Georgie Dimitroff

[Cassius Clay]

http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/TUF35NB.html

No one Communist in the 20th Century can claim to of contributed more to the fight against Fascism both in a physical sense and by exposing it in theory aswell, and it's relations to Capitalism aswell as the geopolitical differences between the National Bourgeise aswell as the International Capitalists. Dimitroff stood trial in 1934 in Leipzeg in a Nazi court and brilliantly managed to expose the Kangaroo court it was. He also aided the Chinese in their fight against Japanese Fascism and later on was elected leader of Bulgaria (where he was born) until dying in 1948.

The link above is a brilliant work by Dimitroff which is mostly still relavent to today.

[redstar2000]

Well, I'm not so sure how relevant it is to the present...though, historically speaking, it is an interesting work.

Suppose we were to speak of a "united front against U.S. imperialism"?

What we have now are a large number of "informal coalitions" that agree on the single issue: U.S. imperialism is the greatest enemy of freedom in the world today.

The political spectrum is pretty much completely covered: far-right Muslim clerical fascists all the way over to far-left communists and anarchists.

Should any attempt be made to go "beyond" this? Would some kind of greater organizational unity be useful in practice? Should there be a "united front" or even a "popular front" against U.S. imperialism?

At the always-present risk of seeming to be "sectarian", I think it would be a bad idea.

In a capitalist world, the "center of gravity" of such "fronts" is towards the right part of the political spectrum. It is generally the left that must "give up" most of their agenda and work to support center and even right politicians as the way to "stop" the most reactionary elements.

You can see some of that in the debates on capitalist electoral politics on this board: people who say, for example, that voting and campaigning for Joseph Lieberman will "stop Bush".

It seems to me that if we abandon our own agenda to become involved organizationally with these people, that we will end up "losing" even if we "win". That is, once we cease to advocate our own ideas, no one will advocate them and they will pass silently into history.

I think this clearly happened with both the Communist Party USA and the Communist Party of France...two especially eager proponents of the "united front" and the "popular front" against fascism. No matter how you measure their successes, it's clear that by 1940 or so, both had ceased to be a force for communism.

Today, the CPUSA is a small sect of aging New Deal liberals; the French CP is a social democratic party that is probably to the right of the old French SP c.1913.

Where possible--and sensible--I see no problem with communists cooperating in actions directed against U.S. imperialism with other political groups...even anti-communist or right-wing groups. But I think our independence and our ability to freely advocate our own ideas is too valuable to give up...for any reason.

If we cease to advocate communism, then in what sense can it still be said that we are "communists"?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Cassius Clay]

Ah yes I bought up just that proposal at a meeting of a Local branch of the Stop the War Coalition. I wasn't myself sure if I agreed with it but rather felt I needed to say something. As with everything there are faults and advantages. The United Fronts overall goal of defeating Nazism and it's Fascist allies worked did it not? At the same time various CP's became well 'bankcrupt' and we cosied up far to close to a similar bunch of Imperialists who happened to have a rivalry with their outright Fascist counterparts. Today it's not Churchill and Republicans but Muslim Clerics, tin pot dictators and similar types. At the same time I for one dont see Greens for example threatening the world or us b3ecoming 'infected' with their ideology purely because we unite.

Anyway some intresting issues. I suppose the biggest question is how much U$ Imperialism threatens the very existence of the world and humanity? You are right though to a large extent, if you go over to the Phora you will see Nazis being very anti-war. Today I think we have to accept that sections of the National-bourgesie and International Capital is going to be falling out, to not use some of this to our advantage is 'sectarian' but also stupid. At the same time welcoming anyone along just because 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is equally, well mad.