Left Communists and anti-fascism

[Holden Caulfield]

From the Left-Communist forum, i hope they dont mind me stealing their debate like this but its interesting....
origional here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-fascism-and-t70878/index.html) but we cant post in it or quote it

Malte
So I realized that left-communist organizations have a rather strange attitude towards anti-fascism.

Anti-fascist resistance during WWII is described as "taking side in an imperialist war". I think this is an insane, and being a German, quiet offending position to take. It effectively means that one should tolerate the holocaust and the Nazi crimes to avoid taking sides with the allies.

So is it seriously a left-communist position that all anti-fascist, proletarian resistance during WWII is being reactionary?

[Holden Caulfield]

Leo


Left communists are obviously completely against fascism.

However, being against fascism does not mean siding with democratic fractions of the bourgeoisie or supporting other murderous imperialist states. I don't think this in any way means that one should tolerate the holocaust and the Nazi crimes to avoid taking sides with the allies - the allies were not interested in preventing the holocaust or other Nazi camps to begin with. Indeed, it was them who 'tolerated' all those, it was the democratic industrial bourgeoisie that made the fascists come to power and so forth. Left communists and some other internationalists during the war called for turning the imperialist war into civil war and they did this while they were being shot by the Nazis or dying in concentration camps. I don't think it is in any way fair to call this 'tolerating the Nazi crimes'.

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

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

The leaders of the organization, were shot, not shouting "with dignity for the freedom of the country" (as the popular front slogan was) but shouting "long live the world revolution". Was supporting powers who had just until recently helped, promoted, or supported fascists or who were just recently allied with fascists the way to oppose fascism, or was the only way of really opposing fascism, opposing capitalism and imperialism completely? Was the way to struggle against fascism cooperating with democratic, liberal, nationalist and Stalinists bourgeois factions? Should the working class have supported the powers such as the USSR who made the workers scab for its national interests while the miners and dockers in Germany were striking in 1931?

There was, as limited as it was, some class struggle near the end of the war, such as the strikes in Turin in Italy and of course left communists were involved with those struggles, and it lead to their considerable growth in Italy. That is something else though, something which was never really in the agenda of the resistance.

[Holden Caulfield]

Malte

Okay, thanx for clarifying, Leo. I was under the impression that some left-communists are declaring all anti-fascist resistance during WWII as reactionary, as it would effectively mean to side with an imperialist power. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

I can certainly understand the left-communist approach on this, and it's the "ideological correct" one I guess. But anyway, when I would have the choice to kill a Nazi thug with a weapon provided by either the allies or the USSR, or do nothing, I would certainly choose to accept the support of one of those "imperialist powers" and kill that bastard. In times of fascism and world war and holocaust it's quiet a luxury to ask who is providing you your weapons and logistical support.

Being a German, I do see both the red army, and the allies as liberators. Certainly I do prefer the liberal/social bourgeois democracy I'm living in now over living in a fascist regime, just like I would have preferred to live in the DDR instead of the "third reich".

[Holden Caulfield]

Leo

Perhaps it is necessary to further clarify this a bit. For left communists, the question wasn't fascism or democracy but the bourgeoisie against the working class. Left communists opposed the tactics of popular anti-fascist fronts and united fronts, because those were tactics of class collaboration. They also did not support the "Resistance" as it is known as it was lead by Stalinists, liberals and nationalists. They also opposed the slogan of anti-fascism, not because they were not against fascism - quite the contrary, they were completely against fascism, they were operating in countries like Italy, Austria-Germany, France, Holland, Greece, Belgium and as I said they were imprisoned, they were put into concentration camps, they were shot, and so forth. However, they opposed fascism in a very different, and perhaps a much more dangerous way: they did not do sabotages, they did not carry guns, but they spread their ideas. For example, the French left communists in Marseilles are said to have covered the walls of the entire city with small stickers, informing local workers about what the Nazis have been doing in concentration camps. It is important to note that at this point, non of the big imperialist bourgeois powers were talking about this, as they themselves had been promoting anti-semitism for quite a long time by then. Against the Italian left communists, the fascist agents wrote: "The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism ... Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist." Left communists saw the war as a war which lead to workers slaughtering each other. They saw their task as trying to make the locals turn their guns towards their bosses rather than their class brothers. They encouraged class struggle against the Nazis and completely supported the strikes there. They were also for class struggle against the USSR and USA and UK. They argued for the fraternalization of all workers. In the end only fraternization of all workers can destroy fascism.

What is fascism without popular support? Can fascism ever even deal with the working class? Why was the worst nightmare of the Nazis a possible general strike? The internationalist position was to oppose the war, and the way to effectively oppose fascism in a manner than there would be no more fascism ever was, and still is to promote the destruction of capitalism and different bourgeois powers. Why? Because the countries who had promoted fascism in Italy and Germany before destroying did not stop doing this after the war. Maybe the Third Reich and the Fascist Italy was no more, but did those imperialist states not promote hundreds of fascist states and parties later on who played their part in massacres? Did fascism die with the second world war? Can we ever destroy it without destroying capitalism?

On a personal level, if a fascist attacked me I'd defend myself (and had to do it for many times at school). If there is a fascist at my workplace, I'd discuss with him and prove him why his politics are against his interests as a worker, and that the workers he is told hate have the same class interests with him.

[Holden Caulfield]

Malte

Leo, I basically agree fully with your analysis. I feel nothing but sympathy for that approach. In theory. But it is basically a struggle directly for communism during a state of fascism and total war. Those tactics might work, and might be the really only effective way to combat fascism and get rid of it entirely. But it's like an "all in" in a poker game when you have a shitty hand. I mean that strategy could work very well, just like you can always win with a shitty hand in a poker game, but it also could fail miserably, and the result we have is not Stalinism, or bourgeois democracy, it's a even more repressive, fascist regime.

I know you say the question wasn't "fascism or (bourgeois) democracy" for you, but that's exactly what I think it is, and what matters.

On class collaboration: I'm personally pretty split on this issue, but in Germany it's a quiet common tactic for the autonomous Antifa to collaborate with bourgeois associations, for example to prevent Nazi marches. Just this weekend for example that tactic once again did succeed, there where 3000 bourgeois demonstrators along with 1000 Antifa activists successfully blocking a Nazi march in Dresden. The mixture and indirect cooperation of those two groups is often something which the cops just can't handle. Most of the time there is no direct cooperation, and the militants are just using the bourgeois demonstrations as a tactical advantage, but still there is some sort of collaboration, if you want. Once again, if I would have to choose, to either let the march happen, or two indirectly collaborate with bourgeois forces, I would have to choose to collaborate.

[Holden Caulfield]

ern

Which is the more powerful ideology for the ruling class Fascism or Democracy? Is it Fascism or Democracy that strengthens and generates workers' illusions in the ability of the capitalist system to offer them some kind of future, some form of share and place in society? The answer to this question is the nub of this discussion. For the Communist Left democracy is by far the most powerful weapon for maintaining the dictatorship of capital. Fascism in Germany and Italy came to power on the back of democracies defeat of the proletarian struggles. Basically it finished the bloody counter-revolution that democracy had started. Anti-fascism was also the most powerful weapon for getting workers to line up behind the dictatorship of capital in the democracies against the dictatorship of capital in the fascist countries. Today anti-fascism is still a defense of democracy and thus in the end the dictatorship of capital. This is not to say that this is how you see it, but the logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the support of the bourgeois state against the fascist.
As for the question of the demonstration and stopping them by joining with other bourgeois forces, this does nothing to stop the main attacks on minorities, which are carried out by the state. The biggest generators of racism, and other ideologies that seek to divided up the class, to justify nationalism, war etc is the capitalist state and its media. In Britain it is not fascist thugs who dragged a Ghanian women receiving life saving kidney treatment from here hospital bed but the state immigration officials, nor is it the bone heads of the BNP that force thousands of so-called illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to live on the streets with no money it is the state. The enemy of the working class and humanity is the capitalist state in all its forms. The fascists are just one aspect of this state which carry out the role of making the rest look good.
To try and help take forwards this discussion and to try and take it to deeper level here are some articles that you may find interesting and which are able to give a more developed answer to your important questions that can be given here.
On the role of Left Communist faced with WW2, the following articles deals with the activity of Left Communists in Holland during the war: http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_01.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/books/dgcl/4/10_01.html)
On the role of anti-fascism for capitalism: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/101_bilan.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/ir/101_bilan.htm)
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/254_lead.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/wr/254_lead.html)
More articles on this question can be found in our collection of articles on this question at:http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/267 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/267)

[Holden Caulfield]

I'll post my own thoughts when i have time

[jaffe]

http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_1_barrotreview.html

http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_7_barrot.html

I think these articles adresses the ideas of left communists.


Barrot's thesis is very simple; it is that struggling against fascism (in particular) necessarily entails supporting democracy, that capitalism will necessarily remain intact if antifascists support one of its forms against another. All manifestations of antifascism ultimately strengthen the democratic state at the expense of the class struggle; thus both fascism and its nemesis antifascism lead to totalitarianism (the strong state) not communism. Dictatorship, says Barrot, is not a weapon of capital but a tendency of capital.

[Devrim]

I don't think that they address the idea of left communists. The first comes to at least some point of agreement, though it is critical:

Barrot's pamphlet is important in that it warns us against the dangers of involvement in popular fronts; but it should not be taken as providing a theoretical justification for ignoring the concrete problems which affect particular sections of our class.
The second is written by Barrot himself.

The quote that you give doesn't give any criticism at all. It merely states his position.

Devrim

[bcbm]

HC, interested to hear your thoughts. I don't see a lot I disagree with in the left communist analysis as I, too, think that the only way we can really destroy fascism is by destroying capitalism. I do see value in projects like ARA and antifa, however, which do not support any state actors and instead see direct action against the fash as self-defense. I know some left communists consider it pointless but I think defending ourselves and destroying their organizing is important as they can become a threat at least on a local level. Plenty of dead and beaten comrades testify to that. But, ultimately, that's just a side project. Our real goal is to build the strength of our class to take on the bosses, not their thugs.

[PRC-UTE]

HC, interested to hear your thoughts. I don't see a lot I disagree with in the left communist analysis as I, too, think that the only way we can really destroy fascism is by destroying capitalism. I do see value in projects like ARA and antifa, however, which do not support any state actors and instead see direct action against the fash as self-defense. I know some left communists consider it pointless but I think defending ourselves and destroying their organizing is important as they can become a threat at least on a local level. Plenty of dead and beaten comrades testify to that. But, ultimately, that's just a side project. Our real goal is to build the strength of our class to take on the bosses, not their thugs.

that's about my own position.

sometimes there's almost a false dichtomy created on this issue,as if militant no platform anti fascism can't be a part of the class war

[gorillafuck]

I see both sides of the argument, and this is a good discussion that I would enjoy seeing continued (I personally can't contribute anything right now)

[Holden Caulfield]

HC, interested to hear your thoughts. I don't see a lot I disagree with in the left communist analysis as I, too, think that the only way we can really destroy fascism is by destroying capitalism. I do see value in projects like ARA and antifa, however, which do not support any state actors and instead see direct action against the fash as self-defense. I know some left communists consider it pointless but I think defending ourselves and destroying their organizing is important as they can become a threat at least on a local level. Plenty of dead and beaten comrades testify to that. But, ultimately, that's just a side project. Our real goal is to build the strength of our class to take on the bosses, not their thugs.

I mainly agree with all the points raised, but the devil is in the details, they would see any action against fascists now as sidetracking away from worth while ventures, so combatting the BNP, or more extreme violent fascists for self defence of our class as well as our political organising is pointless. Whereas I see stopping extremeist fascists from organising and growing they see no point as the revolutionary movement hasnt been defeated and a fascist government isn't in sight yet. I see combatting fascism (when and wherever it rears it head) as a vital part of the class struggle, removing capitalisms weapons before it has a chance to wield them fully & stopping class division, where as they would not agree.

The views are close together, issues such as the state, no platform, popular fronts are contentious amongst all anti-fascists, but the concept of fascism and why we fight it is where the real ideological gap lies between most communists/anarchists and left coms.

[Devrim]

It is those who believe that the state can oppose fascism and racism that we argue against. The Labour party is a more effective racist force than the BNP can fantasise about being:


Kicking out the immigrants...
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2369/now5defw4.jpg
The BNP talk...
http://ts3.gazettelive.co.uk/DenhamGardensa1.jpg
...Labour get results!
With thousands of deportations every year, Labour sends 'em back where they came from. A vast and growing network of detention
centres holds thousands more of them foreigns seized in dawn raids. We are committed to British Jobs for British Workers, and
unlike the mavericks of the BNP, we're not all talk. Vote Labour!
So why is the BNP singled out for special treatment?

This does not mean that we don't see that physical violence against fascists is sometimes necessary.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

So why is the BNP singled out for special treatment?

This does not mean that we don't see that physical violence against fascists is sometimes necessary.

Devrim
they are not singled out for special treatment, but this is after all the anti-fascist forum so we tend to dwell on that issue, anti-fascism is part of the current class struggle be it violent or not. Even if the BNP is (in your view) only pulling the working class to the right and have little chance of getting into any positions of power, this still makes them a serious threat to our class and our struggle

also what are the sources for what you 'quoted'?

[Devrim]

also what are the sources for what you 'quoted'?

It was a mock-up leaflet done by someone on Libcom. The original post is here:http://libcom.org/forums/news/bnp-members-list-leaked-18112008?page=3#comment-307485 (Edit: that links to the thread. The leaflet is near the bottom.)
If you want I will check the claims, but I think it is well known that the Labour Party Government has kicked out thousands of 'illegal' immigrants and 'bogus' asylum seekers.


Even if the BNP is (in your view) only pulling the working class to the right and have little chance of getting into any positions of power, this still makes them a serious threat to our class and our struggle

I don't think that they are as dangerous as the Labour Party. And I think that the left is obsessed with them.

Devrim

[redSHARP]

i still feel that destroying fascism is the first and foremost goal. yet, a good antifa member should realize and be prepared for the eventual splitting of any popular front.

[Holden Caulfield]

antifa member
well i have several disagreements but i feel the need to urge that 'antifa member' is hugely different in its meaning in different countires, in the UK antifa does not partake in popular fronts, or work with the state to get goals, in Europe and America it is different perhaps but there is (at least to me) a massive differance between saying antifa members compared to antifascist

[Sasha]

for me anti-fascism is first and fore most self defence and taking direct action againts a direct thread against my neighbours and friends.
this is not about their treath off taking over political power (our boneheads cant even keep an singel local counsil seat withoud splitting and in fighting, i'm not scared that they will get close too real political power anywhere soon) it about preventing that i and others get killed.
ofcourse we talk disproportionaly more about the BNP than about labour on this sub-forum but, as you might have noticed we pay even more atention to the BPP and the rest of the lunatic-right.
this doesn't mean we dont fight labour, but we fight them in other ways because they atack us in a other way as wel.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Even if the BNP is (in your view) only pulling the working class to the right and have little chance of getting into any positions of power, this still makes them a serious threat to our class and our struggle


It not so much 'the right' as groups like the BNP pull people of all races into thinking of themselves as part of a tribal group based on ethnicity, rather than a group based on class.

The BNP is not going to take power, but every person they convince to think of themselves as 'white' or 'black' rather than 'working class' is one more person that the revolutionary left has to pull back against.

Even if the right-populsit/fascist/neo-fascist parties never get anywhere near power, they can and are doing massive damage to working class communities. Not through violence but through spreading destructive patterns of thought.

[Holden Caulfield]

what Devrim is saying here seems miles away from when one of the left communists quoted Bordiga (if i remember correctly) saying something along the lines of "the worst product of fascism is antifascism"

[Devrim]

what Devrim is saying here seems miles away from when one of the left communists quoted Bordiga (if i remember correctly) saying something along the lines of "the worst product of fascism is antifascism"

It was me who quoted him. I don't think that it is miles away at all.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

It was me who quoted him. I don't think that it is miles away at all.

Devrim

how isn't it?

[Devrim]

how isn't it?

Why isn't it, Holden? I don't see a difference. I think both are consistent with each other.

You will have to explain.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

because the Bordiga quote implies that fighting fascism is a distraction, that fascism is and so should be treated just as capitalism is, that by fighting fascism you are supporting the state you seek to overthrow.

whereas you say in this thread that anti-fascism can be necessary and this implies that it is a constructive part of the class struggle.

I clearly dont understand because these views clearly contradict each other

[benhur]

because the Bordiga quote implies that fighting fascism is a distraction, that fascism is and so should be treated just as capitalism is, that by fighting fascism you are supporting the state you seek to overthrow.

whereas you say in this thread that anti-fascism can be necessary and this implies that it is a constructive part of the class struggle.

I clearly dont understand because these views clearly contradict each other

It simply means fighting fascism isn't an end in itself, just a small part of the larger fight against capitalism. If the former, it becomes a distraction, if the latter, the fight continues but in a different way, in a way that every attack on fascism would be attack on capitalism as well.

[Holden Caulfield]

It simply means fighting fascism isn't an end in itself,that was the only meaning there could be, but nobody has ever argued that point yet myself and Left Coms often find ourselves arguing from different sides of the room

[Devrim]

because the Bordiga quote implies that fighting fascism is a distraction, that fascism is and so should be treated just as capitalism is, that by fighting fascism you are supporting the state you seek to overthrow.

whereas you say in this thread that anti-fascism can be necessary and this implies that it is a constructive part of the class struggle.

I clearly dont understand because these views clearly contradict each other

I don't think that we have said that at all. I said that there is a time when workers have to physical oppose fascists. Well yes, there is a time when they will have to physical oppose all sorts of people. That doesn't say that there is anything special about fascism, and it certainly doesn't mean that we think that current day anti-fascism is in any way positive. On the contrary, we think it has a negative effect.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

and it certainly doesn't mean that we think that current day anti-fascism is in any way positive. On the contrary, we think it has a negative effect.

this is the Left Com view I know and dispise,

it was your support of Historical antifascism that confused me

[Devrim]

it was your support of Historical antifascism that confused me

Which 'historical support'? I don't know what you are talking about.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

Which 'historical support'? I don't know what you are talking about.

Devrim

you have also confused me, or more likely I have confused myself,
we can start this again sometime :)