Fascists and commies march 'together'

[Tim Cornelis]

Tens of thousands of people marched against the Russian government.

The ultranationalist Slavic Union:

http://i0.mail.com/296/1354296,h=425,pd=1,mxw=620.jpg

People with rainbow flag (signifying either cooperative movement/gay movement/peace flag/or 'socialist' Patriots of Russia, don't know which), and Slavic Union, as well as red flags and USSR flag, marching together:

http://i1.mail.com/126/1354126,h=425,pd=1,mxw=620.jpg

USSR-flag, rainbow flags, fascist flags:

paCBln94lAQ#t=3m30s

USSR flags:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/moscow/12826847-1-eng-US/moscow_full_600.jpg

Left Front:

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120612&t=2&i=617998880&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=700&pl=300&r=CBRE85B0TOW00

Video of demonstrations, at BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18405306). Circa 45 seconds, the Slavic Union, circa 1 minute the Left Front.

Amazing how such radically diverging groups manage to no bash each other's skulls in.

EDIT/CORRECTION:

Black, yellow, white flag does not belong to the Slavic Union, but is used by fascist organisations

[ВАЛТЕР]

If they started fighting they would have had the shit kicked out of them by OMON and the Russian Police. Gotta pick your battles sometimes.

[Tim Cornelis]

If they started fighting they would have had the shit kicked out of them by OMON and the Russian Police. Gotta pick your battles sometimes.

Still, imagine, in Greece, Golden Dawn, Patriotic Alliance, KKE, anarchists, and some Trotskyists marching peacefully because they "pick their battles."

[ВАЛТЕР]

Still, imagine, in Greece, Golden Dawn, Patriotic Alliance, KKE, anarchists, and some Trotskyists marching peacefully because they "pick their battles."

Greece is already a battlefield in the class struggle with open street battles at protests. Russian left parties sadly are not in such a position.

[Tim Cornelis]

Greece is already a battlefield in the class struggle with open street battles at protests. Russian left parties sadly are not in such a position.

That may be, but in Russia antifascists and fascists are occasionally killing each other.

I can't even imagine the marginal Dutch fascist NVU and marginal Dutch revolutionary left groups marching 'together' peacefully. They would beat each other out of the demonstration instantly, and there is even less open class struggle in the Netherlands than in Russia.

Whatever way you look at it, it's astounding--at least to me.

[The Machine]

see this is why sectarianism is important

[ВАЛТЕР]

That may be, but in Russia antifascists and fascists are occasionally killing each other.

I can't even imagine the marginal Dutch fascist NVU and marginal Dutch revolutionary left groups marching 'together' peacefully. They would beat each other out of the demonstration instantly, and there is even less open class struggle in the Netherlands than in Russia.

Whatever way you look at it, it's astounding--at least to me.

Yeah, true. I really don't know. maybe there was some kind of a truce brokered? Since if they started fighting they would be dismissed by the media as nothing but an unorganized mob out to brawl. I really don't know, I'm just guessing. It is pretty confusing to me as well.

[#FF0000]

It always seemed to me that, save for a handful of select groups, the russian "left" is basically a bunch of nostalgic bigots anyway.

[Prometeo liberado]

Gotta pick your battles sometimes
Hmm, civil war now and revolution afterwords? Pick your battles? March together now against the common enemy and settle differences afterwords? Sound a lot like the Spanish Civil War arguments to me. Although if Stalin's name is involved it's called supporting the Bourgeois. Destroy the immediate enemy with the united forces you have and then go after the revolution, seems logical to me.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Hmm, civil war now and revolution afterwords? Pick your battles? March together now against the common enemy and settle differences afterwords? Sound a lot like the Spanish Civil War arguments to me. Although if Stalin's name is involved it's called supporting the Bourgeois. Destroy the immediate enemy with the united forces you have and then go after the revolution, seems logical to me.

Oh I agree completely. I'm just saying in that this is most likely the basis behind the march. They aren't cooperating, but they aren't fighting either. I really don't know what is going on, I'm just making guesses.

[Prometeo liberado]

Oh I agree completely. I'm just saying in that this is most likely the basis behind the march. They aren't cooperating, but they aren't fighting either. I really don't know what is going on, I'm just making guesses.

I was trying to expand upon your point of 'picking your battles". So much can be read into this.

[Krano]

Noticed that some people were carrying a banner of Lenin and also spotted a Soviet naval flag.

[ВАЛТЕР]

However, their common enemy isn't nearly as bad as the fascists that have come out to march as well. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to make a united front, since as bad as Putin is, he is better than some of the fascists in the crowd.

[Prometeo liberado]

However, their common enemy isn't nearly as bad as the fascists that have come out to march as well. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to make a united front, since as bad as Putin is, he is better than some of the fascists in the crowd.

Putin can wipe out the left or the nationalist right. He can not do both. That is just a tactical reality. Together they are strong enough to make him do something stupid, divided weak. Putin needs to pit one against the other but hasn't been able to as of yet. Together the communist and anarchist could have beaten Franco. Yet by calling for revolution when there was a civil war to contend with..well we know how that turned out.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Putin needs to pit one against the other but hasn't been able to as of yet.

That really can't be that hard to do since you are dealing with the radical left, and the fascists.

He can however please the fascists and then simply turn on the left. Since capitalists are much more sympathetic to the fascists than they are to the communists.

[Prometeo liberado]

That really can't be that hard to do since you are dealing with the radical left, and the fascists.

He can however please the fascists and then simply turn on the left. Since capitalists are much more sympathetic to the fascists than they are to the communists.

The problem with the fascist turning on the left with Putins help is that it would not benefit Putin. The fascist are relatively large in numbers and have well connected friends. You don't support a rising threat to your power unless they have been bloodied good and well fighting your enemies for you. By then it's easier to knock them off.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The problem with the fascist turning on the left with Putins help is that it would not benefit Putin. The fascist are relatively large in numbers and have well connected friends. You don't support a rising threat to your power unless they have been bloodied good and well fighting your enemies for you. By then it's easier to knock them off.


I suppose it would make sense, however I just can't see fascist fighting side by side with communists. Seems so unorthodox, and just I guess "wrong". I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Black, yellow, white flag does not belong to the Slavic Union, but is used by fascist organisations

OK, so I also spotted orange flags in there, as in liberal "Orange Revolution"-style flags. :confused:

[Prometeo liberado]

OK, so I also spotted orange flags in there, as in liberal "Orange Revolution"-style flags. :confused:

Ya, what strikes me is that it looks as if these people are willing to rally around anything other than Putin at this point. If that is true than they could unify with just about anyone besides Putin.

[Grenzer]

Hmm, civil war now and revolution afterwords? Pick your battles? March together now against the common enemy and settle differences afterwords? Sound a lot like the Spanish Civil War arguments to me. Although if Stalin's name is involved it's called supporting the Bourgeois. Destroy the immediate enemy with the united forces you have and then go after the revolution, seems logical to me.

Hopefully you're aware that it's the EXACT same logic the SPD and the other Second International parties used to support The First World War.

"We'll just support the war real quick, and when it's over we'll get back to fighting our own bourgeoisie."

It doesn't work because in the course of this class collaboration the party just becomes reformist, and incapable of working towards revolution. It's happened with all the parties that engaged in the Popular Front, and most of the ones that participated in the so-called United Front with bourgeois 'socialists' as well. It's been historically proven to be a fatally flawed doctrine on multiple occasions.

[Raskolnikov]

It's a dirty business, however an unfortunate 'necessary evil' up until the Fascists shoot guns at the Communists or anyone else in this very loose united Front. (whose term of existence can be called into question)


While one would want more of the Republican-United-Front in Spain where they co-operated with each other towards a common goal (destroying the Fascist aligned Franco and Nationalists), however there are some cases of a China-type. Where you get a shitty partner, one who attempts to kill you alot.

And you only use the United Front as long as it seems vital, reliable and a means to connect with the masses with Revolutionary slogans, Revolutionary Consciousness and the idea of Revolutionary Struggle.

But yeah - unexpected. Really unexpected.

[Prometeo liberado]

Hopefully you're aware that it's the EXACT same logic the SPD and the other Second International parties used to support The First World War.

"We'll just support the war real quick, and when it's over we'll get back to fighting our own bourgeoisie."

It doesn't work because in the course of this class collaboration the party just becomes reformist, and incapable of working towards revolution. It's happened with all the parties that engaged in the Popular Front, and most of the ones that participated in the so-called United Front with bourgeois 'socialists' as well. It's been historically proven to be a fatally flawed doctrine on multiple occasions.

I don't support it. This just seems to be the logical outcome of a mass of people clinging to "anything but Putin". Support for a global war and getting immediate results of almost any kind in Putin's Russia are two totally different things though.

[workerist]

before you even debate the merits of a fascist/left-wing alliance, you guys should realize those flags (black, yellow, white) are used by a broad range of people on the political right in russia. everything from traditionalist monarchists to radical nationalists and neo-nazis. all of these people are reactionaries, but fascist? not quite. some of them would probably find common cause with the liberals and socialists in demanding a more democratic system. the real fascists would prefer a real fascist dictatorship and the left should have nothing to do with them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"First Hitler, then us!" Was the cry of the German radicals before they were rounded up.

I agree that a brawl between these forces at that time probably would not have served the left very well, but it is suicidal insanity to believe that there can be some kind of right-left front against the regime.

The Left needs to ice-out the fascists for a start. Incorporate liberation demands (that many will agree with but fascists will not) with the anti-Putin points of unity and try and rally people to that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hopefully you're aware that it's the EXACT same logic the SPD and the other Second International parties used to support The First World War.

"We'll just support the war real quick, and when it's over we'll get back to fighting our own bourgeoisie."

It doesn't work because in the course of this class collaboration the party just becomes reformist, and incapable of working towards revolution. It's happened with all the parties that engaged in the Popular Front, and most of the ones that participated in the so-called United Front with bourgeois 'socialists' as well. It's been historically proven to be a fatally flawed doctrine on multiple occasions.

I don't think this historical analogy fits.

The SPD had already become reformist in effect and saw supporting the gains and reforms made over the previous decades in Germany as a reason to support the German government. It wasn't the other way around with their support leading to their reformism - it was just the clear evidence of how far astray their politics had led them.

At any rate what they were suggesting was that the "international" parties should support their native bourgoise as a "devil they know" - but of course as a consequence this led unavoidably to supporting the slaughter of workers from other nations.

In this Russian situation we don't have the left supporting one bourgeois ruling class over another as in WWI 2nd International politics, but a sort of "united front" of left and fascist against the representative of the ruling class. The problem is that fascists would gladly side with Putin if he gave them more power and legitimacy and Putin would turn to the fascists if the Russian ruling class actually felt that their rule was threatened.

A united front can only work if all the forces say they want the same thing. This allows radicals to engage in necessary practical movement activities (like opposing a war or opposing fascists) while retaining their independence when they are a minority in the mass movement - and it allows radicals to try and expose the limitations of the non-revolutionary leaders and win the supporters of the reformist groups to a better and effective way to do what the reformists say they want to do. The Left and far-right might have overlapping superficial goals every once in a while, but they are fundamentally opposed. A wolf and a deer may both want to get away from a mountain lion, but an alliance between them won't end well for the deer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I implied above, this is a Popular Front. The mere presence of liberals is proof enough. That, I believe, is what comrade Ghost Bebel is referring to.

[Grenzer]

As I implied above, this is a Popular Front. The mere presence of liberals is proof enough. That, I believe, is what comrade Ghost Bebel is referring to.

Indeed it is. A United Front is supposed to be a front of proletarian organizations, but historically, especially as Trotsky used it, it's always been used in the context of a popular front. It's a loaded term now and one that's been corrupted beyond use, so I think we need a new kind of term for a new kind of front that explicitly rules out collaboration with bourgeois socialists, if indeed the SPD of the 1930's could even be considered to be bourgeois socialists(as opposed to ordinary liberals) at all. I have a hard time seeing any political group that embraces Keynesianism as anything other than liberal.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think we all agree that any "alliance" of left/right forces in Russia would be nonsense. Yet looking at the current state of affairs there it's not hard to see that it isn't impossible. Still doesn't make it right. For the left to organize along the lines of "Beat the Fascist first, Putin later" is to overestimate the power of the Fascist and greatly play into the hands of Putin.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's a loaded term now and one that's been corrupted beyond use, so I think we need a new kind of term for a new kind of front that explicitly rules out collaboration with bourgeois socialists...
But what kind of a front we're talking about here since you (rightly) exclude contemporary social democracy from possible cooperation with proletarian organizations? What forces are their to front up with anyhow?

Also, when advocating fronts in general, still it seems a bit dubious to reject social democrats (and by social democrats I don't mean third way social democracy) and still talk about a "new kind of front", but again this ties in with the previous question.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But what kind of a front we're talking about here since you (rightly) exclude contemporary social democracy from possible cooperation with proletarian organizations? What forces are their to front up with anyhow?

Also, when advocating fronts in general, still it seems a bit dubious to reject social democrats (and by social democrats I don't mean third way social democracy) and still talk about a "new kind of front", but again this ties in with the previous question.

In my opinion, more populist elements, specifically those that are also communitarian, come to mind.

[Thirsty Crow]

In my opinion, more populist elements, specifically those that are also communitarian, come to mind.
I'm totally unfamiliar with "communitarian-ism", so you'd have to provide a coherent definition and provide examples.
But speaking from experience while not claiming some universality, populists more often than not reveal themselves as simple nationalists co-opting some of the focus and demands of the labour movement as a platform for attracting voters, and consequently, as a means of projecting nationality as directly and consciously opposed to class issues for the sake of class collaboration.

I can't see how a "new kind of united front" could be formed with nationalists (and I shudder to think that you might make a historical reference to the Strasserites in the 30s, because I vaguely recall something along those lines coming from you).

[Geiseric]

The United Front with Bourgeois Socialists wasn't a popular front, and like i've said a fucking million times by now, the front with the SRs and Mensheviks was a good thing since it let the bolsheviks carry out the revolution after it gave them a chance to connect with the masses of menshevik and SR peasantry and working class. Any kind of popular front for some mythical "democratic front," with the inheritly anti democratic bourgeois class is doomed to end like the SPD before WW2. This notion of a "new kind of front," is un necessary since united fronts with other working class parties has historically worked when the left populists and defensists are desperate enough for their own survival against all of the Putins, Neo Nazis, and Ultra Nationalists who threatened a mortal blow to the working class since they are the most reactionary bourgeois parties.

[Geiseric]

Besides the front from a point of morals and sanity shouldn't extend anywhere beyond class struggle anarchists to defensists, whose memberships have a good chance of being radicalised once put in contact with revolutionaries.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can't see how a "new kind of united front" could be formed with nationalists (and I shudder to think that you might make a historical reference to the Strasserites in the 30s, because I vaguely recall something along those lines coming from you).

I never made a historical reference to Strasser and the leaders who got suckered into the Knight of the Long Knives, though. :confused:


I'm totally unfamiliar with "communitarian-ism", so you'd have to provide a coherent definition and provide examples.

The Paris Commune was, for all intents and purposes, a Communitarian Populist Front, uniting the mainly petit-bourgeois Communal Council apparatus with the mainly proletarian National Guard.

[A Marxist Historian]

As I implied above, this is a Popular Front. The mere presence of liberals is proof enough. That, I believe, is what comrade Ghost Bebel is referring to.

No, this is definitely not a Popular Front. A Popular Front was or is an alliance of all non-fascists, including liberal and sometimes even not-so-liberal capitalists, vs. fascism.

This is an alliance with fascism.

What it is not is something new, unfortunately. It is simply the latest edition of the infamous "red brown coalitions" that have prevented working class resistance vs. capitalism in Russia since the first was formed just a few months after Yeltsin grabbed the power. The cement is bourgeois Russian nationalism and, of course, anti-Semitism.

In the past, the main force behind it was Zyuganov's so-called "Russian Communist Party," which is really a bourgeois nationalist party based on nostalgia for when the USSR was a superpower under Brezhnew etc.

I suppose the Hitler-Stalin pact could be considered a precedent. As well as the outbreak of Russian chauvinism and anti-Semitism in Stalin's last years, the "doctor's plot" etc.

But, to be fair, I very much doubt the ghost of Stalin would approve of this stuff, which takes his toadying to reaction to its logical extreme, farther no doubt than Stalin himself would approve.

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

is RCWP-RPC or AKM involved in the march?

[Die Neue Zeit]

is RCWP-RPC

I'm pretty sure that leading force on the Russian left is involved.

[Nox]

Those "commies" aren't really commies. You see, nationalism in Russia is divided into two main groups: Those who have nostalgia for Imperial Russia, and those who have nostalgia for the USSR. Both are equally as fascist/nationalist/whatever. That's why you see so many Russian nationalists waving USSR flags (ironically) and admiring Stalin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those "commies" aren't really commies. You see, nationalism in Russia is divided into two main groups: Those who have nostalgia for Imperial Russia, and those who have nostalgia for the USSR. Both are equally as fascist/nationalist/whatever. That's why you see so many Russian nationalists waving USSR flags (ironically) and admiring Stalin.

Um, the faux CPRF wasn't part of the march. :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

Those "commies" aren't really commies. You see, nationalism in Russia is divided into two main groups: Those who have nostalgia for Imperial Russia, and those who have nostalgia for the USSR. Both are equally as fascist/nationalist/whatever. That's why you see so many Russian nationalists waving USSR flags (ironically) and admiring Stalin.

The Left Front is not the same as the KPRF though.