Fronts are instruments of deception. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
I'm not sure, though class front *sounds* like it'd be similar to united front; partial, practical unity of the class, regardless of organizations, around concrete demands.
jondwhite, I think you might be confounding United front with popular front.
Very basically, a popular front is an amalgam of various classes all united by ideological opposition to something, anti-fascism for example.
The idea of the United Front, on the other hand, was first developed by the Comintern and adopted as official policy of the Communist Party at the 4th International in 1922. The United front strategy basically means that communist revolutionaries (members of the Communist Party) are to participate in the common struggles of the working-classes regardless of the ideological predilection of the workers involved. To call this a class front would be accurate only if one accepts the premise that the Russian Communist Party of 1922 was itself representative of the working-classes.
From a libertarian-communist perspective a genuine class front would be united by it's members relation to capital, examples of which would be revolutionary-syndicalism and industrial-unionism.
just want to add that most anarchist organizations also participate in common struggles of workers even if the workers in question are not revolutionaries but that anarchists don't usually use the term United front to describe this strategy. The especifists and neo-platformists for instance use the term Social insertion to describe what is basically a United front strategy.
My understanding of it is that both terms come from within the Leninist end of the socialist movement, to do with how to fight fascism.
Trotskyists favoured a united front, which they saw as an alliance of all working class forces (namely revolutionary parties and the social democratic parties), whereas Stalinists supported a "popular front" of all forces opposed to fascism, including liberal bourgeois, nationalist parties etc.
... official policy of the Communist Party at the 4th International in 1922...
I think you mean, 4th Conference of the 3rd International. In 1922, the '4th International' (also known as the Communist Workers' International) was a breakaway international formed by groups more-or-less sympathetic to what would now think of as 'Council Communism'.
It would do every one of us good to sharpen our critiques of 'frontism' because the calls are already out there and they are going to hit a fever pitch here before long.
Beyond the obvious pitfalls of cross-class alliances, the most compelling argument against frontism is that it is always our millieu being asked to lay down our principles. I've never once heard a suggestion for say, liberals, to follow our organising principles.
Particularly as it relates to anti-fascist fronts, when you hear people or groups calling for unity and decrying sectarianism it is always code for telling us that we need to roll over.
Fronts are instruments of
Fronts are instruments of deception. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
I'm not sure, though class
I'm not sure, though class front *sounds* like it'd be similar to united front; partial, practical unity of the class, regardless of organizations, around concrete demands.
To address the point, the
To address the point, the distinction I've heard is between united working class fronts and popular (cross-class) fronts.
jondwhite, I think you might
jondwhite, I think you might be confounding United front with popular front.
Very basically, a popular front is an amalgam of various classes all united by ideological opposition to something, anti-fascism for example.
The idea of the United Front, on the other hand, was first developed by the Comintern and adopted as official policy of the Communist Party at the 4th International in 1922. The United front strategy basically means that communist revolutionaries (members of the Communist Party) are to participate in the common struggles of the working-classes regardless of the ideological predilection of the workers involved. To call this a class front would be accurate only if one accepts the premise that the Russian Communist Party of 1922 was itself representative of the working-classes.
From a libertarian-communist perspective a genuine class front would be united by it's members relation to capital, examples of which would be revolutionary-syndicalism and industrial-unionism.
just want to add that most
just want to add that most anarchist organizations also participate in common struggles of workers even if the workers in question are not revolutionaries but that anarchists don't usually use the term United front to describe this strategy. The especifists and neo-platformists for instance use the term Social insertion to describe what is basically a United front strategy.
My understanding of it is
My understanding of it is that both terms come from within the Leninist end of the socialist movement, to do with how to fight fascism.
Trotskyists favoured a united front, which they saw as an alliance of all working class forces (namely revolutionary parties and the social democratic parties), whereas Stalinists supported a "popular front" of all forces opposed to fascism, including liberal bourgeois, nationalist parties etc.
Sike wrote: ... official
Sike
I think you mean, 4th Conference of the 3rd International. In 1922, the '4th International' (also known as the Communist Workers' International) was a breakaway international formed by groups more-or-less sympathetic to what would now think of as 'Council Communism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers'_International
Correct you are, slothjabber.
Correct you are, slothjabber.
It would do every one of us
It would do every one of us good to sharpen our critiques of 'frontism' because the calls are already out there and they are going to hit a fever pitch here before long.
Beyond the obvious pitfalls of cross-class alliances, the most compelling argument against frontism is that it is always our millieu being asked to lay down our principles. I've never once heard a suggestion for say, liberals, to follow our organising principles.
Particularly as it relates to anti-fascist fronts, when you hear people or groups calling for unity and decrying sectarianism it is always code for telling us that we need to roll over.
Of course, that is what is
Of course, that is what is what social democracy is for - to pull the teeth of any radical critique, and line us up behind bourgeois political actors.
Cough, cough, *Bernie Sanders*, cough.