Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
More on the revolutionary vandalism of the Stalinist Spanish Civil War Artwork in S.F.
This excerpt from an article in 'The Situationist International Anthology' gives the recent July 19th graffiti attack on the monument to Stalinist lies about the Spanish Civil War on San Francisco's Embarcadero some deeper context.
From the brilliant article, "Preliminaries on Councils and Councilist Organization, by Rene Reisel, of the Situationist International:
"...If only to make them cry, let us remind the retarded devotees of the anarchist-Marxist feud(6) that the CNT-FAI — with its dead weight of anarchist ideology, but also with its greater practice of liberatory imagination — was akin to the Marxist KAPD-AAUD in its organizational arrangements. In the same way as the German Communist Workers Party, the Iberian Anarchist Federation saw itself as the political organization of the conscious Spanish workers, while its AAUD, the CNT, was supposed to take charge of the management of the future society. The FAI militants, the elite of the proletariat, propagated the anarchist idea among the masses; the CNT did the practical work of organizing the workers in its unions. There were two essential differences, however, the ideological one of which was to bear the fruit one could have expected of it. The first was that the FAI did not strive to take power, but contented itself with influencing the overall policies of the CNT. The second was that the CNT really represented the Spanish working class.
Adopted on 1 May 1936 at the CNT congress at Saragossa, two months before the revolutionary explosion, one of the most beautiful programs ever proclaimed by a revolutionary organization was partially put into practice by the anarchosyndicalist masses, while their leaders foundered in ministerialism and class-collaboration. With the pimps of the masses, García Oliver, Secundo Blanco, etc., and the brothel-madam Montseny, the antistate libertarian movement, which had already tolerated the anarcho-trenchist Prince Kropotkin, finally attained the historical consummation of its ideological absolutism: government anarchists.(7) In the last historical battle it was to wage, anarchism was to see all the ideological sauce that comprised its being fall back into its face: State, Freedom, Individual, and other musty ingredients with capital letters; while the libertarian militians, workers and peasants were saving its honor, making the greatest practical contribution ever to the international proletarian movement, burning churches, fighting on all fronts against the bourgeoisie, fascism and Stalinism, and beginning to create a truly communist society..."
"...If only to make them cry, let us remind the retarded devotees of the anarchist-Marxist feud(6) that the CNT-FAI — with its dead weight of anarchist ideology, but also with its greater practice of liberatory imagination — was akin to the Marxist KAPD-AAUD in its organizational arrangements. In the same way as the German Communist Workers Party, the Iberian Anarchist Federation saw itself as the political organization of the conscious Spanish workers, while its AAUD, the CNT, was supposed to take charge of the management of the future society. The FAI militants, the elite of the proletariat, propagated the anarchist idea among the masses; the CNT did the practical work of organizing the workers in its unions. There were two essential differences, however, the ideological one of which was to bear the fruit one could have expected of it. The first was that the FAI did not strive to take power, but contented itself with influencing the overall policies of the CNT. The second was that the CNT really represented the Spanish working class.
Adopted on 1 May 1936 at the CNT congress at Saragossa, two months before the revolutionary explosion, one of the most beautiful programs ever proclaimed by a revolutionary organization was partially put into practice by the anarchosyndicalist masses, while their leaders foundered in ministerialism and class-collaboration. With the pimps of the masses, García Oliver, Secundo Blanco, etc., and the brothel-madam Montseny, the antistate libertarian movement, which had already tolerated the anarcho-trenchist Prince Kropotkin, finally attained the historical consummation of its ideological absolutism: government anarchists.(7) In the last historical battle it was to wage, anarchism was to see all the ideological sauce that comprised its being fall back into its face: State, Freedom, Individual, and other musty ingredients with capital letters; while the libertarian militians, workers and peasants were saving its honor, making the greatest practical contribution ever to the international proletarian movement, burning churches, fighting on all fronts against the bourgeoisie, fascism and Stalinism, and beginning to create a truly communist society..."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I'm not going to get into the debate over anarcho-redcoration, (i do like Durruti and Orwell) right now, i just want to know: what is anarcho-trenchist?
"Anarcho-trenchist" is a term of derision used to describe Kropotkin and the other signatories of the former-prince's declaration in favor of the Allies during WWI. That conflict was primarily a trench war, hence the neologism.
What does this have to do with the vandalism of th Abraham Lincoln Brigade memorial? This is just some ramblings and pretentious critique of the Spanish Civil War. What happened at the memorial is outrageous. Why would you want to vandalize a memorial to those who went and fought against fascism, unless you are a fascist. And for this person to try to say that it is ok to do this and that those people are Stalinist with just an excerpt from ' The Situationist International Anthology' as backing or validity, just sucks!
These cowards don't sign their name and attack men and women who sacrificed everything for democracy. Not for capitalism or Joseph Stalin or whatever bugaboo is up your butt.
Sing your name or be a coward. By your deeds you are known.
NOTE: Not one single anarchist group or even known individual has signed-on to support this.
Conclusion? This isn't an anarchist, it's cointelpro, a nujob or both. In any case, boo and hiss.
Sing your name or be a coward. By your deeds you are known.
NOTE: Not one single anarchist group or even known individual has signed-on to support this.
Conclusion? This isn't an anarchist, it's cointelpro, a nujob or both. In any case, boo and hiss.
You sholud go play in traffic -- you are a chump for the biggest force for counter-revolution in the 20th century. If zips like you were all there was of a supposed opposition to the rulers of the US, we would be lost.
He wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier that 'I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.' In typical Orwellian style, he continues to deconstruct his own opinion as 'sentimental nonsense'. He continues 'it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Nineteen_Eighty-Four_and_final_years
It was at Arthur Koestler's home in Wales, in 1946, that George Orwell met Celia Kirwan, Koestler's sister-in-law. Kirwan had been an editorial assistant for two publications that Orwell had contributed to, so they had a professional connection too. But there was more to Kirwan; at the time, she served as a functionary for the Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), an outfit supervised by MI6 (a branch of the British intelligence services).
Orwell became positively besotted with Kirwan. In fact the poor guy even proposed to her, only to be spurned. But Orwell swiftly swallowed the snub, and furnished Celia Kirwan with a detailed list of Communists and fellow-travelers deemed "security risks"-that was thick with suspicion. Upon reading the list one encounters curious remarks in brackets beside each name. For starters, the historian Isaac Deutscher is described as a "(Polish Jew)". Similarly, Orwell feels compelled to ascertain whether Charlie Chaplin is Jewish or not: "(Jewish?)". Paul Robeson is disdainfully considered "very anti-white". And George Padmore, a former Communist Party member, is a "Negro. African origin?" This possibly upset Orwell because, in his terribly limited worldview, it apparently meant that the "main emphasis" of Padmore's politics was "anti-white".
Any sentient being that peruses this list will realize that serious conclusions should, nay, must be drawn about Orwell.
http://www.counterpunch.org/waraich09062005.html
In 1949, Orwell was approached by a friend, Celia Kirwan, who had just started working for a Foreign Office unit, the Information Research Department, which the Labour government had set up to publish anti-communist propaganda. He gave her a list of 37 writers and artists he considered to be unsuitable as IRD authors because of their pro-communist leanings. The list, not published until 2003, consists mainly of journalists (among them the editor of the New Statesman, Kingsley Martin) but also includes the actors Michael Redgrave and Charlie Chaplin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Nineteen_Eighty-Four_and_final_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Nineteen_Eighty-Four_and_final_years
It was at Arthur Koestler's home in Wales, in 1946, that George Orwell met Celia Kirwan, Koestler's sister-in-law. Kirwan had been an editorial assistant for two publications that Orwell had contributed to, so they had a professional connection too. But there was more to Kirwan; at the time, she served as a functionary for the Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), an outfit supervised by MI6 (a branch of the British intelligence services).
Orwell became positively besotted with Kirwan. In fact the poor guy even proposed to her, only to be spurned. But Orwell swiftly swallowed the snub, and furnished Celia Kirwan with a detailed list of Communists and fellow-travelers deemed "security risks"-that was thick with suspicion. Upon reading the list one encounters curious remarks in brackets beside each name. For starters, the historian Isaac Deutscher is described as a "(Polish Jew)". Similarly, Orwell feels compelled to ascertain whether Charlie Chaplin is Jewish or not: "(Jewish?)". Paul Robeson is disdainfully considered "very anti-white". And George Padmore, a former Communist Party member, is a "Negro. African origin?" This possibly upset Orwell because, in his terribly limited worldview, it apparently meant that the "main emphasis" of Padmore's politics was "anti-white".
Any sentient being that peruses this list will realize that serious conclusions should, nay, must be drawn about Orwell.
http://www.counterpunch.org/waraich09062005.html
In 1949, Orwell was approached by a friend, Celia Kirwan, who had just started working for a Foreign Office unit, the Information Research Department, which the Labour government had set up to publish anti-communist propaganda. He gave her a list of 37 writers and artists he considered to be unsuitable as IRD authors because of their pro-communist leanings. The list, not published until 2003, consists mainly of journalists (among them the editor of the New Statesman, Kingsley Martin) but also includes the actors Michael Redgrave and Charlie Chaplin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Nineteen_Eighty-Four_and_final_years
Orwell was quite fine with British imperial rule, and actively connived with it against so-called Stalinists like Charlie Chaplan.
The idea that Stalinism is THE repressive system is pretty funny considering every communist school teacher, journalist, actor, director, artist and unionist who was a communist was fired because they were supposedly "stalinists".
So once everyone who would defend socialism was forced out of public life, if not jailed like the leaders of the CP, killed like some or exiled like others... then you can make ANY accusation against communists and get away with it. Point out the lies and you are an apologist for "gulags".
Pretty good trick. Hilarious to watch self-described anarchists act like they are rebels when they get their talking points from Richard Pipes and Winston Churchill.
The idea that Stalinism is THE repressive system is pretty funny considering every communist school teacher, journalist, actor, director, artist and unionist who was a communist was fired because they were supposedly "stalinists".
So once everyone who would defend socialism was forced out of public life, if not jailed like the leaders of the CP, killed like some or exiled like others... then you can make ANY accusation against communists and get away with it. Point out the lies and you are an apologist for "gulags".
Pretty good trick. Hilarious to watch self-described anarchists act like they are rebels when they get their talking points from Richard Pipes and Winston Churchill.
For starters, Isaac Deutscher WAS a "Polish Jew"--what's the inherently impolitic point you want to make by quoting that? Chaplin wanted, according to many of his contemporaries, to be Jewish at times, seeing in that ethno-religious legacy some kind of currency of the oppressed. It would only make sense to find out if Chaplin's self-perpetuated rumors were true or not.
Let me be clear, though: I don't bring this up to say that all of Orwell's actions or writings were positive from a radical perspective. They were not. However, in his eyewitness account of revolutionary Catalonia and the counter-revolutionary Stalinist shenanigans in Spain (as outlined in detail in Homage to Catalonia) were untainted by his later mostly uncritical support for the British Empire and his links to the anti-communist politics of Labour. His famous quote about his initial visit to Barcelona says it very well:
"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December ['36] or January ['37] that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle... All this was queer and moving. There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways that I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for." (pp 4-5)
So for having the temerity and the guts to tell the truth about the revolution in Spain, Orwell deserves a lot of credit--regardless of his being a cop before and a pro-imperialist snitch later. None of that detracts from his experiences in Spain or from his analysis of what Stalinists do.
Let me be clear, though: I don't bring this up to say that all of Orwell's actions or writings were positive from a radical perspective. They were not. However, in his eyewitness account of revolutionary Catalonia and the counter-revolutionary Stalinist shenanigans in Spain (as outlined in detail in Homage to Catalonia) were untainted by his later mostly uncritical support for the British Empire and his links to the anti-communist politics of Labour. His famous quote about his initial visit to Barcelona says it very well:
"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December ['36] or January ['37] that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle... All this was queer and moving. There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways that I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for." (pp 4-5)
So for having the temerity and the guts to tell the truth about the revolution in Spain, Orwell deserves a lot of credit--regardless of his being a cop before and a pro-imperialist snitch later. None of that detracts from his experiences in Spain or from his analysis of what Stalinists do.
"Pretty good trick. Hilarious to watch self-described anarchists act like they are rebels when they get their talking points from Richard Pipes and Winston Churchill."
If your point had any validity, then that would be a pretty good trick. The problem with your attempt at irony or sarcasm or wit (three things you would do well to practice more before pontificating much more) is that none of my comrades or allies read either Pipes or Churchill (most of us know of the latter, but virtually none of us have even heard of the former and his Campus Watch nonsense), so it would be impossible for us to get our "talking points" from either or both of them or their imitators. To be anti-Stalinist from the Left only requires that one have a decent bullshit-detector and some knowledge of radical history; we don't need to get our "talking points" from anything other than the actual history of the massacres that Leninists started almost as soon as they attained state power (and began to absorb, dismantle, co-opt, or otherwise destroy the revolutionary gains of the Russian workers and peasants), and which continues to this day. Get your sources and facts straight, then you can complain about how evil and sectarian we are for refusing to acquiesce to the vagaries of Popular Frontism and undisguised Lenino-Stalinism.
If your point had any validity, then that would be a pretty good trick. The problem with your attempt at irony or sarcasm or wit (three things you would do well to practice more before pontificating much more) is that none of my comrades or allies read either Pipes or Churchill (most of us know of the latter, but virtually none of us have even heard of the former and his Campus Watch nonsense), so it would be impossible for us to get our "talking points" from either or both of them or their imitators. To be anti-Stalinist from the Left only requires that one have a decent bullshit-detector and some knowledge of radical history; we don't need to get our "talking points" from anything other than the actual history of the massacres that Leninists started almost as soon as they attained state power (and began to absorb, dismantle, co-opt, or otherwise destroy the revolutionary gains of the Russian workers and peasants), and which continues to this day. Get your sources and facts straight, then you can complain about how evil and sectarian we are for refusing to acquiesce to the vagaries of Popular Frontism and undisguised Lenino-Stalinism.
Are you saying your prefer racisms and antiSemitites to Communists? A snitch can be forgiven but people who went to fight Franco in Spain cannot?
Let's see now... writing an accurate description of a person's nationality (Polish) and ethno-religion (Jew) is racist and anti-semitic? And if that description is also the way that person identifies himself? That's *still* racist and anti-semitic? Never mind that Poles are not a race, and never mind that mentioning that a Jew is a Jew is not anti-semitic. The implication behind the original poster bringing up Orwell's notations next to people's names is that there's something nefarious behind it. All I tried to point out was that in Deutscher's case, Orwell's description was accurate, and in Chaplin's case, there were persistent rumors about Chaplin's ethno-religious status (Jew or not) that were Chaplin's own doing. How is this racist or anti-semitic? Is it racist to notice and remark on the fact that people of sub-Saharan African descent are black? Is it *not* racist only when people of sub-Saharan African descent notice and remark on it with others of sub-Saharan African descent? What is the implication of such reasoning? Orwell may well have been a racist and anti-semite, I don't know. But merely mentioning that Deutscher was a Jew and that Chaplin's mystique contained the possibility of Jewish ancestry doesn't make Orwell an anti-semite.
Lots of people fought against Franco, and for various reasons. Don't you believe it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons? Many Stalinists fought against Franco because they believed it was their duty as Communists, not because they had any particular love or support for Spaniards or their revolutionary experiments. Many no doubt fought against Franco simply because their Party bosses told them to. Some probably had some respect and enthusiasm for the revolution. But overall, Stalinists, to remain good Stalinists, had to follow the dictates of Comintern policies, and that's where the problem is, not with any particular action of any particular Communist. Those actions were all taken at the behest of the Comintern (Dimitrov, Stalin, Molotov, et al), regardless of any individual feelings of revolutionary solidarity. And when the Comintern's decisions came down to destroy the power of the CNT-FAI and POUM in Catalonia and the agricultural collectives in Aragon, the Communists (with the invaluable help of many International Brigade forces) fought the revolutionaries with the same commitment and zeal as they mustered in their fight against Franco. That you don't see this as a problem is where you align yourself with the enemies of the self-emancipation of the working class and the dispossessed.
Lots of people fought against Franco, and for various reasons. Don't you believe it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons? Many Stalinists fought against Franco because they believed it was their duty as Communists, not because they had any particular love or support for Spaniards or their revolutionary experiments. Many no doubt fought against Franco simply because their Party bosses told them to. Some probably had some respect and enthusiasm for the revolution. But overall, Stalinists, to remain good Stalinists, had to follow the dictates of Comintern policies, and that's where the problem is, not with any particular action of any particular Communist. Those actions were all taken at the behest of the Comintern (Dimitrov, Stalin, Molotov, et al), regardless of any individual feelings of revolutionary solidarity. And when the Comintern's decisions came down to destroy the power of the CNT-FAI and POUM in Catalonia and the agricultural collectives in Aragon, the Communists (with the invaluable help of many International Brigade forces) fought the revolutionaries with the same commitment and zeal as they mustered in their fight against Franco. That you don't see this as a problem is where you align yourself with the enemies of the self-emancipation of the working class and the dispossessed.
The anti-semetic stuff is hard to tell from the available evidence (the racism or at least a lack of sympathy for those fighting for civil rights in the US is maybe easier from the comment about Robeson) but Orwell definitely was a snitch and he snitched or artists who posed no threat to anyone too (they just believed in Communism and in the case of someone like Chaplain didnt even do much beyond being a member).
The ALB members were probably Communists because they believed in Social justice and went to Spain partly for the party and partly for the cause. The memory of the ALB and memorials too it mainly celebrate the idea of going to Spain to fight Franco and it isn celar to me if any of the ALB members ended up in the forces that actually got into conflicts with Anarchists. But in any case, celebrating people who went to Spain to fight Franco and got duped into fighting Anarchists seems a bit better than celebrating a rich author who ratted out members of the Communist Party to government officials. Communists from the USSR could easilly have had other motives to join the CP but in the US the main motive had to be one of social justice since one didnt gain much and risked a lot by being a member (I guess hatred of bosses and Capitalism too but thats sortof social justice).
The ALB members were probably Communists because they believed in Social justice and went to Spain partly for the party and partly for the cause. The memory of the ALB and memorials too it mainly celebrate the idea of going to Spain to fight Franco and it isn celar to me if any of the ALB members ended up in the forces that actually got into conflicts with Anarchists. But in any case, celebrating people who went to Spain to fight Franco and got duped into fighting Anarchists seems a bit better than celebrating a rich author who ratted out members of the Communist Party to government officials. Communists from the USSR could easilly have had other motives to join the CP but in the US the main motive had to be one of social justice since one didnt gain much and risked a lot by being a member (I guess hatred of bosses and Capitalism too but thats sortof social justice).
Also keep in mind the time and what was known about the USSR. Supporting Stalin's USSR after Kruschev was very different than supporting it beforehand. The information was out there but mixed with all the anti-Communists lies it was understandable than many didn't believe things were really that bad.
Post Kruschev the CP in the US lost a large portion of its members which is why even groups called Stalinist (like the WWP) by Anarchists have their roots in Trotskyism (even though the the WWP's case they do excuse more of Stalin's actions than other groups) rather than in groups that stayed with the CP. The main groups left that stayed with the CP are the CPUSA and COC groups; this includes Angela Davis, the Elihu Baker Center, certain movements within the AFL-CIO, etc... The CPUSA itself is now so mainstream it has more links to left-Democrats than to in the streets protest movements (its partly because international leadership disappeared right after Gorby leaving it as a group being somewha anti-Authoritian Social Democrats with more concerns about what happened under Stalin than solid Trot groups like the Spartacists, SWP etc...) the only groups I can think of possibly calling "Stalinist" today are Maoists but they are much more tied in with the New Left and third-world liberation movements of the 1960s than being a real offshoot of the CP (and have little relationship to Chinese Maoism). Modern Anarchism in the US has similar roots which is why one sees the strange phenomena of Maosists becoming Anarchists while one sees less of a movement between Trotskyists and Anarchists (its a stylistic issues and has more to do with the glorification of symbolism and guerilla warfare as could be seen in your Greek links on another thread than it has to do to with ideology).
ALB members went to fight before a lot was known in the US about Stalin and it was probably more luck than anything else that someone like Orwell went to fight with the Poum rather than the CP (since his antiUSSR views came as a result of Spain). One could praise Orwell for speaking truth about the CP but he was fighting with the Poum so it was more a reaction to being directly attacked than anything else (I wonder if he also became a bit anti-Anarchist with the CNT sold the Poum out?).
Needless to say, the Poum has more direct ties to groups that support the ALB memorial than to Anarchist groups in the US, and I woudn't have been surprised if he ALB memorial even mentioned Orwell or Homage to Catalonia since it is often brought up in a positive light by those memorializing the ALB (even though Orwell leaves disillusioned).
Post Kruschev the CP in the US lost a large portion of its members which is why even groups called Stalinist (like the WWP) by Anarchists have their roots in Trotskyism (even though the the WWP's case they do excuse more of Stalin's actions than other groups) rather than in groups that stayed with the CP. The main groups left that stayed with the CP are the CPUSA and COC groups; this includes Angela Davis, the Elihu Baker Center, certain movements within the AFL-CIO, etc... The CPUSA itself is now so mainstream it has more links to left-Democrats than to in the streets protest movements (its partly because international leadership disappeared right after Gorby leaving it as a group being somewha anti-Authoritian Social Democrats with more concerns about what happened under Stalin than solid Trot groups like the Spartacists, SWP etc...) the only groups I can think of possibly calling "Stalinist" today are Maoists but they are much more tied in with the New Left and third-world liberation movements of the 1960s than being a real offshoot of the CP (and have little relationship to Chinese Maoism). Modern Anarchism in the US has similar roots which is why one sees the strange phenomena of Maosists becoming Anarchists while one sees less of a movement between Trotskyists and Anarchists (its a stylistic issues and has more to do with the glorification of symbolism and guerilla warfare as could be seen in your Greek links on another thread than it has to do to with ideology).
ALB members went to fight before a lot was known in the US about Stalin and it was probably more luck than anything else that someone like Orwell went to fight with the Poum rather than the CP (since his antiUSSR views came as a result of Spain). One could praise Orwell for speaking truth about the CP but he was fighting with the Poum so it was more a reaction to being directly attacked than anything else (I wonder if he also became a bit anti-Anarchist with the CNT sold the Poum out?).
Needless to say, the Poum has more direct ties to groups that support the ALB memorial than to Anarchist groups in the US, and I woudn't have been surprised if he ALB memorial even mentioned Orwell or Homage to Catalonia since it is often brought up in a positive light by those memorializing the ALB (even though Orwell leaves disillusioned).
You seem to be misconstruing the counter-examples of Durruti and Orwell (just mentioning their names, as representative of an explicitly anti-Stalinist position on the Spanish events) with a "celebration." Nobody so far has suggested celebrating Orwell; what I have said is that his experiences in Spain, face to face with Stalinist counter-revolutionary activities, have been well documented and explained in "Homage to Catalonia." I have mostly left my comments about Orwell at that, except to challenge somebody's insinuated allegation that he was racist and anti-semitic without offering anything approaching conclusive evidence.
Is the discussion about Spain a competition in which people's actions have to be celebrated and compared in some contest about whose legacy is better?
If it is, then I'd much rather celebrate the actions of those who entered the conflict with the ability to analyze the events independently--that is, without the official lines of the Comintern or the AIT/IWA or the Fourth International.
And if the actions of the CPers in the Popular Front era are to be equated with "social justice" then you need to take into consideration that the CP internationally made certain that all efforts by non-CPers that seemed likely to 1. actually attain their goals; 2. attract more people to the local CP and/or the USSR; 3. embarrass the non-CP rulers of various countries (etc), were fostered, co-opted, and/or taken over. Failing that, those campaigns were destroyed. The authoritarian and expansionist nature of Stalinism is abundantly clear from the historical record. Whatever benefits to the vague cause of "social justice" were made by Stalinists were entirely incidental to their overall goal of channeling all manifestations of working class militancy into CP-led efforts.
Is the discussion about Spain a competition in which people's actions have to be celebrated and compared in some contest about whose legacy is better?
If it is, then I'd much rather celebrate the actions of those who entered the conflict with the ability to analyze the events independently--that is, without the official lines of the Comintern or the AIT/IWA or the Fourth International.
And if the actions of the CPers in the Popular Front era are to be equated with "social justice" then you need to take into consideration that the CP internationally made certain that all efforts by non-CPers that seemed likely to 1. actually attain their goals; 2. attract more people to the local CP and/or the USSR; 3. embarrass the non-CP rulers of various countries (etc), were fostered, co-opted, and/or taken over. Failing that, those campaigns were destroyed. The authoritarian and expansionist nature of Stalinism is abundantly clear from the historical record. Whatever benefits to the vague cause of "social justice" were made by Stalinists were entirely incidental to their overall goal of channeling all manifestations of working class militancy into CP-led efforts.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$95.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network