The Situation of Left Communist Groups

After the imperialist upswing period of pre-war capitalism had brought the workers' movement onto a completely reformist platform, the period of the clash of imperialist opposites in the world war confronted the proletariat with the question of revolution. In the struggle to decide between the policy of reformist support for the imperialist bourgeoisie and the policy of revolutionary, internationally oriented struggle against it, the split in social democracy was inevitable. However, while the mass of party members who joined the USPD merely decided on the basis of an increasingly strong anti-war stance, a few small groups, above all the Spartacus League and the Group of International Socialists, fought for a clear revolutionary orientation.

Even if what emerged here could not be seen completely clearly - after all, the narrower problems of the revolution only became visible in the revolution itself - it nevertheless embodied the approach of a new revolutionary class orientation and class development The practice of revolutionary struggles and the theoretical debate that took place with them led the newly created KPD onto the path of a revolutionary class policy that grew through inevitable tactical mistakes, errors and defeats. The radical renunciation of all parliamentary and reformist methods of struggle on the one hand, and the renunciation of the counter-revolutionary trade unions through the formation of factory organizations on the other, formed the cornerstone of communist tactics. In the autumn of 1919, however, the young communist party split and, with the help of the worst apparatus methods under the leadership of Paul Levy and under pressure from the leaders of Bolshevism who were turning to opportunism, a parliamentary and trade union policy was forced upon it. In the spring of 1920, the expelled workers formed the Communist Workers' Party, which continued the revolutionary line of the Spartacus League and took an outstanding part in the next struggles of the German working class. With the KAP, the anti-trade union workplace organizations developed into a sometimes significant mass influence in the union movement. In the fall of 1920, however, the East Saxon Union groups broke away from the KAP and the Union itself split. Under Rühle's leadership, the theory of the economic-political unitary organization, i.e. the negation of the revolutionary party, was emphasized. The discussion about the questions of tactics, namely the questions of participation in the daily struggles of the workers on the one hand, also led to the split of the KAP into the “Berlin” and “Essen” tendencies in 1922. (The nature of the development of the KAP and the causes of its split will be dealt with in a later article).

The decline of the revolutionary struggles in Germany [and] the sealing of the defeat of the German proletariat with capitalist stabilization brought a rapid decline in both the unionist movement and the two tendencies of the KAP. It became apparent that the factory organizations formed by the most advanced workers in the revolutionary struggle, as the special fighting formation of the revolutionary proletariat, had to disappear with the dwindling of all revolutionary fighting possibilities. Reformism won back the masses, supported by the opportunist tactics of the KPD, which were backed by the authority of the Russian revolution. The two parliamentary workers' parties once again dominated the field against the KAP groups, which represented a consistently revolutionary principle.

The provisional and final decline of the German revolution thus became the objective, historical cause of the decline of the KAP and Union movement. The fact that a large part of the remaining supporters of this movement did not understand the completely changed situation after 1923 added to this objective moment the subjective one of an angry discussion about the question of who was to blame for the decline and split of the movement. The course of capitalist development in the period of stabilization deprived the various capitalist and unionist groups of all practical revolutionary activity. Strong, active organizations became weak groups that were more and more dependent on propaganda alone and were also very hostile to each other. The attempt to bring about a cartel-like unification of the individual tendencies in 1926 failed due to the lack of programmatic unity and only led to a new split, the product of which was ultimately a new “Spartakusbund” under the leadership of Pfemfert.

The remaining members of the Essen branch of KAP gave up the independent organization and continued their political work on the ground of other organizations. The Berlin branch of the KAP still works independently today with a few groups and individual members. A tiny remnant of the General Workers' Unions formerly associated with it still exists alongside ir. The vast majority of the AAU, however, merged with the unitary union organization to form the Communist Workers' Union in the autumn of 1931. The Pfemfertian Spartakusbund, which is also based on the Unitary Organization, also continues to exist with some groups.

All these groups are remnants of a historically significant movement, the ruins of a historical decline. They clearly bear the stamp of their origin and existence. On the one hand, they naturally embody a piece of past revolutionary experience and revolutionary tradition. With regard to the idea of the revolutionary self-activity of the masses, revolutionary anti-parliamentarism and the necessity of overcoming trade union tactics and organization, they have also maintained essential pieces of the revolutionary principle acquired in difficult struggles. However, this positive side contrasts with a number of negative ones.

For the most part, an attitude fatal to their tactics has developed throughout the left communist movement. The fundamental consistency that was necessary in itself led to a strong, purely sectarian isolation from the working class. As a consolation for its lack of effectiveness, an ironic arrogance developed, which for years assured itself with impotent complacency that it had always been right and was the sole 100% bearer of a 100% revolutionary program. In addition, this programmatic 100%ness was formed in a historical situation of decomposition of the movement. In this way, what was at the center of the discussion in a certain phase of regressive development was mentally stabilized. All theoretical attention was partly and completely devoted to the purification of precisely those principles that had once been fixed. And as far as the members of these organizations still look backwards today, there is a total inability to grasp today's completely different situation at all, or, in a mutual rapprochement, to separate what they really have in common from what is really, not just imaginary, separating them. However, where the ability to empathize with the current situation of the workers' movement is not given, blind dogmatism blocks any possibility of effectiveness. The tradition of the various left communist groups has killed most of their ability to work.

While the Berlin branch of the KAP drew on all the theoretical ideas of left-revolutionary practice from the period up to 1923, it developed a spiteful organizational egotism in complete incomprehension of the work of other revolutionary forces, which is in inverse proportion to its real work in the class. On the opposite side, the unfruitful forces of dogmatic conceptualism are most pronounced in the Spartakusbund. In the Communist Workers' Union, which is the largest of the groups mentioned, a more lively tactic and conception has asserted itself, although it already has an opportunist character to some extent. Thus, when the two Unions united, no clarity was achieved on the essential question of their position on the problem of the revolutionary party. While one section of the KAU is a fanatical denier of the revolutionary party in general and upholds the old Rühle idea of a unitary organization, another simply leaves this question open. Finally, a third part still affirms the necessity of the revolutionary party. But a unification based on the concealment of these differences carries the constant danger of a new split.

None of the existing left communist groups can be addressed as the coming and necessary revolutionary communist organization, the revolutionary “party”, according to their programme and tactics. Their living forces, however, can become starting points for the development of such a communist core organization if they understand their own position in the present situation and act accordingly.

The first realization that is necessary for this is that all these left communist groups are just the remains of a historically destroyed movement that cannot simply be rebuilt with the programs and even less with the tactics of the past. The actual situation shows that out of the incipient decomposition of the entire workers' movement, the clear beginnings of a new left communist movement to be founded organizationally must be created from the present situation and the present state of consciousness of the working class. As long as any left communist group claims to be the sole revolutionary organization, it will mean nothing essential for future work and development.

The second realization that must be grasped is that this new beginning starts under completely different conditions than was the case in the period up to 1923. There it was a more or less openly revolutionary situation with many large mass actions. Today we are dealing with the situation of an almost complete dictatorship and the complete failure of the entire labor movement. To this end, at least the best forces of the young generation, who have no real revolutionary experience behind them and who therefore find it very difficult to grow into the ideology of left communism, must be captured. That is why the program of the left communist movement must be reformulated, newly developed.

Finally, the third insight that is important is that no mechanical unification of the individual left groups without a real unified basis can accelerate the pace of the foundation of the new revolutionary organization. On the contrary. All top-down unification only brings new dangers. The unity of the left communist movement can only be created through practice itself. In practical cooperation and in theoretical discussion that goes hand in hand with it, the living forces from all existing groups can come together. Organizational unity can be nothing more than the recognition of a state that already exists in practice. In any case, it is not at the beginning, but only in the further course of common political work.

There will still be much rubble to be cleared away, and it will probably not be possible without a ruthless separation from all stubborn and incapable elements. But for a coming revolutionary situation, the most valuable forces will not be those who supposedly represent the purest program, but those who are already learning to put their left communist convictions into practice in the working class through tenacious and tireless work.