TOGLIATTI CONDEMNS THE POLICY OF "SOCIAL-FASCISM"
30 YEARS LATE!
By HENRI VALLIN
The theoretical magazine of the Italian Communist
Party Rinascità published in its issue of July - August
1959 an article by Palmiro Togliatti, entitled "Some problems of the history of the International". A long summary of the same article appeared in the internaional Stalinist magazine World Marxist Review (our quotations are from the French edition of that magazine:
La Nouvelle Revue Internationale, No 15, November
1959). Many things stand to be corrected in this article.
We shall however concentrate our attention, for the time being, on only one of the problems it touches on, a problem which was of decisive importance for the fate of the German and Austrian working class, nay of the working class of the whole of Europe and of the Soviet
Union: the attitude of the Communist International and the Communist Parties towards the rise of Nazism, on the eve of the conquest of power by the Hitler gangs on January 30, 1933.
Togliatti's article offers us in reality a self-criticism in his capacity of member of the Excutive Committee of the
Communist International of that period. This self-criticism is at the same time a criticism of the policy followed by all the Communist Parties during Hitler's rise to power. We translate the most important paragraphs from the French edition of the magazine:
The worst mistake, said Togliatti, consisted treating social-democracy as social-fascism; no less mistaken were the conclusions which from that definition. It is correct to say that the social-democratic leaders had gone so far as to struggle against the revolutionary mass movement, and to suppress it even by arms, exactly as did the fascists. It is also correct to say that there are points of encounter between reformist ideology, defending class collaboration, and certain aspects of the ideology defended by the fascists. But the social nature of both these movements was different. The fascist were supported by the most reactionary layers of Capital; the reformist leaders were linked with entirely different groups, which had broken neither with a certain democratic tradinor with bourgeois pacifism.
The basis of tion, both movements was also different: in many countries, the majority of the workers and of the toiling masses were in the organisations led by the reformists; and fascist violence attacked those orranisations and tried to destroy them.
But it was above all important to understand in time the perspective created by the ascism: a perspective of destruction of all demo-
To talk about institutions and liberties.
meant fundamentally to state that the reformist leaders and social-democracv as such ursued the same goal, which was obviously wrong.
for it had to happen — and in fact it did happen
- that a (not negligible) part of social-democracy was ready to defend the democratic
[....] On this basis, the unity of action with the social-democratic masses and their organisations became naturally much more difficult; it had only a sporadic character and could not influence the situation (pp 157-8 of the French edition)
Some paragraphs further, on p 159, Togliatti states openly that the absence of this unity of action had decisively contributed to the victory of Nazi fascism.
We shall not analyze here the opportunist deviation which is contained in this self-criticism. Instead of regarding the antifascist united front as a form of the proletarian class struggle, which would have made it possible (as the French and Spanish examples of 1934 -36 have shown) to pass from the defensive against to a general attack against the capitalist economy and state, till the point where a revolutionary situation is created which puts the conquest of power on the agenda, Togliatti limits this united front to all extent and purposes to the defence of bourgeois demo-
Farm in arm with layers of the "liberal bourgeoisie". . He cannot understand that it was precisely the crisis of bourgeois democracy and of the capitalist economy which drove hundreds of thousands of desperate and pauperised petty-bourgeois and unemployed into the arms of fascism. To limit the united front to purely defensive purposes, to fail to open socialist perspectives to the toiling masses, meant to prepare by a detour the very same victory of fascism (as the tragic example of
1936 - 9 and of France 1934-40 have also
But we want to concentrate not upon Togliatti's present errors, but upon his self-criticism, i e, upon his errors of 30 years ago. In this context, a misunderstanding must be eliminated. One could think that Togliatti has honestly made a mistake, that in the years 1930 -1933 he had really thought the policy of social-fascism to be correct, and that it was only after Hitler's victory that he "saw the light" and penitently beats his breast TROTSKY - AND TOGLIATTI -ON THE UNITED FRONT
Unfortunately, such a hypothesis is untenable for two reasons. First of all, Togliatti has correctly understood the fundamental social differences between fascism and social-democracy already before 1930, as indicated in an article he published in the magazine Communist International, an article which in broad lines gave a correct estimation of fascism Nevertheless, he kept silent between 1930 and 1933, when the whole international communist movement had become a gigantic factory for mass production of "social-fascist" theory and practice. Secondly, during these decisive years for the destiny of the German and European proletariat, Leon Trotsky and the International Left Opposition (forerunner of the IVth International), analysed and denounced in all countries, but especially in Germany, in hundreds of articles, appeals, speeches, pamphlets and books the folly of this theory and practice of "socialfascism", warned the German workers that it would lead to Hitler's coming to power, and showed them at the same time the road towards the proletarian united front which could prevent disaster. To all these warnings given at the crucial moment, Togliatti found only one argument to oppose: he kept silent.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
We could therefore characterize Togliatti's conception of Marxism - Leninism in the following way: It is of vital importance to understand the nature of fascism, before it becomes an actual threat; it is of equally vital importance to analyze - in a "critical and selfcritical
- the nature of that danger, after the fascists unfortunately have come to power. But while the danger is urgent, but can still be overcome, one must have the courage to keep silent, in order "not to break the unity of the world communist movement" , in order to prevent the slightest cloud to obscure the blue sky of "complete solidarity with the Soviet Union" (actually: with the ruling bureaucracy in Soviet society).
In the light of this self - criticism which comes 30 years too late, we have to ask three questions of Togliatti and of every honest communist militant.
In the first place, isn't it necessary to put an end to the Thälmann myth, which presents the leader of the German Communist Party in the years 1930 - 33 as a kind of German Lenin, always correct on all important political issues, in the forefront of the fight of the German working class?
We have of course respect for Thälmann as a victim of fascist terror, as we respect the thousands of working class militants who lost their lives through that same terror. But we should never forget that Thälmann was the chief person in Germany responsible for the policies of "social-fascism" and that with his stubborn sense of bureaucratic obedience, he crushed and neutralized the spontaneous protest of broad layers of the communist workers against that mad policy.
We should [....] now especially apply the strategy of the main attack to be directed against social-democracy inside the labor movement |....] As long as they have not been liberated from the influence of their social-fascist leaders, these millions of workers (of the SPD and the A DG B) are lost!) for the anti-fascist fight, wrote Thälmann in the July - August 1932 issue of the official theoretical (!) organ of the German CP, Die Internationale (p 281). And in the same article - written six months before Hitler came to power! - we find the following "answer" to Trotsky's warnings about the urgency of a united front against the Nazi threat:
Mister Trotsky and similar "consultants" of the proletariat want to propose to the working class a policy which separates (!) the struggle of the revolutionary party against fascism from that against social-fascism, the struggle against the Hitler party from that against the social-democracy, and opposes these struggles to each other. Following their recipe, the CP G should abandon today its struggle against social-democracy, and form a block with the party of the Hindenburg socialists, with and Grzesinski," in order to "fight" in this way against Hitler (p 283.)
Trotsky, of course, never proposed to stop the struggle against social-democracy. He only stated the cruel fact that if this struggle was not subordinated to the common struggle against Nazism, it would have to be pursued under the quite uncomfortable conditions of a concentration camp. Explaining things in this way would create, by the way, the necessary conditions for being listened to by the social-democratic workers, i e, for an efficient struggle against reformism. Thälmann obstinately refused to understand this, and found a tragic death in a concentration camp, together with hundreds of "social-fascists" and thousands of communists.
23 STALIN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR NONSENSE OF SOCIAL FASCISM
In the second place, it is necessary to state openly that if Thälmann bears the main responsibility for the madness of "social-fascism" being applied to the unfortunate German labor movement, the main responibility tor putting this madness over the internationa nd German communist movement in general undoubt edly lies with J V Stalin. In the theoretical organ of the German C P Die Internationale, there appeared in February 1932 (p 68) the following significant quotation from J V Stalin:
Fascism is a combat organization of the bourgeoisie, which supports [!] itself by the active collaboration of the social-democracy. Social-demoobjecively the moderate wing fascism. There is no reason to suppose that the combat organization of the bourgeoisie could obtain decisive successes in the struggle for the government [!] of the country without the active suport of social-democracy [....] There is equally ittle reason to suppose that the social-democrac could obtain decisive successes in the struggle for the government of the country support [!] of the combat organization of the bourThese organizations do not exclude [!] each other, but are of a complementary nature. They are not antipodes but twins. Fascism is a formless block [!] of both these organizations.
To continue in Stalin's style: There is no reason to suppose that without the pressure of the Comintern's apparatus, the German C P would have obstinately clung for three long years to this mad policy. There is equally little reason to suppose that without that pressure, the united front between social-democracy and the CP could actually have been prevented There is therefore no reason to suppose that without the "ideological activity" of J V Stalin, Hitler could have come to power.
In the - for this moment - current version of the History of the CP S U, Stalin is represented as having
"basically right in his struggle Trotskyists and the Right-wing deviationists. rors" only begin to appear in the thirties, more exactly in the purges of 1934, which also start the "personality cult." Our second question therefore runs as follows: Does Palmiro Togliatti agree with this latest version of the History of the CP SU? Is he of the opinion that Stalin was right against Trotsky on the German question between 1930 and 1933, when he defended the theory of "social-fascism" and its inevitable consequences, and condemned Trotsky's urgent appeals in favor of a proletarian united front against fascism as "counterrevolutionary"?
Third: Hitler's coming to power threw back the cause of socialism in Western and Central Europe for 15 - 20 years. It cost the German and the international working class thousands of its best sons. It led to tremendous destruction in the western territories of the Soviet Union, took a toll of 20 million deaths from the Soviet people and probably retarded the economic growth of the Soviet Union by at least ten years. No person in his right mind could justity today that it was preferable, in the interest of the defense of the Soviet Union," to let Hitler come to power, instead of prevent ing this conquest of power by the proletarian united
We therefore pose our third question: was it right
24 or Togliatti (and many other communist cadres) to obey" in the thirties the nonsense of "social-fascism" notwithstanding their knowing better, in order to remain "disciplined" and not to "favor Trotskyists and Rightwing deviationists"? Was it in the interests of the international communist movement to keep silent on this crucial issue for reasons of so-called discipline — bureaucratic discipline, for Leninist discipline is based on telling the truth to the workers and to one's own could Togliatti bring himself to a self-criticism on thi oint too? To state the question more precisely: Wil
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL loglatti criticize the current issue of the History of th I P SU, at least at those points where it suppresse Stalin's responsibility for the theory and practise of social-fascism, where it suppresses the fact that Trotsky was the only internationally known leader of communism who defended a correct position on this crucial issue?
Will Togliatti answer these three questions? If he doesn't, one will have to conclude that he lacks, now as well as in the years 1930-33, the twin qualities of strength of character and faithfulness to principles. And without character and principles, munist policy is possible, no more to-day than 30 years ago.