Thought I knew the difference between Popular Front & United Front... Now confused

15 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 25 2013 18:08
Thought I knew the difference between Popular Front & United Front... Now confused

Which of the two is the correct definition of Popular Front and United Front?

Here's what I've always thought was the difference between Popular Front and United Front:

••• In both cases, working class organizations ally with bourgeois organizations so that they can pursue a common goal (the classic example being anti-fascism).
••• In the Popular Front, the working class organization refuses to fight in any class struggle conflict with the bourgeois organizations they've allied with, because they want to keep the peace with their allies. They compromise on their politics and hold back on revolutionary or class antagonistic struggle. Because they're allies on this one thing, they try to avoid or deny opposition in other things.
••• Example: CNT joining the government in an anti-fascist coalition, and cuz they didn't want to piss off the government they failed to criticize and expose them, failed to call for independence for morocco, failed to encourage increasing expropriations and collectivization.
••• In the United Front, the working class organization maintains its political goals and continues engaging in class struggle, even though this will upset their allies. They recognize that even tho they're allies on this one thing, they're still opponents on other things.
••• Example: Between the February and October revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks along with anarchists and other parties fought against the forces of proto-fascist general Kornilov. In this goal they were allied with the provisional government. But they did not join the provisional government and remained critical. They continued to agitate for all power to the soviets and factory committees.

But recently I read some stuff that made me think maybe I'm wrong, and that this is the true definition of Popular Front and United Front:

••• Popular Front is an alliance between working class organizations and bourgeois organizations to pursue a common goal. Period.
••• United Front is an alliance between working class organizations of various political tendencies, to pursue a common goal.

So which definition is correct? Or are both definitions correct?

#2
Top
boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jul 25 2013 21:32

Yea, also confused over here. All I know about Fronts and stuff I learned here;

#3
Top
Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jul 25 2013 23:13

I think the second pair of meanings are the correct ones.

#4
Top
klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Jul 25 2013 23:33

yup that's my understanding as well...

#5
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 26 2013 00:22
Tyrion wrote:
I think the second pair of meanings are the correct ones.

If this is indeed true, then I disagree with a rigidly anti-popular-front view. I'd say that "popular fronts" (by the second definition) are ok as long as:
1. We don't compromise our politics, we don't hold back on criticism or on class struggle, to appease those we've allied with against fascism (or whatever the common cause may be)
2. We retain our autonomy from the bourgeois organizations, we don't form joint organizations that will compromise our autonomy.

For example, in Spain, if the CNT had fought the fascists with the government, but hadn't joined it and had kept their militias independent. So on the anti-fascism issue they would be allies, but they remain autonomous, critical, vigilant of the threat of state attack, and ready to seize the opportunity to smash the state if the chance arose.

I always thought that united front would describe that, but if I'm wrong, and this is actually a form of popular front, then I don't see why popular fronts are rigidly condemned.

#6
Top
boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jul 26 2013 01:20

UV,

All hypothetical, sorry;

I think your 2 points are both unworkable demands for an alliance. If presented with them, I don't think bourgeois organizations could accept them.

Wouldn't it be better to just crush the bourgeois orgs and take all their shit? black bloc

/edit

I rigidly condemn the popular front I suppose. I can't wrap my mind around an alliance with the class we aim to destroy. Sorry to be simplistic, perhaps my thinking is just naive.

#7
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 26 2013 01:20

ok, screw the spanish example. it's hypothetical so there's room for all sorts of speculation about what would have happened if X had been done instead of Y.

so i'll stick with the russian example, described in my original post. this one really did happen.

Quote:
••• Example: Between the February and October revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks along with anarchists and other parties fought against the forces of proto-fascist general Kornilov. In this goal they were allied with the provisional government. But they did not join the provisional government and remained critical.

if this is a "popular front", then it's a type of popular front i can support, because it meets the two criteria i mentioned in my previous post.

#8
Top
boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jul 26 2013 01:34

What happens after that kind of front achieves its shared goal? Sorry, hypothetical.

As I've said before, I don't really know the history and obviously haven't developed my own opinions on this to a great extent.

#9
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 26 2013 01:58
bozemananarchy wrote:
What happens after that kind of front achieves its shared goal? Sorry, hypothetical.

then we try to smash them before they smash us! circle A

that's what happened in russia. after the proto-fascist general and his forces were squahsed, it wasn't long before the oct revolution overthrew the provisional govt.

in some cases you might even want to smash your "allies" before your joint goal is achieved. if you think it's strategically sound in the given circumstances.

#10
Top
Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jul 26 2013 18:13

Was there really much of a cross-class alliance during the Kornilov affair? My understanding of the incident is that the the coup was foiled exclusively by the actions of the Russian proletariat, and didn't really constitute an alliance any more than any other case where the working class has fought against an enemy that also happened to be an enemy of the liberal bourgeoisie.

#11
Top
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 26 2013 19:23
Tyrion wrote:
I think the second pair of meanings are the correct ones.

yeah, the second ones are the definitions I have heard

#12
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 27 2013 20:25

so does this mean popular fronts can be a good strategy if the two criteria i mentioned in post #5 are met?

#13
Top
RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Jul 27 2013 21:56

I think back when the term was coined the United Front was the name for a strategy of the international Communist Parties to work together with worker of whatever political affiliation to struggle for any demand that would do immediate material good to the conditions of the working class. It wasn't an abstract idea, more a policy decision. I think since then, with the historical shift away from the conditions in which the idea was born, and also the Bolshevik factional disputes between Stalin and Trotsky (where the whole popular/united spat came from) it's come to mean something a lot like Ultra's second definition. But I think that kind of reified ossified definition is not that useful. We need really to take things as they come. It would be odd to insist on 'the united front' in a reproductive rights campaign, for instance. But equally, we're never going to make much progress on class demands by cosying up to the Labour party.

#14
Top
no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Jul 28 2013 07:47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_Strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front

#15
Top
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 28 2013 15:01
RedEd wrote:
I think back when the term was coined the United Front was the name for a strategy of the international Communist Parties to work together with worker of whatever political affiliation to struggle for any demand that would do immediate material good to the conditions of the working class. It wasn't an abstract idea, more a policy decision. I think since then, with the historical shift away from the conditions in which the idea was born, and also the Bolshevik factional disputes between Stalin and Trotsky (where the whole popular/united spat came from) it's come to mean something a lot like Ultra's second definition. But I think that kind of reified ossified definition is not that useful. We need really to take things as they come. It would be odd to insist on 'the united front' in a reproductive rights campaign, for instance. But equally, we're never going to make much progress on class demands by cosying up to the Labour party.

i found this very helpful. cool