"Social fascism" and Hitler's rise to power

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[ComradeOm]

Was the KPD mistaken in its polices towards Hitler? Unquestionably. They gravely underestimated the threat posed by Nazism. However to blame Hitler's rise to power on the KPD or accuse them of not resisting his rise to power is absurd

In the first place, regardless of that polices emanated from Moscow, the KPD and SPD had been effectively at war, literally at times, for over a decade. The ghosts of the German Revolution were constantly conjured up as both parties laid into each other. This was more than just history or politics though; it reflected the growing social divide between the SPD's older and more affluent members and the radicalised younger workers of the KPD. In particular the Social Democrats, whose support base was directly threatened, were even more terrified than the conservatives at the rise of the KPD. Asking to these parties to simply lay aside their differences and work together - especially when both were under mistaken assumptions regarding fascism, the Communists had no monopoly on that - was far too idealistic

That said, not everyone was ignorant as to the dangers posed by Nazism and there was significant co-operation at grassroots level in local strikes, demonstrations, etc. Unfortunately real negotiations at a national level began far too late and collapsed due to mutual suspicion. Notably the SPD did not protest in March 1933 when Hitler, as one of his first acts in power, banned the KPD. This was the same passive SPD leadership that had refused to bring its members onto the streets to counter Hitler and ultimately capitulated meekly. All this for the same reason as they refused to support the KPD's call for a general strike (see below) - they considered the Communists to be a greater threat than the fascists

In contrast the KPD attacks on the NSDAP intensified considerably as the Nazis began to enjoy electoral success. Despite the myths, the KPD did not ignore the fascists and proved quite capable of attacking both the SPD and NSDAP. Indeed at grassroots level it was impossible for the Communists to ignore the SA paramilitaries. There was constant hostility towards the SPD leadership, and the distinction between the SPD executive and rank-and-file was often made by the Rote Fahne, but, as I said above, there were attempts to build a united front between both parties. Stampfer proposed a joint strike but this was dismissed by his SPD colleagues and there were few similar proposals from the Social Democrats. In contrast the KPD Central Committee announced in April 1932 that it would "fight together with any organisation of workers which is really fighting against wage and benefit cuts". The Rote Fahne made another joint offer of action to the SPD organisation in Berlin in July 1932. Thälmann went one better and publicly called for a general strike to bring down the Papen government in the same month. These were not unconditional offers but they demonstrate that the KPD was not blind to the threat of fascism nor unwilling to cooperate with the SPD. Unfortunately the same was not true in reverse

The KPD does not escape lightly from this analysis but while 'social fascism', no matter how loosely followed, may have been in error the real criticism lies in its performance during the previous years. There's obviously some correlation between ultra-leftism and its poor performance (the PCF recorded a significant upswing in support once it abandoned the same platform) but the unavoidable fact is that the KPD was never able to compete with either the NSDAP or SPD in numerical terms. It was never a true mass party and was never able to bring the workers out onto the streets like the Social Democrats. That is its true failing and had it been wiser, poor leadership was always an issue, then the KPD would not have needed SPD support in its call for strikes or direct action

[Die Neue Zeit]

The KPD does not escape lightly from this analysis but while 'social fascism', no matter how loosely followed, may have been in error the real criticism lies in its performance during the previous years. There's obviously some correlation between ultra-leftism and its poor performance (the PCF recorded a significant upswing in support once it abandoned the same platform) but the unavoidable fact is that the KPD was never able to compete with either the NSDAP or SPD in numerical terms. It was never a true mass party and was never able to bring the workers out onto the streets like the Social Democrats. That is its true failing and had it been wiser, poor leadership was always an issue, then the KPD would not have needed SPD support in its call for strikes or direct action

So why do you think, then, that the very ultra-left genesis of the KPD at the expense of the USPD was a good thing?



Speaking of "social fascism," it is more accurate to speak of social corporatism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-economic-rent-t103272/index.html

[ComradeOm]

So why do you think, then, that the very ultra-left genesis of the KPD at the expense of the USPD was a good thingBecause the act of splitting from a rightist or reformist organisation is not in itself ultra-leftist. The great sin of the KPD lies not in discarding the failed policies and structures of German Social Democracy but in failing to construct a viable alternative that would appeal to the masses. The SPD had no future as a workers' party (if nothing else the events of '32/33 demonstrate that) and the USPD had no future as a party full stop. Yet the KPD proved unable to step into this void

[Die Neue Zeit]

You know, I really wish that the far left organizing within Die Linke consider reviving the USPD brand, but only as the Unabhängige Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands, or Independent Socialist Party of Germany. :(