First compilation under title FASCISM: What it is and how to fight it by
Pioneer Publishers in August 1944 and reprinted in 1964. This revised
compilation was published in April 1969. Transcribed for the Internet by
Zodiac, the former diretor of the Marx-Engels Internet Archive, in August 1993.
This pamphlet is not copyrighted.
PAMPHLET CONTENTS
1969 PAMPHLET INTRODUCTION
By George Lavan Weissman
~~~
Liberals and even most of those who consider themselves Marxists are guilty of
using the world fascist very loosely today. They fling it around as an epithet
or political swearword against right-wing figures whom they particularly
despise, or against reactionaries in general.
Since WWII, the fascist label has been applied to such figures and movements as
Gerald L.K. Smith, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Eastland, Barry Goldwater,
the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George
Wallace.
Now, were all these fascist, or just some? If only some, then how does one tell
which are and which aren’t?
Indiscriminate use of the term really reflects vagueness about its meaning.
Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies in such terms as dictatorship,
mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of unscrupulous propaganda, the
hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the masses, etc. Impressionism and
confusion on the part of liberals is not surprising. But Marxism’s superiority
consists of its ability to analyze and differentiate among social and political
phenomena. that so many of those calling themselves marxists cannot define
fascism any more adequately than the liberals is not wholly their fault.
Whether they are aware of it or not, much of their intellectual heritage comes
from the social-democratic (reformist socialist) and Stalinist movements, which
dominated the left in the 1930s when fascism was scoring victory after victory.
These movements not only permitted Nazism to come to power in Germany without a
shot being fired against it, but they failed abysmally in understanding the
nature and dynamics of fascism and the way to fight it. After fascism’s
triumphs, they had much to hide and so refrained from making a Marxist analysis
which would, at least, have educated subsequent generations.
But there is a Marxist analysis of fascism. It was made by Leon Trotsky not as
a postmortem, but during the rise of fascism. This was one of Trotsky’s great
contributions to Marxism. He began the task after Mussolini’s victory in Italy
in 1922 and brought it to a high point in the years preceding Hitler’s triumph
in Germany in 1933.
In his attempts to awaken the German Communist Party and the Communist
International (Comintern) to the mortal danger and to rally a united-front
against Nazism, Trotsky made a point-by-point critique of the policies of the
social-democratic and Stalinist parties. This constitutes a compendium of
almost all the mistaken, ineffective, and suicidal positions that workers’
organizations can take regarding fascism, since the positions of the German
parties ranged from opportunistic default and betrayal on the right (social
democratic) to ultra-left abstentionism and betrayal (Stalinist).
The Communist movement was still on its ultra-left binge (the so-called Third
Period) when the Nazi movement began to snowball. To the Stalinists, every
capitalist party was automatically “fascist”. Even more catastrophic than this
disorienting of the workers was Stalin’s famous dictum that, rather than being
opposites, fascism and social democracy were “twins”. The socialists were
thereupon dubbed “social fascists” and regarded as the main enemy. Of course,
there could be no united front with social-fascist organizations, and those
who, like Trotsky, urged such united fronts, were also labeled social fascists
and treated accordingly.
How divorced from reality the Stalinist line was may be illustrated be
recalling its translation into American terms. In the 1932 elections, American
Stalinists denounced Franklin Roosevelt as the fascist candidate and Norman
Thomas as the social-fascist candidate. What was ludicrous as applied to US
politics was tragic in Germany and Austria.
(Recently [1969], the term social fascism had begun cropping up in articles by
members of the new left. Do those using it imagine that they have invented the
term? Or, if they are aware of its history, are they indifferent to its
connotations?)
After the Nazis came to power, the Stalinists boasted that their line had been
100 per cent correct, that Hitler could only last a few months, and that a
Soviet Germany would then emerge. The time limit for this miracle was extended
from three, six, to nine months, and then the idle boasts dwindled into
silence. The magnitude of the defeat suffered by the working class, the special
character of fascism, distinguishing it from other reactionary regimes or
dictatorships, became apparent to all, and the threat to the Soviet Union or a
rearmed German imperialism began to take on reality. This brought about a
change in Moscow’s line in 1935 and the Communist parties throughout the world
thereupon zigzagged far to the right, to the right even of the
social-democrats. This was their stance in the face of the spreading fascist
danger in France and Spain.
The military ruin of German and Italian fascism in WWII convinced most people
that fascism had been destroyed for good and was so utterly discredited that it
could never again entice any followers. Events since then, particularly the
emergence of new fascist groups and tendencies in almost every capitalist
country, have dispelled such wishful thinking. The illusion that WWII was
fought to make the world safe from fascism has gone the way of the earlier
illusion that WWI was fought to make the world safe for democracy. The germ of
fascism is endemic in capitalism; a crisis can raise it to epidemic proportions
unless drastic countermeasures are applied.
Since forewarned is forearmed, we offer this new compilation – a small
selection from Trotsky’s writings on the subject – as a weapon for the
anti-fascist arsenal.
FASCISM – WHAT IS IT?
Extracts from a letter to an English comrade, November 15, 1931;
printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932
~~~
What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of
counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior to the
advent of fascism in Italy)?
The former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923–30, is called a
fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that
it is incorrect.
The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with
new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin,
directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty
bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the
proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a “self-made” man arising
from this movement.
Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic
post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished his overthrow with
the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are
two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish
between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military
institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de
Rivera.
The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass
movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This
is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.
The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a
very large base – the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the
peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism ...
It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle
class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can
constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed ...
In order to be capable of foreseeing anything with regard to fascism, it is
necessary to have a definition of that idea. What is fascism? What are its
base, its form, and its characteristics? How will its development take place?
It is necessary to proceed in a scientific and Marxian manner.
HOW MUSSOLINI TRIUMPHED
From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932
~~~
At the moment that the “normal” police and military resources of the bourgeois
dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to
hold society in a state of equilibrium – the turn of the fascist regime
arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of
the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized
lumpenproletariat – all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself
has brought to desperation and frenzy.
From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job; once it has resorted to
methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the
fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by
overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is
victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as
in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the
executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state
apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the
schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns
fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are
changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini – the changes in this
sphere ultimately play a minor role – but it means first of all for the most
part that the workers’ organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is
reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created
which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the
independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist
of fascism ...
~~~
Italian fascism was the immediate outgrowth of the betrayal by the reformists
of the uprising of the Italian proletariat. From the time the [first world] war
ended, there was an upward trend in the revolutionary movement in Italy, and in
September 1920 it resulted in the seizure of factories and industries by the
workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat was an actual fact; all that was
lacking was to organize it and draw from it all the necessary conclusions. The
social democracy took fright and sprang back. After its bold and heroic
exertions, the proletariat was left facing the void. The disruption of the
revolutionary movement became the most important factor in the growth of
fascism. In September, the revolutionary advance came to a standstill; and
November already witnessed the first major demonstration of the fascists (the
seizure of Bologna).
[NOTE: The fascist campaign of violence began in Bologna, November 21, 1920.
When the social-democratic councilmen, victorious in the municipal elections,
emerged from city hall to present the new mayor, they were met by gunfire in
which 10 were killed and 100 wounded. The fascists followed up with “punitive
expeditions” into the surrounding countryside, a stronghold of the “Red
Leagues”. Blackshirt “action squadrons” in vehicles supplied by big landowners,
took over villages in lightning raids, beating and killing leftist peasants and
labor leaders, wrecking radical headquarters, and terrorizing the populace.
Emboldened by their easy successes, the fascists then launched large-scale
attacks in the big cities.]
True, the proletariat, even after the September catastrophe, was capable of
waging defensive battles. But the social democracy was concerned with only one
thing: to withdraw the workers from combat at the cost of one concession after
another. The social democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers
would restore the “public opinion” of the bourgeoisie against the fascists.
Moreover, the reformists even banked strongly upon the help of King Victor
Emmanuel. To the last hour, they restrained the workers with might and main
from giving battle to Mussolini’s bands. It availed them nothing. The crown,
along with the upper crust of the bourgeoisie, swung over to the side of
fascism. Convinced at the last moment that fascism was not to be checked by
obedience, the social democrats issued a call to the workers for a general
strike. But their proclamation suffered a fiasco. The reformists had dampened
the powder so long, in their fear lest it should explode, that when they
finally with a trembling hand did apply a burning fuse to it, the powder did
not catch.
Two years after its inception, fascism was in power. It entrenched itself
thanks to the facts the first period of its overlordship coincided with a
favorable economic conjuncture, which followed the depression of 1921–22. The
fascists crushed the retreating proletariat by the onrushing forces of the
petty bourgeoisie. But this was not achieved at a single blow. Even after he
assumed power, Mussolini proceeded on his course with due caution: he lacked as
yet ready-made models. During the first two years, not even the constitution
was altered. The fascist government took on the character of a coalition. In
the meantime, the fascist bands were busy at work with clubs, knives, and
pistols. Only thus was the fascist government created slowly, which meant the
complete strangulation of all independent mass organizations.
Mussolini attained this at the cost of bureaucratizing the fascist party
itself. After utilizing the onrushing forces of the petty bourgeoisie, fascism
strangled it within the vise of the bourgeois state. Mussolini could not have
done otherwise, for the disillusionment of the masses he had united was
precipitating itself into the most immediate danger ahead. Fascism, become
bureaucratic, approaches very closely to other forms of military and police
dictatorship. It no longer possesses its former social support. The chief
reserve of fascism – the petty bourgeoisie – has been depicted. Only historical
inertia enables the fascist government to keep the proletariat in a state of
dispersion and helplessness....
In its politics as regards Hitler, the German social democracy has not been
able to add a single word: all it does is repeat more ponderously whatever the
Italian reformists in their own time performed with greater flights of
temperament. The latter explained fascism as a postwar psychosis; the German
social democracy sees in it a “Versailles” or crisis psychosis. In both
instances, the reformists shut their eyes to the organic character of fascism
as a mass movement growing out of the collapse of capitalism.
[NOTE: The Versailles Treaty, imposed on Germany after WWI; its most hated
feature was the unending tribute to the victorious allies in the form of
“reparations” for war damages and losses. The “crisis” referred to in the above
paragraph was the economic depression that swept the capitalist world after the
Wall Street crash of 1929.]
Fearful of the revolutionary mobilization of the workers, the Italian
reformists banked all their hopes of the “state”. Their slogan was, “Help!
Victor Emmanuel, exert pressure!” The German social democracy lacks such a
democratic bulwark as a monarch loyal to the constitution. So they must be
content with a president – “Help! Hindenburg, exert pressure!”
[NOTE: Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934), Junker general who gained
fame in World War I and later became president of the Weimar Republic. In 1932,
the social democrats supported him for re-election as a “lesser evil” to the
Nazis. He appointed Hitler chancellor in January 1933.]
While waging battle against Mussolini, that is, while retreating before him,
Turati let loose his dazzling motto, “One must have the manhood to be a
coward.” [Filippo Turati (1857–1937), leading reformist theoretician of the
Italian Socialist Party.] The German reformists are less frisky with their
slogans. They demand “Courage under unpopularity” (Mut zur Unpopularitaet) –
which amounts to the same thing. One must not be afraid of the unpopularity
which has been aroused by one’s own cowardly temporizing with the enemy.
Identical causes produce identical effects. Were the march of events dependent
upon the social-democratic party leadership, Hitler’s career would be assured.
One must admit, however, that the German Communist Party has also learned
little from the Italian experience.
The Italian Communist Party came into being almost simultaneously with fascism.
But the same conditions of revolutionary ebb tide, which carried the fascists
to power, served to deter the development of the Communist Party. It did not
give itself an accounting as to the full sweep of the fascist danger; it lulled
itself with revolutionary illusions; it was irreconcilably antagonistic to the
policy of the united front; in short, it was stricken with all the infantile
diseases. Small wonder! It was only two years old. In its eyes, fascism
appeared to be only “capitalist reaction”. The particular traits of fascism
which spring from the mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie against the
proletariat, the Communist Party was unable to discern. Italian comrades inform
me that, with the sole exception of Gramsci, the Communist Party would not even
allow for the possibility of the fascists’ seizing power. Once the proletarian
revolution had suffered defeat, once capitalism had held its ground and the
counter-revolution had triumphed, how could there be any further kind of
counter-revolutionary upheaval? How could the bourgeoisie rise up against
itself! Such was the gist of the political orientation of the Italian Communist
Party. Moreover, one must not lose sight of the fact that Italian fascism was
then a new phenomenon, just in the process of formation; it would not have been
an easy task even for a more experienced party to distinguish its specific
traits.
[NOTE: Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937): a founder of the Italian Communist Party,
imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926, he died in prison 11 years later. He sent a
letter from prison, in the name of the Italian party’s political committee,
protesting Stalin’s campaign against the Left Opposition. Taglatti, then in
Moscow as the Italian representative to the Comintern, suppressed the letter.
Throughout the Stalin era, Gramsci’s memory was deliberately effaced. In the
period of de-Stalinization, however, he was “rediscovered” by the Italian
Communist Party and officially enshrined as a hero and martyr. Since, there has
been considerable international acclaim of his theoretical writings,
particularly his prison notebooks.]
The leadership of the German Communist Party today reproduces almost literally
the position from which the Italian Communists took their point of departure;
fascism is nothing else but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the
proletariat, the difference between divers types of capitalist reaction are
meaningless. This vulgar radicalism is the less excusable because the German
party is much older than the Italian was at a corresponding period; in
addition, Marxism is enriched now by the tragic experience in Italy. To insist
that fascism is already here, or to deny the very possibility of its coming to
power, amounts politically to one and the same thing. By ignoring the specific
nature of of fascism, the will to fight against it inevitably becomes
paralyzed.
The brunt of the blame must be borne, of course, by the leadership of the
Comintern. Italian Communists above all others were duty-bound to raise their
voices in alarm. But Stalin, together with Manuilsky, compelled them to disavow
the most important lessons of their own annihilation.
[NOTE: Dmitri Manuilsky (1883–1952): Headed the Comintern from 1929 to 1934;
his removal heralded switch from ultra-leftism to the opportunism of the
Popular Front period. Later appeared on diplomatic stage, as delegate to United
Nations.]
We have already observed with what diligent alacrity Ercoli switched over to
the position of social fascism – i.e., to the position of passively waiting for
the fascist victory in Germany.
[NOTE: Ercoli. Comintern pen name of Palmiro Togliatti (1893–1964). Headed
Italian Communist Party after Gramsci’s imprisonment. He survived all zigzags
in Comintern line, but after Stalin’s death he criticized Stalin’s rule as well
some of its continuing features in the USSR and International Communist
movement.]
THE FASCIST DANGER LOOMS IN GERMANY
From The Turn in the Communist International and the German Situation, 1930
~~~
The official press of the Comintern is now depicting the results of the
[September 1930] German elections as a prodigious victory of Communism, which
places on the order of the day the slogan of Soviet Germany. The bureaucratic
optimists do not want to reflect upon the meaning of the relation of forces
which is disclosed by the election statistics. They examine the figure of the
increased Communist vote independently of the revolutionary tasks created by
the situation and the obstacles it sets up. The Communist Party received around
4,600,000 votes as against 3,300,000 in 1928. From the viewpoint of “normal”
parliamentary mechanics, the gain of 1,300,000 votes is considerable, even if
we take into consideration the rise in the total number of voters. But the gain
of the party pales completely beside the leap of fascism from 800,000 to
6,400,000 votes. Of no less important significance for evaluation the elections
is the fact that the social democracy, in spite of substantial losses, retained
its basic cadres and still received a considerably greater number of workers’
votes [8,600,000] than the Communist Party.
Meanwhile, if we should ask ourselves, “What combination of international and
domestic circumstances could be capable of turning the working class towards
Communism with greater velocity?” we could not find an example of more
favorable circumstances for such a turn than the situation in present-day
Germany: Young’s noose, the economic crisis, the disintegration of the rules,
the crisis of parliamentarism, the terrific self-exposure of the social
democracy in power. From the viewpoint of these concrete historical
circumstances, the specific gravity of the German Communist Party in the social
life of the country, in spite of the gain of 1,300,000 votes, remains
proportionately small.
[NOTE: “Young’s noose”: a reference to the Young Plan. After Owen D. Young,
American big businessman, who was Agent-General for the German Reparations
during the 1920s. In summer of 1929, he was chairman of the conference which
adopted his plan, which replaced the unsuccessful Dawes Plan, to “facilitate”
Germany’s payment of reparations as per the Treaty of Versailles.]
The weakness of the position of Communism, inextricably bound up with the
policy and regime of the Comintern, is revealed more clearly if we compare the
present social weight of the Communist Party with those concrete and
unpostponable tasks which the present historical circumstances put before it.
It is true that the Communist Party itself did not expect such a gain. But this
proves that under the blows of mistakes and defeats, the leadership of the
Communist parties has become unused to big aims and perspectives. If yesterday
it underestimated its own possibilities,then today it once more underestimates
the difficulties. In this way, one danger is multiplied by another.
In the meantime, the first characteristic of a really revolutionary party is –
to be able to look reality in the face.
~~~
In order that the social crisis may bring about the proletarian revolution, it
is necessary that, besides other conditions, a decisive shift of the petty
bourgeois classes occurs in the direction of the proletariat. This gives the
proletariat a chance to put itself at the head of the nation as its leader.
The last election revealed – and this is where its principle symptomatic
significance lies – a shift in the opposite direction. Under the blow of the
crisis, the petty bourgeoisie swung, not in the direction of the proletarian
revolution, but in the direction of the most extreme imperialist reaction,
pulling behind it considerable sections of the proletariat.
The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression of two factors: a
deep social crisis, throwing the petty bourgeois masses off balance, and the
lack of a revolutionary party that would be regarded by the masses of the
people as an acknowledged revolutionary leader. If the communist Party is the
party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of
counter-revolutionary despair. When revolutionary hope embraces the whole
proletarian mass, it inevitably pulls behind it on the road of revolution
considerable and growing sections of the petty bourgeoisie. Precisely in this
sphere the election revealed the opposite picture: counter-revolutionary
despair embraced the petty bourgeois mass with such a force that it drew behind
it many sections of the proletariat ...
Fascism in Germany has become a real danger, as an acute expression of the
helpless position of the bourgeois regime, the conservative role of the social
democracy in this regime, and the accumulated powerlessness of the Communist
Party to abolish it. Whoever denies this is either blind or a braggart ...
The danger acquires particular acuteness in connection with the question of the
tempo of development, which does not depend upon us alone. The malarial
character of the political curve revealed by the election speaks for the fact
that the tempo of development of the national crisis may turn out to be very
speedy. In other words, the course of events in the very near future may
resurrect in Germany, on a new historical plane, the old tragic contradiction
between the maturity of a revolutionary situation, on the one hand, and the
weakness and strategical impotence of the revolutionary party, on the other.
This must be said clearly, openly and, above all, in time.
~~~
From Moscow, the signal has already been given for a policy of bureaucratic
prestige which covers up the mistakes of yesterday and prepares tomorrow’s by
false cries about the new triumph of the line. Monstrously exaggerating the
victory of the party, monstrously underestimating the difficulties,
interpreting even the success of fascism as a positive factor for the
proletarian revolution, Pravda nevertheless explains briefly: “The successes of
the party should not make us dizzy.” The treacherous policy of the Stalinist
leadership is true to itself even here. The analysis of the situation is given
in the spirit of uncritical ultraleftism. In this way the party is consciously
pushed on the road of adventurism. At the same time, Stalin prepares his alibi
in advance with the aid of the ritualistic phrase about “dizziness.” It is
precisely this policy, shortsighted, unscrupulous, that may ruin the German
revolution. [A]
~~~
Can the strength of the conservative resistance of the social-democratic
workers be calculated beforehand? It cannot. In the light of the events of the
past year, this strength seems to be gigantic. But the truth is that what
helped most of all to weld together social democracy was the wrong policy of
the Communist Party, which found its highest generalization in the absurd
theory of social fascism. To measure the real resistance of the social
democratic ranks, a different measuring instrument is required, that is, a
correct Communist tactic. With this condition – and it is not a small condition
– the degree of internal unity of the social democracy can be revealed in a
comparatively brief period.
In a different form, what has been said above also applies to fascism: It
emanated, aside from the other conditions present, in the tremblings of the
Zinoviev-Stalin strategy. What is its force for offensive? What is its
stability? has it reached its culminating point, as the optimists ex-officio
[Comintern and Communist Party officials] assure us, or is it only on the first
step of the ladder? This cannot be foretold mechanically. It can be determined
only through action. Precisely in regard to fascism, which is a razor in the
hands of the class enemy, the wrong policy of the Comintern may produce fatal
results in a brief period. On the other hand, a correct policy – not in such a
short period, it is true – can undermine the positions of fascism ...
[NOTE: “Zinoviev-Stalin strategy”: Gregory Y. Zinoviev (1883–1936), chairman of
the Comintern from its founding in 1919 till his removal by Stalin in 1926.
After Lenin’s death, Zinoviev and Kamenev made a bloc with Stalin (the Troika)
against Trotsky and dominated the Soviet party. In the period of the
Zinoviev-Stalin domination of the Comintern, an opportunist line led to a
series of defeats and missed opportunities, most notably the calling off of the
German revolution of 1923. After breaking with Stalin, Zinoviev united his
following with the Trotskyist Left Opposition. But in 1928, after the expulsion
from the party of the United Opposition, Zinoviev capitulated to Stalin.
Readmitted to the party, he was expelled again in 1932. After disavowal of all
critical views, he was again readmitted, but in 1934, he was expelled and
imprisoned. He “confessed” at the first of the great Moscow Trials in 1936 and
was executed.]
If the Communist Party, in spite of the exceptionally favorable circumstances,
has proved powerless seriously to shake the structure of the social democracy
with the aid of the formula of “social fascism”, then real fascism now
threatens this structure, no longer with wordy formulae of so-called
radicalism, but with the chemical formulas of explosives. No matter how true it
is that the social democracy by its whole policy prepared the blossoming of
fascism, it is no less true that fascism comes forward as a deadly threat
primarily to that same social democracy, all of whose magnificence is
inextricably bound with parliamentary-democratic-pacifist forms and methods of
government ...
The policy of a united front of the workers against fascism flows from this
situation. It opens up tremendous possibilities to the Communist Party. A
condition for success, however, is the rejection of the theory and practice of
“social fascism”, the harm of which becomes a positive measure under the
present circumstances.
The social crisis will inevitably produce deep cleavages within the social
democracy. The radicalization of the masses will affect the social democrats.
We will inevitably have to make agreements with various social-democratic
organizations and factions against fascism, putting definite conditions in this
connection to the leaders, before the eyes of the masses ... We must return
from the empty official phrase about the united front to the policy of the
united front as it was formulated by Lenin and always applied by the Bolsheviks
in 1917.
AN AESOP FABLE
From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932
~~~
A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher
came nigh with his sharp knife.
“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns,” suggested one
of the bulls.
“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove
us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls, who had received their political
education in Manuilsky’s institute. [The Comintern.]
“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!”
“Nothing doing,” replied the bulls firm in their principles, to the counselor.
“You are trying, from the left, to shield our enemies – you are a
social-butcher yourself.”
And they refused to close ranks.
THE GERMAN COPS AND ARMY
From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932
~~~
In case of actual danger, the social democracy banks not on the “Iron Front”
but on the Prussian police. It is reckoning without its host! The fact that the
police was originally recruited in large numbers from among social-democratic
workers is absolutely meaningless. Consciousness is determined by environment
even in this instance. The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the
capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker. Of late years, these
policemen have had to do much more fighting with revolutionary workers than
with Nazi students. Such training does not fail to leave its effects. And above
all: every policeman knows that though governments may change, the police
remains.
[NOTE: “The Iron Front”: A bloc between several big trade unions and bourgeois
“republican” groups with little or no following or prestige among the masses.
It was created by the social democrats toward the end of 1931. Combat groups
called the Iron Fist were set up within the unions, and workers’ sports
organizations were brought into the Iron Front. However, its first parades and
rallies, at which thousands of workers raised their fists, shouted “Freedom”,
and swore to defend democracy. The masses in the Social Democratic Party and
unions really believed that this organization would be used to stop Hitler. It
was not.]
In its New Year’s issue, the theoretical organ of the social democracy, Dar
Freie Wort (what a wretched sheet!), prints an article in which the policy of
“toleration” is expounded in its highest sense. Hitler, it appears, can never
come to power against the police and the Reichswehr [German army]. Now,
according to the constitution, the Reichswehr is under the command of the
president of the Republic. Therefore fascism, it follows, is not dangerous so
long as a president faithful to the constitution remains at the head of the
government. Bruening’s regime must be supported until the presidential
elections so that a constitutional president may then be elected, through an
alliance with the parliamentary bourgeoisie; and thereby Hitler’s road to power
will be blocked for another seven years ...
[NOTE: Heinrich Bruening was chancellor from 1930–32. Regular parliamentary
government in Germany ended in March 1930. There followed a series of
Bonapartist regimes – Bruening, von Papen, von Schleicher, i.e., chancellors
ruling not by ordinary parliamentary procedures but by “emergency” decrees.
These Bonapartist figures presented themselves as political saviors needed to
get the country through its crisis, and thus as above class and party. They
depended not on the old bourgeois democratic party system but on their command
of the police, army, and government bureaucracy. Pretending to be saving the
nation from the dangers on both the left (socialists and communists) and the
right (fascists), they struck their heaviest blows against the left, since
their primary interest was saving capitalism.]
The politicians of reformism, these dexterous wire-pullers, artful intriguers
and careerists, expert parliamentary and ministerial machinators, are no sooner
thrown out of their habitual sphere by the course of events, no sooner are the
placed face to face with momentous contingencies than they reveal themselves to
be – there is no milder expression for it – inept bodies.
To rely upon a president is only to rely upon “the government”! Faced with the
impending clash between the proletariat and the fascist petty bourgeoisie – two
camps which together comprise the crushing majority of the German nation –
these Marxists from the Vorwaerts [principal social-democratic newspaper] yelp
for the nightwatchman to come to their aid, “Help! Government, exert pressure!”
(Staat, greif zu!)
BOURGEOISIE, PETTY BOURGEOISIE, AND PROLETARIAT
From The Only Road for Germany written September 1932, published in the USA
April 1933
~~~
Any serious analysis of the political situation must take as its point of
departure the mutual relations among the three classes: the bourgeoisie, the
petty bourgeoisie (including the peasantry), and the proletariat.
The economically powerful big bourgeoisie, in itself, represents an
infintesimal minority of the nation. To enforce its domination, it must ensure
a definite mutual relationship with the petty bourgeoisie and, through its
mediation, with the proletariat.
To understand the dialectic of the relation among the three classes, we must
differentiate three historical stages: at the dawn of capitalistic development,
when the bourgeoisie required revolutionary methods to solve its tasks; in the
period of bloom and maturity of the capitalist regime, when the bourgeoisie
endowed its domination with orderly, pacific, conservative, democratic forms;
finally, at the decline of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie is forced to resort
to methods of civil war against proletariat to protect its right of
exploitation.
The political programs characteristic of these three stages – JACOBINISM [left
wing of petty bourgeois forces in Great French Revolution; in most
revolutionary phase, led by Robespierre], reformist DEMOCRACY (social democracy
included), and FASCISM – are basically programs of petty bourgeois currents.
This fact alone, more than anything else, shows of what tremendous – rather, of
what decisive – importance the self-determination of the petty bourgeois masses
of the people is for the whole fate of bourgeois society.
Nevertheless, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its basic social
support, the petty bourgeoisie, does not at all rest upon reciprocal confidence
and pacific collaboration. In its mass, the petty bourgeoisie is an exploited
and disenfranchised class. It regards the bourgeoisie with envy and often with
hatred. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, while utilizing the support of the
petty bourgeoisie, distrusts the latter, for it very correctly fears its
tendency to break down the barriers set up for it from above.
While they were laying out and clearing the road for bourgeois development,the
Jacobins engaged, at every step, in sharp clashes with the bourgeoisie. They
served it in intransigent struggle against it. After they had culminated their
limited historical role, the Jacobins fell, for the domination of capital was
predeterminated.
For a whole series of stages, the bourgeoisie entrenched its power under the
form of parliamentary democracy. Even then, not peacefully and not voluntarily.
The bourgeoisie was mortally afraid of universal suffrage. But in the last
instance, it succeeded, with the aid of a combination of violent measures and
concessions, of privations and reforms, in subordinating within the framework
of formal democracy not only the petty bourgeoisie but in considerable measure
also the proletariat, by means of the new petty bourgeoisie – the labor
aristocracy. In August 1914, the imperialist bourgeoisie was able, with the
means of parliamentary democracy, to lead millions of workers and peasants into
the war.
[NOTE: August 4, 1914: collapse of the Second International. The German
Social-Democratic Party representatives in the Reichstag voted for the war
budget of the imperialist governments; on the same day, representatives of the
French Socialist Party did likewise in the Chamber of Deputies.]
But precisely with the war begins the distinct decline of capitalism and, above
all, of its democratic form of domination. It is now no longer a matter of new
reforms and alms, but of cutting down and abolishing the old ones. Therewith
the bourgeoisie comes into conflict into only with the institutions of
proletarian democracy (trade unions and political parties) but also with
parliamentary democracy, within the framework of which arose the labor
organizations. Therefore, the campaign against “Marxism” on the one hand and
against democratic parliamentarism on the other.
But just as the summits of the liberal bourgeoisie in its time were unable, by
their own force alone, to get rid of feudalism, monarchy, and the church, so
the magnates of finance capital are unable, by their force alone, to cope with
the proletariat. They need the support of the petty bourgeoisie. For this
purpose, it must be whipped up, put on its feet, mobilized, armed. But this
method has its dangers. While it makes use of fascism, the bourgeoisie
nevertheless fears it. Pilsudski was forced, in May 1926, to save bourgeois
society by a coup d’etat directed against the traditional parties of the Polish
bourgeoisie. The matter went so far that the official leader of the Polish
Communist Party, Warski, who came over from Rosa Luxemburg not to Lenin but to
Stalin, took the coup d’etat of Pilsudski to be the road of the “revolutionary
democratic dictatorship” and called upon the workers to support Pilsudski.
[NOTE: Joseph Pilsudski (1876–1935): Originally a socialist with nationalistic
views, in 1920 he led the anti-Soviet forces in Poland; in 1926, he led a coup
d’etat and established a fascist dictatorship. Warski: Friend of Rosa
Luxemburg, he supported her differences with the Bolsheviks. When Comintern
zigzagged to the left in its “Third Period” phase, Warski was demoted from
leadership in the Polish Communist Party, but not expelled. He disappeared in
the USSR during the great purge of 1936–38. Rosa Luxemburg (1870–1919): Great
revolutionary theoretician and leader. Originally active in socialist movement
of her native Poland, she later became a leader of the left wing of the German
Social-Democratic Party. She and Karl Liebknecht were imprisoned for opposing
World War I. After their release, they led the Spartakusbund. Both were
arrested and assassinated during the unsuccessful revolution of 1919.]
At the session of the Polish Commission of the Executive Committee of the
Communist International on July 2, 1926, the author of these lines said on the
subject of the events in Poland:
“Taken as a whole, the Pilsudski overthrow is the petty bourgeois, ‘plebian’
manner of solving the burning problems of bourgeois society in its state of
decomposition and decline. We have here already a direct resemblance to Italian
fascism.
“These two currents indubitably possess common features: they recruit their
shock troops first of all from the petty bourgeoisie; Pilsudski as well as
Mussolini worked with extra-parliamentary means, with open violence, with the
methods of civil war; both were concerned not with the destruction but with the
preservation of bourgeois society. While they raised the petty bourgeoisie on
its feet, they openly aligned themselves, after the seizure of power, with the
big bourgeoisie. Involuntarily, a historical generalization comes up here,
recalling the evaluation given by Marx of Jacobinism as the plebian method of
settling accounts with the feudal enemies of the bourgeoisie ... That was in
the period of the rise of the bourgeoisie. Now we must say, in the period of
the decline of bourgeois society, the bourgeoisie again needs the ‘plebian’
method of resolving its no longer progressive but entirely reactionary tasks.
In this sense, fascism is a caricature of Jacobinism.
“The bourgeoisie is incapable of maintaining itself in power by the means and
methods of the parliamentary state created by itself; it needs fascism as a
weapon of self-defense, at least in critical instances. Nevertheless, the
bourgeoisie does not like the ‘plebian’ method of resolving its tasks. It was
always hostile of Jacobinism, which cleared the road for the development of
bourgeois society with its blood. The fascists are immeasurably closer to the
decadent bourgeoisie than the Jacobins were to the rising bourgeoisie.
Nevertheless, the sober bourgeoisie does not look very favorably even upon the
fascist mode of resolving its tasks, for the concussions, although they are
brought forth in the interests of bourgeois society, are linked up with dangers
to it. Therefore, the opposition between fascism and the bourgeois parties.
“The big bourgeoisie likes fascism as little as a man with aching molars likes
to have his teeth pulled. The sober circles of bourgeois society have followed
with misgivings the work of the dentist Pilsudski, but in the last analysis
they have become reconciled to the inevitable, though with threats, with
horse-trades and all sorts of bargaining. Thus the petty bourgeoisie’s idol of
yesterday becomes transformed into the gendarme of capital.”
To this attempt at marking out the historical place of fascism as the political
reliever of the social democracy, there was counterposed the theory of social
fascism. At first it could appear as a pretentious, blustering, but harmless
stupidity. Subsequent events have shown what a pernicious influence the
Stalinist theory actually exercised on the entire development of the Communist
International.
Does it follow from the historical role of Jacobinism, of democracy, and of
fascism, that the petty bourgeoisie is condemned to remain a tool in the hands
of capital to the end of its days? It things were so, then the dictatorship of
the proletariat would be impossible in a number of countries in which the petty
bourgeoisie constitutes the majority of the nation and, more than that, it
would be rendered extremely difficult in other countries in which the petty
bourgeoisie represents an important minority. Fortunately, things are not so.
The experience of the Paris Commune [first “dictatorship of the proletariat”,
March 18, 1871] first showed, at least within the limits of one city, just as
the experience of the October Revolution [Russian Revolution of 1917] has shown
after it on a much larger scale and over an incomparably longer period, that
the alliance of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie is not
indissoluble. Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy
(that is also why the petty bourgeois “democratic dictatorship” is
unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat.
In the epoch of the rise, the growth, and the bloom of capitalism, the petty
bourgeoisie, despite acute outbreaks of discontent, generally marched
obediently in the capitalist harness. Nor could it do anything else. But under
the conditions of capitalist disintegration, and of the impasse in the economic
situation, the petty bourgeoisie strives, seeks, attempts to tear itself loose
from the fetters of the old masters and rulers of society. It is quite capable
of linking up its fates with that of the proletariat. For that, only one thing
is needed: the petty bourgeoisie must acquired faith in the ability of the
proletariat to lead society onto a new road. The proletariat can inspire this
faith only by its strength, by the firmness of its actions, by a skillful
offensive against the enemy, by the success of its revolutionary policy.
But, woe, if the revolutionary party does not measure up to the height of the
situation! The daily struggle of the proletariat sharpens the instability of
bourgeois society. The strikes and the political disturbances aggravated the
economic situation of the country. The petty bourgeoisie could reconcile itself
temporarily to the growing privations, if it arrived by experience at the
conviction that the proletariat is in a position to lead it onto a new road.
But if the revolutionary party, in spite of a class struggle becoming
incessantly more accentuated, proves time and again to be incapable of uniting
the working class about it, if it vacillates, becomes confused, contradicts
itself, then the petty bourgeoisie loses patience and begins to look upon the
revolutionary workers as those responsible for its own misery. All the
bourgeois parties, including the social democracy, turn its thoughts in this
very direction. When the social crisis takes on an intolerable acuteness, a
particular party appears on the scene with the direct aim of agitating the
petty bourgeoisie to a white heat and of directing its hatred and its despair
against the proletariat. In Germany, this historical function is fulfilled by
national Socialism (Nazism), a broad current whose ideology is composed of all
the putrid vapors of disintegrating bourgeois society.
THE COLLAPSE OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY
From Whither France?, 1934
~~~
After the war, a series of brilliantly victorious revolutions occurred in
Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and later in Spain. But it was only in Russia
that the proletariat took full power into its hands, expropriated its
exploiters, and knew how to create and maintain a workers’ state. Everywhere
else the proletariat, despite its victory, stopped halfway because of the
mistakes of its leadership. As a result, power slipped from its hands, shifted
from left to right, and fell prey to fascism. In a series of other countries,
power passed into the hands of a military dictatorship. Nowhere were the
parliaments capable of reconciling class contradictions and assuring the
peaceful development of events. Conflicts were solved arms in hand.
The French people for a long time thought that fascism had nothing whatever to
do with them. They had a republic in which all questions were dealt with by the
sovereign people through the exercise of universal suffrage. But on February 6,
1934, several thousand fascists and royalists, armed with revolvers, clubs, and
razors, imposed upon the country the reactionary government of Doumergue, under
whose protection the fascist bands continue to grow and arm themselves. What
does tomorrow hold?
[NOTE: Gaston Doumergue: Bonapartist premier of France. Succeeded Edouard
Daladier. Daladier government fell the day after the fascist riots of February
6, 1934.]
Of course, in France, as in certain other European countries (England, Belgium,
Holland, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries), there still exist
parliaments, elections, democratic liberties, or their remnants. But in all
these countries, the same historic laws operate, the laws of capitalist
decline. If the means of production remain in the hands of a small number of
capitalists, there is no way out for society. It is condemned to go from crisis
to crisis, from need to misery, from bad to worse. In the various countries,
the decrepitude and disintegration of capitalism are expressed in diverse forms
and at unequal rhythms. But the basic features of the process are the same
everywhere. The bourgeoisie is leading its society to complete bankruptcy. It
is capable of assuring the people neither bread nor peace. This is precisely
why it cannot any longer tolerate the democratic order. It is forced to smash
the workers and peasants by the use of physical violence. The discontent of the
workers and peasants, however, cannot be brought to an end by the police alone.
Moreover, if it often impossible to make the army march against the people. It
begins by disintegrating and ends with the passage of a large section of the
soldiers over to the people’s side. That is why finance capital is obliged to
create special armed bands, trained to fight the workers just as certain breeds
of dog are trained to hunt game. The historic function of fascism is to smash
the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties
when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the
help of democratic machinery.
The fascists find their human material mainly in the petty bourgeoisie. The
latter has been entirely ruined by big capital. There is no way out for it in
the present social order, but it knows of no other. Its dissatisfaction,
indignation, and despair are diverted by the fascists away from big capital and
against the workers. It may be said that fascism is the act of placing the
petty bourgeoisie at the disposal of its most bitter enemies. In this way, big
capital ruins the middle classes and then, with the help of hired fascist
demagogues, incites the despairing petty bourgeoisie against the worker. The
bourgeois regime can be preserved only by such murderous means as these. For
how long? Until it is overthrown by proletarian revolution.
DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION?
From Whither France?, 1934
~~~
Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like
to repeat:
“One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like
extremes.”
In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the
petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as
he hopes that tomorrow it will go better.
But when this hope is lost, he is easily enraged and is ready to give himself
over to the most extreme measures. Otherwise, how could he have overthrown the
democratic state and brought fascism to power in Italy and Germany? The
despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against
big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal
only in words, fascism will use force to establish more “justice”. The peasant
and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot
forego the use of force.
It is false, thrice false, to affirm that the present petty bourgeoisie is not
going to the working-class parties because it fears “extreme measures”. Quite
the contrary. The lower petty bourgeoisie, its great masses, only see in the
working-class parties parliamentary machines. They do not believe in their
strength, nor in their capacity to struggle, nor in their readiness this time
to conduct the struggle to the end.
And if this is so, is it worth the trouble to replace the democratic capitalist
representatives by their parliamentary confreres on the left? That is how the
semi-exploited, ruined, and discontented proprietor reasons of feels. Without
an understanding of this psychology of the peasants, the artisans, the
employees, the petty functionaries, etc. – a psychology which flows from the
social crisis – it is impossible to elaborate a correct policy. The petty
bourgeoisie is economically dependent and politically atomized. That is why it
cannot conduct an independent policy. It needs a “leader” who inspires it with
confidence. This individual or collective leadership, i.e., a personage or
party, can be given to it by one or the other of the fundamental classes –
either the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Fascism unties and arms the
scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus
gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force. It
begins to imagine that it will really command the state. It is not surprising
that these illusions and hopes turn the head of the petty bourgeoisie!
But the petty bourgeoisie can also find a leader in the proletariat. This was
demonstrated in Russia and partially in Spain. In Italy, in Germany, and in
Austria, the petty bourgeoisie gravitated in this direction. But the parties of
the proletariat did not rise to their historic task.
To bring the petty bourgeoisie to its side, the proletariat must win its
confidence. And for that it must have confidence in its own strength.
It must have a clear program of action and must be ready to struggle for power
by all possible means. Tempered by it revolutionary party for a decisive and
pitiless struggle, the proletariat says to the peasants and petty bourgeoisie
of the cities:
“We are struggling for power. Here is our program. We are ready to discuss with
you changes in this program. We will employ violence only against big capital
and its lackeys, but with you toilers, we desire to conclude an alliance on the
basis of a given program.”
The peasants will understand such language. Only, they must have faith in the
capacity of the proletariat to seize power.
But for that it is necessary to purge the united front of all equivocation, of
all indecision, of all hollow phrases. It is necessary to understand the
situation and to place oneself seriously on the revolutionary road.
THE WORKERS’ MILITIA AND ITS OPPONENTS
From Whither France?, 1934
~~~
To struggle, it is necessary to conserve and strengthen the instrument and the
means of struggle – organizations, the press, meetings, etc. Fascism [in
France] threatens all of that directly and immediately. It is still too weak
for the direct struggle for power, but it is strong enough to attempt to beat
down the working-class organizations bit by bit, to temper its bands in its
attacks, and to spread dismay and lack of confidence in their forces in the
ranks of the workers.
Fascism finds unconscious helpers in all those who say that the “physical
struggle” is impermissible or hopeless, and demand of Doumergue the disarmament
of his fascist guard. Nothing is so dangerous for the proletariat, especially
in the present situation, as the sugared poison of false hopes. Nothing
increases the insolence of the fascists so much as “flabby pacificism” on the
part of the workers’ organizations. Nothing so destroys the confidence of the
middle classes in the working-class as temporizing, passivity, and the absence
of the will to struggle.
Le Populaire [the Socialist Party paper] and especially l’Humanité [the
Communist Party newspaper] write every day:
“The united front is a barrier against fascism”;
“the united front will not permit ...”;
“the fascists will not dare”, etc.
These are phrases. It is necessary to say squarely to the workers, Socialists,
and Communists: do not allow yourselves to be lulled by the phrases of
superficial and irresponsible journalists and orators. It is a question of our
heads and the future of socialism. It is not that we deny the importance of the
united front. We demanded it when the leaders of both parties were against it.
The united front opens up numerous possibilities, but nothing more. In itself,
the untied front decides nothing. Only the struggle of the masses decides. The
untied front will reveal its value when Communist detachments will come to the
help of Socialist detachments nd vice versa in the case of an attack by the
fascist bands against Le Populaire or l’Humanité. But for that, proletarian
combat detachments must exist and be educated, trained, and armed. And if there
is not an organization of defense, i.e., a workers’ militia, Le Populaire or
l’Humanité will be able to write as many articles as they like on the
omnipotence of the united front, but the two papers will find themselves
defenseless before the first well-prepared attack of the fascists.
We propose to make a critical study of the “arguments” and the “theories” of
the opponents of the workers’ militia who are very numerous and influential in
the two working-class parties.
“We need mass self-defense and not the militia,” we are often told.
But what is this “mass self-defense” without combat organizations, without
specialized cadres, without arms? To give over the defense against fascism to
unorganized and unprepared masses left to themselves would be to play a role
incomparably lower than the role of Pontius Pilate. To deny the role of the
militia is to deny the role of the vanguard. Then why a party? Without the
support of the masses, the militia is nothing. But without organized combat
detachments, the most heroic masses will be smashed bit by bit by the fascist
gangs. It is nonsense to counterpose the militia to self-defense. The militia
is an organ of self-defense.
“To call for the organization of a militia,” say some opponents who, to be
sure, are the least serious and honest, “is to engage in provocation.”
This is not an argument but an insult. If the necessity for the defense of the
workers’ organizations flows from the whole situation, how then can one not
call for the creation of the militia? Perhaps they mean to say that the
creation of a militia “provokes” fascist attacks and government repression. In
that case, this is an absolutely reactionary argument. Liberalism has always
said to the workers that by their class struggle they “provoke” the reaction.
The reformists repeated this accusation against the Marxists, the Mensheviks
against the Bolsheviks. These accusations reduced themselves, in the final
analysis, to the profound thought that if the oppressed do not balk, the
oppressors will not be obliged to beat them. This is the philosophy of Tolstoy
and Gandhi but never that of Marx and Lenin. If l’Humanité wants hereafter to
develop the doctrine of “non-resistance to evil by violence”, it should take
for its symbol not the hammer and sickle, emblem of the October Revolution, but
the pious goat, which provides Gandhi with his milk.
“But the arming of the workers is only opportune in a revolutionary situation,
which does not yet exist.”
This profound argument means that the workers must permit themselves to be
slaughtered until the situation becomes revolutionary. Those who yesterday
preached the “third period” do not want to see what is going on before their
eyes. The question of arms itself has come forward only because the “peaceful”,
“normal”, “democratic” situation has given way to a stormy, critical, and
unstable situation which can transform itself into a revolutionary, as well as
a counter-revolutionary, situation.
[NOTE: “The Third Period”: According to the Stalinist schema, this was the
“final period of capitalism”, the period of its immediately impending demise
and replacement by soviets. The period is notable for the Communists’
ultra-left and adventurist tactics, notably the concept of social-fascism.]
This alternative depends above all on whether the advanced workers will allow
themselves to be attacked with impunity and defeated bit by bit or will reply
to every blow by two of their own, arousing the courage of the oppressed and
uniting them around their banner. A revolutionary situation does not fall from
the skies. It takes form with the active participation of the revolutionary
class and its party.
The French Stalinists now argue that the militia did not safeguard the German
proletariat from defeat. Only yesterday they completely denied any defeat in
Germany and asserted that the policy of the German Stalinists was correct from
beginning to end. Today, they see the entire evil in the German workers’
militia (Rote Front) [i.e., Red Front Fighters: Communist-dominated militia
banned by the social-democratic government after the Berlin May Day riots of
1929]. Thus, from one error they fall into a diametrically opposite one, no
less monstrous. The militia, in itself, does not settle the question. A correct
policy is necessary. Meanwhile,the policy of Stalinism in Germany (“social
fascism is the chief enemy”), the split in the trade unions, the flirtation
with nationalism, putschism) fatally led to the isolation of the proletarian
vanguard and to its shipwreck. With an utterly worthless strategy, no militia
could have saved the situation.
It is nonsense to say that, in itself, the organization of the militia leads to
adventures, provokes the enemy, replaces the political struggle by physical
struggle, etc. In all these phrases, there is nothing but political cowardice.
The militia, as the strong organization of the vanguard, is in fact the surest
defense against adventures, against individual terrorism, against bloody
spontaneous explosions.
The militia is at the same time the only serious way of reducing to a minimum
the civil war that fascism imposes upon the proletariat. Let the workers,
despite the absence of a “revolutionary situation”, occassionally correct the
“papa’s son” patriots in their own way, and the recruitment of new fascist
bands will become incomparably more difficult.
But here the strategists, tangled in their own reasoning, bring forward against
us still more stupefying arguments. We quote textually:
“If we reply to the revolver shots of the fascists with other revolver shots,”
writes l’Humanité of October 23 [1934], “we lose sight of the fact that fascism
is the product of the capitalist regime and that in fighting against fascism it
is the entire system which we face.”
It is difficult to accumulate in a few lines greater confusion or more errors.
It is impossible to defend oneself against the fascists because they are – “a
product of the capitalist regime”. That means, we have to renounce the whole
struggle, for all contemporary social evils are “products of the capitalist
system”.
When the fascists kill a revolutionist, or burn down the building of a
proletarian newspaper, the workers are to sigh philosophically: “Alas! Murders
and arson are products of the capitalist system”, and go home with easy
consciences. Fatalist prostration is substituted for the militant theory of
Marx, to the sole advantage of the class enemy. The ruin of the petty
bourgeoisie is, of course, the product of capitalism. The growth of the fascist
bands is, in turn, a product of the ruin of the petty bourgeoisie. But on the
other hand, the increase in the misery and the revolt of the proletariat are
also products of capitalism, and the militia, in its turn, is the product of
the sharpening of the class struggle. Why, then, for the “Marxists” of
l’Humanité, are the fascist bands the legitimate product of capitalism and the
workers’ militia the illegitimate product of – the Trotskyists? It is
impossible to make head or tail of this.
“We have to deal with the whole system,” we are told.
How? Over the heads of human beings? The fascists in the different countries
began with their revolvers and ended by destroying the whole “system” of
workers’ organizations. How else to check the armed offensive of the enemy if
not by an armed defense in order, in our turn, to go over to the offensive.
l’Humanité now admits defense in words, but only in the form of “mass
self-defense”. The militia is harmful because, you see, it divides the combat
detachments from the masses. But why then are there independent armed
detachments among the fascists who are not cut off from the reactionary masses
but who, on the contrary, arouse the courage and embolden those masses by their
well-organized attacks? Or perhaps the proletarian mass is inferior in
combative quality to the declassed petty bourgeoisie?
Hopelessly tangled, l’Humanité finally begins to hesitate: it appears that mass
self-defense requires the creation of special “self-defense groups”. In place
of the rejected militia, special groups or detachments are proposed. It would
seem at first sight that there is a difference only in the name. Certainly, the
name proposed by l’Humanité means nothing. One can speak of “mass self-defense”
but it is impossible to speak of “self-defense groups” since the purpose of the
groups is not to defend themselves but the workers’ organizations. However, it
is not, of course, a question of the name. The “self-defense groups”, according
to l’Humanité, must renounce the use of arms in order not to fall into
“putschism”. These sages treat the working-class like an infant who must not be
allowed to hold a razor in his hands. Razors, moreover, are the monopoly, as we
know, of the Camelots du Roi [French monarchists grouped around Charles
Maurras’ newspaper, Action Française, which was violently anti-democratic], who
are a legitimate “product of capitalism” and who, with the aid of razors, have
overthrown the “system” of democracy. In any case, how are the “self-defense
groups” going to defend themselves against the fascist revolvers?
“Ideologically”, of course. In other words: they can hide themselves. Not
having what they require in their hands, they will have to seek “self-defense”
in their feet. And the fascists will in the meanwhile sack the workers’
organizations with impunity. But if the proletariat suffers a terrible defeat,
it will at any rate not have been guilty of “putschism”. This fraudulent
chatter, parading under the banner of “Bolshevism”, arouses only disgust and
loathing.
During the “third period” of happy memory – when the strategists of l’Humanité
were afflicted with barricade delirium, “conquered” the streets every day and
stamped as “social fascist” everyone who did not share their extravagances – we
predicted: “The moment these gentlemen burn the tips of their fingers, they
will become the worst opportunists.” That prediction has now been completely
confirmed. At a time when within the Socialist Party the movement in favor of
the militia is growing and strengthening, the leaders of the so-called
Communist Party run for the hose to cool down the desire of the advanced
workers to organize themselves in fighting columns. Could one imagine a more
demoralizing or more damning work than this?
In the ranks of the Socialist Party sometimes this objection is heard: “A
militia must be formed but there is no need of shouting about it.”
One can only congratulate comrades who wish to protect the practical side of
the business from inquisitive eyes and ears. But it would be much too naive to
think that a militia could be created unseen and secretly within four walls. We
need tens, and later hundreds, of thousands of fighters. They will come only if
millions of men and women workers, and behind them the peasants, understand the
necessity for the militia and create around the volunteers an atmosphere of
ardent sympathy and active support. Conspiratorial care can and must envelop
only the technical aspect of the matter. The political campaign must be openly
developed, in meetings, factories, in the streets and on the public squares.
The fundamental cadres of the militia must be the factory workers grouped
according to their place of work, known to each other and able to protect their
combat detachments against the provocations of enemy agents far more easily and
more surely than the most elevated bureaucrats. Conspirative general staffs
without an open mobilization of the masses will at the moment of danger remain
impotently suspended in midair. Every working-class organization has to plunge
into the job. In this question, there can be no line of demarcation between the
working-class parties and the trade unions. Hand in hand, they must mobilize
the masses. The success of the people militia will then be fully assured.
“But where are the workers going to get arms” object the sober “realists” –
that is to say, frightened philistines – “the enemy has rifles, cannon, tanks,
gas, and airplanes. The workers have a few hundred revolvers and pocket
knives.”
In this objection, everything is piled up to frighten the workers. On the one
hand, our sages identify the arms of the fascists with the armament of the
state. On the other hand, they turn towards the state and demand that it disarm
the fascists. Remarkable logic! In fact, their position is false in both cases.
In France, the fascists are still far from controlling the state. On February
6, they entered in armed conflict with the state police. that is why it is
false to speak of cannon and tanks when it is a matter of the immediate armed
struggle against the fascists. The fascists, of course, are richer than we. It
is easier for them to buy arms. But the workers are more numerous, more
determined, more devoted, when they are conscious of a firm revolutionary
leadership.
In addition to other sources, the workers can arm themselves at the expense of
the fascists by systematically disarming them.
This is now one of the most serious forms of the struggle against fascism. When
workers’ arsenals will begin to stock up at the expense of the fascist arms
depots, the banks nd trusts will be more prudent in financing the armament of
their murderous guards. It would even be possible in this case – but in this
case only – that the alarmed authorities would really begin to prevent the
arming of the fascists in order not to provide an additional sources of arms
for the workers. We have known for a long time that only a revolutionary tactic
engenders, as a by-product, “reforms” or concessions from the government.
But how to disarm the fascists? Naturally, it is impossible to do so with
newspaper articles alone. Fighting squads must be created. An intelligence
service must be established. Thousands of informers and friendly helpers will
volunteer from all sides when they realize that the business has been seriously
undertaken by us. It requires a will to proletarian action.
But the arms of the fascists are, of course, not the only source. In France,
there are more than one million organized workers. Generally speaking, this
number is small. But it is entirely sufficient to make a beginning in the
organization of a workers’ militia. If the parties and unions armed only a
tenth of their members, that would already be a force of 100,000 men. there is
no doubt whatever that the number of volunteers who would come forward on the
morrow of a “united front” appeal for a workers’ militia would far exceed that
number. The contributions of the parties and unions, collections and voluntary
subscriptions, would within a month or two make it possible to assure the
arming of 100,000 to 200,000 working-class fighters. The fascist rabble would
immediately sink its tail between its legs. The whole perspective of
development would become incomparably more favorable.
To invoke the absence of arms or other objective reasons to explain why no
attempt has been made up to now to create a militia, is to fool oneself and
others. The principle obstacle – one can say the only obstacle – has its roots
in the conservative and passive character of the leaders of the workers’
organizations. The skeptics who are the leaders do not believe in the strength
of the proletariat. They put their hope in all sorts of miracles from above
instead of giving a revolutionary outlet to the energies pulsing below. The
socialist workers must compel their leaders to pass over immediately to the
creation of the workers’ militia or else give way to younger, fresher forces.
A strike is inconceivable without propaganda and without agitation. It is also
inconceivable without pickets who, when they can, use persuasion, but when
obliged, use force. The strike is the most elementary form of the class
struggle which always combines, in varying proportions, “ideological” methods
with physical methods. The struggle against fascism is basically a political
struggle which needs a militia just as the strike needs pickets. Basically, the
picket is the embryo of the workers’ militia. He who thinks of renouncing
“physical” struggle must renounce all struggle, for the spirit does not live
without flesh.
Following the splendid phrase of the great military theoretician Clausewitz,
war is the continuation of politics by other means. This definition also fully
applies to civil war. It is impermissable to oppose one to the other since it
is impossible to check at will the political struggle when it transforms
itself, by force of inner necessity, into a political struggle.
The duty of a revolutionary party is to foresee in time the inescapability of
the transformation of politics into open armed conflict, and with all its
forces to prepare for that moment just as the ruling classes are preparing.
The militia detachments for defense against fascism are the first step on the
road to the arming of the proletariat, not the last. Our slogan is:
“Arm the proletariat and the revolutionary peasants!”
The workers’ militia must, in the final analysis, embrace all the toilers. To
fulfill this program completely would be possible only in a workers’ state into
whose hands would pass all the means of production and, consequently, also all
the means of destruction – i.e., all the arms and the factories which produce
them.
However, it is impossible to arrive at a workers’ state with empty hands. Only
political invalids like Renaudel can speak of a peaceful, constitutional road
to socialism. The constitutional road is cut by trenches held by the fascist
bands. There are not a few trenches before us. The bourgeoisie will not
hesitate to resort to a dozen coups d’etat, aided by the police and the army,
to prevent proletariat from coming to power.
[NOTE: Pierre Renaudel (1871–1935): Prior to WWI, socialist leader Jean Jaures’
righthand man and editor of l’Humanité. During the war, a right-wing social
patriot. In the 1930s, he and Marcel Deat led revisionist “neo-socialist”
tendency. Voted down at the July 1933 convention, this tendency split from the
Socialist Party. After the fascist riots of February 6, 1934, most of the
“neos” joined the Radical Party, the main party of French capitalism.]
A workers’ socialist state can be created only by a victorious revolution.
Every revolution is prepared by the march of economic and political
development, but it is always decided by open armed conflicts between hostile
classes. A revolutionary victory can become possible only as a result of long
political agitation, a lengthy period of education and organization of the
masses.
But the armed conflict itself must likewise be prepared long in advance.
The advanced workers must know that they will have to fight and win a struggle
to the death. They must reach out for arms, as a guarantee of their
emancipation.
THE PERSPECTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES
From Some Questions on American Problems, Fourth International, October 1940
~~~
The backwardness of the United State working class is only a relative term.
In very many important respects, it is the most progressive working class of
the world, technically and in its standard of living ...
The American workers are very combative – as we have seen during the strikes.
They have had the most rebellious strikes in the world. What the American
worker misses is a spirit of generalization, or analysis, of his class position
in society as a whole. This lack of social thinking has its origin in the
country’s whole history ...
About fascism.
In all the countries where fascism became victorious, we had, before the growth
of fascism and its victory, a wave of radicalism of the masses – of the workers
and the poorer peasants and farmers, and of the petty bourgeois class. In
Italy, after the war and before 1922, we had a revolutionary wave of tremendous
dimensions; the state was paralyzed, the police did not exist, the trade unions
could do anything they wanted – but there was not party capable of taking the
power. As a reaction came fascism.
In Germany, the same. We had a revolutionary situation in 1918; the bourgeois
class did not even ask to participate in the power. The social democrats
paralyzed the revolution. Then the workers tried again in 1922–23–24. This was
the time of the bankruptcy of the Communist Party – all of which we have gone
into before. Then in 1929–30–31, the German workers began again a new
revolutionary wave. There was a tremendous power in the Communists and in the
trade unions, but then came the famous policy (on the part of the Stalinist
movement) of social fascism, a policy invented to paralyze the working class.
Only after these three tremendous waves did fascism become a big movement.
There are no exceptions to this rule – fascism comes only when the working
class shows complete incapacity to take into its own hands the fate of
society.
In the United States you will have the same thing. Already, there are fascist
elements, and they have, of course, the examples of Italy and germany. They
will, therefore, work in a more rapid tempo. But you also have the examples of
other countries. The next historic wave in the United States will be the wave
of radicalism of the masses, not fascism. Of course, the war can hinder the
radicalization for some time, but then it will give to the radicalization a
more tremendous tempo and swing.
We must not identify war dictatorship – the dictatorship of the military
machine, of the staff, of finance capital – with a fascist dictatorship. For
the latter, there is first necessary a feeling of desperation of large masses
of the people. When the revolutionary parties betray them, when the vanguard of
workers shows it incapacity to lead the people to victory – then the farmers,
the small business men, the unemployed, the soldiers, etc., become capable of
supporting a fascist movement, but only then.
A military dictatorship is purely a bureaucratic institution, reinforced by the
military machine and based upon the disorientation of the people and their
submission to it. After some time their feelings can change and they can become
rebellious against the dictatorship.
BUILD THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY!
~~~
In every discussion of political topics the question arises:
Shall we succeed in creating a strong party for the moment when the crisis
comes? Might not fascism anticipate us? Isn’t a fascist stage of development
inevitable?
The successes of fascism easily make people lose all perspective, lead them to
forget the actual conditions which made the strengthening and the victory of
fascism possible. Yet a clear understanding of these conditions is of especial
importance to the workers of he United States. We may set it down as a
historical law: fascism was able to conquer only in those countries where the
conservative labor parties prevented the proletariat from utilizing the
revolutionary situation and seizing power. In Germany two revolutionary
situations were involved: 1918–1919 and 1923–1924. Even in 1929, a direct
struggle for power on the part of the proletariat was still possible. In all
these three cases, the social democracy and the Comintern [the Stalinists]
criminally and viciously disrupted the conquest of power and thereby placed
society in an impasse. Only under these conditions and in this situation did
the stormy rise of fascism and its gaining of power prove possible.
~~~
Insofar as the proletariat proves incapable, at a given stage, of conquering
power, imperialism begins regulating economic life with its own methods; the
fascist party which becomes the state power is the political mechanism. The
productive forces are in irreconcilable contradiction not only with private
property but also with national state boundaries. Imperialism is the very
expression of this contradiction. Imperialist capitalism seeks to solve this
contradiction through an extension of boundaries, seizure of new territories,
and so on. The totalitarian state, subjecting all aspects of economic,
political, and cultural life to finance capital, is the instrument for creating
a supernationalist state, an imperialist empire, the rule over continents, the
rule over the whole world.
All these traits of freedom we have analyzed, each one by itself and all of
them in their totality, to the extent that they became manifest or came to the
forefront.
Both theoretical analysis as well as the rich historical experience of the last
quarter of a century have demonstrated with equal force that fascism is each
time the final link of a specific political cycle composed of the following:
the gravest crisis of capitalist society; the growth of the radicalization of
the working class; the growth of sympathy toward the working class, and a
yearning for change on the part of the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie; the
extreme confusion of the big bourgeoisie; its cowardly and treacherous
maneuvers aimed at avoiding the revolutionary climax; the exhaustion of the
proletariat; growing confusion and indifference; the aggravation of the social
crisis; the despair of the petty bourgeoisie, its yearning for change; the
collective neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie, its readiness to believe in
miracles, its readiness for violent measures; the growth of hostility towards
the proletariat, which has deceived its expectations. These are the premises
for a swift formation of a fascist party and its victory.
It is quite self-evident that the radicalization of the working class in the
United States has passed through only its initial phases, almost exclusively,
in the sphere of the trade union movement (the CIO). The prewar period, and
then the war itself, may temporarily interrupt this process of radicalization,
especially if a considerable number of workers are absorbed into war industry.
But this interruption of the process of radicalization cannot be of a long
duration. The second stage of radicalization will assume a more sharply
expressive character. The problem of forming an independent labor party will be
put on the order of the day. Our transitional demands will gain great
popularity. On the other hand, the fascist, reactionary tendencies will
withdraw to the background, assuming a defensive position, awaiting a more
favorable moment. This is the nearest perspective. No occupation is more
completely unworthy than that of speculating whether or not we shall succeed in
creating a powerful revolutionary leader-party. Ahead lies a favorable
perspective, providing all the justification for revolutionary activism. It is
necessary to utilize the opportunities which are opening up and to build the
revolutionary party.
Footnote by MIA
A. This paragraph did not appear in the edition of the pmphlet used to digitise
this text. However, it has appeared in other editions.