You are here:   Features > Tito's crimes should never be forgotten
 
But what is this “antifascism”? There the historical evidence is clear. Antifascism is not a catch-all category of democrats. It is a Communist construct. It is, indeed, meaningless without reference to Communist ideology. Its exponents quickly manifest this even today by their willing defence of the record of Communism, their espousal of a recognisable (anti-Western) Communist world view, and their unshakeable conviction that the only threat to civilisation comes from the Right, not the Left.

Until the recent upsurge of leftist anarchism in America, there was, significantly, no antifascism in the US or Britain. Yet these countries were the key components of the Western alliance against the Axis powers in the Second World War. The absence of any antifascist movement in the US and the UK is not just because there was no significant indigenous Anglo-Saxon fascism (Mosley quickly fizzled out); more importantly, it is because there was no significant indigenous Communism — whose creation antifascism is.

Antifascism was a propagandist device to broaden support for Communist Party aims among non-Communists. It was a tactic to gain power, at which point power would be wielded exclusively by the Party itself. The intermittent emergence of antifascism was just a sign of the Communist Party’s temporary weakness. Between the two world wars the promotion of antifascist “Popular Fronts”, most successfully in France, encompassing the democratic Left but serving the Party, was authorised by Moscow. In 1939, however, Stalin opted for the alternative strategy — alliance with Hitler — and antifascism was immediately discarded.

The Yugoslav Party under Tito, like other European Communist parties, obediently followed the new line. The much-trumpeted “rising” of the Communist partisans was not in response to Ustasha atrocities — the NDH had been formed on April 10, 1941. It was an authorised response to Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union — on June 22. With energetic prompting from Moscow, the Yugoslav Party now took up antifascism as a device to rally opposition to the Axis occupiers and the quisling regimes in Zagreb and Belgrade, but with a view to imposing a classic Marxist-Leninist revolution. The term “antifascist” was meanwhile used to legitimise what were presented as non-Party institutions of an alternative government — as with AVNOJ, the Antifascist Council of the People’s Liberation of Yugoslavia. Once the Communists attained power and squeezed out or liquidated non-Communist elements, under way by 1944, antifascism was relegated from its prominence in the Party’s ideological arsenal. Only in 1990, when the Communists knew that they were facing a reckoning with real democracy, did the Party revive antifascism. So, for example, while the Party changed its name from the League of Communists of Croatia (SKH) to the less threatening Party of Democratic Change, and then the Social Democratic Party, the Communist veterans’ organisation, SUBNOR (Alliance of Associations of Fighters in the People’s Liberation War), was retitled the Alliance of Antifascist Fighters. In short, antifascism never existed independently of the Communist Party, and though millions of genuine democrats have fought oppressors who may, at a pinch, be described as “fascist”, those freedom fighters had nothing in common with the ideological artefact of antifascism, except occasionally as useful dupes.

View Full Article
Tags:
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Giordano Bruno
November 7th, 2017
8:11 PM
Fascism is like globalism - neo-imperial corporatism or ecclesiastical despotism, essence-based evil based on greed and power, and as such any method for their removal is justified. Tito is quite successful in removing that weed. After all, he succeeded in establishing a rather humane and successful multi-ethnic and multi-religious secular society, progressively and intellectually advanced, which set an excellent model of society that should be everywhere, despite the efforts of the West to prevent further creation and maintenance of a similar, out of West covert imperialist dogma. In the end, it was like in the old sentence "all evil comes from the West (also before from Vatican)", as they spoke to us, and it came in the sense of an instrumentalized parliamentary democracy in which hiding the old hydras: the corporation and the church. I hope that it will appeal to some new civil revolutions, which I hope will completely eradicate their sick paradigm of authority and Orwellian vision of "democracy".

Miroslav
November 7th, 2017
11:11 AM
What is this fatuous babble? People didn't protest the renaming of the Marshal Tito square because of the sanctity of Tito's figure, but because the renaming process was blatantly violated. This was publicly acknowledged by the city Mayor Bandić, who stated that the votes cast in his favor at the recent local elections can be taken as a "sign of the times" that makes consultations with the local residents required by law unnecessary. At the time Bandić considered organizing a referendum on the issue, Hasanbegović and his sidekick Bruna Esih wrote that the referendum would "insult the Croatian people and the democratic spirit of its capital." Such are the democratic and legal standards of the people who pose as the guardians of democracy against the imagined communists. That said, there is absolutely no doubt that Bandić would have sided with the center-left or the devil incarnate if the alliance promised him a majority in the City Council. As far as Yugoslavia under Tito is concerned, the existence of Goli Otok certainly wasn't the defining feature of the Yugoslav society in the way that was the case with death camps in Jadovno and Jasenovac or grisly excursions of Ustasha butchers in Eastern Herzegovina during the Independent Croatian State. Furthermore, the uprising against the Ustasha started before June 22, 1941, because the Serbian population in the Independent Croatian State didn't need the Communist Party to tell them that their throats will be cut unless they fight for their lives. For the vast majority of the partisans who fought fascism in Yugoslavia, siding with the communist party was in no way a product of their leftist leanings, and the author should know this. Finally, the center-right "founding" party (Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ) of the modern Croatian state has been the dominant political force in the country ever since its independence. The only time it lost parliamentary elections was when it shot itself in the foot by a weapon from its lurid arsenal of cronyism, one-man party rule, graft and lurid nationalist ideology. If the left is to blame for anything, it's for not being able to make a sufficiently vivid distinction between itself and the conservative hypocrites nested in the HDZ. Seeing snarling neo-communists in Croatia is a frightening ailment that calls for a doctor's appointment. To conclude, connecting the protests against the renaming of the Marshal Tito square with Goli Otok should disqualify you from serious journalism.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.