"He had many heroes during his boyhood and youth . . . Lenin, Hitler, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera . . . Mussolini . . . Peron . . . He knew the speeches of Jose Antonio by memory ... He knew Mein Kampf and also Lenin’s What is to be Done?"
"There are two great and authentic revolutionaries in the world: Mussolini and Hitler. But Mussolini's past shows that the Duce has always been against plutocracy and against democracies, which paralyze the life of nations."
We must accept that the elements of strength in Fascism do not lie only in violence and in the apparat. This dictatorship has done something – not just by means of violence. It has done something even for the workers and the young. We cannot deny that the introduction of social security is a fact.
“In accordance with the Bible, Israel has committed a capital crime for which she has not yet repented, that iscondemning to death and killing the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Christian revolutionaries are called upon to redouble their efforts against the theology of death.”
“What does ‘unconditional’ defense of the USSR mean? It means that we do not lay any conditions upon the bureaucracy. It means that independently of the motive and causes of the war we defend the social basis of the USSR, if it is menaced by danger on the part of imperialism.
Some comrades say: ‘And if the Red Army tomorrow invades India and begins to put down a revolutionary movement there shall we in this case support it?’ Such a way of posing a question is not at all consistent. It is not clear above all why India is implicated. Is it not simpler to ask: If the Red Army menaces workers’ strikes or peasant protests against the bureaucracy in the USSR shall we support it or not? Foreign policy is the continuation of the internal. We have never promised to support all the actions of the Red Army which is an instrument in the hands of the Bonapartist bureaucracy. We have promised to defend only the USSR as a workers’ state and solely those things within it which belong to a workers’ state.
An adroit casuist can say: If the Red Army, independently of the character of the ‘work’ fulfilled by it, is beaten by the insurgent masses in India, this will weaken the USSR. To this we will answer: The crushing of a revolutionary movement in India, with the cooperation of the Red Army, would signify an incomparably greater danger to the social basis of the USSR than an episodical defeat of counter-revolutionary detachments of the Red Army in India. In every case the Fourth International will know how to distinguish where and when the Red Army is acting solely as an instrument of the Bonapartist reaction and where it defends the social basis of the USSR.
A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership. Why is not this same policy applicable to the USSR?”
"He had many heroes during his boyhood and youth . . . Lenin, Hitler, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera . . . Mussolini . . . Peron . . . He knew the speeches of Jose Antonio by memory ... He knew Mein Kampf and also Lenin’s What is to be Done?"
"There are two great and authentic revolutionaries in the world: Mussolini and Hitler. But Mussolini's past shows that the Duce has always been against plutocracy and against democracies, which paralyze the life of nations."
We must accept that the elements of strength in Fascism do not lie only in violence and in the apparat. This dictatorship has done something – not just by means of violence. It has done something even for the workers and the young. We cannot deny that the introduction of social security is a fact.
“In accordance with the Bible, Israel has committed a capital crime for which she has not yet repented, that iscondemning to death and killing the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Christian revolutionaries are called upon to redouble their efforts against the theology of death.”
“What does ‘unconditional’ defense of the USSR mean? It means that we do not lay any conditions upon the bureaucracy. It means that independently of the motive and causes of the war we defend the social basis of the USSR, if it is menaced by danger on the part of imperialism.
Some comrades say: ‘And if the Red Army tomorrow invades India and begins to put down a revolutionary movement there shall we in this case support it?’ Such a way of posing a question is not at all consistent. It is not clear above all why India is implicated. Is it not simpler to ask: If the Red Army menaces workers’ strikes or peasant protests against the bureaucracy in the USSR shall we support it or not? Foreign policy is the continuation of the internal. We have never promised to support all the actions of the Red Army which is an instrument in the hands of the Bonapartist bureaucracy. We have promised to defend only the USSR as a workers’ state and solely those things within it which belong to a workers’ state.
An adroit casuist can say: If the Red Army, independently of the character of the ‘work’ fulfilled by it, is beaten by the insurgent masses in India, this will weaken the USSR. To this we will answer: The crushing of a revolutionary movement in India, with the cooperation of the Red Army, would signify an incomparably greater danger to the social basis of the USSR than an episodical defeat of counter-revolutionary detachments of the Red Army in India. In every case the Fourth International will know how to distinguish where and when the Red Army is acting solely as an instrument of the Bonapartist reaction and where it defends the social basis of the USSR.
A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership. Why is not this same policy applicable to the USSR?”
