HOW FASCISM CAME IN GERMANY
THE victory of Fascism in Germany opened a new page
in the whole development of Fascism. Up to that time the
view had still been generally expressed, in liberal
democratic and social democratic circles, that Fascism
and "dictatorship" in general was a phenomenon of
backward countries, of industrially less developed
countries without a strong industrial proletariat, of
Southern and Eastern Europe. But Germany was the country
with the most highly-advanced and concentrated
industrial development in Europe, and with the most
highly-organised and politically conscious industrial
proletariat in the whole capitalist world. Yet the most
brutal and barbarous Fascist dictatorship yet known,
leaving the Italian in the shade, triumphed in Germany
in 1933. How was this possible? How did it arise? This
question is of vital concern to the countries of Western
Europe and America, with their closely parallel
conditions. The answer is to be found, not simply in the
events of 31933, Œ but in the whole fifteen years'
development of the German Revolution. The establishment
of the Fascist dictatorship was only the culminating
step of a long process, which began already in 19 18
when Ebert and Hindenburg drew up the terms of their
treaty of alliance against the proletarian revolution.
Superficial critics, with their eyes only on the events
of 1933, speak often of the "sudden collapse," of the
inglorious "defeat without a battle" of the powerful and
highly-organised German working class. They speak of the
"ease" with which Fascism won its victory, and of the
"incapacity" of the German working class to fight. This
picture is a false one, as the whole past history of the
German Revolution has already proved, and as its future
will still more abundantly prove. The battle of the
German working class against the advancing
counter-revolution lasted for fifteen
127
1128 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
years before the Fascist dictatorship could be
established; in that battle tens of thousands of German
workers gave their lives under the bullets of the enemy;
and if in the end the workingclass forces had to retreat
and could not prevent the establishment of the Fascist
dictatorship, this was not due to any superior fighting
strength of Fascism, but was solely because the action
of the workers was paralysed and prevented by their own
majority leadership, and by their own mistaken
discipline and loyalty under that leadership. But the
speed with which the vanguard of the working class has
adapted itself to the new conditions, and taken up the
struggle with renewed force under the leadership of the
Communist Party in the face of all the terrorism and
suppression, is the surest guarantee that the Hitler
dictatorship will be only an episode in the long-drawn
battle of the German working class and in its advance to
the final victory of the proletarian revolution.
I. The Strangling of the 1918 Revolution.
The seeds of Hitler's victory were sown in 1918.
TheGerman workers and soldiers had overthrown the old
State and won complete power. The Workers' and Soldiers'
Councils were supreme throughout the country. The
bourgeoisie and old militarist class were unable to
offer any resistance. All the conditions were present
for building an impregnable Soviet Republic-save that no
revolutionary party existed to lead the workers (the
Communist Party of Germany was only formed in December
1918). The completeness of the proletarian power at the
beginning of the revolution, before Social Democracy had
squandered and destroyed it, is attested by the
principal social Œ democratic witnesses themselves: The
military collapse brought the whole power of the State
into the hands of the proletariat at one stroke. (H.
Strobel, The German Revolution, p. I.) In November,
1918, the Revolution was the work of the proletariat
alone. The proletariat won so all-powerful a position
that the bourgeois elements at first did not dare to
attempt any resistance. (Kautsky, Introduction to the
Third Edition of The Proletarian Revolution, 1931.) How
was this absolute power of the proletariat turned in
fifteen years into its exact opposite--into the absolute
power of the bourgeoisie and militarist class, and the
absolute subjection
THE STRANGLING OF THE 1918 REVOLUTION 129
of the working class? The answer to this question, in
which is contained the tragedy of the German Revolution
of 1918, is comprised in two words-Social Democracy. The
German Social Democratic Party was built upon a long and
glorious revolutionary past. Its early years had been
watched over by Marx and Engels, and led by Bebel and
the elder Liebknecht. It had refused to vote the war
credits in the war of 1870, and had fought and defeated
during the 'eighties Bismarck's twelve-year attempt at
its suppression. It had stood for the programme of
revolutionary Marxism, and on this programme had built
up the mass organisations of the working class. But in
the imperialist era, opportunism and corruption had made
increasing inroads in the leadership especially in the
reformist trade-union leadership. In their closing years
Marx and Engels had already given warning of the danger
and called for a split. Their warnings were ignored; and
their messages and programme- criticisms were held back
from the membership. The party and trade union apparatus
grew in practice more and more closely bound up with the
capitalist State. 1914 completed the process; the Social
Democratic Party leadership openly united with the
Kaiser, the militarists and the bourgeoisie in support
of the imperialist war, against the working class. The
scattered opposition elements, under heavily difficult
conditions of combined warcensorship and
party-censorship, gathered their ranks for the fight, in
the revolutionary illegal Spartacus League, founded in 1
916, and in the Independent Socialist Party, founded in
1917. Through these forces the 19 18 revolution was
organised. The Social Democratic Party had no part in
the victory of the 1918 revolution, but was on the
contrary opposed to it from the first. As Scheidemann
declared in his libel lawsuit in Berlin in 1922: "The
imputation that Social Democracy wanted or prepared the
November revolution is a ridiculous, stupid lie of our
opponents." When the revolution broke out, the Social
Democratic leaders were Ministers in the Coalition
Government of Prince Max; in the critical days their
Executive issued call after call to the population
against revolution; Œ when they found themselves
compelled to press for the abdication of the Kaiser,
they did so, according to Scheidemann (Vorwarts,
December 6, 1922), in the hope to save the monarchy; the
trade union leaders were negotiating a Treaty of
Alliance with
130 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
the employers, which was actually signed on November
15, 1918. Nevertheless, the main body of the workers,
soldiers and sailors, who were in fact carrying through
the revolution against the Social Democratic leadership,
were at the same time organised in the Social Democratic
Party and under its leadership. This was the fatal
contradiction of the November revolution, which led to
its downfall. As soon as the revolution had triumphed on
November 9, the Social Democratic leaders hastened to
the revolutionary leaders, to Liebknecht and the
Independents, to beg to take part in the leadership of
the victorious revolution and form a joint government.
It was at this point, already on the morning of November
9, that Centrism, in the shape of the Independent or
Left Social Democratic leaders, took the disastrous step
which sealed the fate of the revolution. Liebknecht
correctly rejected such a coalition with the open agents
of the bourgeoisie, which could only serve to restore
their prestige and enable them to strangle the
revolution. Had the Independents followed the lead of
Liebknecht, and stood firm in a revolutionary bloc,
excluding the social imperialists, at the head of the
triumphant revolution (the Spartacists and Independents
controlled the majority of the Berlin Workers' and
Soldiers' Council), it is doubtful whether the
discredited Social Democratic leadership, hopelessly
identified with the overthrown old regime, could have
prevented the victory of the revolution. But the
Independents in the name of "unity" chose the
alternative course. They allied themselves with the
Social Democratic enemies of the revolution in an equal
coalition government. In this way, where all other
channels had failed, bourgeois influence was
re-established at the heart of the new order. (Within
less than two months the Independents found themselves
compelled to withdraw from the coalition government; but
the work had been done; the bourgeois- militarist regime
had been re-established under the protecting shell of
Social Democracy.) A Council of People's Commissars,
responsible to the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils, was
appointed, consisting of three majority Social
Democrats, and three Independents. The forms which had
thus to be adopted revealed how completely the pressure
and demand of the masses in the moment
Œ
THE STRANGLING OF THE 1918 REVOLUTION 131
of revolution was towards the Soviet Republic. But
the leaders of the new formally soviet order were its
sworn enemies whose only thought was to overthrow it. If
the November revolution were to maintain itself, it is
obvious that its first task was to destroy the bases of
power of the old regime, which was momentarily defeated,
but still fully in being: to replace at all strategic
points the old reactionary bureaucracy, military caste
and magistracy; to break up the landed estates; to take
over the banks and large enterprises; to build up the
workers' armed guards for the defence of the revolution.
Had this been done, when there was full power to do it,
Fascism could never have raised its head in Germany. But
the Social Democratic Government did the opposite. At
every point it confirmed and protected the old regime;
maintained the bureaucracy and all reactionary
institutions; appointed bourgeois Ministers for War, the
Navy, Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Interior; ordered
the disarming of the workers; and armed and equipped
special counter-revolutionary corps under the most
reactionary monarchist officers. Through these White
Guard corps, authorised, financed and equipped by the
Social Democratic Government, the workers' revolution
was drowned in blood; Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were
murdered, the officers who murdered them going scot free
and openly glorying in their crime under the Social
Democratic Government; the resistance of the workers was
steadily suppressed with systematic terror through the
end of 1918 and through 1919. Thus the 1918 revolution
was defeated by Social Democracy. Only so was the basis
for subsequent Fascism laid. What led the Social
Democratic leadership to act in this fashion, which
could in the end only mean the destruction also of their
own positions? By 1920 the Social Democratic Ministers
were already fleeing from Berlin in the night before the
same officers they had themselves armed and equipped,
and only the action of the workers saved them; by 1933,
when the resistance of the workers had been still
further broken and the power of the counter-revolution
built up, their Organisation was formally dissolved, and
they passed into exile. Blindness, folly, stupidity is
the common answer of those who still seek to apologise
for them, in the face of the terrible sequel of their
acts.
132 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
But in fact the Social Democratic leaders acted with
full consciousness of what they were doing, and could
not act otherwise on the basis of their whole line. For
their one thought in 1918-19, as their Œ subsequent
memoirs have abundantly shown, was to "save Germany from
Bolshevism," that is, in fact, to save the capitalist
regime-always in the name of "democracy." But they could
only accomplish this in alliance with the most
reactionary and militarist classes as the sole force to
crush the working class. Therefore they entered into
alliance with the bourgeoisie, with the militarists,
with the old General Staff, with the White Guards-always
in the name of "democracy." In a revolutionary period
the class struggle knows no halfmeasures: either the
victory of the working class revolution, or the victory
of complete reaction; either Kornilov or Bolshevism;
either Hindenburg or Communism. The class-realities tore
through the "democratic" pretences. Only two courses
were open in post-war Germany: either the victory of the
workingclass revolution or the complete victory of
reaction. In their hostility to the former the Social
Democratic leadership chose the latter. They entered
into formal alliance with the representatives of the old
regime. The direct alliance of Hindenburg and President
Ebert, the leader of Social Democracy, was formally
sealed in an exchange of letters. Hindenburg wrote to
President Ebert in December 1918 (the letter was quoted
by the son of Ebert in February 1933, in a published
appeal to Hindenburg, begging for the toleration of
Social Democracy under Fascism in view of its past
services): I address you because I have been told that
you, too, as a true German, love the Fatherland above
everything, suppressing personal opinions and desires
just as I had to do because of the plight of the
Fatherland. In this spirit I have concluded an alliance
with you to save our people from a threatening collapse.
General Groener, Chief of the German General Staff at
the time of the November Revolution, gave the same
evidence in the course of a libel case at Munich in
November 1925, that an "alliance" was concluded between
the old monarchist General Staff and Social Democracy to
defeat Bolshevism. He stated: On November 10, 1918, I
had a telephone conversation with Ebert, and we
concluded an alliance to fight Bolshevism and Sovietism
and restore law and order. . . .
THE STRANGLING OF THE 1918 REVOLUTION 133
Every day between II p.m. and I a.m. the staff of the
High Command talked to Ebert on a special secret
telephone. From November 10 our immediate object was to
wrest power in Berlin out of the hands of the Councils
of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Thus the seeds of
Fascism and of the victory of the counterrevolution were
planted by Social Democracy. From the beginning of the
revolution continuously, while the workers were most
stringently disarmed and subjected to heavy penalties if
any were found in possession of arms, the illegal, armed
counter-revolutionary corps and formations, which were
the first forms of Fascism, were Œ protected and
tolerated by Social Democracy and by the Entente.
"Disarmament" was never applied to these; the Fascist
murder-gangs worked their will with impunity throughout
the so-called "democratic republic," shown conspicuously
in their murders of Erzberger and thenau. The tolerance
of the Entente for these formations, in deference to the
insistence of German statesmen that they were essential
for the defeat of the revolution, is illustrated in the
diary of the British Ambassador in Berlin, Lord
D'Abernon, who as late as the autumn of 1920, two years
after the armistice, is still recording "long
conversations" without result on the issue. Berlin,
October 22, 192o. A long conversation with Dr. Simons at
the Foreign Office. Regarding Disarmament, Dr. Simons
said that the demands of the Entente for the
dismemberment of various Einwohnerwehr and Orgesch
(Fascist) organisations was equivalent to delivering up
the orderly section of the population to their greatest
foes. Without organisation the bourgeois element cannot
resist the Reds, who are a real danger. In fact,
effective disarmament was never carried out. Through all
the varying forms and phases of the Einwohnerwehr, the
Orgesch, the Ehrhardt Brigade and its successors, the
Organisation Consul, the Black Reichswehr, the so-called
Labour Corps, and finally the Stahlhelm and Storm
Troops, the counterrevolutionary formations were
maintained under the aegis of Social Democracy and the
"democratic republic" right up to the final triumph of
Fascism. But the workers' attempt at self-defence, the
Red Front, was ruthlessly suppressed by Social Democracy
(by Severing as Minister of the Interior in1929). On
this basis was built up the Weimar Republic, which
lasted
134 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
from 1918 to 1932 on the basis of the coalition of
the bourgeoisie and Social Democracy. Throughout these
years Social Democracy was in governmental office:
during the greater number of them in the Federal
Government (f rom 19 18 to 19 2 5 under the presidency
of Ebert, and from 1928 to 1930 in the Muller Cabinet);
during all of them in Prussia, through the BraunSevering
Cabinets, governing the majority of the German
population; and the principal Police President posts
were held by Social Democrats. Thus Fascism grew to
power under the protection of Social Democracy. The
Weimar Republic was on paper "the freest democracy in
the world." In reality, it covered the maintenance and
protection of the reactionary institutions of the old
regime, combined with the violent suppression of the
workers and constant recourse to martial law and
emergency dictatorship against the workers (the bloody
suppressions of 1918-19; the terror in the Ruhr after
the Kapp Putsch in 1920, when the workers who had
defended the republic were sentenced by military
tribunals composed of officers who had taken part in the
revolt; the Horsing terror in Saxony in 192 1; the
military overthrow by the Reich of Œ the elected Zeigner
Government in Saxony in 1923; the von Seeckt
dictatorship and martial law throughout Germany; the
shooting down of the workers' May Day demonstrations
under Severing in 1929; the emergency dictatorship from
1930 to 1933). Of this "democratic republic" the leading
American bourgeois journalist, Mowrer, with no
revolutionary sympathies, could only write: A virgin
Republic that appeals to old-time monarchists and
generals to defend it against Communists! Inevitably it
falls into the enemy's hands. . . . What can be said for
a republic that allows its laws to be interpreted by
monarchist judges, its government to be administered by
old-time functionaries brought up in fidelity to the old
regime; that watches passively while reactionary school
teachers and professors teach its children to despise
the present freedom in favour of a glorified feudal
past, that permits and encourages the revival of the
militarism which was chiefly responsible for the
country's previous humiliation? What can be said for
democrats who subsidise ex-princes who attack the
regime; who make the exiled ex-Emperor the richest man
in deference to supposed property rights. . . . This
remarkable
THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM 135
Republic paid generous pensions to thousands of
ex-officers and civil servants who made no bones of
their desire to overthrow it." (E. A. Mowrer, Germany
Puts the Clock Back, pp. 17-19.) He further notes that
in 1914 30 per cent. of the officers' corps were of
aristocratic lineage; in 1932 21 per cent. were of
aristocratic lineage-an indication how little the real
regime was changed under the so-called "democratic
republic." These were the conditions within which
Fascism grew to power in Germany in the midst of
bourgeois democracy. Fascism was able to utilise the
growing discontent, the economic distress and the
widespread anger against the slave treaty of Versailles
and its tribute. But it was only able to utilise these,
and to build a mass following on this basis, because
Social Democracy, the majority leadership of the working
class, had surrendered any leadership on these issues,
and had on the contrary identified itself with
capitalism, with Versailles and the tribute, and with
the whole regime of oppression of the masses. And
Fascism was only able to build up its strength on these
issues, and to build up its armed formations, because it
was protected and assisted at every point from above, by
the State machine, by the police and military, by the
judicature and by the big capitalists, right up to its
final placing in power.
2. The Growth of National Socialism.
Fascism grew up in Germany, even more than in Italy,
under the Œ guidance and fostering care of the old
regime, and, in particular, of the military authorities.
The old General Staff remained the real centre of the
State behind the outer democratic forms. The early
counter- revolutionary formations, which were the
precursors of Fascism, were mainly composed of officers
and ex-officers. Feder, the theoretical founder of
National Socialism, was a Reichswehr instructor. Hitler
was put through an intensive political course by the
Army authorities before being launched as a mass
agitator. As he has since recounted in his
autobiography, he first came in contact with the
National Socialist Party (then in its first form as the
"German Labour Party" in 1919) under orders from Army
headquarters. The semi-professional military
Organisation of the Storm Troops was organised on lines
closely parallel to the Reichswehr. But Fascism, to
conquer, requires to develop a mass move
136 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
ment. The early attempts of the counter-revolution,
signalised in the Kapp putsch, based solely on the
officers, junkers and bureaucracy, could only end in
failure. The Ludendorff-Hitler putsch of 1923, although
preceded by longer agitation, also ended in immediate
ignominious collapse. The leniency with which these
armed revolts against the State were treated shows the
semi-official protection under which the
counterrevolution was being built up. The Kapp rebels
went unpunished, while workers who had resisted them
were subjected to heavy sentences. Ludendorff went
unpunished; Hitler, an alien who had taken up arms
against the State, was given a few months' detention and
then allowed to continue his agitation. But the failure
of these putsches showed that it was necessary to build
deeper roots of a mass party, alongside military
terrorist organisation. On this task Fascism
concentrated its attention in the succeeding years. The
mass agitation of German National Socialism was built up
on the basis of the Twenty-Five Points Programme
originally adopted in 19 2 0 (see Chapter IX), and was
especially developed under Hitler, and later under
Goebbels and Gregor Strasser, to direct its appeal, not
only to the peasantry and urban petitbourgeoisie, but to
the working masses in the industrial districts. Whereas
Italian Fascism early dropped any pretence of connection
with "socialism," German Fascism could only reach a mass
basis by professing to stand for "socialism." National
Socialist propaganda distinguished itself by its wild
and frenzied character of combined anti-Semitism,
anticapitalism, and chauvinist denunciation of
Versailles and of the subjection of Germany. Its
contradictions, unscrupulousness and demagogy were far
more blatant than in the Italian example. As Hitler
declared in Mein Kampf (in a sentence subsequently
deleted since the twelfth edition in 1932): "The German
has not the slightest notion how a people must be
misled, if the adherence of the masses is to be sought."
Hitler took as his model the British war-time
propaganda, which he admired as the finest Œ example of
the art of demagogic lying. Fascism can, however, as the
Italian example had already shown, only reach a mass
basis after Social Democracy has fully exposed itself
and created widespread mass disillusionment in the midst
of growing economic crisis and gathering revolutionary
issues. This is the general background for the growth
THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM137
of Fascism. A first wave of advance to such a basis
was reached in the end of 1923 and the beginning of
1924, after the inflationruin of the petit-bourgeoisie
and the failure of the proletariat in the revolutionary
situation of 1923; in the elections of May 1924 National
Socialism reached a vote of 1.9 millions (against 6
millions for Social Democracy and 3.6 millions for
Communism). But the subsequent stabilisation period, and
the widespread promises of Social Democracy of a new era
of "organised capitalism" and "economic democracy," led
to new hopes in Social Democracy and the dream of the
peaceful, reformist "democratic" path to Socialism. By
December 1924, the Nazi vote fell to 900,000. Four years
later, in the 1928 elections, it had fallen to 800,000
(against 9.1 millions for Social Democracy and 3.2
millions for Communism). Only when the world economic
crisis and the Bruning hunger-regime had exposed the
final bankruptcy of all the promises of Social
Democracy, only then Fascism leapt forward in the
headlong advance which was revealed at the elections of
September 1930, in a vote of 6.4 millions (against 8:5
millions for Social Democracy and 4.5 millions for
Communism). This was carried forward in the Presidential
elections of April 1932, to 13.4 millions, and in the
elections of July 1932 (the highest point), to 13.7
millions.
What led to this sudden expansion of Fascism in
Germany in 1930 to 1932? The world economic crisis,
which undermined the basis of stabilisation and of the
Weimar Republic, undermined equally the position of
Social Democracy which was closely linked up with these.
Capitalism in Germany required to advance to new methods
in face of the crisis. It required to wipe out the
remainder of the social gains of the revolution, in
respect of social legislation, hours and wages, which
bad constituted the main basis of influence of Social
Democracy in the working class and its stock-in-trade to
point to as the fruits of its policy. In place of the
concessions of the early years of the revolution,
capitalism required now to advance to draconian economic
measures against the workers. For this purpose new forms
of intensified dictatorship were necessary. Social
Democracy was thrust aside from the Federal Government,
and the Bruning dictatorship was established in the
summer of 1930, ruling without parliament by emergency
decree- Œ but with the support of Social Democracy. On
this basis the famous Hunger
138 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
Decrees were carried through. Between 1929 and 1932,
according to official figures, the total wages and
salaries paid by the employers fell from 44.5 billion
marks to 25.7 billion marks; unemployment rose to eight
millions; unemployment benefit was cut to an average of
slightly over 9 marks. All this dictatorship and
offensive was carried through with the support of Social
Democracy. These were the conditions that made possible
the rapid growth of Fascism. Had Social Democracy been
prepared to join forces with Communism in resisting the
Bruning dictatorship and the hunger offensive, there is
no question that the heavy capitalist attack need not
have weakened the working-class front and played into
the hands of Fascism, but would have on the contrary
intensified the class struggle and strengthened the
working class front and the widest mass mobilisation on
this basis , leaving no room for Fascism to win a bold.
But Social Democracy, rather than join forces with
Communism, preferred to support the Bruning
dictatorship, to support the Hunger Decrees, and to help
to carry through the attack on the workers, in the name
of the policy of the "lesser evil." This was the crucial
weakness in the proletarian camp in the decisive years
of the preparation of Fascism. This support of the
Bruning dictatorship by the majority working-class
organisation, controlling the trade unions, disorganised
and shattered the proletarian ranks. It was only through
this disorganisation of the proletarian ranks that the
initiative in the critical years 1930-32, and the main
gains from the universal distress, which should have
strengthened the working-class front, passed instead to
Fascism. The leaders of German capitalism were well
aware (as the revealing Fuhrerbriefe" or confidential
bulletins of the Federation of German Industry during
the period, quoted in the next chapter, make abundantly
clear) that the policy they were compelled to pursue in
the economic crisis, with the attacks on all sections of
the workers, including those who had gained by the
previous social legislation, inevitably meant the
weakening of the basis of Social Democracy, their main
support in the working class, and the strengthening of
Communism. The weakened and discredited Social Democracy
could no longer hold back the growing Communist advance.
The Weimar
Œ THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM 139
Coalition basis was bankrupt. The German capitalists
clearly recognised that it was necessary to advance to a
new political system, and to build up, alongside Social
Democracy, a parallel new system of mass organisation,
to defeat the Communist advance, against which Social
Democracy was no longer adequate, and to disrupt and
smash the working class. In consequence, it was from
this period, from the time of the Bruning dictatorship,
that the overwhelming support of the main body of German
capitalism and landlordism began to be placed at the
disposal of the hitherto only partially supported
National Socialism, the instrument found ready to their
hand. Unlimited funds, not only from German bourgeois,
but also from foreign bourgeois sources, were poured
into the National Socialist coffers. An overwhelming,
all- sided, lavish agitation without parallel in
political history was conducted during these years;
while the terrorist bands received abundant police and
judicial protection to break up working-class agitation,
the hand of the government dictatorship was heavy on all
militant working-class organisation and agitation. The
gigantic, artificial expansion of National Socialism
during this period (it bad begun to sink again as
rapidly already by the autumn of 1932 was a highly
organised product of the entire mechanism of the
capitalist dictatorship. All the politically backward
discontented elements of the population,
petit-bourgeois, declassed elements and backward
workers, were swept into the National Socialist net. The
class-conscious workers who became disillusioned with
Social Democracy passed to Communism. The politically
backward elements passed to Fascism. This process is
shown by the successive voting figures. Between 1930 and
1932 Social Democracy lost 1,338,000 votes, while
Communism gained 1,384,000 votes. Thus the Communist
gains almost exactly approximated to, slightly
exceeding, the Social Democratic losses. Thanks to the
existence of a strong Communist Party, the losses from
Social Democracy did not pass-as in England, in the
National Government elections of 193 1-to abstention or
the class enemy, but to the militant working-class
front. The gigantic Nazi gains were essentially derived
from the previous voters for the old bourgeois parties,
who lost many millions of votes, and from those who had
not previously voted at all.
140 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
3. The Crucial Question of the United Front. In spite
of all the highly subsidised, and violently supported,
Nazi agitation, the combined working-class forces, if
they had been united, were immeasurably superior to the
Fascist forces. Even in the merely numerical test of the
electoral votes, they were throughout superior, Œ with
one exception. If we add together the Social Democratic
and Communist votes as an indication of the potential
combined working- class vote (which would have at once
become immensely higher if there had been the enormous
stimulus of a united fight against the capitalist
dictatorship), this total exceeded the Nazi total on
every occasion, save July 1932. On that occasion it
totalled 13,229,000 against 13,732,000 for the Nazis.
But already within four months, by November 1932, it
totalled 13,241,000 against 11,729,000 for the Nazis.
This, however, is merely in respect of the electoral
counting of heads. In every real social and political
test, in Organisation, in homogeneity, in their social
role, in political consciousness and in fighting power,
the working-class forces, if they had been united, were
immeasurably superior to the Nazi electoral miscellany.
The decisive question was thus the question of the
united working- class fight. To this the Communist Party
devoted all its efforts. As the issue grew more and more
urgent, the Communist Party issued appeal after appeal
for the united workingclass front against Fascism and
the capitalist attack, both to the mass of the workers
and specifically to the Social Democratic Party and to
the General Trade Union Federation. The first
nation-wide appeal for the united front was launched in
April 1932, by the Communist Party and the Red Trade
Union Opposition, who called for a combined action of
all labour organisations against the then impending
general wage offensive. This appeal won a measure of
response among the lower trade union organs and social
democratic membership, but was rejected by the Social
Democratic and trade union leadership, who maintained a
ban on the united front. The second appeal for the
united front was made on July 20, 1932, after the von
Papen dictatorship had expelled the Social Democratic
Government of Prussia. The Communist Party directly
addressed itself to the Executives of the Social
Democratic Party and of the General Trade Union
Federation, proposing the joint Organisation of a
general strike for the repeal of
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF THE UNITED FRONT 141
the emergency decrees and the disbanding of the Storm
Troops. The Social Democratic leadership rejected this
appeal for a united front, branding any call for a
general strike as a provocation, and declaring that the
only method to oppose Fascism was the ballot. The third
appeal for a united front was made on January 30, 1933,
after Hitler had been installed as Chancellor. This
appeal won such wide response that, though the Social
Democratic leadership made no official answer, it was
compelled to explain its refusal in its Press and put
forward tentatively alternative suggestions of a
"non-aggression pact" (i.e., abstention from verbal
criticism), but specifically excluding any action
against Hitler on the grounds that he was legally in
power Œ and should not be opposed. The fourth appeal for
a united front was made on March 1, 1933, after the
burning of the Reichstag and the unloosing of the full
Nazi terror. This appeal was left unanswered by the
Social Democratic and trade union leadership, who were
endeavouring to come to an understanding for the
toleration of Social Democracy under Fascism. Alongside
these direct appeals for the united front, the Communist
Party endeavoured to the utmost of its power to build
the united front from below with the Social Democratic,
trade union and unorganised workers throughout Germany.
This won a wide measure of response, as shown in
increasing mass demonstrations and partial strikes and
actions; but it was heavily handicapped from reaching
effective strength by the official ban of the Social
Democratic and trade union leadership, who excluded all
active members and organisations that took part in the
united front. In the face of this record, it is
impossible for any impartial judge to reach any other
verdict than that the united workingclass front, which
could alone have defeated Hitler, was rendered
impossible solely by the official ban of the Social
Democratic and trade union leadership. This was the
decisive condition which made possible the victory of
Fascism in Germany. Social Democracy rejected the united
working-class front because it was pursuing an
alternative line, which it declared to be the correct
line for defeating Fascism-the line of unity with the
bourgeoisie and support of the bourgeois State, even
under conditions of dictatorship. This was the so-called
line of the
142 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
"lesser evil." What was this conception of the
"lesser evil"? The existing bourgeois dictatorship, even
after democratic forms had been flung aside, even under
Hindenburg, Bruning, von Papen or von Schleicher, was
declared to be a "lesser evil" than the victory of
Fascism. Therefore it should be supported, and every
blow against the workers accepted passively without
struggle (the same line was subsequently pursued by
Austrian Social Democracy in the support of Dollfuss).
But these forms of dictatorship were only preparing the
ground for complete Fascism, destroying the resistance
of the workers step by step, and, as soon as their work
was complete, handing over the State to Hitler. Thus the
line of the "lesser evil" meant the passive acceptance
of every stage of development to complete Fascism. And
even when Hitler came to power, his rule, on the grounds
that he was "legally" in power, was proclaimed a "lesser
veil" to an "illegal" Nazi terror, and therefore not to
be opposed. Thus the line ran continuously without a
break to the complete Nazi terror and suppression of all
working-class organisations. In this way the line of
Social Democracy ensured the victory of Fascism in
Germany without a struggle. The first step in this
policy was the "toleration" of the Bruning Œ
dictatorship since 1930. The second decisive step was
the support of Hindenburg as President in 1932. Social
Democracy urged that the victory of the reactionary
Hindenburg was necessary to defeat Hitler (as against
the Communist warning to the workers that "a vote for
Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler"). As soon as Hindenburg
was installed as President by the support of Social
Democracy, before a year was out, he placed Hitler in
power. The third decisive step was the passive
acceptance in July 1932, of the forcible ejection of the
constitutional Social Democratic Government of Prussia
by von Papen. All over Germany Socialists who read the
news of the ignominious dismissal of Braun and Severing
waited for the inevitable answerthe general strike-and
waited in vain. (Mowrer, Germany Puts the Clock Back, P.
7.) The Social Democratic Ministers, instead, appealed
to the Supreme Court at Leipzig, which indulged in some
very delicate legal discussions as to the legal status
of the dismissed Ministers in relation to the Commissar
imposed in their place-until the
THE CAUSES OF THE VICTORY OF FASCISM 143
completion of the Fascist dictatorship rendered
further discussion unnecessary. This was in fact the
culminating point already in July 1932. From this point
it was clear to the bourgeoisie that the complete
Fascist dictatorship could be put through without
resistance from Social Democracy, which would only exert
its powers to hold in the workers. 4. The Causes of the
Victory of Fascism. Although the effective building of
the united working-class front was thus prevented by the
official ban and active opposition of Social Democracy,
there was a growing measure of partial united front
development from below through the initiative and
leadership of Communism. During 1932 a rising wave of
resistance developed among the workers. This showed
itself in the rising strike movement in 1932, led by the
Communists, and the overwhelming mass demonstrations
against von Papen, culminating in the Berlin transport
strike of November 1(32. The Berlin transport strike was
led by the Red Trade Union Opposition, after an
overwhelming majority vote of the men for a strike
(14,000 Out Of 18,ooo voting and 21,ooo eligible to
vote) had been turned down by the trade union officials;
it was completely effective in stopping all traffic, and
was only broken by wholesale Government violence,
arrests and shootings. At the same time the November
elections reflected the rising wave: the Nazi vote fell
by over two millions, the Social Democratic vote fell by
700,000, while the Communist vote rose by 700,000 to
nearly six millions. This situation, as revealed both in
the Berlin transport strike and in Œ the elections,
opened up the prospect of the effective leadership of
the working class passing rapidly in the near future to
Communism, while the Fascist tide was visibly ebbing.
Urgent measures had to be taken by the bourgeoisie. Von
Papen had to resign on November 17. Long negotiations
followed between Hindenburg and Hitler. It was clear,
however, that, in view of the rising working-class
resistance, it was necessary first to temporise and
manoeuvre for a short space. The "social General" von
Schleicher was accordingly installed as Chancellor for a
couple of months, during which he relaxed some of the
emergency decrees, especially with regard to the freedom
of the Press and assembly, proclaimed his main
144 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
concern with the "social question," negotiated for an
alliance with Leipart and the trade union chiefs, who
accordingly praised him highly in their Press, and in
general sought to lull the workers' resistance. (At the
same time, strong police protection was given to the
Nazis, as in their provocative demonstration in the
Billow Square on January 25, 1933.) Then, when the
ground seemed adequately prepared, Hitler was installed
as Chancellor on January 30. The ebbing of the Fascist
tide in the elections of November 1932, had been
universally hailed by Social Democracy as the end of the
Fascist danger. The Social Democratic Press spoke of
"the final annihilation of Hitler." The leading Second
International organ, the Vienna Arbeiterzeitung wrote:
"One thing is now clear: Germany will not be Fascist."
The British Labour publicist, Laski, wrote in the Daily
Herald: I think it is a safe prophecy that the Hitlerite
movement has passed its apogee, and that it is unlikely
to retain much longer the appearance of solidity it had
a few months ago. Hitler or some of his partisans may
enter the von Papen Cabinet; but in that case they will
be rapidly submerged by the forces of the Right. . . .
The day when they were a vital threat is gone . . . .
All that remains of his movement is a threat he dare Dot
fulfil . . . . He reveals himself as a myth without
permanent (H. J. Laski, Hitler: Just a Figurehead, in
the Daily Herald, November 19, 1932.) Such was the
wisdom of Social Democracy on the very eve of Hitler's
dictatorship. At the same time the Communists were
giving the warning with regard to the election defeats
of the Nazis: "However great the defeat of National
Socialism may have been, it would be criminally foolish
to talk of the smashing up of the mass-movement of
Fascism" (Communist International December 1, 1(32).
Once again the Communist diagnosis proved correct, as in
the case of the election of Hindenburg, and on issue
after issue in the whole development to Fascism, and the
Social Democratic diagnosis proved hopelessly incorrect.
The electoral retreat of the Nazis in November, so far
from meaning the annihilation of Fascism, meant the
opposite. Œ just the evidence of waning mass support
hastened the decision of the bourgeoisie to place
Fascism in power, before its stock should have
hopelessly sunk and Communism grown to full strength in
the
THE CAUSES OF THE VICTORY OF FASCISM 145
working class, in order that on the basis of State
power Fascism should be able to rebuild its strength and
smash all opposition.* If the coming to power of Fascism
in Italy was already the opposite of a "revolution,"
being entirely carried out under the guidance and
protection of the higher authorities, this was still
more ignominiously the case with the coming to power of
Fascism in Germany. There was no pretence of a "march on
Rome." There was no question of a parliamentary majority
or combination. There was no question of a conflict with
the existing ruling authorities. So far from Fascism
coming to power on the crest of a popular wave, as the
myth is attempted to be created after the event, Fascism
was heavily ebbing in mass support, and its leaders were
actually discussing (according to the expelled Otto
Strasser in his Black Front) the danger of the rapid
disintegration of their movement. It was just because of
this menace of decomposition of the last reserves of
defence for bourgeois rule that the bourgeois
dictatorship decided to take the plunge and place
Fascism in power as the final measure. Fascism was
placed in power by the grace of a
social-democratically-elected President. The
significance of placing Hitler in power was above all
the amalgamation of the already existing dictatorial
State machine, prepared by Mining and von Papen, and the
extra-legal Fascist fighting forces to create a single
unparalleled instrument of * Interesting confirmation of
this analysis of the situation preceding the advent of
Hitler to power is afforded by the American observer, C.
B. Hoover, in his book Germany Enters the Third Reich
(1933). Arriving in Germany in the latter part of 1932,
he found the situation following the November elections
as follows: "During this period the writer discussed the
political situation with industrialists, editors,
bankers, political leaders, university professors,
labour leaders, economists, and others. Almost without
exception they insisted that Hitler had missed his hour.
. . . in spite of the fact that the writer had come to
Germany in September 1932, with the fixed belief that
Hitler's coming to power was a virtual certainty, the
fact that nowhere could there be found anyone outside
the National Socialist movement who would even entertain
the possibility finally shook this conviction" (p. 64).
Œ He admits that alone the Communists judged the
situation more accurately: "With the possible exception
of the Communists, the opposition parties and classes
had been living in a fool's paradise. . . . 'Responsible
opinion' was unanimous that the process of
disintegration in the National Socialist Party was
progressing at an accelerated pace" (p. 88). He notes
further that just this disintegration of the Nazi
movement convinced the big bourgeoisie of the necessity
to take immediate steps to counteract this: "After the
losses of the National Socialists in the Reichstag
elections of November, German 'Big Business' decided
that the immediate danger was that tile National
Socialist Party might disintegrate too rapidly" (P. 83).
146 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
terror for war on the working class. Whereas in Italy
the great part of the work of terror and material
destruction was carried out already before the conquest
of power, in Germany this was not possible to anything
approaching a similar degree, owing to the superior
strength of the working class; and the overwhelming
terror and destruction, the unleashing of all the furies
of lawlessness, only took place after the Nazis were
safely ensconced in State power. As the American
bourgeois observer, Calvin Hoover, writes: It must be
emphasised that there was no revolution at all in the
sense of seizure of the State power against resistance
from the armed forces of the State or from any other
force. Von Papen had completed taking over the State
without resistance in July 1932, and bad passed the
State power on to von Schleicher, who in turn had handed
it over to Hitler. Consequently, the assaults which took
place were against unarmed and unresisting individuals.
. . . The extraordinary skill of Hitler in paralysing
the will to resist of his opponents had, strictly
speaking, made all these acts of violence unnecessary
except as a means of satisfying the blood-lust of the
S.S. an(Calvin B. Hoover, Germany Enters the Thir111-2.)
The "extraordinary skill" was not necessary; the
"paralysing the will to resist" was accomplished, not by
Fascism, but by Social Democracy. The question is often
asked why the advent to power of Hitler and the
unleashing of the Nazi terror did not immediately
release a universal movement of resistance of the
powerful German working class. The question reveals a
failure to understand the conditions. The control of the
majority of the working class, and in particular of the
overwhelming majority (nearly nine-tenths, according to
the factory councils elections) of the employed
industrial workers, and of the entire trade union
machine, lay with Social Democracy. The traditions Œ of
the German working-class movement are, more than in any
country, the traditions of a disciplined movement. The
decision as to the action or otherwise of the German
working class in the face of Hitler lay entirely in the
hands of the Social Democratic and trade union
leadership. But the policy of Social Democracy was to
"tolerate" Hitler, and even (especially in the case of
the trade union leadership)
THE CAUSES OF THE VICTORY OF FASCISM 147
to seek to reach an accommodation with him. Already
in 1932 the Social Democratic leadership were speaking
favourably of the prospect of a Hitler Government. Thus
Severing declared in April 1932: "The Social Democratic
Party, no less than the Catholic Party, is strongly
inclined to see Herr Hitler's Nazis share the
Governmental responsibility." And the party organ
Vorwarts wrote in the same period: "Apart from
constitutional considerations it is a precept of
political sagacity to allow the Nazis to come to power
before they have become a majority." Let Hitler come to
power; Hitler's coming to power is inevitable; Hitler's
coming to power will be the quickest way to expose him:
this was the fatal line of thought of Social Democracy.
Only the Communists were opposing this line and
proclaiming in the same period (Rote Fahne, April 2 6,
193 2 ): "We shall do everything to bar Hitler's way to
Governmental power." But the Communists were in the
minority. When Hitler came to power on January 30, the
Social Democratic leadership rejected the Communist
appeal for a united struggle. They declared that Hitler
had come to power "constitutionally" and "legally"
(i.e., by the appointment of Hindenburg from above), and
therefore should not be opposed. The only course was to
await the elections on March S. Meanwhile Hitler armed
the Storm Troops and incorporated them in the State as
"auxiliary Police" with special control of the
"policing" of the elections, suppressed the entire
Social Democratic and Communist Press, forbade all
working-class meetings and propaganda, arrested all
leading militants, and let loose the terror, and under
these conditions held his "elections." Even the
conservative Times was compelled to declare that such
conditions, already a fortnight before the burning of
the Reichstag and before the full terror and
suppression, "render the holding of normal elections
impossible" (London Times, February 15, 1933). On the
eve of the poll the Daily Herald wrote (March 4, 1933):
"The people of Germany go to the polls under the
shackles of a vile terrorism. . . . The result of the
poll will be no index of the thought of the nation." The
figures of the polling, which in some districts exceeded
the number of electors, revealed also the falsification
of the poll, in addition to the terror. Yet after the
terror elections the entire Social Democracy seized
eagerly on the plea that Hitler had now a "democratic Œ
148 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
mandate," and that it would be indefensible to oppose
him save as a "loyal parliamentary opposition."
Stampfer, the former editor of Vorwarts, wrote in the
party bulletin after the elections: The victory of the
Government parties makes it possible to govern strictly
in accordance with the Constitution. . . . They have
only to act as a legal Government, and it will follow
naturally that we shall be a legal opposition; if they
choose to use their majority for measures that remain
within the framework of the Constitution, we shall
confine ourselves to the role of fair critics. Kautsky
wrote: The Dictatorship has the mass of the population
behind it. (Kautsky, What Now? Reflections upon March
5th.) The Diplomatic Correspondent of the Daily Herald,
W. N. Ewer, wrote: The triumph of Hitler, everyone is
saying, is a heavy defeat for democracy. Yet it is
really nothing of the kind. It is a victory of
democracy, or at any rate of demagogy. He (Hitler) has
come to power by the most strictly constitutional means.
He is Chancellor of Germany under the Weimar
Constitution, and by virtue of the Weimar Constitution.
Of course there was a certain amount of intimidation at
the elections. There always is. But it was under the
circumstances curiously small. . . . The figures indeed
are proof that the election was practically free. (W. N.
Ewer, "Why Hitler Triumphed," Plebs, April 1933.) The
Chairman of the Independent Labour Party, Maxton, wrote:
The brutalities do not make my statement false that
Hitler first contrived to get a popular mandate for
setting up his regime. (J. Maxton, New Leader, December
29, 1933.) Thus Social Democracy endeavoured to cover
its subserviency and bootlicking to Fascism by the
transparent devise of ignoring the terror preceding the
election, and thereafter arguing that the mock
"election" conducted under the terror constituted a
"democratic mandate." The victory of Fascism was, in the
Labour and Social Democratic view, a "victory of
democracy*-" There was a "certain amount of intimidation
at the elections," but "curiously small." The complete
suppression of the Communist and Social Democratic
Press; the arrest of the Communist deputies; the raids
on Communist and Social Democratic buildings; the armed
occupation of the Corn
Œ THE CAUSES OF THE VICTORY OF FASCISM 149
munist headquarters; the suppression of all freedom
of speech and meeting; the beating up and imprisonment
of thousands of the most active Communist and Social
Democratic workers: all this is a "curiously small"
amount of "intimidation at the elections." "The election
was practically free." Stich is the Labour Party
conception of "democracy," which throws a revealing
light on their pose as champions of "democracy" or their
claim through it to bar the way to Fascism. The line of
Social Democracy after the elections, in the face of the
full operations of the Fascist dictatorship and terror,
continued this degradation and subserviency to the
extreme point, in the endeavour to win favour with
Fascism. The speech of the leader, Wels, at the opening
of the Reichstag on March 23, was the signal expression
of this line of endeavouring to win the favour of
Fascism. Wels, as leader of the party, publicly resigned
from the Executive of the Second International, in
protest at the spreading of "atrocity stories" by the
latter against the Nazis, The trade union leadership
proclaimed their readiness to co-operate with Fascism,
acclaiming in their Press the Fascist "revolution" as a
triumphant "continuation" of the 1918 revolution, urging
that the common enemy was Communism, and that their
"socialism" also was "a German affair" (Sozial
Demokratischer Pressedienst, March 9, 1933). On this
basis the trade union central executive officially
called on the workers to participate in Hitler's May
Day. "The union leaders," declared the Labour Daily
Herald (April 24, 1933), "have sealed their
reconciliation with the new rulers of Germany."
Nevertheless this subserviency did not win for the
reformist leadership the hoped for position of a
recognised and tolerated adjunct to Fascism. A large
proportion of the workers in the big enterprises refused
to obey their leaders' instructions and held off the
Nazi May Day demonstration. As soon as it was thus clear
that the hold of the reformist leadership on the workers
was insufficient to serve the purposes of Fascism,
immediately on the next day, on May 2, the Nazis took
over the trade unions, incorporating them into their
Labour front, and threw the leaders into prison,
replacing them by Nazi officials. "The Leiparts and the
Grassmanns," declared Dr. Ley, the leader of the Nazi
Labour front, "may profess their devotion to Hitler; but
they are better in prison."
150 FASCISM AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION
The Social Democratic Party trod the same path of
ignominious capitulation, followed by dissolution. On
May 17 the entire Social Democratic Party in the
Reichstag voted for the Fascist Government's resolution,
and joined in the unanimous acclamation of Hitler. This
also did not avail them. The entire property of the
Social Democratic Œ Party was confiscated, and on June 2
2 the organisation was formally declared dissolved. If
the attempt of Social Democracy to become an officially
recognised and tolerated adjunct of Fascism thus failed
(in fact, a considerable number of the functionaries,
state and municipal officials, police presidents, trade
union organisers, etc., directly joined the Nazis and
continued in their posts, as also the Reichstag leader,
Loebe, and the former Minister of the Interior,
Severing, later declared their support of the Nazis),
this was manifestly not for any lack of trying on the
part of the leadership, but only because Fascism had no
confidence in their power to control the workers and no
use for any form of independent working-class
Organisation, however subservient the leadership. Social
Democracy was thus forced by the bourgeoisie, in spite
of all its pleadings, to perform its task of disruption
under the conditions of illegality, under which
conditions it could be of more use to the bourgeoisie in
the event of a rising revolutionary wave in the working
class than if it were openly identified with Fascism.
The opposition to Fascism thus rested throughout with
the Communist Party alone, which was the sole political
force in Germany to maintain the fight against Fascism
unbroken through all the terror. But the Communist Party
was not yet at the moment of the Fascist coup in a
strong enough position to lead the working class in the
face of the opposition of the Social Democratic and
trade union machine. The figure of six million Communist
electors is a deceptive measure of the real fighting
strength, because the fighting strength of the working
class depends on the employed industrial workers in
large- scale industry, and just there Communism was
weak. In 193o at enterprises employing 5,900,000
workers, the reformist trade unions had 135,689 factory
committee members, or 89.9 per cent. of all factory
committee members. The proportion of Communist influence
was thus inadequate to draw the working class into the
struggle. The Communist call for the general
THE CAUSES OF THE VICTORY OF FASCISM 151
strike against Hitler remained without effective
response; the majority of the workers remained faithful,
to their own heavy cost and subsequent disillusionment,
to Social Democratic discipline. In this situation for
the Communist Party to have attempted an insurrection as
a minority, in isolation from the mass of the working
class, would have been an indefensible putsch, resulting
only in the destruction of the vanguard of the working
class and ensuring Hitler's power for a generation. The
Communist Party was compelled in consequence to pursue
the difficult course of postponing the decisive
struggle, to maintain its organisation, to spead an
ever-widening network of agitation and organisation in
the midst of conditions of unparalleled terror, and in
this way to build up the illegal revolutionary movement
and the leadership of the working class and to prepare
the final Œ decisive struggle for the overthrow of
Hitler and the victory of the working-class revolution.
The speed, tenacity, heroism and self- sacrifice with
which this task is being accomplished--on. a scale
unparalleled in workingclass history under conditions of
illegality and terror, as testified even by all
bourgeois observers-is the guarantee of future victory.
The decisive causes of the temporary victory of Fascism
in Germany thus stand out sharply and clearly: First,
the strangling of the 1918 revolution, the destruction
of the power of the working class in the name of
"democracy" and the restoration of the capitalist
dictatorship and the protection of the reactionary
institutions of the old regime under the cover of Weimar
"democracy." Second, the support of the Bruning
dictatorship, and of the successive stages of emergency
dictatorship in preparation of Fascism, by Social
Democracy and the trade unions. Third, the rejection of
the united working-class front, and active ban on the
united working-class front, by Social Democracy and the
trade unions. Fourth, the refusal of Social Democracy
and the trade union leadership to resist Hitler on his
accession to power or on the opening of the Nazi terror.
The experience of Germany from 1918 to 1933 is the
classic demonstration before the international working
class of how a working-class revolution can be destroyed
and squandered and brought to the deepest abyss of
working-class subjection. It is
--------------------------------------- 152. FASCISM AND
SOCIAL REVOLUTION
the classic demonstration before the international
working class of where the path of bourgeois "democracy"
leads, step by step to its inexorable conclusion.
History has produced in the two great post-war
revolutions the Russian Revolution and the German
Revolution, the gigantic demonstration of the two main
paths in our epoch and where they lead. The Russian
October Revolution and the German November Revolution
occurred within twelve months of each other; but they
followed divergent paths. The one followed the path of
the proletarian dictatorship, of the Communist
International. The other followed the path of bourgeois
"democracy," of the Second International. The
theoretical expression of that divergence was contained
in the controversy at the time of Kautsky and Lenin.
To-day, a decade and a half later, we can see where
those two paths have led. The path of the proletarian
dictatorship, of Lenin, of the Communist International,
has led to the ever-greater strengthening of the workers
and the triumphant building of Socialism. The path of
bourgeois "democracy," of Kautsky, of the Second
International, has led to the victory of Fascism.