-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE DIVISION OF
THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT :
WORKERS AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN
THE FRANKFURT AREA 1929/1930
James Wickham
How could the working class movement split when confronted by
the
obvious menace of Nazism? This paper argues that this split,
represented
by the 'social fascism' line of the European communist parties
in the late
1920s, cannot be adequately assessed by a political critique of
the workers
parties or by a sociological analysis of the composition of the
working
class . Instead it develops an historical analysis of the formal
and informal
institutions of the German working class movement which breaks
down
the artificial dichotomy between 'organisation' and
'spontaneity' . This
analysis reveals how the decline of informal class organisations
in the
mid-1920s created a situation in which the 'social fascism' line
could
become a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Increasingly British socialists are claiming that it is possible
to learn
from the rise of Nazism over forty years ago how to fight the
growing
threat of the National Front in England today . Obviously there
are simi-
larities between the two situations : historically high
unemployment,
capital re-structuring, political crisis within the bourgeoisie
itself . However,
not the least of the differences is the fact that in Germany
before 1933
there existed two mass parties which claimed to represent the
German
working class-the KPD (Communists) and the SPD (Social
Democrats) -
two parties which both refused to undertake any joint action
against the
Nazis. This paper attempts to explain how this mutual antagonism
came
about and how it could be sustained in the face of apparently
obvious
evidence of its fatal consequences. This will involve taking as
the object of
enquiry not the political parties as such, but the working class
movement
itself.
Here we are immediately on uncharted territory, for while
socialists
continually talk of 'the working class movement', it is by no
means clear
-
2
CAPITAL & CLASS
what this actually is. Working class political history is
usually written
either as a history of political institutions (parties, trade
unions etc .), or as
the 'social history' of the bases of these formal institutions .
Accordingly,
after a brief historical outline of the main developments of
working class
politics during the Weimar Republic[1 ] which suggests the
relevance of this
focus, the second part of the paper attempts to 'theorise' the
concept of
the working class movement : subsequent sections examine
political organi-
sation in one local area of Germany primarily in the period
1929/1930 .
The local focus is important, because it is only at this level
that it is
possible to answer the questions which the stress on the working
class
movement raises-namely the nature of the 'rank-and-file'
situation in
which political organisation occurs .
1 . THE WORKERS, THE PARTIES AND THE MOVEMENT
The victory of Nazism was at the same time the defeat of both
the
largest communist party and the largest social democratic party
in Europe .
The SPD, founded in 1875, had been the largest party of pre-War
social
democracy within the Second International, with more than 1 m .
members
by 1914 and polling 34.7% of the vote in the 1912 elections to
the largely
powerless Reichstag (parliament) (Hunt, 1970, p . 2) . Like most
of the
other parties in the Second International, in August 1914 the
SPD rallied
to the support of 'its' nation, but by 1917 a minority had split
off to form
the USPD (Independent Social Democrats) on a platform of
opposition to
the War; within the USPD the Spartakusbund, led by Rosa
Luxemburg and
Karl Liebknecht, formed an explicitly revolutionary left-wing
which in
December 1918 declared itself the German communist party and
became
one of the founding sections of the Third International .
Despite these
divisions, the period from November 1918 to October 1923 in
Germany
can be characterised as one of 'working class offensive'-a
period of mass
movements which repeatedly frontally challenged the power of
the
bourgeois state and a period in which the strike rate reached
never-to-be-
repeated levels .
The November Revolution which ended the War took the form of
Rate (councils or soviets) that were set up in almost every town
. The
council's members were drawn from all three working class
political parties
and they controlled the administration and supervised, even if
they did not
replace, the authorities . The final suppression of the councils
during 1919
was followed in 1920 by a right-wing military putsch, defeated
by a uni-
versal general strike supported by all three parties-a strike
which in the
Ruhr area culminated in an armed workers' rising . In 1921 there
was
another workers' armed insurrection in Central Germany ; in
mid-1923
another general strike forced the resignation of the right wing
government
of Chancellor Cuno, at a time when arguably the KPD had the
support of
the majority of German workers (Rosenberg, 1970, p . 137).
Although the
autumn of the same year saw the first openly fascist attempt to
seize state
power (Hitler's 'beer hall putsch' in Munich,)[2] at the same
time the army
(with the toleration of the SPD leadership) forcibly deposed the
state
governments of Saxony and Thuringia where a coalition between
the KPD
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
3
and the local left-wing SPD was openly forming workers' militias
.
The KPD's attempt to launch a 'German October' in autumn
1923
had been a complete fiasco,[3] but after a brief and equally
disastrous
'ultra-left' period under the leadership of Ruth Fischer and
Ernst Maslow
the party consolidated its strength . again, membership for
example rising
from 95,000 in 1924 to 130,000 in 1928 and the share of the vote
rising
from 9% in December 1924 to 10 .6% in 1928, both members and
voters
being overwhelmingly working class . For its part the SPD, which
since
1922 included the right wing of the now defunct USPD, was in
govern-
ment from 1928 and had in the same year a total membership of
over
0.8m. and a popular vote of 29 .8%. Although both members and
voters
clearly included a large petty bourgeois element, it is clear
that the
majority of them were also drawn from the working class . Purely
in terms
of votes and members then, both KPD and SPD) remained major
political
forces during the years of relative political and economic
stability between
1924 and 1929 . However, the subsequent period was to bring not
a re-
vitalised working class offensive, building on this apparently
existing
strength, but working class defeat .
In the renewed political crisis which roughly coincided with
the
world-wide Great Depression from 1929 onwards, the Nazi
party
developed for the first time into a mass movement, its votes
rising from
2 .6% in 1928 to a peak of 33 .9% in July 1932 (Lipset, 1963, p
. 141), a
growth which was at minimum facilitated by the conflict between
the SPD
and the KPD. The SPD, ejected from government in 1930, clung
des-
perately to its policy of 'the lesser evil', tolerating
increasingly reactionary
governments because of its fear of admitting the Nazis into the
state and
essentially treated the Nazis and the Communists as equally
dangerous ex-
tremists. Conversely the KPD, following the Comintern theory of
'social
fascism', declared that fighting the SPD was at least as
important as
fighting the Nazis, and, just like the SPD, refused to
countenance any
attempts by its members to co-operate with the rival party
against the
fascist threat .
This brief chronological account highlights two important
differences
between the period of working class offensive and the two
subsequent
periods . Firstly, the period of working class offensive was one
in which the
mass movements were always larger than the political parties
involved in
them: the movements dominated the parties, and not vice versa.
Secondly,
solely in the first period did what can only be called
successful political
innovation occur-only in the period of mass movements was it
also
possible for new organisations to form which subsequently became
mass
parties . This rather obvious linkage suggests however a perhaps
less obvious
conclusion : in order to explain in any situation the policies
which parties
adopt and their members actually follow, it is necessary to
examine not
the parties as such, nor their social basis, but the wider
movement within
which the parties are located . This movement can after all be
thought of
existing not just as the 'mass movements' of strikes and
demonstrations,
but as that whole informal and usually uncharted political world
within
which socialists talk, agitate and organise . Since this
political world under-
goes changes just as important as either the policies of the
parties . or the
-
4CAPITAL & CLASS
economic and social situation of their supporters, it is to
specifying what
such an understanding of 'the working class movement' involves
that we
now turn .
2 . THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT[4]
Any account of the final defeat of the German working class
move-
ment by Nazism has to be able to explain the 'ultra-left' policy
of the
KPD. This is not to place all the blame for Nazism's success on
the com-
munists, as contemporary social democratic accounts tend to do,
nor is it
to claim that the SPD leadership itself was particularly willing
to co-oper-
ate with the KPD, even if only in a defensive alliance against
the Nazis .
The analysis of the conjuncture of 1929/1930 starts with the
problem of
the KPD simply because this party claimed to be able to lead
both the
fight against fascism and the fight for socialism : any
assessment of KPD
policy has to explain how, given the anti-communism of the SPD,
the KPD
came to adopt a policy which in retrospect made achievement of
its aims
impossible. As will become clear, formulating such an
explanation raises
general problems of the analysis of working class politics which
are hardly
confined to the problem of the KPD in the Weimar Republic ; at
the same
time, if such an explanation involves recourse to concepts more
familiar in
sociological than strictly marxist discourse, this is because
one remarkable
weakness of conventional marxist theory is precisely its
inability to
analyse the forms of working class politics in specific
conjunctures .
Normal accounts of social fascism, like most accounts of any
other
specific form of working class politics, usually rely on a
varying mixture of
two in fact opposed arguments . On the one hand there is what
might be
called an economistic approach, as for instance in studies in
the 'mass
society' tradition (cf . Barbu, 1956 ; Kornhauser, 1960) . The
mass un-
employment of the Great Depression is seen as dividing the
working class
into two opposed camps of employed and unemployed workers,
organised
politically in the SPD and the KPD respectively : politics are
explained in
terms of an assumed economic situation, from which political
action is
simply derived . In fact, a more accurate description of this
argument is
that it is sociological, since it assumed that the employed and
unemployed
formed two distinct social groups which different parties merely
reflected .
The empirical problems with such an argument are clear : it is
easy to
find counter-examples outside of Germany in the Depression where
mass
unemployment led to political apathy rather than revolutionary
politics, [5]
just as it is clear that within Germany the membership, let
alone the elec-
torate, of the SPD and KPD were not simply identical with
employed and
unemployed workers . "At a theoretical level, the sociological
argument
assumes that 'the unemployed' can be treated as a given social
group, and
further, as one which is automatically radical without the
actual politics
of this radicalism having to be further examined . By contrast,
what will be
called the 'political' argument operates the other way round,
explaining
the politics of the KPD purely in terms of the decisions of the
leadership
and treating the social basis of the party as unimportant (cf .
Weber, 1969 ;
Bahne, 1976) . Consequently, it becomes impossible to ask why a
particular
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
5
policy should actually have been accepted by the party
membership, since
these are seen as carrying out whatever orders they receive from
on high .
In practice most accounts use a mixture of these arguments, yet
if
both arguments are theoretically untenable, one because it
reduces politics
to the mere expression of social situation, the other because
policies are
unrelated to the situation of their adherents, then merely
adding the two
together will not help-it is necessary to change the very terms
of the dis-
cussion within which the two positions are the opposing poles.
Before out-
lining how this can be done, it will be useful to consider two
influential
recent marxist works, each of which expresses with particular
clarity one
of the two arguments-firstly Poulantzas' Fascism and
Dictatorship, and
secondly Roth's Die andere'Arbeiterbewegung .
Poulantzas sees the policy of the KPD as one position within
the
general line of the Comintern, a line which is for him
characterised in its
entirety as an 'economistic deviation', that is to say, the
assumption that
the advance of the productive forces ensures the ultimate
victory of social-
ism, and closely linked to this, that capitalism can be reduced
to a simple
contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat . Within this
overall
perspective, the apparent opposites of the strategies of
'Popular Front' and
'Class Against Class' were simply right and left wing variants
of a common
theme, the choice between which was in the last resort
determined by the
situation of the class struggle in Russia itself.
Poulantzas' discussion of Comintern theory is important, because
it
suggests how in many ways the conventional Trotskyist critique
rests on
similar assumptions to the position it criticises . However, the
restriction of
the analysis to the explicit pronouncements of the Comintern
entails
certain problems. Firstly, Poulantzas assumes that the Comintern
leaders'
actual policies were the same as what they were announced to be
. Yet this
is untenable. For example, there is considerable (and long
available)
evidence that the leaders of the Comintern, unlike perhaps the
average
KPD militant, did not in fact consider revolution in Germany to
be a
realistic possibility at the end of the Weimar Republic .
Further, the
Russian determinants of KPD policy can hardly be reduced to a
deviation
within Comintern theory . However much the KPD and the
Comintern
might inveigh in public against the 'reactionary monopoly
capitalists', in
fact for the foreign policy of the Russian state the main aim
was the pre-
vention of a Franco-German alliance . Accordingly, these same
reactionary
monopolists were potential if temporary allies since they were
revanchist
and Francophobe, while the SPD was necessarily the chief enemy
because
of its commitment to 'fulfilment' of the conditions of the
Versailles
Treaty (cf. Weingartner, 1970, esp . p . 21 f, pp . 77ff.)
More seriously, since Poulantzas locates the origins of social
fascism
in Russia, he, like conventional histories of the KPD, is unable
to explain
why such a policy could have been supported, or at least
passively
tolerated, by more than a quarter of a million KPD members : the
'Bolshev-
isation' of the KPD legitimates treating the party in isolation
from the
working class of which it claimed to be a part . This weakness
cannot be
overcome merely by stressing the effects of the SPD's
participation in the
Great Coalition government of 1928-1930 and the linked
increased
-
6
CAPITAL & CLASS
repression of communist opposition within the trade unions-both
factors
which are claimed by Lehndorff to have pushed the KPD towards
the
social fascism theory . Just because the social democratic and
trade union
leaderships shifted rightwards, this does not by itself mean
that KPD
members automatically had no realistic option but to treat these
organis-
ations as inherently reactionary . It was after all an SPD
minister who used
the army to smash the councils in 1919, it was an SPD minister
who was
largely responsible for defeating the Ruhr rising in 1920, but
none of this
made KPD members refuse to co-operate with members of the SPD
at
local level, or refuse to work within the trade unions, yet by
1929 many
KPD members were prepared to do both .
Clearly, this problem cannot be tackled by arguments which
concen-
trate solely on policies without considering the class to which
such policies
were intended to appeal . It is this that makes, relevant the
contribution of
recent German socialist historians who have examined the
internal
structure of the working class.[6] Thus, in a pathbreaking and
extremely
influential re-analysis of the course of German working . class
history, Roth
has argued that the history of the class is the history of its
continual
division by capital through the creation of a privileged,
skilled and
reformist section-that section of the working class upon which
all the
official organisations are based . By contrast, it is in the
'massed working
class', the unskilled and semi-skilled workers exposed to the
direct
command of capital, workers who are often foreigners, always
culturally
and politically unintegrated, despised by the conventional
political or-
ganisations and neglected by traditional socialist history, that
the real
revolutionary force of capitalism lies .
Roth's 'history from below' has certainly rescued from the
contempt
and even ignorance of conventional historians the mass of
unorganised,
unskilled and even apparently 'unpolitical' workers . However,
as it stands,
the argument is in fact the mirror image of that of Poulantzas,
for Roth
treats questions of political theory and strategy as the direct
expression
of a particular social group-the division between reformist and
revo-
lutionary politics merely reflects the division between
privileged and un-
privileged workers .[7] Because Roth argues in this way, and
because in his
rather cursory discussion of the final years of the Weimar
Republic, he
treats the unemployed and the unskilled 'massified' workers as
socially
identical, it would seem legitimate to take Roth as presenting a
marxist
version of the automatic radicalism of the unemployed argument
criti-
cised above .
The first problem with Roth's approach is that he assumes that
only
the actions of the 'other working class movement' really
matter.[8] Thus,
in a surprising convergence with the official Comintern analyses
of the
final period of the Weimar Republic situation, Roth sees this as
a time of
renewed mass offensive in which the mass of unskilled and
unemployed
workers again move onto the attack . Yet this not only
completely exagger-
ates the importance of the strikes and unemployed demonstrations
which
did occur, but more importantly, it fails to notice their key
feature,
namely their isolation from the bulk of the class .
Secondly, Roth has an inadequate theory of organisation .[9]
A
-
SOC/AL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
7
revolutionary struggle, so it appears, is one which directly
challenges the
power of capital, and in turn is defined as any struggle which
takes place
outside the official organisations of the working class. Strikes
which occur
outside the official trade unions are seen as automatically
challenging the
division between economic and political conflict which such
organisations
institutionalise-'wild' or 'unofficial' strikes are de facto
'revolutionary' .
This fetishism of 'spontaneity' operates to prevent any
investigation of the
actual organisational form of these struggles-it is simply
assumed that
because there were no paid bureaucracies and written records,
such
struggles were spontaneous . While amongst German socialist
historians,
Roth has been the first to pose the question of the political
significance of
divisions within the working class, he does this by
counterposing the elite
workers to the mass of workers, and, like an old-fashioned
conservative
historian, he sees the masses as precisely a mass-unorganised,
leaderless,
impulsive, elemental -the categories are the same, merely the
moral evalu-
ation is reversed .
The arguments of both Roth and Poulantzas turn out then to
operate
within the same conceptual space : the polarities of leaders and
led, organi-
sation and spontaneity . Instead of adopting the conventional
solution, the
eclectic combination of the two positions, it is necessary to
break down
these dichotomies, and to focus on the organisation of the
working class
movement itself. The organisation of the working class movement
because,
against Roth, however elemental class struggle may appear, it
always in-
volves organisation and at the same time is never the movement
of all
members of a specified social category. The organisation of the
working
class movement because, against Poulantzas, class struggle is
never the
private property of specific institutions, not even of
revolutionary parties .
Such an approach takes as its starting point neither policies
nor social
bases, but the everyday activity of militants . Immediately,
this makes clear
that organisation can hardly be treated as restricted to the
activities of
institutions such as unions or political parties, for these are
only the
formalised pinnacle of a potentially much wider network of
activity .
Accordingly, the term working class movement must be taken as
referring
to all resistance to capitalist domination and exploitation
which is both
collective and explicit .
To make clear that what is involved is a social movement, it is
useful
to distinguish between institutions and quasi-institutions .
Institutions refer
to formal organisations with a codified organisational
structure, a defined
membership and often paid officials . The institutions of the
working class
movement are centrally then the political parties and the trade
unions,
together with their ancillary organisations . Further, in Weimar
Germany
these institutions also included the massive workers' sporting
and singing
clubs, for these too were formal organisations (complete with
their own
full-time officials) which were explicitly linked to working
class political
positions . Quasi-institutions by contrast are less formalised
and range from
shop stewards' committees and tenants' associations (some of
which
become institutions in the full sense of the word), through
organisations
such as factory delegate meetings to friendship networks and
other
'informal' contacts. All of these involve political organisation
-they are all
-
8
CAPITAL & CLASS
ways in which people come together to resist together .
Defining the working class movement in this way is important for
two
reasons. Firstly, it overcomes many of the problems associated
with the
notion of 'class consciousness' . Not only does it analyse
locatable practices
rather than imputed ideas, it also overcomes the perennial
problem that
'working class' political action never actually involves all
members of 'the
working class', but nearly always also involves non-workers as
well (cf .
Hindess, 1977) . Taking the working class movement, and not the
working
class as such, as the object of analysis dispenses with the
problematic
notion of class subjects . Secondly, this approach allows us to
break down
the whole dichotomy between spontaneity and organisation, which
is
largely the dubious legacy of leninism within marxist political
theory . It
allows us to grasp the full political importance of Gramsci's
claim that
spontaneity as such does not exist, and restore to their
rightful place
everyday organisational activities without falling into
theoretical
spontaneism . [10]
However, just as it is important to treat the working class
movement
as wider than official institutions, it is equally important to
delimit it . The
working class movement does not include forms of resistance
which are
either individual, or more importantly, subcultural, nor is it
the same as
the concept of 'proletarian public' developed by Negt and Kluge
. Not only
do these authors essentially treat 'public' as an extension of
'conscious-
ness', but the concept is continually treated as including
questions of life
style, so that the domain of the political is dramatically
over-extended .
Forms of adaptation and resistance to capitalism such as either
the tradi-
tional extended working class family or contemporary forms of
youth
culture may well be actually more of an impediment to the smooth
accu-
mulation of capital than a well integrated trade union movement
(cf . Hall
and Jefferson, 1976), but this 'resistance' is largely
'unconscious' . It does
not have the distinguishing feature of a social movement, that
of an or-
ganised practice orientated towards the achievement of a
(however
limitedly) different state of affairs .
The working class movement, in contrast then to working class
culture,
involves explicit resistance . As such, despite the rhetoric of
its members, it
is not the class itself : the world of the working class
movement is the
world of the rank and file militant attempting to mobilise
support for
economic, political and ideological change . This stratum of
militants is
variable in a number of ways . The crucial questions for a
materialist
analysis of the origins and effects of social fascism concern
not just the
number and social location of these militants, although this is
obviously
important, but above all the organisational form of the working
class
movement which they made up .
Firstly, it is necessary to examine the degree to which a
unified
working class movement existed before the advent of the social
fascism
line. This is not, it cannot be stressed enough, a question
merely of the
degree of co-operation between the SPD and KPD at a party level,
but of
the extent to which it was possible for party militants to
co-operate with
each other across party boundaries . To the extent that this did
occur, what
forms did this co-operation take and what was its
quasi-institutional basis?
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
9
To what extent, in other words, were there quasi-institutions
which
enabled such co-operation independent of the parties themselves?
Further,
in order to gauge the effects of social fascism, it is necessary
to know what
the policy of social fascism meant for these quasi-institutional
links : the
division of the working class movement for which the policy of
social
fascism is often blamed can only be said to have occurred if in
fact it made
such 'informal' co-operation impossible .
Secondly, to what extent was the working class movement
indepen-
dent of the political parties as such? To the extent that
militants could
operate within a quasi-institutional area which was outside of
the control
of any one political party, they would have had a power basis to
which the
leadership would have had to respond . For example, if KPD
oppositional-
ists had no other area of activity open to them apart from the
KPD itself,
then if they were expelled they would be faced with the
alternative of in-
activity or joining the SPD, for forming a new and competing n
political
party would be an unrealistic possibility . In other words, to
the extent
that the working class movement in its entirety was actually
co-extensive
with the political parties, then opposition within them could be
relatively
easily over-ridden by the party leaderships .
Thirdly, what was the relationship between the working class
move-
ment and the different sections of the working class itself? Did
above all
quasi-institutions exist which spanned the different economic
divisions
within the class, such as between unskilled and skilled, between
employed
and unemployed, even between men and women? To the extent that
this
was the case, then revolutionary politics would have a realistic
chance of
reaching wide areas of the class, but to the extent that this
was not the
case, then such social divisions could also become political
divisions and
revolutionary politics could be encapsulated in the ghetto of
one particular
section of the class .
Obviously, to begin to tackle such questions in historical
research in-
volves methodological as well as theoretical problems . After
all, one reason
why the history of the working class is written so often as a
history of in-
stitutions and of formal ideologies is that this is so much
easier, even if the
unfortunate result is inevitably that official definitions of
politics and or-
ganisation are thus accepted . Such problems are particularly
acute in the
case of Weimar Germany, where the very strength of the working
class
movement involved massively organised institutions, continually
churning
out documentation of their own existence . As a result, the
existence of the
movement itself, apart from its institutional pinnacles, is not
nearly so
clear as in the British case, where the working class movement,
because
weaker, was also less institutionalised, and so its existence
was and is
paradoxically clearer .
Nonetheless, the conventional sources of local political
history-above
all newspapers and police reports-can be used to reconstruct the
form of
the working class movementin Weimar Germany . This will allow
an
analysis of social fascism which goes beyond both the
'political' critique of
the KPD's explicit theory and the 'sociological' analysis of the
party's
social basis . Assessing the strategy of social fascism within
this perspective
involves gauging the strategy's effects not on 'working class
consciousness',
-
10
CAPITAL & CLASS
but on the organisation of the working class movement itself .
The KPD's
effectiveness against fascism then was the extent to which the
party could
unify and extend the movement and in so doing overcome the
divisions
which rationalisation and subsequent mass unemployment tended
to
create; the KPD's effectiveness as a party of socialist
transformation was
the extent to which it enabled political practices that aimed at
the achieve-
ment of socialism to be hegemonic within the working class
movement
itself .
As we shall now see, the KPD completely failed to achieve such
ends .
Instead, it systematically exacerbated existing pressures
towards the divi-
sion of the movement and hence towards the isolation of the
party, even
though it was these same pressures-in interaction with the
policies of
both the SPD and the KPD itself-on the organisation of the
movement
which also explains the undoubted attractiveness and
'rationality' of social
fascism to many of the KPD's own adherents .
3. THE KPD AND THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR DEFEAT
The essential pre-conditions of the KPD's policy of social
fascism, and
hence of the party's ultimate defeat in 1933, were the changes
that had
occurred within the working class movement before the onset of
renewed
political and economic crisis . As this first section of the
local study of the
Frankfurt area will now attempt to demonstrate,(11 ] between
1923 and
1929 theree were major alterations on the forms of organisation
of the
movement itself, in the relationship between the movement as
such and
the KPD and the SPD, and finally in the relationship between the
move-
ment and the working class . That is to say, the first stage of
an explanation
of social fascism lies not just in the evolution of the KPD's
own strategy,
nor merely in economic changes as such, but in how these
interacted to
produce changes within the working class movement itself .
Recent work on the KPD in the Weimar Republic, and in
particular
the important study of unemployment and rationalisation by
Eva-Cornelia
Schock, has tended to argue that the KPD was already both
socially and
politically isolated by 1929 . This argument however has to be
heavily
qualified. Thus it is clear for example that during this period
the party
was by no means merely a party of unemployed workers : by 1927
not
only were a majority of members employed, but 62% were also
trade
union members; in the party's Hessen-Frankfurt regional area
indeed this
proportion stood above the average at 70% .(12] Like elsewhere
in
Germany, during the period of relative stability in the
Frankfurt area the
party had made considerable gains, in particular outside the
city itself .
Thus both in adjacent Offenbach, a town based on small scale
production
in the leather and metal industries, and in nearby Hanau, an
entirely indus-
trial town centred around predominantly small-scale
metal-working, the
KPD played an important role in local town politics and above
all in local
trade union affairs, in Hanau controlling the local branch of
the DMV (the
metalworkers' union), in Offenbach that of the leatherworkers'
union .
In Frankfurt itself the KPD was much less influential than this
in
trade union affairs, but this did not mean to say that it was
politically
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
11
isolated . After the defeat of the mass movements of 1923, the
KPD was
still able to initiate such popular mass campaigns as the
solidarity move-
ment with the British General Strike in 1926 (a campaign which
culmina-
ted in a meeting of 20,000 in the city's largest hall), the
campaign for the
release of Sacco and Vanzetti, and above all the referendum
movement for
the expropriation of the property of the old princely families .
By 1928 the
SPD fraction in the city parliament was increasingly distancing
itself from
the mayor's policy of liberal and progressivist municipal
expansion, and it
was possible for the fraction chairman, Karl Kirchner, to be
seriously con-
sidering the policy advocated by the left wing of his party-a
local alliance
with the KPD.[13]
Furthermore, and not to be underestimated, although the SPD
con-
trolled the 'cultural' organisations such as the workers'
sporting clubs and
the workers' singing clubs, and indeed ensured that they
received muni-
cipal subsidies, these were open to KPD members and definitely
provided
an arena which could be regarded as the common meeting ground of
the
mass demonstrations and the everyday club life of workers'
recreational
associations then ensured that the 1,300 members which the
Frankfurt
city KPD claimed in 1929 were hardly isolated in terms of their
political
contacts .
However, this list of activities also indicates the potential
weakness of
the KPD, and here Schock's thesis of the importance of changes
in unem-
ployment after 1923 is borne out, even though it needs to be
complemen-
ted somewhat . All these activities occur in organised arenas
which are com-
pletely separated from immediate production : organised
political commu-
nication between KPD and SPD members was located increasingly
outside
the factories, while both within the factories and within the
trade unions
the KPD was powerless . From 1918 through to 1923 the central
arena of
Frankfurt working class politics had been the
Betriebsrateversammlungen
factory delegate meetings)' where representatives from all the
factories
joined significantly by representatives of the unemployed) had
met in
public. These meetings had been the quasi-institutional basis of
the series
of revolutionary and semi-revolutionary upsurges of the period
forming,
for example, the core of the general strike called by the KPD in
support of
the socialist governments of Saxony and Thuringia .
How this movement was defeated is important for later
developments :
the SPD got the strike called off by mobilising the official
shop stewards
of the metalworkers' union against the unofficial factory
delegate meeting .
[14] After this, such meetings never recurred . The
organisational change
that occured in the period of stabilisation was the
'officialisation' of
factory organisation : after the defeat of 1923, organised
communication
between factories occured solely through the trade unions, and
in parallel
to this, the locus of wage negotiations moved 'upwards' into the
hands of
full-time trade union officials .
One crucial precondition for this process was the changed
economic
situation in the metal industry, the key industry in the city .
Up until 1923
the industry had been in export led boom-gaining easy foreign
orders,
employers continually expanded production on a largely
quantitative basis,
and faced with the extreme shortage of skilled labour, tolerated
a high
-
12
CAPITAL & CLASS
degree of informal shop floor control over immediate production
and
granted wage demands relatively easily . The boom in the metal
industry
also affected other industries : with a general labour shortage,
the wages
policy (or lack of it) in the metal industry was a source of
continual ten-
sion within the employers' organisations as the metalworkers
became wage
leaders in the area and individual metal firms granted wage
demands rather
than face loss of orders.
Further, the boom meant not only low unemployment and a
contin-
ual demand for skilled workers, it also enabled a high degree of
mobility,
in particular of skilled workers, between the factories of the
area . Young
workers who had just finished their apprenticeship could move
from one
factory to another to gain greater experience in their trade and
better
wages, political militants dismissed from one factory could be
sure of
getting another job elsewhere almost immediately . In other
words, on the
basis of their non-factory specific skills and the full
employment, the
metalworkers of Frankfurt were independent of any one particular
em-
ployer, and this was the pre-condition for the strong
factory-based or-
ganisation of that period .[15]
From late 1923 onwards the situation changed dramatically.
Employ-
ment collapsed at the end of the year, revived slightly in
1924/1925 and
after another major relapse, revived more strongly for a brief
period for
most of 1928 . Although in both periods of revival there was
full time
working (i .e . a 54 hour week), and in 1928 even some over-time
was being
worked, the situation remained qualitatively different to that
of the pre-
vious period . Firstly, and easiest to document, there is the
very extent of
unemployment which, as Schock rightly argues, now clearly became
a
threat for all workers in the industry . According to the local
office of the
metalworkers' union (the DMV), in December 1925 over 7,000
metal-
workers were dismissed, a further 2,000 laid off temporarily ;
in 1926 there
were 10,000 workers less employed in the local metal industry,
which
would have meant that employment in the industry had effectively
been
halved! Although as the table below shows, these claims were
slightly
exaggerated, employment did clearly fluctuate dramatically .
Even more
important, both the fluctuation and the overall decline in jobs
were largest
in the two sectors where both wage militancy and trade union
organisation
had previously been strongest, namely machine-building and cars
.
Secondly, as the result of increased competition and
concentration
within the industry, there was the closure of a series of
smaller factories,
such as the Veisawerke, closed in March 1927 after the firm had
been
taken over by Siemens and production moved to Berlin . Thirdly,
there is
of course rationalisation within production itself . Although it
is impossible
to make any definite overall generalisation about the extent and
effects of
rationalisation within so variegated a metal industry as that of
Frankfurt
at this period, the DMV at least complained that women were now
re-
placing men on many jobs (prima facie evidence of 'deskilling')
and that
many factories were now employing women for the first time .
Before however the consequences of these economic changes can
be
seen, it is necessary to examine also the role of the political
parties, in
particular the USPD and KPD . The situation of full employment
combined
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
13
Employment in the Frankfurt Metal Industry 1925-1932
Source: calculated from Industr-und Handelskammer
Frankfurt a.m ., Jahresberichte (relevant years) . In
brackets : absolute figures for 1925 .
with the continuing political crisis and (towards 1923)
accelerating in-
flation provided the basis for important political effects of
the strong
factory organisation within the metal industry . Behind the
delegate
meetings of the factory workers stood the factory work-forces as
an or-
ganised political force . Thus it is striking that up to 1923
(but not after-
wards) the mass demonstrations always took the form of the
workers
leaving their factories early and marching en bloc to a central
meeting
place. Workers who were employed in the metal industry at the
time still
today stress (perhaps with some exaggeration) the unity and the
resulting
political power of the work-forces : employers for example did
not dare to
take any reprisals for political strikes .
Although this rank-and-file strength was a constant of the
period from
the end of the War until October 1923, it was accompanied by
decisive
shifts in political allegiances . From about 1917 onwards the
UPSD was
clearly the leading political force amongst the shop stewards of
the indus-
try : it was on the basis of contacts between them for example
that the
party organised the initital seizure of local political power in
November
1918 (cf. Sender, 1940, pp . 99ff, Lucas, 1969, pp . 16ff). Some
measure of
the importance of the metalworkers for the USPD is indicated by
the fact
that in the local elections of March 1919 fully 35 of the
party's 95 can-
didates were metalworkers, a proportion never reached
subsequently by
the KPD, let alone the SPD . During 1919 the local USPD
consolidated its
hold in the DMV when its candidates won all posts in local union
elections,
despite a vicious campaign by the SPD complete with allegations
of ballot-
rigging . However, when the USPD split in 1921, all the leading
local DMV
functionaries rejoined the SPD, and the KPD was never able to
subsequently
seriously challenge the SPD's control of the union apparatus .
While in the
period of inflation this made effectively no difference to the
power of the
factory workforces who were able to force the union into
continual mili-
tant wage bargaining, this shift did provide the basis for the
defeat of 1923 .
(1925 = 100)
Electro-
Technical
Machine
Building
Autos, Type-
writers
Metal
Products Total
100 100 100 100100
1925 (6,784) (7,717) (7,754)(6,134) (28,389)
1926 83.9 62.9 72.3 61.6 70.4
1927 84.4 74 .2 74.0 81 .276.2
1928 90.5 90.4 80.0 83.486.1
1929 100.0 74 .6 78 .1 121 .2 91 .8
1930 96 .0 77.2 56.2 97.2 80.9
1931 78.1 41 .1 40.9 75.963.0
1932 60 .6 26 .8 53.4 68 .051 .0
-
14
CAPITAL & CLASS
As we have seen, the immediate isolation of the KPD in October
1923
occurred through the SPD pitting the official trade union
organisation
against the directly elected factory delegates, a move which
immediately
underlined the division between employed and unemployed since,
while
the latter were able to participate in the central factory
delegate meetings,
they had of course no formal or informal influence on the shop
stewards
themselves . After the defeat, many party members in Frankfurt,
as else-
where in Germany, responded to this immediate political
isolation by
moving to positions which were close to those of five years
later . Many left
the unions in disgust, some of them now(!) began secretly to
gather
weapons, and in general it is clear that the new `left-wing'
leadership of
Ruth Fischer and Ernst Maslow had the support of many at least
of the
party's members (cf . Abendroth, 1976, pp . 61ff) . Indeed, it
took the inter-
vention of the Comintern and its effective deposition of the
'ultra-left'
leadership to change the party's policies (Flechtheim, 1968, pp
. 228ff) .
In one way this episode shows that the Comintern by itself can
hardly
be held solely responsible for every ultra-left position within
the KPD, for
clearly the policy was this time adopted against the Comintern's
wishes.
However, unlike after 1929, there was no way in which the
left-turn could
be construed as successful by either local militants or party
leaders-mem-
bership and votes slumped disastrously ; the party's involvement
in mass
actions of any sort became non-existent . Quite probably this
setback by
itself would have ultimately brought about a change within the
KPD even
without the intervention of the Comintern .
It is equally clear that this brief left-turn exacerbated the
weakness of
the KPD which had shown itself in 1923 : its vulnerability to
counter-
attack by the official union organisation within the factories
themselves,
resulting from the party's lack of influence within the unions
at least at
local level . The situation in 1924 however was particularly
disastrous, for
now the rejection of the union by many KPD members went with an
eco-
nomic slump which by itself meant a decline in trade union
membership .
Significantly, decline in trade union membership was most
pronounced
within the union of the metalworkers : in Frankfurt DMV
membership had
reached an all-time peak of over 29,000 in 1922, falling by the
end of
1923 to 14,600 and by the end of 1924 to a low of 10,600 : while
in 1922
over 40% of all Frankfurt trade unionists had been in the DMV,
by 1924
this proportion had fallen to nearly 18% .
These economic and political processes together destroyed the
metal
industry as a basis for the KPD . The new instability of
employment plus
the SPD control over the union machinery together ensured that
quasi-
institutions such as the factory delegate meetings could no
longer exist,
and meetings of shop stewards now took place entirely on the
instigation
of the union leadership . While this much is clear, it also
appears that move-
ment of workers between the factories, in particular movement of
young
skilled wokers, also declined, and this, so oral evidence
suggests, meant
that politically based contacts between the factories through
the circu-
lation of individual militants also diminished . As far as the
sphere of im-
mediate production was concerned then, militants could now
operate
within the union or within the factory based organisations of
their party
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
15
(e.g . the factory cells of the KPD), but nowhere else .
Further, should
militants be dismissed, they now were unlikely to be 'replaced'
by other
militants .
Take for example the situation in the Adlerwerke, the largest
metal
factory in the city with a militant tradition dating back at
least to the
major metal strike of 1912 . In 1921 the factory had been
'purged' of com-
munist cadres after the very strength of the party within the
factory had
enabled the party to call a partial strike in solidarity with
the 'March up-
rising' ; while these workers could not return to Adler, they
were to some
extent replaced by other communists. When however in August 1924
the
firm announced plans to lay off 1,500 workers a communist
meeting
within the factory was attended by only 100 and the dismissals
proceeded
without any opposition and indeed with the explicit agreement of
the
unions and the official Betriebsrat (factory council) members .
Although in
1929 the factory was, at least in its car production section,
the best trade
union organised car plant in Germany with 97 .3% of the car
workforce
trade union members, there is no evidence of any effective KPD
activity in
the factory after 1924. The example of Adler illustrates a
tendency notice-
able within the KPD in the whole of Germany, and suggested in
the Hessen-
Frankfurt region by the relative importance of Offenbach and
Hanau for
the party's trade union work : even though the party regained
ground
amongst employed workers, its basis now shifted to the smaller
factories .
These changes also affected the nature of trade union
organisation . In
the metal industry as a whole during the period of stability
there were in
the Frankfurt area only a few minor strikes in smaller factories
. Certainly
in 1929 There was a general increase in trade union activity,
and not just
in the metal industry-an official strike of the municipal
workers, militant
wage movements in the railways and in the chemical industry .
However,
these all occurred within the framework of the official trade
union
organisation : thus although the DMV regional committee faced
consider-
able opposition to its acceptance of a final arbitration offer
in 1929 (the
offer being itself an improvement on the employers' original
proposals),
this opposition was enacted solely within DMV meetings . The
trade union,
in other words, became the only basis for 'economic' conflict
.
During the period of stabilisation then, the decisive changes
within the
working class movement were not in the number of militants as
such, but
in the form of the movement . Firstly, its organisational basis
shifted-
away from the unofficial quasi-institutions, based largely on
the factory
workforces of the metal industry, and into the official
institutions, the
trade unions, the political parties and the sporting and singing
clubs .
Within this new context KPD and SPD members were still united in
the
trade unions and the cultural associations, but links between
them at a
quasi-institutional level could only remain at the most informal
level of all,
namely friendship and family connections . This meant, secondly,
changes
in the relationship between the movement and the political
parties, for
now political activity was focussed on the parties, on whose
policies the
unity of the movement now depended . Since the 'Bolshevisation'
of the
KPD meant that party theory increasingly saw the force for
revolutionary
change as solely the party, this was a change which the party
was utterly
-
16
CAPITAL & CLASS
unable to theorise, for the question of mass influence was now
posed in
terms of the party on the one hand, the class on the other .
Thirdly, the
officialisation of the movement meant that now almost the only
linkage
between it and the unskilled, 'lower' sections of the class
itself was again
solely through the parties, since both the trade unions and the
cultural
organisations were predominantly organisations of skilled
workers .
These three factors together were the essential preconditions of
the
social fascism line, for they made it both an extremely credible
and an
extremely disastrous response to certain actions of the SPD . As
the SPD
leadership moved increasingly to the right after its entry into
government
in 1928 (Lehndorff, 1975, pp . 90ff), the results would be very
different to
similar moves before 1923, for now for the KPD member the only
area
which was not controlled by the reformists could well appear to
be the
KPD itself. At the end of the period of stabilisation, and
unlike earlier,
what appeared as openly reactionary measures of the SPD
leadership
could be interpreted as proving the completely reactionary
nature of re-
formism as a whole . The consequence was clear: complete break
with the
reformists, whether in their party, their cultural
organisations, their trade
unions . Yet given the nonexistence of quasi-institutions which
spanned
most of the class, the social fascism line would be disastrous
for the KPD,
for this interpretation involved a flight back into the party
which now
could only divide the working class movement and ghettoise the
party
amongst the unemployed .
4. SOCIAL FASCISM-THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY
The previous section has shown how by 1929 the
quasi-institutional
elements of the working class movement had largely disappeared .
The con-
sequence of this organisational shift would be decisive in the
changed con-
juncture of 1929 : once the unity of the movement had become a
unity
only of institutions, then this unity depended solely on the
policies of the
existing party leaderships . In other words, the pre-conditions
of the social
fascism line do not by themselves explain the actions of the KPD
or the
situation after 1929, but merely set the stage-a different
policy by the
KPD would certainly have had very different consequences .
However, once
the KPD had declared its main enemy to be the SPD itself, then
in 1929
this necessarily destroyed the unity of the movement, since
there was now
no quasi-institutional arena where militants could co-operate
.
How this division occurred is shown in this section by an
examin-
ation of the KPD's attempts to organise the unemployed in Berlin
and
above all in Frankfurt itself . The importance of existing
organisations is
then indicated by the contrast with nearby Offenbach, where a
rather
different (and in national terms, rather unusual) local
situation enabled the
opposition within the KPD to take over the existing party
apparatus and
to organise locally on the basis of policies which strengthened
rather than
weakened the overall movement . Conversely, the destruction 'of
quasi-
institutions in Frankfurt itself explains the defeat of the
unusually strong
left within the city's SPD, for within the SPD too, opposition
now could
only have an institutional (and not a quasi-institutional)
basis. In other
-
~ bCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
17
words, in 1929 the situation was such that the policies of the
existing
parties were crucial : writers such as Poulantzas are correct to
analyse these
in detail, but what they fail to see is why from 1929 onwards
these
policies should be so unusually decisive .
The actual strategy of 'class against class' and the
accompanying
theory of social fascism was finally adopted by the KPD at its
12th
Congress in June 1929, although the origins of the new line can
be traced
back to Comintern meetings in 1928 .[16] The Congress declared
the exis-
tence of a period of revolutionary upswing in which all
non-revolutionary
forces formed a solid front of reaction, externally against the
Soviet Union,
internally against the working class . Social democracy was
accordingly de-
fined as 'social fascist', as in no way progressive, as merely
an organ re
presenting solely the interests of the bourgeoisie against the
increasingly
revolutionary working class.[ 171
For the KPD this new left turn was intended to make the
party
doubly independent of reformism : organisationally independent,
in that
now new 'rank-and-file' organisations were to allow the party to
take the
initiative outside the official reformist institutions, and
socially indepen-
dent in that these organisations were to be based on layers of
the working
class-the unorganised and above all the unemployed-which the
refor-
mists had ignored. It is clear that such a strategy was given
much credi-
bility by the actions of the SPD itself: entering the Grand
Coalition in late
June 1928, the SPD became part of a government which then
introduced
the very measures of naval rearmament the party had campaigned
against
in the previous election (cf. Caspar, 1959, pp . 78ff) . The
SPD's acceptance
of responsibility for the Weimar State, and in particular its
involvement in
government at national and local level, meant that it was forced
to justify
measures which were widely unpopular with many of its own
membership .
The politics of the KPD in this period therefore cannot be
written off
as mere mindless agitation, as the conventional historiography
of the
Weimar Republic usually does, for its slogans had considerable
popular
resonance . The problem however was that the theory and strategy
of social
fascism meant that the party organised in such a way as to make
'social
fascism' into a self-fulfilling prophecy-the SPD was driven
further to the
right but at the same time the KPD became condemned to a
radicalism
that was ineffectual and isolated, above all because in the
situation of
1929 a frontal onslaught on the SPD meant a division of the
working class
movement, and not merely a conflict between political parties
.
These processes first became clear in the May riots in Berlin in
1929.
The KPD attempted to set up rank-and-file committees as the
basis of 're-
volutionary' demonstrations which would be carried out
separately from
those of the SPD and the trade unions and if necessary in
defiance of any
police bans . When Zorgiebel, the SPD police president of
Berlin, did ban
the KPD May Day demonstrations,[18] this must have confirmed
for
many the correctness of the theory of social fascism-the SPD
could
hardly have chosen a better way of showing how far it had come
from the
days before 1914 when it had campaigned for the right to strike
and
demonstrate on May Day (cf. Anderson, 1948, pp . 184ff) .
On May 1, 1929 there was street fighting between communists
and
-
18
CAPITAL & CLASS
the police in Berlin : it was not until May 4 that the police
were again in
full control of Neukoln and Wedding, the two most working class
areas of
the city . The extent of popular support for the KPD is further
suggested
by the form of the demonstrations-street barricades and actions
such as
the extinguishing of the street lights required at least the
passive support
of much of the local population . Nor were the activists mere
young
'rowdies' as the SPD press tried to claim : of the 1,228(!)
arrests made by
the police, 320 were under 20, but 599 between 20 and 30 and 147
over
60 .
The problem the KPD faced was not so much lack of immediate
support as the inability to organise this support . On the one
hand the
party was unable to co-ordinate the demonstrations, for the
illegal organi-
sation of the party did not function at all and the courier
service between
the areas collapsed ; on the other hand, sections of the party
acted as if
they were in an immediately revolutionary situation, and were
only
brought under control again by the Berlin leadership with
considerable
difficulty . Further, the extent to which the KPD's new factory
organisa-
tions were ineffective is shown by the complete failure of the
general
strike on May Day itself, and by the mere 14,000 who followed
the call
for solidarity strikes on the next day . The nature of this
combination of
popular support and political ineffectivity becomes clearer when
we
examine the unemployed riots in Frankfurt 6 months later .
In Frankfurt, as elsewhere in Germany, unemployment was
rising
rapidly towards the end of 1929. Indeed, unemployment in the
city was
above the national average, in particular because of the
weakness of the
metal industry . During November dismissals continued in the
chemical and
in the car factories, one metal factory closed completely, so
that by the
new year, of the total population of the city, roughly every
12th person
was unemployed. Particularly important was the rising number of
unem-
ployed who, having exhausted their insurance payments, depended
solely
on city welfare : within the city itself this rose from only
2,000 in Septem-
ber to over 9,000 in January 1930 .
It was in this situation that the KPD increased its attempt to
organise
the unemployed. In the local elections in November 1929 both the
KPD
and the NSDAP had gained seats, while the SPD had lost .[19] In
the first
meeting of the new city parliament the KPD put forward an
emergency
motion calling for a Winterbeihilfe-an extra welfare payment-of
50RM
for all unemployed, the costs to be covered by extra taxes on
high income
groups . Although such motions can easily be dismissed as purely
agitation-
al,[201 all speakers in the city parliament accepted the need
for some
form of special help for the unemployed ; further, not only did
the existing
city budget include funds for such extra welfare payments, but
in the pre-
vious year a Winterbeihilfe of 50RM had in fact been paid to
the
unemployed .
Within the city parliament the KPD motion was passed on
December
10 with the votes of the KPD, the SPD and the NSDAP fractions .
Outside
the building several thousand communist supporters
demonstrated,
shouting 'we want work and bread, or we'll beat you dead' . For
the KPD
it was the demonstration which had forced the issue, and in
Berlin Die
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
19
Rote Fahne reported jubilantly, `communists force winter aid'.
However
the town council, with whom the decision to actually make the
payments
rested, was not so easily persuaded . Facing an increasing and
unplanned
budget deficit in the city's finances, it rejected the KPD's
proposals and
suggested that Winterbeihilfe should be limited to only 10RM for
each un-
employed. The result was a direct confrontation with the KPD,
which was
now campaigning in other towns for increased welfare in the same
way
that it was in Frankfurt .
On Tuesday December 17 the city parliament met to discuss the
issue
again and the KPD now stepped up its campaign . The local KPD
news-
paper, Die Arbeiterzeitung, accused the SPD police president
Steinberg of
attempting to provoke 'a bloodbath' and KPD leaflets announced
'the
street belongs to us, we won't give way till our demands are
met' . In the
afternoon the KPD led a march of several thousand through the
streets and
until late into the evening the police were continually in
action as groups
of demonstrators tried to force their way into the Romerberg
(the main
square in front of the town hall), others pushed in windows in
the Zeil
(the main shopping street of the city) and police cars were
bombarded
with stones and several times fired on . During the Christmas
week the
Frankfurt police repeatedly dispersed crowds which appeared to
be pre-
paring to break the complete ban imposed on all KPD open-air
meetings.
As far as parliamentary politics are concerned, the conflict
ended with
the SPD accepting that some extra benefits would be paid out at
the cost
of further reductions in expenditures, such as on a new swimming
pool,
for which the party had earlier campaigned and which would have
pri-
marily benefitted the working class population . That is to say,
the KPD
was unable to bring even sections of the SPD away from their
policy of
government responsibility at all costs. As far as the politics
of the street
are concerned, the KPD again proved unable to mobilise and
organise more
than a small section of the unemployed . Although the increase
in unem-
ployment in Frankfurt in the autumn of 1929 came in particular
from the
chemical and above all the metal industry, not a single metal or
chemical
worker was amongst those arrested during the demonstrations
.
Further, instead of the mass marches of the factory workforces
which
had characterised the period up to 1923, or the organised
popular demon-
strations of the period of stability, the demonstrations
themselves were a
series of isolated clashes with the police, even if they
culminated in a semi-
insurrectionary situation in the Altstadt, the picturesque slum
area in the
centre of the city. The Altstadt itself was no solidly
proletarian area, but
included both a substantial criminalised population and a large
proportion
of traditional petty bourgeois (small shopkeepers, traders and
self-em-
ployed craftsmen), so that the demonstrations were thus
physically iso-
lated from the core working class housing areas in the
industrial parts of
the city .[21 ] Unlike the demonstrations of the two previous
periods then,
the riots of 1929/1930 were at most the temporary organisation
of one
isolated section of the working class .
It is of course easy to argue that all this was the inevitable
conse-
quence of mass unemployment, but such an argument not only
makes
politics the automatic result of a given 'social situation' in
the manner
-
20
CAPITAL & CLASS
criticised earlier, it can conveniently be challenged by
examining the case
of nearby Offenbach . Under the leadership of Heinrich Galm, the
Offen-
bach KPD had been one of the key bases of the right-wing
opposition
within the party which had opposed the party's new ultra left
line,[221
and Offenbach was one of the few areas where the new 'right
wing' KPO
was able to win over the existing local KPD party organisation .
One reason
for this is clear : until 1928 the strength of the KPD in
Offenbach, in com-
plete contrast to the situation in Frankfurt, had been its
detailed work in
local trade union and communal affairs, and it is clear that
Galm and his
supporters were not prepared to see this jeopardized .[231
Significantly, the KPO's campaign for the local elections of
1929
stressed its local commitment and competence : local issues,
such as an
ongoing controversy with the city of Frankfurt over the gas
supply, were
an integral part of its propaganda, and Galm's good humoured
speeches,
replete with local jokes, indicated his stature as a successful
local poli-
tician . At the same time, the KPO attempted to utilise and
expand the exis-
ting institutions of the working class movement, organising
successful
election meetings for members of the leather workers' union and
for the
local unemployed . The election results confirmed the value of
this
approach: while the KPD lost three seats, the KPO gained five,
and now
had an 11 strong fraction in the Offenbach city parliament .
Work amongst the unemployed was one of the main activities of
the
KPO in 1929/1930 . However, its agitation was utterly different
in style
to that of the KPD, a typical KPO unemployed meeting being
attended
largely by older workers with their wives and children . Like
the KPD, the
KPO campaigned for Winterbeihilfe in December 1929, calling
meetings
attended by up to 1,000 people . Certainly, these demonstrations
them-
selves do suggest how the different unemployed agitation of the
KPD
could also become successful. For example, on December 12, 1929
the
KPO held an unemployed demonstration attended by about 800
despite
pouring rain . After singing the "Internationale", the
demonstrators
marched through the city-as they passed the town hall they
shouted the
KPD slogan "give us work and bread or we'll beat you dead" and
the
trade union office was greeted with boos and groans .
However, and this is decisive, at the same time as the
demonstration
Galm was negotiating directly with the mayor on behalf of the
unem-
ployed. The aim of the KPO unemployed organisation was both to
force
real concessions and on this basis precisely to organise the
unemployed .
Thus, while the KPD agitation merely stressed what the
unemployed
already knew-the bleakness of their situation-the KPO attempted
to
show that through organisation real if limited gains could be
achieved .[241
Further, the KPO utilised its strong local position to put
pressure on
the SPD. Although immediately after May 1 1929 the KPO in
Offenbach
had called protest meetings against what it too called
'Zorgeibel's blood-
bath' in Berlin, it never rejected negotiations with the SPD .
Thus after the
November elections the KPO attempted to persuade the SPD that
the two
parties should form a 'red majority' in the city parliament . On
January 15
a public meeting of over 1,200 was called by the KPO on this
slogan .
Although the SPD at the last minute refused to send a speaker,
Galm con-
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
21
tinued to argue that only a local alliance with the SPD could
safeguard the
city's financial autonomy and so prevent cuts in social welfare
.
The KPO's strategy in Offenbach stands then in complete contrast
to
that of the KPD in Frankfurt . While the KPD isolated its own
supporters
and would not organise them effectively even in this isolation,
the KPO
was continually concerned to strengthen and move leftwards the
working
class movement as a whole . This is shown not only in its
attempt to com-
pel the SPD to resist (instead of passively accepting) the cuts
in social
welfare, but more importantly, in its attempts both to utilise
existing
working class institutions and to create new ones-institutions
which
could form the basis of a proletarian public. Within one local
area then, a
different politics to those of the KPD were able to some extent
to prevent
unemployment from dividing the working class movement . However,
in
Frankfurt itself, the left within the SPD was unable to make a
similar
breakthrough, despite apparent favourable conditions.
As elsewhere in Germany, in Frankfurt the decisive issue for the
left
in the SPD was the extent to which the party should form
coalitions with
bourgeois parties. In preparation for the party's congress in
Magdeburg
which debated the issue in May 1929 (cf . Hunt, 1970, pp. 228ff;
Drechsler,
1965, pp. 40ff), the Frankfurt local organisation had passed a
motion
critical of the coalition policy and two of its three delegates
were opposed
to coalition . Significantly, while the bulk of the SPD
Frankfurt leadership
were full-time trade union or party officials, these
delegates-Karl Beul
and Andreas Portune-were shop stewards in the DMV and had a
personal history which went back to activity in the USPD and the
factory
committees of the Revolution of 1918 .[25] However, unlike ten
years
earlier, these same leaders were now unable to develop any real
mass basis .
For people such as Portune and Beul, the SPD's election losses
in 1929
were the deserved result of coalition with bourgeois parties in
government,
and they proceeded to call a series of party membership meetings
to make
their point. The extent of discontent within the party in early
1930 is
shown by the fact that Portune's motion that the SPD immediately
leave
the coalition was finally only defeated by 112 to 136 votes .
Indeed, the
subsequent attempt of the Bezirk (regional) party organisation
to counter
the growing strength of the Frankfurt left at first misfired,
cementing the
emerging alliance between the marxist left and other elements
within the
local party leadership critical of party policy .
Determined to break the left's editorial control of the local
party
newspaper, without any warning the regional press commission
dismissed
Hans Marckwald, a left-wing member of the editorial committee.
This was
clearly perceived by nearly all the Frankfurt SPD as an
unwarranted step,
and their opposition was made particularly vehement by the fact
that
under the shock of his dismissal, Marckwald and his wife
attempted joint
suicide. It was Kirchner himself who now led the attack on the
regional
secretary, Paul Rohle, whom he accused of engineering
Marckwald's dis-
missal . When Rohle appeared at a membership meeting of the
Frankfurt
party he was hardly able to make himself heard, Kirchner
demanded his
resignation, and a motion along these lines proposed by Portune
was
passed by an overwhelming majority .
-
22
CAPITAL & CLASS
Nonetheless, although the call for Rohle's dismissal was
confirmed at
the quarterly delegate meeting of the Frankfurt party in June
1930, Rohle
was able to ignore the storm in the local organisation and
Marckwald re-
mained dismissed. Indeed, these events marked the peak of the
left's in-
fluence within the Frankfurt party. When the left finally broke
with the
SPD to form the new Socialist Workers' Party of Germany (SAPD),
in-
dividuals such as Marckwald and Portune, despite their undoubted
popu-
larity within the local organisation, were joined by less than
400 of the
party's Frankfurt members and were completely unable to even
begin to
attract to their new organisation important moderate critics of
the party's
policy such as Kirchner . By the end of 1931 in the
Hessen-Nassau region as
a whole, less than 400 SPD members had resigned to join the
SAPD, and
the new party was politically and organisationally isolated . It
was a
dramatic contrast to the founding of the USPD twelve years
earlier .
What is decisive about the defeat of the SPD left is the arena
within
which it occurred, namely solely within the SPD itself . Indeed,
the case of
Portune is almost exemplary . Portune always stressed that he
would
remain, in his terms, a member of the working class, and this
meant that
even when elected to the Reichstag on the SPD list in 1930 he
attempted
to continue in his occupation of metalworker . And this
demonstrative
commitment to his origins was undoubtedly popular-it was indeed
one
of the reasons for his drawing power as the SPD's most popular
local
speaker in the election campaign of 1930 . However, Portune was
com-
pletely unable to utilise this support in any organised fashion,
just as he
was unable to use his position within the local DMV to develop
an inde-
pendent power base . Once the working class movement had become
iden-
tical with the official institutions with which it is usually
identified, the
chances for political innovation were slim indeed .
5. THE KPD AND THE RGO STRATEGY : THE ISOLATION OF
RADICALISM
So far we have seen that the crucial feature of the conjuncture
of
1929/1930 was that the politics of the KPD and the SPD operated
to-
gether to divide the working class movement. This was possible
because in
the previous period the movement had already become a movement
of
institutions without any developed quasi-institutional
sub-structure . It
was this combination of a specific set of policies of the
parties and a
specific organisational form of the movement that ensured the
ineffective-
ness both of the KPD's agitation amongst the unemployed and of
the
attempts of the SPD left to challenge the coalition policy of
their own
party .
However, the official institutions of the working class movement
in-
cluded not simply the political parties, but also of course the
trade unions
to which until 1929 most employed communists belonged. It is
here that
the new strategy of the KPD was most disastrous, because the new
line of
the RGO (Revolutionare Gewerkschaftsopposition) operated to
confirm
the SPD's definition of the communists as dividers and wreckers.
As such
the RGO strategy is a vital part of the defeat of the left
within the SPD it-
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS
23
self : while the SPD left called for a working class
mobilisation against the
government, and this implied at least limited co-operation with
the KPD,
the RGO strategy made such co-operation effectively impossible
(quite
apart from the fact that the theory of social fascism defined
the SPD left
wingers as the most dangerous social fascists of all)
(Lehndorff, 1975, pp .
86f) .
Central to the KPD's analysis of the role of the official trade
unions
was the assumption that, just like the SPD, the German trade
union
bureaucracy had now become merely an instrument of repression .
Accor-
dingly, instead of (as previously) attempting to compel the
trade union
leadership to support rank-and-file demands, the new strategy
aimed at
creating new mass organisations based primarily on workers who
were un-
skilled and not trade union members .[26] Given what was seen as
the
complete integration of the trade unions into capitalism, it
followed that
the RGO would have to organise economic struggles independently
of the
trade unions ; such struggles would automatically become
political struggles,
and the form of struggle would be the political mass strike.
Hence the
necessity of opposing revolutionary candidates to the official
trade union
candidates in the works council elections, hence too the
necessity of or-
ganising struggles under elected strike leaderships and of
ignoring the
official trade union institutions . [271 As we shall now see,
this strategy
meant that the KPD now lost much of its traditional support in
the skilled
and trade union organised sections of the working class, while
it could
only appeal to the unorganised and to the least privileged
amongst
employed workers at the cost of completely isolating them from
the rest
of the working class movement .
Within the Frankfurt area there was one factory where if
anywhere
the RGO strategy should have been successful, namely the works
of the
firm of Adam Opel in the town of Russelsheim to the West of the
city . In
complete contrast to the small-scale factories and the skilled
workers of
Offenbach and Hanau to the East, and to the variegated metal
industry of
Frankfurt itself, Opel had almost from its beginning in 1862
been based on
mass production techniques . Always producing mass consumption
goods,
first sewing machines, then bicycles, during the 1920s Opel
became the
largest car factory in Germany.[28]
During the Weimar period Opel's strategy was in sharp
distinction to
the rest of the German car industry . While during the inflation
period the
other car firms simply expanded production on the basis of
existing ma-
chinery, and then campaigned vehemently for tariff protection,
Opel
orientated towards the new possibilities of mass production
through a
policy of continual investment and innovation. In 1923 one of
the first
assembly lines in Europe was installed,[29] enabling the
introduction of
the 'Laubfrosch', the first German mass produced car . A
smaller, random
example of innovation : in 1928 new railway bays were built so
that cars
could be loaded direct from the assembly line and test track
onto the rail-
way wagons, cutting the number of workers involved from 56 to 25
and
the time per car from 20 minutes to 4 (Seherr-Thoss 1974, p .
152) .
By 1928, Opel employed nearly 10% of all workers in the German
car
industry and was producing 42,000 cars a year.[30] Precisely
because
-
24
CAPITAL & CLASS
Russelsheim was the most advanced car factory in Germany,
perhaps in
Europe, in 1928/1929 Opel was bought by General Motors (Sloan,
1964,
pp . 197, 332-327) . More than European manufacturers, more even
than
Opel itself, American firms were able to finance and market the
new mass
consumption goods on the hitherto unprecedented scale towards
which
they were moving the industry : in 1929 General Motors'
Vice-President,
Alfred P . Sloan, told an incredulous gathering of RUsselsheim
works coun-
cillors that in the next five years production would rise from
40,000 cars
per year to 200,000 .[31 ]
Such a form and scale of production should have meant that in
Opel,
if anywhere in the Frankfurt area, there existed a 'massified'
working class,
according to Roth, the basis for' the `other' working class
movement . But
closer examination shows that such a categorisation is
questionable.
Although Opel had certainly the most advanced form of mass car
produc-
tion in Germany at the time, this does not mean to say that the
workers
were predominantly semi-skilled . according to the DMV in 1929
66% of
the 4,800 metal workers employed in car production in Opel were
skilled
('Gelernte') workers, against an average of 56 .6% for the
industry as a
whole, and interestingly, against 57 .4% for Adler in Frankfurt,
where
production methods were much less aavanced .[321 It is of course
possible
that these skilled workers actually carried out basically
semi-skilled tasks,
but on this the evidence is contradictory .
Further, although Opel was renowned for the uncertainty of its
em-
ployment (not only did production in the auto industry in
general fluc-
tuate according to the season, but in Opel itself it was common
for the
factory to be shut down for several weeks at a time while
production was
reorganised or work on new models prepared), at the same time
the firm
was well known locally for its relatively high wages .[33]
Crucially, with
88% of all car workers unionised, Opel was the third best
organised car
factory in Germany and was way above the (itself high) industry
average
of 70.6%. Any revolutionary strategy which ignored this would
clearly
face enormous difficulties .
After the take-over of Opel by GM the KPD increased its
agitational
work in the factory .[34] However, up until mid-1929 the party
appears
to have attempted to overcome the divisions within the
work-force
through strengthening and radicalising the trade unions-the
party
members, in line with the party's general trade union strategy,
presented
themselves as more effective trade unionists than the SPD and
the refor-
mists. Thus the first number of the KPD's factory newspaper in
Opel,
Der Opel Prolet, urged all Opel workers to join the DMV. In the
factory
council election campaign in spring 1929 the paper pointed out
that, while
the SPD accused the communists of putting forward a candidate
list of un-
organised workers, all the KPD candidates were in fact trade
union
members; later in the year, defending themselves against the
charge of
splitting the trade unions, the communists could still argue
that the limi-
tation of the reformist trade union strategy was that it
actually weakened
the unions by being concerned only with those workers who were
already
trade union members, instead of trying to involve all workers in
the union .
The situation in 1929 was in fact extremely favourable for such
a
-
SOCIAL FASCISM AND THE WORKING CLASS25
militant trade union based offensive within Opel . American
ownership
meant that now as total sales began to fall,[35] rationalisation
and speed-
up continued and intensified, however with American trained
supervisors
and increased use of time-and-motion studies, in 1929 the
work-force was
cut from 10,500 to around 6,000, and it was alleged that the
firm was now
only interested in employing young workers . Indeed, the
Frankfurt SPD
newspaper repeated an argument common in the KPD's factory
agitation
when it commented that the factory combined American standards
of high
productivity with European standards of low wages and bad
working
conditions .
Instead of defending its membership against such
rationalisation, the
DMV officially encouraged it . Throughout the 1920s the union
had cam-
paigned for greater concentration and rationalisation in the
industry,
claiming that the resulting increase in productivity would
enable firms to
afford higher wages . Not only was nationalisation never
demanded and
issues of working conditions never raised, but the American
industry was
explicitly held up as an example for Germany to emulate : not
surprisingly
therefore, the DMV never mentioned the low trade union
organisation and
the bad working conditions in the American car plants .
The union leadership's commitment to such a position opened up
new
possibilities for successful opposition . Firstly, to the extent
that rational-
isation was an attack on the position of the more skilled
workers, those
more conservative union functionaries who were nonetheless
actually
based within the factories were now under pressure .[36]
Secondly, and
more obviously, support for rationalisation and concentration,
because of
its long term benefits of higher pay, could well have been
credible for
trade union members in the modest expansion of the 1920s. In the
current
depression however, even Opel was dismissing workers : the costs
of the