I will agree that many of the purges of old comrades for vague "counterrevolutionary" actions is a tragedy. I can't imagine working your ass off for a revolution only to be shot by some asshole who had a beef with you because you called him "silly" at an underground theory meeting 10 years ago

I do find conflating Stalin with fascism insulting, though they did acknowledge his role in defeating the Nazis. I didn't get a chance to finish this because it's longer than I expected, but I came across this later down in the essay:

Nevertheless, Communist Parties across the world organised workers and this brought with it many contradictions. In order to maintain and expand their memberships the CPs found ways to connect to the daily concerns of workers, playing an important part in union and industrial struggles, and were opposed by some bosses and some governments. This reality, the history of the Russian Revolution, as well as the illusion that Stalin was a genuine fighter against fascism, could give the parties the appearance of genuine radicalism. In many countries the CPs managed to draw into their ranks some of the best fighters and most determined working-class militants. This contradiction is one of the biggest tragedies of the twentieth century; that so many working-class fighters had their energy, passion, devotion and determination squandered in the interests of this monstrous state.

"Monstrous state" aside, they do have some good points. The international communists relied too much on the status and stances of the USSR. Perhaps for practical reasons, as they would assist in anti-colonial fights and agitation, but the result of such reliance was disastrous. The author mentions some other examples of whiplash, but the most talked about these days is the Sino-Soviet split. After Stalin died and Khruschev took over, everyone started scrambling when he denounced Stalin and the big fight between the USSR and China occurred. A complete disaster for the hopeful exploited workers who now had to suffer the consequences of assholes who were supposed to be role models

Although Stalin had no in principle objection to an alliance with Nazi Germany, he had to look elsewhere for diplomatic and military support. His only alternatives were Britain and France.

This is just asinine lol. Let's say Stalin was this demonic, paranoid, killer who destroyed all opposition. Why would he have no objection to allying with the Nazis? They sought to destroy all of the USSR, and that would include Stalin. A narcissistic, paranoid, and authoritarian leader would not delude himself into thinking that's a right choice for friends.

Social democratic parties suddenly became the primary enemy, often with barely a distinction made between the leadership of these parties and their rank-and-file working-class membership. The reformist parties were declared to be “social fascists” and were, more often than not, the primary target of the communists’ rage.

He did not purge enough social democrats

Secondly, this unity referred to the need for communists to develop relationships with the previously maligned “social fascists” (the Social Democrats), with peasants and middle classes, and eventually even with right-wing parties. This supposedly anti-fascist policy became known as the “popular front”.19 In Spain this policy was revealed to be thoroughly counter-revolutionary.

I'm confused if she's saying the inclusion of rightist elements was counter-revolutionary, of if she's saying Stalin was wrong for allying with socdems lol

Andres Nin was executed on 20 June 1937. This was the reality of the Stalinists’ “anti-fascism” in Spain. Enforcing their popular front with the imperialist bourgeoisie of France and Britain necessitated the extinguishing of the revolutionary hopes raised by the Spanish Civil War, drowned in blood not by fascists but by the Stalinists.

I'm not going to defend Stalin's decisions with spain, but it's odd that the author wants communists to have a popular front with socdems and 'reformists' by any means necessary but condemn Stalin's actions here. I suppose grassroots movements having a big tent with bourgeois elements is a bit different than nation states having a "big tent" alliance with bourgeois elements.

proletarian struggle and self-defense against fascism requires a proletarian united front. Fascism does not ask if the worker in the factory has a soul painted in the white and blue colors of Bavaria; or is inspired by the black, red, and gold colors of the bourgeois republic; or by the red banner with a hammer and sickle. All that matters to fascism is that they encounter a class-conscious proletarian, and then they club him to the ground. That is why workers must come together for struggle without distinctions of party or trade-union affiliation.

I agree with this, but how exactly would this work today? Look at what happens when you allow democratic politicians in the US to "side" with you. They just water down the message, gaslight the base into thinking some bullshit collaborative reform was always the goal and not physical self defense. Liberal voters largely believe in this and condemn any kind of direct action unless you wear a "tax the rich" t-shirt to brunch. I'm guessing directly improving others' material conditions via organizing will help them lay off the skepticism of your red affiliation, but many of them really do fall in the "volunteering and charity is all we can do" trap

In the afternoon that Hitler’s victory was declared the KPD Central Committee issued a leaflet demanding “Strikes; Mass Strikes; General Strikes”. Unfortunately, this was a totally empty cry. Nothing had been done to build this mass action beforehand. Confusion reigned. For far too long the party had been declaring the SPD the main fascist threat. And while many in the rank and file of the KPD (and SPD) could see the truth of the situation, it was too late. Their resistance was simply too sporadic and disorganised. The KPD’s failure to play a decisive role in developing united, serious and radical working-class anti-fascist resistance led to disaster. Nearly every third KPD member went to prison under Nazi rule, and thousands were murdered.

NGL, sometimes trotskyites inspire me to be less doomer because sectarianism will be the killer of us all. I mean, we can have some sectarianism as a treat after defending ourselves and waging a revolution, but bickering about it while the fascists sharpen their knives instead of making ours sharper is just silly. Still, in the age of psyops, informants, and cable news dictating the thoughts of like 85% of the country, it does seem impossible to trust anybody. My views are basically shaped by these two thoughts bouncing back and forth. It reminds me of this lyric from the Smiths (yes, I know about Morrison):

Because if it's not love
Then it's the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb that will bring us together

The party had thus used mass mobilization to secure itself a place in institutional life, but without antagonizing other democratic forces. Indeed, the PCI press of 1943–45 (and later party mythology) cast even the most evidently class-war aspects of the resistance – mass strikes, land occupations, draft resistance – in “patriotic” terms, a mass working-class contribution to a progressive national movement more than an assertion of workers’ anticapitalist class interests.

You were supposed to defeat the social fascists, not create them :lenin-rage:

I ended up finishing the article instead of studying for my finals because I'm very good at making decisions. But I hate to say it, but I sorta agree with the general sentiment. Denouncing the entirety of the USSR is dumb, but many communist organizations today and prolific communist theorists and historians publicly praise Lenin and quote him while Stalin is just, "oh, and Stalin defeated the Nazis. That's a tremendous feat. But back to Lenin..." I imagine part of it is optics and the result of propaganda, but I can also imagine that many still remember their revolutionary movements being crushed and constantly whipped into the opposite directions because of great power politics rather than genuine attempts of losing their chains.