a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[frogwoman]

I tried to read the Postone article but I'm afraid I didn't understand all of it. Would somebody mind giving me a summary of the argument?

 

[butchersapron]

Any comeback on the posts above btw rmp3?

 

[frogwoman]

Always annoys me when the other millions of leftists, trade unionists, homosexuals, disabled, Poles, Gypsies and Slavs are forgotten.

I agree totally, but the anti-semitism was one of the main planks of nazi ideology. the jews were seen as the foremost enemy and the large majority of Nazi propaganda revolved around jews as the enemy of Germany in a way that the others weren't. I agree there should be more emphasis placed but I think a good reason for that is the nature of Nazi propaganda and priorities itself.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nobody has claimed that it was central, although any serious analysis of Germany's reasons w/r/t WW2 should include the final solution to the Jewish problem as an important secondary concern, in terms of productive labour and expropriated materiel.

this isn't a serious analyses you dickhead, its a 1440 word article. I never said anybody claimed it was central, I'm explaining to frog woman my opinion as to a possible reason why he left it out, as you agree it isn't central to understanding the dynamics of the conflict.

"Including Germany", eh? Of course the ruling classes in Germany were interested in the Holocaust, you muppet. The Holocaust was a mechanism that allowed the German ruling classes to line their pockets, expand their holdings and embed their influence.

even in your own statements you outline how it was a means to an end, the German ruling classes wish to line their pockets, expand their holdings, and embed their influence, there aim wasn't the final solution. The final solution was the aim of a tiny minority. A minority with enough power to cow into submission those who opposed it, and those who acquiesced to achieve other aims, fair enough. in my opinion to say the final solution was central to the aims of the German ruling class, is to put the cart before the horse. The aims of the ruling class in the Second World War, remained the same as they were in the First World War.

Because, of course, there was no other set of reasons why the lines weren't bombed.

I'd be interested in you expanding on this.

You miss the point. While the "imperialist war" thesis works, it only works in terms of analysing the work of the ruling class. It's not a case of offering "better", but a case of finding different, perhaps complementary, analyses that explain the war not just from the perspective of power.

again, it was a 1400 word article, I doubt Neil would deny his work could be complemented with further investigation. feel free to point to some complimentary analysis.

anyway thanks for your input, you have agreed with the two central points I wanted to make.
1. The imperialist war analysis works.
2. The Holocaust is not central to understanding the above kind of analysis.

To be fair to Neil, I think in 1400 words he has found A most expeditious way of challenging the dominant ideas about the Second World War. A challenging way that may cause people not as knowledgeable as yourself, to investigate further. now whilst I wouldn't condemn anybody for criticising it, and offering complimentary analysis, I think "having a bit of fun with it" is just sectarian bullshit.

Some fun may be had with the latest installment of this series on counterfuck website.
Niel Faulkner has written an 'interesting' account of ww2 which was, apparently, an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies).
There is a comments box, can anyone get something past the clusterfuck moderators?

but what can you expect from a bunch of sectarian wankers.

 

[frogwoman]

i'd say an understanding of the holocaust is pretty essential to understanding world war II. The fash seemed to think it was when they were carrying it out. The fact that they diverted essential resources towards killing Jews rather than fighting the war seems to suggest it's rather more important than the article is saying.

 

[butchersapron]

The SWP moved beyond such crude marxism decades ago rmp3. Suggest you do the same.

 

[Random]

this isn't a serious analyses you dickhead, its a 1440 word article.

Rather nasty to swear at someone who's trying to politely argue with you. I thought you were supposed to be the acceptable face of trotsky-leninism?

 

[frogwoman]

innit what an utterly depressing thread

 

[TremulousTetra]

i'd say an understanding of the holocaust is pretty essential to understanding world war II. The fash seemed to think it was when they were carrying it out. The fact that they diverted essential resources towards killing Jews rather than fighting the war seems to suggest it's rather more important than the article is saying.

Neil has tried to give A 1440 word explanation of the Second World War. Because of that brevity, he has had to cut cut cut. in my opinion he has concentrated on the key points, which are most likely to challenge the dominant ideas about the Second World War.

According to Panda, "Nobody has claimed that it was central, although any serious analysis of Germany's reasons w/r/t WW2 should include the final solution to the Jewish problem as an important secondary concern, in terms of productive labour and expropriated materiel."
perhaps Panda can explain better than me why nobody has claimed that it is central.


PS. "The fash seemed to think it was when they were carrying it out. The fact that they diverted essential resources towards killing Jews rather than fighting the war seems to suggest it's rather more important than the article is saying." BTW in my opinion you make two important points there as to why the Holocaust was not instrumental in achieving the aims of those who owned and controlled the means of production, and in fact were counter-productive in achieving their aims.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Rather nasty to swear at someone who's trying to politely argue with you. I thought you were supposed to be the acceptable face of trotsky-leninism?

LOL, nice one.

 

[Pickman's model]

Neil has tried to give A 1440 word explanation of the Second World War. Because of that brevity, he has had to cut cut cut. in my opinion he has concentrated on the key points, which are most likely to challenge the dominant ideas about the Second World War.

wouldn't it have been a better idea to concentrate on providing a marxist explanation of the war rather than challenging dominant ideas of the war, which isn't quite the same thing?

 

[butchersapron]

Neil has tried to give A 1440 word explanation of the Second World War. Because of that brevity, he has had to cut cut cut. in my opinion he has concentrated on the key points, which are most likely to challenge the dominant ideas about the Second World War.

According to Panda, "Nobody has claimed that it was central, although any serious analysis of Germany's reasons w/r/t WW2 should include the final solution to the Jewish problem as an important secondary concern, in terms of productive labour and expropriated materiel."
perhaps Panda can explain better than me why nobody has claimed that it is central.


PS. "The fash seemed to think it was when they were carrying it out. The fact that they diverted essential resources towards killing Jews rather than fighting the war seems to suggest it's rather more important than the article is saying." BTW in my opinion you make two important points there as to why the Holocaust was not instrumental in achieving the aims of those who owned and controlled the means of production, and in fact were counter-productive in achieving their aims.

He gave a 3000 words explanation/overview containing many secondary events - but he didn't include a primary factor in the military conduct/aims of the war in europe. This is shit.

 

[Pickman's model]

this isn't a serious analyses you dickhead, its a 1440 word article.

so a 1,440 word article can't offer a serious analysis.

 

[TremulousTetra]

so a 1,440 word article can't offer a serious analysis.

well, I've never seen you make a serious post..

 

[Pickman's model]

well, I've never seen you make a serious post..

that's a sad indictment of how few of my posts you've read. you shouldn't parade your ignorance, rmp3.

 

[frogwoman]

PS. "The fash seemed to think it was when they were carrying it out. The fact that they diverted essential resources towards killing Jews rather than fighting the war seems to suggest it's rather more important than the article is saying." BTW in my opinion you make two important points there as to why the Holocaust was not instrumental in achieving the aims of those who owned and controlled the means of production, and in fact were counter-productive in achieving their aims.

of course it was counterproductive, the diversion of resources etc, as well as the destruction of a source of labourers and the fact that Nazi racial policy turned many of the occupied populations against them was one of the things that ended up losing the fash the war. That doesn't explain why they did it in the first place, the fact that it was counterproductive didn't mean that it wasn't a key factor in how the German ruling class conducted the war.

As for whether Hitler was in the German ruling class - of course he fucking was.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, the one in which i ask you to think about if you agree with barneys characterisation of the article - and which you responded to by saying that yes you did, you thought it gave a reasonable overview. You thought that an overview that has "No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)." was reasonable.

Calm down n read your NF comments to me. God your such a drama queen.

 

[butchersapron]

Calm down n read your NF comments to me. God your such a drama queen.

Yes, the one in which i ask you to think about if you agree with barneys characterisation of the article - and which you responded to by saying that yes you did, you thought it gave a reasonable overview. You thought that an overview that has "No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)." was reasonable.

 

[TremulousTetra]

that's a sad indictment of how few of my posts you've read. you shouldn't parade your ignorance, rmp3.

ignorance of you is bliss.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, the one in which i ask you to think about if you agree with barneys characterisation of the article - and which you responded to by saying that yes you did, you thought it gave a reasonable overview. You thought that an overview that has "No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)." was reasonable.

no.

 

[butchersapron]

Why can't you just write a normal response to posts - one filled by a position that is supported by evidence, facts and a logical chain of thought and argumentation connecting and leading up to your conclusion?

 

[butchersapron]

no.

I'm afraid that you did - at some tedious length - argue that this overview 'sounds reasonable' (note, not barney's characterisation of it, but an overview that said this - that had these gaps).

 

[Pickman's model]

ignorance of you is bliss.

yeh? but i make a serious point and you fuck about like a cunt. which is the experience i've had of you over the past however many years, that you are unable to defend your claims without pissing about like a fucking douchebag - as our american cousins say.

i'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your pisspoor antics on this thread lead me to believe you're fucking incapable of it.

 

[JHE]

Just speculation but maybe part 89 will be the holocaust.

I can think of only two explanations for Faulkner not mentioning the Holocaust: (1) that the Anti-Zionists and Islamophiles of Counterfire don't want to upset the Holocaust-deniers among their chums or (2) that Emanymton's guess is more or less correct.

I notice that yesterday Neil Faulkner said, "There are two more entries on the Second World War to come, one of them dealing explicitly with the resistance." So my guess is explanation 2.

http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...e-world-part-88-the-second-world-war#comments

 

[JimW]

I tried to read the Postone article but I'm afraid I didn't understand all of it. Would somebody mind giving me a summary of the argument?

Any specific bits?
My crude take is Postone is setting out why he thinks modern anti-Semitism of the Nazi type was not just any old bigotry nor did it have a functional goal, it was instead a projection onto a long-standing prejudice of all the faults of the "modern", making Jews responsible for the discontents of capitalism, with Nazism a kind of warped anti-capitalism (via an excursion into Marx's notion of the fetish):

The “anticapitalist” attack, however, did not remain limited to the attack against abstraction. On the level of the capital fetish, it is not only the concrete side of the antinomy which can be naturalized and biologized. The manifest abstract dimension was also biologized—as the Jews. The fetishized opposition of the concrete material and the abstract, of the “natural” and the “artificial,” became translated as the world-historically significant racial opposition of the Aryans and the Jews. Modern anti-Semitism involves a biologization of capitalism—which itself is only understood in terms of its manifest abstract dimension—as International Jewry...
...The Jews were not seen merely as representatives of capital (in which case anti-Semitic attacks would have been much more class-specific). They became the personifications of the intangible, destructive, immensely powerful, and international domination of capital as an alienated social form.

Also looks at why specifically anti-Semitism is the prejudice this gets grafted on to.
I thought it was relevant to the discussion because sets out how central anti-Semitism was to what made Nazism the particular social-political movement it was, and that specific nature in turn plays a part in how they move to war.

ETA: Agree his jargon can be a bit dense - I thought antimony was a mineral before I read that, I think

 

[butchersapron]

I can think of only two explanations for Faulkner not mentioning the Holocaust: (1) that the Anti-Zionists and Islamophiles of Counterfire don't want to upset the Holocaust-deniers among their chums or (2) that Emanymton's guess is more or less correct.

I notice that yesterday Neil Faulkner said, "There are two more entries on the Second World War to come, one of them dealing explicitly with the resistance." So my guess is explanation 2.

Maybe - would be interesting to see why it is shunted off to an annexe if that's the case.

 

[frogwoman]

Any specific bits?
My crude take is Postone is setting out why he thinks modern anti-Semitism of the Nazi type was not just any old bigotry nor did it have a functional goal, it was instead a projection onto a long-standing prejudice of all the faults of the "modern", making Jews responsible for the discontents of capitalism, with Nazism a kind of warped anti-capitalism (via an excursion into Marx's notion of the fetish):

Also looks at why specifically anti-Semitism is the prejudice this gets grafted on to.
I thought it was relevant to the discussion because sets out how central anti-Semitism was to what made Nazism the particular social-political movement it was, and that specific nature in turn plays a part in how they move to war.

ETA: Agree his jargon can be a bit dense - I thought antimony was a mineral before I read that, I think

where he talks about the "thingly nature" of something, etc

 

[TremulousTetra]

yeh? but i make a serious point and you fuck about like a cunt. which is the experience i've had of you over the past however many years, that you are unable to defend your claims without pissing about like a fucking douchebag - as our american cousins say.

i'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your pisspoor antics on this thread lead me to believe you're fucking incapable of it.

what serious point?

 

[JimW]

where he talks about the "thingly nature" of something, etc

I'll have to read it again to find that bit (then probably explain it to you wrong).

 

[butchersapron]

use value - exchange value
concrete - abstract
good - bad
thing - air
community - parasite
industry - finance
worker - jew