Communist-Fascist Cooperation

[Smash Monogamy]

Can you give me any instances where communists (of any type) collaborated with fascists for whatever reason?

[Sinister Intents]

Well there was the Soviet Union collaborating with Nazi Germany in an instant. I think it was a non-agression pact, I don't remember the name though. I think the Brest-Litovsk Pact? Idr......

[Perditious C]

Close, it was called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was a treaty of non-aggression between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That's the closest thing to collaboration I can think of, and then the fascists broke said pact (surprise) with the failed invasion of Russia.

[Hrafn]

Well there was the Soviet Union collaborating with Nazi Germany in an instant. I think it was a non-agression pact, I don't remember the name though. I think the Brest-Litovsk Pact? Idr......

That'd be the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where they also divvied up Europe for conquest. Brest-Litovsk Treaty ended the Russian/Soviet involvement in WW1.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That'd be the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where they also divvied up Europe for conquest. Brest-Litovsk Treaty ended the Russian/Soviet involvement in WW1.

It was just as much of a travesty though, no matter how necessary it might have been under the circumstances of easing the pressure and readying forces for the civil war.

[Hrafn]

(Sorry, didn't see I was ninja'd. No idea how that happened.)

[Red Economist]

I've once read there was co-operation between the local branches of the Nazi Party and the German Communist Party in the early 1930's in Wiemar Germany (because they both hated the social democrats). In some places they shared the same offices. This was not and never was official policy between the two parties.

I've no sources to hand for that, but it's pretty startling in retrospect (if true).

I think the Chinese Communists worked with the Koumintang (Chinese Nationalists) until 1927, but I don't know much about that and I'm not 100% sure they were 'fascists' (but I've heard the accusation thrown around).

[Left Voice]

The Komintang case is a tad complicated because (at the time) it was more of a broad church of pro-republicanism. Sun Yat-Sen was a republican in the broadest sense and was more concerned about overthrowing the previous corrupt dynasty than later ideological disagreements with the CCP (hence even the CCP consider him to be a forefather despite being leader of the Komintang).

This largely changed when the Komintang massacred communists under Chang Kai-Shek, but even then the Komintang had a sizeable far left communist wing until the civil war.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've once read there was co-operation between the local branches of the Nazi Party and the German Communist Party in the early 1930's in Wiemar Germany (because they both hated the social democrats). In some places they shared the same offices. This was not and never was official policy between the two parties.

I've no sources to hand for that, but it's pretty startling in retrospect (if true).

I think the Chinese Communists worked with the Koumintang (Chinese Nationalists) until 1927, but I don't know much about that and I'm not 100% sure they were 'fascists' (but I've heard the accusation thrown around).

Yes the KPD and the NSDAP coordinated some strike actions together in the early 30s. The Soviets would then go on to repatriate members of the KPD that had fled to the USSR for protection, very neighborly of them.

[Atsumari]

The pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine.

[Slavic]

The pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine.

Who are the Communists in this situation? All I see are Russian and Ukrainian Facists.

[Atsumari]

I was mostly thinking about some of the leftists outside of Ukraine giving their support to the "anti-fascist" resistance against the "fascist Banderite junta" but we cannot forget the role of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the the Communist Party of the Russian Federation who are more than happy to frame this conflict into a World War II re-enactment. Of course I do not consider these people to be leftists, but the unfortunate fact is that they use the rhetoric of anti-fascism while being awkwardly silent about the ultra-nationalism that seems to plague the movement.

[Broviet Union]

This is only mildly related, but there is a trend in Neo-Fascists thought advocating for a Red-Brown alliance against Liberalism. The Fascists advocating this tend to view Stalinist regimes as Crypto-Nationalist (shocker) and less of a threat to their values than Western Liberalism.

[Hrafn]

This is only mildly related, but there is a trend in Neo-Fascists thought advocating for a Red-Brown alliance against Liberalism. The Fascists advocating this tend to view Stalinist regimes as Crypto-Nationalist (shocker) and less of a threat to their values than Western Liberalism.

Take National Bolshevism for example.

[Geiseric]

The red referendum was when the kpd worked with the NSDAP to impeach the weimar state.

[Smash Monogamy]

This is only mildly related, but there is a trend in Neo-Fascists thought advocating for a Red-Brown alliance against Liberalism. The Fascists advocating this tend to view Stalinist regimes as Crypto-Nationalist (shocker) and less of a threat to their values than Western Liberalism.

I heard of this before. Though are there any leftist organizations that advocate a "Red-Brown" alliance?

[Црвена]

All these "communists," who collaborated with fascists are just red fascists, and they are the ones who have killed millions and millions of people. They make me sick.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

This isn't an example of collaboration of course, but both communists and fascists generally oppose Israel. Just for completely opposite reasons.

[Monkey Queen]

Takayuk wrote:
It was just as much of a travesty though, no matter how necessary it might have been under the circumstances of easing the pressure and readying forces for the civil war.

Just as a general question, how can something be both a necessity and a travesty?

[Geiseric]

Just as a general question, how can something be both a necessity and a travesty?

I dont know what tayauki is talking about, it wasnt a travesty in any way. The bolsheviks promised peace, and it didnt come at the expense of the foreign socialists.

[Five Year Plan]

The elephant in the room:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01482/Molotov-Ribbentrop_1482654a.jpg

[Remus Bleys]

I dont know what tayauki is talking about, it wasnt a travesty in any way. The bolsheviks promised peace, and it didnt come at the expense of the foreign socialists.


Just as a general question, how can something be both a necessity and a travesty?



Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced "compromises" with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimises the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into "compromises"!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists. (The history of the British labour movement provides a very large number of instances of such treacherous compromises by British trade union leaders, but, in one form or another, almost all workers in all countries have witnessed the same sort of thing.)


Today, when I hear our tactics in signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty being attacked by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, for instance, or when I hear Comrade Lansbury say, in a conversation with me, "Our British trade union leaders say that if it was permissible for the Bolsheviks to compromise, it is permissible for them to compromise too", I usually reply by first of all giving a simple and "popular" example:
Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise. "Do ut des" (I "give" you money, fire-arms and a car "so that you give" me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be "inadmissible on principle", or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was just that kind of compromise.

The travesty consisted of it being necessary. Had it been possible, the treaty shouldn't have been signed. Unfortunately it was not possible leaving the treaty the least awful option. In "Left wing childness" lenin criticized the Russian lefts for not understanding that yes, even though revolutionary war is Holy war ("If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and developing socialism, such a war is legitimate and “holy”.") it was simply not possible in Russia due to its weakness. Takayuki is lamenting the fact its weakness would have caused the continuation of this "holy war" of the proletariat to be a reactionary move: takayuki is lamenting the weakness of Russia and the imperialist might of Germany in that time.
Signing of Brest Treaty was a good thing in so far that continuation of the war would have spelt certain doom with no chance of hope for Russia (thus Russian help would disappear with Russia - which would have meant the Russian proletariat sacrificed itself for nothing and Revolution in Germany would still fail - as it still would have had little external help (if not less!)), but had this not been the case and if Russia could continue then perhaps the German Revolution would have succeeded.
The treaty must be upheld as the only possible course of action at that time, but if things had been in the communists' favor, then the treaty wouldn't have been and shouldn't have been signed as this "Holy war" would be both possible and practical and thus must be fought.
edit: I hope I covered geiseric but honestly I got nothing out of it other than he misinterpretted Lenin's justification of it. Other than that genuinely can't make heads nor tails of what he was trying to convey there.

[#FF0000]

This isn't an example of collaboration of course, but both communists and fascists generally oppose Israel. Just for completely opposite reasons.

I kinda noticed the opposite -- fascists love Israel cuz ethnonationalism

[BolshevikBabe]

If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is "communist-fascist co-operation" then the Anglo-German Naval Agreements, Munich Agreement etc. count as liberal-fascist co-operation.

[Remus Bleys]

If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is "communist-fascist co-operation" then the Anglo-German Naval Agreements, Munich Agreement etc. count as liberal-fascist co-operation.

Well yeah they were. And Churchill praised mussolini as well. What's your point?

[BolshevikBabe]

Well yeah they were. And Churchill praised mussolini as well. What's your point?

Just that a lot of people seem to think the M-R pact was some kind of "betrayal" despite the fact the USSR had attempted to form collective security pacts with Britain and France for a good 5 years or so, to their complete disinterest. I imagine less people would be that hypocritical on here but it's more or less omnipresent elsewhere.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I kinda noticed the opposite -- fascists love Israel cuz ethnonationalism

I guess it depends on what you mean by fascists. There are those types who are primarily concerned with Jews and there are those types who are primarily concerned with Muslims.

[Geiseric]

The travesty consisted of it being necessary. Had it been possible, the treaty shouldn't have been signed. Unfortunately it was not possible leaving the treaty the least awful option. In "Left wing childness" lenin criticized the Russian lefts for not understanding that yes, even though revolutionary war is Holy war ("If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and developing socialism, such a war is legitimate and “holy”.") it was simply not possible in Russia due to its weakness. Takayuki is lamenting the fact its weakness would have caused the continuation of this "holy war" of the proletariat to be a reactionary move: takayuki is lamenting the weakness of Russia and the imperialist might of Germany in that time.
Signing of Brest Treaty was a good thing in so far that continuation of the war would have spelt certain doom with no chance of hope for Russia (thus Russian help would disappear with Russia - which would have meant the Russian proletariat sacrificed itself for nothing and Revolution in Germany would still fail - as it still would have had little external help (if not less!)), but had this not been the case and if Russia could continue then perhaps the German Revolution would have succeeded.
The treaty must be upheld as the only possible course of action at that time, but if things had been in the communists' favor, then the treaty wouldn't have been and shouldn't have been signed as this "Holy war" would be both possible and practical and thus must be fought.
edit: I hope I covered geiseric but honestly I got nothing out of it other than he misinterpretted Lenin's justification of it. Other than that genuinely can't make heads nor tails of what he was trying to convey there.
Its debatable that Russias defeat in the war, like with the war russia had with japan before the 1905 revolution, was aan objective factor in causing the revolution to happen though.

[Remus Bleys]

Its debatable that Russias defeat in the war, like with the war russia had with japan before the 1905 revolution, was aan objective factor in causing the revolution to happen though.

So you completely ignore Lenin's position (and unsurprisingly, Trotsky's position), in order to reveal your lack of understanding events in the Russian revolution, yet again. The treaty was signed in 1918, you know this, right? Like, what are you even talking about here?
And of course Russia's poor performance in the War were factors of the February and October revolutions, but what do you mean defeat?

[Geiseric]

I dont think that the treaty "legitimized" the german state, it was conducted in a way that revealed and highlighted german imperialist war goals. In conclusion it was much different than the MR pact.

[Tim Cornelis]

Mostly Stalinists (Left Front -- not exclusively Stalinists -- and 'Communist' Party) and fascists marching peacefully against Putin (Black, gold, white flag = Imperialist Russian flag used by Russian fascists):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Anti-Putin_rally_in_Moscow_4_February_2012_Faerberg.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02093/crowds2_2093377b.jpg

[Rurkel]

There're also some flags of liberal organizations in the march in question, so it's more like communist-liberal-fascist cooperation. :ohmy: