Anarchists' and Left Communists' views on the Popular Front

[Thirsty Crow]

Recently, I've been reading Murray Bookchin's "To Remember Spain", and the issue at hand came to the forefront of my attention.

Are Left Communists' and Anarchists' positions on the Popular Front practically and basically - one and the same? What are the similarities and what are the differences? How have they (similarities and differences) changed throughout the post WW II history?

Indeed , it seems to me that both tendencies exhibit lines of thought that are very similar to each other.

Discuss.

P.S.
Maybe I ought to add two qualifications:

1) I'd like to get opinions from comrades from both tendencies, but I sure as hell wouldn't like to start a brawl regarding the importance and relevance of any attitudes that dismiss and criticize both the theory and historical praxis of the Popular Front.
In other words, "Official Communists", Maoists etc.: please refrain from bickering (that goes for the proponents of the two mentioned tendencies as well)

2) I don't consider Bookchin's view on the subject matter as the only valid representation of Anarchists' take on the subject. It's just that his essays provoked the creation of this thread.

[Widerstand]

I would say that, at least in Western Europe, a lot of modern day Anarchists of the Anti-Fa spectrum engage in popular fronts.

Personally I support United Fronts, but I'm not sure about Popular Fronts (I'm using wikipedia definitions here :s). Though the difference between the two greatly depends on whether or not one considers unions and social democratic parties to be bourgeois or not.

[Thirsty Crow]

I would say that, at least in Western Europe, a lot of modern day Anarchists of the Anti-Fa spectrum engage in popular fronts.I wouldn't exactly compare this historical situation to one that saw the rise of Popular Front strategy. Essentially, this is no revolutionary situation, and the rise of neo-fascism is again of different origin than the rise of historical Fascism.

[Widerstand]

I wouldn't exactly compare this historical situation to one that saw the rise of Popular Front strategy. Essentially, this is no revolutionary situation, and the rise of neo-fascism is again of different origin than the rise of historical Fascism.

Your point being?

[Thirsty Crow]

Your point being?

My point being that what you call anarchists' involvement in popular front tactics (within the anti-fa) does not necessarily relate to something which we could call a "typical attiutde towards the historical Popular Front on behalf of the anarchists" since the historical situations are very much different.
For example, one cannot explain neo-fascism i terms of a militant bourgeois reaction against the militant, organized working class. But this qualification is correct, IMO, when it comes to historical Fascism.
In other words, the social base of neo-fascism, in relation to Fascism, has changed, at least partly. And we should consider the potential consequences of this shift in relation to the effectivenss of communist propaganda and education, meaning that a good deal of working class youth are completely alienated from the interests of the working class as a whole.

Hope this makes sense.

[Widerstand]

My point being that what you call anarchists' involvement in popular front tactics (within the anti-fa) does not necessarily relate to something which we could call a "typical attiutde towards the historical Popular Front on behalf of the anarchists" since the historical situations are very much different.
For example, one cannot explain neo-fascism i terms of a militant bourgeois reaction against the militant, organized working class. But this qualification is correct, IMO, when it comes to historical Fascism.
In other words, the social base of neo-fascism, in relation to Fascism, has changed, at least partly. And we should consider the potential consequences of this shift in relation to the effectivenss of communist propaganda and education, meaning that a good deal of working class youth are completely alienated from the interests of the working class as a whole.

Hope this makes sense.

So wait ... is this thread about the stance anarchists/left comms have on popular front tactics today or is this about how we see the popular front in Spain?

[Thirsty Crow]

So wait ... is this thread about the stance anarchists/left comms have on popular front tactics today or is this about how we see the popular front in Spain?

I don't see why it could not be about both.
In fact, I can't see why it couldn't address the overall history of the "Popular Front", not just in Spain.

[Zanthorus]

Are Left Communists' and Anarchists' positions on the Popular Front practically and basically - one and the same? What are the similarities and what are the differences? How have they (similarities and differences) changed throughout the post WW II history?

I'm not aware of any singular anarchist position on the popular fronts. I wouldn't really like to speak for them. The position of the Communist Left, as represented by Bilan during the 30's, was relatively clear I think - marshalling the working-class in the defence of democracy against fascism is an abandonment of class politics. A minority of the Italian Left did think that power in Spain was essentially in the hands of the workers' and went off to fight on the military front, but in doing so they broke with the Italian Left. I don't think there has been any change in our opposition at any point in history.


...the difference between the two greatly depends on whether or not one considers unions and social democratic parties to be bourgeois or not.

I don't think this is the case. The Popular Fronts involved active collaboration with liberal and democratic bourgeois parties such as the Radicals in France. The United Front was a collaboration between Communists and Social-Democrats.

Either way, the Communist Left opposes frontism and anti-fascism.

[devoration1]

Indeed- left communism as a whole (including all of the related tendencies, such as council communism, councilism, etc) oppose Popular Fronts, United Fronts, National Liberation Fronts and the anti-Fascist movements*

*The cross-class, collaberationist, 'lesser evil' politics, of the historical and official 'anti-Fascist' movement. Left communists were and are opposed to fascism, but did not and will not engage in anti-fascist fronts.

There are a number of tendencies of anarchism and syndicalism that are close to the communist left on a number of issues, including the Popular, United, Anti-Fascist and National Liberation Fronts. There are a number of tendencies of anarchism and syndicalism that are opposed to the positions of the communist left on these issues.

[Widerstand]

I don't see why it could not be about both.
In fact, I can't see why it couldn't address the overall history of the "Popular Front", not just in Spain.

Well if it is about "the overall history" I don't see any reason for you to point out that the situation in Spain is different from the one today - it obviously is, but it doesn't affect the fact that Anarchists currently engage in popular fronts.


I don't think this is the case. The Popular Fronts involved active collaboration with liberal and democratic bourgeois parties such as the Radicals in France. The United Front was a collaboration between Communists and Social-Democrats.

Well, for one, I understand "popular front" (and "united front") as an abstract, a tactical concept, not as some historical movement (as seems to be the case with everyone else). I consider popular front to be a collaboration of all different sorts of organizations on a single issue, whereas united front is a collaboration of working class organization on a single issue (this is, roughly, how wikipedia defines the two terms).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since a lot of anarchist do engage in Popular Front tactics, perhaps they should fine-tune it to Populist Fronts? As comrade Zanthorus noted, Popular Frontism is a form of collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

I can see the use of Populist Frontism for something like campaigning for party-list PR.

[Widerstand]

Popular Frontism is a form of collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

Well, as I noted, one could view an alliance with unions and certain parties (think of the SPD or Die Grünen) as a collaboration with the bourgeousie. So I'd like to know where people draw the line between a Popular Front and a United Front.

[devoration1]

Popular Front involves collaboration between one or more revolutionary communist organizations with the liberal or democratic bourgeoisie (in the US, the Democratic Party, in the UK, the Labour Party, etc), generally in elections, unionism, etc. United Front involves creating an electoral or single or multiple issue oriented bloc of all so-called 'worker's parties/groups'.

Though historically the groups were bigger and there were fewer of them. The original Popular Front in the US was the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Party (with the remnents of the Socialist Party of America, Farmer-Labor Party, etc). The original United Front, in Germany, was between the SPD, USPD and KPD.

[Widerstand]

Popular Front involves collaboration between one or more revolutionary communist organizations with the liberal or democratic bourgeoisie (in the US, the Democratic Party, in the UK, the Labour Party, etc), generally in elections, unionism, etc. United Front involves creating an electoral or single or multiple issue oriented bloc of all so-called 'worker's parties/groups'.

Though historically the groups were bigger and there were fewer of them. The original Popular Front in the US was the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Party (with the remnents of the Socialist Party of America, Farmer-Labor Party, etc). The original United Front, in Germany, was between the SPD, USPD and KPD.

Frankly I don't think these examples make any sense... in what way is the SPD less of a bourgeois party/group than the Democratic party?

[Zanthorus]

Well, for one, I understand "popular front" (and "united front") as an abstract, a tactical concept, not as some historical movement (as seems to be the case with everyone else).

Then you're being anachronistic, as both Popular Fronts and United Fronts were both tactics thought up and implemented by the Communist International. Their idea and practice of the concepts is generally taken to define what they were.


I consider popular front to be a collaboration of all different sorts of organizations on a single issue, whereas united front is a collaboration of working class organization on a single issue

The Popular Fronts and United fronts were not collaborations on single issues, they were electoral coalitions designed to form alternative governments to various 'rightis' and Fascist blocs. The Popular Fronts involved collaboration with liberal and democratic bourgeois parties. The United Fronts involved collaboration with Social-Democratic parties.


Frankly I don't think these examples make any sense... in what way is the SPD less of a bourgeois party/group than the Democratic party?

This was during the 20's, when the memory of the SPD as a revolutionary Marxist party was still fresh in everyone's minds and a good deal of the Communist movement would have been ex-members of the SPD. The SPD could still carry the support of a good deal of the working-class. The Comintern leadership considered the SPD and the like to still be "workers' parties" albeit of a degenerated and contradictory sort which workers' should break from.

[ComradeOm]

Well, for one, I understand "popular front" (and "united front") as an abstract, a tactical concept, not as some historical movement (as seems to be the case with everyone else)If anything the Popular Front is the opposite. Its a perfect example of the habit of taking a specific policy pursued in a specific period and then enshrining it in dogma to be forever argued over in polemics and internet forums

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, as I noted, one could view an alliance with unions and certain parties (think of the SPD or Die Grünen) as a collaboration with the bourgeousie. So I'd like to know where people draw the line between a Popular Front and a United Front.

Like I wrote above, there is a third form of front in between. The strategic usefulness of this kind of front depends on the level of capitalist development, and the tactical usefulness depends on the issue.

Depending on the class composition and political program, sometimes it gets mislabelled an "unpopular front."

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not aware of any singular anarchist position on the popular fronts. I wouldn't really like to speak for them. The position of the Communist Left, as represented by Bilan during the 30's, was relatively clear I think - marshalling the working-class in the defence of democracy against fascism is an abandonment of class politics. A minority of the Italian Left did think that power in Spain was essentially in the hands of the workers' and went off to fight on the military front, but in doing so they broke with the Italian Left. I don't think there has been any change in our opposition at any point in history.

So, we could basically subsume this position under the heading of "class colaboration"?
And one question regarding Spain: what was the position of the Italian Left with respect to the rapid expropriation and the development of collectivization on behalf of the anarchists and revolutionary socialists?

[Zanthorus]

And one question regarding Spain: what was the position of the Italian Left with respect to the rapid expropriation and the development of collectivization on behalf of the anarchists and revolutionary socialists?

Essentially the same position as Bordiga with regards to the factory occupations in Italy during the biennio rosso - attempts at economic transformation whilst leaving the power of the capitalist state intact are futile. The first task which the working-class has to undertake in order to make a succesful revolution is the destruction of the state and the imposition of a working-class political administration ('Dictatorship of the proletariat').


To maintain, alter the fashion of the Turin L'Ordine Nuovo comrades, that even before the collapse of the bourgeoisie the workers' councils are organs, not only of political struggle, but of technico-economic training in the communist system, can only be seen as a return to socialist gradualism. This latter, whether it is called reformism or syndicalism, is defined by the mistaken belief that the proletariat can achieve emancipation by making advances in economic relations while capitalism still holds political power through the State.- Amadeo Bordiga, Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy


It is rumoured that factory councils, where they were in existence, functioned by taking over the management of the workshops and carrying on the work. We would not like the working masses to get hold of the idea that all they need do to take over the factories and get rid or the capitalists is set up councils. This would indeed be a dangerous illusion. The factory will be conquered by the working class – and not only by the workforce employed in it, which would be too weak and non-communist – only after the working class as a whole has seized political power. Unless it has done so, the Royal Guards, military police, etc. – in other words, the mechanism of force and oppression that the bourgeoisie has at its disposal, its political power apparatus – will see to it that all illusions are dispelled.- Bordiga, Seize Power or Seize the Factory?


The way to develop the class struggle does not reside in successively enlarging material conquests when the enemy's instrument of domination remains intact, but through the opposite foad of unleashing proletarian movements. The socialisation of an enterprise when the state apparatus remains standing is a link in the chain tying the proletariat to its enemy both on the internal front and on the imperialist front of the antagonism between fascism and antifascism, whereas the outbreak of a strike for the slightest class demand (and even that in a 'socialised' industry) is a link that can lead towards the defence and the victory of the Spanish and international proletariat.- Bilan no. 34, Au front imperialiste du massacre des ouvriers espagnoles il faut opposer le front de classe du proletariat international


Many militants saw in the collectivisation of factories and land the real expression of the 'Spanish revolution'. But in any genuine proletarian revolution, politics comes before economics... Proletarian violence can only have a class content if it attacks the state system.- International Communist Current, The Italian Communist Left 1926-45

[StalinFanboy]

Zanthorus, I haven't read any Bordiga yet, although I plan to. What would the seizure of political power look like seeing as the Bordigist conception of political power seems to be different than the idea of taking over the bourgeois state?

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus, I haven't read any Bordiga yet, although I plan to. What would the seizure of political power look like seeing as the Bordigist conception of political power seems to be different than the idea of taking over the bourgeois state?

First of all, I should probably note that my user title is a play on the tendency 'Marxist-Leninist-Maoism', one which is intended to have the double irony of placing Bordiga in a similar position to Stalin and Mao, both of whom he regarded as mere bourgeois radicals, and in general placing emphasis on Bordiga as an individual, when Bordiga was adamant that Communism was not the 'child of a useless genius', but was a product of the development of capitalism's internal contradictions (On a more positive note it also implies Bordiga as the logical continuation and standard-bearer of 'Leninism'). I'm not actually a 'Bordigist', although I do regard my own political positions as being at least partly in continuity with the Italian Left, of which Bordiga was one of the most important participants during the 20's. Although if you do want to talk to real Bordigists, you can search google for the 'International Communist Party' and e-mail them. I can confirm from experience that they'll answer any questions you send them. Despite this, I can (hopefully) answer your question.

Bordiga's original conception of working-class political power, developed in opposition to Gramsci and the L'Ordine Nuovo group, emphasised in the first place the idea of the 'Political Soviet'. This is a soviet modelled along the lines of the Soviets of the 1918 constitution of the RSFSR, where the Soviets are based on territory rather than on occupation, and delegates selected by an electoral roll which excludes non-proletarian elements. The seizure of power in the first place means the replacement of the parliamentary-democratic state based on universal suffrage with a Soviet Republic based on suffrage limited to the working-class. Bordiga also (in)famously puts stress on the role of the party. The party for Bordiga is the only organ which can unite the diverse struggles of the working-class into a single national and international struggle against the bourgeoisie, and it is the only organ capable of achieving not only a centralisation of struggles, but a centralisation through time, the subordination of immediate struggles to the long-term goal of taking power. It is in and through the party that the working-class constitutes a class for itself.

Prior to seizure of power the party organises and arms the class in preperation for the event, and continually affirms in it's theoretical work that the phase of revolutionary conflict between the working-class and bourgeoisie is an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle. During the revolutionary period, the instruments of working-class political power, the political soviets, are formed in opposition to the bourgeois state, either by the spontaneous action of the masses, or if necessary by the initiative of the party itself. Either way, the job of the party is to win a majority within the Soviets for the programme of revolution, the overthrow of the bourgeois state by the Soviets, and the formation of a Soviet Republic. Essentially the model is Russia from February to October when the Bolsheviks were working in the Soviets to get a majority for the transfer of all power to the All-Russia Congress of Soviets.

[StalinFanboy]

First of all, I should probably note that my user title is a play on the tendency 'Marxist-Leninist-Maoism', one which is intended to have the double irony of placing Bordiga in a similar position to Stalin and Mao, both of whom he regarded as mere bourgeois radicals, and in general placing emphasis on Bordiga as an individual, when Bordiga was adamant that Communism was not the 'child of a useless genius', but was a product of the development of capitalism's internal contradictions (On a more positive note it also implies Bordiga as the logical continuation and standard-bearer of 'Leninism'). I'm not actually a 'Bordigist', although I do regard my own political positions as being at least partly in continuity with the Italian Left, of which Bordiga was one of the most important participants during the 20's. Although if you do want to talk to real Bordigists, you can search google for the 'International Communist Party' and e-mail them. I can confirm from experience that they'll answer any questions you send them. Despite this, I can (hopefully) answer your question. haha yeah. I figured as much :P

The ICC is a synthesis of Bordiga and Pennekoek's ideas, right? I'm sort of in contact with the US ICC group.


Bordiga's original conception of working-class political power, developed in opposition to Gramsci and the L'Ordine Nuovo group, emphasised in the first place the idea of the 'Political Soviet'. This is a soviet modelled along the lines of the Soviets of the 1918 constitution of the RSFSR, where the Soviets are based on territory rather than on occupation, and delegates selected by an electoral roll which excludes non-proletarian elements. The seizure of power in the first place means the replacement of the parliamentary-democratic state based on universal suffrage with a Soviet Republic based on suffrage limited to the working-class. Bordiga also (in)famously puts stress on the role of the party. The party for Bordiga is the only organ which can unite the diverse struggles of the working-class into a single national and international struggle against the bourgeoisie, and it is the only organ capable of achieving not only a centralisation of struggles, but a centralisation through time, the subordination of immediate struggles to the long-term goal of taking power. It is in and through the party that the working-class constitutes a class for itself.

Prior to seizure of power the party organises and arms the class in preperation for the event, and continually affirms in it's theoretical work that the phase of revolutionary conflict between the working-class and bourgeoisie is an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle. During the revolutionary period, the instruments of working-class political power, the political soviets, are formed in opposition to the bourgeois state, either by the spontaneous action of the masses, or if necessary by the initiative of the party itself. Either way, the job of the party is to win a majority within the Soviets for the programme of revolution, the overthrow of the bourgeois state by the Soviets, and the formation of a Soviet Republic. Essentially the model is Russia from February to October when the Bolsheviks were working in the Soviets to get a majority for the transfer of all power to the All-Russia Congress of Soviets.
Thanks. Are there any specific things by Bordiga you'd recommend? I have Murder of the Dead and The Democratic Principle and... Party and Class on my computer, but haven't gotten around to reading any of them yet.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The party for Bordiga is the only organ which can unite the diverse struggles of the working-class into a single national and international struggle against the bourgeoisie, and it is the only organ capable of achieving not only a centralisation of struggles, but a centralisation through time, the subordination of immediate struggles to the long-term goal of taking power. It is in and through the party that the working-class constitutes a class for itself.

So why were "political soviets" still necessary? If the party is the only organ through which the working class can be a class for itself, wouldn't that make "political soviets" superfluous?

[Zanthorus]

The ICC is a synthesis of Bordiga and Pennekoek's ideas, right? I'm sort of in contact with the US ICC group.

The ICC defends a synthesis of the idea of the Italian Left and the German-Dutch Left, neither of which is reducible to either Bordiga or Pannekoek. More specifically, the phase of development in the German-Dutch Left is the 'pro-party' phase prior to the collapse of the KAPD. Pannekoek was a part of this, but later on he became anti-party. Similarly, the legacy of the Italian Left which the ICC developments include the developments made by the theoretical journal of the Italian Left in exile during the period from 1926 to the start of the Second World War - Bilan. After WWII Bordiga came out from under house arrest and after a few years became active again, but he called for a return to the positions which the Italian Left had held during the 20's.


Thanks. Are there any specific things by Bordiga you'd recommend? I have Murder of the Dead and The Democratic Principle and... Party and Class on my computer, but haven't gotten around to reading any of them yet.


The works I referred to when writing the above are Bordiga's earliest writings for Il Soviet, during his time as an oppositionist within the PSI. This is everything on the Bordiga archive on MIA up to 'Party and Class'. For a systematic statement of Bordiga's political positions you can read 'The Lyons Theses'. Unfortunately, much of Bordiga's work, including some his most potentially interesting pieces, such as his reply to Stalin's 'Economic Problems of the USSR', and the rest of his work on the nature of the Russian economy, remain untranslated into English. You'll have to scrape around the various archives of the International Communist Party's, plus the Bordiga archive on Sinistra and MIA, to get at all the work of his available online.


So why were "political soviets" still necessary? If the party is the only organ through which the working class can be a class for itself, wouldn't that make "political soviets" superfluous?

I think perhaps because Workers' Councils had already been formed in Italy at the time, because it was in the constitution of the RSFSR, and because it was in the programme of the Spartacist League, he never bothered to do the math. I forget what his later position on Workers' Councils was, I don't even remember him mentioning them actually. After World War Two his emphasis seems to be simply on rule by the party.