Olgin travels to Berlin in the factional aftermath of the failed ‘German October,’ giving his estimation of left, right, and center.

‘Among the German Communists: Impressions and Facts’ by Moissaye J. Olgin from The Daily Worker. Vol. 2 No. 75. June 14, 1924.

A Semi-Legal Party

IT was difficult to find the leading German comrades. First they were at their national convention (a remarkable feat, indeed, to organize a secret party convention of some 150 members right in the face of formidable military dictatorship aided and abetted by labor union fakers and social-democratic traitors), then, upon return to Berlin, they were in hiding. When you came to campaign headquarters which was located in one building with the general office of the party and the editorial rooms of the “Rote Fahne (“Red Banner”), you would not be admitted without credentials. If you had convinced the keepers of the gate that you were no spy and no provocateur, you would still be disappointed to find in the building only minor party functionaries busy with routine work, while absolute silence was maintained as to the whereabouts of the leaders. Only in a roundabout way was it possible for me to meet some members of the new C.E.C. of the party. One of them was in actual disguise which had changed his appearance to such an extent, he said, that his own mother would hardly recognize him. These precautions were imperative in spite of the party’s return to legal existence. The party had just emerged out of a five months’ underground starvation. Even in the worse times of persecution the illegality could not be complete, for the simple reason that it is not possible to drive under cover a mass party of several hundred thousand. The return to open existence was not so much a result of slackening persecution as a seizing of liberties by the masses whom no reichswehr (militia) could subdue. But while the government was forced to tolerate the activities of the party, it kept a close watch over the leaders. After I had left Berlin I learned that warrants were issued for the arrest of the fourteen members of the new C.E.C. of the party before the coming election so that they might not hide later behind the immunity of M.P.’s The “Rote Fahne” was repeatedly issued and repressed and reissued. Party headquarters in the various cities were being raided and some permanently occupied by the police. Some party members had been sentenced to 9 and 15 months’ imprisonment for spreading appeals of the Executive Committee (this is what they call freedom of elections in a bourgeois democracy). In Thuringia the “democratic” landtag (state parliament) had enacted a law forbidding the May first celebration, and the same body deprived a Communist representative, Neubauer, of his parliamentary immunity in order that he might be delivered to the authorities for trial on the ground of treason.

High Treason.

This “treason” business, in spite of the tragic aspect it assumed for some of the comrades, does not fail to provoke a derisive laughter among the German workers as a manifestation of the stupidity of the present reaction. It is a well known fact that the Fascist forces of Germany are armed to the teeth. It is well known that the proletarian hundertschaften (fighting battalions) were by far less equipped with rifles and ammunition than were the Rights. Now, while the government suppresses the proletarian units with an iron hand, while it allows the Hitlerists to arm openly, to make armed demonstrations and to do as much sabre rattling as would make the spirits of every old general soar high, it declares it an act of high treason to state openly, in the press or on the platform, that there are armed units within the empire. Mind you, not the arming itself is criminal. If it is done by bourgeois forces, but the mere mention of its existence. This is only one example of how far a disgruntled reaction can go in face of a revolutionary movement.

All the comrades I met in Berlin were still under the spell of the recent party convention. They were hardly able to discuss anything but factional controversies and party problems. This is a brief outline of what I gleaned from their conversations and discussions.

The Swing to the Left

After the defeat of last October-November and after the party was driven underground, there ensued a period of inactivity towards the outer world and of heated discussion within. The left wing, then a minority in the C.E.C., accused the majority of having missed the opportunity, of having been undecisive and timid, of having pursued a united front in Saxony to the detriment of the revolution. Times after the ebbing down of a high revolutionary wave are always times of bitter accusations on the one hand, of differentiation in the revolutionary camp on the other. So it was also among the German comrades. Some went so far to the right as to practically give up hope of a revolution in the near future, while in the left wing had greatly increased in zest which went beyond the logical demands of the situation. On the whole, the left wing had greatly increased in the course of those transitional months, which were marked by no decisive steps and no clear line of action on the part of the party. By the time the national convention was called, the rank and file had recuperated far more than the leaders, and was manifesting a strong fighting spirit. Of the rights, none were elected to the convention; of the so-called center, thirty-four, of the left, ninety-two. The membership clearly wanted action.

The Center and the Left.

As far as I could ascertain, there are no basic differences of outlook, of policies and tactics between the left and the center. What separates them is, first, their attitude towards the defeat of October-November, second the question of partial demands in the present, third the existence in the left wing of a group of extremists.

The appreciation of past errors may be of very great importance for the party, but since the center accepts now—and has accepted at the convention—the majority view on the prospectives of the movement and on the immediate tasks before the party, the difference of attitude towards the past cannot form an insurmountable barrier between the two factions. The question of partial demands may appear much graver. The left wing declares to be decisively against partial demands short of the conquest of power. The centre says; we must relentlessly fight for immediate improvements in the situation of the workers. To the impartial observer, however, It is evident that the maximalism of the left wing cannot hold water. It has justly been pointed out by the leading minds of the C.I. that, whatever the phraseology of “everything or nothing,” the party as a whole will be compelled to fight for the eight-hour work day which is now being assaulted by the capitalist class, that it simply cannot avoid the fight for the abolition of military rule or for the control of production. These demands, and many others, which, if properly utilized, will only attract the masses to the party and accelerate the revolutionary movement, will not fail to unite both factions in common struggle. The fact is that, but for the extremists in the left majority, a union of the left with centre appears within reach.

To the Left of Reason.

This group of extremists, many of whom, I was told, had had no Marxian training and had not participated in the labor movement up to very recent time, came into prominence after the October-November debacle. The group as such would be of little consequence if it were isolated from the rest of the party. The difficulty lies in the fact that extremist tendencies in modified form can be discovered also among the responsible elements of the present C.E.C. who are to steer the party in the near future. This gave rise to an enormous volume of discussion both in the German party and in Moscow. Briefly stated, the tendencies of the extremists are: (a) to repudiate the united front tactics; (b) to create left wing unions, breaking up the old bureaucracy-ridden organization; (c) to do away with centralized form of party organization; (d) to slacken the tie between the party and the Communist International. These tendencies become the more pronounced the more we approach the left sector of the left majority of the present C.E.C., their chief exponent, Schuhmacker, being outside of that body, but, as I have mentioned, they color to a lesser degree also the utterances of such majority leaders as Maslow, Ruth Fischer, Rosenberg, Scholem.

The Unions

The gravest of these problems is the union problem. The so-called “free” unions under the bureaucratic leadership of Social-Democratic reformists are in the midst of a formidable crisis. Their membership is alarmingly decreasing. Out of some ten to twelve millions a few years ago it has dwindled to three or four millions or even less at present. The metal workers’ union of Berlin had 180,000 members only three years ago, now its membership is slightly over 30,000. This collapse is primarily due to the compromising spirit of the union officials who are afraid of a vigorous stand against capitalist exploitation and who prefer “democratic persuasion” of the bosses to strikes and demonstrations. It is natural that the workers, failing to find in the union the staunch defender of their interests, should turn to it a cold shoulder. The crisis, however, is also due to unemployment which throws the worker out of the factory and out of an organized contact with his fellow workers.

One would expect the Germans, known paragons of efficiency, to do everything in their power to maintain the unity and cohesion of the workers’ economic organizations. But such is the fate of those elements and groups whom history has doomed to death: they hasten their own perdition. Instead of revising their tactics and attracting all elements that are willing and capable to do the work of reconstruction, the union bureaucrats declared the Communists a fight to a finish. At a recent convention of the textile workers’ union the leaders declared it to be the task of the German unions first to get rid of the Reds and only then to resume a struggle against the employers. In accordance with this animus, members of a Communist orientation are being thrown out of the unions, whole locals under the control of Communists are being excluded, others are being reorganized after the well-known recipe of Schlesinger and Sigman. In times of an enormous economic crisis, with millions of unemployed aboard and a sense of hopelessness permeating large masses, this could only add confusion and weaken the unions still more. On the Communist side, especially among the less stable elements, it engendered a secessionist movement. Eighty per cent of the German Communists are now outside of the labor unions. A large portion of the left wing was disposed to break with the old unions altogether and to start the organization of “pure” class-conscious 100 per cent revolutionary “industrial” unions under the leadership of the Communist party.

It appears that this was the biggest problem of the recent convention. There were heated discussions. The view of the C.I. was known to be for continuation of the old union tactics. The opponents of such tactics pointed at the mood of the masses which, they maintained, was for breaking away from the hopeless mess of the old discredited union organizations. The supporters of the C.I. policy argued that by forming dual unions the Communists would isolate themselves from the mass of labor and so only help the union bureaucrats to continue their deadly influence over the workers. It is the task of the Communists, they argued, to lead the workers in the coming revolutionary struggles, and this would be impossible if a barrier is created between the party and organized labor. The decision was in favor of coming back into the old unions and fighting from within, but the echoes of the discussion are still reverberating in wide circles of the party.

United Front.

This difference of attitude naturally involved a wider discussion of the entire united front tactics. It is commonly accepted among the German comrades that one does not make a united front with the Social-Democratic leaders any longer. What one strives for is to form a united front from below, with the mass of workers who do not belong to any party or still belong to the so-called socialist parties. But here is the question of a general labor congress looming up on the horizon. The congress is to represent the shop and factory committees and will embrace all shades of opinion and all possible party affiliations among the workers. Should the Communists stay within and form the left wing, or shall they split the congress and capture the most revolutionary elements? The extremists were in favor of the latter decision. The more moderate of the left wing decided in favor of the former. But the spirits are not yet quieted down, the heat of clashes is intense, and time will be required to coalesce differing views into a set of uniform tactical ideas.

One instance may illustrate the mood. Clara Zetkin is the most known and most revered leader of the German Communists. But she is on the right side. It is known that the C.I. was in favor of her being elected to the C.E.C. Some of the leaders were also in her favor. The convention, however, refused to do her the honor. Clara Zetkin was neither made an executive member nor nominated for the reichstag (federal legislature). In the rush of battle no quarters were given. The new C.E.C. consists of ten lefts, three rights and one “wild” member.

Some Left Arguments.

If you talk to the leaders of the majority they point out a number of difficulties they are confronted with.

They assert that the bulk of the membership is in the grip of Impatience and is intolerant towards everything that smacks moderation. This, they say, is also the reason why Clara Zetkin could not be elected. They assure their loyalty to the C.I., but they express apprehension as to their ability to hold the extremists in check. They reiterate their readiness to stay within the labor unions, but they stress the existence of millions of unorganized who have to be kept in contact with the shop and factory committees in order thus to win them for the revolution. They declare themselves in favor of partial slogans which are to be utilized in a revolutionary spirit, but the masses of labor, they say, are sick of the struggle for petty Improvements. They acknowledge allegiance to the united front tactics, but again they caution against the mood that prevails in the party.

Altogether the German party appears in a state of regrouping of sanctions, revision of ideology, recasting of tactical slogans. Events after the convention seem to indicate a strong and healthful tendency towards consolidation along the lines of revolutionary realism. Thus the meeting of Berlin functionaries, some three thousand in number, unanimously indorsed the union policy of work within the old organizations. Another hopeful sign is the decision to organize local committees of action, composed not only of party members but of all sorts of militant workers who are in favor of revolutionary struggle. The task of those committees will be to unite all local revolutionary forces and to be the leading body in days of actual battle.

The deepest regret I heard expressed everywhere is over the lack of great leaders. The party is there, the forces are there, the conditions are ripe, if only the workers of Germany had a great all-embracing revolutionary leader! With a feeling akin to envy the German comrades speak of the Russian workers who were fortunate enough to have a Lenin…

A Personal Quest.

In conclusion: please do not look upon this as an exhaustive and absolute presentation of the conditions within the German party. These are only impressions, gained thru brief contact with the German comrades. They may be of interest to the readers of the DAILY WORKER.

The Daily Worker began in 1924 and was published in New York City by the Communist Party US and its predecessor organizations. Among the most long-lasting and important left publications in US history, it had a circulation of 35,000 at its peak. The Daily Worker came from The Ohio Socialist, published by the Left Wing-dominated Socialist Party of Ohio in Cleveland from 1917 to November 1919, when it became became The Toiler, paper of the Communist Labor Party. In December 1921 the above-ground Workers Party of America merged the Toiler with the paper Workers Council to found The Worker, which became The Daily Worker beginning January 13, 1924.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1924/v02a-n075-supplement-jun-14-1924-DW-LOC.pdf