Third Period policies led to the victories of fascism in many countries, the Third Period could not be universally adopted.
I would tend to agree, but I think in some countries Communists *should* build separate, red-lead unions... look at the KKE; their unions aren't yellow like the PASOK unions. I do have criticisms of the KKE leadership's tactics but the fact is that the unions they lead are much more combatitive than the others. You could argue that unified unions would've increased communist influence but on the other hand, just the opposite could've happened.
As per my Left-Nationalists thread, does that mean the traditional Russian left today should ignore the real split in the National-Bolshevik movement between a proper fascist but legalized minority (Dugin et al) and a confused but nevertheless leftist and banned majority (under the cover of Limonov's shadow)?
Overall, Charles, given the posts that have been made, I don't think anyone in this group supports the Third Period. It was clearly theoretically bankrupt, and clearly a failure in everything it set out to achieve in practice. That said, given conditions at the time I can understand why there was some resistance to the Leninist policy of supporting yellow trade unions with activists and money. After all, they kept purging the communist members. Partly, of course, because the Third Period told communists to be ultra-revolutionary and break union discipline, but the unions had been doing it for decades beforehand as well. The policy back then was unsuccessful, however, and (at least in Germany) they only ever managed to get a few thousand members -- mostly communist activists who had been expelled from the yellow unions and a handful of skilled labourers who knew they couldn't be fired. So while I can sympathise with the psychological processes going on, it was clearly a failure in this instance. At the risk of venturing outside the historical subject, my (very poor, so hopefully someone will educate me) understanding is that in Venezuela they broke with the reactionary trade unions and successfully formed new ones that attracted a mass membership.
Overall, Charles, given the posts that have been made, I don't think anyone in this group supports the Third Period. It was clearly theoretically bankrupt, and clearly a failure in everything it set out to achieve in practice. I support the position on Social Corporatism (not "Social Fascism," since fascism in all its forms is a subset of corporatism). I support red unions. I support "building socialism" in one country (depending on size, resources, etc.). I support united work in the Communitarian Populist Front re. left-nationalists, especially those who, despite supporting the far right (working-class support for the Nazis) or themselves preferring odd fascist aesthetics over Che T-shirts (leftist Nazbols), would prefer leftist inclusion of left-nationalist anti-imperialism as an alternative. I also prefer this Communitarian Populist Front over the more conventional "united fronts" and "popular fronts."
Seems to me that socialism in one country was something separate from the Third Period (existing both before and after it). And it didn't make use of a Communitarian Populist Front (instead condemning the all other parties while occasionally working with the whole NSDAP when it allowed opportunistic attacks on the SPD). My reading is also that the support for red unions was quite cautious, since they didn't dare to directly contradict Lenin on the question. These latter two policies aren't completely removed from the Third Period, but neither do they align with it. What's left, then, is the view of the SPD as the greatest enemy, which was the founding principle of the whole thing. This seems to me to be self-evidently incorrect, since the Nazis gaining power led to the destruction of the KPD and all independent trade unions -- red and yellow.
I think the united front from below was the correct line to take. It was the SPD remember, that prevented communists taking power in Germany in the first place.
Even if the combined forces of the KPD, SAPD, hypothetical working-class left-nationalist splinter from the Nazis, and assorted anti-Nazi left-nationalist circles like the German "leftist Nazbols," were a minority, yes indeed it was the correct line.
No mention of the possibilities of the KAPD then?
Didn't the KAPD fold at that point? I'd include them too, but only if they're willing to work with the left-nationalists.
The 'UF from below' was essentially just telling everyone to join the KPD -- it wasn't a united front at all. Of course, as you allude to, no one really had to push the KPD into this strategy -- they hated the SPD and with good reason (especially after the 1929 May Day). But the point of the united front isn't to cooperate with people because you like them; it's to temporarily cooperate with people because it will advance your goals of defence and growth.
