Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:55:20 -0700
From: Max Anger <squert-AT-sirius.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: French Bordigists


At 03:37 AM 7/15/97 +0000, johngray-AT-geocities.com wrote:
>I'm not clear to what extent  Max Angers critique is aimed at what I 
>wrote or the chunk of Mr Nobody I quoted. Whatever.

It was aimed at the general tenor of the discussion. It was more of
statement than exact reply to any one post. 

>
>Max Anger wrote :
>
>> But that is because I'd like to point out some important points - and
>> because it so happens that the world wide repression system of democracy
>> still isn't stopping me from pointing this out.
>
>Could this have something to do with the role of the internet in 
>extending and developing the globally repressive functions of 
>democracy, including the ideology of free speech ?
>
>> 1) Whatever level you believe the Nazi concentration camps were at, these
>> camps were nothing but the normal result of capitalist war and peace . Mass
>> murder, startvation, barbarism etc. are the standard for modern war and
>> modern peace (I personally have no reason to doubt the standard historical
>> line but this is beside the point).
>
>Isn't communist critique about attacking capitalist barbarism ? Or is 
>this all too much trouble ?

I'm not sure how pointing out that capitalist peace and capitalist war are
full of horror would be anything but attacking capitalism and it's
barbarism. But the role of revolutionaries is to do more than show the
horrors. We must attack the system itself and show the alternative that can
be created by the working class. There are many ways to point the
spot-light on modern horrors and we must always remember those ways are
usually managed by the powers that be.

>
>Later on you appear to  undercut your own argument when you state : 
>
>    > Certainly Nazi Germany had some unique aspects of modern 
>    > capitalist barbarism
>
>Doesn't communist critique claim some strength from its ability to 
>throw light on the 'unique aspects' of particular instances of 
>barbarism, as with the 'unique aspects' of every real instance of 
>capitalist social relations ? 
>
The strength of communist activity must be in it's ability advance the
project of a world human community involving the abolition of exchange,
wage labor and so-on. As you've said, there's uniqueness and uniformity in
all of the qualities of capitalist society. Our mission is to point out
either of these in the context of the possibility of a world-wide
destruction of this system. 
The power of pointing out the uniformity of military dictatorship and
democracy as both aspects of capitalism is that it allows workers under
both sorts of regimes to see a common struggle. 

>> 2) The demand anyone take the Nazi an exceptional rather than a NORMAL evil
>> is the demand that a revolutionary accept every part of capitalist
>> ideology. 
>
>I trust that you are not unconsciously  retailing bourgois
>arguments from the post war  'banality of evil' school which are of
>course as ideological as the bourgeois arguments about the 'unique
>evil' represented by Naziism.
>
How exactly would I be recycling what arguments? 

It's usefull being somewhat exact about what ideology is - I'd start with
SI descriptions of ideology as thought in the service of power.
I might guess that you are saying I'm using the argument that humans are
always capable of ghastly acts.  
Certainly under capitalism, they are, so there's a logical similarity
between my point and a hypothetical "banality of evil" argument. But so
what? This doesn't prove there's a connection to capitalist interests or
any falsity in my argument. 

To put this shortly, you're draw arguments with a broad and irrelevant brush.

>> (This is only slightly difficult to see. Consider that the state
>> of Isreal has justified every one of it's attrocities using using the camps
>> as the justification. Even more, the Nazis were carried to power on the
>> banner of anti-fascism - Hindenburg as "bullwork against fascism".
>> Essentially, Stalinism and it's "moderate" children have built their
>> empires on saying "why we want revolution, yes, but first we have to unify
>> with capitalist against the greater evil of fascism. And a good deal of the
>> modern capitalist system functions on this justification)
>
>Left social-democrats including the bolsheviks used a mythology about 
>the Paris Commune. Leftists have used a mythology about the Russian 
>Soviets. Should we be insisting that these were 'NORMAL' rather than 
>'exceptional' events for fear of being contaminated by the left wing 
>of capitalism ?

Certainly, we should indeed avoid the various myths sold by the left wing
of capital. We can get into more discussion about what are the myths and
what is useful information. 

The argument I'm making is very much that all instances of normal
capitalist life have a unity to them. This unity is based the masses being
essentially passive and thus the motion of society following the various
dynamics of capitalist logic. Instances where the working class takes power
in a self-conscious, anti-capitalist fashion are another story entirely.
They are essentially different because people are defying the logic of this
society. 

>
> I think there are two contrasting ways of presenting capitalist 
>barbarism. As opposed to the one you appear to favour I prefer that 
>which says that there is nothing 'normal' about barbarism and horror 
>and that  ALL  instances of capitalist barbarism have their 
>exceptional aspects.

As the quote of original post shows, I take both positions. The question is
what is appropriate for what situation. 

>
>Obviously the Nazi regime wasn't the first to try to bond a 
>modern nation state together by using racial ideology, nor the 
>first to practise  genocide, nor the first to employ concentration 
>camps - its uniqueness at this level,  to my mind, lies  in the 
>attempt to apply an industrial rationality to the process of 
>genocide.
>
>Whatever - without some understanding  of how the Nazi regime was  
>both uniquely barbaric in some respects while overall being  just one 
>more instance of capitalist order I don't think one is well placed to 
>account for its continuing  role in capitalist ideology.
>

What is your specific critique here? How am I not placed to do whatever
sort of "accounting" you are looking for? 

>> 3) Certainly the rightest "revisionism" scum are part and parcel of the
>> capitalist system. But they have far less effective power than the
>> different capitalist administrator who quite easily admit the existence of
>> the camps but have carried many other halocausts in our generation.  
>
>So what ? You seem to have missed the point that this arose as a 
>topic of debate because a number of french ultra-leftists swallowed 
>revisionist ideology (in part in the name of opposing anti-fascism 
>and of attacking leftism) and some of them have gone on to extensive 
>careers marketing it. This has provided an excellent stick for 
>capitalist ideologues to use to attack all critiques of anti-fascism.

Yes, I have "lost track" of the intended direction of this argument. 
I was much more taken by the general tone of the argument - this direction
was of innocents seduced into ultimate evil - a tone which implicitly
accepted the idea that while capitalism is bad, nazism is
ultra-ultra-ultra-bad. 

But you're defense of the original direction of the argument is telling.
Certainly, I'm against those who go over to the side of fascism. But they
are no more important than those who go to side of journalism or the side
of liberalism. But the fact is that the capitalist press never need a
factual stick to wave at anyone - if the stick doesn't exist, they will
manufacture it. 

>
>And contrary to the impression one might derive from your posting 
>this was not because they denied that Naziism was uniquely evil, but 
>because they denied that the gas chambers existed, and denied that 
>there had been any deliberate attempt at genocide. 

Yes, there were a certain number who embraced holocaust revisionism. But a
larger number of people, including Barrot, were brought into the discussion
using the media's "amalgam" system. And this allows the media to set the
tenor within our discussion. 

>
>> And
>> certainly the leftism who wish to squash all revisionism are playing
>> the game marketing a new system of repression to the state.
>
>Bordiga reportedly argued that the worst product of fascism was 
>anti-fascism. It is equally true that the worst product of leftism is 
>anti-leftism. 

By this reasoning, the worst product of capitalism would be anti-capitalism. 
The anti-anti reasoning requires some thought behind it, as well as cleaver
phrases.

>
>> 4) The tenor of discussion about Bordigaists accepting revisism 
>has the
>> tenor of "Ultra-leftists falling prey to original sin."  If you fall for
>> that, you fall for anything.
>
>Do you mean that this was just 'NORMAL' rather than 'exceptional' 
>ultra-left stupidity ?

Yes, I mean exactly that. 
Those in the communist milleau also live capitalist society. It is not
surprising to find them take on all of the various unpleasant roles of
capitalist society - cop, journalist, leftist, nazi or whatever. But this
is a commentary on the capitalist we all live in, not some special quality
of the communist milleau.

>
>> Certainly Nazi Germany had some unique aspects
>> of modern capitalist barbarism. America's dropping of atomic bomb on a
>> major city also some uniqueness. I'm sure you could argue quite a few other
>> uniquenesses but this is naturally a false and capitalist argument.
>
>Two major cities actually, however I appreciate that these petty 
>historical details are neither here nor there in the Max Anger school 
>of critique. But perhaps I'm missing the point - are you suggesting 
>that the answer to historical revisionism is to abandon history ?

To say that America is the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb on a
major city is not a statement about exactly how many bombs America has
dropped on who. Once they dropped the first one, they became unique in this
regard. But it's true that I think you should take the argument to level of
petty details instead of the level of political positions - I'm sure what
political point you're trying to make. 

>
>> 5) This argument shows well the dominance of the modern spectacle. 
>
>I couldn't put it better myself.
>
>> My
>> impression is that Barrot himself was put so much in the limelight in
>> France that he was forced to give in to line of Nazi-uniqueness. The point
>> is that relations between so-called revolutionary comrades can be given the
>> glare of media simplificiation/distortion.
>
>Ah, another "God that Failed". Then again perhaps the fact that 
>Barrot had been attempting to distance himself from the more 
>ludicrous ultra-left headbangers at the same time that he also broke 
>with the ultra-left revisionists in the early eighties has something 
>to do with his views today.

Well, I have no direct knowledge of Barrot motivations in this regard or
any other. I have some idea about the atmosphere sarrounding the
"revisionist" media hunt and this is my primary consideration. 
The basic point is as stated above. Those who let the media telegraph their
values to them are naturally powerless against capital ideology. 

>
> > But fortunately, me as anonymous E-mail can still put forward a 
>bit of
>> opposition to this baloney. 
>
>> Death to Fascism, Death to Anti-Fascism
>> ASAN
>
>Personally I'd always hoped communism was about getting a life.

Another revealing quip.  Do you really expect communism to give you a life?

Actually, I already the sort thing qualifies as a life under capitalism -
money, friends etc. 
The point is that any "life" under capitalism still winds up pretty
intolerable for reason that you hopefully know. 
The right tools for the right use. If you want relaxation, try meditation,
if you want world proletariat revolution, clear communist theory is needed. 






     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---