Once Again on the Question of Fascism and ‘Popular Front’: A Response to Comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line

Once Again on the Question of Fascism and ‘Popular Front’:

A Response to Comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line

• Abhinav Sinha

(To download the PDF, follow this link)

The present rise of fascism in India has raised several cardinal questions before the revolutionary communists. These include understanding the nature of present fascist rise and its difference from the fascism of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the reason behind these changes, namely, the change in the very nature of capitalist crisis and finally, the question of anti-fascist united front. On these questions, we have written in detail in our work A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders. This work is directed against a particularly inane trend within the left, the Lalkaar-Pratibaddh group of Punjab. We have elaborated the same positions in the key paper of the seminar that we organized on the question of fascism in Hyderabad in December 2024-January 2025. However, our position on the policy of anti-fascist united front has invited criticism from another organization: CPI (ML) Mass Line. In the February-March 2025 issue and June-July 2025 issue of their organ Mass Line, Com. Pradip Singha Thakur has written two articles dealing with our position on the same question. We would like to respond to the criticism put forth by Com. Thakur here.

Before embarking upon a discussion on the particular points of Com. Thakur’s criticism, we would like to repeat some basic arguments that we presented in our above-mentioned book as well as the key paper of our seminar:

1. The policy of the united front of the working class as put forth by Lenin in 1921 in the Third Congress of the Comintern had two elements: one, ‘united front from below’ as the general policy which meant organizing the masses of workers in all kinds of mass organizations, including the bourgeois and social-democratic mass organizations; two, ‘united front from above’ as the particular policy of issue-based alliances with the social-democratic and workers’ parties. Lenin’s slogan of ‘to the masses’ pertained to this very policy of the ‘united front of the working class’. We are for the articulation of a new version of this policy in the new historical conditions and new political situation, as we have pointed out in A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders and our key paper from the Hyderabad seminar on fascism.
2. From 1922-23 itself, the parties of the Comintern instead of implementing the correct Leninist line, implemented a right-deviationist version of the line or a “left”-deviationist version of the line. From 1924 onwards, the pathological reaction of the revolutionary communists to the sins of social-democracy in various European countries led to the “left”-deviationist line becoming dominant which assumed an extreme-“left” form by the Sixth Congress in 1928. On paper, the Leninist line was still proclaimed but in practice, social-democracy was erroneously identified as ‘the main/principal enemy’. As a consequence, the proletarian parties failed to implement a revolutionary massline and fell into the pit of “left”-deviation.
3. In a pathological reaction to this “left”-deviation, the pendulum shifted to the other extreme after the complete defeat of working-class movement in Germany and Italy and some other countries. As a consequence, the French communist party (PCF) began to implement the right-deviationist line of ‘popular front’ or ‘people’s front’ from 1933-34 itself. It was precisely this line put forth by a right-wing French communist leader Doriot which was accepted by Dimitrov and Manuilsky in a meeting with French communists in Moscow in 1934. Dimitrov fine-tuned this line and presented it in the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935.
4. The disastrous results of this line became clear and apparent by the autumn of 1938 and from November 1938, the Comintern leaders including Dimitrov and Manuilsky slowly started shifting from this line and abandoned it completely by 1939. They called for a ‘return to the line of united front from below’ and ‘the united front of the working class’.
5. Mao and Kang Sheng clearly refuted this line of ‘popular front’ against fascism when they discussed the case of Spain and pointed to its capitulationist character in the 1960s. Chou En-Lai, too, critiqued this line in his work on the Comintern and the CPC.

Com. Thakur in his two above-mentioned articles has missed all these points which were elaborated in our book A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders. In the process, he has selectively quoted from our book, misunderstood these quotes and sometimes unintentionally and inadvertently misinterpreted them, as we shall see later in this essay. He assumes that we adhere to the extreme “left” deviation of the Sixth Congress and reject the policy of the ‘popular front’ from a “left” position. As we shall see in this essay, Com. Thakur has misunderstood our position, which is bit of a surprise for us, because we have presented our position in a fairly detailed fashion, with copious quotes from the documents of the Comintern in our book, A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders and the comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line were present in all the discussions of our seminar on fascism in Hyderabad, where we clarified and elaborated all our positions in our key paper and the papers on historiography of fascism. We will again present copious quotes from our book and from the documents of the Comintern to set the record straight.

We will present our arguments thematically in order to avoid any confusion, rather than presenting them in chronological fashion.

Stalin and the ‘Popular Front’

In one of his articles titled ‘On Popular Front’, Com. Thakur quotes a scholar Bikash Ranjan Deb, who has originally been quoted by us:

“Before entering into main discussion, to keep the record straight, we want to clear a point, raised by certain revolutionary forces. The point is, we are quoting: “A strange fact about this report is that there have been a number of references of Lenin in the Report, but not a single reference was made of Stalin by Dimitrov…” (author’s emphasis).

“We do not know the source of “some scholars” as referred by the said organization in their document titled “Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders”. But any serious reader who have attentively gone through the book “The United Front: Struggle Against Fascism and War” by George Dimitrov, General Secretary, Communist International, published by Laurence & Wishart, London, 1939, she or he will see there are innumerable references of Stalin separately and along with Lenin.” (Thakur, Pradip Singha. 2025. ‘On Popular Front’, Mass Line, February-March 2025)

There are two problems here. First, Com. Thakur did not read the book in a comprehensive and consistent fashion, as we shall see. Second, it is true that in the portion of Dimitrov’s Report that particularly deals with ‘people’s front’, there is no reference to Stalin. The references to Stalin are there in the part that leads to the concluding part where Dimitrov clearly puts forth the line of ‘popular front’. Third, it is not us who say that there is no reference of Stalin in the entire report, but another scholar that we quote for a different purpose, and we make our position clear in the book as well. We will see that in a while.

First of all, we should clarify the first point, namely, why we say that Com. Thakur has not read our book completely and has cherry-picked certain portions and then misunderstood them. Had he read it, he would have known that what our position was, instead of attacking us on the basis of the excerpt from the essay of Deb. Immediately after quoting three scholars, namely, Bikash Ranjan Deb, Monty Johnstone, and Jonathan Haslam, who have argued in quite different ways and with different sets of evidence that Stalin had no direct role in the formulation of the line of ‘popular front’, and also the Chinese communist leader Chou En-Lai who makes the same assertion, we write the following, which Com. Thakur has totally missed:

“Of course, these are circumstantial evidence and we cannot conclude on the basis of the above facts that Stalin necessarily and definitely did not subscribe to the policy of the ‘popular front’, even though this much is clear that he was not the one who formulated this line. This line was certainly formulated in France and in Comintern under Dimitrov’s leadership. Whether Stalin lent direct support to the line of the ‘popular front’ or he was reluctant to do so, is not important in itself. Since he was the leader of the international proletariat during that time, some responsibility does indeed lie with him.” (Sinha, Abhinav. 2025. A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow, p. 200, emphasis ours)

What Com. Thakur has quoted are the words of Bikash Ranjan Deb. The above is our own take on Deb, Johnstone and Haslam. Instead of dealing with what we have written, Com. Thakur has bombarded us with the mentions of Stalin from those portions of the Report, where Dimitrov is not directly discussing his line of the ‘popular front’. We should pause here and see where Dimitrov has referred to Stalin and where he does not mention Stalin’s name even once.

The first reference of Stalin is on p. 4 where Stalin talks about the responsibility of social-democracy for the rise of fascism and defeat of working class (Dimitrov. 2020. The Fascist Offensive: Unity of the Working Class, Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 4). The second reference is on p. 12, where Dimitrov simply mentions Stalin along with Lenin, in the context of the desirability of following these two great teachers of the proletariat. The other references are on p. 12 regarding failure of European working class to consummate proletarian revolution in 1918-19 in certain countries. The next reference is on p. 49 where Stalin talks about the failure of communist parties to develop links with workers’ mass organizations (not the social-democratic party but the mass organizations!). Next is on p. 66 regarding Stalin’s teachings on national question and against what Dimitrov correctly terms as “national nihilism”. Again, on p. 68, Stalin is mentioned in the context of development of a socialist culture which has national roots, thus, national in form and socialist in content. On p. 75, Stalin is quoted to emphasize the desirability of developing mass contacts but with principles in command. On p. 78, Stalin is mentioned in context of desirability of the application of the organizational principle of democratic centralism in order to develop a mass political party, that is, a party with mass roots. On p. 81, Stalin is mentioned along with the preceding three great teachers of the proletariat to emphasize their teaching of concrete analysis of concrete conditions. On p. 83, there is mention of Stalin as the pilot leader of proletariat in the struggle to wipe out fascism and capitalism from the face of the earth. On p. 86, Stalin is mentioned with Lenin in respect of making the decisions of the party ‘the decisions of the masses’.

All of these references to Stalin have nothing whatsoever to do with the formulation of the line of the ‘popular front’; instead, they are general references to some general teachings or ceremonial references to the great leadership of Stalin and Lenin. What about the portion of the report where Dimitrov positively puts forth his line of the ‘people’s front’ or what came to be known as the ‘popular front’?

The proper discussion on the ‘popular front’ begins from page number 90 in the above-mentioned edition and lasts till page number 100. It is precisely in this part that Dimitrov has explained what the new tactical line of the ‘popular front’ or ‘people’s front’ actually is. In these pages, there is not a single reference to Stalin. The next reference to Stalin comes at page number 101. This reference talks about the necessity of not simply formulating a correct line, but implementing a correct line. The next reference is on p. 105 which talks about the necessity of the communists to speak and write in simple popular language. The same page also mentions Stalin in reference of the need for the cadre to implement a revolutionary massline. Next mentions of Stalin on p. 112-14 talk about the necessity of concrete action and practice. The last two mentions on p. 117 are ceremonial, talking about the great and tested leadership of Stalin.

In short, the 10 pages from p. 90 to p. 100 in the above-mentioned edition, which actually develop and clarify the new tactical line of ‘popular front’ do not mention Stalin even once. The argument of Com. Thakur that Stalin is indeed mentioned by Dimitrov in his report on ‘popular front’ is factually correct. We did not say that the report does not mention Stalin; it is a quote from another scholar, not our words. What we wrote after quotations from these 3 scholars and Chou En-Lai is not even mentioned by Com. Thakur. What we said, has been quoted above. We think Com. Thakur flipped over that page, just like, by mistake, he has flipped over many pages, as we shall see.

Secondly, it is true that the particular portion of the report which tells us what the line of ‘popular front’ is, does not mention Stalin. Also, Com. Thakur did not go to the sources of the authors that we have quoted. Had he gone to the sources, he would have seen that the actual history of formulation of the line of ‘popular front’ had least participation from Stalin. That is why, Com. Thakur is silent on the following quote of Chou En-Lai that we have presented in the book:

“In this period the Chinese Party maintained fewer contacts with the Communist International. The International held its Seventh Congress in July-August 1935. Stalin was more concerned with domestic problems, and Dimitrov was in charge of the International… At that time the International developed the Anti-Fascist United Front, which coincided with the formation of the anti-Japanese National United Front in China. When Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng arrested Chiang Kai-shek in the Xi’an Incident, the International openly declared that Zhang was a running dog of the Japanese imperialists and that the arrest of Chiang Kai-shek suited the needs of Japan. This judgment was completely wrong. Our own approach to the Xi’an Incident was, on the whole, correct.” (quoted in Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit.)

Com. Thakur is totally silent on this quotation of Chou En-Lai which argues that Stalin had least part in the articulation of the policy of the ‘popular front’. Moreover, as is clear from the above quote, the anti-fascist ‘popular front’ as proposed by Dimitrov and the anti-Japanese national anti-imperialist ‘popular front’ formed in China are not the same thing, as Com. Thakur thinks. Com. Thakur wrote in another article:

“Here it is also very relevant to quote again Dimitrov: “The tactics of united People’s Front are fully applicable, even now in China and colonial and dependent countries…”

“So, due to changed situation, there was complete ‘volte-face by Dimitrov’ for some countries and for “China and also in colonial and dependent countries, continuation of ‘tactics of united people’s front’. Here ‘complete absence of volte-face by Dimitrov!” (Thakur, P. S. 2025. ‘More on Fascism’, Mass Line, June-July 2025)

Well, sorry to say, it was still a complete volte-face by Dimitrov! We shall see later in the essay that the “changed situation” that Dimitrov referred to and which Com. Thakur is repeating is the beginning of the World War in September 1939. However, the ‘popular front’ had collapsed in Spain and France even before the beginning of the war, in 1938 itself. It is noteworthy that war or the preparation of war was not the principal reason for the collapse; rather, it was the internal contradictions of the ‘popular front’ itself, in which the question of war was only one, whereas the main questions involved the treachery of the social-democrats, socialists and petty-bourgeois radical parties in the fight against fascism, the brutal repression of the communists and free-hand given to the fascists. In fact, even before the beginning of the war, the Comintern documents show that the Comintern leadership abandoned the policy of the ‘popular front’. Later, in the essay, we will show this with adequate quotations from the documents of the Comintern from 1938 to 1940. These quotations were there in our book A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders which Com. Thakur also quotes. We wonder how he missed that entire part of the book! Anyway, we will present those excerpts again in the present essay for the sake of clarity.

Moreover, in China and other colonial and semi-colonial countries, the ‘popular’ character of the anti-imperialist anti-feudal national united front was something which was in practice long before Dimitrov put forth his theses in the Seventh Congress of the Comintern and it is obvious why in such countries, maintaining the ‘popular’ character of the national united front was entirely correct. These countries were in the stage of national democratic revolution where the fourth class, besides the working class, peasantry and middle class, namely, the national bourgeoisie was still a strategic ally, albeit a vacillating one, against the enemy, that is, imperialism, feudalism and the big bureaucrat comprador bourgeoisie. This front had nothing whatsoever to do with anti-fascist united front policy, even though CPC documents and leaders often erroneously talk about “feudal fascism” since there was a tendency at that time to characterize all forms of dictatorial and militaristic rule as fascist. In fact, Mao’s line of a national people’s front against imperialism, feudalism and big comprador bourgeoisie was articulated much before the Dimitrov theses, as the strategic class alliance against imperialism and feudalism. Dimitrov mentions the “full applicability of united people’s front” in an attempt to rescue his theory of ‘popular front’ against fascism immediately after the disastrous failure of the two most representative examples of ‘popular front’ in Spain and France. Here is the entire quote of Dimitrov where he clearly mentions that this people’s front (in China) is for national liberation, not against fascism:

“The People’s Front Movement awakened wide masses of people in town and country to activity, and rallied them to the struggle to uphold their own interests against the reactionary cliques. This movement rendered it possible to postpone for a time the outbreak of the European war. The tactics of the united people’s front are fully applicable, even now, in China and also in colonial and dependent countries, the people of which are conducting a struggle for their national liberation.” (Degras, Jane. The Communist International, 1919-1943, Documents, Vol. 2)

As one can see, despite the apologetic attempt to save the line of ‘popular front’ (later the Comintern leadership abandoned even this practice of trying to save this theory, as we shall see later in the essay), Dimitrov is careful enough to distinguish the anti-fascist ‘popular front’ from the national anti-imperialist anti-feudal people’s front for national liberation. He was well aware that in this case the national united front represented the strategic class alliance of the national democratic revolution, rather than a tactical alliance with entire bourgeoisie except the “most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic elements of big monopoly finance capital”, a line which was incorrect anyway. Com. Thakur takes Dimitrov at face value and fails to notice this distinction in his attempt to prove continuing relevance of Dimitrov’s line of ‘popular front’.

Moreover, I would humbly urge Com. Thakur to read these two articles, since he has asked about the sources of “certain scholars”, because Haslam and Johnstone have given the sources of their claim that Stalin had no direct role to play in the formulation of the policy of ‘popular front’ (as Chou En-Lai also pointed out in the already presented quotation, about which Com. Thakur is silent):

• Johnstone, M. 1985. ‘Trotsky and the People’s Front’ in Jim Fyrth (ed.) Britain, Fascism and the Popular Front, Lawrence and Wishart, London
• Haslam, J. 1979. ‘The Comintern and the Origins of the Popular Front, 1934-35’ in Historical Journal, 22:3

The reason is simple: without going through these “certain scholars”, Com. Thakur can never be sure about his “refutation” of these “certain scholars”! One does not have to agree to every political judgement or evaluation of the above scholars. However, facts are stubborn things and they have to be accepted. Also, it is noteworthy that there is not even a single reference to the policy of ‘people’s front’ or ‘popular front’ in the History of the CPSU (B), published in 1939, even where there is discussion of fascism and the struggle against fascism. At one place there is reference to the international alliance of the “democratic” states (read imperialist states) which could not be formed in a proper fashion due to the attitude of the powers like Britain, France and the US, who saw fascism as a counter-weight to the working class:

“The one-sided character of the developing world war is due to the absence of a united front of the “democratic” states against the fascist powers. The so-called democratic states, of course, do not approve of the “excesses” of the fascist states and fear any accession of strength to the latter. But they fear even more the working-class movement in Europe, and the movement of national emancipation in Asia, and regard fascism as an “excellent antidote” to these “dangerous” movements.” (History of the CPSU (B). 2023. Foreign Languages Press, Paris, p. 422)

It is clear from the excerpt above that if anything the History is slightly critical of the line of popular front. Moreover, it does not mention the Seventh Congress of the Comintern and the Dimitrov line of the ‘popular front’, or even of Dimitrov himself, even once. It mentions up till the Fifth Congress but not later congresses of the Comintern. If the line of ‘popular front’ was such an epochal line responsible for the collapse of international fascism, as Com. Thakur argues, the absence of even the mention of the Seventh Congress and the line of the ‘popular front’ is conspicuous.

The Problem of the Social-Democracy and the ‘Popular Front’

Com. Thakur points out that between the Sixth Congress and the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, that is, between 1928 and 1935, the concrete study of the revolutionary communists showed that social-democracy was no longer the principal bulwark of the bourgeoisie and its reaction. This is true. In fact, the mistake of considering social-democracy as the principal enemy was a “left”-wing mistake which originated from the Fifth Congress itself, though in an embryonic form. This mistake assumed an extreme “left” form since the Sixth Congress. Do we adhere to this “left” and extreme “left” line as Com. Thakur suggests? Had he read A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders from cover to cover and the key paper of our seminar on fascism, he would not have rebuked us for this position, because we do not have any such position! When we talk about the line of ‘united front of the working class’, formally proclaimed as correct in the Sixth Congress, we are not referring to its extreme “left” version which became dominant in the Sixth Congress; instead we are referring to the line of united front of the working class as propounded by Lenin in the Third Congress of the Comintern in 1921. Let us see what we have written in our above-mentioned book. We write:

“The difference lies in the fact that till the time of the Fifth Congress, the Comintern had not yet identified social-democracy as the principal enemy, which must first be defeated in order to defeat fascism. This disastrous line took hold of the Comintern only in the Sixth Congress, though it afflicted certain factions in certain parties in Europe even before that. The resolution at the Fifth Congress still talks about ‘a united front under the leadership of the Comintern’ and ‘driving away the known fascists’ from their positions in factories and mass-organizations, etc. Also, this mistake of partially obliterating the theoretical difference between fascism and social-democracy, which originated in the Fifth Congress, had a lot to do with the misdeeds of the social-democracy in Germany after the final collapse of working-class offensives in 1923 and its open collusion with the reactionary forces in the brutal suppression of the KPD.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 368)

Further we write:

“However, even after the Fifth Congress, the communist parties as well as the Comintern did try to form particular united fronts (from above) with the social-democrats. In fact, at the same congress, the Theses on Tactics says:

“Unity from below and at the same time negotiations with leaders. This method must frequently be employed in countries where social-democracy is still a significant force…

“It is understood that in such cases the communist parties maintain their complete and absolute independence, and retain their communist character at every stage of the negotiations and in all circumstances. Therefore all negotiations with the social-democratic leaders must be conducted publicly, and communists must do their utmost to get the working masses to take a lively interest in the negotiations.

“3. United front only from above. This method is categorically rejected by the Communist International.”” (ibid, p. 369)

More:

“Therefore, in order to make sense of the character of the “left” mistake committed at the Fifth Congress and the one committed at the Sixth Congress, one has to understand the theoretical as well as historical context, both of which are completely lost on Sukhwinder. Hence, it is partially true that the seeds of the theory of direct identification of fascism and social-democracy might be traced back to the Fifth Congress, but the tactical considerations of the Fifth Congress were very different from those of the Sixth Congress, which takes a decisive turn. Also, between the Fifth Congress and Sixth Congress, the entire period of four years was not marked with “left”-sectarian deviation which gradually evolved into the ultra-left line which began to dominate after the Sixth Congress in 1928. This period was also witness to serious right-wing deviations as well.” (ibid, p. 370)

Further:

“Till the Fifth Congress and the Fifth Plenum of the Comintern (1925), the Comintern clearly says that while the main task of the communists is to form united front from below, which means forming united fronts at the level of mass organizations and trade unions (including those of social-democrats) as well as particular alliances with social-democratic parties too, that is, united front from above.

“In fact, if we look at the Fifth Plenum of 1925 itself, it backtracks from many positions assumed by the Comintern in July 1924 at the Fifth Congress. It accepts stabilization and once again stresses the need for particular ‘united front from above’ as well as general ‘united front from below’. In fact, during the March 1925 German elections, the Comintern had directed the KPD to support the presidential candidate of the SPD. However, the SPD withdrew its candidate and supported a bourgeois centrist candidate. The ECCI statement on Paul von Hindenburg’s election as president in March 1925 says:

“The Communist International suggested that the KPD support the social-democratic candidate in the second round if the SPD put its candidate forward again. But, faithful watch-dogs of the bourgeoisie that they are, the social-democrats withdrew their candidate in favour of the bourgeois candidate Marx… Once more the SPD leaders showed the world that they are as dubious republicans as they are bad socialists. There is not the slightest doubt that the SPD leaders and the Second International will try to place responsibility on the German communists. They will throw sand in the eyes of the masses. Once again they will take up the campaign against the vanguard of the German proletariat…”” (ibid, p. 371-72)

We write further:

“That is also the reason why Sukhwinder does not even once mention the Leninist line of ‘united front of the working class’ as presented in the Third Congress and ratified again by the Fourth Congress, which included the ‘united front from above’, on particular issues, that is, particular united front from above, subordinated to the general tactics of united front from below. The aim was clear: winning over of the majority of the masses of workers to the communist side, as it was accepted in the Third Congress that the revolutionary wave had subsided and the majority of workers are still under the political and ideological influence of social-democracy and reformism, whereas a period of stabilization and in Lenin’s words ‘relative balance of the forces’ had begun, and the need of the hour was the slogan of ‘to the masses’, in order to accumulate the forces of the proletariat to be able to resist the bourgeois reactionary offensive and subsequently mount the proletarian offensive. This Leninist line, in general, was the correct line. However, the “left”-right deviations alternating within the Comintern since 1922 itself and finally the ultra-left turn since the Sixth Congress prevented the correct implementation of this line. However, Sukhwinder does not even mention a word about the Leninist line of the ‘united front of the working class’. That is why he comes directly to the ultra-left error of the Sixth Congress on the question of fascism and united front…” (ibid, p. 372-73)

It is precisely this mistake that is committed by Com. Thakur as well. He takes 1928 as the beginning point and 1935 as the end point of his discussion, whereas the story of the evolution of Comintern’s line on united front against fascism is so much more. We have quoted at length in our book the directives issued by the Third Congress and the directives issued by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) after the Third Congress in December 1921 to show that the Leninist policy of united front of the working class meant a general united front from below (that is, unity of the masses of workers of all trade unions including the social-democratic ones) and a particular united front from above (that is, based on political exigencies, issue-based alliance with the social-democratic parties of the Second International). We have written in the above-mentioned book:

“As is evident, ECCI warns that the application of the policy of ‘united front from below’ would involve different actions in different countries, according to the particular political situation. Wherever the political situation demands ‘united front from above’ (including the slogan of workers’ governments) in order to strengthen the ‘united front from below’, it must be formed. Thus, it presents different policy prescriptions for different countries within the broad framework of ‘united front of the working class from below’.” (ibid, p. 379)

Further:

“We can see that the policy of ‘united front of working class from below’ did not exclude ‘from above’ alliances with the social-democracy and socialists, and even anarchist and syndicalist organizations, against the bourgeois offensive. However, whenever these alliances were to be formed, the aim was to be twofold: one, winning over of the masses of workers to the side of communism; two, exposure of the social-democracy and reformism. Thus, the line can be summarized as general united front of the working class from below and subordinated to the interests of this, particular united front of the working class from above (which included the policy of united front with, not simply social-democratic workers, but social-democratic organizations and parties).” (ibid, p. 382)

The readers can see that our line is not outright rejection of the united front with social-democrats (and also other non-fascist bourgeois parties), as Com. Thakur assumes. Borrowing terminology from Dimitrov, Com. Thakur accuses us of “self-satisfied sectarianism” and “sectarian self-isolation” and maybe he also accuses us of “calling entire non-communist camp as fascist” (it is possible Com. Thakur is referring to some other organization) [Thakur, P. S. 2025. ‘More on Fascism’, Mass Line, June-July 2025, p. 5], because we do not harbour any such illusion. In our book A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders as well as our key paper on fascism from the Hyderabad Seminar, we severely criticize the tendency of not making a distinction between fascist reaction and other forms of bourgeois politics. Com. Thakur also criticizes the argument that “today, in anti-fascist struggle, these degenerate sections have become unworthy for even a tactical alliance” and then says that the same forces that give this argument give “revolutionary congratulations to all those who participated in the strike and supported it and made it success” (ibid, p. 6). As far as we can remember we are not guilty of such political somersaults but since there is no source given by Com. Thakur, we do not know whether he is referring to us or someone else. It is possible that Com. Thakur is referring to some other organization because we have not made such preposterous claims anywhere.

However, here, too, Com. Thakur commits a mistake and asks “Are CITU and AITUC are in these referred trade unions?! Parties are “social fascists”. Parties controlled trade unions: “revolutionary congratulations”!” (ibid, p. 6)

Com. Thakur misses the basic point here: it is possible to have trade unions which are controlled by social-democrats and yet it is not only possible but essentially desirable that the communists must work among the masses of workers in these trade unions, despite their social-democratic leadership, they also must support all workers’ struggles if and when they are waged by such trade unions. Therefore, if some organization which considers CPI, CPM as social-fascists, gives congratulations to some trade union controlled by social-democrats on any particular struggle, there is no contradiction or paradox in this. Of course, the “success” of the recent “general one-day strike” is something which can evoke burst of ironic laughter among any group or organization of communist revolutionaries. However, the contradiction that Com. Thakur is alluding to is non-existent. He fails to make a distinction between the masses of workers in trade unions controlled by the social-democrats on the one hand and the social-democratic party and leadership on the other. This failure to confuse class with party leads to several problems in the arguments of Com. Thakur as we shall see later.

For now, we would like to return to the question of our line of anti-fascist united front.

We adhere to the Leninist line of general united front of the working class against fascism among revolutionary communist organizations and groups involved in organizing masses of workers in all types of unions and mass organizations and the particular united front from above with all the non-fascist bourgeois parties on particular issues. In fact, in Arvind Trust’s seminar on fascism in Hyderabad in December 2024-January 2025, in response to a question by a comrade by CPI (ML) Mass Line, we had pointed out that if, for example, the Congress and the parliamentary left parties give a call for a nationwide agitation against use of EVMs, which is an important issue of political democracy, we should participate in any such agitation while maintaining our political proletarian independence. The same is true for tactical alliance on another question of political democracy, namely, the question of vote-theft by the BJP-RSS and stealing away of elections. I am not sure why and how Com. Thakur assumes that we are against forming particular alliances against fascism with social-democrats and goes on to give examples of countries where social-democratic governments had been in power like Denmark, Sweden, etc. and yet the revolutionary communists were advised to form united front with them by the Comintern (ibid, p. 6-7). Our question is not about forming particular issue-based united fronts with the social-democrats against fascism, but on forming a general anti-fascist united front, that is, the ‘popular front’ with the social-democrats in order to “unite with the mass of the workers”. We have argued that this is conflating class with the party which assumes that the masses of workers and working people can be won over only through united front with their parties from above. This is surrendering the political independence of the proletariat, which is opposed to the independent political action by the proletarian forces of forming what Lenin called the ‘united front from below’, the ‘rank-and-file united front’, which means organizing the masses of workers in all types of trade unions without necessary recourse to alliance with the parties controlling these trade unions, from above.

The question is not about forming united front with the social-democrats. Instead, the question is what kind of united front will be formed with them. Whether it will be a general anti-fascist united front based on the conviction that the long-term general political struggle against fascism will be carried out by such united front till the final defeat of fascism and restoration of some ideal model of bourgeois democracy (a belief itself based on the necessary false binary of ‘bourgeois democracy/fascist dictatorship’), or, a particular anti-fascist united front based on the conviction that in order to win over the masses of workers and working people to the side of communists against fascism, in order to inflict damages on the fascist project on the particular questions, in order to expose the real character of social-democracy and other non-fascist bourgeois parties, such united fronts must be formed. On this question, we are totally with Lenin’s line of united front of the working class, which includes particular united fronts from above with social-democratic parties and non-fascist bourgeois parties subordinated to the general united front against fascism consisting of communist revolutionary groups and organizations which strives for ‘united front from below’ or ‘rank-and-file united front’, which has a general charter against fascism rather than issue-based particular charters. This is the point that Com. Thakur has not understood regarding our position. We will see later that Lenin proposed precisely this line and after November 1938, the Comintern and its leadership, too, reverted to this line and abandoned the line of the ‘popular front’.

The mistake of ‘popular frontism’ promoted by Dimitrov theses was blurring the distinction between the parties and the classes and assuming that the unity of the masses of workers and working people can be formed only through the alliances between the communist party on the one hand and all the non-fascist bourgeois parties (including social-democrats) on the other. Dimitrov assumes that to approach the masses of workers and working people, they must be approached from the top, through their parties. This was precisely the mistake which confuses parties with classes. We have quoted copiously from the documents of the Comintern to underline this fact. However, ironically, Com. Thakur has missed all of that. After presenting various quotations from the documents of the Comintern, we write in the book about the Leninist policy of united front of the working class:

“The most remarkable trait of this policy was that it clearly makes distinction between the classes and the parties. The ‘popular frontism’ makes precisely the mistake of conflating the two in effect, thus giving decisive primacy to approaching the masses of workers through their parties only. Therefore, approaching the workers in the social-democratic organizations was possible only ‘from above’, through the leadership.” (ibid, p. 384)

In fact, in April 1922 itself there were attempts to form united front from above with the parties of the Second International and the Amsterdam International, by the revolutionary communist parties of the Comintern, besides the attempts to form united front from below by organizing workers from all trade unions against rising tide of fascism. However, the Second International and Amsterdam International showed little interest in these efforts.

Discussing the right-wing deviation and “left”-wing deviation in the implementation of the Leninist policy of united front of the working class, we write:

“Between the period of the Fourth Congress (1922-23) and the Fifth Congress (1924), there was a period of right deviation in practice, while theoretically the line of united front of the working class was in place. However, the correct implementation of this Leninist line was mostly absent from the practice of most of the European parties. As a consequence, ‘stabilization=defensive’ formula led to a variety of right-deviationist mistakes. It goes without saying that at the same time there were strong “left”-infantilist tendencies as well.

“Before the Fifth Congress and after the Fourth Congress, due to the intransigent attitude of the social-democrats and their open treachery against the communists in Germany and elsewhere, we see increasing emphasis on the united front from below, as the united front from above (that is, particular alliances with the social-democrats) was not working, the principal responsibility of which lay with the social-democrats, especially in Germany. However, we clearly see a state of confusion.” (ibid, p. 398-99)

Further:

“At the Fifth Congress, the reaction to the right-deviation of the preceding period, was expressed as the beginning of the dominance of a “left”-deviation, even though both were coexisting in the Comintern at that time.” (ibid, p. 402)

More:

“In 1926, too, the elements of confusion are apparent due to the vacillations between “left” and right, though increasing influence of the “left” deviation at least in the theorization of the Comintern are becoming increasingly apparent. However, in practice, the right and “left” deviations continued to co-exist in the political practice of the KPD. In fact, repeated reminders about the tendency of right opportunism in Comintern documents of the period between 1924 and 1926-27 bear witness to the “left”-right deviations evident in the political practice of the KPD.” (ibid, p. 405)

Commenting about the extreme-“left” tendency becoming dominant in the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, we have written:

“In the Sixth Congress a decisive ultra-left turn takes place. What does this ultra-left turn consist in? The Sixth Congress and the period following it did not witness the rejection of the line of united front. Then what was the mistake?

“The mistake consists in this: identification of social-democracy as the principal enemy, whose decimation was seen as a precondition for enabling the proletariat to fight against fascism; the increasing right-turn of the social-democracy led the Comintern and its leaders to think that social-democracy, objectively speaking, was the “other side” of fascism, “moderate wing” of fascism, the other reactionary force of the bourgeoisie which was becoming increasingly “fascistic”, one of the two cards that the reactionary bourgeoisie can play, etc. This obliterated the peculiarity of, not only fascism, but also of social-democracy.

“Also, it totally failed to see the difference between an exceptional form of the bourgeois state and the regular form of the bourgeois state, that is, democratic, representative multi-party parliamentary system…

“The third mistake was that, in practice, the communist parties did not even implement the policy of ‘united front from below’. They often stuck to elections to measure their mass influence. This led the KPD to over-optimistic estimation of their political influence from 1928 to 1932, whereas the party cadre force from the working class was decreasing, the working class was being demobilized completely and becoming politically dormant. This was precisely due to the more militant economism of the KPD and the absence of a massline, and the lack of political work among the working masses.” (ibid, p. 407-08)

Summing up the extreme “left” mistake from the Sixth Congress onwards till 1933-34 when, as a pathological reaction, the right deviation became dominant, we write:

“As we can see, the mistake was not abandoning the line of forming rank-and-file united front, but was identifying social-democracy as the main enemy and consequently refusal to form particular united front from above with the social-democrats, though even the line of the united front from below was seldom being implemented by most of the parties. Thus, effectively, no particular united front from above due to identification of the social-democracy as the principal enemy, and also, no general united front from below by identifying the mass of social-democratic workers as one homogeneous reactionary mass and confining all political activity to electoral work.

“This entire period from 1929 to 1932 led to disastrous results due to the failure to implement the Leninist line of the ‘united front of the working class’ which included general united front from below and particular united front from above, with the latter subordinated to the former. It led to the political isolation of the KPD, despite its improving electoral fortunes till the last election of 1933.

“In 1933, the Second International offered to form a united front with the communists, especially, in Germany. The Communist International, too, agreed with suspicions and reservations. However, by then it was too late.” (ibid, p. 412-13)

Thus, Com. Thakur has completely misunderstood the Leninist policy of united front of the working class (that is, general united front from below + particular united front from above) and imputed the incorrect understanding, that is, an ultra-“left” version of the united front policy of the Sixth Congress, upon us, whereas our basic plea is to revive the Leninist policy of united front of the working class as formulated in 1921 and re-emphasized in 1922 despite right and “left” deviations in many parties.

That is why we have quoted our position at length above. To sum up, our position of united front of the working class does not reject issue-based particular united front against fascism with social-democracy. It argues that the principal aim should be united front from below, that is, the efforts of the revolutionary communists to organize workers in all trade unions (including the social-democratic ones) against fascism and the secondary aim should be forming party-to-party alliances with all non-fascist bourgeois parties (including the social-democratic parties) based on particular issues. Com. Thakur assumes that we reject particular issue-based alliances against fascism with the social-democratic parties, whereas in the Hyderabad Seminar on Fascism (in December 2024-January 2025) we had explained this position to comrades from CPI (ML) Mass Line in the public discussions in clearest terms. Had Com. Thakur read our entire position in A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders and our key paper, he would not have made such claims.

Secondly, Com. Thakur fails to understand our position on the general united front against fascism. General front means the front against fascism which is formed, not on particular issues, but as the general unity of revolutionary communist groups, organizations and parties against fascism based on a general, long-term, political common minimum program. In every situation, such general front is maintained, irrespective of the pertinent issues of the time.

What Does “Dead Organisms” Mean?

Com. Thakur asks that if we think that the ML camp has disintegrated because its constituents have become “dead organisms”, then how can such a general front be formed? Here he does not understand what we mean by the disintegration of the ML Camp and its constituents becoming dead organisms (in the second article ‘More on Fascism’ he claims that we have called them “dead organizations”, which is not true at all). Let us explain what it means before moving on the next issue.

Com. Thakur writes:

“So, according to this standpoint, in India, at present “general anti-fascist front” will take the form of united front of the “political forums, groups, organizations or parties, that are communist revolutionary”. So, it will be united front of “advance detachment of the working class”! Surprisingly, they are also of the firm opinion that the Marxist-Leninist “groups and organizations have become dead organizations.” (Thakur, P. S. 2025. ‘More on Fascism’, Mass Line, June-July 2025, p. 7)

Com. Thakur goes on to quote from Sixth Congress document to say that Comintern never proposed the line of united front among revolutionary communist groups and organizations and always advised to win majority in all proletarian mass organizations.

Again, as we can see, Com. Thakur confuses parties with classes. To say that the general united front against fascism can only be formed by revolutionary communist organizations and groups today is to underline the composition of the parties of such front. Does that mean that this united front will not win over the masses of workers in all types of trade unions? How? Why? Have we said that or written that? No. Com. Thakur fails to make a distinction between two different levels of determination: class and party. The parties which should be part of the general anti-fascist united front of the working class must be revolutionary communist parties, organizations and groups because the social-democratic parties and leadership systematically prevent any anti-fascist united front from transcending the boundaries of bourgeois legality, which is a necessary precondition of effective fight against fascism, as the experience of all anti-fascist joint struggles clearly show. This does not (and cannot!) mean in any way that such a general united front against fascism will not organize the mass of workers and working people in all sorts of mass organizations including the ones led by the social-democrats. In fact, ‘united front from below’ which is the basic prerequisite of formation of a general anti-fascist united front of the working class precisely means that the masses and rank-and-file of workers must be organized against fascism by such united front of the working class.

Why did Com. Thakur fail to understand this? Because he assumes that the masses of workers and working people in the mass organizations and trade unions led by the social-democrats can be mobilized and organized only if there is a general party-to-party united front from above with the social-democratic parties. This is precisely what is called confusing the parties with the classes. Have we ever argued that general anti-fascist united front of the working class among the revolutionary communist groups and organizations precludes and excludes the mobilization and organization of mass of workers in all types of trade unions? No. Let us see. We write:

“The refusal to form even particular anti-fascist alliance (which is different from forming general anti-fascist front), too, was a mistake committed because the policy of ‘united front from below’ was not implemented as this policy did include issue-based particular anti-fascist alliances with the social-democrats. This mistake stemmed from mistaking social-democracy as the principal enemy. However, the principal mistake was non-implementation of the line of ‘united front from below’ to win over the masses of workers in all kinds of organizations, including the social-democratic mass organizations.” (Sinha, A. 2025. A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow, p. 344-45)

At another place we write:

“The mistake was not the policy of united front of the working class, as Sukhwinder thinks; in fact, the policy stemmed directly from the Leninist directive to implement the massline: ‘to the masses’. This policy was dialectical as it had four basic elements: one, the maintenance of proletarian independence to carry out propaganda campaigns exposing the role of social-democracy; two, formation of issue-based particular alliances with the social-democracy; three, most importantly, making a distinction between the social-democratic party and its mass organizations, in other words, the social-democratic leadership and the masses in the social-democratic organizations; and therefore, the principal emphasis was to be on the winning over of the masses of the working class in all kinds of mass organizations and mobilizing them into anti-fascist united fronts from below; and four, the independent political work of the communists among the masses of petty-bourgeoisie, including the peasant masses. This policy in its Leninist theoretical form was perfectly correct and capable of resisting the fascist onslaught…” (ibid, p. 345-46)

Further:

“Moreover, Sukhwinder has failed to grasp the crux of error in KPD’s failure to form an anti-fascist united front. It was not the failure/refusal of the KPD to capitulate to the SPD and sit in its lap by forming mere leadership-to-leadership party alliances, as Sukhwinder would have liked, by repeatedly calling for forming a united front despite the refusal of the SPD to do so; on the contrary, there was no question of forming a general anti-fascist front under the Leninist line of ‘united front from below’; at the time, formation of particular anti-fascist front (that is, issue-based alliances) was recommended by the Leninist line of ‘united front from below’. The principal mistake was the failure of the KPD to approach and win-over the masses of the workers, especially in the social-democratic trade unions and other mass organizations and rejected this entire mass as being, in the words of Thälmann, lost to the cause of communism; and secondary mistake was the refusal to form particular anti-fascist alliance with the social-democrats and other forces which were anti-fascist.” (ibid, p. 348)

We can reproduce many such excerpts from our book. However, the above excerpts suffice to show that Com. Thakur has not read the book from cover to cover and due to this imputes on us the very position that we categorically and firmly reject. Another reason why he fails to understand our position, again, is that he confuses classes with parties. Thus, for him, a general united front against fascism among revolutionary communist groups and organizations would mean that such united front will not mobilize and organize the masses of workers and working people in all kinds of mass organizations, an understanding which has nothing remotely identical to our position and Lenin’s position of ‘united front of the working class’, or ‘united front from below’ (which is organizing masses of workers in all unions without necessary recourse to united front with the parties controlling these unions). Let us come back to the question of “disintegration of the ML Camp” and “dead organizations”!

First of all, we have never ever called the ML groups and organizations, the constituents of the so-called ML Camp, as “dead organizations”! Com. Thakur is misquoting us here, of course, unintentionally and unknowingly. We have said that the ML Camp has, essentially and mainly, disintegrated because its constituents have become “dead organisms”. What do we mean by these terms?

The disintegration of the ML Camp simply means that now the all-India revolutionary communist party will not emerge from the unity talks between the ML groups and organizations. That is to say, the aspect of party formation in the emergence of a new revolutionary communist party has become secondary (not absent, otherwise we would not be having this dialog with the comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line!). Had that been possible, it would have happened in the last 56 years that have lapsed after the formation of CPI (ML) in 1969. In these five-and-a-half decades, we have witnessed, mainly and essentially, the process of fragmentation and dispersal, rather than unity and integration, despite the fact that most of these organization still cling to the same outdated and outmoded program of new democratic revolution and consider India either semi-feudal semi-colonial or neo-colonial. The differences among them are not essential and substantial in nature as far as political line and program are concerned. Still, instead of uniting they are disintegrating further as a general trend. There have been some unities in the past, but they have ended with even more disintegrating splits, generally. Why? Because the constituents of the ML camp have mostly become “dead organisms” which cannot give birth to a new organism, that is, a new all-India revolutionary communist party. Some comrades have been waiting for such an event for past five-and-a-half decades, but, tragically, their wait has become like Estragon and Vladimir waiting for the Godot.

Now let us come to the question what we mean by “dead organism”. Following Lenin and Mao, we argue that the lifelines of a revolutionary organization are the composition of the leadership, the composition of policies, and the composition of the cadre. What is the situation of most of the ML groups and organizations on these yardsticks? The composition of the leadership has been vacillating between the extremes of right and “left” opportunism (which does not mean that they have become “corrupt” in the individual sense; these terms are political terms which allude to particular political and ideological tendencies); the composition of policies based on the program of New Democratic Revolution is outdated and outmoded; and the composition of the cadre is honest but lacks any Bolshevik organizational culture and training and is a victim of either openism or undergroundism, that is, lack of revolutionary massline and the Leninist organizational line. Since these three essential lifelines of revolutionary communist organization are absent, most of the organizations and groups of the ML Camp have turned into “dead organisms”, which cannot lead to the formation of an all-India revolutionary communist party.

Does that mean that these organizations have become corrupt in the individual sense? No. If we believed that, again, as we mentioned earlier, we would not be having this dialog. It simply means that now the question of form and formation have become secondary and the question of content and building have become principal, that is to say, now building a new communist centre with a correct ideological line, a correct political line, a correct organizational line and a correct program has become the dominant factor. In other words, the aspect of party formation has become secondary and the aspect of party building has become principal. This is what is meant by the disintegration of the ML Camp (supposedly approaching the formation of an all-India revolutionary communist party through unity talks) and “dead organisms”, due to the absence of a correct ideological, political and organizational line and a correct program. It does not mean that the leaders and members of such ML groups and organizations have become corrupt or renegade in the individual or personal sense. We urge the comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line to ponder over this question in the spirit of communist reason, rather than taking it sentimentally and getting hurt.

Secondly, even though, due to programmatic dogmatism, right and “left” opportunism, and lack of Bolshevik line, these organizations and parties cannot lead to the formation of a new revolutionary communist party, yet these organizations can indeed form an anti-fascist united front. Again, Com. Thakur fails to make a distinction between two different levels of determination: the problem of building and formation of a new all-India revolutionary communist party on the one hand and the formation of an anti-fascist united front on the other. Formation and building of a party and that of an anti-fascist united front are two different questions and cannot be confused with each other. They have their own different sets of contradictions, factors and forces. Com. Thakur mixes them up and, consequentially, erroneously wonders at our call for formation of a general anti-fascist united front among the revolutionary ML organizations and groups and ironically asks: how can “dead organisms” (which he mistakes for “dead organizations” in the second article ‘More on Fascism’) form a general anti-fascist united front! Well, they certainly can! Forming a united front and building and forming a new communist party are not the same thing.

Mao, Anti-Fascist People’s Front and the Anti-Imperialist National United Front

Com. Thakur argues that our claim that Mao did not adhere to the line of the ‘popular front’ is false. He presents this quote of Mao:

“With Chamberlain and Daladier practicing intimidation and bribery, the social-democratic parties affiliated to the Second International are splitting up. One section of the reactionary upper stratum, is following the same old disastrous road as in the First World War and is ready to support the new imperialist war. But another section will join the communist in forming ‘popular front’ against war and fascism.” (quoted by Com. Thakur in ‘On Popular Front’, Mass Line, February-March, 2025, p. 12)

We will come to the meaning and implications of the above quote in a while but first we would like to point to another paradox. Com. Thakur is silent on the quote of Mao from a much later period that we have presented in our book:

“Thus, On New Democracy was a complete program. It discussed politics, economics, and culture as well; it failed to discuss only military affairs. (Kang Sheng: On New Democracy is of great significance for the world communist movement. I asked Spanish comrades, and they said the problem for them was to establish bourgeois democracy, not to establish New Democracy. In their country, they did not concern themselves with the three points: army, countryside, political power. They wholly subordinated themselves to the exigencies of Soviet foreign policy, and achieved nothing at all.) These are the policies of Chen Tu-hsiu! (Kang Sheng: They say the Communist Party organized an army, and then turned it over to others.) This is useless. (Kang Sheng: They also did not want political power, nor did they mobilize the peasantry. At that time, the Soviet Union said to them that if they imposed proletarian dictatorship, England and France might oppose it, and this would not be in the interests of the Soviet Union.)” (Mao Tse-Tung. 1994. ‘Talk on Questions of Philosophy’ (August 18, 1964), Selected Works, Vol. 9, Shramikavarga Prachuranalu, Hyderabad, p. 130-31)

Precisely in this regard, Mao continues:

“Even before the dissolution of the Third International, we did not obey the orders of the Third International.” (ibid, p. 131)

The above quote is from the 1960s about which Com. Thakur is silent.

Now coming to the quote presented by Com. Thakur. We think Com. Thakur has confused anti-fascist front within countries with fascism in power or rising tide of fascism, with the international front against fascism. The entire quote will explain things in a better light:

“In Europe, a large-scale imperialist war is imminent between the German-Italian and the Anglo-French imperialist blocs which are contending for domination over the colonial peoples. In this war, each of the belligerents will brazenly declare its own cause to be just and that of its opponents unjust in order to delude people and win the support of public opinion. Actually this is a swindle. The aims of both sides are imperialist, both are fighting for the domination of colonies and semi-colonies and for spheres of influence, and both are waging a predatory war. At present, they are fighting over Poland, the Balkans and the Mediterranean littoral. This war is not at all a just war. The only just wars are non-predatory wars, wars of liberation. Communists will in no circumstances support any predatory war. They will, however, bravely step forward to support every just and non-predatory war for liberation, and they will stand in the forefront of the struggle. With Chamberlain and Daladier practising intimidation and bribery, the social-democratic parties affiliated to the Second International are splitting up. One section, the reactionary upper stratum, is following the same old disastrous road as in the First World War and is ready to support the new imperialist war. But another section will join with the Communists in forming a ‘popular front’ against war and fascism. Chamberlain and Daladier are following in the footsteps of Germany and Italy and are becoming more and more reactionary, taking advantage of the war mobilization to put the state structure in their countries on a fascist footing and to militarize the economy. In short, the two big imperialist blocs are feverishly preparing for war and millions of people are facing the danger of mass slaughter. Surely all this will arouse movements of resistance among the masses. Whether in Germany or in Italy, Britain or France, or anywhere else in Europe or the world at large, if the people do not want to be used as imperialist cannon-fodder, they will have to rise up and oppose the imperialist war in every possible way.” (Mao Tse-Tung. 1965. ‘Interview with a New China Daily Correspondent on the New International Situation’ (September 1, 1939), Selected Works, Vol. 2, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, p. 265, emphasis ours)

As the quote itself explains, Mao is talking about the international united front against fascism and the role different social-democratic parties of the Second International might play in the imperialist war being promoted by the fascist axis powers, and not the united front against fascism within countries with fascism in power or the rising tide of fascism, for example Germany, Italy or Spain, France, etc. That is why Mao refers to the mistake of the social-democratic parties during the First World War. What was that mistake? Voting the war credits and making the working people tail-end their own bourgeois ruling classes in the imperialist war. In essence and in the main, Mao is not talking about the ‘popular front’ against fascism within countries, but the international front against imperialist fascist axis powers. The ‘popular front’ at the international level (including the non-fascist bourgeois powers and the communist forces under the Soviet Union) will of course include all powers against the fascist aggressors. Moreover, the national ‘popular front’ of the four classes, namely, proletariat, peasantry, middle class and national bourgeoisie, too, is the only correct method of anti-feudal anti-imperialist struggle. However, to confuse the international ‘popular front’ against fascism and the national anti-colonial anti-feudal ‘popular front’ on the one hand, with the anti-fascist ‘popular front’ within various countries with fascism in power or the rising fascist threat would tantamount to muddled thinking and incorrect political conclusions. Com. Thakur commits precisely this mistake.

The generic use of the term ‘popular front’ or ‘people’s front’ does not lead us anywhere. We need to specify what we are talking about in particular: the anti-fascist united front in countries with fascism in power or the rising tide of fascism, or, the international anti-fascist front, or, the anti-imperialist anti-feudal popular front. The three are different levels of determination involving different contradictions, different forces, different relations and different sets of enemies and friends. Com. Thakur does not make this distinction and uses the term ‘popular front’ generically to prove that the CPC and Mao adhered to the Dimitrov theses. However, in ‘Talk on Philosophy’, Kang Sheng, with express approval of Mao, correctly criticizes the right-deviationist error of popular-frontism as formulated by Dimitrov in the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in light of the real experiences of Spain. The same is done by Chou En-Lai when he critiques Comintern’s policy while writing about the history of the relations between the CPC and the Third International. We have quoted both of these excerpts in the essay.

Regarding the Right-Deviationist ‘Popular Frontism’ and Its Disastrous Failure

We pointed out in our above-mentioned book that the policy of the ‘popular front’ actually originated in France under the leadership of a certain section of the PCF, led by Doriot. The account of how Doriot presented the policy of ‘popular front’, how initially Thorez and others opposed him and how later Thorez was convinced by Dimitrov on the policy of ‘popular front’ is given under the section ‘The Origins of the Policy of Popular Front’ in the 14^th Chapter of the book. We would urge the comrades of CPI (ML) Mass Line to refer to this section. In this section, we also explain how the policy of Doriot, a right-winger of the PCF, later accepted by Dimitrov and Manuilsky, was actually a pathological reaction to the extreme “left” mistake of the Sixth Congress.

Com. Thakur has argued that history has proven that the policy of the ‘popular front’ was correct and it was precisely due this policy that German, Italian and French fascism were defeated, the national liberation movements were intensified, British and French imperialism weakened and Soviet Union emerged victorious! Com. Thakur writes:

“Marxist philosophy teaches us that “…man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of external world.” Same is applicable for the Seventh Congress of Communist International and its most important part – Dimitrov inaugural speech, reply and closing speech. Fight against fascism and imperialist war by the world communists under the guidance of Dimitrov Thesis and results of those social practices brought the defeat of German-Italy-France fascist forces, weakening of the British and French imperialism, speedy advancement of the national liberation struggles in colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries and above all victorious emergence of socialist Soviet Union. It proved emphatically the truth and correctness of Dimitrov Thesis.” (Thakur, Pradip Singha. 2025. ‘On Popular Front’, Mass Line, February-March, 2025)

In his second article, too, Com. Thakur writes:

“Worldwide development – Crushing defeat of German, Japan and Italian fascist forces, weakening to a great extent of British and French imperialism and awakening of the Nations and People of Asia, Africa and Latin America in their national liberation struggle proved beyond doubt that “new tactical orientation for the Communist International”, as said by Dimitrov in his closing speech, was correct.” (Thakur, P. S. 2025. ‘More on Fascism’ Mass Line, June-July 2025)

Regrettably, each and every claim made above is emphatically refuted by history. The defeat of German Nazism and Italian Fascism was not the result of the popular front. In these countries, the left in general was not even in a condition to form any meaningful ‘popular front’ or even any united front. In Spain and France, the ‘popular front’ was decisively defeated or collapsed by the autumn of 1938. German Nazism was defeated in particular by the Soviet Red Army, which single-handedly routed the Nazis, when the British, French and US imperialism were following the policy of ‘wait and watch’. It is noteworthy that the western front was opened at Normandy, France, only in June 1944, when the defeat of Nazi army was already almost complete. Italian fascism’s fall was part and parcel of the defeat of Germany, as every serious student of history knows, as Italy had become a lackey of Germany in the course of the war itself. Had the popular fronts in France, Spain, Germany and Italy been successful in defeating fascism, as Com. Thakur wants us to believe, there would have been no need whatsoever for the military defeat of Nazi Germany at the hands of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of its lackeys like Italy.

British and French imperialism certainly were not weakened by the popular front! That would be a preposterous claim given the fact that these countries were, at least formally, part of the international ‘popular front’ of the allied powers against Germany, Italy and Japan. Finally, the national liberation movements, too, intensified because the two most important colonial powers, namely, Britain and France emerged decimated from the war, whereas the US emerged as the new leader of world imperialism, promoting a new mode of colonial domination, namely, neo-colonialism, and also giving impetus to further decline of the old European colonial powers. The anti-imperialist anti-feudal people’s fronts formed in certain countries, especially, China, had nothing to do with the anti-fascist popular front. In fact, the anti-imperialist national united fronts had been formed in China much before Dimitrov presented his theses at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern. This claim is made by Com. Thakur because he fails to make a distinction between the anti-fascist ‘popular front’ as proposed by Dimitrov, and the anti-imperialist anti-feudal united front, and also between the anti-fascist ‘popular front’ within countries with fascism in power or rising fascism, and the international anti-fascist united front. Due to generic use and understanding of the term ‘popular front’ or ‘people’s front’, Com. Thakur mixes up these different levels of analysis and determination. The truth is that the ‘popular front’, wherever formed, collapsed from its internal contradictions, owing to the treachery and betrayal of the social-democrats and socialists. Com. Thakur has given the credit for every positive development since the late-1930s and especially after the end of the war to the ‘popular front’ policy miraculously and in total disregard of historical facts. On the contrary, the social practice actually demonstrated the failure of the popular front.

However, it is true that social practice is the final arbiter of truth. That is why the Comintern leadership including Dimitrov and Manuilsky shifted away from the policy of the ‘popular front’ from November 1938 and completely gave it up by 1939, as we shall see in the next section. They even called for a reversion to the policy of the Leninist united front of the working class (which does not exclude the particular issue-based alliance with social-democrats). They started talking about the social-democracy in the same damning words which were used before the Seventh Congress and even before the Sixth Congress. We have explained this shift in detail in our book. However, Com. Thakur does not discuss these evidence anywhere in his criticism. Therefore, we find ourselves obliged to repeat that explanation with evidence.

Comintern Gives Up the Policy of ‘Popular Front’

Com. Thakur has accepted in the second article (‘More on Fascism’) that Dimitrov did indeed accept that the policy of the ‘popular front’ is not appropriate anymore in capitalist countries due to “changed situation”. This is only reproducing Dimitrov’s argument which he had presented as a pretext for abandonment of the policy of the ‘popular front’ from November 1938, a way to avoid an open and above-board self-criticism and to rescue the policy of the ‘popular front’ from embarrassment, as it was launched with much fanfare in 1935 openly, even though its implementation had started in France in 1933-34 itself.

What was this “changed situation”? According to Dimitrov, it was the war which started in September 1939. However, the popular fronts, especially its most publicized representative versions, the French and the Spanish popular fronts had collapsed in the autumn of 1938 itself! Thus, of course, Dimitrov was changing the line post festum by citing war as a reason for something which had happened much before the beginning of the war. Then, he presents the treacherous behaviour of the social-democrats with a bit of a surprise and is aghast at the fact that the social-democratic and petty-bourgeois radical elements within the French and Spanish popular fronts are repressing or obstructing the revolutionary communists, even arresting and killing them, whereas, at the same time, giving free hand to the fascists! Was this behaviour really surprising? Didn’t they behave precisely like this from the time of the assassinations of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht itself who were murdered by quasi-fascist gangs of Frei Corps at the behest of the social-democrats themselves? Didn’t they suppress, arrest and kill revolutionary communists during their participation in German governments throughout the 1920s? What was really surprising? In reality, they behaved precisely in the way in which one can expect them to behave. The revolutionary communists can certainly form particular united fronts with the social-democrats against fascists based on common issues, but they must retain their political independence in such alliances and must not rely on social-democrats for general anti-fascist united front. That is what the history teaches us, contrary to what Com. Thakur thinks. Let us delve into this history with the documents of the Comintern, for the sake of clarity.

From the very beginning the problems of ‘popular front’ were clearly apparent for the communists in France and Spain. Jane Degras, the editor of the documents of Comintern, points out:

“The ambiguities of the ‘popular front’ policy were apparent almost from the outset. In a long article in the Comintern journal at the end of 1936 Thorez explained that the CPF had had to tell the workers the proper time to end strikes ‘because the party realized that a more rapid advance on the part of the working class risked its estrangement from the middle classes who were disturbed and made uneasy by the strikes’. He also explained that the slogan of ‘French front’, issued by the CP in an attempt to appeal to those who would not join a popular front, had caused a strong reaction in the SFIO; therefore, ‘in order to avoid polemics . . . we can refrain from using the term “French front”‘.” (Degras, J. The Communist International 1919-43, Vol. 3, 1929-43, p. 401-02, emphasis ours)

Regarding the above extract, we wrote in our book:

“This was probably the first admission of the fact that the ‘popular front’ policy was leading to class-collaborationism and class capitulationism, even though this comment pertained mainly to the concrete considerations regarding the economic struggles of the working class against the bourgeoisie in general, where the unity of the bourgeois elements within the ‘popular front’ lay with the interests of the bourgeoisie in general, which objectively included the fascists, too.

“Degras further points out that towards the end of 1938, Dimitrov himself was admitting the betrayal of the social-democracy, which in itself, was an admission of the failure of the policy of the ‘popular front’, though in a veiled fashion.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 441)

Degras comments on the slow shift which starts with the collapse of popular fronts in France and Spain in the autumn of 1938:

“In the last issue of the journal for 1938, however, Dimitrov wrote: ‘A few months before Munich, and also directly preceding the Munich plot, the representatives of the CI approached the chairman of the Second International with the proposal to establish permanent contact between the leadership of the international organizations of the working class and urgently to take joint action to ward off the fascist blow aimed at Czechoslovakia.’ All their proposals, he said, were turned down.

“Comment on social-democracy reverted to the style in use before the popular front. An article in the same periodical at the end of the year said the international united front could not come into being ‘unless the predominant influence of social-democratism is eliminated’, and another article in the same issue ended with a quotation from Stalin; ‘It is impossible to put an end to capitalism without having first put an end to social-democratism in the working-class movement.’ The editorial article said: ‘The reactionary cliques of the English and French upper classes knew very well how easy it would have been to force Hitler to draw back. But they knew also that a political defeat of Hitler would shake the very foundations of fascism and call into being a mighty upsurge of the anti-fascist freedom movement… The protection of their class interests was more important to them than the protection of the vital interests of their own nations and of humanity as a whole… It is becoming clearer and clearer that Munich was the result of a secret, previously agreed, and scandalous plot.’

“The breakdown of the ‘popular front’ policy was shown also in the attack on pacifism. ‘It is absurd and at the same time distressing that the fear of war felt by the nations goes to increase the war danger, that pacifism is pouring oil on the flames kindled by the warmongers… While fascism fosters the ideology of a war of conquest, the accomplices of fascism in the democratic countries attempt to set up cowardice as a philosophy… The French Trotskyists … have coined the term “Better a slave than dead”… This contemptible principle is being put forward by the agents of the Gestapo with the object of emasculating the working class… It is contrary to the innermost essence of the working class… Freedom is more precious than peace.’ The ‘total pacifists’ believed in friendly relations with gangsters; peace, they thought, could be saved by weakness, arguing that ‘nothing could be more dangerous than to bar the way to fascism with an overwhelming superiority of military forces’. The intention behind the pacifist proposals was to weaken the democratic States so far that they would no longer be able to offer resistance to aggression, but would have to ‘submit to German fascism without a struggle and without conditions’. The article ended with a quotation from Lenin: ‘Pacifism and abstract peace propaganda are ways of misleading the working class.’” (Degras. op.cit., p. 427-28)

Citing Manuilsky’s criticism of ‘popular front’ from the mid-1939, who was one of the architects of the policy of the ‘popular front’ along with Dimitrov, Degras writes:

“At the eighteenth CPSU congress in March 1939 Manuilsky, reporting as chief Soviet representative on the ECCI, criticized the application of ‘popular front’ tactics. These had given rise to opportunist tendencies, ‘a tendency to idealize the role of the so-called democratic States, and to gloss over their imperialist character… The communists of the capitalist countries are not sufficiently prepared for the abrupt turns in events, and have not yet mastered the forms of struggle dictated by the tense international situation.’ The Spanish Republic might have been saved if the LSI had accepted the Cl’s proposals for unity of action (the last Comintern representatives left Spain in March 1939), and this would also have averted the occupation of Austria and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia; it would have made Munich impossible, defeated the Italians in Abyssinia and the Japanese in China. ‘But the capitulators of the Second International did not want this to happen because they feared the victory of the people’s front more than they feared the victory of fascism.’ War could still be avoided by isolating these capitulators and destroying their influence-‘they are the agents of fascism in the labour movement’- and if the democracies, so much stronger than the aggressors, exerted economic pressure.” (ibid, p. 434)

Thus, Manuilsky calls the social-democrats as ‘the agents of fascism’ in the working-class movement and capitulators. If that was the character of the social-democrats, then, the whole policy of the ‘popular front’, its entire foundation, was accepted as incorrect by Manuilsky. This statement of Manuilsky is an admission of that fact and also the admission of the failure of the Seventh Congress’s policy on the anti-fascist united front and Dimitrov’s theses. The documents of Comintern from the end of 1938 again and again accept this failure. For instance:

“In France, where a number of communist deputies had been arrested and their party declared illegal, the arguments ran on similar lines, after the return of Guyot from Moscow on 20 September. ‘It was in order to prepare war that the leaders of the radical and socialist parties, obeying the orders of reaction, broke up the popular front, destroyed unity of action, and provoked a new split in the CGT (General Confederation of Labour in France, a trade union federation – author).’ Reaction, with Blum’s help, had strangled the Spanish Republic, surrendered to Hitler, and obstructed the peace front proposed by the USSR. ‘The present war is being conducted on both sides for imperialist aims that are wholly alien to the interests of the workers.’ After the Soviet-German treaty the CPF had made serious mistakes; it did not protest against the war but voted the war credits; this had made for confusion and weakened the mass struggle against war, against the treason of the socialists and the renegades from the CPF. ‘” (ibid, p. 442-43)

It is noteworthy that the author is not simply talking about the international front against fascism, but the break-down of popular fronts in France and Spain due to the treachery of the social-democrats, much before the Second World War began.

Now, let us see some of the other documents of the Comintern and what did they say about ‘popular frontism’ and the role of social-democracy especially since the practical failure of the policy of the ‘popular front’ in Spain and France.

From November 1938, Dimitrov himself refers to “change in the situation” and argues that even though in the colonial countries the policy of ‘people’s front’ are still applicable, in the rest of the capitalist countries, it is “no longer applicable”! It will become clear by the quotations that we shall present in a little while, this was only a way to avoid a clear and open self-criticism on the policy of the ‘popular front’. Com. Thakur thinks that the ‘volte-face’ of Dimitrov was due to “changed situation”! However, we shall see that the volte-face had occurred even before the situation had changed, the popular fronts had collapsed even before the beginning of the war.

In fact, in the colonial world, it is quite natural to form alliance with the anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie and in this regard, the ‘anti-fascist popular front’ has no relevance; much before the stipulation of the line of the ‘popular front’, it was a well-accepted general line in anti-imperialist anti-feudal struggle. Dimitrov was attempting to retain some ‘partial applicability’ of the policy of the ‘popular front’ by referring to the political situation in the colonial world. Com. Thakur, too, uncritically follows this apologetic logic of Dimitrov. However, it becomes very clear from the following statement of Dimitrov himself that the assessment of the anti-fascist role of the social-democracy and all other fractions of the bourgeoisie except ‘the most reactionary and most chauvinistic elements of the big monopoly finance capital’ made in the report of Dimitrov in the Seventh Congress of the Comintern was thoroughly and foundationally incorrect. Dimitrov writes in, what was termed as ‘a fundamental document of the Comintern’, an article on ‘The Tasks of the Working Class in the War’, written in November 1939:

“The tactics of the united people’s front presupposed joint action by the communist parties and the social-democratic and petty-bourgeois ‘democratic’ and ‘radical’ parties against reaction and war. But the top sections of these parties are now openly supporting the imperialist war.

“The social-democratic, ‘democratic’, and ‘radical’ flunkeys of the bourgeoisie, are brazenly distorting the anti-fascist slogans of the Popular Front, and are using them to deceive the masses of the people and to cover up the imperialist character of the war.” (ibid, p. 456)

It is noteworthy that Dimitrov refers to the “changed situation” due to the war. However, as we have already mentioned, the popular fronts in France and Spain had collapsed months before beginning of the war. They failed by the mid-1938 itself, whereas the war started in the late-1939. Thus, Dimitrov’s attempt to put the reason of the shift on the event of war is futile. We wrote in our book:

“It is clear from the above quote itself that Dimitrov is trying to circumvent the responsibility of self-criticism on the policy of the ‘popular front’. One might ask: did not he know the character of the social-democracy from its political behavior in the pre-war period itself, which clearly reveals its principal culpability in the rise of fascists, from the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht to the betrayal of working class between 1924 to 1929 and then its complete capitulation during the policy of “lesser evil” during the authoritarian governments of Brüning, von Papen and Schleicher, and its support to all governments in repression of the German communists? Did not the social-democrats support the imperialist wars ever since 1914 itself? Was this behavior of the social-democrats new or surprising in anyway? What else did Dimitrov expect? Did it become clear only when the social-democracy repeated these sins during the war?

“Moreover, the collapse of the ‘popular front’ in France and Spain happened before the war, not during the war. Therefore, Dimitrov’s arguments regarding the “change in the situation” due to the war is not convincing at all. Much before the outbreak of the war, the disastrous results of the policy of the ‘popular front’ were clear as day-light.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 448)

However, despite attempts of Dimitrov to put the blame on the “changed situation due to war”, his tone becomes increasingly clearer in the same article:

“It clearly follows from the above that the communists can have no united front whatsoever with those in a common front with the imperialists and support the criminal anti-popular war. The working class and all working people have nothing in common with the social-democratic, ‘democratic’, and ‘radical’ politicians who are betraying the vital interests of the popular masses. Between the masses of the people and these lackeys of imperialism lies the abyss of war.” (Degras, op.cit., p. 456)

We wrote on this volte-face:

“Is not this a complete volte-face by Dimitrov? Can one claim that Dimitrov came to know about this treacherous nature of the social-democracy, its anti-communist and anti-people character and its authoritarian tendencies only after the war? That would be a preposterous claim from the standpoint of history as well as theory. The non-transparent and circumventing attitude of Dimitrov becomes clear when he calls for a ‘united front from below’, ‘militant working-class unity’ and calls such a united front as the “real popular front”! Thus, on the one hand Dimitrov is effectively arguing against the policy of the ‘popular front’ in the name of “change in the situation due to the war” (which is a flimsy argument as we already saw) and on the other hand, instead of openly calling for reversion to ‘united front of the working class’, he talks about “real popular front”! So, was the ‘popular front’ before the start of the war, and proposed by the Seventh Congress through his report, a “sham popular front”? Of course not! Dimitrov is actually accepting the failure of the policy of the ‘popular front’ and calling for a return to the Leninist policy of the united front of the working class.

“Later, the Comintern documents call for this return by directly evoking the authority and legacy of Lenin, as we shall see soon. Dimitrov, in the same article, also accepts, in veiled terms, the mistake of conflating the class with the parties and accepts that it is possible to win over the democratic, radical and left-leaning masses of the people directly, and not through their parties (social-democratic, syndicalists, anarchists, radical bourgeois parties)! Dimitrov fails to explain why this became possible only after the war! Moreover, he refers back to war again and again to hide the failure of the ‘popular front’. However, as we know, the ‘popular front’ had already failed before the war, in Spain as well as France.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 449)

In the same article Dimitrov writes further:

“In the preceding period the communists strove to secure the establishment of a united ‘popular front’ by agreement with the social-democratic and other petty-bourgeois ‘democratic’ and ‘radical’ parties in the person of their leading bodies on the basis of a common platform of struggle against fascism and war. But to the extent that the principal leaders of these parties have crossed over wholly and completely into the camp of the imperialists, while certain of them, such as the French radicals, are directly in charge of the conduct of the war, there can be no question of such agreements.

“Now the mustering of the working class, of the peasantry, of the urban working folk and of the progressive intelligentsia can and must be brought about apart from and against the leadership of these parties, on the basis of the struggle against the imperialist war and reaction in a united front from below.

“Such a united fighting front of the masses cannot be brought about without a most resolute struggle against the social-democratic, ‘democratic’, and ‘radical’ flunkeys of imperialism, for the elimination of the influence of these agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement and for their isolation from the masses of the working people.” (Degras, op.cit., p. 457)

In 1940, Manuilsky wrote:

“Never during the two decades the Comintern has been in existence has the question of the liquidation of social-democratism in the working-class movement been so acute an immediate practical task as it is at the present time.” (ibid, p. 464)

The May Day Manifesto of ECCI from 1940 repeats the call of reversion to Lenin’s ‘united front from below’:

“To break the barriers set up by bourgeois reaction, the proletarians and working people need united action. They need it so as to merge the as yet divided and scattered movements into one mighty current. In each separate country they need a united workers’ front, a ‘popular front’ of the working people, established from below by the masses.” (Degras, op.cit., p. 470)

The same manifesto says further:

“Proletarians, working people, colonial peoples! The guarantee of the success of your struggle lies in the unification of your forces. Hammer out the United Front of Labour against the offensive of capital, the front of freedom against reaction, the front of peace against imperialist war, the front of the exploited and oppressed against their exploiters and oppressors.

“Only in a ruthless struggle against the social-democratic leaders, against the treacherous top leaders of the Second International can the working people establish such a fighting front.” (ibid, p. 470)

Regarding the above quote, we wrote:

“As we can see, this time even the colonial world is accepted to be unfit for the application of the policy of the ‘popular front’ as formulated by Dimitrov in the Seventh Congress! In fact, if we read the Comintern documents closely, it becomes clear that even before the outbreak of the war in September 1939, the Comintern had started to accept the failure of the ‘popular front’, though putting all the blame on the social-democracy for the same! However, this pretext does not work because it was precisely the incorrect theorization of the class character of fascism (‘the most reactionary and chauvinistic elements of the big monopoly finance capital’), the character of the social-democracy and a false necessary binary (bourgeois democracy/fascist dictatorship) that had led to the practical disaster in France and Spain.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 455)

Com. Thakur argues that it was the “changed situation” emerging from the war due to which Dimitrov changed his position regarding the ‘popular front’. However, almost a year before the outbreak of war, the ECCI Manifesto issued on the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution wrote:

“Workers! Do not let yourselves be led astray by the treachery of the bourgeois politicians to the People’s Front. Let the traitors break with the People’s Front movement – their departure will only be a gain to it. You are faced with a big and noble task, namely, not only to strengthen but also to extend the front of the people. New people and new sections of the population, who do not barter the fate of their country and their people, will join with you in the struggle against reactionary traitors, in the struggle to save the people.

“Who can hammer out this broad front against fascist brigandage? Only a united working class.

“The working class is the greatest force in modern society. It is the real master of the world, if it is united.” (Degras, op.cit., p. 432-33)

The same manifesto writes about the unwillingness of the social-democrats to form a ‘popular front’ and the treachery of the social-democrats in the struggle against fascism:

“But this unity is not wanted by the reactionary leaders entrenched in the leadership of the Second International and in a number of social-democratic parties and trade unions. They systematically disrupt the formation of a united, anti-fascist, working-class fighting front. It is they who, while retreating step by step before fascism, conduct a shameless slanderous campaign against the land of socialism. It is they who gather up with a solicitous hand from the cesspool of fascism, the Trotskyist agents of the Gestapo, whom they allow to do wrecking work in the labour movement with impunity.” (Degras, op.cit., p. 433)

The calls to overthrow the social-democratic leadership to the mass of workers and the calls to abandon the old ‘popular front’ policy and revert to the policy of the united front of the working class becomes more vocal and clearer with time. In the ECCI Manifesto on the 22^nd Anniversary of the Russian Revolution in 1939, we find these words:

“It is the Blums who, at the dictates of reaction, disrupted the united working-class and people’s front in France. It is on the demand of Blum that members of the communist parliamentary group are being court martialled, that communist municipal councils are being disbanded, and that communists are being arrested in thousands. It is Blum, together with Jouhaux, who – on orders from the magnates of finance capital – is splitting the French trade unions. It is the Blums, together with the British Labour leaders, who prevented united action of the international proletariat.

“Proletarians and working people! More than ever before you need active unity for the struggle against war, reaction, and the capitalist offensive. But now this unity is only possible apart from, and against, the leaders of social-democracy, who have crossed over wholly and completely to the service of the imperialists.

“There can be neither a united Workers’ Front, nor a People’s Front, with them, or with the leaders of the other petty-bourgeois parties that are supporting the war.

“Now working-class unity, and the united people’s front, must be established from below, in a struggle against the imperialist bourgeoisie, against the top leaders of the social-democratic and other petty-bourgeois parties, who have gone bankrupt and have crossed over to the camp of the imperialists, in a struggle to stop the imperialist war, that is bringing ruin, starvation, and death to millions of working people.

“Hundreds of thousands of social-democratic workers now stand at the parting of the ways.

“Where is their place, in the camp of imperialist reaction, or with their class brothers waging a struggle against it? With the instigators of imperialist war, or with the millions of workers and peasants who are thirsting for peace? With the stranglers and butchers of liberty, or with those who are self-sacrificingly defending it?” (Degras, op.cit., p. 447)

It is not as if the revolutionary communists had not been well-acquainted with the imperialist character of the European social-democracy! From the days of Kautsky itself, all Marxist-Leninists had been well-aware of this character of the European social-democracy. In the context of above representative quotations from the documents of the Comintern which clearly reveal the reversion to the policy of ‘united front of the working class’, we wrote:

“As is evident, the same leaders of the social-democrats, socialists and radical petty-bourgeois parties, like Blum, who were being considered as allies in fight against fascism and reaction, are now being blamed for the “failure of the popular front”, as if the exhibition of such character by these parties and their leaders was something contingent originating due to the war! However, it is clear that the ‘popular front’ had already collapsed in autumn 1938 and the reference to the repression of the communists belongs to the period before the war itself! The above excerpt clearly calls for going back to the policy of the united front of the working class, the original Leninist version of it.

“We can reproduce many such excerpts from the documents of the Comintern since the late-1938, where the Comintern is clearly rejecting the policy of the ‘popular front’ and is calling for a return to the policy of the ‘united front of the working class’. Even though, at certain points, leaders of the Comintern try to create pretexts for this reversion, it becomes clear with time that actual practice has revealed the policy of the ‘popular front’ to have failed disastrously and also the fact that the very foundational elements of the theory of the ‘popular front’, especially the characterization of the social-democrats and other radical bourgeois parties as well as the extreme narrowing down of the class character of fascism to ‘the most reactionary and chauvinistic elements of the big monopoly finance capital’ were incorrect and cleared the highway to class capitulationism and class collaborationism.” (Sinha, A. 2025. op.cit., p. 459-60)

We also explained that the root cause of formulation of the policy of ‘popular front’ was an incorrect political economy which explained fascism as the naked and barbaric dictatorship of “the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic elements of the big monopoly finance capital”. Such a characterization would lead to the political conclusion that rest of the bourgeoisie would be an ally in the struggle against fascism, including the rest of the big monopoly finance capital! This would naturally entail capitulationism and collaborationism and this was precisely what the policy of the ‘popular front’ did. Thus, in the words of Kang Sheng with manifest approval from Mao, the communists in Spain under the policy of ‘popular front’ systematically refused to take the power even when the political situation allowed for it, prepared an army and handed it over to the bourgeoisie! In France, the Blums spearheaded the ‘popular front’ and its short-lived government and acted more ferociously against the revolutionary communists than the fascists! Due to the internal and immanent weakness of these popular fronts, they collapsed by the autumn of 1938, much before the beginning of the war. Thus, the popular fronts did not collapse, as Dimitrov tried to argue, because of the treachery of the social-democrats in conditions of war. The treachery was there already and had led to the collapse of the popular fronts everywhere much before the war.

Com. Thakur is unaware of this history of popular fronts from 1935 onwards. He says:

“If any organization want to stay at 1927-28, that is their liberty. But whole world communist movement under the leadership of Communist International moved forward to the Seventh Congress, which was held in 1935.” (Thakur, P. S. 2025. op.cit., p. 11)

Regrettably, it is not us who are stuck in 1927-28, but Com. Thakur instead, who is stuck in 1935, whereas much water had flowed in Seine, Ebro, Rhine, Po River, Volga, Thames and Ganges from 1935 up till 1940-41. We urge him to look at the Comintern documents from November 1938 onwards, where the tone of the Comintern documents gradually changes from apologetic rejection of the ‘popular front’ policy with some kind of pretext, to one of outright rejection of the policy of the ‘popular front’ with the condemnation of the social-democrats in severest terms and repeated calls for return to the policy of the united front of the working class as formulated by Lenin. We have presented some of the most representative quotes above. However, there are so many quotations rejecting the policy of the ‘popular front’ that it is not possible to reproduce them all here.

Conclusion

In fact, had Com. Thakur read our latest position on the policy of ‘popular front’ in A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders completely from cover to cover and our key paper of the seminar on fascism, he would have refrained from making such a claim. He would have known that we regard 1927-28 positions, especially the Sixth Congress positions, as an extreme “left” distortion of the Leninist policy of united front of the working class, even though on paper the name ‘united front of the working class’ and references to Lenin remained; he would have known that we do not start our analysis from 1927-28 but from 1921 Third Congress of the Comintern itself; he would have known that we traced the alternating currents of “left” and right-opportunist deviations in the implementation of the Leninist policy of united front of the working class from 1923 itself; he would have known that we trace the origin of manifest “left” deviation from the Fifth Congress of the Comintern itself which developed further into an extreme “left” deviation in the Sixth Congress; he would have known that we documented in the above-mentioned book how this extreme “left” deviation led to a disaster ; he would have known that we demonstrated in this work the way in which the Comintern reacted pathologically to this disaster and went over to the right-deviationist extreme of the policy of the ‘popular front’; he would have known that we have also presented the tragic history of the experiments of ‘popular front’ in France and Spain and shown that they failed utterly due to their own internal contradictions, not because of war; and he would have also known that we have presented a detailed account of how the Comintern reverted gradually since November 1938 itself, to the Leninist line of united front of the working class first with shame-faced apologia and then openly and trenchantly.

Therefore, Com. Thakur missed many things:

first, our position on united front against fascism which does not reject particular issue-based alliances with all non-fascist bourgeois parties including social-democratic parties while maintaining the proletarian political independence;

second, the actual history of the evolution of the united front policy of the Comintern from the Third Congress in 1921 itself up till the rejection of the ‘popular front’ policy from 1938 onwards and consequently he takes Sixth Congress in 1928 as a starting-point and Seventh Congress in 1935 as the culmination-point, which would obviously lead to very incorrect political conclusions;

third, the actual history of what happened to the two most representative experiments of ‘popular front’ in France and Spain, which collapsed much before the beginning of the war under the weight of its own immanent contradictions rooted in a flawed political economy of ‘most reactionary, chauvinist elements of big monopoly finance capital vs. all the rest’, which can lead to nothing else but right-opportunism;

fourth, the position of the CPC and Mao regarding the anti-fascist popular front, which is revealed by his talk on philosophy and Chou En-Lai’s article on Comintern and the CPC, which we have quoted above;

fifth, the meaning of our position that ML camp has in the main disintegrated, that a new revolutionary communist party cannot emerge from the process of party-formation (unity talks among ML groups and organizations), that party-building now is the main contradiction, that ML groups and organizations have become “dead organisms” due to incorrect ideological and programmatic positions leading to an incorrect political line; Com. Thakur unintentionally and erroneously misquotes us in his second article and claims that we have called these ML groups and organizations as “dead organizations”, which is not true at all; what we mean by “dead organisms” has been explained above;

sixth, he mistakes the level of formation of anti-fascist front with the level of building and formation of the new revolutionary communist party in India, two totally different levels of determination;

seventh, he again confuses several different levels of determination when he equates the anti-imperialist anti-feudal national united front, the anti-fascist front within countries with fascism in power or rising fascism, the international anti-fascist front between states; the three are completely different and belong to three different types of contradictions, three different sets of forces, three different sets of enemies and friends; the generic term ‘popular front’ has been taken at face-value.

Finally, we would urge Com. Thakur to go through A Menagerie of Dogmatic Blunders and our key paper from the Arvind Memorial Trust’s Seventh International Seminar on fascism. This would allow us to continue this fruitful and productive dialog even further and at a much more advanced and higher level.