What should have internationalists done at WWII?

[papaspace]

What did internationalists do during WWII, and what should have they done both in regard to the war and to the Holocaust?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Join any army and fight the fascists. Thats the hollywood version at least.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Support the United Front against the Fascists.

Be Utopian and stand on the sidelines shouting 'no to war' if you wish, but the only thing that would have happened would have been Fascist domination and the slaughter of even more people.

The Soviet Union's war (minus the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was a necessary, defensive one. The problem was what came afterwards.

[caramelpence]

The same that internationalists should do in any inter-imperialist war - call for the transformation of war between bourgeois states over resources and markets into civil war between classes. That meant rejecting the Fascist powers and the Allied "democratic states".

Saying that Fascism was a special danger and that working populations should have ignored their class interests and experience of national oppression in the interests of the Allied war effort doesn't mean much for the producers in British India who starved to death in their millions, almost reaching the death toll of the Holocaust, because of the economic policies of the British administration during the war.

[black magick hustla]

the "internationalists" languished in allied and nazi prisons btw. even the fucking edelweiss piraten were more of heroes and internationalists than stalin's bootlickers. remember the edelweiss pirates! the teenage fuckups who beated up the hitler youth and told the allies to fuck off too. they were the real heroes of the working class

[red cat]

Saying that Fascism was a special danger and that working populations should have ignored their class interests and experience of national oppression in the interests of the Allied war effort doesn't mean much for the producers in British India who starved to death in their millions, almost reaching the death toll of the Holocaust, because of the economic policies of the British administration during the war.

Very good point. In countries such as India where the axis was very weak, the correct stand of communists should have been to take the opportunity of Britain's engagement in war to launch armed struggle against the empire. Adopting this policy in India at that time could have resulted in the world revolution.

[graymouser]

The SWP in the US had a position that the war against the Nazis should be undertaken by the trade unions in arms. This was a response to the anti-fascist sentiment while opposing the imperialist war aims of the US and the professional character of the military. While the SWP was against the war as it was waged by the US, its members did serve when drafted and were involved in the massive GI strikes after the war. Because of this the bulk of the National Committee of the party was thrown in jail.

The CPUSA has a worse history, which is not all that well related. Of course once the USSR was at war with Germany the CP became hyper-patriotic to a fault. They had opposed the war during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but immediately dropped their opposition and pushed for war. During the racist assaults on Japanese-Americans, the CP suspended all their members of Japanese heritage, and when they were rounded up into concentration camps, told them to go along. This is related in Red Angel, the party-published biography of Elaine Black Yoneda, who was married to a nissei (second generation Japanese-American). The CP also let down their substantial Black membership by refusing to fight for - or even rhetorically demand - the integration of the armed forces. And when Black workers went on strike, the CP stuck to the no-strike pledge and opposed them. This undermined the party's work over the past decade and a half, with its heroic record of fighting discrimination and racism. Finally, as a gesture of good will, the party dissolved into the Communist Political Association.

After the war, it was "discovered" that Earl Browder, who until that point had been the unquestioned and virtually worshipped leader of the CP, was now actually a revisionist and had gone down a liquidationist course, and he was thrown overboard. William Z. Foster reconstituted the Party, but it was never the same as the party of the '30s - it lost the support of many Black radicals, for whom it had become more than anything their party.

The SWP actually grew a good bit because of their war-era work, but didn't manage to hold on to the members they gained through the McCarthy era. But the CPUSA has a really stained history in this period.

[ern]

Fully agree with those who said that internationalist had to struggle against all the imperialist powers.
The Left Communist regrouped in various groups in Europe during the war took an intransigent stand in defense of internationalism. For example, in Holland, http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_00.html, Greece http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2006/october/greek-resistance, in Britain. http://en.internationalism.org/wr/270_rev_against_war_03.htmlhttp://en.internationalism.org/wr/270_rev_against_war_03.html. http://en.internationalism.org/wr/270_rev_against_war_03.html In the US there was a split from the SWP which defended internationalism
Various internationalist anarchist also defend internationalism.

[HEAD ICE]

If you want to know what internationalists would have done, look at what internationalists did do. In Italy, internationalists were routinely beaten and thrown into prisons. Onorato Damen spent more time in fascist prisons than Gramsci and he was also involved in firefights with fascists as well. In fact, in Italy it was the internationalists who took up the most consistent position against fascists. Gramsci followed by Togliatti purposefully aided Mussolini because whenever someone from the Left of the Communist Party was expelled, Togliatti and Co. would publish their real names in their press. They knew what they were doing, or they were incredibly stupid.

Though of course to be an internationalists means to oppose bourgeois imperialists on all fronts. Two internationalists, Fausto Atti and Mario Acquaviva intervened with partisans to take up arms not only against Nazi occupation but against the democratic state as well. Togliatti had them both killed.

There are other examples too, apparently defeatism was strong amongst some in Greece but I haven't read too much on it.

[Red Commissar]

I'm not going to get into any sectarian mudslinging and historical perversions that other users have brought up, but those that chose to take the path of "internationalism" did so according to their principles. They operated in opposition to what ever existing fascist regime was in their nation, while opposing the "Stalinist" communist groups and the allied Governments-in-Exile.

Unfortunately due to said position they got into a lot of deadly scuffles or repression from the authorities.

"Internationalism" doesn't mean a complete aversion to violence. It doesn't mean they sat on their hands and did nothing even if their numbers weren't "high". They did what they felt they needed to do.

[Kowalsky]

the "internationalists" languished in allied and nazi prisons btw. even the fucking edelweiss piraten were more of heroes and internationalists than stalin's bootlickers. remember the edelweiss pirates! the teenage fuckups who beated up the hitler youth and told the allies to fuck off too. they were the real heroes of the working class

Bordiga lived in his house during the whole WWII, Gramsci died in prison, 50thousands of italian communist partisans (stalin's bootlickers, according to you) died during the guerilla against nazism and fascism.
Find the differences.

[Kowalsky]

If you want to know what internationalists would have done, look at what internationalists did do. In Italy, internationalists were routinely beaten and thrown into prisons. Onorato Damen spent more time in fascist prisons than Gramsci and he was also involved in firefights with fascists as well. In fact, in Italy it was the internationalists who took up the most consistent position against fascists. Gramsci followed by Togliatti purposefully aided Mussolini because whenever someone from the Left of the Communist Party was expelled, Togliatti and Co. would publish their real names in their press. They knew what they were doing, or they were incredibly stupid.

Though of course to be an internationalists means to oppose bourgeois imperialists on all fronts. Two internationalists, Fausto Atti and Mario Acquaviva intervened with partisans to take up arms not only against Nazi occupation but against the democratic state as well. Togliatti had them both killed.

There are other examples too, apparently defeatism was strong amongst some in Greece but I haven't read too much on it.

Half-truth, you should also remember that, when Gramsci and the Ordine Nuovo's faction supported the Arditi del Popolo (antifascist squads, led by WWI veterans), Bordiga's sectarian bureucrats denied Guido Picelli to join the Communist Party. Picelli's guilt was to have been leading antifascists (anarchist, socialists, communists and even christian demcorats) against the fascist squads.
Lenin himslef criticized Bordiga for not supporting militant anti-fascism.

[papaspace]

Thanks for the answers, but I feel the second part of my question was not really answered -- what should they have done about the holocaust?

Why should have the internationalists chosen (as some did, I gather) a hopeless battle (at the time) against their own countries instead of fighting fascism (in cases where their own countries weren't fascists) and preventing the holocaust?

[Red Commissar]

Thanks for the answers, but I feel the second part of my question was not really answered -- what should they have done about the holocaust?

Why should have the internationalists chosen (as some did, I gather) a hopeless battle (at the time) against their own countries instead of fighting fascism (in cases where their own countries weren't fascists) and preventing the holocaust?

I probably can't provide any pertinent examples, but was there really much they could do? Most of the Holocaust camps were contained within Poland and it was difficult to try and raid those for any guerrilla group.

As to why they didn't- there were two issues. First, many were unaware of what was going on. Being isolated as they were, they had an even flimsier grasp as to what was going on in the larger world at times. More over where "internationalists" were the strongest didn't usually have large Jewish populations, so they possibly did not view it as a pressing problem.

The other issue, goes into other issues concerning the anti-fascist activities. Namely their position that such behavior, the way it was being done by other Communist groups, was betraying the concept of class struggle by subordinating themselves to the leadership of bourgeois groups, as they reasoned at least.

If they were able to put aside those and go into "resisting" the Holocaust, it enters into another realm. I will lay out a scenario of sorts of what they would have possibly down.

Some might have offered themselves as an "underground railroad" of sorts, to smuggle those who had avoided being captured out of Nazi Europe, but this in itself was a risky proposal. There were three possibilities to this end:

-Cross in to Switzerland. Only relatively well off could afford the costs afforded though.

-Smuggled into Sweden via Denmark: This of course, meant that they would have to cross over a large swatch of Nazi core territory.

There was also, for a time, a possibility to enter into Vichy North Africa. From these respective escape points however, they were on their own.

There are few instances of them actually being broken out of the camp though. There were some cases where Polish resistance managed to spring some people out of concentration camps- usually while trying to get their members out- and from there were taken along by the resistance raid.

In fact one of the first accounts the west got regarding the nature of the Concentration camps was in the form of the Vrba-Wetzler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba-Wetzler_report) report, given by two escaped Jewish Slovaks from Auschwitz. This report was eventually provided to Allied media which began to increase the awareness of the holocaust.

The Nazi's were keen on utilizing local contacts and infiltration of such groups to root them out, regardless if they were functioning to smuggle Jews out or taking armed resistance against the Nazi forces.

So in short it would have probably involved them working with other resistance groups. Frankly I'm not sure if by themselves they would have had the organizational capacity across a wide, geographical region to be able to coordinate it. Much less fight and resist the inevitable response by the Nazi's.

In regards to the "Internationalists" in Italy, they were in a nation that didn't have many Jews to begin with. Jewish people began to get pressure after Mussolini allowed for "Race" laws to be passed and thus pressure on them increased. There were a number of concentration camps established in Italy but they weren't extermination camps, as far as I can gather, like those in Poland. I guess with that in mind it wasn't on their concern. The worst it appears was the Rab Concentraiton camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_concentration_camp) which was off the coast of what is now Croatia, and that was on an island. Like Germany, the Italian regime was careful to make sure that the worst camps were placed away from its core territory. Others were established for the purpose of liquidating opposition in Italian occupied Balkans which was also away from their activities.

[black magick hustla]

Bordiga lived in his house during the whole WWII, Gramsci died in prison, 50thousands of italian communist partisans (stalin's bootlickers, according to you) died during the guerilla against nazism and fascism.
Find the differences.
so what, marx lenin luxembourg leaders were shot by the nazis crying "world revolution, against fascism and bolshevism" and fausto atti was shot in his sleep by toglaitti henchmen and mark chirik avoided execution because of a sympathetic cop. of course tons of communists died in the name of antifascism. that was the whole communist critque of antifascism, capitalist states tying workers to their defense

[Savage]

Bordiga lived in his house during the whole WWII

So did Stalin

[Omsk]

So did Stalin

Aside your poor atempt to derail the thread,i will answer:


STALIN’S REASONS FOR NOT VISITING THE FRONT DURING THE WAR ARE JUSTIFIED



As for General Shtemenko, he directly addressed Khrushchev's accusation that Stalin, not visiting the front, could not know the realities of war.

“The Supreme Commander could not, in our opinion, visit the fronts more frequently. It would have been an unforgivably lightheaded act to abandon, even for a short period, the General Headquarters, to decide a partial question on a single front.”

Chtemenko, L'Etat-Major general sovietique en guerre (Moscow: Editions du Progr�s, 1976), vol. 2, p. 354.

Martens, Ludo. Another View of Stalin. Antwerp, Belgium: EPO, Lange Pastoorstraat 25-27 2600, p. 257 [p. 233 on the NET]



Hitler issued an order that 'the Kremlin was to be blown up to signalize the overthrow of Bolshevism'....

He [Stalin] was, incidentally, to remain thus voluntarily immured in the Kremlin throughout the war. Not once, so it seems, did he seek direct personal contact with his troops in the field. Trotsky in the civil war moved in his legendary train from front to front, exploring, sometimes under the enemy's fire, advanced positions and checking tactical arrangements. Churchill mixed with his soldiers in the African desert and on the Normandy beaches, cheering them with his idiosyncrasies, with his solemn words, his comic hats, his cigars, and V-signs. Hitler spent much of his time in his advanced field headquarters. Stalin was not attracted by the physical reality of war. Nor did he rely on the effect of his personal contact with his troops. Yet there is no doubt that he was their real commander-in-chief. His leadership was by no means confined to the taking of abstract strategic decisions, at which civilian politicians may excel.

Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 469



I have heard a variety of opinions about Stalin’s personal knowledge of life at the front. In fact, as already mentioned, he visited the Western and the Kalinin Fronts in August 1943. The journey by car took two days and certainly had an impact on the morale of the troops....

In my view, Stalin as head of the Party and the country as a whole had no pressing need to make such trips. The best thing for the front and the country was his presence in the Party Central Committee and the GHQ, to which led all telephone and telegraph communications and all manner of information. Front commanders regularly reported to him on the situation at the front and on all substantial changes in that situation. Thus, the Supreme high Commander had extensive information every day, and sometimes every hour on the course of the war, the needs and difficulties of front commands; and he could, while in Moscow, make decisions properly and with dispatch.

Vasilevskii, Aleksandr M. A Lifelong Cause. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1981, p. 451



Stalin has been criticized by some observers (not generals) for not visiting his troops on the battlefield. General Shtemenko comments: 'It seems to me that Stalin could not visit the front lines more often than he did. It would have been unpardonably negligent for the Supreme Commander to lay aside overall leadership even for a time so as to decide particular problems on one of the Fronts. (In the summer of 1943 Stalin made a visit to the front lines, first to the command post of General Sokolovsky and then to that of General Eremenko.)

Axell, Albert. Stalin's War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders. London, Arms and Armour Press. 1997, p. 168

Oh,and by the way,Stalin did visit the eastern front on a number of occasions:


CONTRARY TO PROPAGANDA STALIN DID VISIT THE FRONT DURING THE WAR

When Beria returned from his trips to the front and reported his views on the state of affairs, the bombardments, or the poor showing of some 'suspect' general or other, Stalin felt a certain vulnerability. He had not been near the front since October 1941, when he had gone to the Volokolamsk Highway to watch the anti-aircraft fire in the sky. Meanwhile, he had to listen to Beria and Malenkov describing their 'baptism by fire'. He therefore determined he would go to the front, too, even if only for the sake of posterity. And a very carefully prepared trip did indeed take place. Stalin spent some time on the Western and Kalinin fronts in August 1943 and thereafter felt his image as a war leader was safe.
On 1 August 1943 he left Kuntsevo by a special trained consisting of an ancient locomotive and some broken-down carriages. Both the platform and the small train itself were camouflaged with branches. Stalin was accompanied by Beria, his special assistant, Rumyantsev, and bodyguards in plain clothes. Arriving at Gzhatsk, Stalin met the commander of the Western front, Sokolovsky, and Bulganin, who was a member of the war council. He heard their reports, wished them well, went to bed for the night and set off the next day in the direction of Rzhev, on the Kalinin front, which was commanded by Yeremenko. Here he stayed in a simple peasant hut....
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 480-481

He [Stalin] made Zhukov his most trusted military expert, and sent him at the most dramatic moment to the Battle of Stalingrad.
And when the situation in the sector was at its worst, Stalin personally appeared for several hours on the battlefield.
The words: "Stalin is with us"! spread like a forest fire from trench to trench. With new spirit, the Red soldiers fought the Wehrmacht--in the trenches, in the streets of the besieged city, in the surrounding valleys and hills.
Fishman and Hutton. The Private Life of Josif Stalin. London: W. H. Allen, 1962, p. 146

Stalin did not just concentrate on politics. He actively took part in the preparations for the Summer campaign of 1943. Kraskyn, the Press Department's senior Press Officer, wrote the following:
"Stalin's frequent visits to the foremost front-lines at times when the fighting was extremely fierce, when enemy bullets and grenades were virtually plastering every inch of our defense lines, and there was no protection for anyone, was definitely a clear example of the courage, determination, and fighting spirit of a born leader.... Stalin was with his men and commanders, and managed to inject the troops with fresh fighting spirit and so turn the scales in our favor.
These frequent visits to various sectors of the front were never publicized but somehow the news spread, the people throughout the country told each other that 'The Beloved and Wise Leader' had taken active part in the "Great Patriotic War.' They pledged themselves to give him every support.
Fishman and Hutton. The Private Life of Josif Stalin. London: W. H. Allen, 1962, p. 148

After visiting a front sector in the summer of 1943, he [Stalin] hastened to inform the Allied leaders of the event, writing to President Roosevelt: 'Only now, on returning from the front, can I reply to your last message... I am having to make more personal visits to various sectors of the front and to subordinate everything else to the needs of the front.... In the circumstances, you will completely understand that at this moment I cannot depart on any journey... to fulfill my promise [to meet Roosevelt in the region of the Bering Straits].'
Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Autopsy for an Empire. New York: Free Press, c1998, p. 148

In the spring of 1991, there appeared on TV for two hours former general Volkogonov (a strange anti-communist renegade who wrote books in Russia and in America, full of caustic calumny and lies regarding Stalin and socialism--editor.) Volkogonov stated that Stalin made only one trip to the front, only once did the Commander-in-Chief leave Moscow, stopping 50 kilometers from the front, slept on a soft bed, met Commanders in order that he could write to Churchill & Roosevelt how he was in the thick of the fighting at the front.
This General-Historian wrote a huge book dedicated to the Stalin 'terror,' called "Triumph and Tragedy."... Let me, a person who was with Stalin all through the war years, let me state what really happened. This is confirmed by my friends, who together were bodyguards around Stalin.
Let me quote the source, Volkogonov himself: "The top leader, for the first time, smelled its deadly odor, stood a while and then on a lark decided that he would, on this October morning, also go to the front."
But facts state the following, that Stalin had those thoughts before any of the Politburo leaders. According to Volkogonov, Stalin just listened to some minor commanders, and then came back. On his return, according to Volkogonov, Stalin's car went into a ditch. The cavalcade went. Stalin did not stay. Stalin was moved by Beria into another car and off they went. Thus, the trip to the front was accomplished.
But this is the way it was, since I was present there....
In August of 1941, Stalin and Bulganin were going at night to the district of Maloyaroslavets in order to see the actual front and the fighting going on....
At the end of October, Stalin and Voroshilov went to see the 16th Army of General Rokossovsky where they saw the operations of the rocket "Katuysha" launchers. Then the Germans started shelling us here, so that we had to immediately get onto the highway. Of course, German aviation then started to bomb the place from where the "Katuyshas" were shelling them, salvo after salvo.... Our automobile was covered with mud, flak, bullet holes... in this way, we returned to Moscow.
During the summer of 1942, Stalin went to the Western Front, across the river Lamoi and together with commanders, looked at the dogfights in the air, going over a pontoon bridge with Tukov and Khrustalev, he then proceeded to go back to the Kremlin.
Stalin also went to many points of the front, of course in secret, since the enemy was always on the lookout for the whereabouts of Stalin. From Marshal Sokolovsky, Stalin went to Yukhnov to see Marshall Voronov and his artillery. Going to the woods, everything was quiet, you could hear birds singing, Stalin sadly remarked:
How peaceful it is.... You cannot believe that outside these woods, there is death and people are dying....
At a designated stop, a train was waiting at Yukhnov where Stalin met General Yeremenko. The meeting took place in the village of Khoroshevo. Here, we found Beria trying as always to get into the good graces of Stalin, requisitioning a good bed, fancy coverings, pillows, etc.. Stalin always told him to take it back where he got it and slept with his Army greatcoat on as the common soldiers slept.
(Here, we shall not quote any more from Volkogonov, since the lies and untruths are repeated in various different scenarios in this book and it is not that important to dwell on this traitor, who sold out and besmirched his country in the pay of foreign powers!--Editors)
I feel that now, the reader can understand the differences between eyewitnesses and second-hand accounts, or just plain lies. Volkogonov could not have known all the important details, known only to us, the eyewitnesses. Then why the lies that Stalin did not meet even commanders of the front? Then with whom did he meet while seeing Sokolovsky, Voronov, and Yeremenko? This is sheer stupidity. How can this traitor state about Stalin that: He was incompetent, that catastrophic decisions were made, and not caring about the dying soldiers. All these lies are not diminishing Stalin's leadership... the opposite is true, they show him to be a great leader and his strategic knowledge complemented that of his Marshals and Generals.
Rybin, Aleksei. Next to Stalin: Notes of a Bodyguard. Toronto: Northstar Compass Journal, 1996, p. 38-41

During the heaviest fighting of the Great Patriotic War, the other government dacha was utilized near Semenovsk. Stalin rarely used this dacha, but the front, the South-Western fighting was near this dacha, close to 110 kilometers from Moscow. This was designated by Stalin to be a hospital and Stalin many times went there to talk and visit the Red Army men who were being treated there.
Rybin, Aleksei. Next to Stalin: Notes of a Bodyguard. Toronto: Northstar Compass Journal, 1996, p. 106

Reports published since the end of World War II showed that Stalin visited all sections of the front in his armored train and took a personal hand in the preparation of all major actions.
Duranty, Walter. Stalin & Co. New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1949, p. 87

Throughout the hostilities, except when he traveled to Yalta and Teheran to confer with the Allied leaders or when he made a much-publicized trip to the proximity of the front, Stalin stayed in Moscow or its environs. And he worked himself like a dog.
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 435

It was just after the victory at Kursk that Stalin on 3 August 1943 undertook his only look at the front. His exact itinerary is unclear, but he definitely went to the small city of Yunkov on the Roslavl highway, about 200 km west and somewhat south of Moscow. Here he summoned two senior commanders and told them twice over that they must plan to recapture Smolensk, a point that he could easily have made by wire. Stalin's motivation for the trip seems to have been personal curiosity, not propaganda, for it was not publicized at the time.
McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 250

[Savage]

Oh dear lord...my point was that accusing this or that theoretician of not being a militant for things like not being imprisoned by this or that bourgeois leader is completely futile and laughable, a point which you just confirmed, thank you.

[Zanthorus]

Not to spoil this little argument over who was the most justified in their non-participation, but Bordiga didn't really have much choice. He was under house arrest throughout the 30's and was only allowed out to do engineering work (Some say that he went a little, er, funny from the whole experience. Others say he was already crazy as hell).

[Kowalsky]

So did Stalin

firing at the wrong aim, i'm not a stalinist

anyway, we were not talking about people leading countries, we were talking about people opposing fascism in their own contries...

[Omsk]

Oh dear lord...my point was that accusing this or that theoretician of not being a militant for things like not being imprisoned by this or that bourgeois leader is completely futile and laughable, a point which you just confirmed, thank you.
Oh dear lord...
Actually,you just fired a blank.See,bringing up Stalin on everything does not work you know.Next time when you think about mentioning Stalin in any context,learn a bit about him.

[Kowalsky]

so what, marx lenin luxembourg leaders were shot by the nazis crying "world revolution, against fascism and bolshevism" and fausto atti was shot in his sleep by toglaitti henchmen and mark chirik avoided execution because of a sympathetic cop. of course tons of communists died in the name of antifascism. that was the whole communist critque of antifascism, capitalist states tying workers to their defense

these kinds of arguments could only stand up if fascist movements were not tied to (not to say build up and paid by) the capitalist states...
what "internationalists" failed to understand during the rise of fascism in Italy was the class nature of militant antifascism, so they refused to support a movement that could stop fascism and hegemonize tha whole antifascist front. the formation of the united front with the "democratic" bourgeois forces, some 15 years later, was the price to pay for not being able to stop fascism at his rising

[black magick hustla]

these kinds of arguments could only stand up if fascist movements were not tied to (not to say build up and paid by) the capitalist states...


And antifascism was tied to democratic states and the soviet union (which most internationalists considered capitalist by that point)/



what "internationalists" failed to understand during the rise of fascism in Italy was the class nature of militant antifascism, so they refused to support a movement that could stop fascism and hegemonize tha whole antifascist front. the formation of the united front with the "democratic" bourgeois forces, some 15 years later, was the price to pay for not being able to stop fascism at his rising

fascism was the price to pay for the defeat of the working class in italy in the two red years and for the defeat of the german revolution in the late 1910s. fascism in italy wasn't so different from any other strongman dictatorship btw.

[HEAD ICE]

Bordiga lived in his house during the whole WWII

I agree that Bordiga's silence during those years clouded a lot of his thinking later in his life and he his politics were really confused post WWII, but as Zanthorus mentioned Bordiga was under house arrest, and he would also be arrested at random to make sure he wasn't doing anything political. The police stormed and arrested him at his wedding.


50thousands of italian communist partisans (stalin's bootlickers, according to you) died during the guerilla against nazism and fascism

50,000 died for Hiroshima, Emmett Till's murderers, and imperialism in Latin America. The fact so many young people were butchered for capitalism is a shame and not something to be celebrated.

[Die Neue Zeit]

WWII was an excellent case for the bankruptcy of "revolutionary defeatism" outside a revolutionary period and the advocacy of class-struggle defencism outside a revolutionary period (in this case, "tankie-ism").

[RED DAVE]

WWII was an excellent case for the bankruptcy of "revolutionary defeatism" outside a revolutionary period and the advocacy of class-struggle defencism outside a revolutionary period (in this case, "tankie-ism").This is so, but it still doesn't justify the hideous sell-out of the German Social Democrats (and your hero Kautsky) at the beginning of WWI when a revolutionary situation was in the offing. Even if, as in the USA, a revolutionary situation was not imminent, revolutionary defeatism or calls for the US to stay out of the war, were correct.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who said I supported the social patriotism and not-so-class-strugglist defencism in WWI? :confused:

Your tendency of American non-Cannonite Trotskyism, OTOH, provided cover for bourgeois imperialism in the guise of Third Campism. The class-struggle defencism extends to supporting Soviet foreign policy in the Third World (anti-colonialism being part of "tankie-ism").


Even if, as in the USA, a revolutionary situation was not imminent, revolutionary defeatism or calls for the US to stay out of the war, were correct.

That's not defeatism. That's properly applying the centrist line of "peace without annexations or indemnifications" (Hugo Haase) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=553).

[Kowalsky]

And antifascism was tied to democratic states and the soviet union (which most internationalists considered capitalist by that point)

The fact that "internationalists" considered the Soviet Union a capitalist state doesn't mean that it was a capitalist state. Anyway, at the rising if italian fascism no one considered the Soviet Union a capitalist state, and there were no liberal-democrat states that did anything to stop fascism
We can say the same thing about the rise of Hitler.
During the spanish civil war the liberal-democrat states refuged themeselves behind the non-interference pact.
In facts, liberal-democrat states joined formed the antifascist coalition only after the aggression by Germany, Italy and Japan... so, what are we talking about?


fascism was the price to pay for the defeat of the working class in italy in the two red years and for the defeat of the german revolution in the late 1910s. fascism in italy wasn't so different from any other strongman dictatorship btw.

The defeat of the two red years was a great failure, but at the end of 1920 there was nothing of inevitable in the rising of fascism... the Socialist Party, the labor unions and the Communist Party refused to support militant antifascism, that was class-rooted. Socialists and unionists made so because of their opportunism (they thoguht that they could find some sort af arrangements with fascism), the communist just because the party had a sectarian leadership. Militant antifascism was able in many local cases to rise the level of the clash to a level so high that population defensed the antifascist and that the authorities were obliged to stop the fascist squads, the defence of Parma is clear example of this... Unluckly, cause of the lack of support from nation-wide structure, thise poattern was not replayed on national scale, even though the March on Rome could be defeated military in an quite easy way...
So, the price to pay for refusing to collaborate with some bourgeois forces (hegemonized by working class organizations) during the 20's, was to collaborate with borgeois states during the 40's...

I'm not going to give any comment on fascism being a "normal dictatorship", that's non-sense...

[Kowalsky]

I agree that Bordiga's silence during those years clouded a lot of his thinking later in his life and he his politics were really confused post WWII, but as Zanthorus mentioned Bordiga was under house arrest, and he would also be arrested at random to make sure he wasn't doing anything political. The police stormed and arrested him at his wedding.

50,000 died for Hiroshima, Emmett Till's murderers, and imperialism in Latin America. The fact so many young people were butchered for capitalism is a shame and not something to be celebrated.

that's a very low level provocation, come on, you can do better

by the way, Bordiga was able to stay at his home as the fascists regime considered him not being dangerous. indeed, during the whole duration of the fascist regime and the ww2, internationalists did nothing of dangerous against the fascist regime.

[Zanthorus]

Third Positionism.

It's 'Third Campism'. Third Positionism is ultranationalist crap.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ My bad. I edited my post for correction.

[HEAD ICE]

that's a very low level provocation, come on, you can do better

by the way, Bordiga was able to stay at his home as the fascists regime considered him not being dangerous. indeed, during the whole duration of the fascist regime and the ww2, internationalists did nothing of dangerous against the fascist regime.

I'm not going to argue with this because it is clear you are simply ignoring easily ready facts of the persecution of internationalists during WWII. That doesn't surprise me along with your rejection of internationalism given your affiliation to that eurocommunist Frankenstein you list as your organization that I assume you are doing so without irony.

[black magick hustla]

The fact that "internationalists" considered the Soviet Union a capitalist state doesn't mean that it was a capitalist state. Anyway, at the rising if italian fascism no one considered the Soviet Union a capitalist state, and there were no liberal-democrat states that did anything to stop fascism
We can say the same thing about the rise of Hitler.
During the spanish civil war the liberal-democrat states refuged themeselves behind the non-interference pact.


some democratic factions of the bourgeosie had a non-interference pact but it by the emergence of WWII the democratic bosses were clearly aligned as an antifascist faction.






The defeat of the two red years was a great failure, but at the end of 1920 there was nothing of inevitable in the rising of fascism... the Socialist Party, the labor unions and the Communist Party refused to support militant antifascism, that was class-rooted. Socialists and unionists made so because of their opportunism (they thoguht that they could find some sort af arrangements with fascism), the communist just because the party had a sectarian leadership. Militant antifascism was able in many local cases to rise the level of the clash to a level so high that population defensed the antifascist and that the authorities were obliged to stop the fascist squads, the defence of Parma is clear example of this... Unluckly, cause of the lack of support from nation-wide structure, thise poattern was not replayed on national scale, even though the March on Rome could be defeated military in an quite easy way...


the march on rome was a symbolic gesture, by that time landowners and industrialists were clearly aligned behind the fascists. this was the reason why the march to rome was not defeated.



So, the price to pay for refusing to collaborate with some bourgeois forces (hegemonized by working class organizations) during the 20's, was to collaborate with borgeois states during the 40's...
that is some gramscite trash. "working class organizations" by that time were agents of soviet imperialism.




I'm not going to give any comment on fascism being a "normal dictatorship", that's non-sense...

i think you could make an argument for german national socialism to be "special", but italian fascism was not particularly more brutal than the myriad of 20th century anticommunist dictatorships. it was played up because fascism was clearly an obstacle of the comintern.

[black magick hustla]

tby the way, Bordiga was able to stay at his home as the fascists regime considered him not being dangerous. indeed, during the whole duration of the fascist regime and the ww2, internationalists did nothing of dangerous against the fascist regime.
by that time the left wing of the icp was ousted and defeated by stalin's men (togliatti and gramsci) so of course left wing militants were completely neutered.

although there were plenty of left communists in italy who did lengthy tenures in fascist prisons. also togliatti did consider the left wing dangerous, to the point that damen barely escaped death and the cowardly stalinists murdered atti in his sleep.

[Savage]

Oh dear lord...
Actually,you just fired a blank.See,bringing up Stalin on everything does not work you know.Next time when you think about mentioning Stalin in any context,learn a bit about him.
You still seem oblivious to the jocular nature of that post, perhaps an exhaustive use of smiley faces in future would make it easier for you.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=Die Neue Zeit;2097690]
Your tendency of American non-Cannonite Trotskyism, OTOH, provided cover for bourgeois imperialism in the guise of Third Campism. The class-struggle defencism extends to supporting Soviet foreign policy in the Third World (anti-colonialism being part of "tankie-ism").
[QUOTE]
i actually understood this post (i think). anyway its pure slander to say third camp lead to state department socialism. the forrest johnson tendency was "third camp" as well as "socialism or barbarisme"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your tendency of American non-Cannonite Trotskyism, OTOH, provided cover for bourgeois imperialism in the guise of Third Campism. The class-struggle defencism extends to supporting Soviet foreign policy in the Third World (anti-colonialism being part of "tankie-ism").

i actually understood this post (i think)

Haha :lol: ;)


anyway its pure slander to say third camp lead to state department socialism. the forrest johnson tendency was "third camp" as well as "socialism or barbarisme"

Was the Forrest Johnson tendency Trotskyist? There were only two big Trotskyist tendencies, the Cannonites and Shachtman-Draper. The latter coughed up Third Campism, and we all know their Afghanistan line in the 1980s.

[Zanthorus]

The Johnson Forest tendency was Raya Dunayevskaya, C. L. R. James and their associates. I'm not intimately familiar with their history but my impression is that it would be more accurate to view them as a break from Trotskyism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In which case their particular Third Campism doesn't count re. my critique. ;)

Broadly speaking, Mao (who toasted with Suharto and Idi Amin) could be considered a Third Campist too. :D

[black magick hustla]

The Johnson Forest tendency was Raya Dunayevskaya, C. L. R. James and their associates. I'm not intimately familiar with their history but my impression is that it would be more accurate to view them as a break from Trotskyism.
i always considered third camp trotskyism as a break from trotskyism to be honest. i dont consider the cliffites trotskyistts because they differ widly from FI orthodoxy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not going to give any comment on fascism being a "normal dictatorship", that's non-sense...

Fascism in Italy wasn't nearly as fearsome as it was in other places. Indeed, the fascist state in Italy was in many ways a weak state, often so because of Mussolini's own megalomania and need for control over the Fascist Party:


Mussolini left a considerable part of the previous political structure intact, especially the system of local prefects. In a circular issued on January 5th, 1927, he ordered that the provincial prefects must be obeyed completely by all citizens, including Fascists. The result was that the prefects exercised more control over the party than the party exercised over the administration. Indeed, the Fascist Party contributed little to the formulation of policy, and Mussolini played off the members of the Grand Council against each other. He also insisted on widespread membership in the party, deliberately devaluing the privilege. Finally, he made the administrative machine more complex, increasing the number of department personnel and, in A. Lyttelton's words, "deliberately fostered untidiness and illogicality in the structure of government."

[...]

Is it therefore suprising that the fascist dictatorship was only half-implemented? The whole trend worked against effeciency, as Mussolini introduced new institutions but then refused to let them function properly in order to protect his own popular image.

Mussolini also failed to establish an hegemony over culture and societal ideas:


Attempts were made to institutionalize the control of culture through the Ministry of Popular Culture, which tried to regulate music, art, literature and the cinema. Eventually, however, the government had to reduce it's influence over cultural forms for a degree of political orthodoxy. This was a marked contrast to the more successful measures used by Goebbels to "Nazify" German art and literature and the "Socialist Realism" of Stalin.

[...]

The overall impression, therefore, must be that the fascist state failed to exert the type of control over ideas which is usually associated with totalitarianism. The more traditional liberal culture proved impossible to eradicate so that the authorities had to resort to a series of unsatisfactory compromises.


At no time, however, was coercion as systematic as in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Torture was used more sparingly and the death sentence was rarely imposed for political offenses.

Certainly fascist regimes were characterized partly by their aggression towards working class organizations and militants. But it's also partly the characteristic of every other capitalist state that sees the working class as a potential threat towards the replication of the political and economic processes of the nation.

[Kowalsky]

some democratic factions of the bourgeosie had a non-interference pact but it by the emergence of WWII the democratic bosses were clearly aligned as an antifascist faction.

what democratic states did to stop fascism? did they supported anti-fascist factions in Italy, Germany or Spain? did they took any serious act to fight back fascist regimes?



the march on rome was a symbolic gesture, by that time landowners and industrialists were clearly aligned behind the fascists. this was the reason why the march to rome was not defeated.


that's exactly what i am saying, the Arditi del Popolo organized the fight against fascism AND against landowners and industrilists, but the internationalist faction refused to endorse that fight because of its sectarianism!


that is some gramscite trash. "working class organizations" by that time were agents of soviet imperialism.

by what time? by the time of the rise of fascism, the socialist party and general confederation of labor were led by reformists and the communist party was led by the internationalist faction! (I hope that no one here shall evere state that if a working class organization is led by a reformist faction that's not a working class organization...)


i think you could make an argument for german national socialism to be "special", but italian fascism was not particularly more brutal than the myriad of 20th century anticommunist dictatorships. it was played up because fascism was clearly an obstacle of the comintern.

that's funny, fascism as a soft dictatorship is a typical argument by the the post-fascists italian rightwingers!
well, i assume that you don't consider "brutal" the butchery of about 1 milion of ethiopians, the forced italianization of Istria and Dalmazia, the assaults on the labour unions' and parties' houses, the killing or the imprisonment of thousands of anti-fascists...

[Kowalsky]

by that time the left wing of the icp was ousted and defeated by stalin's men (togliatti and gramsci) so of course left wing militants were completely neutered.

although there were plenty of left communists in italy who did lengthy tenures in fascist prisons. also togliatti did consider the left wing dangerous, to the point that damen barely escaped death and the cowardly stalinists murdered atti in his sleep.

so? they could do class struggle only leading the Communist Party of Italy? Could not they build up a new party? (they did it, in 1943) could not they try to create internationalist-oriented class struggle? (they did it, after the end of WW2, when a non fascist stat was set on...)

[Kowalsky]

Fascism in Italy wasn't nearly as fearsome as it was in other places. Indeed, the fascist state in Italy was in many ways a weak state, often so because of Mussolini's own megalomania and need for control over the Fascist Party:

Mussolini also failed to establish an hegemony over culture and societal ideas:

Certainly fascist regimes were characterized partly by their aggression towards working class organizations and militants. But it's also partly the characteristic of every other capitalist state that sees the working class as a potential threat towards the replication of the political and economic processes of the nation.

anyone who say that living under a fascist stat or under a democratic state make little difference is simply living out of the world!
on friday a general strike will be held in italy, i know that we will be facing repressione and that the repressione is becoming more and more strong... but during WW2 those whose partecipated in a general strike were executed or deported in a lager...
(oh, i forgot that general strike is a counter-revolutionary tool and that only self-organization is good)

[Kléber]

For all their theoretical proficiency and impressive size for an "ultra-left" organization, the Bordigists wasted their political opportunities and behaved as sectarian abstentionists in WWII. They could have played a major role if they had stepped up and led the fight against fascism. Instead they politically struggled against antifa partisans and then tried to displace the partisan leadership from outside, after fascism had already been smashed by alien class forces, but the only way to ever beat the corrupt Stalinist leadership was to go where the advanced workers were and fight for leadership of the movement by organizing their own armed struggle against fascism, while preparing to transition the imperialist war into class war. The MLL Front in the Netherlands had a militant anti-fascist line, but I don't know if they can be called left communists precisely because of their anti-fascism, not to mention support for Indonesian independence.

Togliatti and Stalin on the other hand were not good revolutionaries who made giant political errors, they were simply traitors. The partisan movement controlled swaths of Italy at its height, but they cowardly disarmed their forces and surrendered to the imperialists and the bourgeois forces, pissing away any hope of establishing the proletarian dictatorship. The victory over fascism was handed to the Allies, and instead of leading the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the Stalinists went around assassinating Bordigists and other communists who wanted revolution. Outside of Italy those reptiles did the same thing, murdered several thousand Trotskyist partisans in various countries, and many others just for taking a revolutionary line.

The Fourth International had the only correct internationalist perspective, opposition to all bourgeois governments plus defense of Russia and China against fascism. Its isolated forces were no more successful than the left communists in making a world revolution out of the war, but they fought against the Nazi-fascist scum in every country, and at the end of the war they fought against Allied imperialism and Stalinism in Vietnam, Greece, and Sri Lanka.