Representatives of four self-professed revolutionary Marxist tendencies enjoin the debate on the the ‘Popular Front’ orientation adopted by the Communist International. A policy which has dominated, with exceptions, the politics of the ‘official’ Communist Parties since it was formally enacted by the Seventh, and last, Comintern Congress in 1935. The move away from the ‘Third Period,’ and its preparations for power, began almost immediately after the unparalleled defeat of March, 1933’s fascist capture of the German state and outlawing of, arguably, the most important Communist Party in the world. Such a dramatic change in position required dramatic justification. Georgi Dimitrov was the Secretary of the Comintern in the period and the foremost proponent of the Popular Front. The debate on the Popular Front is joined by Gus Tyler of the Socialist Party and its Militant Faction, Jay Lovestone for C.P. leader of the International Communist Opposition, Max Shachtman, also a former C.P. leader and then a prominent U.S. Fourth Internationalist.

‘People’s Government vs. Proletarian Dictatorship’ by Gus Tyler from American Socialist Monthly. Vol. 5 No. 1. March, 1936.

THE abandonment of a revolutionary position on war by the Communist International is now generally known. Not so well known, perhaps because more concealed, is the communist abandonment of a revolutionary position on the capture of state power. Let us, for instance, consider the concept of a “people’s government”.

The “people’s government” is not a “united front” government. A “people’s government” is composed of all anti-fascist parties, including democratic bourgeois parties, whereas a “united front” government is composed of working-class parties.

What, according to the communists, is such a “people’s government” supposed to do? According to K. Gottwald in his speech before the Seventh Congress, the people’s government will: (p. 21, The United Front in Czechoslovakia)

“Eradicate the fascist elements from the state apparatus and army, dissolve and disarm the fascist organizations, grant all civil rights to the soldiers and full freedom to all anti-fascist organizations, and arm the anti-fascist…deal severely with the capitalists, bankers and big landowners, impose proper taxes on them and introduce workers’ control of production in their enterprises…etc.”

This is a big bill to fill. Moreover, it is sheer fantasy to imagine that any thing but a proletarian dictatorship could ever carry through such a program. To assume even for a moment that a non- revolutionary regime can put through such measures is to foster the most reformist illusions concerning the character of the state.

But let me assume, as the communists assume and as the reformist socialists assume, that such a program is possible. The next question is: What need is there for a revolutionary overthrow to seize power? And against whom shall it be directed?

Lenin, in his polemic against Kautsky, Kautsky, the Renegade, pointed out that the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism arose from the fact that the bureaucracy and the army were concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

But once the bureaucracy and army pass out of the hands of the ruling class and become “democratized,” then why continue to insist upon the need for a revolutionary overthrow? In fact, if one is part of this democratic people’s regime, how can one carry on revolutionary activity against-one’s self?

The reformists are consistent both in their theory and their practice. They say that it is possible, within capitalism, to establish strong “democratic” governments, able to “democratize the army and the bureaucracy”, able to make great inroads in the income of the ruling class, able to establish “workers’ control of production”. The reformists consistently prepare for a peaceful and democratic transition to socialism and the proletarian conquest of power.

The communist practice, based upon the concept of a “people’s government” is identical with the practice of reformist socialism. The difference lies in the fact that the communists continue to mumble the phrases “revolutionary overthrow” and “proletarian dictatorship”.

In this connection, we should like to recall that Kautsky, chief spokesman for reformism, never gave up the phrase, “proletarian dictatorship”. He always believed in it. He merely differed from Lenin in the matter of definition and approach to it. So, too, the Communist International is saving the shell while the living body departs.

M. Ercoli, reporter to the Seventh Congress on the question of war and peace, seriously proposed “raising the question of transforming the present bourgeois army into a people’s army” within the framework of capitalism. (p. 1256, Communist International, No. 17-18.) Once this is accomplished, Comrade Ercoli may shout for revolution, but he will present a ridiculous spectacle of an individual crying, “Revolution gratia revolutionis.”

The Formulation of the Question

When fascism threatened the German Social-Democrats, they stated: the choice now is not between socialism and capitalism but between capitalist dictatorship and capitalist democracy. They chose the “lesser evil” and decided to defend it against the greater evil. Every one knows the result. Let us review the reason for this result.

The fascist reaction was provoked by the fact that Germany was in crisis and that the masses of Germany were on the move, fighting for a change, for a solution to the capitalist crisis. In order to defend the “lesser evil”, socialists had to enter into alliances with bourgeois democratic parties. This meant a cessation of the struggle against these parties and their programs. It meant an acceptance of the status quo which the masses hated so bitterly. Immediately, the ranks of the workers were demoralized, discouraged, split, defeated.

The middle class, also in motion against the status quo, saw no champion in the party of Social-Democracy, standing behind the existing regime.

While the discontented elements began to shift to the Nazis, for want of some party of protest and action, the ranks of the socialists began to thin, if not numerically, then certainly in terms of fighting morale.

Meanwhile the so-called democratic parties and democratic political leaders, in the bourgeois and petty bourgeois groups, came to see that they could no longer remain in the vacillating center. They had to choose a permanent ally. And they chose as their class interests dictated. Hindenburg, the democratic opponent of the dictatorial Hitler, invited Hitler to set up a government. The democratic Bruening was not only the last democratic premier of Germany but also the first dictatorial premier.

The policy of the lesser evil was bitterly criticized by the communists. To quote Palme Dutt, British communist leader:

“To preach confidence in legalism, in constitutionalism, in bourgeois democracy, that is, the capitalist state, means to invite and guarantee the victory of fascism. That is the lesson of Germany and Austria. And this is the reality which blows to smithereens the deceitful and disastrous slogan of ‘Democracy versus Dictatorship’.” (Fascism and Social Revolution.)

This book was written before the “new line”. At the Seventh Congress, Dimitroff pompously announced the “new line” of the Comintern: “Now the masses in a number of capitalist countries are faced with the necessity of making a definite choice, and of making it today, not between proletarian and bourgeois democracy, but between bourgeois democracy and fascism.” (P. 1237, C. I. op. cit.)

This is the wisdom of Dimitroff. This kindergarten fallacy from the text books of reformism.

The People’s Program

The program of the people’s front in France appears elsewhere in this issue. One glance is sufficient to reveal its character. It is clearly the left-bourgeois program of the Radical Socialists. The Communist Party and Socialist Party of France, in these days when the masses are restless and looking for leadership out of the crisis, bend their knee to this liberal reform program.

When one places this program of the suicide pact next to August Bebel’s statement, made in 1910, one is amazed at the prophetic ability of German Social Democracy’s old leader. “If I as a Social Democrat enter into an alliance with the bourgeois parties, you may wager a thousand to one that it will not be the Social Democrats but the bourgeois parties who are the winners; we shall be the losers. It seems to be a law of politics that wherever Right and Left unite, the Left loses and the Right wins.

If I enter into political relations of friendship with a party fundamentally opposed to mine, I must necessarily adapt my tactics, i.e., my mode of conflict, in such a way as to prevent the alliance from going to pieces. In other words, I can not criticize as I like, I can no longer fight in accordance with rigid principles, for this would offend my new allies; I am forced to be silent, to cover many things with the mantle of charity, to justify many acts that can not be justified, to whitewash what should not be whitewashed.”

The people’s front government is just one great whitewash for the program of the liberal bourgeoisie of France, coming at a time when a frontal attack upon the capitalist system of France is a crying need.

Out of Crisis

Jacques Duclos, communist leader of France, in apologizing for the concept of a people’s government explained:

“And when the communists speak of a government of the People’s Front, which incidentally is not an inevitable step, they mean a government constituted under the conditions of a political crisis, when there is a revolutionary upsurge among the masses which the bourgeoisie can not hold back. We do not mean, believe me, a government of participation of a parliamentary char- acter, but a government which will fight energetically against fascism and reaction, which will not yet be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but which could be a sort of preface to that.” (Communist, January, 1936.)

This is supposed to be an apology, but it is exactly the opposite. It is the worst condemnation of the people’s government idea that could possibly be made. It means that the slogan of a people’s government, as differing from proletarian power, is the one that shall be raised, and raised in a revolutionary crisis.

The People’s Front in Practice

In practice, the people’s government is not necessarily a child of crisis. The communists are indirectly supporting bourgeois liberal regimes long before any such revolutionary upsurge.

In France, the purpose of the people’s front is to halt a civil war. Dependence is placed upon the government to disarm the fascist groups and democratize the army. All this, the people’s front, with the communists in it, hopes to do by the regular processes of parliamentary democracy.

In Czechoslovakia, the theory of the “lesser evil” stands forth in all its reformist nakedness. When Benes ran for President, the communists characterized him as follows:

“The candidature of Dr. Benes is no expression of a real anti-fascist front. It is no expression of a real struggle against reaction and capital. This candidate has been put up by the Clerical People’s Party and the Socialist Party, both of which have definitely refused to abandon the policy of class collaboration.”

And after thus characterizing him they illusion is that it will thus establish a conclude:

“But we declare: if the election to the Presidency involves a fight in which we have the deciding vote, we shall vote for Dr. Benes.”

Harry Gannes, explaining the line in the Daily Worker, states wisely: “It is not only necessary to know what you are fighting for; it is equally necessary to know what you are fighting against.”

So the communists voted not for Benes (for whom they cast their votes, of course, although they were not the deciding votes) but against Nemec, the opponent of Benes. Likewise the Social- Democrats voted, not for Hindenburg but against Hitler. Maybe in the next campaign the Communist Party may try voting against the Liberty League and God only knows for whom. Blunt Reformism

The communist position on the road to power today is blunt reformism.

Its approach to the problem is that of defending the lesser evil of capitalist democracy against the greater evil of capitalist dictatorship. Its means in doing this is to support liberal bourgeois candidates, parties and programs. Its parliamentary and legalist basis for democratizing the state, thus halting the onward march of fascism.

It thereby destroys the entire theoretical and practical basis for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It is only a question of time before the revolutionary phrase, too, will be forgotten!

Socialist Review began as American Socialist Quarterly in 1934. The name changed to Socialist Review in September 1937. The journal reflected Norman Thomas’ supporters “Militant” tendency of the ‘center’ leadership. Beginning in 1936, there were also Fourth Internationalists lead by James P. Cannon as well as the right-wing tendency around the New Leader magazine also contributing. The articles reflect these ideological divisions, and for a time, the journal hosted important debates. The magazine continued as the SP official organ through the 1940s.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/socialist-review/v05-n01-march-1936-soc-rev.pdf