What does this imply? That even now we have a bloc. Ebert is president, but that is not so important. We know that thousands and tens of thousands of Social-Democrats are in government offices. They sit in their jobs, and have something to defend. To speak precisely, it is too simple to say that Fascism is in power, Social-Democracy shares power with it. It is a bloc. And that is why the formula that Fascism has conquered—the November Republic—falls to the ground. It is totally wrong. Immediately we try to examine it closely it disappears. First of all, is the term November Republic correct? If you are Marxists, you must say bourgeois democracy. In principle, is it any other system? No. Bourgeois democracy is in power and approximately it is the same as in France. Do you think that the generals do not rule in France? Secondly: the republic cannot be defeated without the working class being defeated. This is a literary flourish, or a piece of opportunism similar to that at Leipsic. It were better if it were merely a literary flourish.
Why is it politically harmful? Because from it follows an incorrect estimation of the Social-Democracy, which for us is the most important question; whether there will be any new deviations among us. If it is true that the Social-Democracy is defeated, it follows that there must be an approach to it on our part. Comrade Arvid in a letter writes with a naive gesture: "Why do we employ this formula? Because only by this formula can we explain why we now repudiate partial slogans and partial struggles." But, comrades, this is all topsy-turvy. In order to make the repudiation of partial demands convenient, we employ wrong terminology. No one can deny that if it is true that Social-Democracy has been defeated, an approach to the Social-Democracy follows from this. Marx in his "Communist Manifesto," taught us much that when it is a question of reaction or the petty-bourgeoisie, we must go with the latter. In Germany, however, the situation is different. Reaction rules, but it shares power with the Social-Democracy. We must fight both. From your terminology, however, quite a different conclusion follows.
This, then, is the position. We must change the tactics for Germany, for as it is perfectly clear now, the Social-Democracy has become a wing of Fascism. It is a Fascist Social-Democracy. Hence the necessity for modifying our tactics.
(Walcher: That is what we say.)
No, you did not say that. You abuse them, but you fail to understand yet how to explain this to the masses of the workers in a Marxian manner. It is easy to abuse and call them the accomplices of the bourgeoisie. The Social-Democracy has not been defeated. It is a part of the whole thing, and the whole of international Social-Democracy is developing along the same way. We can see this quite clearly. What is Pilsudsky, and the others? Fascist Social-Democrats. Were they this ten years ago? No. Of course, at that time they were potential Fascists, but it is
( 44 )
