The Failure of the Left to Combat Italian Fascism

[Holden Caulfield]

Reggio Emilia, an northern Italian town, had, in 1919, elected socialists with 50% of the vote. Two years later the socialists gained a meagre 5.9% of the vote. In the same time period the Italian Fascist Movement/Party found meteoric popularity, going from being barely noticeable in 1919, to having 80,000 members at the start of 1921 and by May; 300,000 members.

All across rural & urban Italy the fascists were acting as the violent squads of the “old” Italian right (the conservative, big industrials and the so called “liberals”), attacking communists, socialists, breaking strikes and attacking dissenters in the countryside. Supported by the national press and by the established order the fascists were seen as a necessary evil to be used to crush the left and to reinvigorate flailing Italian unity and nationalism. The Fascists ruthlessly attacked, killed and sabotaged the left, gaining support amongst veterans and the younger generation.

At this point the fascists were tethered to the established order, at any point the police or the army could have been used to stop them, Gramci said the fascists were “the ugly face of capitalism”, rather than viewing them a threat in themselves. Of Mussolini Gramci claimed “He is then, as today, the quintessential modeol of the Italian petty-bourgeois”

However on the 30th of October 1922 the fascists assembled in Naples for a ceremonial march on Rome, allowed by the army to pass and unhindered by the police the fascists entered Rome to find that the King had signed an 11th hour attempt to stop them (by way of declaring a ‘state of emergency) but had made Mussolini the Prime Minister.

Gramci when writing on this period, said it was normal in times of such social changes for “a great variety of morbid symptoms to occur”. Mussolini’s appointment marked the start of a 20 year period of Fascist Dictatorship in Italy.

In this thread we will discuss what the left did or did not do to help combat fascist, discuss anti-fascist theory, and try to find out the nature and composition of Italian Fascism…

[Holden Caulfield]

I'll kick this off then with my partially sighted fumbling into a subject i know little about,

the failure to combat the fascists was down to
A) a complete disregard of the threat the fascists posed by the left wing (and even the "old right wing")
B) a lack of a united front of socialists and communsits, allowing leftist support to be weakened and attacked individually, while the left blindly split and bickered amongst themselves
C) a lack of proper revolutionary moral amongst the workers due to such lack of unity and such a defeat, Mussolini himself said after his appointment that a general strike could have easily brough down his regieme

[Sasha]

i think a lot of your answers can be found in the articel posted below, lifted from the pamphlet


Resistance to Nazism (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/anarchist_resistance_to_nazism.html)

Shattered Armies: How The Working Class Fought Nazism and Fascism 1933-45 (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/anarchist_resistance_to_nazism.html)


The Arditi del Popolo

Introduction
By the end of World War I, the working class in Italy were in a state of revolutionary
ferment. Not yet ready for the conquest of power themselves, workers and peasants
by 1918 had won a variety of concessions from the state: an improvement of wages,
the 8-hour day, and recognition of collective contracts.

By 1919 a new radicalism had descended upon the labour movement. In that year
alone there were 1,663 strikes across the peninsula, while in August the newly-formed
shop stewards’ movement in Turin (the forerunner of the workers’ councils) underlined
the growth of a new vibrant militancy that drew its strength from the autonomous capacity
of workers to organise themselves along libertarian lines and which had "the
potential objective of preparing men, organizations and ideas, in a continuous prerevolutionary
control operation, so that they are ready to replace employer authority
in the enterprise and impose a new discipline on social life"(1).

In the countryside the peasantry opened up
a second front against the state by occupying
the land that had been promised them
before the war. The Visochi decree of September
1919 merely validated the cooperatives
that had already been set up
while the ‘red leagues’ assisted the formation
of strong unions of day labourers.
1919 also marked the initial signs of capital
defending itself against the growing
onslaught. A meeting of industrialists and
landowners at Genoa in April sealed the first stages of the ‘holy alliance’ against the
rise of labour power. From this meeting were drawn up plans for the formation, in
the following year, of both the General Federation of Industry and the General Federation
of Agriculture, which together worked out a precise strategy for the dismantling
of the labour unions and the nascent councils. Alone, however, the industrialists
and landowners could not undertake the struggle against the labour movement. The
workers themselves had to be cowed into submission, had to have their spirit of revolt
broken on the very streets they walked and the fields they sowed. For this, capital
turned to the armed thuggery of fascism, and its biggest thug of all: Benito Mussolini.

Formation of the Fascist squads
Immediately following the end of the war, there was a veritable flowering of antilabour
leagues: Mussolini’s Combat Fasci, the Anti-Bolshevik League, Fasci for Social
Education, Umus, Italy Redeemed etc…At the same time, members of the Arditi, the
war volunteer corps, on being demobilised organised themselves into an elite force of
20,000 shock troops and were immediately put to use by the anti-labour movement.
This movement was mostly comprised of the middle or lower middle class. Ex-officers
and NCOs, white collar workers, students and the self-employed all allied themselves
to the fascist cause in the towns, while in the countryside the sons of tenant farmers,
small land owners and estate managers were willing recruits in the war against the
perceived Red Menace. The police and the army both actively encouraged the fascists,
urging ex-officers to join and train the squads, lending them vehicles and weapons,
even allowing criminals to enroll in them with the promise of benefits and immunity.
Arms permits, refused to workers and peasants, were freely handed over to the
fascist squadrons, while munitions from the state arsenals gave the Blackshirts an immense
military advantage over their enemies. By November 1921 the various hit
squads were welded together into a military organisation known as the Principi with a
hierarchy of sections, cohorts, legions and a special uniform.

The Arditi del Popolo
To compensate for the shortcomings of the Socialist Party (PSI -Partito Socialista Italiana)
and the main trade union, the CGL (see below), militants of various tendencies,
anarcho-syndicalists, left socialists, communists and republicans formed, in June
1921, a people’s militia, the Arditi del Popolo (AdP), to take the fight to the fascists.

While politically diverse, the AdP was a predominantly working class organisation.
Workers were enlisted from factories, farms, railways, shipyards, building sites, ports
and public transport. Some sections of the middle class also got involved in the form
of students, office workers, and other professional types. Structurally, the AdP was run
along military lines with battalions, companies and squads. Squads were comprised
of 10 members and a group leader. 4 squads made up a company with a company
commander, and 3 companies made up a battalion with its own battalion commander.
Cycle squads were used to maintain links between the general command
and the workforce at large. In spite of its structure, the AdP remained elastic enough
to form a rapid reaction force in response to fascist threats. AdP behaviour was dictated
by whatever political group held sway in a particular locale although most sections
were allowed virtual autonomy over their actions.

These sections were quickly set up in all parts of the country, either as new creations
or as part of already existing groups like the Communist Party of Italy (PCdI -Partito
Comunista d'Italia), the paramilitary Arditi Rossi in Trieste, the Children of No-One

(Figli di Nessuno) in Genova and Vercelli.or the Proletarian League (Lega Proletaria -
linked to the PSI). Overall, at least 144 sections had been set up by the end of summer
1921 with a total of about 20,000 members. The largest sections were the 12
Lazio sections with about 3,300 members, followed by Tuscany, 18 sections, with a
total of 3,000 members. Other regions were as follows:

Umbria 16 s 2,000 members
Marche 12 s 1,000
Lombardy 17 s 2,100
Tre Venezie 15 s 2,200
Emilia Romagna 18 s 1,400
Liguria 4 b 1,100
Piedmont 8 b 1,300
Sicily 7 s 600
Campania 7 500
Apulia 6 500
Sardinia 2 150
Abruzzo 1 200
Calabria 1 200
(s-section, b-battalion)

The AdP very quickly built up its own cultural identity with individual sections proudly
flaunting their own logos and images of war. While the AdP as a whole was easily
recognisable by a skull surrounded by a laurel wreath with a dagger in its teeth, and
the motto ‘A Noi’ (To Us), the Directorates logo was a dagger surrounded by an oak
and laurel wreath. The ivetavecchia meanwhile didn’t leave much to the imagination
when choosing their banner – an axe smashing the fasces symbol! Although they did
not have, nor want, their own uniform, the average AdP member preferred to dress in
black sweaters, dark-grey trousers, with a red flower in their buttonholes. Their songs
were as direct and confrontational as they themselves were:

"Rintuzziamo la violenza/ del fascismo mercenario./ Tutti
in armi!sul calvario/ dell'umana redenzion./ Questa eterna
giovinezza/ si rinnova nella fede/ per un popolo che chiede/ uguaglianza e
libertà."

"We curb the violence/of the mercenary fascists/ Everyone
armed on the cavalry/of human redemption/ This eternal youth/is
renewed in the faith/ for the people who demand equality and freedom."

The Fascist Offensive
The Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta, commenting on the massive factory occupations
in northern Italy in September 1920 which involved 600,000 workers, predicted
“if we do not carry on to the end, we will pay with tears of blood for the fears we now
instill in the bourgeoisie”. His words were to be prophetic as both the PSI and CGL,
instead of expanding the struggle from the factories into the community, collaborated
with the state to return the workers to their jobs. It was from this moment onwards
that the state moved onto the offensive, and Mussolini’s ‘revolutionary action’ squads
were supplied with enough arms to take to the streets.

Until the formation of the AdP, the fascists had things mostly their own way. Starting
off with an attack on the town hall in Bologna, the fascist squads swept through the
countryside like a scythe, undertaking ‘punitive expeditions’ against ‘red’ villages.
Following their success there, they began attacking the cities. Labour unions, the offices
of co-operatives and leftist papers were destroyed in Trieste, Modena, and Florence
within the first few months of 1921. As Rossi writes, they had “an immense
advantage over the labour movement in its facilities for transportation and concentration…
The fascists are generally without ties…they can live anywhere…The workers,
on the contrary, are bound to their homes…This system gives the enemy every advantage:
that of the offensive over the defensive, and that of mobile warfare over a war
of position (2).”

However by March 1921 there were growing signs of working class defence structures
being put in place. In Livorno, when a working class district (Borgo dei Cappucini)
came under attack by the fascists, the whole neighbourhood mobilised against
them, routing them from the town. In April, when the fascists launched an assault on
one of the union centres (Camero del Lavoro), the workers held strike action on the
14th and surrounded the fascist squad, only for the army to rush to the fascists’ defence.
By July, the working class had created their own armed militia –the Arditi del
Popolo.

Arditi del Popolo In Action
The AdP first saw action in Piombino on July 19th, when they attacked a fascist meeting
place and rounded up the fascists inside. When the Royal Guard tried to intervene,
they too were forced to surrender. The AdP held the streets for a few days before
the sheer size of police numbers forced them to withdraw. In Sarzana, they went
to the aid of the local population that had managed to capture one the fascists’ most
important leaders, Renato Ticci. When a squad of 500 fascists attempted to rescue
Ticci, the AdP was there to force the fascists into the countryside. 20 fascists
(probably more) were killed and their squadron leader commented: “The squad, so
long accustomed to defeating an enemy who nearly always ran away, or offered feeble
resistance, could not and did not know how to defend themselves”.

Sell Out
However, just as the AdP was building
up the momentum on the streets, they
were betrayed by the PSI who were more
interested in signing a pact of nonaggression
with the fascists; this at a
time when the fascists were at their most
vulnerable. Socialist militants were
forced by their leadership to withdraw
from the AdP, while the CGL union ordered
its members to leave the organisation.

One union leader, Matteotti,
confirmed the sell out in the union paper
Battaglia Sindicale: “Stay at home: do not respond to provocations. Even silence,
even cowardice, are sometimes heroic.”

The communists went one step further by forming their own pure ‘class conscious’
squadrons thus decimating the movement further. According to Gramsci, ‘the tactic…
corresponded to the need to prevent the party membership being controlled by a
leadership that was not the party leadership.” Quite soon, only 50 sections of 6000
members remained, supported both by the Unione Sindicale Italiana (USI) and the
Unione Anarchica Italiana (UAI). A number of these sections went into action again
in September in Piombino when the fascists, who had burned down the offices of the
PSI (the same organisation that had sold them out a month before), were intercepted
by an anarchist patrol and forced to flee. Piombino was soon to become the nerve
centre of the defence against fascism, defending itself against a further fascist onslaught
in April 1922, before finally succumbing after 1 ½ days of fierce fighting
when the fascists, aided by the Royal Guard, were able to capture the offices of the
USI.

In July 1922, the reformist general strike to defend ‘civil liberties and the constitution’
marked the final disaster for the labour movement, as the work stoppages were
not, and could not be, accompanied by aggressive direct action. The fascists simply
ran public services with scabs and made themselves masters of the streets. With the
strike’s collapse, the fascists mustered their forces to deal with the last remaining outposts
of resistance, one of which, Livorno, succumbed to a force of 2000 squadristi.

Conclusion
So what lessons can we today learn from the arditi del popolo? First of all, we need to
learn the benefits of organisation. Like the AdP, we need to form local anti-fascist
groups, operating autonomously in their own areas, but gelled together in a national
network. These groups should not refrain from applying militant direct action tactics
against the likes of the BNP; the only language the fascists understand. We need to
avoid the path of reformism, advocated by the recruiting agents of reformist parties
like the SWP and destroy, once and for all, the nationalist myth that scapegoats our
ethnic communities and which allows governments across Europe to hoodwink large
sections of the working class into the belief the root of their socio-economic woes lies
elsewhere. To do this, we need to tie the fascists’ agenda to that of the state which
supports it, and get across the message that fascism will only ever be destroyed once
the state itself is smashed. Only a society run along the principles of anarchocommunism
can ever hope to achieve this.

1 Williams L. Proletarian Order 1975
2 Rossi, A. The Birth of Fascism 1938

Thanks to Nestor McNab, for his help with translation of parts of this article.

[Random Precision]

Trotsky also has some valuable insight here. He blames the betrayals of reformism as well as the PCI's inexperience and ultra-leftism. From What Next? Vital Questions for the German Proletariat (emphases mine):

Italian fascism was the immediate outgrowth of the betrayal by the reformists of the uprising of the Italian proletariat. From the time the war ended, there was an upward trend in the revolutionary movement in Italy, and in September 1920, it resulted in the seizure of factories and industries by the workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat was an actual fact; all that was lacking was to organize it, and to draw from it all the necessary conclusions. The Social Democracy took fright and sprang back. After its bold and heroic exertions, the proletariat was left facing the void. The disruption of the revolutionary movement became the most important factor in the growth of fascism. In September, the revolutionary advance came to a standstill; and November already witnessed the first major demonstration of the fascists (the seizure of Bologna). True, the proletariat even after the September catastrophe, was capable of waging defensive battles. But the Social Democracy was concerned with only one thing: to withdraw the workers from under fire at the cost of one concession after the other. The Social Democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers would restore the “public opinion” of the bourgeoisie against the fascists. Moreover, the reformists even banked strongly upon the help of Victor Emmanuel. To the last hour, they restrained the workers with might and main from giving battle to Mussolini’s bands. It availed them nothing. The Crown, along with the upper crust of the bourgeoisie swung over to the side of fascism. Convinced at the last moment that fascism was not to be checked by obedience, the Social Democrats issued a call to the workers for a general strike. But their proclamation suffered a fiasco. The reformists had dampened the powder so long, in their fear lest it should explode, that when they finally and with a trembling hand applied a burning fuse to it, the powder did not catch...

The Italian Communist Party came into being almost simultaneously with fascism. But the same conditions of revolutionary ebb tide which carried the fascists to power served to deter the development of the Communist Party. It did not take account of the full sweep of the fascist danger; it lulled itself with revolutionary illusions; it was irreconcilably antagonistic to the policy of the united front; in short, it called from all the infantile diseases. Small wonder! It was only two years old. In its eyes fascism appeared to be only “capitalist reaction.” The particular traits of fascism which spring from the mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie against the proletariat, the Communist Party was unable to discern. Italian comrades inform me that with the sole exception of Gramsci, the Communist Party wouldn’t even allow of the possibility of the fascists’ seizing power. Once the proletarian revolution had suffered defeat and capitalism had kept its ground, and the counter-revolution had triumphed, how could there be any further kind of counter-revolutionary upheaval? The bourgeoisie cannot rise up against itself! Such was the gist of the political orientation of the Italian Communist Party. Moreover, one must not let out of sight the fact that Italian fascism was then a new phenomenon, and only in the process of formation; it wouldn’t have been an easy task even for a more experienced party to distinguish its specific traits...

The brunt of the blame must be borne, of course, by the leadership of the Comintern. Italian Communists above all others were duty-bound to raise their voices in alarm. But Stalin, with Manuilsky, compelled them to disavow the most important lessons of their own annihilation. We have already observed with what diligent alacrity Ercoli [PCI leader Palmiro Togliatti] switched over to the position of social fascism, i.e., to the position of passively waiting for the fascist victory in Germany.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1932-ger/next02.htm#s7

[Tower of Bebel]

The reason for the rise of fascism was the huge betrayal by the 2nd International. It is also this betrayal that caused the Russian Revolution to fail. The split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in 1912 came at the right moment, and the communist revolutionaries had done their best to organize and agitate extraordinary (well before the split). On the other hand the split between the Revolutionaries and opportunists in the aftermath of Word War One on an international scale came too late! Even worse: the revolutionaries were ill prepared! In no country was there a revolutionary party or faction as well organized and trained as the bolshevik party. No reason why many copied the Russian model.

The split within the workers movement between those who betrayed the workers and those who were ill prepared, unexperienced and full of child diseases was not a victory over the bourgeoisie. The two camps were not only not able to drive the bourgeoisie from the scene; the split that was achieved also separated one part of the working class from the other. It made enhanced the possibilities for counterrevolutionaries to strike against the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The reason for the rise of fascism was the huge betrayal by the 2nd International. It is also this betrayal that cause the Russian Revolution to fail. The split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in 1912 came at the right moment, and the communist revolutionaries had done their best to organize and agitate extraordinary (well before the split). On the other hand the split between the Revolutionaries and opportunists in the aftermath of World War One on an international scale came too late! Even worse: the revolutionaries were ill prepared! In no country was there a revolutionary party or faction as well organized and trained as the Bolshevik party. No reason why many copied the Russian model.

The split within the workers movement between those who betrayed the workers and those who were ill prepared, unexperienced and full of child diseases was not a victory over the bourgeoisie. The two camps were not only not able to drive the bourgeoisie from the scene; the split that was achieved also separated one part of the working class from the other. It made enhanced the possibilities for counterrevolutionaries to strike against the working class.

Comrade, I think you should double-post this somewhere else as the start of another Theory thread or as part of some other already-existing Theory thread on reformism. I can't blame the revolutionaries for their first-time inexperience; if anything else the Bolsheviks drew lucky numbers only because the other side wanted to liquidate the party and turn it into a broad labour congress. If the Mensheviks had listened more to Kautsky, I don't know what would've happened to the RSDLP - perhaps an earlier failure for the Bolshevik tendency?

[Led Zeppelin]

Has anyone noticed how the most brutal regimes have come into existence through a betrayal by reformists?

I believe this quote sums it up quite well:

"The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions."

[Charles Xavier]

Well one thing you must realize is that in Italy this was in the infancy of the working class movement against fascism. It had to develop a line against fascism and the party simply did not know what to do. The United Front would have been the correct tactic. But these tactics only where theoretically brought to the working class knowledge in the 1930s. Even a popular front would have been something important to develop. But the Communists did fight they did have a heroic struggle against the Fascists, and despite their defeat. In the underground they grew 10x stronger from the defeat.

The Italian Army was however not completely cleared of the left. Resulting in the defeat of Italian Fascism where the soldiers would refuse to fight against the Greeks. and other countries.

[Holden Caulfield]

^ i wonder if the anarchists/Stalinists have anything to add, it would be nice to see if we can get a wider range of views on this, other than the Trotskyist and whatever the fuck Jacob is stand point

[Colonello Buendia]

The left in Italy was strong but as is tragically common among us they were split. There was an inkilng of the stalint trotsky split and there was limited and chaotic organisation. this plus the fact that the capitalists would do anything to keep the lefties out of power meant that Mussolini had what was essentially free reign. He started out socialist but ended up corrupted by the factory owners money. Plus it is important to mention that the red scare had just started so the left movement wasn't particularly strong. they were easily beaten by mussolini, but throughout the days of the regime they provided some degree of resistance

[Winter]

Mussolini presented fascism as a "third way" in between socialism and liberalism. I think the nationalism captured alot of the petit-bourgeoisie's fascination while at the same time the working class, who would more likely support socialism, were attracted to it due to it's claims of workers' rights and anti-liberalism attitude. As we all know, in the end, fascism turned out to be the worse parts of liberalism. Mussolini even said fascism can also be known as corporatism; the team effort between government and big industry.

Michael Parenti explains it the best: "It's a beguiling mix of revolutionary sounding mass appeal and reactionary class politics and the reactionary class politics is what established historians never talk about."

Here's a cool and informative lecture by Michael Parenti on Fascism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Bc4KJx2Ao

[Devrim]

I want to comment on this more later, but first just a brief comment on Trotsky's comments. These were obviously written at the beginning of the 30s and are Trotsky's attempt to support his argument on the German question, and the united front.

At the time and even as late as 1929 Trotsky had a different tune. One of the basic points for the Italian left was opposition to all front. This was a major part of their platform, yet in 1929 Trotsky wrote:


The Platform of the Left (1926) produced a great impression on me. I think that it is one of the best documents published by the international Opposition and it preserves its significance in many things to this very day.

The reality of the situation is that the rise of Italian fascism, unlike German, came almost immediatly after the struggle for power in Italy. The social democratic organisations had sided with the bourgeois state against the working class, and were soon to 'declare themselves apolitical' thus directly siding with the fascists.

...And in the middle of this Trotsky talks about making a united front with these organisations.

Devrim

[Sasha]

I
The reality of the situation is that the rise of Italian fascism, unlike German, came almost immediatly after the struggle for power in Italy. The social democratic organisations had sided with the bourgeois state against the working class, and were soon to 'declare themselves apolitical' thus directly siding with the fascists.

ok, in germany it took a few years more before the fascist came to true power but the betrayal of the social-democrats after the 1918 uprising paved the way for the fascist in germany as wel.


The Spartacist League subsequently renamed itself the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany) (KPD), joining the Comintern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern) in 1919. The League and the subsequent KPD were famous for pitched street battles with police and other direct action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) militant activities, some of which Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) disapproved of as premature, anarchistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist), misguided, etc. In January 1919, the KPD along with the independent socialist USPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPD) staged massive street demonstrations in protest of a swerve to the right by the Weimar government (then led by the autocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocratic) right-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing) of the SPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD) under Chancellor Friedrich Ebert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Ebert)). In response, the government claimed that the opposition was planning a general strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike) and communist revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution) in Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin). The government then deputized the proto-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-fascist&action=edit&redlink=1) freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) to kill the opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition) leaders even though it was well-known that Luxemburg and Liebknecht were both opposed to any revolution at that time. The "uprising" was quickly crushed by the government of the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic); however, the government's reliance on the proto-fascist freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps) in place of the army or police paved the way for a putsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putsch) by that organization and, in the long run, for the rise of the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis) (many of whom, including Ernst Röhm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm), the founder of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), were former freikorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps)).
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_League

[Holden Caulfield]

the next thread i make will be on the rise of German fascism so quit discussing it

:lol:

please

[Holden Caulfield]

...And in the middle of this Trotsky talks about making a united front with these organisations.

From what i have read the Reformist Socialist Party, and even the PPI contained members that would have been willing to form a united front against fascism, these members along with the communists, socialists and maxies, could have blocked the rise of fascism be it through democratic action (followed by civil action as the Italian state was weak) strike action or through directly combatting fascist squads in large numbers...

[Devrim]

From what i have read the Reformist Socialist Party, and even the PPI contained members that would have been willing to form a united front against fascism,

From what you write you don't even seem to understand what Trotsky's idea of a united front was. The PPI was a completely bourgeois party. About this there can be no doubt. It was a party which voted for the fascists in parliment.

Trotsky argued for a united front of worker's organisations, not a popular front with the bourgeoisie.

Of course Gramsci argued for co-operation with the PPI, but then he was following Stalin's lead, and arguing for the same sort of policies of co-operation with the bourgeoisie that led to the disaster in Spain.

Gramsci, in the name of anti-fascism, had also begun a rapprochement with such working class parties as the Party of Action (de Guista e Liberta), and the Sardinian Party.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

From what you write you don't even seem to understand what Trotsky's idea of a united front was
more lack of knowledge of the PPI rather than Trotsky's theory, but as i already said i have minimal knowledge of this entire subject and Italian politics in general,

but thanks for trying to make me seem like a clueless idiot as well as putting across a valid point, i think personal 'attacks' really help a thread progress...

[Devrim]

more lack of knowledge of the PPI rather than Trotsky's theory, but as i already said i have minimal knowledge of this entire subject and Italian politics in general,

but thanks for trying to make me seem like a clueless idiot as well as putting across a valid point, i think personal 'attacks' really help a thread progress...

I don't think it is a personal attack at all. I am sorry if you took offence.

There are many Trotskyists on her who don't understand what a popular front is.

Only a few days ago, one was arguing the the UAF was a united front.

I think that it is important to understand what a united front is, as opposed to a popular front, before discussing the problems with it.

Devrim

[bcbm]

I wrote a somewhat lengthy paper on fascism and anti-fascism using historical examples, which I'll quote in a second. Overall, the major problem seemed to be disunity among the left and a lack of support for the antifascists actively engaging the fascists on the street, as well as lack of support for tactics like the general strike. Here's the quote from my paper:


When fascism developed into a formidable ideology in Italy, it began to encounter its first real challenges from antifascists. As it developed, groups of fascists, known as black-shirts, began an active campaign of intimidation and violence, often with government complicity, if not support. These attacks were primarily directed against those on the Italian left: the anarchists, communists and socialists. It was from these groups, especially the anarchists and those not aligned with official communist and socialist parties, that the first organized antifascist resistance arose. While fascism grew stronger, these groups organized the “Arditi del Populo” or “People’s Commandos.” The People’s Commandos were organized at a grassroots level as an umbrella organization to fight fascist violence with violence. They scored some successes, but growth was difficult due to a lack of funds and because the official Socialist Party and Communist Party wouldn’t recognize them. Antifascists also began organizing among industrial workers and others through various unions. Throughout 1920 and 1921, they had carried out a series of factory occupations designed to set the stage for a general leftist insurrection. These were suppressed by the government, however, and the fascists upped their violence against leftists in response. Following several instances of violence by fascist black-shirts in several Italian cities, a general strike was called and put into action by an antifascist union known as the Labor Alliance. Unfortunately, the strike was called off and the fascists made their move into power with Mussolini’s March on Rome. Despite what appears to be a great deal of action against the fascists, there was a great deal of disunity. As mentioned, the Socialist Party and Communist Party didn’t support the armed struggle and between those not affiliated with the party, and even within the armed groups, there was a lot of sectarian bickering (Prisoners and Partisans, 2). Few besides the anarchists pushed for a unified front against the fascists and ultimately all of the infighting allowed the fascists to win. From this point, antifascist resistance developed underground and took on increasingly militant forms.

After fascism came to power in Italy with Benito Mussolini as dictator, antifascists continued to maintain an active resistance through a variety of activities. The Fascist government of Italy quickly began instituting authoritarian policies aimed at dissidents, forcing many antifascists into exile or underground. This turned out to be beneficial for resisting the regime, however, as those in exile outside of Italy were able to produce propaganda and leaflets to be smuggled in to Italy, where they were distributed by those operating clandestinely. A number of secret organizations were also formed from the remnants of outlawed parties. Armed resistance also factored in, with antifascists attacking Fascist party offices and police stations, as well as raiding the barracks of the military or Carabineri for weapons. Several anarchist antifascists also attempted to organize an insurrection in Sicily in 1930 after noting the general discontent of the population due to the Depression, but they were quickly intercepted and arrested. Finally, antifascists mounted a number of attempts on Mussolini’s life, but unfortunately all of these failed. As Italy entered World War II, however, the fortunes of antifascists began to look up.

Italy entered World War II in an alliance with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but its weak military and ineffective commanders quickly took a toll on the population’s support for the government. As Italy faced defeat in Africa and participated in a disastrous campaign in Greece and the Balkans, antifascists found their numbers swelling. The turning point came in 1943. Throughout March, some 100,000 workers went on strike or engaged in work stoppages in protest of the economic hardships the war had created, the “first of their kind in Fascist Europe,” (Ginsborg, 10). Then, in July, Mussolini was forced to resign by the King and the populace rose in celebration, attacking and destroying fascist symbols (Ginsborg, 12-13). Antifascists raided a number of military barracks during this period of unrest and stockpiled more arms. This was a crucial act, for shortly thereafter the Nazis invaded and occupied Italy, helping the Italian fascists maintain a tenuous grip on power. This pushed many Italians into the antifascist camp, even many who had formerly served in the military (Ginsborg, 15). The Nazi occupation also helped to unify all of the antifascist forces into a common goal, making them more effective. A national committee of liberation was formed in order to help coordinate the numerous organizations engaging in armed resistance. Antifascists staged ambushes against Nazi troops, planted bombs, engaged in sabotage and generally acted as a thorn in the side to the occupation and the fascist government. This continued until the Allied invasion of Italy and the defeat of the Nazis and the Italian fascists there. Clearly, antifascism was a critical part in undermining the fascist government and helping to free Italy.

[Devrim]

I feel the discussion on the subject has been very superficial, and has missed what I would consider to be the main point of the topic.

I think in some ways the entire question is wrong. When workers' revolution is defeated, the victory of reaction is more or less inevitable by default. It is no accident that the European countries in which the reaction was the strongest were also the ones in which the revolution was the strongest, Russia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Spain, all experienced white terror, whatever name it passed under. Stalin, Noske, Horthy, Mussolini, and Franco were all bathed in the blood of the working class regardless of what ideology they possessed.

Maybe a better question would be 'Why did the Italian revolution fail?'.

I would argue that the answer is not that the communists didn't make alliances with openly bourgeois parties that ended up supporting the reaction.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

Am I the only person here who thinks that combating fascism in Italy had nothing to do with "unity" of political parties and positions, but the fact that fascism was counter-posed by money and will of the bourgeoisie to the upcoming revolution (Bienno Rosso, 1919-1921)? (Probably not, but I didn't read the whole thread.)

The only solution against fascism in Italy and everywhere was/is a revolution: there is no "middle ground", especially if it's parliamentarian one.

P.S.

I see some people here don't understand the differences between "United Front" and "Popular Front".

UF is a policy of Lenin that was in pratice from 1919 to 1928. It means unity of Communist and socialist parties and their rank and file; it means pursuit of socialist politics in parliament and unions. It's an overall policy. PF is a policy of Stalin and Dimitrov introduced in 1935 when USSR was under the threat of Hitler. It means unity of all "anti-fascist" political forces, including Communists, socialists, liberals and minority/autonomous nationalists (and infamous "political syndicalists" of Pestaña in Spain), for the sake of combating nazi and fascist parties. It's a limited policy, openly expressed to serve the preservation of "liberal democracy" - "against fascism".

What stood in between was the "Third Period" politics, drawn up by Stalin and Bukharin. It stated that "proletariat is in offensive" against capitalism and the UF policy was abandoned, while former socialist allies were called "social-fascists".

Trotsky was always in favor of UF, while against other two policies.

[Devrim]

Am I the only person here who thinks that combating fascism in Italy had nothing to do with "unity" of political parties and positions, but the fact that fascism was counter-posed by money and will of the bourgeoisie to the upcoming revolution (Bienno Rosso, 1919-1921)? (Probably not, but I didn't read the whole thread.)

The only solution against fascism in Italy and everywhere was/is a revolution: there is no "middle ground", especially if it's parliamentarian one.

Er no...see the post before yours.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

Yes, I see; I expected you would hold similar positions.

[bcbm]

Am I the only person here who thinks that combating fascism in Italy had nothing to do with "unity" of political parties and positions, but the fact that fascism was counter-posed by money and will of the bourgeoisie to the upcoming revolution (Bienno Rosso, 1919-1921)?

The lack of money on the part of the antifascists was an important factor and I think that the general strike and insurrectionary attempts being called off or scaled back certainly contributed to it. But I think it is absolutely false to see that the lack of unity had nothing to do with it, and the story of fascism's rise everywhere else suggests the same.

[Devrim]

He is not saying that the problem for the left was a lack of money. He is saying that the question was not one of 'fascism or democracy', but one of 'bourgeois dictatorship or proletarian revolution'.

It was not a question of anti-fascist unity, but of workers' power.

Devrim

[bcbm]

He is not saying that the problem for the left was a lack of money.

Oh, yeah. Either way, it was a problem for actual on the ground efforts.


He is saying that the question was not one of 'fascism or democracy', but one of 'bourgeois dictatorship or proletarian revolution'.

It was not a question of anti-fascist unity, but of workers' power.


The two are somewhat related, in that the lack of antifascist unity undercut the ability for workers to have power. I think one would've meant the other, as the groups pushing for actual antifascist resistance were also pushing for revolution- see the factory occupations, general strikes, etc.

[Devrim]

The two are somewhat related, in that the lack of antifascist unity undercut the ability for workers to have power. I think one would've meant the other, as the groups pushing for actual antifascist resistance were also pushing for revolution- see the factory occupations, general strikes, etc.

I don't think that the two are related at all. Gramsci proposed an anti-fascist movement that included bourgeois parties that had been/were directly opposed to the workers' struggle.

Those who were pushing hardest for revolution, under the leadership of the Communists, rejected both the idea of united fronts, and the 'anti-fascist' struggle.

Devrim

[bcbm]

I don't think that the two are related at all. Gramsci proposed an anti-fascist movement that included bourgeois parties that had been/were directly opposed to the workers' struggle.

Which bourgeois parties? At most, I'm speaking of the socialist and communist parties. Not to say they are necessarily supportive of workers struggle, but their attacks on the people organizing occupations, strikes, etc were seriously detrimental to the cause. This is what I mean by lack of unity among the left- the left being all of those who should support a revolution. I think we both know this doesn't play out in practice, but at the time I don't think it was unreasonable for workers to expect some support from these parties.


Those who were pushing hardest for revolution, under the leadership of the Communists, rejected both the idea of united fronts, and the 'anti-fascist' struggle.

Rejected anti-fascist struggle how? It was communists and anarchists who were actively shooting them in the streets, and no one else.

[Devrim]

Which bourgeois parties? At most, I'm speaking of the socialist and communist parties

Well as I said earlier in this thread Gramsci argued for an alliance with the PPI, de Guista e Liberta, and the Sardinian Party.

The socialist party itself though was firmly against the revolution.


Rejected anti-fascist struggle how? It was communists and anarchists who were actively shooting them in the streets, and no one else.

That is why I put the inverted commas around it. Of course communist militants physically fought against fascists, but for them the struggle was a workers struggle for the dictatorship, not an 'anti-fascist' struggle, which in their view was an alliance of bourgeois parties to protect the state. Bordiga, who was the leader of the party at the time stated that "the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism".

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Just to mention this, PCI militants from the bordigist tendency were always armed. Their meetings were always guarded by armed partisans. They were shooting at fascists, but they did it to fend of capitalist barbarism, not because of some moral imperative of anti-fascism.

[Hit The North]

Just to mention this, PCI militants from the bordigist tendency were always armed. Their meetings were always guarded by armed partisans. They were shooting at fascists, but they did it to fend of capitalist barbarism, not because of some moral imperative of anti-fascism.

Unless the moral imperative of anti-fascism is to fend off capitalist barbarism.

Which of course, it is.

[Holden Caulfield]

moral imperative

where has anybody suggested this?!

[black magick hustla]

i think you do when you are worried so much about a fringe electoral group that even if they get to power, they would behave as any bourgeois party. (As fascists in parliament do today.)

[Random Precision]

I think in some ways the entire question is wrong. When workers' revolution is defeated, the victory of reaction is more or less inevitable by default. It is no accident that the European countries in which the reaction was the strongest were also the ones in which the revolution was the strongest, Russia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Spain, all experienced white terror, whatever name it passed under. Stalin, Noske, Horthy, Mussolini, and Franco were all bathed in the blood of the working class regardless of what ideology they possessed.


He is not saying that the problem for the left was a lack of money. He is saying that the question was not one of 'fascism or democracy', but one of 'bourgeois dictatorship or proletarian revolution'.

It was not a question of anti-fascist unity, but of workers' power.

That's an incredibly pedantic and one-sided view of the situation, but then I suppose that's to be expected from you. Fascism is not just "capitalist reaction", it's a particular kind of capitalist reaction unlike, and definitely more barbarous, than any other.

As such it is proper for working-class parties to unite against it, and the defeat of fascism, even if it does not lead to workers power, is a victory for the working class. In Britain, for example, the workers were able to defeat the fascists- and the revolution had certainly been quite strong there, if you'll remember the general strike of 1926 and so on.

[Sprinkles]

The essence of anti-fascism consists in resisting fascism by defending democracy; it no longer struggles against capitalism but seeks to pressure capitalism into renouncing the totalitarian option.


I agree to an extent with what some people stated, that anti-fascism through the Popular Fronts presented it as a false choice between democracy and totalitarianism by trying to convince the bourgeousie to relinquish it's totalitarian side. While the actual choice would be between either the working class taking power or being repressed.



I think in some ways the entire question is wrong. When workers' revolution is defeated, the victory of reaction is more or less inevitable by default. It is no accident that the European countries in which the reaction was the strongest were also the ones in which the revolution was the strongest, Russia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Spain, all experienced white terror, whatever name it passed under. Stalin, Noske, Horthy, Mussolini, and Franco were all bathed in the blood of the working class regardless of what ideology they possessed.


But what that bothers me is the determinist implication in such a statement. That with the end of the revolutionary wave, and the working class being unable to take back the initiative, it's only possible course of action was to wait for it's inevitable repression.

I also don't know whether it's right to lay the blame entirely with Social Democracy and the failure of the 2nd International. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the Comintern's passivity with their slogan of “Nach Hitler kommen wir” and their supposedly "ultra-left line" to denounce Social Democracy as Social Fascism played an equally significant role in the defeat of the working class?

Also considering the difference that Social Democracy's historic goal was to integrate the proletariat into parliamentarism and reformism, while the historic goal of fascism was the economic and political unification of capital after the revolutionary wave had failed but the state still remained unable to restore order.

As well as the difference that Social Democracy is a parliamentarist ideology which cannot have any influence without the support of the working class. While to quote Bordiga "...fascism is all organisation with no ideology" that draws it support from the petit-bourgeois as well as various groups of former veterans and lumpenproletariat.

Could it have been possible, even though the later Popular Fronts framed the question of anti-fascism wrong, that a United Front could have presented a possibility to frame it as a matter of working class power instead? In other words, was there really no common ground to be found with the parts of the working class that still supported Social Democracy?

On a side-note, was there an Italian equivalent to the German Freikorps or were the Blackshirts the only paramilitary group, or just the most prominent?

[Holden Caulfield]

as far as i know there were Fascist squads but they were 'blackshirts' rather than a Italian equivilant of the Freikorps

[Devrim]

In Britain, for example, the workers were able to defeat the fascists- and the revolution had certainly been quite strong there, if you'll remember the general strike of 1926 and so on.

I am not sure what the point of this analogy is. There was never a danger of fascism in Britain. The revolution was week there, and the general strike was a defensive struggle. The high point of the movement in the UK was in 1919.


Fascism is not just "capitalist reaction", it's a particular kind of capitalist reaction unlike, and definitely more barbarous, than any other.

Was Italian fascism 'worse' than Russia Stalinism. If you think so why?


As such it is proper for working-class parties to unite against it, and the defeat of fascism, even if it does not lead to workers power, is a victory for the working class.

So what you are actually saying here is that at the height of the revolutionary period in Italy the communists should have called of the revolution, and united with an anti-working class PSI to fight against fascism.


That's an incredibly pedantic and one-sided view of the situation,

Yes, it is the side of the communists.

Devrim

[Sprinkles]

So what you are actually saying here is that at the height of the revolutionary period in Italy the communists should have called of the revolution, and united with an anti-working class PSI to fight against fascism.


I know this wasn't adressed to me, but Trotsky didn't argue for unity at all costs. In his view the UF was a tactic to win over the majority of the whole working class despite the leaders of the reformist organisations.

Trotsky considered the fight against fascism as something in the immediate, basic interest of the working class, which is why it would fall under the UF. Refusal of the UF would discredit the reformist leaders in the eyes of the working class and acceptance of the UF would provide the revolutionaries with the ability to prove their politics in practice to those parts of the working class which still had illusions in their reformist organisations.



If we were able simply to unite the working masses around our own banner or around our practical immediate slogans, and skip over reformist organizations, whether party or trade union, that would of course be the best thing in the world. But then the very question of the united front would not exist in its present form.

The question arises from this, that certain very important sections of the working class belong to reformist organizations or support them. Their present experience is still insufficient to enable them to break with the reformist organizations and join us. It may be precisely after engaging in those mass activities, which are on the order of the day, that a major change will take place in this connection. That is just what we are striving for. But that is not how matters stand at present. Today the organized portion of the working class is broken up into three formations.

One of them, the Communist, strives toward the social revolution and precisely because of this supports concurrently every movement, however partial, of the toilers against the exploiters and against the bourgeois state.

Another grouping, the reformist, strives toward conciliation with the bourgeoisie. But in order not to lose their influence over the workers reformists are compelled, against the innermost desires of their own leaders, to support the partial movements of the exploited against the exploiters.

Finally, there is a third grouping, the centrist, which constantly vacillates between the other two, and which has no independent significance.

The circumstances thus make wholly possible joint action on a whole number of vital issues between the workers united in these three respective organizations and the unorganized masses adhering to them.


I don't know, perhaps the difference of opinion remains related how the problem of fascism is framed.

Anyway, does the ICC have an overview on the PCd’I and it's development / positions during this period, similar to the critique on the programme of the KAPD?
I already have "The Bordigist Current" by Philippe Bourinet but perhaps there's something a bit shorter available?

Could you also help me out whether I'm right / wrong in my summary of the following positions and whether this is representative of the left-communist position on the situation in Italy as well?

If I understand it correct, then the theory of decadence is central to the Left-Communist refusal of forming a UF since:



...as the KAPD spokesman Jan Appel (Hempel) argued at the third congress of the CI in 1921, it was based on a recognition that participation in parliament and the unions had indeed been valid tactics in the ascendant period of capitalism but had become obsolete in the new period of capitalist decline. In particular, the programme shows that the German left had already established the theoretical bases for explaining how the unions had become "one of the main pillars of the capitalist state".


The rejection of parliamentarism makes sense since it's framed as a matter of working class power:



Participation in bourgeois parliamentarism in the thick of the proletarian revolution can only signify the sabotage of the idea of the councils.

The idea of the councils in the period of proletarian struggle for political power is at the centre of the revolutionary process. The more or less strong echo that the idea of the councils arouses in the consciousness of the masses is the thermometer which makes it possible to measure the development of the social revolution. The struggle for the recognition of the revolutionary factory councils and political workers’ councils in the framework of a given revolutionary situation logically gives rise to the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat against the dictatorship of capitalism.


The justification of leaving the Social Democratic unions is because it's an obstacle to the revolution and it's former betrayal of Internationalist principles:



Aside from bourgeois parliamentarism, the unions form the principal rampart against the further development of the proletarian revolution in Germany. Their attitude during the world war is well-known. Their decisive influence on the principal orientation and tactics of the old Social Democratic Party led to the proclamation of the "Union Sacrée" with the German bourgeoisie, which was equivalent to a declaration of war on the international proletariat.


Are these the three main points why the communist-left thinks the UF was the wrong tactic?

[Devrim]

I know this wasn't adressed to me, but Trotsky didn't argue for unity at all costs. In his view the UF was a tactic to win over the majority of the whole working class despite the leaders of the reformist organisations.

Trotsky considered the fight against fascism as something in the immediate, basic interest of the working class, which is why it would fall under the UF. Refusal of the UF would discredit the reformist leaders in the eyes of the working class and acceptance of the UF would provide the revolutionaries with the ability to prove their politics in practice to those parts of the working class which still had illusions in their reformist organisations.

I don't think that Trotsky's comments here are particularly interesting. Indeed, I don't think that they are relevant to the subject at all. Trotsky wrote the above comments in 1932 attempting to draw an analogy to support his arguments on the situation in Germany.

The situation, however, in Germany in the early 30s was very different from the situation in Italy in 1920, one was a period of working class defeat, and the other the high point of the revolutionary wave.

One could construct a much more persuasive argument for forming a popular front in Germany in 1933, though still I would say a mistaken one, than for one in Italy in 1920.

In 1920, It would have meant the revolutionaries, at the high point of the revolution, should have proposed an aliiance with anti-revolutionary forces.


Anyway, does the ICC have an overview on the PCd’I and it's development / positions during this period, similar to the critique on the programme of the KAPD?
I already have "The Bordigist Current" by Philippe Bourinet but perhaps there's something a bit shorter available?

You could try these articles:
http://en.internationalism.org/node/2510
http://en.internationalism.org/node/2513



If I understand it correct, then the theory of decadence is central to the Left-Communist refusal of forming a UF since:

Yes, the important part of it is that the Social Democratic parties are no longer workers' parties, but bourgeois parties.

Devrim

[bcbm]

On a side-note, was there an Italian equivalent to the German Freikorps or were the Blackshirts the only paramilitary group, or just the most prominent?

The Freikorps were separate from the Nazis (even opposing them, as during the Beer Hall Putsch) and disbanded around 1920. The Nazi street fighters were the SA, also called brownshirts.

[Random Precision]

I am not sure what the point of this analogy is. There was never a danger of fascism in Britain. The revolution was week there, and the general strike was a defensive struggle. The high point of the movement in the UK was in 1919.

That's cool, man. I expect you would have been the guy to go around the Jewish neighborhoods in London's East End and tell everyone there that the blackshirts posed no threat that lovely day in October '36 when they decided to take a stroll down Cable Street.


Was Italian fascism 'worse' than Russia Stalinism. If you think so why?

I don't know enough about the former to make a proper comparison. Nevertheless these regimes had quite different origins and quite different purposes. It's a bit more nuanced than that they were both defending capital.


So what you are actually saying here is that at the height of the revolutionary period in Italy the communists should have called of the revolution, and united with an anti-working class PSI to fight against fascism.

No, the united front does not mean "uniting" with social-democratic parties, as Sprinkles so kindly pointed out. But I definitely think the PC d'I had a very naive line on the fascist threat, much like you do. And it cost them more than a little.


Yes, it is the side of the communists.

Sure. And your side says that during a period of reaction, the "communists" should, like Barbarosa, enter the mountain and sleep until the ravens stop circling around it to signal that the revolution has come again.

[Devrim]

That's cool, man. I expect you would have been the guy to go around the Jewish neighborhoods in London's East End and tell everyone there that the blackshirts posed no threat that lovely day in October '36 when they decided to take a stroll down Cable Street.

This is a typical moralistic attitude. RP knows that there was no possibility of fascism in the UK in the 1930s. He really has no argument whatsoever against that so he throws out nonsense like this. I think that communists should tell the truth to workers, so yes I would have argued that there was no danger of fascism in Britain at the time.

This doesn't mean that there is never a time when communists have to fight with fascists in the street. There are times that they do. But the reason was to defend working class areas from a fascist attack. It was not as some of the leftist mythologisers try to make out to 'save Britain from fascism' because the threat of fascism didn't exist in Britain.

Incidentaly one of the main organisers of the demonstration against the BUF on that on 'that lovely day in October '36' was Joe Jacobs, who was expelled from the communist party for organising it. Funnily enough he ended up on the communist left*



Was Italian fascism 'worse' than Russia Stalinism. If you think so why? I don't know enough about the former to make a proper comparison. Nevertheless these regimes had quite different origins and quite different purposes. It's a bit more nuanced than that they were both defending capital.

But your whole argument was that fascism was more barbourous than other kinds of capitalist reaction:


Fascism is not just "capitalist reaction", it's a particular kind of capitalist reaction unlike, and definitely more barbarous, than any other.

Yes, they have different roots, but that is not the point here. However, you claimed that one was definetly more barbourous and now you admit to not knowing what you are talking about. If I were to use your style of argument I would ask whether you would be the one to go into the gulags and argue that it wasn't that barbourous.


No, the united front does not mean "uniting" with social-democratic parties, as Sprinkles so kindly pointed out.

It exactly means that. Worse, it means uniting with them behind the programme of the bourgoiese, the defence of the state.


Sure. And your side says that during a period of reaction, the "communists" should, like Barbarosa, enter the mountain and sleep until the ravens stop circling around it to signal that the revolution has come again.

Actually during WWII, the worse period of reaction, the left communists were still working and arguing for internationalist politics. Jean Malaquis famous novel 'World without Visa' gives a good example of this work.

Meanwhile the Trotskyists were supporting an imperialist war, a position which they had been dragged into by anti-fascism.

Devrim

*Joe Jacobs went through Trotskyism, broke with Gerry Healy, was a member of Solidarity, and ended up as a council communist founding 'Echanges et Mouvement'.

[Sprinkles]

I don't think that Trotsky's comments here are particularly interesting. Indeed, I don't think that they are relevant to the subject at all. Trotsky wrote the above comments in 1932 attempting to draw an analogy to support his arguments on the situation in Germany.


Actually that isn't exactly the case, what I mentioned was written on the 2nd of March in 1922. While it's true it doesn't specifically refer to the situation in Italy, Trotsky's arguments in favor of the UF here remained the same and extends through both periods.



...the Italian Communists must, to begin with, develop the struggle through broad political channels. Their immediate and preparatory task, which is, moreover, a task of enormous importance, is to begin to disintegrate the plebeian and especially the working-class sector of Fascist support and to fuse together ever broader proletarian masses under the partial and general slogans of defence and offence.




The programme of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial ‘claims’, without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself: what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a break.


His idea to draw away the parts of the working class which still supported the reformist organizations despite it's leadership is pretty much the same idea as the idea to "Force Social Democracy into a Bloc Against the Fascists" despite it's leadership.



It exactly means that. Worse, it means uniting with them behind the programme of the bourgoiese, the defence of the state.


I think this is an unfair characterization in the sense that Trotsky puts an emphasis on the fact that he seeks unity with the workers that still support Social Democracy despite it's leadership and not with it's leadership. Whether that falls under the textbook description of a UF isn't my problem since Trotsky refers to it as a UF himself. My guess is that the root of the problem is that Trotsky wrongly assumed that Social Democracy as a movement was antagonistic to fascism.



Most of the "marxist" studies maintain the idea that, in spite of everything, fascism was avoidable in 1922 or 1933. Fascism is reduced to a weapon used by capitalism at a certain moment. According to these studies capitalism would not have turned to fascism if the workers' movement had exercised sufficient pressure rather than displaying its sectarianism. Of course we wouldn't have had a "revolution," but at least Europe would have been spared Nazism, the camps, etc. Despite some very accurate observations on social classes, the State, and the connection between fascism and big business, this perspective succeeds in missing the point that fascism was the product of a double failure; the defeat of the revolutionaries who were crushed by the social democrats and their liberal allies; followed by the failure of the liberals and social democrats to manage Capital effectively.




One could construct a much more persuasive argument for forming a popular front in Germany in 1933, though still I would say a mistaken one, than for one in Italy in 1920.

In 1920, It would have meant the revolutionaries, at the high point of the revolution, should have proposed an aliiance with anti-revolutionary forces.


I'm not saying I agree with either, it's not even my argument since I honestly don't know what would have been better. I'm still undecided to put it simply.

[Sprinkles]

The Freikorps were separate from the Nazis (even opposing them, as during the Beer Hall Putsch) and disbanded around 1920. The Nazi street fighters were the SA, also called brownshirts.

The Freikorps was for all intent and purposes the pre-cursor of the SA, even including it's future leader Ernst Röhm. The Putsch was merely premature and all of it's participants were quickly released, but perhaps I phrased my question poorly.

I was looking for a precursor of the Blackshirts which had the same kind of apparent legality historical tradition and the support of SPD Minister of Defense Gustav Noske provided the Freikorps. The only precursor to the Blackshirts were the Squadristi and although they didn't have a history of legality as volunteer armies in the past which the Freikorps in Germany did have, there's no difference between them in whether they were sanctioned, supported or subsequently employed by the State.

Especially since Ivanoe Bonomi the Prime Minister of Italy at the time a member of the PSR a spin-off from the PSI even proposed: "...the Bonomi memorandum of October 1921, which sent 60,000 officers into the Fascist assault groups to act as leaders."

[Devrim]

Actually that isn't exactly the case, what I mentioned was written on the 2nd of March in 1922. While it's true it doesn't specifically refer to the situation in Italy, Trotsky's arguments in favor of the UF here remained the same and extends through both periods.

I was referring to his comments on the Italian question posted earlier.


His idea to draw away the parts of the working class which still supported the reformist organizations despite it's leadership is pretty much the same idea as the idea to "Force Social Democracy into a Bloc Against the Fascists" despite it's leadership.

Yet Trotsky's idea was to enter into a coalition with what were in 1920 openly anti-revolutionary forces. Of course the communists should have been trying to win social democratic workers to the struggle, but I don't believe that the way to do this is to form an alliance with people who you know will break the alliance. Rather it is to be clear from the start about the nature of those parties.


I think this is an unfair characterization in the sense that Trotsky puts an emphasis on the fact that he seeks unity with the workers that still support Social Democracy despite it's leadership and not with it's leadership. Whether that falls under the textbook description of a UF isn't my problem since Trotsky refers to it as a UF himself.

Trotsky saw the only way to do this as being by seeking unity with the leaders. Trotskyism is obsessed with the problems of leaders, and leadership. It sees the crisis of the working class as being a crisis of leadership. He didn't see it could be done any other way.


My guess is that the root of the problem is that Trotsky wrongly assumed that Social Democracy as a movement was antagonistic to fascism.

On this you are very right, but then he failed completly to understand the change of period, and the nature of the social democratic parties in the new period.

Devrim

[Sasha]

[start rant and rave mode] for fuck sake, can people please give their own opinions on the topic in question instead of bickering endlesy over what some guy said or didn't say a couple of decades ago... seriously, the next guy who quotes trosky in this thread is going on my ignore list.... can't you start a seperate thread in the trotskyst group?.... I mean jezus christ, you would think that you guys can't think for your fucking self... [end rant and rave mode]

[Sprinkles]

Yet Trotsky's idea was to enter into a coalition with what were in 1920 openly anti-revolutionary forces. Of course the communists should have been trying to win social democratic workers to the struggle, but I don't believe that the way to do this is to form an alliance with people who you know will break the alliance. Rather it is to be clear from the start about the nature of those parties.

Trotsky saw the only way to do this as being by seeking unity with the leaders. Trotskyism is obsessed with the problems of leaders, and leadership. It sees the crisis of the working class as being a crisis of leadership. He didn't see it could be done any other way.

On this you are very right, but then he failed completly to understand the change of period, and the nature of the social democratic parties in the new period.


Although I think your characterization of Trotskyism as a whole is a bit harsh, I don't have much to add since I mostly agree with what else you stated here.
I think I've been fair in my outlining of Trotsky's opinion for the purpose of debate so far, but since I'm not a Trotskyist I don't really see the need to defend it further myself.



[start rant and rave mode] for fuck sake, can people please give their own opinions on the topic in question instead of bickering endlesy over what some guy said or didn't say a couple of decades ago... seriously, the next guy who quotes trotsky in this thread is going on my ignore list.... can't you start a seperate thread in the trotskyst group?.... I mean jezus christ, you would think that you guys can't think for your fucking self... [end rant and rave mode]


Since the thread is about learning from past events and considering Trotsky played a part as a commentator at the time, as well as being a guideline to the Trotskyist position on fascism / anti-fascism today, I wouldn't be so eager to dismiss and ignore him out of hand. On a more technical note, I don't think I'm allowed to post in the Trotskyist group.

[Devrim]

[start rant and rave mode] for fuck sake, can people please give their own opinions on the topic in question instead of bickering endlesy over what some guy said or didn't say a couple of decades ago... seriously, the next guy who quotes trosky in this thread is going on my ignore list.... can't you start a seperate thread in the trotskyst group?.... I mean jezus christ, you would think that you guys can't think for your fucking self... [end rant and rave mode]

Psycho, it is funny that you say that people should give their own opinions when your contribution to the debate was cut and pasting from an AF pamphlet.

The ideas of Trotsky are important in that they are still very influential on the left today. The vast majority of all leftist groups advocate some sort of frontism, whether 'popular' or 'united', and the discussions about this of course had historical roots.

How can you talk about the rise of fascism in Germany without looking at Trotsky's work. He was probably the best known writer critiseing the CP from an anti-stalinist perspective. This of course doesn't make him right. I, personally, think that he was wrong. It does mean that he can't be ignored.


Although I think your characterization of Trotskyism as a whole is a bit harsh, I don't have much to add since I mostly agree with what else you stated here.
I think I've been fair in my outlining of Trotsky's opinion for the purpose of debate so far, but since I'm not a Trotskyist I don't really see the need to defend it further myself.

Why do you think it is harsh.

You are right though it isn't your job to dfefend it when they don't even defend it themselves.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

You are right though it isn't your job to dfefend it when they don't even defend it themselves.


i personally dont feel the need to defend my views, i think most communists would agree with RP's point of


your side says that during a period of reaction, the "communists" should, like Barbarosa, enter the mountain and sleep until the ravens stop circling around it to signal that the revolution has come again.

and i have argued with you before and read your arguments with others and many of them end with you saying "i think you hold anti-working class views",

i feel that fascism is a barrier to the class struggle that needs removed, you think we should sit back and wait for the revolution while we criticise the actions of others

[Devrim]

i think most communists would agree with RP's point of
your side says that during a period of reaction, the "communists" should, like Barbarosa, enter the mountain and sleep until the ravens stop circling around it to signal that the revolution has come again.

Except it has nothing to do with reality. As I have demonstrated before even in the bleakest years of the war, the communist left had organised activity. Activity that was based around the working class unlike that of the Trotskyists who backed the allies.

This is what Mussolini's police spies had to say about the left communist press in Italy:


The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism, undoubtedly Trotskyist*, and thus anti-Stalinist. Declares itself without hesitation an adversary of Stalin's Russia, while proclaiming itself faithful to Lenin's Russia. Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist. Even struggles against 'the partisans', the Committee of National Liberation and the Italian Communist Party.
i feel that fascism is a barrier to the class struggle that needs removed, you think we should sit back and wait for the revolution while we criticise the actions of others

This is the same argument. Because you don't agree with us, you claim we do nothing. However, it is blatantly untrue.


and i have argued with you before and read your arguments with others and many of them end with you saying "i think you hold anti-working class views",


Yes, I say that mainly to Maoists who support nationalist gangsters. I think that support for imperialist war is anti-working class. Lenin held the same position.

Devrim

*Obviously they were wrong there.

[Holden Caulfield]

*Obviously they were wrong there.

kinda undermines your source as a point... and Trotsky (wrongly thinking the USSR was still a 'workers state') advocated the defence of even Stalinist Russia against imperialist powers

nobody is going to say that certian elements of trotskyist parties arent sectarian but then again most people would agree that left-communism is unrealistic, quasi-anarchistic and an "infantile disorder" to bring Lenin into things if we must,

Imperialist War is anti-working class, anti-fascism isnt

[Devrim]

kinda undermines your source as a point...
Not really, my point was that the left had activity. It proves that. As for the mistake I would say it was an easy one to make. Remember many Trotskyists in Europe didn't know what the Trotskyist position was. An example would be the Greek section which was completely outraged when it discovered after the war had finished, the position the Trotskyists had held.


and Trotsky (wrongly thinking the USSR was still a 'workers state') advocated the defence of even Stalinist Russia against imperialist powers

I think that you are right on whether the USSR was a workers' state. You seem to be out of line with your tendency on this one. Your tendency defended this view even after the war.

Read what Grant wrote in 1946 :
The struggle for a Socialist Europe and Asia against imperialism and its Social Democratic and Stalinist henchmen, becomes the most important means of establishing the power of the world working class, and thereby defending the Soviet Union.

You are right though. Support of the imperialist war was wrong. It was a betrayal of the working class. Have you ever asked yourself why Trotskyism failed in this respect?


Imperialist War is anti-working class, anti-fascism isnt

But wasn't the working class persuaded the support the war under the banner of anti-fascism?


nobody is going to say that certian elements of trotskyist parties arent sectarian

I have never even accused them of this. What are you talking about?


but then again most people would agree that left-communism is unrealistic, quasi-anarchistic and an "infantile disorder" to bring Lenin into things if we must,

Most people at the moment think that the idea of communism is 'unrealistic'.

It is back to the same old line though. Insults instead of arguments.

Devrim

[Sprinkles]

i personally dont feel the need to defend my views, i think most communists would agree with RP's point of


The mischaracterization and argumentum ad populum fallacy aside, why make a thread about it if you aren't interested in discussing the subject at hand or even defending your own views on it?



but then again most people would agree that left-communism is unrealistic, quasi-anarchistic and an "infantile disorder" to bring Lenin into things if we must,
You are aware what a logical fallacy is and why the argument from popularity is considered one of them?



i feel that fascism is a barrier to the class struggle that needs removed
Then define fascism, what is it? How did it come about and what was it's purpose? None of the Trotskyists have so far even attempted to define what fascism is, let alone provide an argument why the UF would be the preferred tactic to combat it.



you think we should sit back and wait for the revolution while we criticise the actions of others
Nonsense, like I stated before anti-fascism presents it as a false choice between democracy and totalitarianism by trying to convince the bourgeoisie to relinquish it's totalitarian side. While the actual choice would be between either the working class taking power or being repressed. To argue that the communist-left especially in Italy did nothing to frame it in the latter option is either willful mischaracterization or ignorance, it simply has no objective basis in real history at all.

[Sprinkles]

Why do you think it is harsh.

Just the formulation of the statement not the content itself, since it's certainly true that Leninism as a whole revolves around the question of leadership in the form of the party.
A question which Trotsky himself took even further with the statement: "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership".

[varzili]

I am an Iranian Marxist.
I think that I find this site 40 years late.
Or you are publishing these debates with 40 years delay.
I am a doctor and educated from medical faculty of Tehran.
Just from that university the Islamic fascism executed some 30 persons between 1979 and 1989.
The dynamic descried of writers here between fascism and Marxism in Italy reminds me of the dynamics between Islamic fascism and Marxism in Iran only the later was more complicated.
We had more than 30 Marxist groups with the counts between 500 and 500 000 .
You know the rest. Khomeini killed some 30000 of them.
Then it was this Mojahedin who stood between Islam and Marxism with 500000 people.
80000 of them were killed by Khomeini.
All due to a similar dynamic you describe here

[Holden Caulfield]

I think that I find this site 40 years late.


well historical analysis is a pretty large part of leftist theorising for the future and present day,

plus i wasnt alive 40 years ago..:blink:

[Pantaloons]

It should be noted that the first commander of the Arditi was a left-communist, who being a World War veteran led the first pitched battle against the blackshirts at the Battle of Oltretorrente and won. One of the things left-communists in Italy used to say when they were attacked for their position regarding fascism was that they were already fighting fascism before the Stalinist/"centrists" and Social Dems ever had a clue what was going on. It was the rank-and-file, and majority left-communist PCd'I that first insisted on armed organizations of self-defense against the fascists. Gramsci and Togliatti wouldn't have been able to take power in the PCd'I if the fascists hadn't been wiping out their political opponents for them. The Stalinists and Social Democrats "waited" over ten years before starting their "fight" against fascism.

[Pantaloons]

I am surprised that nobody so far on this thread has mentioned the disagreement over how to apply the United Front. The Bolsheviks, in the full rightist swing of their "bolshevization" period were attempting to force a united front of leaderships with the Socialists, Terzini-Socialists, and the Communists. To this Amadeo Bordiga put forward how the PCd'I would apply the idea of the United Front, as a United Front from Below, (Frente Unico di Base), having accepted the discipline of the 3rd International the PCd'I did apply the United Front tactic despite their own objections to empty "United Front" sloganeering. In fact every Leninist-style failure that was imposed on them was one that they were forced to adopt at that point just to keep from being expelled from the International. The idea of the united front from below was to work with the proletarian elements in other organizations on the ground but not to accept any sort of fusion of leaderships, especially with bourgeois parties as the Comintern wanted.

Mussolini's regime finally fell as the result of a wave of workers strikes and NOT as a result of partisans getting themselves killed so that capitalists could form a new regime. It was this wave of strikes that called into question Mussolini's ability to crush the state's enemies (workers) and as a result Vittorio Emmanuele was called upon by his fellows to have Mussolini removed from power. It wasn't a military defeat that brought ventanni fascisti to an end. The bourgeoisie bolted from Mussolini's camp in the face of an allied invasion and a huge strike wave that gave birth to the Internationalist Communist Party, the second largest party (12 or 13 sections comprising some 5,000 members) of the Communist-Left after the KAPD.