66

Debunking Myths of ‘Red-Brown’ Alliances

Max Parry

Recently, a certain political concept has been resurrected that warrants interrogation. The notion of a ‘red-brown’ alliance has been thrown around so ubiquitously as a form of political slander that any substantive meaning to the term has been evacuated. Rather than accurately designating any associations that may exist between the left and far right, the idea of a ‘red-brown’ coalition, or ‘querfront’ (cross-front in German), is a generic abstraction cited to mischaracterize a perceived convergence of political opposites. In many respects, it is a stand-in for a similar hypothesis used by liberals — that of ‘horseshoe theory’, or the impression that the far left and far right intersect at both ends of the ideological spectrum — so as to be permitted diction for self-identified leftists. The application of the ‘red-brown’ smear produces the same result in that it situates politics from a centrist vantage point and likens the actual left to fascism. It disappears the anti-fascism of the left and anti-communism of the right while leaving the moderate center at a comfortable distance from the right-wing of which it is the more frequent collaborator.

The ‘red-brown’ character assassinations make analogies about the present day based on a counterfeit history of World War II. No analysis of the mythos would be complete without the inclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, one of the most misunderstood and historically falsified events of the war. During the 1930s, the USSR tried to maintain its autonomy during a period of rapid industrialization that accomplished in a decade what the British needed a century to achieve. In self defense, Moscow was forced to exploit the contradictions between the ‘democratic’ imperial nations and the authoritarian Axis powers when it came under dual threat.

If war could not be avoided, the USSR certainly did not wish to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Stalin made diplomatic attempts in the lead up to the war at aligning with Britain and France, who were as keen on the idea of putting an end to the Soviet Union as Germany, which were rebuffed. In reply, the British and the French did everything within their power to try to push the Hitlerites into a war with the Soviets by signing the Munich Agreement with Germany and Italy in 1938.

More than an appeasement, the Munich Betrayal essentially handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a deposit to try to persuade Germany to begin his ‘Master Plan for the East’ where the West would be in a position to play peacemaker. Meanwhile, Poland, Turkey and the Baltic states all signed treaties with Hitler as well, but for obvious reasons history only chooses to remember the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression agreement which followed a year later. Stalin knew Germany would eventually ‘drive to the East’ but needed time if the USSR was to withstand a Wehrmacht invasion and the agreement thwarted the West’s plans of using Hitler to weaken Moscow. After the treaty was signed in 1939, The New York Times declared that “Hitler is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism” and to this day the cult followers of Trotsky are repeating this lie.

If it isn’t the distortion of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the infamous 1934 Night of the Long Knives in Germany is adduced to illustrate the historical instance of a supposed red-brown coalescence and its inevitable results, when the so-called ‘left wing’ of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser and his supporters were murdered in Hitler’s Röhm purge. While the Strasserites may have self-identified as ‘socialists’, they were just as steeped in anti-Semitism and were anything but left — much less ‘red.’ Strasser made his brand of pseudo-socialism discernibly anti-Marxist when he distinguished it as free of a “soulless Jewish-materialist outlook” while addressing the Reichstag in 1925.

Once Hitler was finished using the Strasserites in his cynical and cunning scheme, they were liquidated in order to appease his real backers in big business and the German ruling class. Hitler did the bidding of monopoly capital while directing the machinery of government to repress any of his supporters who had been credulous enough to anticipate anti-capitalist policies from the Third Reich. No, the Nazis were not socialist despite their unabbreviated name, nor does chocolate milk come from brown cows.

History has been tampered with to blame the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) for the rise of the Nazis and those weaponizing the red-brown mythology are perpetuating this falsehood. Germany’s economic depression destabilized the country while various political tendencies vied for power against the Weimar government and while the Nazis ultimately emerged on top, there was no ‘collaboration’ between what were mortal enemies. Furthermore, it is assumed that if not for the KPD’s policy towards the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as ‘social fascists’, things would have turned out different. To the contrary, in 1932 it was the Social Democrats who rebuffed Ernst Thälmann and the KPD’s repeated pleas to form a coalition once the German Reich’s other conservative parties joined forces with Hitler and his seizure of power appeared imminent. To be sure, the Nazis benefited from the left’s infighting due to this repudiation.

After the SPD refused to form a popular front or organize a general strike, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany and the rest was history. It was the rejections of the appeals for a united front by the anti-revolutionary Social Democrats, not the KPD, which ensured the power grab. There is a reason it was the communists who became the most heavily persecuted political group following the consolidation of power after the Nazi-engineered Reichstag fire ‘false flag’ operation was blamed on them.

The Third Reich was a reaction of the ruling class to the rising militancy of German workers and their increasing revolutionary readiness amidst the Weimar Republic’s collapse, not any strategic failure on the part of the heroes who were murdered by the Hitlerite regime. To propagate this fable is to spit on the graves of those who perished. Nazi authoritarianism became the weapon of choice once the duplicitous arm of Social Democracy became ineffective in deflecting workers away from revolution, as it had done following the end of WWI to put down the Spartacist uprising.

The KPD had no choice but to regard the Social Democrats as ‘fascism’s twin brother’ considering the SPD leadership had sided with Kaiser Wilhelm, who killed as many Namibians as Hitler killed Jews in the Herero genocide, against the revolutionaries. Ten years later during the 1929 May Day demonstrations, Social Democratic Interior Minister Carl Severing oversaw the Blutmai massacre where many workers and communists were gunned down by Berlin police. Nothing had changed between the failed 1919 German Revolution put down by the Freikorps which took the life of Rosa Luxemburg and the Bloody May Day in 1929.

Underlying the ‘red-brown’ concept is essentially a false equivalency between the Soviet Union and fascism. One of the other primary sources of this big lie pertains to the doctored history of the Spanish Civil War, a conflict that ended exactly 80 years ago last month. Like Hitler in Germany, General Francisco Franco became the Caudillo of Spain while there was a schism on its political left and since history is written by the winners, decades of anti-Soviet propaganda have placed the blame on those who tried to save the Spanish Republic in 1939 for his rise to power. In reality, the loyalists were defeated not just because of extrinsic reinforcement by Germany and Italy but the debilitation of the Republican forces by the Trotskyite POUM who have since been championed as heroes by those suffering from ultra-left misapprehensions.

During the 1930s while fascism was ascendant, Spain was in a deep political crisis with a monarchist right-wing government. In reaction, the Spanish left mobilized and formed a Popular Front coalition of communists, anarchists and socialists in 1936 to win the Spanish elections. When Franco and his alliance began their insurrection and military coup, the Republican government was refused assistance by the Western imperial nations and the Soviet Union stepped in to provide the anti-fascist resistance political and military aid. They also received reinforcements from Mexico as well as militias from the International Brigades which included the Abraham Lincoln Battalion consisting of American volunteers, the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls. Meanwhile, Franco became the recipient of external support from the strongest military power in the world at the time in Nazi Germany.

The Luftwaffe began its intervention with the aerial bombardment of the Republican-held Basque town of Guernica, inspiring one of Pablo Picasso’s most famous paintings. Seeing as this was no time for games with the very real danger of ultra-nationalism taking power, the Spanish communists mustered together a resistance army that was repeatedly sabotaged by the POUM’s lack of discipline and intrigue. As a result, their unworldly tactics and opposition to any practical alliance with a broader left ultimately led to their expulsion from the Republican government and the Popular Front.

Following their banishment, the POUM quislings continued their factionalist disruption and along with the CNT anarchists attempted to overthrow the Republican government, on the basis that a ‘Stalinist regime’ was as undesirable an outcome as fascism. Although the putsch failed, ultimately Franco benefited from this strife which weakened the Comintern-backed forces and the military strongman would advance to become dictator of Spain for the next four decades following the Republican defeat.

Much of the disinformation pulled from this period stems from George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, which is unfortunately the sole account most people will ever read of the Spanish Civil War. It’s reliability is even doubted by Western historians in its demonization of the loyalist cause and Orwell himself admitted its many inaccuracies while regretting the passages that appeared to actually welcome a Franco victory over the Republicans. The avowed “democratic socialist” based the work on his own experiences as a volunteer for the Republican cause fighting alongside the POUM before fleeing the country in 1937. Like his other writings, Homage to Catalonia became weaponized during the Cold War by the political establishment in order to push the anti-communist Western left toward liberal democracy and away from Soviet sympathies.

The great Michael Parenti wrote of Orwell and his descendants in Blackshirts and Reds:

A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous.” Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.

Parenti isn’t exaggerating in his representation. Although little known by his casual admirers, one year before his death in 1950 at the dawn of the Cold War, Orwell secretly provided the British Foreign Office’s anti-Soviet propaganda branch known as the Information Research Department a list of people he believed to be “crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists” for MI6’s information warfare.

Orwell’s role as an informant for the British secret services and the existence of the list, which included everyone from Charlie Chaplin to foreign correspondents for major newspapers, was not revealed until 1996 and only became public in 2002. He based the list on a longer, unofficial version contained in a personal notebook which even slandered legendary black actor, singer and activist Paul Robeson as a “very anti-white Henry Wallace supporter.”

Unlike Hollywood filmmaker Elia Kazan’s shameful testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1952, Orwell’s blacklist was provided voluntarily to the assistant of anti-Soviet historian Robert Conquest, then working for the UK Foreign Office, after she asked him to lend a hand picking out communist sympathizers.

Orwell BBC

Orwell’s disillusion with the Spanish communists backed by the Comintern and allegiance to the POUM and CNT anarchists was solidified during the 1937 Barcelona May Days where the opposing factions clashed and the Republican government ultimately regained control. In Homage to Catalonia, Orwell heavily criticized a journalist working under the pen name Frank Pitcairn of The Daily Worker, official newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and now known as The Morning Star, and challenged his coverage of the events. It turns out that ‘Frank Pitcairn’ was the pseudonym of none other than Claud Cockburn, father of legendary journalist Alexander Cockburn who co-founded Counterpunch newsletter in the mid-90s.

The younger Cockburn ruthlessly denounced Orwell when “St. George’s List” became public knowledge, no doubt feeling vindication for the defamation of his father’s work by the English essayist.

For many years, the formerly prestigious Counterpunch edited by Alexander Cockburn until his death in 2012 was a sanctuary of high quality left-wing journalism and commentary. Under his successors, however, the website has gradually declined in its calibre, especially after it became mired in controversy following the 2016 U.S. presidential election when it was included in an investigation in The Washington Post for having publishing articles of a pseudonymous writer working under the false name ‘Alice Donovan’ supposedly on behalf of the Russian government that was tracked by the FBI. The website was then listed among a host of other anti-war pages as promoting a ‘pro-Russian and anti-Clinton’ agenda to influence the outcome of the election on the neo-McCarthyist PropOrNot blacklist. Evidently, Cockburn’s substitutes were too embarrassed to speculate as to whether or not Donovan’s stories could have been submitted by the FBI itself as a pretext for the subsequent widespread censorship of alternative media by big tech giants under the phony banner of stopping the spread of “fake news.” It was only after an in-house investigation by the editors themselves that Donovan was also discovered to be a serial plagiarist, a significant detail that went unnoticed in The Washington Post story. What if the mystery literary thief was a g-man?

Rather than digging in their heels and standing by what they published, Counterpunch has since embarked on an embarrassing quest for bourgeois respectability with the purging of popular contributors while smearing them as part of an imaginary “Sputnik left.” Shortly after the Alice Donovan affair, several of the remaining core authors for Counterpunch published hit pieces condemning progressive journalist Caitlin Johnstone for advocating a ‘cross ideological collaboration’ in the name of an essential policy based anti-war movement transcending the left-right paradigm. 

While Johnstone’s suggestion gave an admittedly poor and naive example in far right social media personality Mike Cernovich for cooperation — hardly the type of conservative to be taken seriously compared to committed anti-militarist libertarians — her recommendation was well-intentioned and harmless. Nevertheless, they seized the opportunity and pounced on her, but not for the stated reason of stopping an attempt to forge a ‘red-brown fascist alliance.’ Johnstone’s real crime was possessing the rare ability to disseminate subversive ideas to a wide range of people, a serious threat to the livelihood of the professional gatekeepers at Counterpunch.

Yet Johnstone’s opinions were hardly inconsistent with the newsletter’s own history as a longtime host of far-reaching anti-establishment views, nor with Alexander Cockburn himself. In a 2000 article entitled “25 Years After Vietnam: Beyond Left and Right“, Cockburn wrote of exactly such a scenario after receiving criticism for speaking at an anti-war conference that included conservatives Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan:

“I got an invitation to speak a couple of months ago from an outfit called antiwar.com, which is run by a young fellow called Justin Raimundo. “Antiwar.com is having its second annual national conference March 24 & 25, and we’d like you to be the luncheon speaker,” Raimundo wrote. “The conference will be held at the Villa Hotel, in San Mateo (near the airport). The theme of the conference is ‘Beyond Left & Right: The New Face of the Antiwar Movement.’ We have invited a number of speakers spanning the political spectrum. Confirmed so far: Patrick J. Buchanan, Tom Fleming (of Chronicles magazine), Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com), Kathy Kelly (Iraq Aid), Alan Bock (Orange County Register), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), representatives of the Serbian Unity Congress, and a host of others.”

Raimundo seasoned his invite with a burnt offering, in the form of flattery, always pleasing to the nostrils: “All of us here at Antiwar.com are big fans of your writing: we met, once, at a meeting during the Kosovo war where you bravely took up the fight for the united front left-right alliance against imperialist war. We can promise you a small honorarium, a lunch, free admission to all conference events — and a good time.” As a seasoned analyst of such communications, my eye of course fell sadly upon the words “small honorarium” ? a phrase that in my case usually means somewhere between $l50 and $350. I’d already noted that even though our task was to transcend the tired categories of left and right, I was the only leftist mentioned, with the possible exception of Kathy Kelly, from that splendid organization, Voices in the Wilderness, which campaigns to lift the UN sanctions on Iraq.

Being a libertarian Justin had boldly added the prospect of a “good time”. Leftist invitations rarely admit this possibility in formal political communications, even in the distant days when the left supposedly had a lock on drugs and sex. I said I’d be happy to join in such an enterprise, and in due course got some angry e-mails from lefties who seem to feel that any contiguity with Buchanan is a crime, even if the subject was gardening and Dutch tulipomania in the seventeenth century.”

Cockburn received similar flack in the mid-90s for commending a right-wing Patriot rally opposing gun control in Michigan in a column for The Nation similarly titled “Who’s Left? Who’s Right?” So it’s one thing for the inner circle at Couterpunch to attack others with the red-brown libel, but entirely another to rewrite history and speak on behalf of the deceased Cockburn to claim their sectarian attacks on leftist colleagues are in spirit with his vision. Worst of all, the Counterpunch contingent has maligned the recently kidnapped Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as a ‘crypto-fascist’ while continuing to use his endorsement of the magazine in advertising to raise money for its annual fund drive as he languishes in prison.

Most of those targeted like Johnstone are anti-war leftists willing to defend Russia and Syria beyond merely protesting U.S. military aggression but challenging the propaganda narratives villainizing such countries used to justify it. The war in Syria has even been compared to the Spanish Civil War where the chasm between those defending the Syrian government against Western-backed jihadists is seen as a repeat of the discord in the 1930s, with presumably the ‘libertarian socialist’ Kurds playing the role of the POUM. It is actually not such a bad analogy, considering the YPG are as objectively a U.S. proxy army as the POUM were Franco’s fifth columnists.

Russophobes on the left use a different line of reasoning to push the same agenda as the Washington war duopoly while Moscow is in the gun-sights of U.S. imperialism. The ‘brown’ component is said to be the reactionary philosopher Alexander Dugin whose alleged Svengali-like influence on the Kremlin is inflated, as is the prevalent misconception that he is the founder of Putin’s ‘Eurasianism.’ As a matter of fact, the initial author of a Eurasian union was the anti-Soviet liberal human rights dissident Andrei Sakharov back in the 1980s during perestroika who was beloved in the Western sphere.

Meanwhile, the actual threat of right-wing extremism in Russia emanating from the U.S.-backed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, who seeks the secession of the Caucasus while comparing its Muslim inhabitants to cockroaches and insects, is of little concern to those making Putin out to be the enemy. In fact, it is the instigator against Moscow in NATO that has for decades incubated fascism, from Operation Gladio’s stay-behind networks of right-wing paramilitaries carrying out ‘false flag’ operations in NATO member states to Ukraine’s 2014 Banderite junta. Furthermore, the anti-Russia hysteria is a successful diversion from the actual source of foreign influence nurturing the current tide of nationalism that is traceable to Jerusalem, not the Kremlin.

The red-brown aspersion isn’t relegated to the periphery of leftist newsletters or historical debates about WWII but has even manifested in more mainstream discourse, from the smear campaign against journalist Angela Nagle for her brilliant “The Left Case Against Open Borders” article exploring the complexities of the immigration issue to Bernie Sanders’ willingness to do a town hall hosted by Fox News.

Journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Michael Tracey, and Nagle herself have all been denigrated as ‘red-brown collaborators’ for their willingness to make appearances on Tucker Carlson’s weeknight talk show. There is even an incomprehensible multi-axis political compass making the rounds on social media said to visually represent the red-brown or neo-“Strasserite” phenomena.

Venn diagram politics

Carlson, like Ann Coulter, is a right-wing media figure who made his name as a neo-con during the Bush years that has successfully rebranded himself in the Trump era as an ‘anti-establishment’ conservative, even espousing anti-interventionism on occasion. Of course, the entire point of engaging the millions of viewers who watch such a cartoon propaganda outlet is missed by those who insist that to do so is to legitimate the channel or Carlson’s views. Would not solely attending the likes of so-called ‘respectable’ media like CNN or MSNBC, which sell U.S. wars every bit as much as Rupert Murdoch’s network, be an endorsement of their self-proclamations to be arbiters of truth?

Last month, the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the U.S. voted to dissolve itself after a period of a factionalism and infighting. The ISO was the American branch of the UK-based Socialist Workers Party (SWP) founded by Tony Cliff, which once included Orwell admirer and Trot-turned-neocon author Christopher Hitchens in its ranks during his youth. This was welcome news to anyone rightly disgusted by such an objectively pro-interventionist group that was one of the biggest mudslingers against those who have defended Russia and Syria from imperialism as ‘red-brown fascists’ during the past decade.

Unsurprisingly, it was revealed that the ISO received a significant amount of its subsidies from the Soros-funded Tides Foundation and other Democratic Party-affiliated philanthropies.

Hopefully its dissolution is a sign that the tide is turning against such groups that smuggle pro-imperial positions to be planted into a left that should unconditionally oppose them.

Independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. My work has appeared in CounterPunch, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Global Research, Dissident Voice, and more. Max may be reached at maxrparry@live.com

Filed under: 20th Century, fascism, historical perspectives, latest

by

Independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. My work has appeared in CounterPunch, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Global Research, Dissident Voice, and more. Max may be reached at maxrparry@live.com

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jack Bonam
Reader
Jack Bonam

An unhappy amalgam of falsehoods, distortions and omissions; in large part an apologia for the crimes and betrayals of Stalin and Stalinists. Amongst the falsehoods, Orwell and the POUM are described as Trotskyists, a description with which neither would have agreed, and with which Trotsky would have emphatically disagreed. The case of the ISO was different: they have misdescribed themselves as Trotskyist; Trotsky would not have agreed. The ISO was an accomplice of imperialism. Unlike the ISO and other groups (e.g. the British SWP) Trotsky to the end defended the Soviet Union, but remained implacably opposed to the Stalinist bureaucracy.… Read more »

Stephen Morrell
Reader
Stephen Morrell

While it’s laudable to debunk the liberal ‘horseshoe’ theory of politics, this article’s whitewashing of Stalinism’s counterrevolutionary role needs addressing and is well exemplified in the author’s version of events in Germany. This begins with, ‘History has been tampered with to blame the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) for the rise of the Nazis…’. Firstly, it’s important to distinguish the ‘rise’ of the Nazis from the events leading to their immediate accession to power. As part of their rise, the Nazis got their first major fillip when the Social Democratic Party (SPD) government unleashed the nuclei of the Nazi movement… Read more »

Ramon Mercader
Reader
Ramon Mercader

Way to whitewash and take the side of the SPD against the KPD like a typical Trot turncoat, poor Rosa is turning in her grave.

Peter M
Reader
Peter M

Stalinism wrecked the communist movement as an instrument for revolution, dragged the name of communism through the mud in all capitalist countries (and in the USSR), and helped delay humanity’s transition to a socialist future for nearly a century, perhaps indefinitely.

I have no idea how that whitewashes the SPD betrayal.
However, this is spot on:

Stalinism wrecked the communist movement as an instrument for revolution, dragged the name of communism through the mud in all capitalist countries (and in the USSR), and helped delay humanity’s transition to a socialist future for nearly a century, perhaps indefinitely.

Paul
Reader
Paul

But Stalin ensured Britain and France would have to fight Germany in WW2 because of the Non Agression Pact and then went on to beat the Nazi war machine – no mean feat! Without him we may have faced a Fascist victory. He forced through industrialisation at an unprecedented pace without which Germany would have won. Britain would have followed France in collaborating and handing over Jews for extermination. Stalin knever disguised the fact he was fundamentally a Russian Nationalist preparing for the Fascist invasion. He was rightly hero worshipped across the World, much as Putin is today. My old… Read more »

Stephen Morrell
Reader
Stephen Morrell

Ye gods, this Stalin worship is quite amazing. Oddly, it’s the obverse to the Putin demonisation by Russophobic liberals: that there’s this omniscient inscrutable Russian ‘leader’ who’s playing eight-dimensional chess to fool everyone. Understanding the following is important. A part of Stalin’s ‘Great Purge’ of 1936-39 (which targetted all the old Bolsheviks along with anyone even potentially critical of the Stalin regime), was his purge of the cream of the Red Army high command during 1937-38, which included three out of five marshalls, 13 out of 15 army commanders, 7 out of 9 admirals, 57 out of 85 corps commanders… Read more »

Paul
Reader
Paul

Why do you say Stalin was ‘hankering after an agreement with Hitler’ but don’t discuss why! You think he was fed up with communism and fancied becoming a Nazi? Or was it a manoeuvre that dragged the French and British into a war they’d taken nearly 10 years to avoid at all costs. It resulted in the defeat of fascism – but maybe that’s the real complaint about him, he won!!

Stephen Morrell
Reader
Stephen Morrell

Of course many soviet officers were ex-Tsarist officers. So what? They proved their loyalty to the Soviet government during the civil war. No credible evidence was ever presented during the show trials or anywhere else for them conspiring against the USSR with the Nazis or other capitalist powers. As a consequence of ‘socialism in one country’, Stalin’s whole outlook was to appease imperialism, not oppose it, let alone overthrow it. The greater the threat, the more he grovelled. That’s why he desperately wanted to appease Hitler — Germany was the greatest threat to the USSR. The USSR had to be… Read more »

Paul
Reader
Paul

Many of the Red Army Generals purged (which usually meant sacked by the way!) were old Tsarist officers who were indeed plotting with various Western and Nazi agents against Lefties of all sorts. The Red Army needed young communist leaders many of whom became World famous for defeating fascism so comprehensibly.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Come now, Stalin never believed Hitler wouldn’t invade – he’d promised to do that since the early 1920’s. But he knew he’d be up against it if Britain and France sat it out on the side lines waiting for Germany to destroy communism. By ‘inviting’ Hitler to take the war to the West he assured those laggards were forced to fight. France surrendered as soon as it could and its new facist government handed over French Jews for extermination. Britain was luckier because Churchill cleared out the government of Nazi sympathisers and allied himself with Stalin, something the Chamberlain cabinet… Read more »

Peter M
Reader
Peter M

No corrections possible? The first quote should have been:

Ten years later during the 1929 May Day demonstrations, Social Democratic Interior Minister Carl Severing oversaw the Blutmai massacre where many workers and communists were gunned down by Berlin police. Nothing had changed between the failed 1919 German Revolution put down by the Freikorps which took the life of Rosa Luxemburg and the Bloody May Day in 1929.

Gezzah Potts
Reader
Gezzah Potts

Thanks Max for this thought provoking, Interesting article. For years, I have felt a deep suspicion and anger of groups like the International Socialist Organisation, and others, including here in Australia that printed the most outrageous crap about the ‘revolution’ in Syria, while fully ignoring all the evidence as too what was really going on there. Well, now we know. Your last paragraph was most enlightening, especially the link to the WSWS article that exposed who was helping fund the ISO and Haymarket Books. Gatekeepers everywhere, aye. The ruling elites will do anything to maintain their position at the top… Read more »

Greg Schofield Perth Australia
Reader
Greg Schofield Perth Australia

‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’ Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations The thing that never happens has been around for some time. Conspiracy is the norm in the corporate world, what then might be expected of the corporate state? How are people moved like cattle without the design of such contrivances? The essence of thing gains expression in the particular forms it develops, false flags, death squads, mercenary forces, spy games, agent provocateurs, apparently that… Read more »

Hugh O’Neill
Reader
Hugh O’Neill

Greg. Superb precision of language and logic shows deep wisdom. What else have you written? I like your style, and indeed your stylus – a pun influenced by others in this forum…

Makropulos
Reader
Makropulos

Gore Vidal on the conspiracy phobia con: “Like the TV networks, once our government has a hit it will be repeated over and over again. Oswald? Conspiracy? Studio laughter. TV-watchers have no doubt noted so often that they are no longer aware of how often the interchangeable TV hosts handle anyone who tries to explain why something happened. “Are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy?” A twinkle starts in a pair of bright contact lenses. No matter what the answer, there is a wriggling of the body, followed by a tiny snort and a significant glance into the camera… Read more »

labrebisgalloise
Reader

You’ve said some very important things here, Max, thank you. Historical revisionism is on the rise; indeed, there seems to be a department in the BBC that specialises in it and is certainly not short of resources (the fact that not just BBC TV news but even classical music channel Radio 3 are replete with revisionist thought/hatred of communism/Stalin is proof enough). The Guardian is the house rag of the revisionists, complete with the promotion of Ukrainian neo-nazi feminists. The core of the campaign against Corbyn’s adviser Seumas Milne is that he WILL insist that the USSR won the war… Read more »

0use4msm
Reader
0use4msm

Wittgenstein said (something along the lines) that all philosophy stems from the confusion of language. The fog of our current culture war is ten times worse, and then some. People get too caught up with artificial rhetorical constructs such as symbolism and obsolete 19th century labels, losing sight of the concrete concerns that actually matter.

Despite shifting axes, I refuse to budge from my anti-war and anti-imperialist ideals, regardless of whether that increasingly gets me lumped in with libertarians and paleo-conservatives. Political tribalism is for idiots, because it gets us nowhere.

louisproyect
Reader

Interesting. Then, perhaps, Mr Proyect, you might explain why, on occasion, CP continues to publish Patrick Cockburn? Simply out of deference to Patrick’s familial relationship to Alexander? Yet he, Patrick Cockburn, has a slot on the UNZ Review.

Sure, I can explain why. Ron Unz refuses to stop publishing Patrick Cockburn even after the Independent insisted that he do so. The same thing with Juan Cole. He is carefully cultivating this red-brown crap even if some of the reds (or pinks) are dragged into it unwillingly.

John
Reader
John

You’re a fraud Louis another’s fake of the left and more than likely an intelligence asset

Ramon Mercader
Reader
Ramon Mercader

Louis, sounds like you have a ‘conspiracy theory.’

Makropulos
Reader
Makropulos

Well of course Louis has a conspiracy theory. But, you see, not all conspiracies are conspiracies. The conspiracies that are not conspiracies are genuine non-conspiracy conspiracies which are therefore “OK” and therefore can be accepted by all right thinking logical and mature people whereas the conspiracies that ARE conspiracies are “conspiracist” conspiracies and are therefore “not at all OK” and must be rejected as the products of infantile diseased morons.

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

”Orwell secretly provided the British Foreign Office’s anti-Soviet propaganda branch known as the Information Research Department a list of people he believed to be “crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists” for MI6’s information warfare.” True enough. But was this the same Orwell who fought bravely with the POUM militia against Franco in Spain and who wrote ‘Homage to Catalonia’ as a result. He wasn’t the only leftist intellectual who go swept up in the immediate post-war hysteria. Bertrand Russell, the world renowned philosopher and pacifist actually advocated dropping atomic bombs on Russian cities… Read more »

John
Reader
John

Bertrand was a another intelligence asset

Ramon Mercader
Reader
Ramon Mercader

Russell I assume?

John
Reader
John

Utter nonsense Orwell was sent as a spy from the beginning and spent most of his time doing poems and shite like that. He was a grass and ratted on his fellow comrades and is yet another Trotskyist shill. What kind of do calendar revolutionary rats inn his own side?!

comite espartaco
Reader

This article is full of the typical leftist misconceptions about Communism and Fascism and, so, unable to understand the true historical situation. Communism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEFTISM… NOTHING. In fact, Communism is the bitterest enemy of the Left, as has been amply demonstrated throughout history. The Left is a bourgeois attempt at controlling the Working Class Socialist Movement, an infiltration and mellowing of the worst kind that, eventually, has brought the ruin of that Movement. It is true that the Comintern and the USSR tried, mistakenly, to stoke and harness the Left and its acolytes (peace, antinuclear, ecology… Read more »

John
Reader
John

Communism is a left wing ideology but many of the so called leftists who claim to be communists or Marxists etc are extremely poor at being either of those things and the western left can’t be trusted one iota

MultiBear
Reader
MultiBear

Neh. Communists = “Those who wish to control others”.
Any other claim is a lie. Any attempt to defend communism is nothing more than blather designed to convince fools and a denial of history.
The truth is simply a group of intellectually challenged fools seeking to gain power over others using a particularly stupid brand of snake oil to do so.

DjungleDjinn
Reader
DjungleDjinn

They also hide under your bed.

BigB
Reader
BigB

Fascinating article. Thanks for this. I’ve been interested in this phenomena for a while, but hadn’t picked up on the red/brown jargon. Or the historical precedent. This is the tactic that libertarian fascists and right wing ideologues have been using to defend free speech. By limiting the only admissible topic of discussion to be the objectively, empirically, extremist centre. Any deviation from the on trend topic is a classic slippery slope (fallacy) – descending into totalitarianism, the New Gulag, or the gas chamber. The argument was framed by Stephen Hicks in his anti-PoMo polemic – “Explaining PoMo” – which neither… Read more »

Loverat
Reader
Loverat

It would be interesting to understand how Counterpunch defines a conspiracy theory. I don’t think I have read articles here which I would regard as wild conspiracies although in the comments you occasionally see some of the specific theories on 9/11 develop into something quite unlikely. And I have seen the occasional ‘Admin’ comment used scolding some readers/commenters who provide no evidence for their claims. And most articles, evidence is provided or numerous sources to back up opinions. I also don’t see much evidence of ‘a line’ based on an ideological positiion. But if the truth fits in with Assad… Read more »

dhfabian
Reader

This piece is off on a number of points, but I’ll stock with only a few. Many today strongly oppose those advocating a “left/right alliance,” not only because it defies logic, but because we saw how successfully it was used in the late 1970s and the 1980s to marginalize and smother/censor out the left. Criticism of Caitlin Johnstone has concerned her support for such an “alliance,” as well as her anti-Israel/anti-Jewish ideology, something that is currently quite fashionable in spite of its distinct ring of fascism. And finally, I couldn’t recall any items in the pro-Julian Assange Counterpunch that came… Read more »

Carnyx
Reader
Carnyx

The violent oppression and dispossession of Palestinians by Israel is utterly indefensible. I made my mind up back in the 90’s when I watched BBC News footage of Israeli soldiers systematically breaking the limbs of captured tied up Palestinian teenagers by smashing rocks on them. I later learned that this was not conducted by some “bad apples” carried away with the heat of the moment, the IDF was in fact acting on the direct orders by PM Yitzak Rabin to “break the bones” of demonstrators as punishment. Rabin, the great peace maker, a man assassinated by other Israelis for being… Read more »

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

Show us an example of Caitlin’s anti-jewish writing, dh; just one. Someone wake me if that ever happens – credibly. Lots of us (including plenty of jews) loath and detest zionism, and loath anti-semitism and all forms of racism just as much. It’s an entirely principled position. Zionism is an evil as bad as SAfrican apartheid, or Third Reich nazism. Judaism, otoh, is a perfectly legitimate religion; and ethnic jewishness is – well, just another ethnic strand in the human family, neither special nor deplorable; perfectly fine, in fact. Zionism, though, needs to join apartheid and nazism in history’s toxic… Read more »

Gezzah Potts
Reader
Gezzah Potts

Rhisiart Gwilym. Completely correct regards Caitlin’s writing, and also spot on regards the supremacist thuggery of Zionism. You only need to look at sites like Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, B’Tselem, and nearly all independent news sites to see the sheer brutality inflicted on the Palestinians. How many children will die this month? How many families will be evicted from their homes? How many paramedics will be shot?

SharonM
Reader
SharonM

Caitlin Johnstone is a great writer and important voice, but I don’t think unity with right wingers makes sense in stopping wars. Right wingers are the ones who create empires in the first place, and you’re just not going to stop wars by uniting with them. Even the libertarians are unreliable, since they don’t put the moral reason to stop wars first and foremost. Instead they claim the “cost” is too high for wars. Give them a cheap war and they’ll approve of it. Whatever ones personal beliefs are, we live in a godless world where morals cannot be informed… Read more »

Greg Schofield Perth Australia
Reader
Greg Schofield Perth Australia

Communists do not make any alliances with political factions they may have to work with. They are allied to the working class as it is found and not as some might have it. In response to the times many working class people find the right more reflective of their immediate concerns and the left prevaricates on ideological issues. I am no part of that left, in fact the whole left-right division is ideological to the core — so bugger that for a joke! SharonM I disagree with what you are lumping into the right and then dismissing, but I admire… Read more »

SharonM
Reader
SharonM

Very interesting comment, Greg. Thank you:)

olavleivar
Reader
olavleivar

Its some time ago since I have read such utter RUBBISH as above Article … who first sets up a delusional Hypothesis .. subsecuently debunks it …keine Hexerei .. THE ARTICLE IS PURE IDIOCY and NOT FLATTERING for off Cuardian to publish..

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Oh, praise God, someone is alive, sentient and vocal.

Atalanta69
Reader
Atalanta69

Agreed. I used to teach my students about argumentative fallacies, and analysing this article would have kept us busy for an entire term.
Rather than dismissing Orwell, the writer would do well to read his classic essay ‘Politics and the English Language’.

Expat Swede
Reader
Expat Swede

Orwell was a fine essayist and a mediocre novelist. The criticism of him expressed in this article is entirely fair.

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

Errm, How many of GO’s novels have you actually read and why to you think they are mediocre? I thought ‘Burmese Days’ was one of the best, but my particular favourite was ‘Coming Up For Air.’

Expat Swede
Reader
Expat Swede

I have only read Animal Farm and 1984, both of which are fairly dreadful in my opinion. They are both little more than dreary anti-communist pamphlets.

Fair dinkum
Reader
Fair dinkum

Caitlin Johnston, like John Pilger, had the good fortune of being born an Australian.
This gives her (and John) a more expansive world view, unhindered and untainted by a Eurocentric or UScentric upbringing.
Caitlin, like John, speaks from the heart.
I only wish her site was easier to participate in/on.

p0000t
Reader

Max Parry is a Trotsky basher, and seems to think Lenin and Stalin were ‘communists’ and should be admired for the fall into totalitarianism. It was in the 1920s that the possibility of an enlightened socialist world was ended, marked by Lenin’s banning of revolutionary art, and allowed only social realism. Socialism conflated with dictatorship by capitalists will continued to be used against Putin and Russia, and socialist and communist ideas while the left keeps looking backwards and fails to redefine socialism: an international movement to replace capitalism for the good of society and the planet.

dhfabian
Reader

Separating Lenin or Stalin from communism would require an intellectual contortionist. Comparing communism and socialism is like comparing apples and coconuts. They are two distinctly different things that can be implemented together, or separately (i.e., democratic socialism). It’s crucial to acknowledge the corrupting of Soviet communism into (dictatorial) Stalinism during that era. Putin, of course, is neither communist nor socialist, and we can’t dismiss how commonly Americans think Russia is still the Soviet Union, and Putin is a communist dictator. And finally,the only thing resembling socialism that we see in the media of liberals today, is an occasional salute to… Read more »

John
Reader
John

Democratic socialism still needs imperialism to survive you ziorat. It’s liberalism with free stuff, literally every anti socialist stereotypical argument made by Americans and other relatives idiots

GregSchofield Perth Australia
Reader
GregSchofield Perth Australia

It’s crucial to acknowledge the corrupting of Soviet communism into (dictatorial) Stalinism during that era. I agree but totalitarism as it emerged does not get us very far, Stalin implemented Trotsky’s left opposition program, after getting rid of Trotsky; what is the common element? The ditching of NEP which I would argue was always Lenin’s program since the April Thesis. This is not a political line argument, but a shift in class forces from worker’s interests to their interest dominated by an emergent technocratic/managerial ‘professional’ class. This class dominates the 20th Century, forming different alliances, the present corporate state is… Read more »

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

“Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Now, who said that? Oh, yes, Lenin.

Expat Swede
Reader
Expat Swede

I don’t think he did, no.

bevin
Reader
bevin

The charges, made by the NATO-Left, that anti-imperialists are forming alliances with fascists is a classic example of projection.
In fact the alliances between those posing as Marxists and imperialist aggressors in Libya, Iran, Syria etc ad nauseam, are precisely equivalent to the “Red” of New Labour and the Brown of US fascism.
Unfortunately such surrendering to power, presented as tactical cunning, is a recurrent feature of the more opportunistic tendencies within the Trotskyist tradition-where principles are reserved for matters of etiquette in sexual relationships, linguistic habits, the cataloguing of individual ancestryand other symptoms of collective narcissism.

John
Reader
John

Bevin you’ve hit the nail on the head mate. I know of a few so called Marxists and actual Marxists. The so called Marxists hang around with unite against fascism (a Labour Party tool) or hope not hate (ditto)and don’t do fuck all but stand behind police lines chanting nazi scum off our streets in those god awful rich kids accents and are such massive revolutionary’s that’s why they ask you to vote labour every time and they are all middle class who hate jokes, while the actual Marxists still have jokes to tell (Even the dreaded stereotypical jokes that… Read more »

Paul
Reader
Paul

The Non Agression Pact was a diplomatic stunner and is still enveloped with layers of mist because the West – Britain and France – had been unable to recognise that the only way of constraining Hitler was to combine with Russia but they couldn’t bring themselves to do it because they were fundamentally anti communist and rather preferred Nazism. When they finally agreed to “talks” in Moscow the delegation of unknown military gents set off by slow boat. It spoke volumes about their real beliefs and Stalin realised that after 5 years of ‘talk’ his best alternative was to force… Read more »

mark
Reader
mark

Stalin was ready to go to war over Czechoslovakia in 1938. When Britain and France did a deal with Hitler at Munich, Stalin wasn’t even informed about it. He realised he was being jerked around and gave up on Britain and France. The deal with Hitler was to buy time. You can argue about its wisdom, but it was understandable given the circumstances.

John
Reader
John

The New York Times declared that “Hitler is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism” and to this day the cult followers of Trotsky are repeating this lie.

See you can’t trust the middle class Trotskyists they support every “intervention” then whine about their fuck ups later and blame it on all others bar themselves