Black and red Company in the Warsaw Uprising (1944) against Nazi occupation

Black and red Company in the Warsaw Uprising (1944) against Nazi occupation

An outline of the ZSP's activities during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. From the Eastern European journal Abolishing the Borders from Below, #31 (February 2008).

AttachmentSize
brc.pdf84.66 KB

Comments

akai
Nov 23 2014 16:50

A correction: neither ZSP nor ZZZ were ever affiliates of the IWA. The Anarchist Federation of Poland was somehow affilliated as a propaganda group. Before the war, the ZZZ was interested in affiliated but it did not happen. The reason was the war.

akai
Nov 23 2014 16:52

So now there is a Libcom tag of ZSP which is used for both the historical organization and the current. What to do? Many add ZSP-IWA to the current?

Gepetto
Nov 25 2014 13:20

Well, it's funny considering the old ZSP weren't even anarchists, they were pretty much left-wing nationalists (they called their ideology "Polish variety of syndicalism").

akai
Nov 25 2014 17:11

Well, it is sort of funny. There were some anarchists there, but yes, patriotic (as most of them were at the time). ZSP was much better than ZZZ though.

Gepetto
Nov 27 2014 19:56
akai wrote:
There were some anarchists there, but yes, patriotic (as most of them were at the time).

Yeah, even the anarchist SOW (which also included many non-anarchists) which broke off from them was still very confused in that regard.

akai
Nov 30 2014 11:24

There is a long tradition of nationalism and patriotism playing too big a role in Polish political history (and some other countries in E. Europe). This has infected all parts of the left and many parts of anarchism. In the 80s-90s, the reborn anarchist movement was too caught up in these ideas and even now you find people who defend it.

Auld-bod
Nov 30 2014 12:42

Yup, there was some Scots anarchists who wanted people to vote for ‘independence’ in the recent referendum. Strange but true.

akai
Dec 1 2014 07:33

Well, given the history and the murderous nazi occupation, in those days these sentiments could be more understandable. But workers have no homeland.

If anarchists and internationalist communists won't fight against patriotism, who will?

augustynww
Dec 6 2014 15:33
akai wrote:
A correction: neither ZSP nor ZZZ were ever affiliates of the IWA. The Anarchist Federation of Poland was somehow affilliated as a propaganda group. Before the war, the ZZZ was interested in affiliated but it did not happen. The reason was the war.

There's mistake in translation. In polish original: "ZZZ...w 1938r. postanowił przyłączyć się do IWA, anarchosyndykalistycznej międzynarodówki"
"ZZZ..in 1938 decided to join IWA...anarcho-syndicalist international"

http://anarchizm.net.pl/historia/syndykalisci-w-powstaniu-warszawskim

In ABB: [ZSP] "became a member the international association of anarcho-syndicalist unions, the 'International Workers' Association' (IWA)."

As for anarchism, syndicalism patriotism etc, ZZZ originally was right-wing union supporting Pilsudski. Anarchists joined it and used entrism gradually turning it to the left & anarchism with declining membership though (from 120 000 to 40 000). This process wasn't finished when war started and ZZZ ceased to exist. So its not so bad as it sounds considering what ZZZ was initially.

ZZZ & ZSP supported what they called "libertarian socialism" It was mix of anarchism, marxism, "popular patriotism" (ie workers' patriotism without class collaboration). During nazi occupation an organisation without patriot component would have zero support

Gepetto
Dec 6 2014 22:03
akai wrote:
This has infected all parts of the left and many parts of anarchism. In the 80s-90s, the reborn anarchist movement was too caught up in these ideas and even now you find people who defend it.

It's especially frustrating when it comes not from those weirdos who invented such things like "anarcho-Sarmatism", but from "trv working class anarchists", though this time under the cloak of anti-fascism. Like, last year on 1st September there was "March of Forgotten Heroes" in Katowice, to commemorate socialists, syndicalists and anarchists (and soldiers of PSL's Peasant Battalions... WTF?) who participated in WW2 resistance. A song by supposedly "anarchist" rapper protoming the March not only said that "anti-fascists also fought the invader", but also accused the far right of... "covering their Germanophilic gambits with national emblem" ("German" apparently being equal with "Nazi").

Gepetto
Dec 6 2014 20:10
augustynww wrote:
(ie workers' patriotism without class collaboration)

laugh out loud

Have mercy you killer.

Gepetto
Dec 6 2014 20:45

Program of the ZSP was basically generalised self-management within confines of the nation state (whose Western border would be on Oder and Eastern the same as pre-war one- this kinda stinks of Polish chauvinism to me). The very fact they didn't see their "revolution" as going beyond national borders is telling. Well, they called their ideology "Polish variety of syndicalism" ffs. Which sounds nasty considering that there was something called national syndicalism before, and it was a demo version of fascism wink. Anyway anarchists disagreed with the ZSP and founded SOW. However, it also lapsed into social patriotism. Or rather was on this road from beginning.

Entdinglichung
Dec 6 2014 21:14
Gepetto wrote:
"anarcho-Sarmatism"

Anarchism in one Rzeczpospolita?

Gepetto
Dec 6 2014 21:42
Entdinglichung wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
"anarcho-Sarmatism"

Anarchism in one Rzeczpospolita?

All power to the Sejm! (unless someone uses liberum veto... wink)

Gepetto
Dec 6 2014 21:51
Mickiewicz, "Sir Thaddeus, or the Last Lithuanian Foray wrote:
"Ah ! you, young sirs, cannot remember this,
How 'mid our stormy and free-ruling nobles,
All armed, no need at all was of police ;
While faith was flourishing and laws respected,
Then freedom was with order, and abundance
Of glory ! But in other lands, I hear,
The government maintaineth soldiery,
Police, gendarmes, and constables ; but if
The sword alone can guard the public safety,
That in these lands is Freedom I believe not."
augustynww
Dec 7 2014 07:17
Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
(ie workers' patriotism without class collaboration)

laugh out loud

Have mercy you killer.

only if you ask nicely smile

Gepetto wrote:
Program of the ZSP was basically generalised self-management within confines of the nation state (whose Western border would be on Oder and Eastern the same as pre-war one- this kinda stinks of Polish chauvinism to me). The very fact they didn't see their "revolution" as going beyond national borders is telling. Well, they called their ideology "Polish variety of syndicalism" ffs. Which sounds nasty considering that there was something called national syndicalism before, and it was a demo version of fascism wink. Anyway anarchists disagreed with the ZSP and founded SOW. However, it also lapsed into social patriotism. Or rather was on this road from beginning.

that's funny lol
Even ZZZ earlier supported "workers' struggle in Spain against fascist coup" not to mention ZSP
you should definitely read more on this, starting from here
https://drabina.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/krotka-historia-zzz-od-rezimowego-zwiazku-po-rewolucyjny-syndykat/

There you find antinationalist resolutions etc

As for the state, it was kind of half-anarchism mixed with state socialism (bottom up federation of communes & workers' associations with some central administration nonetheless).

Of course all of them were interested in revolution beyond national borders.

Gepetto wrote:
this kinda stinks of Polish chauvinism to me).

they supported kind of slavic commonwealth

In those cases you mention what you call "social patriotism" was simple statement that there are fascist nation states and working class should fight against them. As in this text by Drabina I linked: some of them (eg Pilarski) revised their views during war & revolution in Spain and other fascist victories in Europe

Thats why its funny what you're saying - that patriotism (which you link with some "demo version of fascism) was indeed based on antifascism.
Their views in this respect are similar to platformist national liberation struggle (with the difference that specifically against fascist states not only imperialism in general)

augustynww
Dec 7 2014 07:09
Entdinglichung wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
"anarcho-Sarmatism"

Anarchism in one Rzeczpospolita?

liberum veto, "polish anarchy" smile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty

augustynww
Dec 7 2014 07:52

One more thing

Gepetto wrote:
there was something called national syndicalism before, and it was a demo version of fascism wink.

national syndicalism was created to win over workers to support right-wing agenda. "national syndicalists" supported class society and in fact capitalism in spite of anticapitalist rhetoric.
In this case it was other way around: anarchists were trying to win over right-wing union to support the left and anarchism specifically (classless society etc) and they partially succeeded

Gepetto
Dec 7 2014 13:29
augustynww wrote:
Even ZZZ earlier supported "workers' struggle in Spain against fascist coup" not to mention ZSP
you should definitely read more on this, starting from here
https://drabina.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/krotka-historia-zzz-od-rezimowego-zwiazku-po-rewolucyjny-syndykat/

I've read it before and I know that, but why is this revelant here?

BTW: "Szurig in the series of articles argued that inclusion of the ONR-Falanga into the governmental camp meant approving of the National Democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-patriotic and fascist conceptions" grin

And this one is also interesting:

"However, after the affair concerning archbishop Sapieha (he ordered to remove the remains of Piłsudski without agreement from the authorities), ZZZ and socialists launched an anti-clerical campaign(...)" Muh Marszałek!

augustynww wrote:
Of course all of them were interested in revolution beyond national borders.

Oh really?

augustynww wrote:
In those cases you mention what you call "social patriotism" was simple statement that there are fascist nation states and working class should fight against them.

Social patriotism means using socialist rhetoric when calling for defense of the fatherland. I think it fits what ZSP and other anti-fascists did, and what you're trying to defend here.
The only revolutionary and internationalist stance is that in case of the imperialist war, the main enemy of workers is at home, and that they should turn against their own governments, no matter of their or their enemies' political coloration, who's the aggressor and who's the defender etc. It is understandable that for the ZSP the main enemy were Nazis since they were operating during the German occupation, but there's a difference between fighting fascism on revolutionary terrain, and between fighting fascism effectively for democratically administered capitalism (despite all the delusions one might have), by allying with bourgeois nationalists.

augustynww wrote:
Thats why its funny what you're saying - that patriotism (which you link with some "demo version of fascism)

I know, it may sound silly. But you know how Mussolini begun? From openly voicing his support for WW1 as "democratic" and "revolutionary" "war of liberation" (for which he got expelled from PSI). Those who declared another L'union sacrée or Burgenfrieden with their own bourgeoisie during the next world war in order to stop the fascist monster were actually themselves good disciples of Mussolini in that regard smile

augustynww wrote:
Their views in this respect are similar to platformist national liberation struggle

Well, I was already aware of the reactionary role played by platformism within anarchism.

augustynww
Dec 7 2014 14:42

antifascists are fascists aren't they? grin
Look who's talking about union sacree with bourgeoisie smile In Poland liberals attacking antifa with this argument

Gepetto wrote:
I've read it before and I know that, but why is this revelant here?
BTW: "Szurig in the series of articles argued that inclusion of the ONR-Falanga into the governmental camp meant approving of the National Democratic, anti-libertarian, anti-patriotic and fascist conceptions" grin

What you just quoted is critique of nationalism among other things wink (National Democracy=polish nationalist formation in interwar period).
Its relevant as far as ZSP was continuation of ZZZ line ("polish syndicalism" etc)

Gepetto wrote:
And this one is also interesting:
"However, after the affair concerning archbishop Sapieha (he ordered to remove the remains of Piłsudski without agreement from the authorities), ZZZ and socialists launched an anti-clerical campaign(...)" Muh Marszałek!

You didn't quoted next part "(..) what government used as a pretext to accuse them of anti-state activity"

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Of course all of them were interested in revolution beyond national borders.

Oh really?

Yes, really. That's why they wanted to join IWA I suppose (which didn't happened because of war)

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
In those cases you mention what you call "social patriotism" was simple statement that there are fascist nation states and working class should fight against them.

Social patriotism means using socialist rhetoric when calling for defense of the fatherland. I think it fits what ZSP and other anti-fascists did, and what you're trying to defend here.

Actually what I was defending is if you want to get right-wing organisation turn to the libertarian left, anarchists in ZZZ and later did their best. You should read more carefully

Gepetto wrote:
The only revolutionary and internationalist stance is that in case of the imperialist war, the main enemy of workers is at home, and that they should turn against their own governments, no matter of their or their enemies' political coloration, who's the aggressor and who's the defender etc. It is understandable that for the ZSP the main enemy were Nazis since they were operating during the German occupation, but there's a difference between fighting fascism on revolutionary terrain, and between fighting fascism effectively for democratically administered capitalism (despite all the delusions one might have), by allying with bourgeois nationalists.

This is full of contradictions ("main enemy is at home" but "main enemy were nazis" etc).
Your stance during WWII in Poland would be detachment from reality in single-person organisation at best. How revolutionary it is? Not much I think.
What you're saying doesn't mean anything in practice if you are referring to WWII specifically (because it wasn't WWI)

Gepetto wrote:
I know, it may sound silly. But you know how Mussolini begun? From openly voicing his support for WW1 as "democratic" and "revolutionary" "war of liberation" (for which he got expelled from PSI). Those who declared another L'union sacrée or Burgenfrieden with their own bourgeoisie during the next world war in order to stop the fascist monster were actually themselves good disciples of Mussolini in that regard :)

Mussolini was on british payroll during WWI it somehow nullify rational arguments here. All of this was only anti-left propaganda nothing more. There is no comparison And of course all of this is completely unimportant considering what was happening in Poland during WWII. Antifascism in Poland was question of survival not ideology. Simple as this. So saying that antifascists were Mussolini's disciples is just plain stupid.

Gepetto
Dec 7 2014 17:53
augustynww wrote:
antifascists are fascists aren't they? grin
Look who's talking about union sacree with bourgeoisie smile In Poland liberals attacking antifa with this argument

I don't think that liberals oppose class collaboration and imperialist wars. I somehow expected that you will bring up this cliche, but really I don't know what led you to lump me with liberals who repeat that famed Churchill quote just because I dare to criticise anti-fascism. Liberal critique of anti-fascism usually centers arounds things like "no platform" etc., which is miles away from my perspective as I don't share any prejudices concerning some innate and eternal liberties and rights of individual that anti-fascists supposedly infringe on with regards to the fash.

augustynww wrote:
What you just quoted is critique of nationalism among other things wink (National Democracy=polish nationalist formation in interwar period).

Didn't you notice that "anti-patriotic" bit bolded by me?

augustynww wrote:
You didn't quoted next part "(..) what government used as a pretext to accuse them of anti-state activity"

But getting butthurt over Catholic Church because it didn't respect Piłsudski? Come on. Though pro-Piłsudski anarchists wouldn't even surprise me that much after I've read Great Leader Ciszewski excusing PPS's betrayal during the Kraków uprising of 1923 in one of his historical articles wink (no wonder he has shitty opportunist politics)

Anyway even Drabina admits at the end of the article that ZZZ remained to the end under the influence of Piłsudskite tradition. And in 1939 they were warmongering and calling for the national unity. It seems that anarchist entryism didn't really go well wink

augustynww wrote:
This is full of contradictions ("main enemy is at home" but "main enemy were nazis" etc).

There are no contradictions. At the start of the war, the main enemies of the Polish proletariat were Mościcki and Rydz-Śmigły, not Hitler. But after the conquest of Poland, the ones who took charge of the capitalist system here were Nazis, so it was obvious that Polish workers had to struggle against them the same way German workers had to from the beginning.

augustynww wrote:
Your stance during WWII in Poland would be detachment from reality in single-person organisation at best. How revolutionary it is? Not much I think.

Well, when revolutionary socialists opposed the war in 1914, majority also thought of them as mad and divorced from reality.

augustynww wrote:
What you're saying doesn't mean anything in practice if you are referring to WWII specifically (because it wasn't WWI)

It wasn't WWI? What does it mean? If you put aside all demagoguery, the fundamental nature of the Second World War wasn't any different- it was still an inter-imperialist struggle for the world domination. Of course you will probably say: "Yes, Allies didn't really care about victims of fascism, but let's get real, something needed to be done to stop this monstrosity, and Allies weren't the same as Axis and proved to be quite succesful at destroying fascism, don't you know? To me, this is enough." Which is really cynical, because yes, Allies defeated fascist powers, but at what price? At price of gigantic piles of corpses of workers and peasants, and of lulling working class militancy for next two decades.

Capitalists really feared that this war will end like the last one. Why wasn't their fear (i.e. revolution) materialised?

augustynww wrote:
All of this was only anti-left propaganda nothing more.

What was "anti-left propaganda"?

augustynww
Dec 7 2014 18:44
Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
antifascists are fascists aren't they? grin
Look who's talking about union sacree with bourgeoisie smile In Poland liberals attacking antifa with this argument

I don't think that liberals oppose class collaboration and imperialist wars. I somehow expected that you will bring up this cliche, but really I don't know what led you to lump me with liberals who repeat that famed Churchill quote just because I dare to criticise anti-fascism.
Liberal critique of anti-fascism usually centers arounds things like "no platform" etc., which is miles away from my perspective as I don't share any prejudices concerning some innate and eternal liberties and rights of individual that anti-fascists supposedly infringe on with regards to the fash.

I suppose you expected as this is exactly how you trying to argue against antifascism by ZSP or others grin This is very poor argument as you see, and you answered yourself why - they fought against fascism for different reasons that bourgeoisie you mentioned earlier

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
What you just quoted is critique of nationalism among other things wink (National Democracy=polish nationalist formation in interwar period).

Didn't you notice that "anti-patriotic" bit bolded by me?

I did, and...? Earlier you said they were polish chauvinists but in fact they were anti-nationalists and you quoted this yourself.
This patriotism was of anti-nationalist kind. They even said here that explicitly that nationalism is anti-patriotic (I don't know exactly why but this is what they thought)

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
You didn't quoted next part "(..) what government used as a pretext to accuse them of anti-state activity"

But getting butthurt over Catholic Church because it didn't respect Piłsudski? Come on. Though pro-Piłsudski anarchists wouldn't even surprise me that much after I've read Great Leader Ciszewski excusing PPS's betrayal of the Krakow Uprising of 1923 in one of his historical articles wink (no wonder he has shitty opportunist politics)

Now this is just gibberish. Szurig wasn't anarchist (which is explained there)

Gepetto wrote:
Anyway even Drabina admits at the end of the article that ZZZ remained to the end under the influence of Piłsudskite tradition. And in 1939 they were warmongering and calling for the national unity. It seems that anarchist entryism didn't really go well wink

Warmongering in 1939? You are joking right? I would rather say it worked pretty well if those your supposed "nationalists" or even "proto fascists" as you called them earlier , "warmonegered" against fascism grin

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
This is full of contradictions ("main enemy is at home" but "main enemy were nazis" etc).

There are no contradictions. At the start of the war, the main enemies of the Polish proletariat were Mościcki and Rydz-Śmigły, not Hitler. But after the conquest of Poland, the ones who took charge of the capitalist system here were Nazis, so it was obvious that Polish workers had to struggle against them the same way German workers had to from the beginning.

Its naive or stupid, I don't even know how to call it. First of all, not only polish because nazis brought to Poland Jews from whole Europe only to murder them and there was big jewish minority in Poland as well (most of them of course workers). Large part of polish anarchist movement consisted of Jews and you probably know this perfectly.

Secondly, what does it mean "like German workers"? How exactly German workers fought against nazis during WWII?
What are you talking about?

So no, polish and jewish workers couldn't fight and didn't fought nazis "in the same way as German workers".
You are just babbling like you never heard what WWII was and who was doing what and why.

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Your stance during WWII in Poland would be detachment from reality in single-person organisation at best. How revolutionary it is? Not much I think.

Well, when revolutionary socialists opposed the war in 1914, majority also thought of them as mad and divorced from reality.

I didn't said majority, as I've never heard about this kind of views in reality. Not majority but all. But maybe I'm wrong and you'll say now what revolutionary socialist organisation in Poland during WWII (but before nazis' victory) had similar stance to yours?

Secondly, what argument is this? Revolutionary socialists were right in the case of WWI but they would be wrong if they argue against fighting against nazis during WWII (Would be wrong, not were wrong)

Gepetto wrote:
It wasn't WWI? What does it mean? If you put aside all demagoguery, the fundamental nature of the Second World War wasn't any different- it was still an inter-imperialist struggle for the world domination.

Fascism was counterrevolution in itself, so no, fundamental nature of WWII wasn't the same as WWI.

Gepetto wrote:
Which is really cynical, because yes, Allies defeated fascist powers, but at what price? At price of gigantic piles of corpses of workers and peasants, and of lulling working class militancy for next two decades.

this is pure bullshit. What you are trying to say? if allies would not defeated fascists states there will be no "gigantic piles of corpses of workers and peasants"? Implementation of fascist agenda in full would result in death like 400 millions people, if I remember correctly numbers I read somewhere (I'm not sure of this number though)

Gepetto wrote:
Capitalists really feared that this war will end like the last one. Why wasn't their fear (i.e. revolution) materialised?

I don't know if they feared this or not. Not every war ends in revolution jeez and not wars are the same. You are just thinking in some weird, schematic and dogmatic way which really detach you from reality.

Gepetto
Dec 7 2014 20:13
augustynww wrote:
I suppose you expected as this is exactly how you trying to argue against antifascism by ZSP or others grin

Bullshit. I would be grateful if you pointed me where I said something like that.

augustynww wrote:
I did, and...? Earlier you said they were polish chauvinists

I just said that their stance of what the borders of post-war Poland should be raised my eyebrow. Apart from the fact that they bothered with that question.

augustynww wrote:
but in fact they were anti-nationalists and you quoted this yourself.

They were just against National Democracy. Being against some manifestations of nationalism doesn't mean being against nationalism. And this whole "patriotic but not nationalist" shtick is just useless juggling with words, it's effectively the same shit.

augustynww wrote:
Now this is just gibberish. Szurig wasn't anarchist (which is explained there)

What Szurig had to do with this? Anyway he was on the left of ZZZ.

augustynww wrote:
Warmongering in 1939? You are joking right? I would rather say it worked pretty well if those your supposed "nationalists" or even "proto fascists" as you called them earlier , "warmonegered" against fascism grin

So you'd be fine with German workers being killed by democratic bombs etc.? Wait, of course you would, that's what this discussion is essentially about.

augustynww wrote:
First of all, not only polish because nazis brought to Poland Jews from whole Europe only to murder them and there was big jewish minority in Poland as well

Did I have to list all nationalities that lived in Poland? Really, this is just nitpicking.

augustynww wrote:
Secondly, what does it mean "like German workers"? How exactly German workers fought against nazis during WWII?
What are you talking about?

Oh, so it seems that either you don't get what I'm saying to you, or you just resort to making lazy strawmen. I simply said that if on 1st September 1939 Hitler was the main enemy of German, not the Polish working class, then after German victory he was of the both as they both lived under his rule.

And well, contrary to the myths there was initially a working class resistance to Hitler, though limited.

augustynww wrote:
Fascism was counterrevolution in itself, so no, fundamental nature of WWII wasn't the same as WWI.

So perhaps the Western plutocracies and colonial empires were the revolution? Or that butcher of communists Stalin, who left the world proletariat alone in face of attacks against it, and defended private property in Spain because that was in Russian national interest? Speaking of which, do you think that Friends of Durruti were stupid, mad, or what? That CNT leaders were right in becoming ministers and telling workers in Barcelona in 1937 to go back to work? That Popular Front was right in repressing anarchists, POUMists etc. in the name of anti-fascist unity?

augustynww wrote:
this is pure bullshit. What you are trying to say? if allies would not defeated fascists states there will be no "gigantic piles of corpses of workers and peasants"?

Yes, there would be. But again, it's cynical to excuse Allied atrocities such as Dresden, Hiroshima, Bengal famine etc. because "well they killed less than fascists". The only solution acceptable to communists was to turn the imperialist war into civil war that would put an end to capitalist barbarism, no matter from which side it was coming.

augustynww wrote:
You are just thinking in some weird, schematic and dogmatic way which really detach you from reality.

Oh, "dogmatism" is what you usually hear from all renegades when you have principles.

Entdinglichung
Dec 7 2014 21:55
augustynww wrote:
Entdinglichung wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
"anarcho-Sarmatism"

Anarchism in one Rzeczpospolita?

liberum veto, "polish anarchy" smile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty

dot hey dress like that?

augustynww
Dec 8 2014 08:55

Entdinglichung,
I see some similarity wink this guy in the center and

http://www.laznia.pl/aktualnosciart,686,2011_janusz_jany_waluszko.html

"Jany Waluszko called The Pope of Polish Anarchism (...) wrote a book "Treatise on Sarmatia" grin

augustynww
Dec 8 2014 08:58
Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
I suppose you expected as this is exactly how you trying to argue against antifascism by ZSP or others grin

Bullshit. I would be grateful if you pointed me where I said something like that.

in this point when you were trying to argue about "allying with bourgeois" against fascists

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
I did, and...? Earlier you said they were polish chauvinists

I just said that their stance of what the borders of post-war Poland should be raised my eyebrow. Apart from the fact that they bothered with that question.

nope, you said it "stinks like polish chauvinism to you". Now you know they weren't polish chauvinists nor nationalists, they considered themselves "anti-nationalist patriots" (I'm not sayin its viable or not from rational point of view - just saying they weren't nationalists)

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Warmongering in 1939? You are joking right? I would rather say it worked pretty well if those your supposed "nationalists" or even "proto fascists" as you called them earlier , "warmonegered" against fascism grin

So you'd be fine with German workers being killed by democratic bombs etc.? Wait, of course you would, that's what this discussion is essentially about.

It depends what you are asking me about. Is it good if workers wanted to fight for fascism in Germany, Spain Italy Of course not. But If do if they should be allowed slaughter millions of people introducing fascism "because they are workers" - NO of course.
Good luck with anything if you think like that. This is so stupid stance, I can't believe that someone seriously think like that

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
First of all, not only polish because nazis brought to Poland Jews from whole Europe only to murder them and there was big jewish minority in Poland as well

Did I have to list all nationalities that lived in Poland? Really, this is just nitpicking.

If those nationalities would be so big and the case would concerning specifically extermination them by nazis than yes you should. Especially when you're trying to argue that Polish and Jewish workers, specifically anarchists (in situation large part of anarchists were Jews, as I said) who you criticize should fight against nazis in the same way German workers did - it only means you are completely deluded.

Read book by Lew Marek and how life in Warsaw Ghetto looked like before he managed to escape from there (after hiding for two days in the closet in hospital where SS was murdering Jewish children).
He should do some demonstration probably

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Secondly, what does it mean "like German workers"? How exactly German workers fought against nazis during WWII?
What are you talking about?

Oh, so it seems that either you don't get what I'm saying to you, or you just resort to making lazy strawmen. I simply said that if on 1st September 1939 Hitler was the main enemy of German, not the Polish working class, then after German victory he was of the both as they both lived under his rule.

Fascism as such was main enemy of working class in Europe since its advances.
And your "stance" isn't really a position good or bad. Its just babbling by someone sitting in the chair ~70 years later. It couldn't be implemented in any way in 1939. How? Do you even know how Poland looked like in september 1939 during German offensive? You have no clue obviously

Gepetto wrote:
And well, contrary to the myths there was initially a working class resistance to Hitler, though limited.

Yes, there was antifascist resistance in Germany in 1930s. And Pilarski was among those antifascists when he was in FAUD and in Schwarze Scharen in Silesia. The same Pilarski you criticize here . After that he joined ZZZ.

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
Fascism was counterrevolution in itself, so no, fundamental nature of WWII wasn't the same as WWI.

So perhaps the Western plutocracies and colonial empires were the revolution? Or that butcher of communists Stalin, who left the world proletariat alone in face of attacks against it, and defended private property in Spain because that was in Russian national interest? Speaking of which, do you think that Friends of Durruti were stupid, mad, or what? That CNT leaders were right in becoming ministers and telling workers in Barcelona in 1937 to go back to work? That Popular Front was right in repressing anarchists, POUMists etc. in the name of anti-fascist unity?

grin WTF is this?
Do you even know that fascism appeared in Italy in revolutionary situation? Do you know that British government actually funded Mussolini's fascist propaganda at the beginning - this is how fascism was invented - to not allow for revolution in Italy. Only it grew beyond expectations

Stalin you mentioned accepted similar position to yours in 1938. Do you realize that?

Spanish anarchists were trying to lure european neutral countries in the war in 1936 but they didn't suceeded in this - european capitalist countries accepted similar stance to yours too i.e. not to fight against nazis, do not provoke them to war (when anarchists were "warmongering" against fascism). Stalin too wanted to limit the war to Spain.
Too bad because fascism grew later and immediately after fascist victory in Spain WWII started.

Gepetto wrote:
augustynww wrote:
this is pure bullshit. What you are trying to say? if allies would not defeated fascists states there will be no "gigantic piles of corpses of workers and peasants"?

Yes, there would be. But again, it's cynical to excuse Allied atrocities such as Dresden, Hiroshima, Bengal famine etc. because "well they killed less than fascists". The only solution acceptable to communists was to turn the imperialist war into civil war that would put an end to capitalist barbarism, no matter from which side it was coming.

Oh I see. And as I understand - to return to commented situation ie Warsaw Uprising - when uprising started and SS begun massacre of civilian population anarchists or ZSP should do what exactly - attack AK insurgents or do some picketing against SS?

augustynww wrote:
You are just thinking in some weird, schematic and dogmatic way which really detach you from reality.

Oh, "dogmatism" is what you usually hear from all renegades when you have principles.

Nope, this is what you hear from normal people when they realize how completely and utterly deluded you are.

What you are saying is not even a stance/position. Its delusion by someone who just don't know or don't care how it looked like. That's why you can't even find one tiny group from the time with position like yours. No one was that mad

Gepetto
Dec 8 2014 14:13
augustynww wrote:
in this point when you were trying to argue about "allying with bourgeois" against fascists

And in what way is that like liberal criticism of anti-fascism? Could you elaborate on that? Ironically, it is rather you who sound like a liberal. It is you who try to pass off liberal democracy as a lesser evil in comparison with fascism, instead of seeing them both as being in the same relation as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, like a communist would do.

As for the rest, keep hittin' that strawman you made yourself hard. I just wrote that this war should also have been opposed and somehow you concluded that I'm arguing for non-violence or some shit ("perhaps they should do some picketing"). Socialist opposition to war doesn't mean sterile and impotent pacifism, it means turning your gun against your own officers, sabotaging the war industry and whatnot. Nowhere I said that fascism shouldn't be opposed, but that it should be opposed just as much as any other capitalist form of government. Not opposed in the name of democracy, but in the name of anti-capitalism, because it was capitalism that was responsible for war, fascism, Holocaust. Fight the causes, not just symptoms.

Either I'm not expressing myself clearly, or you have a poor grasp of English, or are not the sharpest tool in the shed, or are intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Quote:
It depends what you are asking me about. Is it good if workers wanted to fight for fascism in Germany, Spain Italy Of course not. But If do if they should be allowed slaughter millions of people introducing fascism "because they are workers" - NO of course.

And Allied imperialists understood "not allowing to slaughter millions of people"as firebombing German cities, especially factories and working class districts (on the other hand, they never bothered to bomb the railways to the concentration camps even though they knew their location). Or continuing to bomb Italian cities even after Italian workers started major strikes that brought down Mussolini in 1943. Or erasing Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the map with atomic bombs.

Quote:
If those nationalities would be so big and the case would concerning specifically extermination them by nazis than yes you should. Especially when you're trying to argue that Polish and Jewish workers, specifically anarchists (in situation large part of anarchists were Jews, as I said) who you criticize should fight against nazis in the same way German workers did - it only means you are completely deluded.

Read book by Lew Marek and how life in Warsaw Ghetto looked like before he managed to escape from there (after hiding for two days in the closet in hospital where SS was murdering Jewish children).

Have you heard of the genocide of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during the WW1? Do you now think that revolutionaries were wrong about telling that both sides should go to hell, that they should have supported Entente, and especially Russia, because it would put an end to the massacres and the revolution was a far away possibility in Turkey?

I'm not saying that such conditions don't make the matters more difficult (to say the least), that it was the same in occupied Poland as in Britain- but since when revolutions are done without difficulties?

Would you support USA against North Korea, because their government does many bad things to the citizens, and since internal rebellion there seems impossible, dropping some democracy from the sky is a lesser evil and simply pragmatism? Oh wait, judging by your "analysis" of the Spanish Civil War, you're a David Graeber variety of "anarchist", who probably already clamors in favor of US miltiary intervention against ISIS.

Quote:
grin WTF is this?
Do you even know that fascism appeared in Italy in revolutionary situation? Do you know that British government actually funded Mussolini's fascist propaganda at the beginning - this is how fascism was invented - to not allow for revolution in Italy. Only it grew beyond expectations

Well the purpose of anti-fascism was also to prevent the revolution (by telling even the militant workers that they have interest in defending democracy at all costs) and mobilise workers for another great war between capitalists.

As for the question of "WTF is this", I meant- do you really think that Churchill and Roosevelt weren't counter-revolutionaries, contrary to Hitler and Mussolini?

Quote:
Stalin you mentioned accepted similar position to yours in 1938. Do you realize that?

What? Stalin just like you was in favor of workers becoming cannon fodder for the capitalists.

Quote:
Spanish anarchists were trying to lure european neutral countries in the war in 1936 but they didn't suceeded in this - european capitalist countries accepted similar stance to yours too i.e. not to fight against nazis, do not provoke them to war (when anarchists were "warmongering" against fascism). Stalin too wanted to limit the war to Spain.

I thought for you anarchists the main point about the Spain in 1936 was that there was a social revolution (or potential for thereof) there that was curbed and destroyed by Republic that deceived workers, and that it was a big mistake of CNT to join the government instead of smashing it... It is generally for liberals that it was just about the great battle of democracy vs fascism.

You really can't notice similarity between you and Spanish Stalinists that argued "first victory against Franco, and only then revolution" (i.e. never, because communist Spain would be for Stalin as bad as fascist one, as it would likely drive Great Britain and France towards Germany, while the very reason Comintern had adopted the Popular Front policy was that USSR was seeking alliance with Western democracies), which was for them the reason to stop the collectivisation of industry and land, to disarm workers' militias, to slander their anarchists allies as Franco's fifth column etc.?

Quote:
That's why you can't even find one tiny group from the time with position like yours.

There were some- Trotskyists (well only with regards to a war between Axis powers and Western Allies; they called for defense of USSR as "degenerated workers' state", for defense of China as a semi-colonial nation against Japanese imperialism, and supported resistance movements in occupied countries- however just as well as resistance in Allied colonies), left communists, some anarchists who didn't go full Kropotkin. Some of them even ended up in concentration camps for that...

augustynww
Dec 9 2014 10:09
Gepetto wrote:
It is you who try to pass off liberal democracy as a lesser evil in comparison with fascism, instead of seeing them both as being in the same relation as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, like a communist would do.

Well, yeah "liberal democracy" or rather liberal democrats not the system as such as it doesn' t existed whats more even polish nationalists were lesser evil for sure during Warsaw Uprising. And as I said it wasn't matter of ideology but survival.
I wonder if you even know how it looked like. When uprising started if people fought, it was in neighborhoods cut off one from another in units that were there. In this way Karolina Marek (Lew Marek's wife) who was Jewish ended up in nationalist unit of NZS, polish nationalists and antisemites

Nazis just went street after street home after home murdering all civilians.
This wasn't matter of ideological choice but life or death and you are talking like a kid playing video game.

But if you are talking about september 1939 you are deluded too - it was matter of like 2 weeks in country in total chaos with hundreds of thousands of people on roads trying to flee to the east and German offensive from 3 directions. And then USSR attacked from the east. It wouldn't have any practical meaning at all what you are saying.
ZZZ just ceased to exist when war started.

Gepetto wrote:
As for the rest, keep hittin' that strawman you made yourself hard. I just wrote that this war should also have been opposed and somehow you concluded that I'm arguing for non-violence or some shit ("perhaps they should do some picketing"). Socialist opposition to war doesn't mean sterile and impotent pacifism, it means turning your gun against your own officers, sabotaging the war industry and whatnot. Nowhere I said that fascism shouldn't be opposed, but that it should be opposed just as much as any other capitalist form of government. Not opposed in the name of democracy, but in the name of anti-capitalism, because it was capitalism that was responsible for war, fascism, Holocaust. Fight the causes, not just symptoms.

Yeah sure it means but German workers didn't do it as it was they who should act like this in the first place. So yes, it would be "sterile and impotent" and in practice it wouldn't be "opposition to the war" but facilitating nazis victory. Again one can see you are rather interested in making statements not practice - it is "sterile and impotent" as such too.

But if you are talking about september 1939 and this period between old polish authorities and new nazis autohorities there was no war industry working at all in Poland

Gepetto wrote:
And Allied imperialists understood "not allowing to slaughter millions of people"as firebombing German cities, especially factories and working class districts (on the other hand, they never bothered to bomb the railways to the concentration camps even though they knew their location). Or continuing to bomb Italian cities even after Italian workers started major strikes that brought down Mussolini in 1943. Or erasing Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the map with atomic bombs.

Yes they did. This is how war looks like - destroying "war industry" of enemy as you called it. But alternative was worse and there is no doubt about it.

Gepetto wrote:
Have you heard of the genocide of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during the WW1? Do you now think that revolutionaries were wrong about telling that both sides should go to hell, that they should have supported Entente, and especially Russia, because it would put an end to the massacres and the revolution was a far away possibility in Turkey?

You are babbling again. My comment saying nationality matters when WWII and holocauts are concerned was answer for your statement that socialist/anarchist workers in Poland should fight against nazis in the same way as German workers did in 1930s.

But continuing your example from WWI - as I understand you are trying to say that Armeninas being slaughtered by Ottoman Empire instead of trying to defend yourself against Ottoman Empire should fight one another? Well the only practical result of those proposals of yours would be quicker and larger genocide (and maybe Ottoman Empire & nazis would save some bullets)

Gepetto wrote:
Would you support USA against North Korea, because their government does many bad things to the citizens, and since internal rebellion there seems impossible, dropping some democracy from the sky is a lesser evil and simply pragmatism?

This is very stupid example in this context because North Korea didn't invaded USA, Canada and Mexico trying to murder 1/3 of its population (especially leftists) and make the rest into slaves having means to do it But if this would be the case than yes, I would probably support USA, Canada & Mexico if there was no other choice (ie some revolutionary movement able to act which I could support in the first place)

Gepetto wrote:
Well the purpose of anti-fascism was also to prevent the revolution (by telling even the militant workers that they have interest in defending democracy at all costs) and mobilise workers for another great war between capitalists.

Purpose of anti-fascism was to defend working class from totalitarian form of capitalism, i.e. the form in which any revolutionary movement does not exist.

But the purpose of your "stance" in practice would be in fact helping fascists came to power hence destroying any real or possible revolutionary movement and demobilization of those "militant workers" who survived i(and it happened in Third Reich - that's why there was no meaningful opposition to war when it started)

Gepetto wrote:
I thought for you anarchists the main point about the Spain in 1936 was that there was a social revolution (or potential for thereof) there that was curbed and destroyed by Republic that deceived workers, and that it was a big mistake of CNT to join the government instead of smashing it... It is generally for liberals that it was just about the great battle of democracy vs fascism.

Well you've read some very poor books about it as in your picture Franco, spanish fascists, Hitler and Mussolini are clearly missing grin
So no, this in not "main point". Main point was fascist coup d'état as reaction to socialist reforms. Coup d'état which provoked also the revolution which indeed was destroyed very quickly by stalinists & fascists together.

Gepetto wrote:
You really can't notice similarity between you and Spanish Stalinists that argued "first victory against Franco, and only then revolution" (i.e. never, because communist Spain would be for Stalin as bad as fascist one, as it would likely drive Great Britain and France towards Germany, while the very reason Comintern had adopted the Popular Front policy was that USSR was seeking alliance with Western democracies), which was for them the reason to stop the collectivisation of industry and land, to disarm workers' militias, to slander their anarchists allies as Franco's fifth column etc.?

Nope, there is no similarity. But as far as WWII in Poland, occupation and holocaust is concerned my point is - first you must live, only then you can make a revolution. Simple thing which you clearly don't understand.

Gepetto
Dec 9 2014 10:44

"We have seen how capitalism condemned millions of men to death by ejecting them from production. We have seen how it massacred them while extracting the maximum surplus value possible. It remains for us to see how it exploits them after their very death.

It was the imperialists of the allied camp who first used them to justify their war and to justify after their victory the despicable treatment inflicted on the German people. How they threw themselves on the camps and the corpses, showing off the horrible photos and proclaiming: “Look at what bastards these krauts are! How right we were to fight them. How right we now are to give them a taste of their own medicine.” When we think of the countless crimes of imperialism; when we think, for example, that at the very moment (1945) when our Thorez sung of their victory over fascism, 45,000 Algerians (fascist provocateurs) fell under the blows of repression. When we think that it is international capitalism which is responsible for the massacres, the ignoble cynicism of this hypocritical satisfaction is enough to make you sick.

At that same time all our good democratic anti-fascists threw themselves on the corpses of the Jews. And since that time they wave them under the nose of the proletariat. In order to make them feel capitalism’s infamy? No, on the contrary. It’s to make it appreciate, in contrast, the true democracy, the true progress, the well being it enjoys in capitalist society. The horrors of capitalist death must make the proletariat forget the horrors of capitalist life and the fact that the two are indissolubly connected. The experiments of the SS doctors must make them forget that capitalism experiments on a large scale with carcinogenic products, on the effects of alcoholism on heredity, the radioactivity of “democratic” bombs. If they show lampshades made of human skin it’s to make us forget that capitalism transforms the living man into a lampshade. The mountains of hair, the teeth of gold, the bodies of men turned into merchandise must make us forget that capitalism made a merchandise of living man. It is labor, man’s very life, that capitalism has transformed into merchandise. This is the source of all evils. Using the corpses of the victims of capital to try to hide the reality, to have the corpses serve as protection for capital, is the most despicable way of using them to the ultimate degree."

Gepetto
Dec 9 2014 11:08
augustynww wrote:
Yes they did. This is how war looks like - destroying "war industry" of enemy as you called it. But alternative was worse and there is no doubt about it.

Fuck it, I think I'm really done talking to you. Like, even mainstream historians point out that these things (Dresden, Hiroshima etc.) weren't necessary to win the war. And now you're trying to excuse that shit?