Re: fascism and nonsense

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> Mauro jr:
> I reply late to this post by Adam R. but the issue is always at stake.
> The issue is: which workers organisations (to be united in an antifascist
> front?).
> For Alan and all the leftists (left of establishment) the socdems are
> workers organisation: so the Labour Party, the italian Pds (once even the
> Socialist Party of Craxi), the unions, and a bulk of others.

Yes, indeed, they are workers organisations.

> For marxists the workers organisation are only the organisations which stand
> for the proletarian emancipation.

This is saying that the only people qualified to fight fascism are those
who believe in socialist revolution. If the fight against fascism is
artificially limited in this way, it is doomed.

> Otherway, how is it that every time the
> working class (the labor) arose for its own interests, hence against the
> capital, the socdems and many of the "others" above form an alliance with
> the self-calling bourgeois and reactionary parties for smashing the workers
> struggle? (Germany 1918-1919, Barcelona May 1936, and so on).

You are right to say that reformists will always side with the capitalists
when a socialist revolution is possible. So what ? Fascism means the
destruction of ALL workers organisations, Revolutionary, Reformist,
Trade Union, and cultural. This means a joint fight against the fascists
is possible. It is neccessary because the full collective force of the
working class needs to be bought into action against the fascists in
order to defeat them.

> How is it that
> it never occured that a fascist attempt has been stopped by such a united 
> front?

Lenin + the Bolsheviks stopped Kornilov by fighting alongside Kerensky.
This was actually a crucial step in winning enough influence to
overthrow Kerensky.

> Comrades, the failures of many United fronts has not yet convinced you that
> it is a bankruptcy politics?

No, Popular fronts have led to defeat.
There is a difference.

> And the second part of the quotation from Adam seems to be a confirmation of
> what I'm saying.

It is possible to unite with reformists in action but argue against them
politically. This isn't a very difficult concept : why do you find it so
hard to understand ?

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------