Was the collapse of the USSR a good thing for the western left?

[pharaomatic]

Tbh I find it quite ironic that the political ideology that's LEAST responsible for ending the Nazi tyranni, get's lauded in this thread.

Anyways, to go back on topic, I'd say that yes, the fall of the Iron Curtain was a blow to the European left as a whole. Even though large parts of it weren't particularly connected to Moscow and parts in direct opposition, it was still very much ideological variations of marxism and when the main bastion fell, it gave a bit of an identity crisis to the left. Obviously worst for those communists that were not alone getting the partyline from Moscow, but also a lot of money.

Some found it quite easy to reinvent themselves as democratic socialists or whatever and at least in countries like Czech Republic, this lead to a quite large dissillusionment with the political system as a whole. Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss.

 

[pharaomatic]

Btw, as a sidenote, I saw Egon Krenz, the last general secretary of DDR holding a bookpresentation some years ago. When seeing him speak, I remember thinking he was one of the slimiest people I had ever seen speak in public, but one thing you gotta give him, he had no regrets about what they did in DDR. He might be a snake, but he's one of those with a spine.

 

[LordTempest]

Tbh I find it quite ironic that the political ideology that's LEAST responsible for ending the Nazi tyranni, get's lauded in this thread.

I hate it when people praise the KPD too.

 

[pharaomatic]

I hate it when people praise the KPD too.

On a European level, one thing you got to admit that the communists certainly played a role in the partisan and resistance movement very disproportionate to their overall numbers. You can say the same thing about the social democrats, just the other way around.

I've always seen social democrats to communists or centre left to left, a bit like a beer to a shot. The shot got a lot more kick, but you don't want to drink it all night long.

 

[Rich Oliver]

On a European level, one thing you got to admit that the communists certainly played a role in the partisan and resistance movement very disproportionate to their overall numbers.

After Barbarossa, before this the Communists denounced the conflict as an imperialist war. In France, Britain, Belgium and Holland they argued that a victory for a Hitler would be a victory for the working class, workers were encouraged to seek the defeat of their own governments. In the occupied countries Communist policy verged on collaboration. In Poland the Soviet and Nazi secret police collaborated and shared intelligence in their shared goal of destroying all Polish resistance. In Germany in the early thirties the KPD argued that the SPD were Social fascists even worse than the regular fascists. Their deputies in the Reichstag refused to support a centre left government, declaring "First Hitler then us". This forced the establishment into the hands of the Nazis, as no government could command a majority without the Communists and Nazis.

 

[pharaomatic]

After Barbarossa, before this the Communists denounced the conflict as an imperialist war. In France, Britain, Belgium and Holland they argued that a victory for a Hitler would be a victory for the working class, workers were encouraged to seek the defeat of their own governments. In the occupied countries Communist policy verged on collaboration. In Poland the Soviet and Nazi secret police collaborated and shared intelligence in their shared goal of destroying all Polish resistance. In Germany in the early thirties the KPD argued that the SPD were Social fascists even worse than the regular fascists. Their deputies in the Reichstag refused to support a centre left government, declaring "First Hitler then us". This forced the establishment into the hands of the Nazis, as no government could command a majority without the Communists and Nazis.

Yep. But 22nd of June 1941 everything changed and the communists started fighting. The social democrats never did that to any larger extent. Also, Social Democratic Anti Fascist Liberation Front sounds a bit like a unicorn, doesn't it?

I'm not into the specific details of the communist - social democratic rivalry in the interwar years in Germany, but the rivalry is a classic one, so no surprise they couldn't find common ground against Hitler.

 

[pharaomatic]

To be fair, at least in Denmark, there was an organized social democratic resistance organization called "The Ring" but it was never as big as the communist or national/conservative groups.

Sorry, no English wiki on it, but the length of the article kinda indicates it's significance.

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringen_(modstandsgruppe)

 

[Fishman786]

Yep. But 22nd of June 1941 everything changed and the communists started fighting. The social democrats never did that to any larger extent. Also, Social Democratic Anti Fascist Liberation Front sounds a bit like a unicorn, doesn't it?

I'm not into the specific details of the communist - social democratic rivalry in the interwar years in Germany, but the rivalry is a classic one, so no surprise they couldn't find common ground against Hitler.

They only started fighting because Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back. Before that the Stalinists and all of their associated political parties/movements were good little enablers for Nazism.

Opposition to fascism normally only comes from the liberal part of the political spectrum, be it from soc-dem/dem-soc groups, from the anarchist/libertarian far left and sometimes from conservatives in the Anglo-American tradition (which places a heavy emphasis on individual freedom and moderate government). Authoritarian conservatives eagerly fall into line as long as they aren't being personally threatened and the authoritarian left justify inaction with nonsense like accelerationism or notions of theoretical equality between wage slavery and actual physical slavery.

 

[pharaomatic]

They only started fighting because Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back. Before that the Stalinists and all of their associated political parties/movements were good little enablers for Nazism.

Opposition to fascism normally only comes from the liberal part of the political spectrum, be it from soc-dem/dem-soc groups, from the anarchist/libertarian far left and sometimes from conservatives in the Anglo-American tradition (which places a heavy emphasis on individual freedom and moderate government). Authoritarian conservatives eagerly fall into line as long as they aren't being personally threatened and the authoritarian left justify inaction with nonsense like accelerationism or notions of theoretical equality between wage slavery and actual physical slavery.

Opposition to fascism from the liberal part of the spectrum?!? Chamberlain was a liberal, wasn't he?

And I'd say that the Spanish civil war showed a pretty determined opposition to fascism from the left.

In the real world, outside of the clear ideologies, everything gets muddled up ofc, but generally, you'll not find the real resistance in the center.

 

[LordTempest]

Chamberlain was a liberal, wasn't he?

If he were German he'd probably be a DNVPer, so no.

And I'd say that the Spanish civil war showed a pretty determined opposition to fascism from the left.

From Socdems and the Left Oppositionists maybe. Everyone else on the Communist left supported the war for the same reasons they supported Molotov-Ribbentropp a few years later: Stalin told them so.

 

[pharaomatic]

If he were German he'd probably be a DNVPer, so no.

That's a guess, and I'd say a pretty fickle one, but it might be true. What I'd really like to see is some good examples of liberal resistance to fascism tho. In Denmark, the liberals were the ones competing the most in collaboration with the social democrats, but it's understandable as they had strong commercial interests that they needed to protect, war or not.

From Socdems and the Left Oppositionists maybe. Everyone else on the Communist left supported the war for the same reasons they supported Molotov-Ribbentropp a few years later: Stalin told them so.

That's not the impression I've got from reading memoirs from volunteers. Ofc the partyline had influence, but the decision to go, as far as I have read, was very much a personal and ethical one. Being a member of a party is one thing, going to war is something completely different.

Edit: Quotes

 

[Fishman786]

Opposition to fascism from the liberal part of the spectrum?!? Chamberlain was a liberal, wasn't he?

"Opposition to fascism generally comes from the liberal part of the political spectrum" is not the same as "everyone on the liberal part of the political spectrum opposes fascism". Liberal and liberal-conservative schools of thought have massive anti-fascist traditions as well, look at Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Yeah from a socialist point of view liberal opposition to fascism might be seen as ineffectual, incomplete and possibly insincere, but social liberals didn't simply roll over unlike conservatives or Stalinists pre-MRP.

And I'd say that the Spanish civil war showed a pretty determined opposition to fascism from the left.

And the most determined opposition came from the anarchists and libertarian socialists, whereas Stalin's people went around undermining and destroying the revolution.

In the real world, outside of the clear ideologies, everything gets muddled up ofc, but generally, you'll not find the real resistance in the center.[/QUOTE]
When I'm talking about the liberal part of the political spectrum I'm not just talking about actual Liberal capital "L" centrists, I'm talking also talking about the liberal far-left, which has a far better track record of authentic anti-fascist resistance than the authoritarian Stalinist/Communist left.

 

[pharaomatic]

"Opposition to fascism generally comes from the liberal part of the political spectrum" is not the same as "everyone on the liberal part of the political spectrum opposes fascism". Liberal and liberal-conservative schools of thought have massive anti-fascist traditions as well, look at Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Yeah from a socialist point of view liberal opposition to fascism might be seen as ineffectual, incomplete and possibly insincere, but social liberals didn't simply roll over unlike conservatives or Stalinists pre-MRP.



And the most determined opposition came from the anarchists and libertarian socialists, whereas Stalin's people went around undermining and destroying the revolution.

In the real world, outside of the clear ideologies, everything gets muddled up ofc, but generally, you'll not find the real resistance in the center.

When I'm talking about the liberal part of the political spectrum I'm not just talking about actual Liberal capital "L" centrists, I'm talking also talking about the liberal far-left, which has a far better track record of authentic anti-fascist resistance than the authoritarian Stalinist/Communist left.

The US is imo a bit off here, as they have a bit different political scale than Europe, and after all they didn't enter the war before Hitler declared on them and Japan bombed. Also, calling Churchill a liberal, is a bit of a stretch since he, after all, was a member of the conservative party and one of the primary figures in getting the liberal Chamberlain to resign.

With regards to the anarchists in Spain, they were never the largest group in the popular front and afaik they weren't receiving the newest material as well bc they were distrusted by the communists that had the contacts in Moscow, so calling them the most determined opponent of fascism in Spain is also a bit of a stretch. They also got more or less taken out by the communist in late '37, so were only active a little over a year.

I think you prove my point pretty well here, as you have to stretch things pretty far to get it to fit the argumentation.

With regards to the thinking, you're probably right that here, I haven't read much liberal political thinking from the interwar years, but I can think of at least one social democrat who described fascism as "A plague over Europe" in the interwar years. The difference is, when the dime dropped, not much else happened from that side of the table.

 

[LordTempest]

That's a guess, and I'd say a pretty fickle one, but it might be true.

Chamberlain was a conservative, but not a Catholic. The DNVP was pretty much the only game in town for non-Catholic conservatives.

What I'd really like to see is some good examples of liberal resistance to fascism tho.

Aside from all the cliche answers like the USA, or France, etc. how about Japan, where Liberal politicians and journalists were routinely assassinated by fascist terrorists for speaking out against the encroaching power of the military, and yet continued to speak out anyway?

In Denmark...

Are you the left-wing Wagonlitz by any chance?

That's not the impression I've got from reading memoirs from volunteers. Ofc the partyline had influence, but the decision to go, as far as I have read, was very much a personal and ethical one. Being a member of a party is one thing, going to war is something completely different.

You misunderstand me a little here. The crusaders did not go on crusade because the Pope literally told them to go, they went because the Pope endorsed the idea of a crusade in the abstract. That is to say, if the Pope had not endorsed the idea of crusade, or explicitly rejected the idea of crusade, most would not have gone.

The morality of the Tankie emanates from Moscow like the morality of the medieval Catholic emanated from Rome.

Also, calling Churchill a liberal, is a bit of a stretch since he, after all, was a member of the conservative party and one of the primary figures in getting the liberal Chamberlain to resign.

Chamberlain was never a member of the British Liberal Party.
Churchill was a member of the British Liberal Party for two decades.

It is way more of a stretch to call Chamberlain a liberal than to call Churchill one.

 

[pharaomatic]

Chamberlain was a conservative, but not a Catholic. The DNVP was pretty much the only game in town for non-Catholic conservatives.

Just checked, and you got me there, thought he was a liberal. Happens when you do things from memory.

Aside from all the cliche answers like the USA, or France, etc. how about Japan, where Liberal politicians and journalists were routinely assassinated by fascist terrorists for speaking out against the encroaching power of the military, and yet continued to speak out anyway?

I don't know much specific about the Japanese internal politics before the war, so it might be likely, I know about the increased militarization of their society. I think it is worth considering if there were any real left, communist style opposition in Japan? If there weren't I guess it's natural that opposition had to come from other circles. Might go down a selfdug wikipedia-hole in that direction one of these days.

Are you the left-wing Wagonlitz by any chance?

A bit, an old, pragmatic anarchist, that still can't get totally to grips with life in the machine, is probably what I'll describe myself as. But in this case more a guy that always will respect people who aren't just full of it, more than those who are. And someone who have a hard time accepting a centrist victim-narrative, when they usually run things and aren't afraid to push out anyone they don't agree with.

You misunderstand me a little here. The crusaders did not go on crusade because the Pope literally told them to go, they went because the Pope endorsed the idea of a crusade in the abstract. That is to say, if the Pope had not endorsed the idea of crusade, or explicitly rejected the idea of crusade, most would not have gone. The morality of the Tankie emanates from Moscow like the morality of the medieval Catholic emanated from Rome.

Yeah, that's a pretty good analogy. Also, the Moscow-loyal communistparties were incredibly centralised and topdown managed, so when they gave an order, it had to be followed. But ordering their members to go to war was still something that they, despite everything, couldn't get their members to do blindly.

As a sidenote, this way of organizing things really stood out in the antiauthoritarian sixties and seventies, where most people on the left were trying to level the hierachies. It has it advantages, but also drawbacks.

Edit: Spelling

 

[Greenskyguy]

I took a US-Japanese relation course in college recently and we actually talked about some things that might be relevant to this discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_by_assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishō_period

 

[IsadorBG]

Pretty sure Stalin started to fight fascism seriously after Hitler destroyed the kpd.

From changing the former communism policy on participation in democracy to allow for popular front to avoid further fascist take-over to open support in the Spanish civil war as mentioned before and actively trying to build an anti-german alliance in Europe.

It is true tough that when all of that failed and he signed the molotov-ribbentrop accord he tried to make the communist behave to buy tiime for the SU.

 

[pharaomatic]

Pretty sure Stalin started to fight fascism seriously after Hitler destroyed the kpd.

From changing the former communism policy on participation in democracy to allow for popular front to avoid further fascist take-over to open support in the Spanish civil war as mentioned before and actively trying to build an anti-german alliance in Europe.

It is true tough that when all of that failed and he signed the molotov-ribbentrop accord he tried to make the communist behave to buy tiime for the SU.

Yeah, Soviet Union and Germany really had a weird kind of love-hate relationship in the interwar years.

On one hand, they were both pariahs on the international scene and found each other that way, helped with developing military technology and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact. On the other hand, they were ideological enemies that supported different sides in Spain, Germany signed the anticomintern pact and so on.

It must have been a hard time being a loyal communist, imagine trying to explain all of these breaks with ideology and deals with the devil.

 

[adriankowaty]

Ah, communists.

Who hate social democracy almost as much as the nazis did.

Well, actually term "Lewak", which evolved into English "Leftist" was Lenin's offensive term towards social democrats (because they are not doing proper socialism, but instead tended to oversoapize it).
Edit: in his view.