The CWO has just had a meeting on the Spanish civil war, so the topic may be somewhat timely. Hopefully it will provide a handy resource for the future.

Perhapas I may be pushing the boundaries a little here, but feel free to argue an opposing case.

The ICC seems to categorically deny the United Front in its basic positions, but it is my understanding that we have a more nuanced perspective.

Let us consider this example;

pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk (sourceof all quotes in this post)

However, for the vast majority of 1917 the Bolsheviks were in the minority of the soviets. They were dominated by the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries, a peasant-based party. Essentially these parties wanted to maintain the capitalist state and argue for reforms.

This was a reflection of the different political attitudes among the working class and peasantry. In these organisations the Bolsheviks respected the discipline of the soviet while patiently arguing their case and building their own forces. So in 1917 the Bolsheviks worked with other parties who had support among the working class even though they fundamentally disagreed with their policies.

By doing this and maintaining their own political line and organisation they eventually gained the support of the majority. In the revolutionary situation of 1917 Russia this meant that socialist revolution was on the agenda. For this reason Trotsky labelled the soviet the 'highest organ of the united front'.

So, in a sense the United Front question also involves the nature of the proletarian dictatorship. a multi party struggle within the Workers' councils rather than a communist Party dictatorship.

In a very real sense, the Proletarian Dictatorship can be conceived as a "united front"

We have long recognised the "United Front from below" which possibly resonates with the original concepton of the United Front.

One quotation from the Fourth Congress summarises this nicely: 'The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups, and all unaligned workers, in a common struggle to defend the immediate basic needs of the working class against the bourgeoisie'.

Thus by struggling with working people the influence and strength of Marxism would grow and people would break with the ideas of reformism. Of course there needed to be organisational independence, reflected in one of Trotsky's slogans of the united front: 'March separately but strike together!'

And I'll let the historians amongst us debate this example

_

Kornilov was a Russian general who attempted to overthrow the Provisional Government which had come to power after the revolution in February that had kicked out the Tsar. This government was led by capitalist politicians, in particular Kerensky of the Social Revolutionaries (SRs). The Bolsheviks at this time were facing great repression by the Provisional Government. Many of their leaders, including Trotsky, were jailed or in hiding like Lenin, their printing presses were attacked, and so on. Despite this repression the Bolsheviks proposed a united front with other parties to prevent the military coup. Trotsky often spoke of the true scenario where he was released from prison and immediately went to a meeting of this united front with leaders of the Mensheviks and SRs who had been responsible for his jailing!

This mobilisation of the working class meant that Kornilov was prevented from seizing Petrograd and was defeated. The Bolsheviks played a leading role and gained much respect from the Russian workers, soldiers and peasants. The revolt and the Bolsheviks' tactics had a critical impact on the success of the Russian Revolution in October. Again this provides a consummate example of the benefits of the united front in practice. Another point though is that both Kornilov and Kerensky stood for the same system. Trotsky labelled Kerensky 'three quarters a confederate of Kornilov'. This did not prevent the joint struggle, but the need to smash Kornilov and the correct tactics of the Bolshevik leaders meant that Kerensky himself could be overthrown two months later.

Now, the problem comes with transfering historical examples onto current reality. Today, there are no mass workers parties which can come together. Even the SWP say so

The so called Social Democratic or Labour parties in the developed world led by Blair and New Labour have become openly capitalist parties. Although many working people still passively support these parties, this is much more fluid than it was in the early 20th century, and that support can transfer to other political forces.

So the classical position of a united front equalling a coming together of two or more mass workers' parties over a specific issue--as in Germany in the 1930s or Russia in 1917--is not really appropriate today.

But depending on the definition of the "United Front", it could be possible to say we do engage in them now.

Perhaps our concept of factory groups also ties in with the general theme of the United Front (perhaps I am stretching the point too far also!). The Party seeks to influence and work with workers who are not party members.

No War but Class War represents a United Front according to this definition

Single-issue campaigns can be united fronts--indeed, to be successful they probably have to be. But it is important to note that united fronts cannot be unilaterally declared by one group--they have to be a genuine coming together of different forces with specific clear political objectives.

So, perhaps my conclusion is that we are not simply for or against United Fronts in toto, we examine the specific cases and facts before deciding. this seems to be a dialectial materialist perspective rather than an undifferentiated idealist perspective that cannot say the interplay of the pro and anti-revolutionary in these phenomena.

Is that correct, comrades?