Anarchistic update news all over the world - 17 May 2016 - Part 2
Today's 2 Topics:
1. anarkismo.net: About Mike Macnair, « Social-Democracy &
Anarchism » and hatchets by René Berthier by René Berthier -
Cercle d'études libertaires Gaston-Leval (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #259 - 1946: Civil war
tipped Greece west (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
On February 2016, the Weekly Worker, website of the Communist Party of Great-Britain,
published a (hostile) review of René Berthier’s book: «Social-Democracy & Anarchism»
(Merlin Press). (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1094/bakuninist-hatchet-job) This
review, titled «Bakuninist hatchet job», was written by Mike Macnair and was an answer to
Berthier’s book as well as to Dave Douglass’ (friendly) review
(http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1086/when-marx-was-a-reformist/). ---- This is
Berthier’s reply to Mike Macnair. ---- I would like to say I am very grateful to Weekly
Worker for publishing David Douglass’ review of my book Social-Democracy & Anarchism
(Merlin Press). Not only because I found David’s review very pertinent (although this
opinion doesn’t seem to be shared by everyone) ; but because I realised I already knew
him. Extraordinary coincidence : we had met during the miner’s strike in 1984-1985 when me
and some of my comrades in France had formed a miner’s support committee which had been
quite active at that time.
We had contacts with miners in Deal, Shirebrook, Doncaster and other places (in Wales) but
I’m afraid I don’t remember all the names anymore. So David gave me news from people I had
known, and very sad news about others.
I have carefully read Mike Macnair’s «Bakuninist hatchet job», which I found quite
interesting in some way and, of course, perfectly consistent with the point of view of a
militant who has not transcended the perspective of Brezhnevian communism. However I often
had the impression that Macnair had not read my book, and I have repeatedly found that he
attributes to me opinions that are not mine. This impression is increased by the mention
Macnair makes, several times, of «fantasy organisations» which I, or David Douglass, are
supposed to deal about ; but «fantasy organisations» are nowhere to be found, neither in
my book nor in David’s review. So I don’t know what sort of «fantasy reading» he has done
of my book and David’s review. It is very strange.
This text I’m writing isn’t really an answer to Mike Macnair ; it is much longer than his
review of my book, but Macnair raises interesting points about which I thought necessary
to say a few words and which might interest English-speaking anarchists who have read my book.
Perhaps there were misunderstandings in the reading he made of my book, and perhaps there
were other misunderstandings in the reading I made of his review, which a face to face
conversation would have overcome. One never knows… Anyway, I am always surprised to see
how a debate between an anarchist and a communist, discussing the same historical event,
gives the impression that the two persons are speaking about two completely different
things and live in two completely different worlds. And I sometimes wonder if the gap will
ever be filled.
Both the gap and the misunderstanding started with Bakunin and Marx, because the two
blokes were not speaking about the same thing : the former had in mind an international
organisation of trade-union-like structures ; the latter had in mind an international of
social-democratic parties. I think if you don’t have this in mind, you completely miss the
point.
«Rhetoric and spin against Marx and Engels as individuals» ?
I’ve been reading Marx for over 40 years and I think I can say I know a few things about
communism, not only theoretically but practically, so to speak, because I also have been
since 1972 a militant of the French CGT, which was under the tight control of the
Communist Party. So when I talk about «Brezhnevian communism», I know what I mean.
I've never had the epidermal rejection of Marx that characterises some anarchists (who
generally have not read him). I have always vigorously opposed those of my comrades who
see Marx in a caricatural way (such as: «It is the dialectics of Marx that produced
Stalinism» and other such nonsense). My disagreements with him concern strategy and
organisation – and this is what my book is about. I am concerned in commenting Marx on
strictly political and historical grounds.
Of course I could laugh at this father who was against private property but who asked the
boy courting his daughter if he had a good situation. But having myself a daughter, I
think I can understand that. If I wanted to go further in my alleged «spin» against Marx
as an individual, I could also turn the knife in the wound and mention the child Marx had
with his housekeeper, who happened to be pregnant at the same time as his legitimate wife…
THIS is what I would call an attack against Marx as an individual, but I sincerely don’t
see where in my book I do such a thing. Unless one considers that mentioning a
questionable political behaviour in someone is making a personal attack.
It seems to me that it is rather Marx who makes personal attacks on people : «fat
Bakunin», «damned Russian», «proudhonist donkeys», etc. (p. 9). Besides I really don’t see
where I said, or even suggested, that «Marxism leads to Stalinism» for this is precisely
the attitude I oppose within the anarchist mouvement. I wonder if Macnair doesn’t
attribute me crazy ideas so as to better refute them. However, I do not believe Engels
«led to social democracy» (obviously, this is an insult to Macnair) : I think he was a
social-democrat. Same thing with Marx : they were social-democrats, in spite of their
criticism against the German socialists.
According to me social-democracy is a socialist movement which advocates division of
labour between economic action (trade unions) and political action (parties) ;
subordination of the union to the party ; the seizure of power by the party. Within this
movement there is reformist social-democracy (power through elections) and radical
social-democracy (power through insurrection). But I never said that Engels «led to
Stalinism». I don’t know where Macnair found that in my book.
I don’t either see where I blame, even implicitly, Marx and Engels for wanting to
transform the International in a «sect». My opinion is simply based on the idea that there
were two political and strategic options which were confronting each other. I don’t think
this fact can be denied. The problem is that there never was a debate between Bakunin and
Marx because Marx systematically avoided it. A well known and respected French historian
(Georges Haupt), a specialist of social-democracy, observed that ; I mention him in my
preface (p.3). Marx does not want a dialogue with Bakunin, and he systematically tries to
discredit him.
You can’t either deny Marx wanted the International to organise political parties, while
it was a union-type of organisation. This idea is deeply rooted in the minds of Marxists.
Marx never considered the German trade unions as belonging, even theoretically, to the
IWA. Iuri Steklov, a bolchevik historian, is so much convinced the International was a
party that he was convinced that it worked on the basis of «democratic centralism» :
«At that congress [The Hague] there was to be a decisive conflict between the champions of
the political struggle of the proletariat, and of democratic centralism in the
organisation of the International on the one hand, and the champions of anarchism alike on
the political field and in matters of organisation, on the other.» (Iuri Steklov, History
of the First International, Chapter 14, 1st paragraph.)
Bakunin disapproved the strategy Marx was forwarding for reasons I have explained in my
book. His opposition was not founded on the idea that a «broad front» was necessary, as
Macnair says – probably a reference to the Komintern. Speaking of a «broad front» at the
time of Bakunin and Marx is an anachronism. He simply thought the international labor
movement had not reached a sufficient level of maturity to adopt within the IWA a unique
program. He said that if a single programme was imposed on the organisation, there would
be «as many Internationals as there were programmes» – a very pertinent opinion which
history has revealed how right he was.
Endnotes
I am surprised that Macnair has so few real arguments against me that he is reduced to
dissect the 372 endnotes of my book ! It is true that 25 of them were added by my
publisher, with my agreement of course, because he thought it was necessary. This is not
really a tsunami of translator's notes, contrary to what Macnair suggests ... For
information, my publisher had written a fairly copious and extremely interesting preface,
but he preferred to withdraw it. This text can be found on one of the websites of the
French Anarchist Federation: Political conflict in the International Workers’ Association,
1864-1877. – A W Zurbrugg. (http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article559).
Macnair says that these endnotes only give the impression my arguments are founded on
clear evidence supporting my views. I don’t see what he means. Of the 372 notes, 283 are
specific references which the reader can check. As for the rest, they are commentaries,
informations, biographical informations on the mentioned characters, etc.
Macnair blames me for refering too much to James Guillaume. He is mentioned 59 times in
the endnotes and 84 times in the text. But Marx is mentioned 264 times in the text and 76
times in the endnotes. Am I to be blamed for that too ? And why on earth do I mention
James Guillaume so often ? Simply because his monumental book in 2 volumes on the
International is subtitled «Documents and Memories» (my emphasis) (L’Internationale,
documents et souvenirs, Editions Gérard Lebovici, 1985.). Much more than his opinion on
the facts of which he was a witness, it contains an exceptional compilation of documents
he has collected, many of which would probably no longer be accessible otherwise. But
maybe should I remind Macnair that Guillaume was the closest companion of Bakunin. If
Macnair wrote a book on Marx, I certainly would not blame him for quoting Engels too much…
As for the idea that «Berthier’s most damaging allegations against Marx and Engels are
simply unsupported by references», I’m sorry Macnair doesn’t give references to support
his own allegations.
Franz Mehring
Mike Macnair seems sorry that I mention Franz Mehring. In fact, I think he would object to
my mentioning whatever author doesn’t fit into his own interpretation of history. Mehring
is an honest Marxist historian, although his criticisms of Marx remain very «muffled», and
he takes a lot of precautions to expose the most questionable aspects of Marx’s political
activity. I can say he had, on this point, perfectly assimilated the British
understatement the French admire so much. But at least he mentions the contentious issues
concerning the «great genius who is always right» about which his disciples remain silent.
I do not put Mehring forward to show that his book is an «admission from the Marxist
camp», but because for once a Marxist is not uncritical with Marx.
As for Mehring’s Lassallean sympathies, Hal Draper, whom Macnair refers to, distorts
reality, leaving just enough truth for the distortion to be vaguely credible. Mehring is
ruled out as a biographer because of his «adverse comments» concerning Marx. In other
words, a biography must not have «adverse comments». Too bad for the biographer of Stalin.
Af for the «influence» Lassalle allegedly had on Mehring, what he is blamed for is that he
wrote a «History of the German Social-Democracy» in which he gives an important part to
the founder of the first socialist party in Germany, a party that owed nothing to Marx –
which is properly unbearable. In other words, Mehring is blamed for having done the work
of a historian.
That Mehring considers Lassalle, Marx and Engels to have an equal right to recognition is
not acceptable. And above all, Marxists probably cannot accept Mehring designating
Lassalle’s «Open Letter to the Central Committee of Leipzig» as the birth certificate of
social democracy! However, Mehring does not refrain from criticising Lassalle, but he
doesn’t refrain either for blaming Marx et Engels for their refusal to acknowledge
Lassalle’s historical role.
I do not intend to dwell on the issue of the relationship between Marx and Lassalle, which
is very largely determined by Marx's resentment towards the founder of the ADAV. This
resentment is obviously perceptible in the contrast between his letters to Lassalle («my
dear friend») and his letters about Lassalle («Jewish Nigger» – see : letter to Engels 30
July 1862). But anyway I don’t see why Mehring’s opinions on Lassalle, whatever they were,
should disqualify Mehring’s opinion on Marx in relation to the IWA, knowing that anyway
Lassalleans were completely uninterested in the International.
When Engels boasts that the German proletariat «belongs to the most theoretical people of
Europe», he advances a totally unfounded proposal, or whose only foundation is his own
phantasm: perhaps then the German proletariat will understand Marxism? Franz Mehring, more
realistic, denied this view, writing: «The truth was that both fractions [Lassalleans and
Eisenachers] were still a long way from scientific socialism as founded by Marx and
Engels.» (Franz Mehring, Karl Marx – The Story of his Life, London, Allen & Unwin, 1939,
p. 510.)
Those who want to discredit Mehring’s judgment should remember that he opposed the war in
1914, was a founder of the Spartacus League in 1916 and of the Communist Party of Germany
in 1919.
«… a good deal of his correspondence»
Let's come to Hal Draper’s suggestion concerning the destruction of «a good deal of his
correspondence» by Bakunin’s followers. The fate of the archives Bakunin left after his
death is a very complicated story, but there was no deliberate destruction of
correspondence for the sordid reasons Macnair suggests. Readers who can read French should
refer to the documents cited in note. (See :
– «Les papiers de Michel Bakounine à Amsterdam, Jaap Kloosterman»
http://www.iisg.nl/archives/docs/bakarch.pdf
– Arthur Lehning, «Michel Bakounine et les historiens: un aperçu historiographique», dans
Bakounine: combats et débats, Paris 1979, p 18.
– Marc Vuilleumier, «Les archives de James Guillaume», le Mouvement social,
juillet-septembre 1964, pp 95-108.)
I shall simply sum up.
• First of all, Bakunin himself regularly destroyed his correspondance, for reasons of
security. He also used to ask his correspondents to destroy the letters he sent them – and
fortunately some of them didn’t, since we have access to them today.
• His private and intimate correspondance has been given to his wife and partly destroyed.
• In 1898 James Guillaume’s younger daughter died, causing a deep crisis of despair.
Guillaume burned part of his archives, including some of Bakunin’s papers.
• Part of Bakunin’s archives were in Kropotkin Museum in Moscow and disappeared in 1938.
• Another part of his archives were at the University of Naples and was destroyed in
September 1943 by the Germans.
• Bakunin’s archives were dispersed among a great number of persons (Mrs. Bakunin, James
Guillaume, Reclus, Marie Goldsmith, Bellerio, Charles Perron, Gambuzzi, Jules Perrier,
etc.). Max Nettlau managed the feat to bring together the largest part of them. Bakunin's
archives have been entrusted to the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam
in 1935, edited by Arthur Lehning between 1961 and 1981.
Yet more than 40 other archival institutions possess from one to many thousands of pages
of his manuscripts.
Suggesting that a good deal of his correspondence has been destroyed with the intention of
concealing the truth (what truth ?) to the public is simply stupid. By the way, there is
in Macnair’s argument something very strange, which incites me to think that he is
tripping over the carpet, and may well suggest a certain amount of bad faith on his part.
He says :
1. A good part of Bakunin’s archives has been destroyed by his followers ;
2. The part that has survived «proves» that the accusations made by Marx were founded.
I conclude that Bakunin’s followers were stupid because if they had wanted to conceal
something they would have destroyed precisely the documents that were «sensitive». In
addition, his archives were so scattered that it is difficult to imagine a group of
«followers» meeting to sort out the documents that were considered as «compromising». I
doesn’t make sense.
«… running an entry operation in the First International»
Referring to Hal Draper (again !) Macnair accuses Bakunin and his friends of «running an
entry operation but not both in the First International and planning a split».
This accusation is totally unfounded for a very simple reason : Bakunin and his followers
planned no «entry operation» in the International because they already were in the
International!!! The federations that supported the federalist option (in contrast with
the centralisation advocated by the General Council) were the majority, as was revealed by
the Saint-Imier congress of september 1872. Eventually, all the federations of the
Internatonal rejected the decisions taken during the phony congress of The Hague organised
by the General Council!!!
In fact, this congress very simply revealed that the majority of federations were simply
fed up with Marx ! Since Bakunin and his friends never had the slightest intention to
«conquer» the General Council (they wanted to abolish it!!!), there was no need for them
to attempt an «entry operation» in a place in which they already were.
A bloke sitting in his favorite armchair, his cat purring on his knees, reading the
complete works of Hal Draper, smoking his pipe and sipping a glass of old cognac can
hardly be accused of making an «entry operation» in the house.
As for planning a split, the same argument can be opposed to Macnair.
What is the need for a group to split from an organization in which it is deeply implanted
? My book shows instead that the «Marxists», that is to say Marx and Engels practically
alone, were the splitters. After The Hague, most of their followers had abandoned them (by
«followers» I mean individual persons, for no federation supported them).
The German Social-Democratic leaders, who had somehow never made much effort, walked away.
Years later only, when the IWA had acquired the status of myth in the labor movement, did
they refer to it again, saying : «I was there», when they had done pratically nothing.
They were now «coming to the rescue of victory», as we say in French .
Besides, I’d like to suggest that there may be a slight contradiction in accusing somebody
of «making an entry operation» and «planning a split». I’m inclined to think that you do
one, or the other, but not both.
Those who can be accused of «running an entry operation in the First International» are
Marx and Engels. I invite Mike Macnair to read again the letter John Hales, a member of
the British committee of the International, wrote to describe the incredible bureaucratic
attitude of Engels refusing to transfer to the new secretary of the IWA the address of the
Spanish Federal Council (see my book, p. 29).
I might also remind the fractionist work attempted in Spain by Lafargue, on behalf of the
General Council who sent him in that country in January 1872 to undermine the positions of
the federalists (that is to say Bakuninists). He did so well that he caused a hell of a
mess, but was eventually expelled from the Madrid federation on June 9, 1872. (See
documents reproducend in James Guillaume, L’Internationale, documents et souvenirs, Vol.
4, p. 294.)
Lafargue did not give up, he created a rival federation with eight other men (compared to
the 30 or 40.000 members of the Spanish federation) and called it «New Madrid Federation»
which intended to be integrated in the Spanish regional Federation (the Spanish considered
Spain a «region» of the International). Of course, the Federal Council refused, but the
General Council in London bureaucratically pronounced the admission of this 9-men
federation to the International. It is as a member of this bogus federation that Lafargue
was appointed delegate to The Hague Congress where he could vote the exclusion of Bakunin
and James Guillaume!!!
The General Council implemented incredible manipulations to prevent the Spanish federation
(the real one) to send delegates to The Hague, knowing that they would not be docile.
On 24 July 1872, Engels wrote to the Spanish Federal Council a letter saying they had
«evidence» of the existence of a secret society «whose center is in Switzerland». Engels
demanded the Spaniards to send him «a list of all members of the Alliance in Spain with
the designation of their duties in the International» and «an inquiry from you on the
character and action of the Alliance, as well as its organization and its ramifications in
the interior of Spain...» This irresistibly reminds the «bayonets socialism» Proudhon
refers to. And Engels threatens: «Unless I receive a categorical and satisfactory answer
by return of post, the General Council will be in the need to denounce you publicly in
Spain and abroad as having violated the spirit and letter of the General Statutes and as
having betrayed the International in the interest of a secret society that is not only
foreign, but hostile.»(My emphasis.)
Finally, under the moderating influence of reasonable men like Jung (who eventually
abandoned Marx after The Hague Congress, exasperated by his bureaucratic behavior), it was
decided not to proceed with Engels’ ridiculous threat. Proponents of the General Council
in Spain had less scruple or less sense of the ridiculous. Their journal, the Emancipacion
in its No. 69 (28 July), engaged in the most unheard-of charge: it published, the names of
all members of the Alianza they knew about, designating them as traitors to the
International. No need to say that the police was delighted.
«This behaviour can only be explaimed by the rage caused by their impression of
helplessness, which blinded these pitiful men», comments James Guillaume.
Those members of the Alianza who had not been delivered to the vengeance of the police
decided to show solidarity with their comrades, and their names were published in the
press. The case was finally turned against the bureaucrats of the General Council who had
shot a bullet in their shoe. No need to say that the name of Lafargue was not highly
regarded in Spain…
The «New Madrid Federation» promoted by Lafargue’s intrigues under the orders of the
General Council ended up with 40 members (which contrasted with the 30.000 members of the
the legitimate Spanish federation). But from then on, it was this fantasy federation Marx
referred to when he mentioned Spain.
Finally, realising they were doing the game of the bourgeoisie, the activists who had been
manipulated by Lafargue joined their comrades of the real Spanish Federation. (See: the
Spanish Federal Commission report to the General Congress of the International in Geneva,
September 1, 1873).
So I ask Mike Macnair: who are those who organise «entry operations in the First
International»? Who are those who organise splits ?
Majority ? Minority ?
Speaking of the two groups (ADAV-Lasallians and SDAP-Eisenachers), which were to form the
SPD, Macnair says that «these groups' lack of commitment to the International are used as
evidence that the 'Marxists' did not have a majority». I do not see the connection between
the fact that, on the one hand the lasssalleans were totally indifferent to the
International and the Eisenachers very mildly interested in it, and on the other hand the
«Marxists» were or were not a majority. A majority where ? In the International? In
Germany? The Germans in the International had neither majority nor minority, they were not
there. One of the reasons Marx got crazy about the passive attitude of the German
socialist leaders was that his only official function in the General Council was to be the
representative for Germany : that is, practically nothing. This is why he amplified all
his reports to the General Council concerning Germany.
One of the reasons the German socialists gave for not forming a federation was that the
German law forbade German associations from joining an international organisation. This
reason was systematically repeated, and it is a phony one : in Belgium, France, Spain,
Portugal, Italy the International was illegal and repression fell on the activists.
So there was no German federation. The «deal» was that the German workers would join the
International individually. But of course practically nobody did. This is why Engels
panics at the eve of The Hague congress : «How many membership cards, for how many
members; and where roughly have you distributed them? The 208 calculated by Fink can’t
amount to all of them!» (Engels to Liebknecht, 22 may 1872. See Social-Democracy &
Anarchism, p. 10.)
The tragic aspect of this story is that the grassroots German workers were very interested
in the International. There has been cases when groups of workers tried to directly
contact the General council because the socialist leaders had been evasive about their
demands. There would have been a very great potential within the German working class had
it not been for the stupidity and total lack of strategic vision of the German socialist
leaders. Engels wrote to Sorge (3 May 1873) : «The Germans, although they have their own
quarrel with the Lassalleans, were very dishearted by the Hague Congress, where they
expected nothing but fraternity and harmony in contrast to their own squabbles, and have
become apatheric.»
But worse of all, the International had witnessed an incredible expansion at the
beginning, under the impulse of J.P. Becker. Becker, who lived in Switzerland and was a
sort of «free electron», had taken the initiative of creating German-speaking sections of
the International, which knew a very important development. Unfortunately, this action was
suffering from a double handicap: a) it was out of control from Marx; b) It was founded on
the German language, not on the German territory, so it afforded no basis for a
parliamentary strategy – and naturally Marx opposed it.
In fact, as Mehring said, these sections «withered and declined as the Social-Democratic
Party began to develop» (Social-Democracy & Anarchism, p. 10). But naturally, it is
Mehring who says it, not Hal Draper…
In his letter of May 22, 1872, Engels begs Liebknecht to publicly announce that the German
Socialist Party joined the AIT, and paid dues. He threatened to declare «the
Social-democratic Workers Party a stranger to the International.» (Social-Democracy &
Anarchism, p. 74.) Unfortunately, August Bebel had announced one month earlier in the
Volkstaat (16 March 1872) that the Germans had never paid dues to the International (see
Social-Democracy & Anarchism, p. 82 and note 159). Which wasn’t a scoop since already,
July 22, 1869, Marx had revealed the catastrophic state of the German relations towards
the International: «The Germans have a strange idea of our financial resources [...] They
never sent a farthing. The G.C. owes five weeks of rent and has not paid his secretary.»
(My emphasis.)
I don’t know what Macnair means when he says that «the First International at its height
was numerically dominated by British trade unionists and French Proudhonists». The First
International actually was founded by Proudhonists and British trade unionists : their
intention was to organise workers' solidarity in case of conflict. But the importance of
Proudhonists declined rapidly, and the trade unionists, who were mostly concerned about
electoral reform, were not particularly interested in the International, and even less
after the Commune of Paris.
One cannot take pretext of the large membership of the trade unions to say that British
workers were the majority in the International, and even less that the « Marxists » were
the majority. It's a bit like the Marxists who try artificially to inflate their
importance and say that the German Socialist Party was a «member» of the International
because it allegedly «supported» it, but never paid dues.
There is no point «proving» that the Marxists were or were not a «majority» in the
International. If anyone proved me Marx and Engels had ONE federation supporting them,
I’ll offer him or her a one-year subscription to the Monde Libertaire. The problem is not
there. The International was not grouping political parties but union-like organisations
confronted directly with class struggle on the workplace. The different federations
certainly had not uniform projects, they were crossed by various currents but they were
bound by labor solidarity in case of conflict. But the International was also an
organisation whose apparatus was controlled by a small minority of uncontrolled people. As
a Communist, Mike Macnair must fully understand what I mean.
War credits
Macnair says one thing which I admit irritates me a bit because it is indicative of the
distorted way in which the Communists see things, and also the low regard they have for
the anarchists whom they think are stupid and ignorant.
He says that «ADAV, unlike Bebel and Liebknecht, voted for war credits for Bismarck’s war
with France in 1870» This is a very smart formulation to conceal the truth. It suggests
that Bebel and Liebknecht, unlike the ADAV, did not vote for the war credits, and it
suggests (since no precision is given) that Bebel and Liebknecht made their choice in
agreement with their party. Both informations are wrong.
They did not vote against the war credits, they abstained, which is not the same thing.
Besides, the party itself, as well as Marx, were favorable to voting for war credits. And
Macnair refrains from saying that Marx was furious against Bebel and Liebknecht, (One
finds clear indications of their disappoving Liebknecht’s choice in their correspondence.
See : Engels to Marx : 31 July 1870 ; Engels to Marx, 15 August 1870, etc.) because his
opinion (and the party with him) was that the war was defensive for Germany, which
justified the vote in favour of the war credits!!! This will be the position of Marx and
Engels until the Paris Commune. After that, it goes without saying that the «defensive
war» thesis falls.
In other words – at least until it was no longer possible to think otherwise – Marx and
the General Council were on the same positions as the Lassalleans ... It is not the German
socialist party, not even Marx and Engels, but Liebknecht and Bebel alone, who abstained,
this July 19, 1870.
This case can be summarised in a few letters, which readers can easily refet to
• July 20, 1870, Marx to Engels.
In this letter written at the beginning of the war, Marx wrote that «the French deserve a
good hiding ; if the Prussians win, then the centralisation of the state power will be
beneficial for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would
then shift the centre of gravity of the West European workers’ mouvement from France to
Germany, and you need only to compare developments in the two countries from 1866 to the
present day to realise that the German working class is superior to the French both in
theory and organisation. Its predominance over the French on the international stage would
also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon’s, etc.»
So : the relationship between working classes is a relationship of domination.
• 15 August 1870, Engels to Marx.
Engels explains that a German victory is necessary for the future of the German
proletariat : «The whole mass of the German people of every class have realised that this
is first and foremost a question of national existence and have therefore at once flung
themselves into the fray. That in these circumstances a German political party should
preach total abstention (In other English editions we have «obstruction».) à la Wilhelm
[Liebknecht] and place all sorts of secondary considerations before the main one, seems to
me impossible.» In this letter Engels denounces the chauvinism of the French workers who
should be «knocked good and proprer», otherwise «peace between Germany and France is
impossible». Follows a very surprising remark :
«One might have expected a proletarian revolution to take this work over, but since the
war is already on, there is no choice for the Germans but to attend to the job themselves
and quickly.»
The «secondary considerations» are the opposition to war in Germany and the
internationalist declarations of the workers in Paris and in Saxony. The «main»
consideration is the national war which will produce German national unity
• August 17, 1870,
Marx wrote to Engels: «war has become national», which justifies the vote for war credits.
Meanwhile, the leaders of the real labor movement of Germany take positions that contrast
with the theorists in London. Bebel and Liebknecht voted against Bismarck's policy,
abstaining on the war credits.
• 4 September 1870
The French Empire collapsed under the blows of the Prussian army. Immediately the French
section of the IWA launches an internationalist appeal asking German workers to abandon
the invasion and offering a fraternal alliance that would lay the foundations of the
United States of Europe. German social democracy responds favorably, its leaders are
arrested. Among them, Liebknecht and Bebel, who in July had abstained from voting for war
credits. Bakunin did not hesitate to «bring justice to the leaders of the Socialist
Democracy Party» and all those who had the courage to «speak human language amidst all
this bourgeois roaring animality». (L’Empire knouto-germanique, Editions Champ libre, vol.
VIII, p. 58.).
• 7 september 1870, Engels à Marx
Engels wrote that «now that the German victories have made them a present of a republic –
et laquelle ! – these people demand that the Germans should leave the sacred soil of
France without delay, for otherwise there will be guerre à outrance ! It is the same old
idea of the superiority of France (…) I hope that they will reflect on the matter once
more when the first intoxication is past, for if not it will be damned difficult to have
any truck with them at an Internationale level.»
On September 9, the General Council published a manifesto which recommends to the French
workers:
1. Not to overthrow the government;
2. To fulfill their civic duty;
3. Not to get sidetracked by memories of 1792. («Seconde Adresse du Conseil général sur la
guerre franco-allemande», in La guerre civile en France, Editions sociales, 1968, p. 289.)
• September 10, 1870, Marx to Engels
The internationalist appeal by French workers and the favourable response by the
Brunschwik workers are qualified as «pieces of imbecility». Marx complains that «the fools
in Paris» have sent him «piles of their chauvinistic manifesto which the English workers
here greeted with derision and indignation».
Marx was making a big deal of the English workers (or rather their leaders) but made no
effort to encourage the creation of an English federation.
After the Paris Commune, the British Union leaders on whom Marx relied withdrew their
support, which increased even more his isolation. But having the support of the British
Union leaders could not be compared with having the support of a federation actually
member of the International.
• 12 september 1870, Engels to Marx
Engels is worried at the prospect of the Parisian workers stirring. He writes : «If
anything could be done in Paris, the workers ought to be prevented from letting fly before
peace is concluded. Bismark will soon be in a position to make peace, either by taking
Paris or because the European situation will oblige him to put an end to the war.» (Marx
and Engels had had exactly the same attitude in 1848 : they had been worried because the
workers of the textile industry were stirring ; they checked the diffusion of the
Communist Manifesto and the programme of the Communist League because they didn’t want to
frighten the liberal bourgeois who financed the publication of the Neue Rheinische Gazette.)
Why are they worried in 1870 ?
Because their project is to take advantage of the war to achieve German unity, so if a
popular uprising challenged the German victory, the project would fail. They were afraid
the French masses would reissue the mass uprising of 1792. At that time, revolutionary
France was besieged by the armies of all the monarchies of Europe. The Revolution was in a
desperate situation. The Convention decided on February 23, 1792 a levy of 300,000 men who
not only beat the allied armies but rang the beginning of the revolutionay wars in Europe
to overthrow the monarchies : the South Army entered Savoy and took Chambéry ; another one
passed the Rhine and took Spire, Worms, Mainz, Frankfurt. Dumourier’s army walked to
Belgium and beat the Austrians in Jemmapes, occupied Mons and entered Brussels under the
acclamation of the population.
Engels and Marx, as well as the entire French political class knew that resistance to the
invader meant arming the proletariat. This is what they feared. So it is easy to
understand the panic that hit them in 1870. If the memories of 1792 pushed the masses to a
revolutionary uprising in France, it would end the dream of unification of Germany, which
was the priority project of Marx at this moment. So, Marx enjoined the French workers not
to get carried away by them
Federalism
What David Douglass says about federalism and Marx is perfectly true. Marx hated federalism.
For Marx, federalism was a form inherited from the Middle Ages; it evoked Germany divided
into 59 states. In the opposition between Northern Germany – centralised under the aegis
of Prussia –, and South Germany allegedly «federalist», Marx was clearly in favour of the
first. (See letter to Engels of 22 October 1867 where he says that Liebknecht was
«…infected with the South-German-Federalist nonsense».) (Also : Engels to Marx February
1868 : «Liebknecht’s rag [the Demokratisches Wochenblatt] displeases me to the highest
degree. Nothing but concealed South German federalism.»)
The correspondence of Marx and Engels contains permanent remarks against federalism – a
political form totally opposite to their own designs, which were entirely focused on the
formation of a centralised state – whether capitalist or socialist. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx's political project is clearly a centralised state. Marx never mentions the
possibility of creating a «federal» Communist Party. Centralization is the political norm.
According to Proudhon and Bakunin, federalism is a modern political form, it is the
political form of the future. They fully understand that a modern, complex society is
impossible to manage and organise in a centralised manner. This remark is valid both for
the organization of society and for the labor organization.
The libertarian and federalist flirt of Marx during the Commune period is perfectly
opportunistic. There is no indication that Marx advocated federalism before the Commune.
And after, these themes disappear, except for perfectly formal and occasional references.
Bakunin said that the Civil War in France was, a «comic travesty» of his thought
(Social-Democracy & Anarchism, p. 162.)
The reference to the Commune is very useful to the marxists when they want to give a
«libertarian» turn to their doctrine, but it never lasts : as we say in French, kick out
the natutal, it comes galloping back (what is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh).
Expulsions
I know this is contrary to the genetic code of the basic Marxist, and this goes against
all convictions deeply implanted in him, but Marx actually expelled from the First
International the organised labor movement of his time – with the exception of Germany,
since there was no member federation. (I might add that during the 1848-1849 revolution in
Germany, he also dissolved the first Communist Party of history, and was eventually
excluded from it, but I feel that it would be too much for the same day.) (See – in French
– «Quand Marx liquide le premier parti communiste de l’histoire… et s’en fait exclure»,
http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article602
(http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article602&var_mode=calcul)
The skeptical reader who doesn’t consider as reliable the documents quoted by James
Guillaume in L’Internationale, documents et souvenirs, can refer to the correspondence
between Marx, Engels, Becker and Sorge (the new boss of the International appointed by
Marx) published in the Collected Works (L&W). This correspondence gives a fairly precise
idea of the situation : first, the different federations condemn the resolutons of The
Hague ; second they are excluded.
First : Denouncing
Letter from Engels to Sorge, 4 January 1873 :
• «So the majority of the British Federal Council has seceded – under the leadership of
Hales, Mottershead, Roach and – Jung. They have issued a circular and come out against The
Hague Congress, etc.» (cf. note 643)
• «The Belgian Congress s’est bien moqué du Conseil Général («Laughed at the General
Council».). They have declared that they want nothing to do with you and that The Hague
resolutions are nul and void.» (note 653)
• «On 25-26 December 1872 a regular congress of the Belgian Federation was held in
Brussels, which refused to recognise the resolutions of the Hague Congress or to maintain
contacts with the General Council in New York. It supported the resolutions of the
Saint-Imier congress.»
• «The Spanish Congress will come up to the same decision since our people did not send
any delegates. (…) [not surprisingly, considering the mess Lafargue had made there…]
«We are now unanimously of the opinion here that there is no case for suspension here, but
that the General Council should simply state that such-and-such federations and sections
have declared the properly valid rules of the Association to be null and void, that they
thereby place themselves outside the International and have ceased to belong to it. This
will rule out any talk of a conference, which would still be a possibility in the event of
a suspension.» (Engels to Sorge, 4 January 1873.)
Etc.
Obviously, the bureaucrats of the ex-General Council wanted to avoid at all costs a
regular conference or congress because they would have been swept away.
In that above-mentioned letter to Sorge, Engels makes a disheartened account of the
situation previous to the secessionist («marxist») congress of September 1873 : :
– no news from France, «no French delegate can come».
– The Germans have become «apatheric».
– «From Denmark nothing has been seen or heard».
– «From England only a few delegates can come». [None will come.]
– «It is very doubtful whether the Spaniards will send one» (you bet !)
– «The Genevans themselves are doing nothing».
Engels was very worried at the prospect that «Bakunin and his gang» should come to the
Marxist secessionist Congres, which shows he was ill-informed. Marx too was convinced that
«the Alliancist band of rogues is planning to turn up en masse. Of course they must not be
allowed in.» (Letter to Becker, 7 April 1873.) «Bakunin and his gang» showed a total lack
of interest in that congress because they were organising – in Geneva too – the VIth
congress of the legitimate Internationl which was to take place the previous week.
But Engels doesn’t know that ; so he writes that «to secure a victory for us, the only
necessary condition remaining (…) is that, in accordance with the resolution fo 26
January, the General Council should now announce the following resignations» : The Belgian
federation, the part od the Spanish federation that repudiated the Hague resolutions, the
English sections and individuals who repudiated the Hague resolutions, the Jura
federation. As for the Italian federation, it should be said that they never were members
of the International (but Engels was not so punctilious with the Germans).
Engels thinks that if that resolution is published, «the mass surge forward of the
Bakuninists will have been forestalled».
All this trouble was useless because none of the delegates Marx and Engels expected showed
up. The decline of the secessionists who supported Marx is obvious when one considers who
were the delegates at their congress in Geneva in September 1873 : «of the 31 delegates
present at the Congress, 28 were representatives of the International’s Swiss branches or
its émigré sections in Switzerland.» (Marx Engels Selected Works, Vol. 44, note 972, p.
671) No wonder the note 672, p. 671 of vol. 44 of the Selected Works of Marx & Engels
declares that «the Geneva Congress of 1873 was the last congress of the International
Working Men’s association». Marx declared the congress a «fiasco» and the minutes were
never published.
Suspending
(For a brief reminder of the measures by which Marx, Engels and some of their friends
excluded the IWA federations, and their reactions, see (in French)
http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article601)
5 january 1873 : General Council resolution anouncing the suspension of the Jura federation.
Inauguration within the working class of the method declaring that opponents «placed
themselves outside» the organisation. This method will have its moment of glory in the
worst periods of the history of the labor movement.
«Under the resolution issued by the New York General Council on 26 January 1873, all
organisations and individuals who refused to comply with the decisions of The Hague
Congress thereby placed themselves outside the International Working Men’s Association.
Later, on 30 May, the General Council passed a new resolution which listed the
federations, sections and individuals who had placed themselves outside the
International.» (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 44, p. 672, Note 680.)
The German social-democrat leaders, who never had a real interest in the International,
completely withdrew after The Hague congress : on 8 february 1873, Liebknecht wrote to
Engels that Der Volkstaat was as yet unable «to devote much space to the polemics inside
the International» (Ibid. p.671, note 674.) Which is a gentle way to say «We’re fed up
with with your problems».
Macnair presents the «Marxists» as being smarter than the «anti-authoritarians» because,
says he, they «were first to give up on what was, on both sides, plainly a dying project».
But there is something perverse in saying that you give up a project when you did
everything you could to have it die.
«…nasty, sectarian manœuvres by the Germans»
The same way I oppose the grotesque visions some anarchists have about Marxismm, I have
always opposed the simplistic vision of the «good» Anarchist on one side, and the «bad»
Marxist the other. However, when I describe the repeated attempts of the federalists,
after the Saint-Imier Congress, who insistently proposed to establish a rapprochement with
the German Social-Democrats, and when I see that these repeated attempts led to failures
due to the sectarianism of German social-democrat leaders, you can’t expect me to I
consider them as «good guys». I must add that the grassroots German socialist activists
are not concerned by these accusations. Bakunin despised the German Social-Democratic
leaders about whom he said all there was to say 40 years before Lenin. But he had an
immense respect for the German workers.
Similarly, when I see Marx complaining to Sorge about the French refugees of the Commune
who had not rallied to him, and saying: «This is their gratitude for having spent nearly 5
months working for the refugees and having acted as their vindicator through the Address
on the Civil War», you should not be surprised at my wondering about his real motivations
when he wrote this book. (See Letter, Marx to Sorge, 9 november 1871.)
Strangely, when you refer directly to the original (German) version of the letter, you
dont have quite the same thing ; it doesn’t speak of acting «as their vindicator» but of
«saving the honour» of the refugees, which is not quite the same thing. («Dies der Dank
dafür, dass ich fast 5 Monate in Arbeiten für die Flüchtlinge verloren und durch die
“Address on the Civil War” als ihr Ehrenretter gewirkt habe.»)
So Marx saved the honour of the Commune refugees ! (I must add that the French version is
perfectly faithfull to the German original.)
But what is really significant in Macnair’s review is that he seems to skip :
1. All the passages of my book where I suggest that there could have been rapprochements
between the two currents of the working class (in spite of the obviously sectarian bad
will of the socialist leaders) ;
2. All the passages where I criticise my own camp.
Didn’t Marx define sectarianism as the tendency to see only what separates you from others
and not what brings you together ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bakunin’s opposition to parliamentary strategy is, of course, partly motivated by the fact
that it leads to «bureaucratic control and corruption by the capitalists», but this is not
the main point. Bureaucratic control and corruption can appear in any sort of
organisation. The soviets in Russia fell under bureaucratic control and became corrupt
hardly a few months after the beginning of the Revolution and everybody knows how it ended.
What Bakunin and his comrades were concerned with was that they simply had another model
of society which could not be built through parliamentary strategy but through the
takeover by the workers of all the workings of society through their class organisations.
(And a party is not a class organisation.)
His criticism of parliamentary strategy showed that it consisted in bringing to power
«interclass» organisations, constituted of citizens, irrespective of their function in the
social relations of production (which is the definition of a political party). Bakunin
knew that such a strategy inevitably led to political alliances with other social classes
or fractions of classes, because in the parliamentary game, the workers anyway do not
constitute a majority (while Marx end Engels were convinced they did).
There lies the basis of the opposition of the anarchists to parliamentary strategy. (I
specify that Bakunin had by no means a principled opposition to universal suffrage. – He
clearly takes position in favour of it, all depends in what context it is exercised – see
Social-Democracy & Anarchism, p.120.)
So there is the answer to Mike Macnair’s question : «Why does this split in a (fairly
short-lived) international workers’ organisation 144 years ago still matter to us?»
It is extremely simple : because these two strategic options are still current : must the
proletariat
• be organised as citizens and seize political power through the State, or
• be organised as a class and seize social power through their class organisation ?
René Berthier
15 March 2016
Related Link: http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article604
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29301
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 2
March 30, 1946, an attack on a police station marks the beginning of a civil war between
forces from the anti-Nazi resistance, grouped around the Greek Communist Party (KKE) and
government troops controlled by the right (a block of fascists, royalists and bourgeois),
allied with Britain and the United States. More than three years later, at dawn on August
30, 1949, falls Hill Kamenik who was the last bastion of the Democratic Army of Greece
(DAG), military training ???. If the loss is definitely spend the country into the Western
bloc, this struggle remains a fundamental reference for the current Greek left. ---- On 28
October 1940 the Greek monarchy, under the influence of his English ally, rejects the
ultimatum of fascist Italy and took part in the war. During this period, the
"dictatorship" of Prime Minister Metaxas, several Communist Party members mainly and small
Trotskyist groups, are imprisoned or exiled. Among them is the general secretary of KKE,
Nikos Zakhariadis who, from his cell in a letter dated October 31, 1940, invited members
of the Communist Party and the Greek people to participate in the war of national
liberation - led by Metaxas government - against the Italian invasion. Greece will manage
to resist the Italians and to stop the invasion, but it will not be able to achieve the
same thing when Germany attacked. In April 1941, Greece was occupied by Nazi troops.
The German occupation will dissolve all dominant political institutions. The Greek
government went to Egypt and no traditional political group appears to favor the option of
the conflict with the occupiers. In September 1941, the KKE initiates the creation of the
National Liberation Front (EAM), which in turn in February 1942 creates armed resistance
groups, called the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS), under the command of Thanassis
Klaras, better known under the alias Aris Velouchiotis. The ASM is the largest
organization of resistance in the country, developing an action both political and
military against the Nazi occupation.
Greece is finally released in October 1944 and the race for the succession has already
started. In early December 1944 a violent government crisis occurs. On December 3, in
Athens, during a protest against the marginalization of EAM in politics, the police fired,
killing 21 people and injured over a hundred. The seven ministers of the EAM in the
government resign. Fights start between Elas and the English landed in Athens in autumn,
especially hoping to get rid of the Communists. The English come out victorious. The
Varkiza agreement in February 1945 provides for the disarmament of Elas and pardons for
political crimes committed after December 3, 1944.
Immediately after disarmament begins the period of "white terror", where the fascist
elements, Germans collaborators and reactionaries persecute and murder of members and
supporters of EAM and the KKE. The government does not intervene to stop these terrorist
acts, which are ideological purges and political, and sometimes reprisals by family
members of employees killed by Elas (usually members of the security battalions [ 1 ] ).
The period of the White Terror will open the way to civil war. While partisan groups
spontaneously leaving the cities to resume the maquis, the Communist Party finally chose
the military action to end the political stalemate, but also to protect the members and
supporters of the ASM. A policy statement also announced the selection of abstention for
the elections of 31 March 1946.
The eve of elections, the Communist partisans attacked a police station in Litochoro
Pieria in Macedonia. During the following three years of war, the monarchist troops and
fascist methods use a "dirty war" to deprive the ADG supports: sweeps of the civilian
population, deportation, murder, torture, etc.
Partizanes ELAS during the war.
Anarchists facing war KKE
Anarchist ideas have spread before all the political and ideological currents of the
nineteenth century socialists in Greece. But anarchist groups set up at that time were not
able to last in time. The anarchists of the nineteenth and early twentieth part in some of
the first wildcat strikes, which sometimes lead to uprisings, such as that of minors in
1896 or that of Serifos in 1916.
The leader of that rebellion was the union Kostas Speras, who later lead a group of
independent trade unionists within the General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE) on a
line that had a lot in common with the anarcho-syndicalists, especially against the
political action of workers. The group, which met some anarchists, book battle to prevent
addiction of GSEE vis-à-vis the Greek Socialist Workers Party, which after some time in
the 1920s, becomes a Communist Party. This minority has been removed from the GSEE. That
was the end of attempts to establish a real anarchist pole within the workers' movement in
Greece.
From the middle of this decade anarchist presence is completely eliminated in the country
and does not reappear until the 1970s, in the last years of the military dictatorship. It
will develop especially during the period of the new regime in 1974 [ 2 ].
The dominance of the Communist Party and Stalinism from 1930 is then complete on the labor
movement and the revolutionary movement in the country.
The texts on anarchist resistance and civil war follow two directions: on one side a clear
narrative influenced by veteran Stinas Agis, became a Trotskyite anarchist, representative
of the current "Socialism or barbarism" and the other a positive vision the struggle of
the popular fighters for what they believed a better future.
Kostas Speras
Army Stalinist criminals ...
Stinas and small Trotskyist group, in which served for a time the philosopher Cornelius
Castoriadis before fleeing to France, represented the period of Nazi occupation according
to the Leninist model of "revolutionary defeatism" of the First World War. Transposed to
the Second World War, this perspective was the German soldiers of the Third Reich workers,
so class brothers of local workers, who must together transform the war into a revolution
against capitalism.
Stinas had the opportunity to develop his ideas in his book EAM-ELAS-Opla [ 3 ], published
in 1984. He criticized the national liberation organizations, presented as Stalinist
criminal organizations that kill innocent people for no reason outside the lust for power.
At the same time he denounced the ASM as the main responsible for the rescue of capitalism
and the political system of domination.
From his perspective, the EAM has helped save national unity and to lay the foundations
of a new national development when there was no one to do it. Finally, it insists that ASM
does not have a social discourse but favors only national liberation, with a deeper goal
of taking power to transform Greece into a protectorate of the USSR, another imperialist
power.
Much of the 1974 anarchist adopted, at least in part the speech. In the book's publication
period, the first democratic government of Andreas Papandreou acknowledged national
resistance and granted a pension resistant to integrate citizens left in the state and
representative institutions after decades of exclusion. The anarchist movement, at the
same time, he has chosen the global conflict with the political parties and the state,
which entailed stay beyond and outside of "national unity" manufactured. National
resistance that inspired previous generations was therefore nothing for anarchists of the
1980s, a matrix for some veterans who insidiously incorporate the left of representative
democratic system and heteronomy.
Conflicts with members and supporters of the KKE as intolerance of these to the
anti-authoritarian left, intensifying hatred against the Communist Party, associated with
this story. At the same time, the brutality with which the KKE members attack the
anarchists and autonomous, creates a compelling image of "Stalinist criminals." Finally,
the anarchist movement, very young, mainly derived from May 68, ignores the previous
generation of anarchists in Greece, lost in the mists of time, and looks for historical
roots and an imaginary shaping its history.
The movement therefore has partially adopted this narrative, which he nearest feels
ideologically, as all those condemning the KKE, and has developed organic links with the
perpetrators, as Stinas or Giannis Tamtakos former militant Trotskyite who also joined the
movement anarchist.
... Or popular resistance betrayed?
Unlike narrative, another approach will consider it as national resistance "popular
resistance of the poorest against foreign oppressors and local." This approach praises
armed action of the Greek rebels, making history, almost epic of liberation. While at the
same time, she criticized the leadership race by the KKE, betraying the honest struggle of
people for a better life.
The British, who wanted to totally eradicate the ASM used the same criticisms Stinas. For
Churchill, the resistance of Elas were thieves and brutal murderers. On the contrary, the
criticism of the absolutist Communist Party leadership did not bring so much about his
"criminal action" as told Stinas but rather on its "criminal inaction".
KKE's policy has indeed proved to be the best ally of the English and Greek bourgeoisie:
the signatures of Lebanon agreements [ 4 ], of Kazerta [ 5 ] and Varkiza [ 6 ] played a
perfidious and destructive role in the popular movement in Greece, paving the way for the
final defeat in the civil war.
The KKE was accused of having and not want to give to the fight against the Germans a
class content, subversive, to maintain the balance with the local bourgeoisie and the
British. In other words, the KKE did not make the struggle for social liberation, but for
national liberation.
This second view was formed and developed mainly in the anti-fascist culture of the
anti-authoritarian movement, addressing a wider audience, and while practicing violent
confrontation with neo-Nazis, to create a common imaginary origin, common action. We can
then associate anarchists in rebel National Resistance of EAM since the criteria to
support the action of the rebels are not ideological (which controls the fight or what
kind of society are we going to build?), But are pragmatic: the resistance is violent
conflict "natural" with the fascist invaders and their local partners.
The same argument justifies the civil war, seen as a way for EAM-ELAS fighters against
terrorism paramilitary groups whose crimes are not comparable to the resistance. Finally
the legitimacy to use similar means to achieve the revolutionary overthrow of claim also
involves the struggle that took place in the 1940s.
National Cold War and Liberation
The establishment of several national liberation fronts with Marxist-Leninist deserves
special mention, not only because it presaged a new fragmentation of the world into nation
states, but also because it was decisive for the historical development of world
revolutionary movement. The attitude of the Communist Party, who had under his dominion
EAM and Elas, during the German-Italian occupation of the kingdom of Greece, is typical of
all Stalinist parties.
Communist Party leaders have directed the People of that era left in a bloody struggle for
the realization of "national independence", ie the restoration of the nation-state,
controlled by a "dictatorship of the proletariat 'established and protected by the Soviet
Union. The ultimate goal was not reached, because Greece is now in the camp of England,
thus remaining outside the eastern bloc.
Note here that this aspect is reinforced by the argument that the ASM and the national
liberation movements are the last savior of the nation state, which defends Stinas, but
avoid his verbal excesses enthusiasts who brings him closer to the right. It is clear that
these issues are complex and that a closer analysis, he has to make, would be most useful
to better understand the revolutionary movement.
Aris Tsioumas Translation Natasa Panagou
[ 1 ] The security battalions are paramilitary groups recruited from the army, created in
April 1943 by the Greek government employee to quell the resistance.
[ 2 ] In 1974, after the fall of the dictatorship of a military junta (the "dictatorship
of the colonels"), the Third Hellenic Republic is established on the model of Western
liberal democracies.
[ 3 ] Opla is the acronym for Organization for the Protection of the struggles of the
people, urban vigilante KKE, which was also used to suppress opponents Trotskyites or
councilists.
[ 4 ] In May 1944 to provide a national unity government after the Liberation
[ 5 ] In September 1944, ASM accepts the British landing after the German withdrawal and
the placement of the Elas under British command
[ 6 ] In February 1945, following the Yalta conference, under pressure from Stalin KKE
accept a truce and a regency until the return of the monarchy.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?1946-La-guerre-civile-fait
------------------------------
