1939 and all that...

245 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mark H
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Aug 13 2005 12:08

L'Agite's preference for the Stalinists in the Resistance is revealing. Unfortunately for L'Agite these most patriotic of anti-fascists didn't just kill cops and fascists, they also killed those communists who remained faithful to proletarian internationalism: for example in 1944 they denounced the Italian left communists of the "Prometeo" group as "agents of Germany and of fascism" and incited their murder, which led directly to the assassination of two militants, Acquaviva and Atti, in 1945. Meanwhile in France, the "pseudo-intello wankers of the left communists who never did anything", or rather the French Fraction of the Communist Left, were busy keeping their revolutionary organisation alive in clandestinity, dodging Stalinist assassins from the Resistance as well as local police and Gestapo, in order to intervene among the workers and even German soldiers to win them to revolutionary positions. Not bad for people who never did anything... (see the ICC's Italian Communist Left book for more info).

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Aug 13 2005 12:28

some of you folk never learn when it comes to the ICC. It looks like they've decided that libcom is a place where they can intervene. So they are being nice to you, rather than denouncing you.

Remember when mummy told you not to take sweeties from strangers ....

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 13 2005 13:13

Unlike L'Agite, revol68 (what a name for such an avid supporter of democracy) doesn't openly support stalinism (the biggest butchery in history), but then he doesn't mention it at all - as if it never happened. Would it be better to live under stalinism or under fascism? Would it be better to be high functionary in a fascist regime living in luxery or a miner in Northampton with lung disease? The comparisons that are being made about "is it better" to be here or be there are just ways of avoiding the real issues. Corporatism, Stalinism, Social Democracy, Fascism are all expressions of capitalism. They are patently not the same sort of regimes - fulfilling different needs (but fundamentally the same) of the ruling classes according to differing or developing historical circumstances. But, they are all expressions of the same economic system, the economic system we live under today, which is called capitalism. And this system is in terminal, irreversible decay. Looking at the last hundred years, looking at the last ten, fifteen years, it is there for all to see that this system is breaking down all over the world with the most dangerous consequences for the whole of humanity. It may be better earning a good wage in Basildon than living in poverty on the banks of the Ganges, it many be better having one leg than no legs at all, but that is not the point. The point is, on the basis of a materialist analysis of history, it won't be better living under democracy, or anything else within capitalism, because as it's collapsing, and collapsing it is, it will take us all down with it, our children and our grandchildren.

You supporters of Stalinism and Democracy, how long do think capitalism is going to last and how is it going to do it?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Aug 13 2005 13:18

it's not a question of which form is worse. We fight against the version of capitalism we happen to live under.

Oh shit, just taken a toffee there.

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Aug 13 2005 17:13

i repeat myself...

I judge men and women on what their were doing under Resistance (and not on what were theirs ideologies). And yes, i prefer stalinists in France who fought against fascists that purists which justified to do nothing , like i prefer democrats or republicans or bourgeois or priests who helped to save jews, to defend a minimum of liberty that ideologists who don't understand that nobody could avoid the consequences of the war, of occupation, of the mass deportation, of mass repression, of mass murderers, of mass destructions...

And if i prefer this stalinists i don't say i approve stalinism ideology or crimes against troskists and left communists or others militants.

Ok now i understand the "left communist" : all is capitalism; and there are no differents degrees, ... capitalism is the Devil , it's responsible of all. Fascism=capitalism and anti-fascism=capitalism. All which is not from Marx brain is capitalism....

And I want to know :are zapatistas Capitalists ? or are Capitalists Zapatistas ? ? black bloc

L' A G I T é

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 13 2005 21:29
l'agité wrote:
i repeat myself...

I judge men and women on what their were doing under Resistance (and not on what were theirs ideologies). And yes, i prefer stalinists in France who fought against fascists that purists which justified to do nothing

You're exactly right. Stalinists in the resistance weren't busy putting people in gulags or censoring the press, they were fighting fascists.

Quote:
Ok now i understand the "left communist" : all is capitalism; and there are no differents degrees, ... capitalism is the Devil , it's responsible of all. Fascism=capitalism and anti-fascism=capitalism. All which is not from Marx brain is capitalism....

Yeah, that's about right!

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 16 2005 16:30

No one wants to talk about the crimes of stalinism, but whether the ICC agrees with locking up rapists or not. What has that got to do with any of this discussion? Stalinism in the resistance is supported if it's fighting fascists. What about when it's killing workers, women,children, while fighting fascists. Were German conscripts fascists? What about when they're hunting and killing left communists militants (along with the fascists) while they're fighting fascists?

Stalinists in the resistance were pawns (whether they knew it or not) fighting for one imperialist cause against the others. Pawns for a regime that in the post 45 world of endless and growing wars and massacres - hecatomb upon hecatomb of human bodies - continued with its terror and butchery. L'Agite, our closet stalinist, what about the butchery of this regime after the war (let alone before and during)?

I agree we have to fight against our version of capitalism in the sense of the capitalist regime we live under. But we couldn't begin to do that by fighting fascism during the war (ie, supporting democracy and stalinism) or fighting so-called fascists now which are nothing but bogeymen created by the capitalist state. It is the national capital that has to be attacked in order to wipe out the detrius that it itself produces.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 19 2005 13:02

In Britain today, after decades of hot air and words about feminism, women's rights, equal rights, only a small fraction of men who rape women are charged and of these only a small fraction are convicted. In the democractic Britain, so beloved by revol68(sic), men are not only very likely to get away with rape, but the state then puts the victim through a further long drawn out, degrading and traumatic experience. So much for democracy.

What about the other wing of the anti-fascist front, Stalinism, supported by L'agite. The Red Army of Stalin was a much more efficient fighter of fascism than the motely collection of the resistance (supported by democracy and stalinism - but elimated where necessary) and the odd church druid. The second wave of the Red Army "liberating" Berlin had specific orders to rape and tens of thousands of those nasty German, fascist women and young girls were violently abused in an orgy of bestiality (not confined to the "liberators" of the Red Army either).

In the face of very important questions, ilovemycountry68, wants to reduce things to what one individual may or may not do (whom he knows nothing about). This is not any sort of debate, but the avoidence of debate.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 19 2005 14:58
baboon wrote:
In Britain today, after decades of hot air and words about feminism, women's rights, equal rights, only a small fraction of men who rape women are charged and of these only a small fraction are convicted. In the democractic Britain, so beloved by revol68(sic), men are not only very likely to get away with rape, but the state then puts the victim through a further long drawn out, degrading and traumatic experience. So much for democracy.

Jesus fucking christ. This is as bad as stupid anarchos who assume stuff like CCTV or labour laws are inherently bad because they are imposed by the state.

The working class face immediate problems which cannot be solved by pointing to some far off revolutionary ideal. It is one thing to recognise the unsatisfactory nature of working class gains and inneffectiveness of legal means of redress, but it is completely barmy not to make use of what little we do have.

By your logic baboon we should leave someone bleeding to death in the street, for fear they might catch MRSA if they were taken to hospital!

Quote:
In the face of very important questions, ilovemycountry68, wants to reduce things to what one individual may or may not do (whom he knows nothing about).

And in the face of important questions you patronise everyone by pointing out the stunning revelation that bourgeois democracy is a bit reactionary and brand anyone not as blindly ultra-left as you a nationalist.

No wonder the ICC have only 6 members.

Quote:
This is not any sort of debate, but the avoidence of debate.

Quite.

meanoldman
Offline
Joined: 15-01-04
Aug 19 2005 18:03
Quote:
In Britain today, after decades of hot air and words about feminism, women's rights, equal rights, only a small fraction of men who rape women are charged and of these only a small fraction are convicted. In the democractic Britain, so beloved by revol68(sic), men are not only very likely to get away with rape, but the state then puts the victim through a further long drawn out, degrading and traumatic experience. So much for democracy.

It's very hard to imagine how most rapists could be convicted without reducing the level of proof needed for a conviction, without the appearance of some new technology most cases will remain the word of one person against the word of another in which case it's impossible to convict.

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Aug 20 2005 13:03

We want to express our solidarity with those who have so steadfastly defended the proletarian principle of internationalism on this thread: baboon, mark h and Jaycee. The dangers of any compromise on this principle have been made very clear by the discussion on this thread. Revol68, redyred and L'agite have taken the logic of their support for anti-fscism to its logical extreme: defence of democratic and 'Stalinist' imperialism. It has only been those who defend the Communist Left and internationalism that have opposed the open expressions of the defence of democratic and Stalinist imperialism. And explained the couragous opposition to the imperialist bloodbath carried out by the groups and comrades of the Communist Left in Europe: who refused to kiss the iron heel of 'democratic' or 'stalinist' imperialism.

Askfor revol68 idea that there only 6 comrades of the ICC we invite the readers of this thread to look at our website, and at the list of our public meetings and press and to come to their own conclusion.

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Aug 20 2005 15:32

..... guys are you real ? ? eek

Quote:
We want to express our solidarity with those who have so steadfastly defended the proletarian principle of internationalism on this thread: baboon, mark h and Jaycee.

"We"... the ICC or the IFICC ? ? Mr. T

Quote:
The dangers of any compromise on this principle have been made very clear by the discussion on this thread. Revol68, redyred and L'agite have taken the logic of their support for anti-fscism to its logical extreme: defence of democratic and 'Stalinist' imperialism.

Save jews, make strikes against deportation of workers, of jews and gipsies, fight in a militia to escap obligatory work, etc etc etc were compromisings... neutral ... you are horrible...

if for you a man or woman in the communists militias were responsible of the atrocities of the Red Army...

And Why in your messages you never write about the terror of fascism and nazi regimes ?

Quote:
It has only been those who defend the Communist Left and internationalism that have opposed the open expressions of the defence of democratic and Stalinist imperialism. And explained the couragous opposition to the imperialist bloodbath carried out by the groups and comrades of the Communist Left in Europe: who refused to kiss the iron heel of 'democratic' or 'stalinist' imperialism.

and what they were doing ? ? ?

what they were doing ? ? ?

what they were doing ? ? ?

what they were doing ? ? ? i want to know

only in Germany left communists were many in 30's but in France in 40's how many ? 10 ? 100 maximum...

You say they were in opposition to the "democratics" and Ussr imperialism .... but fascists were not imperialists regimes ? confused ).

Quote:
Askfor revol68 idea that there only 6 comrades of the ICC we invite the readers of this thread to look at our website, and at the list of our public meetings and press and to come to their own conclusion.

great ... you got a website... and do regulary little conferences.... great great ... but in the streets ?

black star

L' A G I T é

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 20 2005 20:36
wld_rvn wrote:
Askfor revol68 [sic] idea that there only 6 comrades of the ICC we invite the readers of this thread to look at our website, and at the list of our public meetings and press and to come to their own conclusion.

Yeah, I guess I may have overestimated the size of the ICC a bit there.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Aug 22 2005 13:44

Everything is individualised for you. You cannot draw general lessons from the movements of class societies with these sort of arguments. They lead to a dead end.

I use the NHS, collect my wages, pay my phone bill. I would use the police in regards to rape, burglarly, etc. What has that got to do with anything? I'll tell you what. This sort of individualised arguments are nothing but a cover for the defence of the state. Bourgeois democracy is totally reactionary and will not last very much longer. The status quo is not an option and it will not be maintained. Revolution is not a far off ideal - you are all the idealists with your defence of "what we have" (and that comes out of our wages) and the pie-in-the-sky eyewash that things are not so bad ("where we are"). Presumably you would have used the same argument about far off gulags and nazi concentration camps.

The crimes of the nazis have been written about by the ICC. The crimes of fascism, stalinism and democracy are obvious. Though you good democrats and stalinists are fixating on a partial view and for some reason see only the crimes of fascism.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Aug 22 2005 14:28

Stop posting twice, for fucks sake your posts are bad enough anyway, full of bizarre twisted halftruth and illogical double takes.

Oh and I think i have to agree with nightrose here aswell.

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Aug 22 2005 14:47

Is L’agite hinting that somehow the ICC shares the negationist or revisionist view of history – that we supposedly only attack the ‘democratic’ camp because we are holocaust deniers? Such a slander is not new: L'agite’s Stalinist heroes used it as an excuse for hunting down and killing left communist before and during the war, and in recent years Le Monde attacked Bordiga's internationalism on exactly the same grounds (see the article in the World War Two category on our website, linked below) .

For internationalists, as we and others have tried to show in this discussion, both the Allies and the Axis were imperialist, both were responsible for the barbarism of the war, including the Holocaust: isn’t this the whole point of this discussion? Isn’t this the reason why so many of the anarchists on this thread are so outraged and scandalised by the position defended by the ICC and a number of others? The issue certainly isn’t that fascism, Stalinism, democracy etc are all identical. Certainly there are important differences between them, but if the question is simply one of analysing historical differences between this or that form of capitalism, why all the heat?

The point here is that for those who are attacking us on this thread, the existence of these differences is used to justify supporting one form of capitalism against the other. And these are not speculative questions about the past. The bourgeoisie still uses the ideology of the Second World War as a justification for its wars today. In the Bush/Blair justification for the war in Iraq, for example, Saddam was the new Hitler and not invading Iraq would have been a form of “appeasement”. Or, if like the SWP or Galloway you line up with another set of gangsters, then the Islamic terrorists and nationalists in Iraq are “the Resistance”. Clarity about internationalism in 1939-45 is a starting point for clarity about internationalism today.

L’agite’s outrage at our last post is the continuation of his defence of the Resistance in response to Baboon. l'agite prefers “the fucking Stalinists who were in the Resistance and who killed cops and fascists rather than the pseudo-intellectual wankers of the left communists who never did anything…”. So let’s speak plainly: L’agite, the anarchist, “prefers” the Stalinist resistance officers who at the time of the so-called Liberation. issued the call “chacun a son Boche” – “everyone kill a German” – and led the chauvinist hysteria against German proletarians in uniform, the shameful witch-hunts against French “collaborators”. He “prefers” the Stalinist hit-men who, during this orgy of nationalism, arrested internationalists like our comrade Marco in Paris – known not for “doing nothing” but for carrying out revolutionary propaganda against the war - and accused them of being agents of fascism and demanded they be shot. He “prefers” the Stalinist partisans in Italy who did shoot members of the Internationalist Communist Party in Italy on exactly the same pretext.

However, L'agite does get pretty uneasy about the Stalinist war machine's atrocities, whereas revol68 has been deafening in silence in his response to Baboon's point about the policy of mass rape carried out by the Red Army. Instead he would rather mock the ICC; so much for his moral outrage about rape!!! Clearly his only reason for raising this question was to attack the ICC and those who defend internationalism.

L'agite asks the question what were they (the Communist Left) doing? In this discussion we and others have tried to give a general outline of the revolutionary intervention that was carried out, but there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. We do not have the space here to give a full description of the activity of the communist left during the war, but we would recommend that l'agite and those reading this thread who want to find out about this little known, but crucial, part of working class history , read the following links. We have had mentioned these before, and are hesitant to do so again, but it would appear that l'agite has not noticed them. It will then be clear that the question of compromises is not about whether the communist left fought persecution and deportations. The Dutch internationalists took an active part in the 1941 Amsterdam dock strike against deportations, and the French comrades in Marseilles issued appeals against the local round-ups of Jews. But they did this without compromising in their opposition to both imperialist camps.

The Dutch councilists and the war: http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_01.html

Manifesto of the Communist Left to the Workers of Europe, June 1944: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/275_1944_manifesto.htm

The Communist Left of France, 1944; http://en.internationalism.org/ir/079_GCF_1944.html

Also there our books on the Italian and German/Dutch Communist left.

And finally to dispel any idea that ICC are closet negationists we refere l'agite and all those reading this tread to our collection of articles on WW2 http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/67/9/

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Aug 22 2005 14:51
wld_rvn wrote:
the French comrades in Marseilles issued appeals against the local round-ups of Jews.

I bet that worked well. Appeals, eh? Must've had the Nazis quaking in their jackboots.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Aug 22 2005 14:56
wld_rvn wrote:
Is L’agite hinting that somehow the ICC shares the negationist or revisionist view of history several more paragraphs of waffle

So basically would you stand shoulder to shoulder with ''stalinists'' on a picket line or would you denounce them? Assuming of course you weren't spending all your time denouncing the ''reformist nature of unions'' or some other nonsense.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 22 2005 17:46
the button wrote:
wld_rvn wrote:
the French comrades in Marseilles issued appeals against the local round-ups of Jews.

I bet that worked well. Appeals, eh? Must've had the Nazis quaking in their jackboots.

I belive a faction split from the group over this issue -- they regarded the issuing of ananti-fascist appeal as no better than burying the bodies of thousands of Leftists in a Stalinist-Capitalist lime pit.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 22 2005 20:43

Now, I may be showing my ignorance here, but weren't there elements of the resistance, not just in France, who fought to make it possible for some kind of alternative socialism to emerge after the war? I only say this because didn't the Americans spend time and effort re-installing Nazi bureaucrats in Germany and elsewhere to maintain capitalist power? If there was no danger of Socialism emerging, why did they bother? Surely the resistance must have been on to something?

Anyhoo, back to my rambling.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 23 2005 10:22
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
Now, I may be showing my ignorance here, but weren't there elements of the resistance, not just in France, who fought to make it possible for some kind of alternative socialism to emerge after the war?

No, you're totally right. The anti-fascist movements often contained strong socialist and anarchist elements, and had to be crushed after the war to re-impose capitalism. The ICC members just want to propagate the very simplistic view that anti-fascism=lining up with Churchill and Stalin; not historically accurate at all.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 23 2005 12:01

cool

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Aug 23 2005 12:06
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
The ICC members just want to propagate the very simplistic view that anti-fascism=lining up with Churchill and Stalin; not historically accurate at all.

...... not historically accurate, but pretty useful if your politics is based on doing fuck all. roll eyes

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Aug 24 2005 11:10

well wat did these attempts lead to after the war if not supporting churchill, stalin etc, surely America and Russia won the war and ended up taking over most of the world. THis might suggest that anti-facism no matter what an inderviduals intentions were ment supporting one imperalism against another.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 24 2005 11:23
jaycee wrote:
well wat did these attempts lead to after the war if not supporting churchill, stalin etc, surely America and Russia won the war and ended up taking over most of the world. THis might suggest that anti-facism no matter what an inderviduals intentions were ment supporting one imperalism against another.

confused So would you say that the victory of Stalin during the Russian Revolution means that bolshevism, 'no matter what an inderviduals intentions were', meant supprting dictatorship?

Pat Henry
Offline
Joined: 12-07-05
Aug 24 2005 11:47

lazlo_woodbine wrote:

Quote:
So would you say that the victory of Stalin during the Russian Revolution means that bolshevism, 'no matter what an inderviduals intentions were', meant supprting dictatorship?

Well, what are we to make of this? First of all a point of history - Stalin came to power AFTER the Russian Revolution - indeed, his rise to power mirrored the degeneration of the revolution.

Secondly, it's not just purely a 'subjective' question of what an individual may think they are doing or trying to acheive.

The Russian Revolution was intended as the beginning of a world revolution to bring about a new society. It was a product of the ripening of historical conditions (that capitalism had sominated the globe, and thereby entered a period of crisi leading to world war), a coming to consciousness of the working class, and these combined with a vision about how to end the massacre of the First world war, poverty, exploitation etc.

By contrast, anti-fascism was (and still is today) a tool of the bourgeiosie. A means of recuperating workers genuine concern and solidarity for other workers and exploted people into the bourgeios, democratic framework. In the final analysis it means supporting an 'anti-fascist' state against a 'fascist' one. Or even, as in the case of Spain in 1936, of a 'anti fascist' part of the Spanish bourgeiosie against another, 'dictatorial / fascist' part. In all respects - workers were massacred.

One of the examples the ICC gives about communism is of a world without nations - this means a world which has overcome the limitations of 'national identity' (look at the present campaigns about 'what is 'Britishness'). Anti fascism specifically can't help to overcome this - only the international unity of the working class.

meanoldman
Offline
Joined: 15-01-04
Aug 24 2005 11:58
Quote:
THis might suggest that anti-facism no matter what an inderviduals intentions were ment supporting one imperalism against another.

I'd agree that fighting in the British army in World War Two say would have supported the foreign policy goals of Britian at the time, and not just the goal of defeating Germay. You need to argue though that this was a bad thing, or at least worse than the alternatives. It's my view that the differences between liberal democracy and fascism are sufficient that, given the (lack of) alternatives available at the time for isolated militants, I would have fought for the British army during World War Two.

The argument that since fascism and liberal democracy are both forms of capitalism and so one should never be supported over the other seems to me to be rather nihilstic. By looking only at the economic basis the very real differences in the political superstructure are dismissed. Whilst there was a working class in both Nazi Germany and Britian the differences in both living conditions and in the amount of political space available to the working class in each was so large that they can't be treated as a two different forms of capitalist rule differing only by the severity of the repression of the working class*, there were fundamental differences between the two political systems.

* The orthodox Communist line that fascism was "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital" has been demonstrated by enormous volumes of research in the 50 last years to be simply wrong.

meanoldman
Offline
Joined: 15-01-04
Aug 24 2005 12:02
Quote:
One of the examples the ICC gives about communism is of a world without nations - this means a world which has overcome the limitations of 'national identity' (look at the present campaigns about 'what is 'Britishness'). Anti fascism specifically can't help to overcome this - only the international unity of the working class.

No-one claims it can. But under fascist rule the possibility of achieving such a society is so reduced that this country being defeated in World War Two would not have been just a massive defeat for liberal democracy but also a massive defeat for the worker's movements in the UK at the time.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 24 2005 12:15
Pat Henry wrote:
By contrast, anti-fascism was (and still is today) a tool of the bourgeiosie. A means of recuperating workers genuine concern and solidarity for other workers and exploted people into the bourgeios, democratic framework. In the final analysis it means supporting an 'anti-fascist' state against a 'fascist' one.

have you been listening to what I've been saying, about the Italian anti-fascists who were fighting the fascisti long before it became a concern for the liberals an imperialists? Are you seriously saying that these people were in some way supporting the Italian capitalist state?

If you can be more discriminating in your arguments -- for example making it clear whether you're talking about all anti-fascist activity or just fighting in a national army against the Axis forces -- then your points will come across much better.

Mark H
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Aug 24 2005 22:24

Meanoldman’s posting is straightforward and honest, and by arguing that ‘liberal democracy’ was a ‘lesser evil’ in world war two at least returns to the central argument of this thread. To avoid false arguments (and there have been enough of these), let’s first of all agree that there were differences in the living conditions and in the ‘amount of political space’ available to the working class in Britain and Germany. Let’s accept that, even if you were an unemployed miner living on the edge of starvation in this country, facing the batons of the police if you dare to fight back, this was still not as bad as being a worker (certainly a Jewish worker) in Germany under Hitler, with the concentration camps, the Gestapo, the total militarization of society…

But it’s still necessary to point out that, if you were an Indian worker, say, calling for independence from the British empire in 1942, then public floggings, shootings, torture and the burning of your village by British imperialism was as bad as anything fascism could do to you; and if you were one of the four million victims of the ‘forgotten holocaust’ of the British-created Bengal Famine of 1943, there was perhaps little qualitative difference between ‘liberal democracy’ and fascism. And that isn’t to mention the inhabitants of Hamburg, Dresden or Hiroshima…

The main point, which is missing in all the arguments about ‘if you were there in 1939 faced with the choice between fascism and democracy, what would you do…etc.’ is – fascism was the product of the defeat of the German working class. And who defeated the German working class? Social democracy. Social democracy and the trade unions – not in 1933 when Hitler finally came to power and when fascism finally finished off what was left of the resistance of the German working class, but in 1918 to 1923 when the German workers attempted to create their own workers' councils and seize political power. It was social democracy which, having previously mobilised the workers for the imperialist war, then acted as the spearhead of the counter-revolution, using the neo-Nazi freikorps to murder Luxemburg and Liebknecht and the Berlin workers when they attempted an insurrection. Any support for democracy, however critical, from that point on was support for out-and-out butchers. There’s a river of blood here – not intellectual, abstract arguments. And it’s a river of blood all the ‘critical’ supporters of democracy and Stalinism prefer to delicately ignore or step around, because it’s easier to hurl abuse at people who are simply defending the principle of proletarian internationalism than explain why - under the cover of all sorts of ultra-left phrases - you are defending the left of capitalism.