The left during Weimar Germany

[Module]

The left wing parties didn't want to unite and take government because the KPD didn't want to compromise their ideals and form a coalition with the reformist SPD, from what I've learnt?
Do you think that, due to the threat from the right wing, that the socialists should've taken up government, regardless?

[BobKKKindle$]

I actually made a post on this recently, Comrade.

The main proponent of an alliance between the two parties was Leon Trotsky. He supported the strategy of the "united front" which is a temporary alliance between the vanguard party and other groups which support improvements in the conditions of the working class, and are generally progressive, but are not committed to revolution - for example, social-democratic parties. This alliance is based on a program that is acceptable to all components, but the vanguard party is able to maintain its autonomy, so that we are not forced to moderate our message. In the case of the Nazi party, Trotsky never argued that the united front should take the form of an electoral alliance - only that the KPD and SPD should stop fighting each other and concentrate on destroying the Nazi threat.

Although Stalin adopted an ultra-left position in this case, at other times he actually encouraged communist parties to form popular front - which are alliances which also encompass bourgeois parties. This led to the massacre of Chinese Communists following the betrayal of the GMT in China, after the Northern Expedition. The United Front Strategy is a good position, between these two extremes, which are not effective.

[ComradeOm]

The essay that you want is Hobsbawm's Confronting Defeat: The German Communist Party. I've no idea if this is available online. Its fairly short but Hobsbawm does an excellent job of charting the development of the KPD and laying bare its failings (of which ultra-sectarianism was just the most prominent)

Edit: It should of course be noted that the SPD itself was hardly socialist. It had been, after all, been SPD ministers that ordered the execution of Liebknecht and Luxembourg

[Module]

Thanks for replying.
I'll look around for that essay.
Yes, I am aware of the reasons the SPD was distrusted by the left - what they did at the Spartacist Uprising was horrible, and were very good reasons indeed.
And sorry, bobkindles. I tried to use the search tool before hand to find my answer but I couldn't find anything. :(
Regardless of what Trotsky said however, if you don't mind, if the left wing parties had formed a coalition there would've been a high chance that they would've formed a government towards the end of Weimar, which would've been useful in response to the 'elites' seeking a more authoritarian government. The SPD had a majority again but refused to take power at one point, I remember learning, although I can't find the information to verify this right now, so if I'm wrong, correct me.

[Random Precision]

The purpose of the united front is not just to fight fascism, but to appeal to the workers in social-democratic/reformist parties and lay the faults of their leadership bare. The leadership of the SPD indeed had a long history of betrayals to the working class, but they were still trusted by millions of German workers, who had to be reached both to stop the fascist menace and for the future of revolution, as it was the same workers the Spartacists had failed to reach before they attempted it. The KPD under Stalin's direction instead chose sectarianism and defeatism, proclaiming Hitler's triumph a good thing because it would clarify class antagonisms and lead to revolution. Even after they were suppressed the CC was still proclaiming that Hitler's regime could not survive long due to "internal contradictions" and its fall would be followed by a new October-style revolution in Germany. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the Comintern did not even realize its mistakes in the German episode, much less criticize them. Instead, just months later it proclaimed the even more moronic policy of the "Popular Front", which had previously crushed the revolution in China and proceeded to do the same in Spain. This was what caused Trotsky to realize that the Comintern was dead for the purposes of revolution, and a new international had to be founded.

[Dr Mindbender]

My understanding was that Stalin opposed a German 'popular front' because it's trotskyist tendencies would be a threat to his homegrown version of communism. So in that sense it was actually profitable for him for the German communists not to win the elections.

Can you imagine what would have happened if it went the other way? We were that close to living in such a different (better) world.

[ComradeOm]

@Desrumeaux: The essay is included in Hobsbawm's Revolutionaries - an excellent history of 20th C Marxism


The KPD under Stalin's direction instead chose sectarianism and defeatismEh... no. The KPD was rapidly sectarian from its very inception and long before it became effectively a tool of Moscow. Which is really the central lesson to be taken from the pre-war KPD - the most revolutionary and confrontational CP in West European history singularly failed to develop a deep-rooted mass following amongst the workers


My understanding was that Stalin opposed a German 'popular front' because it's trotskyist tendencies would be a threat to his homegrown version of communism. So in that sense it was actually profitable for him for the German communists not to win the elections.Its far more likely that the ComIntern simply failed to foresee the rapid rise of fascism and the disasters that this would bring. During the 1920s it was the liberal democracies that were the more obvious threat. It wasn't until 1933 that fascism suddenly ceased being a sideshow in Italy

Besides, what "trotskyist tendencies" did Stalin fear? The PCO only came into existence in 1928 and never amounted to more than a thousand members :confused:

[BobKKKindle$]

Its far more likely that the ComIntern simply failed to foresee the rapid rise of fascism and the disasters that this would bring. During the 1920s it was the liberal democracies that were the more obvious threat. It wasn't until 1933 that fascism suddenly ceased being a sideshow in Italy

Mussolini's "march on Rome" took place in 1922. 1933 was the year Hitler was awarded the position of Chancellor, and the Nazi Party eventually suppressed all other political organizations, including the KPD, which had allegedly been responsible for the Reichstag fire. However, before this point, the Nazis had already been able to attain electoral success (achieving 18% of the vote in 1930) and had also created an armed apparatus which engaged in street battles with the KPD.

Clearly, then, the Comintern should have been fully aware of the dangers posed by Nazism, as the behavior of the Nazi party towards other parties, as well as the suppression of all workers organizations in Italy, made it clear what the Nazis would do if they were able to attain power. Trotsky was able to make an analysis of Fascism in the early 1930s and he repeatedly called for a United Front. There is no excuse for the Comintern's actions.

Not only did the KPD refuse to create a front with the SPD, they actually tried to obstruct them, even when this meant helping the Nazis:

"In mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced. During this same period, votes for the Nazis were increasing hugely. If the SPD state government would then have been removed, it was clear that the Nazis would have been the main victors. However, the KPD, following orders from Moscow, renamed the referendum 'the red referendum' and campaigned for a 'yes' vote. This provoked widespread disgust, and the referendum was narrowly defeated."

(http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2008/518/index.html?id=mp2486.htm)

Regardless of what Trotsky said however, if you don't mind, if the left wing parties had formed a coalition there would've been a high chance that they would've formed a government towards the end of Weimar, which would've been useful in response to the 'elites' seeking a more authoritarian government. The SPD had a majority again but refused to take power at one point, I remember learning, although I can't find the information to verify this right now, so if I'm wrong, correct me.

I don't agree that a United Front would inevitable have led to a government. An alternative example of the United Front tactic being used successfully is the British Anit-Nazi-League on the 1970s, which was led by my own party (The SWP) but also included sections of the Labour party as well as the trade union movement - we were able to stop the National front from holding demonstrations, but we were not forced to moderate our message so as to make ourselves seem more "acceptable" to the other parties, and did not create an electoral alliance with these parties. The United Front is generally a strategy used to respond to a specific threat and so once that threat has been defeated, the front can be disbanded.

However, even if the United Front did somehow necessitate the KPD participating in an SPD-led government, this is, frankly, a price worth paying, if it means defeating fascism.

The SPD did not take advantage of the opportunity to take power in the early 1920s - Germany was lacking a revolutionary vanguard committed to a revolutionary program. The SPD later attacked several prominent revolutionaries - most notably Rosa Luxemburg.

[Module]

I don't agree that a United Front would inevitable have led to a government.
Yes, sorry. I am getting my facts mixed up.
But would've been able to act as a force against the extreme right, which was lacking due to the division of the left wing parties.

An alternative example of the United Front tactic being used successfully is the British Anit-Nazi-League on the 1970s, which was led by my own party (The SWP) but also included sections of the Labour party as well as the trade union movement - we were able to stop the National front from holding demonstrations, but we were not forced to moderate our message so as to make ourselves seem more "acceptable" to the other parties, and did not create an electoral alliance with these parties. The United Front is generally a strategy used to respond to a specific threat and so once that threat has been defeated, the front can be disbanded. Yes, I would've presumed that to be the case with the KPD and the moderate socialist parties, although they refused to do this.


However, even if the United Front did somehow necessitate the KPD participating in an SPD-led government, this is, frankly, a price worth paying, if it means defeating fascism.

The SPD did not take advantage of the opportunity to take power in the early 1920s - Germany was lacking a revolutionary vanguard committed to a revolutionary program. The SPD later attacked several prominent revolutionaries - most notably Rosa Luxemburg.
Yes I think this is what I meant to refer to. Although I am now confused due to the SPD government in 1919. :(
Do you mean to say that the SPD did not take advantage of the opportunity to act as a revolutionary vanguard?

[BobKKKindle$]

Do you mean to say that the SPD did not take advantage of the opportunity to act as a revolutionary vanguard?

I think it's questionable as to whether the SPD was capable of taking power, because by that point the SPD was no longer a revolutionary party. The primary objective of the party was to gain as many votes as possible, not to make any serious challenges to the status quo, and this is shown by the fact that, when presented with a genuine opportunity to overthrow capitalism, not only did the party refuse to move against the bourgeoisie, they actually helped destroy the workers uprising by using the armed forces of the state to shoot workers and arrest the leaders of the insurrection. The party actually formed a government in 1918 after they promised the ruling class that they would use their power to help contain the uprisings that were spreading across Germany.

However, the party's move towards reformism dates back to the Erfurt party conference in 1891, and was already exposed at the outbreak of the first world war, when the SPD, like many parties belonging to the second international, supported their respective national bourgeoisies.

Rosa Luxemburg broke with the SPD in December in 1918, after she realized that she needed to help create a new party, but she did not have enough time to develop a plan of how the party might seize power, or to build up working class support. Thus, the KPD was not able to follow the example of the Bolsheviks, and were defeated.

The vanguard should have created a party at an earlier date, or should have entered the SPD to change the party's direction and undermine the reformist leadership. The second strategy (entryism) was attempted by the Spartacist league during the war, but the leaders were arrested after they called for demonstrations against the war.

[Random Precision]

Do you mean to say that the SPD did not take advantage of the opportunity to act as a revolutionary vanguard?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes. In fact, they served as the main barrier to revolution. Friederich Ebert, the Social-Democratic chancellor used the army to crush the Spartacist revolution, saying that "I hate it [revolution] like sin". Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered by the fascist paramilitary Freikorps at the instigation of Gustav Noske, the Social-Democratic minister of defense.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes. In fact, they served as the main barrier to revolution. Friederich Ebert, the Social-Democratic chancellor used the army to crush the Spartacist revolution, saying that "I hate it [revolution] like sin". Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered by the fascist paramilitary Freikorps at the instigation of Gustav Noske, the Social-Democratic minister of defense.

Correct. And, interestingly, the Swastika first appeared on the uniforms of the counter-revolutionary militias in 1918-1923. The reformist politics of the SPD were originally developed by Eduard Bernstein, who argued that, because capitalism had undergone certain structural changes, crises would no longer occur, and so revolution was no longer possible, and socialism could instead be reached through a process of gradual reform.

Comrade, this article might give you a good summary of the events which took place in Germany:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14194

[Module]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes. In fact, they served as the main barrier to revolution. Friederich Ebert, the Social-Democratic chancellor used the army to crush the Spartacist revolution, saying that "I hate it [revolution] like sin". Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered by the fascist paramilitary Freikorps at the instigation of Gustav Noske, the Social-Democratic minister of defense.

I know all this. I'm asking if that is what he meant...

And bobkindles, thankyou for replying,
but I know the summary of the events which took place in Germany!!

[ComradeOm]

Mussolini's "march on Rome" took place in 1922. 1933 was the year Hitler was awarded the position of Chancellor, and the Nazi Party eventually suppressed all other political organizations, including the KPD, which had allegedly been responsible for the Reichstag fire. However, before this point, the Nazis had already been able to attain electoral success (achieving 18% of the vote in 1930) and had also created an armed apparatus which engaged in street battles with the KPDAnd that's all fascism was - a comic-opera regime in Italy (the antics of Mussolini being considered ridiculous even then) and a distasteful but still isolated political movement in Germany. The idea that these could emerge as a distinct (that is, from traditional reactionary politics) and virulent ideology, never mind drive German armies across all of Europe, would have been considered ludicrious until the 1930s

In contrast the liberal democracies were waging an effective war on the organised labour and were clearly the greatest danger to the emerging Communist Parties. The early twenties was also a period of profound change for these democracies and there was the very real sense that capitalism was on the ropes, so to speak. So while contemporary analyses of fascism may have been mistaken, there was clearly enough sense behind them to avoid ascribing yet another setback to the malice of Stalin


Trotsky was able to make an analysis of Fascism in the early 1930s and he repeatedly called for a United Front. There is no excuse for the Comintern's actionsTrotsky was also in power during the early twenties when the United Front strategy singularly failed to capitalise on turmoil in Germany during that crucial period. His own analysis of fascism also happens to pre-date the ComIntern's by a full two years. What a visionary


However, even if the United Front did somehow necessitate the KPD participating in an SPD-led government, this is, frankly, a price worth paying, if it means defeating fascismAgain you are imposing your hindsight on events at the time. During the 1920s the enemy of all Communism was the reformism that the movement had so very recently broken with. If people had known what a Nazi Germany would bring then they might have moderated their stances (as they did once Hitler assumed power) but, in the absence of the horrifying images that we associate with fascism, at the time participating in a bourgeois government was seen as a cardinal sin for any revolutionary