07.06.2014 Views

The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>The</strong> debate on state capitalism initiated by Rühle in 1931 gave rise to numerous contributions from the various<br />

council communist groups after 1935. <strong>The</strong> immediate cause was the Copenhagen Conference (8 th -11 th June<br />

1935), the so-called Brussels Conference (see Chapter 7). This conference, dominated by the <strong>German</strong> and<br />

Danish council communists, adopted a resolution which, apart from organisational problems, touched on<br />

theoretical issues as well. Compared to the serious divergences on the ‘new workers movement’, those on the<br />

nature of state capitalism appeared secondary. <strong>The</strong>y were however not without consequences in re-defining the<br />

revolutionary organisation in the period of capitalism’s totalitarian domination. Most importantly, the resolution,<br />

which was voted unanimously –including the vote of the <strong>Dutch</strong> delegate Piet van Albada – committed the GIC to<br />

defending it even though its conception was different from that of the <strong>German</strong>, Danish and American council<br />

communists.<br />

<strong>The</strong> resolution declared that the ‘councilist’ movement was unanimous on the question of state capitalism.<br />

Written by Alfred Weiland of the ‘Revolutionary Shop Stewards’ (Revolutionäre Obleute), it reflected the<br />

viewpoint of the clandestine <strong>German</strong> groups. According to them, capitalism as a whole was moving<br />

economically towards state capitalism, and politically towards fascism. <strong>The</strong> tendency towards the militarisation<br />

of society and a one party dictatorship could be found in all countries. Anticipating Rühle’s theory of ‘world<br />

fascism’ 981 , the resolution affirmed that fascism took many forms, and could manifest itself through “a party<br />

dictatorship that was bolshevik, socialist, democratic, bourgeois or nationalist”. This conception of a ‘panfascism’<br />

did not help to clarify the general tendency to state capitalism, which could take the most diverse<br />

political forms. Seeing only the common general laws of state capitalism, the <strong>German</strong> (but also the Danish and<br />

American) council communists remained blind to the particular reflections of this law in different countries.<br />

From this starting point, the capitalist world could only end up with the extreme nazi or stalinist forms of state<br />

capitalism. <strong>The</strong> establishment of a ‘planned’ economy in all countries would lead to “the elimination of the<br />

anarchy of private capital”. 982 In a very ambiguous way, the <strong>German</strong>s claimed that this would represent<br />

“economic progress vis-à-vis capitalist anarchy”. But, above all, state capitalism was seen as the antechamber to<br />

socialism and no longer as a symbol of the system’s decadence, as the <strong>German</strong> left had insisted in 1920: “the era<br />

of state capitalism is the first historic step towards a socialist social order”. 983 This position was identical to that<br />

of Rühle in 1931.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>German</strong>s’ conception was vigorously criticised by the <strong>Dutch</strong>, but also by Mattick’s group and by the Danes.<br />

In its response, the GIC first correctly stated that for all its planning, state capitalism could not overcome crises.<br />

A capitalism without crises was nonsense. Secondly, it was wrong to see “the evolution towards the planned<br />

economy” as a “deliberate” phenomenon set up by “state violence”. 984 Finally, the GIC saw this evolution not as<br />

a product of the decadence of a system obliged to violate its own laws, but as the fruit of a “natural necessity” –<br />

that of the growing concentration of capital.<br />

In a sense, for the GIC the concept of a general tendency towards state capitalism was a source of confusion. In<br />

an article entitled ‘State Capitalism and Dictatorship’, Pannekoek argued that the <strong>German</strong>s had too much of a<br />

tendency to see the evolution of world capital through the prism of <strong>German</strong> fascism. 985 For Pannekoek, however,<br />

fascism could not be considered an expression of the tendency towards state capitalism; on the contrary, it was a<br />

pure expression of private capital: “In <strong>German</strong>y, big private capital is not subordinated to the state: the nazi party<br />

developed purely as an instrument of the big capital of heavy industry, supported by its subsidies. Big capital is<br />

the dominant power in the state...”. 986 According to Pannekoek and the GIC, the only real state capitalism was<br />

981 O. Rühle, Schriften (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1971): ‚Weltkrieg, Weltfaschismus, Weltrevolution’, Oct. 1940. Rühle exhibited<br />

a visceral anti-bolshevism, proclaiming that “Hitler was the best pupil of Lenin and Stalin”.<br />

982 ‚Die Entwicklung zum Staatskapitalismus’, in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 16/17, May 1936 (text from 1935).<br />

983 Ibid. <strong>The</strong> text concluded: “Internationally, there is an economic evolution towards state capitalism; politically towards<br />

fascism which is its social superstructure.”<br />

984 ‚Antwort der GIKH’, in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. l6/17, May 1936.<br />

985 ‘Staatscapitalisme en dictatuur’, in: PIC, No. 9, June 1936. Text in <strong>German</strong> by Pannekoek, Räte-Korrespondenz<br />

No. 16/17, May 1936. Unsigned text representing the GIC’s point of view.<br />

986 Ibid.<br />

247

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!