1939 and all that...

245 posts / 0 new
Last post
thaw
Offline
Joined: 3-03-05
Aug 2 2005 19:58

Je t'aime

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Aug 2 2005 20:03

Merci grin

... Je t'aime aussi.

Barry Kade
Offline
Joined: 23-06-04
Aug 2 2005 22:55

red star Just because bourgeoise democracy and fascism are both forms of capitalist rule does not mean that the working class should treat them both the same, or be ambivalent about the transition from one to the other.

In WW2 victory for Hitler's Nazi state meant the elimination of Trades Unionists, Communists, Jews, Gays and others in every land it conquered. This was not a situation where revolutionaries could preach 'revolutionary defeatism' or abstain!

red star Never the less, this does NOT mean political liqidation into a block with the democratic imperialists either.

Rather, maintaining opposition to imperialism and liberal capitalism (ie maintaining and advancing independant working class politics) was actually part of promoting an effective war against fascism.

Churchill's strategy put the defence of the British Empire above advancing the war in Europe. This misallocation of troops and resources to hold down the colonised peoples endangered the working class in Britain. Churchills Imperialism therefore lead to the disaterous defeats associated with Dunkirk and the actual threat of invasion. Imperialism meant the British Isles and its peoples were left underdefended before fascism.

Thus anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist independant working class politics could advance criticisms and place demands to promote a real war against fascism.

The most important of these demands was for a second front on the Nazis western flank in 1941 - even the patriotic CPGB was capable of advancing this demand.

Yet Churchill refused to open this second front untill 1944! (Even though the US imperialist rulers would have supported this in 1941).

So the war went on in North Africa, leaving the Nazi regime free to get on with the holocaust.

There are other independent working class political demands on the conduct of the war, such as:

Bomb the lines to the death camps. Allied bomber command refused this. The whole Nazi machinery of railway line and gas chamber could have been sabotaged, causingn significant and potentially life saving delays.

No to bombing of working class areas. 'Bomber Harris' the allied commander deliberately targetted working class german civilian populations. This actually increased support for Hitler amongst sectors of society who otherwise hated him. This lengthened the war, while supporting a German workers resistance would have shortened it.

Etc.

So in the war between democratic and fascist capitalisms there is an alternative political position to these false poles of abstention between them, or uncritical liquidation into the former.

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Aug 3 2005 23:32

In response to l'agite when you talk about saving the Jews being a purely humanitarian rather than class based position you are right in as far as our response to the oppression and barbarity of capitalism has to be based on a compassion for other human beings regardless of their class. However the question is what is the solution to this barbarity, the answer to which is the abolition of capitalism, which can only be carried out by the working class. Therfore the future revolution might be based on many other groups' grievances and oppression, but the working class remains the only force capable of solving these problems because it, unlike other oppressed categories is a revolutionary class capable of replacing capitalism.

Also saving the Jews had nothing to do with the war aims of the 'democratic' imperialist powers and in many cases they actively aided, let alone refused to stop the Holocaust. for example

red star ibm gave technology to the nazi concentration camps during the warand even sent people from America to help set up this technology

red star Britain and America not only shut their doors to immigrants both in their own countries and in other parts of their empire, which doomed thousands to have to return to Europe to their deaths. They also refused Eichmann's offer of 1 Hungarian million Jews (in exchange for trucks, then for free), with a British minister saying 'what do we want with a million Jews'. Britain arrested the Hungarian Jew involved in these negotiants (Joel Brandt) and sent him to Egypt in order to shut him up

red star at the Bermuda conference in 1943 it is widely acknowledged that America and Britain purposely decided not to help the Jews but had the conference simply to appear to care.

There are many other examples which I can't remember at the moment.

So, saving the victims of capitalist genocides from the Holocaust to Hirosima and Dresden and from Kosovo to Rwanda can only be done by fighting against the system which causes them. This can only be done by the working class.

Seumus
Offline
Joined: 23-04-05
Aug 4 2005 07:29

Barry Kade talks rubbish.

He talks about an,'effective war against fascism' and then goes on to comment on Churchills refusal to open the second front in 1941.

The british had already been thrown out of Europe in the previous year, with the loss of most of the material provided for the army there. Her soldiers were inexperienced and ill led.Very little had been learnt in that time as the poor performance of the officer corp in the Western Desert showed. A landing in Europe by the British Army in 1941 would have resulted in a massacre of our fathers and relatives. The American s might well have supported such a move, but, as their subsequent behaviour showed they had no more idea than their British counterparts in this direction. Napoleon commented that to attack prepared positions a ratio of three to one was needed on the side of the attackers. I reckon the sea was in itself a prepared position. The folly of Barry Kades position was shown by the decimation of the Canadian invaders at Dieppe in,I think, 1942.

He, (Barry Kades,) talks about Churchills misallocation of,'troops and resources,' sure enough but it was the allocation of material to Russia that ensured that 100,000 British and Commonwealth Troops were sent in to a horrible captivity from Singapore. The material which was sent to Russia ,Stalin later decried as not being needed. According to sources the Hurricane fighters sent to Russia were left in their crates whilst British led troops were using 1936 Brewster Buffaloes.

Non of the ideas put forward by our socialist friends would have contributed to the defeat of Hitler. They are idle posturings from the margins of the left.

The Spanish Anarchists took the line that the European War started in 1936, they fought in France right till the end. Many British Anarchists took the same position.

What we should be doing ,instead of bickering is developing ideas to further anarchism as the only (?) valid alternative to Capital and to build a force capable of defeating the state.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 4 2005 13:14

libcom's team of tacticians refight the Second World War:

'And if we'd invaded Heligoland first...'

Barry Kade
Offline
Joined: 23-06-04
Aug 4 2005 17:33

'Her soldiers', etc - not the kind of language Id use. but anyway, heres some more 'nonsense':

Churchill and the British ruling class made a POLITICAL decison to keep the war in North Africa. The british ruling class fought the war to defend the British empire, any of their 'anti-fascism' was incidental. (Also, look at the quarrel between Churchill and Roosevelt over whether to invade via France or the Balkans - very revealing about Churchills motives).

An real anti-facist war would have looked different - yes it would have looked abit like 1936 - but, well, only more successfull (!) - obviously the other main example we have is the victory of the red over the white army in 1918-1921. (Mmmm).

However, the main point here is not to play armchair generals, but to argue for the importance of in all circumstances maintaining political independance from your 'own' ruling class. That to support this war was not about political support for Churchill etc.

I made this point because the discussion above is polarised between 2 positions. a) 'revolutionary defeatism' (let Hitler in coz hes no different from the British capitalists we are already fighting) and b) 'lesser evilism' - uncritical support for Churchill, etc as the lesser evil.

Is this relevant today?Yes, because its the old, perennial argument between 3 positions 1) popular frontism. 2) Ultra left abstentionism. 3) The united front.

And of course, as we all know, the best defence against fascism is to stop it from gaining power in the first place.

thaw
Offline
Joined: 3-03-05
Aug 4 2005 19:43

Like in the dress rehearsal - Spain?

(But remember they wanted Hitler to attack the Eastern front, the Bolsheviks, hence appeasement, also when Mussolini attacked Ethiopia), as the Bolsheviks themselves recognised. And finally lost millions of people in the war (more than any other power).

Anarchism is the end point of the marxism we all want AND i WISH YOU WOULD RECOGNISE THAT.

red n black star

Seumus
Offline
Joined: 23-04-05
Aug 5 2005 07:44

, 'HERE'S SOME MORE NONSENSE,' so says Barry Kader. His judgement and I agree.

'CHURCHILL AND THE BRITISH RULING CLASS MADE A POLITICAL DECISION'

He does no favours to the working class for ignoring their political decisions to enter a political and armed struggle against fascism. In the ICC's arrogance they despise the working man's attempt to enter a struggle of their own. (For the ICC, any free initiative by others is frowned upon.) This action by elements of the class is something many took. Last year saw the death of a Liverpool comrade, who as an anarchist fought the pre war fascists in his home city and on the outbreak of war joined the navy as his contribution toward the armed struggle. What about the Cable St, participants? Were they all mugs? What was the point of defeating Mosely only to have Mosely imposed by a fascist dictator?

Churchill might well have tried to save the Empire, but he didn't make a good job of it did he ? Seven years later the larger part had gone. Due to the war. Even so, if he cares to read further in to American history he will find that Eisenhower and Marshall the two top American soldiers as well as the president all came around to the benefits of not going in to Europe till the troops were ready for it.

Barry Kader tells us that the ,'main thing is not to play armchair generals,'

We should note that he and his comrades can do this very thing when they want to distort history, how-and-ever, they resent it when working class people enter in to these realms, feeling that such matters are to be left in the hands of the CADRES of the ICC.

"The best defence against fascism is to stop it gaining power in the first place'

The only bit of sense that Barry Kader has yet uttered in this discussion is the above .

It's is a pity that he proffers a policy that besides attacking the working class and disparaging its sacrifice causes confusion and unease amongst the ranks.

Mark H
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Aug 5 2005 08:10

There were anarchists at the time like the "War Commentary" group in London who rejected this whole idea that it was a war of democracy against fascism and strongly denounced the crimes of the 'democratic' allies - like when 'liberal' capitalism bombed striking Italian workers in 1943... The best anarchists, along with the remaining left- and council communists in WW2 (Solidarity group in Glasgow etc), were internationalists above all. It was the Trotskyists who argued that democracy was a 'lesser evil' against fascism - they took it to its logical conclusion and ended up supporting Stalinism, the Labour Party and the trade unions...

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Aug 5 2005 13:40

The debate between Seumus and Barry Kade is extraordinary. Kade's position is pure Trotskyism: put pressure on Churchill to fight a 'real anti-fascist war'. Seumus rightly says that Kade is talking nonsense. But not because the latter offers the most 'radical' possible justification for pulling workers into an imperialist war, as the Trotskyists always do. No, his criticisms are that Kade's tactics are wrong, the war should have been fought a different way. But Seumus' real passion is for pointless and irrelevent denunications of the ICC's 'contempt for the workers'. This is quite something when his position must lead him to oppose any expression of class struggle which would sabotage the war effort of your own bourgeoisie. Forget the ICC for a moment. We didn't invent the fact that workers did take real initiatives against the war, such as the mass strikes in Italy 43, which Churchill as Mark H says first bombed and then allowed the Nazis to repress ('let the Italians stew in their own juice'). Class struggle in 1939-45 meant class struggle against the war because the war meant the total outlawing of the class struggle.

For those who think that workers' struggles in World War 2 didn't mean confronting the racist attacks carried out by the Nazi regime, workers also fought openly - on their own class terrain - against the deportation of the Jews. Such struggles were combined with other class demands, as in Holland in 1941. We have written about this in our book on the Dutch left, which also shows that left communists took an active part in this movement.

Barry Kade
Offline
Joined: 23-06-04
Aug 5 2005 14:15

Hello,

Firstly, Seumus love, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick mate!

I'm not in the ICC, or any other organisation or current. Which should be obvious as I'm arguing against the position they represent. Please aim your accusations in the right direction, eh?

As to the rest, yes, it would have been best to have a proper revolutionary class war against fascim and capitalism, lead and controlled by workers militias. And yes, I am aware of what independant workers resistance did occur in WW2. Of course this would be better than as alf says putting

Quote:
pressure on Churchill to fight a 'real anti-fascist war'.

Or even trying to expose the fact that he is not fighting an anti-fascist war, and never will, and his class must be overthrown in order to wage such a war, (which is the position I was actually trying to advance here).

But really as I keep repeating, I am responding to two incorrect positions. One is the stupid position represented by the ICC - and obviously some others here.

The other is represented by my ol mate Jack:

Quote:

It was a war against fascism, whether the capitalist imperialists liked it or not. Capitalism might be shit, but if the choice is between it and fascism, then it's worth fighting for.

and

Quote:
in practise, it was between fascism and capitalism; not fascism and socialism. I don't think either capitalism or fascism are much fun, but I'm fucking glad 'liberal'-capitalism won the day

and

Quote:

I don't give a fuck if it meant briefly siding with imperialism, the fact is, in 1939 only imperialism had the power to stop this. And I'm fucking glad it did, whether it's the 'correct' communist position or not.

And obviously (i think) that he has gone too far the other way in criticising the ICC here!

Please understand the context of the argument here.

Oh, and is my argument 'pure trotskyism'? - well there are several trot posistions on this, representing just about every side in this debate. But trots in ww2 were not for a class truce, ie they supported wartime strikes.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Aug 5 2005 14:33

You're a funny misshapen lad, and no mistake

grin

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Aug 5 2005 14:46

So was Makhno.

I meant your elephant-man head confused

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Aug 5 2005 14:59
revol68 wrote:
what the fuck is up with my head?

I know !! eek

Quote:

I mean i know it's not as big as yours but....

My head is amazing.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Aug 5 2005 15:05
revol68 wrote:
Every christmas Pingtiao's girlfriend gets him a bigger face cloth and a smaller comb. grin

So that's why he wanted to meet me. The only poster with less hair than him. cry

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Aug 5 2005 17:08
revol68 wrote:
Every christmas Pingtiao's girlfriend gets him a bigger face cloth and a smaller comb. grin

suck on that you med student dressing, backpacker necklace wearing twat.

Ha haha!

grin

Seumus
Offline
Joined: 23-04-05
Aug 5 2005 20:06

Barry Kade said,

SEUMUS, YOU GOT THE WRONG END OF THE STICK!

It isn't the first time and wont be the last.

Well never mind and I'm sorry and it won't happen again; hopefully!

That is I apologise for putting you in the ICC. Your position is untenable to my mind still. Regarding the ICC, I still think it is an arrogant, self centered and anti working class organisation that promises no good to the class and the struggle.

peach
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Aug 5 2005 20:18

So, who are the ICC? Another 4th international front for trotskiysts, who has no support in the first place? No-one in the Soviet Union supported Trotsky. And he was not killed by a 'Stalinist' btw.

And leave Ping alone, pussies. or you will answer to others.

Love. xxx

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 6 2005 11:56

Total support for the ICC's position on fascism and anti-fascism. There's only one thing more dangerous than fascism and that's anti-fascism.

In the early 30s the British ruling calss did a great deal to bring Hitler to power. In parliament, 1934 Lloyd George stated "we shall welcoming Germany as our friend". Hitlers SA thugs were armed by Britain. Hitler was powerful ally to be built up to crush the working class. Vickers armements provided arms for Germany under state direction. As soon as the Nazi was established in 1933 the British PM went to Geneva to call for "justice for Germany". Similar manoeuvres were carried out with Mussolini.

Democracy was complicit in the rise of fascism, encouraged and nurtured it as a tool against the working class. That imperial war is the final outcome of this could be seen by revolutionaries and the bourgeoisie. The working class had already been defeated by the unions - the way was open to war.

No one denies the atrocities of the holocaust - the holocaust of the generalised barbarism of capitalism. Holocausts are becoming commonplace and behind them are the same imperialist manoeuvres.

Two of our recent holocausts among many

Pol Pot - how many did his regime murder? supported by Britain and the US, his leading fighters trained by the SAS.

The RWandan war in 94, activiated by British, American and especially French imperialism. More people were being slaughtered per day, with agricultural tools and lumps of wood with nails in them, than the Nazi death camps achieved at the height of their lethal efficiency. And democracy has a great many more holocausts in store for us. The real enemy, for the working class and humanity as a whole, is not this or that regime, but the major powers of the capitalist world.

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Aug 6 2005 15:46

Several positions seem to becoming clear and we will attempt to take these up in a number of posts. However, we think it important to first outline the marxist, historical framework used by the communist left - which the ICC has taken up and deepened - as it is clear that many are not familiar with it, especially those from anarchist/libertarian backgrounds.

During the 16-1800s capitalism, as a mode of production, was historically progressive in that the bourgeois revolutions (Britain 1642-51, USA 1775-83, France 1789-99) broke apart the feudal system that was hindering the development and expansion of the industrial

economy, and hence the proletariat. Once in power the bourgeoisie introduced new legislative frameworks that liberated the productive forces (e.g. in Britain the Enclosure Acts, abolition of the Corn Laws etc.). Capitalism was in its ascendant phase. The wars that took place during this epoch were an expression of capitalism's 'growing pains'. Many were followed by periods of rapid economic growth, so they had certain rationality at this level. Finally, in this epoch, it was possible for the working class to support certain wars of independence and national liberation that were ‘progressive’ in that they weakened the remaining feudal regimes (e.g. for Polish independence from Tsarist Russia) or strengthened more progressive fractions within the bourgeoisie itself (e.g. the victory of the North over the South in the

American Civil War, 1861-5).

To summarise, in the epoch of capitalism’s ascendence wars had the function of ensuring each nation had the unity, territory and resources it needed to expand. Despite the disasters they brought these wars were moments in capitalism’s progress. They had the characteristics of:

- Being limited to a small number of belligerent countries;

- Being short-lived;

- Being limited in the amount of destruction caused;

- Giving a burst to development for both victor and vanquished.

Towards the end of the 1800s capitalism was at its zenith. There had been several decades of unimaginable economic growth and scientific advances. Peace had reigned between European states for many years: wars during this period were generally on the periphery of capitalism

(in the colonies). These objective conditions were fertile soil for the development of gradualism, reformism and opportunism: of bourgeois ideology within the working class and its political organisations (notably within the German SPD and the Second International, formed in 1889). 'The movement was everything, the goal nothing'. 'Socialism could be won through Parliament or the General Strike'.

At the turn of the century the marxist left-wing of the 2nd International – notably those around Rosa Luxemburg within the German SPD, and Lenin and the Bolsheviks within the Russian SDLP - began to take up the struggle against opportunism. It was becoming clear to

these revolutionaries that the nature of capitalism was changing, that a new period was dawning: of the decadence of capitalism, the era of imperialism. They could see that this was not only expressed through the growing militarization of all the European nations - and the

increase in tensions between them - and the return of economic crises, but also in the outbreaks of mass strikes and the first appearance of soviets, particularly in Russian in 1905. The capitalist social relations that had once freed the productive forces from their feudal chains had in their turn become new chains, had created new contradictions that could not be solved within the capitalist system itself. And one of these fundamental contradictions was the creation of an international economy founded on competing national capitals, which

became crucial at the point where capitalism had dominated the planet, because expansion was now only possible at the expense of one’s neighbour’s territory.

For the left-wing of the workers' movement at the time, the First World War marked capitalism's definitive entry into it's epoch of 'war or revolutions', ‘socialism or barbarism’. But the 2nd International, riddled with opportunism, collapsed into rival chauvinist parties. Many anarchists, notably Kropotkin, also took sides in the war and became ‘anarcho-trenchists’. With the working class politically disarmed and with its permanent organs of struggle, the trade unions, integrated into the war effort, the road was clear for the bourgeoisie to unleash the first global imperialist massacre.

However, it did not take long for the revolutionaries within the 2nd International to re-group in order to defend the internationalist principles of “The working class has no fatherland”, “The main enemy is at home”, “Turn the imperialist war into a civil war”. The Spartacists

and the Bolsheviks participated in the Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences that regrouped a wide range of groups that were against the war. It did not take the working class much longer – horrified by the barbarity of World War – to begin to struggle for its class demands

against the sacrifices demanded for the war effort by the ruling class. Strikes and mutinies increased as the war dragged on.

It was the social unrest in Russia, culminating in the proletarian revolution in October 1917 that opened the breach: an international wave of struggles swept the planet until 1923 that shook the capitalist system to its foundations. The struggles in Germany in 1918-23

terrified the bourgeoisie, who decided it was better to face their common mortal enemy than continue to fight each other. The regroupment of revolutionaries took the form of new communist parties that had broken with the traitors of the Second International, and the formation of the Communist International, which also included internationalist anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists. In the context of these mass struggles the once ‘minority’ positions of the internationalists became the MAJORITY positions of the working class on the road towards the world revolution.

The failure of the German Revolution was largely due to the success of the social-democrats in being able to present the new ‘democratic’ government as defending the interests of the working class, while at the same time arranging the assassination of revolutionaries such as

Luxemburg and Liebknecht. (Noske and Schiedeman relied on the Friekorps to carry out these murders work, which was to become the basis of Hitler’s SS. He was only finishing off the work began by the ‘democrats’!) The exhaustion of the revolutionary wave led to the isolation of the proletarian bastion in Russia, which began to degenerate. The Bolsheviks made the mistake of being fused with the state and identifying state interests with those of the working class, and Stalin’s rise marked the beginning of the counter-revolution. Russia

became a state-capitalist prison for the proletariat. The CI’s adoption of the policy of ‘Socialism in one country’ in 1927 marked it’s definitive death for the proletariat, and the left communist fractions that had been fighting the degeneration of the CI – for longer than

Trotsky’s Left Oppositions - from within the CPs were either excluded or left of their own accord to carry on their work. (We will return to the activity of revolutionaries before and during the war in another post.)

The 1930s were indeed the ‘midnight of the century’. The rise of the Nazis was encouraged by all national bourgeoisies as they offered social stability after years of economic chaos and social unrest. (Baboon's and Jaycee's postsa illustrate this well). Hitler was only the front man. Stalin’s Russia re-joined the imperialist arena, and the ‘civil war’ in Spain 1936-39 was a laboratory for the Second World War in which the ideology of anti-fascism was prepared. Even though the working class had been defeated at the level of its class consciousness it had not ‘disappeared’, as the class struggles in Spain July 1937 demonstrated. The bourgeoisie drew several lessons from the First World War, and the most important for them were on how to control the social situation. First the proletariat had to be enrolled behind a powerful ideological campaign (‘defence of democracy’, ‘defence of the socialist fatherland’ etc). Then they had to be controlled by ‘patriotic workers’’ organisations (trade unions, the Socialist Parties, the degenerated Communist Parties, and during the war the Trotskyist Parties/4th International). And finally, to avoid any outbreak of unrest after the war, proletarian concentrations had to be annihilated (Dresden, Hamburg, Northern Italy etc.).

For the bourgeoisie as a whole, the Second World War was a ‘good war’ in that it wasn’t ended by a revolution. But what it did confirm – along with all the colonial wars of ‘national liberation’ since then – was that it in the epoch of capitalism’s decadence it is impossible to

found new, viable national units. The function of war was no longer to divide up the world, but to re-divide it. War in the epoch of decadence have the following characteristics:

- All nations are now imperialist: countries can only expand at the expense of their rivals.

- All fractions of the bourgeoisie are thus reactionary: they are local expressions of a global capitalist system.

- Wars are now generalised around the globe. Such ‘world-wars’ are longer in duration and involve much greater destruction. They are ‘total wars’ that demand the mobilisation of the whole population.

- They are the convulsions of a dying system that is dragging society into an abyss of barbarism, of which the current war in Iraq is but the latest expression.

- All those that support one side of the bourgeoisie against another are supporting imperialism. Big or small. There are no 'lesser evils'. The enemy is capitalism in all its forms.

In further posts we will take up the necessity for the working class to open up the ‘Third Front’ on a class terrain, with the example of how the working class in Holland responded to the deportations of Jews in 1941 and the communist intervention of the 'Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg Front'. We will also come back to the question of the Resistance and the possibility of a ‘workers’ war against fascism.

World Revolution,

Section in Britain of the ICC.

Links...

The Theory of Decadence

http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/270

Spain 1936

http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/65/9

World War II

http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/67/9

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 7 2005 21:59

i'm with baboon, the british seem intent on killing everybody and have been doing so for centuries, but surely fighting against fascism is better than letting it win, although given the entire lack of a revolutionary movement in this country when we seem to be seeing the rise of anti-asian fascism then you'd hardly know the workers got anything out of the war in any case. Perhaps the welfare state and the labour party have all been a plot to counter working class self-organisation, so people can be tricked into a sense of dependence, so that when the dictatorship does actually arrive, people will be so bewildered they won't do anything against it, or actually welcome it. Scary times, but at least cook's dead grin

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 9 2005 12:34

It always comes down to the lesser evil, ie it's better to fight fascism or, if we had been "there", it would have been better to have fought fascism than do nothing. Of course if someone is coming at you with a gun you will have an opinion about it ... But to actively fight for an ideology, a completely capitalist ideology? It is not fascism which gave rise to fascism but imperialism - a decadent social system. The brutalities (and irrationality) of fascism are essentially similar - if a bit cruder - to any other regime in decaying capitalism. Certainly, to answer the last intervention, the health service, political parties and trade unions are part of the capitalist state. But the dictatorship is already here - there is a dicatatorship of capital over the working class. The economy is going to hell in a handcart and the world is not going to get better but far, far worse. It won't be fascism that brings this about but the decay of the system personified in the major, democratic, economic powers of the world. Anti-fascism always opens the door to defending this democracy. It calls for support to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. How much more sophisticated is that dictatorship over the crudities of fascism? You don't need the knock on the door in the early hours when you can rule ideologically (though, increasingly, democracy will resort to the knock on the door, torture, outright repression - it already is.

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Aug 9 2005 21:14
Quote:
But to actively fight for an ideology, a completely capitalist ideology?

... Anti-fascism is not an ideology... it's action , it's just a word to united very differents movements in fight againt fascism. And the capitalists never used this term of "antifascism" (preffering terms like "fight for democracy ; liberty , Republic" etc.) because this word was invented by the left.

Quote:
It calls for support to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

... pffff... ... what you say it's a fucking insult against all workers (communists, socialists, anarchists... ) who died and suffered of fascism. I have more respect for all stalinians who fighted that funkers who 60 years after the war try to justify an ideology of a ghost organisation which did not do nothing and will never do anything.

But your position about nature of fascism is very incomplete and wrong. Fascism does not equal capitalism : fascism can't be summarised by the magic word "capitalism" ... and you forgotte that fascism is also a critic of capitalism : remenber corporatism ideology ? ? ? How to explain why fascism want a new economical regime by corporatism ? ? ? ? ? confused

But in your marxist dogmatism, you pure vision of an "historical materialism" where only economic factors explain emergence of fascism you forgotte all the others factors : nationalism, consequences of the first worl war, politicals crisis, socials crisis, fear of communism, international instability, scandals, antisemitism etc etc...

It's why also the post of the 6 august is stupid. It's about 300 years of history but the ONLY explanation of all this historical events is Capitalism. An example : explain the french revolution by Capitalism is not wrong but very very limited (and this limit which don't take into account others facts make your position totally wrong : and can't explain the Terror period, the heterogeneity of revolutionnaries movement, why Insurrections in Paris, why it's the Centralists who won and not the federalists, why a liberal revolution become a republican revolution with a dictatorship period and finish with Napoleon and the Empire etc etc etc .... ).

All facts were under the control of the bourgeoisy, for theirs interests (Revolutions, WWI & WWII, anti-fascism) ? Can you understand that Bourgeoisy is not responsible for all, that they are others factors to explain History, that the bourgeoisy is not either a homogenous group(why certain bourgois where in the Resistance and why others where fascists and why others where opportunists ? ) ? ?

L ' black star G I T é

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 11 2005 14:57

Anti-fascism is and was an ideology of the left wing of the bourgeoisie to dragoon the working class into defending bourgeois democracy and to take it off of its most effective, that is automous, fighting grounds.

L'agite's support ("respect") for stalinism is clearly stated.

But on a scale of butchery, if such a scale existed, between stalinism and fascism, then stalinism must come out far and away the undisputed champion. Just a simple body count puts it way out in front. The scale of it, the extent, the length of time it lasted, the space it was given to carry out its terror and massacres. From the Gulags of the 20s (where it is estimated that 20 million were killed), the butchery and genocides prior and during WWII, and after then, this particular brand of terror and murder exported, with democracy's approval, on a grand scale.

L'agite gets even more confused "fascism" he says "is a critique of capitalism". That's a good one! The companies of Krupps, Siemens, Thyssen, Messershmidt and IC Farben (these are the powerhouses of German capital) encouraged and supported the Nazi regime. Similarly in Italy, the fascists were financed and supported by Fiat, Ansaldo, Edison. The most powerful companies. And, in the growing tendency to state capitalism everywhere, the major banks in both countries supported the fascists. And long after the former milk factory had been converted into the Dachau concentration camp - where wokers were being tortured and violently killed - British capital was giving diplomatic support (not to be underestimated), armements and thousands and thousands of tons of Blue Circle cement to the Nazi regime. From capital to fascism that amounts to real, tangible, ongoing, substantial, material support. A "critique of capitalism" is one thing that fascism is certainly not. Fascism was the need of the ruling class in particular circumstances at a particular time.

Of course the bourgeoisie fight each other - the very nature of capitalism is blind, irrational competition. And this has found its peak (if you like) in the development of imperialism today. But these fights, for and against this campaign of the bourgeoisie and its left-wing, are not those of the working class.

In response to revol68 on the similarities between the New Deal in the US and Fascism. The fundamnetal need for capitalism at this time (and for the whole period since) is the statification for the whole of society, this along with the establishment of the war economy.

After WWI, a laissez-faire sort of capital re-emerged, the bourgeoisie thinking it could go back to the 19th century. It resulted in the 29 crash. The bourgeoisie (which as Marx said "becomes intelligent in times of crisis") needed greater state control not only of the economy, but the whole of society and particularly the working class. The whole development of state capitalism from the 30s to today is the response to the permanent (deepening) crisis of capitalism. Fascism, Stalinism, Democracy all had obvious differences (history, geography, etc) but all were expressions of capital and of the need of the nation state.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 11 2005 14:57

Anti-fascism is and was an ideology of the left wing of the bourgeoisie to dragoon the working class into defending bourgeois democracy and to take it off of its most effective, that is automous, fighting grounds.

L'agite's support ("respect") for stalinism is clearly stated.

But on a scale of butchery, if such a scale existed, between stalinism and fascism, then stalinism must come out far and away the undisputed champion. Just a simple body count puts it way out in front. The scale of it, the extent, the length of time it lasted, the space it was given to carry out its terror and massacres. From the Gulags of the 20s (where it is estimated that 20 million were killed), the butchery and genocides prior and during WWII, and after then, this particular brand of terror and murder exported, with democracy's approval, on a grand scale.

L'agite gets even more confused "fascism" he says "is a critique of capitalism". That's a good one! The companies of Krupps, Siemens, Thyssen, Messershmidt and IC Farben (these are the powerhouses of German capital) encouraged and supported the Nazi regime. Similarly in Italy, the fascists were financed and supported by Fiat, Ansaldo, Edison. The most powerful companies. And, in the growing tendency to state capitalism everywhere, the major banks in both countries supported the fascists. And long after the former milk factory had been converted into the Dachau concentration camp - where wokers were being tortured and violently killed - British capital was giving diplomatic support (not to be underestimated), armements and thousands and thousands of tons of Blue Circle cement to the Nazi regime. From capital to fascism that amounts to real, tangible, ongoing, substantial, material support. A "critique of capitalism" is one thing that fascism is certainly not. Fascism was the need of the ruling class in particular circumstances at a particular time.

Of course the bourgeoisie fight each other - the very nature of capitalism is blind, irrational competition. And this has found its peak (if you like) in the development of imperialism today. But these fights, for and against this campaign of the bourgeoisie and its left-wing, are not those of the working class.

In response to revol68 on the similarities between the New Deal in the US and Fascism. The fundamnetal need for capitalism at this time (and for the whole period since) is the statification for the whole of society, this along with the establishment of the war economy.

After WWI, a laissez-faire sort of capital re-emerged, the bourgeoisie thinking it could go back to the 19th century. It resulted in the 29 crash. The bourgeoisie (which as Marx said "becomes intelligent in times of crisis") needed greater state control not only of the economy, but the whole of society and particularly the working class. The whole development of state capitalism from the 30s to today is the response to the permanent (deepening) crisis of capitalism. Fascism, Stalinism, Democracy all had obvious differences (history, geography, etc) but all were expressions of capital and of the need of the nation state.

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Aug 11 2005 19:48

but the point is, is the difference between facism and democracy big enough to justify the deaths of 60 million people ,and the answer to that has to be no. also, around 1 million germans did actually starve to death in British prisoner of war camps during and after the war. Lastly, the point is that capitalism as a whole is what drives war and there will always be war while there is capitalism. And capitalism as a whole is now threatening humanitys survival in the next 100 years (and probably sooner) and capitalism could only lead to the situation we are in now. Therefore supporting any side in a capitalist war means supporting war in general and finally the destruction of humanity( which WW2 almost lead to any way with the race to produce nuclear weapons).

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Aug 12 2005 09:24

Baboon you could quote correctly my phrase about the stalinists. I said : "I have more respect for all stalinians who fighted that funkers who 60 years after the war try to justify an ideology of a ghost organisation which did not do nothing and will never do anything"

traduction : je préfère les putains de staliniens qui étaient dans la Résistance et qui ont buté des flics et des fascho plutot que des branleurs pseudo-intello de l'ultra-gauche qui n'ont jamais rien fait et ne ferons rien à part avoir une lecture idéologique de l'histoire qui ne correspond à aucune réalité passée... (traduction : I prefere the fucking Stalinists who were in Resistance and who killed cops and fascists rather than of the pseudo-intello wankers of the left communist who never did anything and will not do anything separately to have an ideological reading of the History which does not correspond to any past reality.).

And about fascism and capitalism : WHAT IS COPRPORATISM ? ? ? DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS ? ? ?

Corpatism=capitalism for you ? confused

During Occupation in France the pro-fascist régime (Vichy) worked out a new form of economical system : In industries Corporations were created. It wasn't capitalism nor socialism nor state control. It was Corporation, a reactionary idea of an alliance of the Bosses and Workers, basing on the phantasm of on harmonious pre-capitalist era. (And remember all fascists propaganda were Jews, France-maconnerie and capitalism were denunced ...). I don't developp, take a book about fascism (and not from ICC grin ) and you will understand.

I don't say that capitalism didn't existed during Fascsim , i say just that was not simple, and this fascists regimes tried to create a new economic system : Corporations. And they justified creation of corporations, in part, by a critique of capitalism (immoralism of money, corruption, scandals, economic crisis, "jews" etc.).

And i add that under the Vichy Regime a part of the governmant and supporters were "capitalists" (they didn't want of the corporation idea) and an another part were "corporatists" believing in the "National Revolution".

History is not simple, there is not a General Rule (Capitalism and Strugle Class) which explain all. What you said and what the ICC writed it's bullshit, you try to explain fascism by an ONLY explication (Capitalism) without taking into account all the other factors and without taking into account proper internal divisions and divergent interests of the supporters of fascism.

L ' A G I T é -

circle A

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 12 2005 15:37

Baboon doesn't seem to have a very strong grasp of history. The furst anti-fascists were the anarchist fighting groups of the Arditi Populare (sp?) organised by anarchists such as Malatesta in the early 1920s to fight the Fascistii bboth before and after Mussolini's move to power. They were certainly not formed in order to 'defend' capitalism or liberal democracy.

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Aug 12 2005 20:56

so facism wasn't capitalist becuase they said they weren't,(as Marx said ,we can't judge a society based on what its rulers say about it). the fact that capitalism existed under the facists and that the capitalists welcomed these corporations as a way to ensure social peace must show that despite facist propoganda, facism was capitalism with a few new techniques for enslaving and murdering the working class and anyone else got in there way. lastly, it is quite obvious even to the people who support world war 2 that stalin was as bad as Hitler, and yet Stalinism was along with America(who still had segregation) the main victor of ww2. That is also important for the 'what if' historians who ask what if the nazis had won the war, the point is that stalinists won the war and the way in which they behaved would in all probability been much like how the Nazis would have.