WW2 Discussion [Archive]

Devrim

7th September 2007, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:59 pm
I doubt any "Trostkyist" would deny that Trotsky supported the USSR during the war.
The guy above made a mistake. I don't think that it deserves so much scorn from you.

Of course, you also make a mistake yourself:

Trotsky supported the USSR during the war.

He didn't. He was dead.

There are various sources that suggest, including his wife, that suggest that Trotsky was about to change his position. I am not sure of their validity.

The fact is though that Trotsky didn't support the USSR in the war as he had been dead for ten months when the Soviet Union entered the war.

What's your point? Are you of the opinion that we should NOT have supported the Allied struggle against the Germans?

Yes, of course I am. As you well know the communist left stood for internationalism, and against the idea of national defence even in the Second World War.

If so, make that case and stop insinuating.

I am not insinuating. I am quite willing to argue it. I would prefer it though if you made another thread, and left this one to establishing the facts.

And of course many people on the left were left confused during the fucking Falklands war, not least because of the nature of the Argentinian military regime.

Oh dear, if they were confused by that one...

It was one of the most clear wars to argue an internationalist perspective on. The Militant supported the British state because it was completely tied to the British state.

One editorial written by the fucking Militant is hardly a blight on the whole history anti-Stalinist Marxism

The left communists are a part of the 'anti-Stalinist Marxis[t]' tradition. If you remember your history, you will know that the last person to confront Stalin to his face in the Comintern, and tell him that he was the 'gravedigger of the revolution' was a left communist.

It is endemic of Trotskyism though, and its betrayal of both internationalism, and the working class.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

7th September 2007, 17:04

Yes, of course I am. As you well know the communist left stood for internationalism, and against the idea of national defence even in the Second World War.

Are you dead serious about that statement ? :wacko:

So the communists should have sat simply and let Nazis kill more workers ? :blink: .

Soviet participation in WW2 is more than National defense. It cannot be reduced to such simple analysis. Of course it is an war of Imperialist expansion and defense but also major factor which lead to the death of Colonialism and many other things. It did enhance the class struggle in many ways.

Leo

7th September 2007, 18:00

Are you dead serious about that statement ?

So the communists should have sat simply and let Nazis kill more workers ?

Is your idea of fighting Nazis being servants of bourgeois governments who had deals which they considered quite solid in a matter of months before going to war?

Of course communists should not have "sat simply and let Nazis kill more workers". They should have worked against the Nazis. This didn't mean they had to join the Western bourgeoisie thought. Quite the contrary, they had to oppose it too: the communists in an imperialist war do not work for the victory of one imperialist power over another: they work to turn the imperialist war into civil war in all countries.

And real communists did actually try to do this. Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in Holland, for example declared:

"How to struggle?
With Germany? No!
With England? No!
Third front, socialist proletariat!
Against national socialism and
Against national bolshevism:
International class war!"

The leaders of the organization, were shot, not shouting "with dignity for the freedom of the country" (as the popular front slogan was) but shouting "long live the world revolution".

The organization called French Communist Left in France too were engaged in a similar struggle in Vichy France. So was the Italian left communists. So was Paul Mattick group. So was the Revolutionary Komunists Deutchlands...

Soviet participation in WW2 is more than National defense.

Yeah, it is more than just national defense, it is also imperialism and the invasion of Eastern Europe. The American participation also is more than "helping freedom loving people fight fascism", it is also dropping a-bombs in Japan and it is also the Marshal Plan.

Of course it is an war of Imperialist expansion and defense but also major factor which lead to the death of Colonialism

Regardless of the whole "death of colonialism" thing, what did that had to do with the War? Was it Germany who was the strongest colonial power or was it Great Britain?

Vargha Poralli

8th September 2007, 10:22

Is your idea of fighting Nazis being servants of bourgeois governments who had deals which they considered quite solid in a matter of months before going to war?

No the Fascists should have been fought against from the beginning. Whihc has been emphasised by Trotsky from the beginning. I remeber you justified the Stalintern's stance especailly in Germany in a older thread.

The outbreak of the war left every one with no choice.

The above statement doen't imply that I support Stalin's deal with both Reich and the Allies.

Of course communists should not have "sat simply and let Nazis kill more workers". They should have worked against the Nazis. This didn't mean they had to join the Western bourgeoisie thought. Quite the contrary, they had to oppose it too: the communists in an imperialist war do not work for the victory of one imperialist power over another: they work to turn the imperialist war into civil war in all countries.

And real communists did actually try to do this. Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in Holland, for example declared:

"How to struggle?
With Germany? No!
With England? No!
Third front, socialist proletariat!
Against national socialism and
Against national bolshevism:
International class war!"

The leaders of the organization, were shot, not shouting "with dignity for the freedom of the country" (as the popular front slogan was) but shouting "long live the world revolution".

The organization called French Communist Left in France too were engaged in a similar struggle in Vichy France. So was the Italian left communists. So was Paul Mattick group. So was the Revolutionary Komunists Deutchlands...

Yes unfortunately the outcome was not like the one of the WW1. The factors which lead to it are 1) Stalin and Imperialists 2) The magnitude of the War 3) The number of Civilian Casualties.

Yeah, it is more than just national defense, it is also imperialism and the invasion of Eastern Europe.

Partially.

The American participation also is more than "helping freedom loving people fight fascism", it is also dropping a-bombs in Japan and it is also the Marshal Plan.

Absolutely.

Regardless of the whole "death of colonialism" thing, what did that had to do with the War?

Well why do you think the War really originated ?

Why do you think Hitler decided to invade the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union despite of the treaty with Stalin and more importantly without securing Western Flank (either by defeating or negotiating with Britain)? Or the Japanese invaded the Asia-Pacific region ?

The German and Japanese capital's need for Markets(Raw Materials and Finished goods - in other words colonies) to expand itself.

Was it Germany who was the strongest colonial power or was it Great Britain?

Is that a very intelligent question ? I think every one knows answers.

Forward Union

8th September 2007, 10:39

I will have to take up the cliche position of opposing all of the states. During the second world war there were numerous class struggles going on that get my pat on the back.

Interestingly, a lot of members of the CNT and FAI who escaped to france helped organise The resistance while others offered to join the Allied millitary, and volonteered to take up unwanted jobs like clearing minefields for the allied war effort. Obviously these peopel were driven by an emotive desire to defeat the nazis, to achieve some feeling of vengance, without considering the politics properly (they obviously didn't listen to durruti). I don't support the anarchists that joined the Allies, but I do support those who organised the local resistances to nazi occupation in france.

Originally posted by libcom article
The French anarchist groups worked closely with the underground Spanish anarchist movement in France and inside Spain opposing the Franco regime. They also had cooperative working arrangements with people and groups outside the anarchist movement.

http://libcom.org/history/1939-1945-spanis...tance-in-france (http://libcom.org/history/1939-1945-spanish-resistance-in-france)

Also, groups like the Edelweiss Pirates, and numerous other clandestie organisations fought the nazi and fascist war machines from the inside.

One good biography is of "Italian anarchist, anti-fascist partisan and local hero Silvano Fedi. Fighting in the Resistance, he was killed in a Nazi ambush in 1944"

http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/files/silvano-fedi.jpg

What is particularly impressive is that many of these groups refused to disarm when they were liberated by the allied forces arguing that "the armed resistance must lead on to social revolution." You can read it all here (http://libcom.org/history/fedi-silvano-1920-1944)

Devrim

8th September 2007, 11:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:22 am
No the Fascists should have been fought against from the beginning. Whihc has been emphasised by Trotsky from the beginning. I remeber you justified the Stalintern's stance especailly in Germany in a older thread.

I very much doubt that Leo defended the Stalin/Comintern line. This is called amalgamation, and is usually considered to be a Stalinist trick.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

8th September 2007, 12:05

I very much doubt that Leo defended the Stalin/Comintern line. This is called amalgamation, and is usually considered to be a Stalinist trick.

No he didn't defend it. He justified it. here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60280&hl=Social+Fascists)

And that is a response in context to Leo's post.

Leo

8th September 2007, 12:09

No the Fascists should have been fought against from the beginning.

Yes, they should have been fought against from the beginning, always; together with rest of the capitalist powers and imperialist powers. None is, and can ever be friends of communists especially in a period where revolution is possible.

Whihc has been emphasised by Trotsky from the beginning.

What Trotsky emphasized was a "united front" of Stalinists, social democrats and Trotskyists. It was a fantasy, originating from a mistaken analysis of Stalinists and social democrats being "proletarian" forces. In Spain, there was a more or less similar front, with a "progressive" part of the bourgeoisie included as well (however the Stalinists and the social democrats were no less part of the bourgeoisie so "popular front" and "united front" did not have much real difference): all those defending "radical" ideas such as "class struggle" were killed by the Stalinists because they were disturbing the Western Allies as well as Russian imperialist interests.

I remeber you justified the Stalintern's stance especailly in Germany in a older thread.

No, I ridiculed Trotsky's stand: there is not much to criticize about the Comintern's stance: they did what they were told to do, they did what was best for the interests of Russian imperialism. We can't "constructively criticize" them as if they were an actually proletarian force.

Yes unfortunately the outcome was not like the one of the WW1.

No it wasn't. Counter-revolutionary forces, whether they be Nazis or democrats but more significantly Stalinists, always did all they can to suppress the tiny revolutionary forces.

Why do you think Hitler decided to invade the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union despite of the treaty with Stalin and more importantly without securing Western Flank (either by defeating or negotiating with Britain)? Or the Japanese invaded the Asia-Pacific region ?

Imperialist interests, obviously.

Is that a very intelligent question ? I think every one knows answers.

Yes, I hope so.

Devrim

8th September 2007, 12:14

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 08, 2007 09:39 am--> (Urban Spirit @ September 08, 2007 09:39 am) I will have to take up the cliche position of opposing all of the states. During the second world war there were numerous class struggles going on that get my pat on the back.
[/b]
'Urban Spirit' starts from the correct premise that the position of revolutionaries in a capitalist war is against all states.

He goes on to differentiate between the actions of different anarchists during the war:

Originally posted by Urban [email protected]
Obviously these peopel were driven by an emotive desire to defeat the nazis, to achieve some feeling of vengance, without considering the politics properly (they obviously didn't listen to durruti). I don't support the anarchists that joined the Allies, but I do support those who organised the local resistances to nazi occupation in france.

Here I feel he makes the mistake of imagining that their could be independent class based military groups in a time of utter defeat for the working class.

In fact the very article he links to on libcom clearly demonstrates that there was no such independence. The following quote is one of many that I could have used to illustrate the point:

Fighting Talk
The effectiveness of the guerrilla campaign was to lead Eisenhower to comment that the Resistance effort around D-Day was worth a full 15 regular army divisions. Likewise Maquis support of the northern drive of the American 7th army was estimated as worth 4 or 5 divisions of regular troops. It should also be remembered that Allied troops never entered the South of the country. The whole area west of the Rhone and South of the Loire rivers was liberated by the national insurrection of the Maquis, as also was Brittany, save for the Atlantic ports with their strong German garrisons.

The role of the resistance groups as appendages of the allied armies is made very clear here.

The mistake in this position is still in evidence today. If we look back to the last Lebanese war there were various anarchists, and other leftists fantisising about 'independent class militias'.

It completely ignores the fact that outside of a large class movement armed groups of militants rapidly become isolated from the class they claim to represent, and in times of war end up as little more than axillary forces for different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

8th September 2007, 12:34

What Trotsky emphasized was a "united front" of Stalinists, social democrats and Trotskyists. It was a fantasy, originating from a mistaken analysis of Stalinists and social democrats being "proletarian" forces. In Spain, there was a more or less similar front, with a "progressive" part of the bourgeoisie included as well (however the Stalinists and the social democrats were no less part of the bourgeoisie so "popular front" and "united front" did not have much real difference): all those defending "radical" ideas such as "class struggle" were killed by the Stalinists because they were disturbing the Western Allies as well as Russian imperialist interests.

You are wrong in two fronts.

1) Germany - Trotsky advocated united front not as a class collaboration but rather as an anti-sectarian front against the common enemy - German Fascism. I am not very sure why it was not popular among the Stalinists and also for you too.

2) Spain is not a United Front - anti sectarian worker movement intended to defeat Fascism but a Popular front - a class colloboration with every movement has its own interest at the expense of the workers. You must know about the break up between POUM and Trotsky.

No, I ridiculed Trotsky's stand: there is not much to criticize about the Comintern's stance: they did what they were told to do, they did what was best for the interests of Russian imperialism. We can't "constructively criticize" them as if they were an actually proletarian force.

But strangely the policy advocated by Comintern is similar to your views.

I am not slandering you but pointing out the error.

No it wasn't. Counter-revolutionary forces, whether they be Nazis or democrats but more significantly Stalinists, always did all they can to suppress the tiny revolutionary forces.

I don't disagree.

Imperialist interests, obviously.

What differentiates Nazi aggression with American one is the mode at which German Capital tried to expand itself. That is why I mentioned Colonialism not Imperialism.

Originally posted by g.ram

Is that a very intelligent question ? I think every one knows answers.

Yes, I hope so.

Seriously you don't understand my question isn' it ?

Well take the example of India. The times of British Colonial rule is the worst on in this countries History. From end of East India Company's rule after 1857 revolt there are atleast 30 famines all over India with a toll of up to 40 million but the British Administration never cared. There are mnany accounts about authorities rigouroulsy collecting taxes during famines and still forcing farmers to grow cotton and jute for their home Industries rather than food crops. It also devastated many Indegenous industries with flooded british goods and protectionist trade system.

A very modern account is the Bengal Famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) which is the result of British Administration but overshadowed by the Holocaust .

Yes the free and independent India is not a workers paradise but atleast it was not a hell for workers and peasants the British Raj historically was.

So by causing an end to the British Colonialism in India WW2 did something good to the Indian workers and peasants.

Leo

8th September 2007, 13:44

1) Germany - Trotsky advocated united front not as a class collaboration but rather as an anti-sectarian front against the common enemy - German Fascism. I am not very sure why it was not popular among the Stalinists and also for you too.

Yes he didn't think it was class collaboration because he didn't think that the KPD and the SPD were in the side of the bourgeoisie. However, the fact was that those two forces were attached to this or that faction of the bourgeoisie, this and that imperialist power. Thus objectively, the "united front" would have been class collaboration also.

I am not slandering Trotsky's intentions about the "united front", but this tactic was mistaken, objectively not different from the "popular front" and would have lead to the same consequences.

The Stalinists of the KPD did not want this at the time, not because of a specific theory, but because they taught it would not be in their interests to do so. The SPD was still stronger then them and the KPD feared SPD dominating it.

As for myself, I would, obviously, defend a revolutionary working class struggle against the Nazis in Germany, connected with the international working class struggle for world revolution.

2) Spain is not a United Front - anti sectarian worker movement intended to defeat Fascism but a Popular front - a class colloboration with every movement has its own interest at the expense of the workers. You must know about the break up between POUM and Trotsky.

Yes I do, and I also know that the Spanish experience produced solid internationalist communists such as Munis. However, in a "united front", i.e a front of the official CP, social democrats and perhaps some more left-wing factions, every movement would have it's own interests as well: you would, after all have officel CPers and social democrats, being disturbed by all this talk about "class struggle" by the more "radical" ones. The point is that collaborating with liberal democrats is not that different with collaborating with social democrats or with Stalinists: all are enemies of the working class. Entering in a "front" with any of those factions can't bring any good.

But strangely the policy advocated by Comintern is similar to your views.

No, not really. Comintern advocated "Red Front", parliamentary and military, fighting to prevent Nazis from coming to power. What I (and communists of that time) advocate is international class struggle leading to proletarian revolution.

I am not slandering you but pointing out the error.

Yeah I know.

Seriously you don't understand my question isn' it ?

Well take the example of India. The times of British Colonial rule is the worst on in this countries History. From end of East India Company's rule after 1857 revolt there are atleast 30 famines all over India with a toll of up to 40 million but the British Administration never cared. There are mnany accounts about authorities rigouroulsy collecting taxes during famines and still forcing farmers to grow cotton and jute for their home Industries rather than food crops. It also devastated many Indegenous industries with flooded british goods and protectionist trade system.

A very modern account is the Bengal Famine which is the result of British Administration but overshadowed by the Holocaust .

Yes the free and independent India is not a workers paradise but atleast it was not a hell for workers and peasants the British Raj historically was.

So by causing an end to the British Colonialism in India WW2 did something good to the Indian workers and peasants.

Now I am confused about the point you are trying to make. Yes, Britain declined rapidly as an imperialist power following the world war 2 and yes, them being less succesful than American and Russian imperialists against Germany has got a lot to do with it, or in other words Germany being more succesful over Britain then over America and Russia. However, I don't think this has got anything to do with who to support during the war. I mean, I don't think you advocate communists supporting enemies of Britain (such as Germany) because of Britain being the strongest colonial power, right?

Vargha Poralli

8th September 2007, 18:31

The Stalinists of the KPD did not want this at the time, not because of a specific theory, but because they taught it would not be in their interests to do so.

Who are the Stalinists ? The leadership or the Rank and File ?

The SPD was still stronger then them and the KPD feared SPD dominating it.

Obviously. The Stalinist leadership cannot compromise on that.

But the fact we have to look at is whether we can apply the analysis of Leadership - both SPD's and KPD's to its rank and file ? I fear it will remain inconclusive simply for that fact that Histories gives improtance to Leadership not the Rank and File.

Yes I do, and I also know that the Spanish experience produced solid internationalist communists such as Munis. However, in a "united front", i.e a front of the official CP, social democrats and perhaps some more left-wing factions, every movement would have it's own interests as well: you would, after all have officel CPers and social democrats, being disturbed by all this talk about "class struggle" by the more "radical" ones. The point is that collaborating with liberal democrats is not that different with collaborating with social democrats or with Stalinists: all are enemies of the working class. Entering in a "front" with any of those factions can't bring any good.

The fundamental difference between the Spanish and the German experience the base of SPD and the base of Republicans.

Regardless of its traitorship the SPD did have a workers in its rank - the same cannot be said about Republicans - a Historic blunder which both the POUM and the Anarchists failed to identify.

And the power of the Stalinist leadership too was very weak in Germany - the opposite in Spain where as the main supplier of the Arms and Ammunition put the Stalinists in dictating terms and conditions and the power to attack the radical section of the resistance.

Originally posted by Leo
No, not really. Comintern advocated "Red Front", parliamentary and military, fighting to prevent Nazis from coming to power. What I (and communists of that time) advocate is international class struggle leading to proletarian revolution.

And how could that have happened at that time - the fascist movement came to existence in the first place as a full reaction against all worker's movements and what potential they had - another event like October. In that case all the Communists should have put aside their sectarian differences to fight that common enemy - failure of which is what the condition of worker's movement today.

And even now ? I could care less about which capitalist party rules in the center but the fact that Godhra carnage aftermath and the burning alive of Christian Missonaries would rather reduce the class struggle to religious conflict forces me to work with Stalinist against it. So blanketly puuting principles above the facts is not going to help anybody.

Now I am confused about the point you are trying to make. Yes, Britain declined rapidly as an imperialist power following the world war 2 and yes, them being less succesful than American and Russian imperialists against Germany has got a lot to do with it, or in other words Germany being more succesful over Britain then over America and Russia. However, I don't think this has got anything to do with who to support during the war. I mean, I don't think you advocate communists supporting enemies of Britain (such as Germany) because of Britain being the strongest colonial power, right?

Another misunderstanding.

Well indeed Stalinist CPI did call the 1942 Quit India movement as a Quisling act but the magnitude of the anti imperialist struggle even put the Congress leadership to surprise. Many leaders pleaded to Gandhi to call an end for it - the former refused to citing the popularity of the movement.

And the 1946 Royal India Navy mutiny and the subsequent uprisings against the INA trials did force the British to leave the colonial possessions in India - not as popularly believed the American or Soviet pressure. Those mutinies are self acts of the Indian workers,peasants and Soldiers - the only factor they lacked was a strong movement which could have prevented the Partition the following year which came along with the victory of Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisie.

Those things were the outcomes of the forced Indian involvement in to the war by the British Imperialists. Not because of the American or Soviet Imperialism's advantage over the British Colonialism.

I use the word Colonialism with a purpose. IMO the current Indian government is a servant of Imperialism or Neo Colonialism as somebody put it - a fact which is not recognised by many people. But it is not the same as it was under the British Colonialism.

Leo

9th September 2007, 13:52

Who are the Stalinists ? The leadership or the Rank and File ?

Obviously I am talking about the leadership. The rank and file of every party, including the Nazis as well as parties like liberal democrats are mostly made up of workers.

Obviously. The Stalinist leadership cannot compromise on that. But the fact we have to look at is whether we can apply the analysis of Leadership - both SPD's and KPD's to its rank and file ? I fear it will remain inconclusive simply for that fact that Histories gives improtance to Leadership not the Rank and File.

Well, for the workers in the rank-and-file of KPD and SPD, being there wasn't in their interests. The same thing applied for the workers in the rank-and-file of the Nazi Party. The interests of all those workers was same with the interests of the entire working class: proletarian revolution.

The fundamental difference between the Spanish and the German experience the base of SPD and the base of Republicans.

Regardless of its traitorship the SPD did have a workers in its rank - the same cannot be said about Republicans

SPD did have workers in it's rank, republicans too had workers in their ranks. It would be simply absurd to think that there weren't any liberal republican workers in Spain. Having workers in it's side, however, didn't change the fact that SPD was bourgeois, and it was dragging workers within it away from their interests: uniting against the common enemy, the bourgeoisie.

Every bourgeois party needs proletarians in it's rank-and-file because that's what will make them significant. The Nazis had workers in their rank and file, fascists in Spain had workers at their rank and file, liberals and conservatives had workers at their rank and file, social democratic and Stalinists parties had workers at their rank and file. This obviously doesn't mean that those parties are our friends.

And how could that have happened at that time - the fascist movement came to existence in the first place as a full reaction against all worker's movements and what potential they had - another event like October.

To be fair, only in Italy it came right after the possibility of another October, in support of the entire bourgeoisie. In Germany, the possibility of a revolution was pretty much over in early to mid twenties.

In that case all the Communists should have put aside their sectarian differences to fight that common enemy - failure of which is what the condition of worker's movement today.

And even now ? I could care less about which capitalist party rules in the center but the fact that Godhra carnage aftermath and the burning alive of Christian Missonaries would rather reduce the class struggle to religious conflict forces me to work with Stalinist against it. So blanketly puuting principles above the facts is not going to help anybody.

To be realistic, actual communists, that is not everyone who calls themselves "communists" but those who are dedicated to the working class struggle towards revolution, are always a tiny minority who can't, by themselves, have any impact whatsoever on bourgeois military conflicts. Only when operating among the working class and when influential among the working can communists have a major impact. Stalinists, social democrats etc. always naturally work for a bourgeois way of organizing conflict against the fascists: a regular bourgeois army, a bourgeois government, strictly hierarchical, strictly under their control. The victory of such forces against their foe, whether it be the fascists or an other faction of the bourgeoisie, who organize more or less similarly, depends on international politics: which imperialist power supports which side, which imperialist wants which side to win and how much it wants that. Now, if we forget that even being involved in such conflict is not in the interests of the working class, communists, by themselves, being involved in such a battle wouldn't even make any difference in determining who would win.

Communists can be strong only when operating within the working class, struggling for the interests of the working class, defending the independent organization of the working class: completely independent workers organs: independent assemblies, councils, militias and so forth. Only within such independent proletarian organs can communists have an impact on the whole society. This is, not just because of principles but for strict tactical reasons also. Only this way can communists actually have an impact on the whole society. Think of how the Bolsheviks prevented the Kornilov putsch. Did they gather all the party membership to stand against Kornilov militarily? No. Did they enter into a front with Kerensky? No. Did they enter into a front with the Mensheviks and SRs? No. There were independent proletarian organs, soviets, and in order to defend those organs, armed worker groups of factory committees were prepared to stop Kornilov.

Another misunderstanding.

Yeah, I still don't understand the point about about what to do during the War.

YKTMX

9th September 2007, 15:41

The fact is though that Trotsky didn't support the USSR in the war as he had been dead for ten months when the Soviet Union entered the war.

Quite right, my mistake.

Yes, of course I am. As you well know the communist left stood for internationalism, and against the idea of national defence even in the Second World War.

The "Communist" position was that we support a struggle against fascism that is both internationalist, bottom-up and effective. The Allied leaders, obviously, were concerned solely with their own class and "national" interests - hence the British spent most of their time putting down Indian independence movements rather than fighting the fascists.

The Allied leaders were not fighting for democracy, nor were they resolutely anti-fascist, as was shown both before and after the war was won.

Still, the idea that the bourgeois democracies, and indeed Stalin's Russia, were "just ad bad" as German Fascism was and remains a complete nonsense. It's a nonsense that was exposed, actually, by the complete failure of the "social-fascist" period of the Communists in Germany.

We'd call for a defense of bourgeois democracy, even from, I might add, the bourgeoisie themselves, many of whom, especially in Britain, were desperate for a compromise with Hitler.

It is endemic of Trotskyism though, and its betrayal of both internationalism, and the working class.

Don't be silly.

gilhyle

9th September 2007, 16:14

Trotsky's position is discussed here:

http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/bac...o3/RevDeft.html (http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No3/RevDeft.html)

the issue was the subject of vigorous debate within the Trotskyist groups and different groups adopted different views. The whole issue of Revolutioanry History from which the above article comes is worth reading.

Leo

9th September 2007, 16:41

We'd call for a defense of bourgeois democracy, even from, I might add, the bourgeoisie themselves

I know, many Trotskyists did defend the bourgeoisie, the imperialist interests of their own bourgeoisie and so forth. And it was not only the allies they defended, some Trotskyists chose to support the Axis over the allies. Regardless, a great majority of them, with the exceptions of Chinese group which published The Internationalist in 1941, the members of the 4th International’s Spanish section around Munis, the Revolutionaren Kommunisten Deutschlands (RKD), the Socialisme ou Barbarie group in France, Agis Stinas in Greece, and Natalia Trotsky, betrayed internationalism, and of course betrayed Trotsky as well who said:

"[W]e do not for a moment forget that this war is not our war (...) The 4th International bases its policy, not on the military fortunes of the capitalist states, but on the transformation of the imperialist war into a war of the workers against the capitalists, for the overthrow of the ruling class in every country, on the world socialist revolution (...) We explain to the workers that their interests and those of bloodthirsty capitalism cannot be reconciled. We mobilise the workers against imperialism. We propagate the unity of the workers in all the belligerent and neutral countries." (Manifesto of the 4th International, 29th May 1940).

Despite all his other mistakes, Trotsky did not support the Allied bourgeoisie and their imperialist interests during the second world war.

Poor old guy must have started turning in his grave almost as soon as he got there.

YKTMX

9th September 2007, 17:24

You have to balance, I think, the imperialist dynamic and the anti-fascist dynamic.

Bourgeois historians will always emphasis the "democratic" nature of the allied fights, while ignoring the allied history of appeasement and imperialism before, during and after the war.

But it would be a mistake for us to see the whole second war as simply an extension of the first. I think we have to recognise the anti-fascist dynamic at work both in the partisan struggle and, I think, in elements of the Allied struggle.

gilhyle

9th September 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 03:41 pm
[ Trotsky did not support the Allied bourgeoisie and their imperialist interests during the second world war.

Poor old guy must have started turning in his grave almost as soon as he got there.
You should read the link I posted.

gilhyle

9th September 2007, 18:12

Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front in Holland, for example declared:

"How to struggle?
With Germany? No!
With England? No!
Third front, socialist proletariat!
Against national socialism and
Against national bolshevism:
International class war!"

The leaders of the organization, were shot, not shouting "with dignity for the freedom of the country" (as the popular front slogan was) but shouting "long live the world revolution".

That organisation was actually split on the question:

http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/bac...o4/duttrot.html (http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No4/duttrot.html)

Vargha Poralli

9th September 2007, 18:59

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)The Nazis had workers in their rank and file, fascists in Spain had workers at their rank and file, liberals and conservatives had workers at their rank and file,[/b]

Not the entirely correct IMO. The Nazis social support is mainly from the petty bourgeoisie and the Lumpen elements of the Post War German society.

The arm of the Nazis with working class elements can be identified as the SA. And it is the one which faced first brutality of the Nazis after the KPD and SPD in the form of Night of Long Knives.

And social support of the Liberals and Republicans of Spain is not same as SPD.

Leo
Yeah, I still don't understand the point about about what to do during the War.

My point precisely Soviet involvement in War was not a thing that could be claimed as Imperialist expansionism - it is not like British or American involvement.

The setting up of defensive Satelite ring by the Soviet Bureaucracy in after the WW even though is tupid cannot be said as expansionist or imperialist.

And the WW2 did bring an end to open Colonialism - like the British Raj in India, French control of Indo-China,Algeria etc. It did bring significant change in consciousness of people - despite the victory Churchill who was openly against Independence to India - Britain's key colony was defeated - which shows the open hostility the Colonialism faced from the people of England itself.

Leo

9th September 2007, 19:01

That organisation was actually split on the question:

Later on it was, but this declaration as well as the murder of the leaders of the organization predates the split.

YKTMX

9th September 2007, 19:15

The arm of the Nazis with working class elements can be identified as the SA.

The SA were almost all demob German soldiers, brutalized by the experiences of the trenches. Many may have been from working class backgrounds, but to describe their membership as "working class" would be a mistake.

Leo

9th September 2007, 19:27

You should read the link I posted.

Several very clear quotes:

(In relation to making defeatism obligatory only in the Fascist countries and renouncing it in the "democratic" countries) "Defeatism is the class policy of the proletariat, which even during a war sees the main enemy at home, within its particular imperialist country. Patriotism, on the other hand is a policy that locates the main enemy outside one's own country. The idea of defeatism signifies in reality the following: conducting an irreconcilable revolutionary struggle against one's own bourgeoisie as the enemy, without being deterred by the fact that this struggle may result in the defeat of one's own government; given a revolutionary movement the defeat of one's own government is a lesser evil. Lenin did not say, nor did he wish to say, anything else. There cannot even be talk of any other kind of "aid" to defeat. Should revolutionary defeatism be renounced in relation to non-Fascist countries? Herein is the crux of the question; upon this issue, revolutionary internationalism stands or falls."

(On whether the working class must aid the "democracies" in their struggle against German Fascism) "That is how the question is put by broad petty-bourgeois circles, for whom the proletariat remains only an auxiliary tool of this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. We reject this policy with indignation. Naturally there exists a difference between the political regimes in bourgeois society, just as there is a difference in comfort between cars in a railway train. But when the whole train is plunging into an abyss, the distinction between decaying democracy and murderous Fascism disappears in the face of the collapse of the entire capitalist systern."

Leo

9th September 2007, 19:57

Not the entirely correct IMO. The Nazis social support is mainly from the petty bourgeoisie and the Lumpen elements of the Post War German society.

The arm of the Nazis with working class elements can be identified as the SA. And it is the one which faced first brutality of the Nazis after the KPD and SPD in the form of Night of Long Knives.

And social support of the Liberals and Republicans of Spain is not same as SPD.

This seems to me as a very mechanical analysis of the Nazis as well as Liberals and Republicans of Spain. Workers can be more in this bourgeois party and less in that bourgeois party: however any party to have a significant strength needs to have support of a considerable section of the proletariat. And the Nazi Party was called National "Socialist Workers" Party for some reason after all. And they have many policies after taking power to gain support of more workers, like the policy of a car for everyone and so forth.

My point precisely Soviet involvement in War was not a thing that could be claimed as Imperialist expansionism - it is not like British or American involvement.

The setting up of defensive Satelite ring by the Soviet Bureaucracy in after the WW even though is tupid cannot be said as expansionist or imperialist.

How more expansionist and imperialist can it be?

Devrim

9th September 2007, 20:10

Originally posted by YKTMX+September 09, 2007 06:15 pm--> (YKTMX @ September 09, 2007 06:15 pm)
The arm of the Nazis with working class elements can be identified as the SA.

The SA were almost all demob German soldiers, brutalized by the experiences of the trenches. Many may have been from working class backgrounds, but to describe their membership as "working class" would be a mistake. [/b]
I don't see what you are getting at here. Leo's original point was:

Leo
The Nazis had workers in their rank and file,

Of course they did. All bourgeois parties do.

I think the mistake you are making here is trying to make the class basis of the organisation a direct equivalent to its politics.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The Stalinists in some European countries had a massive working class base. It didn't stop their politics from being completely bourgeois.

Devrim

Devrim

9th September 2007, 22:37

Originally posted by YKTMX+September 09, 2007 02:41 pm--> (YKTMX @ September 09, 2007 02:41 pm) Still, the idea that the bourgeois democracies, and indeed Stalin's Russia, were "just ad bad" as German Fascism was and remains a complete nonsense. It's a nonsense that was exposed, actually, by the complete failure of the "social-fascist" period of the Communists in Germany.

[/b]
I don't quite see the connection here that you are trying to draw with the Comintern Third period. Considering that we are not saying the same thing as they are, I think it is trying to amalgamate our position with that of the Stalinists. I have mentioned before where that tactic comes from.

The question of whether German Fascism was worse than Stalinist Russia is a bit of an abstract one. Certainly both of them inflicted terrible conditions upon the working class. I don't think it is the job of revolutionaries to total up whether more workers died in Hitler, or Stalin's camps. Actually, I would say more died in Stalin's, but then as a percentage of the working class as a whole... The entire argument becomes ridiculous.

The communist position is one which does not involve choosing the least worst bourgeois faction, and backing it. It involves the struggle for the working class to assert its own interests as a class for itself.

The second world war was a massive defeat inflicted upon the working class, not least because it was completely ideological crushed. The working class which had stopped the war just over twenty years earlier was completely mobilised behind its own 'ruling classes', whether in the name of 'anti-fascism', the 'defence of the father land', or even Nazism itself in Germany, matters little. The result of the defeat of the revolutionary wave is clear. Workers once again massacring each other in the interests of national capital.

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)The "Communist" position was that we support a struggle against fascism that is both internationalist, bottom-up and effective. The Allied leaders, obviously, were concerned solely with their own class and "national" interests - hence the British spent most of their time putting down Indian independence movements rather than fighting the fascists.[/b]

The whole problem with this is that the struggle against fascism wasn't internationalist. It was the struggle of competing national capitals against each other. It was in fact a national struggle. The Trotskyists in the US did call for a 'bottom-up and effective' struggle, a sort of 'workers' self management of imperialist war' if you like. Of course they got nowhere.

Originally posted by YKTMX
The Allied leaders were not fighting for democracy, nor were they resolutely anti-fascist, as was shown both before and after the war was won.

We'd call for a defense of bourgeois democracy, even from, I might add, the bourgeoisie themselves, many of whom, especially in Britain, were desperate for a compromise with Hitler.

This is classic leftism. At least in Trotsky's time he was clear that defence of bourgeois democracy could only ever be a tactic (and in our opinion a very mistaken one at that). The leftists of today actually believe in it. In fact they claim to believe in it more than the bourgeoisie do themselves.

Further in the past, however, Marxists tended to be even more clear on this question:

Our final objective is the suppression of all states, and consequently of democracy.

Political freedom is a farce and the worst possible kind of slavery (...) So is political equality: this is why democracy must be torn to pieces as well as any other form of government.

I will leave you to guess whom these quotes come from.

The slogan of leftism today however appears to be 'support the least evil faction of the bourgeoisie'. Leo said that the 'old man' would be turning in his grave. So would Lenin if he had seen how his call for revolutionary defeatism was interpreted today.

[email protected]
]
Devrim
It is endemic of Trotskyism though, and its betrayal of both internationalism, and the working class.
Don't be silly.

Tony Cliff, for all his faults, at least had an idea of what socialist principles were, even if he didn't manage to defend them himself.

Cliff was right (but late seeing it) when he suddenly woke in the morning, and announced to his wife that the USSR was state capitalist. He even managed to draw the correct conclusions from this in the Korean war.

And so they raised the slogan 'Neither Washington, nor Moscow...'. Then the Vietnam war came along and the IS forgot all about what it actually meant in the rush to pick up recruits from the new left, and the third worldists.

This is the betrayal of internationalism, and the working class.

Devrim

gilhyle

10th September 2007, 00:17

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 06:01 pm

That organisation was actually split on the question:

Later on it was, but this declaration as well as the murder of the leaders of the organization predates the split.
The group did split after the execution of the leaders but as the article shows BEFORE that, from the start of the war there was a vigorous internal debate on defence of the USSR and the group was split into competing factions on thata issue, with serious concern about the quality of internal debate.

Invader Zim

7th November 2007, 19:14

Also, groups like the Edelweiss Pirates, and numerous other clandestie organisations fought the nazi and fascist war machines from the inside.

The Edelweiss Pirates were youths with little political conviction but with criminal intent; while it is true that they were largely working class, the idea that they were class concious is a debateble one. My understanding is that they attacked the Nazis, a result of rebellion against the Nazis attempts to control youth (and all aspects of society in general) activity, rather than as a working class movement striking at the bourgeois personified by the Nazi regime. Indeed, the Pirates only occassionally sided with groups such as the communist resistance groups. If they did have such class motivated political agenda, I would have thought that to have been different.

black magick hustla

7th November 2007, 19:25

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 07, 2007 07:14 pm

Also, groups like the Edelweiss Pirates, and numerous other clandestie organisations fought the nazi and fascist war machines from the inside.

The Edelweiss Pirates were youths with little political conviction but with criminal intent; while it is true that they were largely working class, the idea that they were class concious is a debateble one. My understanding is that they attacked the Nazis, a result of rebellion against the Nazis attempts to control youth (and all aspects of society in general) activity, rather than as a working class movement striking at the bourgeois personified by the Nazi regime. Indeed, the Pirates only occassionally sided with groups such as the communist resistance groups. If they did have such class motivated political agenda, I would have thought that to have been different.
I think you are being unfair with the pirates.

The Pirates werent an ideological group, but they were admirable in the sense that they actually took the struggle against fascism while many other groups backed down.

I think it is incredible how courageous these kids were.