/edu/ - Education

>>8253
And since 1914 it was very clear that SPD is counter-revolutionary. And also at Zimerwald etc. Did communists realistically think that SPD would do the right thing? I mean they SPILT AWAY FROM SPD precisely cuz SPD was counter-revolutionary.

>>8254
Being counter-revolutionary is not the same as being fascist though, since not all forms of bourgeois rule are the same. This was where the KPD was deeply mistaken.

>>8253
considering they'd just backed WW1 and were now the government the expectation that they'd just go "yeah alright then" when faced with a revolution still seems too naive for any adult to have seriously held to it.
except maybe that one guy who sent all the crazy telegrams, he was based.

>>8255
Fascism is not an alternative to liberalism, it is liberalism's grown up form summoned into being by people dismissing liberalism - so liberals are "forced" to force people to love liberals.

>>8257
You're conflating forms of government with the social movements that sustain them. Social democracy is a proletarian movement which strengthened proletarian power, though of course limiting it to working within the capitalist framework. Fascism by contrast was a petty bourgeois movement which did the exact opposite of this: smashing all forms of proletarian power without any distinction between revolutionaries and reformists. Clearly equating these movements makes absolutely no sense.

>>8247
>but but but SPD had a chance to win though!!!1

It's like with democrats. Yeah, sure, they could win and elect Hillary. Who the fuck would want Hillary in power, though? Would Hillary be better for the workers than Trump? No fucking way. Radlibs see similarities with people not wanting for their pipe dream of a reform, so they lash out at those pragmatic people who see no fucking benefit in voting for social-fascist cunts, who, even if they win, will do all kinds of backstabbing, will refuse to be held accountable to the voters, will routinely silence opposition, will sell out, will cover for bourgeoisie, will do imperialism. It's not a choice between two evils, socdems or fascists, it's a fight against A SINGULAR EVIL IN IT'S TWO STAGES.

>>8258
>Social democracy is a proletarian movement which strengthened proletarian power

No, it erodes proletarian power, as shown by the democrat party in the last year, with immense amount of backstabbing of workers, with backroom deals, with treachery at every level, and finally, with socdems just like not wanting to do any meaningful reforms ones the popular anger dwindled as a result of socdem pandering.

It is a bourgeois movement aimed at preventing workers from gaining power. Fascism is just a next stage of the same movement, a terroristic attack on the working class. And SPD showed pretty well (and democrats too) that they were using the same terroristic behaviour all the damn time, making the distinction between them and fascists even more blurry.

>>8260
Also, social democracy in 1870 was completely different than social democracy in 1914

>"Hitler first, then our turn!"
Falling for a literal meme fucking morron

>>8260
>No, it erodes proletarian power, as shown by the democrat party in the last year
Social democracy of the early and mid 20th century is not the social democracy of today, if you can even call them that considering the extent to which they embraced neoliberalism. During the time period under discussion, social democrats indeed played a major role in expanding institutions of proletarian power such as trade unions and worker associations. Again, these were limited to operating within a capitalist framework and thus ultimately counterrevolutionary, but clearly the expansion of proletarian power is not a bad thing.
>It is a bourgeois movement
No it isn't. It drew its support from the working class and the Comintern classified it as a worker's movement, at least after 1933. Moreover social democracy amounts to the political manifestation of trade union consciousness, which Lenin himself recognizes as arising naturally from the working class.
>Fascism is just a next stage of the same movement,
Then why do fascists crush social democracy wherever they come to power?
>And SPD showed pretty well (and democrats too) that they were using the same terroristic behaviour all the damn time
The anti-communist repression by the SPD was reprehensible and foiled the German Revolution, but it isn't comparable to the Nazis. The SPD tolerated the repression of a communist uprising at the hands of the Freikorps, a militia which had largely organized independently of (and sometimes acted in opposition to) the SPD. They then allowed the Freikorps a free hand to carry out the violent repression of the uprising, but once this had passed the communists were able to reorganize themselves and re-emerge as a major element in German politics. Compare this to the Nazis, who literally destroyed the workers movement in Germany, communists and social democrats alike, and did not allow it to resurface. The SPD never even attempted anti-communist repression on the scale and intensity thay the Nazis did. There are many valid criticisms of social democracy, but it's a serious mistake to regard it as equivalent to fascism, and the results of this are obvious when looking at how things went in Germany.

>>8259
i'm not even advancing the argument that the SPD had a chance to win, i'm advancing the argument that it's absolutely comical to go "well Hillary is to blame for Trump getting in because she didn't stand aside for the workers vanguard, the PSL"
(and to compare Trump to Hitler or call him a fascist after he's left office without starting WW3. Ironically yet again letting slip the same blase attitude to actual fascists and pathological loathing of liberals which saw KPD cadres dancing the tyburn jig the first time around.)

>>8260
my man here really arguing the SPD were as bad as Hitler in 2021

>>8256
>except maybe that one guy who sent all the crazy telegrams, he was based.
source pls

>>8265
What I find so absurd about people who still cling to this social fascism nonsense is that the Comintern literally dumped it and recognized it as an error. It really just feels like an excuse to be edgy at this point.

>>8151
Sounds like most of /leftypol/ in a nutshell.

>>8265
Use DIALECTICS and HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, remember that it's CLASS RELATIONSHIPS that drive history, not one or other kind of a liberal - bourgeois! - ideology. Fascism is the logical conclusion of liberalism the same way social-fascism is. I don't care whatever fairy tales you believe about your socdemery, that's just how it is from CLASS PERSPERCTIVE, from HISTORICAL MATERIALISM PERSPECTIVE. Both social-fascism and fascism serve the same function of saving capitalism in crisis.

Thank fucking god you are not a retarded lib who thinks that fascism negates capitalism. It's already a move in the right direction.

>>8267
Proof?

If the KPD and SPD joined hands, it would only have delayed the rise of fascism.

>>8151
Im just going to say this.
even if the spd and kpd had formed a alliance i argue the spd and kpd wouldnt have done anything
For one reason the dysfunctional gov that would have formed under a spd and kpd alliance and the reacting center and right colliation formed against them would have caused extreme partison activity in gov to the point the gov wont be able to function. And because the gov wont function the crisis that was german capitalism would continue.
Which leads us to two scenarios:
a german civil war happens tho i doubt the left will win this due to how the german military was right wing

or more realistically

the far right still take over because all those lower income poor petit borg and the rich borg will still support the right wing. Especially if the kpd and spd do a terrible job at managing the crisis and are too busy engaging in factionalism or realistically fighting amongst themselves.
But you may ask wont the right wing or center be discredited too? exactly and this will discredit the moderate center or moderate right wing since they are part of the gov. Which will only leave the extremists standing as people become more desperate and the moderates fail to govern. And in such a scenario, I dont think the porkies and the petit borgs will support the commies over the far right. Rather their economic interests would make them support the far right because thats the only position that will let them continue having their beloved capitalist interests.

However you might ask well if hilter or the far right takes over anyway doesnt this mean that a spd and kpd alliance wouldnt matter anyway. Except i argue it will matter in the sense that a continued divided germany and a delayed far right rise would have given the soviet union a major advantage.

The soviet union was busy developing its economy and military and when the nazis attacked russia the soviet military wasnt fully developed. In terms of arms and overall equipment a lot of divisions were still lacking a decent amount of weapons and arms. A delayed far right rise in germany would have given the russians a lot more time to continue developing their economy and military and thus be more ready.

>>8272
still better than "herr hitler, here is the chancellorship, t. democracy" Fascism may have risen but it's hard to imagine it having such an exponential growth without Hitler being appointed chancellor as the leader of the largest party. They could have had a civil war or something similar first, which would have weakened whatever state came out of it. Instead, the parties rolled over and made it extremely easy for hitler to threaten the Reichstag into passing the enabling act

>>8274
By this logic, the best decision for the KPD would have been to ally with the Strasserite wing of the NSDAP and try to oust Hitler.

>>8275
if fascism was really on the rise, then it was bigger than just Hitler.
I'm noticing ITT a bigger allergy to 'social-fascists' than actual fascists

>>8276
Criticizing fascism is easy and the SPDs actions encouraged the fascist movement. No, what annoys me is the lack of anger, disappointment and criticism regarding the communist movement at that time.

>>8277
Is encouraging the fascist movement as bad as doing fascism? I know it's easy to say afterwards, but the kpd's and spd's conflicts were trivial compared to what the nazis became

>>8276
>I'm noticing ITT a bigger allergy to 'social-fascists' than actual fascists
and you're right to do so. fundamentally the inane theory of social fascism arises from the dead because communists (think they) find themselves in competition with social democrats in internet arguments. the whole thing is "hey newbie, join my gang" "you would be wise to join my gang" with a dash of "i need a reason to ignore bourgeois politics even as it pays attention to me" and, especially in the American case, "i need a way to feel superior to both sides." the latter being a particularly American pathology rooted in somehow deducing that since everyone else has a socdem party, theirs must be the Democrats, and the Democrats suck.

plus it's a great way to latch on to the pervasive sense that better things aren't possible, in lockstep with the subtle metamorphosis of communism from serious ideology to religion among fringe groups. to concede that perhaps social democrats could actually increase the minimum wage or improve the position of trade unions would be to complicate the argument that the only way to get any improvement in life whatsoever is to be a communist, post communist memes on the internet, and believe in your heart of hearts that the revolution is immanent. (just don't ask for too many details. or how the Workers Popular Vanguard Revolutionary Unity Front Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Journal for a Fourth International can be assured that they'll really be the ones barking orders when that day comes. much more important, comrade, is settling our line on whether or not we'll have plastic bottles under communism.)

i say here for emphasis that i'm not arguing anyone should be a social democrat. in general communists and "communists" are a bad fit for degenerated social democratic parties, and those who don't already watch elections for fun aren't going to start. no, i'm merely diagnosing diseases of communism, which is all too often fundamentally unserious.

>>8279
>Workers Popular Vanguard Revolutionary Unity Front Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Journal for a Fourth International
The political and theoretical bankruptcy of these pseudo-left revisionist renegades has been exposed for all to see. The genuine vanguard for planetary proletarian revolution shall march under the banner of the International Revolutionary Workers' Bolshevik-Leninist United Front (Marxist) for a Sixth International!

>>8280
You either follow Second-Third World's ruling communist parties or become a joke

>>8282
>But the growing hatred of the working class for the "National Government" is uniting increasingly large numbers under the slogan of the formation of a new Labor Government in Great Britain. Can the Communists ignore this frame of mind of the masses, who still retain faith in a Labor Government? No, Comrades. We must find a way of approaching these masses. We tell them openly, as did the Thirteenth Congress of the British Communist Party, that we Communists are in favor of a soviet government ["soviet" meant a workers' and peasants' council, or people's council, in a system that nationalized the major resources and means of production] as the only form of government capable of emancipating the workers from the yoke of the capital. But you want a Labor Government? Very well. We have been and are fighting hand in hand with you for the defeat of the "National Government." We are prepared to support your fight for the formation of a new Labor government
wtf i hate the Communist International now

>>8278
I'm not sure it was as trivial as you say. Such conflicts were ultimately defined by the nature of the SPD in encouraging reactionaries in a quest to secure dominance. But a better question is whether or not a reactionary party taking power could have been avoided in spite of such, and here is where criticism of the KPD should exist: the KPD's monumental failure was one of impotence. An alliance with the SPD wouldn't have been necessary if the KPD had a viable political strategy - one which the NSDAP apparently did have.

>>8284
>An alliance with the SPD wouldn't have been necessary if the KPD had a viable political strategy
But what could that have looked like? Even after everything they did the SPD was still able to command a huge proportion of the working class vote.

>>8285
I don't know.
My best guess would be to defy the Comintern's line and reject the Soviet model in favor of state capitalism, limit Rotfront activity wherever possible, and engage with idealist slogans and aesthetics.

>>8267
Popular Frontism was wrong and a mistake of Dimitrov.

>>8151
Hindsight is 2020

>>8158
The center party left the coalition with the socdems in 1930
They definitely weren’t joining the communists.

>>8285
>>8286 (me)
I've thought about this point again and I've come to the conclusion that there were really only two paths the KPD could have taken. Either cater to the Strasserist wing of the NSDAP, or compromise with the SPD but pressure them to make more radical reforms. Neither path is desirable but both would have resulted in Hitler's defeat. However, I still stand by my argument that the KPD should have rejected the Comintern to some extent.

>>8511
The strasserist wing had been killed, and was always on the wrong side of the party powerbase. It's just meme politics.

>>8151
Wtf, y Russia betray them?

>>8151
>"Whatever you do, don't make a coalition with the Social Democrats!" says Comintern
Infighting between leftist leading to millions of communist to be tortured and murdered.

>>8159
This. After Stalinization (if you'll pardon the term) it is well-known that the comintern went from a coordinating pole of internationalism to a cudgel of the USSR used against other CPs.

>>9281
Ah yes, it was for precisely this reason that the great comrade Stalin expressed approval for its dissolution

>>8522
but that's the point. if the strasserists were cultivated then it would have split the party and made Hitler's rise to power less likely.
>It's just meme politics
fair enough

>>8287
>Popular Frontism was wrong and a mistake of Dimitrov.
Posts the Leninhat

>>8211
I love how this question has never been answered. Truly, a dead website.

>>21725
Glowpedia source doesn't require refuting

If he was a retard then why did the GDR make that cool ass movie about him with the great ending? Didn't think of that, did you OP, you faggot?

>>8223
Source? Also, I'd like to learn how the transition from parliaments to soviets happened and how it work.

>>8221
>>8225
>>8227
>>8228
Ooooh boys I love this debate, this is the real heart of the thread. Too bad it's a short argument. These two lines indicate wildly diverging strategies going forward; on the one hand, independent working class institutions that must be based only on their own strength and able to weather the severe repression and reactionary climate they will engender, versus mixed class institutions with a working class mass base, the goal of which being the channeling of working class needs and desires, for immediate gains, including immediate control of the wider political climate, which they hope to keep mild. Isn't this basically THE political question of our time? (and also of a century ago…)

IMO it's wrong to say that the social democrats built up proletarian institutions; they were supported by unions, and they offered concessions which helped their mass base, but they were not interested in revolutionizing their members, or in actively building the infrastructure necessary for proletarian rule. They were more or less populists, drawing on a proletarian base, but a base of supporters rather than a base of members. The leashed left is ultimately on a deadline, because their politics won't be relevant forever. Eventually the compromise that undergirds them will fall apart, as they threaten bourgeois power. Either they threaten from a position of revolutionary proletarian power, independent institutions, or they do it from a position of bourgeois power, and that can simply be taken from them [and a third option, which they went with, was to try to maintain the concessions granted while not further antagonizing the bourgeoisie. This failed, and left both workers and bourgeoisie unsatisfied]. If the limp left chooses option one, they accelerate the freefall into violent repression. If they choose option two, they lifelessly allow it, but potentially spare themselves and let the communists, minorities, and international working class take the hit for them.

Ultimately I think we should look in the far opposite direction - rather than a wide class coalition between communists and the compromise left, the communists were not ready for the level of clandestinity they would have to operate under. Neither Hitler nor the Holocaust are the specific fault of the failure of German communists. The culture to allow that was already there, an effect of old anti-semitism and nationalism, and the decay of capitalism. There was going to be reaction and repression, but the specific character was particularly brutal for historical reasons beyond the control of the left. The legal left would like to view this purely morally, as a failure to maintain a mild capitalism, but a militant materialist would see it as a tragedy that the proletariat was not yet unified enough to stop. That only indicates intensification of independent and resilient communist organizing, however, in order to prevent a repeat.

The KPD became politically useless after the 1923 insurrections failed and the Weimar Republic became more and more right wing and authoritarian. After that point, it was only natural for the Stalinists in the Comintern and idiots like Thalmann to take it over and steer the party in an increasingly wacky, revisionist direction. If they hadn't, then someone else would have.