How to explain the Nazi obsession with Jews

199 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 10 2005 18:04
baboon wrote:
Why do you anarchists types get so annoyed about the obvious.

Revol68 (you're having a laugh) says "no one here has ever defended the trade unions" then goes on to defend the trade unions as workers organisations. It's there. Read it.

You're a moron.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 10 2005 18:29
John. wrote:
baboon wrote:
Why do you anarchists types get so annoyed about the obvious.

Revol68 (you're having a laugh) says "no one here has ever defended the trade unions" then goes on to defend the trade unions as workers organisations. It's there. Read it.

You're a moron.

Hey! No flaming sad

On a serious note, I think that some of the ICC posters' claims about anarchists are also pretty insulting. My repeated requests for apologies have just been met with evasions, and repeats of the same slurs.

Jim Clarke's picture
Jim Clarke
Offline
Joined: 30-04-06
Dec 10 2005 18:46
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:

Hey! No flaming sad

On a serious note, I think that some of the ICC posters' claims about anarchists are also pretty insulting. My repeated requests for apologies have just been met with evasions, and repeats of the same slurs.

Maybe we should ban them... grin

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 10 2005 19:25

Hi

Quote:
Great, with your usual flair, you've just insulted everyone on this site

I think it’s best to put it down to “cheeky humour”. Another arrow in the Internationalist quiver.

Under no circumstances must we expel the Internationalists, that will put us in extremely poor company. They have a necessary historical role and they must be preserved. The cost of allowing them to post here is small compared to the joy brought to me be their stubborn defence of their flawed principles.

Lots of love to everyone

LR

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Dec 11 2005 16:04
baboon wrote:
Why do you anarchists types get so annoyed about the obvious.

MartinH offers explicit support for democracy.

Why, when you are all such firm believers in the superiority of capitalist democracy and its structures, do you get annoyed when someone points this obvious fact out?

no, I didn't. I merely pointed out it was preferable to living under Stalinism or fascism. While i've not done that myself, I've met enough comrades who have to feel your equation of them as being identical is a little insulting. Perhaps you'd care to open my eyes?

And BTW, I'm still waiting for news of what the ICC is doing in the remaining stalinist and fascist states. If there's no difference between them you'll be doing at least as much organising there as here.

Martin

(beginning to see where LazyRiser is coming from on this one wink )

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 12 2005 13:39

martinh the question - as we have said once or twice before - is not whether is no difference between democratic and Stalinist or fascist states, but whether we support the demcoratic states against the 'undemocratic' ones.

Lazy Riser assuming your post is not just 'cheeky humour', then it looks like a breakthrough. For a start, it credits ICC members and supporters with being capable of 'cheeky humour', which is a step beyond "having no sense of humour", or being "harmless cranks", "political anoraks", or similar.

More to the point, you defend the need for us to be present on these forums and oppose us being banned.

Lazlo time to get off your high horse. If we bothered to demand apologies for every insult thrown at us on these threads, we wouldn't have time for anything else. And you are no less capable of dishing it out than anyone else.

But what you call insults - such the charge that many anarchists end up defending democracy - are founded on a political analysis and we have tried to explain this in numerous ways. Obviously we need to keep explaining it, but the intention is that not to insult or slander, but to patiently (and, as Lazy Riser notes, "stubbornly") explain.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Dec 12 2005 13:46
martinh wrote:

And BTW, I'm still waiting for news of what the ICC is doing in the remaining stalinist and fascist states. If there's no difference between them you'll be doing at least as much organising there as here.

Since you're online, you might want to deal with this aspect of martin's post too. smile

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 12 2005 15:22

I thought I had answered this it's a false question. The discussion isn't about whether or not it's easier to carry out political activities in some regimes than others. Many of the Italian left communists in the 20s and 30s had to leave Mussolini's Italy to carry on political activity elsewhere. But this didn't weaken their conviction that both fascism and democracy were both forms of bourgeois rule. Even if their forms and methods were not always the same, the working class had to fight against both.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Dec 12 2005 15:28
Alf wrote:
I thought I had answered this: it's a false question. The discussion isn't about whether or not it's easier to carry out political activities in some regimes than others. Many of the Italian left communists in the 20s and 30s had to leave Mussolini's Italy to carry on political activity elsewhere. But this didn't weaken their conviction that both fascism and democracy were both forms of bourgeois rule. Even if their forms and methods were not always the same, the working class had to fight against both.

for the name of fucking christ has anyone doubted that they have to fight against both?

the question is whether one can reduce "the resistance" in those countries occupied by axis powers to a stooge for allied imperialism? We don't think you can. the simple fact is that the axis occupations created much more resistance because of it's particularly brutal form of class rule, just as how a wanker manager can provoke much more resistance than a clever "people person", does that mean that when workers take action against blatant transgressions of work place rules they are objectively strengthening captial?

twat

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 12 2005 15:52

quick response from the "twat" (apparently the female sexual organ is still considered a bad thing in some circles)

revol68 evades the issue by giving an example of a workers' struggle against a dictatorial boss. That's obviously a form of class struggle and doesn't "objectively strengthen capital".

The debate about the Resistance groups is whether the "partisan" organisations represented a form of class struggle, or a way of derailing the struggle into the military fronts of an imperialist war. Some posts back I asked Lazlo to be specific and give examples of actual Resistance groups who were autonomous (in the class sense of the term) from the military fronts. No reply as yet. I put the same question to revol68.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Dec 12 2005 16:23

so you think the class struggle never moves onto a military terrain?

I would agree that it is not something we should rush to but rather something the working class that history has forced upon the class.

And surely you must recognise that fascism means that struggle upon a workplace plane is much much harder. One of the most important reasons as to why we should not collapse liberal democracy, fascism and stalinism into a homogenous "capitalism", refusal to recognise such differences hints at deep determinism.

Do you think that the thousands of workplace militants and communists just ran off to the hills for a laugh, cos they thought they could lead a general strike but hey fuck it lets go play cowboys and indians?

And please don't ever try and paint me calling you a twat as some sort of sexist slur, would you have been any happier if i had called you a cock?

You remind me of the sad fuck of an SWP fulltimer who gave me a lecture in the middle of a pub for calling someone a cunt.

Fuck right back off to the eigthies with your ill thought out one dimensional identity/language politics.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 12 2005 19:11
Alf wrote:
The debate about the Resistance groups is whether the "partisan" organisations represented a form of class struggle, or a way of derailing the struggle into the military fronts of an imperialist war

Why does the anser have to be one or the other? They were clearly both.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 12 2005 22:58

So that's what twat means.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 13 2005 00:23

Excuse me?

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 13 2005 01:02

If history has taught us anything, it is that the the bourgeoisie doesn't support class struggles in enemy countries. It will however support anything that derails the class struggle into a dead-end. For example, the western ruling classes supported the Solidarnosc trade union but not the Polish strike committees.

The Polish class stuggles of 1980 were massive, and far more advanced that anything that was taking place in the democracies at the time. That experience shows us that the class struggle is the best response to the most repressive regimes, that democracy is not a precondition for class struggle. Democracy is certainly not worth dying for.

How did the Western bourgeoisie react to the situation in Poland at its height (before Solidarnosc disarmed the workers)? The IMF granted Poland cheap loans. Campaigns of ‘assistance for Poland’ were started. West German social-democratic Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the arch-stalinist GDR leader Erich Honecker met to discuss a common strategy to defeat the movement. Basically, the rivals of the cold war put aside thier differences in response to the mass strike in Poland.

The rivals of the Franco-Prussian war did the same in response to the Commune, as did the rivals of WW1 as a response to the German revolution. Heck even the U.S stopped it's war against Saddam in response to the soviets and mutiny in Kurdistan. As widespread as it was, the resistance had no such effect on the rival camps of WW2. That alone is telling enough.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 13 2005 01:16

Why does revol get away with flaming so much?

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 13 2005 08:46

Response to Revol68 again

Thousands of “communists” went to the hills to join the partisans? Again, be specific. The second world war was only possible because of a gigantic defeat of the working class in the 20s and 30s. The Communist Parties were integrated into capitalism well before the war and the Trotskyist groups during the war. The numbers of actual communists - ie, internationalists - were reduced to tiny minorities, and they rejected the politics of the Resistance, so who are you referring to exactly?.

Yes, of course the class struggle has a military dimension. It exists in embryonic form in the immediate struggle, when workers have to organise their self-defence against capitalist cops and goons. It exists on a higher level when the struggle goes from the defensive to the offensive and the question of the armed assault on the capitalist state is posed.

But not every armed struggle that workers take part in – even with sincere convictions – is part of the class struggle. The Resistance groups took thousands of workers onto the terrain of patriotism, ie away from the class struggle. They were fiercely hostile to any talk of fraternisation and international solidarity. Lazlo’s idea that the Resistance could be both for the class struggle and for the war makes no sense at all imperialist war and class war are utterly antagonistic.

Maybe you can find examples of groups who tried to square the circle and combine joining the Resistance with maintaining an internationalist position. That would be interesting, but it wouldn’t change the basic point, precisely because it was an impossibility to defend both positions at the same time.

As for epithets, neither “twat” nor “cock” bother me that much, although it does look a bit like Revol68 has a special licence to flame, as alibadani also notes. On the other hand, calling me a “life-stylist” really cut me to the quick.

Still it makes a change. Forget the 80s back in the 70s already World Revolution was banned by one “politically correct” libertarian print shop because we published an article which attacked feminism as demanding “equal mystifications for women”. I don’t think we have gone soft on feminism et al. since then, although we have written a few more in-depth articles on the attitude of Marxism to the real problem of the oppression of women, which is not be confused with the bourgeois ideology of feminism.

baboon
Online
Joined: 29-07-05
Dec 15 2005 13:49

Although it's not directly transposable we can use the example of the Australian race attacks to illustrate the question of the "lesser evil" and anti-fascism.

In Australia in the last week or so racist mobs have attacked any olive-skinned people they have come across or hunted down, beating some up and threatening the lives of others. Some of these victims have been saved from the mob by the police, the latter, in a couple of televised encounters, showing some degree of concern and courage in helping the victims. Certainly the police, doing more than you, I and everyone else on this post, to practically help those being attacked and assaulted because of the colour of their skin. Were I a victim in this situation, I would welcome and be grateful for the police saving me.

Should we be supporting the police because "they are doing something", because "they are saving people", "they at least are a lesser evil". These arguments haven't been used in relation to Australia but they have been used by many on this thread in relation to WWII. If one were to support the police (or elements of them) as "a lesser evil" in relation to a racist mob, one would have to be supporting the Australian state whose agents they are; a state, which like all capitalist states, has racism woven into its very fabric. Like all others, the Australian state promotes racism, anti-immigration and xenophobic propaganda on a daily basis. Anti-racist fronts with any number of lesser evils will do absolutely nothing to eliminate racism; in fact it can only strengthen it by sowing illusions in the state from where it "naturally" emanates. Only the autonomous action of the working class can even begin to address the question of racism, its real roots and the way to confront it.

In order to be against the murders of innocents in Germany during WWII, a number of posts on this thread have supported - by default, through the lack of a coherent position, by putting forward half-baked partial "positions" - and this is where is hasn't been exlicitly stated, have supported murderous, capitalist gangsters that have slaughtered an even greater number of innocents - a so-called lesser evil. It's not suprising that this is done as the weight of the anti-fascist campaign is one of the bourgeoisies' most massive campaigns ever. It is not suprising, but that doesn't make this position any the less anti-working class, ie, the support for capitalist factions in an imperialist war. In this case, democracy and stalinism.

The idea that something, some regime or other, is vaguely "better in the circumstances" under a capitalist system that is decaying fast, is a very weak basis for trying to put forward a working class position. In fact on this basis (supported by any number of posts on this thread) you have already been diverted away from a proletarian postion and must end up supported the bourgeoisie. This whole approach trivialises and individualises the question of imperialism and revolution to the point of abstractin and fantasy and, as this thread has amply demonstrated, leads to explicit or implicit support to one imperialist camp or the other.

A lot more innocents are going to be slaughtered (are being) by capitalism, that's the nature of all its regimes which are expressing the terminal decay of the system. It is essential that the working class holds on to and defends its positions even (especially) those that have come out of the terrible depths of counter-revolution. Anti-fascism can only end up supporting one faction of the bourgeoisie or the other.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Online
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 16 2005 00:12

Didn't you just complain about a comparison to a particular instance on this topic. keep your rhetoric together.

Capitalist states are NOT based upon racism, they CAN be but it is not necessary. Capitalist states are based upon the oppression of the working class and while racism is a useful method of carrying out this oppression it is not the only one.

Many of the resistance organisations in France at least were communist, by shortening the duration of the war they saved proletarian lives (which are lost at a higher rate during war) thus helping to maintain the mass strength of the proletariat in anticipation of a fine useful and not at all irrelevant organisation like the ICC unleashing it.

In support of our female comrades I think revol should stop using the words cunt and twat.

In support of our male comrades he should stop using the word cock.

In support of our comrades who have made a choice to renounce the capitalist construct of the family he should stop using the word wanker.

I suggest a new post to think up new insults, I'm sure you're up to the challenge revol.

JC for the JCC

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 16 2005 09:52

Jeff I welcome your regular concern to hold a proper discussion and avoid gratuitous abuse.

Baboon however did not say that capitalist states are based on racism. As you say they are based on the exploitation of the working class. He said that racism is 'woven into their fabric', which is not the same thing. Nationalism is the ideological cement of the nation state, and nationalism, especially in this epoch, is inseparable from racism.

Again, you claim that the resistance groups were 'communist', but what does that mean? They were dominated by Stalinism, but Stalinism is the negation of communism. That's why I have asked those defending the Resistance to be concrete about which of the resistance groups they are putting forward as 'communist' or proletarian.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 16 2005 14:22
Alf wrote:
I have asked those defending the Resistance to be concrete about which of the resistance groups they are putting forward as 'communist' or proletarian.

You want a 'group' to be proletarian and communist? That basically means, due to your narrow understanding of the terms, that you want me to point to a group that was, from top to bottom, in line with your own variety of left communism.

As I've said, the resistance groups were contradictory, containing tendencies towards useful working class self activity and harmful tendencies towards centralisation and authoritarianism.

This is similar to my analysis of UK unions, which are likewise often made up of good grassroots activity and harmful bureaucratic consensus politics.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 16 2005 18:36
Quote:
You want a 'group' to be proletarian and communist? That basically means, due to your narrow understanding of the terms, that you want me to point to a group that was, from top to bottom, in line with your own variety of left communism.

If you took the time to read what the ICC has said on this forum, you'll know that proletarian doesn't mean a certain variety of left communism. It does mean internationalist however. As such there were anarchists during WW2 who did take the proletarian line and rejected the resistance. There were anarchists who refused to take sides in the Spanish conflict as well.

Today the same can be said. There are groups like the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation based in South Africa, the Moscow based Revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalist Group, and the Hungarian Anarcho-communsit group Barikád Kollektíva. These are not marxist or left communist groups but they are definitely in the proletarian camp.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Dec 16 2005 18:42
alibadani wrote:
Quote:
You want a 'group' to be proletarian and communist? That basically means, due to your narrow understanding of the terms, that you want me to point to a group that was, from top to bottom, in line with your own variety of left communism.

If you took the time to read what the ICC has said on this forum, you'll know that proletarian doesn't mean a certain variety of left communism. It does mean internationalist however. As such there were anarchists during WW2 who did take the proletarian line and rejected the resistance. There were anarchists who refused to take sides in the Spanish conflict as well.

Today the same can be said. There are groups like the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation based in South Africa, the Moscow based Revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalist Group, and the Hungarian Anarcho-communsit group Barikád Kollektíva. These are not marxist or left communist groups but they are definitely in the proletarian camp.

what anarchists groups "refused to pick a side" in the spanish civil war? Are you talking about the Friends of Durruti?

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Dec 16 2005 19:08

Hi

Well it's true innit? The Friends of Durruti wanted to place all the bourgeoisie, from Garcia Oliver to Franco, up against the wall.

Love

Oliver

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Dec 16 2005 19:12
JDMFist wrote:
Hi

Well it's true innit? The Friends of Durruti wanted to place all the bourgeoisie, from Garcia Oliver to Franco, up against the wall.

Love

Oliver

well not quite and they certainly didn't shirk from fighting in the militias.

alot of people talk alot of shit about the friends of durruti.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Online
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 17 2005 08:57
Alf wrote:
Jeff: I welcome your regular concern to hold a proper discussion and avoid gratuitous abuse.

...Nationalism is the ideological cement of the nation state, and nationalism, especially in this epoch, is inseparable from racism.

Again, you claim that the resistance groups were 'communist', but what does that mean? They were dominated by Stalinism, but Stalinism is the negation of communism. That's why I have asked those defending the Resistance to be concrete about which of the resistance groups they are putting forward as 'communist' or proletarian.

The Front National, was set up by the PCF in 1941, its military wing Francs tireurs et partisans was the largest and most efffective resistance group. It is true that this organisation began after the german invasion of the USSR, it was solidarity that inspired this, whether misguided or not. I don't think that makes them Stalinist in the sense that you use this word. There was less information about what Stalin was up to available then, there was still a hope that the 1917 revolution would be brought to fruition, while it is easy to look back and sneer at their mistakes I prefer to respect their courage and intentions. I don't think any form of working class struggle against authority is meaningless. Don't believe the Gaullist hype.

And ffs why spell my name Jeff? why does everyone on the internet assume I cannot spell my own name?

Alf's picture
Alf
Online
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 19 2005 09:16

Jef apologies for the spelling. But I don't see how an organisation set up by the PCF during the war - a period when it was openly Stalinist, as opposed to the shame-faced Stalinism of later years; an organisation which had its explicitly nationalist aims enshrined in its very name, could be anything but Stalinist. Certainly the strength of the Stalinist organisations in that period was the widespread belief and hope among many workers that the USSR still stood for the ideals of October 1917. But this was a total falsehood, and it's not just hindsight on our part. Genuine revolutionaries were saying precisely that at the time - and they worked hard to convince sincere workers that they should leave the Communist Parties and join the ranks of the internationalists.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 19 2005 13:41
Alf wrote:
an organisation which had its explicitly nationalist aims enshrined in its very name

lol, weren't the bolsheviks officially called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks)?

baboon
Online
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 12 2006 15:24

By way of a conclusion...

- The rise of Nazism, the whole of WWII was an expression of the decadence of capitalism, events which took place on the back of the defeat of the revolutionary wave of the working class.

- The crimes of democracy were at least those of Nazism - that's when the former wasn't directly complicit with the latter. The victors wrote the history of WWII.

- Anti-fascism doesn't exist in fantasies, but in the real, material world and could only be support for one imperialism against another. Anti-fascism was the democratic\stalinist alliance against another imperialist contender.

- The Resistance were nowhere an expression of the working class but a tool in the hands of competing imperialist factions.

- There were expressions of humanity from many individuals during the war (including some Nazis) and the working class, as a class for humanity, must applaud such expressions. However, these individual actions count for nothing against the numbers of innocents slaughtered.

- Anti-fascism has been supported as doing "something" as against doing "nothing" by people who are calling themselves communist or revolutionaries. But who supports "doing nothing"? Not the ICC and its sympathisers. To call oneself communist or revolutionary one must agree that there is a revolutionary perspective. It's been drowned on this thread by support for anti-fascism.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Jan 12 2006 18:21

Why do you think that that is a 'conclusion'?