The KAPD and the AAUD : Differences
Let us leave the parties for a moment and go back to the factory
organisations. This young movement had shown that important changes had
been made in the working class world. There was general agreement on the
following points :
- the new organisation had to be built up and continue to grow
- its structure must be such that no clique of leaders could establish itself;
- once it had established itself with millions of members it would
establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
There were two major points of controversy within the AAUD. The first was :
should there be a political party of the workers outside the AAUD and the
second was on the question of administration of social and economic life.
At first the AAUD had only rather vague relations with the KPD. Its
differences were of no importance. But it was different once the KAPD was
formed. The KAPD immediately became involved in the affairs of the AAUD.
Many of its members did not agree with this. In Saxony, Frankfurt and
Hamburg etc., there was strong opposition to working with the KAPD. Germany
was still extremely decentralised, and its decentralisation was reflected
in the workers organisations; hence the possibility of the KAPD working
with the AAUD in some districts and not in others. As a consequence, the
militants who opposed the formation within the AAUD of a 'leadership
clique' (namely the KAPD), left, and formed their own organisation the
AAUD-E, which rejected the idea of a party of the proletariat and held that
the factory organisation was all sufficient.
The Common Platform
These three currents agreed in their analysis of the modern world. They
accepted that because of the change in society, the proletariat no longer
formed a restricted minority in society that could not struggle alone and
had to seek alliances with other classes, as had been the case in the days
of Marx. At least in the developed countries of the West, that period was
over. In those countries the proletariat was now the majority of the
population while all the layers of the bourgeoisie were united behind big
capital. Henceforth revolution was the affair of the proletariat ALONE.
Capitalism had entered its death crisis. (This was the current analysis
accepted in the 20s and 30s)
But if society had changed in the West at least, then so had the conception
of communism to change. The old ideas, in the old organisations,
represented quite the opposite of social emancipation. Otto Ruhle, one of
the chief theoreticians of the AAUD-E, said this (in 1924) :
'The nationalisation of the means of production, which continues to be the
programme of social-democracy at the same time as it is that of the
communists, is not socialisation. Through nationalisation of the means of
production, it is possible to attain a strongly centralised State
capitalism, which will have perhaps some superiority to private capitalism,
but which will nonetheless be capitalism.'
Communism could only arrive from the action of the workers themselves,
struggling actively on their own. For that, new forms of organisation were
necessary. But what would such organisations be ? Here opinions divided,
and conflicting views could cause endless splits. Although by this time,
the workers had turned away from revolutionary action, and any decisions
the movement might take were of little consequence, it may be of interest
to note what their interpretations of the future society were.
The Double Organisation
The KAPD rejected the idea of the Leninist party, such as prevailed after
the Russian Revolution (a mass party) and held that a revolutionary party
was essentially the party of an elite, based on quality not quantity. Such
a party, uniting the most advanced elements of the proletariat, must act as
a 'leaven within the masses', that is it must spread propaganda, keep up
political discussion etc. Its strategy must be 'class versus class,' based
on the struggle in the factories and armed uprising; sometimes, even, as a
preliminary, terrorist action (such as bombings, bank robberies, raids on
jewellers shops etc.) which were frequent in the early 20s. The struggle in
the factories, led by action committees, would have the task of creating
the atmosphere and the class consciousness necessary to mass struggles and
to bringing ever greater masses of workers to mobilise themselves for
decisive struggles.
Herman Gorter, one of the principal theoreticians of this party, justified
thus the necessity of a small communist party ;
'Most proletarians are ignoramuses. They have little notion of economics
and politics, do not know much of national and international events, of the
relations which exist between these latter and of the influence which they
exert on the revolution. By reason of their position in society they cannot
get to know all this. This is why they can never act at the right moment.
They act when they should not, do not act when they should. They repeatedly
make mistakes.'
(Answer to Lenin; H Gorter, Paris 1930)
So according to this theory, the small select Party would have an
educational mission, it would be a catalyst of ideas. But the task of
regrouping the masses and organising them, in a network of factory
organisations, would be that of the AAUD. Its essential objective would be
to counter and overthrow the influence of the Trade Unions, through
propaganda, but more particularly through determined action, that of a
'group which shows in the struggle what the masses must become' - Gorter.
Finally, in the course of revolutionary struggle, these factory
organisations would become workers councils, uniting all the workers and
controlled by them. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be nothing
more than an AAUD extended to the whole of German industry.
The AAUD-E Argument
The AAUD-E was, as has been said, opposed to a political party separate
from the factory organisations. It wanted a united organisation which would
lead the day to day struggle, and later on take over the administration of
society, on the system of workers councils. It would have both economic and
political aims. It differed from revolutionary syndicalism in that it
disagreed with the hostility to working class political power and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, it did not see the
usefulness of a political party (KAPD style). Though granting the same
arguments about the backwardness of the working class, for them the
factory organisation itself would suffice for the educational role so long
as freedom of speech and discussion were assured within them.
The AAUD-E criticised the KAPD for being a centralised party, with
professional leaders and paid editors, only distinguished form the KPD by
its rejection of Parliamentarism. They derided the 'double organisation' as
a 'double pie card' for the benefit of the leaders. The AAUD-E rejected the
notion of paid leaders; 'neither cards nor rules nor anything of that
kind', they said. Some of them went so far as to found anti-organisation
organisations.
Roughly, the AAUD-E held that if the proletariat is too weak or divided to
take decisions, no party decision could remedy this. Nobody could take the
place of the proletariat. It must, by itself, overcome its own defects,
otherwise it will be beaten and will pay a heavy price for its defeat. For
them the double organisation was a hangover from the political party and
trade union partnership.
As a result of the differences between these three trends, KAPD, AAUD and
AAUD-E, the latter refused to participate with the other two in the Central
German insurrection of 1921. This was launched and led in a great part by
the armed elements of the KAPD (still at that time regarded as sympathetic
to the Third International), since the AAUD-E claimed it was merely to
camouflage the events in Russia and in particular the repression of the
Kronstadt sailors and workers by the Red Army under Trotsky.
Despite continued internal dissension, always very high and often obscured
by personalities; in spite of excesses provoked by disappointment, the
'communist spirit', that is to say, the insistence on violent direct
action, the passionate denunciation of all political and trade union
colours (including the 'palace mayors' of Moscow) continued to permeate the
masses. All financed by illegal means; their members, though often thrown
out of employment because of their subversive activities, were extremely
active in the street and at public meetings etc.
Disappointment
But it had been believed that the growth of the factory organisations of
1919/20 would continue at the same rate, that they would become a mass
movement of 'millions of conscious communists' which would override the
power of the allegedly working class trade unions. This was not however to
prove the case. They started from the hypothesis that the proletariat would
struggle and win as an organised class, and would work out the way of
building the new organisation. In the growth of the AAUD or the AAUD-E, the
development of the fighting spirit and class consciousness of the workers
could be measured. But these organisations drew in on themselves after the
American financed economic expansion of 1923/29. In the years of Depression
they were reduced to a mere few hundred members, a few cells here and there
in the factories which employed some 20 million. By the time the Hitlerites
came on the scene, the factory organisations had shrunk from being
'general' organisations of the workers to being cells of conscious council
communists. Notwithstanding what their aims might be or their press might
say, the AAUD and the AAUD-E had become no more than minor political
parties.
The Function of the Organisations
Was it however, merely the withering away of their membership that
transformed the factory organisations into minor political parties ?
No !
It was a change of function. Though the factory organisations never had for
their proclaimed task the leading of strikes, negotiations with employers,
formulation of demands (all of which they left to the strikers themselves)
- they were the organs of struggle. They restricted their functions to
those of propaganda and support. Every time a strike was launched the
factory organisations helped to run it; their press was the strike press;
they put on speakers, AAUD or AAUD-E and ran meetings. But so far as
conducting negotiations was concerned, it was the task of the strike
committee and the members of the factory organisations did not represent
their group as such but the strikers who had elected them and to whom they
were responsible.
The KAPD, as a political party, had a different function. Its task was seen
as being above all propaganda, economic and political analysis. At election
times it undertook anti-parliamentary activity; it called for action
committees in the factories, streets, among the unemployed, etc.
After the bloody repression of 1921, and during the period of economic
prosperity, the above named functions became purely theoretical. The
activity of the factory organisations became solely that of propaganda and
analysis, that is to say political activity. Many members were discouraged
and left the movement. As a result of that, too it meant that the factory
was no longer the basis of the organisation. Meetings began to be held
outside the factory; on the basis of the district, perhaps in a bar where,
German fashion, they sang the old workers songs of hope and anger . . . .
No longer was there a practical difference between KAPD, AAUD and AAUD-E.
In practice they put forward the same line, and were all political
groupings whatever they called themselves. Anton Pannekoek, the Dutch
Marxist who was one of the great theoreticians of council communism, said
in this respect:
'The AAUD, like the KAPD, is essentially an organisation whose immediate
goal is the revolution. In other times, in a period of decline of the
revolution, one could not have thought of founding such an organisation.
But it has survived the revolutionary years; the workers who founded it
before and fought under its flag do not want to let themselves lose the
experience of those struggles and conserve it like a cutting from a plant fo
r the developments to come.'
Three political parties of the same colour was two too many !
With the dangers threatening the working class as the Nazis started on the
road we know so well today, and with inertia and cowardice of the old and
powerful 'working class' organisations, there were moves to unity. In
December 1931, the AAUD (having already separated from the KAPD) fused with
the AAUD-E. Only a few elements remained in the KAPD, and some from the
AAUD-E went into the anarchist ranks (the FAUD). But most of the survivors
of the factory organisations were in a new organisation, the KAUD
(Kommunistische Arbeiter Union Deutschlands) or the Communist Workers Union
of Germany. This expressed in its title the idea that the organisation was
no longer a 'general organisation' of the workers, as the AAUD had been at
one time. It united all those workers who were declared revolutionaries,
consciously communist, but did not claim it united all the workers any
longer.
The KAUD
With the change of name, there was a change of conception. Up till then,
council communism had only taken note of the 'organised class'. Both the
AAUD and the AAUD-E had believed from the beginning that it would be they
who would organise the working class, that millions would rally to them. It
was an idea close to that of revolutionary syndicalism, which looked
forward to seeing all the workers join their unions, then the working
class would be an 'organised class'.
Now however, the KAUD urged workers to organise for themselves their own
action committees. No longer was the 'organised' class struggle to depend
on an organisation formed previously to the struggle. In this new
conception, the 'organised class' became the working class struggling under
its own leadership.
This change of conception had other consequences. It affected the theory of
the dictatorship of the proletariat, for instance. If the 'organised class'
was no longer the exclusive affair of organisations formed before the
struggle, those organisations were no longer able to be considered as the
organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Thus disappeared one of the causes of dissension: whether the KAPD or the
AAUD would have to exercise power. It had to be agreed that the
dictatorship of the proletariat could not be in the hands of specialised
organisations; it would exist in the hands of the class which was in
struggle. The task of the new KAUD would amount to communist propaganda,
clarifying the objectives of the struggle, urging the working class to
struggle, principally by means of the unofficial strike, and showing it
where its strengths and weaknesses lay.
Communist Society and the Factory Organisations
This evolution in ideas had to be accompanied by a revision of recognised
notions concerning the future communist society. The general ideology in
political circles accepted by the masses was State Capitalism. There were
many shades of state capitalism, but state capitalist ideology could be
brought down to some very simple principles : the state, through
nationalisation, through planned economy, through social reforms etc.
represented the lever for socialism, while parliamentary and trade union
action represented the means of struggle. According to this theory, the
working class had hardly and need to struggle as an independent class;
instead they should entrust the 'management and leadership of the class
struggle' to Parliamentary and Trade Union commanders. Needless to say, in
this ideology, Party and Trade Unions became a component part of the State,
and the management and leadership of the socialist or communist society of
the future would be theirs.
Indeed during the first phase (following the defeat of the revolution in
Germany) this tradition still strongly impregnated the conceptions of the
AAUD, the KAPD and the AAUD-E. All three were in favour of an organisation
'grouping millions and millions' of workers in order to carry out the
political and economic dictatorship of the proletariat. In 1922, for
instance the AAUD declared that it was in a position to take over, on its
reckoning, based on its active membership, '6% of the factories' of
Germany.
But these conceptions altered. When there were hundreds of factory
organisations, united and co-ordinated by the AAUD and AAUD-E, they could
demand the maximum of independence as to the decisions they took and avoid
'a new clique of leaders'.
But it was asked whether it was possible to preserve this independence in
the midst of communist social life ?
Economic life is highly specialised, and all enterprises are directly
interdependent. How could economic life be administered if the production
and distribution of social wealth are not sometimes in centralised forms ?
Was the State dispensable or indispensable as a regulator of production and
organisation ?
It is easy to see there was a contradiction between the old idea of
communist society and the new form of society that was now proposed. While
there was fear of economic centralisation, it was not clear how to guard
against it. There was discussion about the greater or lesser degree of
'federalism' or 'centralism' : the AAUD-E leaned rather more towards
federalism, the KAPD - AAUD leaned more towards centralism. In 1923, Karl
Schrâder (1884 - 1950, Spartacist fighter with a price on his head, then a
professional leader of the KAPD, was expelled from the KAPD in 1924; later
he became an official of the Socialist Party. He was one of the few of his
party to organise 'resistance' to Nazism. Imprisoned in 1936 with other
KAPD veterans, he is today one of the German Socialist 'martyrs') the
theoretician of the KAPD, proclaimed that 'the more centralised communist
society is, the better it will be'.
In fact, as long as one remained on the basis of the old conceptions of the
'organised class', this contradiction was insoluble. One side rallied more
or less to the revolutionary syndicalist conception of 'taking over' the
factories through the unions; the other, like the Bolsheviks, thought that
a centralised apparatus, the state, must regulate the process of
distribution and production, and distribute the 'national income' among the
workers.
But to discuss the communist society on the basis of 'federalism or
centralism' is sterile. These are problems of organisation, technical
problems, while communist society is basically an economic problem.
Capitalism must give way to another economic system, where the means of
production, the products of labour power, do not take the form of 'value'
and where the exploitation of the working population to the profit of
privileged layers has disappeared.
The problem of 'federalism or centralism' is devoid of sense if it has not
been shown beforehand what the form of organisation and its economic basis
will be. Forms of organisation are not arbitrary: they derive from the very
principles of the economy. For example, the principle of profit and surplus
value, of its private or collective appropriation, lies at the bottom of
all forms of capitalist economy. That is why it is insufficient to present
communist economy as a negative system: no money, no market, no private or
State property. It is necessary to show up its positive character, to show
what will be the economic laws which will succeed those of capitalism.
This done, it may well be that the problem of 'federalism or centralism' is
no problem at all.
The End of the Movement in Germany
The AAUD had separated from the KAPD at the end of 1929. Its press then
advocated a 'flexible tactic'; support of workers struggles solely for wage
demands, the improvement of conditions or hours of work. More rigidly, the
KAPD saw in this tactic the bait for a slide towards class collaboration,
'horse-trading' (Kuhhandel) politics. After expelling its leader Adam
Scharrer for 'making a pact with the enemy' (ie. having a novel published
by the German Communist Party publishing house), (Adam Scharrer 1889 -1948
metalworker, Spartacist fighter, afterwards professional leader of the KAPD
from which he was expelled in 1930. A novelist like Schrâder, he lived in
Moscow after 1934. Later moved to what was East Germany where he was
regarded as a 'pioneer of proletarian literature'. Needless to say, some
features of his past life were not exactly advertised.) - the KAPD turned
to the advocacy of individual terrorism. One of those who accepted this
idea was Marinus VAN DER LUBBE. In setting fire to the premises housing the
Nazi Parliament, and burning down the Reichstag, he wished by a symbolic
gesture to urge the workers to abandon their political apathy and rise
against the Nazis. (It should be noted in passing that effective Stalinist
propaganda has all but obscured the heroic role of Van der Lubbe, who in
English speaking countries at least, has been classified almost as a Nazi
stool pigeon - a slander begun by Dimitrov and Thalmann, Communist leaders,
in their defence.)
But neither tactic had any results in any case. Germany had gone through an
economic crisis of major depth. There was huge army of the unemployed.
Unofficial strikes became impossible. While it was true that nobody any
longer thought of obeying their trade unions, the latter were collaborating
directly with the employers and the state. The press of the council
communists was frequently seized. The supreme irony was that the only great
unofficial strike of that period - the transport workers of Berlin in 1932
- was organised by the Stalinist and Hitler high priests acting together
against the high priests of the Socialist trade unions.
Part 4
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page