The single most important Anti-Fascist Article to Read (so this guy says)

[Charles Xavier]

This is a speech delivered by Georgi Dimitrov, at the 7th Congress of the Communist International.

Before you go about dismissing this as anything, this is the clear cut theoretical explanation of fascism, how it develops and the proper tactics to defeat it.

Georgi Dimitrov, leader of the largest trade union in Bulgaria lead the world's first uprising against Fascism in 1923 in Bulgaria, had been put to trial by the Nazis for their show trial trying to blame the Reichstags fire on communists and not only defended himself against a complete kangaroo court he turned the Trial on the Nazis, making them guilty.

He later became leader of the Communist International and post war prime minister of Bulgaria.

He is one of the most brilliant minds of the 21st Century, I urge all those who are not just silly adventurists and want to truly understand and combat fascism. To read this article.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm

[RaiseYourVoice]

110% agreed, great speech

[Charles Xavier]

I think the relevance of this is ever more important to take into account with the unraveling of the markets and the capitalist class now trying to subsidize its existence with tax payer's money.

[Sprinkles]

Instead of starting a new thread with what is basically a reading assignment you might want to either lay out your argument with selected excerpts from the linked article or just participate in one of the other threads already on this subject to defend your argument for a United Front.



Before you go about dismissing this as anything, this is the clear cut theoretical explanation of fascism, how it develops and the proper tactics to defeat it.


I think history itself has already dismissed it fairly well since the tactic was adopted and failed. The whole argument is flawed and idealist; the communists should have forced Social Democracy into a United Front with them against fascism, but doesn't actually take into account that Social Democracy wasn't interested in this at all and even used the fascist paramilitary organizations against the communists.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is not "the single most important anti-fascist article to read", that's just ridiculous. It may be so in your opinion, but be sure to add that next time you make such assertions.

And he's also not "one of the most brilliant minds of the 21st century", mostly because he was dead before the 21st century arrived. However, he's not one of the most brilliant minds of the previous centuries either.

Again, he may be so in your opinion, but be sure to add that next time you make such assertions.

[Charles Xavier]

Instead of starting a new thread with what is basically a reading assignment you might want to either lay out your argument with selected excerpts from the linked article or just participate in one of the other threads already on this subject to defend your argument for a United Front.



I think history itself has already dismissed it fairly well since the tactic was adopted and failed. The whole argument is flawed and idealist; the communists should have forced Social Democracy into a United Front with them against fascism, but doesn't actually take into account that Social Democracy wasn't interested in this at all and even used the fascist paramilitary organizations against the communists.


After the second world war half of the eastern bloc countries and the resistance groups did enter a united front with the communist parties in order to defeat fascism. It wasn't without much pain and suffering of the working class these reformists refused on many occasions entering a united front with the revolutionary parties. But there has been many examples of the Popular fronts and United front taking state power away from the fascists. Such as in Venezuela today.

[Sprinkles]

After the second world war half of the eastern bloc countries and the resistance groups did enter a united front with the communist parties in order to defeat fascism.


Wait...

So the United Front failed in Italy and Germany since the Social Democrats refused to enter them, while the Popular Front failed in Spain with the victory of Franco. Which means both of these "anti-fascist" fronts can be considered failures which led to the development of WW2.

But since fascism was militarily defeated in WW2 and the Soviets could set up some puppet regimes in the Eastern Bloc, they were a success after all? And what fascism did these post WW2 People's Republics defeat exactly?



But there has been many examples of the Popular fronts and United front taking state power away from the fascists. Such as in Venezuela today.


Could you be more specific? Like many liberals and leftists Chavez is overly fond of throwing the word fascist around. He even called Spain's PM Aznar a fascist, which as you might realize is a little bit silly since it strips the term "fascism" from any historical or political meaning and reduces it to a mere insult.

[Charles Xavier]

Wait...

So the United Front failed in Italy and Germany since the Social Democrats refused to enter them, while the Popular Front failed in Spain with the victory of Franco. Which means both of these "anti-fascist" fronts can be considered failures which led to the development of WW2.

But since fascism was militarily defeated in WW2 and the Soviets could set up some puppet regimes in the Eastern Bloc, they were a success after all? And what fascism did these post WW2 People's Republics defeat exactly?



Could you be more specific? Like many liberals and leftists Chavez is overly fond of throwing the word fascist around. He even called Spain's PM Aznar a fascist, which as you might realize is a little bit silly since it strips the term "fascism" from any historical or political meaning and reduces it to a mere insult.

You should check up on your History, Eastern Europe had a lot of homegrown partisan movements, Bulgaria had the Fatherland Front, Yugoslavia had the partisan, so on and so on.

The United Front and popular front does not guarantee success, its not cut and dried, but its by far almost the only way we have seen successes in the past.

[Pogue]

Question: If fascism is the bourgeoisie resorting to desperate measures, how do we explain the fact that often the bourgeoisie are opposed to fascists, and fascist parties grow up in oppoistion too and independent of the bourgeoisie parties, i.e. the BNP, who amongst other things, hate LibLabCon, and are hated back.

[Sasha]

He even called Spain's PM Aznar a fascist, which as you might realize is a little bit silly since it strips the term "fascism" from any historical or political meaning and reduces it to a mere insult.

ehh, i completly agree with you except Aznar WAS a Fascist and knowing the PP (wich calls it selfs a post-fascist party) probily still is.

from wiki:
Both father and grandfather held governmental positions during the period of fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) Spain under Franco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_under_Franco).
As a teenager, Aznar was a member of the Frente de Estudiantes Sindicalistas (FES), a student union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_union) which was a branch of the Falange Española Independiente (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falange_Espa%C3%B1ola_Independient e&action=edit&redlink=1) (FEI), then a current of the fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) falange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Aznar#cite_note-3)

Aznar's government posthumously granted a medal of Civil Merit to Melitón Manzanas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melit%C3%B3n_Manzanas), the head of the secret police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police) in San Sebastian and the first high-profile member of the Francoist government killed by ETA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA) in 1968. He was widely considered a torturer, and Amnesty International condemned the awarding

but lets stay on-topic....

[Dr Mindbender]

damn i wish they had oratories on video cameras in 1928 cause i doze off reading these online essays.....

can someone put on a 1920's suit, read the speech in a faux russian accent and stick it on youtube for my benefit please?
:lol:

[ernie]

Question: If fascism is the bourgeoisie resorting to desperate measures, how do we explain the fact that often the bourgeoisie are opposed to fascists, and fascist parties grow up in oppoistion too and independent of the bourgeoisie parties, i.e. the BNP, who amongst other things, hate LibLabCon, and are hated back.
The bourgeoisie are opposed to fascism only in words. They have financially supported plenty of fascist or quasi-fascist regimes dozens of times. They only combat fascism when it's bad for business (like Hitler was to the US and GB).

Capitalists don't have an ideology. As long as they are making money and get to keep their privileges, they don't give a rat's ass what form of political organization is in place. On the other hand, there are a lot of crazies out there who support fascism as an ideology, and they are the ones forming the BNPs of the world.

[Charles Xavier]

Question: If fascism is the bourgeoisie resorting to desperate measures, how do we explain the fact that often the bourgeoisie are opposed to fascists, and fascist parties grow up in oppoistion too and independent of the bourgeoisie parties, i.e. the BNP, who amongst other things, hate LibLabCon, and are hated back.

Because Fascism isn't needed, the working class movement is not very militant, they will gain concession after concession from the working class without a fightback. The BNP merely represent many reactionary positions, they aren't fascism. They may agree with the principles of fascism but they alone will not see to their implementation. In fact capital can use the proper parties to implement its goals right now under a weak labor movement.

[Sprinkles]

You should check up on your History, Eastern Europe had a lot of homegrown partisan movements, Bulgaria had the Fatherland Front, Yugoslavia had the partisan, so on and so on.


Not really. You should be more clear with your definitions.

The United Front was a tactic of the Comintern where communists worked together with Social Democrats in both parliament and the unions to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.

While the Popular Front is a tactic where communists worked together with anyone including the bourgeoisie in order to fight the threat of fascism.

To characterize the military resistance by both partisans and the Red Army as the policy of the United Front is misleading and outright wrong. Not distinguishing between the United Front and the Popular Front like Dimitrov does in the linked article is simply obscuring the subject.



Joint action by the parties of both internationals against fascism, however, would not be confined in its effects to influencing their present adherents, the Communists and Social-Democrats; it would also exert a powerful impact on the ranks of the Catholic, Anarchist and unorganized workers, even upon those who have temporarily become the victims of fascist demagogy.




This is not merely a United Front movement of the workers; it is the beginning of a wide general front of the people against fascism in France.


So it's not a United Front at all which Dimitrov proposes, but a Popular Front since it includes groups outside of the traditional working class movement.



The United Front and popular front does not guarantee success, its not cut and dried, but its by far almost the only way we have seen successes in the past.


I'm still eagerly awaiting any examples of the United Front's success.

The adopted policy of the United Front wasn't successful in either Italy or Germany. Since the unions declared their indifference to the political orientation of the State and the Social Democrats not only refused to work side by side with the communists, but actively used the fascist militias to suppress them.

So the military victory over fascism was hardly the result of this failed United Front.

[Sprinkles]

ehh, i completly agree with you except Aznar WAS a Fascist and knowing the PP (wich calls it selfs a post-fascist party) probily still is.


I'm not saying he's a particularly like-able person. But the use of the term fascism should indicate a political system and not an alleged personal orientation. The claim of which is questionable in itself since the Partido Popular is conservative Christian and political orientations are not determined by inheritance or a form of lineage. As PM of Spain Aznar certainly wasn't fascist since he participated in and even represented the bourgeois parliamentary system in it's democratic form.



but lets stay on-topic....

Okay.

[Charles Xavier]

Not really. You should be more clear with your definitions.

The United Front was a tactic of the Comintern where communists worked together with Social Democrats in both parliament and the unions to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.

While the Popular Front is a tactic where communists worked together with anyone including the bourgeoisie in order to fight the threat of fascism.

To characterize the military resistance by both partisans and the Red Army as the policy of the United Front is misleading and outright wrong. Not distinguishing between the United Front and the Popular Front like Dimitrov does in the linked article is simply obscuring the subject.





So it's not a United Front at all which Dimitrov proposes, but a Popular Front since it includes groups outside of the traditional working class movement.



I'm still eagerly awaiting any examples of the United Front's success.

The adopted policy of the United Front wasn't successful in either Italy or Germany. Since the unions declared their indifference to the political orientation of the State and the Social Democrats not only refused to work side by side with the communists, but actively used the fascist militias to suppress them.

So the military victory over fascism was hardly the result of this failed United Front.
It is by far a victory of the United Front all accross eastern europe with United Front Governments. And United Front tactics had lead to electoral successes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Brazil over the past few years. A United Front is a union of worker organization and parties in order to prevent a rightist take over.

[Sprinkles]

It is by far a victory of the United Front all accross eastern europe with United Front Governments.And United Front tactics had lead to electoral successes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Brazil over the past few years. A United Front is a union of worker organization and parties in order to prevent a rightist take over.

Not really. First of all you're still not talking about the United Front but the Popular Front, which is misleading since they are two completely different things.

Your initial claim was that the United Front was the best tactic to stop the rise of fascism, yet your only example so far has been "The Fatherland Front." A resistance movement during WW2 which only brought the Bulgarian CP to power once the Red Army had already entered Bulgaria in 1944. Not to mention the fact that this "Fatherland Front" was a Popular Front as well, since it not only included Social Democrats and communists but also the nationalist Zveno movement, which was related to the coup in 1934 which had attempted to dissolve all parties and trade unions.

But according to you the military resistance of this group and the liberation of Eastern-Europe by the Red Army during WW2 (which was of course caused by the failure of both the United and Popular Fronts to prevent fascism's rise to power), somehow confirms the very success of the United Front in preventing the rise of fascism. That really makes no sense at all...

And again, this joined military resistance against the Axis powers even if it is in the form of a Popular Front doesn't have anything to do with the Comintern's defined policy of the United Front which is a political alliance between the reformist and revolutionary parts of the labour movement in the unions as well as parliament in order to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.

[Charles Xavier]

Not really. First of all you're still not talking about the United Front but the Popular Front, which is misleading since they are two completely different things.

Your initial claim was that the United Front was the best tactic to stop the rise of fascism, yet your only example so far has been "The Fatherland Front." A resistance movement during WW2 which only brought the Bulgarian CP to power once the Red Army had already entered Bulgaria in 1944. Not to mention the fact that this "Fatherland Front" was a Popular Front as well, since it not only included Social Democrats and communists but also the nationalist Zveno movement, which was related to the coup in 1934 which had attempted to dissolve all parties and trade unions.

But according to you the military resistance of this group and the liberation of Eastern-Europe by the Red Army during WW2 (which was of course caused by the failure of both the United and Popular Fronts to prevent fascism's rise to power), somehow confirms the very success of the United Front in preventing the rise of fascism. That really makes no sense at all...

And again, this joined military resistance against the Axis powers even if it is in the form of a Popular Front doesn't have anything to do with the Comintern's defined policy of the United Front which is a political alliance between the reformist and revolutionary parts of the labour movement in the unions as well as parliament in order to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.
The Fatherland front was a group of former left army officers, the Zveno group, the Social Democratic Party, The Worker's Party(communist), Left-member of the Agrarian Union(peasant group).

The Communists did not use this organization for sectarian interests, in fact while being the only organized group post ww2, they gave opportunity for other parties to participate in the electoral system, you may want to look at the 1946 elections. The United Front doesn't only prevent the rise of fascism, but it also may play a role in defeating it.

If you read the passages on the tactics of the united front where fascism is already in power, Dimitrov suggested infiltrating the Hitler Youth and fascist "labour" organizations in order to use them against the fascists.

[Sprinkles]

The Fatherland front was a group of former left army officers, the Zveno group, the Social Democratic Party, The Worker's Party(communist), Left-member of the Agrarian Union(peasant group).


Yes, that's the entire point... It wasn't a proletarian movement at all, which is why it's considered a Popular Front; an alliance with various (leftist) fractions of the bourgeoisie.



The Communists did not use this organization for sectarian interests, in fact while being the only organized group post ww2, they gave opportunity for other parties to participate in the electoral system, you may want to look at the 1946 elections.


So what? Among others the SED did the same, but I really don't care if they provided some kind of farcical political plurality by allowing hand picked bourgeois parties to participate in elections.

It's not about some liberal nonsense about providing free elections but the eagerness of throwing your lot in with whatever part of the bourgeoisie will have you.

But if by "sectarian interests" you mean they did not pursue any proletarian or revolutionary interests through communist politics in order not to endanger their alliances with the bourgeoisie, you're right, they didn't.



The United Front doesn't only prevent the rise of fascism, but it also may play a role in defeating it.


That's a bit of an unfounded assertion, since despite all of your enthusiasm for an alliance with the bourgeoisie through the Popular Fronts, you still haven't given a single example which had anything to do with the United Front either stopping the rise of fascism or defeating it.



If you read the passages on the tactics of the united front where fascism is already in power, Dimitrov suggested infiltrating the Hitler Youth and fascist "labour" organizations in order to use them against the fascists.


Lmao, since when is infiltrating the Hitler Youth an example of the tactics of the United Front!?

Despite having an entire book to draw examples from, you're still unable to give any relevant examples of the United Front or address any actual points, apart from your usual vague hand-waving. That pretty much says it all and the only thing I still have to add to this thread is lol, just lol.

Okay, maybe another lmao as well...

[Charles Xavier]

Yes, that's the entire point... It wasn't a proletarian movement at all, which is why it's considered a Popular Front; an alliance with various (leftist) fractions of the bourgeoisie.



So what? Among others the SED did the same, but I really don't care if they provided some kind of farcical political plurality by allowing hand picked bourgeois parties to participate in elections.

It's not about some liberal nonsense about providing free elections but the eagerness of throwing your lot in with whatever part of the bourgeoisie will have you.

But if by "sectarian interests" you mean they did not pursue any proletarian or revolutionary interests through communist politics in order not to endanger their alliances with the bourgeoisie, you're right, they didn't.



That's a bit of an unfounded assertion, since despite all of your enthusiasm for an alliance with the bourgeoisie through the Popular Fronts, you still haven't given a single example which had anything to do with the United Front either stopping the rise of fascism or defeating it.



Lmao, since when is infiltrating the Hitler Youth an example of the tactics of the United Front!?

Despite having an entire book to draw examples from, you're still unable to give any relevant examples of the United Front or address any actual points, apart from your usual vague hand-waving. That pretty much says it all and the only thing I still have to add to this thread is lol, just lol.

Okay, maybe another lmao as well...

read the article and it will answer all your questions.