KPD, SPD, and "social fascism"

[BobKKKindle$]

I brought this issue up in another thread, but it was suggested that I start a new thread to discuss this issue. I view Stalin's complicity in Hitler's rise to power as one of his greatest crimes.

How was Stalin complicit? He adopted an ultra-left position and prevented the KPD from forming an alliance with any other political faction or group in Germany, including the SPD, which was the main reformist party in Germany, on the grounds that every other party, even those that did not openly promote fascist ideology, were "social-fascists".

In some cases, the KPD actually helped the Nazi party to gain more power, thereby providing them with a platform with which to express their ideas and win over a larger section of the working class to their platform. For example, in mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced, the KPD promoted a vote in favour, even though they knew that this would allow the Nazi party to attain control of the region.

Trotsky disagreed with this approach, and instead suggested that the SPD and the KPD form a united front, which would have meant joint campaigning and a united defense of workers' meetings and activists, in contrast to the fighting (sometimes in the form of actual violence on the streets of Germany's cities) which occurred between the two parties prior to the Nazi rise to power. As well as allowing for the defeat of fascism, a united front would also have allowed the militants of the KPD to engage with the membership of the SPD, and win over some of the membership to a more radical position.

The only defense of Stalin's absurd approach I've heard is the fact that the SPD were responsible for the murder of the Spartacus league. Although this is true, I don't see how this fact was actually relevant to Germany in the 1930s, because fascism posed a far greater threat, and so it was necessary to adopt a pragmatic policy, based on what strategy would be most effective in preventing a fascist electoral victory. Once they gained control, the Nazi Party destroyed all workers organizations (as predicted by Trotsky) by preventing the formation of free trade unions, and by banning the left wing political parties, forcing the leadership to flee to other countries.

Not only was this strategy wrong, it was also inconsistent with Stalin's earlier actions - elsewhere he had promoted the formation of a popular front (that is, an alliance that also encompasses bourgeois parties, hostile to the interests of the working class) which had forced the communist component to change their message in order to make themselves seem more respectable, so as to maintain the coherence of the alliance, and ultimately resulted in the betrayal of the communist parties, as shown in the case of China.

So, how do anti-revisionists defend Stalin's ultra-left policy in Germany?

[Bilan]

Unity between the KPD and SPD seems highly unrealistic, and I think that was a bit of a ridiculous position to be adopted by Trotsky, regarding the context, and more importantly the actions of the SPD during the two communist uprisings - i.e. the murder of Rosa Luxemburg, and 1000's of communists.
The SPD were no more 'communists' or 'socialists' than the Spanish Socialists who took over the Republic.
To unite with them...well, I doubt it would be much different from what happened in Spain when the anarchists united with the communists and socialists!

[Herman]

The SPD were no more 'communists' or 'socialists' than the Spanish Socialists who took over the Republic.

There actually was a difference between the SPD and the Spanish Socialists during that time. The SPD was genuinely social-democratic and reformist, and it would use fear of communism to attract right-wing voters, whereas the Spanish socialists (the ones that were in government in the Popular Front) were genuine marxists and wanted to establish socialism (however this could not be done during the Civil War, see Negrin or Caballero).

[Bilan]

There actually was a difference between the SPD and the Spanish Socialists during that time. The SPD was genuinely social-democratic and reformist, and it would use fear of communism to attract right-wing voters, whereas the Spanish socialists (the ones that were in government in the Popular Front) were genuine marxists and wanted to establish socialism (however this could not be done during the Civil War, see Negrin or Caballero).

That's a false dichotomy.
The Spanish Socialists, particularly those in the Socialist Party and involved in the Republican government were nothing but betrayers of the working class - see the repression of the CNT/FAI and the persecution of anarchists in Spain even when Socialists were elected.
See the way in which the Spanish Socialists, like Negrin or Cabellero, helped to rob the Civil war of it's revolutionary character, supporting the re-militarization of the workers armies, reinstalling army chiefs from the previous state, and supporting the re installment of the bourgeois republic.

And what about the denial of guns to the workers in the early days of the fascist conspiracy-to-coup, huh?

Nothing more than bourgeois republicans, the lot of them; nothing they fear more than the working class armed for its emancipation, eh?

[Wanted Man]

Of course, it would have been more desirable to join forces. But who says that the SPD would have wanted to? The SPD's electoral campaigns had long been virulently anti-communist. Their government banned the Red Front, but never the SA and SS (until it was much too late).

In June 1932, Franz von Papen becomes chancellor. He re-legalizes the SA, which takes to the streets, murdering communists and socialists. As Papen begins ruling like a dictator, the KPD calls for a general strike against fascism, just like in 1923 with Kapp's failed putsch. However, the SPD refuses, and only calls for people to vote for them in the next election. Soon after, Hitler demands the post of chancellor. Hindenburg caves in, and Goebbels writes in his diary: "With that, we have scrapped the year 1789 from history." Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite are replaced by Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.

In May 1933, the entire SPD fraction (minus those who had already fled to France, like Otto Wells) vote for Hitler's resolution to formally reject the Versailles treaty. Friedrich Ebert (yes, the son of) justifies this by saying that the SPD has abandoned its 'national image' for too long.

[Herman]

That's a false dichotomy.
The Spanish Socialists, particularly those in the Socialist Party and involved in the Republican government were nothing but betrayers of the working class - see the repression of the CNT/FAI and the persecution of anarchists in Spain even when Socialists were elected.

It is not false. You claimed that the SPD was "no more socialist or communist" than the Spanish socialists (who "took over" the republic). You are wrong, for the Spanish socialists wre in fact marxists, talked about the "inevitable revolution" and it was Largo Caballero's intent to construct a socialist system (Too bad Juan Negrin replaced him later on).

They were not betrayers of the working class. How do you explain their support in the 1936 elections? Even the CNT asked its members and the public to vote for the popular front. The popular front had the majority of working class support in Spain (in general). Whether this was true in Cataluña is a whole different matter.

See the way in which the Spanish Socialists, like Negrin or Cabellero, helped to rob the Civil war of it's revolutionary character, supporting the re-militarization of the workers armies, reinstalling army chiefs from the previous state, and supporting the re installment of the bourgeois republic.


And what about the denial of guns to the workers in the early days of the fascist conspiracy-to-coup, huh?

It was believed that it was not necessary to give arms freely, as it was thought that the rebellion was small and would be short-lived.

[Bilan]

It is not false. You claimed that the SPD was "no more socialist or communist" than the Spanish socialists (who "took over" the republic). You are wrong, for the Spanish socialists wre in fact marxists, talked about the "inevitable revolution" and it was Largo Caballero's intent to construct a socialist system (Too bad Juan Negrin replaced him later on).


Again, I stand by this statement: they weren't Marxists. The inevitablity of their claimed revolution was bollocks: revolution was under their noses, but, like the SPD, were more interested in retaining bourgeois order than the emancipation.

And I find it confusing that you mention Negrin as both good and bad, in this quote as good, and in the former as bad. Why?

The only thing thats too bad is that the working class didn't pop them both and organize the factories themselves - which they did do in Catalonia, and so on (excuse my lack of accents and bad spelling, not intentional).



They were not betrayers of the working class. How do you explain their support in the 1936 elections? Even the CNT asked its members and the public to vote for the popular front.

And the CNT was fucking stupid to do this.
The CNT started to betray the principles it upheld orginally: working class power is not in the bourgeois political system, it's in the streets, factories and fields - where power belongs.

And I think you're ignoring the way i which the the republicans and "socialists" strangled the CNT, and backed it into a corner - which is a result of the stupid decisions made by the more reformist tendencies in the CNT, and I need not name names.



The popular front had the majority of working class support in Spain (in general).

And it was stripped of its revolutionary character, which is the issue. It doesn't matter if 98% of Spain supported it, it's what the power structure represented: the destruction of fascism (Good), and the restoration of bourgeois republican order (obviously, not good)





It was believed that it was not necessary to give arms freely, as it was thought that the rebellion was small and would be short-lived.

So you admit that both the Socialists were totally out of their fucking minds, underestimating the fascists (sound like the SPD, eh?), crushing workers movements (...again!? The SPD!?), forcing workers organizations/unions underground (CNT | FAI | The Ruhr Red Army...?), killing prominent revolutionaries (Rosa, members of the CNT).

Further more, they denied the people arms...how the hell can you justify that shit? That's a complete compromise on fascism. They were not Marxists. Marxists don't tolerate fascism; they crush it. What they were was cowards.

[Herman]

Again, I stand by this statement: they weren't Marxists. The inevitablity of their claimed revolution was bollocks: revolution was under their noses, but, like the SPD, were more interested in retaining bourgeois order than the emancipation.

For a time, yes. And I agree. It was necessary to keep the republic as it was until the victory over the fascist uprising. Of course, you'll disagree with me saying that "war and revolution are the same". To me, they were socialists who understood the conditions they were in, and had to take harsh, and sometimes distasteful measures. To you, they were traitors, or "bourgeois" or whatever.


And I find it confusing that you mention Negrin as both good and bad, in this quote as good, and in the former as bad. Why?

Sorry, didn't make it very clear. Negrin was a socialist/liberal, he did both some good things and bad things. Largo Caballero inspires me more.


The only thing thats too bad is that the working class didn't pop them both and organize the factories themselves - which they did do in Catalonia, and so on (excuse my lack of accents and bad spelling, not intentional).

I agree (not with the popping part though), but it wasn't the time for that, not yet. It was a civil war and it wasn't the time to pool necessary resources towards building socialism.


And I think you're ignoring the way i which the the republicans and "socialists" strangled the CNT, and backed it into a corner - which is a result of the stupid decisions made by the more reformist tendencies in the CNT, and I need not name names.

Of course, it is inexcusable that the CNT-FAI was defeated and that many good anarchists were shot as "class traitors", but it does not contradict the fact that the back then leaders of PSOE were marxist and revolutionary.


And it was stripped of its revolutionary character, which is the issue. It doesn't matter if 98% of Spain supported it, it's what the power structure represented: the destruction of fascism (Good), and the restoration of bourgeois republican order (obviously, not good)

They didn't want to restore the old bourgeois order. They wanted to fight fascism first, and then get on with the building of socialism (which was practically guaranteed).


So you admit that both the Socialists were totally out of their fucking minds, underestimating the fascists (sound like the SPD, eh?), crushing workers movements (...again!? The SPD!?), forcing workers organizations/unions underground (CNT | FAI | The Ruhr Red Army...?), killing prominent revolutionaries (Rosa, members of the CNT).

It was a wrong decision not to arm the population as soon as the revolt happened (they severely underestimated the fascists), but Largo Caballero did not order the murder of anarchists or communists (in fact, the revolt in Barcelona caused his resignation). On the contrary, he was a fervent supporter of a political alliance with the CNT. Unlike the SPD, Caballero did not ally himself with right-wing paramilitary groups and murder 20,000 communists (perhaps Prieto might have or Juan Negrin did, but not Caballero). Sorry for focusing only on Caballero, but he represented the left-wing of the Spanish Socialist Worker's Party and was one of its leaders, whereas Juan Negrin wasn't.


Further more, they denied the people arms...how the hell can you justify that shit? That's a complete compromise on fascism. They were not Marxists. Marxists don't tolerate fascism; they crush it. What they were was cowards.

It was wrong, initially, not to give weapons, but eventually they did. It's not as black and white as you make it seem. It's not "Marxist + weapons = Defeat of fascism". Those were hard times and there was a lot of pressure coming from all sides. It doesn't do anyone any good to simply outright judge them as "cowards". We have to look at the Spanish civil war critically, but also understandingly.

[Andy Bowden]

Its not just a question of not having an alliance with the (working class base of) the SPD, its that the KPD also supported the Nazi led referendum to kick out the SPD government in Prussia.

There was no question of this government being replaced by anyone else than the right, so regardless of the SPD's crimes it can hardly be considered progressive or pro-working class to back such a campaign given who it would benefit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The only defense of Stalin's absurd approach I've heard is the fact that the SPD were responsible for the murder of the Spartacus league. Although this is true, I don't see how this fact was actually relevant to Germany in the 1930s, because fascism posed a far greater threat, and so it was necessary to adopt a pragmatic policy, based on what strategy would be most effective in preventing a fascist electoral victory. Once they gained control, the Nazi Party destroyed all workers organizations (as predicted by Trotsky) by preventing the formation of free trade unions, and by banning the left wing political parties, forcing the leadership to flee to other countries.

Not only was this strategy wrong, it was also inconsistent with Stalin's earlier actions - elsewhere he had promoted the formation of a popular front (that is, an alliance that also encompasses bourgeois parties, hostile to the interests of the working class) which had forced the communist component to change their message in order to make themselves seem more respectable, so as to maintain the coherence of the alliance, and ultimately resulted in the betrayal of the communist parties, as shown in the case of China.

So, how do anti-revisionists defend Stalin's ultra-left policy in Germany?

Indeed. I said in the other thread that, realpolitik-wise, this was a grossly erroneous aberration on "Comrade" Stalin's part. This issue was one of the few wherein revolutionary and realpolitik interests coincided (just like Lenin's militant stance on getting Russia out unconditionally).

[YKTMX]

I agree with the original poster and I also agree with the comrades who pointed out that the SPD also had a massive part to play in the division of the Left. Someone said Trotsky's position was "naive", but this is wrong. Trotsky's position was aimed primarily at the national leadership, particularly Thaelmann, to give up the "official position" and admit the reality on the ground - the distinction between the SPD and the KPD is one the Nazis didn't recognise. The differences that consumed the Left were inconsequential to Hitler - there was room in the death camps for reformist and revolutionaries.

Trotsky knew the basis of the divisions on the Left (I have to say here, given the development of the Russian Revolution and Thaelmann's ludicrous Stalin-worship, you couldn't blame SPD members for being slightly nervous). The argument was a pragmatic one - the class enemy can be clearly identified, the class enemy doesn't distinguish between us and our forces can beat the class enemy if we join together. It was the SPD leadership - and Thaelmann's zig-zagging - that represented the "naive" positions - for one, the Nazis could be defeated by constitutional means, and for the other, Hitler would simply "pave the way" for Bolshevism.

THESE positions were both wrong and Trotsky had been right FROM THE START.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I've edited the text size of BK's OP since the formatting was rather odd.

Plus, I endorse YKTMX's analysis. Whether or not the SPD would have agreed on a united front, it was the height of stupidity for the KPD to attack them and the Nazis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know that the proper left-communist stance would have been abstention (no left-communists at that time would have advocating actively siding with the Nazis). Why did Stalin step outside realpolitik and go nuts on this issue?

[YKTMX]

Why did Stalin step outside realpolitik and go nuts on this issue?

You're assuming Stalin had an interest in seeing a "communist" state in Germany. I don't know that this is the case. In terms of the referendum in Prussia, the KPD offered the SPD an united Front that the SPD rejected, and then Comintern advised the position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ah, but Stalin didn't really have an interest in seeing "Communist" (please use the Big "C" next time ;) ) states in China, Spain, and Greece (and in my RevMarx thread on "Marxism-Leninism," Greece is emphasized because the Soviets were in the enviable and feared position of dealing from a position of strength), yet in none of those case did he advocate anything else but collaborative realpolitik crap.

[YKTMX]

I used the litte C purposefully. You see, Stalin might have been happy to see a "Communist" German state - that is, a German state under the control of the KPD and modelled on the Soviet Union (that is, not socialist). What he feared was a communist revolution, led by the German working classes, that would have re-ignited the fires of October 1917, taken the lead from him amongst the "international communist movement" and maybe even threatened the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union.

I think the three cases you mention each have an individual dynamic, and we shouldn't expect "consitency" from Stalin at an ideological level, because he wasn't driven by ideological motivations (beyond Great Russian Chauvinism). It's rather like looking for "democratic" impulses in post-war U.S foreign policy. You might found it, but it'll be buried under a mountain of corpses and political disasters.

[IronColumn]

You're all wrong. Neither Stalinists nor (national) Socialists are working class, so it's pretty irrelevent whether they present a united front or not. Noske terror only got replaced by Hitler terror to give way to Stalin terror. Neither of these three outcomes are qualitatively different, they only represent a capitalism at certain points in its trajectory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I used the litte C purposefully. You see, Stalin might have been happy to see a "Communist" German state - that is, a German state under the control of the KPD and modelled on the Soviet Union (that is, not socialist).

Germany was too big for him to control. :glare:

There were numerous instance wherein Stalin wasn't interested in even big-C "Communist" states (like I mentioned, Greece and ESPECIALLY China after WWII).

[A.J.]

Trotsky disagreed with this approach, and instead suggested that the SPD and the KPD form a united front

If Trotsky thought for one millisecond that such a virulently anti-communist party as the SPD would ever even contemplate entering into a front with the KPD he needed to be locked up in a lunatic asylum.

[A.J.]

I think the three cases you mention each have an individual dynamic, and we shouldn't expect "consitency" from Stalin at an ideological level, because he wasn't driven by ideological motivations (beyond Great Russian Chauvinism)

How can someone who isn't even Russian be a "Great Russian chauvanist"? :laugh:

[RaiseYourVoice]

You're all wrong. Neither Stalinists nor (national) Socialists are working class, so it's pretty irrelevent whether they present a united front or not. Noske terror only got replaced by Hitler terror to give way to Stalin terror. Neither of these three outcomes are qualitatively different, they only represent a capitalism at certain points in its trajectory.
What crap is that. Both members of the KPD and the SPD where working class. That does not mean of course they always acted in the working class interesst. United front strategies aim at exactly that, all working class forces fused together.

Also the notion that "one terror go replaced by another terror" is so full of shit. Hitler fascist terror compares to NOTHING and cant be put of as "just some random terror"



For the thread. As the SPD took their part in betraying the revolution and killing of communists in germany, i find a united front highly unlikely. But yes the KPD should have had a more clear view of where the most dangerous enemy of the working class stands. (the theory of social fashism had little impact on wether or not there could be a united front though.)

[Andy Bowden]

If working with the SPD was unacceptable because of the leaderships of that partys role in killing revolutionaries, why was it acceptable to work with Churchill, Chiang Kai Shek and Truman later on in WW2?

They all had equally murderous roles as the SPD leadership - but unlike the SPD, did not have a mass base within the labour movement, forces which could potentially have been won for socialism.

[Unicorn]

Stalin's aim was to bring Hitler to power because Stalin thought that Hitler would fail to deliver his promises thus provoking workers' revolution.

[YKTMX]

How can someone who isn't even Russian be a "Great Russian chauvanist"? :laugh:

Exactly...Georgia was part of "greater Russia".

[A.J.]

Exactly...Georgia was part of "greater Russia".

Georgia was an oppressed nation during Tsarist times, however.


On a not altogether unrelated point it was perhaps originating from an oppressed national group that led Stalin to developing an early interest in the National question and later becoming the Bolsheviks leading authority on the subject.

Indeed, Stalin's 1913 masterpiece Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html) was highly praised by Lenin and was to be appointed Peoples' Commissar for Nationalities soon after October.

[Luís Henrique]

How can someone who isn't even Russian be a "Great Russian chauvanist"? :laugh:

Kissinger or Schwarzenneger aren't American chauvinists?

Luís Henrique

[A.J.]

Kissinger or Schwarzenneger aren't American chauvinists?

Luís Henrique

To my knowlege Austria hasn't been oppressed by the U.S. like Georgia was oppressed by Tsarist Russia.

[Luís Henrique]

To my knowlege Austria hasn't been oppressed by the U.S. like Georgia was oppressed by Tsarist Russia.

So?

Reinhard Heydrich was not a Nazi?

Or isn't David Yeagley a White supremacist?

http://nicolen.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/comanche-white-supremacist-humiliated/

Luís Henrique

[A.J.]

So?

Reinhard Heydrich was not a Nazi?

Or isn't David Yeagley a White supremacist?

http://nicolen.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/comanche-white-supremacist-humiliated/

Luís Henrique

meh :sleep:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's what RedStar2000 had to say regarding the inevitability of the Nazi rise to power (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory22f7.html?subaction=showfull&id=1107010157&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).

Given the trend towards authoritarian capitalism worldwide, I wonder if, just for agitational purposes, reviving the term "social fascism" would be a good idea.

In Britain, the Labour Party would certainly qualify as such, with its continued promotion of the "surveillance society" - even with its recent defeat.



On the other hand, if indeed the SPD and the NSDAP were indeed "the same," why did the KPD work with the Nazis and not the more traditional conservative and even liberal parties to bring down the treacherous SPD (1919, Bloody May Day, hyperinflation, etc.)?

[IronColumn]

Probably because of an uncomfortable ideological affinity between stalinism and nazism.