German left in 30s vs Nazis

[Pravda]

Im interested how did German left fought nazis. What was their tactics? Did SPD and KPD cooperated against them?
Can we learn something from history?

Looking forward for any answers.

[Zealot]

Many ways. One of the most interesting and relatively unmentioned organisations was the Red Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund), which was a paramilitary group under the leadership of the Communist Party. At the time of its ban it had over 130,000 members who often engaged in fights with the Nazi party's SA and the police. After it was banned some of them carried on their activities illegally, some joined the Nazi SA, some went with international brigades to Spain, and others fought for the Red Army during WWII.

[Grenzer]

Can we learn something from history?

Yes, the KPD provides a stellar example of what not to do.

In some cases, members of the KPD even went on strike with Nazis and things of that nature. In fact there was a significant portion of the party(its left wing) which actually did not see the rise of fascism as something that should specifically be opposed because in their view, the "fascization of the whole country" was a prelude to the collapse of capitalism, and that the victory of fascism was something that was historically necessary for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.

They primarily reached this conclusion by a bizarre interpretation of Luxemburg's apocalyptic predestinationist views on the fate of capitalism. Keep in mind that this was not the official party line, but it was a view held by a significant number of members and these views were not vigorously opposed by the party leadership.

Although this did occur in the "third period of Marxism-Leninism" the Party's views were continually seen as ultra-left by Moscow, and subject to criticism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes, the KPD provides a stellar example of what not to do.

In some cases, members of the KPD even went on strike with Nazis and things of that nature. In fact there was a significant portion of the party(its left wing) which actually did not see the rise of fascism as something that should specifically be opposed because in their view, the "fascization of the whole country" was a prelude to the collapse of capitalism, and that the victory of fascism was something that was historically necessary for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.

They primarily reached this conclusion by a bizarre interpretation of Luxemburg's apocalyptic predestinationist views on the fate of capitalism. Keep in mind that this was not the official party line, but it was a view held by a significant number of members and these views were not vigorously opposed by the party leadership.

Although this did occur in the "third period of Marxism-Leninism" the Party's views were continually seen as ultra-left by Moscow, and subject to criticism.

Most of what i read about the time gives a very different story. That, rather than joining strikes, workers' strikes were broken up by the Nazis and their SA. Who specifically in the KPD saw the "Braune Pest" (the term used to describe the SA strikebreakers) as a positive sign to revolution?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

the victory of fascism was something that was historically necessary for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.


I never heard of that before, who the hell came up with such shit?

[Grenzer]

Most of what i read about the time gives a very different story. That, rather than joining strikes, workers' strikes were broken up by the Nazis and their SA. Who specifically in the KPD saw the "Braune Pest" (the term used to describe the SA strikebreakers) as a positive sign to revolution?

I don't remember for sure, but I can look it up and then get back to you. The work Twilight of the Comintern by Edward Hallet Carr details the affairs of the KPD and the Comintern in a lot of detail and talks about it. This view was popular among the student communists, but there were some older members who shared this view too. They were condemned by Thälmann but no serious action was taken against them.

I own the book, but it is currently at my parents' home which is many hours' drive away otherwise I would look up the specifics now.

For certain it was not the mainstream view of the KPD, but it was a troubling sign of its overall orientation. I think there are some positive aspects about the KPD though, specifically in its hostility to the SPD. The SPD had already proven itself to be a counter-revolutionary defender of the bourgeois order by this time and extremely hostile to genuine communists. One thing that most people in favor of a front between the SPD and the KPD tend to overlook is that the SPD hated the KPD probably as much as the KPD hated them.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Im interested how did German left fought nazis. What was their tactics? Did SPD and KPD cooperated against them?
Can we learn something from history?

Looking forward for any answers.

The SPD was a bourgeois party ever since WW1, so no, the KPD didn't cooperate with them since it would be pointless. The Anti-Fascist group MAGMA says that "die Aufhebung des Staates und der warenproduzierenden Gesellschaft" (the ridding of the state and commodity producing society' is the only way to combat fascism. It's quite sad that the main critique of the KPD in Germany comes out to be such ultra-left sloganeering. Personally, i think that the KPD was portrayed quite negatively, especially towards the middle class of Germany, as being a "putschist" party, due to bad former politics. Had the KPD tried to stay on the traditional SPD strategy, history could maybe have changed significantly in the 30's. But you can't forget that the SPD being the dominant power in 1918 and turning Germany into a bourgeois republic (while it was decried as a "Socialist" "communist" party by the rightists) the Weimar Republic, which endured constant crises, made many people of the middle classes falsely believe that this "Socialism" was no good. A lot of money from the industrialists to the Fascists also not to forget.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I don't remember for sure, but I can look it up and then get back to you. The work Twilight of the Comintern by Edward Hallet Carr details the affairs of the KPD and the Comintern in a lot of detail and talks about it. This view was popular among the student communists, but there were some older members who shared this view too. They were condemned by Thälmann but no serious action was taken against them.

I own the book, but it is currently at my parents' home which is many hours' drive away otherwise I would look up the specifics now.

For certain it was not the mainstream view of the KPD, but it was a troubling sign of its overall orientation. I think there are some positive aspects about the KPD though, specifically in its hostility to the SPD. The SPD had already proven itself to be a counter-revolutionary defender of the bourgeois order by this time and extremely hostile to genuine communists. One thing that most people in favor of a front between the SPD and the KPD tend to overlook is that the SPD hated the KPD probably as much as the KPD hated them.

Yes, Henry Metelmann writes in response to the Trotskyist question of 'Popular Front' that "The only thing that mattered for the establishment at the time was keeping in a capitalist party. It wouldn't have mattered [had the KPD allied with the SPD], anything but the communists!" and the bourgeoisie went so far to support racist, conspiracy ridden, Fascist thugs to keep its priviliges.

[castlebravo]

Solely according to Jan Valtin's book and another article about that period, people such as Heinz Neumann started out with that type of "collaboration with the Nazis" ideal. Supposedly, Neumann and some other KPD members spoke at SA rallies a few times in the late 20s and were firm believers in the social fascism theory about the social democrats. However, from what it looked like in the book, Neumann and the others changed their viewpoint quickly once the early 30s rolled around, and abruptly unleashed chaotic revolutionary terror on the Brownshirts. Supposedly, there was an organization (I'm not sure if it was part of or independent of the Rot Front and/or the original Antifaschistische Aktion) called the "Red Marines" that would do those types of actions. Neumann also stated that he "wanted to see bodies!" instead of simple disruption of SA meetings, leading to incidents such as dismemberment and genital mutilation of Brownshirt members and even murdering children in the Hitler Youth.

Of course, it must also be said that Jan Valtin despised Heinz Neumann. Valtin himself had a pretty shitty life and defected to the US after being burn noticed by the NKVD and having his family murdered by the Nazis (and was still investigated by the HUAC when he was in America), so one cannot be too sure of the integrity of the statements in the book.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

@OP, if you are interested, there quite q few street fights between the KPD workers and the Nazi SA. In Alton Hamburg in 1932 (a working class part of town), the SA marched and arguments broke out that turned into fist fights. Then shots were fired. 5 Communists were executed for allegedly being the snipers who fired into the crowd. But it was recently found out that the Weimar Police was the one who shot into the crowd and killed 12 people, they planted evidence and it was a big propaganda campaign against the KPD.

Things like these were happening a lot, if not so demonstratively. The bourgeois state definitely supported Fascism and like we see now in Greece, disproportionately many Policemen were Nazis, my own great-grandfather who was a police officer included.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Solely according to Jan Valtin's book and another article about that period, people such as Heinz Neumann started out with that type of "collaboration with the Nazis" ideal. Supposedly, Neumann and some other KPD members spoke at SA rallies a few times in the late 20s and were firm believers in the social fascism theory about the social democrats. However, from what it looked like in the book, Neumann and the others changed their viewpoint quickly once the early 30s rolled around, and abruptly unleashed chaotic revolutionary terror on the Brownshirts. Supposedly, there was an organization (I'm not sure if it was part of or independent of the Rot Front and/or the original Antifaschistische Aktion) called the "Red Marines" that would do those types of actions. Neumann also stated that he "wanted to see bodies!" instead of simple disruption of SA meetings, leading to incidents such as dismemberment and genital mutilation of Brownshirt members and even murdering children in the Hitler Youth.

Of course, it must also be said that Jan Valtin despised Heinz Neumann. Valtin himself had a pretty shitty life and defected to the US after being burn noticed by the NKVD and having his family murdered by the Nazis (and was still investigated by the HUAC when he was in America), so one cannot be too sure of the integrity of the statements in the book.

Just what i mean. There were many campaigns trying to keep up the image of the "Barbarian Bolschewiks" that was painted ever since 1917. Communists had that image at the time and in many cases like Altona, they were in fact perpetrated by the Nazis and bourgeois state only to be planted in communists shoes.

[Red Commissar]

I never heard of that before, who the hell came up with such shit?

This was a peculiarity of third period politics, where they generally viewed Fascism as a temporary phenomenon. I wouldn't say that the desired it or viewed it as a necessity, but that they didn't see it as the real threat. Instead, it heralded that a revolutionary situation was near and that they need to hammer down the hatches as it were.

Bebel summed up the nature of the concept quite well- it was indeed apocalyptic in a bizarre way. As they saw it, Fascism was the sign of capitalism in decay and that the revolution was around the corner- as such, they shouldn't be wasting time fighting Fascists who would fall on their own accord (as capitalism was to collapse regardless of this desperation), but rather social democrats who were their rivals for working class support that would undermine their efforts in the revolution to come. Anything else was deemed class collaboration with socdems, falling back on the "social-fascist" concept of their politics as being a means for the ruling class to get through the depression.

This wasn't restricted to Germany either as we know. In Italy, where Fascism was also in power in the 1930s, we saw a similar parallel development emerge in the relationship between the PCd'I and the PSI.

The SocDems had their own paramilitary group too, the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, so it wasn't as if the SPD was a sheep left out for the slaughter or refrained from violence. As GB also mentioned the animosity wasn't one way either, and it wasn't as if the third period introduced this conflict. The clash between Communists and the SPD was one that existed since the German Revolution and the post-war SPD government working with the bourgeois and nobility to put down the various uprisings in Germany.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, the SPD provides a stellar example of what not to do.

Fixed that for you.

The SPD had presided over the practical destruction of the German revolutionary movement between 1918-23, had leaders like Luxemburg and Leibknecht murdered along with hundreds or thousands of workers, and suppressed the revolution in Berlin, Bavaria and elsewhere.

The rise of the Nazis was predicated on the destruction by the SPD of the German workers' movement. So it's hardly surprising that there was little chance of co-operation.

Then again, the KPD also expelled the majority of the party (who formed the KAPD) which represented the real revolutionary forces in the early 1920s I'd argue (perhaps not much to anyone's surprise).

Of course, Stalin's belief that 'after Hitler it's our turn' - one of the most ridiculous notions to arise from the so-called 'Third Period' in the ComIntern between 1928-35 - didn't help.

[l'Enfermé]

The problem was the KPD was it's formation in the first place. The split at the expense of the left-wing of the USPD was a terrible mistake.

[l'Enfermé]

Fixed that for you.

The SPD had presided over the practical destruction of the German revolutionary movement between 1918-23, had leaders like Luxemburg and Leibknecht murdered along with hundreds or thousands of workers, and suppressed the revolution in Berlin, Bavaria and elsewhere.

The rise of the Nazis was predicated on the destruction by the SPD of the German workers' movement. So it's hardly surprising that there was little chance of co-operation.

Then again, the KPD also expelled the majority of the party (who formed the KAPD) which represented the real revolutionary forces in the early 1920s I'd argue (perhaps not much to anyone's surprise).

Of course, Stalin's belief that 'after Hitler it's our turn' - one of the most ridiculous notions to arise from the so-called 'Third Period' in the ComIntern between 1928-35 - didn't help.
Well the ultra-leftist KAPD formation was hardly much of a force after March 1921 though was it? Anyways, not only did the KPD didn't cooperate with the SPD against the NSDAP, but they actually cooperated with the NSDAP against the SPD.

[wandnancy91]

I watched the movie about the assassination attempts on Hitler but I forgot the name of the organization who did it. They have tried so many times but failed and lost their lives.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's reasonable to still see the KAPD (love the use of 'ultra-left' there... yeah, damned lefties) as a 'force' in the '20s, though somewhat diminished certainly.

Yeah, the KPD both refused to co-operate with the SPD, and co-operated with the Nazis. Are you claiming that it would have been bettter for the KPD to have co-operated with the people who'd spent 15 years murdering them rather than the people who would spend the next 15 years murdering them? I'm not sure I see the sense in either position, but certainly, as the Nazis had not, at that point, spent 15 years murdering communists whereas the SPD had, the Nazis might have been seen as the safer option.

Of course, Stalin's idiocy doesn't help, but then again, when did it ever?

[l'Enfermé]

I think it's reasonable to still see the KAPD (love the use of 'ultra-left' there... yeah, damned lefties) as a 'force' in the '20s, though somewhat diminished certainly.

Yeah, the KPD both refused to co-operate with the SPD, and co-operated with the Nazis. Are you claiming that it would have been bettter for the KPD to have co-operated with the people who'd spent 15 years murdering them rather than the people who would spend the next 15 years murdering them? I'm not sure I see the sense in either position, but certainly, as the Nazis had not, at that point, spent 15 years murdering communists whereas the SPD had, the Nazis might have been seen as the safer option.

Of course, Stalin's idiocy doesn't help, but then again, when did it ever?
Didn't the KAPD never rise above more than 50,000 members after the failure in March 1921?

Anyways, Nazi paramilitary groups and the KPD's RFB have been killing each other in the streets in the late 1920s, comrade, so it wouldn't be really fair to say that the Nazis might have been a safer option(and the Freikorps which were doing all the killing of communists on behalf of the SPD later basically merged into the Nazi movement). If not for the Stalinized ultra-left "third period", there would have been a great chance of the SPD and KPD preventing a Nazi takeover of power, and imagine how many lives that would have saved.

[The Douche]

Didn't the KAPD never rise above more than 50,000 members after the failure in March 1921?

Anyways, Nazi paramilitary groups and the KPD's RFB have been killing each other in the streets in the late 1920s, comrade, so it wouldn't be really fair to say that the Nazis might have been a safer option(and the Freikorps which were doing all the killing of communists on behalf of the SPD later basically merged into the Nazi movement). If not for the Stalinized ultra-left "third period", there would have been a great chance of the SPD and KPD preventing a Nazi takeover of power, and imagine how many lives that would have saved.

This is the problem with anti-fascist politics, the actual political content of it is really anybody's guess. You only speak of the prevention of a nazi state, but not the actualization of workers' rule, and workers' rule would not just be the automatic result of a prevention of the fascist ascent to power. Furthermore I think one could argue that a joint SPD/KPD government would ensure workers' rule did not develop.

And then you make this appeal to the lives that could've been saved, and thats the ultimate defence of the anti-fascist, anybody who opposes their liberal and anti-worker politics is put in to some weird camp of people who "don't care" (or something) about the holocaust.

[ComradeOm]

Yeah, the KPD both refused to co-operate with the SPD, and co-operated with the NazisOften over-stated. IIRC the only real example of this "co-operation" on the political stage was the KPD's support for the NSDAP-backed Sept 1931 referendum to topple the SPD-led state government in Prussia. Any unpleasant incident to be sure but hardly typical of Communist-Nazi relations. Particularly given that it was so desperately unpopular with the rank and file Communists (who were, after all, enduring violent physical assaults from the SA). The KPD leadership persisted with the bizarre policy of trying to win over Nazi members ('turn brown into red') while shunning actual political endorsement or co-operation with the NSDAP itself

Which should give some indication as to the degree to which the KPD leadership, driven by Stalinism and its own ultra-leftism, had completely isolated itself from both the working class and the, admittedly unreliable, wider political scene. In the months leading up to Hitler's ascension to power the KPD leadership was primarily occupied with purging those who deviated from its 'general line'... which was about all


Most of what i read about the time gives a very different story. That, rather than joining strikes, workers' strikes were broken up by the Nazis and their SAIt's true. Sort've. From 1932 the KPD, as part of its efforts to win over Nazi members, adopted the policy of 'unity strikes' directed against the, typically SPD-led, union leaderships. There weren't many of these strikes but some (most notably the BVG) were quite large

[l'Enfermé]

This is the problem with anti-fascist politics, the actual political content of it is really anybody's guess. You only speak of the prevention of a nazi state, but not the actualization of workers' rule, and workers' rule would not just be the automatic result of a prevention of the fascist ascent to power. Furthermore I think one could argue that a joint SPD/KPD government would ensure workers' rule did not develop.

And then you make this appeal to the lives that could've been saved, and thats the ultimate defence of the anti-fascist, anybody who opposes their liberal and anti-worker politics is put in to some weird camp of people who "don't care" (or something) about the holocaust.
Well first of all I don't consider the KPD a worker's party, after the Stalinization of the Comintern all the KPD represented was the national interests of the Soviet bureaucratic caste. But I wasn't talking about an SPD and KPD government, I was talking about the KPD not aiding the Nazi rise to power. If fascism is capitalism's last resort when in crisis and decay, then the further the fascists are from power, the more favorable are conditions for building a revolutionary worker's movement.

If minimal cooperation between the SPD and the KPD(if the KPD was a worker's party) was required to prevent a fascist takeover of power, then there's nothing anti-worker about that.

I know you're an Anarchist, so let's pretend that for Anarchists, the Bolsheviks were a revolutionary party of the working class. When the Bolsheviks aided Kerensky against Kornilov's uprising, was that an anti-worker act? Did not the Bolsheviks strengthen their position and pave the road to the proletarian revolution in October with that? Similarly, I think, if the KPD was a worker's party, and if did aid the SPD in fighting the Nazis, that would have strengthened it's position and thus the position of the working class.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

In Eichman in Jerusalem Arendt mentions in passing that the kpd attempted entryism into the nsdap, but she doesn't go into any detail. Does anyone have anything about that? Specifically during which period was that attempted? At the beginning or towards the end when all opposition had collapsed?

[Blake's Baby]

Didn't the KAPD never rise above more than 50,000 members after the failure in March 1921?

Anyways, Nazi paramilitary groups and the KPD's RFB have been killing each other in the streets in the late 1920s, comrade, so it wouldn't be really fair to say that the Nazis might have been a safer option(and the Freikorps which were doing all the killing of communists on behalf of the SPD later basically merged into the Nazi movement)...

So what you're saying is, after 10 years of the SPD using proto-fascists to kill communists, the communists should have banded together with the SPD? I'm saying, that in the late '20s, when the Nazis became more powerful, precisely when you're saying that they began fighting the KPD, that the SPD had already been killing revolutionaries since 1918.

Nor am I saying that the nazis were a safer option, I said that they might have been seen as a safer option. After all, I'd probably back the guys that hadn't just killed my comrades for 10 years, over the guys that had. Of course, I'd actually pick neither, but if one was to pick one of them, picking the organisation that hadn't spent ten years or more murdering your comrades might be seen as safer.


...

If not for the Stalinized ultra-left "third period", there would have been a great chance of the SPD and KPD preventing a Nazi takeover of power, and imagine how many lives that would have saved.

Ah, 'ultra-left' again. You mean, the 'Third Period' when Stalin handed over the rulership of the Soviet Union to the parties of the 3rd International, following Bordiga's suggestion? The 'Third Period' when the CPSU extended the world revolution through providing an example of proper comportment of a proletarian party by dis-establishing itself from the Russian state, the 'Third Period' when the Soviet Union stopped using the revolutionary movements in the rest of the world as adjuncts to Russian imperialist policy, you mean? Without those things it can hardly be called 'ultra-left'.

The 'Third Period' was a horrific farce. It wasn't 'ultra-left', it was built on the defeat of the 'ultra-lefts' in Germany, Italy and Russia, indeed on the defeat of the Left Opposition in Russia who were hardly 'ultra' anything - definitely the 'right of the left'.

It's logic-chopping on your part to claim on the one hand that the 'ultra-lefts' were weak (as in Germany, I'm not sure how weak a party of 40,000 is when nowadays there are few left groups have 4-figure memberships, let alone 5) and then claim that the policy of the ComIntern was itself 'ultra-left'. It's not 'ultra-left' if it's tied to the development of Russian national capitalism; and everything the ComIntern did from 1927 was tied to the interests of Russian national capitalism. So enough of the 'ultra-left' already. You do know that Lenin said that the danger from the right was a thousand times greater than that from the left, don't you? Well, look how the history of the 20th century turned ou the left was defeated and expelled and marginalised and sometimes assassinated. The right took power and Russia became a militarised prison camp. Well done you. I'll take the 'ultra-lefts' in any debate from 1919 onwards, thanks. Russian national capital (state capitalism) was not something the working class had any business supporting. History rather tragically supports that assertion, unless you think what happened in the USSR was a good thing.

[ComradeOm]

In Eichman in Jerusalem Arendt mentions in passing that the kpd attempted entryism into the nsdap, but she doesn't go into any detail. Does anyone have anything about that? Specifically during which period was that attempted? At the beginning or towards the end when all opposition had collapsed?See my above post. It wasn't entryism per se but an attempt to attract fascist followers to the KPD. It was a, not unsurprising, failure


The 'Third Period' was a horrific farce. It wasn't 'ultra-left', it was built on the defeat of the 'ultra-lefts' in Germany, Italy and Russia, indeed on the defeat of the Left Opposition in Russia who were hardly 'ultra' anything - definitely the 'right of the left'.It was ultra-left in the sense that it was highly sectarian, entirely out of touch with political realities and utterly intransigent. That is ultra-left attitudes rather than the political content of those who may identify as ultra-left. Ultra-left Stalinism might seem like a complete contradiction in terms but it actually fits the Third Period quite well

[Blake's Baby]

So, to you 'ultra-left' means 'sectarian'. Shows once again how little you understand about political labels. In fact the 'ultra-lefts' were the opposite of sectarian. I presume in the thread about McCarthy, you'll be claiming he was 'ultra-left' too, will you?

[ComradeOm]

So, to you 'ultra-left' means 'sectarian'No. Ultra-leftism was sectarian; sectarianism is not necessary ultra-leftism

In this context though ultra-leftism, particularly German ultra-leftism of the period, was highly sectarian. That is not a controversial statement. These parties were notoriously prone to infighting and shunning co-operation with those outside their narrow milieu. This trait was highly pronounced in the German communist parties right from the beginning: witness the disastrous decision at the KPD's founding congress to boycott the National Assembly in 1919

Contrast to the later decisions to reach out beyond the 'class against class' politics and the formation of Popular Fronts

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

See my above post. It wasn't entryism per se but an attempt to attract fascist followers to the KPD. It was a, not unsurprising, failure

Here is the passage with the part that always interested me in bold:

"This question of conscience, so troublesome in Jerusalem, had by no means been ignored by the Nazi regime. On the contrary, in view of the fact that the participants in the anti-Hitler conspiracy of July, 1944, very rarely mentioned the wholesale massacres in the East in their correspondence or in the statements they prepared for use in the event that the attempt on Hitler’s life was successful, one is tempted to conclude that the Nazis greatly overestimated the practical importance of the problem. We may here disregard the early stages of the German opposition to Hitler, when it was still anti-Fascist and entirely a movement of the Left, which as a matter of principle accorded no significance to moral issues and even less to the persecution of the Jews – a mere “diversion” from the class struggle that in the opinion of the Left determined the whole political scene. Moreover, this opposition had all but disappeared during the period in question – destroyed by the horrible terror of the S.A. troops in the concentration camps and Gestapo cellars, unsettled by full employment made possible through rearmament, demoralized by the Communist Party’s tactic of joining the ranks of Hitler’s party in order to install itself there as a “Trojan horse.” What was left of this opposition at the beginning of the war – some trade-union leaders, some intellectuals of the “homeless Left” who did not and could not know if there was anything behind them – gained its importance solely through the conspiracy which finally led to the 20th of July. (It is of course quite inadmissible to measure the strength of the German resistance by the number of those who passed through the concentration camps. Before the outbreak of the war, the inmates belonged in a great number of categories, many of which had nothing whatsoever to do with resistance of any kind: there were the wholly “innocent” ones, such as the Jews; the “asocials,” such as confirmed criminals and homosexuals; Nazis who had been found guilty of something or other; etc. During the war the camps were populated by resistance fighters from all over occupied Europe.)"


It seems to imply more than just trying to win over rank and file members of the nsdap. In any case is there a good source that goes into detail about the kpd's relations with the nsdap?

[ComradeOm]

I've seen the odd reference to entryism in relation to the Nazi trade union apparatus, the Labour Front, after the Machtergreifung but nothing regarding actual infiltration of the NSDAP. Which doesn't really make much sense: this isn't 1970s Labour that we're talking about, there could be no illusion as to the nature and structure of the NSDAP. You couldn't outvote Hitler or wrest control of the SA...

So I think Arendt is mistaken on this one. There were Communist attempts to attract Nazi members and this was horribly demoralising to the party base but a "Trojan horse" in the NSDAP... that doesn't make sense

It's pricey but In Search of Revolution: International Communist Parties in the Third Period has a good chapter on the KPD and its relations with the NSDAP. Eric Hobsbawm also wrote a really interesting, if more general, essay on the KPD's failures in his Revolutionaries

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

There were Communist attempts to attract Nazi members and this was horribly demoralising to the party base

That's really interesting that you as well think there were non-killing relations between the KPD and NSDAP. I am not sure how aware the KPD was at the time to attract the middle classes of Germany, but if you look at the pre-governmental NSDAP it was mainly made up of petty-bourgeois and professional worker elements and only very little workers. Maybe the KPD was trying to win over the middle class...? Any explanation about goals of this policy?

[ComradeOm]

I am not sure how aware the KPD was at the time to attract the middle classes of Germany, but if you look at the pre-governmental NSDAP it was mainly made up of petty-bourgeois and professional worker elements and only very little workers. Maybe the KPD was trying to win over the middle class...? Any explanation about goals of this policy?Careful, the NSDAP membership was about 40% proletarian. Admittedly, few of these were in positions of power, the Nazis remained horribly weak in large urban centres and at 40% the working class was very much under-represented (particularly when you exclude certain groups of workers such as foremen or white collared workers) but there was an element of industrial workers in the NSDAP

So there were workers to 'convert' and a real push was also made to extend Communist influence amongst the rural poor. Both were a decided failure. But the big reason for all of this is simply that the KPD never really understood the Nazis. The leadership was so fixated on breaking with the 'social fascists' of the SPD that the Nazis were relegated to the background; a source of potential recruits but nothing pressing. The first priority was breaking the SPD and its unions, everything else could wait. If Nazi workers could be employed in breaking the authority of SPD-led unions in the workplace then fine. What mattered was that the SPD was harmed

Obviously this policy was unsustainable in the face of increasing Nazi attacks on the rank and file. But any move to cooperate with the SPD was shot down by Moscow. The tentative moves in 1932 towards an anti-fascist front, with cooperation with the SPD, KPD-O and SAP on street level, were abruptly halted when the Comintern reiterated the necessity of considering all of these fascists to be struggled against in the autumn of that year. That was the priority

All of which threw the party into a state of chaos and demoralisation. The last few months of the party's legal existence was spent purging those who opposed Moscow's line and generally trying to reassert the leadership's ability to enforce what was a pretty unpopular line

(What was not a motivation was reaching out to the middle classes in any meaningful way. That would have run contrary to the Third Period policies and wouldn't really have helped the KPD's goal of supplanting the SPD as the primary working class parties. Artisans, peasants and the lower middle classes could be mobilised only through Communist-led bodies and never to any success. It was only after the Third Period policy line was reversed that the French and Spanish CPs were able to attract, with a degree of success, any real middle class support)

[human strike]

I think the key to understanding the Nazi rise to power is appreciating the nature of political violence in Germany at that time. The German state was weak. During the revolutionary upheaval of 1919-23 the state was fragmented. Unable to rely on the army or police, groups like the Freikorps were used by the SPD government to put down workers' unrest. The monopoly of violence that states requite to maintain authority essentially did not exist, or at best was very weak. In this vacuum paramilitary groups evolved in direct competition with the forces of the state. As previously mentioned, the Red Front was a very notable such group of the left.

For the Nazis, their paramilitary was the SA. The SAs had a policy based on the violent confrontation of communists in the streets. This was done for two main reasons and succeeded in both; to subvert the legitimacy of the state, and to act as a form of propaganda. The Nazis and SA became seen by many Germans as a force for order. It was a sort of spectacular violence that appealed to many.

The failure of the left was its failure to mobilise effectively enough an opposition on the streets. Inevitably this would have meant hightened conflict with the state, so perhaps it is unsurprising that a group like the KPD chose against such a path. In 1931 the party expelled those most militantly involved in smashing fascism in the streets and Nazis pubs, and officially denounced "individual terror".

[Blake's Baby]

...

The failure of the left was its failure to mobilise effectively enough an opposition on the streets. Inevitably this would have meant hightened conflict with the state, so perhaps it is unsurprising that a group like the KPD chose against such a path. In 1931 the party expelled those most militantly involved in smashing fascism in the streets and Nazis pubs, and officially denounced "individual terror".

I disagree, the failure of the left was the failure to overthrow German capitalism in 1918. And again every couple of months after that until the liquidation of the left in the '20s. By 1931, what the KPD did was completely irrelevant.

[Pravda]

Thank you comrades. Very interesting stuff, pretty complicated too.

What i am most interested in, is not so much specific nazi rise, but why is potential of fascism so strong in times of crises, which class is its bearer etc.
Because, fascism is the most successful counterrevolutionary ideology (not to mention most brutal ). Is there any good analysis on the subject? Good theories,researches?

(Hope you understood what i wanted to say, im not exactly fluent in english).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Thank you comrades. Very interesting stuff, pretty complicated too.

What i am most interested in, is not so much specific nazi rise, but why is potential of fascism so strong in times of crises, which class is its bearer etc.
Because, fascism is the most successful counterrevolutionary ideology (not to mention most brutal ). Is there any good analysis on the subject? Good theories,researches?

(Hope you understood what i wanted to say, im not exactly fluent in english).


Fascism and Big Business Daniel Guerin

[human strike]

Thank you comrades. Very interesting stuff, pretty complicated too.

What i am most interested in, is not so much specific nazi rise, but why is potential of fascism so strong in times of crises, which class is its bearer etc.
Because, fascism is the most successful counterrevolutionary ideology (not to mention most brutal ). Is there any good analysis on the subject? Good theories,researches?

(Hope you understood what i wanted to say, im not exactly fluent in english).

You maybe interested in this article, When Insurrections Die, by French ultra-leftist Gilles Dauvé: http://endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/when-insurrections-die.xhtml

[Pravda]

So, two ultra-leftist :D Thanks for recommendation:)

[ComradeOm]

I always strongly recommend Detlev Peukert's The Weimar Republic for the background to the Nazi seizure of power. An excellent and concise work

[Geiseric]

I disagree, the failure of the left was the failure to overthrow German capitalism in 1918. And again every couple of months after that until the liquidation of the left in the '20s. By 1931, what the KPD did was completely irrelevant.

The rise of fascism doesn't mark the end of the class struggle, only its intensification. The KPD could of united front'd with the SPD and showed the working class that an alternative to fascism was possible, but they were ultra left, and didn't. It was stupid to ignore the Nazis, I mean seriously what were they thinking? I know the SPD leadership were scumbags, but the KPD was unable to win the support of the petit bourgeois class like the Bolsheviks were able to.

[thälmann]

ok. some people here have really strange ideas of the 20s in germany.

first of all, the spd was in reality the political main enemy of the proletarian revolution. it was them who shot workers, defended imperialism and colonialism, and on the other hand integrated a part of the class in the system.

And the kpd didnt ignore the nsdap. a lot of the kpd comrades died because of this struggle against them. but still, there were not the main danger until the 30s.

and just because there was one case where local kpd people worked with nsdap-workers in a strike, doesnt mean " the kpd worked with the nsdap against the spd"

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The SPD was a bourgeois party ever since WW1, so no, the KPD didn't cooperate with them since it would be pointless. The Anti-Fascist group MAGMA says that "die Aufhebung des Staates und der warenproduzierenden Gesellschaft" (the ridding of the state and commodity producing society' is the only way to combat fascism. It's quite sad that the main critique of the KPD in Germany comes out to be such ultra-left sloganeering. Personally, i think that the KPD was portrayed quite negatively, especially towards the middle class of Germany, as being a "putschist" party, due to bad former politics. Had the KPD tried to stay on the traditional SPD strategy, history could maybe have changed significantly in the 30's. But you can't forget that the SPD being the dominant power in 1918 and turning Germany into a bourgeois republic (while it was decried as a "Socialist" "communist" party by the rightists) the Weimar Republic, which endured constant crises, made many people of the middle classes falsely believe that this "Socialism" was no good. A lot of money from the industrialists to the Fascists also not to forget.
Comrade, this is very muddled. What happened in Germany is that the Communist Party not only refused to form a united front with the SPD, they called them "Social Fascists" and said that the SPD was a greater threat to the proletariat than the Nazis. Thalmann, the leader of the KPD said, "After Hitler, us," as the Nazis were ascendent. In fact, the KPD sometimes took united action with the Nazis to break up SPD meetings.

During the late 20s and early 30s there was a sharp polarization in German politics -- the only parties that were growing significantly were the KPD and the Nazis. The failure of the KPD to form a defensive bloc with the SPD allowed the Nazis, who were outnumbered by the Ranks of the KPD and SPD, to take power. And if you believe that the consequences of a Nazi takeover was not predictable at the time, I refer you to a collection of Trotsky's writings called, "The Struggle Against Fascism in German." Trotsky was calling for a United Front with the SPD. This meant taking agreed upon joint action in specific cases. It did not mean uniting with them politically. The slogan was, "march separately, strike together." No compromise on political program, no unprincipled coalition shit -- just joint action to protect the proletariat. It is very instructive reading.

The cost of this unnecessary defeat for the world working class is still being felt and is almost immeasurable.

[Blake's Baby]

For god's sake Bronsteinovich, the German working class was already defeated. What Trotsky wrote in 1931 was no more relevant than the policies of the KPD in 1931. Trotsky, Lenin, Radek and Bukharin had already presided over the destruction of the revolutionary movement in Germany in the early 1920s. The last defeat of the world revolution was the suppresssion of the Shanghai Commune in 1927. After that came the long night of counter-revolution - arguably, until the late 1960s. There was no 'world revolution' in Germany or anywhere else until the worldwide wave of strikes of 1968. Anything else - Spain in the mid-'30s, Italy in the mid-'40s, Poland in 1950, was a local affair only, not part of a world revolutionary movement in the way the period 1917-27 was.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

For god's sake Bronsteinovich, the German working class was already defeated. What Trotsky wrote in 1931 was no more relevant than the policies of the KPD in 1931. Trotsky, Lenin, Radek and Bukharin had already presided over the destruction of the revolutionary movement in Germany in the early 1920s. The last defeat of the world revolution was the suppresssion of the Shanghai Commune in 1927. After that came the long night of counter-revolution - arguably, until the late 1960s. There was no 'world revolution' in Germany or anywhere else until the worldwide wave of strikes of 1968. Anything else - Spain in the mid-'30s, Italy in the mid-'40s, Poland in 1950, was a local affair only, not part of a world revolutionary movement in the way the period 1917-27 was.
I disagree -- of course Trotsky and the KPDs policies were relevant. You think the Nazi takeover of Germany was merely a coda to the period of 1917-1927? The victory of the Nazis in Germany was by no means a foregone conclusion. The combined forces of the SPD and KPD were greater than the Nazis. By fighting for a United Front against fascism, the KPD could have stripped away the large number of workers still affiliated with the SPD. And it seems to me that the spate of revolutionary opportunities that came in the wake of WWII were probably more significant than 1968, but that's arguable. Great opportunities to make a German Revolution were squandered and Trotsky was not blameless, but the Triumvirs played a far more negative role.

[Grenzer]

I disagree -- of course Trotsky and the KPDs policies were relevant. You think the Nazi takeover of Germany was merely a coda to the period of 1917-1927? The victory of the Nazis in Germany was by no means a foregone conclusion. The combined forces of the SPD and KPD were greater than the Nazis. By fighting for a United Front against fascism, the KPD could have stripped away the large number of workers still affiliated with the SPD. And it seems to me that the spate of revolutionary opportunities that came in the wake of WWII were probably more significant than 1968, but that's arguable. Great opportunities to make a German Revolution were squandered and Trotsky was not blameless, but the Triumvirs played a far more negative role.

The problem with this is that, firstly, it is not the role of communists to defend bourgeois democracy. Secondly, selling out to the SPD wouldn't have solved anything. They were a counter-revolutionary organization. As Lenin said, just because an organization has a proletarian membership base doesn't mean it should be supported if its leadership is bourgeois and counter-revolutionary in action. The SPD had already amply demonstrated it's nature in the years of the German Revolutionary, and its Democratic Front tactics. It is nothing short of naive to think that the SPD would have willingly worked with the KPD, in any case. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front)

The best way to counter fascism is proletarian revolution. Why obsess over fascism specifically when it's better to just focus on abolishing the conditions in which it even exists to begin with.

[atom]

So you think minorities under the Nazi jackboot should have just abandaned fighting back because of some glassy eyed fantasy of proleterian revolution?

[Geiseric]

That's rediculous, and that's not how it worked. Fascism was capitalism itself, and to defeat the fascists, not the fucking social democrats, was to defeat capitalism. You're using double think to equate the social democrat bureaucracy to capitalism, lacking an actual analyses. The social democratic bureaurcacy defended capitalism for the same reason as the union bureaucrac was. There was rank and file membership of the SPD trying to ask for a united front against Fascism, with the KPD and all of its members, and they turned that shit down because of what amounts to sectarianism. It's one of the most laughable if it wasn't so tragic episodes in Communist history. And it didn't work, so it was obviously incorrect. The bolsheviks united front against the white army WITH the mensheviks and even SRs did work. So judge which example you'd like to follow.

[Grenzer]

That's rediculous, and that's not how it worked. Fascism was capitalism itself, and to defeat the fascists, not the fucking social democrats, was to defeat capitalism. You're using double think to equate the social democrat bureaucracy to capitalism, lacking an actual analyses. The social democratic bureaurcacy defended capitalism for the same reason as the union bureaucrac was. There was rank and file membership of the SPD trying to ask for a united front against Fascism, with the KPD and all of its members, and they turned that shit down because of what amounts to sectarianism. It's one of the most laughable if it wasn't so tragic episodes in Communist history. And it didn't work, so it was obviously incorrect. The bolsheviks united front against the white army WITH the mensheviks and even SRs did work. So judge which example you'd like to follow.

I didn't say that the SPD constituted an economic system. I said it was a pro-capitalist party. This is a fact. The SPD was fully in charge of the German bourgeois state for a number of years. I also never said anything about focusing against the SPD rather than the fascists. You're just putting words in my mouth here. I said fuck them all. Read the fucking link for Christ's sake. In 1932 the SPD participated in an explicitly anti-communist front. There was no way they were going to work with the KPD. Trotsky's line on the SPD was just pathetic opportunism bowing before the anti-communism of the SPD. You can hold this view if you want, but don't pretend that it's any different in practice than the Popular Front.

Also that's a pretty fucking terrible analogy you used. The Menshevik-Internationalists were actually revolutionaries, even if they did have some terrible positions on certain things. Both the Menshevik-Internationalists and Social Revolutionaries nominally upheld October. Contrast this to the SPD, who became managers of the bourgeois dictatorship for a number of years in Germany, massacred communists, organized the repression of workers on a mass scale, and put down the German Revolution. If this is your idea of a "workers' party", then we don't really have anything in common.

Not working with a bourgeois party like the SPD isn't "sectarianism"; it's class independence, but I'd imagine that concept is quite alien to a reformist like you. There is no point in pursuing a strategy against fascism that flushes the proletariat's political class independence down the toilet. The Popular Front demonstrates that amply, but the United Front does not really differ radically from that. Plenty of Trotskyists, including yourself, have used it as justification to justify providing electoral support to capitalist parties.

If you are seriously trying to argue that the SPD rank and file could have reclaimed the party from its bourgeois leadership, then you are dreaming. It's the same case with unions. These are an obstacle to revolution. Working with them is based on an illusory understanding of the way these organizations work and their relationship with the bourgeois state.

You are so eager to justify supporting and prostrating workers before left-of-centre parties, so eager to forget that the situation in which the Nazis came to power only existed because the SPD betrayed the proletariat and crossed over to the bourgeois camp in the first place. One might say it's laughable, but it's really quite the opposite. Pretending to be a revolutionary only to advocate complete submission to bourgeois parties so long as they advocate an increase in the minimum wage, nationalized health care.. this provides an extremely valuable service to the bourgeoisie. It co-opts people who might actually oppose Capital into serving as its guardian, thinking they are really working against it.

The left really needs to get fucking over basing an entire political framework around the opinions of a single man. Trotsky should be applauded for his opposition to Stalin, for which he paid the ultimate price; but this does not mean that one should just blindly follow every word he said without critical appraisal. Clearly, this is what you are doing.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree -- of course Trotsky and the KPDs policies were relevant. You think the Nazi takeover of Germany was merely a coda to the period of 1917-1927?

Yes. Just as the inevitable coda of falling of a tall building is smashing yourself on the pavement. It's a forgone conclusion.

The working class had been defeated. There was no rescue from Trotsky and his Seventh Cavalry of SPD Butchers waiting over the hill.


... The victory of the Nazis in Germany was by no means a foregone conclusion. The combined forces of the SPD and KPD were greater than the Nazis. By fighting for a United Front against fascism, the KPD could have stripped away the large number of workers still affiliated with the SPD....

So, non-revolutionary force A + non-revolutionary force B = ability to stop Nazis? it seems to me that you're fundamentally missing the point. The SPD was a party that had betrayed the working class and drowned the revolution in blood. The KPD was a failed sect directed from Moscow. The best militants - indeed the majority of the party - had already been purged, some had gone into exile, many had been murdered, the remainder in the Council Communist movement was busy theorising its own non-existence. Nazi power was predicated on the defeat of the working class. They didn't defeat the working class, contrary to Trotsky's fervid fantasies.


...And it seems to me that the spate of revolutionary opportunities that came in the wake of WWII were probably more significant than 1968, but that's arguable...

What revolutionary opportunities? Big strike wave in nortern Italy in 1943-4, and ... ?

I really don't think that the point of 1968 was the 'revolutionary opportunities' because I don't think there were 'revolutionary opportunities' in 1968. What there was was a return to struggle, not just in France but around the world in the period of 1968-71. In 1945 we were in the depths of the counter-revolution, the world working class having been enrolled in the second imperialist world war. In 1968 we were emerging from that 45-year counter-revolution.




Great opportunities to make a German Revolution were squandered and Trotsky was not blameless, but the Triumvirs played a far more negative role.

'Triumvirs'? By 1925 the world revolution was already failing. Sure Trotsky was right about China. But the main wave of revolutionary activity was between 1917-23 - which is why I mention Trotsky, Lenin, Bukharin and Radek, as the main leaders in Russia, in the CI, and the Bolshevik-KPD liason. By the time of Lenin's death the German workers' movement had already been gutted. Only a revolutionary upsurge somewhere else could by then have saved the German revolution by 1924 (just as only a revolution in Germany could have saved the Russian after 1919). From 1923-7, there were opportunities world-wide, but each revolutionary upsurge was increasingly desperate, culminating in the massacre by the KMT of the Shanghai Commune.

Trotsky was wrong. He was wrong, partly because he never successfully theorised any of his own mistakes, nor those of Lenin, and they both committed them by the bucketload precisely in the period when the German revolution was most in need of their experience.

[Geiseric]

So how was allying with the mensheviks and SRs when Kornilov had an uprising a mistake? Mind you the Bolsheviks are just getting out of jail, and when the mensheviks and SRs were in favor of jailing the bolsheviks, and helped the Czars to do it?

[Blake's Baby]

Very different situations. In 1917 there was the potential revolution. Did you not know? In late 1917 there was the biggest workers' rising that the world had ever seen.

In 1929 there was no potential for revolution. The working clas had been defeated in Germany and throughout the world. Did you not know? In 1929 the proletariat had recently entered the blackest period of reaction, millions of people were about to be slaughtered in the name of imperialist war, and the proletariat internationally wasn't going to start struggling again for another 40 years or so.

Can you see the difference between those two situations?

[Geiseric]

That's untrue, there was as much chance for a revolution in 1929 as there was in 1924, during the Ruhr occupation, when there was a fucking huge general strike. There wasn't a difference between the two situations, in Russia the army was still involved in WW1, and there wasn't a proletarian revolution since the late 1800s. How was that a better condition than in 1929 for German communists, when there was a successful revolution in Russia, and huge upsurges throughout all of Europe? It's the fault of the KPD for having wrong politics, that is why the petit bourgeois class in Germany flocked to the Nazis.

Besides none of that explains why the United Front isn't applicable.

[ComradeOm]

Listening to some people, you'd almost think that the united front was some miracle cure and not a tactic that had been tried, and found wanting, a number of times in 1920s Germany

[Blake's Baby]

That's untrue, there was as much chance for a revolution in 1929 as there was in 1924, during the Ruhr occupation, when there was a fucking huge general strike. There wasn't a difference between the two situations, in Russia the army was still involved in WW1, and there wasn't a proletarian revolution since the late 1800s. How was that a better condition than in 1929 for German communists, when there was a successful revolution in Russia, and huge upsurges throughout all of Europe? It's the fault of the KPD for having wrong politics, that is why the petit bourgeois class in Germany flocked to the Nazis...

I'm sorry but that's bullshit.

1-if you believe that the there was as much chance of a reolution in 1929 as in 1924 then you understand very little of the process of the revolution around the world in the period 1917-27 (you remember, the 'world revolution', that thing that is supposed to seperate the Trotskyists from the Stalinists); and if you think the chance of revolution in 1924 was better than the chance in 1918 then you frankly are living on another planet. By 1924, the tide had turned against the world revolution and in 1927 the revolutionary momentum that followed the Russian revolution was exhausted. There was no possibility at all of a revolution in 1929, in Germany or anywhere else. That dynamic was over. Any 'local' revolutionary activity that happened (such as Spain in the early 1930s) was isolated and recouperated by capitalism. The revolution needs t encompass the world. What would have happened if Germany had 'gone red' in 1929 or after? Do you think it would have united with the USSR? If not, what sort of 'revolution' are you talking about here? If it did, wouldn't it just become another apendage of Stalinism? There is no socialism in one country so there's certainly no 'revolutionism in one country'.

2 - revolutions are made by classes not parties; if there had been a revolutionary potential in 1929 the fact that the KPD was a sect, with no connection to the German working class, would not have mattered as much as it did. Even in the height of the world revolution, the German working class was not strong enough to overthrow German capitalism. After a decade of defeat, the end of the revolutionary wave and the betrayal of the international working class by the CI, how exactly was the working class in Germany supposed to somehow launch a revolution?



...

Besides none of that explains why the United Front isn't applicable.

Because you don't beat cancer by shooting yourself. You don't beat the counter-revolution by allying with the counter-revolutionaries.

You talk about Kornilov and that's fair enough: but the difference that you don't seem to grasp is Kornilov was moving against the revolutionary power of the working class. The Bolsheviks opposed that; the attitude of the spineless and rudderless Kerensky government was immaterial, what was important was that reaction (in this case Kornilov) was trying to stop the process of revolution.

Hitler, on the other hand was not trying to stop a German revolution, he was trying to re-establish the German Empire, he was moving against France, Russia and Britain. He wasn't moving against the revolutionary power of the working class because there wasn't any revolutionary power of the working class. Your friends in the SPD had physically destroyed that 10 years preiously; and your heroes in the CI had done their damnedest to destroy the organisation of the proletariat too. By 1929 there was nothing left to defend. Hitler came to power not to destroy the working class as a political force, but because the forces of the working class had already been destroyed - by the KPD and the SPD, the very 'forces' you think should have been uniting the working class against Hitler. Some irony there I think.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I didn't say that the SPD constituted an economic system. I said it was a pro-capitalist party. This is a fact. The SPD was fully in charge of the German bourgeois state for a number of years. I also never said anything about focusing against the SPD rather than the fascists. You're just putting words in my mouth here. I said fuck them all. Read the fucking link for Christ's sake. In 1932 the SPD participated in an explicitly anti-communist front. There was no way they were going to work with the KPD. Trotsky's line on the SPD was just pathetic opportunism bowing before the anti-communism of the SPD. You can hold this view if you want, but don't pretend that it's any different in practice than the Popular Front.

Also that's a pretty fucking terrible analogy you used. The Menshevik-Internationalists were actually revolutionaries, even if they did have some terrible positions on certain things. Both the Menshevik-Internationalists and Social Revolutionaries nominally upheld October. Contrast this to the SPD, who became managers of the bourgeois dictatorship for a number of years in Germany, massacred communists, organized the repression of workers on a mass scale, and put down the German Revolution. If this is your idea of a "workers' party", then we don't really have anything in common.

Not working with a bourgeois party like the SPD isn't "sectarianism"; it's class independence, but I'd imagine that concept is quite alien to a reformist like you. There is no point in pursuing a strategy against fascism that flushes the proletariat's political class independence down the toilet. The Popular Front demonstrates that amply, but the United Front does not really differ radically from that. Plenty of Trotskyists, including yourself, have used it as justification to justify providing electoral support to capitalist parties.

If you are seriously trying to argue that the SPD rank and file could have reclaimed the party from its bourgeois leadership, then you are dreaming. It's the same case with unions. These are an obstacle to revolution. Working with them is based on an illusory understanding of the way these organizations work and their relationship with the bourgeois state.

You are so eager to justify supporting and prostrating workers before left-of-centre parties, so eager to forget that the situation in which the Nazis came to power only existed because the SPD betrayed the proletariat and crossed over to the bourgeois camp in the first place. One might say it's laughable, but it's really quite the opposite. Pretending to be a revolutionary only to advocate complete submission to bourgeois parties so long as they advocate an increase in the minimum wage, nationalized health care.. this provides an extremely valuable service to the bourgeoisie. It co-opts people who might actually oppose Capital into serving as its guardian, thinking they are really working against it.

The left really needs to get fucking over basing an entire political framework around the opinions of a single man. Trotsky should be applauded for his opposition to Stalin, for which he paid the ultimate price; but this does not mean that one should just blindly follow every word he said without critical appraisal. Clearly, this is what you are doing.
First the SPD was a pro-capitalist workers party -- it was not a capitalist party. That being said, uh, yeah the leadership killed Luxemburg and Liebnickt -- they were class traitors. It would seem that you do not understand what a united front is. You do not give any political support to the SPD. But you can take common action against a dangerous enemy -- in this case the Nazis. Who the hell is talking about submission? The slogan for a Trotskyist United Front is, "March separately, strike together." These are principled blocs for specific actions. This is not to be confused with Popular Fronts -- unprincipled combinations with bourgeois parties that are a betrayal of the working class. I'm not sure how you can be so critical of Trotsky when it is not clear that you understand what he was arguing for in the fight against fascism.

An analogy would be doing support work on a strike, working with members of a union that has pro-capitalist leaders. Is it okay to walk the picket lines and prevent scabs from entering the factory? Of course it is -- by your logic that would constitute a betrayal -- because the union leadership is pro-capitalist. You do joint work with SPD members, all the while criticizing their leadership and demonstrating the leadership of the Communists. And never giving any political support to the SPD leadership.

Trotsky did not get everything right -- but you LCs seem to have a hard time dealing with the world as it exists. Of course the SPD betrayed the workers. And of course that made conditions much worse for revolution than they had been in 1921. But you have to deal with conditions such as they exist, without compromising your principles. So your program in 1929 in Germany would have been to wring your hands and wait for the Nazis to take power?

[Geiseric]

The entire point of the United Front would of been specifically to go against the Nazis, nothing else. I don't see how this is so complicated! How can you argue against a movement specifiically against the Nazis, that includes social democrats in it?

[Blake's Baby]

How can you argue against shooting yourself in the face, as a way of potentially not developing cancer?

THE SPD HAD ALREADY DESTROYED THE GERMAN WORKERS MOVEMENT.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In 1932 the SPD participated in an explicitly anti-communist front.

To other posters in this thread, repeat after me: The SPD organized an explicitly anti-communist Democratic Front.

[Geiseric]

How can you argue against shooting yourself in the face, as a way of potentially not developing cancer?

THE SPD HAD ALREADY DESTROYED THE GERMAN WORKERS MOVEMENT.
So having the same demands as another mass party explicitly against fascists is shooting yourself in the face? Your analogy is misleading. I fail to see how a united anti fascist front would of been "shooting yourself in the face." If anything staying as a smaller party with half the mass support as the Nazis would of been shooting yourself in the face, which is what they did.

[Blake's Baby]

For fuck's sake Guthrie, can't you grasp that the KPD by 1929 was a dead party? Can't you grasp that by 1929 the German workers' movement had been gutted and hung up to dry? Do you understand that the SPD had spent 10 years shooting communists and revolutionary workers? Do you see that there was no political force in Germany in 1929 that could have resisted the Nazis? Don't you realise that the world revolution was over and the counter-revolution had already triumphed?

The alliance in 1929 of the irrelevent KPD with the murderous SPD would have resulted in - nothing.

[l'Enfermé]

Hmm, not really. In 1928, the KPD had an electoral support of over 3,000,000 workers and over 130,000 members. In 1932, it had an electoral support of over 6,000,000 workers and a membership of 300,000 workers. Hardly a dead party. With a revolutionary Marxist, and not Stalinist-revisionist leadership, perhaps, much would have been accomplished.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, because voting for something totally is the same as a revolution.

If the KPD attracted 6 million votes and had 300,000 members, but was not 'revolutionary Marxist', on what basis do you think being 'revolutionary Marxist' would have helped? Don't you have to entertain the possibility that perhaps the attraction of the KPD at that point, to those 6,000,000 voters and 300,000 members, was the party as it existed ie a 'not revolutionary Marxist' one, rather than the party that you want to have existed, ie one that you would define as 'revolutionary Marxist'?

[Grenzer]

Yeah, because voting for something totally is the same as a revolution.

I don't think anyone was claiming that it was, but it can be a valuable tool for measuring working class support.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not as valuable as membership rolls, though.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't know comrade but you left-coms have this fetish for democracy so I thought voting and all that jazz meant something to you. Anyways I was merely addressing your belief that the KPD was a "dead party", which it certainly wasn't. It could very much have been turned around and it certainly could have functioned as a skeleton for building a revolutionary party-movement, provided it's Stalinist leadership could be removed and it's Comintern yoke thrown off.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't know comrade but you left-coms have this fetish for democracy so I thought voting and all that jazz meant something to you...

You've never read any Bordiga, have you?


... Anyways I was merely addressing your belief that the KPD was a "dead party", which it certainly wasn't...

I don't really care what you were doing to be honest. Do you think that the working class will administer the revolutionary state via the soviets, or do you you think the party will administer the revolutionary state via ... some means or other? That's the important question.


... It could very much have been turned around and it certainly could have functioned as a skeleton for building a revolutionary party-movement, provided it's Stalinist leadership could be removed and it's Comintern yoke thrown off.

Even aside from the previous question, that's a fucking massive hypothetical. Due to the defeat of the revolutionary wave, it could not have 'been turned around' without a massive upsurge in activity by the working class. Parties don't make movements, movements make parties. Without a movement in Germany, there was no party in Germany. Without a movement worldwide, there was no movement in Germany. The 'Comintern yoke' you speak of was the disastrous policy that the Comintern embarked on even before the death of Lenin. So what you're saying is 'if 10 years of history and the entire world situation had been different, the KPD could have been reformed'. Well, durr. Of course it could. Likewise, if capitalism were made of papier mache, it would melt in the rain. But it's not.

[l'Enfermé]

You've never read any Bordiga, have you?
I have acquitanted myself with Bordiga thanks to our Bordigist comrades on RevLeft. In fact, in the "political statement" field on my RL profile page, I have quoted Bordiga:

"It is clear that the principle of democracy has no intrinsic virtue. It is not a "principle", but rather a simple mechanism of organization, responding to the simple and crude arithmetical presumption that the majority is right and the minority is wrong."

Though the rest of Kautsky-revivalists on RevLeft have no love for Bordiga and probably find my decision rather distasteful :(


Do you think that the working class will administer the revolutionary state via the soviets, or do you you think the party will administer the revolutionary state via ... some means or other? That's the important question.
I'm not a council communist, so no. As far as councils go, I think the RSDLP(b)'s slogan should have been "All power to the RSDLP(b)!", not "All power to the Soviets!", since they had to abandon that whole Soviets thing eventually. I'm for genuine one-party rule(but I should mention that the Soviet Union was not a one-party state, rather, a no-party state - what the RSDLP(b)/RCP(b) eventually degenerated into was not a political party, it wasn't much more than an administrative apparatus starting in the 1930s at the latest).

The party will administrate the state...through the state. The bourgeoisie doesn't need any councils to administrate the state. Why should the proletariat-as-a-ruling-class need any?


Even aside from the previous question, that's a fucking massive hypothetical. Due to the defeat of the revolutionary wave, it could not have 'been turned around' without a massive upsurge in activity by the working class. Parties don't make movements, movements make parties. Without a movement in Germany, there was no party in Germany. Without a movement worldwide, there was no movement in Germany. The 'Comintern yoke' you speak of was the disastrous policy that the Comintern embarked on even before the death of Lenin. So what you're saying is 'if 10 years of history and the entire world situation had been different, the KPD could have been reformed'. Well, durr. Of course it could. Likewise, if capitalism were made of papier mache, it would melt in the rain. But it's not.
Real parties are real movements, and real movements are real parties. Check out DNZ's RevLeft blog.

The pre-war SPD was both the movement and the party. The inter-war USPD also.

[Blake's Baby]

...


I'm not a council communist, so no. As far as councils go, I think the RSDLP(b)'s slogan should have been "All power to the RSDLP(b)!", not "All power to the Soviets!", since they had to abandon that whole Soviets thing eventually. I'm for genuine one-party rule(but I should mention that the Soviet Union was not a one-party state, rather, a no-party state - what the RSDLP(b)/RCP(b) eventually degenerated into was not a political party, it wasn't much more than an administrative apparatus starting in the 1930s at the latest)...

I'm not a Council Communist either, so you'll have to find another strawman to bark at. If you think that the party rules the state, however, I'd say you're not a communist at all. The Bolsheviks were wrong to fuse themselves with the state apparatus, simple as. 'All power to the RSDLP(b)' would at least have had the advantage of clearly showing that the Bolsheviks were ultimately going to preside over a national capitalitst dictatorship. However, not having a crystal ball, they probably didn't know that in 1917.



...
The party will administrate the state...through the state. The bourgeoisie doesn't need any councils to administrate the state. Why should the proletariat-as-a-ruling-class need any?...

Oh, 'the party' = 'the proletariat-as-a-ruling-class" now?

Let me re-iterate: does the party rule; OR does the proletariat rule? You cannot answer both, because logically that's can't be true; and you cannot answer that they're the same thing, because if the entire proletariat is in the party then there is no party. So does the party rule, or does the proletariat rule?

Why indeed would the party need to do anything other than rule as the bourgeoisie, given that all it does is replace the bourgeoisie? When the British bourgeoisie replaced the aristocracy as the ruling class, it came to an eventual accomodation with the monarchy, gave itself all sorts of titles and ruled using the House of Lords etc. It ruled in many of the same ways as the aristocracy, as it was a new ruling class. Likewise, the 'party' in a one-party state administering state-capitalism is a new ruling class. Why would it need to be different to the bourgeoisie?


...Real parties are real movements, and real movements are real parties. Check out DNZ's RevLeft blog...

Rather poke my own eyes out with spoons, thanks.


...

The pre-war SPD was both the movement and the party. The inter-war USPD also.

And both were dismal failures. The SPD delivered the majority of the working class bound hand and foot to German imperialism, the USPD was... a nothing. If that's the best you've got then I'll stick to the Left of the 2nd International, thanks, rather than the Centrists.