The United Front.

[Le Socialiste]

What can be considered the good and bad qualities of such a tactic? While it requires working with groups of a non-revolutionary, liberal bent, it allows the left to make inroads towards the organization of the working-class as a cohesive, fighting unit. Its importance lies in the subservient mindset of the workers and their inclination to turn to those practices and forms of expression most acceptable to the ranks and institutions of the ruling-class. In times of social and financial crisis, the working-class won't immediately radicalize on a mass scale; attempts will be made to redirect their disillusionment into toothless, non-threatening actions, the likes of which deepen the prevailing air of defeatism surrounding them. Yet for all this, revolutionary socialists can't immediately emerge from the far reaches of the struggle with their slogans and damning proclamations - to do so would be to drive vast numbers within the movement back into the hands of the bourgeoisie. For all their frustration and sense of alienation, the average worker remains bound to the ruling philosophies of the day - those correctly identified as coming from the ruling-class. Our immediate goal is to sever this connection, to drive the working-class from its oppressor and to mobilize for its self-emancipation. As socialists, it makes more sense to temporarily organize with bourgeois-liberal groups - those which hold a considerable amount of clout and influence over broad layers of the proletariat - until such a time that the working-class is capable of taking the fight beyond the realm of passive resistance.

March separately, strike together - I think that's how it goes. However, the concept of the United Front shouldn't be the revolutionary left's central focus; nor should it be the pillar upon which the rest of its platform is dependent. It is of secondary importance, and the left should make it a priority of organizing and mobilizing as many rank-and-file members of the working-class as it can without relying solely on the United Front as a tactic for gaining mass support. There are many dangers in pursuing this, however. I acknowledge this. But I'd like to hear from the rest of y'all about this. What do you think?

Also, if this is in the wrong forum can someone move it (if they're able to do so)?

[Zav]

The benefit is hugely increased influence. The downside is that a broad United Front doesn't work well with the entire Left (Radicals, Reformists, and Center-Leftists don't mix), or even just the Far Left (Anarchists and Marxists). Perhaps in opposition to a powerful Fascist party one could be organized, but that's about it.

[Ostrinski]

Seems like every time it's tried it ends up being hijacked by social democratic moderates. That's what happened before the Spanish civil war.

[Le Socialiste]

Seems like every time it's tried it ends up being hijacked by social democratic moderates. That's what happened before the Spanish civil war.

It's not simply a matter of cooperating within power structures or sharing power - it's tied to the propagation of revolutionary thought during low (and arguably high) moments of struggle, when the mindset of the working-class still consists of bourgeois-reformist rhetoric and is more inclined to follow such arguments. It's about securing demands and victories - if possible - in coordination with groups that we'd normally never organize with in order to properly facilitate and make accessible our message to those working within and/or around these organizations. It's also a useful tool for discrediting the liberal-reformists once it becomes clear that we can no longer work with them. With every new demand, every new victory, we on the revolutionary left must demand more radical resolutions to further the movement and general struggle against capital. Once it becomes clear that these elements aren't going to agree to this, we part ways - making it obvious that they don't truly wish to see the liberation of the working-class and the destruction of those relations that isolate, alienate, and oppress them.

Another point to make is this: the revolutionary left is a minority in most large-scale mass movements. It can't organize these struggles by itself - it must work with those to its right (by which I mean the liberals, reformists, and centrists) in order to reach the largest number of people possible. Otherwise, it risks alienating itself from the ranks of those participating, those seeking an alternative to what they deem an unjust, unfair system.

[Prometeo liberado]

The terrible list of all the failures of a United Front is long and bloody. What it tends to call for from the revolutionary left is a temporary suspension of revolutionary tactics and agitation. The left gains next to nothing yet loses it's credibility amongst the workers. When confronted with a revolutionary situation a revolutionary party has a responsibility to lead thru the quagmire of reformism and counter-revolution.

[Le Socialiste]

The terrible list of all the failures of a United Front is long and bloody. What it tends to call for from the revolutionary left is a temporary suspension of revolutionary tactics and agitation. The left gains next to nothing yet loses it's credibility amongst the workers. When confronted with a revolutionary situation a revolutionary party has a responsibility to lead thru the quagmire of reformism and counter-revolution.

During moments of revolutionary upheaval, when the very structures of power are openly questioned and the broadest layers of the working-class are present, the left stands to gain nothing by working with the liberal and reformist bourgeoisie. Clearly, we have yet to experience this on a mass scale. The left's role shouldn't be to further isolate itself and its message by refusing to work within broader movements that demand its presence, but to inject that message into the movement in order to reach as many participants as possible. It suspends nothing; rather, it gains the opportunity to expose those liberal elements inside the struggle as hostile to workers' liberation, through mass actions and a discussion of tactics.

There's a difference between the willingness to engage workers through actions of a non-revolutionary nature and naively believing it's possible to win the struggle using such actions. It's very much a matter of how we on the revolutionary left can better facilitate the debate over the direction of movements and the general struggle without falling victim to liberal, reformist foolishness and the subsequent loss of our message. That's why it's essential for the left never to compromise its credibility, nor its message and advocacy of certain tactics - it needs to carry these things with it into the formation of a United Front.

[Le Socialiste]

I'd really like to get a broader discussion going on here, so if anyone stumbles across this thread and has something to say don't hesitate to do so.

[blake 3:17]

From the 1921 Congress of the Communist International:
“The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”[

What's wrong with that?

On some democratic issues (eg. electoral reform) I don't see a problem of crossing class lines as long as it is done consciously.

[Grenzer]

I guess I'm confused at to what the difference between Popular Front and United Front is. I've looked at the definitions but it's a bit confusing. From what I've read, a popular front is the same exact thing but with nationalistic elements? I didn't think a United Front included social-democrats.

[Ostrinski]

I guess I'm confused at to what the difference between Popular Front and United Front is. I've looked at the definitions but it's a bit confusing. From what I've read, a popular front is the same exact thing but with nationalistic elements? I didn't think a United Front included social-democrats.Yeah. I guess a united front is the cooperation of all workers and communists under one directive, while a popular front is a coalition of parties and people of different political positions.

From wikipedia:


As Stalinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) came to dominate the Comintern the united front strategy was dropped. In the period preceding Adolf Hitler's victory in Germany, the Stalinised Comintern argued that the social democrats were "social fascists" and that they, rather than the Nazis, represented the real danger. Following Hitler's victory, the Comintern argued for popular fronts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front) drawing in forces far beyond the working class movement. Leon Trotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky), now exiled from Stalin's USSR, argued that the first policy was disastrous because it prevented unity against the far right, and that the second was disastrous because the terms of the struggle would be dictated by mainstream liberal parties, and that Communists would have to subordinate their politics within the alliance. Trotsky continued to argue for a workers' united front against fascism.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-5)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-5)
Trotsky argued that the united front could have great appeal to workers who wished to fight fascism: “The programme of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial ‘claims’, without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself: what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a break.” [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-6)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-6)
In Chinese history, the First United Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_United_Front) (1924–27) was a period when the Communists worked closely with the KMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMT). There was also a Second United Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_United_Front) (1937–43) to fight the Japanese during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). During the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War), the National Liberation Front (1960–77) was organized as a united front for the Vietcong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietcong).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-Ang-7) However, Trotsky and Trotskyists, such as Harold Isaacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Isaacs), in his The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Tragedy_of_the_Chinese_Revolut ion&action=edit&redlink=1) would argue that these were Popular Fronts, not united fronts, based upon the model employed by the Bolsheviks in 1917 and afterwards.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front#cite_note-8)

[Ostrinski]

What do people think of Trotsky's views on the united front and popular front?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I see it as a problem to be honest. On another thread there was the discussion about ehy there was no revolution during the American Great Depression and the Communist and Socialist parties that pushed Theodore Roosevelt so far as to give out social-programs etc. Basically all types of reform is reactionary and i oppose it. The way i see it if the C&S united left parties had not pushed for social programs, the situation 6 years later would have been ultimately revolutionary, it would have been another European post-WW1 revolutionary situation as class consciousness would have been increased, workers would have noticed on a much larger scale that they are being ruled and actually live in the dictatorship of capital. So had the Americans maybe suffered a few years more, millions could have been saved from US economic Imperialism and imperialist invasion. Reformist actions = helping capital. We have to use the blindness of the capitalist system if we really want to overthrow it. I.e. that the capitalists always tries to push for lower wages and if there when there is a crisis the workers cannot buy back the products, capitalism cannot provide goods. You then have a revolutionary situation. This is why it is my opinion that Reformism and in part Ultra-Leftism, which do not use these weaknesses of the capitalist (mass murdering system may i add: 68 humans die a year, 36[!] million of those from Starvation and Undernourishment) system politically, are not ways to overthrow the capitalist system.:thumbup:

[Grenzer]

I think that for one, he(and others, for that matter) overstated the impact that communists could have in regards to stopping fascism. I don't think that it really would have made a significant different in stopping Hitler's rise to power. Furthermore, I think pooling resources with non-revolutionaries provides only illusory gains. The Third Period policy seems to be superior to that of the Popular Front.

Of course when the left is so weak, fragmented, and dysfunctional, united front strategies may be required to a degree; but I think particularly when we get the party/organization/whatever of the working class organizing itself as a class, coalitions and cooperation with non-revolutionary elements should be absolutely avoided.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

By the way, i am not saying let the population starve, in this case direct democratic actions such as workers-cooperatives and regional councils would be very helpful to fulfill the basic needs of survival i believe. But absolute NO negotiating with capitalist politicians. We have to see the greater stake at hand and be revolutionary minded.

[blake 3:17]

The historic distinction between the Trotskyist United Front and the Stalinist Popular Front was over co-operation with bourgeois democratic political parties in the struggle against fascism.



The Third Period policy seems to be superior to that of the Popular Front.

Really?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ To Blake: Yes, really. Check out the material in the Third-Period Marxist-Leninists group.


I guess I'm confused at to what the difference between Popular Front and United Front is. I've looked at the definitions but it's a bit confusing. From what I've read, a popular front is the same exact thing but with nationalistic elements? I didn't think a United Front included social-democrats.

Huh? A Popular Front has liberals. A Communitarian Populist Front may have nationalistic elements, but has no liberals.

Both a United Front and a Popular Front include "social-democrats," but these tend to get crowded out from a Communitarian Populist Front because they tend to shy away from the "populist" part.


Of course when the left is so weak, fragmented, and dysfunctional, united front strategies may be required to a degree; but I think particularly when we get the party/organization/whatever of the working class organizing itself as a class, coalitions and cooperation with non-revolutionary elements should be absolutely avoided.

United Front antics are bankrupt enough even in this day and age, comrade. The left should move on to Communitarian Populist Fronts.

[Ostrinski]

None of the terms DNZ uses ever show up in wikipedia. What is communitarian populist frontism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-popular-and-t148739/index.html

[Ocean Seal]

Seems like every time it's tried it ends up being hijacked by social democratic moderates. That's what happened before the Spanish civil war.
But it had the opposite effect in Russia where the RSDLP allowed the Bolsheviks to gain influence and then eventually overpower the reformists.

[Grenzer]

Really?

Sorry, I'm not really a big fan of bourgeois collaboration. Ocean Seal brings up an interesting point, but I don't think the conditions were quite the same in the 1930's. Was the KPD working with the SPD really going to have that big of an impact? I doubt it.

[Le Socialiste]

I see it as a problem to be honest. On another thread there was the discussion about ehy there was no revolution during the American Great Depression and the Communist and Socialist parties that pushed Theodore Roosevelt so far as to give out social-programs etc. Basically all types of reform is reactionary and i oppose it.

Let's be clear: reformism should never be the central focus of those identifying with revolutionary socialism. We must distinguish between reforms that, through our fights to win them, allow us to gain a broader audience, and reformation as the sole means to achieve socialism. The former is a tactic, a tool by which we stand to deepen the participants' sense of struggle; the latter has no reputable following in genuine revolutionary circles and discourse. The underlying principle of the United Front is to expose others on a mass scale to the fraudulent, anti-worker character of those who demand adherence to existing laws and regulations, while refusing to go beyond reforms to preserve and/or better the social and financial wellbeing of the working-class. They intend to hold the average worker back from further activity, the likes of which they can't control. The Communist and Socialist parties of America during the Great Depression were already in the process of finalizing their ties to the Democratic Party, all the while making their peace with the state. That there was no revolution in America during this time cannot be chalked up solely to the activities (or lack thereof) of either party. They played a part, but the decline of the workers' movement in the country wasn't due simply to their betrayal.


The way i see it if the C&S united left parties had not pushed for social programs, the situation 6 years later would have been ultimately revolutionary, it would have been another European post-WW1 revolutionary situation as class consciousness would have been increased, workers would have noticed on a much larger scale that they are being ruled and actually live in the dictatorship of capital. So had the Americans maybe suffered a few years more, millions could have been saved from US economic Imperialism and imperialist invasion. Reformist actions = helping capital.

Take into account the historical context(s) here. Any power, caught in the throes of social and financial upheaval, will turn its sights abroad if it cannot successfully quell unrest at home. If revolution was on the horizon the U.S. would have either bloodily put it down or mobilized its citizenry against some foreign foe (both of which more or less happened). Trapped by the constraints imposed by capital and growing domestic unrest, the U.S. needed to open up as many fronts internationally as it could to provide some relief and reverse the downturn. Similar scenes were either fully developed or in the process of developing by this time.

Let's return to your main point, however, which is reformism equates to helping restore or legitimate capital. Take into consideration the present mindset of the average worker, who's consciousness consists of the ruling ideas of the very benefiters who exploit her/his labor. When the very foundations of society are threatened, the working-class will be reluctant to radicalize - much less en masse. Faith will, for however long, remain in the system. Trust will be shaken, but this doesn't necessarily translate into a full and complete rupture. Attempts will be made to tame the anger which inevitably arises out of crises such as ours, such as was seen 70-80 years ago; and the working-class will at first be susceptible to these efforts. The revolutionary left must insert itself into this period of crisis, when people are questioning the legitimacy of the system they've been taught exists for their benefit - but how? It can't dive in from the rafters of pseudo-intellectual discourse, nor can it enter off-stage as if nothing has changed since it last had relevance in peoples' eyes; no, it must temporarily enter into these situations using tactics it doesn't particularly care for, such as the United Front.

Take, for instance, California's "Millionaire Tax", which was recently undermined by Gov. Jerry Brown - I didn't particularly care for a piece of legislation that would ultimately serve little purpose in alleviating the crisis surrounding public education and the struggling families it ultimately affects. I supported it, however, on the grounds that if it won and was passed in November we'd have a victory from which to build off of, to galvanize the working-class in the hopes that it could lead to increasingly radical demands beyond reformism. The battle lines have been drawn by OWS: whether people agree with it or not, it has put into their minds the fact that we live in a society where the majority are exploited for the enrichment of a select, privileged few - who in turn support the very system that protects their interests. Questions of class and struggle have been brought up time and again, and increasingly people are speculating over the possible reality of a public return to conflict between the laboring and ruling classes.

But they won't reach that point unless it involves bringing more and more people into struggle; one can't immediately erect a barricade if they don't have the thousands (if not millions) of hands to build it.


We have to use the blindness of the capitalist system if we really want to overthrow it. I.e. that the capitalists always tries to push for lower wages and if there when there is a crisis the workers cannot buy back the products, capitalism cannot provide goods. You then have a revolutionary situation. This is why it is my opinion that Reformism and in part Ultra-Leftism, which do not use these weaknesses of the capitalist (mass murdering system may i add: 68 humans die a year, 36[!] million of those from Starvation and Undernourishment) system politically, are not ways to overthrow the capitalist system.:thumb up:

Revolutionary situations don't always evolve to the point in which the masses constituting the working-class are ready - or willing - to seize them. Capitalism is inherently unstable; it relies on the very contradictions that expand upon and perpetuate the divisions which permit it to prosper or collapse. It's imperative, then, that one is able to accurately assess the standing of the domestic and global economy in relation to existing and/or future movements, with the ability to acknowledge which tactical and organizational moves it will take to bring the working-class into direct conflict with capital. It's a process, however, and you can't just assume that workers will be immediately ready to overthrow capitalism the moment its gears seem to go out. It requires time to build and sustain a movement, much less one that seeks the dismantlement of private capital and the establishment of workers' power and democracy.

[Ocean Seal]

Sorry, I'm not really a big fan of bourgeois collaboration. Ocean Seal brings up an interesting point, but I don't think the conditions were quite the same in the 1930's. Was the KPD working with the SPD really going to have that big of an impact? I doubt it.
I don't think that in general collaborating with reformists is a good plan, but I do think however that we shouldn't immediately rule it out.

The only nation where I think it might be a good idea to ally with a social-democratic party would be the United States as labor is so weak that it might need a little push just to get the ball rolling, and then after the workers recognize the failures of the social democratic parties to defend their interests we split off and fuel the airs of revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, I'm not really a big fan of bourgeois collaboration. Ocean Seal brings up an interesting point, but I don't think the conditions were quite the same in the 1930's. Was the KPD working with the SPD really going to have that big of an impact? I doubt it.

The SPD already was into its "Democratic Front" antics against the KPD, so the KPD was justified in bringing down some local anti-SPD work.

A "preferrable" United Front that could have been would have been a more long-lived USPD and a somewhat larger KAPD.

[Искра]

Popular Front = cooperation with bourgeuise = no-no....