"United Fronts From Below," "Alliances With the Far-Right," and Left-Nationalists

  1. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    One of the more controversial aspects of the Third Period was the so-called "alliance with the far-right," as evidenced by joint efforts with the Nazis to bring down local SPD governments, joint strike activity with the Nazis, etc.

    The idea of having joint strikes and demonstrations with the Nazis as a whole against social-corporatists is, while with nevertheless good intentions, also primitive. There was little or no effort in practice made to come up with a separate form of united front as an alternative to Trotsky's de facto delusions of Social-Democratic unity; that is, to create splits within the Nazi movement along left-right lines and then unite with both SPD splinters and the now-more-identifiable demographic of left-nationalists in a Communitarian Populist Front.



    I wrote this in an Alternative History thread:

    The Third Period was one of lost opportunities, when considering that both the SPD and the Nazis were not really united.

    Instead of vulgar Popular Fronts or completely hopeless United Fronts (militant hostility of the SPD leadership and middle ranks towards the KPD to the point of violence on the streets), a pro-Soviet Communitarian Populist Front emerged in Weimar Germany to take advantage of the deteriorating economic and political situation. This front included the KPD and the SPD splinter party, the SAPD (Socialist Workers Party of Germany).

    Programmatically speaking, these CPFists aimed for these basic political demands:

    1) Combining legislative and executive power, perhaps expanding the jury system to the point of replacing judges altogether;
    2) Eliminating any formal or de facto disqualifications re. the political process (political decision-making and holding public office) due to non-ownership of non-possessive property or, more generally, of wealth;
    3) Formation of separate and sovereign socioeconomic governments for matters other than high politics, security politics, and all other related state politics - but directly representative of ordinary people instead of being organized on a Corporatist basis;
    4) All public officials to be recallable and on average workers' wages;
    5) Full freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement;
    6) Expansion of the ability to bear arms and to general self-defense towards enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training, especially in connection with class-strugglist association, and also free from police interference such as from agents provocateurs;
    7) Suppression of state debts and the general repudiation of Versailles;
    8) Full nationalization of the financial system and explicitly confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, investment strikes, and other elitist economic blackmail, whether the related wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers.

    However, like the original Communitarian Populist Front that was the Paris Commune, some socially conservative measures were raised, such as strict measures against gambling. Child welfare and maternal support aimed at boosting the German population was raised, too.

    In light of #7 and #8 above, however, they were not afraid to make appeals to nationalism and Pan-Nationalism (since capital flight and investment strikes aren't "patriotic"). Enter the nationalist element of the Communitarian Populist Front, the likes of: nationalist splinters from the KPD (Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim), the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists (Karl Otto Paetel), unorganized people like Ernst Niekisch, and whatever working-class elements supported the Nazis - who then smartened up to realize Hitler's Long Knives contempt for "that program" (true in real life, the official NSDAP was to Hitler what the SPD's Erfurt Program was to Friedrich Ebert).

    The Nazis themselves were reduced to a rump petit-bourgeois party because of the departure of whatever working-class support they had.
    To which Dimentio responded, "France and Britain welcomes the fleeing German upper class as well as right-wing extremists."



    Moreover, here's some related discussion on a controversial tendency of left-nationalists:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/original-g...583/index.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Rjevan View Post
    Indeed, the German Nazbols were never on good terms with the Nazis. The left wing of the NSDAP (brothers Strasser, the early Goebbels, Ernst Röhm) mustn't be confused with the national bolshevik movement which mainly emerged from the writings of former KPD members Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim. They propagated "volk struggle/people's struggle" instead of class struggle because they believed that not only the working class but the whole people is revolutionary and that nationalism and socialism are inseperable.

    Their ideas were adopted by people like Ernst Niekisch and Karl Otto Paetel.

    Niekisch, although being member of the USPD and involved in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, was more "right-wing"; he rejects class struggle and thus Marxism as "exaggeration of the importance of class struggle [...] which leads to a radical overthrow of traditions". Here he mainly refers to Prussian traditions which he idolized and seeked to combine with the "benefits of socialist economy and society" (= "Prussian socialism"). He emphasizes that the German people have to rise up against Versailles and form a strong state based on nationalism, Prussian militarism and authoritarianism and socialist economy. Then this new Germany has to ally with the USSR against the "rotten West" which is decadent and dying (he e.g. thought that the blacks ruin France). Niekisch was the editor of the "national revolutionary" newspaper Widerstand (Resistance) and in 1932 he wrote the book "Hitler. Ein deutsches Verhängnis" (Hitler. A German doom, here is the cover) and warned about the Nazis rise to power. This got him imprisonment and torture under the Nazis. Later he first lived in the DDR but then moved to West Berlin.

    Karl Otto Paetel on the other hand was more "left-wing" and upheld class struggle and seeked close relations with the KPD but he still was strictly anti-democratic and nationalist. He founded the "Gruppe Sozialrevolutionärer Nationalisten" (Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists). He also massively criticised the Nazis and published his main work, "The National Bolshevist Manifesto" in 1933. After imprisonment he fled to Paris in 1935 where he published "national revolutionary materials" for his comrades in Germany and tried to invade and undermine the Hitler Youth (which led to the founding of the "Black HJ", a group of oppositional HJ members). In 1965 he published a book about the history of the German national bolshevist movement (cover).

    Although this was not intended Niekisch and to a certain degree Paetel, too influenced the "left" Nazis, like the brothers Strasser. They later left the NSDAP and created the "Black Front" which adopted the "Hammer and Sword" symbolism introduced by Niekisch (Strasserist flag and Niekisch's symbol). But as I said, the "National Bolsheviks" and the "Strasserists" had different aims and followed different ideas and while both clashed with the Nazis the National Bolsheviks never supported the NSDAP while the Strasserists only left the party when they saw that they had no chance against Hitler.

    While the Natonal Bolsheviks were indeed pro-USSR and had sympathies for certain aspects of socialism they were clearly nationalist, volkish, anti-democratic and often racist. Today there are "autonomous nationalists" in Germany who use some of Niekisch's slogans in order to attract a "national revolutionary" audience and there is also a very small group of German Nazbols who mainly uphold Niekisch (some are pro-Strasser, some pro-Paetel) and try to put the works of the original Nazbols online and "invade" leftist and Antifa demonstrations with Niekisch's slogans for national revoltuion. While they are anti-NPD (German neo-nazi party) they clearly show fascist tendencies and are usually very unwelcome at leftist demonstartions. Ustrialov is a different story again and Russia's Nazbols are indeed very different from the Nazbols of the Weimar Republic.
    http://wcrforum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=52

    This other thread is titled, "National Bolsheviks in Russia: potential to at least be Lassallean?"

    http://www.rabble.ca/comment/999406/

    The National Bolshevik Party of 2009 is not the National Bolshevik Party of the early 90's, Dugin and his neo-nazi followers formed the National Bolshevik Front years ago and their "Eurasian" movement is now backed by the Kremlin (Dugin is a special "advisor" to the Putin regime); the remaining National Bolsheviks under Limonov have purged the neo-nazi/eurasianist elements of their party and brought in many young socialists and anarchists, they are allied with the Vanguard of Red Youth and act as a pressure group within the larger Communist movement (in short, they are real opposition forces).
    BTW, before I continue, I should note that Limonov has a strange resemblance to Trotsky.

    Anyway, taking into consideration the above, some recent discussion with a fellow WCR board member, this wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party

    And also their limitation of Great Russian chauvinism towards territorial ambitions, defense of Russian minorities in the near abroad, and ethnic non-Russians speaking Russian and declaring themselves Russian WITHOUT adopting Russian culture...

    What potential does this revamped National Bolshevik Party have to at least be a broadly "Lassallean" party if never a Marxist one?
  2. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    I forgot to add that the "alliance with the far right" was a tragic attempt at repeating Lassalle's legacy of working-class political independence in the 1860s. Despite his political hostility towards the liberal bourgeoisie, he was called out by Marx for attempting an informal coalition... with Bismarck!
Results 1 to 2 of 2