Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
Sat May 12, 2012, 12:42 AM May 2012

The United Front In Countries Where The Social Democrats Are In Office

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s12

"The struggle for the establishment of a united front raises another very important problem, the problem of a united front in Countries where Social-Democratic governments, or coalition governments in which Socialists participate, are in power, as, for instance, in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and Belgium.

Our attitude of absolute opposition to Social-Democratic governments, which are governments of compromise with the bourgeoisie, is well known. But this notwithstanding, we do not regard the existence of a Social-Democratic government or of a government coalition with bourgeois parties as an insurmountable obstacle to establishing a united front with the Social-Democrats on certain issues.

We believe that in such a case, too, a united front in defense of the vital interests of the working people and in the struggle against fascism is quite possible and necessary. It stands to reason that in countries where representatives of Social-Democratic parties take part in the government the Social-Democratic leadership offers the strongest resistance to the proletarian united front. This is quite comprehensible. After all, they want to show the bourgeoisie that they, better and more skilfully than anyone else, can keep the discontented working masses under control and prevent them from falling under the influence of Communism.

The fact, however, that Social-Democratic ministers are opposed to the proletarian united front can by no means justify a situation in which the Communists do nothing to establish a united front of the proletariat.

Our comrades in the Scandinavian countries often follow the line of least resistance, confining themselves to propaganda exposing the Social-Democratic governments. This is a mistake. In Denmark, for example, the Social-Democratic leaders have been in the government for the past ten years, and for ten years, day in and day out, the Communists have been reiterating that it is a bourgeois capitalist government. We have to assume that the Danish workers are acquainted with this propaganda. The fact that a considerable majority nevertheless vote for the Social-Democratic government party only goes to show that the Communists' exposure of the government by means of propaganda is insufficient. It does not prove, however, that these hundreds of thousands of workers are satisfied with all the government measures of the Social-Democratic ministers. No, they are not satisfied with the fact that by its so-called crisis 'agreement' the Social-Democratic government assists the big capitalists and landlords and not the workers and poor peasants. They are not satisfied with the decree issued by the government in January 1933, which deprived the workers of the right to strike. They are not satisfied with the project of the Social Democratic leadership for a dangerous anti-democratic electoral reform (which would considerably reduce the number of deputies). I shall hardly be in error, comrades, if I state that 99 per cent of the Danish workers do not approve of these political steps taken by the Social-Democratic leaders and ministers.

Is it not possible for the Communists to call upon the trade unions and Social-Democratic organizations of Denmark to discuss some of these burning issues, to express their opinions on them and come out jointly for a proletarian united front with the object of obtaining the workers' demands? In October of last year, when our Danish comrades appealed to the trade unions to act against the reduction of unemployment relief and for the democratic rights of the trade unions, about 100 local trade union organizations joined the united front.

In Sweden a Social-Democratic government is in power for the third time, but the Swedish Communists have for a long time abstained from applying the united front tactics in practice. Why? Was it because they were opposed to the united front? Of course not; they were in principle for a united front, for a united front in general, but they failed to understand in what circumstances, on what questions, in defense of what demands a proletarian united front could be successfully established, where and how to "hook on." A few months before the formation of the Social democratic government, the Social Democratic Party advanced during the elections a platform containing a number of demands which would have been the very thing to include in the platform of the proletarian united front. For example, the slogans Against custom duties, Against militarization, Put an end to the policy of delay in the question of unemployment insurance, Grant adequate old age pensions, Prohibit organizations like the "Munch" corps (a fascist organization), Down with class legislation against the unions demanded by the bourgeois parties.

Over a million of the working people of Sweden voted in 1932 for these demands advanced by the Social-Democrats, and welcomed in 1933 the formation of a Social-Democratic government in the hope that now these demands would be realized. What could have been more natural in such a situation and what would have been better suited the mass of the workers than an appeal of the Communist Party to all Social-Democratic and trade union organizations to take joint action to secure these demands advanced by the Social-Democratic Party?

If we had succeeded in really mobilizing wide masses and in welding the Social-Democratic and Communist workers' organizations into a united front to secure these demands of the Social-Democrats themselves, there is no doubt that the working class of Sweden would have gained thereby. The Social-Democratic ministers of Sweden, of course, would not have been very happy over it, for in that case the government would have been compelled to meet at least some of these demands. At any rate, what has happened now, when the government instead of abolishing has raised some of the duties, instead of restricting militarism has enlarged the military budget, and instead of rejecting all legislation directed against the trade unions has itself introduced such a bill in Parliament, would not have happened. True, on the last issue the Communist party of Sweden carried through a good mass campaign in the spirit of the proletarian united front, with the result that in the end even the Social-Democratic parliamentary faction felt constrained to vote against the government bill, and for the time being it has been voted down.

The Norwegian Communists were right in calling upon the organizations of the Labor Party to organize joint May Day demonstrations and in putting forward a number of demands which in the main coincided with the demands contained in the election platform of the Norwegian Labor Party. Although this step in favor of a united front was poorly prepared and the leadership of the Norwegian Labor Party opposed it, united front demonstrations took place in thirty localities.

Formerly many Communists used to be afraid it would be opportunism on their part if they did not counter every partial demand of the Social-Democrats by demands of their own which were twice as radical. That was a naive mistake. If Social-Democrats, for instance, demanded the dissolution of the fascist organizations, there was no reason why we should add: "and the disbanding of the state police" (a demand which would be expedient under different circumstances). We should rather tell the Social-Democratic workers: We are ready to accept these demands of your Party as demands of the proletarian united front and are ready to fight to the end for their realization. Let us join hands for the battle.

In Czechoslovakia also certain demands advanced by the Czech and German Social-Democrats, and by the reformist trade unions, can and should be utilized for establishing a united front of the working class. When the Social-Democrats, for instance, demand work for the unemployed or the abolition of the laws restricting municipal self-government, as they have done ever since 1927, these demands should be made concrete in each locality, in each district, and a fight should be carried on hand in hand with the Social-Democratic organizations for their actual realization. Or, when the Social-Democratic Parties thunder "in general terms" against the agents of fascism in the state apparatus, the proper thing to do is in each particular district to drag into the light of day the particular local fascist spokesmen, and together with the Social Democratic workers demand their removal from government employ.

In Belgium the leaders of the Social-Democratic Party, with Emile Vandervelde at their head, have entered a coalition government. This "success" they achieved thanks to their lengthy and extensive campaigns for two main demands: 1) abolition of the emergency decrees, and 2) realization of the de Man 12) Plan. The first issue is very important. The preceding government issued 150 reactionary emergency decrees, which are an extremely heavy burden on the working people. They were expected to be repealed at once. This was the demand of the Socialist Party. But have many of these emergency decrees been repealed by the new government? It has not repealed a single one. It has only mollified somewhat a few of the emergency decrees in order to make a sort of "token payment" in settlement of the generous promises of the Belgian Socialist leaders (like that "token dollar" which some European powers proffered the USA in payment of the millions due as war debts).

As regards the realization of the widely advertized de Man Plan, the matter has taken a turn quite unexpected by the Social Democratic masses. The Socialist ministers announced that the economic crisis must be overcome first and only those provisions of the de Man Plan should be carried into effect which improve the position of the industrial capitalists and the banks; only afterwards would it be possible to adopt measures to improve the condition of the workers. But how long must the workers wait for their share in the "benefits" promised them in the de Man Plan? The Belgian bankers have already had their veritable shower of gold. The Belgian franc has been devalued 28 per cent; by this manipulation the bankers were able to pocket 4,500 million francs as their spoils at the expense of the wage earners and the savings of the small depositors. But how does this tally with the contents of the de Man Plan? Why, if we are to believe the letter of the plan, it promises to "prosecute monopolist abuses and speculative manipulations."

On the basis of the de Man Plan, the government has appointed a commission to supervise the banks. But the commission consists of bankers who can now gaily and lightheartedly supervise themselves.

The de Man Plan also promises a number of other good things, such as a shorter working day, standardization of wages, a minimum wage, organization of an all-embracing system of social insurance, "greater convenience in living conditions through new housing construction," and so forth. These are all demands which we Communists can support. We should go to the labor organizations of Belgium and say to them: The capitalists have already received enough and even too much. Let us demand that the Social-Democratic ministers now carry out the promises they made to the workers. Let us get together in a united front for the successful defense of our interests. Minister Vandervelde, we support the demands on behalf of the workers contained in your platform; but we tell you frankly that we take these demands seriously, that we want action and not empty words, and therefore are rallying hundreds of thousands of workers to struggle for these demands.

Thus, in countries having Social-Democratic governments, the Communists, by utilizing appropriate individual demands taken from the platforms of the Social-Democratic ministers as a starting point for achieving joint action with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations, can afterwards more easily develop a campaign for the establishment of a united front on the basis of other mass demands in the struggle against the capitalist offensive, against fascism and the threat of war.

It must further be borne in mind that, in general, joint action with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations requires from Communists serious and substantiated criticism of Social Democracy as the ideology and practice of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and untiring, comradely explanation to the Social-Democratic workers of the program and slogans of Communism. In countries having Social-Democratic governments this task is of particular importance in the struggle for a united front."


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The United Front In Countries Where The Social Democrats Are In Office (Original Post) Starry Messenger May 2012 OP
Intersting article... white_wolf May 2012 #1
I think Dimitrov talks about the Social Democrats because that is who some had to work with Starry Messenger May 2012 #2
From a Trotskyist perspective............ socialist_n_TN May 2012 #3
+1 nt TBF May 2012 #7
"To show that the electoral system will ultimately fail the working class." white_wolf May 2012 #8
I think the important thing is to not apply a "one solution fits all" scenario Starry Messenger May 2012 #9
OK, I just read that thread and HAD to reply.......... socialist_n_TN May 2012 #4
lol, it's true! Starry Messenger May 2012 #5
Only 1500 posts in the last 5 years from that poster. TBF May 2012 #6
He had some "funny stuff" in the Education group too. Starry Messenger May 2012 #10

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
1. Intersting article...
Sat May 12, 2012, 01:20 AM
May 2012

A united front with social-democrats could probably get a lot done, but I should point out I tend to take a pragmatic long view towards politics. Not pragmatic in the sense that Obama uses it, but rather if it helps people live a happier better life then I'm not at all opposed to voting in elections and even helping some politicians. All that being said, I feel like as far as the U.S. is concerned we really don't have anyone to form a united front with. Social-Democracy is far to the left of American Liberalism and the only politicians in the States that I consider social-democrats are Sanders and possibly Kucinich. I just don't see the Democrats being too willing to propose any of the things Social-Democrats would.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
2. I think Dimitrov talks about the Social Democrats because that is who some had to work with
Sat May 12, 2012, 06:59 AM
May 2012

at that point in time in their countries of orgin. They were the majority in power. I posted this mostly to boost my morale after a discouraging day in H&M where there was a very bigoted post against socialists/Communists. Sometimes I have to remind myself why we are here at DU.

How do we work in coalition when the left is not in power? What is the role of a socialist and/or Communist in a capitalist democracy?

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
3. From a Trotskyist perspective............
Sat May 12, 2012, 11:32 AM
May 2012

The United Front tactic is useful when (as stated above) you can get something done for the working class by working with others. HOWEVER, in any United Front (and this is where most of them fail), the communist must ALWAYS reserve the right to criticize it's front partners openly and strongly, when they fall short of the mark. IOW, the Front is NOT more important than the communist programme.

That's why the front tactic works best only on single ISSUES, and not on things like electoral politics. If a communist expects to get closer to socialism through electoral work, he or she is bound to be disappointed. Kucinich and Sanders ultimately will come down on the side of the bourgeoisie BECAUSE they are social dems and not communists. This doesn't mean we don't vote or that we boycott elections other than in the cases when there is no choice other than a fascist. It just means that we vote to show that even the MOST left of the bourgeoisie ultimately will NOT get anything done regarding the system itself. At most it will be stopgaps against capitalist exploitation. But because we DID vote and not obstruct the "left" bourgeoisie AND STILL NOTHING CHANGED, we can say that "We tried it your way and nothing happened. Now let's try it mine."

To me, that's the whole purpose of electoral politics for a revolutionary socialist/communist. To show that the electoral system will ultimately fail the working class. And maybe to get a few short term gains that benefit the working class.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
8. "To show that the electoral system will ultimately fail the working class."
Sun May 13, 2012, 12:56 PM
May 2012

And this is the point where me and the more "purist" revolutionary socialists will disagree. I think elections could be used to build socialism. You would have to get the right people elected, real socialists, not social-democrats, but I do think South America is showing that it's possible to have a legislative road to socialism, even if it is a slow one, but then again let's be honest no other road has succeeded either.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
9. I think the important thing is to not apply a "one solution fits all" scenario
Sun May 13, 2012, 04:44 PM
May 2012

on conditions, which Dimitrov talks about more in other parts of his speech. It makes sense when you think about it, the uneven development of capitalism leads to an uneven development of socialist consciousness in various nations. I like this speech because it gives a way of working in a capitalist country that may not be in a revolutionary phase. That way we don't have to be just sitting around hoping for the Marxist rapture, but we have a plan that just goes beyond "elect people".

Electing socialists and social-D's or even progressive Democrats isn't so much to usher in socialism. It will always be on the people to help to do that. But having politicians elected who won't necessarily be the bigger roadblock to progress also has its merits.

For instance, I have no real illusions about Hollande in France, he still has to function in a capitalist system, after all. But having a coalition that united to elect him means that the people have a collective will to change the system and united to do this. It will be the next challenge to find how much they can run the ball down the field with Sarkozy now out of the way. If they hadn't had some faith in the electoral system, there wouldn't have been this avenue to exploit. But they had it, so it's a locus of struggle.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
4. OK, I just read that thread and HAD to reply..........
Sat May 12, 2012, 12:12 PM
May 2012

"A socialist takeover of DU"

Actually Starry, that should be grounds for ENcouragement rather than DIScouragement. That guy got smacked down pretty good by a LOT of you guys. Even the Dem Socialists got into the act.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
5. lol, it's true!
Sat May 12, 2012, 01:56 PM
May 2012

I'm feeling better about it today. I was just disgruntled because I went to alert on him and then went "d'oh!". He didn't break any rules! I'm sure that jury result would have been interesting, if I hadn't come to my senses.

He did get smacked down good, and I like your reply too!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»The United Front In Count...