Was Ernst Thälmann a retard? Anonymous 03-10-21 15:08:38 No. 8151 [Last 50 Posts]
>Be Ernst Thälmann in the late 20s >Leader of the KPD in Germany >Get over 10% of the vote in 1928 (4th place) >1930 >Get 13% (3rd place) but Hitler just came out of no where and got 18% (2nd place) >It's obvious that Hitler is going to keep growing in power >Hitler brags in speeches that he'll suppress every other party in the Reichstag once he wins >He even wrote a book where he talks about bolshevism being the blood enemy of fascism >Be Ernst Thälmann: massively popular, growing at a similar rate to Hitler, but don't know what to do >Consult pre-1935 Comintern, guidelines only retards would follow (even Stalin admitted this later) >"Whatever you do, don't make a coalition with the Social Democrats!" says Comintern >Social Democrats are the only party bigger than the Nazis >They are interested in forming a coalition with the KPD to beat Hitler >"Nah, that sounds like social fascism to me" >Thälmann decides to attack SD rather than Hitler >To most of the public, it looks like the left is fighting itself and they turn to Hitler. >1932 >Hitler is by far the largest party in Germany with 37% of the vote >The KPD grew, but only by a point >Hitler is just months away from the Chancellery >If the left can form a coalition, a literal right-wing monarchist will choose them over Hitler >"Let's not let some Nazi trees overshadow the SD forest" >Doesn't form a government because he believes he can still win >1933 >Hitler is appointed Chancellor >Ernst Thälmann rallies his party with a speech >"Hitler first, then our turn!" >Is arrested two months after Hitler's election >Sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp along with most of his party and supporters >Some of his comrades flee to the Soviet Union only to die in the Great Purge a few years later >Ernst Thälmann is executed on Hitler's orders in 1944 after 11 years in solitary confinement
Anonymous 03-10-21 15:31:00 No. 8169
>>8163 They weren't "swing" at all, since they hated communists since 1914 and the KPD since it's foundation. They murdered Rosa and Karl and let police shoot at striking workers ffs.
In 1932 they were the biggest faction and could've easily prevented Hindenburg but they chose together with the other bourgeois liberals to vote for the reactionary candidate.
Anonymous 03-10-21 16:53:44 No. 8189
>>8181 gee thanks stalin
>>8182 how about neither? move somewhere else because the writing's pretty much on the wall and you might have better luck in Austria or Upper Silesia
maybe the KAPD were right all along
Anonymous 03-10-21 17:12:39 No. 8192
>>8151 The communists of the past century after Lenin were all very retarded (except a few exceptions like Fidel, Ho, etc) it makes me mad after reading a bit, they all had the world at their fingertips but decided to grill instead.
The left suffers from perpetual retardation, and the trend continues with breadtube and chronic infighting.
Anonymous 03-10-21 18:20:16 No. 8201
>>8151 >spd joins alliance with kpd >porkie panics >oh wait.jpg >the right and center unite and block them I mean a spd and kpd alliance would have blocked hilter but in reaction i dont think the german center right wing and hilters group would have tolerated the spd and kpd governing. It might have caused a counter reaction where the fears of a spd and kpd radical alliance would have caused a paranoid reacitonary fear in the right wing.While I dont think hidenbergs party center and nazis will get along well, the nazis could still easily exploit this situation while allyning with the other parties to block the spd and kpd proposals while at the same time demonizing them. Which of course due to the fucked up political cultures of cap countries would eventually cause to them gaining more seats over time and history repeats.
The key difference however would be that hilters party would have to allign themselves with the centre and moderate right wing. And thus the nazis would be forced to compromise or moderate which would have constrained the nazis. And this might arguably cause a better future since a constrained nazis can barely do shit. Of course this only assumes if hilter is willing to compromise or moderate his position.
Anonymous 03-10-21 18:52:13 No. 8209
>>8160 I mean it's still nowhere near enough to get into power
the problem in Germany at the time was that the parliament was to split and dysfunctional to do… well anything.
The President on the other Hand had more power than god and could just appoint a chancellor/government and pass legislation without parliamentary approval.
One of the things I never understand about the argument that the KPD and the SPD should have worked together is that it is never fully explained HOW they would stop the nazis. Hindenburg was a monarchist and he sure as hell wasn't going to appoint a coalition including the communists. Armed struggle? We all know how the military would have swung in that case. General strikes? Even if they could pull it off, Nazis would have just purged the ringleaders like they did irl.
Anonymous 03-10-21 18:59:48 No. 8212
>>8205 >Trump is Hitler fuck off
>>8209 they only war forward in Wiemar Germany it to build dual power, and dual institutions
Anonymous 03-10-21 20:09:30 No. 8221
>>8205 >>8215 You are buying into the "bourgeois democracy allows anyone but bourgeoise to affect politics" meme. No, fascists, liberals, socdems, all come to power not as a result of their convictions, ideologies, or whatever, but the need of bourgeoise for them at this point in time. Bourgeoisie is buying politics as a service, and they get served. People have no fucking input on politics. Hitler came to power because workers were too strong! There was a need for repressive measures against the working class, or else! And why did that happen? Because KPD WASN'T FUCKING ALLYING with SPD, they refused to be bought, and they maintained high influence (parliament doesn't count, bourgeois elections are bourgeois).
Anonymous 03-10-21 20:09:53 No. 8222
>>8219 true, but it's not like the SPD did
or could have done anything either.
The reality of the situation is that Hitlers rise is mainly due to weaknesses in Weimar Germany's political system. The two points in which a Nazi Germany could have been stopped were:
1. At the inception of the republic itself after WW1, preventing many of the catastrophic institutional choices made (like giving the president Kaiser-like power and creating a weak and fractured parliament)
2. Preventing Hindenburg from taking power, as he is the one who handed Hitler his opportunity on a silver platter.
Anything else is cope and pointless leftist infighting.
Anonymous 03-10-21 20:16:46 No. 8225
>>8221 >You are buying into the "bourgeois democracy allows anyone but bourgeoise to affect politics" meme. Not at all. However it's a fact that social democracy relied on the working class for its mass base, that it was aligned with and weilded organs of worker power such as trade unions, and it pursued policies which (at least in the short term) were in the interests of working people. Fascism meanwhile was based in the petty bourgeoisie and smashed any and all organs of proletarian power and organization.
>People have no fucking input on politics. Not true at all. Read Gramsci. States can only rule based on a broad coalition of forces under the hegemony of a particular class, tempered by concessions to subordinate classes. If social democrats are able to ride a wave of proletarian support, weild proletarian institutions, and secure concessions which improve the lives of proletarians, then this is a direct expression of working class influence over the state.
Anonymous 03-10-21 20:25:50 No. 8227
>>8225 >Not at all. However it's a fact that social democracy relied on the working class for its mass base Everyone does that.
Workers in those unions fight their union leadership more than support it, ffs. Amazon unionization drive fucking died when workers learned just who is going to lead them to supposed better working conditions, and decided against it.
Didn't you know that fascism had trade unions for the workers, too? They were headed by Nazi party bureaucrats, though, various petite bourgeoisie, their own fucking bosses, stuff like that. Stop jerking off trade unions, they are not good by themselves.
then they will sabotage proletariat interests and save capitalism by fooling the workers. They will not, now or ever, or any time in history, support working class interests if they can help it. They will concede concessions when workers organize OUTSIDE THEIR FUCKING PARTY, if there's independent from them working class organizing, including proper Communist Party, but even then they have red lines they will NEVER cross - such as having a parliament, "freedom of press" allowing bourgeoisie platform for propaganda, and no private enterprise ban, no wholesome nationalizaton of heavy industry. They WILL NOT attack their real masters - bourgeoisie, they are DEFENDING THEM from the workers. Fascists in comparison are ATTACKING the workers. Both are saving capitalism.
Anonymous 03-10-21 20:43:49 No. 8228
>>8227 >Everyone does that. Not really. Most of the other parties apart from the KPD and SPD drew mainly on classes and strata such as farmers/peasants, civil servants, petty booj, etc.
>Workers in those unions fight their union leadership more than support it, ffs. Amazon unionization drive fucking died when workers learned just who is going to lead them to supposed better working conditions, and decided against it. The contemporary US is not 1930s Germany. Trade unions were recognized by both socdems and communists as key organs of worker power, both had a major presence within German organized labour, and both leveraged these connections to influence politics more broadly.
>They were headed by Nazi party bureaucrats, though, various petite bourgeoisie, their own fucking bosses, stuff like that. Yeah and were 100% porky approved, unlike the SPD and KPD controlled unions which the Nazis destroyed. If those organizations were not a threat, then why did the Nazis go after them?
>but even then they have red lines they will NEVER cross You're missing my point. Obviously socdems aren't going to eliminate capitalism, but they still build up proletarian institutions and political power within its framework. Hence it's absurd to lump them in with fascists who do literally the exact opposite of that.
>Fascists in comparison are ATTACKING the workers. Both are saving capitalism Yes but again, they are doing so in radically different ways with radically different implications. The Comintern quickly recognized this after the disaster in Germany, and abandoned the social fascism theory.
Anonymous 03-10-21 22:06:08 No. 8229
>>8214 Third-world check
What country are you from?
Anonymous 03-10-21 23:13:11 No. 8233
>>8154 Clara Zetkin was a personal friend of Rosa Luxemburg and had endured many humiliations from the leadership of the SPD, especially when the SPD liquidated its autonomous women's organizations in 1908 after women were legally granted the right to assembly and free association. She vehemently opposed the SPD's waffling on German imperialism and a critic of the SPD while in exile from Germany. She was a founding member of the KPD. There were very few people who had as many grievances with the SPD as Clara Zetkin did. Despite her legitimate personal and political grievances she recognized the extreme threat that German fascism represented and the urgent need for a united front to oppose it, even if it meant collaboration with reformist elements. And she had recognized the necessity of a united front of proletarians as early as 1922.
>>8151 It was not so much Thälmann as the short-sighted political sectarianism of the Communist International that led to the political defeat of the KPD and their failure to protect German proletarians from fascism.
Anonymous 04-10-21 00:43:17 No. 8240
>>8239 What makes you think the SPD, the same reactionary force that killed strikers, would ally with the KPD before it was too late? The reason SPD guys did it was because they feared a civil war in the first place!
>>8235 This too. Why do you fucks all blame the KPD for the SPD's errors?
Anonymous 04-10-21 00:45:49 No. 8241
>>8239 the problem with this is that the german right wing and center could easily use the "strikes, sabotage, streetfighting, and armed resistance" to demonize the leftwing and portray them as national saboteurs. Hell they were already doing this and it will just add fuel to the already existing right wing propaganda machine.
However if the leftwing still manage to still maintain support and a united front manages to frustate the right wing gov, and also the other things you mentioned then it could be beneficial. after all a heavily divided germany too busy fighting with itself would be better than a united germany under hilter
Anonymous 04-10-21 01:29:06 No. 8244
>>8242 Respectfully, a lot of the users in this thread seem to know little about German history.
The Prussian state had heavy clashes between communists, social democrats and national socialists beginning in 1928, especially in Berlin. The Prussian state held most of the power of the SPD and would not have allowed a KPD coalition. The KPD was barely tolerated and they kept saying that they had to be banned, but the courts refused it.
The SPD fucking murdered KPD members protesting against the NSDAP in the Blutmai incident just 3 years before Hitler came to power, then had the nerve to blame the KPD for this escalation and accusing them of trying to take over the state. The Prussians then proceeded to ban the KPD's paramilitary, the Rotkämpferbund, and to fire any KPD member from civil servant positions. And then you blame the KPD for not having an armed resistance together with the SPD? The same party that ruined whatever armed resistance capacities the KPD had?
Add all this and the fact that the SPD killed Rosa & Karl a decade earlier, killed thousands of striking communist workers throughout the early 20s (see: Ruhraufstand). That history wasn't forgotten either.
It was KPD members who fought against the NSDAP members in Altona, 1932 and got killed by Prussian state for it (Altonaer Blutsonntag). The KPD were going the hardest against the NSDAP for years even before Hitler came into power, and certainly more and more approaching 1933. To act like the KPD was pulling the social fascist line all the way, to repeat the lie that Thälmann ever said that Hitler quote - they are all revisionist lies told so that the still-existing SPD (which will rule Germany for the coming 4 years most likely) can get away with their blatant repression of workers (and to distract from them voting for World War 1 years earlier). You guys took the bait and fell for it. Kind of disappointing for a supposed communist forum.
Furthermore, it was conservative politician and Reichskanzler Franz von Papen's cabinet who declared the state of emergency on Prussia (Preußenschlag) that completely crippled the SPD governing there (the SPD itself crippled the KPD a bit earlier). Even if the SPD and KPD were to work together, history showed us that the centrist and rightist parties were willing to destroy even social democracy, let alone communism, from taking root. The national conservatives actually wanted to found a monarchy/republic hybrid and laid the groundwork for it. They didn't expect that these structures would be abused by the fascists.
The SPD fucking gave up in half a day when the Preußenschlag happened (mind you this was a few months before Hitler), the idea that they would fight to the death like the KPD did is delusional. The SPD decided against civil disobedience let alone armed resistance because they feared a civil war between republicans and monarchists. The SPD couldn't struggle even for literally half a day the way the KPD did for 13 years at that point.
Blaming the KPD here is like blaming a woman wearing a dress for getting raped. The vast bulk of the blame is on the SPD. Up until fucking 1932, the SPD didn't stop relentlessly attacking the KPD, its member, arresting them, killing them, torturing them, executing them, all without even trying to uphold the thin veneer of "the rule of law" that German liberals nowadays like to claim the Weimar Republic had.
So I beg you to stop simping for the succdem cucks.
Anonymous 04-10-21 11:18:32 No. 8246
>>8244 Again, I'm not being an apologist for the SPD, I'm not saying that the communists didn't have ample reason to distrust them, or that the SPD itself didn't snub the communists regularly or do things that objectively helped the Nazis. All I'm saying is that despite all this, a united front in hindsight still would have been the best option to combat the rise of fascism in Germany, '''and the comintern literally agreed.
,''' which is why it began urging communists elsewhere to unite with social democrats. But it seems that neither party were interested in doing so in Germany, and while the communist position may have been understandable at the time, in hindsight it was clearly a fatal mistake.
>To act like the KPD was pulling the social fascist line all the way What do you even mean by this? The KPD was absolutely promoting the social fascism line, a line which despite the many betrayals of the socdems was still completely unsound and betrayed a complete misunderstanding of what fascism was.
Anonymous 04-10-21 11:38:59 No. 8247
>>8161 >They supported the reactionary Hindenburg only to prevent Thälmann from becoming president Thalmann was never going to be president lmfao
>>8168 No, there's a disingenuous argument at play which amusingly reveals the kind of entitlement which defined the KPD during this period. In 1925 the result was that the right-backed Hindenburg came first, the centrist and SPD backed candidate came second and the KPD came an incredibly poor third. (the first two got 13-14 million votes, Thälmann got 1.9 million.)
By 1932 a good chunk of the right were disillusioned with Hindenburg because they'd hoped he'd do away with Weimar democracy, Hitler was standing for the presidency. So the SPD went for backing Hindenburg in the hopes of preserving constitutional order. I'm not saying that's the right decision - but what I am saying is let's look at the results again: 19 million Hindenburg, 13 million Hitler, 4 million Thälmann.
Yet what's thrown forward is not that the KPD should've agreed with the SPD to back a given candidate as the anti-right candidate, or even that they all try to come together to get a new candidate of the center, but that the SPD should've backed Thälmann the no-hoper! How could the SPD, the larger, more popular party turn down such a magnanimous offer?
The SPD remain the shittiest so-called "social democratic" party in Europe, but the KPD has perhaps the most insufferable victim complex of any communist party anywhere. One gets the impression that when a German communist stubs his toe he'll contrive a way to blame it on Otto Wels Anonymous 04-10-21 11:50:25 No. 8248
>>8244 >The SPD fucking murdered KPD members protesting against the NSDAP in the Blutmai incident just 3 years before Hitler came to power, then had the nerve to blame the KPD for this escalation and accusing them of trying to take over the state. That is not my understanding of said incident, which runs as follows:
The KPD decided it wasn't going to march with the SPD because the SPD were social fascists. The march was not a "protest against the NSDAP" but a may day rally. Fearing clashes between the two groups, the SPD government then banned all demonstrations. The communists defied the ban and marched anyway, at which point they were attacked by the police and fought back over the course of the next few days. This incident then made the KPD feel more smugly self-justified in deducing that the SPD were really fascists after all. (i mean, who's going to count the pennies between a Blutmai and a Buchenwald?)
Anonymous 04-10-21 12:12:05 No. 8252
>>8230 >>8226 even the portrayal of the killing of Rosa and Karl as a "stab in the back" betrays the KPD's bizarre victim complex.
in what way can one fairly regard a non-revolutionary party putting down an attempted revolution as a
betrayal ? would you seriously not expect that? was the KPD really a coalition of the most naive men and women in Germany? no, it wasn't a stab in the back: it was a stab in the
front. Anonymous 04-10-21 12:35:35 No. 8256
>>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.
Anonymous 04-10-21 13:19:04 No. 8259
>>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.
Anonymous 04-10-21 13:22:56 No. 8260
>>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.
Anonymous 04-10-21 16:29:32 No. 8263
>>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.
Anonymous 04-10-21 16:31:13 No. 8264
>>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.)
Anonymous 04-10-21 16:39:53 No. 8267
>>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.
Anonymous 05-10-21 03:30:47 No. 8270
>>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.
Anonymous 05-10-21 04:09:14 No. 8273
>>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.
Anonymous 05-10-21 04:20:53 No. 8276
>>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
Anonymous 05-10-21 06:11:28 No. 8279
>>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. Anonymous 11-10-21 03:05:15 No. 8289
>>8158 The center party left the coalition with the socdems in 1930
They definitely weren’t joining the communists.
Anonymous 26-10-21 15:08:38 No. 8511
>>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.
Anonymous 27-01-22 18:21:11 No. 9562
>>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
Glownonymous 30-03-24 03:46:57 No. 21823
>>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.
Unique IPs: 68