(I posted this on lemmygrad but I want to get some discussion from here too.)
I’ve been meaning to ask about some stuff regarding parenti that I see come up on different places.
One of them being about parenti’s book blackshirts and reds. So I’ve run into specific people who have claimed and bought up that parenti is lying about : how social democrats in germany gave fascists a path and its actually fault of soviets.
To paraphrase them
Soviets gave kpd direction to be hostile and also it wasn’t just “socdems will ally with nazis”. It was cause soviets gave advice to be hostile to the spd.
To boil it down, they say that parenti is wrong about rise of fascism and he whitewashed soviet mistakes.
The other thing that's bought up is the bombing of germany and american industrial ties. I see it brought up that parenti is just lying about bombing in cologne of ford factory. And its actually all lies and say the charlie higham “trading with the enemy” reference is bullshit. They go on to say that american industrialist involvement with german industry is not that deep. And that parenti (and other communists) lie about this to make a grand narrative of american involvement. They bring up nazi economy book by tooze and this site as a debunking lies material.
Now my post isn’t so much about parenti, I wanna broadly discuss about the whole notion that soviets or german communists were the reason nazis came to power and that socdems were really not at fault.
And also to discuss that american industrialists involved with germany is some bullshit conspiracy. Which it isn’t, given the lengths across the board they spread collaborating after and before the war. I’ve been reading a lot of stuff on dulles, hw, and nazis spread across into different places for american interests. So I don’t think american involvement is some fake conspiracy.
What are your thoughts? (Sorry if this post is too long)
Soviets gave kpd direction to be hostile and also it wasn’t just “socdems will ally with nazis”. It was cause soviets gave advice to be hostile to the spd.
The only important thing to focus on in their criticism is the "it wasn't just" part.
It seems like, no matter what the KPD's opinions or actions towards the Social Democrats were, the Social Democrats decided to side with the Nazis more than fight them. If there were no KPD to say mean things about the SocDems, what do the critics say the Social Democrats would have done differently about the Nazi party?
Yeah pretty much. Then that person would say well its still parenti trying whitewash soviets by not giving spd the benefit of the doubt. I guess they only care about the anti communists legitimacy in this case rather than the communists. Cause to them communists are biased and are bad historians.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2021/the-american-who-let-the-nazis-rebuild-germany/
No debate on American Industrialists, Brothers by Stephen Kinzer is a good book. John Foster Dulles and Sullivan & Cromwell financially supported IG Farben and their collaboration is what saved the creators of Zyklon B from receiving justice.
Also I am not sure Adam Tooze would agree that Wages of Destruction or The Deluge don’t show American financial support for Nazis, because I’m pretty sure that the financial support of Americans was in the books.
As for the communist/social democrat infighting, I think it’s just a matter of semantics.
If you are a communist, you look at 1919 as the injustice done to severe ties with the social democrats. Between 1919-1923, when the SDP was the leading coalition, hundreds of communists leaders were assassinated without punishments. From 1929-1933, the Weimar Republic could not form a working government. If you were living at the time, what Hitler did seemed incredibly unlike.
If you are not a communist, you just duck your head on the earlier details and focus on the one thing that matters to you, electoratism. In a lib brain not voting is the equivalent of murder….
Oh that kinzer book is neat, I've been also reading devil's chessboard which is decent so far.
Also the person who gave tooze reference also did mention wages of destruction. They only bought it up to say its better than parenti and its not a conspiracy screed like parenti does about the ford plants.
duck your head on the earlier details and focus on the one thing that matters to you, electoratism
But yeah I would say they did cling to this saying the kpd should formed electoral coalition rather than being hostile cause of soviet advice.
But yeah I would say they did cling to this saying the kpd should formed electoral coalition rather than being hostile cause of soviet advice.
I personally think the lynching of 400+ communists in the Weimar Republic was a bigger reason for people not voting than Joseph Stalin, much like I think the killing of what will be around 50k Palestinians is what will make Biden lose Michigan.
Very true. Its literally what israeli hasabra does with regards how palestinians rejected all their deals.
I'm not sure what the question is here.
The Soviets did tell the kpd to be hostile (as in not to trust them with internal matters) with the spd because the spd had a really bad habit of not policing or purging ideas of german national socialism from their ranks, because the soc-dems thought that they were the true 'national socialists' (aside from the fact that the bosheviks had really bad experiences with their soc-dems collaborating with foreign governments, so has no reason to tell the german communists to trust them). You see the problem here. And ultimately, when push came to shove and there was a chance for an internationalist revolutionary movement, the spd aided the fascists in their purge. The spd traded the lives of the German communists for a few more years of liberal government. And perhaps you cannot blame them, after-all nobody wants to be caught up in a revolutionary purge. But history shows that the soc-dems get purged all the same, and ultimately stand for none of the values they claim to because they are unable to comprehend that there is such a thing as positive revolutionary violence, they only believe in reactionary, suppressive, violence. I highly doubt it would have gone down any differently even if the kpd and the spd were on friendly terms, if anything it might have gotten crushed earlier because the spd would have likely immediately ratted them out to the government.
As for the bombings, I'm not sure as to the historical veracity, but I don't think it matters if it didn't happen exactly as Parenti describes it or at all. American industrial ties with the Nazis is incredibly well documented, and the Nazi rehabilitation and American financial prop-up of Nazi-owned Western Germany companies post-war is well-documented. Perhaps it is 'not that deep', but then it is an inch deep and a hundred miles wide.
Edit: To editorialize abit, soc-dems believe that the communists 'gave the fascists an excuse to coup the government'. This is ridiculous, liberal, thinking. Fascists don't need an actual reason to coup the government, they will literally manufacture one out of thin air. They literally try to do it constantly, and fail when you don't believe a word that comes out do their lying little mouths. Perhaps you could argue that the kpd suffered from 'vanguardism' and were too far ahead of where the German public was, but their writing's at the time indicated that they were worried about how close the fascists, liberals and conservatives were getting, and thought that they needed to revolt before they were politically outlawed. They overplayed their hand, but in all likelihood they would have never won at the table anyways. Neither could the soc-dems. And the saddest part is that history has vindicated the worst case of what the german communists thought would happen.
And ultimately, when push came to shove and there was a chance for an internationalist revolutionary movement, the spd aided the fascists in their purge
Well that is pretty much the first part of my question. In the book Blackshirts and reds at the start parenti pretty much says so (that spd ultimately aided nazis). But apparently some seem to think :1) saying that spd ended up doing that is some whitewashing of soviet mistakes. 2) parenti wants to push his agenda by saying spd sided with nazis. To them its parenti cherrypicking and that he only blames spd.
As for the rest of the question, in the same book there is a part of ford factory. Apparently to some that's another lie made up by parenti to further his grand conspiracy of america.
I guess the overall point of the question is that some people want to point at this book and say that communists who refer to this book are apparently wrong to do so. Cause parenti apparently has no understanding of fascism and only wants to push an agenda according to some of these folks. They seem to point to his references in the book to say that its a poor work and should not be recommended.
And yeah its hundred miles wide. Not just industrial ties. People like samuel hoare or hw or any wacl ghoul always had roots in funding and tying with fellow fascist ghouls.
Without specifics, there is nothing more I can really say. Any mistakes the Soviets made were made after the historical pressure of a long, bloody, civil war with it's fair share of foreign interventions. Pardon me if I don't trust the Monday morning quarter-backing of westerners three generations later. The spd did what they did, they sullied their hands and chose to ally with reactionary violence. Perhaps they would do differently in a colonial national liberation setting, but trusting soc-dems to overturn the imperial state for worker's emancipation is a fool's game. They will never do it, and they will call you a red authoritarian while you are being beaten by the cops.
There is genuinely no singularly better book to understand the nature of fascism and how it historically develops within a country, and is facilitated and aided by liberals than Blackshirts and Reds.
If they have only two historical criticisms, one of which has very little to do with the entire argument in light of other historical evidence, and another one that is 'Waaaaah he wasn't sufficiently mean to the USSR.' then I consider that peanuts, considering how generally completely fucked liberal history is over these events.
Edit: It sounds like you are talking to people who seem to think that western communists are in any kind of position similar to the kpd, spd and Soviets, as if there is really a lesson to be learned here for our time. There isn't. Our soc-dems are even more reactionary than the spd were, our communists weaker and more fractured, and there is no one who has actually done the thing to even write to for advice. Why collaborate with those who don't share your principles when it doesn't matter anyways? Compromise only when there is actually something you think you can materially get done. Volunteer, help the unhoused, etc. But there is no reason to politically support the soc-dems in the imperial core, now more than ever. They will be running dogs.
As far as specifics go, I guess they just think parenti is a bad historian distorting for a narrative. Specifically that they think his references are bad and he just says things to push agenda. They keep saying something like spectre of war by haslam is better book on the rise fascism. And that parenti wants to blame spd even though its all kpd and soviets fault according to them.
They just think parenti is awful and that he is a very bad historian. Also that blackshirts and reds is a poorly written book.
They kinda have 2 criticisms yeah. They just think books by haslam or kershaw or suny are the only ones that are serious and good. And parenti is just a bad historian according their 2 criticisms.
I don't know if they want to draw parallels to current atmosphere. They are type who say bolsheviks never really cared for a real revolution they just wanted authoritarianism.
This is a person who will never lead anything or have to make compromises because of the pressures of wartime. To say the Bolsheviks were never interested in 'real revolution' despite overthrowing one of the largest empires in the world and disintegrating it's imperial ambitions, and integrating the Soviet worker council structure into their government organization when they didn't actually have to (see the rise of the Russian federation), is pushing more of an agenda than Parenti ever does.
They said if they are interested in real revolution then they would have listened to the workers rather than gunning them in kronstadt. Yeah they do push agenda.
Honestly, ignore my last comment. It has little to do with the topic at hand, which was the complicity of the spd in aiding the rise of fascism, which it absolutely was. This person you're talking to is going down rabbit holes, to tug at meaningless strings. The kpd were not the soviets so kronstadt is meaningless here.
No its fine. I bought it up to point out how they draw historic parallels. I'm not talking to them right now. I know of this person through like a message group. That person is a self proclaimed history understander and claims to debunk all the bad history communists propagate. These talking points are old shit I noted down from like 2 years ago to look up later and never got around to it. I saw bunch of stuff popping about parenti recently, so I posted this.
The leader of the socdems, Friedrich Ebert, often used the right-wing military called the Freikorps to attack leftists, and the Freikorps latter became a starter for the Nazis. That's pretty uncontested knowledge. All this was happening when right-wing groups were assassinating people everywhere and mostly avoiding prosecution. Industrialists funding Nazis and right-wing groups is well founded.
Certainly communists made mistakes, but to blame the enemies of Nazism for Nazism without a charge is not great.
They bring up nazi economy book by tooze and this site as a debunking lies material.
It's a Wordpress blog.
Somewhere in this thread I mentioned samuel hoare. Yeah I know about freikorps but I guess the person I was talking about in the post only wants to shit on parenti. They only care about saying how whatever reference parenti put was bad about spd. Albeit plenty of history suggests otherwise. Which makes it weird to glom onto that stuff parenti said, as if saying socdems sided with fascists is not self evident.
Well yeah its a wordpress blog which apparently is staunchly debunking american ties to industries in germany. I don't know some people just make bold claims and say they have great citations.
I know it is a little facile but I do encourage anyone who is deeply invested in the interparty political squabbling of nearly a hundred years ago to touch grass. It is almost completely irrelevant to actual import discussions that could be had today. That being said it is just so perfectly liberal for people to be mad at the communists for not working with the people trying to betray them.
Well yeah, they wanna suggest that parenti or people referring to read him are doing bad history. Cause parenti said spd sided with nazis. But according the person I was talking about they were mad that parenti didn't condemn the authoritarian soviets.
the Ford plant doesn't disprove that US firms collaborated with the nazis or that the US government protected them, just that this specific factory wasn't specifically protected from getting bombed. other US-owned factories were bombed, so it's a reasonable conclusion. But those that were bombed got paid fucking damages by the US government & didn't get any punishment! That's the smoking gun!
But going further into the meaning & implications of US industrial collaboration with the Nazis, i think most people are just misaligned in temperament, not the basic facts. i'm personally more inclined to characterize yankee capital's nazi interests as 'not that deep', because if you use much stronger rhetoric people start drawing absurd conclusions about the US being on the nazi's 'side'. however invested US firms were in germany, they were not powerful or enmeshed enough to change US policy that favored Anglo-French ties and a belligerent stance toward the nazis. you can characterize the actual capital involved it as a 'lot' or a 'little' depending on what you compare it to, i don't really care if it doesn't turn into "the US secretly wanted the Nazis to win".
Yeah very high up figures similar to mountbatten or samuel hoare saw the use in these fascists. Their connections went a long way after the war for fascists across the board. Like they sure have financial ties. The actual larger ties came after the war with the west taking over. Soon they are flowing ghouls like stetsko or any other fascist to their programs. Dulles or singlaub or hw all these people knew what to do with them. I don't think usa is on the nazis side as much as its contemporary colonial powers. They bought em to the west's side.
