Third Period

[Radek]

I assume that today Stalinists will defend the Third Period, and am interested to hear some of the arguments put forward.

In particular I would be interested in why the Third Period was implemented in 1928 (after being noted in 1927), when capitalism looked stable, the Great Depression was still a year or two away, and communist groups/working class militancy looked like it was on a down-swing (excluding isolated incidents).

I would also be interested in why the Third Period continued until 1935, after it brought about the widespread decline of communist groups (excluding the KPD), followed by the rise of Hitler, the banning of the KPD, SPD and Trade Unions, and a fairly clear example of what fascism is about.

[I imagine my factual-sounding statements above may be challenged; they are primarily for the purpose of detailing where I am coming from in order to help shape any responses.]

[ContrarianLemming]

No one here is going to enter this thread and say "i'm a stalinist and I'm going to defend this"
intellectual suicide.

[Radek]

There are plenty of people who defend Stalin, and this would seem a fairly key period of time. However, if that is the case then perhaps someone will play devil's advocate, or explain what they have come across in the past.

[mcg]

I agree I don't know anyone who calls themselves a Stalinist and I've sought out the most liberal people I could find at a liberal college and everywhere else I've been.

[Adil3tr]

Yay! Screw Stalin!

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Third Period Stalinism" is fundamentally different from what passes today as "Anti-Revisionism."

Firstly, it makes even the Hoxhaist branch of "Anti-Revisionism" quite "revisionist" in its aggressive approach to building red unions and making them poach from yellow ones aggressively. Given the foul yellow stench, I see nothing wrong here.

Second, the theory of "Social Fascism" was a bit primitive. It is more correct to speak of Social-Corporatism, in that Corporatism has Fascist, Liberal-Conservative, and "Social-Democratic" wings. Coincidentally, all three wings are chummy with the rentier parasites (the "FIRE" section of the economy) within the bourgeoisie.

Third, the idea of having joint strikes and demonstrations with the Nazis as a whole against social-corporatists is, while with nevertheless good intentions, also primitive. There was little or no effort in practice made to come up with a separate form of united front as an alternative to Trotsky's de facto delusions of Social-Democratic unity; that is, to create splits within the Nazi movement along left-right lines and then unite with both SPD splinters and the now-more-identifiable demographic of left-nationalists in a Communitarian Populist Front.

Most of what passes today as "Anti-Revisionism" prefers "anti-fascist" Popular Fronts that include bourgeois liberals.

[Radek]

Can I infer from this that Stalinists/Anti-Revisionists/Marxist-Leninists today would accept the Third Period as a mistake? If so, is it only considered a mistake with the advantage of hindsight, or was it a mistake at the time as well?

On the tangential question of red unions, I have seen some words here and there about the Comintern/Soviets encouraging them; however, nothing detailed, and the Comintern/Soviet documents I've looked at tend to simply regurgitate Lenin's line of working within reformist unions. Is there anything you could point me towards on this?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can I infer from this that Stalinists/Anti-Revisionists/Marxist-Leninists today would accept the Third Period as a mistake? If so, is it only considered a mistake with the advantage of hindsight, or was it a mistake at the time as well?

They consider it as a "mistake" in order to cover for their more traditional Popular Front crap.


On the tangential question of red unions, I have seen some words here and there about the Comintern/Soviets encouraging them; however, nothing detailed, and the Comintern/Soviet documents I've looked at tend to simply regurgitate Lenin's line of working within reformist unions. Is there anything you could point me towards on this?

I think it was in 1924, before the "Third Period" line was adopted by the Comintern, when the CP-USA tried to take over the IWW. The IWW then, to its detriment, adopted an explicitly anti-political position:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/ch06.htm


“Revolutionary” syndicalism, many ideologists of which, in the extremely critical war period went over to the camp of the Fascist type of “anti-parliamentary” counter-revolutionaries, or became peaceful reformists of the social-democratic type, by its repudiation of political struggle (particularly of revolutionary parliamentarism) and of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, by its advocacy of craft decentralisation of the labour movement generally and of the trade union movement in particular, by its repudiation of the need for a proletarian party, and of the necessity for rebellion, and by its exaggeration of the importance of the general strike (the “fold arms tactics”), like anarchism, hinders the revolutionisation of the masses of the workers wherever it has any influence. Its attacks upon the U.S.S.R., which logically follow from its repudiation of dictatorship of the proletariat in general, place it in this respect on a level with social democracy.

All these tendencies take a common stand with social democracy, the principal enemy of the proletarian revolution, on the fundamental political issue, i.e., the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, all of them come out more or less definitely in a united front with social democracy against the U.S.S.R. On the other hand, social democracy, which has utterly and completely betrayed Marxism, tends to rely more and more upon the ideology of the Fabians, of the Constructive Socialists and of the Guild Socialists. These tendencies are becoming transformed into the official liberal-reformist ideology of the bourgeois “socialism” of the Second International.

[...]

Unlike the reformists, whose policy is to split the trade unions, the Communists defend trade union unity nationally and internationally on the basis of the class struggle, and render every support to and strengthen the work of the Red Trade Union International.

Meanwhile, the CP-USA continued its own fetish for illegality, something unheard of even amongst other Communist Parties of that period.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like to add that the Third Period adds a key subtlety which Trotskyists proper can't understand (unless they're post-Trots): building socialism in one country vs. achieving it. This is continuous with Kautsky's "steps toward socialism" adopted by Lenin.

[FSL]

Oh god, I wrote an amazingly huge post that was lost.

Anyway, what I tried to say in more words and with arguments was: "popular frontism" brought us parties that mimicked social democracy (to the point of dropping the "C" or willingly dissolving themseves) and let all kinds of bourgeois deviations grow in the communist movement. Third period politics should pretty much be the preferred by default, when things are "mostly normal".
I'd agree with adopting a popular front policy in the mid-30s though, but out of need not out of choise.

On the question of "red unions", people interpet that as leaving reactionary unions to set up our own when it isn't like that. "Yellow" and "red" international unions exist today (ITUC and WFTU) though obviously not with the polemics of the old time, something that will hopefully change.
The main point of it is to actually advance class struggle by having unions where communists or sympathizers are in the majority folow their own line, hostile to capital and sold out union leaders, when most unions just do everything to achieve social harmony.
From what I've seen, we need more of these "red unions".

[Devrim]

There was a post on this topic in the left communist group the other day:


There are superficial similarities between the position of Stalin in the Third Period and the position of the Italian left in the early 20s. However, they come from entirely different directions. If I recall rightly, for the Stalinists denouncing the 'social fascists' of social democracy was tied up with Russian foreign policy and was actually an expression of a kind of de facto alliance with the far right and thus with German militarism. It was abruptly changed a few years later when Russian imperialism shifted towards an alliance with France and the democratic powers, and began calling for the Popular Fronts. In any case any Stalinist 'alliance' with social democratic workers 'from below' would not have been a way of advancing working class unity, but of widening the possible influence of the Stalinist parties and their capacity to control the working class 'from above'. The Italian left was arguing from a proletarian perspective - for them the 'united front from below' meant no alliance with the socialist parties which were seen essentially as parties of the enemy, but concrete unity in action with workers who were still members of or influenced by the social democratic party, in strikes, demonstrations, etc. I think using the term 'united front from below' was still a kind of concession to the Comintern line but the basic starting point and concern was still proletarian.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

If Alf wants to discuss Realpolitik, then he's quite wrong. In the sphere of Soviet foreign policy, Stalin and co. didn't really want to see a strong Germany, so how could they see a right-militarist Germany as some sort of bulwark against Western imperialism? Generals and military planners plan to fight the last war, so trench warfare with Germany and Poland was more likely than a rapid ground advance by Britain and France.

The so-called "alliance with the far right" or, more precisely, the failure to differentiate the left-nationalists (and thus the growing working-class component of the Nazi movement) from the Hitlerites, could be cynically seen as an attempt to play the various sides within Germany against one another to keep Germany indecisive or slightly pro-Soviet on foreign policy.

This Realpolitik against Germany being a Western military power would surface once more at the onset of the Cold War, with Stalin preferring a united but neutral Germany.

[Radek]

My reading of the situation is that Moscow's main concern (rightly or wrongly) was France, and France was attempting rapprochement with Germany. This would have created a united capitalist front and thus certain war (at least according to the Leninist world-view).

Moscow's main goal, therefore, was to keep Germany divided from the west, and one way of doing this was to promote German nationalism and militarism (their continuing military cooperation from Rapallo, which helped both states rearm). They could do this because they assumed that a) the nationalists probably wouldn't come to power and b) even if they did, they would see the benefits of continued cooperation with Moscow and focus their attacks against France instead.

When Hitler did look like he was coming to power they made a last ditch attempt at a united front with the SPD (which the SPD refused, unsurprisingly after 4 years of calling them fascists), before going back to the Third Period ways.

When Hitler finally did come to power the initial focus seems to have been on keeping good relations in the hope that he went after France as predicted. The Berlin Treaty was ratified and there were no real complaints about the destruction of the KPD and the internment of 60-100,000 German communists. It wasn't until 1935, and after pressure from scared European parties on the ground, that the tactics of the popular front were put into place.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Moscow's main goal, therefore, was to keep Germany divided from the west, and one way of doing this was to promote German nationalism and militarism (their continuing military cooperation from Rapallo, which helped both states rearm). They could do this because they assumed that a) the nationalists probably wouldn't come to power and b) even if they did, they would see the benefits of continued cooperation with Moscow and focus their attacks against France instead.

Then they should have done what I suggested above. An inclusion of left-nationalists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/original-german-national-t136583/index.html) (please read link) would have guaranteed hostility towards France and dumped the anti-Russian idiocy found in Mein Kampf. Hey, Hitler preferred his book over "that [NSDAP] program," didn't he?

[Devrim]

If Alf wants to discuss Realpolitik,

I don't think that it is possible to discuss Comitern policy without looking at real politic. The Comintern was an instrument of the Soviet states foreign policy.


In the sphere of Soviet foreign policy, Stalin and co. didn't really want to see a strong Germany, so how could they see a right-militarist Germany as some sort of bulwark against Western imperialism?

Basically they saw themselves as being under threat from the imperialist states, more specifically Britain and France, the victors in the last war. Soviet foreign policy was designed to prevent all of the capitalist states uniting against the Soviet Union. As Alf says it later switched tack tactically, but the overwhelming strategic goal remained the same.


Generals and military planners plan to fight the last war, so trench warfare with Germany and Poland was more likely than a rapid ground advance by Britain and France.

This is untrue. For example, Field Marshall Alfred Von Schlieffen of the famous Schlieffen Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) planned to fight a war on two fronts against both France and Russia, not to rehash the Franco-Prussian war.


The Berlin Treaty was ratified and there were no real complaints about the destruction of the KPD and the internment of 60-100,000 German communists.

One could say the same about the much earlier massacres of Turkish communists tolerated in order to improve good relations with Kemal and the national movement.


It wasn't until 1935, and after pressure from scared European parties on the ground, that the tactics of the popular front were put into place.

And perhaps more importantly, to go back to the original point, the Soviets had seen that alliance with German was impossible, and wanted to construct an alliance with France.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that it is possible to discuss Comitern policy without looking at real politic. The Comintern was an instrument of the Soviet states foreign policy.

Part of the Comintern was an instrument of Soviet foreign policy.


Basically they saw themselves as being under threat from the imperialist states, more specifically Britain and France, the victors in the last war. Soviet foreign policy was designed to prevent all of the capitalist states uniting against the Soviet Union. As Alf says it later switched tack tactically, but the overwhelming strategic goal remained the same.

Yes, but a right-militarist Germany under conservatives would still have been hostile to the Soviet Union, particularly in light of the scars of the German revolution.


This is untrue. For example, Field Marshall Alfred Von Schlieffen of the famous Schlieffen Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) planned to fight a war on two fronts against both France and Russia, not to rehash the Franco-Prussian war.

The Schlieffen Plan wasn't exactly a two-front war plan. There's a pecking order for the knockout punches, and France (through steamrolling into Belgium) was above Russia in that pecking order. Until France was knocked out, the plan against Russia was for Germany to defend its positions.

Hitler skipped Belgium and went against the Maginot Line itself.


One could say the same about the much earlier massacres of Turkish communists tolerated in order to improve good relations with Kemal and the national movement.

Well, since the tone here is one of agreement, I should add the Chinese communists and relations with the Guomindang under Jiang, even after the country's liberation from Japan.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mike Macnair confirmed my supposition in last week's Weekly Worker:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004011


In this situation the Communist Party of Germany was until 1934 conducting its politics on the basis of the line that there was no difference between the fascists and social democracy. After all, social democracy is nationalist (as it showed by backing the war in 1914); it is corporatist (it advocates collaboration arrangements and systems between the trade unions and capital); and it is capable of making the same sort of pseudo-left criticisms of capital, and finance capital in particular, which fascism makes. Rudolf Hilferding in his book Finance capital borrows in places from the Austrian anti-Semitic writers, who characterise finance capital as more parasitic than industrial capital - arguing that it is more usurious and tagging it with the image of the Jew. This is present in the German social democracy’s critique of the bourgeoisie just as much as it is in the Hitler movement’s critique. So the Communist Party of Germany had a certain basis for stating that, ideologically, there is no difference between them.

They had another reason for this line though: the strategic alliance with the Soviet Union. The German far right - based on industry and steel in particular - and the German military were in strategic alliance with the Soviet Union. When the social democracy came into power in 1928-29 as part of a coalition, the alliance between the German state and the Soviet Union was broken.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should add that a new group has been formed to address the Third Period in its entirety:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=552

[el_chavista]

I should add that a new group has been formed to address the Third Period in its entirety:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=552

I'm confused. Isn't this 3rd period related to the grand depression epoch when communists uprose the slogan "class vs class" rather than the following epoch of struggling against the nazi raising?

[Radek]

I'm not entirely sure what you're confused about, but I'll try rambling a bit and you can tell me where to focus (or where I'm wrong).

The Third Period started over a year before the Great Depression, but it was based on the premise that capitalism was entering a period of crisis (something there was no evidence for at the time).

It carried the idea that social democrats were the greatest enemy of communism, and so the Nazis could essentially be ignored. For example, the rhetoric of the day claimed that Germany was already fascist (social fascist) and so there was no need to concern oneself with which fascist leader was in charge. This ultimately led to policies that actively supported their rise to power (sometimes explicitly, as in the case of the 'Red Referendum'). It was official Comintern policy until 1934, while the Nazis had gained power in 1932 and destroyed the KPD in early-mid 1933.

You are right that the Third Period came to an end and the struggle against the Nazis was conducted under the strategies of the Popular Front and Collective Security (through the League of Nations). However, this was more a struggle against Nazi aggression (which might endanger the Soviet Union) than it was against the Nazis themselves. That is to say, it was about giving the Soviets allies in the west and preventing those countries from falling to domestic fascists (which would have removed possible allies and shifted Hitler's attention to the east).