Re: Auschwitz in Bulgaria

["Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Jones" <owen_jones@xxxxxxxxx>

>  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.

*snip*

>  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.

This is precisely where I think comrades lose their bearings on what is a
holocaust and what is not. 1/3 a population to die off because of a
concerted effort of those in power should be the only thing we evaluate, *it
does not matter* how they got dead. It is unfortunate that one gets accused
of trivialising the German Nazi version, when what in fact is being
attempted is the opposite, to point out that European "capitalism gone mad"
happens economically, and with results just as deadly (more so in numbers)
as the Gas Chambers. When we examine the Holocaust, we come up with pictures
in our heads of things we (speaking of First World Marxists here), can get a
personal fear of. Seeing poverty is not something that we are unused to, and
as such carries less emotional impact. That does not at all reduce it's
deadly effects. If the predictions of Russia (from the World Bank, no
less!!) come true, and it becomes the first nation to "commit suicide" due
to the restoration of capitalism, then that means that modern day Europe
will be far more successful in their attempts at removing the
"Untermenschen" than Herr Hitler. I doubt many Russians fought World War Two
only to be murdered by the IMF. Silent elimination is a Holocaust as well.


>  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.

What? Have you been reading Jack Barnes or something? The devastation of the
East European states and Russia was the single greatest victory for the
Bourgeoisie since the Proletariat began to organise and fight back. When
Russia was "opened up" the conscious planning was very real. As a result of
eighty years of economic Socialism, there was no bourgeoisie to speak of,
but there were the means of production. Once the extreme speed of the
reforms was decided upon by the Gorby-Yeltsinites, there were two choices as
far as the West was concerned. If the West wanted to avoid the mess of
today, they could have floated loans to select members of what were to
become the new ruling class in the fSU. The Russian Bourgeoisie would then
have sufficient capital to exist somewhat indpendant of the IMF, or at least
the means of production in the fSU would not need to be owned by the
financiers of the Imperialist bloc, as is what indeed happened. By choosing
to go the route the West did, a conscoius decision was made not to help
Russia build an independant state, but relegate it to a subserviance even
more damning than what existed under Nicholas II. This was so as to never
let Russia "rise again", and was a very real, deliberate crushing of the
state that had caused them so much grief. The extremity of the "reforms"
imposed were seemingly veangeful. That is where the analogy with Holocaust
holds, if one is looking for "deliberate" to be the dividing line. All the
programs set out for the former socialist bloc were inevitably going to
produce these deadly results. That is murder on a grand scale.

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.

They all have enough brains to know what the result would be. That picture
of people sitting around cackling is silly, but there is no doubt they knew
what it would be, and they knew in whose interest it was being done. That
is, if anything is, a collosal crime and murder on a grand scale.

>
>  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.

Because the left had a belief that the Imperialists wouldn't stoop even this
low. If anyone on the left had seen a blueprint that was drawn up for what
would be demanded of the former socialist bloc, it would not have been that
difficult to imagine. That was a leap of incredible callousness that no one
(except those who consciously planned it) could believe would take place.

>
>  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.
>

Basically what is being stated here is that 1) we need to use industrial
murder (guns, gas, weapons of all sorts) to qualify, and 2) the numbers then
become the dividing line. What is different about GLF, if we take the
highest numbers attributed to it, is that it lacked two things: It was not
done to shore up power for a Party/Class/individual, but was rather a
collosal error, and it wasn't attempted with the idea of never changing the
situation. In other words, "genocide" (a word I am not in favour of using
very often, it has lost power thanks to "humanitarian Imperialism") is
malicious. It is done, economically or with a belief there is an alternative
and the alternative is ignored.


>  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?

I am speaking of Johannes being a man living in a country where Goldhagen is
considered brilliant, astute and the purveyor of the final truth of the
Holocaust. In both Britain and the US, crimes perpetrated by the state in
the past and present are played down, in Germany it is used as a
depoliticising tool, to keep people quiet and look to the thugs on the
street as the enemy, and not the state of affairs today. Johannes might
disagree with my characterisation, but I think he knows full well what I
meant. I live in Canada where the genocide (here the term is applicable),
past and present, of Indians is ignored and middle class Canadians who even
know of it are encouraged to "feel bad" and debate new ways to describe the
indigenous as the height of political struggle. In this sense, Canadian
"guilt" (one pushed on the entire population, rather than the churches and
the modern state) is entirely reactionary, and provides yet another
stumbling block to any real action. Guilt, I repeat, is never revolutionary.
Anger and love are. Especially when they are put together.

Macdonald