Fascism: the failure of the revolutionary movement

[Guest1]

Fascism in Germany could have been smashed, had a proper revolutionary policy been pursued by the two "Marxist" parties which together had a majority during the election that drove Hitler to power: the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Communist Party (KPD).

Together they had hundreds of thousands of armed workers in revolutionary militias, and the decisive support of the working class remained with them. Hitler and the Nazis actually decreased their vote from the previous elections. Instead, the KPD put forward the 3rd International's suicidal slogan of "Social Fascism" and the "Third Period". The idea was that Capitalism went through three periods, one was the revolutionary period culminating in the 1917 revolution, the second was a period of lull and reassendance of Capitalism, and the third was the period of terminal decline of Capitalism.

The revolution was now, and the Social Fascists (Social Democrats), were the real threat, not the Nazis. What difference does it make if a Social Democrat is chief of police, or a Nazi? This ultra-left insanity led to the "Red Referendum", where the KPD campaigned together with the Nazis to remove an SPD governor. Even worse, KPD activists, on party orders, set out to disrupt SPD party and union meetings, with the spectacle of Nazis and KPD activists ganging up on SPD workers and thrashing the "real Fascists": the vast majority of workers, who still clung to their reformist leadership, despite all the betrayals. This fratricidal warfare did not give the working class a clear lead on how to face the rising mortal threat of Fascism, instead it only split and disoriented the workers at the very moment where they needed maximum unity and decisive action against the class enemy.

Instead of shaming the leadership, by calling for a working-class united front, with the KPD's and SPD's militants together beating up Nazis and smashing them, the KPD alienated the working class by a lunatic and sectarian policy that led directly to Hitler's rise to power. The armed working class outnumbered Hitlers' supporters, and could have defeated him even on the eve of his rise to power. Instead, in Hitler's own words, he took power "without shattering a window-pane". The KPD's response? "After Hitler, our turn". It was a victory for the KPD! Having led the working class to the slaughterhouse, the KPD had one last chance to call for a generalized resistance movement. A mass protest, a general strike, anything. But they were too blind to even admit anything was wrong. The blood is on their hands more than anyone else.

The failure lies not just on the leaders of the Second, but of the Third International first and foremost. Their near-sighted and lost approach to the international revolution squandered the greatest revolutionary period humanity has ever seen. The early hope and revolutionary spirit that the shining example of October 1917 gave to the German and world working class, following defeat after blundering defeat, gave way to demoralization and despair on the part of the working class, and depraved bloodlust on the part of the working class.

The failure of the international revolution led inextricably to the victory of international Fascism, defining the darkest period in modern history.

[ComradeOm]

Could've, would've, should've. Its easy to look back and judge, no?

Of all the communist movements in European history, including Russia, the failure of the KPD is easily the most disappointing. This was the 'golden boy' of communism operating in the heart of world socialism. Yet it real failure wasn't in not stopping Hitler but in being too revolutionary - too eager to confront (regardless of its target) and failing to focus on building a solid mass membership that could compete with the SPD or the NSDAP. Such ultra-sectarianism was a defining trait of the KPD that can be ascribed to both the party's revolutionary roots and its lack of quality leadership. Certainly its not a sin that can be traced back to Moscow and blaming a specific policy is ignoring the underlying issues

With all that said and done I believe that the idea that the KPD and SPD could have made up and simply stopped Hitler to be a delusion born of desperation, sectarianism, and hindsight. These were two parties that had engaged in a bitter civil war not a decade previously and remained fiercely competitive rivals. Certainly the SPD could was hardly a natural ally for communists or socialists - the policy of social fascism makes far more sense when you consider that it followed the massacre of 33 workers by SPD police on May Day 1929 (Berlin's Bloody May)

That last point deserves stressing - social fascism was only adapted by the KPD in 1929. By this time there was a decade of mutual and unforgiving animosity between both 'Marxist' parties. Blame the KPD for its own undeniable failures but don't pretend that sectarianism on its part, or the puppet masters in Moscow, were the cause, or enablers, of Hitler's rise. If you must have a scapegoat then pick the decision of the SPD leadership to betray its working class support by taking the reigns of the bourgeois state and becoming an undeniable party of reaction


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Spd-poster-1932.jpg/165px-Spd-poster-1932.jpg
The SPD: Natural allies of communists

[Holden Caulfield]

the SPD who's slogan was 'after Hilter us', (if i remember correctly)
not the most progressive or revolutionary ideas

[Wanted Man]

a lunatic and sectarian policy that led directly to Hitler's rise to power.
This is easily the most nonsensical statement in this thread. I don't deny that the KPD's policy was completely wrong (although ComradeOm explains quite well why it was so). But there's no way it directly brought Hitler to power, which is by definition impossible (try to gain understanding in the meanings of 'direct' and 'indirect'). I think this thread has little to do with actual historical understanding. Rather, it's a piece of sectarian hysterical revisionism, aimed at justifying the OP's own political line of entering the social-democratic parties, that continue to be a scourge to the working class they claim to represent, even today.

It's ridiculous to blame the communists (or any workers' organization) directly for Hitler's rise. You come with two examples where communists acted against the SPD together with the NSDAP, but you then go on to present this as the situation in the entire country. As if the bitter streetfights between the Red Front and the SA had never existed. By the way, it was a government with SPD participation that banned the Red Front. The SA was not banned until it was much too late (right after an election, when the SA would have seized power in the streets in the case of an NSDAP victory). Maybe this means that the social-democrats are "directly responsible for the rise of Hitler". :rolleyes:

Instead of blaming the vicims (albeit those who went completely the wrong way about things), there are other factors. What about the massive funding from German industrialists? What about the Papen government that disbands parliament and begins a dictatorial reign, in which the SA is allowed to exist again? In celebration, the SA took to the streets, murdering hundreds of people.

And here's the kicker: what about the SPD refusal to strike against the Papen government (like during the Kapp putsch) that the KPD called for, deciding to wait for the elections instead??? Why is the OP not touching on this? Instead, CyM decides to blame the commies even here:


It was a victory for the KPD! Having led the working class to the slaughterhouse, the KPD had one last chance to call for a generalized resistance movement. A mass protest, a general strike, anything. But they were too blind to even admit anything was wrong. The blood is on their hands more than anyone else.Soon after, Hindenburg caved in to Hitler's demand to become the sole chancellor, as opposed to co-governing with Papen. By that time, there wasn't much left. The Reichstag Fire came and tens of thousands of communists, socialists and union militants were deported to the first concentration camps. In the last election, Hjalmar Schacht gathers 3 million goldmarks in funding from the major industrialists. The SA, SS and police make SPD and KPD electoral meetings almost impossible.

The NSDAP wins 44%, still not an absolute majority. The KPD is banned and their parliamentary representation removed, so that the nazis do get their majority. Hitler's enabling act is passed. Some SPD leaders, like Otto Wells, protest heavily. In May 1933, when Versailles is formally rejected, Wells has already fled to France. What does the majority of the social-democrats (led by Friedrich Ebert, yes, the son of) do? They support the proposal, because the SPD has neglected its national image for too long!!! The entire SPD fraction votes for a proposal that comes directly from Mein Kampf!!! To thank them, Hitler bans the SPD and arrests its leaders a month after.

The OP says that Hitler came to power without shattering a window pane. Disregarding the wholesale intimidation against any workers' organizations by the SA, SS and police, this is true. Hitler only had to manipulate the fundaments of the Weimar state in which he worked. As we have seen, it is mindless to blame the communists foremostly. Instead, look at the circumstances in which Hitler worked, how easy it was made for him on the whole.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Modern "social-democrats" are social-fascists (see New Labour and the British surveillance society). As much as this revolutionary Marxist loathes Stalin's revisionism, and as much as I regret the KPDs sectarianism, there IS such a phenomenon as "social fascism." Why can't Trots admit it???

However, if the KPD equated the SPD with the Nazis, my only criticism is this: why did the KPD work with the Nazis instead of the liberal and conservative elements???


Rather, it's a piece of sectarian hysterical revisionism, aimed at justifying the OP's own political line of entering the social-democratic parties, that continue to be a scourge to the working class they claim to represent, even today.

Game, set, match.

Even in my Politics thread on working with reformists within the same organization, I draw the line between "democratic socialists," pareconists, and market socialists like David Schweickart on one side and "social-democratic" welfarists on the other.

[redSHARP]

its all about choosing your friends wisely. in politics the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friends" does not work out as well. personally i think the communists should have abandoned their democratic side and just put all their money and effort into smashing the nazi scum on the streets.

how much aid was given to the KPD by the soviets?

[Wanted Man]

Modern "social-democrats" are social-fascists (see New Labour and the British surveillance society). As much as this revolutionary Marxist loathes Stalin's revisionism, and as much as I regret the KPDs sectarianism, there IS such a phenomenon as "social fascism." Why can't Trots admit it???
Yup. The SPD is just a historical precedent for things that go on even today. Actually, just now, in the Dutch town of Oss, the nazi organization NVU is goosestepping through the streets. Oss is dominated by the Socialist Party. The mayor previously allowed a counter-demonstration, but guess what happened today? The police of Oss have just arrested every single anti-fascist.

But I guess some RevLeft trotskyites will soon have a neat explanation for this current event, which is really just acting on a set historical precedent. In fact, they'll probably say that this is the fault of the anti-fascists and communists. After all, they 'sinned' by not entering the SP, whose Oss mayor sends in the cops against anti-fascists. Not to mention the SP's anti-immigrant policies, which are similar to those of the NVU themselves! But fuck, you don't want to be 'sectarian'!

Edit: lol, the police have just charged anyone who came too close to the goosesteppers. But please, don't tell anyone. Wouldn't want to criticize the 'traditional workers' organizations'.

[Louis Pio]

the SPD who's slogan was 'after Hilter us', (if i remember correctly)
not the most progressive or revolutionary ideas



Correction:
It was the KPD slogan

[communard resolution]

I'm pretty sure Stalin recommended the KPD and the Social Democrats form a united front against Hitler, but the German commies didn't want to listen. History proved Stalin right on this one - it's the old "first they came for the trade unionists ..." situation.

That said, one can easily understand the KPD's distrust towards a party that had sent Freikorps fascists (most of whom later joined the SA) to crush and slaughter revolutionaries not that long ago. A German rhyme goes "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten." (Who betrayed us? Social Democrats)

Difficult one.

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

Fascism in Germany could have been smashed, had a proper revolutionary policy been pursued by the two "Marxist" parties which together had a majority during the election that drove Hitler to power: the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Communist Party (KPD).

Together they had hundreds of thousands of armed workers in revolutionary militias, and the decisive support of the working class remained with them. Hitler and the Nazis actually decreased their vote from the previous elections. Instead, the KPD put forward the 3rd International's suicidal slogan of "Social Fascism" and the "Third Period". The idea was that Capitalism went through three periods, one was the revolutionary period culminating in the 1917 revolution, the second was a period of lull and reassendance of Capitalism, and the third was the period of terminal decline of Capitalism.

The revolution was now, and the Social Fascists (Social Democrats), were the real threat, not the Nazis. What difference does it make if a Social Democrat is chief of police, or a Nazi? This ultra-left insanity led to the "Red Referendum", where the KPD campaigned together with the Nazis to remove an SPD governor. Even worse, KPD activists, on party orders, set out to disrupt SPD party and union meetings, with the spectacle of Nazis and KPD activists ganging up on SPD workers and thrashing the "real Fascists": the vast majority of workers, who still clung to their reformist leadership, despite all the betrayals. This fratricidal warfare did not give the working class a clear lead on how to face the rising mortal threat of Fascism, instead it only split and disoriented the workers at the very moment where they needed maximum unity and decisive action against the class enemy.

Instead of shaming the leadership, by calling for a working-class united front, with the KPD's and SPD's militants together beating up Nazis and smashing them, the KPD alienated the working class by a lunatic and sectarian policy that led directly to Hitler's rise to power. The armed working class outnumbered Hitlers' supporters, and could have defeated him even on the eve of his rise to power. Instead, in Hitler's own words, he took power "without shattering a window-pane". The KPD's response? "After Hitler, our turn". It was a victory for the KPD! Having led the working class to the slaughterhouse, the KPD had one last chance to call for a generalized resistance movement. A mass protest, a general strike, anything. But they were too blind to even admit anything was wrong. The blood is on their hands more than anyone else.

The failure lies not just on the leaders of the Second, but of the Third International first and foremost. Their near-sighted and lost approach to the international revolution squandered the greatest revolutionary period humanity has ever seen. The early hope and revolutionary spirit that the shining example of October 1917 gave to the German and world working class, following defeat after blundering defeat, gave way to demoralization and despair on the part of the working class, and depraved bloodlust on the part of the working class.

The failure of the international revolution led inextricably to the victory of international Fascism, defining the darkest period in modern history.

This is a pretty amateur article. Everyone knows that fascism started in Italy, not Germany. There was no such thing as "international Fascism," fascist movements combined nationalism into their own ideology in each nation-state they developed in. Mussolini himself was a Marxist newspaper editor before WWI. The word fasci in Italian means "union."

"The revolution was now, and the Social Fascists (Social Democrats), were the real threat, not the Nazis."

Before 1933 that was a sensible position to have for reasons you mentioned.

"What difference does it make if a Social Democrat is chief of police, or a Nazi?"

As Europe today proves, not much.

WRT "The failure of the international revolution led inextricably to the victory of international Fascism, defining the darkest period in modern history."

I doubt that it was the darkest period in modern history. I think the Cold War era was a lot worse in terms of being a global struggle and with probably more victims.

[Holden Caulfield]

Correction:
It was the KPD slogan

cheers, still a pretty stupid slogan in reality,

[Die Neue Zeit]

Considering the consolation that was the German Democratic Republic, I think that slogan was NOT "pretty stupid." :p


Yup. The SPD is just a historical precedent for things that go on even today. Actually, just now, in the Dutch town of Oss, the nazi organization NVU is goosestepping through the streets. Oss is dominated by the Socialist Party. The mayor previously allowed a counter-demonstration, but guess what happened today? The police of Oss have just arrested every single anti-fascist.

But I guess some RevLeft Trotskyites will soon have a neat explanation for this current event, which is really just acting on a set historical precedent. In fact, they'll probably say that this is the fault of the anti-fascists and communists. After all, they 'sinned' by not entering the SP, whose Oss mayor sends in the cops against anti-fascists. Not to mention the SP's anti-immigrant policies, which are similar to those of the NVU themselves! But fuck, you don't want to be 'sectarian'!

Edit: lol, the police have just charged anyone who came too close to the goosesteppers. But please, don't tell anyone. Wouldn't want to criticize the 'traditional workers' organizations'.

While I stated my case for a mass party along the lines of the early SPD (revolutionaries and "democratic-socialist" centrists/real-reformists), that is completely different from entryism into "reformist"/"social-democratic" parties.

[ComradeOm]

While I stated my case for a mass party along the lines of the early SPD (revolutionaries and "democratic-socialist" centrists/real-reformists), that is completely different from entryism into "reformist"/"social-democratic" parties.Unless one leads to the other. The SPD became reformist precisely because of its membership was largely reformist!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good problem there, comrade. Like I said, Social-Labour Democracy excludes social-fascists and other economism-inclined folks precisely because they oppose "labour democracy."

By real-reformist, I mean those who would rather pursue "full workers' ownership and control over the economy as a means to end the exploitation of labour" through the ballot box - either the classical parliamentary form (neo-Kautskyists) or the new, referendum-style form (left-Chavistas) - as opposed to armed revolution.

[ComradeOm]

By real-reformist, I mean those who would rather pursue "full workers' ownership and control over the economy as a means to end the exploitation of labour" through the ballot box - either the classical parliamentary form (neo-Kautskyists) or the new, referendum-style form (left-Chavistas) - as opposed to armed revolution.In 1918 the German democratic-socialists sided almost unanimously with Ebert's "social-fascists" against the revolutionary movement. Similarly in Russia the Mensheviks fell on the side of counter-revolution. The lesson to be drawn from these examples is that the democratic-socialist obsession with reforming, or "conquering", the state is fundamentally incompatible with the desire of communists to destroy such bourgeois institutions

Limited cooperation between these ideological groups, as in united/popular fronts, is of course possible but I see absolutely no reason for a "big tent" party that seeks to unite a number of factions with very different and contradictory aims. Which is all entirely irrelevant given that, with the possible exception of S America, democratic-socialism is all but dead as a political current

[Die Neue Zeit]

In 1918 the German democratic-socialists sided almost unanimously with Ebert's "social-fascists" against the revolutionary movement. Similarly in Russia the Mensheviks fell on the side of counter-revolution. The lesson to be drawn from these examples is that the democratic-socialist obsession with reforming, or "conquering", the state is fundamentally incompatible with the desire of communists to destroy such bourgeois institutions

Limited cooperation between these ideological groups, as in united/popular fronts, is of course possible but I see absolutely no reason for a "big tent" party that seeks to unite a number of factions with very different and contradictory aims. Which is all entirely irrelevant given that, with the possible exception of S America, democratic-socialism is all but dead as a political current

Hmmm... so basically saying there are now only politically active Marxists (including revolutionary Marxists) and social-fascists, correct? In that event, my USL article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html) emphasis on working with "democratic socialists" within the same party is merely academic...

On the other hand, what about the real-reformist hacks that comprise the official "Communist" parties (like the CPUSA)? Or are they actually social-fascists with "Communist" coatings?

[ComradeOm]

Hmmm... so basically saying there are now only politically active Marxists (including revolutionary Marxists) and social-fascists, correct? In that event, my USL article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html) emphasis on working with "democratic socialists" within the same party is merely academic...This is why I dislike the "social-fascist" label. Its a political slur that doesn't correspond to actual ideological positions. For example, the democratic-socialists were undoubtedly Marxist and possessed a different political agenda to the social-democrats. Unfortunately both groups shared the same "superstitious belief in the state", to quote Lenin, and were thus inherently opposed to revolution. You could boil this down to simply "revolutionary" and "social-fascist" but then you're simplifying the political equation to an absurd degree

Just to reiterate of course, I don't take issue with cooperating with democratic socialists where our objectives intersect. As it is however the nature of the state is one clear area of conflict and, given the importance of this point, thus there are no grounds for a single party. You might as well start recruiting anarchists into CPs


On the other hand, what about the real-reformist hacks that comprise the official "Communist" parties (like the CPUSA)? Or are they actually social-fascists with "Communist" coatings?I don't like the "official" CPs but I have no real issue with them. Largely because I am no closer to solving that all important question than they are - how can one maintain a revolutionary party in a non-revolutionary environment? Until we are in a revolutionary scenario its impossible to judge whether they hold true to their ideals or not

Of course those parties that have compromised their ideological principles in the search for electoral success, such as the SWP, deserve nothing but my disdain