Revolution, Rebellion, Resistance with Eric Selbin

[Jon Teunon]

Will - such lengths you go to try to futilely obscure your absurd equation of anarchist with fascists! Stating the obvious about the importance of Britain's indirect* and Hitler's and Mussolin's direct role in the Republic's defeat, doesn't detract from the fact that the PCE and USSR communists tortured anarchists and Trotskyists (an act which you belatedly admit is both 'vile' and 'useless' on another thread). Nor does listing sources (which have nothing to do with the relevant point of dispute, which is to repeat: your airy equation of anarchists with fascists).

The only revolution which took place, concerned the collectives which were fromed by the CNT and socialist UGT (which the communists crushed).

Sneer all you like Will - you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

* Britain was complicit in that it insisted on a 'non-aggression pact' that it knew German, Italy and Russia was flouting. Of course, as a democracy it should have supplied arms to another democracy i.e. the Republic.

[Jon Teunon]

Will, you wrote this:

'The war was not over by the time Mera launched his coup against the Republic: his coup was an attempt to end the war by killing the Communists.'

Despite the fact I had previously written:

'Ciprano Mera had been a very brave and effective military strategist throughout the war. The Republic, partly because it never received as much support as Franco's forces, but also because it had been utterly demoralised by the documented communist attacks on syndicalists, anarchists and Trotskyists (i.e. from within their own 'side') etc was very much on its last legs by the time you refer to. That desperate men and women tried desperate attempts to end the war is neither a surprise, nor an excuse for those such as yourself to 'judge' them from the safety of 2010.'

Note the part in bold (for emphasis)?

If you can't even be bothered to read my posts properly - why on earth do you think anyone should take your points seriously? And rather than just claim that you are 'objective' why not refer to, at least some of, the anarchist primary sources...
 
 
 

[willp]

Jon, I'm afraid that for some reason on my computer I can't see 'Bold' on any of these posts, so I'm sorry that I couldn't see which bits of your post were emphasised. You assume that I can't be bothered - the real explanation is somewhat less dramatic!
You wrote, "So now you're being hypocritical, because by the time you refer to in relation to Mera, the war was over."
You also wrote - in the same post - of Mera's attempts 'to end the war' - so it wasn't over!? Which do you mean?
You write of the 'non-aggression pact' re Spain - an elementary mistake - it was the Non-Intervention Pact, signed on August 2, 1936.
It should be noted that the counter-revolution was not led by the Spanish Communist Party but by a certain Gerneral Franco, and the revolutionary line was to unite the people of Spain against the coupmaker and the foreign armies he used to crush the Republic.
To defend the Republic was revolutionary: to attack the Republic and denounce it as counter-revolutionary was to assist Franco.

[Jon Teunon]

Will - I would have thought that it was obvious from reading my post, that the point I was making was that although the war wasn't finished, it was by this very late stage, that the Republic was inevitably going to lose. I have emphasised the relevant parts of the first paragraph where I mention this in italics (not that the bold materialised anyway - my fault there).

Ciprano Mera had been a very brave and effective military strategist throughout the war. The Republic, partly because it never received as much support as Franco's forces, but also because it had been utterly demoralised by the documented communist attacks on syndicalists, anarchists and Trotskyists (i.e. from within their own 'side') etc was very much on its last legs by the time you refer to. That desperate men and women tried desperate attempts to end the war …'

Perhaps I could have made my point even clearer by emphasising '... because by the time you refer to in relation to Mera, the war was (all but) over', but I think only a very hasty and unsympathetic or even tendentious reading of the post as a whole, would assume that I meant other than the war was still waging! (Not in the least because how could Mera attempt a coup against a government that had already been defeated)? Why you only focused on the only ambiguous part of the post is unclear.

learly my overall point was to suggest that Mera's actions were of a desperate man (and who wouldn't be under the circumstances?). And significantly it should be stressed that General Miaja (who was in effect the political and military generalissimo) was resigned to defeat, and General Matallana (who was military commander of the four remaining armies under Miaja)and Colonel Muedra were intent on trying to negotiate a peace with Franco. The Generals Miaja, Burillo, Mattallana, Moriones and Prada had all become 'communists' because they had been impressed by the efficiency of the PCE, and the way they had defended bourgeois laws and property against both revolutionary anarchists and socialist, but as the situation rapidly deteriorated for the Republic, their 'fair weather' communist affiliations vanished.

They clearly underestimated Franco's general intransigence and hatred for the Republic – and Colonel Casado, commander of the Army of the Centre (who had helped to create the Mixed Brigades) presumed that his previous refusal to negotiate, was down to so many communists being in Negrin's government (who had himself been secretly trying to seek a peaceful settlement – with just as little success. The Prime Minister was the only person to understand how severe Franco's conditions actually were, but at the same time he was far from Madrid, and didn't realise how disastrous the situation was there).

Besteiro, a reformist socialist was the most important politician to be involved in this plot. And Casodo's negotiations (started in February 1939) with Franco's head of intelligence Colonel Ungria were primarily to safeguard the lives of army officers who surrendered 'and who had not committed crimes' and he was in touch with Denys Cowan, who working on behalf of the British Government, to end to the war.

'A handful of members of the CNT' (according to Thomas) pressed Mera to join the plot. He also writes:

'Casado knew of Azana 's attempts at a mediated peace, through Besteiro... Casado is known at one point to have suggested that, if Negrin had suggested that, if Negrin had insisted on a 'Numantian struggle' to the bitter end, and resolved that all should be lost rather than surrender, he would have continued., though relunctantly to back him: what Casado and his friends found understandably unacceptable was a public Numantian posture with, at the same time, preparation for flight(the 'Numantinos, with aeroplanes and secret accounts in Switzerland' as Azana spoke of them).

Even at  this point some of the remaining anarchists backed the idea of continued resistance, but like almost everyone else, their leaders (Vazquez of the CNT and Herrera of the FAI) believed that the war was now impossible to win. A communist delegation led by La Pasionara told Negrin: 'If the government is ready to go on with the fight the communist party will back it; if the government wants to make peace proposals, the communist party will not be an obstacle'. Historians have stressed how the PCE – like everyone else - realised how inevitable defeat was, but were determined to be seen as the last to give up. This point is supported by the fact that the communist leadership, effectively under command of Togliatti, set themselves up at Elche miles from Madrid., near the coast. (Likewise Negrin had fixed his government close by at Elda). If they were prepared to fight to the end – why do this?

So Mera's actions have to be seen in this context – of an atmosphere permeated by distrust of each others'  'allies', two years of brutal civil war, and the awareness of certain defeat. The role of the USSR and the communists, despite the efficiency and funds they supplied, also caused very real difficulties, as this quote from Preston demonstrates:

'In August 1937, an offensive was made on the Aragon front – chosen in part because of the government's desire to end the anarchists' control of the lines there...However, difficulty was experienced in capturing small towns along the way, like Belchite, and the offensive ground to a halt by mid-September. The story at Belchite was similar to that at Brunete. The Republicans gained an initial advantage, but then got bogged down owing to a combination of the mid-summer heat and poor communications. In particular, the strategy of the Russian tank commander, came to grief largely as a result of his insistence on giving orders in Russian. Once more, fierce resistance led to very heavy casualties. However the Republican offensive was hampered by political conflicts. The Communists' determination to dominate the Republican War effort meant that the CNT and POUM militia were denied adequate weaponry.'

All this (and much more) has to be considered when 'judging' the specific actions of  Mera you refer to, but also the conduct of the anarchists generally once the PCE rose to power.. (And of course the majority of those who wanted to end the war weren't anarchists).

You are of course right to correct my error -  I was referring to the Non-Intervention Pact.

To defend an elected government against a military coup, is both legitimate and morally justified, but to describe this as 'revolutionary' is to make the term meaningless. Under-arming allies and supporters of the Republican (including the CNT and POUM) at key sections of the front, was both counter productive and treacherous. To crush collectives which had been formed by a genuine revolution, carried out by workers and peasants, was not only just as harmful (with news filtering back to militias at the front), but by definition was counter-revolutionary. 

You wrote:

'To defend the Republic was revolutionary: to attack the Republic and denounce it as counter-revolutionary was to assist Franco.'

In a sense that you obviously don't mean, this sentence is correct, because the anarchists had been defending the Republic and yet they were being attacked and called 'counter-revolutionary' by Stalinist communists. To everyone's cost in the end.

[Jon Teunon]

Will - Paul Preston has some more interesting comments about actions which endangered the Republic, from within, including a blatant undermining of support for the then Prime Minister and Minister of War, Largo Caballero.

'Largo Caballero had long been in favour of an offensive in Extremadura aimed at cutting Andalusia off from the rest of the rebel zone, but the opposition of the Communists,and particularly of Miaja, scuppered his plan. Now Indalecio Prieto, the Minister of Defence, attacked the Communists' handling of the Aragon offensive. This confirmed the increasingly pessimistic Socialist leader as the main enemy of the Communists in the government. Prieto also came under attack from the anarchists for his role in sanctioning the dissolution of the Council of Aragon in August in 1937. However, he always denied having also authorised the brutal destruction of the anarchist collectives by the heavy-handed Stalinist, General Enrique Lister. However, it was clear that morale in the Republican zone was increasingly being undermined by political disputes.'

Later Preston also points out that Communists weren't above infighting amongst themselves! After the initial success of the pre-emptive attack on Teruel, began in December '37, the Nationalist Garrison was taken on 8 January the following year, but the Republican forces were subjected to extremely heavy attacks from artillery in the freezing cold:

'Costly rivalries flared up between the commanders. Valentín González, El Campesino, the illiterate and fiery Communist commander, claimed later that during the Nationalist offensive against Teruel 'the advanced positions were lost, and I quickly found my force of 16,000 men surrounded. Outside the town, Lister and Modesto commanded six brigades and two battalions. They could have helped me. They did nothing of the kind. Even worse, when Colonel Valdepeñas wanted to come to my rescue, they prevented him from doing so'. According to  El Campesino, his division only escaped by dint of a desperate break-out. However, other eye-witnesses claimed that he had fled in panic leaving his men to their fate. Some brigades refused to obey orders. Lister and El Campesino got way with it. Forty six CNT mutineers, however, were executed.'

In a bibliographical essay Preston writes: 'The American volunteers are well served by...' and he lists 'The Abraham Lincoln Brigade' and 'Death in the Olive Groves' by Landis – along with eight others. He does claim though that: 'The best overview, impressively researched and beautifully written, is Peter N. Carroll, The Odyssey of the  Abraham Lincoln Brigade: Americans in the Spanish Civil War (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1994). These are clearly mentioned in the context. of books about US volunteers in the International Brigades.

However he dismisses another book by the same author, while comparing books which are sympathetic to various factions of the left:: 'Neither of the above is narrowly partisan, something which cannot be said for Arthur H. Landis, Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (Baldwin Park: Camelot, 1972) which is unashamedly pro-Communist in interpretation.'

[willp]

Jon, your italics didn't show up either.
Paul Preston indeed dismisses Arthur H. Landis' Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (Baldwin Park: Camelot, 1972) "which is unashamedly pro-Communist in interpretation".
Well, that's Paul's view: it's fairly easy to dismiss books you don't agree with, harder to reckon with them.
You wrote Jon that this Landis book was out of print. Well, a quick search on Amazon found
that it is nonetheless available for £5.95, and his book ‘Death in the olive groves: American volunteers in the Spanish civil war’ is available at £8.48.

Jon wrote "Britain was complicit in that it insisted on a 'non-aggression pact' that it knew German (sic), Italy and Russia was (sic) flouting. Of course, it should have supplied arms to another democracy i.e. the Republic."
But of course this did not happen, as Jon’s theory predicts it would and 'should'.
Which surely raises the question, why didn't it happen?
For Jon to write, "as a democracy it should have" is to present a moral postulate as an objective analysis, so that fails as an explanation.
Describing Britain simply as a democracy is not adequate to explain why the British government not only failed to arm the Republic but actively connived at its destruction by Hitler and Mussolini in alliance with their tool Franco.
This raises another question, Does Jon think that the presence of a parliament is enough to make a country a democracy?
If so, this might give us a clue why he rejects the Bolshevik revolution as a coup. If the presence of the Constituent Assembly in Russia in late 1917 was enough to make Russia a democracy, then it follows that any attempt to overthrow the Russian state must be anti-democracy, i.e. a coup.
But if we bring in the concepts of class and state, it becomes clear why the British ruling, capitalist, class used its state machine to back the forces of reaction, against the workers and peasants of Spain. (It also becomes clear why that British ruling, capitalist class used its state machine to back the forces of reaction, against the workers and peasants of Russia, in the War of Intervention of 1917-22.)
Leaving out the concepts of class and state makes one unable to explain why the British government acted as it did to support Franco - and also unable to explain why the Bolsheviks had to make a revolution against Russia's capitalist state to achieve the democratic demands of land, peace and bread.

[Jon Teunon]

Will: 'Jon’s theory predicts it would and 'should'.'

This is a misrepresentation of what I have been arguing – which is merely that Britain's failure to support the Republic was clearly one of the key reasons why the Republic ultimately lost. (There were others, including German and Italian support for Franco and the infighting among the Republicans - which as I have given examples of in previous posts, Stalinist actions were largely to blame for). Pointing out that Britain had an ethical duty was never presented 'as an objective analysis' – and neither was it a theoretical prediction – not least because we are discussing history, and objectiveness is impossible! (Which is why Marxist-Leninist theories can't be meaningfully described as 'objective' or 'scientific').

Britain's politicians' indifference to the fate of the Spanish people was largely down to the overriding aim was to 'contain' the Spanish war as much as possible, because they were terrified of it spreading into the rest of Europe. Trying to avoid the horrors of the First World War, was not surprisingly an overwhelming motive for many, and most of them would have preferred for the Military coup never to have happened. Franco's victory was not the ultimate objective. Therefore an oversimplification of class politics is both wrong and unnecessary to 'explain' the British response to the Spanish Revolution.

Parliamentary democracies – may be far from perfect but they are preferable to authoritarian states such as Stalin's Russian and Hitler's Germany. (A liberal democracy is a liberal democracy – with some more humane then others - the factors which decide this are diverse and complicated). A Coup d'etat simply means 'a violent or illegal seizure of power' (OED) and therefore is applicable to both Lenin's actions in 1917 and those of the Spanish Generals in 1936 (and both of which were followed by brutal civil wars, whose human cost was immeasurable). This of course doesn't mean that they were exactly the same as each other.

Perhaps this discussion belongs to another thread!?

[Jon Teunon]

'Well, that's Paul's view: it's fairly easy to dismiss books you don't agree with, harder to reckon with them.'

Equally, it's easy to dismiss people and sources as 'Fascists' (sic) who you disagree with...

[willp]

Jon, my question to you was, why did the British government not support the Republic? You had written that as a democracy it should have supported the Republic. But it didn't.
If it didn't, then either it wasn't a democracy or your opinion is wrong.
Jon now writes that "objectiveness (sic) is impossible." So none of us is wrong or right about anything!

Before coming to any judgments about the war in Spain, I read across the whole range of sources – fascist, social-democrat (like Paul Preston), liberal, Trotskyist, anarchist, communist, etc. 
Jon, on the other hand, seems to have come to his opinions before reading across the whole range of sources, as it appears that he has not read ANY of the communist sources, e.g. Landis, Jose Diaz, Lister, Litvinov, Dimitrov, etc. It would seem that he has dismissed them from the start, rather than addressing their arguments and evidence. Incidentally, when I googled Arthur Landis Spain the unfinished revolution, the first site that came up said '4 copies available' and directed me to Amazon, which had several other copies available. I don’t know how Jon ‘found’ that it was out of print. Perhaps he didn't want to find the book? But the point is, it’s available, for those who have minds open enough to read books that challenge their preconceived ideas.
Jon's lop-sided, Cold War mind-set is that of a judge who sentences after hearing just the prosecution case, but before hearing the case for the defence.

This thread began with Housman’s picture of a Venezuelan anarchist holding up the slogan of Ni Bush, Ni Chavez.
After I criticised this slogan, Baslamak, followed swiftly by Jon, skated the thread away from the present, away from Venezuela, back to Spain in the 1930s.
But let’s return to the present and examine what the slogan Ni Bush, Ni Chavez means.
Ask yourself, what would a Venezuelan general who wanted to launch a coup against Chavez say?
He would of course deny that the US was backing and funding him – he would have to, in order to have any credibility with the people of the country. So he would say Ni Bush. And he would try to rally all those opposed to Chavez, so he would say Ni Chavez.
So what is the big difference between the coup maker’s slogan of Ni Bush, Ni Chavez and the anarchist’s slogan of Ni Bush, Ni Chavez?
Anarchists, as part of the ‘left’, say Ni Bush to give themselves left cover. If they went to the workers and peasants of Venezuela and just said Ni Chavez, it would be all too clear whose interests they were serving.
So to have any credibility, they have to say Ni Bush too.
But it’s the Ni Chavez bit that is operational, which commits them, if they are consistent, to supporting every effort to overthrow Chavez, which commits them to backing even a US-run, fascist coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela.
Isn’t backing a fascist coup just a teeny bit fascist?
Clear moral judgements should be based at least as much on the consequences of our actions as on our motives.

[Jon Teunon]

Will – you're just twisting words and their meaning to suit your own argument! Firstly you're incorrect to put (sic) after the noun objectiveness (OED), because the sentence is grammatically correct. Secondly objectiveness is an ideal that can't be reached in a historical sense, because we are informed by perspectives and assumptions from our backgrounds, education, class etc(try reading E.H. Carr's What is History?) - so only a degree of plausibility can be achieved: and a refusal to recognise this will only weaken the credibility of your overall arguments – both here and elsewhere.

Saying that a democracy has an ethical responsibility to support another another is very different from predicting that it will -  life and history can't be compartmentalised into easy boxes as you seem to suggest. Many British democrats such as Attlee did support the Republic, but the Tories were in power,  which explains a lot about the government's response.

Since all you do is repeat the recommendation of Landis (and other communists sources) and the claim that you 'have read across the whole range of sources' without introducing any of their points for discussion, your arguments are problematic in the extreme.

Where is the evidence? It is completely unhelpful to merely state that you're right because you have 'read' all the relevant books, without citing from them. It is up to you to explain what you have learnt from them – if in fact you have read them all. Not least because you claim that historical facts are 'objective' – and somehow free from partisan or ideological constraints!

Concerning Venezuela, you have chosen to ignore again any points which don't fit your dogmatic 'philosophical' position. As Housmans wrote earlier:

'By the way, the argument here arose from the posting of a picture of a Venezuelan anarchist waving a placard "No Bush, No Chavez", which was used to illustrate a recent event at Housmans from a Venezuelan anarchist taking a critical look at Chavez and his administration. I wasn't at the event, but from what I hear the discussion was nuanced and engaging, and was far from an outright attack on Chavez.

Placards are often crude and reductive, and used within a certain campaigning context - it's impossible to create a political position based on four words.'

But conveniently you ignore all this and just choose to close in on the placard, as if this is an 'objective' signal of the truth. Secondly your original post, merely stated that all anarchist are fascists, making the elementary mistake of drawing from the particular to the whole (for ideological purposes of course). Since neither of us were at the meeting, you're just being inconsistent over your insistence that absolutely every source must be thoroughly examined. I would advise a little more circumspection, before leaping to the conclusions you have.

Generally speaking the reason, why you tie yourself up in so many 'epistemological knots' is that you insist on absolute truth, while ignoring any evidence which points in another direction. The fact that it is very likely that you can't even recognise this explains a lot about your approach to discussions in general, and more specifically the impression you give, that you in a position to be completely right about history and politics. I think you're very much mistaken.

[Jon Teunon]

'I don’t know how Jon ‘found’ that it was out of print. Perhaps he didn't want to find the book? But the point is, it’s available, for those who have minds open enough to read books that challenge their preconceived ideas.'

The books you refer to are out of print (the ones you have found are second hand) so yet another example of your determination to rearrange the English language, to further the aims of your own agenda, which involve assuming the worst in those who opose your idelogical opinions.

I will read it when I get the time.

[willp]

Sorry about 'objectiveness', my mistake - one learns something every day.
Jon, why can't you argue without adding yet more insults?
You sneer, without evidence, "if in fact you have read them all."
Why did you write that the book was out of print? It is easily available - that is the point. You have not yet read it, but you have judged it by citing Paul Preston's dismissal.
I'm asking that you read both sides, the communist case as well as the anti-communist case (as I have done and you have not), before judging matters.
You claim that I "state that you're right because you have 'read' all the relevant books". Where did I state this? I didn't - you're making it up.
Which is not a great example of objectivity, balance or accuracy.
So, according to you, the slogan Ni Bush Ni Chavez means what? Nothing? Anything?
You are still ignoring the slogan's clear meaning. All your smokescreen of postmodern epistemology is designed to cover your refusal to examine the facts.
You deny that "historical facts are 'objective'".
Really, if facts aren't objective, then everything is permitted! So facts are whatever you say they are?
And if anarchists in the present actually do, as I contend, say the same as fascists, then that is evidence for my general contention, 'scratch an anarchist, find a fascist.'
You deny the evidence and deny the logical conclusion.

[Jon Teunon]

Will – I'm not sneering, just trying to point out the inconsistencies in your argument. (And you're very quick to put (sic) when quoting a post with spelling mistakes or an misplaced word – which in an non-academic board such as this, does come across as snide and supercilious. Which is why I would never do the same to someone – unless as in your case you had started doing it first – to highlight that you're far from infallible on this count).

I quoted Preston's dismissal of another book by Landis – not the one you're recommending, and which I have said, at least twice, I want to read! Pointing out that the latter is out of print, is not only factual, but suggests that there is limited demand for it. Whereas many of the anarchist and bourgeois sources are still in print. This doesn't prove that an out of print source is worthless (which is why I will read it when I get the chance), but it however suggests it isn't a book which is enjoying widespread support from historians etc.

The main point though on a forum such as this, is that if posters want to put forward evidence that they think is crucial, the onus is on them to explain in more detail why, and if possible to provide some quotes or excerpts. Otherwise people can simply declare that other people's points are irrelevant or erroneous because they haven't read such and such! This would soon make debate here completely sterile and ultimately impossible.

Postmodernism suggests that all opinions are of equal validity etc – and it must be clear to you that I haven't made any claims which supports this! (Why would I be criticising your contention that all anarchists are fascists if I thought 'everything is permitted)? I have been pointing out that – as E.H.Carr would agree – that the perspective of the person who makes an argument in history, politics and philosophy, has to be taken into account, and not all evidence is available when judgements are being made.  (Whereas in chemistry for example, objective conditions can be met by providing a control etc in experiments).

The US is Imperialist and not fascist in any. The US – in the sense of the right wing who controls its agenda, would surely say (in this context) Yes to Bush and no to Chavez. So even in the narrow parameters of the argument which you insist on using, it doesn't make sense to compare (from the very limited source of the slogan) the Venezuelan anarchist to the US or 'fascists'. To then draw from this a statement about anarchists in general are 'fascist' just makes your argument all the more absurd. And I would rather learn far more about the context of the slogan (i.e. what was discussed at the meeting) to make further comment on this.

My opinion is that you would better serve your arguments if you were less didactic in your approach. I apologise if this too comes across as 'sneering.'

[willp]

JT writes, " I'm not sneering, just trying to point out the inconsistencies in your argument."
No, you were implying that I might be fraudulently claiming to have read books that I hadn't. That is not pointing out inconsistencies, that is making a false personal allegation.
JT wrote on 29 January, "However he [Paul Preston] dismisses another book by the same author, while comparing books which are sympathetic to various factions of the left:: 'Neither of the above is narrowly partisan, something which cannot be said for Arthur H. Landis, Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (Baldwin Park: Camelot, 1972) which is unashamedly pro-Communist in interpretation.'"
However by 1 February, this becomes "I quoted Preston's dismissal of another book by Landis – not the one you're recommending".
That a book doesn't enjoy 'widespread support from historians' doesn't prove anything at all. Lord Thomas's book on Spain is on every history student's reading list, so it sells a lot of copies - for the same reasons that Orwell's torture porn 1984 is taught in schools - because it serves the bourgeoisie's interests.
You don't write that everything is permitted (I never claimed that you did). I claim that your claim that "objectiveness is an ideal that can't be reached in a historical sense, because we are informed by perspectives and assumptions from our backgrounds, education, class etc(try reading E.H. Carr's What is History?) - so only a degree of plausibility can be achieved" ENTAILS that everything is permitted.
JT claims that all we can achieve is plausibility, not objective truth. Well, Tony Blair is plausible. Blair claimed on 20 November 2003 that in Iraq, “We’ve already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.” He repeated this claim on 14 December 2003, “the remains of 400,000 human beings already found in mass graves.” Later, the government had to admit that these claims were untrue. The Observer reported on 18 July 2004, “PM admits graves claims ‘untrue’”. It also reported that only 5,000 had so far been found.
   So which is true, 400,000 dead or 5,000? Both? Surely not.
Neither, as Jon would have to claim, if he is consistent?
To reject objective truth leaves one defenceless against unscrupulous liars like Blair, plausible rogues, anti-communist liars like Lord Thomas.
To reject objective truth is to stay skating on the surface of things, fixed on ‘not the fundamental why, but the superficial how’, as Joseph Conrad put it.
You refuse to examine the Venezuelan context in which the slogan was originally put, irrelevantly writing about the US context.

[Jon Teunon]

'I claim that your claim that "objectiveness is an ideal that can't be reached in a historical sense, because we are informed by perspectives and assumptions from our backgrounds, education, class etc(try reading E.H. Carr's What is History?) - so only a degree of plausibility can be achieved" ENTAILS that everything is permitted.
JT claims that all we can achieve is plausibility, not objective truth. Well, Tony Blair is plausible.'

But it is the facts that are in question Will – because many of the crucial points that are used by historians, to suggest what may have happened are taken from contentious sources, so they aren't 'facts'.

This point merely 'ENTAILS' that what matters, when 'facts' are in dispute (and consequently opinions) is reasoned method of deciding which is more likely. A plausible coherence of a theory, is a good yardstick to use when weighing up the relevant options concerned.

Well, actually Tony Blair isn't plausible, which is presumably why a majority of the eligible electorate never voted for him, and why in opinion polls in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq, a majority of the population were against it (presumably because they didn't believe that Iraq was a threat) before it was later proven that it hadn't got any 'WMDs' and that he had deiliberately been trying to overstate the range of the weapons that it actually did have.

And we will never know the exact figure of how many people were killed by Sadam Hussein's regime and put in unmarked graves, all we know is that: 'It also reported that only 5,000 had so far been found.' If your source is correct, but no doubt it won't be long before you denounce the 'Observer' as a tool of the capitalist rulers who can't be believed, when it suits you in another context!

If I 'refuse to examine the Venezuelan context in which the slogan was originally put' it is only because your insistence on using the word 'fascist' out of context, prevents any chance of a reasoned debate. Despite several attempts to make this clear to you, you refuse to introduce any meaningful perspective to your original point.

[willp]

JT wrote, “If I [JT] 'refuse to examine the Venezuelan context in which the slogan was originally put' it is only because your insistence on using the word 'fascist' out of context, prevents any chance of a reasoned debate.”
Can a debate never include the word fascist? How then do we talk about the coup attempts in Venezuela? Yet it is OK for you to call the Spanish CP counter-revolutionary.

When we look at Venezuela, coup makers there would say Ni Bush, to show they were not US stooges, and they would say Ni Chavez because they want to overthrow Chavez.
Which equals, Ni Bush Ni Chavez - just like the anarchist.
To say Ni Chavez is treachery to socialism. Ni Bush is the necessary left cover. If an anarchist said at a trade union meeting, ‘Down with Chavez’, people would say ‘CIA’. To have credibility, he has to say Ni Bush as well.

[Jon Teunon]

Will, you're just repeating yourself by restating you're unsubstantiated claim. There is evidence that the right-wing opponents are being financed by the US, however there is none which links similar support to the Venezuelan anarchist whose book was promoted at Housmans, so your assertion that the latter's denunciation of Bush is merely a ruse to gain 'credibility' is completely without justification.

(And even if someone who claimed to be an 'anarchist' was shown to have links with the US, this would only demonstrate that s/he was an infiltrator who was using a cover for their own ends. I.e they would be merely masquerading as an anarchist, and their actions would say absolutely nothing about anarchism in general).

It should be obvious that any ideological anarchist would want to remove all leaders – which by definition means both indigenous and foreign ones! So trying to help Bush or Obama would, by definition, be wholly against his or her intentions. If you really can't understand this simple point, then you're incapable of contributing anything meaningful to this debate.

The word 'Fascism' does have meaning, referring to the extreme authoritarian and racist ideology - as espoused by both Mussolini and Hitler, and any beliefs which can be clearly shown to be consciously  influenced by them. To ignore this, and try and use the term for your own convenience (primarily as a catch-all term of abuse), not only demonstrates the manifest inadequacies of your overall point, but generally reinforces the impression given above, of being unable (or unwilling) to contribute anything of merit or interest to as serious subject as this.

[willp]

JT, I agree - an anarchist "would want to remove all leaders".
In Venezuela, that means removing Venezuela's leader, the repeatedly elected socialist leader, Hugo Chavez.
I think you have proved my point.

[Jon Teunon]

'JT, I agree - an anarchist "would want to remove all leaders".
In Venezuela, that means removing Venezuela's leader, the repeatedly elected socialist leader, Hugo Chavez.'

Being against all forms of representative democracy of course it would! And being against all means of authority, anarchists would also be against authoritarian dictators (including both indigenous Fascists and foreign Imperialist such as Bush etc). Which while not really being your point is obvious all the same... 

[willp]

I'm not sure why JT thinks he is disagreeing with me!
He now quotes me, "In Venezuela, that means removing Venezuela's leader, the repeatedly elected socialist leader, Hugo Chavez', and then concludes, "Being against all forms of representative democracy of course it would!"

Note that the Anarchist Federation’s aims and principles include
"4. We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination."
That is, they are against, on principle, all national liberation movements. Could the colonial powers, the imperialist powers, ask for more?