The USPD...Current views on them?

[Palingenisis]

Recently I read a history of the Freikorps and was shocked about just how central the militants of the USPD were to the class struggle in Germany between 1918 and 1923.

Ages ago I read on a Republican-Socialist forum someone say that the KPD were ultra-leftist in breaking from the USPD. I know this is the view of Die Nue Zeit/Jacob Richter.

I would really like to know the judegemnt of other people here on them.

(I wasnt sure whether this belonged here or in learning so mods feel free to move this thread there if you think its appropriate).

[ComradeOm]

Recently made a post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1769546&postcount=14) that deals with that mongrel party. I'll try to find time later to elaborate, but for now I'll merely note that while the USPD 'inherited' a great many class-conscious workers from the SPD, it also got a hopelessly dithering leadership who lacked any clear programme beyond returning to the pre-war status. The USPD is a caution tale for anyone trying to take the middle road in revolutionary times

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabhaengige-sozialdemokratische-partei-t95038/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-vs-kpd-t103415/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-tendencies-kpd-t118549/index.html



"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing." (Lars Lih)



A while back I "bent the stick" in favour of the SPD model against the sectarianism of so-called "vanguardists." However, past discussions in the Theory forum and in this very forum have led me to a more appropriate party model for class-conscious workers today, with no bent sticks whatsoever.

Contrary to the post above, the USPD was "an outstanding role model for Left politics today" that "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics."

There was a fourth tendency within the USPD that actually maintained the politics of the pre-war Marxist center (Kautsky, Guesde, Hilferding, the Bolsheviks, and Iskra-ites amongst the Mensheviks) and combated certain renegades and their cover for right-syndicalist tendencies towards cozying up to the mislabelled "Majority" SPD. However, they had a negative attitude towards the sectarian exit of the Spartacists led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht, and certainly towards the continued, propped-up existence of the KPD after the revolutionary period in Germany had passed.

This tendency consisted of realo figures such as Arthur Crispien, Wilhelm Dittman, Georg Ledebour, Paul Levi (later reconciliation in spite of the initial breakaway), Theodor Liebknecht, and the feminist Toni Sender.

The formation of the KPD, however, was ultra-leftist from the outset.

[Zanthorus]

I don't know if Richter realises it but the idea that the KPD was "ultra-leftist from the outset" is pretty much spot on. The members who were booted out of the KPD to form the KAPD were the majority faction of the party. And for the record, the KAPD'ers were booted out, they were willing to stay in the KPD and fight to get their own views recognised. So in this situation it was the Leninists who were the sectarians, not the Left-Communists. And even after they were kicked out they still attempted to get membership in the Comintern. Of course eventually they degenerated into an ultra-democratist sect. Still, I think we all know who the real fourth international were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers'_International) ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if Richter realises it but the idea that the KPD was "ultra-leftist from the outset" is pretty much spot on. The members who were booted out of the KPD to form the KAPD were the majority faction of the party. And for the record, the KAPD'ers were booted out, they were willing to stay in the KPD and fight to get their own views recognised. So in this situation it was the Leninists who were the sectarians, not the Left-Communists. And even after they were kicked out they still attempted to get membership in the Comintern. Of course eventually they degenerated into an ultra-democratist sect. Still, I think we all know who the real fourth international were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers'_International) ;)

That's just icing on the cake, really. I knew the Nutter KAPD was the Nutter majority within the Nutter KPD, per Devrim. However, I do think that "sectarian" would also apply to the Nutter KAPD *if* the formation of the Nutter KPD itself was because of "spontaneous" activity by those who would later on become Nutter KAPD activists, all at the expense of working-class Realos struggling to unite through the USPD in the new non-revolutionary period.


The USPD is a caution tale for anyone trying to take the middle road in revolutionary times

But we're not in revolutionary times, are we? :rolleyes:

That's why I mean when I reiterate the timely words of Dietmar Bartsch (new speech by him on the financial crisis):

http://www.youtube.com/linksfraktion?gl=DE&hl=de#p/a/u/2/W7shuU2_7Wc

[Devrim]

Nutter KPD,

That is an astute political criticism.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just wanted to use Die Linke's Realos-vs-Nutters vocabulary (but apply it properly unlike the current factional infighting there). ;) :D

[ComradeOm]

Contrary to the post above, the USPD was "an outstanding role model for Left politics today" that "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics."How strange then that it would simply dissolve with the vast majority of its membership joining the KPD and its leadership sulking back to the SPD. What an outstanding role model :rolleyes:

IMO the fundamental problem with your assessment of this USPD, and the SPD, is a subtle shifting of the goalposts. The KPD is judged on its ability to fulfil a revolutionary role in transforming society, as it should be, but you and Lih focus on the 'cultural activities' of the SPD/USPD - its ability to provide a 'state within a state' for the workers. Which is nonsense. When evaluated as a true vanguard party - ie, as a collection of the most advanced elements of the working class capable of leading the remainder towards revolution - the USPD fails badly. How on earth can a vanguard party take seats in a bourgeois government?

This was not a revolutionary party, it did not have a revolutionary programme, and its leadership was certainly not revolutionary. The fact that it briefly possessed a mass support from a revolutionary working class is a complete historical accident


But we're not in revolutionary times, are we?Hence all talk of the USPD is pretty irrelevant. The historical lessons to be drawn from this party are the dangers of trying to steer a middle course during a revolution. Transplant the USPD into non-revolutionary times however and you merely have the SPD. The lessons to be taken from that party should be self-evident... despite revisionist efforts


So in this situation it was the Leninists who were the sectarians, not the Left-CommunistsIronically Lenin made considerable efforts to affect a reunion between the KPD and KAPD

But then I tend to excuse the KPD for being so rabidly sectarian as a reaction to the gross opportunism displayed by the SPD and USPD. It certainly played a role in the party's many failures but is at least somewhat understandable. In fact, a major failing of the Spartacists was the failure to promptly form an independent party and instead waste time by aligning with the USPD. This was an arrangement that suited no one but then the malign influence of the SPD's 'state within a state' (all the leading social-democrats, including Luxembourg, were deeply attached to the party... no matter how flawed/destructive it proved to be) cannot be overstated. As I've argued before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1379280&postcount=2) the USPD was fundamentally an effort to recreate the old pre-war SPD:

Even after [their expulsion] Kautsky et al continued to oppose the creation of a new party and the name ultimately chosen - Independent Social Democratic Party - was deliberately intended to show that this was a continuation of, not a break with, old traditions. The final product, as founded at the Gotha Congress of April 1917, validated Marx's line about history and farces - the Erfurt Programme of 1891 was solemnly adopted by the 'new' party and the overwhelming sentiment amongst delegates was for a return to the pre-war policies, positions, and programmes of social-democracy

[Die Neue Zeit]

How strange then that it would simply dissolve with the vast majority of its membership joining the KPD and its leadership sulking back to the SPD. What an outstanding role model

Again the center tendency in the USPD was not strong enough to woo the left wing away from the KPD and take a hostile stance towards the MSPD.


When evaluated as a true vanguard party - ie, as a collection of the most advanced elements of the working class capable of leading the remainder towards revolution

How does that compare with "it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission," hmmm?


Hence all talk of the USPD is pretty irrelevant. The historical lessons to be drawn from this party are the dangers of trying to steer a middle course during a revolution. Transplant the USPD into non-revolutionary times however and you merely have the SPD. The lessons to be taken from that party should be self-evident... despite revisionist efforts

You said yourself that the USPD was deprived of the worst reformist elements. How can a USPD in non-revolutionary times be "merely the SPD"?


Ironically Lenin made considerable efforts to affect a reunion between the KPD and KAPD

In Left-Wing Communism, the one thing the increasingly nutterish Lenin failed to write was the need for the KPD sectarians to fold back into the USPD.

[Zanthorus]

Again the center tendency in the uspd was not strong enough to woo the left wing away from the KPDand take a hostile stance towards the MSPD.

mspd?

[Zeus the Moose]

mspd?

That's what the original SPD was called for a time when the USPD existed as an independent party. It stands for "Majority Social Democratic Party of Germany" or "Mehrheits Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands."

[Devrim]

I just wanted to use Die Linke's Realos-vs-Nutters vocabulary (but apply it properly unlike the current factional infighting there). ;) :D

I object to calling people who identify as socialists 'nutters'. It is what the bourgeois media does. You also imply that these were tiny groups. To put it in perspective the KPD and the KAPD and its industrial organisations contained about half a million workers each in the early 1920s. That is a total of 1,000,000 members, including most of the most revolutionary workers. They were hardly tiny 'nutty' sects.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Their identification as revolutionaries isn't what's nutty. Their immature political action in the revolutionary period and downright stubbornness in the following non-revolutionary period are, however, what merit the description "nutty."

The following non-revolutionary period demanded Realo-ism; being the nutters that they were, the ultra-left KPD and KAPD sectarians didn't sing to the tune.

[Devrim]

Their identification as revolutionaries isn't what's nutty. Their immature political action in the revolutionary period and downright stubbornness in the following non-revolutionary period are, however, what merit the description "nutty."

The following non-revolutionary period demanded Realo-ism; being the nutters that they were, the ultra-left KPD and KAPD sectarians didn't sing to the tune.

Of course it is very easy to see now that the period had ceased to be revolutionary. I imagine that it was much more difficult to see in say April 1921.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Of course it is very easy to see now that the period had ceased to be revolutionary. I imagine that it was much more difficult to see in say April 1923.

Devrim

Did 1923 with the Ruhr crisis see an upsurge in struggles?

[Palingenisis]

Their identification as revolutionaries isn't what's nutty. Their immature political action in the revolutionary period and downright stubbornness in the following non-revolutionary period are, however, what merit the description "nutty."

Jacob you are certainly one of the best and most insightful posters here but I have to agreee with Devrim on this. Its sad to see you sinking to the level of someone from the CWI.

[Devrim]

Did 1923 with the Ruhr crisis see an upsurge in struggles?

It is a typo. It was meant to be 1921, i.e. immediately after the March action.
I have changed the original.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course it is very easy to see now that the period had ceased to be revolutionary. I imagine that it was much more difficult to see in say April 1921.

Devrim

April 1921 is after that tragic decision in December 1920 by 400,000 USPD members to unite with the ultra-left KPD. You see it as a tragedy for different reasons, of course.

[Devrim]

April 1921 is after that tragic decision in December 1920 by 400,000 USPD members to unite with the ultra-left KPD. You see it as a tragedy for different reasons, of course.

No, I don't see it as a tragedy at all. Workers being massacred in the street by the state after they had been pushed by the Comintern into an ill prepared uprising. Yes that is a tragedy. The KPD in an opportunist manoeuvre hardly is.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

The USPD do seem though in general to have been a lot more revolutionary than the KKE, The Workers' Party of Ireland or various Trot groups are today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The USPD do seem though in general to have been a lot more revolutionary than the KKE, The Workers' Party of Ireland or various Trot groups are today.

How was it more revolutionary than the KKE? Did the KKE participate in coalition governments at some point? Or is it just because of the KKE's staunch nationalism?


No, I don't see it as a tragedy at all. Workers being massacred in the street by the state after they had been pushed by the Comintern into an ill prepared uprising. Yes that is a tragedy. The KPD in an opportunist manoeuvre hardly is.

Devrim

Like I said, you oppose the merger of the USPD left wing and the KPD for different reasons, but oppose it nonetheless.

To paraphrase you, the USPD left wing in an ultra-left mode is a tragedy for the German workers movement. I oppose it because this split occurred outside of a revolutionary period (which lasted at most into 1919), and because this surrender to liquidationist elements (the USPD right wing) led to the eventual breakdown of the USPD.

[Palingenisis]

How was it more revolutionary than the KKE? Did the KKE participate in coalition governments at some point? Or is it just because of the KKE's staunch nationalism?.

I was thinking of the KKE's condemnation of the December rebellion...The USPD didnt line up on the side of the freikorps basically ever, did they?

[ComradeOm]

Again the center tendency in the USPD was not strong enough to woo the left wing away from the KPD and take a hostile stance towards the MSPD.Well yes, that's pretty much the point. The politics of the centre (ie, a return to 1914) had very little appeal to its increasingly radicalised membership and no relevance whatsoever in such an intense revolutionary environment

Historically the purpose of the 'centre' in the pre-war SPD had been to hold the various wings party together - a task that was largely achieved by continually postponing revolution into the distant future while paying lip service to Marxism with Kautsky's theoretical obfuscations. In short, by maintaining only the facade of a revolutionary party. With the split in the party this 'centre' role became completely superfluous. There was no longer a party to hold together yet Kautsky et al persisted as if there was. No wonder they, and the entirely USPD, failed when their entire framework was rendered obsolete by the thing they feared the most - revolution


How does that compare with "it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission," hmmm?I don't care what Lih says. The SPD was not revolutionary. The USPD leadership was not revolutionary. These were not vanguard parties. Certainly not in 1917 onwards where the KPD and other communist outfits were attracting the most militant and advanced elements of the German proletariat. Anything else is just playing with semantics


You said yourself that the USPD was deprived of the worst reformist elements. How can a USPD in non-revolutionary times be "merely the SPD"?Because the politics and raison d'etre of the USPD was essentially that of the pre-war SPD. The difference between the two in 1918 is that the SPD had shifted decisively into the role of legitimising/buttressing the bourgeois state, after decades of pretence, while the USPD was still muddling along in denial


In Left-Wing Communism, the one thing the increasingly nutterish Lenin failed to write was the need for the KPD sectarians to fold back into the USPD.This is not difficult - splitting from a moribund or openly bourgeois social-democratic party is good. Splitting from a revolutionary communist party in a tense revolutionary situation is bad. Why on earth would Lenin support the return of the Spartacists to such a dithering and doomed party as the USPD? A party with no future and that supported the SPD in government, Lenin was looking to encourage the revolution in Germany, not smother it

Frankly JR, with your love of semantic definitions and buzzwords (realo? nutter? Give it a rest) you seem to have lost sight of the fact that Germany at this time was in the midst of a revolution and the USPD was simply not a revolutionary organisation


The USPD do seem though in general to have been a lot more revolutionary than the KKE, The Workers' Party of Ireland or various Trot groups are todayLeaving aside the absurdity of the comparison, very few 'leftist' parties today still subscribe to the Erfurt Programme and actively support social-democracy

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was thinking of the KKE's condemnation of the December rebellion...The USPD didnt line up on the side of the freikorps basically ever, did they?

Oh yeah, that little event (thanks)! :glare:


Well yes, that's pretty much the point. The politics of the centre (ie, a return to 1914) had very little appeal to its increasingly radicalised membership and no relevance whatsoever in such an intense revolutionary environment

As I said above, Kautsky was no longer in the center tendency, even within the USPD. In that organization, that unholy trio of Kautsky, Bernstein, and Haase were the leaders of the right wing.

[FYI, I have Hugo Haase in my album (http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=553) only because of the relevance of his anti-war stance to Afghanistan - peace without annexations or indemnifications - and because of the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin cult basis for my proposed culture of appreciation within Die Linke. :D ]


Historically the purpose of the 'centre' in the pre-war SPD had been to hold the various wings party together - a task that was largely achieved by continually postponing revolution into the distant future while paying lip service to Marxism with Kautsky's theoretical obfuscations. In short, by maintaining only the facade of a revolutionary party. With the split in the party this 'centre' role became completely superfluous.

There are two centers historically in the workers movement. One is the vulgar type you described above. The other, however, contains the core of revolutionary strategy (you still need to join that usergroup on Macnair's profoundly true and important book) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205): against coalition governments administering the capitalist state for "get rich quick" reforms, and also against mass strike and other "quick fix" action fetishes.

Why? Because these strategies of the right and left, respectively, are minoritarian. They do not rely on garnering majority political support from the working class!


This strategic orientation demands patience. The fundamental present problem is that after the failures of the strategies of the 20th century, in the absence of a Marxist strategic understanding, most socialists are socialists by ethical and emotional commitment only. This leads to the adoption of ‘get-rich-quick’ solutions that enter into the capitalist politicians’ government games.
This is the trouble with ideas that the LCR should join a new gauche plurielle project rather than addressing seriously the question of unity with Lutte Ouvrière; with Rifondazione’s decision to participate in the Prodi government; with Die Linke’s participation in a coalition with the SDP in Berlin; with the SSP’s orientation to an SNP-led coalition for independence; with Respect. The result is not to lead towards an effective workers’ party, but towards another round of brief hope and long disillusionment.
A different sort of impatience is offered by those who split prematurely and refuse partial unity in the hope of building their own ‘Leninist party’: the Sozialistische Alternative’s split orientation in the process of formation of Die Linke; the splits of the Socialist Party and Workers Power from the Socialist Alliance; and so on. We find that, although these sects sell themselves as ‘revolutionary’, when they stand for election either to parliaments or in unions their policies are broadly similar to the coalitionists. They are still playing within the capitalist rules of the game.
The left, in other words, needs to break with the endless series of failed ‘quick fixes’ that has characterised the 20th century. It needs a strategy of patience, like Kautsky’s: but one that is internationalist and radical-democratic, not one that accepts the existing order of nation-states.

[ComradeOm]

As I said above, Kautsky was no longer in the center tendency, even within the USPD. In that organization, that unholy trio of Kautsky, Bernstein, and Haase were the leaders of the right wingThe problem I always have with these threads JR is that I only seem to get replies comprised of buzzwords, unnecessary over-theorising, and Macnair references. This is a problem because I tend not to write or think in such a stilted manner. So when I referred to the 'SPD centre' I meant those figures that comprised the centre tendency of the pre-war SPD and later came to dominate the USPD leadership. I don't particularly care whether they were on the right, left, interior, of the latter


There are two centers historically in the workers movement. One is the vulgar type you described above. The other, however, contains the core of revolutionary strategy (you still need to join that usergroup on Macnair's profoundly true and important book) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205): against coalition governments administering the capitalist state for "get rich quick" reforms, and also against mass strike and other "quick fix" action fetishesI'm aware of the productive role that the centre may play in a revolutionary party (and in this context I have great respect for Levi's struggles in the KPD). That does not however change the fact that the SPD's centre did not play a productive role and that the party itself was not a revolutionary organisation

Really, there's such a thing as over-formalising and over-thinking these divisions. Especially when they detract from obvious truths


The left, in other words, needs to break with the endless series of failed ‘quick fixes’ that has characterised the 20th century. It needs a strategy of patience, like Kautsky’s: but one that is internationalist and radical-democratic, not one that accepts the existing order of nation-states.This feeds back to my earlier criticism on the flawed evaluation of the SPD/USPD as role models

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem I always have with these threads JR is that I only seem to get replies comprised of buzzwords, unnecessary over-theorising, and Macnair references. This is a problem because I tend not to write or think in such a stilted manner. So when I referred to the 'SPD centre' I meant those figures that comprised the centre tendency of the pre-war SPD and later came to dominate the USPD leadership. I don't particularly care whether they were on the right, left, interior, of the latter

I'm aware of the productive role that the centre may play in a revolutionary party (and in this context I have great respect for Levi's struggles in the KPD). That does not however change the fact that the SPD's centre did not play a productive role and that the party itself was not a revolutionary organisation

So you completely ignore the role played by these figures?


This tendency consisted of realo figures such as Arthur Crispien, Wilhelm Dittman, Georg Ledebour, Paul Levi (later reconciliation in spite of the initial breakaway), Theodor Liebknecht, and the feminist Toni Sender.

Theodor Liebknecht in particular was hostile to both the MSPD and KPD.


This feeds back to my earlier criticism on the flawed evaluation of the SPD/USPD as role models

But you, like most Trotskyists and "Anti-Revisionists" and left-coms, throw the outstanding-role-model-for-a-baby out with the bathwater. Lih, Macnair, Cockshott (a poster on this board, btw), and I don't.

[Palingenisis]

One of the reasons I remember seeing for the KPD not breaking with the USPD was that it never was able to rebuild the "alternative culture"/"counter power" that the USPD had taken with it from the pre-WWI SPD....Is this true? And also is this part of your reasoning DNZ?

[Zeus the Moose]

How was it more revolutionary than the KKE? Did the KKE participate in coalition governments at some point? Or is it just because of the KKE's staunch nationalism?

I'd agree with Palingenisis about the KKE's opposition and condemnation to the December uprisings in Greece, though I believe the KKE did participate in a coalition government with New Democracy in the 1980s. The KKE was part of SYN then, but that doesn't seem like much of an excuse.

Also, 100th post. Woo.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the reasons I remember seeing for the KPD not breaking with the USPD was that it never was able to rebuild the "alternative culture"/"counter power" that the USPD had taken with it from the pre-WWI SPD....Is this true? And also is this part of your reasoning DNZ?

That's basically it, yes. The ultra-left KPD and KAPD did build a bit of an alternative culture (the Bolsheviks had a workers insurance scheme), but because of limited Bolshevik practices couldn't compete with the USPD or the SPD on this.

[Palingenisis]

That's basically it, yes. The ultra-left KPD and KAPD did build a bit of an alternative culture (the Bolsheviks had a workers insurance scheme), but because of limited Bolshevik practices couldn't compete with the USPD or the SPD on this.

And that is a very important consideration.

Also USPD militants played important roles in the Bavarian Soviet Republic and I cant find any references for their Party condemning them for this..But maybe somebody else knows more?

[Palingenisis]

I know I will get attacked for this but the USPD remind me of the Scottish Socialist Party at the moment who even "The Commune" have links too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Attacked by whom? :confused:

[ComradeOm]

So you completely ignore the role played by these figures?What? No. I simply don't give a damn how you classify them. You would much prefer endless talk of tendencies than analysing the USPD’s actual actions… the most damning of which being sitting in a bourgeois government


But you, like most Trotskyists and "Anti-Revisionists" and left-coms, throw the outstanding-role-model-for-a-baby out with the bathwater. Lih, Macnair, Cockshott (a poster on this board, btw), and I don't.I think I've made it perfectly clear that I in no way consider the USPD to be an outstanding model. I've already described it as an historical accident that met an ignominious end and accomplished very little while it existed. I've also stated that I see attempts to resurrect this model (or to at least revise historical judgement of it) as a hopeless attempt at shifting the goalposts away from revolutionary politics. You are fetishising a failed and fundamentally anti-revolutionary party

So no, I don't see anything particularly worth keeping about the USPD. And nor am I particularly happy that some small group is attempting to shift attention from the KPD (a party that despite its any failings was at suited to the times) and validate a model that caused immense damage to the workers movement

[Die Neue Zeit]

What? No. I simply don't give a damn how you classify them. You would much prefer endless talk of tendencies than analysing the USPD’s actual actions… the most damning of which being sitting in a bourgeois government

There was little control by the rank and file over the leadership. Many parties in those days suffered immensely from this.


I think I've made it perfectly clear that I in no way consider the USPD to be an outstanding model.

We'll agree to disagree then.


And nor am I particularly happy that some small group is attempting to shift attention from the KPD (a party that despite its any failings was at suited to the times) and validate a model that caused immense damage to the workers movement

So how come groups like the Black Panthers and Hezbollah were/are more successful that the various Trotskyist, Luxemburgist, councilist, etc. sects especially after WWII?

Heck, one of my three main complaints about the PSUV is that the Venezuelan missions are government organs and not party organs, and yet people identify the missions with the activities of the PSUV. Outside of my three main complaints (no direct "alternative culture," potentially dubious "membership" registration (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuelas-psuv-real-t136830/index.html), no workers-only membership policy), the PSUV has been more successful than Trotskyist, Luxemburgist, councilist, etc. sects.

Notice that none of my three main complaints is dogmatism masked as "revolutionary" politics.

[Devrim]

So how come groups like the Black Panthers and Hezbollah were/are more successful that the various Trotskyist, Luxemburgist, councilist, etc. sects especially after WWII?

I don't think that the Black Panthers were particularly successful anyway, but with Hezbollah I don't even see the point in your comparison. Of course in a deeply sectarian system, the political party that represents the largest single sect, will probably be quite successful, but what does it have to do with socialist politics in anyway? Of course, bourgeois sectarian parties like Hezbollah are successful in bourgeois sectarian politics.

The weakness of revolutionary groups is connected to the weakness of the working class, and not to the lack of 'social programmes'.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Disregarding its political program, Hezbollah is like the SPD both pre-WWI and inter-war, combining "alternative culture" with militias. It isn't, as the SWP's John Rees asserted, "an AFL-CIO with guns."

[Devrim]

Disregarding its political program, Hezbollah is like the SPD both pre-WWI and inter-war, combining "alternative culture" with militias. It isn't, as the SWP's John Rees asserted, "an AFL-CIO with guns."

So What?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Precisely because Hezbollah has such "alternative culture" Realo-ism is why it is more successful than cheap agitprop outlets on the left.