What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fascist Offensive, and Unity of the Working Class
128 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2020
8 people are currently reading
347 people want to read
About the author
Georgi Dimitrov
97 books22 followersGeorgi Dimitrov Mikhaylov (Bulgarian: Георги Димитров Михайлов), also known as Georgi Mikhaylovich Dimitrov (Russian: Георгий Михайлович Димитров) and Georgi Dimitroff, was a Bulgarian communist politician. He was the first communist leader of Bulgaria, from 1946 to 1949. Dimitrov led the Communist International from 1934 to 1943.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 31, 2022
In this text Dimitrov sounds more like the great theoreticians of the 1st and 2nd internationals than like the rather mechanical Marxism of the late 3rd international, the 4th international and the CCP. While Dimitrov’s methods are scientific and dynamic, this text consists largely of repeating some of the basics of Marxist analysis and reminders to promote practical leaders rather than just agitators. This is interspersed with some rudimentary analysis of anti-fascist policy. Mostly he is just complaining some communists were manufacturing models for describing fascism and anti-fascist struggle rather than studying the actual events. Basing policies on reductive models rather than actual study is unwise.
February 5, 2021
A Classic work on fascism. Dimitrov is a must-read for all opposed to the renewed fascist threat today.
August 8, 2021
A cheap and fine edition of two Georgi Dimitrov classics; most notably his 1935 Communist International (Comintern) address that served to ideologically reorient Communist Parties from the Third Period to the Popular Front.
Whatever one wants to say about his perspective and argument, it is well argued.
While not exactly high-flying eloquence, it does have a certain literary quality and expressiveness to it, a clarity of expression that must have reassured those Communists who had found the Third Period strategy, at least by a certain point, intolerable sectarian nonsense. No doubt they didn’t expect the level of opportunism it would ultimately engender - to provide a small list, mostly drawing on the example of the American Communists:
- downplaying criticisms of FDR/Churchill etc
- conciliation with ‘democratic’ imperialist powers and their colonial projects
- Promoting a version of national chauvinism - to take one example, going far beyond looking for progressive figures in the history of a nation to exalt, painting national heroes (Washington, Jefferson) in red colours, ‘Communism is 20th Century Americanism’, etc.
On a side note, this sudden orgy of national pride and worship of the founders profoundly disgusted Murray Bookchin - a literal child of the Third Period, having been a member of the Young Pioneers and then the Young Communist League - and was part of his reason for leaving the Party.
- justification of the internment of Japanese-Americans, with the CPUSA going to the extremes of expelling Japanese-American members of the CPUSA
- celebrating the atom bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It’s safe to say that if most Communists at the time had understood this was what such a policy would eventually lead to, they would have immediately recoiled from it.
Reference to the historic Comintern united front strategy is made, but there is a considerable blurring between it and the popular front approach.
In some countries Dimitrov asserts a foundation of a ‘proletarian united front’ is necessary before a ‘people’s Front’ can be created; whereas in others Dimitrov suggests it’s more appropriate for Communists to help create a popular front first which can then be a foundation for a united workers front after that.
In either case, the function of the united front is to reinforce and to service the popular front.
British Communist Harry Pollitt, in a introduction to a 1951 English language collection of Dimitrov’s ‘Selected Speeches & Articles’, also blurs the distinction between the united front and popular front, eliding the differences between them: ‘He [Dimitrov] fought persistently for the establishment and consolidation of the united, proletarian and people’s front…’
Even a contemporary Hoxhaist journal (linked to the ICMLPO - International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations) repeats this same popular frontist logic: ‘Owing to the growth of chauvinism and fascism, the work for the development of a policy of a proletarian united front and, on its basis, of a popular front, is an imperative task for all Communists and revolutionaries.’
In a huge historical irony, the Communists proved the most committed to the Popular Front over the long run than the other components parts of it, who returned to their traditional anti-communism ASAP; often capturing the Communists unawares, who organisationally and politically suffered the forcible severing from their former, fair-weather allies.
Communists were forcibly ejected from coalition governments, expelled from trade unions, cultural bodies, hounded from their jobs and so on.
The references to the glories of Soviet democracy - particularly to the introduction of ‘universal suffrage’ in the Soviet Union (in line with the new 1936 Constitution) are very amusing, given what kind of ‘Soviet democracy’ actually existed at that time.
One question I do have for the relevant historians; Stalinist is usually a term of opprobrium, an insult, but Dimitrov refers to terms like ‘Stalinist’ and ‘Leninist-Stalinist’ positively. For how long did the usage of such terms last in the official Communist movement? It seems to have only been done in a limited way and for a brief period in the mid-late 1930s before it was dropped.
Why was it dropped, and did it continue after that at all?
To understand the ideological rationale behind the popular front strategy, Dimitrov’s text is essential reading.
Whatever one wants to say about his perspective and argument, it is well argued.
While not exactly high-flying eloquence, it does have a certain literary quality and expressiveness to it, a clarity of expression that must have reassured those Communists who had found the Third Period strategy, at least by a certain point, intolerable sectarian nonsense. No doubt they didn’t expect the level of opportunism it would ultimately engender - to provide a small list, mostly drawing on the example of the American Communists:
- downplaying criticisms of FDR/Churchill etc
- conciliation with ‘democratic’ imperialist powers and their colonial projects
- Promoting a version of national chauvinism - to take one example, going far beyond looking for progressive figures in the history of a nation to exalt, painting national heroes (Washington, Jefferson) in red colours, ‘Communism is 20th Century Americanism’, etc.
On a side note, this sudden orgy of national pride and worship of the founders profoundly disgusted Murray Bookchin - a literal child of the Third Period, having been a member of the Young Pioneers and then the Young Communist League - and was part of his reason for leaving the Party.
- justification of the internment of Japanese-Americans, with the CPUSA going to the extremes of expelling Japanese-American members of the CPUSA
- celebrating the atom bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It’s safe to say that if most Communists at the time had understood this was what such a policy would eventually lead to, they would have immediately recoiled from it.
Reference to the historic Comintern united front strategy is made, but there is a considerable blurring between it and the popular front approach.
In some countries Dimitrov asserts a foundation of a ‘proletarian united front’ is necessary before a ‘people’s Front’ can be created; whereas in others Dimitrov suggests it’s more appropriate for Communists to help create a popular front first which can then be a foundation for a united workers front after that.
In either case, the function of the united front is to reinforce and to service the popular front.
British Communist Harry Pollitt, in a introduction to a 1951 English language collection of Dimitrov’s ‘Selected Speeches & Articles’, also blurs the distinction between the united front and popular front, eliding the differences between them: ‘He [Dimitrov] fought persistently for the establishment and consolidation of the united, proletarian and people’s front…’
Even a contemporary Hoxhaist journal (linked to the ICMLPO - International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations) repeats this same popular frontist logic: ‘Owing to the growth of chauvinism and fascism, the work for the development of a policy of a proletarian united front and, on its basis, of a popular front, is an imperative task for all Communists and revolutionaries.’
In a huge historical irony, the Communists proved the most committed to the Popular Front over the long run than the other components parts of it, who returned to their traditional anti-communism ASAP; often capturing the Communists unawares, who organisationally and politically suffered the forcible severing from their former, fair-weather allies.
Communists were forcibly ejected from coalition governments, expelled from trade unions, cultural bodies, hounded from their jobs and so on.
The references to the glories of Soviet democracy - particularly to the introduction of ‘universal suffrage’ in the Soviet Union (in line with the new 1936 Constitution) are very amusing, given what kind of ‘Soviet democracy’ actually existed at that time.
One question I do have for the relevant historians; Stalinist is usually a term of opprobrium, an insult, but Dimitrov refers to terms like ‘Stalinist’ and ‘Leninist-Stalinist’ positively. For how long did the usage of such terms last in the official Communist movement? It seems to have only been done in a limited way and for a brief period in the mid-late 1930s before it was dropped.
Why was it dropped, and did it continue after that at all?
To understand the ideological rationale behind the popular front strategy, Dimitrov’s text is essential reading.
April 8, 2025
An absolutely critical piece/speech to read not only to understand the character of fascism but how to fight it. Dimitrov clearly lays the groundwork for how to dismantle fascism and consequently capitalism. Though written in 1935, it will certainly serve as a blueprint for the future revolution.
Favorite quote: "Only by struggling hand in hand with the proletariat of the imperialist countries can the colonial peoples and oppressed national minorities achieve their freedom. The sole road to victory for the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries lies through the revolutionary alliance of the working class of the imperialist countries with the national-liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, because, as Marx taught us, "no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations."
Favorite quote: "Only by struggling hand in hand with the proletariat of the imperialist countries can the colonial peoples and oppressed national minorities achieve their freedom. The sole road to victory for the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries lies through the revolutionary alliance of the working class of the imperialist countries with the national-liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, because, as Marx taught us, "no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations."
November 20, 2024
Much more a historical document than an instrumental tool to be redeployed in this particular historical moment. Dimitrov wrote a speech for the Communist International in 1937 and that’s exactly what’s presented here. It’s written in the classic Stalin-era-in-translation style, approachable but dry with faint sprinklings of Marx’s polemical style. For sure, there’s good advice in here. Organizations, and international coalitions in particular, may find use studying this work both for its content and its context. Individual organizers can take the scattered affirmations and quotations and let them encourage us to be better. If you’re looking for a study or survey of fascism, look elsewhere.
January 2, 2022
Книгата е реч, която авторът - Георги Димитров Михайлов изнася на седмия конгрес на Комунистическия интернационал през 1935 година. Първо е издадена през 1954 година от издателството на Българската комунистическа партия в първи том на "Избрани прозиведения на Георги Димитров". Макар и да не получава официални литературни награди, Георги Димитров получава интернационално признание за неговите приноси към теорията на антифашисткото движение. Авторът има много други произведения, които засягат подобни теми, особено тези написани в периода от 1923 до 1939. С това произведение кормчията на Комунистическия интернационал прави дълбока анализа на фашизма - неговия класов характер, държавната му структура, връзката му със социалдемокрацията, какво дава той на масите и много други теми. Също се показва ясен начин, по който работническата класа да се бори с този враг - единния фронт - какво е неговото значение, съдържанието и формите му, връзката му със социалдемократите, с младежта и с жените, какво е правителството му и други важни аспекти. Накрая Димитров се обръща към комунистическите партии - подтиква ги да се укрепят и как да го направят, кара ги да устоновят по-силна връзка с пролетариата, като цяло показва пътя за победата на фашисткия враг.
Книгата се разделя на две по-големи части, които сами по себе си съдържат глави.
През цялата реч се редуват Георги Димитров и публиката, която ръкопляска и го хвали.
Авторът изказва всичките си гледни точки с много мотивиран тон. По негово време е имало много антифашисти с много различни идеи, но с обща концепция, обаче само лявата линия на Комунистическия интернационал триумфира над враговете на работническата класа. От социалдемократите и левите комунисти до либералите и консерваторите и техните идеи, които по себе си са буржоазни като фашизма, никои от тях не работят.
Препоръчвам тази книга, той като тя е един от най-фундаменталните текстове за антифашисти и комунисти от всякакъв вид. Заплахата на фашизма е актуална днес, колкото е била преди един век. Тя силно допринася към развитието на идеите на работническото движение. Ако всеки четеше гениалните произведения Димитров, фашизмът щеше да няма никакъв шанс да се завърне. За това трябва всеки работник с респект към себе си да се учи от най-великия син на България и кормчията на Комунистическия интернационал - Георги Димитров.
Книгата се разделя на две по-големи части, които сами по себе си съдържат глави.
През цялата реч се редуват Георги Димитров и публиката, която ръкопляска и го хвали.
Авторът изказва всичките си гледни точки с много мотивиран тон. По негово време е имало много антифашисти с много различни идеи, но с обща концепция, обаче само лявата линия на Комунистическия интернационал триумфира над враговете на работническата класа. От социалдемократите и левите комунисти до либералите и консерваторите и техните идеи, които по себе си са буржоазни като фашизма, никои от тях не работят.
Препоръчвам тази книга, той като тя е един от най-фундаменталните текстове за антифашисти и комунисти от всякакъв вид. Заплахата на фашизма е актуална днес, колкото е била преди един век. Тя силно допринася към развитието на идеите на работническото движение. Ако всеки четеше гениалните произведения Димитров, фашизмът щеше да няма никакъв шанс да се завърне. За това трябва всеки работник с респект към себе си да се учи от най-великия син на България и кормчията на Комунистическия интернационал - Георги Димитров.
August 14, 2024
It’s a good book, it helped me in conversations about fighting against fascism. Comrade Dimitrov also does an OUTSTANDING job at defining fascism, without any lofty or overbearing rhetoric.
All in all this is a great work for the time in which it was written, however I do suppose the final lesson from the report does seem to be telling folks that we must always find ways to adapt and change our program to have broad mass appeal.
Takeaways:
- Perfect definition of fascism
- Not reflective of modern mass movement
- Far too conciliatory to Social - Democrats
- Remains useful in understanding how the fascists operate
All in all this is a great work for the time in which it was written, however I do suppose the final lesson from the report does seem to be telling folks that we must always find ways to adapt and change our program to have broad mass appeal.
Takeaways:
- Perfect definition of fascism
- Not reflective of modern mass movement
- Far too conciliatory to Social - Democrats
- Remains useful in understanding how the fascists operate
January 7, 2023
At times a bit simplistic in style, while still eloquent- the definition of fascism posited by Dimitrov (with Zetkin) is more tangible/understandable than most I’ve encountered. His subsequent analysis of the necessary steps to fight it is still instructive today.
March 4, 2021
While a useful historical document I think Dmitriovs analysis falls short in many areas
December 1, 2021
Faulty in that it equates capitalism with fascism and a united front is just a means to an end for him, but otherwise right on the money.
January 23, 2022
Sadly this report is still relevant and still reflects much of the political landscape today, although the power of socialists has decreased and the major fascist threat of the day is gone (Fascist Italy, Germany, Spain, and Japan).
Excellent analysis of fascism across the world, excellent analysis of how to work towards the defeat of fascism. I'd say that anyone who wants to defeat fascism should read this, but especially anyone who considers themself a Marxist-Leninist (since it is from a very Bolshevik perspective).
Excellent analysis of fascism across the world, excellent analysis of how to work towards the defeat of fascism. I'd say that anyone who wants to defeat fascism should read this, but especially anyone who considers themself a Marxist-Leninist (since it is from a very Bolshevik perspective).
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews