Democracy and
dictatorship
IN
THE PREVIOUS Section on Parliament we examined the proposition that the
capitalists could abolish Parliament in the face of a determined
socialist majority. Those who imagine that the capitalists can do this,
point to Nazi Germany as an example of what would happen if capitalist
power were threatened by a growing socialist movement committed to
democratic political action. This of course is not a valid example as
the mass Social Democratic and Communist parties of pre-Nazi Germany
were not expres¬sions of the desire of the German workers for
Socialism. Nevertheless, the rise of the Hitler regime and the problems
it presents are worth going into in some detail as the myth of fascism
or dictatorship as the last defence of the capitalists against the
workers still persists.
Under a dictatorship the traditional
forms of working class political and economic organisation are denied
the right of legal existence. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the
Press is severely curtailed and made to conform to the needs of a
single political party that has for the time being secured a monopoly
in the administration of the State machine. Under political democracy
the workers are allowed to form their own political and industrial
organisations and, within limits, freedom of speech, of assembly and of
the Press is permitted, also the possibility of the electorate choosing
between contending political parties.
The Socialist Party of
Great Britain has always insisted on the democratic nature of
Socialism, and on the value that the widest possible discussion of
conflicting political views has for the working class. From its
formation the Socialist Party of Great Britain, in a manner unique
among political parties in this country, has followed democratic
methods, not only in its internal organisation bat also by having all
its Executive Committee and other meetings open to the public and by
allowing all opponents at our propaganda meetings to put questions and
state their case.
We do not unite with non-socialist
organisations which claim to be defending democracy, neither do we
minimise the importance of democracy for the working class or the
socialist movement; it is simply that we are convinced that democracy
cannot be defended in such a manner.
As proof of this contention
the working class has a rich experience on which to draw. The policy of
the 'lesser evil', that is, a policy of concessions to and compromise
with non-fascist parties and elements of capitalism, was pursued and
justified by the German Social Democratic Party on the ground that such
a policy was dictated by the necessity of defeating Nazism. Its total
failure points the lesson: that provided the threat of dictatorship is
real, the formation of a bloc of non-socialist anti-fascists does not
impede the advance of dictatorship but, if anything, serves to expedite
its progress. In order to make this point quite clear it is necessary
that we should understand the nature of democracy and its usefulness to
the working class. Unemployment, poverty, insecurity and other evil
effects of capitalism remain, no matter whether the form of its
political administration be democratic or dictatorial. Freedom to cry
working class misery from the house-tops will not, by itself, abolish
that misery. Democracy is a weapon, potentially invaluable, it is true;
but, like every other weapon, it can be used either for
self-preservation or for self-destruction. And the painful fact is that
in Germany the workers, lacking an understanding of how to use the
democratic weapon in their own interests, chose instead to commit
political suicide with it.
The constitution of the German
'Weimar' Republic — set up in 1919 but already doomed before Hitler
took power — was formally one of the most democratic in the world.
Nevertheless so miserable had the existence of wide masses of the
German people become that in the last free election held in Germany in
1932, a majority of the electorate voted for the abolition of
democracy. For in spite of the concern for democracy which is falsely
expressed by the Communists nowadays, at the time of that election
Nazis and German Communists were united in their hatred of what they
called 'bourgeois democracy'. The chief difference between the
Communists and Nazis was that they chose different vehicles through
which to express their hatred of democracy. Lacking an understanding of
their social position, disgusted by the antics and ineptitude of
self-style socialists, the mass of the German people found the source
of their grievances not in the capitalist nature of the social system
but in the democratic form in which it was administered. In their
uninformed despair, they fell an easy prey to astute and unscrupulous
demagogues, who never failed to reinforce the false belief that
democracy was the cause of social distress.
Dictatorship does
not exist in a vacuum: like every other social phenomenon it is related
to, and has its origin in, a social background. That background is
capitalism which inevitably gives rise to working class problems,
consequent frustration, prejudices and bitterness which can be
exploited by the opponents of democracy. With equal inevitability it
also gives rise to problems of a specifically capitalist nature: such
as maintaining the profitability of production; securing new and
retaining old markets; the necessity of forging 'national unity' when
faced with war with rival capitalist groups, and so on. It is precisely
in an attempt to solve these problems that the ruling class in certain
circumstances has recourse to dictatorship. That these problems can be
permanently solved is precluded by the contradictory nature of
capitalism itself; but that will not prevent the capitalists from
making the attempt where it appears that no other means will serve. As
long as the workers support capitalism and capitalist policies they
will be tempted ultimately to give their support to the policy best
calculated to meet the political and economic needs cf capitalism,
though that policy may be one of dictorship.
Democracy for the
working class can only be consolidated and expanded to the extent that
the workers adopt the socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so
democracy may be defended, means ultimately the rejection of both
Socialism and democracy.
Although the Nazis did not actually
come to power until 1933, this was only the culmination of a
development the origins of which can be traced back many years before.
Defeat in the first world war had as it consequence the breakdown of
the German military and semi-feudal State apparatus. When the Kaiser
fled, the task of rehabilitating German capitalism fell into the hands
of the Social Democrats. They were by far the largest party and had the
greatest backing throughout the country from war-weary workers now
ready to give parliamentary democracy a trial. In 1919 the Weimar
Constitution was drawn up and, as a result of the elections, plus
support from the Catholic Centre Party and others, the Social Democrats
became the first Republican government. They were handicapped in
consolidating their authority by several hostile forces. Principal
among these were the Spartacists — followers of Karl Liebknecht and
Rosa Luxemburg — and a breakaway section of the Independent Social
Democratic Party, both of which desired to imitate the Russian example
(later they became the Communist party). Feeling its authority
undermined the Government, in order to crush the rebels, enlisted the
aid of reactionary generals and officers — the extreme right-wing, as
they were called. Such action could not but spell disaster for the
Republic, for these reactionary hirelings, once reinstated, plotted
against their benefactors and came out openly against the government
when its influence amongst the workers had waned. The rehabilitation of
capitalism in a defeated country created a mass of problems for a party
ushering in a new political regime. The Social Democrats were unable to
master those problems and the inevitable discontent vented itself on
the Weimar Constitution.
On the other hand, the capitalists,
sighing for the return of their markets and trade routes, were
beginning to look elsewhere, turning a sympathetic ear to the new
message of Hitler's national capitalism, miscalled 'national socialism'.
From
being a mere handful of disgruntled officers who had severely suffered
in prestige as a result of their abortive attempts to seize power hi
1923. the Nazis soon gained in influence. Adolf Hitler had learned a
lot from his failure - particularly the need to win over the people.
Hence the new party adopted a programme wide enough to appeal to
practically all sections of the population. Mob oratory, anti-semitism
and nationalism became his stock-in-trade.
The situation became
ripe for the Nazis after 1930. The economic crisis which had then
broken out, became aggravated by the widespread withdrawal of foreign
investments and the cessation of loans. Meanwhile the numbers of the
unemployed had increased to seven millions, whilst those in employment
were periodically having their wages reduced. The failure of government
after government to master the situation brought the democratic
republic into ever-greater disrepute. A state of parliamentary
paralysis had begun to set in (the Communists as well as the Nazis were
to blame for this), and the Nazis were not slow to profit by
anti-parliamentary sentiment. In addition, the leading capitalists
ceased their support for the Republic. The Social Democrats had served
their purpose. They had preserved German capitalism in the post-war
years. They could no longer aid the capitalists in their long-delayed
quest for aggrandisement; for that, a new type of militarism was
necessary. Not the militarism of the early Bismarkian era, utilised
mainly in the interests of a backward landowning group, but one which
looked beyond the borders of Prussia for its ideal. A movement, in
short, which could bring to reality all the unfulfilled dreams of a
century — national centralisation and consolidation, with a view to
re-entering the imperialist arena, this time unfettered by any feudal
restrictions. The Nazi movement embodied these ideals and Hitler had
set them down in Mein Kampf; and so it came about.
With
widespread support of the masses, Germany became a 'totalitarian
state'. All autonomous regional governments were abolished. Austria,
Memel and Czechoslovakia were overrun. Thus the Nazi movement was
instrumental in consummating the unification of Germany as desired by
the early German capitalists in 1848, in addition to preparing the
ground for war.
Dictatorship came to Germany not against the
will of the mass of the workers. A majority of them did not even
support democracy. Many who did not want the Nazis wanted a Communist
dictatorship. The German worksrs cut their own throats. That was the
lesson of Nazism.
The political conditions existing immediately
prior to the winning of power for Socialism will be quite different
from those in pre-Nazi Germany. The workers will not be turning in
disgust from democratic reformism to dictatorship. They will be
strongly organised on the econrmlc md political fields, ready to
establish Socialism and able to cope with any who try to prevent the
democratic will for Socialism from being implemented. |
|
 |
|
