How to explain the Nazi obsession with Jews

197 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 23 2005 18:49
wld_rvn wrote:
To fall into the trap of armed actions by isolated groups is to invite massive repression on a class that is not organised enough to defend itself.

And to openly engage in civil disobediance during war time is also to invite repression, as many groups have found to their cost. I don't think it's as cut and dried a choice as you suggest.

And just to clarify, you do support the Dutch communists, including members of the Comintern affiliated party, in taking this strike action?

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Nov 25 2005 09:11

Speaking for the ICC, we are certainly in favour of clarifying, but we don't quite see the purpose of Lazlo's question. You know perfectly well that we support the 1941 dockers' strike because we have written about it at length in our book on the Dutch communist left, where we show that this was not simply a strike ‘organised’ by the Dutch CP but began to take on a mass, spontaneous character. But it's one thing to support a class action, and another thing to support the bourgeois forces acting within it. The Dutch left communists in the MLL Front politically opposed the Stalinists and their efforts to divert the class struggle towards nationalist ends, while at the same time the MLL Front intervened to call for the extension of the strike throughout the country. We support the stance they took.

This was by no means an easy position to take in those conditions, on the contrary. Do we have to remind the anarchists - some of whose best elements were murdered by the Stalinists in Spain - that in this period the Stalinists didn't just slander revolutionaries, but also beat them up, handed some of them over to the fascist secret police, and assassinated others? There wasn't much room for ambiguity about whether you supported the Stalinists or opposed them: it was literally a life or death question.

Beltov.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 25 2005 19:48
alibadani wrote:
About blowing up tracks. A strike that shuts down the railway system will stop a whole bunch of trains. Were workers organised to blow up tracks? NO!

Imagine if striking workers had shut down the war economies in the occupied areas. Imagine if they had formed workers militias. Imagine if they had worked with proletarians in German uniforms. Imagine if all the energy, imagination, and courage wasted on the resistancem were spent in these ways. Imagine how many Jews could have been spared. Imagine soviets in the middle of the war. It would have shut down the war effort and might have struck down the system. That would have been a truly anti-stalinist course.

This is absolutely the worst kinda line to take. You are pretty much advocating support for a historical act that never happened. It's smartass, wise after the event bullshit. Most people, especially proleterian workers, weren't exactly sure what was gonna happen in the 1930s. How you can criticise them for not doing enough when they were terrified, confused and facing severe repression is quite simply beyond me.

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Nov 25 2005 21:28
revol68 wrote:
...the question was how do the ICC feel about workers taking action outside the workplace to sabotage deportations and the like?

This question gets to the heart of the matter: the need for the working class to develop its autonomy from all other classes, to develop struggles on its own terrain. If you accept that the working class is the only revolutionary class, the only class with 'radical chains' whose interests correspond to those of the whole of humanity, then it follows that only the working class can best defend these interests. "The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class alone". OK?

However, just because workers take part in actions doesn't make them proletarian in nature. The ethnic and national conflicts that draw in workers are on a bourgeois terrain. 'Popular revolts' such as those in Latin America (Argentina 2003 for example) and even more recently the riots in the Paris suburbs - while clearly a result of unemployment, poverty and discrimination - are NOT on a proletarian terrain. Even if proletarians participate in them. In fact, such struggles pose a great danger to the working class because they pose its total dissolution of the into the mass of the 'people', the 'oppressed'.

It is vital to be intransigent on this question. As we say in our Platform:

The autonomy of the proletariat in the face of all the other classes of society is the first precondition for the extension of its struggle towards the revolution. All alliances with other classes or strata and especially those with fractions of the bourgeoisie can only lead to the disarming of the class in the face of its enemy, because these alliances make the working class abandon the only terrain on which it can temper its strength: its own class terrain” (Point 9, Platform of the ICC).

So what struggles ARE on a proletarian terrain? What makes an action proletarian? The immediate demands and the historic objectives. The orientation and the perspecitves contained in the struggles. The Gate Gourmet dispute at Heathrow is a good example. The immediate demands of the workers were the reinstatement of those that had been sacked. These common demands were supported by the workers at Heathrow. The solidarity shown in struggle overcame the divisions encouraged by capitalist society (race, gender). Such struggles begin to develop tendencies towards escalation, extension and great rapidity. This is why the bourgeoisie is so terrified of them!

Let us be clear, it is not that the working class must fight against other oppressed classes, but develop its capacity to guide them, to draw them onto its own terrain, to work to make them adopt its class viewpoint and historical perspective.

revol68 wrote:
Surely if you understand that even if the dockers strike was initially orgainsed by the stalinist CP it's very nature pushed it way beyond this, you can also understand that the resistance also pushed beyond stalinism/nationalism and infact acts like the bombing of railway lines used to deport jews were infact very concrete expressions of proletarian internationalism.

To come back to Revol's comment above on the bombings of train lines used to deport Jews. These actions were on a bourgeois terrain: they were under the control of the Allied forces. Yes, proletarians took part in such actions. Yes, they were most probably acting out of the deepest compassion for the Jews. But these actions were not on a proletarian terrain, they were not contributions to proletarian internationalism. The effect of such attacks was to weaken the German imperialist war machine to the advantage of the Allies. They did not have a mass character. They did not serve to strengthen the autonomy, unity and identity of the working class.

If you want a positive example then you need only look to the Russian revolution of 1917: a mass strike that brought down the Tsarist regime, saw the seizure of political power by the working class and caused the end of the First world war!

Beltov,

For the ICC.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 25 2005 21:48

Hi

Would you folks mind if I put "For the ICC" on my tag line? Thought so.

Love

LR

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 26 2005 17:36

THe Iowa State University (my alma mater) football (american) team is about to play for the Big 12 north championship. GO CYCLONES!!!!!!!

smile 8) Mr. T smile 8) Mr. T Mr. T Mr. T smile smile 8) : smile smile Mr. T Mr. T

Oh ya, this discussion is dead.

G O

C Y C L O N E S!!!!!!!!

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 28 2005 12:22

It's no wonder that anti-fascism draws in such a number of supporters and maintains them in a state of readiness. The anti-fascist campaign has been running intensely for over two generations now. The demonisation of the Nazis, based on a truth of course, has been relentless day in, day out, all over Europe books, newspapers, magazines, cinema, radio and television (especially television), the campaign is well funded and maintained by the bourgeoisie. This is a major mystification of the ruling class and much of their propaganda machinery, particularly the democratic state's, have been powered into keeping this myth alive. What better way to cover up your own complicity into the actions of murderous regimes; what better way to cover up your own crimes against humanity. Create and maintain the myth of an absolute evil and you can always present yourselves as the "good guys", the "popular front", or, at least, not so bad in the eyes of the population. This anti-fascism "coheres" a section of the population around a false alternative and spreads the infection into the working class. It further obcures the practical and historical links between the nazi holocaust and the complicity of the stalinist and democratic regimes.

The bourgeoisie have always worked on the Phineas T. Barnum principle "Never give a sucker an even break". As the capitalist system sunk into decay this was refined and aptly described by Goeballs as "The Big Lie". The Big Lie (or rathers the big lies) is now common currency amongst all the democracies. That's tell the greatest lie imaginable (based on an element of truth) and keep repeating it day in day out Slavery is Freedom; Stalinism was communism; they make war for peace; talk peace to prepare for war; use humanatarianism to slaugher innocents; talk ecology whilst carrying out destruction. And they talk anti-fascism and anti-racism to bolster divisions withing the working class and cover up their own culpability and helplessness faced with the decomposition of their system.

Anti-racism is a joke against a system that has racism built into it, that cannot do without it. Anti-racism is a phoney opposition which is turned into a partial and doomed response, not least from its inter-classism. The bourgeoisie take a very real expression of decomposing capitalism and use it for their own ends The Big Lie. Anti-racism is a myth, you cannot wipe out racism or even gradually attenuate its effects, without wiping out capitalism, without overthrowing the whole edifice.

You can clearly see the embryo of the break down in racism as it's been expressed in workers' struggles over the centuries. Some magnificent, selfless examples abound in history, not least from the working class in Britain.

Similarly with acts of courage and self-sacrifice. Heroic bravery expresses itself not as individual acts, but collective acts of daring and sacrifice that are expressed in struggles that tend to generalise outwards all the way to revolution.

This discussion is not closed but an open and important one for the working class. In general today's so-called anarchists can't denounce stalinism because it would mean taking some sort of critical line against anti-fascism. And you can't see that that's been drummed into your heads since birth.

Nor is this discussion closed if you ban groups or individuals from the site for their political views.

Don't bother with the stupid responses, I'll write it for you "ICC, twats, ICC stooges, twats. Fuck me. What's it all about? fuck me. Twats. Derrrr... fuck me. Why does my head hurt?"

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 28 2005 15:31

i don't get it. Are the ICC like ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-left or something??

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 28 2005 16:31

Hi

Quote:
Are the ICC like ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-left or something??
Jack wrote:
No.

Quite right. Is Left-Post-Ultra-Left-Post-Ultra-Leftism to the Left of Left Communism? I think so.

Love

LR

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Nov 28 2005 19:07

I want this discussion die ... but it 's very uncredible that guy of the Icc continue to say anti-historitical bullshit :

Quote:
To come back to Revol's comment above on the bombings of train lines used to deport Jews. These actions were on a bourgeois terrain: they were under the control of the Allied forces.

... It 's not true. You can't forgott that in France the FTP-MOI was largely autonomous ; many maquis were autonomous ; many underground networks to help jews were autonomous ; they were thousands and thousands of acts of solidarity, of sabotage by individuals and little grups ; that during the Libération Strike many factories were self-managed, that many groups of syndicalists were autonomous .... etc.

Quote:
Yes, proletarians took part in such actions. Yes, they were most probably acting out of the deepest compassion for the Jews. But these actions were not on a proletarian terrain, they were not contributions to proletarian internationalism.

and ? yes your a true help a jew do not be deported is not a proletarian struggle is just a struggle for humanity ! If you see a guy victim of an accident in the street we will not say to this guy " no i don't help you it's not a proletarian struggle ! ".

But to finish your position on Nazism is not coherent. You write all the time "Nazism is capitalism" and you try to reduce that all nazi politicies were motivated by capitalism. But in this case then fight persecutions and mass murderes was a part of the proletarian struggle.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 28 2005 19:54
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
i don't get it. Are the ICC like ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-left or something??

They're just like any preachy sect of lefty wannabe-leaders who make a virtue out of the fact that no one listens to them.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 29 2005 12:06

No one listens to the ICC. You lot seem to, even if your replies tend to the "well, heavens above!" variety.

I don't want to deviate too much, but a punctual point on a previous post which asked "I suppose (the ICC) wouldn't support workers fighting against privatisation". Absolutely right. Now you're beginning to understand the ICC's positions. Fighting against privatisation is a complete set up designed to strengthen the unions and keep the workers corraled onto a terrain where the forces of the bourgeoisie can fence them in. I work in one of the major industries which has been "privatised" in the last fifteen years and I can assure you that this industry is now under more state control than ever before in history. Pay and job losses, working conditions and long term attacks, are under the direct control of the centralised state (and that includes the complicity of the unions).

Lazlo objects to the fact that I have said that anarchists support stalinism and demands a retraction. I repeat what seems obvious to me from this and other sites. What is anarchism? You never define your positions. Are you the anarchists of the 19th century, the 20th, which type or faction?

What you seem to me, both explicitly (Moman "I support stalinism") and implicitly - in the majority of posts I've read - are democrats, nationalists, patriots, stalinist fellow travellers (anti-fascism) who get some perverted pleasure out of poor people burning their own neighbourhoods. Look at the majority of the previous posts - is that anarchism?

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 29 2005 12:11
baboon wrote:
What you seem to me, both explicitly (Moman: "I support stalinism") and implicitly - in the majority of posts I've read - are democrats, nationalists, patriots, stalinist fellow travellers (anti-fascism) who get some perverted pleasure out of poor people burning their own neighbourhoods. Look at the majority of the previous posts - is that anarchism?

Calling us perverted and nationalists is well within the definition of flaming. Are you so annoyed about world-rvn being banned that you want to follow its example?

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Nov 29 2005 18:02
baboon wrote:

I don't want to deviate too much, but a punctual point on a previous post which asked "I suppose (the ICC) wouldn't support workers fighting against privatisation". Absolutely right. Now you're beginning to understand the ICC's positions. Fighting against privatisation is a complete set up designed to strengthen the unions and keep the workers corraled onto a terrain where the forces of the bourgeoisie can fence them in. I work in one of the major industries which has been "privatised" in the last fifteen years and I can assure you that this industry is now under more state control than ever before in history. Pay and job losses, working conditions and long term attacks, are under the direct control of the centralised state (and that includes the complicity of the unions).

So, the industry you work in is under more state control. I take it you see this as somehow neutral and not worthy of fighting against? Had there been any mood amongst your workmates to take action against the privatisation, you'd have told them all not to bother as it was a distraction from the real struggle?

FWIW I am against privatisation, not because I think the state in all its forms is a great employer or somehow better than private companies, or that they don't extract surplus value in some bizarre way, but because privatisation is designed to make it harder for workers to fight back (it has other benefits for capital as well, none of which I think we should endorse).

Martin

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 29 2005 18:06
martinh wrote:
Had there been any mood amongst your workmates to take action against the privatisation, you'd have told them all not to bother as it was a distraction from the real struggle?

I think that's exactly what the ICC would have done. They seem to think this kind of stance makes them better than other political groups confused

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 30 2005 01:41
Beltov wrote:

If you want a positive example then you need only look to the Russian revolution of 1917: a mass strike that brought down the Tsarist regime, saw the seizure of political power by the working class and caused the end of the First world war!

Beltov,

For the ICC.

Just like to point out that this isn't true, although that may be stating the obvious.

Also from a capitalist point of view why wste resources preventing NAzis using up their resources on something non-productive.

Nazism failed because it wasn't capitalistic enough, nationalism/racism becomes a liability if it becomes an ideology rather than a technique.

Also Hitler was a shit general and Russia was too fucking big.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 30 2005 10:56
Jef Costello wrote:
Just like to point out that this isn't true, although that may be stating the obvious.

The ICC supporters seem to like making up stuff about historical events. It's quite hard to keep track of all of these examples of revisionism, but, yes, I'd agree with you that their interpretation of 1917 is waaaay out.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 1 2005 19:47

No one's ever quoted me before, I feel deeply special.

Thanks dude

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 2 2005 09:55

So it's revisionist to argue that the working class took power in October 1917? You may disagree that this is what happened but you can hardly accuse us of 'just making it up'. Or is it the argument that the October insurrection and in particular its echo in Germany in 1918 convinced the bourgeoisie to put an end to the war?

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 2 2005 11:56
Alf wrote:
Or is it the argument that the October insurrection and in particular its echo in Germany in 1918 convinced the bourgeoisie to put an end to the war?

So you believe in what the Nazis called the 'stab in the back' theory?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 2 2005 13:45

From the capitalist point of view - democratic or fascist - all class struggle during wartime, when all classes are supposed to be united behind the fatherland, is a 'stab in the back'. When that struggle reaches the point of mutiny and revolution, it has reached the zenith of treason. But from the internationalist point of view, patriotism, defence of the fatherland, is treason to the International.

The ruling classes in 1918 not only put an end to the war because of the threat of world revolution. Just as the French and Prussian bourgeoisies came together in 1871 to massacre the Commune, so the different national bourgeoisies put aside their differences to help the German ruling class crush the revolution there.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 2 2005 14:08

So you deny that the German armies were defeated militarily in WW1?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 2 2005 14:26

No doubt that Germany was in a terrible state by the last months of 1918 starvation, military stalemate, growing social discontent. The entry of the USA into the war would certainly have led to German defeat in the end. But the revolution was sparked off because the German military ordered a final big push. The Kiel sailors mutinied and workers and soldiers councils spread rapidly throughout Germany. At this point it became crystal clear to the German ruling class that they had to get rid of the Kaiser, put the social democrats in power, and end the war.

Bourgeois historians have hidden the German revolution from history, reducing it to a few 'hunger riots'. This makes it easier for them to present the Russian revolution as a purely Russian affair and to deny that there ever was a threat of international revolution.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 2 2005 14:30

So the German army was not defeated, but merely 'stalemated'?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 2 2005 15:48

What is the point of these questions exactly?

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 3 2005 02:10

You know, not all left communists are hated by the majority on this forum. If I recall there was quite a bit of praise for Otto Ruhl and his anti-Leninism. So I sugest you read the works of the major anti-Leninist left communist theroiststs like Herman Gorter, Paul Mattick, and Anton Pannekoek. Some of their texts are right here in the Libcom library. Look at their positions on such issues as unions, anti-fascism, anti-privatisation etc., and compare them to those of the ICC.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 5 2005 00:14
alibadani wrote:
You know, not all left communists are hated by the majority on this forum.

And this doesn't make you wonder, at all?

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 5 2005 19:25
Quote:
Yea, well, the 1920's called, and it wants its politics back.

Each generation of revolutionaries must learn from the actions, mistakes and successes, of previous generations. The mistakes the working class made back then boiled down to our trust in liberal democracy, unions and parliament. Unfortunately many on this forum still harbor those same illusions, the same old 1920's politics.

Quote:
And this doesn't make you wonder, at all?

It does make me wonder. Left communists with some of the exact same positions as the ICC have their texts in the libcom library. Even the uber-leninist Bordiga's texts are in there. Like I said, read their words and explain why you spaz out at the ICC. roll eyes

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 5 2005 20:19
alibadani wrote:
Like I said, read their words and explain why you spaz out at the ICC.

'Spaz out'? What does that mean? confused

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 6 2005 14:51
alibadani wrote:
trust in liberal democracy, unions and parliament. Unfortunately many on this forum still harbor those same illusions, the same old 1920's politics.

Where has anyone on these forums stated any trust in 'liberal democracy' or parliament?

Is this more of the same smears against anarchists and re-writing of history again?