Bordiga, anti-Semite or correct?

[Comrade #138672]

I have some questions about Bordiga, concerning an article of him called "Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi?" (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fbord iga%2Fworks%2F1960%2Fauschwitz.htm&ei=jglcUbaJN6uR0QXe3ID4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFqAMhrTt8rhT-QkT1zZA854abOcQ&sig2=FLuZ9kaCc-8-E9HykgcY7Q&bvm=bv.44697112,d.d2k). This is specifically directed at Bordigists, even though there aren't that many here.

I have asked some anti-Fascist Marxists and Anarchists about this, but they said that it had zero importance, value and relevance. They also said that Bordiga was an anti-Semite and that his article was just filth.

Now, of course, I'm opposed to anti-Semitism. However, I feel that the anti-Semitism card is drawn too quickly and that it obscures a few good points raised by Bordiga.

[1] Are anti-Fascists thinking too Idealistically about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism? Do they fail to see the material conditions that gave rise to them? Is this, like Bordiga says, a bourgeois position concerning anti-Semitism?
[2] How far is this from Holocaust denial? Should we even touch this?
[3] What are the implications, if what he says is true?

Please note that I'm still learning. I'm unsure what to think of this. I wouldn't necessarily call this Holocaust denial. I don't think that Bordiga is denying that at all. I don't think he is an anti-Semite either. What he says is, however, quite dangerous. Still, I think there is some value in what he says, and that it is ignored by people, because they are generally too afraid to touch this.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The article is an overwritten piece of revisionist, mechanicist and workerist tripe written by someone (to be fair, maybe not Bordiga himself) who believes, or who believed in any case, that the base acts on the superstructure mystically, without utilising the superstructure itself, and who relies on idiotic myths about Jews being "almost exclusively petite bourgeoisie". I got as far as the outpours of sympathy for the SS, and quit in disgust.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yes.

I think it depends on whether you think on the one hand that the Holocaust was an abberation due to 'evil', or on the other an extreme example of the tendency of capitalism in decay (not that Bordiga accepts that capitalism is in decay) to promote human suffering.

I'm with Bordiga (except I do believe capitalism is in decay). And I don't think he was an anti-Semite.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If that was all pseudo-Bordiga had said, no one would find the article controversial, except possibly those liberals that think Holocaust is some historically unique "evil". But pseudo-Bordiga entirely dismisses the role of ideological antisemitism, which is pure mechanicism and is entirely opposed to serious Marxist analysis, places the blame for the Holocaust on the western allies, which is entirely opposed to sanity (which is not to say that the western allies were blameless or that they should not have been criticised), and ends by expressing sympathies for the "poor" Germans after the Second World War, which is entirely opposed to good taste.

[Rafiq]

i think bordigas point was that to say the holocaust was simply a product of "hate" or "intolerence" not only sacrafices the theotetical power of marxism but insults the legacy of the victims of the holocaust. bordigs stated his disgust for how the holocaust was being utilized to reinforce capitalist relations by bourgeois liberals after WWII

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[l'Enfermé]

A Marxist explanation of the Holocaust? How anti-semitic!

[Narodnik]

Actually the first part of the article is a nice reminder to the historical materialists about applying that viewpoint consistently.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

[1] Are anti-Fascists thinking too Idealistically about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism?

I would say that their "hearts are in the right place" so to speak but that their united and popular fronts against fascism are extremely wrong. Class independence should not be given up to fight a certain form of capitalism. The only way to actually get rid of fascism for good is to destroy capitalism.


Do they fail to see the material conditions that gave rise to them?

No, but the conclusions they draw (such as united fronts with social-democracy, the same social-democracy that killed Rosa Luxemburg, killed plenty of workers, been a faithful servent of capital etc. and popular fronts with "democratic capitalists") are flawed.


Is this, like Bordiga says, a bourgeois position concerning anti-Semitism?

I would agree that it is.



[2] How far is this from Holocaust denial? Should we even touch this?

No, the translator's note from the MIA version is flawed. This is not Holocaust denial and nowhere close to such a thing.


[3] What are the implications, if what he says is true?

Fascism is a form of capitalism and to destroy fascism we need to destroy capitalism. Proletarian class independence should not be given up for collaboration with social democracy, etc.


What he says is, however, quite dangerous.

Why?

[subcp]

The point of the article has been succinctly described by posters in this thread. As far as I know there is no definitive link to prove Bordiga actually wrote it.

A member of Internationalist Perspective wrote what I consider the best Marxist analysis of the Holocaust; they do mention the 'Great Alibi' article (to criticize it).

http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_49_holocaust.html


The origins of the Holocaust must be sought in the unprecedented and ever-increasing violence that has accompanied the unfolding of capitalism from its phase of the primitive accumulation of capital and the brutal expropriation of the immediate producers from their means of production through the bloody colonial wars and orgies of mass murder that characterized the global expansion of capitalism, and that culminated in the mechanized slaughter of masses of conscript soldiers on the battlefields of the first world war. Within that bloodstained history, Auschwitz, understood as a symbol for organised and planned mass murder, marked the creation of a death-world in which the extermination of determinate groups of human beings had become the deliberate and systematic objective of the state. Thus, for Traverso, `[t]he “final solution” appears to us today, at one and the same time, as the culminating point in an uninterrupted sequence of violence, injustice, and murder that has characterized Western development and as an unprecedented break in historical continuity. In other words, it is only by setting Auschwitz in a larger context of racist crimes and violence that its uniqueness may be perceived and analyzed.' (6) (http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_49_holocaust.html#note-6)

and no, Bordiga was not an anti-Semite.

The problem isn't with opposing fascism or anti-semitism; those are things that should be inherent to any communist or Marxist. 'Anti-Fascism' as a specific historical phenomenon involves lesser evil politics, and was literally the mechanism that militant and class conscious layers of the working-class were enrolled in the biggest war in human history (in defense of bourgeois-democracy). It's a sensitive issue, and it does rub people the wrong way to dispassionately analyze the effects of anti-fascism on the communist project. But none of it has to do with being anti-Semitic or fascistic, only the application of Marxist materialism to real phenomenon, rather than being guided by emotion. The IP article is the best example of this I think.

[Comrade #138672]

pseudo-Bordiga entirely dismisses the role of ideological antisemitism, which is pure mechanicism and is entirely opposed to serious Marxist analysis,Maybe, but he is right to focus primarily on material conditions.

It would be Idealistic to reverse this.


places the blame for the Holocaust on the western allies, which is entirely opposed to sanity (which is not to say that the western allies were blameless or that they should not have been criticised), and ends by expressing sympathies for the "poor" Germans after the Second World War, which is entirely opposed to good taste.Where does he put the blame only on the Western Allies?

Well, the Germans, especially the proletariat, were fucked pretty bad.

[Geiseric]

I would say that their "hearts are in the right place" so to speak but that their united and popular fronts against fascism are extremely wrong. Class independence should not be given up to fight a certain form of capitalism. The only way to actually get rid of fascism for good is to destroy capitalism.



No, but the conclusions they draw (such as united fronts with social-democracy, the same social-democracy that killed Rosa Luxemburg, killed plenty of workers, been a faithful servent of capital etc. and popular fronts with "democratic capitalists") are flawed.



I would agree that it is.




No, the translator's note from the MIA version is flawed. This is not Holocaust denial and nowhere close to such a thing.



Fascism is a form of capitalism and to destroy fascism we need to destroy capitalism. Proletarian class independence should not be given up for collaboration with social democracy, etc.



Why?

What about the millions of workers who supported the Spd Bureaucracy? Shouldn't they be included in "class independence"? The whole point of a "united front" is class indepedence. Popular fronts are class collaborationist. Or are they magically petit bourgeois for supporting the SPD? In any case the later, sectarian logic is what gave us "After hitler, us" which I'm sure you wouldn't repeat, unless you have a death wish.

When it came down to it the Bolsheviks still worked with Mensheviks on things they agreed on, such as ending the Kornilov revolt. That's what a class independent united front is. The Communist parties don't have hegemony over the working class, at this moment the bourgeois reformists in all of the countries do. So at this very moment if you think that the CP of any given country is reflective of the entire working class you're dillusional. The communists have to win over the rest of the working class, whom still worldwide support Bourgeois parties.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe, but he is right to focus primarily on material conditions.

It would be Idealistic to reverse this.

Again, if pseudo-Bordiga's point was simply that material conditions determine social structure, no one would find this controversial. But material conditions are not some mystical power that moves the superstructure instantly; it is important to understand the concrete features in the superstructure that correspond to the conditions of the material base. Ideological anti-semitism is one such feature. Misogyny, for example, is another.

It is true that everything in the superstructure is ultimately caused by the material base. But stopping there is lazy analysis; the precise material conditions and how they are reflected in the superstructure also need to be considered.

And lazy analysis leads to lazy politics, an ultra-left mechanicism that refuses to engage with the superstructure and is content with awaiting the deliverance that will come from the change in the base.


Where does he put the blame only on the Western Allies?



German capitalism resigned itself with difficulty to murder pure and simple. Not, of course, through humanitarianism, but because it wasn’t profitable. It was thus that Joel Brand’s mission was born, which we will speak of because it sheds light on world capitalism’s responsibility. Joel Brand was the leader of a semi-clandestine organization of Hungarian Jews. That organization sought to save Jews using all methods: hideouts, clandestine emigration, and corruption of the SS. The SS of the Judenkommando tolerated these organizations, which they more or less tried to use as “auxiliaries” for roundup and selection operations.
In April 1944 Joel Brand was called to the Judenkommando of Budapest to meet Eichmann, who was head of the Jewish section of the SS. Eichmann, with Himmler’s agreement, charged him with the following mission: go to see the Anglo-Americans to negotiate the sale of a million Jews. The SS demanded in exchange 10,000 trucks, but were prepared to bargain, both as to the nature and the quantity of the merchandise. In addition, they proposed the delivery of 100,000 Jews as soon as the agreement was received as a sign of good faith. The affair was taken very seriously.
We can’t go into detail concerning Joel Brand’s misadventures. He left for Turkey and struggled with the English prisons of the Middle East. The Allies refused to take the affair seriously, did everything possible to stifle and discredit it. Finally, Joel Brand met Lord Moyne, British Minister of State for the Middle East, in Cairo. He begged him to at least obtain a written agreement, even if it wasn’t to be honored: this would mean at least 100,000 lives would be saved.
“And what will the final number be?”
“Eichman spoke of a million.”
“How could you imagine such a thing, Mr. Brand? What would I do with a million Jews? Where would I put them? Who would accept them?”
“If there is no room for us on earth, all that is left to us is to allow ourselves to be exterminated,” Brand said in despair.
The SS were slower to understand. They believed in Western ideals. After the failure of Joel Brand’s mission, and in the midst of the exterminations, they again tried to sell Jews to the Joint, placing a “deposit” of 1700 Jews in Switzerland. But aside from them, no one else wanted to conclude the affair.


Well, the Germans, especially the proletariat, were fucked pretty bad.

Mostly due to industrial and labour reparations; the alternative would have been for the proletariat of the countries German imperialism had destroyed to suffer.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What about the millions of workers who supported the Spd Bureaucracy? Shouldn't they be included in "class independence"?

When you form a united front, you are dealing with the bureaucracy, not the base. The workers could be very militant in these organizations, but there is the reformist bureaucracy that radical leftists will be cooperating with in united fronts of a Trotskyist flavor.


The whole point of a "united front" is class indepedence.

Unless, of course, you form a united front with social democratic parties. Then it's class collaborationism, since social democracy is a wing of capital.


Popular fronts are class collaborationist.

I agree.


Or are they magically petit bourgeois for supporting the SPD?

Umm....no, they would still be workers if they are workers.


When it came down to it the Bolsheviks still worked with Mensheviks on things they agreed on, such as ending the Kornilov revolt. That's what a class independent united front is.

Yes, because the material conditions that existed in Russia during the early 1900s are the same as those that exist now in the 21st Century. Hell, the material conditions were different enough in the west at this time the Herman Gorter pointed out that some of the Bolshevik tactics, while good at that time in Russia, would not work in Germany in 1919. Times change, and our strategy and tactics should as well.


The Communist parties don't have hegemony over the working class, at this moment the bourgeois reformists in all of the countries do. So at this very moment if you think that the CP of any given country is reflective of the entire working class you're dillusional.

No one is arguing that any CP of any given country is reflective of the entire working class. Literally, no one. You're arguing that, because working class support isn't behind the communist parties, that we should make concessions to social democracy. Opportunism.

[Devrim]

If that was all pseudo-Bordiga had said, no one would find the article controversial, except possibly those liberals that think Holocaust is some historically unique "evil". But pseudo-Bordiga...

The article on Marxists.org says this:


This article has a slightly controversial history, having never been published under Bordiga’s name. It originally appeared, though, in 1960 in a French Bordigist journal, Programme Communiste, and Bordiga himself never spoke out against its theses. And so, echoing the ancients, we will call the author the pseudo-Bordiga.

Obviously the commentator knows little about the subject matter. The ICP as an organisation, and it was something that Bordiga was also very instant on personally, didn't publish articles under any names. They made a political decision that the works were the works of the party not of individuals. This piece is generally attributed to Bordiga though.


and ends by expressing sympathies for the "poor" Germans after the Second World War, which is entirely opposed to good taste.

This is what the piece said:


It was the imperialists of the allied camp who first used them to justify their war and to justify after their victory the despicable treatment inflicted on the German people. How they threw themselves on the camps and the corpses, showing off the horrible photos and proclaiming: “Look at what bastards these krauts are! How right we were to fight them. How right we now are to give them a taste of their own medicine.”

The treatment that ethnic Germans suffered in Central and Eastern Europe after the end of the war was despicable. Why is it bad taste to mention it?

Devrim