Griffin and BNP strategy

[malatesta32]

oh yeah and the fact that the SPD had used cops against KPD actions when in government.

 

[articul8]

What ought to have been the KPD position - if not "united front"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Amazing,i talk about the SPD and he talks about the SWP. Ok, you must then think the SWP are the modern day equivalent of the SPD then or your analogy doesn't work. How many members do you have? How many regions do you run? How many police forces? How many guns?

"Ok, you must then think" ROFL butch boy wonder telling people what they think, now that's something never see allllllllllllllllll the fucking time.

Instead guessing, wrongly, what I think, why don't you guess what you think the KPD should have done, and share it with us. I mean, have you had anything more to say than "give up" for 134 pages?

[tumble weed moment smiley]

ETA, just noticed "Amazing,i talk about the SPD and he talks about the SWP." who ya talking to butch, your followers? ROFL Your getting a bit Scargilesque. Do you have a comb over, and talk about yourself in the third person down the pub?

 

[TremulousTetra]

oh yeah and the fact that the SPD had used cops against KPD actions when in government.

Don't forget Rosa Luxemburg. KPD slogan should have, "Comrades, I stand before and plead for revenge, not revolution."

 

[The39thStep]

. Y
Yes,your always right.

And at this point where anti-fascist tactics have successfully once again broke up the organisations of fascism , there may be some merit to your argument, temporarily.even a stopped clock is right twice a day. However, your stopped clock strategy, mimicking the KP D, is wrong.

How have the SWPs united front anti fascist tactics ( based on Trotsky's analysis of the 1930s) broken up the organisations of fascism?

 

[articul8]

How have the SWPs united front anti fascist tactics ( based on Trotsky's analysis of the 1930s) broken up the organisations of fascism?

That's a valid question - but not the same as answering what the KPD should have done if not followed a united front type arrangement.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's a valid question - but not the same as answering what the KPD should have done if not followed a united front type arrangement.

[Tumbleweed Smiley]

 

[Joe Reilly]

What ought to have been the KPD position - if not "united front"?

The whole 'united front' theme has aways been a bit of a red herring. it's purpose is to allow liberals/Trots to load responsibility onto the actual anti-fascist fighters - while near everyone else gets a free pass.

The fact is had the SPD pulled their weight - fought with the same degree of diligence as the rank and file KPD from 1924 when the latter first flagged the particular danger (in a strong field of right wing parties near all with paramilitary wings) of the National Socialists, then the outcome may well have been different.

Equally has the SPD shown the same lack of appetite for the fry from within the 'united front', the upshot of their involvement could only have resulted in the blunting the KPD cutting edge and demoralisation of its supporters.

 

[articul8]

The whole 'united front' theme has aways been a bit of a red herring. it's purpose is to allow liberals/Trots to load responsibility onto the actual anti-fascist fighters - while near everyone else gets a free pass.

Not at all its to criticise the Moscow inspired lunacy of third period absurd leadership posturing.

The fact is had the SPD pulled their weight - fought with the same degree of diligence as the rank and file KPD from 1924 when the latter first flagged the particular danger (in a strong field of right wing parties near all with paramilitary wings) of the National Socialists, then the outcome may well have been different.

Yes I agree.

Equally has the SPD shown the same lack of appetite for the fry from within the 'united front', the upshot of their involvement could only have resulted in the blunting the KPD cutting edge and demoralisation of its supporters.

This is to miss the meaning of a genuine united front - which is not some amorphous unity mongering with pacifists and liberals (which is where - I agree - the ANL Mk II/UAF goes wrong btw) - it's about agreement amongst working class organisations to fight the common fascist enemy wherever it is found, whilst continuing to promote their own different programmes.

 

[Joe Reilly]

- to fight the common fascist enemy wherever it is found

Which is precisely what the SPD failed to do throughout the 20's and 30's.

 

[articul8]

yes - are you saying that the SPD wasn't a party supported by millions of German workers?

[edit - to reply to Joe's clarification] Yes they did, until it was too late. I'm not one-sidedly blaming the KPD here by any means.

 

[TremulousTetra]

yes - are you saying that the SPD wasn't a party supported by millions of German workers?

He/they won't get it.

Notice we are back on the United front, criticising it, not discussing what they propose the KPD should have done.always criticising what people are doing, while offering nothing.

UAF

 

[ViolentPanda]

http://www.marx.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1969/no038/1930.htm

...And?

I'm supposed to take an article that provides a partisan viewpoint, and cites 4 sources against all the other information I've accumulated on the subject and related subjects?

 

[ViolentPanda]

well spotted. don't think the butch boy wonder read that.
which if the KPD had connected with in a united front form, instead of being sectarianly hostile, the United front COULD have acted as a conveyor from reformist to revolutionary politics.

So the KPD should have given themselves over to serving as the "armed wing" of a united front, exposing the entire membership to liquidation while the SPD sat back and reaped any benefits?

You hang everything on the "social fascism" schtick, but the KPD/SPD animus preceded that and ran deeper. If you knew your history, you'd know why the KPD, even outwith following Moscow's direction, would have had a hard time aligning with the SPD.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Read what? Not sure that you quite grasped the point being made by Joe. In fact, i'm sure that you did not.

I do like this naive idea that you have of the good SPD who were just waiting to fight the Nazis if only the KPD would hold hands with them. It essentially says that those workers of the KPD flavour who hadn't forgot Noske, hadn't forgot the SPD using the freikorps on the revolution, the SPD cops massacring people on mayday,the SPD attacks on welfare and unemployment payments and so on would just go along with such an order from above. It totally ignores the social and political reality of weimar Germany - it's utterly redundant to say that the answer to a organisationally, socially and politically divided class is for them to unite. It's even more redundant when you are not aware of these divisions nor off anything to overcome them. Fantasy politics.

Quite.
To reduce the attitude of the KPD to extremely simplistic terms, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I've tried to get this through to rmp3 many times - that the KPD weren't being spiteful in refusing a united front with the SPD on the basis of the SPD being "social fascists", they were bearing in mind history and an appreciation of the SPD's constituency, and what the KPD could expect from such a united front.

 

[ViolentPanda]

just doing this for the 'malatesta' book. as well as revolutionary vs reform, Bessel says that it was cultural differences as well with KPD/SPD: youth v older, unemployed v worker, 'new street' politics rather than the vote. which was also an attractive in the NSDAP. 2 KPD blunders: the joint Berlin transport strike with the fash and the 'social fascists' thing. what i wanna know is what is the case for the united front? if any? anyone?

In my opinion Bessel is right in general, but glosses over some issues in order to arrive at his conclusions. The cultural differences between the SPD and KPD weren't quite as clear-cut (both parties contained elements from each of the supposed binary opposites), and the "blunders", while they look great in hindsight, don't have quite as much weight attached to them by contemporaneous sources. While the joint transport strike lost them members, they made up the lost ground fairly promptly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh yeah and the fact that the SPD had used cops against KPD actions when in government.

And also fallen in with government action while in opposition that affected the KPD. That the KPD bore this in mind when contemplating a united anti-fascist front isn't surprising - they'd taken many knocks from the SPD or with SPD complicity when arguably they could have expected a little less eagerness from their soft-left brethren.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What ought to have been the KPD position - if not "united front"?

Let's turn that question around a bit.

What do you think should have been their position given the history between the SPD and KPD?

 

[ViolentPanda]

How have the SWPs united front anti fascist tactics ( based on Trotsky's analysis of the 1930s) broken up the organisations of fascism?

They have destroyed the organisations of fascism by burying them under millions of tons of unsold copies of "socialist Worker".

 

[articul8]

You hang everything on the "social fascism" schtick, but the KPD/SPD animus preceded that and ran deeper. If you knew your history, you'd know why the KPD, even outwith following Moscow's direction, would have had a hard time aligning with the SPD.

A genuine united front (the term has been much abused of late) is not some kind of political alignment - it is about maximum effective working class unity in the face of a direct threat to its organisations (plural). Now I don't underestimate how much mutual antagonism stood in the way of realising it. But what ought the KPD to have done? I still don't know what the answer to this if it isn't a united front?

 

[TremulousTetra]

So the KPD should have given themselves over to serving as the "armed wing" of a united front, exposing the entire membership to liquidation while the SPD sat back and reaped any benefits?

WTF just make stuff up.

You hang everything on the "social fascism" schtick, but the KPD/SPD animus preceded that and ran deeper. If you knew your history, you'd know why the KPD, even outwith following Moscow's direction, would have had a hard time aligning with the SPD.

So they had a good excuse of being on the receiving end of a history of sectarian abuse by the SDP, to put revenge before revolution and the interest of the working class?where did that get them? The concentration camps.

anyway, fuck this, this has been done on here. Answer the question that articulate asked. If not united front, what?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Quite.
To reduce the attitude of the KPD to extremely simplistic terms, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I've tried to get this through to rmp3 many times - that the KPD weren't being spiteful in refusing a united front with the SPD on the basis of the SPD being "social fascists", they were bearing in mind history and an appreciation of the SPD's constituency, and what the KPD could expect from such a united front.

you dont get it.

yes - are you saying that the SPD wasn't a party supported by millions of German workers?

[edit - to reply to Joe's clarification] Yes they did, until it was too late. I'm not one-sidedly blaming the KPD here by any means.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Let's turn that question around a bit.

What do you think should have been their position given the history between the SPD and KPD?

What do you think?

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is to miss the meaning of a genuine united front - which is not some amorphous unity mongering with pacifists and liberals (which is where - I agree - the ANL Mk II/UAF goes wrong btw) - it's about agreement amongst working class organisations to fight the common fascist enemy wherever it is found, whilst continuing to promote their own different programmes.

Except that's it's hard to establish that the above is what the SPD had in mind for a united front, especially one that would have seen the KPD membership physically risking far more than the SPD. It would have been convenient for the SPD for the KPD to decimate (or worse) its grassroots membership "on the streets" while the majority of the SPD membership (even excluding the "fair-weather friends" who oscillated between the SPD and the nationalist parties) held itself aloof from such uncouth endeavour as physical direct action.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which is precisely what the SPD failed to do throughout the 20's and 30's.

At least, they failed to do what the KPD and the NSDAP, DNP etc did, which was to retain their own paramilitary formations and to deploy them tactically where and when required.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes - are you saying that the SPD wasn't a party supported by millions of German workers?

The SPD had millions of members who were German workers.
They also had millions of members who were members of the petit and haute bourgeoisie.

The KPD, on the other hand, drew the great majority of its membership from the German working classes.

Ponder that, and on how the more socially-diverse membership of the SPD meant that it in effect represented mostly a contested centre-ground rather than the interests of "the workers".

 

[ViolentPanda]

you dont get it.

I entirely "get it". I've studied the history of inter-war Germany from several different perspectives - from the perspectives of KPD and SPD members who wrote about Weimar pre- and post-WW2, from the perspective of academic historians, and from the popular historical perspective.

In two languages.

The SPD represented their membership, the KPD theirs. The intersection between the two was partial, as was the commonality of interest.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I entirely "get it". I've studied the history of inter-war Germany from several different perspectives - from the perspectives of KPD and SPD members who wrote about Weimar pre- and post-WW2, from the perspective of academic historians, and from the popular historical perspective.

In two languages.

The SPD represented their membership, the KPD theirs. The intersection between the two was partial, as was the commonality of interest.

but you dont get the point articulate is making in english

 

[TremulousTetra]

The SPD had millions of members who were German workers.

so when the UAF ALLEGEDLY labelled the workers who vote BNP fascist, is this wrong [eta] tactically?

 

[articul8]

The SPD represented their membership, the KPD theirs. The intersection between the two was partial, as was the commonality of interest.

Obviously. But where they *did* share a common interest was in not seeing their meetings, their organisations, smashed by fascists who didn't discriminate but wanted the entire workers movement smashed. That was the basis not for a political realignment or merger, sure, but for a limited but real effectively tactical unity against a common threat.

Now, if you don't believe that a united front was achievable (or desirable?) what do you suggest the KPD should have done? Seriously, given that the situation isn't one of their choosing, there's no point just saying, well, we don't have the strength to beat the fascists on our own, but the SPD are a shower of cunts. That might be true but surely the first pre-requisite is not being smashed off the streets?