.

It is a dubious honour to be hosted by Libcom if it means to have assassination attempts attached to texts. Accusations of Holocaust denial are a serious matter, describing the defence against that as "tedious" is at best cynic when we can witness by Sike's reaction in this very thread how easily parties are tainted by slander. You'd think anarchists would be wary of this phenomenon, given the history of Stalinism.

Quote:
And unlike Mike, I have a lot less patience to get into protracted back-and-forths over the minutae of debates like these.

Harman doesn't seem to be interested in "minutae" [sic] either, as we can see from his stupid reply to our recent article.

Quote:
We're discussing this internally (though a lot of us are away/busy atm). We'll get back to you as soon as we can, though I realise the international proletariat awaits with bated breath.

Surely the proletariat is still busy listening to extremely insightful podcasts on green anti-fascism.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Aug 12 2019 14:24
libriincogniti wrote:
It appears that this site doesn't host "Bordigist" texts to let them speak for themselves, but rather to paint a certain picture of what "Bordigism" would constitute - as further evidenced for example by this:

https://libcom.org/library/bordigism-adam-buick

For a group that seems to put a lot of its stock in criticism you don't seem to handle even mild criticism very well.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Aug 12 2019 14:37

And snide allusions to Armando Borghi's surname are just pathetic and childish, a damn sight better militant than Bordiga who kept schtum under fascism

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Aug 12 2019 17:05

Wasn't Bordiga imprisoned by the fascists and then purged by the communist party, only to become active again in Italy when the war was coming to a close? Armando on the other hand LEFT Italy in 1923 only come back once the war had ended. Of course one of them had be a bit more secretive and careful about their political activity than the other...

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Aug 12 2019 19:17

Oh for fuck sake, you Leninist cretin! Have you asked yourself why Borghi left Italy,? Because of his activities, like many other anarchists forced to do the same, Oh of course, it's so easy having to go into exile.

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 12 2019 19:47

While searching for the title on Duckduckgo, per jef's suggestion, I happened across this WordPress feed with mention that "Auschwitz the Great Alibi" wasn't written by Bordiga, but was instead written by one Martin Axelrad . To quote:

"Auchwitz the Great Alibi wasn't written by Bordiga. It was written by Martin Axelrad, a French Jewish member of the Intermational Communist Party whose both parents were killed by the Nazis in the Treblinka labor camp. "

If indeed it was written by Axelrad it does seem odd that he would feel compelled to write something denying the existence of the Holocaust given that both his parents lost their lives to it.

I guess I maybe I should read it and make up my own mind.

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 12 2019 19:50
LeninistGirl wrote:
Of course one of them had be a bit more secretive and careful about their political activity than the other...

What do you mean by that?

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Aug 12 2019 19:55

yes, let's see... if you're any kind of known/public radical or otherwise a threat to the smooth operation of the Fascist state, here are your primary choices in Italy between 1922 and 1943/45:
internal exile, usually under house arrest and/or constant intrusive surveillance; extended stay in one or more of the myriad prisons; the perpetual threat of beatings, maiming, even death at the hands of the squadristi; capitulation/collaboration; emigration. who the hell are you, LG, to decide which is the more prudent or courageous option -- regardless of the relative level of what YOU have decided is the need to be "careful about their political activity"?

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 12 2019 20:16

As the tragic case of the Rosselli brothers demonstrates it was by no means a safe proposition to be an Italian Anarchist in exile during the period that Mussolini was in power and continue to openly oppose Mussolini, and Borghi did continue to openly oppose Mussolini while in exile.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Aug 12 2019 20:35
Quote:
it was by no means a safe proposition to be an Italian Anarchist in exile during the period that Mussolini was in power

also Carlo Tresca, gunned down in NYC

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Aug 13 2019 05:12

And by these same criteria, of LG ,Trotsky and Lenin and many other Bolsheviks, who also went into exile should be discounted.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Aug 13 2019 05:53
Sike wrote:
If indeed it was written by Axelrad it does seem odd that he would feel compelled to write something denying the existence of the Holocaust given that both his parents lost their lives to it.

I guess I maybe I should read it and make up my own mind.

FFS it doesn't deny the existence of the Holocaust. Read the fucking thing before you dribble any more shit about it.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 13 2019 11:26

I have just read it, it doesn't deny the holocaust. Just like Mike says it argues that it was capitalist pressures rather than any ideology that lead to mass extermination.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. The liberal (not the anti-fascist) tells us that we do not have a problem with capitalism, just capitalists. "If they gave away their money like Bill Gates rather than suing Hawaiians for land rights like Zuckerberg then everyhing would be fine". So it seems this text tells us that the capitalists merely search robotically for more capital and have no agency of their own. This is of course not true, many of us have had a 'good' boss that treated us well and a 'bad' one that treated us badly, sometimes to the point of economically damaging their own business.

So while it is true that capitalists as a class are under economic pressure to act in a certain way individual capitalists do have agency and can put other things before capital; they can even act against their own interests through stupidity or incompetence

This, it seems to me, is why revisionism is mentioned. They take the extreme position that the extermination of the jews was 'just business'. In order for this to work a non-ideological reason is necessary. So the argument is that jews were mostly petty bourgeois (shown to be untrue) and were an 'easiliy identifiable' group. The second argument holds water in a practical sense, but doesn't contain an economic motive. Oddly enough if the argument were expanded to include jews as workers too, you could argue that it was a simple reduction in available workes and siezing the capital of the rest. But it doesn't explain why the Roma were targeted, for example. If there can only be a capitalist reason for death camps, then reasons need to be supplied for everyone or else the reader will start to wonder why the extermination of the jews has been singled out in this way.

The article also blames the extermination on the war, claiming that no other country wanted to 'buy' the jews, because no one else wanted to assume this economic burden. It is very true that most countries did not want to take large numbers of jews, but this was not simply for economic reasons (although economically the jews having already been stripped of virtually everything, they would have been an economic burden) there were also practical reasons, and of course our old friend anti-semitism. This completely ignores all the ideology that preceded the war.

Finally, the argument that capital worked jews to death doesn't hold water, Germany was already struggling to find enough workers when the Final Solution was implemented. It doesn't make sense for Germany to deliberately reduce its productive capacity when it was scrambling to find labour elsewhere (forced French labour etc).

And you could also mention any of the other decisions, you can find a lot of them if you look for a few minutes, that the Nazis (or any other regime under capitalism) are more than capable of acting against their own interests an or the interests of capital (the text also seems to think that these two interests are unified)

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 13 2019 17:05

When I posted my original comment I suspected that the accusations made elsewhere against "Auschwitz and the Great Alibi" may have had something to do with the reason that the various texts mentioned by the OP had been removed from Libcom and I was looking for clarification, and of course Ed's explanation clarified that such was not the case. I also suspected that with all of the Leninist's hanging out on this site lately that there would be some clarification in regards the accusations against "Auschwitz and the Great Alibi" from them, and I wanted to hear it. What I didn't suspect is that my original post was going to strike up such a shit storm among the Leninist's here.

Also, jeez! For a bunch of supposedly hardcore revolutionaries this thread has made it abundantly clear that certain contemporary Leninist's are sure a thin skinned lot. Though I guess I would be too if I was a follower of the dude that was at the head of the state led repression against the true revolutionary proletarian elements in the Russian Revolution, and who himself along with Trotsky laid the ground for the eventual triumph of Stalinism.

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Aug 13 2019 17:41
Quote:
Also, jeez! For a bunch of supposedly hardcore revolutionaries this thread has made it abundantly clear that certain contemporary Leninist's are sure a thin skinned lot.

It wasn't me who started calling people "fucking cretins".

libriincogniti
Offline
Joined: 14-12-17
Aug 13 2019 21:59
Battlescarred wrote:
And snide allusions to Armando Borghi's surname are just pathetic and childish, a damn sight better militant than Bordiga who kept schtum under fascism

It's exemplary that people here seem to get hung up on peripheral matters and language, derailing the thread instead of discussing. Similar behaviour can be witnessed in the comments to the Great Alibi on this website.

Sike wrote:
I happened across this WordPress feed with mention that "Auschwitz the Great Alibi" wasn't written by Bordiga, but was instead written by one Martin Axelrad .

You could have also found that information in the texts we wrote on the subject matter.

Sike wrote:
If indeed it was written by Axelrad it does seem odd that he would feel compelled to write something denying the existence of the Holocaust given that both his parents lost their lives to it.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the text does not deny the Holocaust, we have also shown in our response to Mike Harman that it is likely not true that Axelrad's parents died in Treblinka. The version hosted by Libcom continues to spread this misinformation, so we either assume that Harman has not read our text that far, or that the administrators simply don't care.

Sike wrote:
I guess I maybe I should read it and make up my own mind.

Bringing oneself into the position to discuss is usually considered a prerequisite to talking about a subject. Apparently, this idea is not very highly valued here.

jef costello wrote:
Just like Mike says it argues that it was capitalist pressures rather than any ideology that lead to mass extermination.

The Great Alibi explains ideology, rather than tautologically asserting a slippery slope within ideology itself. Ideology does not exist in a vacuum, freely floating above the world.

jef costello wrote:
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. The liberal (not the anti-fascist) tells us that we do not have a problem with capitalism, just capitalists. "If they gave away their money like Bill Gates rather than suing Hawaiians for land rights like Zuckerberg then everyhing would be fine". So it seems this text tells us that the capitalists merely search robotically for more capital and have no agency of their own. This is of course not true, many of us have had a 'good' boss that treated us well and a 'bad' one that treated us badly, sometimes to the point of economically damaging their own business.

Liberalism and anti-fascism do not exclude each other. Moreover, capitalism exists in and through the actions of capitalists – they uphold it through pursuing their interests. If an individual capitalist acts against his own interest, this in no way hampers the system as such, it is an accident whose possibility is from the outset included in the logic of capital, and whose consequences will assert themselves somewhere else within the whole, depending on his standing within competition. "Winners" can afford generosity at the expense of their favourable position - and may even need to do so, to attract workers -, losers can only act that way in the long-term at the cost of them ceasing to be capitalists, which means that another capitalist will take their place.

The text does absolutely not follow the vulgar materialism (more characteristic of the standpoint of political economy and the bourgeois) that you seem to read into it – the fact that you do so reveals more about your own idea of Marxism than it informs on the article. Nowhere does the Great Alibi deny the agency of the Nazis – something that is elaborated in detail in the various replies that we have translated, uploaded to our blog and also attempted to make available on this site. As already mentioned above, you'd think that reading them before replying would be mandatory.

jef costello wrote:
This, it seems to me, is why revisionism is mentioned. They take the extreme position that the extermination of the jews was 'just business'. In order for this to work a non-ideological reason is necessary.

Ideology by itself does not suffice as an explanation. Where does your ideology come from? Any resort to ideology as an explanation is itself an ideological explanation. Additionally, he text does not argue that the Holocaust was simply "business". It explains how antisemitism was able to develop on a mass scale, and how it gradually intensified. This materialist approach is broadly consistent with modern - non-Marxist - historians' explanations of the genocide, such as Ian Kershaw's, Yehuda Bauer's or Arno Mayer's. If this would make the text "revisionist", then so are the works of them.

jef costello wrote:
So the argument is that jews were mostly petty bourgeois (shown to be untrue)

Why don't you first read the ICP's, as well as our, replies to criticisms like yours, before making yourself into a clown like Harman did? Harman, who was too lazy to read his own sources and was unable to read the actual origins of the original criticism. Someone who apparently doesn't even know what negationism is! He obviously starts out from what is to result, otherwise his "arguments" cannot be explained.

jef costello wrote:
Oddly enough if the argument were expanded to include jews as workers too, you could argue that it was a simple reduction in available workes and siezing the capital of the rest.

The argument is not "expanded", because that would make it not based on facts, but fiction. The vast majority of German Jews were not workers – we went to great pains to show that.

jef costello wrote:
But it doesn't explain why the Roma were targeted, for example.

Surprising – the text is not about something it never claimed to be about! Why don't you write your own text discussing the murder of the Roma then? Besides, this issue is also dealt with in the replies by the ICP.

jef costello wrote:
If there can only be a capitalist reason for death camps, then reasons need to be supplied for everyone or else the reader will start to wonder why the extermination of the jews has been singled out in this way.

The text itself limited its scope on a particular subject - it aims to explain the Holocaust, not death camps in general. It is a funny critique to blame a work for not discussing topics it was never supposed to be about. Do you also lament that Darwin in his "Origin of Species" didn't explain gravity?

jef costello wrote:
It is very true that most countries did not want to take large numbers of jews, but this was not simply for economic reasons (although economically the jews having already been stripped of virtually everything, they would have been an economic burden) there were also practical reasons

What would those "practical reasons" be, and how would they not be mediations of economic facts?

jef costello wrote:
and of course our old friend anti-semitism.

An "old friend" Marxism has explained long before the Great Alibi - as stated in the article.

jef costello wrote:
This completely ignores all the ideology that preceded the war.

The Great Alibi explains the ideological movements of the Nazis, it does not ignore them.

jef costello wrote:
Finally, the argument that capital worked jews to death doesn't hold water, Germany was already struggling to find enough workers when the Final Solution was implemented. It doesn't make sense for Germany to deliberately reduce its productive capacity when it was scrambling to find labour elsewhere (forced French labour etc).

The point of ideology is precisely that it is not rational – nobody ever claimed that the Nazis would be machines who could perfectly respond to capital's "necessities" – it would be absurd to attempt to find economic reasons for the death of every single person killed in the Second World War and genocides. If you want to know why German capitalism embarked on this road, you ought to research the reasons for forced labour in France, rather than abstractly argue like this.

jef costello wrote:
And you could also mention any of the other decisions, you can find a lot of them if you look for a few minutes, that the Nazis (or any other regime under capitalism) are more than capable of acting against their own interests an or the interests of capital (the text also seems to think that these two interests are unified)

You mean like the Nazis building highly powered, "scary" weapons instead of just looking at what they need? Or the Nazis halting at Dunkirk, allowing the British to retreat, with the idea that they'd later secure an aerial victory, which never materialised and led them to engage in war with Russia? Or the fact that the Nazis did not collaborate nearly as much with Japan, Italy, etc. as the Allies did among themselves? All of those things are well known.

As already repeated ad nauseam, the Great Alibi does not dispute that – it is absurd to claim there would be an abstract general "interest of capital" separate from what asserts itself through the interplay of finance, commercial and industrial capital, respectively small and big capital, respectively different industries etc.

If anything, the complaints about tone, as well as people actively avoiding to read the material confirms everything the ICP has ever written about the topic. For the sake of completeness, here is the list of texts on our blog that we are talking about:

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Aug 13 2019 23:27

You know I'm partial to breaking up big blocks of text myself, but very few of your responses have anything to do with the bits of text you're quoting. Like at all.

Quote:
You mean like the Nazis building highly powered, "scary" weapons instead of just looking at what they need? Or the Nazis halting at Dunkirk, allowing the British to retreat, with the idea that they'd later secure an aerial victory, which never materialised and led them to engage in war with Russia? Or the fact that the Nazis did not collaborate nearly as much with Japan, Italy, etc. as the Allies did among themselves? All of those things are well known.

This is just wrong, Germany did not have a large enough fleet to launch an amphibious invasion of Britain, their North African front relied on the Italian navy for transport and logistics. Operation Sea Lion the actual invasion plan needed extreme building of a transport fleet, and it never made it to the levels needed. Goring bragged a lot about bringing the UK to its knees through his airpower but the actual plans drawn up were for the German air force to destroy the British air force to give the invasion fleet a better chance of crossing.

And according to multiple sources Hitler had told the German High Command to prepare for a war with Russia back when Rohm was still alive. And they had been preparing for it for sometime. And while with hindsight this seems like the dumbest idea imaginable, at the time even Britain and the USA expected the Soviet Union to be defeated very quickly, what with the purge of the Red Army and total breakdown of their defence lines.

It also took the Allies years to co-operate on a meaningful scale, that was largely while the Benelux and France fell apart so quickly. Dunkirk was nearly derailed because the governments couldn't agree on the ratio of men from the allied armies to be rescued.

There was an alliance to support China since 1937 and they didn't get there act together until 1941. Chiang Kai Shek had to settle for a handful of volunteers, buying old fighter planes and one road to Burma, and limited trade sanctions.

You've mentioned several historians but if this is what you think of the second world war, then I don't believe you've read them very closely.

Sike's picture
Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Aug 13 2019 23:45
libriincogniti wrote:
If anything, the complaints about tone, as well as people actively avoiding to read the material confirms everything the ICP has ever written about the topic.

I wouldn't go so far to say that I actively avoided reading the material. Not at all really, it's just that the material in question wasn't on the top of my already overly long lists of things to be read. As I said in my last post, my opening comment was more a question about the rational for the removable of the material from Libcom than it was about the substance of the material itself.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 14 2019 07:25
Reddebrek wrote:
You know I'm partial to breaking up big blocks of text myself, but very few of your responses have anything to do with the bits of text you're quoting. Like at all.

I thought it was just me!

Quote:
As already mentioned above, you'd think that reading them before replying would be mandatory.

I think reading a text is mandatory before replying to it. Perhaps the fact that you have written half a dozen articles in defnce of it suggests that the text is problematic. I did start one of them,, I forget which, but it was just more of the aggressive kind of 'defence' you are putting up which seemed like a waste of time. Much like responding here, but I've started so I'll finish.

Quote:
It explains how antisemitism was able to develop on a mass scale, and how it gradually intensified.

I really don't think it does. It doesn't strcitly contradict any explanations, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Quote:
Surprising – the text is not about something it never claimed to be about! Why don't you write your own text discussing the murder of the Roma then?
The text itself limited its scope on a particular subject - it aims to explain the Holocaust, not death camps in general. It is a funny critique to blame a work for not discussing topics it was never supposed to be about. Do you also lament that Darwin in his "Origin of Species" didn't explain gravity?

I think the text needs to explain why it is only about jews and not about others killed in the death camps. If the explanation only applies to jews then it is not an explanation of the camps. I wonder (again) why there was a need to explain why exterminating jews was due to economic pressures but no explanation for anyone else.
Not, but if Darwin had only explained how infants inherit characteristics from the father, then I would have wondered why he didn't mention the mother at all.

Quote:
What would those "practical reasons" be, and how would they not be mediations of economic facts?

Most of them would be, but I was using 'economic reasons' to describe the direct lack of economic means and capital of potential refugees. A little sloppy on my part.

Quote:
The point of ideology is precisely that it is not rational – nobody ever claimed that the Nazis would be machines who could perfectly respond to capital's "necessities" – it would be absurd to attempt to find economic reasons for the death of every single person killed in the Second World War and genocides. If you want to know why German capitalism embarked on this road, you ought to research the reasons for forced labour in France, rather than abstractly argue like this.

If I really want to know then I shouldn't read an article that explicitly claims to give that knowledge? An article that claims that the extermination of the jews was purely down to economic pressures should explain the extermination of productive workers when the regime was desperately in need of productive workers. This is not abstract, especially as the article rather glosses over it.

I really don't see the point of your rude and aggressive style, I don't see how it achieves anything other than you having the feeling you have scored a few points. You haven't actually refuted anything, aside from saying things aren't true or making general statements in a patronising way "it would be absurd to attempt to find economic reasons for the death of every single person killed in the Second World War and genocides", but that don't really contribute anything. And in this case contradict what you have said, as far as it can be said to have any relevant meaning. You can explain every single jew, but not other groups?

If you can point out which article explains why only the extermination of the jews can be explained, or which explains that of other groups, then I will read it, otherwise I am not reading half a dozen articles just so I can be down a rabbit hole with you.

libriincogniti
Offline
Joined: 14-12-17
Aug 14 2019 22:21
Reddebrek wrote:
You know I'm partial to breaking up big blocks of text myself, but very few of your responses have anything to do with the bits of text you're quoting. Like at all.

We are sorry for not replying in long, rambling essay form. We cannot help but notice that you're continuing to talk and complain about everything apart from what's in the text and what the original thread is about.

jef costello wrote:
Perhaps the fact that you have written half a dozen articles in defnce of it suggests that the text is problematic.

We haven't written "half a dozen articles in defence of it". We wrote two pieces, one dealing with Mitchell Abidor's "introduction" which the Marxists Internet Archive affixed to the text, the other addressing a similar preface by Mike Harman. The rest of the texts are translations. You haven't read anything about the topic, evidenced by you trying to judge the quality of a topic on the number of articles written about it. Counting makes a fine substitute for reading. Moreover, asserting that a text would be "problematic" is as vague as Harman's wording of "approaching revisionism" is. Either a text is revisionist, or it is not. Everything else is just quibbling and a sad attempt at slander. If there's a problem, it's not in the text but in what people want to read into it – a phenomenon definitely not exclusive to the Great Alibi, as decades of misreceptions of the work of Karl Marx show us.

jef costello wrote:
I did start one of them,, I forget which, but it was just more of the aggressive kind of 'defence' you are putting up which seemed like a waste of time. Much like responding here, but I've started so I'll finish.

Besides calling Mike Harman a clown – a label which seems more than appropriate considering his behaviour – our tone was completely neutral. We do not care about harsh tone, but if it is a problem to you, you ought to consider that it was not us calling others "cretins", as another person aptly remarked. Our defence is determined - simply because we are convinced that the argument of the Great Alibi is correct, and accordingly consider your attempts at throwing mud in the hope that something sticks defamatory. If you consider reading any kind of polemic a waste of time, you must have a hard time reading classics like Marx and Engels, who were a lot less restrained than us in matters of personal indignities.

jef costello wrote:
I think the text needs to explain why it is only about jews and not about others killed in the death camps. If the explanation only applies to jews then it is not an explanation of the camps.

The text is not supposed to be an "explanation of the camps". It explains the Holocaust – why you want a 1960 text to deal with a topic that not only isn't its declared objective, but that is poorly researched even today, is anyone's guess.

jef costello wrote:
I wonder (again) why there was a need to explain why exterminating jews was due to economic pressures but no explanation for anyone else.

Because the genocide of the Sinti and Roma is not commonly used in bourgeois propaganda in an attempt to disarm the proletariat, whereas the Holocaust has been cited as a justification for the Second World War since the liberation of the camps.

jef costello wrote:
If I really want to know then I shouldn't read an article that explicitly claims to give that knowledge?

The Great Alibi does not claim to inform about the reasons for the German state employing forced labour in France.

jef costello wrote:
An article that claims that the extermination of the jews was purely down to economic pressures should explain the extermination of productive workers when the regime was desperately in need of productive workers.

We didn't think it was worth mentioning the fact that Nazis separated those fit for work and those who weren't, described enough as happening at the railway station at Auschwitz and other places. Stupidity clearly knows no bounds.

jef costello wrote:
This is not abstract, especially as the article rather glosses over it.

The abstract part is you randomly bringing the topic up, when it has no connection to the Great Alibi. There was not going to be any point at which the Nazis would have decided that "enough Jews would have been killed to fix the economy", if that is what your idea is. Harman's fixation on Eastern Jews seems to stem from a similar blunder – the ideology of the Nazis sprang from German conditions, and developed as such.

jef costello wrote:
I really don't see the point of your rude and aggressive style, I don't see how it achieves anything other than you having the feeling you have scored a few points.

We are not interested in "scoring points", which is perhaps projection on your part. These recurring and lame complaints about language are again a way of dodging to talk about the salient aspects. If we come across as "rude", then that is merely because we consider your admitted laziness as well as the defamation of the Great Alibi not only rude, but insulting.

jef costello wrote:
You haven't actually refuted anything, aside from saying things aren't true

We have - in multiple texts that you acknowledge you won't read.

jef costello wrote:
making general statements in a patronising way "it would be absurd to attempt to find economic reasons for the death of every single person killed in the Second World War and genocides", but that don't really contribute anything. And in this case contradict what you have said, as far as it can be said to have any relevant meaning. You can explain every single jew, but not other groups?

The Great Alibi does not aim to explain every single Jew killed – that is precisely what we wanted to say by the excerpt your quoted here.

jef costello wrote:
If you can point out which article explains why only the extermination of the jews can be explained, or which explains that of other groups, then I will read it, otherwise I am not reading half a dozen articles just so I can be down a rabbit hole with you.

We go "down a rabbit hole" because of people like you or Mike Harman – we've looked into various sources brought up and found that they don't say what people claim they do. If you don't even want to look at the summary we have provided of our research, then that's your decision, but it's ridiculous to further attempt to argue on the basis of obviously incomplete knowledge on your part. The only conclusion that we can draw from this whole fiasco on Libcom is that anarchists adopt a priori stances and then work backwards to defend them - facts and logic be damned.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 14 2019 22:39
Quote:
The only conclusion that we can draw from this whole fiasco on Libcom is that anarchists adopt a priori stances and then work backwards to defend them - facts and logic be damned.

Yeah that's the only possible conclusion. Nothing at all to do with you boring on obsessively about esoterica to the point that the admins simply lost patience with the whole thing, it must be a Feature of Anarchists.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Aug 14 2019 22:52

I'm a bit late to this and was going to start responding to points but ultimately this is the only important thing here:

libriincogniti wrote:
It is a dubious honour to be hosted by Libcom if it means to have assassination attempts attached to texts.

If you don't want to host your articles on libcom, feel free not to. No one's forcing you to post them if you find such "assassination attempts" so upsetting.

I see you've linked to them in this thread, which seems a fine compromise. As far as I'm concerned, this matter can be closed.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Aug 15 2019 00:28
Quote:
the Holocaust has been cited as a justification for the Second World War since the liberation of the camps.

This statement, coming so soon after the idea of "bourgeois propaganda being used to disarm the proletariat," makes it sound like the propagandists of the Allies used the Nazi policy of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question as one of the reasons put forward to explain their participation in the war. This is hilarious, given that there might have been some sort of move by one or more of the Allied powers to hasten the rescue of Jews in the parts of Europe who were subject to deportation and extermination (or even some move to disrupt the mundane functioning of the various labor and death camps). Yet, as is amply documented in numerous bourgeois histories of the war, no such moves were ever implemented aside from various single-office or even single-person efforts, like those of Si Kaddour Benghabrit, Abdol Hussein Sardari, Chiune Sugihara, Angel Sanz Briz, and more famously Raoul Wallenberg -- which are remarkable and memorable precisely because their efforts were so rare.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 15 2019 02:45

honestly, those articles were shit, you should thank libcom for deleting them

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 15 2019 09:21
libriincogniti wrote:

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the text does not deny the Holocaust, we have also shown in our response to Mike Harman that it is likely not true that Axelrad's parents died in Treblinka. The version hosted by Libcom continues to spread this misinformation, so we either assume that Harman has not read our text that far, or that the administrators simply don't care.

fwiw I didn't add that line to the introduction, it was added by craftwork - feel free to ask craftwork where he got the information from. Users with sufficient permissions on the site can see the old version of the intro from 2016 here, before I made any edits. https://libcom.org/node/28806/revisions/101636/view. Fun that you think everything added to the site is done personally by me though.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 15 2019 09:23
libriincogniti wrote:

Harman doesn't seem to be interested in "minutae" [sic] either, as we can see from his stupid reply to our recent article.

If by 'stupid' you mean 'pointing out our intellectual dishonesty and inability to read'. You've used a lot of words in this thread, but none to actually respond to the comment I left at the end here: https://libcom.org/library/auschwitz-big-alibi