The following are summaries of episodes of Mike Duncan's Revolutions Podcast regarding the English Civil War. They downplay some of the twists and turns of the military history, which can get pretty convoluted at times.
1. The Kingdoms of Charles Stuart
Charles I (Stuart) ascends the English, Irish and Scottish throne; discussion of effects of Reformation on British Isles (Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Puritanism, Arminianism); disputes over Tonnage and Poundage, George Villiers (Duke of Buckingham) lead to dissolution of Charles' first and second parliaments; Villiers assassinated; Charles institutes "forced loans," institutes Personal Rule
2. Personal Rule
Introduction of Charles' advisors, Thomas Wentworth (1st Earl of Strafford) and William Laud (Archbishop of Canterbury); proto-opposition to Charles, including John Pym, unites via the Providence Island Company; Charles levies unpopular fines, most notably ship money; trial of John Hampden for refusing to pay; increasing popular resentment at Charles' perceived Catholic biases
3. The Bishops' Wars
Attempt to introduce Anglican Book of Common Prayer into Scottish Episcopalian churches produces riots at St. Giles' Cathedral and elsewhere; Scottish Covenanters and Charles both prepare for war; Charles has trouble raising army due to lack of support, funds; minor skirmishes of the First Bishops' War result in the Peace of Berwick; Charles calls Short Parliament to raise funds but dissolves it after parliamentarians refuse; Alexander Leslie (later Earl of Leven) leads invasion of England to start Second Bishops' War; Charles' poor army fares badly; Treaty of Ripon accommodates invading Scottish army; Charles forced to call Long Parliament
4. The Long Parliament
Long Parliament impeaches Strafford and Laud; bungling treason prosecution forces PMs to resort to a bill of attainder; Charles' plot to rescue Strafford from imprisonment fails; Strafford is executed with Charles' consent; Charles travels to Scotland to attempt to win over the Earl of Argyll but fails in part due to "The Incident"; MPs draw up the Grand Remonstrance; rebellion breaks out in Ireland; Charles orders arrest of 5 MPs, then storms into Parliament to find them himself (the first time a king has ever entered the House of Commons), but they have escaped; Lenthall informs Charles, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here"; Charles flees to Windsor Castle
5. Cavaliers and Roundheads
Parliament passes the Militia Ordinance (ordinances do not require royal approval, as opposed to laws, which do) and Charles issues Commissions of Array to raise armies; Parliament issues 19 Propositions to Charles; First English Civil War breaks out when Charles raises his standard at Nottingham; Cavalier (royalist) vs Roundhead (parliamentarian) insults; Battle of Powick Bridge; Battle of Edgehill; introduction of Prince Rupert, Thomas Fairfax, Robert Devereux (commander of parliamentarian forces and 3rd Earl of Essex) and others; First Battle of Newbury; early royalist success in war
5a. (supplemental) The Armies
England does not have a standing professional army, so instead all sides try to recruit from trained bands; infantry consists of pikemen and musketeers, who can fire 1 shot per minute with matchlock muskets and later flintlock muskets; cavalry consists of almost all light cavalry armed with pistols and swords; artillery comes in siege, heavy field and light field flavors but is rarely used since it is too much trouble due to heaviness and logistical complications
6. The Solemn League and Covenant
Massacre at Ulster leads to Scottish invasion of Ireland to defend coreligionists; Charles negotiates Irish cessation to halt hostilities; Solemn League and Covenant allies Covenanters with Parliament; Pym and Hampden (parliamentary moderates) die; Parliament polarized between peace party (sees war as means of negotiating with Charles) and war party (sees war as means of defeating Charles); Committee of Both Kingdoms succeeds Committee of Safety in 1644; introduction of Oliver Cromwell (Puritan, cavalry officer, cousin of Hampden); rivalry between William Waller and Earl of Essex; tension between Cromwell and Earl of Manchester; Battle of Marston Moor (largest battle so far; decisive parliamentarian victory; closes Northern theater)
7. The New Model Army
Second Battle of Newbury; Laud extracted from imprisonment in the Tower of London to stand trial for treason with William Prynne (a man Laud had branded) overseeing it; Parliament passes bill of attainder and executes Laud; the New Model Ordinance creates the New Model Army, centralizing and professionalizing the war effort; Self-denying Ordinance purges officer core; Fairfax leads NMA; Fairfax later given more control over NMA and appoints Cromwell as cavalry general; NMA's intelligence far superior; Battle of Naseby effectively ends First English Civil War in Parliament's favor
8. Checkmate
Rupert dismissed; Goring never disciplined for his drunkenness; Montrose beaten; Irish negotiations with Charles revealed; Charles taken prisoner by Scotts, who then give him to Parliament in exchange for payment; Charles taken by Cornet Joyce to NMA (controversy under whose orders Joyce was acting); differing political objectives of Independents (many in NMA) and Presbyterians (many in Parliament); NMA wants back pay, indemnity, pensions, etc.; NMA impeaches several MPs, who flee London; NMA arrives in London, essentially taking political control of the city
9. The Man of Blood
Some Levellers join the NMA with intent to win control of it and use it to press demands; they draw up the "Case of the Army Truly Stated" and the "Agreement of the People" documents; the subsequent Putney Debates feature Thomas Rainsborough arguing for universal suffrage against Henry Ireton, but end inconclusively; increasing vitriol is directed towards Charles as the "Man of Blood" (biblical reference); Charles flees to the Isle of Wight; Fairfax threatens to resign if more radical demands are made / troops keep failing to maintain discipline, defeats radical energies; Charles signs the Engagement with Scotts to try and restore him to power; Second English Civil War breaks out, is more dispersed; Hamilton defeated at Battle of Preston (ending Second Civil War) and captured by John Lambert
10. Regicide
Charles led back to the mainland; NMA prevents certain unfriendly members from entering Parliament in Pride's Purge, creating the Rump Parliament; Charles is executed, procedural confusion ensues; House of Lords abolished, monarchy abolished, Council of State formed, England declared a Commonwealth; Charles II ponders his options; more Leveller mutinies put down; Cromwell rises in prominence as Fairfax shies away from politics; Cromwell invades Ireland and puts down revolt; Covenanters and Charles II sign Treaty of Breda
11. The Crowning Mercy
The Treaty of Breda requires Charles II to disavow Montrose; Montrose lands with a mercenary army at Scotland before being captured and executed by Covenanters; the Rump Parliament decides to preemptively invade Scotland; Fairfax objects and retires; Cromwell appointed lord general; Charles II disingenuously signs Solemn League and Covenant; David Leslie commands Scottish army in Third English Civil War (not a civil war per se; a conflict between Scottish and English); Cromwell wins victory at Battle of Dunbar; Argyll crowns Charles II King of Scotland; Charles and Leslie take Cromwell's bait and invade England; Cromwell's victory at Battle of Worcester ends Third English Civil War
12a. (supplemental) Freeborn John
John Lilburne is important Leveller; criticizes and is imprisoned by both Charles and Parliament; fights on Parliamentarian side; propagandist for English freedom; Lilburne banished to the Netherlands after personal dispute
12b. (supplemental) The Diggers
Diggers first called the "True Levellers"; distinguished from Levellers because they do not defend private property rights; collectively occupy and farm unused land, which earns them their name; Gerrard Winstanley most famous Digger, publishes radical pamphlets
12. In The Name of God Go
Navigation Act starts First Anglo-Dutch War; Rump votes for its own dissolution far in future; Rump reneges on promises and confiscates royalist estates; Divisions in army Lambert and Thomas Harrison (Fifth Monarchist); Cromwell visits and abruptly dissolves Rump Parliament, saying "In The Name of God Go" (controversy over why; bill Rump was debating at time has vanished); Cromwell convenes new Council of State; Barebone's Parliament established; Compulsory tithes and legal reform polarize Parliament between reformists and radicals; mass resignation of Parliament due to paralysis
13. The Instrument of Government
Lambert writes Instrument of Government, which emphasizes separation of powers, influenced by Heads of Proposals, accepted as basis of government; Cromwell sworn in as Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland; Ordinance of Union establishes Parliament as representative of Scotland; adventures of George Monck; Treaty of Westminster ends First Anglo-Dutch War; First Protectorate Parliament convenes and clashes with Cromwell; Cromwell dissolves FPP based on lunar months calculation
14. The Humble Petition and Advice
Sealed Knot royalist conspiracy / Penruddock Uprising fails, in part thwarted by spymaster John Thurloe; Cromwell sends ships to seize Hispaniola from Spanish, but fleet ends up taking Jamaica instead; Rule of Major-Generals begins, unpopular decimation tax enacted; war with Spain officially declared; Cromwell needs more funds, so Second Protectorate Parliament convenes, albeit with members selected by the army; Humble Petition and Advice passes, but Cromwell refuses the crown; historical debate about Cromwell's behavior at this time; Lambert refuses to defend new constitution and resigns
14a. (supplemental) The War on Christmas
Puritan parliament attempts to abolish Christmas under Commonwealth, meets popular resistance, including riots; they observe similarities between Christmas and Roman Saturnalia
15 The Good Old Cause
Cromwell's collaboration with French in minor military expeditions; SPP dissolved after clashing with Cromwell; Battle of the Dunes takes Dunkirk for Anglo-French; Cromwell dies from illness, never names successor, but succeeded by his son Richard ("Tumbledown Dick"); historical debate about Cromwell's legacy; Third Protectorate Parliament meets, Haselrig and other pro-parliament partisans emerge; Good Old Cause acts as rallying cry against Protectorate; Rump Parliament reconvenes after reaching deal with NMA; Richard signs document putting himself under Rump's control
16a. (supplemental) Sir Edward Hyde, First Earl of Calrendon
Hyde was participant in events, wrote first history of the Civil War, which has royalist slant; was advisor / ghostwriter for monarchy
16. The Restoration
Rump's base of support is narrow outside armed forces; Commonwealth unpopular with people due to unending war, taxes, political paralysis; Booth's Uprising fails; Lambert dissolves Rump; Lambert moves troops to confront possible move by Monck; Fairfax agrees to coordinate with Monck; Rump reconvenes and tells Monck his help is unnecessary; Lambert's forces defect, he stands down; Monck marches into London; Monck halfheartedly follows Rump's orders before telling them to convene elections; Monck dissolves Rump and restores Long Parliament; Long Parliament votes to dissolve themselves and call new elections; Lambert escapes and tries to rally support for Richard, fails and again imprisoned; Convention Parliament called; Charles II writes Declaration of Breda; CP restores monarchy, Charles II returns to the throne
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Friday, July 3, 2015
Book Review: The Communist International and US Communism 1919-1929 by Jacob A. Zumoff
Jacob Zumoff justifies his new book on the early US Communist Party (CP), The Communist International and US Communism 1919-1929, on two grounds. First, the previous studies (the most respected of which are those of Theodore Draper) frame the interaction of the Comintern and the CP as one of foreign influence vs American influence. (3) Zumoff disagrees, his main thesis being that the Comintern crucially and productively intervened in the early history of the American CP -- most notably on the "Negro Question." (23) However, this intervention become less beneficial over time as the Comintern, and thus the CP, Stalinized. (1) The second justification for a new study is the many new sources that have come to light. (11)
The definition of Stalinisation is important since Zumoff's thesis pivots on its emergence. He rejects definitions of it as "centralization, political violence and dogmatism," noting Stalin hardly invented these tactics. He also brushes aside Hermann Weber's definition which emphasizes a transformation to a monolithic and hierarchical party. (12) Noting that Stalinism is a practice which extends beyond the person of Stalin himself, Zumoff finally defines it as "the ideological reflection of the degeneration of the Comintern... starting in 1924." (13)
The Comintern was pivotal in the CP's early formation. US radicals founded two distinct Communist parties early, the Communist Party of America (CPA) and the Communist Labor Party (CLP), John Reed's party. Despite division over whether members should remain in the Socialist Party (SP) (which turned out to be a moot point since CLP members were effectively expelled from the SP, but that didn't prevent hostility from breaking out between the two camps (40)), both factions united into a single party after, in the words of a party organ, the "Third International [spoke] and its mandate could no longer be postponed." (48)
The repression of the post-WWI era predisposed the CP towards underground organizing. However, with Comintern intervention, an above-ground Workers' Party (WP) was formed. After different splinter factions were united into a single party at the Bridgman Convention, (66) the Comintern gave what James Cannon described as "a long argument and a push from Moscow" to have the underground portion of the CP surface and have the party engage in legal work. (73)
The Comintern pushed many times more: to oppose dual unionism outside the AFL and attempt to recruit IWW members (the later effort largely failed); (75) to establish the Trade Union Educational League which allowed the CP to fraternize with other workers; (111) recruiting "arguably the period's greatest labor leader," (98) William Z. Foster; preventing the CP from liquidating itself into the Farmer-Labor Party (112) or Bob La Follette's 1924 presidential campaign under the Progressive Party.
If there is a villain in this narrative (save Stalin), it is John Pepper. Pepper seems to have an unbroken record of failure (the March Action) and poor, often opportunistic advice. He sows factionalism and is rude and high-handed with comrades. At various points, the American, the Russian and the British communists all want to be rid of him. Zumoff writes, "Pepper was the kind of communist functionary who destroyed Bolshevism." (120)
One challenge the American CP dealt with was its membership's extreme cultural heterogeneity. In 1922 only 10% of the party was in English-language branches. (172) The Jewish and Finnish sections were the largest, (175) the Jewish because they wanted to assimilate, the Finnish because they wanted to preserve their cultural autonomy. (178) Indeed, more than a third of the CP was Finnish (177) and Finns in America were much more predisposed to radical politics in general than the rest of the population. (178) Following the philosophy of the Bolshevik experience with the Jewish Bund, the CP dismantled the independence of the foreign language federations to centralize the party (for its part, the Bund withdrew before it could be stripped of its autonomy). Nevertheless, in 1936 still half of the CP was foreign-born. (186)
The dismantling of the foreign language federations was only one part of the "Bolshevisation" campaign that was concomitant with the Stalinisation of the Comintern. After the sudden death of CP leader C. E. Ruthenberg, Jay Lovestone assumed control of the party for a brief period. (207) Cannon and his allies were expelled from the party after voicing their support for Trotsky's Left Opposition. (260) Jay Lovestone made the mistake of siding with Bukharin over Stalin and was thus removed from party leadership in favor of Earl Browder. (285)
The last four chapters deal with the "Negro Question" as it was handled by the Comintern and CP. In 1919 the CP only claimed one black member, (287) and its early color-blind policies didn't help it win black recruits. At the Third Comintern Congress, the Negro Commission was established; this organization had the weakness of grouping concerns of American blacks into the same category as blacks worldwide. (305) But it was at the Fourth Congress (where Claude McKay and Otto Huiswoud presented on the subject) that the Comintern identified fighting black oppression as a key task, what Zumoff calls a "turning point in the Communist appreciation of the links between black oppression and capitalism." (308) The CP followed suit, dedicating itself to full racial equality at its Fourth National Convention. (323) The American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC), led by Lovett Fort-Whiteman, was the CP's first significant attempt to recruit black workers. (324)
The Sixth Comintern Congress saw the Comintern adopt the Black Nation Thesis over the wishes of most American Communists -- both white and black -- after Sen Katayama reminded delegates that Lenin considered American Negros a subject nation. (342/344) Even Harry Haywood, a lonely voice championing the policy, was opposed by his own brother, Otto Hall. (349) The line reflected Stalin's two-stage approach to revolution (Zumoff comments "In the US, the most developed capitalist country in the world, the 'two-stage' approach was absurd and a betrayal." (356)). Although a hinderance to party work, no prominent black CP member left over the new policy. (359) The Third Period, as it was, had enough ridiculous theoretical lines to swallow; one more wasn't much bother. (359) In any event, the line was downplayed.
While Zumoff notes there is "no doubt the party would have been better served by a realistic understanding of the black oppression in America" (363), the Comintern self-determination line did have three main positive effects on party work among blacks:
"First, it forced the party to redouble this work. Second, making the Negro question a national question underscored its special (that is, non-class) nature and its international importance, placing it on the same place as the Irish or Jewish questions. Third, insisting that the black 'peasantry' was key to black liberation forced the party to go beyond its antipathy to the South and establish roots there." (361)The CP squandered some of its good reputation among blacks during the Popular Front period (in which Browder uttered "Communism is the Americanism of the twentieth century"), when its hostility to civil rights militancy in the service of Soviet-US cooperation discredited it in the minds of post-war organizers. (364)
In the end, Zumoff does not see the aims of the American CP as quixotic, nor does he fault them for not making a revolution (since there was no revolutionary situation to take advantage of). What he does criticize is their lack of proper organization in preparation for a potential future revolutionary situation. (20)
One thread that runs through the book is the incessant, often vicious and dishonest internecine struggle within the American Communist milieu (much of it involving Pepper). Given the amateur hour showcased by the CP, at loggerheads over often personal and not political differences -- or trivial political differences -- it seems a reasonable thesis to posit that the Comintern played the responsible parent to the squabbling children (although, of course, the Comintern was beset by its own factional difficulties... some of which also involved Pepper!). The book is peppered with so much factional fighting that reading all the details of it becomes tiresome for the reader (although, no doubt, valuable for the historian). I can take a little consolation in that various CP members also stated at the time that the factionalism was a drag (at one point, Cannon attempts to form "a faction against factions"). One favorite factional tactic seemed to be to adopt the same name of the group one was opposing, and issue a party paper of the same name as the opposition's as well!
Another leitmotif is the lack of knowledge in the CP about the intrigues amongst the Comintern -- especially the process of Stalinisation. It's hard to fault the CP for this too much in retrospect, given the deliberately opaque and confusing nature of the process. As Zumoff states, the ultraleft rhetoric of the Third Period hardly seemed at the time to be a retreat from a revolutionary perspective. (366) However, Stalinisation for the American CP largely meant social-democratization, essentially adopting the Democratic Party program. (16)
Monday, December 22, 2014
Book Review: Revolutions of 1848 by Priscilla Robertson
Priscilla Robertson's Revolutions of 1848: A Social History chronicles the revolutionary struggles across Europe in 1848. Robertson declares that the book's "aim is to show how men lived and felt a hundred years ago rather than to describe at length other important factors." (vii) Insisting that "no leader was really very important in 1848," (vii) she strives for a "social history."
1848 saw the emergence of the proletariat onto the political scene. "Sixty years of the swiftest industrial progress the world had ever known had created a new working class whose miseries were likely to be explosive." (4) In Continental Europe, this class was most developed in France. Its "miseries" -- including the hitherto unseen scourge of mass unemployment -- were also more developed in France. Previously, the proletariat and bourgeoisie were united against foreign enemies and their own monarchy and aristocracy. However, 1848 shattered this bond: "What was lost, in 1848, was the idea that classes and nations had anything to give to each other." (7)
New ideologies developed concomitantly with the class struggle. The Communist Manifesto, published a year previous to 1848, went practically unread until workers tried to make sense of their betrayal by the liberals. "Only after the liberals won power did they discover that they were afraid of the workers; when the workers found this out they turned to the Marxian gospel." (6) Despite not knowing about Marxism, the workers still in effect raised Marxist demands: "In 1848 for the first time the working classes were going to assert, unsuccessfully, their demands for redistribution of goods." (14) In this sense, 1848 was also a struggle between conflicting ideologies: nationalism, liberalism and socialism.
The personalities in France embodied the varying ideologies of the time. Louis Philippe was the king of the July Monarchy brought to power by the July Revolution of 1830. Louis Blanc was a liberal reformer who had been agitating for what he called "the right to work" -- essentially guaranteed employment. Proudhon and Blanqui were anarchists, the former as a polemicist (who eventually took part in government) and the later as a organizer of revolutionary secret societies.
Paris was the spark that lit the fuse of continent-wide revolution. It was the only city where "a true socialist revolt was possible in 1848. Other European capitals lacked the working-class leadership for such a fight; it is also true that their energies were more absorbed in the fight for nationality, which the French did not have to bother with." (21) Liberal reformers established a campaign of banquets to organize politically which exploited a loophole in the law prohibiting large political meetings. The regime's banishment of these meetings in February enraged Parisians, who started building barricades and condemning the influential minister Guizot. A series of fatal confrontations between soldiers and citizens led to the king's abdication and the establishment of the Second Republic, declared by Lamartine.
In the wake of the change of regime, the economy collapsed. The provisional government decided to enact a tax on peasants which "may have saved the republic from bankruptcy, but it also killed it by arousing the hatred of the countryside." (66) The Luxembourg Commission, the "first workers' congress in the world" (67) was set up by the government under Blanc to study the problems of the laboring classes. The government also set up national workshops, meant to guarantee work for the previously unemployed, but did so in a way which almost guaranteed their failure: they were woefully inadequate to absorb all the excess labor, under hostile direction and mismanaged. Finally, the government granted universal suffrage to all Frenchmen to participate in the upcoming presidential election.
As inadequate as they were, the national workshops represented one of the few concessions to the proletariat. The government's decision to shutter them provoked the June Days fighting, the "first real class war of modern times." (77) 50,000 took to the barricades in despair with the cry "bread or lead," (88) and over a thousand died as the workers were crushed by Cavaignac's forces. The aftermath also provides us with the "first example of permanent martial law," (96) as Cavaignac kept his troops in the city to suppress any latent uprisings.
Louis Napoleon (Napoleon I's nephew) faced little challenge in the presidential elections later that year, as every other candidate had discredited himself. Moreover, his namesake carried the glory of a powerful France, appealing to the peasantry and others. "The truth was, Napoleon was nearly everybody's candidate." (100) But the reserved nephew would soon betray nearly all his promises: "A professed democrat and nationalist, the future emperor was to kill democracy and nationalism in the Roman Republic; a boastful friend of peace, he led France into several wars; though he publicly courted socialists, he used reactionary ministers and soon cut off his left-wing friends. Universal suffrage, then, did not give a very good account of itself in its first try in ninetieth-century Europe." (102)
Parts two through four focus on political events in the German states, Austrian Empire and Italian states, respectively. Robertson quotes an American as observing, "In 1848 both Germany and Italy could have won either unification or liberalism, but because they tried for both, they did not win either." (115)
In her concluding section, Robertson attributes the lack of a revolution in Britain to "free speech and good will and wealth." (407) Ironically, most of the demands of the 1848 revolutionaries were brought about within a quarter centuries by the enemies of the revolution in various countries. But the revolutions themselves failed because "in a sense the 1848 revolutions turned into class struggles." (412) However, "The greatest failure of all in 1848 was that the men who had power never really trusted the people." (419) She ends, "Out of 1848 and its struggles no important new freedom was wrested. Instead men lost confidence in freedom and imagined they had made a great advance in sophistication by turning from idealism to cynicism." (419)
Robertson's style makes for smooth reading, although one does get the sense that some important facts about 1848 are either left out or passing emphasized. Her heavy use of personality studies does fit in with the goal of a "social history." However, I don't think this book (published in 1952) emulates the extremely bottom-up emphasis of the other social histories I have read, although it does approach that direction.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Book Review: Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction by Jack A. Goldstone
Jack A. Goldstone's book Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction examines the nature, causes and trajectory of revolutions. The first half of the book generalizes about revolutions while the second half is a series of case studies, from stirrings in ancient history to the Arab Spring revolts.
Goldstone opens the book with a discussion of what revolutions are. There are two narratives of revolutions, one which holds they are processes in which "downtrodden masses are raised up by leaders who guide them in overthrowing unjust rulers," and the other which maintains they are "eruptions of popular anger that produce chaos." (1-2) The reality, Goldstone argues, is that revolutions are both. Ultimately he settles on a definition of revolution as "the forcible overthrow of a government through mass mobilization (whether military or civilian or both) in the name of social justice, to create new political institutions." (4) He then lists many circumstances which are not, by themselves, revolutions: peasant revolts, grain riots, strikes, reform movements, coups, radical social movements, civil wars, rebellions, uprisings, insurrections and guerrilla warfare.
In the subsequent chapter Goldstone answers the question of what causes revolution. First he dismisses conditions that do not by themselves cause revolution: poverty (revolutions occur more often in middle-income countries), modernization, and new ideologies. He then names five conditions that he considers necessary and sufficient for revolution: 1) national economic or fiscal strains 2) growing alienation and opposition among the elites 3) increasingly widespread popular anger at injustice 4) an ideology that presents a shared narrative of resistance 5) favorable international relations. Goldstone maintains that, like an earthquake, revolutions are very hard to predict, even if one knows fault lines where one is likely to occur. He draws a distinction between common structural causes of revolution -- demographic change, a shift in the pattern of international relations, uneven or dependent economic development, new patterns of exclusion or domination against particular groups, the evolution of a personalist regime -- and common transient causes: food price spikes, defeat in war, riots, etc.
Chapter three examines the process of revolution. Revolutions usually progress through a series of steps: stake breakdown (which can come in the form of a central collapse, peripheral advance or negotiated revolution), postrevolutionary power struggles which see splits between moderates and radicals -- or even counterrevolution, institutionalization of the revolutionary regime, and sometimes a second radical phase years after the initial revolution led by radicals who feel that the revolutionary aims have not been obtained (e.g. the Cultural Revolution). To be successful, revolutionaries must have both visionary leadership and organizational leadership. Goldstone also enumerates a set of principles regarding revolutionary outcomes: outcomes do not emerge quickly, they depend on the type of revolution (social / anticolonial / democratizing), they are likely to lead to democracy in countries that have previous experience with it, and women's issues tend to not get much attention in the new regime.
The next several chapters give brief case studies of revolutions, from ancient to modern. Revolutions were quite frequent in the ancient world (including attempts by "history's first socialists" (45)) before becoming unlikely under emperors and kings (1CE - 1200CE). Revolutions picked up again after that (Goldstone mentions the Bonfire of the Vanities), progressing from constitutional revolutions to communist revolutions to color revolutions and the Arab Spring.
The final chapter has Goldstone mentioning sub-Saharan Africa as a region where the conditions for revolution are building because of demographic change. He also offers the Middle East as potentially revolutionary when key resources run out, as well as China.
Goldstone seems to hold a pretty expansive definition of what a revolution is, something like "a change in power through non-formal means that wasn't a military coup." I would say that the word "revolution" refers to what he calls "social revolutions" -- namely, a Goldstone revolution plus the construction of a new socio-political order. Goldstone also seems to have a preference for formal democracy and free markets as a social order, and seems to harbor a historical teleology pushing in that direction: "Someday, all countries in the world will have stable, resilient, inclusive and just regimes." (133) He also makes some claims that I found questionable. One is that revolutions generally shortchange women. While this may be true in general, I would think restricting the definition of revolution to social revolution might make that claim less true. The Russian Revolution, for instance, immediately instituted "Western feminism's maximum program, to which no government in the West ever came close to agreeing." (Geoff Eley, Forging Democracy, 188) Lastly, Goldstone makes the claim that the end of the Cold War reduced the willingness of the US and others to support unpopular regimes. The Cold War may have ended, but this dynamic seems pretty stable (the US's support of authoritarian Arab states, for instance). All in all, Goldstone's book provides a useful centrist overview of the nature of revolutions.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Book Review: The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain by Pierre Broué and Emile Témime
"Those who fight revolutions halfheartedly are merely digging their own graves" - Saint Just (14)The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain is a book split halfway: the first section is written by Pierre Broué and deals with the Spanish Revolution. The second section is written by Emile Témime and covers military history, international negotiations and state development during the Spanish Civil War. I found Broué's section much more interesting, both in content and stylistically, even though he doesn't delve into the exhaustive detail on the level that his German Revolution does. What follows is a summary, mostly of part one.
Contextualizing the Spanish revolutionary experience, Broué writes, "The Spanish Revolution was not the first spark in a growing conflagration but the last flicker of a fire already extinct throughout Europe... The revolution that turned into a civil war was in the end merely a dress rehearsal for World War II." (31)
Spain's Second Republic emerged as a weak state following the overthrow of dictator Primo de Rivera. The transition to republic did not damage the dominant power centers of church, army or economic oligarchs. Spain lacked a bourgeoisie (with the possible exception of the Basque Country) and was primarily agricultural, with land disproportionately held by powerful landowners. Half the population remained illiterate. (37) In short, "In the nineteenth century, Spain lost her remaining world outposts and was in the end barely touched by the industrial and liberal revolution that succeeded in transforming the old Europe." (32)
Spain's organized political forces spanned the ideological spectrum. The Republicans were weak and divided, owing to the lack of a bourgeoisie. The right featured a host of divisions: the monarchist-inclined army, the Catholic CEDA under Gil Robles, the reactionary Carlist movement, the fascist Falange, etc. Unlike other European fascists of the time, the fascists in Spain remained a marginal political element. There were autonomist forces from the Basque Country and Catalonia which ideologically tilted away from the left but found themselves in common cause with the left after the CEDA-dominated government (which followed the liberal Republican Azaña government of 1931-33) became hostile to their separatist aims. The petty bourgeoise's turn towards autonomism was another factor hindering the development of an authentic Spanish bourgeoisie.
The labor movement in Spain was heavily influenced by the anarcho-syndicalist tradition: "In an agricultural country where so many ties linked the industrial worker with the landless peasant and the day laborer, where peasant riots, short violent revolts, and banditry by outlaws were the time-honored form taken by popular explosions of anger and revenge, Bakunin's ideas fell on fertile ground." (54) The CNT labor union confederation was aligned with these anarchist ideas. The secretive, revolutionary FAI, founded later, came to dominate CNT politics, which caused tensions with less radical members. (56) Yet Broué finds weaknesses with the militant CNT's political program: "Faced with the complexities of a modern economy and the interdependence of its different sectors, the CNT's political and economic theories seemed highly ingenuous. Everything was simplified to an extreme by the pens of propagandists describing the idyllic 'commune' whose budding and later flowering would be made possible by militants willing to sacrifice their lives for it." (57) The CNT-FAI's Durruti was one notable militant.
The Spanish Socialist party, the PSOE, was a more reformist political force. Its members founded the UGT, a moderate trade union. Like many other European socialist parties, the Spanish party split over support for the Third International, thus birthing the Spanish Communist Party, the PCE. The PSOE frequently found its two major leaders, Caballero and Prieto, at odds. In 1935, the CNT and UGT were of equal numerical strength at a million members each. (67) The communists were relatively weak, with La Pasionaria as its only well-respected member. (69) In Catalonia, the orthodox communist PSUC formed out of a merger of several communist groups. Lastly, the POUM, dubbed "Trotskyist" by its opponents but criticized by Trotsky himself, formed a dissident communist bloc. A constellation of these forces participated in the 1934 Asturian miner's strike, a foreshadowing of the Civil War.
The CEDA government began rolling back the reforms of the Azaña government when it took power, ushering in the bieno negro. A left-wing coalition, the Popular Front, formed and won the elections in 1936. This victory of the left over two years of right wing reaction, coupled with the festering wounds of 1934, plunged Spain into a revolutionary situation. (81) Peasants seized land, churches were burnt, and strikes rocked the cities. The PSOE found itself wavering between the pronouncements of Caballero (depending on who is writing, either the "Spanish Lenin" or "a social democrat playing at revolution" (82)) and Prieto, who controlled the party executive and was harshly critical of his agitation. In these circumstances the Falange unleashed counterrevolutionary terror, killing leftists and workers. The Army recognized that "the victory of the Popular Front had caused a revolutionary crisis that the moderate left-wing Republican politicians were helpless to end." (86) Despite the conspiracy of the Army to overthrow the government being openly known, the Spanish state could do little to prevent it: "All the reproaches cast up to the government boil down to its one and only defect: its weakness. Its only raison d' être was to endure, to lay for time in order to avoid the clash that would annihilate it." (91)
The capital Madrid erupted in strikes and violence, with both right-wing and left-wing forces street fighting as well as CGT and UGT members clashing over the direction of the strikes. The murders of prominent individuals José del Castillo and Calvo Sotelo prompted funerals that "were like the final parade before the battle" of the Civil War. (96) The Army's uprising began in Morocco, led by Franco and Mola. (Here Broué adopts a curiously racist tone: "The Moroccan troops, the Moors, were recruited from the mountain people of the Riff. They were fearsome warriors, savages unaffected by propaganda who were concerned only with fighting and pillage..." (98)) The government was in crisis, and authority passed from Quiroga, who was in denial about the whole coup affair, to Barrio, who failed to reach a deal with the rebel generals, to Giral, who formally dissolved the army and distributed arms to workers. (102) By July 20, 1936, a few days after the uprising, the rebels controlled a minority of Spain's territory. "The pronouncamiento had failed. The Civil War had begun." (118)
Revolution swept over Republican Spain, as it became "the scene of a revolution that the Generals had meant to forestall but had in the end provoked." (122) The Red Terror that ensued counted class enemies, such as the Church, as victims as well as those who happened to be on the wrong end of personal vendettas. Gradually parties and unions gained control of the situation and began to "organize" the repression. (125) In Catalonia the CGT, FAI, UGT, PSUC and POUM formed the Antifascist Militias Committee (but also left Companys in formal control of the Catalan Generalitat), which became the governing body of the region. Other revolutionary governments took control in other regions of Spain. In the Basque Country, with its bourgeoisie and Catholic sympathies, a non-revolutionary government was formed. (139) The most pressing task for Republican forces was to form an army to combat the rebels. Various political groups formed militias for the task, each militia stamped with the ideology of its own leadership. The communist Fifth Regiment marched in ranks while the CNT's marched along "in total -- and deliberate -- disarray." (143) The hastily-assembled forces often had no training and no idea how to handle weapons. During this time the Giral government "did not govern, but it was still in existence," (147) passing decrees that were already fiat accompli.
With regard to revolutionary accomplishments, Broué remarks, "It would take an entire book to describe the extraordinary variety of solutions adopted by the Spanish workers to put an end to 'the exploitation of man by man.'" (152) Solutions to, for instance, wage disparities fluctuated between keeping the existing hierarchy in place and instituting a uniform wage. (156) Collectivization took place under a process that was part voluntary, part compulsory. (157) Views on these subjects are quite partisan, and Broué concludes, "The truth must obviously lie somewhere between [an Anarchist's] rose-tinted Libertarian paradise and the black Anarchist hell depicted by [Communist newspapers]." (161-2) Broué writes, "Collectivization of land [did not] lead to a satisfactory and coherent system of production... The revolution, at first so vigorous in the countryside, seemed to be bogging down there for lack of real leadership." (164-5) He notes that there was no equivalent of the Russian Revolution's Decree on Land in Spain. Unfortunately, the "Anarchist egalitarian fantasy" (162) came up against concrete problems of the government, such as access to credit, among other economic problems (no doubt exacerbated by wartime conditions). In the end, Broué says, "The great weakness of the Spanish workers' revolutionary gains was, even more than their improvised character, their incompleteness." (170)
Mola believed that the coup was doomed to fail given the limited success of the initial push. (172) However, the disorganization, inexperience and lack of coordination of the Republican militias made his task easier: "[The Republican militiamen each] seemed to be fighting his own war without caring what was going on in the next province." (175) The Nationalist terror in provinces under their control, in contrast to the spontaneous Republican terror, was organized and justified by all, including the highest Church authorities. (183) The terror was a double-edged sword, however, inspiring those fleeing from it or who would potentially be its victims to harden their resolve to fight against the Nationalists.
The Committees ruling Republican areas were not real soviets; rather, they were merely collections of the leaders of already-existing institutions, and their delegates were not formally answerable to their constituency. (189) Whether these committees would supplant the anemic government structures or vice versa continued to be an open question. Another important strategic decision the Republicans faced was whether to pursue the revolution or the war. The international context factored into this calculation: the most likely supporters of the Republicans (Stalin's Russia, perhaps Western democracies such as Britain and Blum's France) would not intervene to buttress a revolutionary movement.
In a move which decisively impacted these questions, Caballero formed a new Popular Front government (a move which Prieto had been advocating for some time) which had the benefits of both support from the trade unions and an air of respectability and legality by incorporating Republican elements. Since the trade unions joined (or in the CNT's case, supported) the government, the Antifascist Militias Committee was dissolved. The formation of the new government essentially "implied the abandonment of the organizations of revolutionary power." (203) Regional governments, before relatively autonomous, quickly joined the new government. Later, even the CNT joined the government, noting the grave domestic and international situation! "In the ordeal of the struggle for power," comments Broué, "the Anarchist leaders adopted the language of the most reformist social democrats." (208) The government's new course had its intended effect on foreign aid, as Soviet arms began arriving shortly thereafter.
Caballero's government immediately subordinated revolutionary aims in favor of winning the war. It instituted legal reforms, rebuilt the police force, and militarized the militias (Durruti, for his part, demanded a single, unified command (219)). Collectivization was "checked and then halted." (225) Anarchists that didn't take kindly to their own organizations' members entry into the government put up armed resistance to the new status quo at times, discrediting their movement. The Communist Party, which for its part strongly supported Republican law, order and property, had superior organization and was linked to the flow of foreign arms, grew quickly in popularity: "After September 1936... the Communist party and the PSUC became a dominant factor in the political life of Spain." (229) Beyond the fight against Franco, the Communists in essence opposed the Revolution itself. The tenor of the situation in Spain had changed; one foreign volunteer wrote, "The war in Spain, bereft of any new faith of any idea of social change, and of any revolutionary grandeur... remains a terrible question of life or death but is no longer a war in affirmation of a new regime and a new humanity." (235-6)
With Nationalist forces closing in on Madrid, the Caballero government fled the city and placed its defense in the hands of General Miaja. Under Miaja's reign, his junta became "as a result of its language and its methods, a genuinely revolutionary government." (245) The Communist Party effectively controlled the Junta, so Madrid's defense put their honor on the line. "Never again," Broué notices, "during the whole of the Spanish Civil War, did the Communists join the fight with such ferocity. Never again did the Russians repeat the efforts they made for Madrid in November 1936." (245) The International Brigades arrived just in time to shore up Madrid's defense, and La Pasionaria's cry of No Pararán! rang throughout Madrid's streets. Durruti was killed in the battle, likely by one of his own men, perhaps deliberately. (250) [1] In the end, the Republicans prevailed in battle: "It was the first victory by the proletarians over the Fascist armies." (260)
The government continued its rightward drift after the victories at Madrid and Guadalajara. Caballero chose, contrary to his supposed proletarian internationalism, to forego supporting Moroccan independence for fear of angering foreign powers, failing to take an opportunity to strike at the heart of Franco's forces. (267) The continuing encroachment of Communists and the USSR on Spanish policy caused Caballero to react indignantly, leading the Soviets to identify him as an obstacle to their plans. In response to Communist machinations, Caballero dissolved the Communist-controlled Madrid Junta, a "virtual declaration of war on the Communist party." (274) Caballero subsequently could not put his offensive war plans into action for lack of Soviet support. Caballero continued to function as a moderator between left factions that were gradually drawing apart; one historian commented: "He wanted neither the militia nor the regular army; he wanted neither the old bureaucracy nor the new revolutionary structure; he wanted neither guerrilla warfare nor trench warfare. He promised the Communists general mobilization and a fortification plan, and the Anarchists revolutionary war; in the event he did neither." (281)
The Barcelona May Days saw these tensions between left factions explode. After days of scuffles between factions, the police (led by a PSUC member) surrounded the telephone exchange, which was guarded by a CNT militia, and attempted to take it over. The ensuing fighting left hundreds dead. Broué chalks up the controversy to being "one more stage in the restoration of the state" (286) and concludes that "The May days sounded the knell of the Revolution and heralded political defeat for all and death for some of the revolutionary leaders." (288) One immediate consequence of the May Days was an end of Catalan autonomy; a later one was the resignation of Caballero from the government.
Negrín formed a new government that was praised by Western democracies as responsible, but denounced by the FAI. The Communists exerted their power under the new regime, persecuting their POUM enemies in the manner of Stalin's purges (which were taking place concurrently). The POUM was dissolved and its leader, Nin, was murdered. Caballero was forced out of his position at the head of the UGT, never to feature again in Spanish public life. A ban on all opposition and criticism was instituted and a political police force, the SIM, created. Winston Churchill, among other Westerners, praised the new developments. The revolution had been crushed and the state was now "respectable," but the Spanish Republicans were just as internationally isolated as ever. (315)
This is where Part One leaves off and Part Two begins. The later opens with a hypothesis about how the Spanish Civil War forged the alliances that would square off during the Second World War. (315) Later, Témime discusses why the bombing of Guernica was found so appalling at the time: Guernica was the religious (Catholic) capital of the Basque provinces -- inflaming especially French opinion -- and the incident had an international aspect to it, as it could be blamed on the Germans. (395) Témime argues that Franco's Spain was not fascist: it didn't have any social achievements to boast of, nor any grand vision or territorial ambitions. (459) Lastly, he details the fall of Barcelona and, finally, Madrid.
[1] Broué recalls one touching anecdote in which captured Italian Fascist forces are amazed to see their supposedly bloodthirsty "Red" captors of the Garibaldi Brigade sharing their rations with them in an act of brotherhood. The Garibaldi Brigade had been, while simultaneously fighting, attempting to propagandize the opposing forces by, for instance, throwing leaflets weighted with rocks to the other side instead of grenades. (260)
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Book Review: The German Revolution 1917-1923 by Pierre Broué
I picked up Pierre Broué's The German Revolution 1917-1923 (full text here) in order to gain a better understanding of the failure of the German radicals to precipitate a revolution, and to trace the splits and factions of German left parties throughout the period. Despite its heft at over 900 pages, I found it a page-turner (perhaps excepting a lull in part 3) and finished it rather quickly, all things considered. Helpfully, the book includes biographical notes and a chronology at the end of the text but criminally omits an index (which is somewhat mitigated by archive.org's copy).
Eric D. Weitz mentions in the forward that Broué's history, first published in 1971, could not take advantage of the opening of the Communist archives in Berlin and Moscow. The archives would have been helpful in a variety of places in the book for clearing up historical controversies -- for instance, determining under what circumstances Béla Kun was sent to Berlin to spark the March Action. (Perhaps a lot of these questions have been settled since; I'm unsure.) Weitz also pans Broué's neglect of women's activism.
The following summary is rather disjointed -- it's difficult to summarize such a vast amount of information in so little space -- but approximately devotes one paragraph to each chapter. I didn't summarize part 4, which is mostly Broué's opinions and is less suited to excerpting than the first three sections. Part 4 is, however, very worth reading for a Trotskyist appraisal of Paul Levi, Karl Radek, and the results of the German Revolution.
From War to Revolution: The Victory and Defeat of Ultra-Leftism
The German SPD, the most important Social Democratic party of the early twentieth century, had been tilting toward reformism since its Jena Congress compromise with the trade unions. (19) To compound the its compromise, the industrial proletariat was underrepresented in its leadership. (24) Thus the stage was set for the SPD leadership's betrayal of its members' revolutionary aspirations.
There did exist a left tendency in the SPD, represented by such people as Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, Anton Pannekoek and Julian Karski. Notably, Luxemburg opposed Lenin's advocacy of centralism (33) and splitting. (35) This left was divided over the "Radek Affair," in which Karl Radek (who would later play an important role in German politics) was retroactively denied membership in Second International member parties after being expelled from the Polish member party. Left social democrats were split on the issue, and the dispute presaged later factional divides among the left.
4 August 1914 saw the SPD fraction in the Reichstag -- including leftists such as Liebknecht and Otto Rühle, as a result of party discipline -- unanimously vote in favor of German war credits for World War I. (44) The SPD leadership gagged any substantive discussion of the issue, (52) and Liebknecht saw no option but to cast the sole vote against the war credits, taking the first step towards a split within the SPD. (53) In September, the Bolsheviks called for a new, Third International. (55) Those social democrats opposed to the war gathered in Zimmerwald, producing documents which revealed divisions between a pacifist center and a Bolshevik-leaning left. (63) The membership of what would later become the Spartacists started to assemble in early 1916, declaring that true peace could only result from the revolutionary activity of the working class. (64) Despite evident tensions within the SPD, Luxemburg inveighed against a split and for attempts to restore the party. (71)
Nevertheless, those that were disgusted with the SPD's actions formed a new party, the USPD, in mid 1917. The split took roughly half of the SPD's membership into the new party. (79) The USPD was also an amalgam of different tendencies, including both lefts such as the Spartacists and other such as Bernstein and Kautsky (who only joined to counter the Sparticist influence). (83) The USPD's platform was essentially identical to the SPD's, with the exception of differences in structure to prevent an SPD-esque distancing of the leadership from the membership. (84)
The February Revolution in Russia deeply affected the German lefts; as Zetkin wrote, "The action of the people of Russia is written before our congress in letters of fire." (91) The maneuvers of the USPD to try and form a parliamentary coalition to end the war convinced many strikers and other agitators to turn to the new party for guidance. But the SPD persisted in its obstructionism: the SPD managed to avert a significant strike action in January 1918, further convincing the USPD left of the need for revolution. (109) German revolutionaries had mixed reactions to the Russian October Revolution. Luxemberg had plenty of reservations about the Bolsheviks, including their methods of terror, their agrarian policy and their foreign policy. (123) While the lefts debated politics, the German military knew as of 18 July that it was fighting a hopeless battle. (124)
Both revolutionaries and conservatives sensed an approaching reckoning in Germany, with German military leaders intoning that "We must forestall an upheaval from below by a revolution from above" (130) and Lenin writing to the Spartacists that "Now the decisive hour is at hand." (131) Some workers' councils sprung up before the Kiel mutiny, but the sailors' defiance provided the impetus for massive action across the country. Facing a widespread revolt, the SPD took the initiative to "sacrifice the Kaiser to save the country" by presenting the Kaiser with an ultimatum to step down by 8 November. (144) Wilhelm II abdicated shortly thereafter, prompting Liebknecht to issue a triumphant speech from the Imperial Palace: "The rule of capitalism, which turned Europe into a cemetery, is henceforward broken." (149) Through the SPD's machinations, Ebert managed to head both the official government and the revolutionary government appointed by the councils. Broué comments: "Thus the second day of the German Revolution found the Majority Social Democrats, who had done their utmost to prevent it, winning an indisputable victory." (154)
Although the German councils never rose to the importance of the Russian councils, Broué insists that the comparison should be made with the Russian councils of February, not October. (158) But there are many differences between the two situations: the strength of the established political parties and trade unions in the German councils; the strength of the German bourgeoise; the looming threat of an Entente invasion and the relative disorganization of the German left. But, "Despite its good intentions and despite enjoying the confidence of the Berlin workers, the Executive Council was unable to organise its own work or even to create its own apparatus." (174) The organization of an armed civil defense force by the government, and not the Executive, further chipped away at the councils' power. (177) Luxemberg slammed the Richard Müller-led Executive as the "sarcophagus of the revolution" and the "fifth wheel of the cart of the crypto-capitalist governmental clique." (183) The results of the Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils were a foregone conclusion with the SPD accounting for the majority of the delegates. (184)
The Spartacus League remained a propaganda group within the USPD since by themselves the Spartacists did not have the affiliation of a mass of workers. Nevertheless, they formed the Zentrale, the executive committee of the Spartacists, to coordinate and organize themselves. (191) Spartacist elements within the USPD attempted to get the party to convene a special congress about whether to participate in the constituent assembly elections. Their efforts were resoundingly defeated within the USPD, setting the stage for a split. (200)
On 29 December 1918, the Spartacists decided to merge with the IKD, a leftist organization, to form the KPD(S), or German Communist Party (Spartacist). Karl Radek convinced the Spartacists to split from the USPD at this early date, rather than waiting until after the USPD party congress. (212) The KPD(S) adopted a program that declared "If the Spartacus League takes power, it will be in the form of the clear, indubitable will of the great majority of the proletarian masses." (220) But the KPD(S) still faced the problem of not having a large worker base, and alienating many activists who believed that the split was unnecessary or untimely. Thus, "The new-born Communist Party was from the start isolated from the masses, and it was doomed to impotence before it had swung into action." (225)
Ebert's attempts to use the military to crush dissent led to the USPD's resignation from their joint rule on 29 December 1918. (234) SPD functionary Gustav Noske was one of the people that filled the positions left by the USPD. He ominously declared, "One of us has to do the job of executioner." (237) The government's removal of a Berlin police chief sympathetic to the revolutionaries, Emil Eichhorn, led to a protest demonstration that one observer called "perhaps the largest proletarian mass action in history" on 5 January 1919. (241) With incredible numbers in the streets, radical leaders sensed an opportunity for insurrection. Liebknecht, in noted opposition to the KPD(S)'s stated position against putchism, decided that the time was ripe for a struggle for power. (243) A revolutionary committee was created, but its main feature was its temporizing. The seizure of the SPD's party organ Vorwärts by revolutionaries hardened Liebknecht, et al's position. (245) Representatives of the KPD(S) and other revolutionaries eventually issued a proclamation to the workers: "Arise in a General Strike! To Arms! ... Come out into the streets for the final fight, for victory!" (248)
The subsequent Spartacist uprising was a disaster since "The mass of the Berlin workers were ready to strike and demonstrate, but no to engage in armed struggle," (246) especially because of (in their eyes) the confusing situation of both sides claiming to be socialist. Many workers denounced the "fratricidal struggles." (248) Noske's paramilitary units of Freikorps easily put down the revolt. Many revolutionaries warned against the uprising at the time, including Radek and Paul Levi. Luxemburg, however, supported the uprising (if not wholly endorsing the attempted seizure of power) as an honorable workers' struggle against the provocations of the government. (252) Interestingly, her last writings seem to indicate that in witnessing the disorganization of the uprising she consequently "approached [Lenin's] conception of the revolutionary party which she had until then opposed." (254) The Freikorps decapitated the revolutionary movement by hunting down and murdering Luxemburg and Liebknecht, among other leaders. By killing the KPD(S)'s most influential figures, the SPD "rendered unbridgeable the gulf between the Majority Social Democrats and the revolutionaries. It also convinced the revolutionaries that their only mistake had been to procrastinate." (258)
The Attempt to Define the Role of a Communist Party
The months after the Spartacist uprising saw various actions all over Germany that were brutally put down by Noske. (Chapter 13) Amidst this atmosphere of repression, capital concentrated into a few hands, (292) an ultra-left attempt to boycott elections failed (295) and the KPD(S) proved completely ineffective as it was "underground and in deep crisis." (297) The new Weimar Constitution contained the infamous Article 48, enabling the executive to use emergency measures without prior consent of the legislature, which Hitler would later use to consolidate his power. (290)
The most important members of the German left were now Levi and Radek, who both agreed that the ultra-left adventure of the Spartacus uprising was a terrible mistake. Contrariwise, there were many ultra-leftists within the KPD(S) who supported spontaneous action and emphasized the opportunistic nature of established political parties and trade unions. Levi regarded these anarchist and syndicalist currents as a regression towards a tendency that had been defeated within the revolutionary movement. (316)
The German left contained other tendencies: Fritz Wolffheim and Heinrich Laufenberg whose "national Bolshevism" advocated an alliance with the bourgeoisie and Soviet Russia to wage revolutionary war against the Entente. (325) Others such as Herman Gorter advocated factory unions, enshrined in the AAU. (327) Pannekoek warned against opportunism, both from the established unions and parties but also from the Third International. Rühle advocated an anti-authoritarian communism. (331)
Levi believed that a successful communist movement in Germany required the left-leaning USPD members for a mass base. (336) The USPD itself was split between a left and a right faction, each finding the pull of the Second or Third International, respectively, more appealing. Over time the USPD left gained ground, as the USPD voted to break with the Second International, but not join the Third. (341) Some also took the road of founding a Two-and-a-half International which came to little. (340)
The Versailles Treaty imposed a variety of conditions on defeated Germany. The German Communists, for their part, regarded the Versailles peace as a continuation of the war. (350) Right wing German elements bristled at the potential of the extradition of war criminals and the reduction in the size of armed forces. (351) General von Lüttwitz and Prussian director of agriculture Wolfgang Kapp therefore organized the Kapp Putsch which saw them take power and the Ebert government withdraw from Berlin. The usually reformist trade union leader Carl Legien took to organizing a general strike to defeat the putsch. The strike did take place, and the Kapp government was completely paralyzed by 15 March 1920. (356) German capitalists intervened to convince the regime to step aside, given the unanimity of the workers in opposition to it. (359) The SPD saw the putsch coming from a mile away, and did little to stop it, and was thus discredited in the eyes of many Germans; Noske's role was particularly shameful, and his political career ended shortly thereafter. (361) The general elections of 6 June showed that people were deserting the SPD for the USPD. (380) Meanwhile, the bumbling of the KPD(S) during the Kapp Putsch, which featured them issuing a statement expressing that there was no point in opposing the putsch, (355/378) resulted in the formation of the KAPD, an ultra-left party that split from the KPD(S) which counted Pannekoek, Wolffheim, Laufenberg and Rühle among its ranks. (379)
The KPD(S) inched closer to reconciliation with the USPD, declaring a policy of 'loyal opposition' to a potential future workers' government. (385) In this way, the KPD(S) posed the question of a transitional government (between parliamentary and dictatorship of the proletariat), a first for the Communist movement. (385) Radek believed that the KPD(S)'s policy betrayed their mission as a revolutionary party, (386) attacking what he believed to be Levi's "quietism." (389) Lenin intervened on the side of Levi to support the 'loyal opposition' policy. (390)
The KPD(S)'s mistakes prompted the ECCI to take a more active role in directing the party. "Comrade Thomas" was sent to Germany to establish links between Berlin and Moscow. (397) Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder sought to win influence away from internationally emerging ultra-left tendencies. The Russians maneuvered to unify the KPD(S) and the KAPD, as well as the USPD lefts, under the auspices of a single communist party in Germany at the Second Comintern Congress.
1921 was a difficult year for the Russian leadership, as it saw both the introduction of the NEP under conditions of severe economic distress and the Kronstadt uprising. The ECCI continued to feel uneasy about what they viewed as Levi's conservative leadership of the VKPD, and decided to admit the KAPD to the Third International as a sympathizing party in order to invigorate the German communists with "a little of the revolutionary fire." (463) On 8 January 1921, the VKPD issued the Open Letter, backed by both Radek and Levi, which appealed to non-revolutionary workers to join the VKPD in a struggle for common goals. (468) Some of the ECCI, notably Zinoviev, and the KAPD attacked the Open Letter as opportunist. (472)
A split in the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) caused a stir within the VKPD. An Italian Communist Party (PCI) led by Gramsci and Bordiga split from the PSI without attempting to court the centrist elements represented by the PSI leader Serrati. Levi believed that a split with the reformist elements around Turati was necessary, but believed not attracting elements of the Serrati bloc was a mistake. (478) Radek attacked Levi's position, saying that the PCI already had all the true communists in Italy, (479) as well as railing against him personally. This dispute snowballed into a larger one, pitting Levi against the ECCI, which already had reservations about Levi. A refusal by the ECCI to express confidence in Levi led to his resignation from the Zentrale along with Däumig, Zetkin and others. (487)
With Levi gone, the VKPD was more open to radical action. The Comintern's Béla Kun, acting under mysterious circumstances, arrived in Germany and implored the communists to wage a "revolutionary offensive." (494) The result was the poorly-conceived March Action, a strike (formulated in part in reaction to Hörsing's attempt to disarm workers) which failed to draw significant worker support and even featured the communists clashing with the workers in several instances. (501)
The March Action fiasco prompted 200,000 members to leave the VKPD. (505) Levi was appalled at the adventurism of the March Action, and issued a public pamphlet Our Road: Against Putschism detailing his position. (511) The Zentrale expelled Levi from the VKPD for his public insubordination, but many party notables rushed to his defense. (516) The ECCI concluded that Paul Levi was a "traitor" (530) even though Lenin noted that Levi's pamphlet was "in very many respects... right politically." (535) These disputes would be settled at the Third Comintern Congress.
Lenin and Trotsky were put in a difficult position: "It was important to preserve the unity of both the German Party and the International, whilst at the same time ensuring that they undertook a radical political turn. Concretely, they were ready, on the one hand, to confirm the expulsion of Paul Levi, but only for 'indiscipline' and in order to avoid openly revealing the responsibility of the ECCI in the March Action, and, on the other hand, to pay homage to this action as 'a step forward,' whilst they condemned the theory of the offensive, and attempted to prevent any repetition of it." (538) Nevertheless, they managed to thread this needle, preventing the sharp animosity between various factions at the Third Congress from boiling over.
From the Conquest of the Masses to a Defeat Without a Fight
Another development at the Third Congress was the ECCI's demand that the KAPD fuse with the KPD within three months, or be expelled from the International. The KAPD was in its "death throes" anyways. (557) The new Zentrale, which was now headed by Meyer and Friesland, unanimously supported the compromise reached at the Third Congress. Levi, Däumig and others formed the Communist Working Collective (KAG) in the Reichstag, rejecting a reconciliation with the International and effectively splitting with the VKPD. (567) Additionally, fallout resulting from documents seized by police and published by the SPD implicating Levi's enemies in March Action failures raised again the relationship between the ECCI and the Germans. These controversies led to Friesland's expulsion from the VKPD. (574) Further splits were prevented only by Lenin's authority. (583)
The Rapallo Treaty indicated that Germany and Russia had common interests in opposing terms of the Versailles treaty. (601) Furthermore, a May 1921 Soviet-German trade treaty allowed certain German firms to operate in Russia within the context of the NEP. (603) This realignment of Russian-German relations on non-revolutionary terms was received by radicals with mixed reactions.
Economic strikes in Germany, which even saw the emergence of factory councils, revived in 1922 with help from the VKPD. (607) In doing so, the communists needed to combat both trade-union reformist bureaucrats and anarcho-syndicalist elements within the unions. (609) The assassination of foreign minister Rathenau provided the VKPD an opportunity to implement their united front tactic. (614) However, once again the SPD sabotaged the VKPD's plans by siding with more right wing elements, and a new government headed by Cuno formed. (623) The call for a workers' government was at the core of the united front strategy. (647)
The Fourth Comintern Congress featured Radek and others agreeing that world revolution was on the agenda in Germany. (667) Brandler assumed leadership of the VKPD. (683)
In 1923 French forces occupied the Ruhr in response to Germany's failure to pay WWI reparations. The Reichstag voted to endorse a campaign of "passive resistance" against the French. The SPD enthusiastically supported the campaign, but the KPD did not, refusing to get dragged into what it saw as a campaign organized by the German bourgeoisie. (689)
The inflation that Germany experienced in 1923 was enormous; in one year, the value of the mark fell by a factor of 162,500. (710) The interest rate on a 24-hour loan was 100 percent. (711) Capitalists, by dealing in dollars or gold, managed to avoid inflation, but the petty bourgeoisie was wrecked. (712) In this way, the German population "was not so much proletariansed as reduced to a sub-proletariat." (713) The economic turmoil not only emboldened the extreme left but also the extreme right as Hitler and the National Socialists gained popularity. (720) The KPD often tried to engage the Nazis in public debate, but the Nazis put a stop to these events after realizing how bad it made them look. (729)
The KPD and others sought to organize an anti-fascist demonstration on 29 July 1923 across Germany. Various government leaders preemptively banned demonstrations on that day, and the Zentrale deliberated as to whether to play into a trap set by the authorities. After consulting with the ECCI, the KPD decided to call off the demonstrations. (741) A speech by Cuno in the Reichstag asking for a vote of confidence prompted a strike wave by disgruntled workers which caught all political factions off guard. The SPD, after initially opposing the strike wave, in the end demanded Cuno's resignation, with which he complied. (749)
This turmoil convinced Moscow that the time was ripe for an insurrection. Trotsky and Brandler disagreed on whether a date should be set for the insurrection, with Trotsky favoring it. (764) However, it was at last decided to send the entire German Commission from Moscow to Germany to take responsibility for the insurrection. (765) While the military preparations were being carried out, von Kahr seized power in a coup in Bavaria and Ebert responded by invoking Article 48 to declare martial law throughout Germany. (776)
Moscow decided that the KPD should join the Saxony and Thuringia governments since they would need to occupy positions of influence for the fast-approaching conflict. (794) General Müller persisted in threats against the Saxony government, which now contained communists, but did not yet attack. KPD and SPD representatives met at Chemnitz, where the KPD implored the SPD to stop collaborating with the government and to issue a call for a general strike. However, the SPD blocked the KPD's plans. The Zentrale decided to cancel the insurrection. (809) In Hamburg, however, the plan was executed, although on whose initiative remains unclear. But once Hamburg got word of the cancellation, they quickly disengaged. On 25 October, the Zentrale declared: "The vanguard of the working class -- the Communists and part of the Social-Democratic workers -- wishes to engage in the struggle, but the working class as a whole is not ready to fight, despite its immense bitterness and appalling poverty." (812) Hitler, despite inspiring great fear amongst the German left in 1923, was easily dealt with as his Beer Hall Putsch ended with the arrest of the conspirators. Because of the struggle for power after Lenin's exit from Russian politics and the KPD's repeated bumbling, the KPD's policies were from this point on to be written almost entirely in Moscow. (816)
The failure of the German insurrection continued to be debated in both Russia and Germany. Trotsky blamed the failure on the International, (822) Zinoviev blamed it on Radek and Brandler, (828) Radek also indicted the International, (827) etc. Zinoviev at the time was engaged in a struggle for power against Trotsky and the Left Opposition and wanted to deflect blame for the German failure away from the International, which he headed. (831)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)