Yes, I know from a rhetorical perspective they're a bunch of jerks who do nothing but complain, but is there an actual takedown of their ideological notions? Because just saying they suck without further explanation makes it hard to dismiss them when they pop up. I don't agree with them, I just want to know why I shouldn't. Something about statues and logic and being chained in a courtyard with wind and all that. I'm not sure where to put this, sorry.
They oppose anti-fascism on the grounds of it being a coalition between liberals and communists as opposed to working class front. This critique showed its value in Spain, but not so much in Italy, and I would prefer it as a word of caution as opposed to a hard critique.
They oppose national liberation on the grounds that it creates liberal states and not communist states. This also played out historically, but it ignores that being a liberal state is much better than being a colony. IMO the direction to take this one is not to oppose national revolution, but to support ultra left and anarchist factions within national liberation movements, and if you're involved in one, advocate for simultaneous social and political revolution.
what do you mean by this?
The antifascist coalition in Spain was ultimately defeated, whereas the Italian antifascist coalition held together throughout the duration of the war until the total defeat of fascist Italy and the expulsion of German troops by force.
There are some key differences here, however. I wouldn't say the situations were equal. Spanish antifascists were a coalition of Marxist and anarchist forces, their opposition included fascists, monarchists, clergy and liberals. The Italians had anarchists, marxists, monarchists, clergy and liberals amongst their ranks (the latter turning against the fascists only as they had failed to uphold the deal of protecting their class interests).
The Spanish antifascists had little to no external support; only the USSR and Mexico supported them, with Western powers at best ignoring and at worst (such as Italy and Germany) openly bombing and supplying the falangists. Italian antifascists were bolstered by allied support and also a literal land invasion in the South.
It's worth pointing out that postwar Italy was ready, of its own free and democratic will, to elect a communist government and quite possibly join the USSR as a soviet republic, only to have the USA meddle in the elections and alter the outcome. The Italian government then kept the population in a state of fear with false flag attacks by the NATO underground army Gladio that were blamed on communists, or they knew about violent assholes planning attacks and let them go through anyway with approval from the intelligence services (see: Tsarnev bros). Better elect those libs, or else you're gonna get it! Oh and allow US to base troops and nuclear weapons on your soil and make you into a target.
A key difference in the Italian and Spanish experiences is that the Italians completely failed to prevent the fascists from coming to power, but once the fascist hold weakened during the war and the stupid factional infighting over party leadership and the dogmatic minutiae of the Comintern line was swept away by harsh repression, they got their act together and became the dominant force in anti-fascist partisan resistance.
The Spanish coalition by contrast held together against the initial Francoist onslaught but over time fell apart due to factional infighting (libs vs anarchists vs Trots vs MLs), lack of external support, and an inability to agree on how to properly fight the war. As defeat loomed each faction started violently backstabbing everyone else in attempts to salvage the war effort and they all ended up collapsing and repressed by the dictatorship Franco erected.
as LeninsRage pointed out, the italian antifascists also failed the task of stopping fascists coming to power---if anything the Spanish were more successful in seizing state power where the nominal alliance of liberals and communists and socialists (anarchists mostly stayed out electorally) controlled the government, were actively if too slowly turning that liberal state on the fascists. one of the major tensions that led to the war was the state secret police, under the direction of the socialists killing a right-winger. of course they didn't manage to get the whole guardia on their side or complete a repression of the military staff, but shit, as soon as the war started the actual head of the fascist party and hundreds of his goons were taken out back and executed.
the outcome of the war was really decided by 75,000 fascisti and 12,000 nazis, there really isn't anything ideological to point out when your only answer to the best the leading fascist nations could field is 50k marxist bookclub members who you can hardly find rifles for. the only thing that could've really done it is the Front Populaire not being english bootlickers, the Soviets somehow sending actual tank battalions (along with more than 150? total tanks they actually sent, there were so many T-26s to spare & they outclassed every other tank in the theater)