The United Front

[jookyle]

I would like to start a discussion on the concept of The United Front. I would prefer this to be a discussion on the United Front and not simply an argument between united frontism and popular frontism, ML's Vs. Trots, Etc. It should be a discussion on the what it means, how it should be implemented, it's pro's and cons, etc.

So to start, I think I'll give what I see the concept to mean(or if I'm wrong, what I think it should be)

So really I think the best way to describe my understanding of it as a response to a critique of it; that united frontism is just a way to work with social-democrats, reformist, and promote class collaboration. To this, I say, is the exact thing that the united front works against. It takes the idea that there are members of the proletarian class with in these organizations but, instead of working with these organizations, it works to reach the members that make them up and promote the revolution to them, promote Marxism to them, and to expose the bourgeois nature of the organization they're already in. It's not a united front of organizations, but the will to unite the proletariat under socialism and the revolution, away from the bourgeois, reformist, and counter-revolutionary groups they're in while also reaching the members of the proletariat who not apart of any group at all.

I hope to see a good discussion on the topic. I leave it to you my comrades.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The popular fronts work better than united fronts against fascism, as history has proven (no Trotskyist states were built from the ashes of WWII). Also, in popular fronts, communists (Marxist-Leninists) can easily take advantage of the bourgeois organizations and subjugate them to their control after they squeezed them of their anti-imperialist usefulness (how communist parties in post WWII Eastern Europe took control), but doing so is harder with social democratic parties.

[Veovis]

The popular fronts work better than united fronts against fascism, as history has proven (no Trotskyist states were built from the ashes of WWII). Also, in popular fronts, communists (Marxist-Leninists) can easily take advantage of the bourgeois organizations and subjugate them to their control after they squeezed them of their anti-imperialist usefulness (how communist parties in post WWII Eastern Europe took control), but doing so is harder with social democratic parties.

Please explain how socialism can be achieved by taking over the existing state apparatus.

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to comrade Ghost Bebel's signature:


This is the theory of a completely ruined fascist and counter revolutionary. This theory is the worst theory, the most dangerous theory and the most criminal that Trotsky has constructed in the last years of his counter revolutionary propaganda. - Ernst Thälmann on Trotsky's class collaborationist "United Front"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Please explain how socialism can be achieved by taking over the existing state apparatus.

I do not think that he advocated as much.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Please explain how socialism can be achieved by taking over the existing state apparatus.

It can't. The brave Marxist-Leninists in Eastern Europe overthrew the existing state apparatus in their respective nations after and along with destroying the fascist enemy. You never saw Hoxha keeping the state bodies of the pre-WWII period or meeting with King Zog to discuss how to run the government. Duh.

[jookyle]

If you're giving united front a thumbs down could you provide an explanation as to why rather than just denouncing it or talking up popular fronts? Please, point out the faults you see in it.

Also, just because Leninist-Marxist states existed and Trotskyist states doesn't make one better then the other. There have been many kinds of states that existed and existed longer than Marxist-Leninist ones and doesn't give them any more validity over Marxist-Leninism simply on the grounds that they existed.

[Ismail]

Hoxha did note that Albania's experience was unique in that there was neither a coalition government after the war nor did the prewar bourgeois apparatus get restored, but was instead opposed from the start. In fact the Albanians explicitly criticized the claim advanced under Khrushchev and onwards that communists could "democratize" the bourgeois state apparatus on account of its "democratic laws" (which apparently only required communists to come in and make "truly" democratic) and turn it towards socialism.

Anyway there's nothing inherently wrong with the united front concept, but in practice it was not united fronts, but popular fronts, which effectively opposed fascism in places like Spain. The failings of the united front in Germany though was due more to the anti-communism of the SPD than any Comintern policy.

[Crux]

The popular fronts work better than united fronts against fascism, as history has proven (no Trotskyist states were built from the ashes of WWII). Also, in popular fronts, communists (Marxist-Leninists) can easily take advantage of the bourgeois organizations and subjugate them to their control after they squeezed them of their anti-imperialist usefulness (how communist parties in post WWII Eastern Europe took control), but doing so is harder with social democratic parties.
Sorry, comrade, but you're completely clueless. Popular frontism killed more than one revolution, but yeah the stalinist parties conduct in Spain, France and China (just to name some examples off the top of my head) was just stellar wasn't it? So you know, you're history's a bit off.

[dodger]

Hello jookyle, surely the question is of no interest in countries with a mere 2 classes.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5974

[Ismail]

but yeah the stalinist parties conduct in Spain,An anarchist-endorsed coup by Segismundo Casado against the "communist domination" of the government brought the Republic into the hands of Franco's armies. Prior to that the PCE became a gigantic political and military force and clearly the leading light of the struggle against fascism.


FrancePCF became the most popular party in France for a time.


and ChinaLast time I checked the CCP emerged triumphant over Chiang Kai-shek.

[Crux]

An anarchist-endorsed coup by Segismundo Casado against the "communist domination" of the government brought the Republic into the hands of Franco's armies. Prior to that the PCE became a gigantic political and military force and clearly the leading light of the struggle against fascism.

PCF became the most popular party in France for a time.

Last time I checked the CCP emerged triumphant over Chiang Kai-shek.
Yes PCE managed to grow, largely because of the vaccilliating politics of the POUM. They also managed to gain the support of the small capitalists because of their class-collaborationist politics, which is the essence of the PCE's failure.

At the price of selling out the revolution. A shitty trade to make if you ask me.

Eventually yes...

But this all boils down to the Popular Front and the associated class-collaboration.

[Brosip Tito]

The United Front was not class-collaborationist. Let's look into it:

- Only labour parties (worker parties), were involved in it. This meant utopian socailist parties, social democratic parties, and all Marxist parties (excluding of course MLs). All leftist parties with a majority working class base, regardless of the leadership.

- The parties remained separate ideologically, with no convergence of ideals aside from anti-fascism. The parties criticized each other openly.

- The goal within the United Front, of Trots/Marxists, was to recruit workers from the other parties.

What comrade Ghost Bebel (more particularly the person in the quote, in his sig), is looking into is the composition of the bureacracy of each party, as opposed to it's member/support composition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The United Front was not class-collaborationist.

Of course it was. Ismail mentioned above the anti-communism of the post-WWI SPD, but he underestimates the history of its "Democratic Front" antics.


What comrade Ghost Bebel (more particularly the person in the quote, in his sig), is looking into is the composition of the bureacracy of each party, as opposed to it's member/support composition.

Nope. The comrade was referring to the "Democratic Front." When it comes to politics, fight fire with fire, and don't turn the other cheek.

[Crux]

Sorry for comparing in the negative, comrades. But I kind of had to respond to commistar's outrageous and ahistorical post in that manner. I'll come back with a post outlining the positive aspects of the united front and perhaps a longer less one-sided analysis of the popular front soon. Comrade Ismail is a worthy opponent. But I am waiting for a...friend of mine. So I expect I will be busy for a few hours. Plus I have some duties for the Party to attend to.

[Brosip Tito]

Of course it was. Ismail mentioned above the anti-communism of the post-WWI SPD, but he underestimates the history of its "Democratic Front" antics.A party being anti-communist, does not determine it's class character in totality.

The post-WWI SPD's membership and base was MASSIVELY working class. Are you saying the party was not made up of workers, and those workers did not have at least some level of class conscious?

Seriously, give it some thought here.

I'm not educated on this idea of a "democratic front". What is it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I said post-WWI, but anyway, the "Democratic Front" was all about the SPD joining forces with the main liberal and conservative parties to fend off both the KPD and the Nazis.

[Brosip Tito]

I said post-WWII know, but do you see my point? That the SPD was, although reformist and led by revisionist asshats, it was still a labour party?


the "Democratic Front" was all about the SPD joining forces with the main liberal and conservative parties to fend off both the KPD and the Nazis.Right on, I've never heard of it before!

[revhope]

For the united front to work then revolutionary parties have to be larger in members than they either have been or are in fact today. For a miniscule party of a few thousand to place demands upon a social democratic/labour party numbered in the tens of thousands is ridiculouse. The danger of the UF is that it's used as a short cut or is attempted to be used as a short cut and has inevitably failed and left behind a lot of bitterness of those involved in attempting to build a UF.

Of course any serious struggle will involve a variety of political positions and should be welcomed but this is not a UF.