Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From The New International, Vol. X No. 2, February 1944, pp. 59–63.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
The following contribution contains excerpts from a resolution submitted by a group of members of the Workers Party in California for the discussion that has been carried on in that organization on the situation in Europe and the tasks of the revolutionary vanguard. The point of view represented by the authors of the resolution has been rejected by the membership of the Workers Party, which endorsed the position of its National Committee as expressed in a resolution on the subject printed in these pages early last year. The present document will be concluded in the next issue of the magazine and will be followed by a critical reply. – The Editor |
On November 1, 1914, at the beginning of the last imperialist war, Lenin wrote:
“Imperialism has placed the fate of European culture at stake. After this war, if a series of successful revolutions do not occur, more wars will follow – the fairy tale of ‘war to end all wars’ is a hollow and pernicious fairy tale.”
We call this prediction to mind! The present World War – the second imperialist war – is not accidental. It does not stem from the will of this dictator or that “democrat.” It was predicted long ago. Its origin is rooted in the contradictions and antagonisms of the interests of international capitalism. Contrary to all stories circulated to fool the people, the chief cause of the war as of all other social evils – unemployment, the high cost of living, fascism, colonial oppression – is the private ownership of the means of production together with the bourgeois state which rests on this foundation.
In this fundamental sense the Second World War is a continuation of the First World War. The second imperialist war has lasted more than four years already and is only now entering into its decisive stage.
The reactionary forces in the camp of “democratic” imperialism which stand behind the war have attempted to exploit the masses’ legitimate hatred of fascism in order to mobilize them behind the imperialist war. If this appeal did not meet with too great success at the beginning of the war, the violation, pillaging and oppression which the masses of Europe are experiencing under the German iron heel, has had the effect of recreating in them, as an elementary reaction, the national hatreds and chauvinism that are expressed in their determination to kill and oust the Germans from their soil. Despite the heroism and sacrifices of the members of the undergrounds, it must never be forgotten that this is the main aspect of the national movements today.
The masses’ response to nationalism has been prepared by years of continued disorientation by the reformists and Stalinists, during which, alternating between the national unity of the popular front and the adventurism of the third period, they suffered one defeat after another. The Second World War was possible only because of this. The absence of a clear class line then and now of the the leading organizations among the working class has made possible the fact that, by and large the masses of workers and the petty bourgeoisie, as yet unorganized in a military sense, look to the armies of the “democratic” imperialists as their chief “liberators” from the tyranny of the German conqueror. It would be sheer blindness on our part to overlook this.
The presence of the German overlord in Europe as well as of the native bourgeoisie gives rise not only to nationalism but to the unceasing class struggle. The German conqueror, to the extent that he has replaced the native bourgeois economically and politically, occupies the place of class antagonist of the worker. The class struggle against both the German and native capitalist in the occupied countries rages more each day. The breakdown of European society prepared by years of capitalist decay is speeded up enormously by the titanic clash of the rival giant imperialisms, which is tumbling to the ground the structure of European society. Objectively, the class struggle is advancing to the highest stages and is culminating in revolution. If “defense of the fatherland” rises in the breast of the European masses, so also does the will to turn the imperialist war into a war for socialism. These are the two contradictory tendencies which compete for the heart of the worker. The victory of the one would mean the perpetuation of capitalist slavery; the victory of the other would mean his final emancipation. The task of the internationalists of today is just the same as the task which Lenin set himself: to free the masses from their nationalism in order to lead them in the final class attack against the whole bourgeois social order.
At no time in over seven decades have Marxists called for “national liberation” of the great states, war or peace. During an imperialist war they were usually against the struggle for national independence even in the small or backward states, because this struggle usually ended up in one or another of the rival imperialist camps.
Only today, during an imperialist war, is the attempt being made to include in the program of a Marxist party the struggle for “national liberation” of the great states of Europe. (National Committee resolution and Johnson resolution.)
Only one thing can justify such a major change in the Marxist program – the definitive victory of one of the imperialist camps leading to a long enslavement of the European peoples of the large, small and backward states.
If such a condition existed, we would be forced to rewrite the Marxist program and include in it the support of their national wars, national uprisings, national rebellions, national independence, or ousting of the oppressor – whatever might happen to be the forms and stages of the national struggle, since there is no important difference in their content.
After the formation of the great bourgeois states which ended with 1871, this single possibility was posed by Lenin in 1916 and by Trotsky as late as 1938 as a theoretical possibility the realization of which they considered highly improbable.
Let us see how Trotsky in 1938 posed the problem as a theoretical possibility but extremely unlikely of realization:
“Naturally, if a new war ends in the military victory of this or that imperialist camp; if a war calls forth neither a revolutionary uprising nor a victory of the proletariat; if a new imperialist peace more terrible than the Versailles Treaty places new chains for decades upon the people; if unfortunate humanity bears this in silence and submission – not only Czechoslovakia or Belgium but also France, can be hurled back into the position of an oppressed nation (the same supposition can be made in regard to Germany). In this eventuality the further frightful decomposition will cast all humanity back for several decades ... Even then, we, or rather our sons, will have to determine the policy in regard to future wars on the basis of the new situation.” (Social Defense of Czechoslovakia’s “National Independence”, The New International, November 1938)
Were the imperialist war to end in a decisive military victory of one of the imperialist camps leading, because of the future impotence of the world proletariat over a long period of time, to the enslavement of the peoples, then ... “our sons will have to determine the policy in regard to future wars on the basis of the new situation.”
In this hypothetical case, which would give rise to a “long process of national movements,” the real social content of the national war would in all probability be the oppressed peoples struggling against the imperialist enslaver of Europe, without at the same time being in the service of a rival imperialist enslaver. That is our criterion in judging a progressive movement. In the present imperialist war the real social content of the forces that stand behind the various “national movements,” despite the masses in them, is the bourgeoisie of Europe, behind which stand one or the other of the reactionary imperialist coalitions.
That is why is was possible for Trotsky to say in 1940 at a moment when, after overwhelming Holland and Belgium and crushing the initial resistance of the Allied troops, the German armies were rolling like a tide of fire toward Paris and the Channel, that:
“... we do not forget for a moment that this war is not our war. In contradistinction to the Second and Third Internationals, the Fourth International builds its policy not on the military fortunes of the capitalist states but on the transformation of the imperialist war into a war of the workers against the capitalists, on the overthrow of the ruling classes of all countries, on the world socialist revolution. The shifts in the battle lines at the front, the destruction of national capitals, the occupation of territories, the downfall of individual states represent from this standpoint only tragic episodes on the road to the reconstruction of modern society” and “In recent years and even months, the world has observed with astonishment how easily states vanish from the map of Europe: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium ... The political map has been reshaped with equal speed in no other epoch save that of the Napoleonic wars. At that time it was a question of outlived feudal states which had to give way before the bourgeois national state. Today it is a question of outlived bourgeois states which must give way before the socialist federation of peoples.” (Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian Revolution, May 1940. Our emphasis throughout.)
At the time that this was written, France was already defeated militarily, and besides her, only two other states, Greece and Yugoslavia, were yet to be included in the roll of the nations conquered by Hitler, and yet for Trotsky “the occupation of territories, the downfall of individual states” represented “only tragic episodes on the road to the reconstruction of modern society.”
We hold that the addition since then of two or three more states in the roster of Hitler’s victims can create no decisive change in our attitude toward the national states while the imperialist war still rages. Politically we view this addition as a mere extension of the battle lines upon which it would be fatal for us to base our policy. And together with Trotsky we say:
We do not link the question of the fate of the Czechs, Belgians, French and Germans as nations with conjunctural shifts of military fronts during a new brawl of the imperialists, but with the uprising of the proletariat and its victory over all the imperialists. (Social-Patriotic Sophistry, the Question of the Defense of Czechoslovakia’s “National Independence”, The New International, November 1938)
That is our point of departure. The existence of the national movements affects our principled line on the national states during an imperialist war just as little as the chauvinistic moods of the masses alters our opposition to the imperialist war. We put principle above the transient moods of the masses.
Unless there is some new Marxist contribution to our understanding of war and “national liberation,” we must assume the traditional internationalist stand on these questions! – not dogmatically, not with shut eyes to all the developments which unfold before us, nor to the new ideas that are brought forward. But woe to us if we allow secondary developments to stand above our principled program or if we accept “new” ideas that turn out to be a rehash of that which Marxism has long rejected.
Between the First and Second World Wars, the contending imperialists have not undergone a qualitative change. In November 1938, the group of Palestinian Bolshevik-Leninists, concerned as they were with the fear that “Hitler’s invasion would signify the slaughter of the workers” and that “fascism might be victorious, argued that:
Monarchist reaction in the last war was not an aggressive historical character, it was rather a survival; whereas fascism nowadays represents a direct and immediate threat to the civilized world. (A Step Toward Social-Patriotism, The New International, July 1939)
To this argument the Fourth International replied:
It is only natural if we become suspiciously wary: such a narrowing down of the revolutionary tasks – replacing imperialism by one of its political masks, that of fascism – is a patent concession to the Comintern, a patent indulgence of the social patriots of the “democratic” countries. (A Step Toward Social-Patriotism, Editorial Board, Bulletin of the Russian Left Opposition, in The New International, July 1939)
To say that “fascism represents a hurling back of society” and that “it finds itself compelled to reduce to a most barbarous colonial slavery tens of millions of advanced and civilized peoples!” or to speak of the “capitalist degradation of European civilization by German monopoly capitalism,” is this not “replacing imperialism by one of its political masks – that of fascism”?
And is it also not “a patent concession to the Comintern, a patent indulgence of the social-patriots of the ‘democratic’ countries” to exempt from the “hurling back of society” and the “degradation of European civilization” the violation by “democratic” and Russian imperialism of the “national independence” of Italy, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and their violation tomorrow of the “national independence” of Germany and of all the subject peoples in accordance with the war map of their victory?
Under imperialism it is the technological development and industrial capacity, and not the political state form, which determines the relative power of the robber nations. In order to see this, one would only have to compare German fascist imperialism to Italian fascist imperialism. Finance capital at the base of Italian economy and militarism was too weak to give to Mussolini’s imperialist adventures in Africa more than a bloody opera bouffe character, which ended in bankrupting the nation and contributing in no small way to the later overthrow of the fascist regime. On the other hand, the tremendous technology and industry at the base of German economy enabled German militarism to sweep over Europe like a mechanical reaper over a field of grain. German fascist imperialism fights off the whole world today but it should not be forgotten that German imperialism of the Kaiser fought off the world for four long years.
Also it is American technology and wealth that is making possible the reverse march of both Germany and Japan. It is the United States, on the same basis, which is playing the most reactionary rôle in the world today. The revolution will have to defend itself above all from the counter-revolutionary efforts of American imperialism, and not only in Europe, but in the whole wide world. Should we then say that American imperialism is hurling society backward? This would be just as un-Marxian as the other contentions.
None of the areas conquered by fascist, “democratic” or Russian totalitarian imperialism can, from a political standpoint, be regarded as colonies, semi-colonies, or oppressed nations while the imperialist war still rages, while the opposing imperialist coalitions are not yet exhausted, and while the proletariat has not yet had its chance to upset the skull-cart of imperialism. At present, the military conquests, no matter how ruthless in character, must be considered by Marxists as shifts in the war fronts, as tragic episodes on the road to the reconstruction of modern society. The fate of these nations, their “independence ... belongs to the program of the fight of the international proletariat against imperialism,” which means the proletarian fight against the imperialist war and for socialism. This is the stand of the Fourth International and its founder, Trotsky.
Objectively, fascism and imperialist war have brought the social antagonisms to a razor’s sharpness. In this objective sense, fascism never did, and does even less now, “remove from the top of the order of the day, the struggle for proletarian power.”
Only in a limited sense is it correct to speak of the reactionary historic rôle of fascism. In the period of fascist consolidation, before the war, the proletariat, while objectively more than ever the social antagonist of the bourgeoisie, is thrown back to a former stage through the loss of its organizations and its rights and in its consciousness, inasmuch as democratic illusions are nourished.
Before the war, the reactionary historic rôle of fascism meant no more than the need to include democratic slogans as a first chapter in the revolutionary awakening of the masses as part of the tactics of our unchanged strategy: the struggle for proletarian power. This is perfectly clear from the following:
Fascism will not eradicate the past political experience; it is even less capable of changing the social structure of the nation ... Even if the further progress of the struggle should in general not permit, even for a single day, the regeneration of a democratic state – and this is very possible – the struggle itself cannot develop by the circumvention of democratic slogans! (Trotsky: Fascism and Democratic Slogans, July 1933; The New International, July 1943. Our emphasis.)
The difference between the fascist and the “democratic” political regimes when fascism is first consolidating its power, and those regimes when fascism gambles all by plunging into an imperialist war is most graphically described together with our present tasks as follows:
Naturally there exists a difference between the political regimes in bourgeois society, just as there is a difference in the comfort between various cars in a railway train. But when the whole train is plunging into an abyss, the distinction between decaying democracy and murderous fascism disappears in the face of the collapse of the entire capitalist system.
By his victories and bestialities. Hitler provokes naturally the sharp hatred of the workers the world over. But between the legitimate hatred of the workers and the helping of his weaker but not less reactionary enemies, is an unbridgeable gulf. The victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind than for that of Hitler and Mussolini. Bourgeois democracy cannot be saved. By helping their bourgeoisie against foreign fascism, the workers would only accelerate the victory of fascism in their own country. The task which is posed by history is not to support one part of the imperialist system against another, but to make an end of the system as a whole. (Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian Revolution, May 1940)
The task which is posed by history is not the fight for bourgeois democracy and national independence, that is, recreating the “democratic” part of the imperialist system, “but to make an end of the system as a whole.”
We don’t have to have the national question to understand that workers’ power is not an immediate action slogan for Europe. But the national question as it appears today cannot eliminate workers’ power as the first point on our historical agenda. If it is true of the United States it is certainly true of Europe, or are there people who wish to maintain that there is a historical top of the agenda within a historical top of the agenda, that is a sort of “sub-historical” agenda? In that case one would have to abandon the idea of the reactionary rôle of fascism in the sense of hurling back society and of its having made colonial slaves of the masses of the European countries. The reactionary rôle of fascism would then have to be given a more limited interpretation in the sense of temporarily throwing back revolutionary consciousness as a result of an ignominious capitulation to fascism, and the resulting blotting out of the organizations and democratic rights of the workers during the period of fascism’s consolidation. But even this situation would not eliminate workers’ power from the top of the historical agenda but only from the top of the “sub-historical” agenda, whose first point would be the struggle for “democracy” as a first stage only, as a means of awakening the workers from the passivity of their defeat. However, even this is valid only when there is no imperialist war which rocks the fascist structure to its very foundation, and not only awakens the worker but prepares him to rush directly to soviets at the very first crash of fascism.
The most important event of the war thus far is the revolution in Italy. It is also the most instructive experience. Italy it today the best laboratory for all programs. The fall of Mussolini and the rise of Soviets in Milan and Turin took our party completely by surprise because we did not understand that when the “whole train is plunging into” the abyss of war, “the distinction between decaying capitalism and murderous fascism disappears in the face of the collapse of the entire capitalist system.” In other words, fascism, far from hurling back society, was itself hurled back by the war.
The workers of Milan and Turin did not have to be awakened with tactical democratic slogans, particularly those which are dictated by the strategy of the fight for formal or bourgeois democracy. At the first crash of the fascist structure, the workers proceeded through Soviets on the road toward the “establishment of an ‘authoritarian’ socialist, proletarian government.”
German fascism in northern Italy did not colonize this area any more than it colonized the other conquered areas of Europe. They did not eliminate Italian fascist industry nor the Italian fascist bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they made common cause with the native fascist bourgeoisie against the revolutionary workers. The appearance of at least six organizations competing for the support of the Italian masses demonstrates how untrue is the assertion that “From end to end of Western Europe, at the war’s close, there will be no European social force with any claim to state power except the proletariat.”
German fascism in the north Italian areas oppresses the Italian workers but with the Allied armies hammering at the German lines in Italy it is easy to see that this oppression is of too transitory a nature to make it, politically speaking, assume the character of national oppression. It is easy for us to see that the German occupation of Northern Italy is only a shift in the war front, but essentially there is no difference between this and the other German occupations. Just because the war has not ended, the German occupation of Europe will, with every passing month, appear in its true character: as tragic episodes in the war, as shifts in the battle lines. No one in the party apparently advocates the slogan of “national liberation” for Northern Italy, nor does anyone seem to think that there is a hurling back of society by the fascists there. Equally invalid, because the situation is qualitatively the same, is the slogan of “national liberation” for the rest of occupied Europe.
At the same time no one in the party advocates the slogan “national liberation” for the Italian area under Allied control. Apparently the Allies are not the national oppressors of Italy, though they very definitely aid the Italian bourgeoisie in its class oppression.
At the time of Mussolini’s fall, the workers thought of soviets and a way out of the capitalist impasse. This was the revolutionary situation, and in it was an Italian Trotskyist Party standing for the Socialist Republic. The bourgeoisie was confused and disoriented. It was bolstered by the entrance upon the scene of both German and Allied imperialism. German imperialism uses its armed might to quell the workers of the North, and in this they are aided by the air arm of the Allied imperialism. Badoglio is set up by the Allies. He is given every aid in organizing a new army which will stand for order and “natonal liberation” and which will replace the disorganized old Italian army. Badoglio is put at the head of the Italian crusade for “national liberation” against the German fascist oppressor. The Allied imperialists insist that he should be given this opportunity to help reclaim the tarnished reputations of the Italian monopoly capitalists and their politicians and generals. The parties uncompromised by fascism, bourgeois and working class, form a front with them for “national liberation.” We hope the exception is the Italian Trotskyist Party, which came forth boldly for a socialist Italy.
Within German occupied Italy the monopolists see the handwriting on the wall and shift to the Allied imperialist camp. At the same time the anti-fascist front becomes converted into a “national liberation” front which includes this time the monopolists who were behind Mussolini for years. “National liberation” becomes the touchstone for friend, obscuring the class antagonisms and even the crimes of the past. The “national liberation” front within the German occupied territory is linked to the “national liberation” front in the territory under Allied control. The extreme left of the “national liberation” front lends its prestige to the party just to the right of it, and this party in turn helps to absolve the next, until the extreme right – the party of monopoly capital – benefits from the general ablution.
The revolutionary actions of the masses against the native monopoly capitalists has become transformed under “national liberation” into a struggle of all the classes to oust the German oppressor. The great specific weight of the proletariat-its hegemony in the struggle – is replaced by the hegemony of the monopolists and the imperialists in the “national liberation” struggle. The military organization of the workers, which can become a serious force only by undermining the armies of imperialism With a revolutionary program, becomes under “national liberation,” an auxiliary guerrilla force preparing the way for the main forces of the Badoglios and the Allied imperialists. Thus the bourgeoisie, using all its resources and backing the struggle for the right to exploit its masses independently of the German foreigner, inexorably puts its hegemony upon the “national liberation” struggle.
The burning class issues, even the questions of democracy, are hypocritically “postponed” in the name of the main and first task: the ousting of the German conqueror. “National liberation” permits the staggering and punch-drunk bourgeoisie to recover from its helplessness, to rebuild its army of order, its state forces, to regain its lost reputations, in short to put itself once more into a position where it can best deal with the burning class issues, and where it can also best afford to put forward its more liberal representatives.
This pattern is being repeated in all of Europe. The antidote to it is the struggle for socialism and the class fight against the imperialist war, and not the very thing which is promoting this pattern – “national liberation” and the struggle for formal or bourgeois “democracy.”
The appearance of Soviets in Italy is the most important fact that has emerged from the war so far. Any attempt to play this down and to force it into the framework of bourgeois democracy reveals a complete misreading of the events.
Soviets can arise only at the time when the mass movement enters into an openly revolutionary stage. From the first moment of their appearance, the Soviets, acting as a pivot around which millions of toilers are united in their struggle against the exploiters, became competitors and opponents of local authorities and then of the central government. (Program and Resolutions of the Founding Conference of the Fourth International, 1938.)
The appearance of Soviets in Italy confirms dramatically our strategic struggle for socialism and puts the stamp on what we propose as the tactical democratic and transitional slogans for the Italian workers which come under this strategy. To counterpose democratic slogans to spontaneous Soviets and almost to regret their appearance because tested parties do not exist at the time or because as yet “the masses do not have an authentic revolutionary party of their own,” is to urge just the kind of patience on the masses of which we accuse the bourgeoisie when they want to “postpone” democratic rights for the masses.
Where, if not in the Soviets, are the parties – including the one that is not yet the authentic revolutionary one – to be tested as revolutionary panics? What other period, if not the soviet period, is most conducive for the speedy growth of the revolutionary forces so that they can become the “authentic revolutionary party of the masses”?
Of course, the Soviets in Italy have been momentarily crushed and the promising revolution of the workers aborted. But their appearance heralds the character of the struggle and the next revolutionary offensive of the workers will bring Soviets inevitably to the fore. When this happens it will be the duty of the Italian Trotskyist Party to enter actively into the Soviets in order boldly to direct their revolutionary development. This does not mean that it does not at the same time put forth democratic slogans nor even reject the parliamentary struggle should such exist at the same time.
But if at such a time the party shifts its emphasis to the parliamentary struggle and overlooks the Soviets, instead of exploiting the parliamentary struggle for the purpose of increasing the specific weight of the Soviets and itself in it, then it will unfailingly become bankrupt.
At the present time, when the bourgeoisie is momentarily reinstalled and backed by the superior forces of imperialism, we do not call for Soviets, nor is there any “danger” of their arising spontaneously. In the present Italian situation, democratic demands and their parliamentary refraction should be our concern, and in view of the imperialist and bourgeois effort to either deny democracy to the masses or to limit its character, we should give them the most resolute and audacious character; but everything would hang in the air if we did not at the same time press the boldest economic demands or participate and lead the extra-parliamentary struggle. The emphasis on only democratic demands sounds like the following passage from Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution:
And since the bourgeoisie is driven into alliance with the reaction not by heated phrases from orators and journalists, but by independent activity of the toiling classes, the Mensheviks tried with all their power to oppose this activity – to oppose the economic struggle of the workers and peasants. “For the working class,” they taught, “social questions are not now of the first importance. Its present task is to achieve political freedom.”
The struggle for political freedom in indissoluble connection with the economic and extra-parliamentary activity dictates, at present, such demands as universal suffrage for men, women and the youth which has reached the age of eighteen. The bourgeoisie and the imperialists are on record for a Constituent Assembly, at least verbally, but they say they want to postpone its election until after military victory has been achieved. This dictates a bold struggle on our part for elections now, and not only for the Constituent Assembly, but also for elections to all the municipal electoral bodies, etc.
The slogans for political freedom, the slogan of the Constituent Assembly, were raised by the Mensheviks, Cadets, etc., as well as by the Bolsheviks during the February revolution. The difference between the way the Bolsheviks raised these slogans and the way the others did flowed from their respective strategies – socialist revolution or the bourgeois “democratic” revolution. The strategy of socialist revolution dictated to the Bolsheviks an increasing aggressiveness of their slogans in all spheres, political, economic and extra-parliamentary, and resulted in shifting the specific weight of the struggle onto the Soviets, from which they emerged as the authentic revolutionary party of the masses, leading them to the victorious proletarian revolution. On the other hand, the attempt by the Mensheviks to limit the struggle to the bourgeois “democratic” revolution gave their democratic slogans a hollowness and impotency for which they tried to compensate with a desperate dependence on the Constituent Assembly, which in turn they dared not even convoke and which ended in their bankruptcy and dispersal from the scene of the revolution.
In Italy today, democratic demands are surely important, but the socialist perspective requires not only a sharpening of these demands and those in the economic sphere, but also so important a slogan as the demand that Italy get out of the imperialist war of both robber coalitions. At the same time the vanguard promotes revolutionary propaganda to undermine the imperialists who are making Italy a bloody shambles and an arena for counter-revolutionary schemes against the workers and peasants. This slogan will grip the heart of the long-suffering and war-weary Italian masses, and expose at the same time the Stalinist, reformist, bourgeois and liberal supporters of the war. This is the kind of a tactic flowing from a socialist perspective that can most profit the Italian Trotskyist Party and develop it into the authentic revolutionary party of the masses.
Despite the temporary smothering of the Italian revolution, the rise of Soviets symptomizes the objectively socialist and not “democratic” period in Europe today. It is true also for the countries of “classic” fascism. Among other things, military decisions of great importance brought about the fall of Mussolini and the rise of the revolution. With the coming of great military decisions in the near future, we must look forward to the rise of Soviets in a number of European countries and, most important, the rise of Soviets in Berlin!
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 12 August 2015