Fascism and Social-Fascism
From 13th Plenum of ECCI
Previous Page
The Menace of imperialist War and the Proletarian Struggle Against imperialism
“We are
revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, and we always start out from a correct scientific
analysis of the economic and political situation and of the tendencies of its
development. We repudiate all subjectivism and its arbitrariness in appraising
the objective situation.”
“If we, as
Marxists, repudiate subjectivism, it is not because we regard ourselves as the
slaves of objective development. No, we regard ourselves as the active
revolutionary instrument of history for accelerating the victory of the
proletariat.”
The fact that fascism has been
victorious in a country like Germany where the labor movement was so powerful,
makes it absolutely necessary for all the section of the Communist
International to concentrate their attention more than ever on the fascist
movement and on the fight against it.
The Class Character of Fascism
The first thing that is required in the connection is the ability to appreciate properly the class character of fascism. The question of the character of fascism must not be confused with the question of the class composition of the fascist mass movement. As is known the class composition of the movement is very mixed. Relying on the capitalists farmers, fascism appeal to the peasantry which is in bondage to the landlord and to big capital, is bound by debt, oppressed by taxation, and suffer from the agrarian crisis. Fascism appeals to the artisan, to the handicraftsman, to the small shopkeeper and to the small rentier who suffer from monopoly, the shrinking of market the big banks inflation and the burden of taxation. Fascism seeks for itself a mass basis among office employee the minor government official and the petty bourgeois intelligentsia who suffer from salary reductions, mass dismissals, and mass displacement in the rate apparatus. But fascism also tries to penetrate the working class and find some response among that section of the unemployed which has fallen into despair and which has been long divorced from industry, and among the more backward sections of the worker who have not yet awakened to class consciousness. Moreover, in recent times a hole declassed stratum of the petty bourgeoisie has arisen in capitalist towns, such as ex-officer, unemployed 'intellectuals," etc. (a completely new lumpen stratum). Fascism utilize these too.
It goes without saying that the
mixed composition of the fascist movement is an important question from the
point of view of our struggle against fascism, from the point of view of the
prospects of the disintegration of the fascist movement. But the social
composition of this movement does not in the least solve the problem of the
class character of fascism. The decisive thing is: what class policy does it
pursue? Which class does it serve?
In Germany, the fascists claim to
be " socialists" but their "socialism" in reality turned
out to be the most predatory type of monopoly capital. The policy of fascism is
the policy of the big bourgeoisie. Fascist rule as our theses say, is the
"open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most
chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital." This is
clearly seen in all countries where the fascist are in power. The deeds of the
ruling fascists are such that even the very stones cry out about the class
character of fascism in Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, Austria, Yugoslavia,
etc.
But it is precisely this
fundamental fact that is distorted by the Social-Democrats and their
hangers-on. Otto Bauer insists on depicting German fascism as
"non-class" rule, or as "the dictatorship of the lumpen
proletariat," which, he alleges, dominates the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie as "de-franchised subjects." And Trotsky and Thalheimer
insist on depicting fascism as Bonapartism or petty bourgeois
counter-revolution. Why do they insist on that? Because it is important for
them, as for all social-fascists, to distract the attention of the workers from
the fight against the ruling bourgeoisie, whom they serve. It is extremely
noteworthy that the same thing was repeated by Remmele when he was a member of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany at the time of the
fascist coup. "The whole bourgeoisie is subordinated to the lumpen
proletariat," he said in the voice of Otto Bauer, and by that revealed the
close political connection that exists between his Right Wing opportunism and Social-Democracy.
Another warning example: the Komunirticlw Review, the theoretical organ of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, approved the definition of fascism given by
the "Left" Social-Democrat Cechacek, viz., "the revolt of the
petty bourgeoisie indicates the complete isolation of the urban bourgeoisie and
big capital." This simply means the complete isolation, not only of the Social-Dem
crat Cechacek, but also of the theoretical organ of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia from Marxism in regard to the definition of the class character
of fascism. It is high time that the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Czechoslovakia isolated the editor from the theoretical organ of the Party.
Can Fascism Stabilize Entire
Tottering Position of the Bourgeoisie?
The second general question that
is raised in the these that we have submitted is the appraisal of the objective
consequence of the policy of fascism. Unquestionably, fascism is the instrument
of black reaction. It is precisely as such that it is used by the bourgeoisie
to save capitalism from collapse. Whether it can save capitalism is another
question entirely. It is not true to say that capitalism has managed to
stabilize its position with the aid of fascism as many Social-Democrats assert.
This is what the world bourgeoisie wants to do; this is the aim of its policy
of fascization; but the results are altogether different. It is not true to say
simply, that fascism hinders revolutionary development. We say that
revolutionary development is simultaneously hindered and accelerated by the fascist
fury of the bourgeoisie. This dual character of the objective consequences
of the policy of fascism must be understood, otherwise it will not be
possible to see the perspective clearly.
The reason why the
social-fascists see only one side of the problem is quite clear. They can
expect nothing good from the revolutionary perspective; on the contrary, they
fear it ever so much more than "total" fascism. They try to scare the
workers of Germany with the bogey of the "Italian perspective." But
the times now are altogether different from what they were when fascism came
into power in Italy. That was the period of transition from revolutionary
crisis to the relative stabilization of capitalism, whereas German
national-socialism came into power in the period of transition from the end of capitalist
stabilization to the revolutionary crisis. "This change in the objective
situation"-we emphasize in our theses-"determines altogether
different perspective for fascism in Germany, as well as in other lands of fascist
dictatorship.”
Amidst the conditions of
tottering capitalism, even the fascist terror of the bourgeoisie cannot for
long restrain the mases of the worker from decisive action. The terror rouses
anger even among the majority of those workers who up till now have followed
the Social-Democrats, and if only the Communists are able to approach these
workers properly it will be much less difficult than formerly to win them over
to the side of revolution. Even fascist demagogy can now have a twofold effect.
It can, in spite of the fascist, help us to free the masses of the toilers from
the illusion of parliamentary democracy and peaceful evolution; and the other bait
that the fascists use in place of these illusion (small private property,
national interest) can be exposed by showing what the ruling fascist do
for the benefit of the class interest of the big bourgeoisie and the
land-lord·. When the big bourgeoisie tries to convert the peasantry and the
urban petty bourgeoisie into a reliable prop for themselves, they accelerate
the process of differentiation among those intermediary lasses even where the
bulk of the masses of the e exploited classes, fascist rule quickly creates the
soil for winning them over to the side of the revolutionary proletariat.
The growth of fascism means that
"the capitalists are no longer able to maintain their dictatorship by the
old methods of parliamentarism and by bourgeois democracy generally; moreover,
the methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy generally are becoming a
hindrance to the capitalists in their home politics (the fight against the proletariat)
as well as in their foreign politics (war for the imperialist redistribution of
the world)." (Theses.) This does not exclude the possibility' that,
under certain condition, the fascist dictatorship will be able to utilize the
form of curtailed parliamentarism, a is the case for example, in Poland and
Finland. But the more difficult the position of the bourgeois becomes, the most
fascism strive to eliminate the parliamentary competition of many bourgeois
parties and substitute for it the political monopoly of а single party.
This cannot but serve to increase
the discord and conflicts among the bourgeois parties particularly between the
fascists and social-fascist. It is wrong to imagine that there can be no
real disagreement between them. Disagreements exist and new ones continuously
arise on the basis of the inherent contradiction in the position of the
bourgeoisie. These disagreements are not disagreement of principle, as both the
one and the other stand for the bourgeois dictatorship. In spite of all their
disagreements the fascist and social-fascists are, and remain, twins as Comrade
Stalin remarked. Our appraisal of the revolutionary perspective is not based
on their mutual quarrels;
it is based on the inevitable
intensification of the fundamental internal and external contradictions of
capitalism and primarily, on the firm conviction that the revolutionary
forces of the proletariat will grow.
There are no disagreements
between the fascists and social-fascist as far as the necessity for the further
fascization of the bourgeois dictatorship is concerned. The Social-Democrats
are in favor of fascization, provided the parliamentary form is preserved.
"Our goal is the same, our methods are different,”. Tanner, one of the
typical representatives of social-fascism, chairman of the Finnish Social-Democratic
Party and of the International Co-operative Alliance, told the fascists. And the
loyal servant of capitalism told the truth. What is worrying these people is
that in their furious zeal the fascists may hasten the doom of capitalism.
The Fascization of
Social-Democracy
The fascization of
Social-Democracy is proceeding at an accelerated pace. This does not mean the
formation of "neo-socialist" groups in the Social-Democratic Parties.
For example, social-fascism as a whole praises the new, and what, in fact, are
fascist forms of the economic policy of the big bourgeoisie and describes them
a "rudiment of socialism." Blum and Vandervelde have described the
economic policy now pursued by Hitler and Mussolini as "socialism without
the socialist." The social-fascists rightly complain that the fascists
have stolen their program; but the fascists would be equally right in
complaining that the social-fascists have appropriated their ideology.
In the wake of the fascists, the
social-fascists of all brands stand for a "strong government."
Many of them reproach the German Severings and Zorgiebels with not having ruled
with a sufficiently firm hand. At the Congress of the Socialist Party of France
held in July 1933, Montagnon demanded "a reform of the state that will
make it a strong state, master of its own destiny, capable of controlling and
conducting economy." Montagnon is a neo-socialist, but let us see what
another social-fascist has to say in giving advice to Social-Democratic
workers:
"Everybody admits that in the present conditions a 'strong government' is necessary. Compel your party to start a real struggle for a strong democratic government .... We would honestly help you in the struggle for such a government. Moreover, we would pledge ourselves not to undertake any revolutionary action that would go beyond the limits of democracy."
This is what Trotsky, the
counter-revolutionary lackey of the bourgeoisie, writes. In principle, there is
no difference between the position taken up by Trotsky and that of the
neo-fascist Montagnon and the question of a strong government. And Kautsky
openly declares that the reproaches hurled against the leaders of the German Social-Democracy
that they did not establish a dictatorship in 1918 are unjustified, because
write Kautsky, "such a terror would have to be directed primarily against
the Communists," Hence, if a dictatorship were established, it would have
to be directed against the Communists.
As a matter of fact, the German
Social-Democrats did use terror against the Communists, and they even
threatened the fascists that they would "rule with a firm hand."
Everyone remembers the threats uttered by Weis at the Magdeburg Social-Democratic
Party Congress to use dictatorial powers against the national-Socialists and
against the Communists. On June 28, 1929, Grzsinski declared in Frankfurt:
"The German working class will really hang on the lamp-posts those who
attempt to encroach upon the political rights of the German working class by violence
and establish their rule at the expense of the people." Loebe, in the name
of the "Iron Front," threatened to organize a general strike against
fascism; but in May 17 he voted for Hitler.
The slogan, "a strong
government," against the revolutionary workers, of course, and not against
fascism, was borrowed by the whole of the second International from Weis, from
the neo-fascists and from the fascists.
But it is not only a matter of
the fascization of the ideology the theories and the slogan of the Social-Democratic
Parties. Look at their deeds.
In Czechoslovakia and in Spain,
the social-Democrats took part in the government and in the preparation for
establishing a fascist dictatorship. In Denmark and in Sweden, the Social-Democrat
are in power and are proceeding along the same road. In Austria, Poland,
Finland and Hungary, the social-Democratic Parties exist legally under the fascist
dictatorship. In these countries they are the obedient opposition of His Majesty,
Fascism. In Japan they come out openly in favor of war and of the monarchy.
In the United States, the Socialists
and the American Federation of Labor are helping Roosevelt to carry out what,
in fact, are fascist ' economic measures. In England, the Labor Party produced
open allies of the diehards, viz., the national-Laborites on the one hand and
Moseley's fascist group on the other. The future will see the rise of numerous
groups of this kind.
The Italian socialist Modigliani,
and even the 'Left" Nenni, declared at their Congress that they are
prepared to return to Tuily a legal Opposition at Mussolini's first call. And
the German social-Democrat Breitchcid wrote a letter to Neurath stating that
all he will fighting for was the rights of a legal Opposition. And 'Wels and
Breitchcid openly declare that the talk of social-Democracy in Germany is to
prevent the fascist dictatorship from being unplanted by proletarian
dictatorship.
The Crime in the Second
International
The coming into power of Hitler
in Germany marks the beginning of a new stage in the development of the crisis
in the second international. The defeat of Social-Democracy and the whole of
Social-Democratic ideology, policy, and tactics was revealed precisely in the
country where the strongest party of the second International existed. The
defeat of the German Social-Democratic Party caused great consternation in the
ranks of the Second International. Attack began to be hurled at the leadership
of the German Social-Democracy; there is mutual recrimination among the social-fascist
leaders and ferment in the rank of the Social-Democratic workers. This
consternation manifested itself at the Brussel Congress of the trade union
bureaucrats, and at the Paris Conference of the social-fascist functionaries.
And they have not quite got over it yet.
Very soon, however, the Social-Democratic
leaders began to whitewash the German Social-Democrats. At the Paris Congress
they defended Weis and the German social-Democratic Party. Bauer hastened to
draw up a thesis of the historical inevitability of the victory of fascism in
Germany; Kautsky and Old berg declared that "cultured" social-Democracy
had to suffer defeat at the hands of uncultured fascism.
"Left" social-fascists,
such as Adler, Fenner Brockway and also the Menshevik lackey of the bourgeoisie,
Trotsky, hastened to the assistance of Wels, Vandervelde and Blum. Trotsky came
forward as the principal purveyor of arguments for saving social-fascism. This
traitor to Communism published monstrous lander against the Communist Party of
Germany to the effect that the latter was responsible for the victory of the
National-Socialists, and that it be-trayed the German proletariat. And at a
time when the German Communists are waging a heroic struggle, are fighting with
heroic self-sacrifice against fascism, the traitor Trotsky dare to declare that
the Communist Party of Germany is dead!
The attempt to whitewash German
Social-Democracy is accompanied by "Left" maneuvers. The German
social-fascists are shouting about a revolution against Hitler. The Austrian, Norway and Switzerland, the Social-Democratic Parties, even after
the world historical bankruptcy of the Second International in Germany, won
election victories. This does not mitigate the crisis in the second International,
it is true. In France, for example, the Socialist Party split up into three
parts after a big electoral success. But it does mean that the Communists must
exert all efforts to destroy the mass influence of the Social-Democratic
Parties.
"Fascism is the dangerous enemy of the proletariat. It can be defeated only in fierce revolutionary battle." This is how our theses emphasize this point. It is not true to say that the victory of fascism is an inevitable stage preceding the proletarian revolution in all capitalist countries. But the stronger the mass influence of Social Democracy is, the more dangerous is fascism. Hence, the successful struggle against fascism, as against war, calls for intensified work on the part of all sections of the Communist International to win the workers away from the influence of the social-Democratic Panic·.
.jpg)
No comments