Thread
I see some are discussing far left/far right efforts at political cooperation 'to end the war'. Since my @PigLazer / #NAFO hoodie arrived today and I'm now happily wearing it: "Shut up, it's time for history." 🧵
The idea of an oblique front (ger. "Querfront") across political spectra on particular issues isn't new. Why does it keep reappearing? There must be some appeal to it. The following is my leftist perspective on this question. 2
For Germany, the right can be said to have tried the first Querfront tactics: In the 1890s, a clique of court-connected Berlin actors attempted to weaken support for labor organizations by twisting worker anti-capitalism into monarchist-antisemitic "protection" sentiment: 3
These agitators unsuccessfully tried to tell workers that their best hope against exploitation were traditional authorities like church and throne. The SPD, then, had its answer ready: Church and throne are instruments of the oppressors and antisemitism is backward nonsense. 4
In the later Weimar republic, both communists and nazis tried to capture part of each other's clientele with Querfront efforts; success seems to have been very limited: Nazi 'anti-capitalism' was extremely shallow and where it wasn't, its purveyors were kept on a short leash. 5
What did happen were working cooperations between KPD and NSDAP on specific issues. This is the mold for Querfront activities that still seems to stand: Current Ukraine-related Querfront people aren't trying to say "we're buddies with the other fringe now". 6
Rather, the idea is that 'stopping the war' or whatever the issue may be is important enough for tactical alliances otherwise ideologically impossible. How can we make this plausible? 7
One reason may just be tactics: "We need this thing to happen, we can make it happen with the nasty commies/fash, let's do it." Radical groups often feel intense political isolation (often correctly) and may not have much choice in allies. 8
For Marxists-Leninists (conscious or not) particularly, their ideology where, when capitalism falls, all other problems become readily soluble, pushes them into such a direction. If you only need x to happen and all will be well, what would you not be justified in doing? 9
Also, an old sentiment among MLers is that fascists are dangerous misguided instruments of Capital. At the grassroots level, it may be possible to uproot their false beliefs. Anyone who's not a literal capitalist is just a communist who doesn't know it yet. 10
Far-right actors often have a structurally similar attitude: If only they could break through all the liberal propaganda, the masses of "normal" people would stop being the silent majority and rebel out against injustice by the ((((rootless elite))))! 11
They, too, are tactically motivated - they think if they manage to topple the elites and give power to true 'native' sentiment, a "day X" will make everything better. Why not ally with the commies to bring that day closer? 12
The common denominator is thinking they know how history must or will go, a sleepwalker's surety. Questioned even a little bit, their common enemy evaporates; it is NOT one thing, seen through different lenses. But their very confidence in the strength of their analysis... 13
... is the root of their blind spots. To outsiders, their attitude seems paradoxical, but I think I've shown a few points where ideology makes it a matter of priorities, not principle. END
