Since 1945, Germany’s parliamentary parties have refused all alliances with the far right. That changed yesterday in Thuringia, when liberals and Christian Democrats teamed up with neofascists to throw the Left out of office.
[…]
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party never managed to win a majority in a national election; instead, it was helped into office by conservatives who were more terrified of real socialism than they were of Hitler’s “national socialism.” Surely none of them could have anticipated the depths of cruelty to which the Nazis would eventually stoop, but they had little problem with curtailing democracy and repressing the Left if it guaranteed their hold on economic power.
Historical analogies are necessarily oversimplified, and the AfD in 2020 is light-years away from the Nazi Party in 1930. Nevertheless, with Germany’s parties of the Left declining in the polls and the AfD currently doing an excellent job portraying itself as the true party of the opposition, yesterday marked a worrying omen of what could become the new normal in Germany in the years to come.
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party never managed to win a majority in a national election; instead, it was helped into office by conservatives who were more terrified of real socialism than they were of Hitler’s “national socialism.”
Are the social democrats the “conservatives” in this scenario? If so, was it really the social democrats who refused to work with the communists, or was it the communists who refused to work with the social democrats? The communists had no love for the SPD after they helped put down the Spartacist uprising in 1919, and many communists, even today, blame the SPD for the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. So, I don’t think there’s much validity to the implication that the social democrats and the communists could have formed a coalition if only the social democrats hadn’t been so terrified of “real socialism.” Also, not everyone sees Marxism-Leninism as “real socialism.” I’m not sure there is consensus on what constitutes “real socialism,” with every socialist faction believing only their socialism is the real socialism.
There were a number of objectively conservative parties that backed Hindenburg: Catholic Centre Party, BVP, DVP, and DStP. Hindenburg chose to support Hitler because of the threat posed by the left to the bourgeois interests he represented and because Hitler didn’t really challenge said interests.
The SPD also chose Hindenburg over Thälmann, and if they knew he was going to support Hitler, then maybe they would’ve acted differently. But either way they weren’t Hindenburg’s core base of conservative support.
There were a number of objectively conservative parties that backed Hindenburg: Catholic Centre Party, BVP, DVP, and DStP.
That’s true, which means there was no possibility of a coalition being formed that involved the KPD, regardless of SPD’s feelings about the KPD. Believe me, I’m not denying that the SPD hated the KPD. I’m certain of it, and it looks like so did every other party. My point is that the KPD hated the SPD, and all those other parties, at least as much. That’s the thing about Marxist-Leninists, they excel at making people hate them, and they’re perfectly content to be completely on their own, politically and ideologically isolated from everyone else. A plurality of German voters literally chose Nazis over the MLs. Even today, I think there are more people who hate MLs than hate Nazis, and that’s saying something because A LOT of people really hate Nazis, rightfully so.
Yes, after the SPD unequivocally supported a pointless war that got millions killed, crushed leftist opposition, and teamed up with the conservatives to enact austerity, they did kind of burn their bridges with the KPD. And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with. The results of both of those sets of actions were disastrous.
If only the KPD had been more powerful, not only could WWII have been prevented, but WWI might have been cut short too.
And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with.
You say “the bourgeois parties,” but that’s all the parties besides the KPD. That’s more than 80% of German voters in 1932. After the depression, the war, the austerity, more people still voted for the SPD, and all the other parties, than the KPD. Those voters couldn’t all be members of the capitalist class. In fact, I’m pretty darn certain they were mostly working class people.
First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
“the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties…
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.
When German Liberals Teamed Up With the Far Right
[…]
Are the social democrats the “conservatives” in this scenario? If so, was it really the social democrats who refused to work with the communists, or was it the communists who refused to work with the social democrats? The communists had no love for the SPD after they helped put down the Spartacist uprising in 1919, and many communists, even today, blame the SPD for the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. So, I don’t think there’s much validity to the implication that the social democrats and the communists could have formed a coalition if only the social democrats hadn’t been so terrified of “real socialism.” Also, not everyone sees Marxism-Leninism as “real socialism.” I’m not sure there is consensus on what constitutes “real socialism,” with every socialist faction believing only their socialism is the real socialism.
There were a number of objectively conservative parties that backed Hindenburg: Catholic Centre Party, BVP, DVP, and DStP. Hindenburg chose to support Hitler because of the threat posed by the left to the bourgeois interests he represented and because Hitler didn’t really challenge said interests.
The SPD also chose Hindenburg over Thälmann, and if they knew he was going to support Hitler, then maybe they would’ve acted differently. But either way they weren’t Hindenburg’s core base of conservative support.
That’s true, which means there was no possibility of a coalition being formed that involved the KPD, regardless of SPD’s feelings about the KPD. Believe me, I’m not denying that the SPD hated the KPD. I’m certain of it, and it looks like so did every other party. My point is that the KPD hated the SPD, and all those other parties, at least as much. That’s the thing about Marxist-Leninists, they excel at making people hate them, and they’re perfectly content to be completely on their own, politically and ideologically isolated from everyone else. A plurality of German voters literally chose Nazis over the MLs. Even today, I think there are more people who hate MLs than hate Nazis, and that’s saying something because A LOT of people really hate Nazis, rightfully so.
Yes, after the SPD unequivocally supported a pointless war that got millions killed, crushed leftist opposition, and teamed up with the conservatives to enact austerity, they did kind of burn their bridges with the KPD. And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with. The results of both of those sets of actions were disastrous.
If only the KPD had been more powerful, not only could WWII have been prevented, but WWI might have been cut short too.
You say “the bourgeois parties,” but that’s all the parties besides the KPD. That’s more than 80% of German voters in 1932. After the depression, the war, the austerity, more people still voted for the SPD, and all the other parties, than the KPD. Those voters couldn’t all be members of the capitalist class. In fact, I’m pretty darn certain they were mostly working class people.
First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.