The Failiure of the Left to combat German 'National Socialism'

[Holden Caulfield]

The situation, however, in Germany in the early 30s was very different from the situation in Italy in 1920, one was a period of working class defeat, and the other the high point of the revolutionary wave.

One could construct a much more persuasive argument for forming a popular front in Germany in 1933, though still I would say a mistaken one, than for one in Italy in 1920.

In 1920, It would have meant the revolutionaries, at the high point of the revolution, should have proposed an aliiance with anti-revolutionary forces.

Devrim

i would say that during the period 1919-1920 (roughly) the leftist organisations could have over thrown the state if only unity of the common casue prevailed and then Freikorps, Nazi and other extreme-ring wingers easily crushed,

instead we saw many sporadic attempts at local upheaval (the Ruhr, Bavaria etc) which allowed the reactionary forces to conquer the already divided communists one by one.

however this is not the point, the subject of this thread is the failure of the left to halt german fascists while they (the fascists) were on the rise to power...

[Sasha]

well, like i said in the italian thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/failure-left-combat-t89288/index.html)i do think the betrayel by the social-democrats in 1920, was fundamental in the rise to power by the nazi's

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
The Spartacist League subsequently renamed itself the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany) (KPD), joining the Comintern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern) in 1919. The League and the subsequent KPD were famous for pitched street battles with police and other direct action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) militant activities, some of which Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) disapproved of as premature, anarchistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist), misguided, etc. In January 1919, the KPD along with the independent socialist USPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPD) staged massive street demonstrations in protest of a swerve to the right by the Weimar government (then led by the autocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocratic) right-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing) of the SPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD) under Chancellor Friedrich Ebert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Ebert)). In response, the government claimed that the opposition was planning a general strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike) and communist revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution) in Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin). The government then deputized the proto-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-fascist&action=edit&redlink=1) freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) to kill the opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition) leaders even though it was well-known that Luxemburg and Liebknecht were both opposed to any revolution at that time. The "uprising" was quickly crushed by the government of the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic); however, the government's reliance on the proto-fascist freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) in place of the army or police paved the way for a putsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putsch) by that organization and, in the long run, for the rise of the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis) (many of whom, including Ernst Röhm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm), the founder of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), were former freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps)).

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_League)

by doing so the socialist made the facist a significant political factor and at the same time both weakended the communist and made sure the communist would never trust the socialist again.

as the saying was back then under (communist)workers:
"Wer haben uns immer veraten? Die Socialdemokraten!"

(and still true today....)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would say that the failure went all the way back towards the failure to expel Bernstein and his class-unity ilk from the SPD... either that or Kautsky's senile failure to follow up on what he said in the late 1890s and early 1900s regarding the necessity of a split!

[redSHARP]

the nazis had more support than the commies and the social democracts got in the way. The nazis had the ability to draw funds from the conservative rich class while the reds could muster based on their will to fight. Simply put, the nazis had mre support and money.

[Sprinkles]

i would say that during the period 1919-1920 (roughly) the leftist organisations could have over thrown the state if only unity of the common casue prevailed and then Freikorps, Nazi and other extreme-ring wingers easily crushed,

instead we saw many sporadic attempts at local upheaval (the Ruhr, Bavaria etc) which allowed the reactionary forces to conquer the already divided communists one by one.

however this is not the point, the subject of this thread is the failure of the left to halt german fascists while they (the fascists) were on the rise to power...




The fascist repression occurred only after the proletarian defeat. It did not destroy the revolutionary forces which only the traditional workers' movement could master by methods both direct and indirect. The revolutionaries were defeated by democracy which did not shrink from recourse to all the means available, including military action. Fascism destroyed only lesser opponents, including the reformist workers' movement which had become an impediment to further development. It is a lie to depict the coming to power of Fascism as the result of street fights in which the fascists defeated the workers.


The questions for this discussion are essentially the same, define what fascism is and how it interacted with Social Democracy:



The situation in Europe after 1918 gave it its original characteristics which will never recur. Basically, fascism was associated with the economic and political unification of Capital, a tendency which has become general since 1914. Fascism was a particular way of realizing this goal in certain countries - Italy and Germany - where the State proved itself incapable of establishing order (as it is understood by the bourgeoisie), even though the revolution had been crushed. Fascism has the following characteristics: 1) it is born in the street; 2) it stirs up disorder while preaching order; 3) it is a movement of obsolete middle classes ending in their more or less violent destruction; and 4) it regenerates from outside the traditional State which is incapable of resolving the capitalist crisis.




One understands why Nazism had as its goal the violent destruction of the workers' movement, contrary to the so-called fascist parties of today. This is the crucial difference. Social democracy had done its job of domesticating the workers well, too well. Social democracy had occupied an important position in the State but was incapable of unifying the whole of Germany behind it. This was the task of Nazism, which knew how to appeal to all classes, from the unemployed to the monopoly capitalists.


During and after WW1 ended both the Social Democrats and union leaders were recognized by the bourgeoisie as being able to restore order and even being willing to employ proto fascist paramilitary groupings like the Freikorps to suppress the radical workers without hesitation. It was only when Social Democracy failed to unify all of the classes behind the Nation State that Social Democracy was swept away by Capital in favor of the fascists.

What independent revolutionary forces still existed then were only further marginalized by the Cominterns' pissing match with the Nazis' and their talk about National Revolution. The Comintern's cynical passivism expressed in "Nach Hitler kommen wir" only hid the fact that at this point the Comintern was only motivated by the narrowest factional interests of Stalin’s clique guided by the doctrine of socialism in one country.

Far from being interested in world-revolution the Comintern put an active break on any revolutionary movement in the interest of the USSR's reconciliation with the Western nations in search of their acknowledgment of the USSR as a respectable legitimate state. The exact same self-interest guided their farcical policy of "non-intervention" in Spain, the disbanding of the Comintern and their enthusiastic participation with the bourgeoisie in the later Popular Fronts.

[AFA_Sab]

What is really important to me is to try and understand the mechanism by which a 2% lunatic fringe element were able to completely destroy all opposition and enslave an entire the population. :( No one saw that one coming then.

Possibly the left was totally overwhelmed by the nazi machine. By the time they realised what was happening, it was already too late...:huh:

Of course we have since learnt that the first battle is on the street to stop them from ever owning that turf and taking their first steps towards total kontroll again.

Secondly Nazism has no right to free speech, no right to float its own ideas or opinions. No right to anything whatsoever. Our battle must be to ensure their mental filth and rags never see the light of day. Again that was another lesson learnt the hard way from Germany.

It lost all rights when it unleashed its horror on the rest of the world and somehow the left must make sure these rights get lost and stay lost. :sleep:

[Tower of Bebel]

IMO This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1240826&postcount=5); because it was the failure of the revolutionary left to save the 2nd International from its downfall in the advent of the first great imperialist war which allowed the opportunist right to take over, which then again led to the inevitable degeneration of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm) and the international downfall of the workers' movement.

[Sprinkles]

It's a subject I'm overly interested in discussing further, but if I'm becoming annoying just tell me to shut up.
Perhaps an added overview of the four periods of the Comintern's policy which spanned the entire period can help spark further discussion:



1st Period from 1918 - 1925:
The central policy of the Comintern under Lenin's leadership where Communist parties should be established across the world to aid the international proletarian revolution. The Comintern participated actively in revolutionary situations and for example; send support and financial aid to the Hungarian Soviet Republic, fought the Polish-Soviet War so the Red Army could potentially cross Poland in order to assist other communist movements and help conduct other European revolutions, participated in the March Action in Germany and mobilized the Red Army during the Ruhr Crisis.

This is the period of the UF; “The United Front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.” The United Front allowed workers committed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism to struggle alongside non-revolutionary workers. Through these common struggles revolutionaries sought to win other workers to revolutionary socialism.

2nd Period from 1925 - 1928:
The perspective of world revolution was dismissed after the failures of the Spartacist uprising in Germany, the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the Red Army's defeat at the Battle of Warsaw, and the overall retreat of all revolutionary movements in Europe, such as in Italy where Mussolini had come to power.

Following Lenin's death in 1924, the adoption of "socialism in one country" in 1926 signalled the Comintern's official change in policy from pursuing world revolution towards the defense of the Soviet State.

3rd Period from 1928 - 1935:
The Comintern's supposedly "ultra-left" line which describes the period in which, according to the Comintern, the proletariat was on the offense.
Revolution was supposed to be imminent and could only be prevented by Social Democrats and other fascist forces.

4th Period from 1935 - 1939
The USSR's entry into the League of Nations in 1934, marked the clearest expression yet of Stalin’s departure from the traditional foreign policy of the October Revolution and the move towards alignment with one imperialist combination against another. Following the fall of the Weimar Republic, this period signals the adoption of the Popular Front and the final entry of the Comintern into its Fourth Period which has for its slogan: “Power to Daladier!”, for its banner the Tricolour and for its anthem the Marseillaise, drowning the Internationale.’ From a means of struggle against capitalism the tactic of the United Front had been perverted into a means of coalition with part of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the workers.
The cause of the defeat of the working class by fascism being two-fold, the first being the aforementioned degeneration of the 3rd International due to the isolation of the Russian Revolution.

The second being that the failure of the 2nd International was not merely a matter of betrayal by it's Social Democratic leadership but that the tradition of involvement of the working class with reformist trade union struggles and the belief in parliamentarism as a valid pursuit of change was a strong and powerful obstruction for the development of a revolutionary perspective. A problem Trotsky's continued insistence on a UF would have not have alleviated but only strengthened further.

The experience with the PCd'I and the KAPD on the other hand shows that the role of unions and Social Democracy as a whole had changed, but since this notion was not widespread in the class it was unable to overthrow capitalism. To paraphrase Dauvé; So instead of holding the lack of unity in a divided working class (sometimes alleged to be caused by a so-called "infantile disorder") responsible for the triumph of fascism, one would be better advised to question the perpetual feebleness of antifascism, whose record is overwhelmingly negative: when did antifascism ever prevent or even slow down totalitarianism?

[Holden Caulfield]

when did antifascism ever prevent or even slow down totalitarianism?


when did revolutionary struggle ever make a lasting socialist 'state'?

[Devrim]

when did revolutionary struggle ever make a lasting socialist 'state'?

You can't argue one minute for more people to contribute to deeper theoretical arguments on this forum, and then when they do throw meaningless one liners at them.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

The premises of these threads are meaningless to communists. Rather than asking why didnt we prevent nazism, we should have asked ourselves why didnt we succesfully oppose a bloody war that took toll on 100 million deaths, or in fact, why werent we able to cause a bloody world revolution.

nazism was pretty godawful (Italian fascism was probably as bad as any other strongman dictatorship) but I think the imperialist war represented a worse malaise than any other isolated reactionary state.

[Holden Caulfield]

You can't argue one minute for more people to contribute to deeper theoretical arguments on this forum, and then when they do throw meaningless one liners at them.

Devrim

it was an attack on his logic, i didnt post much last night outside of the freedom of speech thread and talking to Robin as i was sleepy, whats your point here, actually dont even answer i dont care.


The premises of these threads are meaningless to communists. Rather than asking why didnt we prevent nazism, we should have asked ourselves why didnt we succesfully oppose a bloody war that took toll on 100 million deaths, or in fact, why werent we able to cause a bloody world revolution.

nazism was pretty godawful (Italian fascism was probably as bad as any other strongman dictatorship) but I think the imperialist war represented a worse malaise than any other isolated reactionary state.

well i would argue that if the left had won in Italy, Spain, & Germany instead of the right then you have 4 leftist states in Europe alone (who knows who international revolution would affect the USSR) and perhpas war would have been avoided, to over come agressive fascism is also to over come a massive factor of a bloody Imperialist war

[Sprinkles]

when did revolutionary struggle ever make a lasting socialist 'state'?

Non sequitur. Their own specific tactics, means and goals are the reason anti-fascism failed, this doesn't have anything specifically in common with the reasons why the communist movements of the past failed, unless you reduce everything to a matter of unity under a certain leadership.




well i would argue that if the left had won in Italy, Spain, & Germany instead of the right then you have 4 leftist states in Europe alone (who knows who international revolution would affect the USSR) and perhpas war would have been avoided, to over come agressive fascism is also to over come a massive factor of a bloody Imperialist war
And is this argument based in reality or wishful thinking? Your argument for a UF has no basis in reality since the reformist trade unions and Social Democrats didn't oppose fascism at all. Instead as I have given specific examples of, the Social Democrats and the rest were prepared to use fascist organizations against the working class in order to preserve the State.

So specify how the left would have won, through the unity of the UF? Your slogan of "By any means necessary" signifies exactly why anti-fascism fails. In order to defeat fascism in Spain "by any means necessary" the anarchists and POUM militants sought unity in a common goal with the Republicans and the Stalinists - at the expense of the immediate revolution, which could have meant the working class taking power. Instead they were almost immediately betrayed and crushed by their newly found allies in order to prevent any further possible threat to the Spanish State.

Anti-fascism can not and never will force the bourgeoisie to relinquish it's totalitarian side, especially when it is needed by the State to preserve itself in the face of a combative working class. The actual choice is between either the working class taking power and averting fascist dictatorship or failing at this task and being routed and brutally repressed. As long as you don't address this point you'll fail to understand the question of fascism / anti-fascism.



The premises of these threads are meaningless to communists. Rather than asking why didnt we prevent nazism, we should have asked ourselves why didnt we succesfully oppose a bloody war that took toll on 100 million deaths, or in fact, why werent we able to cause a bloody world revolution.

The reasons coincide and overlap in a certain way, the reason why the 2nd International failed to stop WW1 and the influence Social Democratic traditions had on the working class certainly did have a direct impact on both the policies of the 3rd International and it's to inability to stop WW2.

[Holden Caulfield]

And is this argument based in reality or wishful thinking? Your argument for a UF has no basis in reality since the reformist trade unions and Social Democrats didn't oppose fascism at all. Instead as I have given specific examples of, the Social Democrats and the rest were prepared to use fascist organizations against the working class in order to preserve the State.
as i have said the sporadic leftist uprisings in the Weimar period if properly organised could have been a nation wide leftist insurrection against the state and therefore also their fascist dogs, this teamed with a genral stike could have saved Germany and perhaps europe from the terrors that folowed. A UF is a united front of those who are fighting for a common goal when did i ever say the likes of Ebert et al would be in this front?



So specify how the left would have won, through the unity of the UF? Your slogan of "By any means necessary" signifies exactly why anti-fascism fails. In order to defeat fascism in Spain "by any means necessary" the anarchists and POUM militants sought unity in a common goal with the Republicans and the Stalinists - at the expense of the immediate revolution, which could have meant the working class taking power. Instead they were almost immediately betrayed and crushed by their newly found allies in order to prevent any further possible threat to the Spanish State.


being a trotskyist i think that the Stalinists betrayed the revoltuion in Spain but that thread is going to be created in time this one is on German fascism. By any means necessary is not in regards to compromising ones ideology to defeat fascism (i dont support Churchill or aspects fight 2nd world war on that basis etc) but rather that means such as direct often violent action (etc) is acseptable in the fight against fascism



The actual choice is between either the working class taking power and averting fascist dictatorship or failing at this task and being routed and brutally repressed. As long as you don't address this point you'll fail to understand the question of fascism / anti-fascism.

Fascists are used by the state to block leftist movements and to divide the workers, i see the issue as the fascists are an obstacle to the working class taking power! Again i must stress that anti-fascism is a part of the class stuggle not something seperate from it,

instead of merely criticizing (this is adressed to the ICCers) what would you have proposed as the best action of the left in Germany in the pre-fascist period?

[AFA_Sab]

The premises of these threads are meaningless to communists. Rather than asking why didnt we prevent nazism, we should have asked ourselves why didnt we succesfully oppose a bloody war that took toll on 100 million deaths, or in fact, why werent we able to cause a bloody world revolution.

Marmot, I agree with your sentiment entirely but 2 points.

1. Once Nazism was triumphant it launched War on its neighbouring states. Either you accepted this (Appeasement) or you fought it (War). Not much choice there!

2. Secondly my understanding is that Poland was simultaneously attacked and divided up by Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviets at the same time, the act of which actually it started all off. Everyone else except America then joined in and voila, 2nd World War! As America only had an Army smaller than Poland at that time, it seems it waited till Japan bombed them into it in 1941 before it came in when by now of course, Barbarossa was in full swing and the siege of Stalingrad had begun. It seems that everyone who thought they could use sshitler got their fingers burnt!

[communard resolution]

nazism was pretty godawful (Italian fascism was probably as bad as any other strongman dictatorship) but I think the imperialist war represented a worse malaise than any other isolated reactionary state.

I wonder if the prisoners in the death camps thought the same when the Allied forces came to liberate them. Imagine that: the army enters the gates of Auschwitz only to find the prisoners shout at them "Stay out, imperialist scum! Your war is even worse than Nazism"

[black magick hustla]

I wonder if the prisoners in the death camps thought the same when the Allied forces came to liberate them. Imagine that: the army enters the gates of Auschwitz only to find the prisoners shout at them "Stay out, imperialist scum! Your war is even worse than Nazism"

I knew some leftist was going to pull out that old chestnut. The imperialists never cared about the jews or the people imprisoned in the deathcamps. The war was fought because of geopolitical interests, not because of some idea of "democracy" or "anti-fascism". There is proof roosevelt already had information about the "final plan" way before the war. Some left communists who opposed the war (like Chirik) endangered their lives by agitating against the getsapo and hiding jews. However real communists didnt call workers to endanger their lives in the name of democracy, but called for civil war and world revolution.

What about the 100 million that died in the war? Just because they werent shot in deathcamps are worth less than the people who died in death camps?

[Devrim]

I wonder if the prisoners in the death camps thought the same when the Allied forces came to liberate them. Imagine that: the army enters the gates of Auschwitz only to find the prisoners shout at them "Stay out, imperialist scum! You're even worse than the Nazis"

I suppose this is meant to be sarcasm. It falls down on that score in that very similar things actually happened. There are recorded instances of Jews fleeing Westward after retreating Germans as the Russians advanced because they were terrified of falling into Russian hands.

In Jorge Semprún's autobiographical novel 'What a beautiful Sunday!', he recounts an event where a whole group of Jews marched into Buchenwald to present themselves to the Nazis. They explain that they had marched there after their camp had been abandoned by its guards. Semprún is amazed by this, and asks why on Earth they have done this. One of the Jews says to him 'The Russians are coming. And they really hate Jews'.

The barbarism was generalised from Auschwitz to Hiroshima.

What Marmot is saying though is that the sum total of the babarism of the war was worse than that perpertrated by any particular state. It goes without saying really.

Devrim

[Devrim]

1. Once Nazism was triumphant it launched War on its neighbouring states. Either you accepted this (Appeasement) or you fought it (War). Not much choice there!

This statement doesn't look at the issue from a class point at all. It is a good example of how anti-fascism was used to mobilise millions of workers to die on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

The imperialists never cared about the jews or the people imprisoned in the deathcamps.

I'm very well aware the war was fought for business rather than humanitarian reasons. Still, it had the nice effect of liberating the death camps and saving the remaining European Jews, gypsies, communists, and 'undesirables' from certain death as well as saving Europe from National Socialist domination.

What would have been the alternative? Given that appeasement policies turned out to be a total flop in 1938, do you really think Hitler would have stopped after taking Poland? Are you aware of his plans for a Jew-free, National Socialist Europe?

[Devrim]

as i have said the sporadic leftist uprisings in the Weimar period if properly organised could have been a nation wide leftist insurrection against the state and therefore also their fascist dogs, this teamed with a genral stike could have saved Germany and perhaps europe from the terrors that folowed. A UF is a united front of those who are fighting for a common goal when did i ever say the likes of Ebert et al would be in this front?

It is a bit of an ahistorical approach to it. It is not about making some alternative history game where the working class should have done this or that. The working class couldn't make a revolution in Germany in 1919 because it wasn't strong enough.

When looking at the specific suggestions though, the KPD tried to build a united front with the social democrats. It was part of the policy that lead to disaster.


instead of merely criticizing (this is adressed to the ICCers) what would you have proposed as the best action of the left in Germany in the pre-fascist period?

No members of the ICC regularly posts here, but I will assume that it is addressed to the communist left in general.

There was very little that we could have done in the early 1930's. Our organisations, which at the high point of the German revolution had about 500,000 members had been smashed, and were down to small groups. This reflected the weakness of the working class as a whole. Yes they continued to struggle, but we can't say 'oh we should have done this and it would have all been better'. It is an absurd approach.

The question is to understand what did happen and try to learn from it. Not to play alternative history games.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

There is proof roosevelt already had information about the "final plan" way before the war.

You mean the Final Solution? It was decided upon at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. How could Roosevelt have known about it before 1939?

[communard resolution]

Semprún is amazed by this, and asks why on Earth they have done this. One of the Jews says to him 'The Russians are coming. And they really hate Jews'.

Other than Semprun's autobiographic account of some Jewish prisoners' fear of the Russians, which may well have been based on myth or propaganda, are there any documented cases of actual Russian maltreatment of Jews after the liberation of the NS camps?

Did the Russians have something so terrible planned for the Jews that the Jews would rather submit themselves to the Nazis and die a humane death in a gas chamber? This is all news to me, but I'm willing to learn.

[communard resolution]

This statement doesn't look at the issue from a class point at all. It is a good example of how anti-fascism was used to mobilise millions of workers to die on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

Suggest an alternative then. What to do about a country that is on its way to subjugate and ethnically cleanse all of Europe, backed by a majority of its population?

[Devrim]

Other than Semprun's autobiographic account of some Jewish prisoners' fear of the Russians, which may well have been based on myth or propaganda, are there any documented cases of actual Russian maltreatment of Jews after the liberation of the NS camps?

What I was claiming wwas that Jews actually said to Germans save us from the allies. Whether their reasons were myth or propaganda isn't really the point.
I don't think it is necessary to look for individual incidents of Red Army attacks on Jews.. It is well known how the Red Army as it crossed Europe.


Did the Russians have something so terrible planned for the Jews that the Jews would rather submit themselves to the Nazis and die a humane death in a gas chamber? This is all news to me, but I'm willing to learn.

But not all Jews were going to the gas chamber. I think if they looked at pogrom and history in Russia, they might have good reason.

EDIT: This isn't really central to the point. The point was that Marmot said the total of barbarism in the war was larger than one individual state's (which is obvious), and you threw up this straw man.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

What I was claiming wwas that Jews actually said to Germans save us from the allies

I find this extremely hard to believe, but ok: what exactly is the fact that someone claimed that supposed to prove?


I don't think it is necessary to look for individual incidents of Red Army attacks on Jews.. Were there any? Or is that just what a group of people allegedly feared might happen, according to someone's autobiography?


It is well known how the Red Army as it crossed Europe.How did the Red Army [word missing] as it crossed Europe, especially in regards to death camp inmates?


But not all Jews were going to the gas chamber. The moment they could no longer work, they were - and they knew it.


I think if they looked at pogrom and history in Russia, they might have good reason.So because there had been anti-Jewish pogroms in Russian history the Jews had reason to fear the Red Army more than the Nazis just because the Red Army happened to be Russians?


This isn't really central to the point. The point was that Marmot said the total of barbarism in the war was larger than one individual state's (which is obvious), and you threw up this straw man.Well, you took the time to produce an elaborate counter-argument against my strawman citing from somebody's autobiography, so we might as well talk it out now.

I understand a straw man is a pseudo-argument that is used to distract from the actual issue. What do you think I was trying to distract from, and in whose interest? Marmot basically claimed that 'war is bad' because it's imperialist powers fighting for geopolitical/business interests. I said that while I'm aware of that motivation, the fact that the Allied powers invaded had a positive effect (to put it mildly) for the countless 'subhumans' who were still awaiting their certain death.

Again, what alternative do you suggest to stop Nazi Germany from taking over Europe and ethnically cleansing her?

[black magick hustla]

You mean the Final Solution? It was decided upon at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. How could Roosevelt have known about it before 1939?

I was mistaken. I meant The United States knew about the holocaust before its involvement in the war.


I was trying to distract from, and in whose interest? Marmot basically claimed that 'war is bad' because it's imperialist powers fighting for geopolitical/business interests. I said that while I'm aware of that motivation, the fact that the Allied powers invaded had a positive effect (to put it mildly) for the countless 'subhumans' who were still awaiting their certain death.

The war wasnt only bad because of "geopolitics", but because it a struggle between factions of the bourgeosie that dragged workers to slit each others' throats in order to protect each factions' private property and political interests. It had nothing to offer to the working class, in the same sense WWI had nothing to offer. How are 100 million of deaths a positive effect? I think you are unable to see the big picture here because you think the holocaust's deaths are more "disgusting" because they were led by calculated racism, and therefore the glorious soldiers that died for the fatherland and against fascism don matter.

[communard resolution]

I was mistaken. I meant The United States knew about the holocaust before its involvement in the war.

The United States declared war on Germany on 11th December 1941. The Final Solution was decided upon at the Wannsee Conference on 20th January 1942 and implemented in the following years.

Mass shootings of Jews and Gypsies by SS Einsatzgruppen (task forces) on the Eastern Front had already taken place by late 1941. From today's point of view, these were part of the Holocaust but not of the 'Final Solution', the systematic and industralised mass slaughter in death camps.
Whether Roosevelt knew of the SS Einsatzgruppen massacres by the end of 1941, I can't honestly tell - but either way, what you're essentially saying is that the Holocaust was not the USA's prime motivation for entering the war, and on that we both agree.


I think you are unable to see the big picture here because you think the holocaust's deaths are more "disgusting" because they were led by calculated racism, and therefore the glorious soldiers that died for the fatherland and against fascism don matter.No, I think they matter very much. But let's remember that National Socialist Germany attacked Russia and began to implement her policies of racist extermination of Jews and racist subjugation of Slavs from the getgo. What was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Let it happen and allow her and other peoples to become slaves to the Aryan master race or victims of genocide respectively? Sit there and look on as the Nazis conquer the entire continent? Then persevere under the National Socialist jackboot and wait for the right revolutionary conditions - which may or may not materialise within the next few hundred years?

Tell me the alternative.

[Sprinkles]

as i have said the sporadic leftist uprisings in the Weimar period if properly organised could have been a nation wide leftist insurrection against the state and therefore also their fascist dogs, this teamed with a genral stike could have saved Germany and perhaps europe from the terrors that folowed. A UF is a united front of those who are fighting for a common goal when did i ever say the likes of Ebert et al would be in this front?


Specify what you're talking about.
Organized by who? Under what banner? If you're suggesting a UF you might want to name with what groups exactly.



being a trotskyist i think that the Stalinists betrayed the revoltuion in Spain but that thread is going to be created in time this one is on German fascism.


It doesn't really matter whether it's about Germany or Spain since the failure of anti-fascism is the same across the board.



By any means necessary is not in regards to compromising ones ideology to defeat fascism (i dont support Churchill or aspects fight 2nd world war on that basis etc) but rather that means such as direct often violent action (etc) is acseptable in the fight against fascism


It means exactly that, gone are the days of Revolutionary Defeatism and in comes the support for Imperialist States.



Fascists are used by the state to block leftist movements and to divide the workers, i see the issue as the fascists are an obstacle to the working class taking power! Again i must stress that anti-fascism is a part of the class stuggle not something seperate from it,
You're putting the result before the cause. Fascism wasn't the cause or the obstacle which prevented the working class taking power, it was the result of the inability of the working class to take power.



The fascist repression occurred only after the proletarian defeat. It did not destroy the revolutionary forces which only the traditional workers' movement could master by methods both direct and indirect. The revolutionaries were defeated by democracy which did not shrink from recourse to all the means available, including military action. Fascism destroyed only lesser opponents, including the reformist workers' movement which had become an impediment to further development. It is a lie to depict the coming to power of Fascism as the result of street fights in which the fascists defeated the workers.




instead of merely criticizing (this is adressed to the ICCers) what would you have proposed as the best action of the left in Germany in the pre-fascist period?


Since I don't have a time-machine, I'll don't really see the point in this question. Try to learn from the mistakes of the past or be doomed to repeat them. Besides that, I already mentioned several times what I think the causes of the failure of the revolutionary movements as well as anti-fascism are. The choice is between either the working class taking power and averting fascist dictatorship or failing at this task and being routed and brutally repressed.

[Sprinkles]

I wonder if the prisoners in the death camps thought the same when the Allied forces came to liberate them. Imagine that: the army enters the gates of Auschwitz only to find the prisoners shout at them "Stay out, imperialist scum! Your war is even worse than Nazism"

I wonder whether the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the victims of the firebombing of Dresden or any of the other countless victims of the war-crimes committed by the Allies thought that it was all worth it as well. But I guess even the support of the slaughter of the proletariat by different factions of the bourgeoisie is justified since it's the nazi's we're talking about.



I understand a straw man is a pseudo-argument that is used to distract from the actual issue. What do you think I was trying to distract from, and in whose interest? Marmot basically claimed that 'war is bad' because it's imperialist powers fighting for geopolitical/business interests. I said that while I'm aware of that motivation, the fact that the Allied powers invaded had a positive effect (to put it mildly) for the countless 'subhumans' who were still awaiting their certain death.
The claim is that the working class has nothing to gain by participating in imperialist wars of the bourgeoisie, which I might add history so far has verified as being true. Claiming that certain positive effects redeems the entire barbaric concept of imperialist war, rejects any concept of internationalism and negates any possibility for the successful victory of the proletariat.

With any discussion about WW2 it's important to consider it was an extension of WW1, they weren't separate events by any stretch of the imagination. Debating the specifics of WW2 are useless if you don't take the historic events that led to WW1 into consideration.



Again, what alternative do you suggest to stop Nazi Germany from taking over Europe and ethnically cleansing her?
If reading comprehension is so poor, I'll just start to repeat myself until people actually start reading. Anti-fascism can not and never will force the bourgeoisie to relinquish it's totalitarian side, especially when it is needed by the State to preserve itself in the face of a combative working class. The actual choice is between either the working class taking power and averting fascist dictatorship or failing at this task and being routed and brutally repressed.



No, I think they matter very much. But let's remember that National Socialist Germany attacked Russia and began to implement her policies of racist extermination of Jews and racist subjugation of Slavs from the getgo. What was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Let it happen and allow her and other peoples to become slaves to the Aryan master race or victims of genocide respectively? Sit there and look on as the Nazis conquer the entire continent? Then persevere under the National Socialist jackboot and wait for the right revolutionary conditions - which may or may not materialise within the next few hundred years?

Tell me the alternative.
Moralism and trying to pick the "right" side is a useless approach to history, and again WW2 was an outgrowth of WW1. WW1 was caused by a crisis of Capital and the subsequent failure of the 2nd International to oppose the war. The failure was caused by Social Democracy's betrayal of the working class through it's adoption of Social Patriotism which is a complete abandonment of Socialist Internationalism and workers solidarity. Under the pretext that reformism could not only lead to socialism but that socialism was even inevitable it wasn't a problem for the Social Democrats to lead the working class against itself under the flag of nationalism into the bloodbath of the Great War.

The first cause of WW2 was the failure of the working class to take power due to the tradition of it's involvement with reformist trade union struggles and the belief in parliamentarism as a valid pursuit of change, which was a strong and powerful obstruction for the development of a revolutionary perspective. As well as the Russian Revolution's isolation and the subsequent degeneration of the Comintern. And finally by Social Democracy's inability to unite all classes behind the Nation State and thereby completely restore order after the revolutionary wave had failed.



One understands why Nazism had as its goal the violent destruction of the workers' movement, contrary to the so-called fascist parties of today. This is the crucial difference. Social democracy had done its job of domesticating the workers well, too well. Social democracy had occupied an important position in the State but was incapable of unifying the whole of Germany behind it. This was the task of Nazism, which knew how to appeal to all classes, from the unemployed to the monopoly capitalists.


Edit:



So because there had been anti-Jewish pogroms in Russian history the Jews had reason to fear the Red Army more than the Nazis just because the Red Army happened to be Russians?

On a personal note, this isn't that strange actually. My grandparents who lived in Western-Europe at the time often commented that it would have been better to gas themselves and their entire family by sticking their heads into the kitchen oven then it would be to suffer Russian occupation.

[AFA_Sab]

This statement doesn't look at the issue from a class point at all. It is a good example of how anti-fascism was used to mobilise millions of workers to die on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

Well, as I see it, the workers didn't have alot of choice in the matter. Everybody including the kitchen sink was mobilised on the understanding that losing meant for many, death. I think most workers saw themselves as fighting and dying for their countries and families and for a fairer system for themselves after the war. The tradgedy was so many people were betrayed (Algerians fighting for France, Yugoslav partizans , Polish and Czech workers, Indians fighting for Britain- the list I suppose is endless) after it all ended. :(

[AFA_Sab]

I was mistaken. I meant The United States knew about the holocaust before its involvement in the war.

Communications were, in the middle of WW2 not what they are now. There was only intelligence gathering and that was difficult enough. The USA did not have that much more update on how things were on the ground in '41 as they did in '39. Yes there was already a refugee program to the States, but mostly by people who got out before the walls came down. Not even many of the Jews in 1942 were really aware of what was happenning. And the very few that had escaped from the places just weren't beleived. And what sane person would have beleived them. "Genocide on that scale and fashion? Well they might hate us, but surely they have better use for us alive then dead!!"
The Wannasee Conf. did finally implement their 'final solution',after America entered the war, but it really was carried out with as much secrecy as possible. Sure, the Allies could have done much more for the European Jews, but to say that they were by design almost complicit in the crime by knowing but not acting on that knowledge, is pure wrong. We have 20/20 vision today, they didn't.

[communard resolution]

I wonder whether the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the victims of the firebombing of Dresden or any of the other countless victims of the war-crimes committed by the Allies thought that it was all worth it as well.

I don't deny the war crimes of the Allies. But the majority of the German people -and not just the petty bourgeoise as myth has it- elected Hitler into power even though his views and plans were widely available to everyone via Mein Kampf. They supported his decision to move into war. At the very least, they passively supported the implementation of his racial laws. Is the proletariat somehow unable to make decisions or excempt from any responsibility?


The claim is that the working class has nothing to gain by participating in imperialist wars of the bourgeoisieThis phrase sounds great. But in the case of the Soviet people defending themselves against Nazi invasion, the gain was more than obvious: it was a means to prevent Russia and the rest of Europe from being subjugated to a regime that would treat them as racially inferior Slavic cattle whose only purpose would be to serve the Germanic master race, with entire ethnic groups wiped out altogether. If that's no gain, I don't know what is.


If reading comprehension is so poorMy question was directed at Marmot and Devrim referring to their posts. Please let's stay polite.


The actual choice is between either the working class taking power and averting fascist dictatorship or failing at this task and being routed and brutally repressed.I don't see how this answers my question what would have been the alternative in defense against the Nazi attack. Were the conditions there for the working class to take power at that point? Or was it "already defeated"? If the latter was the case, was there really no point at all in defending the peoples of Europe against National Socialism? Would you go as far as saying that there was absolutely no difference between National Socialism with all its consequences on the one hand and Soviet Russia on the other?


On a personal note, this isn't that strange actually. My grandparents who lived in Western-Europe at the time often commented that it would have been better to gas themselves and their entire family by sticking their heads into the kitchen oven then it would be to suffer Russian occupation.Another convincing proof for the Soviets' being just as bad, nay worse than the Nazis. This time based on a Western European family's speculations about what atrocities the Red Army might be capable of.

On a personal note, my family - who lived in Poland at the time and remained there until the 1980s - never experienced any maltreatment by the Russians. The first instances of antisemitism they became aware of occurred in the late 60s on behalf of Polish Nationalist currents within the communist party.

EDIT: On a similarly anecdotal level, I could tell you that my father cried in primary school when Stalin died, which is true. Would you accept this as sufficient proof for Stalin's benevolence?

[Sprinkles]

I don't deny the war crimes of the Allies. But the majority of the German people -and not just the petty bourgeoise as myth has it- elected Hitler into power even though his views and plans were widely available to everyone via Mein Kampf. They supported his decision to move into war. At the very least, they passively supported the implementation of his racial laws. Is the proletariat somehow unable to make decisions or excempt from any responsibility?


This approach to history is idealistic, Hitler came to power as a result of historical processes not because people thought it would be a good idea to elect him. It's not a matter of individual or even collective responsibility, it's a question on which situation the proletariat finds itself in and it's relationship to Capital at the time.



This phrase sounds great. But in the case of the Soviet people defending themselves against Nazi invasion, the gain was more than obvious: it was a means to prevent Russia and the rest of Europe from being subjugated to a regime that would treat them as racially inferior Slavic cattle whose only purpose would be to serve the Germanic master race, with entire ethnic groups wiped out altogether. If that's no gain, I don't know what is.


Taking this period of time out of context makes any meaningful analysis impossible. Besides that I don't think it's a plausible scenario since nazism proved itself incapable of completing it's task of unifying German Capital and instead ended up dividing it in two, let alone being capable of conquering and holding the entirety of Europe for an extended amount of time. I don't really see the point of hypothetical scenarios and alternative histories.



My question was directed at Marmot and Devrim referring to their posts. Please let's stay polite.


My apology for being rude, I merely thought the point had already been adressed enough times.
I doubt they will differ much in their answers, but I'll refrain from interfering.



I don't see how this answers my question what would have been the alternative in defense against the Nazi attack. Were the conditions there for the working class to take power at that point? Or was it "already defeated"? If the latter was the case, was there really no point at all in defending the peoples of Europe against National Socialism? Would you go as far as saying that there was absolutely no difference between National Socialism with all its consequences on the one hand and Soviet Russia on the other?


I don't understand the fixation on this certain part of history but the latter was the case, fascism was a result of the defeat of the revolutionary movements and Social Democracy's inability to unify all of the classes behind the Nation State, this was the historic task of fascism instead.

Whether there's a difference doesn't really matter, whatever my personal preference might be doesn't mean it should also translate into a political stance. I prefer living in a First world country over a Third world country, that doesn't mean I should uphold and defend capitalism since it provides me with a better standard of life.

The opposition to participating in Imperialist War is not a question of practical expedience but a matter of Internationalist communist principles. I can also turn the question around and ask what the benefits have been for the working class so far with it's defense of the Nation State? Two World Wars with millions of dead?



Another convincing proof for the Soviets' being just as bad, nay worse than the Nazis. This time based on a Western European family's speculations about what atrocities the Red Army might be capable of.

On a personal note, my family - who lived in Poland at the time and remained there until the 1980s - never experienced any maltreatment by the Russians. The first instances of antisemitism they became aware of occurred in the late 60s on behalf of Polish Nationalist currents within the communist party.

EDIT: On a similarly anecdotal level, I could tell you that my father cried in primary school when Stalin died, which is true. Would you accept this as sufficient proof for Stalin's benevolence?


It wasn't an argument at all, especially since I said it was a personal anecdotal story, I didn't even assert that they were right in believing that Soviet occupation would be worse. But still, the hysteria surrounding the USSR like the Red Scare was a real phenomenon which wasn't just restricted to the US in the 50's. People fleeing in front of the advance of the Red Army wasn't that uncommon, on the Western Front it was even the standard actually. Whether the fear was justified or even based on facts doesn't mean it wasn't a factor in people's decisions and actions.

But to hold up nazism as a special kind of evil is absurd moralism, nazism compressed the horrors of capitalist reaction into a short span of time, but the concentration camps obeyed the same logic of capitalism. The only difference is no one is personally held responsible for all kinds of famines which wipe out whole populations while the nazis were deliberate in their genocide.

[black magick hustla]

First Nero, the mayority didnt "elect" hitler. Hitler had the biggest percentage in terms of votes, but the mayority of voters didnt vote for hitler.


No, I think they matter very much. But let's remember that National Socialist Germany attacked Russia and began to implement her policies of racist extermination of Jews and racist subjugation of Slavs from the getgo. What was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Let it happen and allow her and other peoples to become slaves to the Aryan master race or victims of genocide respectively? Sit there and look on as the Nazis conquer the entire continent? Then persevere under the National Socialist jackboot and wait for the right revolutionary conditions - which may or may not materialise within the next few hundred years?

Tell me the alternative.

Its not what the "soviet union" was supposed to do. I believe the USSR by this time was state capitalist, so it would be like asking what was France, Germany, or the United States "supposed to do".

The whole "Germany may have conquered" hypothetical situation is ahistorical and an alternative history game. The point of my post, is whether the working class was ready for world revolution or not, the war represented capitalist barbarism and the duty of communists was to oppose it. In WWI, it was probably very unlikely that communists would have been able to stop the war but they still opposed it and communists died opposing it. A true class response to the war would be dessertion, mutiny, or civil war, not the french communist party singing the marseillase. Do you think communists should support the obligatory drafting of working class youth to kill each other? If The United States invaded Mexico, and I was drafted wagainst my will, should I go for it?

[4 Leaf Clover]

my opinion is that there is no way to fight Nazism except violence

and kids should be thought anti-Nazism in schools

[Holden Caulfield]

my opinion is that there is no way to fight Nazism except violence

and kids should be thought anti-Nazism in schools

i would disagree Fascists/Nazis need to be fought on any plain they move onto, politically, physically etc, you cannot argue that just beating up National Socialists alone would have stopped the rise of Hilter in Germany,

[communard resolution]

This approach to history is idealistic, Hitler came to power as a result of historical processes not because people thought it would be a good idea to elect him. It's not a matter of individual or even collective responsibility, it's a question on which situation the proletariat finds itself in and it's relationship to Capital at the time.

And I think your approach to history is reductionist because it ignores the capability of individuals to process information and make decisions for which they can and should be held responsible.


let alone being capable of conquering and holding the entirety of Europe for an extended amount of time. I don't really see the point of hypothetical scenarios and alternative histories.NS Germany proved uncapable of that precisely because the military forces and partisan groups of the Soviet Union and other countries fought back. I cannot see a plausible alternative to fighting back.


I don't understand the fixation on this certain part of history but the latter was the case, fascism was a result of the defeat of the revolutionary movements and Social Democracy's inability to unify all of the classes behind the Nation State, this was the historic task of fascism instead.My fixation on this certain part of history derives from the facts that

a) this is a thread about German National Socialism and the left's failure to combat it.
b) I don't subscribe to the traditional communist analysis of Nazism, fascism, and related currents as mere tools of the bourgeoise to unify all classes or protect capitalism, even if parts of these movements chose to ally themselves with the bourgeoisie at the time, and
c) I don't think much of the Left Communist/Barrot view that all capitalism is the exact same, whether it's liberal capitalism or state capitalism under National Socialist rule. I think the qualitative differences are enormous, and I'm stunned at the capability of the adherents of that view to avert their eyes from these differences or dismiss them as


my personal preferenceAs for the Red Scare accounts:


It wasn't an argument at all, especially since I said it was a personal anecdotal story, Neither was Devrim's, which is why I wonder to what end the two of you brought up those stories at all?



But to hold up nazism as a special kind of evil is absurd moralism'Evil' is a flimsy word that you've put in my mouth, but yes - I will grant Nazism a special place in terms of both its intent and its realities. And I do think there are some situations in which a lesser 'evil' needs to be chosen.

[communard resolution]

First Nero, the mayority didnt "elect" hitler. Hitler had the biggest percentage in terms of votes, but the mayority of voters didnt vote for hitler.

I don't think I understand what you mean here. What's the difference?


Its not what the "soviet union" was supposed to do. I believe the USSR by this time was state capitalist
That may have been the case, and yet the Soviet Union and NS Germany were not one and the same. National Socialism was not just state capitalism, it was more than that. There was no alternative to defending Europe against it by military means.


The whole "Germany may have conquered" hypothetical situation is ahistorical and an alternative history game.No, Germany would most definetely have conquered Europe if no one had fought back. Now that's not really much of a far-fetched hypothesis or alternative history game, is it?


The point of my post, is whether the working class was ready for world revolution or not, the war represented capitalist barbarism and the duty of communists was to oppose it. Pointless and hopeless by that time. Therefore: military means.

Sorry, but your stance contains too much 'matters of principle' and too little focus on the realities of the situation.


A true class response to the war would be dessertion, mutiny, or civil war,Ideally yes, but the conditions were not given at the time.

[4 Leaf Clover]

well , nazis hate us , we are their nigtmare and they want to see us dead . They wont hesitate anything to fight us off. So shouldnt us

[Holden Caulfield]

well , nazis hate us , we are their nigtmare and they want to see us dead . They wont hesitate anything to fight us off. So shouldnt us

i full argree i was just furthering your point to say we should fight them politically as well in my view,

[4 Leaf Clover]

yes

but we cant count on it that kids are going to be educated in schools
so im happy that u have threads here that have some nice info and tips on how to fight with nazifascists , many tips and links to many educating articles , and other helpfull tips and advices:thumbup1:

there should be more of such educating websites

[AFA_Sab]

i would disagree Fascists/Nazis need to be fought on any plain they move onto, politically, physically etc, you cannot argue that just beating up National Socialists alone would have stopped the rise of Hilter in Germany,

Yes, it would have!! It was in the street and thru violence that they first started their ascent.

"No Platforms at all", however is not just some dumb chant. There is reasoning behind it which I have experienced myself, first hand. Years ago, my class was taken to a talk (speech?!) one evening by none other than Moseley himself. We were taken as part of history and life education by our teachers, who had all fought the Nazi's themselves. They thought it would be a walk over to trash him by argument. They were wrong and the whole thing back fired. He ran circles around all of the teachers and made them look like idiots. Some of my classmates were won over to the fascist side that night.

For me the lesson was learnt. A few years later in another area I was in, a similar public meeting was proposed this time addressed by another leading fascist. A group of us got together under "a no right to free speech for facists" and started a local campaign. I also went and did my first 'direct action'. A couple of days later the invitation to this guy was withdrawn and the meeting was cancelled!! :D

Never,never underestimate the power of these people when they speak or act. They will influence others, so they cannot be given the means by which to do so!

[4 Leaf Clover]

an action like in Prague last year (commemoration on the day of "crystal night" ) , that street clash is the typical example on have to make Nazis run in fear like cattle . Great example :cool: .

[Sprinkles]

And I think your approach to history is reductionist because it ignores the capability of individuals to process information and make decisions for which they can and should be held responsible.


You seek to blame the proletariat for the horrors that were unleashed on it after it's failure to take power, which was among other things caused by it's own division, yet at the same time you support it's division by forcing them to take part in an Imperialist war against each other. Can you understand the contradiction in this?

Besides that I think the moralism inherent in your statement is useless and the very notion of individual responsibility and influence is the crux of the obsolete theory of Great Men of History. In the same vein that you mentioned Mein Kampf as being important, you fail to recognize that Hitler himself wasn't important, if he had not been the figurehead of nazism it would have been Schleicher, Heydrich, Himmler or any of the other countless fascists instead. While anti-semitism as expressed in Mein Kampf was a characteristic of nazism it isn't a necessary feature of fascism.

It's a false capitalist myth that nazist repression mostly targeted the jews and that a majority of working class Germans were to blame for it's rise to power. Especially since the goal of fascism was the violent destruction of any remaining working class organizations in order to forcefully break the deadlock which had arisen after WW1. The real tragedy is that despite this, Social Democracy and the unions tried to either remain neutral or even accepted the new fascist regime with open arms.



In 1932, the German socialist unions, through the mouths of their leaders, declared themselves independent of any political party and indifferent to the form of the State, and tried to reach an understanding with Schleicher (Hitler's unfortunate predecessor), then with Hitler, who convinced them that National Socialism would permit their continued existence. After which the German unionists disappeared behind the swastikas at the same time that May 1 1933, was transformed into the "Festival of German Labour." The Nazis proceeded to dispatch the union leaders into prisons and camps, which had the effect of bestowing on the survivors the reputation of being resolute "antifascists" from the first hour.




NS Germany proved uncapable of that precisely because the military forces and partisan groups of the Soviet Union and other countries fought back. I cannot see a plausible alternative to fighting back.

My fixation on this certain part of history derives from the facts that

a) this is a thread about German National Socialism and the left's failure to combat it.


That wasn't my point at all. My point is that merely taking out this certain part of history, 1941-1945 which is the timeframe where your moral dilemma takes place in, as the choice between supporting either nazism or Stalinism is pointless. Since it ignores the conditions which stretch back as far as 1914 that enabled this moral dilemma to come into existence in the first place and obscures any further chance to actually understand history.



b) I don't subscribe to the traditional communist analysis of Nazism, fascism, and related currents as mere tools of the bourgeoise to unify all classes or protect capitalism, even if parts of these movements chose to ally themselves with the bourgeoisie at the time,


Well tell us your analysis then, so we can compare them.



c) I don't think much of the Left Communist/Barrot view that all capitalism is the exact same, whether it's liberal capitalism or state capitalism under National Socialist rule. I think the qualitative differences are enormous, and I'm stunned at the capability of the adherents of that view to avert their eyes from these differences or dismiss them as "my personal preference."


Mischaracterization, the point is not that they're exactly the same at all. Especially since no-one denies that they would rather live under a gentler form of exploitation like democracy instead of totalitarianism, but rather that the presumption that we have a choice in this matter is false.

The form of exploitation Capital takes, does not depend on the intent of the bourgeoisie or even a particular malicious desire of the petit-bourgeoisie, which they could be potentially talked out of. Instead it's the concrete result of different historical processes and the material conditions that Capital is forced into at the time. The countries where fascism did not come to power were not in need of unifying its Capital. The State has a single function which it can accomplish in either a democratically or totalitarian fashion, whatever your personal preference might be doesn't mean you can force it adhere to this preference. Moral outrage simply doesn't have any effect on this.



Neither was Devrim's, which is why I wonder to what end the two of you brought up those stories at all?

'Evil' is a flimsy word that you've put in my mouth, but yes - I will grant Nazism a special place in terms of both its intent and its realities. And I do think there are some situations in which a lesser 'evil' needs to be chosen.
I can't speak for Devrim but it probably relates to the reasons why you think nazism has a special place in the cabinet of horrors of capitalism. If you really want to make a moral comparison between nazism and Stalinism; then define what in your view are the highlights which makes nazism the greater evil and why this it is important to comdemn this greater evil but defend the lesser evil. Is history dependant on your support? Will your support vindicate it's victims?

[communard resolution]

You seek to blame the proletariat for the horrors that were unleashed on it after it's failure to take power

Did a majority of the German proletariat not support its butchers in gaining power, fully aware that the purpose was to destroy minority sections of the proletariat? In the end, it backfired. But nobody and nothing forced them to support these butchers. If the proletariat is a will-less mass driven by the forces of history with absolutely no individual choice, how come that it didn't uniformly support Nazism without exception?


yet at the same time you support it's division by forcing them to take part in an Imperialist war against each other.It was a matter of self-defense of the Russian, Yugoslav, etc proletariat against NS domination and a likely future as subhuman slaves to the Nazis - a plan that was supported by the majority of the German proletariat. It's not simply the Red Army, the partisans, etc fighting for their bosses' interests and nothing but. A victory of National Socialism would have had intolerable direct consequences for the proletariat in those countries itself.


Hitler himself wasn't important, if he had not been the figurehead of nazism it would have been Schleicher, Heydrich, Himmler or any of the other countless fascists instead. Quite possibly, and yet it was his particular pastiche of views and philosophies that gave this brand of fascism its direction and racist ferocity. Himmler might have been worse -if that's imaginable- while the Strasser Bros might have settled for something akin to the later GDR, People's Republic of Poland, or North Korea.


While anti-semitism as expressed in Mein Kampf was a characteristic of nazism it isn't a necessary feature of fascism.I'm aware of that. But it was not only a minor characteristic, it was one of the main components of Nazism. And let's not forget about gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, (effeminate) homosexuals, the disabled, etc. It's furthest from my mind to present this as a Germans vs. Jews conflict.


It's a false capitalist myth that nazist repression mostly targeted the jewsThat's not the myth, it was absolutely the case - along with other minority groups. That's how National Socialism understood itself, and that's how it understood history: as a succession of race conflicts. Hence it was the prime goal of National Socialism to resolve the perceived race conflict of that time in the Germanic race's favour.

A strictly class-based, materialist analysis may explain why the Nazis and other fascists had to ally themselves with the bourgeoisie to gain power at the time (and what they had to do in the bourgeoisie's favour in order to gain and keep that power), but it can never grasp the full picture. I think fascist ideologies contain many crucial components outside of these paremeters. In order to understand the nature and goals of fascism's various denominations, one needs to look at how fascism understands itself - as bizarre as that may sound.

I cannot say I have fully understood it yet, but it has become apparent to me that the classic, class-based analysis of Fascism is extremely reductive, and in many cases resembles a throwing phrases at the wall in the hope they will stick.

So to partly answer your next question


Well tell us your analysis then, so we can compare them.read my posts in this thread for some of my thoughts:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/redefining-fascism-national-t86851/index.html?t=86851&highlight=social+fascism



Mischaracterization, the point is not that they're exactly the same at all.OK, error on my behalf due to my superficial knowledge of Barrot's theories.


no-one denies that they would rather live under a gentler form of exploitation like democracy instead of totalitarianism, but rather that the presumption that we have a choice in this matter is false.This may generally be the case. But if we go back to the example of defending Russia, Yugoslavia, etc against National Socialism, there was an obvious choice: defend your people against the Nazis or face a future as slaves to National Socialism. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but that what it's ultimately down to.


Instead it's the concrete result of different historical processes and the material conditions that Capital is forced into at the time. I undestand to some extent what you mean when it comes to 'clean' Fascism of the Italian variety. But what material conditions or historical processes forced Capital to adopt the National Socialist's race policies in theory and practice?


If you really want to make a moral comparison between nazism and Stalinism; then define what in your view are the highlights which makes nazism the greater evil and why this it is important to comdemn this greater evil but defend the lesser evil.It's not really a moral comparison, it's a comparison of the ground realities of those people affected by these systems. It's very simple:

Hitlerism - if you're Jewish, gyspy, homosexual, member of a religious sect, or disabled: you're off to the camp, auf Wiedersehen. If you're Slavic, you serve as an unpaid slave to the master race until you drop, which is when you'll receive a bullet in the head.

Stalinism - no matter what or who you are, if you don't open your mouth too wide you'll be fine. That isn't great, but it's a big difference to the former.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Stalinism - no matter what or who you are, if you don't open your mouth too wide you'll be fine. That isn't great, but it's a big difference to the former.


that doesnt sound left winged to me at all , i only can in some way support left communists , but lenninist and stalinist and marxists , not....

[communard resolution]

that doesnt sound left winged to me at all

No doubt about that, but you've taken my quote out of context.


, i only can in some way support left communists , but lenninist and stalinist and marxists , not....

Left communists are Marxists too.

[Random Precision]

It's not really a moral comparison, it's a comparison of the ground realities of those people affected by these systems. It's very simple:

Hitlerism - if you're Jewish, gyspy, homosexual, member of a religious sect, or disabled: you're off to the camp, auf Wiedersehen. If you're Slavic, you serve as an unpaid slave to the master race until you drop, which is when you'll receive a bullet in the head.

Stalinism - no matter what or who you are, if you don't open your mouth too wide you'll be fine. That isn't great, but it's a big difference to the former.

I think this captures the heart of the issue. Ultra-leftists pontificating about World War II 70 years after it happened might not think there was an awful lot of difference between the Wermacht and the Red Army, but the people who were around for it sure as fuck did, and they showed it in their actions too.

[4 Leaf Clover]

No doubt about that, but you've taken my quote out of context.



Left communists are Marxists too.

tho Marx himself didnt have nice opinion about leftist . so confusing

[black magick hustla]

I think this captures the heart of the issue. Ultra-leftists pontificating about World War II 70 years after it happened might not think there was an awful lot of difference between the Wermacht and the Red Army, but the people who were around for it sure as fuck did, and they showed it in their actions too.
First, RP, you are better than this - this is not an argument.

Second, this thread is specifically about an event that happened 70 years ago.

I think people cared when they were forced to die in the front lines. I would certainly care a shitton if I ever saw a bunch of tanks rolling and didnt have any other alternative except to fight for my state.

Left communists were around that time. Some left communists hid jews, others agitated against the getsapo. The members of the Marx lenin Luxembourg front were shot while crying "long live the world revolution". We arent pontificating about anything - because certainly people in our tendency at that time had the same opinion and risked their lives more than the mayority of stalinists at that time. In fact, Marc Chirik was thrown into jail by stalinists because of being a "fascist provocateur" and was condemned to death penaltiy
until a judge realized that they were "communists" and therefore "friends of france".

[Devrim]

Generally I agree with 'Sprinkles' perspectives on this issue. There were a few comments I want to make though:

It's not really a moral comparison, it's a comparison of the ground realities of those people affected by these systems. It's very simple:

Hitlerism - if you're Jewish, gyspy, homosexual, member of a religious sect, or disabled: you're off to the camp, auf Wiedersehen. If you're Slavic, you serve as an unpaid slave to the master race until you drop, which is when you'll receive a bullet in the head.

Stalinism - no matter what or who you are, if you don't open your mouth too wide you'll be fine. That isn't great, but it's a big difference to the former.
I think this captures the heart of the issue. Ultra-leftists pontificating about World War II 70 years after it happened might not think there was an awful lot of difference between the Wermacht and the Red Army, but the people who were around for it sure as fuck did, and they showed it in their actions too.

I think that this does capture the heart of the issue. The leftists are prepared to support anything as long as it is against the 'great evil' of Nazism. Anything can be excused. "Stalinism wasn't so bad". In 1941-43 over half a million died there, but hey it isn't the six million that died in German camps.

And support it they did. While the Left/council communists were struggling for internationalism the rest of the left (with the exception of some anarchists) was supporting the war.


an action like in Prague last year (commemoration on the day of "crystal night" ) , that street clash is the typical example on have to make Nazis run in fear like cattle . Great example :cool: .

A great example of how all bourgeois parties join together.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

I think people cared when they were forced to die in the front lines. I would certainly care a shitton if I ever saw a bunch of tanks rolling and didnt have any other alternative except to fight for my state.

How many of the Red Army readily joined to defend the peoples of Europe at the front lines and how many had to be forced is arguable. Either way, you're also forgetting the vast amounts of partisans who weren't forced at all and still did what they felt needed to be done. Yugoslavia, for instance, was liberated from Nazism and Ustashe fascism by partisan volunteers and with very little assistance from other armies.

The truth is that for every individual act of resistance, the Nazis retaliated by massacring dozens of civilians at random. Given this bleak outlook, hundreds of thousands felt it might be more useful to join the partisans and pay effective resistance by military means rather than die in vain - and they were proven right. In Yugoslavia, their decision to do so not only led to a defeat of the fascists, but effectively to a popular revolution. I'm aware the results of that revolution were not good enough by your standards, but well, I've discussed my opinion on Yugoslavia often enough, so let's not go into it here. In any case, I hold the Red Army of the time and particularly the partisans of all countries in the highest esteem. Their struggle resulted from the absolute necessity of saving Europe from total NS domination and from the all the Nazis had in waiting - and this they did.

The Left Communists you mentioned may have hidden some Jews and may have agitated against the Gestapo, which is very honorable. At the same time, they preached a 'matter of principle' line that in those circumstances was completely unfeasible and would have effectively meant surrender to the Nazis and a National Socialist Europe. Those Left Communists who died shouting "long live the revolution" when executed are to be admired too. But I find it even sadder that they died in vain.

Had it not been for the Red Army, the Communist partisan forces, and others' armed resistance, well... with a lot of luck, some us might be still sitting here dreaming of the right revolutionary condiditions - assuming they would grant us internet access in Dachau.

EDIT: Since we like ending on an anecdotal note: I just found out that a friend's grandfather was a Red Army soldier who fought in Stalingrad. My friend will be visiting his grandpa over Christmas. Maybe he'll be able to present me with some accounts of how the Red Army soldiers felt when forced to fight their fellow proletarians from the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.

[communard resolution]

tho Marx himself didnt have nice opinion about leftist . so confusing

Jimmy, I think you might be confusing 'leftist' with 'anarchist'. It's true, Marx wasn't too fond of anarchism and agitated against the anarchist wing of the First International, a revolutionary socialist organisation that he was himself part of. But we all think of ourselves as leftists and socialists - regardless whether we're communists, anarchists, Stalinists, or whatnot.

Some revleft users will act like only their own tendency/group and no other is 'truly' leftist, but don't get confused by that. We're all leftists even though we hold different opinions on many things.

[Sprinkles]

Did a majority of the German proletariat not support its butchers in gaining power, fully aware that the purpose was to destroy minority sections of the proletariat? In the end, it backfired. But nobody and nothing forced them to support these butchers. If the proletariat is a will-less mass driven by the forces of history with absolutely no individual choice, how come that it didn't uniformly support Nazism without exception?


I already addressed this several times, the division of the German proletariat was caused by several factors. It was crippled because of an acute lack of self awareness and an enslavement to militarism. Both of which were the historic products of the cretinist parliamentarism of Social Democracy and the proletariat's involvement with the traiterous reformist union bureaucracy. Both of these groups actively dispersed proletarian class consciousness and spread a false belief in the notion that the State would either protect them from fascist reaction or that it was any threat at all.

In other words: the consciousness of the proletariat was partly trapped by bourgeois or petit-bourgeois ideology. Unless you're going to claim the proletariat is in itself a reactionary force, which as an opinion is anathema to any form of Marxism, I don't see the point in laying the blame with the working class except for petty moralism.



It was a matter of self-defense of the Russian, Yugoslav, etc proletariat against NS domination and a likely future as subhuman slaves to the Nazis - a plan that was supported by the majority of the German proletariat. It's not simply the Red Army, the partisans, etc fighting for their bosses' interests and nothing but. A victory of National Socialism would have had intolerable direct consequences for the proletariat in those countries itself.


It's more important to analyse and understand what happened, than it is to judge and pick a side based on speculation of what might have happened if this or if that.



I'm aware of that. But it was not only a minor characteristic, it was one of the main components of Nazism. And let's not forget about gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, (effeminate) homosexuals, the disabled, etc. It's furthest from my mind to present this as a Germans vs. Jews conflict.

That's not the myth, it was absolutely the case - along with other minority groups. That's how National Socialism understood itself, and that's how it understood history: as a succession of race conflicts. Hence it was the prime goal of National Socialism to resolve the perceived race conflict of that time in the Germanic race's favour.

A strictly class-based, materialist analysis may explain why the Nazis and other fascists had to ally themselves with the bourgeoisie to gain power at the time (and what they had to do in the bourgeoisie's favour in order to gain and keep that power), but it can never grasp the full picture. I think fascist ideologies contain many crucial components outside of these paremeters. In order to understand the nature and goals of fascism's various denominations, one needs to look at how fascism understands itself - as bizarre as that may sound.


Apart from personal historical or political curiosity, I don't care how nazism understood it self, in the same way I don't care whether the ruling class of the United States actually believes they're currently spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle-East. For Marxists any valuable analysis is based on the interaction of classes through historic materialism, not an interpretation of the delusions with which the bourgeoisie tries to justify it's actions.

Your claim that fascism was not a capitalist movement is ludicrous, since it sought to unify Capital not abolish it, anyone that might have falsely been led to believe otherwise were proven otherwise by the course of history.



I cannot say I have fully understood it yet, but it has become apparent to me that the classic, class-based analysis of Fascism is extremely reductive, and in many cases resembles a throwing phrases at the wall in the hope they will stick.


Nonsense, an analysis which takes into account all aspects of the entirety of the communist movement is not reductionist. Especially when compared to your view which is not only restricted in a time period of some 5 to 10 years, but is influenced with idealism and moralism, both of which have nothing to offer and will never lead to a better understanding of history.



OK, error on my behalf due to my superficial knowledge of Barrot's theories.


I think this is related to the main misunderstanding in this thread. Dauvé's critique does not come down to what this or that group should have done instead in hindsight, but tries to explain why this or that group acted in a certain way and what the outcome was, why certain tactics failed and what it's implications for the future are.

This approach to history even acknowledges the fact that the prospect of any other outcome was virtually impossible since the way history unfolded was down to the concrete situation the proletariat found itself in and it's relationship to Capital at the time. The hypothetical question in this thread regarding what I or anyone else should have done is simply not relevant in this approach, since history already happened and is not alterable.



This may generally be the case. But if we go back to the example of defending Russia, Yugoslavia, etc against National Socialism, there was an obvious choice: defend your people against the Nazis or face a future as slaves to National Socialism. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but that what it's ultimately down to.


Then I'll repeat myself as well, taking out and focusing solely on the period 1941-1945 is pointless.
And again it's not historical or useful in any way to say well; maybe if this or if that.

The departure from the traditional foreign policy of the October Revolution, which Stalin would describe in 1936 as "a tragi-comic misunderstanding", was displayed in the 3rd International's degeneration from 1926 on. It signified not only the betrayal of the principles of the Russian Revolution but made any possible perspective for an International Revolution impossible. The 3rd period of the Comintern was merely a mask for the cynical Stalinist realpolitik which became all the more clear in the 4th period.

The Popular Fronts were coalitions with parts of the bourgeoisie in one imperialist combination against another in a cynical game of realpolitik which the likes of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signified. But it was a game which they ultimately lost, despite Stalin's earnest attempts to sacrifice any chance of a perspective of proletarian revolution developing, by substituting class concepts for those of "the friends of peace" and "the enemies of peace."

Furthermore it was explicitly framed by the Stalinist bureaucracy themselves in terms of bourgeois nationalism with their talk of "Socialism in One Country" and the "National Revolution" both terms which were eagerly mimicked by the National Socialists. This both obscured and prevented any possible internationalist communist point of view (however limited) from arising, which is the only thing that can actually prevent the capitalist barbarism in the form of Imperialist Wars.

The actual forces of reaction, which the Stalinists only opposed when it was already too late, that released the horrors of WW2 were felt by the proletariat of the whole world. If you seek to blame anyone, there is a more than justified target with the Stalinists themselves than there is in the misguided actions of the German proletariat which was more than sufficiently punished in the subsequent events.



I undestand to some extent what you mean when it comes to 'clean' Fascism of the Italian variety. But what material conditions or historical processes forced Capital to adopt the National Socialist's race policies in theory and practice?


The historical presence and tradition of Anti-Semitism in Germany perpetuated by both the Catholic and Protestant churches, it was something that could bring together bigots behind the Nation State regardless of their class backgrounds.



It's not really a moral comparison, it's a comparison of the ground realities of those people affected by these systems. It's very simple:

Hitlerism - if you're Jewish, gyspy, homosexual, member of a religious sect, or disabled: you're off to the camp, auf Wiedersehen. If you're Slavic, you serve as an unpaid slave to the master race until you drop, which is when you'll receive a bullet in the head.

Stalinism - no matter what or who you are, if you don't open your mouth too wide you'll be fine. That isn't great, but it's a big difference to the former.


Anti-Semitism wasn't unheard of at all in the Soviet Union since rootless cosmopolitan was merely a Soviet euphemism for jew, homosexuality was criminalized and considered a disease of bourgeois decadence until Gorbachev and there was little to none religious freedom until the regulations were relaxed for the purpose of raising moral during WW2.

The entire notion of a unified "Soviet People" was empty sloganeering really. Before and during the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Stalinist bureaucracy was worried the "Soviet People" would collaborate with the enemy. As a consequence Preventive deportations of entire nationalities were widespread in 1941 - 1942, while Punitive deportations occurred during 1943 - 1944 and general deportations from the occupied territories continued in 1944 - 1945. During these periods complete ethnic groups were deported en masse to the east.

In 1941 the Volga German ASSR was disbanded and the relocation of ethnic Germans, both from the Volga and from a number of other traditional areas of settlement was ordered. 439,000 Volga Germans and more than 300,000 other Germans were deported to Kazakhstan, Altai Krai in Siberia, and other remote areas. A year later nearly all the able-bodied German population was conscripted to a labor army. About one third is estimated to not have survived the labor camps.

In 1944 the existence of the Tatar Legion in the nazi army and the collaboration of Crimean Tatar religious and political leaders during the German occupation of Crimea provided the pretext for accusing the whole Crimean Tatar population of being nazi collaborators. Even though approximately 20,000 or 9% of the entire Tatar population served in German battalions, a total of 182,000 Crimean Tatars were to be deported in 1944 to Uzbekistan.

1944 also saw the deportation of all Chechens at an estimated total of 393,000 to Kazakhstan and Siberia, in which at least one-quarter and sometimes estimates of half of the entire population perished in the process. As well as the deportation of 91,000 Ingushs to Kazakhstan and Siberia took place in 1944 on accusation of collaboration with an estimated loss of life at two thirds of the population.

Further ethnic groups to be deported; Moldovans, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, and Meskhetian Turks. It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million people were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition. Of course you can claim these adopted measures and the deaths in the labour camps were either not that high or even straight out fabrications (like the unrealistic propagandistic and exponentially higher and unrealistic fabrications of the Black Book of Communism), or perhaps they were merely an unfortunate but ultimately justified side effect of the war. Both of which are popular beliefs on StormFront as well I might add.

Of the 5.7 million Soviet prisoners of war captured by the Germans, 3.5 million had died while in German captivity by the end of the war. The surviving POWs were put under the jurisdiction of SMERSH, an acronym of what literally translates as Death to Spies. On their return to the USSR they were treated as traitors under Order No. 270 in which Stalin declared: "There are no Russian prisoners of war, only traitors." Over 1.5 million surviving Red Army POWs were sent to labour camps.

As well as taking into consideration events like the Katyn Forest massacre (which was acknowledged in 1990 before anyone starts whining about it being propaganda), the actions of the Red Army when they stopped at the Vistula River to not only wait for the nazis to supress the Warsaw Uprising but actively captured and deported any remaining members of the Polish Home Army, the widespread rape in Berlin when it was finally captured and the fate which the surviving OST Arbeiters awaited.

And not to undermine the potential horror of the policies the nazis had planned like Generalplan Ost or der Hungerplan, which although they never actually came into reality, I understand the repulsive implications of all too well. But to claim that Stalinism was vastly morally superior in the actual way it treated the people under it's jurisdiction (if they had just kept quiet) is naive. Stalinism was a reactionary force which even if it did not aid the development of WW2, effectively did little or nothing to stop it and was a lesser evil at best. Whatever the limited choices and options were in a narrow period like 1941-1945, it is nothing that any worthwhile communist should have to defend today.

If you feel it is better that the USSR won rather than the potential victory of the Third Reich I personally agree, but my opinion is largely irrelevant since it does not influence history. Besides that it does not absolve Stalinism from the reactionary role it played in these events and should not have to translate into a retro-active support for either the system itself or it's policies. It was the proletariat which lost the most in this period regardless of which side they were forced into supporting by the various factions of the bourgeoisie.

[communard resolution]

Sprinkles:

don't have the time today or this weekend to reply to your text (it's a bit of a book really), but you've brought up some interesting aspects I'd like to discuss further.

To be continued.

[Sprinkles]

Sprinkles:

don't have the time today or this weekend to reply to your text (it's a bit of a book really), but you've brought up some interesting aspects I'd like to discuss further.

To be continued.

No problem at all, I prefer mucking about on the internet when it's in the boss his time as well. :D
And sorry for the insane wall of text littered with various forms of broken English.

Have a good weekend.

[communard resolution]

Sprinkles:


It's more important to analyse and understand what happened, than it is to judge and pick a side based on speculation of what might have happened if this or if that.


OK, but as I said before in reply to Marmot's post, the Nazi domination of Europe if no one had fought back by military means is really not much of a speculation. It's as sure as eggs.



For Marxists any valuable analysis is based on the interaction of classes through historic materialism, not an interpretation of the delusions with which the bourgeoisie tries to justify it's actions.The problem is that not all fascist currents are bourgeois in origin and intent, nor were they back in the day. The classist communist analysis doesn't account for all shapes of fascism. It's true that in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti-worker fascists came out on top and eventually purged their parties from anti-bourgeois elements. Then again, you could say the same happened to the communist parties the world over, most notably in the instance you yourself cited (Stalin). If we therefore concluded that communism is actually an anti-worker movement, never mind the 'delusions that its leaders tried to justify their actions with', would that broaden our understanding of communism?

Maybe it's best we take this to the Social Fascism thread I linked to in my previous post. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that issue.



Your claim that fascism was not a capitalist movement is ludicrous, since it sought to unify Capital not abolish it
There are fascists -and probably always have been- who seek to abolish capitalism altogether. The fact that those currents were proven otherwise in the 1920s and 1930s is no more proof to the contrary than the fact that our comrades haven't been very successful in that endeavour so far.


Especially when compared to your view which is not only restricted in a time period of some 5 to 10 years, but is influenced with idealism and moralism, both of which have nothing to offer and will never lead to a better understanding of history.I must say I don't understand your attempts at discrediting my every word with the accusation of 'moralism'. If I say that Nazi genocide is something undesirable and best avoided, is that moralism? Okay, but what is your desire to bring about the emancipation of the working class ultimately based on then? Is the condemnation of capitalist exploitation and murder not somewhat moralist/humanist at its core, regardless of the 'scientific' character of Marxism? I could as well say that exploitation and domination are just the way human beings seem to have been interacting throughout history, who are we to empirically claim there's something wrong with it? Why socialism?


I think this is related to the main misunderstanding in this thread. Dauvé's critique does not come down to what this or that group should have done instead in hindsight, but tries to explain why this or that group acted in a certain way and what the outcome was, why certain tactics failed and what it's implications for the future are.See, this is really my biggest problem with Left Communists as represented on revleft. They offer a lot of sharp analysis in hindsight, but I rarely hear any constructive suggestions of 'What Is To Be Done' in the future. Building on the experience of WW2 and Nazism, what are the implications for the future?


In 1941 the Volga German ASSR was disbanded and the relocation of ethnic Germans, both from the Volga and from a number of other traditional areas of settlement was ordered. 439,000 Volga Germans and more than 300,000 other Germans were deported to Kazakhstan, Altai Krai in Siberia, and other remote areas. A year later nearly all the able-bodied German population was conscripted to a labor army. etc.

By now, enough days have passed for anti-revisionists and the like to counter your claims. Since this hasn't happened, I must assume they are true and rethink my position.

What were the reasons for the deportations? What happened to those ethnic groups once they got deported?

[black magick hustla]

EDIT: Since we like ending on an anecdotal note: I just found out that a friend's grandfather was a Red Army soldier who fought in Stalingrad. My friend will be visiting his grandpa over Christmas. Maybe he'll be able to present me with some accounts of how the Red Army soldiers felt when forced to fight their fellow proletarians from the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.

You missed the whole point. Workers all the time are full of nationalist fervor. The question is not how they felt, but if we believe it was the interests of workers to fight.

[communard resolution]

You missed the whole point. Workers all the time are full of nationalist fervor. The question is not how they felt, but if we believe it was the interests of workers to fight.

No, I think you missed the point when quoting the last paragraph of my post while ignoring the rest. I was mirroring the habit of bringing up anecdotal accounts as if they were proof for anything. I even explicitly said so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You don't have any Social Fascism links in your prior posts. :confused:

[communard resolution]

^^^ You don't have any Social Fascism links in your prior posts. :confused:
Sorry, I meant National Fascism not Social Fascism. It's the link in post #46.

[Sprinkles]

OK, but as I said before in reply to Marmot's post, the Nazi domination of Europe if no one had fought back by military means is really not much of a speculation. It's as sure as eggs.


True, but it's not a matter of such a narrow choice anymore and none of the states involved then were free of guilt.



The problem is that not all fascist currents are bourgeois in origin and intent, nor were they back in the day. The classist communist analysis doesn't account for all shapes of fascism. It's true that in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti-worker fascists came out on top and eventually purged their parties from anti-bourgeois elements.


The character of an ideology is not based on the class composition of it's support, since even capitalism is based on the tacit support of the working class. So the real question is whether or not fascism represents a distinctly different ideology from capitalism in general.



Then again, you could say the same happened to the communist parties the world over, most notably in the instance you yourself cited (Stalin). If we therefore concluded that communism is actually an anti-worker movement, never mind the 'delusions that its leaders tried to justify their actions with', would that broaden our understanding of communism?


Yep, since Stalinism was the embodiment of the counter-revolution in Russia, I would agree with the statement that it was anti-working class, despite the delusions of its leaders or the claims of its apologists. Which is also why I don't see the specific need to defend the USSR on socialist principles. The characterization of the USSR as either socialist or capitalist is central to the question whether communists should defend it or (like when they are faced with other conflicts between capitalist states) hold up the idea of Revolutionary Defeatism. For example; at the time Trotsky still considered the USSR as a degenerated workers' state which meant it was worth defending, but since he also opposed the Stalinist bureaucracy he included the need for Revolutionary Defeatism:



At the same time, we do not for a moment forget that this war is not our war (...) The 4th International bases its policy, not on the military fortunes of the capitalist states, but on the transformation of the imperialist war into a war of the workers against the capitalists, for the overthrow of the ruling class in every country, on the world socialist revolution.




Maybe it's best we take this to the Social Fascism thread I linked to in my previous post. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that issue.

There are fascists -and probably always have been- who seek to abolish capitalism altogether. The fact that those currents were proven otherwise in the 1920s and 1930s is no more proof to the contrary than the fact that our comrades haven't been very successful in that endeavour so far.


Social-fascism is a nonsensical Stalinist term from the 3rd period of the Comintern. I can always post in the other thread, but since the rest is relevant to my argument I'll try to address it here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think it's necessary to define fascism in a way that it includes "anti-capitalist" fascism since to quote Dauvé "it is unique in giving counter-revolution a mass base and in mimicking revolution."

But when you disregard all of their self-contradictory sloganeering and superfluous racist delusions, what ultimately remains is that historical fascism is not a distinctly different form of ideology that distinguishes itself from capitalism, but rather that fascism is a form of organization with a specific program. One that denies social contradictions in the form of classes with violence and instead frames it into the struggle between nations. (With nazism nationalism is almost exchangeable with ethnicity, the German Nation as an Aryan Nation and such nonsense.)

This is where the commonality between fascism and Social Democracy lies, both had to address the question on how to organize the masses and when it became necessary to violently repress them. In order to do this both groups rejected the Marxist notion of antagonistic classes and instead framed them in terms of nationalism. This nationalist solution is also what the supposed "anti-capitalist" fascist elements refer to, their goal was the construction of an authoritarian state which would limit international "jewish" capital and try to control national capitalism in order to prevent it from eroding traditional social values, but they certainly did not abolish it.

And even though the nationalist rhetoric of the Stalinists did not prevent the mis-identification of the proletariat with the nation state, it would be a mistake to characterize this fascist "anti-capitalist" critique as socialist. Nationalism is a bourgeois concept which seeks to have the proletariat identify with the faction of the bourgeoisie that rules it, since this allows them to set the working class against itself in the defense of the interests of the ruling class. The extremely harmful influence of this, is also relevant to the question why little to none fraternization occurred between the "proletarians in uniform" during either World Wars.



I must say I don't understand your attempts at discrediting my every word with the accusation of 'moralism'. If I say that Nazi genocide is something undesirable and best avoided, is that moralism? Okay, but what is your desire to bring about the emancipation of the working class ultimately based on then? Is the condemnation of capitalist exploitation and murder not somewhat moralist/humanist at its core, regardless of the 'scientific' character of Marxism? I could as well say that exploitation and domination are just the way human beings seem to have been interacting throughout history, who are we to empirically claim there's something wrong with it? Why socialism?


True, Marxism is certainly based on morality to an extent. But my use of the term moralism is not meant as a pejorative at all, merely a description of how you have approached history in this thread. It doesn't discredit your opinion, but moralism isn't considered helpful in understanding history as far Marxism is concerned which prefers materialism and class analysis.



See, this is really my biggest problem with Left Communists as represented on revleft. They offer a lot of sharp analysis in hindsight, but I rarely hear any constructive suggestions of 'What Is To Be Done' in the future. Building on the experience of WW2 and Nazism, what are the implications for the future?


To address the question of WW2 and draw a historic parallel on the need to support the lesser evil in 1941-1945; Consider events like the Armenian Genocide, surely it was better that the Allies won the Great War instead of the Central Powers right? Then why did the communists in Russia agitate to turn the war between nations into a war between classes? The reasoning is that choosing the lesser capitalist evil over the greater capitalist evil doesn't address the root of the problem, but merely the extent and severity of it's symptoms.

Especially since there will always be a certain bourgeois faction which is particularly brutal, which will subsequently be opposed by another faction which claims to be less violent. If the working class continues to support the lesser evil then it will never address the root of the problem, which lies in capitalism; a system that is quickly spiraling out of control head long into new forms of barbarism.

Regarding nazism, unlike most leftists who see fascism everywhere, Dauvé characterizes fascism as a unique movement confined to a certain period of history. The period was signified by the defeat of the international revolutionary wave and the failure of Social Democracy to break out of the stalemate, fascism was a solution by capital to forcefully break out of this.

The democratic states that exist today are far more successful in addressing the crisis of social unification than fascism ever was and there is subsequently little reason fascism will return. The danger that remains today is not the return of crude fascism, but the continued identification of the proletariat with the infinitely more pervasive and successful bourgeois nation state, which will once again drag the proletariat behind it into greater forms of barbarism and war. This can only be opposed by insisting on internationalist principles, which pretty much characterizes left-communism.



etc.

By now, enough days have passed for anti-revisionists and the like to counter your claims. Since this hasn't happened, I must assume they are true and rethink my position.

What were the reasons for the deportations? What happened to those ethnic groups once they got deported?


Mostly strategic reasons, like either the fear of collaboration or the actual collaboration of some parts of the population with the enemy. Most of them were relocated to various remote regions like Siberia and those that died usually did so of negligence since the priority was the war effort against Germany. Eventually the survivors were repatriated by Khrushchev after Stalin died, but relocation of "enemies of the people" remained a common policy to settle remote areas of the Soviet Union.

Things like Operation Priboi where the Soviets conducted mass deportations even after the war had ended, or Order No 001223 which describes the details of the deportation of "Anti-Soviet elements" from the Baltic States are undisputed facts. Various documents and even former Soviet officials support them as such. Khrushchev went as far as asserting that the Ukrainians only avoided deportation "because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them."

Although specific numbers sometime vary and can be disputed, the numbers I mentioned are commonly accepted estimates according to a variety of historians and sources. Denying that they happened at all is willful ignorance, a quick glance at what constitutes the former Soviet Union today reveals how utter nonsense the notion of the "unified Soviet People" was. The severe consequences of the deportations and the ethnic tensions that arose from them are a major political factor which led to separatist movements in both Chechnya and the Baltic republics among other things.