How relevant does it remain? Just briefly, as I understand it, it is an alliance of revolutionary communist parties with other more moderate, reformist socialist and social-democratic groups - but explicitly only ones with a working class base - to fight against fascism. Is it exclusive for an alliance against fascism though, or does it mean simply allying in times of upheaval etc.? Anyway, for me it seems to really only be a point of historical interest now, but I'm not sure. The concept is very helpful when contrasted with the popular front being adopted as official Comintern policy, and also what with Blum and the Spanish Civil War around 1936. However, most "social-democratic" parties have now adopted Blairist third way policies and these organisations have been thouroughly bourgeoisified. Yet, their membership and support still seems to be largely proletarian. Is this assessment mostly accurate, or no? My question is - God forbid fascism actually rose to a position of power in the UK (or anywhere in fact) - are parties like New Labour, Die Linke (?), etc. etc., still compatible with Trotsky's formulation of the united front? Thanks
Edit: also, can anyone elaborate on social-fascism a bit more? I know what it is (and bearing in mind the history of Nazism and its slow rise to power, with the Freikorps, crushing of the Spartacists, Ebert etc.), but in the context why would Stalin et al say, basically, social-democracy is fascism? And then why such a big leap in policy (social-fascism --> popular front, or the other way around.)?
United fronts, as I understand them, are only for specific issues. They are in essence, loose coalitions with everybody, ESPECIALLY us, continuing to hold their own views AND retaining the right, even obligation, to criticize front members on OTHER issues.
And yes, since Trotskyists and even Marxists in general, are such a small part of the political scene today, they ARE still revelent if you're going to be active at ALL. But only on issues, not manifestoes or programmes.