Re: Auschwitz in Bulgaria

[Owen Jones <owen_jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> While you are of course right, so long as the Holocaust is used to describe
> Yugoslavia where at most 2000 people died in the decade before the war, the
> number of dead in reforms is a far better analogy because "The reforms were
> a consciously planned, complete and bureaucratically executed total
> impoverishment and dismantling of an entire region".
>
> Macdonald

 I think there should be a distinction between the Holocaust and the
catastrophe of the restoration of capitalism. The Holocaust is of special
significance, of "capitalism gone completely mad" as I think it has been
described, with the industrialised murder of millions. The worst group to
suffer was of course the Jewish people, since over half of their European
population was exterminated, but I think we as Marxists should also
emphasise the murder of the Slavs, the Roma, the trade unionists, the
socialists and communists, the gays, the 27 million Russian workers and
peasants - and indeed should not ever forget the 12 million German workers
sent to their death by their fascist bourgeoisie, or murdered by British
imperialism in crimes such as Dresden.

 The restoration of capitalism - committed by the former ruling
bureaucracies, let us not forget - is predicted by the UN of all
organisations to cause the population drop in Eastern Europe of a third
within fifty years. There is no need to discuss the devastation that has
been caused to the proletariat of the former Eastern countries, with
incredible exploitation, the implosion of industry, a drop of living
standards unparalleled in peacetime in an advanced country, the drop of life
expectancy by ten years for males, etc. Many of them are arguably not even
wage-slaves anymore, but slave labourers since they receive no wages from
the sum of their labour, often for years. Also, now all the middle classes
of the East have largely been ruined which may prove disastrous.

 Yet these effects were not planned. The Western bourgeoisie desired a
successful capitalism to be restored in the East, for them to be able to
plunder its riches and divide it amongst themselves; a stable, prosperous
market for them to seize. What in fact happened was a _world-historic
defeat_ of capitalism. It is one of the reasons that the tremendous
confidence of the early 1990s that the imperialist bourgeoisie had - so much
as to proclaim their absolute historical victory in the terrifying
proclamation of the "End of History" - has drained away. The restoration of
capitalism has ruined the lives of tens of millions and driven them to
starvation, death by alcoholism, war, poverty, disease, and so on, but these
effects were never consciously planned by the bureaucrats who restored
capitalism or those who aided and propped them up in the West. It would be
the most crude hysteric demonisation to claim that they sat at a table
cackling at how many millions would perish - however, they do know perfectly
well that the restoration of capitalism has caused a catastrophe and yet
will still push for its consolidation and the further openings of markets
for them to divide up and plunder. In that sense, the bourgeoisie has never
cared how many millions of workers and peasants are destroyed in their
constant struggle for markets and capital, and will even plunge all of
humanity into a catastrophic war to divide up the world's plunder amongst
themselves.

 The re-introduction of capitalism has sent much of the East spiralling
towards barbarism, as the imperialists and the new bourgeois so-called
"oligarchs" raped and plundered the place. But really this is the problem
with capitalism - it is either socialism or barbarism for humanity; this has
never been a hysteric, catastrophist saying, but a deep truth that I do not
wish to see proved. I doubt any member of the bourgeoisie smiled at what
happened in the East. That is not to say they weep either, and the only
thing that concerns them is a reversal of the market. The Left always knew
that the restoration of capitalism would be a disaster - though I doubt even
the most pessimistic could have predicted THIS.

 Genocide is the attempted extermination of an entire people. This is very
rare, since it takes such a concerted, concentrated effort to undertake such
a colossus act of murder. It happened in Rwanda, Fascist Europe, America and
Australia. The reason the Holocaust is so significant is the manner in which
it was carried out - the near extermination by industrialised means of an
entire people within a few years, by the means of production capitalism
employed. Otherwise the Stalin regime and the Mao regime are both
responsible for genocide, for the policies of collectivisation, the GLF,
etc, ended the lives of millions. Sorry to repeat the argument of Johannes
here, but he makes a valid point that needs a response.

 Might I add that Macdonald Stainsby's accusations against Johannes of
"German guilt" are pretty despicable. I have heard of "British guilt"
before, as a means of the British bourgeoisie to wash their hands of the
crimes committed by British imperialism, including genocide and war. Neither
do I believe in washing the hands of the German bourgeoisie of blood. When
Louis talks of the significance of Vietnam, is that American guilt?

 Cheers

       Owen