George Orwell, the Fight Against Fascism and the Spanish Civil War

To be distributed as an A5 leaflet at an event in South Yorkshire UK on the topic in the title.

Against All Forms of Capitalism

An anti-capitalist is against fascism and racism, be it in the form of Hitler or Le Pen or the BNP or the EDL. We are not 'anti-fascist', when this is understood as a political position regarding a fascist state or threat as a first and worst enemy to be destroyed at all costs, i.e. siding with bourgeois democrats as a lesser evil, and postponing revolution until fascism is defeated. That was the root cause of the Spanish Civil War tragedy and a lesson that has to be learnt. The State in capitalist society is always a ruling class dictatorship, disguised or not, and it is as harsh as it needs to be.

'Revolutionary antifascism' is a contradiction in terms - and in reality. Anything revolutionary inevitably goes beyond the boundary of antifascism, and sooner or later clashes with it.

When Spanish workers took arms against the military putsch in July '36, they were obviously fighting fascism, but (whatever they may have called themselves) they were not acting as anti-fascists, as their move aimed both at the fascists and the bourgeois "democratic" state. Afterwards, however, when they let themselves be trapped within the institutional framework, they became 'anti-fascists', fighting their fascist foes while at the same time supporting their own "democratic" enemies.

Anti-fascism is always more supportive of bourgeois "democracy" than opposed to fascism: it won't take anti-capitalist steps to repel fascism, and will prefer its own defeat rather than risk proletarian outbursts. It was no accident or mistake that the Spanish bourgeoisie and the Stalinists wasted time and energy getting rid of anarchist peasant communes when they were supposed to do everything to win the war: their number one priority was not and had never been to smash Franco, but to keep the masses under control.

So the point is not that fascism should not be resisted, but that anti-fascism as such, in order to avoid a dictatorial state, submits to the "democratic" state, itself only a veiled capitalist dictatorship.

That's its nature, its logic, its proven past.

Fascism is not the exceptional, ultimate evil, all capitalist States will commit any level of atrocity they see as necessary to maintain their system.

Nuclear weapons have been dropped; let's not forget the firebombing of Dresden, the Gulags of Stalin, unemployment, poverty, war, environmental degradation, exploitation….a long list of barbarism that capitalism in all its forms has produced. What about the state of Siege during the 85-85 miners’ strike?

The real result of anti-fascism today is to tie the working class to the capitalist system, the crisis racked class system that has no future, the dictatorship of the ruling class.

The Alternative is Anti-Capitalism

Our pain and their gross wealth and power, a social disaster which can only deepen, depends on us the working class accepting that the system has to be saved and if it means sacrificing our own and future generations, so be it. It’s not only fascists who brutally attack the workers, who stand for capitalist profit-making. All the parliamentary parties subscribe to the capitalist system that inevitably produced this disaster; they all prescribe the same dose of mass misery, however packaged, to preserve the system whereby a wealthy few live on the basis of the value created by wage labour The entire capitalist system is guilty and whichever party you vote for will be obliged to inflict anti- working class policies because they are all capitalist parties. There is an alternative. Capitalism must be put down. It’s the only humane thing to do. It cannot be done through Unions and Parliament. The need to forge our own weapons of struggle is growing urgently necessary. In the process the basis for a higher form of society, workers’ power based on mass assemblies with instantly re-callable delegates, will show there is an alternative to capitalist parliaments. Unlike a capitalist election this will not happen overnight. In the long run we have to create a political movement to argue inside the workers’ assemblies for the overthrow of capitalism. This can never be done by a parliamentary party. Only a political organisation fighting for the communist programme can point the way towards a new world order. A world where money and the profits system no longer exists so no-one can enrich themselves from the labour of others, where hunger and poverty no longer exist because everyone takes part in directly deciding on the needs of the world community of “freely associated producers”.

Let the working class correctly identify the enemy – capitalism in all its guises.

Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT)

Communist Workers' Organisation is the British affiliate.


It's not nice to introduce a sour note, but that's what I'm about to do. George Orwell, anti-fascism, and the Spanish Civil War all sound incredibly quaint to me. Like yesterdays struggles. I will admit to not living in Yorkshire (or even in England) so may be radically out of touch. Maybe Orwell is all the rage in Yorkshire, may be struggling workers in say Manchester expect to learn some lessons from what happened in Spain. Maybe a resurgent BNP has put anti-fascism back on the agenda in S.Yorkshire. But to me it all sounds, well, a bit quaint. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I do agree with the idea that the working class has to identify the actual enemy - capitalism in all it's forms. Isn't Orwell just a diversion from this?


Its not our meeting, but its some sort of exhibition where I know SWP will be, and some Professor or other and an ex labour MP.......I'm just trying to raise the profile of the ICT.

Actually edited the original to clarify the "democracy" of the bourgeoisie and got rid of the term proletarian democracy or workers democracy.

Charlie, Anti-fascism, far from being merely quaint, is a real threat. The left uses it to pull in support from militants, using the bogey men of the BNP, EDL etc to rally folk round their programmes. The anarchist/libertarian milieu too is often confused over the class nature of anti-fascism – I’ve met incomprehension, outrage and disgust when I’ve tried to challenge it, so I reckon the leaflet is welcome. I’d welcome regular polemic in the press raising the issue too, since it’s something I’m coming up against regularly. The CWO has written good stuff in the past, and very early WR’s (back in the late 70’s I think) carried an excellent two-part article, but these things need regular restatement. Opposition needs to be nuanced too, though; there are areas in our inner cities where these thugs can pose a real threat to coloured workers and immigrants, and community defence isn’t necessarily just about leftist manipulation.


I like your comments but on this one Steve and Shug are right. Check out to see the way in which Orwell innocently wanders into the Spanish events thinking there is a revolution on only to find the Stalinists have stitched everyone up - all in the name of "anti-fascism". Our meeting last night on the Spanish Civil War underlined this as the whole idea of proletarian autnonomy was sacrificed to, and destroyed by, the pursuit of anti-fascism by, amongst others, the anarchists.

You have got the basic class position though - we fight the fascists as we do any other bourgeois faction.

Thanks for putting me right. I have never taken anti-fascism seriously, even in the seventies when WR used to go on about it quite a bit. "We are not anti-fascists " they would insist. And I used to wonder,"so what? Who said you were?". But clearly there's more to it than meets my eye. But how much of a threat is actual fascism? Is every thug a potential fascist?


Again I think you pose the right questions "how much of a threat is actual fascism? Is every thug a potential fascist?" In the 1920s adn 30s fascism was the choice of the most "revanchist" ruling classes.

Today they don't need it so the various neo-nazis you encounter as marginal as the "ultra-left" in current capitalist societies. Obviously as the crisis gets worse the social divisions wil increase (even more than now) and the bourgeoisie or ruling class will increasingly look to authoritarian solutions. They will certainly not look the the jokes who strut their stuff as the BNP/EDL etc.

This is not much comfort to people who live in Asian/black dominated areas where these thugs are a real menace from time to time. But fighting racism is part of the fight against the system that spawns it. It is not the same as "anti-fascism". Anti-fascism is all too often the raison d'etre of the capitalist left as a populist tactic which actually avoids questioning capitalism and ultimately is one of its bulwarks since the bottom line for them is "defence of democracy against fascism". More promising are today's movements occupying public squares around the world (so far only a promise but we don't give up on them in the hope they can link with the wider working class) are beginning to question that very democracy the anti-fascists uphold.

from memory...

The meeting was packed, over a hundred attended.

At the back the SWP set out its books and put up Unite against fascism posters. Their message - Use your vote.

On my own I put our Spanish civil war pamphlet on a table (I should have had a selection of our materials) and distributed 40 of the 50 leaflets I had.

I was quite surprised when a SWP person said someone wanted to buy a pamphlet.

when the meeting started I picked up the pamphlets and sat near the front, putting them on display in a window sill, and someone sitting in the row bought one.

the speakers began.

  1. . An ex labour MP going onabout locals who went to Spain. Significantly, and I should have made more onit, he spoke a lot about the failed policy of appeasement.

2 a UCU union rep who talked more about Orwell, he concentrated more on the role of the "Communists" (Stalinists) and how bad the USSR was etc,

He pointed out the crossroads -

a revolution

b anti fascist war.

he said he agreed with Orwell that the correct path was anti fascist war.

then the questions.

George (SWP) said how great it all was.

Someone from socialist appeal spoke about the reticence of the Brit/French etc to suport Spain and their limited antiNazi enthusiasm.

then I spoke.

Bit of a blur but

I said I was a revolutionary communist.

I said that the same question arises in Spain as now; which way forward for the working class. I criticised the idea of a popular front, I criticised the SWP vote labour line and said that capitalism only offered a worse future and that working class independence is the only way forward.

SWP people tried to interrupt but I kept going.

I said there was no revolution in Spain and that the State had not been smashed, the working class through their poor leadership ended up supporting the State through the popular front.

Finally I said I agreed with the presentation in as far as the Stalinists were an evil, but why try to differentiate between the different capitalist ideologies, the presentation itself had made it clear that Stalinism was every bit as bad as fascism and I added that the imperialist so called democracies were no better.

Subsequent interventions seemed to reflect what I said. A critique was made of China - (ie why just fascism?) A critique was made of Orwell (a racist in the pay of MI5 - who knows?) Mention was made of the fact that the BNP got in in Barnsley because of how bad labour is. Mention was made of the Bank of England's dire warnings on the economy.

It was great I thought, the audience did not simply buy the Unite (for Imperialist War) line.

At the end I stood outside and engaged in a bit of ribbing the SWP seller, with a few improvised chants as I held the pamphlet for sale.

Even the Socialist Appeal seller seemed a bit convinced. He said that he always thought the SWP overdid the fascist threat.

Dont vote for it, smash it!

Don't vote Labour! (I know, somewhat lacking in imagination but seemed to fit!)

Communist Worker, get your communist worker here! (Now i was going a bit far, I didnt have any papers! But I did give the last of my leaflets).

The SWP seller told me that no one was interested in what I had to say, I was a waste of breath....I quoted a bit of Marx at her.

Every State in a capitalist society is a ruling class dictatorship.

And then I sold all my pamphlets which MADE MY DAY!

We can do this.

We can destroy capitalism.

We can win.

Excellent report Stevein7 wish I was there. The importance of engaging with the left reformists in an attempt to win the more class conscious workers to a communist position is well highlighted in the report. The SWP will continue to try to win support for Labour in any election as they believe that somehow this will win workers to a Marxist position as if Labour has never shown its true purpose in giving support to the capitalist system. From the 1920's until today Labour has ALWAYS supported capitalist policies. Still the importance of intervening in all these events will show itself as the impact of the capitalist crisis can only make workers lives worse. Also reading your report cheered me up no end - keep up the good work Stevein.

Oh Stevein7, what a joy to read your account!

I said that the same question arises in Spain as now; which way forward for the working class. I criticised the idea of a popular front, I criticised the SWP vote labour line and said that capitalism only offered a worse future and that working class independence is the only way forward.

Excellent stuff. And you announced you were a "revolutionary communist". Ye gods, that must have caused some tremors! First time some folk had ever heard of such a thing I should think.

But I have to take issue with Dave, who says that the SWP, in drumming up support for labour, "believe that somehow this will win workers to a Marxist position". Totally disagree with this. In my opinion the last thing the SWP want is for workers to embrace Marx and the revolution. They areTrotskyists. Despite what they say, all they want is to reform capitalism - which is anyway impossible now. So naughty Dave, but Stevein did well!

Stand suitably chastised Charlie concerning my SWP statement. While I do think that the SWP leadership does think that they are building a Marxist party the reality is that by being tied to the unions and other issues they are in fact incapable of leading a successful communist struggle against capitalism. I'm not sure that they only want to reform capitalism the problem is that they have a flawed political perspective which leads them down what is essentially a reformist path.

Here are a few facts to consider. The nazi blitz wrecked our London home with an incendiary bomb, so then my sister and I had to shelter under the table from flying glass in a flat in the blackout, listening to the bombers overhead. In the morning we could collect shrapnel. My dad was an Air Raid Warden.

After being taken on a surprise visit to Auschwitz in 1958 whilst working in Poland, I met and had a long friendship with Leon Greenman (R.I.P), who had been tattooed 98288 there. Neo-nazis smashed his windows in Ilford, so the Anti-Nazi League gave him some protection with grills over them. Leon supported the organisation Unite Against Fascism and warned repeatedly against the BNP.

The 'Auschwitz Chronicle' records partly as follows for January 27, 1945:-

'In the afternoon soldiers of the Red Army enter the vicinity of the Auschwitz main camp and Birkenau. Near the main camp they meet resistance from retreating German units. 231 Red Army soldiers die in close combat for the liberation of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Monowitz. Two of them die in front of the gates of the Auschwitz main camp. Among those who die is Lieutenant Gilmudin Badryyevich Baszrov.'. (End of quote).

No further comment from me today, but there's no need to remind me of Dresden, Hamburg and Berlin.

I am not quite sure what the point of posting such anecdotes is? Are you hoping to convince communists that really proletarian autonomy in the face of war is really just an abstract principle that we should abandon and that we should throw ourselves unthinkingly into fighting the immediate horrors of capitalist society? Which we do anyway, except on the basis of revolutionary politics.

Replying to Android (2011-11-11 14;14), there is a simplistic political error if thinking that because both fascism and bourgeois democracy are part of capitalism, that both are equally dangerous to workers. Would ICT supporters if forced to exist in nazi concentration camps regard that as being no worse than living in the UK today ? This question is NOT a defence of the capitalist status quo, but an attempt to dispel absurd concepts. Of course the nazis weren't the only ones to have prison camps and no doubt anti-Stalinists will refer to the gulag, but that doesn't refute the point of this comment.


You know nothing about the communist left whose ancestors died in both the gulags and the Nazi concentration camps. In Italy our forefathers were killed by both Nazis and Stalinists in defence of working class autonomy. You don't know what the latter is and thus you hang sentimentally on the coat-tails of the exploiters. Your anecdotes are nothing but attempted disguises for your lack of understanding.

This thread is about Orwell and the Spanish Civil War - an experience which demonstrated that anti-fascism was the rallying cry of the bourgeoisie of all stripes against the revolutionary working class in order to dragoon them into another imperialist war. On this Armistice Day we have seen nauseating spectacle after nauseating spectacle of remembrance for the previous wars - all to prepare for the next fight to "save democracy". You just carry on recruiting for the ruling class.

Cleishbotham's personally and politically insulting remarks of 2011-11-11 seem to be more important to him than making an attempt to answer the question put by me on 2011-11-11 19:16 in my reply to Android. In fact my knowledge of the communist left has been gained over many years from reading from its websites and journals and from attending some meetings (though no meetings of the ICP). Maybe they have not been entirely successful ?! To close with yet another anecdote, my father's cousin Jack was killed when fighting in the International Brigade in Spain. The IB was remembered at the commemorative Cable Street75 event in London this year.

Despite questions and doubts, tribute must be paid to those supporters of the 'communist left' who resisted the demands of the nazis, in my view, whatever workers might think of opting out of demands for support for those organisations opposing the nazis.

The following extract from the 2011 book by Deborah E. Lipstadt 'The Eichmann Trial' seems to me to agree:

'Eichmann could have said no but chose otherwise. Arendt invests the dissenters' actions with almost cosmic significance. "Humanly speaking, no more is required and no more can reasonably be asked for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation".' (End of quote).

Of course most of planet in 2011 is far from fit for human habitation.

Historian John Lukacs, in his 2010 book 'The legacy of the Second World War' (pp162-3) wrote that:

(quote) '... yet another unpleasant tendency, an inclination especially current among American "conservatives", to think and assert that Communism was more evil than National Socialism. A seemingly (but only seemingly) broader-minded version is the one adopted by so-called liberals, the thesis that the twentieth century represented the struggle between "Democracy" and "Totalitarianism". There is no use to argue about that either, except perhaps to recognize that the minds of some people are broad enough to be flat'. (End of quote).

Well, I thought that you might like that, to some extent. Cheers.

I think that the strength of Marxism is it's ability to analysise concrete reality without falling into abstractions so loved by all forms of capitalist thinking. So for the capitalist perspective there is democracy or fascism as if they are two mutually exclusive terms. Of course dktz there is a huge difference living in a fascist dictatorship and a bourgeoise demoocracy. That in my mind is not the question of whether one supports bourgeoise democracy against fascism. This choice is not a real choice as those who were drawn into the popular front governments/movements in the thirties could testify to.

If the capitalist crisis was so severe as it was during the 1930's in Germany, Italy and Spain and the capitalist class decided to attempt to restart the cycle of capital accumalation through an intensification of repression then the bourgeosie would throw their democracy out of the window. In that situation then the simple reality is that the capitalist crisis is so severe that it does not tolerate bourgesie democratic forms of governance. To fight to defend bourgosie democracy in such a situation only ensures that the working class will be defeated with all the terror that entails. In germany during the 1930's bourgeos democracy was simply not viable as a form of capitalist class rule and the tragedy was that the two dominat trends in the working class was the two counter revolutionary organisations of the SPD and the KPD. The two gravediggers of the proletarian revolution.

Of course dktz there is a huge difference living in a fascist dictatorship and a bourgeoise demoocracy.

I think this is debatable.

There are differences in living standards in the various phases of the capitalist process, I doubt that "democracy" has much inproved the life of Mexican people who lived under a dictatorship for decades, albeit maybe not "fascist".

Living on the dole in democratic Britain was far worse to me than living under the Mexican dictatorship. Similarly, from the working class perspective, how many formal democracies in the third world are all that better than their time under military rule etc?

And how much better off are the Spanish under the current democracy than under Franco's dictatorship?

I am not sure how "huge" the differences are.

Nowhere does the working class have an effective voice.

It is only allowed to do what capital accepts, otherwise the boot goes in.

I am not saying that there are not differing levels of repression etc, but that this is all part of the same capitalist regime which is simply changing to meet its needs.

It is like the CWO says, to oppose war, we need to oppose the system that opposes it. It is not that we can accept the system in peacetime and then rally against it in wartime, by the same token the same system produces the anti-working class measures that are required. Capitalism sometimes wears velvet gloves, sometimes it reveals its iron fist, but it is the same system.

There is no democracy, there is class dictatorship. When effectively challenged it will do what is necessary.

Stalinism, formal democracy, fascism - it is a bit like choosing one's own grave.


If I really wanted to be insulting I could take letters from our archive that you have written to us in the various phases of your political kaleidoscope to demonstrate your inconsistencies. In this discussion I think you are the one who is doing the insulting. You called Android "simplistic" for suggesting that fascism and democracy are both born of the capitalist order. In their different ways they are both about defence of that mode of production. "Anti-fascism" was the slogan for mobilisation for imperialist war in the 1930s (after all workers were not going to fight for "King and country" a second time around as in 1914). It was not an accident. It was part of the Stalinist foreign policy initiative for the survival of the regime.

What you really don't like is that we have our own "martyrs" (irony) in the Communist left who died fighting Stalinism, fascism and capitalist democracy at the same time. You earlier labelled them stupid (on another thread) for not lining up with one of these exploiters but they died fighting for an independent working class alternative and we are proud to stand in their footsteps.

Not for one moment am I saying that bourgeois democracy is any way accountable to the working class when it so obviously isn't. The cuts in wages and the social wage in the Uk and elsewhere has been steadily cut over the last forty years and will continue being cut as long as the working class allows the cuts to take place. And yes stevein7 living on benefit in "democratic" Britain is extraordinarily hard as I can testify to. Of course all the attacks are taking place in bourgeois democracies and it's primarily workers who are suffering. Saying all this doesn't take away the simple fact that we still have a limited degree of political freedom in the "developed" capitalist economies. We can hand out leaflets without the fear of being picked up tortured and then murdered. Which comrades in some parts of the world can't.

The reason we have this limited freedom is because the economic crisis is not yet severe enough for the bourgeosie to go onto a full scale offensive where all workers organisations from the left of capital through to the communist left will be prosribed and the militants murdered. Lets not forget in Germany that shortly after the Nazi's came to power SPD, Tade Unions, KPD as well as the left communists were arrested and thrown into concentration camps. This was after the SPD and unions had proved to the bourgeoise that they could be trusted to save capitalist rule. We need to be able to recognise the balance of class forces and see what the depth of the crisis is and recognise that there are differences in the way that the bourgeoise organises politically and that in those differences we can organise to lay the foundations of a communist organisation before the crisis really hits us.

I'm also confused over cleishbotham assertion that I have called Android simplistic. I'm not aware where I did say that. In fact I totally agree with Android when he points out that fascism and bourgeoise democracy are both born from the CMP and both defend CMP. Also agree that anti fascism leads to workers surrendering any hope of an independent struggle against capitalism. To defeat fascism then one has to defeat capitalism. What I said in my earlier thread was that bourgeoise democracy is only useful in times of relative social piece in times of intensifying class conflict then democracy will be ditched and more repressive forms of government will be used. For whats it worth I think in Britain a military government rather than a fascist one will be the the favourite form fof the bourgeoise.

Jock, I did not "call Android simplistic for suggesting that fascism and democracy are both born of the capitalist order". What I actually said was that it was simplistic to regard them as EQUALLY dangerous to workers, which is not the same thing at all.

You are proud to stand in the footsteps of former comrades of the communist left, but it seems unlikely that you or I would be standing at all if the Red Army hadn't been victorious against Hitler's war machine.

As for your archives of my 'inconsistencies', yes, over the years I've made a variety of statements in attempts to decide and show whether or not your organisation really is the only authentic version of communism, and if workers should support it, or even support communism at all.


Why stick to the Red Army? The US Army also murdered their way across Europe to preserve "our liberties" but our comrades issued leaflets condemning both imperialisms. And Battaglia Comunista carried the the headline "We don't march with either Truman or Stalin" as the Second World war morphed into the Cold War.

If you want to pretend that Stalinism was socialism, that Soviet imperialism did not loot Eastern Europe (killing even those who were in communist parties if they tried to show ther independence) or that the Red Army somehow preserved freedom that is you affair but it is outwith the real communist framework.

And you should remember that at various times you have actually denounced "communism" in any shape or form.

Comrade Dave

Sorry DKTZ is also "Dave" and my remarks were aimed at him. In future I shall stick to the tags used on here to avoid that confusion!


In reply to your remarks of 2011-11-13, 12:07, I don't want to pretend anything. It is not a case of my 'sticking' to the Red Army, because of course many other forces were involved in defeating Hitler's forces. Nor does recognizing the decisive role of the Red Army in WWII automatically incurr admiring 'Stalinism', though you reckon that it does. On the other hand, to just dismiss the role of the Red Army in WWII would make no sense historically. Anything that it did after WWII is a mass of separate questions.

I don't recall ever having denounced "communism IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM" (my emphasis), but no doubt you will want to trawl your archives on that. From all that you and the bourgeoisie and numerous historians allege occurred under Stalin, it is no wonder that "communism" (as misunderstood ?) has been and still gets denounced.

As for your very own ICT 'real communist framework', it would probably be beneficial for you and comrade devotees to engage in plenty of debates with other organisations which aspire to communism, no matter how differing you are so far. Whilst it is clear that the capitalist imperialist system has all manner of severely adverse features, it is not yet clear that any of the present proposed communist steps to replace it will actually take place, succeed, or be popular. The ICT can hardly go it alone on all that. It is too easy to be dismissive, very hard to be constructive. Perhaps you, like me, have by now worked your way all the way through the latest 'Britain's Road to Socialism' 2011 document of the CPB ? I remain stunned, as usual.

As it happens more than one member of the CWO have worked their way through the tedium of the CPB's 2011 document which we were given in the Durham Marxist Readers Group (which contained all sorts claiming to be communists including at least one member of the KKE so we certainly have engaged in plenty of debates with other currents however distasteful from the point of view of the working class). Our conclusion on the CPB document was that it was probably identical to the one written in 1955 and just as reactionary. Is that what you mean when say you "remain stunned" because that would at least be one thing we could agree on?


No, Jock, that wasn't the reason my half-jokingly saying that I remained stunned. I can't remember the 1955 version of the CPB document, though almost certainly saw it or a successor. I feel stunned in the sense that my old brain keeps being ideologised by so many conflicting versions of what claim to be Marxism, let alone other domains of thought, that my own transient views scarcely match all that might be required to sort it all out, and of course each section of the overall domain declares all other sections to be wrong ! However, no matter what my unsatisfactory views, I seem to remain a retired member of the working class.

I looked at several pages of the 2011 paperback edition of historian Krisztian Ungvary's book 'Battle for Budapest' when in a bookshop today, in which, as you might already know, there is plenty to bolster your ICT views of the 'Stalinism'. Probably similarly, tonight (Sunday 13-11-11 at 9.00 to 10.30) on BBC4 TV in a programme entitled 'World War Two: 1941 and the Man of Steel', historian David Reynolds explores Stalin's handling of the conflict between the Soviet Union and Germany etc. That will probably not go down too well with the CPGB-ML !

I don't think anyone "aspires" to communism, as dktz suggests above, I think people either know what it is or they don't! Clearly dktz doesn't know, otherwise his poor old brain wouldn't keep getting befuddled (ideologised) by the various red bourgeois versions of communism (Stalinism, Trotskyism, the CPGB, Chavezism, Chinese Communism, North Koreanism, Cubanism etc) which seek to present themselves as communism in order to continue the Dictatorship of Capital. Wake up dktz, you may be a retired member of the working class, but that doesn't mean you can take any comfort in your sadly ideologised condition, which only helps perpetuate the capitalist disaster in which we all now live. Workers unite!


Charlie, all sorts of would-be marxists assert all manner of roads to what they imagine communism could be, but so far nobody has had the experience of knowing what it actually is. As for any gains by the working class under regimes named 'socialist' and dismissed by some alleged marxists as 'state capitalist', access to education and health services have seemed to be the major ones, but more could be said on that.

It would be better for me and others to refrain from any personalised remarks and I apologise for mine, though some of them had been made in an attempt to illustrate political points. As for waking up, many people could do with more sleep, to avoid 'the irrational thought of sleep-deprived persons', as referred to by the Russian neuropsychologist A.R.Luria. But of course Charlie was advocating waking up politically, which millions are now doing around the world and in former 'Stalinist' lands.