>>2706480Wrong once again, the SPD opposed the formation of the SED and force had to be used to ensure their compliance both before and after the merger. Thousands of social democrats were purged from the SED and as soon as there were adequate numbers of trained Communists to replace them, they were replaced in the DDR. The only reason why the SED was created is because the KPD was hunted down and nearly exterminated by the SPD their latter allies on the the far right and so the Communists lacked the numbers to actually, physically govern the state. The SED, much like the DDR itself, was never supposed to exist but allied treachery forced Stalin's hand.
When it comes to the Social Democrats in Austria, once again you are wrong. The Fascists came to power only with the assistance of the Social Democrats, as is clearly outlined in chapter 7 of Rajani Palme Dutt's book, "Fascism and The Social Revolution"
To quote:
In the first place, Austria revealed a conflict between two rival forces of Fascism, the
Heimwehr and the Nazis, openly reflecting the battle for domination of rival imperialist and
Fascist Powers over the living body of the Austrian people. There could be no more striking
demonstration of the real role of Fascism as the chauvinist predatory policy of particular
groupings of finance-capital, belying all the “national,” “popular” and “pacific” pretences. The
battle of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy over the body of Fascist Austria provides a foretaste
of the “majestic peace of World Fascism.” Both these forces were in fact equally united against
the working class, but sharply in conflict between themselves for the dominant position. In the
initial stage the Clerical-Fascism of Dollfuss, subordinate to Italian Fascism, has conquered; but
the further development of events may still bring a change of combinations and the possible
ultimate dominance of the Nazis and Pan-German Fascism. In this situation the fatal policy of
the working-class organisations under Social Democratic leadership was to endeavour to support
one Fascist group against the other, Dollfuss against the Nazis, as the “lesser evil,” and thus to
smooth the way at every stage for the advance and victory of Fascism.
Second, the Fascist dictatorship of Dollfuss grew directly out of bourgeois democracy under
Dollfuss, even more clearly than the parallel Hindenburg-Hitler process in Germany. Dollfuss
was acclaimed throughout Western Europe as the “champion of democracy against Fascism”
(i.e., against the German Nazi menace), and on this basis was supported and tolerated by Social
Democracy, at the same time as in fact he was carrying through the transition to Fascism. Up to
the last, on the very eve of the workers’ rising, Social Democracy was offering to accept and
support an emergency dictatorship of Dollfuss, the suspension of the parliamentary regime, and
institution of a form of Corporate State, on condition of being permitted to exist under these
conditions-the clearest, most conscious expression of the line of Social Fascism. The policy of
Social Democracy, of the “lesser evil,” here receives its crushing exposure no less heavily than
in Germany.
Third, the Austrian working class was the most highly organised in the capitalist world. In a
population of six millions the paying membership of the Social Democratic Party numbered six
hundred thousand, and the voting strength one and a half millions, or 70 per cent. of the
electorate in Vienna and 40 per cent. of the electorate in the whole country. There was no
question of a “split” in organisation. The Communist Party, although playing a role of great
significance in the fight (it alone gave the call for the general strike on February 10, which was
forced by the workers on the reformist leadership on the 11th), and in the actual launching of the
fight (Linz, where the united front of the Communist and Social Democratic workers had been
established in defiance of the reformist leadership, and the fight was opened against the express
orders of the reformist leadership), was nevertheless extremely weak in numbers. The attempt to
explain the advance and victory of Fascism by the “split” in the working class through the
existence of Communism is thus exploded once and for all by the example of Austria. Social
Democracy boasted of its sole complete control of the working class, and thereby admits its sole
responsibility for the outcome. “There was no split in the Austrian Labour Movement; the
Communists were merely an insignificant minority. The fact that so powerful a party should
have been completely smashed is now naturally engaging the attention of Socialists in all
countries” (Otto Bauer on “Tactical Lessons of the Austrian Catastrophe”). In reality, the
Austrian workers were split, and therefore defeated; but the split was within Social Democracy,
between the workers and the leadership, and through the action of the leadership. The real
question of the split in the working class through the existence of a Social Fascist leadership is
thus laid bare beyond the possibility of concealment.
Fourth, Austrian Social Democracy was, despite the smallness of the country, in its
theoretical role and in the high degree of organisation and supposed “practical results,” the
leading party and the “model party” of international Social Democracy, and in particular of Left
Social Democracy. Where German Social Democracy or British Labourism was far more glaring
and shameless in its virtual or specific repudiation of Marxism and acceptance of capitalism, the
corruption of the Austrian Social Democratic leadership was covered under the subtle sophistries
of “Austro-Marxism.” Further, many of the leaders were obviously “sincere” in their democratic-pacifist betrayal of the struggle; even though by their policy they did everything to assist the
strengthening of capitalism and the advance of Fascism, even though by their policy they made
the defeat of the struggle certain, though they failed to prepare it, to organise it or to lead it, and
did everything to prevent it, nevertheless, when the workers launched it in spite of them, some of
them took part and suffered. This is commonly accounted to the Austrian Social Democratic
leadership for virtue and for rebuttal of the charge of “Social Fascism.” On the contrary, just this
makes the real role of political treachery of the whole line of Social Democracy far more clear
and unmistakable. The question of politics is not a simple question of subjective “sincerity.”
Long ago, at the Second Congress of the Communist International, when Serrati endeavoured to
defend the reformist Turati as “sincere,” and argued against the Twenty-one Conditions on the
grounds that it was impossible to produce a “sincerometer “ or test of sincerity, Lenin replied:
“We have no need of such an instrument as a ‘sincerometer’; what we have is an instrument to
test political directions.” And it is in this sense that the role of Austrian Social Democracy is
revealed with unexampled clearness, with a completeness and relative absence of complicating
factors unequalled elsewhere, as a role of direct service and assistance to the victory of Fascism.
Fifth, the armed rising of the Austrian workers, both in its strength and in its weaknesses, has
marked out and lit up the future line of the fight of the international working class against
Fascism. To the experiences and lessons of this struggle, alike political, strategic and tactical, it
will be constantly necessary to recur in every country in the further development of the struggle
against Fascism.