Volume 4, No. 4-5, April-May 2003

Ironic, but true! Hitler rose to power on the embers of a powerful, but betrayed communist revolution. Betrayed by Social-Democracy/revisionism. Rajni Palme Dutt says in his book "Fascism and Social Revolution" : Through these White Guard corps, authorized, financed, and equipped by the Social-Democratic government; the workers’ revolution was drowned in blood; Liebknecht and Rosa Luxamburg were murdered ……… resistance of the workers was steadily suppressed with systematic terror through the end of 1918 and through 1919".

In India today, with the fascist Sangh Parivar moving to take control of all aspects of the social, political and economic life of the country, and also building up their armed storm-troopers in their thousands, there is urgent need to mobilize all the fighting forces against it. In order to do this we have to have a clear understanding of friends and foes — particularly of those so-called friends, who make much noise, but do little to hit it. These are the social-democrats/revisionists, like the CPI, CPM, etc. Because of their loud noise against the BJP gangs many are often lulled into feeling that here is an effective force to counter the fascists. Elsewhere though, we have seen that, at the ground-level, they do little; on many issues they adopt a policy of appeasement towards the fascists; often they adjust their anti-Hindutva rhetoric to suit their vote-bank politics; and on issues like the nationality and revolutionary movements, the fascists and a section of the revisionist voices merge. Not only that, in those places where they wield power, they act with similar ruthlessness against the people’s forces.

So, if we can take some lessons from history it may be useful to understand these phenomena in the country today. When we look at the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and the 1930s the situation may differ, the nature of the countries involved are different, but in essence, the politics of Social-Democracy and revisionism is basically the same. There will be shades of difference in their application to different circumstances; but it is for us to use the knowledge gained from a study of history creatively, and not in a mechanical or dogmatic fashion. As some of these facts are little known or have been forgotten, due to the silence on the question,  in the present context, it is necessary to once again bring it to light.

This article comprises quotes from the book "Fascism & Social Revolution" by Rajni Palme Dutt written in 1946. Dutt’s penetrating analysis of the events of the period gave communists a better understanding of the role of Social-Democracy in the rise of fascism. Till today it is relevant and valid. Here, we shall recount the rise of fascism in three countries - Germany, Austria and Italy - focusing on the role played by 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 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. 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 war-censorship and party-censorship, gathered their ranks for the fight, in the revolutionary illegal Spartacus League (SL), founded in 1916, and in the Independent Socialist Party (ISP), founded in 1917. Through these forces the 1918 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. But, the SDP approached the SL and ISP to join the government. Liebnecht refused, but the ISP agreed, in the name of ‘unity’. Thereby the bourgeoisie wormed their way back to power and the revolution was defeated.

The SDP, after consolidating its hold, hounded the communists out and 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. Thus the seeds of Fascism and of the victory of the counter revolution 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 protected and tolerated by Social-Democracy and by the Entente. The Black Reichswehr, the so-called Labour Corps, and finally the Stahlhelm and Storm Troops, the counter-revolutionary 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.

On this basis was built up the Weimar Republic, which lasted 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 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 1921; the military overthrow by the Reich of the elected Zeigner Govt 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).

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 isues, 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 mach-ine, by the police and military, by the judicature and by the big capitalists, right up to its final placing in power.

A first wave of advance of fascism was reached in the end of 1923 and the beginning of 1924, after the inflation-ruin of the petit-bourgeoisie and the failure of the proletariat in the revolutionary situation of 1923; in the elections of May 1924 the Nazis reached a vote of 1.9 million (against 6 millions for Social-Democracy and 3.6 millions for Communism). But the subsequent stabilisation (economic recovery) 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. So, by the time of the 1928 elections, it had fallen to 0.8 million (against 9.1 millions for Social-Democracy and 3.2 millions for Communism). Only when the world economic crisis (there was the stock market crash of 1929) and the Bruning hunger-regime had exposed the final bankruptcy of all the promises of Social-Democracy, only then Fascism leapt forward in the head-long advance which was revealed at the elections of September 1930, and April 1932.

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 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 had 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 - but with the support of Social-Democracy. On this basis the infamous Hunger 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 million; unemployment benefit was cut to an average of slightly over 9 marks. A1l 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 hold. 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 organisations, 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.

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. 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 working-class 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.

Social-Democracy rejected the united working-class front because it was pursuing an alternative line, which it declared to he the correct line for defeating Fascism - the line of unity with the bourgeoisie and support of the bourgeoisie and support of the bourgeois State, even under conditions of dictatorship. This was the so-called line of the "lesser evil." What was this conception of the "lesser evil"? The existing bourgeois dictatorship, even after democratic forms had been flung aside, even under Hinderburg, Bruning, von Papen or von Schleicher, was declared to be a "lesser evil" than the victory of Fascism.

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 evil" 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.

From July 1932 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 back the masses. 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 was attempted to be created, after the event. Fascism was heavily ebbing in mass support, and its leaders were actually discussing 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 "extraordinary skill" was not necessary; the "paralysing the will to resist" was accomplished, not by Fascism, but by Social-Democracy. The policy of Social-Democracy was to "tolerate" Hitler and even (especially in the case of the trade union leadership) 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."

When Hitler came to power on January 30, the Social Democratic leadership rejected the Communist appeal for a united struggle. They declared that Hider 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 5. 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."

Yet, after the terror elections, the entire Social-Democracy seized eagerly on the plea that Hitler had now a "democratic mandate," and that it would be indefensible to oppose him save as a "loyal parliamentary opposition."

Social-Democracy endeavoured to cover its subservience and bootlicking to Fascism by the transparent device 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 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 Communist 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." Such 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. With the rank and file of the SDP workers getting disillusioned Hitler began attacks on SDP trade union leaders, throwing them into jail. Yet, 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 Party was confiscated, and on June 22 the organisation was formally declared dissolved. But, many of the SDP leaders continued as ministers as part of the Hitler government.

Just as the strangling of the 1918 revolution in Germany by Social-Democracy laid the basis for the ultimate victory of Fascism, so also in Austria a similar process is repeated. The victory of the proletarian revolution in Austria was fully in the grasp of the workers in 1918-19, and was only prevented by Social-Democracy. The role of Austrian Social-Democracy was thus in fact exactly parallel to that of the German. The power of the workers’ revolution was deliberately destroyed by Social-Democracy in the name of bourgeois "democracy." The bourgeois order was only saved by the Coalition Government from 1918 to 1920 of Austrian Social-Democracy and the bourgeois parties, with Bauer (SDP leader) as Foreign Minister and Deutsch as Minister for War. This is the background, which lies behind the victory of Fascism.

Austrian Social-Democracy argued at the time in defence of its policy that, although the proletarian revolution was certainly and easily possible in Austria in 1918-19, it could not hope to maintain itself in so small, dependent and isolated a state, in the face of the forces, of imperialism. Yet, in fact, the Soviet Republic was achieved in Hungary and Bavaria. At the time Austrian Social-Democracy held out before the workers, not the real alternative, which events were to demonstrate, but an imaginary golden alternative of peaceful advance to socialism through "democracy."

The magnificent apartment buildings erected in Vienna for the top leaders of the SDP became the "symbol" of reformist "achievement," of the supposed "alternative" to Bolshevism — in reality, of the temporary buying off of the workers’ revolt, while the bourgeoisie was not yet strong enough to defeat them, preliminary to smashing them.

The workers, seeing what was afoot, insisted on the organisation of their Defence Corps. The leaders of the SDP promised that if democracy should once be threatened, they would act; they developed their infamous "defensive theory of violence," that violence should only be used by the workers in defence of democracy. Meanwhile they took no action, and, fascism grew unchallenged. In 1927 the anger of the workers at the growth of Fascism and open connivance of the State authorities broke all bounds. Following the acquittal of a Fascist who had murdered a worker, they rose and stormed the law courts of Vienna; Vienna was in their hands, if their leaders had been ready to lead. But their leadership, in control of the municipal administration of Vienna, sided with the bourgeoisie, with the police, with the State authorities, and thus in fact with Fascism, against the workers. The workers’ rising was crushed in blood, with the connivance of Social-Democracy. Ninety-five men and women were killed by police bullets on that occasion, and only five police.

Meanwhile Austrian Social-Democracy held out to the workers the illusory prospect of the defeat of Fascism by "democracy." After the 1930 elections had returned the Social Democratic Party as the largest party, with 72 representatives, against only 8 representatives for the Heimwehr (fascists). In reality Fascism was preparing its final coup, when the issue would depend, not on paper ballots, but solely on the class struggle.

It was only as the sequel of the whole above chain of developments that came the culminating stage since March 7, 1933, when Dollfuss (the bourgeois party that paved the way for the fascists) finally threw aside the democratic mask and proclaimed open dictatorship and the suspension of parliament. But the Social Democratic leadership still found reasons to put off action. Social-Democracy was engaged in the policy of the "toleration" of Dollfuss as the "lesser evil" against German Nazism, and was seeking to negotiate an agreement with Dollfuss.

Why, after all the loudly repeated declarations over many years concerning the action that would be taken ‘if,’ democracy were once attacked, was no action taken when on March 7, 1933, Dollfuss, carried through his coup d’etat and suspended domocratic institutions?

Basically, because all these typical Social-Democratic asseverations of future action - "if" democracy is attacked, "if" the bourgeoisie attempt, etc., - are inherently and inevitably valueless, and worse than valueless, when the present policy is the policy of class-co-operation. The present policy determines the future action. It is not possible, even if there were the will (and in fact there was not the will) at a moment’s notice to transform a deeply enroutined machine and large-scale organisation of class-co-operation, pacifism and legalism within twenty-four hours into an organ of class struggle and revolution. Only when the united front of struggle has been effectively established in the preceding period, when the leadership and training and practice and organisation of struggle and militancy on all issues has been already established, only then can there be readiness when the Fascist coup strikes. Otherwise inevitably, whatever the previous promises and threats and boasts, when the time comes, there will be enormous hesitation, sense of overwhelming "difficulties," yearnings for a "peaceful" settlement, prudent counsels to postpone the struggle, to save what can be saved of the organisation and not hazard all upon a single battle, desperate efforts for some "way out" without a struggle, hopes against hopes that it is not yet the final issue.

Thus "democracy" went by the board. Just as German Social-Democracy supported the Bruning emergency dictatorship, and sought to come to terms with the Hitler dictatorship, so Austrian Social-Democracy was fully prepared to support a Dollfuss emergency dictatorship, in return for a permitted existence of its organisation under the dictatorship (while the Communist Party was suppressed).

The waiting policy meant that Fascism was step by step able to prepare its positions by 1933-34. The Defence Corps was declared illegal. The Communist Party was declared illegal. The Heimwehr (fascists) was strengthened and fully equipped with arms. Arms of the workers were searched for and seized wherever they could be found. Local leaders were arrested. At strategic points, particularly among the railwaymen, militants were removed and ‘patriotic’ agents installed. All this, of decisive importance for the future struggle, went forward without resistance. The workers pressed more and more for resistance, but the Social Democratic leadership held them back, thus performing indispensable service to Fascism.

When the final struggle at last broke out on February 11, 1934, it broke out in spite of and against the orders of the Social Democratic leadership. The struggle of the Austrian workers was not defeated by the superior forces of the enemy. It was defeated by the disorganising role of the Social Democratic leadership. This was clear in all the events leading up to the struggle. It was no less clear in the actual struggle.

Instead of being able to enter the struggle with the full strength of their organised force on a strategic plan, with the maximum mobilisation of the masses, and with a clear political lead, the workers had to enter the struggle by local initiative from below, sporadically, partially, against hampering opposition from above, losing the possibility of the initiative, losing the possibility of the offensive, and thus yielding all the strategic advantage to the enemy. Many people believe that the Socialists would have won control in Austria if all sections of the working class had supported them. In many places the workers were split among themselves and reached decisions too late. Several leading trade unions refused to give instructions to strike, to the factories they controlled.

Yet even under all these heaviest disadvantages a position was achieved by the second day in which the Government forces weakened and the issue was in doubt. On the Government side the troops are reported to be exhausted and disheartened. Sections of the Filth Infantry Regiment have deserted to the Socialists. Deprived of a bully’s "walkover," the Fascist Heimwehr showed they had little stomach for a real fight. Many have flung down their arms, and the rest may be withdrawn to barracks (Daily Herald, February 14, 1934). But, after four days’ fighting the workers of Vienna were defeated.

The fascists then took power and the social democrats were themselves brutally crushed.

In the Nov.1919 elections the Socialist Party, affiliated to the Communist International, won one-third of the seats, while Mussolini and the fascists did not win a single seat. The SP had over 2 million workers in its labour unions. At the height of the revolutionary wave the government was powerless to act, as shown in its passivity during the occupation of the factories in 1920, since it could not count on the support of the military forces. But no revolution took place as there was no decisive revolutionary leadership.

By end September half a million workers were in unchallenged occupation of the factories, establishing their own workers’ committees and armed guards. The government and employers were powerless. The troops could not be counted on to act against the workers. The condition for victory was that the movement, begun by the occupation of the factories, should be extended to the conquest of political power by the workers, which the bourgeoisie was powerless to resist. Just this the reformists resisted, insisting on confining the movement as "purely an economic movement", and negotiating with the government for a settlement. The reformists immediately entered into negotiations with the Giolitti government, which conceded a 20% wage rise and a promise of a share in ‘workers’ control’ in industry (which never materialized). The reformist leaders ordered the workers to leave the factories. What neither the employers, nor the government, or the police, nor the armed forces could affect, this was affected by the reformist leadership — to get the workers out of the factories and hand them back to capitalism.

After this capitulation the worker’s movement began to decline. At that time the fascists were a mere handful.

The SP was basically reformist and there was no communist party in Italy till 1921, when the main revolutionary wave had passed. Though the SP affiliated to the CI, it was dominated by the old reformist leadership, and by 1921 left the CI. In the break up of the SP, 14,000 stayed with the right-wing reformists led by Serrati; 98,000 followed the centrist, Turati; and 58,000 formed the Italian Communist Party.

The ICP appealed for unity with the centrists to fight the reactionary forces, but the latter preferred unity with the 14,000 reformists. Two years later Mussolini came to power.

In 1919 itself, to counter the SP, the Catholic "Popular Party" was floated with a demagogic programme, winning 100 seat to the SP’s 156. As the bourgeoisie were not prepared to counter the working-class strength, they lulled the workers through concession, while building up their armed might and secretly equipping and arming the fascist hooligan bands. The workers and peasants were rigorously disarmed; the Fascists carried arms with impunity. The police and gendarmerie either directly assisted the Fascists or remained passive. The magistracy habitually subjected to savage sentences workers who attempted to defend themselves, while releasing Fascists. Thus the transfer from the policy of a Giolitti to the policy of a Mussolini was no sudden volte-face of the Italian bourgeoisie. They were two halves of a single policy; Mussolini was the foster-child and creation of Giolitti, just as Hitler was the foster-child of Bruning. The task of Giolitti and the ‘liberal democratic’ governments was to fool the proletariat with sham concessions, so long as the proletarian forces were too strong to be defeated, and assist the reformist leadership to break them up from within. Meanwhile these ‘liberal democratic’ governments were secretly equipping and arming the fascists. When this stage was completed, and the proletarian forces had been disorganized by reformism, the violent counter-revolution was let loose. The violent offensive of fascism was carried forward under the benevolent protection of Giolitti and his successors. This second stage continued from the autumn of 1920 to the autumn of 1922. Reformism continued to retreat and trust in parliamentarism for defence. When the second stage had done its work, and the proletarian forces had been smashed and beaten up, the final transference to open fascism was accomplished. Giolitti and his successors peaceably made way for Mussolini. The cycle was complete.

Between January and May 1921, according to figures published by the Italian Socialist Party at the time, the Fascists destroyed 120 labour headquarters, attacked 243 socialist centres and other buildings, killed 202 workers (in addition to 44 killed by the police and gendarmerie), and wounded 1,144. During this period 2,240 workers were arrested by the police; 162 Fascists were arrested. During 1921-2, up to the Fascist dictatorship, 500 labour halls and co-operative stores were burned, and 900 socialist municipalities were dissolved.

How did Reformism and Centrism, in control of the majority of the working class, meet this offensive of the bourgeoisie? They preached to the workers to put their trust in legal and pacific methods and the use of the ballot. In May 1921, Giolitti held a general election, hoping that the reign of violence would have already broken the workers’ forces. The total Socialist and Communist vote, nevertheless, actually exceeded the 1919 total, reaching 1,861,000, against 1,840,000 in 1919; 122 Socialists and 16 Communists were returned, totalling 138, as against only 33 Fascists. The workers were endeavouring to use the ballot in their defence. The Socialist organ, Avanti, in illusory triumph, proclaimed: "The Italian proletariat has submerged the Fascist reaction under an avalanche of red votes." The reality was otherwise. The "avalanche of red votes" made no difference to a situation of civil war. The violence, in place of being diminished, was increased.

The next step of the reformist leadership was to spread even more disastrous illusions as to the real character of the struggle. They endeavoured to enter into a formal treaty of peace with Fascism. On August 3, 1921, the Fascist-Socialist Treaty was signed, proclaiming an end to all acts of violence. This was signed by Mussolini and his colleagues on the one side; on the other, by the Executive of the Socialist Party, of the Socialist Parliamentary Group and of the General Confederation of Labour. The Communist Party refused to take part in this criminal comedy. The agreement was not worth the paper it was written on. The Fascist violence went forward; and Mussolini explained the violation of his pledge by declaring that he had been "overridden" by his supporters.

The final step of the reformist leadership was to endeavour to enter into a parliamentary ministerial combination. After the resignation of Facta in July 1922, Turati as the Socialist parliamentary leader saw the King. When the attempt to secure agreed terms for a ministerial coalition were unsuccessful, the Reformist leadership conceived the idea of calling a general strike at this late stage as a weapon of extra-parliamentary pressure to bring about the formation of a coalition government. The general strike was called on August 1, wholly without preparation, and was explained by Turati to be a strike "in defence of the State". Under these conditions the general strike was inevitably a failure. The effect was only to play into the hands of the Fascists, who intensified their attack.

The conditions were now complete for the final step of the open transmission of power by the bourgeoisie into the hands of the Fascists. This took place’ in October. The transmission was carried through by the combined action of the King, the army chiefs and the Facta Cabinet. A theatrical "March on Rome" of Fascists was organised for October 28. This march was in fact organised under six army generals; and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army addressed an enthusiastic Fascist gathering on the evening of October 27. The Facta Cabinet went through the form of proclaiming martial law; this only had the effect that the civil authorities handed over their powers to the military throughout the country, who promptly allowed the Fascists to occupy the public offices, railways, postal and telegraphic offices, etc. The Facta Cabinet, which had already been in negotiation with the Fascists, resigned. Mussolini was invited to form a Ministry, and arrived at Rome on October 30 in a sleeping-car. Such was the so-called Fascist "revolution," which was in fact carried through from start to finish by the bourgeois dictatorship from above.

R.P.Dutt, in this section of the book concludes:

Social-Democracy thus prepared the way ideologically for fascism: first, by the abandonment or corruption of Marxism; second, by the denial of internationalism and attaching of the workers to the service of "their own" imperialist State; third, by the war on communism and the proletarian revolution; fourth, by the distortion of "socialism" of the use of vaguely "socialist" phrases ("the new social order", the "commonwealth", "industry as a public service", etc.) to cover monopolist capitalism; fifth, by the advocacy of class-collaboration and the unification of the working-class organizations with the capitalist State. All this provided the ideological basis and the groundwork of fascism, which represented the final stage of the policy of the complete absorption of the working class, bound hand and foot, into capitalism and the capitalist State. This whole propaganda and line of Social-Democracy confused, weakened and battered down the class-conscious socialist outlook of the workers who were under its influence, prevented the spread of revolutionary Marxist understanding, fostered semi-fascist conceptions of nationalism, imperialism and class-collaboration, and left the masses as easy prey to fascism.

Social-Democracy disorganises the proletariat and the proletarian struggle. The Social Democratic and trade union leadership act as an agency of the employers and of the ruling class within the working-class ranks, preaching defeatism and opposition to struggle, and, where the outbreak of working-class struggle becomes inevitable, directly disrupting the struggle from within.

In the final stage, as the Fascist movement advances closer to direct power, Social-Democracy gives its final and decisive assistance by opposing and banning the united working-class front against Fascism-the sole means to prevent Fascism coming to power-and concentrating hopes in illusory legal defences, the ballot, "democracy," moderate bourgeois governments and finally even the support of pre-Fascist and near-Fascist dictatorships (Bruning, Dollfuss) as the "lesser evil."

It is Social-Democracy that refuses the repeated urgent appeals of Communism for the united front during the critical year of 1932 and the first quarter of 1933. It is here that Social-Democracy, after causing the original split, perpetuates and deepens the split of the working class by opposing the united front, expelling all sections that support it, and even wrecking the working-class organisations to maintain its domination.

As capitalism develops to more and more Fascist forms, Social-Democracy, which is the shadow of capitalism, necessarily goes through a corresponding process of adaptation. This process of "fascisation" of Social-Democracy shows itself in the increasing support of open forms of dictatorship (Bruning, Emergency Powers), the use of armed violence against the workers, not only in civil war as in the early post-war years, but against unarmed workers in conditions of peace (Berlin in 1929, India under the Second Labour Govt), and the increasing suppression of democracy within the working-class organisations.

With the complete victory of the Fascist dictatorship, this process of adaptation does not come to an end, but on the contrary reaches even more extreme forms. Already, since the war, a whole series of examples of direct alliance of Social-Democracy with White Governments of counter-revolutionary terror against the working class have shown themselves in country after country, and have continued today into Fascist forms. In Hungary under the White Terror, Social-Democracy entered into a written Treaty of Alliance with the White Government. This Treaty was signed on December 22, 1921, between the Prime Minister, Bethlen, and the Social Democratic Party, affiliated section of the Second International. In return for this secret Treaty, Social-Democracy was to be officially protected by the White Government, while Communism was ruthlessly suppressed.

Bulgaria afforded a further example of the same process. The Stambulisky Government was carrying through a programme of agrarian reforms, the impeachment and trial of the former war-ministers, and other measures unpopular with the reaction. The reactionary parties in June, 1923, carried through a military coup d’etat, engineered by army officers, overthrew the Peasant Party’s Government by force and murdered the Prime Minister, Stambulisky. On this basis was set up the White Terror regime of the butcher, Tsankov, under whom, according to the statement of Vandervelde, Chairman of the Second International, 16,000 Bulgarian workers and peasants were murdered in eighteen months (Humanite. May 18, 1925). In this Tsankov Government of White Terror, the Social Democratic Party, affiliated section of the Second international, was officially represented; its Minister, Kasassov, sat alongside the representatives of the Fascist "Officers’ league" and of the bourgeois parties.

In Poland, in 1926, the Pilsudski coup d’etat, overthrowing parliamentary democracy, and establishing a type of Fascist dictatorship, was carried out with the support of the Polish Socialist Party, section of the Second International; its representative, Moraszevski, sat in Pilsudski’s Government.

In Spain the Primo de Rivera Dictatorship gave its protection to the Spanish Socialist Party and the reformist General Union of Labour, while suppressing the revolutionary workers’ movement, and even, while throwing the revolutionary leaders into prison, appointed the reformist leader, Caballero, as a Privy Councilor.

In Japan, in the spring of 1932, the leadership of this Japanese Social Democratic Party, headed by the Secretary, Akamatsu, and half the Executive Committee openly moved over and formed themselves into an avow-edly Fascist "National Socialist Party."

Social-Democracy has thus, throughout the world, shown itself ready to adapt itself and enter into alliance with every counter-revolutionary, White Terrorist and Fascist Government, even entering directly into such Governments. Where Social-Democracy has not been accepted into such open alliance, this has not been for lack of trying on the part of the Social Democratic leadership, who have invariably exhausted every manoeuvre to endeavour to be admitted to the favoured circle under the protection of Fascism.

This detailed account of Social-Democracy’s role in the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s recounted by R.P.Dutt is an important lesson for the international communist movement in general, and the Indian communists in particular. Though the fascists of today will not be replicas of the past, nor will the social-democrats/revisionists be a replica of the past, their essence remains the same. Both will, no doubt, have their specificities linked to the new times and the country in which it evolves. The extent of Social-Democracy’s capitulation to fascism may vary, but at times of acute class-struggle their real fangs tend to come out more clearly into the open. In other times they may be able to successfully maintain their ‘progressive’ mask.

This has been particularly seen in India with the CPM. In 1970/71 in West Bengal they ganged up with the Congress rulers in the massacre of over 10,000 naxalites. Last year they unleashed repression on the CPI(ML)(PW), their sympathizers and democrats, in a manner akin to any of the other fascists in the country. For this purpose, there has been close collaboration between the CPM leadership and the Hindu fascist home minister, Advani. Till today the repression continues in the so-called Marxist-run West Bengal, and preparations are being made for an even bigger onslaught.

In a country like India, the large number of petti-bourgeois reformist groups may not actually join the fascists, but they dampen the struggle by insisting on reformist methods and avoiding armed struggles. It is quite another matter as far as the ruling class outfits, like the CPI/CPM, are concerned. What is required in the Indian context, is to learn from the above experience outlined by Dutt, and use it to understand the Indian situation after a deep analysis of the class-forces and parties/groups operating here. Only then will correct tactics be able to be evolved in fighting back the Hinutva fascist menace. Depending on such an analysis and past international experience, maximum unity can be struck with genuine allies in this struggle, and contradictions within the rulers used to the maximum - not for any electoral gamble, but to further the new democratic revolution in the country, through the seizure of political power by armed force.

<Top>