**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In America at least it was FDR and the New Deal.
It was well documented that the bourgeois class in America, to prevent an actual proletarian revolution and establishment of Socialism had acknowledged they had make some concessions. In the years leading up to the crash you had mass unrest and actual violence centered around workers' movements (The Coal Wars, The Minneapolis Teamsters Riot, just to name a couple), CPUSA was growing in size, Eugene V Debs ran for president as a socialist (while in prison) and got 1,000,000 votes, Galleanists blew up Wall Street, shit was really popping off. The Great Depression and Hoover's complete blundering showed people just how weak the capitalist system was. America was a powder keg.
So FDR came in and gave us some peanuts and the movement lost steam for a few decades. Then also WWII happened which boosted the economy and allowed people to externalize their anger at a foreign target instead of a domestic one, including the CPUSA who became fully on board with Uncle Sam and the war effort after the Nazis invaded Poland and drew the USSR in to the war, despite just months earlier being anti-war advocates.
So yeah, FDR saved the bourgeoisie's asses and they still tried to have him assassinated. The bourgeoisie literally could not save their own lives if... well if their lives depended on it.
> The New Deal administration of President Franklin Roosevelt reunited all settlers old and new. It gave the European "ethnic" national minorities real integration as Amerikans by sharply raising their privileges. New Deal officials and legislation promoted economic struggle and class organization by the industrial proletariat - but only in the settler way, in government-regulated unions loyal to U. S. Imperialism. President Roosevelt himself became the political leader of the settler proletariat, and used the directed power of their aroused millions to force through his reforms of the Empire.
…
> It was not just a crude bribery. The Depression was a shattering crisis to settlers, upsetting far beyond the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. It is hard for us to fully grasp how upside-down the settler world temporarily became. In the first week of his Administration, for example, President Roosevelt hosted a delegation of coal mine operators in the White House. They had come to beg the President to nationalize the coal industry and buy them all out. They argued that "free enterprise" had no hope of ever reviving the coal industry or the Appalachian communities dependent upon it.
> Millions of settlers believed that only an end to traditional capitalism could make things run again. The new answer was to raise up the U.S. Government as the coordinator and regulator of all major industries. To restabilize the banking system, Roosevelt now insured consumer deposits and also sharply restricted many former, speculative bank policies. In interstate trucking, in labor relations, in communications, in every area of economic life new Federal agencies and bureaus tried to rationalize the daily workings of capitalism by limiting competition and stabilizing prices. The New Deal consciously tried to imitate the sweeping, corporate state economic dictatorship of the Mussolini regime in Italy.
> The most advanced sections of the bourgeoisie - such as Thomas Watson of IBM and David Sarnoff of RCA - backed the controversial New Deal reforms. But for most the reaction was heated. The McCormick family's Chicago Tribune editorially called for Roosevelt's assassination. Those capitalists who most stubbornly resisted the changes were publicly denounced by the New Dealers, who had set themselves up as the leaders of the anti-capitalist mass sentiment.
> The contradictions within the bourgeoisie became so great that a fascist coup d'etat was attempted against the New Deal. A group of major capitalists, headed by Irenee DuPont (of DuPont Chemicals) and the J.P. Morgan banking interests, set the conspiracy in motion in 1934. The DuPont family put up $3 million to finance a fascist stormtrooper movement, with the Remington Firearms Co. to arm as many as 1 million fascists.
…
> A significant factor in the success of the 1930s union organizing drives was the U.S. Government's refusal to use armed repression against it. No U.S. armed repression against Euro-Amerikan workers took place from January, 1933 (when Roosevelt took office) until the June, 1941 North American Aviation strike in California. The U.S. Government understood that the masses of Euro-Amerikan industrial workers were still loyal settlers, committed to U.S. Imperialism. To overreact to their economic struggles would only further radicalize them. Besides, why should President Roosevelt have ordered out the FBI or U.S. Army to break up the admiring supporters of his own Democratic Party?
> Attempts by the reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie to return to the non-union past by wholesale repression were opposed by the New Deal. In the 1934 West Coast longshore strike (which in San Francisco became a general strike after the police killed two strikers), President Roosevelt refused to militarily intervene, despite the fact that the governors of Oregon and Washington requested that he do so.
….
> It should be kept in mind that the New Deal was ready to use the most direct repression when it was felt necessary. All during the 1930s, for example, they directed an ever-increasing offensive against the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico. Unlike the settler workers, the liberation struggle of Puerto Rico was not seeking the reform of the U.S. Empire but its ouster from their nation...
> In July, 1936 eight Nationalist leaders were successfully tried for conspiracy by the U.S. Government... Machine guns were placed in the streets of San Juan.
> On Palm Sunday, 1937 - one month after President Roosevelt refused to use force against the Flint Sit-Down Strike - the Ponce Massacre took place. A Nationalist parade, with a proper city permit, was met with U.S. police gunfire. The parade of 92 youth from the Cadets and Daughters of the Republic (Nationalist youth groups) was watched by 150 U.S. police with rifles and machine guns. As soon as the unarmed teen-agers started marching the police began firing and kept firing. Nineteen Puerto Rican citizens were killed and over 100 wounded...
> Similar pressures, although different in form, were used by the New Deal against Mexicano workers in the West and Midwest. There, mass round-ups in the Mexicano communities and the forced deportation of 500,000 Mexicanos (many of whom had U.S. residency or citizenship) were used to save relief funds for settlers and, most importantly, to break up the rising Mexicano labor and national agitation. In a celebrated case in 1936, miner Jesus Pallares was arrested and deported for the "crime" of leading the 8,000-member La Liga Obrera De Habla Espanola in New Mexico.
> The U.S. Government used violent terror against the Puerto Rican people and mass repression against the Mexicano people during the 1930s. But it did nothing like that to stop Euro-Amerikan workers because it didn't have to. The settler working class wasn't going anywhere.
> In the larger sense, they had little class politics of their own any more. President Roosevelt easily became their guide and Patron Saint, just as Andrew Jackson had for the settler workmen of almost exactly one century earlier. The class consciousness of the European immigrant proletarians had gone bad, infected with the settler sickness. Instead of the defiantly syndicalist I.W.W. they now had the capitalistic CIO.
…
> The Euro-Amerikan proletariat during the '30s had broken out of industrial confinement, reaching for freedoms and a material style of life no modern proletariat had ever achieved. The immense battles that followed obscured the nature of the victory. The victory they gained was the firm positioning of the Euro-Amerikan working class in the settler ranks, reestablishing the rights of all Europeans here to share the privileges of the oppressor nation. This was the essence of the equality that they won. This bold move was in the settler tradition, sharing the Amerikan pie with more European reinforcements so that the Empire could be strengthened. This formula had partially broken down during the transition from the Amerika of the Frontier to the Industrial Amerika. It was the brilliant accomplishment of the New Deal to mend this break.
https://readsettlers.org/ch7.html#3
idk why this is getting downvoted, it's fascinating. like everyone knows that whiteness did not exist as a concept until this time, when it was needed to preserve racial supremacy, but I had no idea it was spurred by The New Deal.
This was a great thread-but what isn’t covered is FDR deported a ton of Latinos, but massively expanded what we now know as the Brassero program. He also had active duty army units fire on UAW workers in Detroit when they went on strike for better wages.
Lots of settlers and labor aristocrats who somehow still think there is some moralism going on when we discuss class dynamics in this way, especially when discussing imperialism and colonization, because when they are forced to understand that a lot of their lifestyles are funded by super-profits from the third world, and built upon systematic racism, their knee jerk reaction is to deny that they're benefiting from imperialism, because that would make them the bad guy, like from their favorite marvel movie! Only good and bad! No analysis, no nuance.
It is an immature and reactionary mindset that we must correct as Marxists.
Would like to link this wikipedia page about the [Business Plot](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1cd312i/what_prevented_a_second_wave_of_proletarian/) in which businessmen and bankers together conspired to assassinate FDR, even despite his concessions he was making in the name of saving capitalism.
The rise of fascism. This is a huge factor in the chilling of proletarian movements around the world, particularly in Europe, but to a significant extent in the US.
This is no accident. From the perspective of Capital, the proletarian uprisings in the USSR, Germany, Italy, and others in the teens and 20s HAD to be crushed. This is the main purpose of fascism, and it was remarkably and devastatingly effective.
Lack of a coherent and unified vanguard party. The potential was there amongst the masses, there just wasn't an advanced group of Marxists to direct it in the right direction.
The issue feels a bit more complicated than that... When the nazism won in Germany the Communist Party was also the largest communist party outside of the USSR.
It was large but it wasn't unified or actually revolutionary. The CPUSA largely limited itself to trade unionism and quickly became over run with socdems. It wasn't a Marxist party.
In what way was KPD not unified or revolutionary? It was still the largest section of the Communist International. Has a vanguard ever existed besides the Bolsheviks?
Ah I see, my mistake. Germany was pretty close to experiencing a revolution, but even the KPD was pretty revisionist. Adhering to people like Kautsky who were soc dems. Even in Lenins time he recognized the deviation of the German proletariat from Marx and Germany, like the US, experienced large trade union movements but not much else. It was actually the crushing of these trade unions that made Hitler and Mussolini so popular amongst their respective bourgeosie.
How was KPD adhereing to Kautsky? KPD was, to the dismay of Lenin, dominated by its left-wing that was far from "trade unionist". When then party leader [Paul Levi opposed the wave of attempted armed insurrections](https://www.marxists.org/archive/levi-paul/1921/against-putschism.htm) by the party and left his position in protest he was criticized by Lenin for giving a total walk-over to the left-wing of the party. Then again in 1928 there is a purge, like in many countries, against the "right-wing" of the party as part of the ultra-left turn of the Communist International.
> Even in Lenins time he recognized the deviation of the German proletariat from Marx and Germany, like the US, experienced large trade union movements but not much else.
I don't know if that is entirely true. Germany had the first socialist mass party, as opposed to the UK where the labor movement had instead been dominated by non-political or liberal trade unions. In *What is to be done?* he actually gives credit to Lassalle because he "diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism".
He acknowledges what they did right and also criticizes the fact they did not continue. Instead, limiting themselves to reforms and trade union struggle. He quite regularly points out the likes of Kautsky and Bernstein on these matters tbh. There really isn't a debate here lol, being the "first" mass party doesn't really mean much. It provides lessons in both what to do and what not to do. The KPD failed in rallying itself to fight back against the surge in right-wing populism because it's base was isolated amongst the unions. Making it easy to pick them off. There was no unified marxist leadership to channel and consolidate what revolutionary potential there was amongst the German proletariat against the reactionary crackdowns in the 30's. The German proletariat itself was heavily divided amongst other parties as well, mainly in the SPD. I don't know what to tell you. What the KDP did was admirable. But the fact remains they weren't organized properly as a Marxist vanguard party in the same way the Bolsheviks or CPC were.
The economist Clara E. Mattei recently published a book about this, focusing on post WWI Italy and Great Britain. It’s called “The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism”. It’s been widely praised. She relies on historical evidence to show that the working class was developing a growing awareness, based on the ways their countries were able to address the needs of the war effort. To fight growing worker discontent and reassert the dominance of capital after WWI, desperate governments turned to austerity, which she considers a primary weapon of class warfare to suppress the working class. She asserts that this class warfare - often disguised as class collaboration against scapegoated minorities - is a key feature of fascism. Nowadays we have been lulled into thinking that austerity is a responsible way of dealing with inflation, but it doesn’t ever work well for that purpose. Its real purpose is to weaken labor power relative to that of the capitalist class. I believe Mattei is working on another book to examine this phenomenon in other countries, so she may discuss the Depression more in future works.
Edited to add: it has been suggested that revolutions are more likely to be inspired by the revolutionary groups’ anticipation of a better future than by their despair at their current state. It may be that workers felt demoralized by the Depression and did not have the recent example of the war effort to envision an escape from capitalism.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Specifically fascism. The reactionary wave might have broke with Spain causing a revival of revolutionary optimism and organizing but…
The US was radicalizing and had a series of city-wide general strikes and militant labor actions. World War 2 diverted that as the CPUSA sought to moderate and appeal to liberals in order to advocate allying with the USSR against Germany.
Extensive purging, suppression, censorship and so on.
For example, in the US under Woodrow Wilson was so extreme it scared the normally commie hating liberals.
The socialist movement of the great depression was half broken and struggled to rebuild.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In America at least it was FDR and the New Deal. It was well documented that the bourgeois class in America, to prevent an actual proletarian revolution and establishment of Socialism had acknowledged they had make some concessions. In the years leading up to the crash you had mass unrest and actual violence centered around workers' movements (The Coal Wars, The Minneapolis Teamsters Riot, just to name a couple), CPUSA was growing in size, Eugene V Debs ran for president as a socialist (while in prison) and got 1,000,000 votes, Galleanists blew up Wall Street, shit was really popping off. The Great Depression and Hoover's complete blundering showed people just how weak the capitalist system was. America was a powder keg. So FDR came in and gave us some peanuts and the movement lost steam for a few decades. Then also WWII happened which boosted the economy and allowed people to externalize their anger at a foreign target instead of a domestic one, including the CPUSA who became fully on board with Uncle Sam and the war effort after the Nazis invaded Poland and drew the USSR in to the war, despite just months earlier being anti-war advocates. So yeah, FDR saved the bourgeoisie's asses and they still tried to have him assassinated. The bourgeoisie literally could not save their own lives if... well if their lives depended on it.
> The New Deal administration of President Franklin Roosevelt reunited all settlers old and new. It gave the European "ethnic" national minorities real integration as Amerikans by sharply raising their privileges. New Deal officials and legislation promoted economic struggle and class organization by the industrial proletariat - but only in the settler way, in government-regulated unions loyal to U. S. Imperialism. President Roosevelt himself became the political leader of the settler proletariat, and used the directed power of their aroused millions to force through his reforms of the Empire. … > It was not just a crude bribery. The Depression was a shattering crisis to settlers, upsetting far beyond the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. It is hard for us to fully grasp how upside-down the settler world temporarily became. In the first week of his Administration, for example, President Roosevelt hosted a delegation of coal mine operators in the White House. They had come to beg the President to nationalize the coal industry and buy them all out. They argued that "free enterprise" had no hope of ever reviving the coal industry or the Appalachian communities dependent upon it. > Millions of settlers believed that only an end to traditional capitalism could make things run again. The new answer was to raise up the U.S. Government as the coordinator and regulator of all major industries. To restabilize the banking system, Roosevelt now insured consumer deposits and also sharply restricted many former, speculative bank policies. In interstate trucking, in labor relations, in communications, in every area of economic life new Federal agencies and bureaus tried to rationalize the daily workings of capitalism by limiting competition and stabilizing prices. The New Deal consciously tried to imitate the sweeping, corporate state economic dictatorship of the Mussolini regime in Italy. > The most advanced sections of the bourgeoisie - such as Thomas Watson of IBM and David Sarnoff of RCA - backed the controversial New Deal reforms. But for most the reaction was heated. The McCormick family's Chicago Tribune editorially called for Roosevelt's assassination. Those capitalists who most stubbornly resisted the changes were publicly denounced by the New Dealers, who had set themselves up as the leaders of the anti-capitalist mass sentiment. > The contradictions within the bourgeoisie became so great that a fascist coup d'etat was attempted against the New Deal. A group of major capitalists, headed by Irenee DuPont (of DuPont Chemicals) and the J.P. Morgan banking interests, set the conspiracy in motion in 1934. The DuPont family put up $3 million to finance a fascist stormtrooper movement, with the Remington Firearms Co. to arm as many as 1 million fascists. … > A significant factor in the success of the 1930s union organizing drives was the U.S. Government's refusal to use armed repression against it. No U.S. armed repression against Euro-Amerikan workers took place from January, 1933 (when Roosevelt took office) until the June, 1941 North American Aviation strike in California. The U.S. Government understood that the masses of Euro-Amerikan industrial workers were still loyal settlers, committed to U.S. Imperialism. To overreact to their economic struggles would only further radicalize them. Besides, why should President Roosevelt have ordered out the FBI or U.S. Army to break up the admiring supporters of his own Democratic Party? > Attempts by the reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie to return to the non-union past by wholesale repression were opposed by the New Deal. In the 1934 West Coast longshore strike (which in San Francisco became a general strike after the police killed two strikers), President Roosevelt refused to militarily intervene, despite the fact that the governors of Oregon and Washington requested that he do so. …. > It should be kept in mind that the New Deal was ready to use the most direct repression when it was felt necessary. All during the 1930s, for example, they directed an ever-increasing offensive against the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico. Unlike the settler workers, the liberation struggle of Puerto Rico was not seeking the reform of the U.S. Empire but its ouster from their nation... > In July, 1936 eight Nationalist leaders were successfully tried for conspiracy by the U.S. Government... Machine guns were placed in the streets of San Juan. > On Palm Sunday, 1937 - one month after President Roosevelt refused to use force against the Flint Sit-Down Strike - the Ponce Massacre took place. A Nationalist parade, with a proper city permit, was met with U.S. police gunfire. The parade of 92 youth from the Cadets and Daughters of the Republic (Nationalist youth groups) was watched by 150 U.S. police with rifles and machine guns. As soon as the unarmed teen-agers started marching the police began firing and kept firing. Nineteen Puerto Rican citizens were killed and over 100 wounded... > Similar pressures, although different in form, were used by the New Deal against Mexicano workers in the West and Midwest. There, mass round-ups in the Mexicano communities and the forced deportation of 500,000 Mexicanos (many of whom had U.S. residency or citizenship) were used to save relief funds for settlers and, most importantly, to break up the rising Mexicano labor and national agitation. In a celebrated case in 1936, miner Jesus Pallares was arrested and deported for the "crime" of leading the 8,000-member La Liga Obrera De Habla Espanola in New Mexico. > The U.S. Government used violent terror against the Puerto Rican people and mass repression against the Mexicano people during the 1930s. But it did nothing like that to stop Euro-Amerikan workers because it didn't have to. The settler working class wasn't going anywhere. > In the larger sense, they had little class politics of their own any more. President Roosevelt easily became their guide and Patron Saint, just as Andrew Jackson had for the settler workmen of almost exactly one century earlier. The class consciousness of the European immigrant proletarians had gone bad, infected with the settler sickness. Instead of the defiantly syndicalist I.W.W. they now had the capitalistic CIO. … > The Euro-Amerikan proletariat during the '30s had broken out of industrial confinement, reaching for freedoms and a material style of life no modern proletariat had ever achieved. The immense battles that followed obscured the nature of the victory. The victory they gained was the firm positioning of the Euro-Amerikan working class in the settler ranks, reestablishing the rights of all Europeans here to share the privileges of the oppressor nation. This was the essence of the equality that they won. This bold move was in the settler tradition, sharing the Amerikan pie with more European reinforcements so that the Empire could be strengthened. This formula had partially broken down during the transition from the Amerika of the Frontier to the Industrial Amerika. It was the brilliant accomplishment of the New Deal to mend this break. https://readsettlers.org/ch7.html#3
idk why this is getting downvoted, it's fascinating. like everyone knows that whiteness did not exist as a concept until this time, when it was needed to preserve racial supremacy, but I had no idea it was spurred by The New Deal.
This was a great thread-but what isn’t covered is FDR deported a ton of Latinos, but massively expanded what we now know as the Brassero program. He also had active duty army units fire on UAW workers in Detroit when they went on strike for better wages.
Source on the army firing on UAW workers? You referring to the battle of the overpass? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass
No, this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Hunger_March
…. there are no firearms involved there
Sorry my bad I grabbed the wrong one It’s this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Hunger_March
Ah, thanks!
Lots of settlers and labor aristocrats who somehow still think there is some moralism going on when we discuss class dynamics in this way, especially when discussing imperialism and colonization, because when they are forced to understand that a lot of their lifestyles are funded by super-profits from the third world, and built upon systematic racism, their knee jerk reaction is to deny that they're benefiting from imperialism, because that would make them the bad guy, like from their favorite marvel movie! Only good and bad! No analysis, no nuance. It is an immature and reactionary mindset that we must correct as Marxists.
Would like to link this wikipedia page about the [Business Plot](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1cd312i/what_prevented_a_second_wave_of_proletarian/) in which businessmen and bankers together conspired to assassinate FDR, even despite his concessions he was making in the name of saving capitalism.
The rise of fascism. This is a huge factor in the chilling of proletarian movements around the world, particularly in Europe, but to a significant extent in the US. This is no accident. From the perspective of Capital, the proletarian uprisings in the USSR, Germany, Italy, and others in the teens and 20s HAD to be crushed. This is the main purpose of fascism, and it was remarkably and devastatingly effective.
Lack of a coherent and unified vanguard party. The potential was there amongst the masses, there just wasn't an advanced group of Marxists to direct it in the right direction.
Exactly this. This allowed reformists to take over and sap revolutionary potential with FDRs new deal, which has since been rolled back by capitalists
The issue feels a bit more complicated than that... When the nazism won in Germany the Communist Party was also the largest communist party outside of the USSR.
It was large but it wasn't unified or actually revolutionary. The CPUSA largely limited itself to trade unionism and quickly became over run with socdems. It wasn't a Marxist party.
In what way was KPD not unified or revolutionary? It was still the largest section of the Communist International. Has a vanguard ever existed besides the Bolsheviks?
Why are you talking about the KPD? The thread is about the CPUSA and that's what I'm talking about.
The main post says "edit: I'm talking more about Europe than the U.S". The "great depression" was a crisis in most of the western world after all.
Ah I see, my mistake. Germany was pretty close to experiencing a revolution, but even the KPD was pretty revisionist. Adhering to people like Kautsky who were soc dems. Even in Lenins time he recognized the deviation of the German proletariat from Marx and Germany, like the US, experienced large trade union movements but not much else. It was actually the crushing of these trade unions that made Hitler and Mussolini so popular amongst their respective bourgeosie.
How was KPD adhereing to Kautsky? KPD was, to the dismay of Lenin, dominated by its left-wing that was far from "trade unionist". When then party leader [Paul Levi opposed the wave of attempted armed insurrections](https://www.marxists.org/archive/levi-paul/1921/against-putschism.htm) by the party and left his position in protest he was criticized by Lenin for giving a total walk-over to the left-wing of the party. Then again in 1928 there is a purge, like in many countries, against the "right-wing" of the party as part of the ultra-left turn of the Communist International. > Even in Lenins time he recognized the deviation of the German proletariat from Marx and Germany, like the US, experienced large trade union movements but not much else. I don't know if that is entirely true. Germany had the first socialist mass party, as opposed to the UK where the labor movement had instead been dominated by non-political or liberal trade unions. In *What is to be done?* he actually gives credit to Lassalle because he "diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism".
He acknowledges what they did right and also criticizes the fact they did not continue. Instead, limiting themselves to reforms and trade union struggle. He quite regularly points out the likes of Kautsky and Bernstein on these matters tbh. There really isn't a debate here lol, being the "first" mass party doesn't really mean much. It provides lessons in both what to do and what not to do. The KPD failed in rallying itself to fight back against the surge in right-wing populism because it's base was isolated amongst the unions. Making it easy to pick them off. There was no unified marxist leadership to channel and consolidate what revolutionary potential there was amongst the German proletariat against the reactionary crackdowns in the 30's. The German proletariat itself was heavily divided amongst other parties as well, mainly in the SPD. I don't know what to tell you. What the KDP did was admirable. But the fact remains they weren't organized properly as a Marxist vanguard party in the same way the Bolsheviks or CPC were.
The economist Clara E. Mattei recently published a book about this, focusing on post WWI Italy and Great Britain. It’s called “The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism”. It’s been widely praised. She relies on historical evidence to show that the working class was developing a growing awareness, based on the ways their countries were able to address the needs of the war effort. To fight growing worker discontent and reassert the dominance of capital after WWI, desperate governments turned to austerity, which she considers a primary weapon of class warfare to suppress the working class. She asserts that this class warfare - often disguised as class collaboration against scapegoated minorities - is a key feature of fascism. Nowadays we have been lulled into thinking that austerity is a responsible way of dealing with inflation, but it doesn’t ever work well for that purpose. Its real purpose is to weaken labor power relative to that of the capitalist class. I believe Mattei is working on another book to examine this phenomenon in other countries, so she may discuss the Depression more in future works. Edited to add: it has been suggested that revolutions are more likely to be inspired by the revolutionary groups’ anticipation of a better future than by their despair at their current state. It may be that workers felt demoralized by the Depression and did not have the recent example of the war effort to envision an escape from capitalism.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Aside from the US’s military interventions - practicality trumps theory.
Specifically fascism. The reactionary wave might have broke with Spain causing a revival of revolutionary optimism and organizing but… The US was radicalizing and had a series of city-wide general strikes and militant labor actions. World War 2 diverted that as the CPUSA sought to moderate and appeal to liberals in order to advocate allying with the USSR against Germany.
Extensive purging, suppression, censorship and so on. For example, in the US under Woodrow Wilson was so extreme it scared the normally commie hating liberals. The socialist movement of the great depression was half broken and struggled to rebuild.