The Party Trap

 

As a frequent lurker on lefty webspaces, I see variations of the same ten questions pop up time and time again. One of those questions concerns joining a political party. A recent example of this question I saw was by someone describing themselves as an Anarchist and wondering whether they should join the French Communist Party (PCF) youth wing as their friends were members. If you're familiar at all with the PCF, the answer a resounding no or "non", but I have seen this question asked over a dozen times with the positions and party's replaced with other options. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees. Leaving aside the shady history of the PCF for a moment, I think this points to a broader, general issue.

The purpose of any political party youth organisation is to encourage and shape young members and prepare them for service to the mother party. That doesn't necessarily mean that every action and interaction will be a propaganda lesson, but most of your time will be spent in service of that broader aim. Political parties come in different shapes, sizes, and even stripes, but that is the core which they all share, the party is the main if not only organisation capable of carrying out its stated mission, if the party members did not believe that they would not have founded it in the first place.

I think the question is an easy one to answer once you've established some basic facts and broke it down:

1. Question 1: Do you believe in the party's ideology and agree with its strategy and activity? Yes/No
2. If No, then do not join, it will be a dispiriting experience.
3. If Yes, then before you sign up check how this party treats its membership and long-term supporters, does it have a reputation for exploitation, bullying and harassment? Yes/No
4. If Yes, steer well clear, it isn't worth the sacrifice.
5. If No, check that if there are other groups offering what the party is offering in your area. Yes/No
6. If Yes, go back to question 3 for each potential competitor.
7. If No, final decision time.

That's all there is to it. Political party's regardless of ideology and peculiarities of strategy and structure will demand a lot of you, it's not to be taken lightly and joining one you disagree with from the beginning is a terrible idea. Some have this notion of effecting change from within, but that just shows how inexperienced they are with bureaucracy and factions. Entire groups numbering in the thousands have practised what's called entryism for the specific purpose of changing a party to agree with them, and it just doesn't work out well for them.   

One other point, if your friends are in a political party, but you are not on board with that party, then joining up is the last thing you should do. If your friends are really your friends they will respect your differences and if you join you're at risk of merging your social life with your political life, this will only make it harder to leave and often creates leverage for exploitation of you. 

I know this because it happened to me. I joined the Labour Party through its youth wing because there was no one else in my area and my friends were members. It was a waste of my time and emotional energy, I won't say everything was terrible, I had some pleasant experiences and met some people who are still dear to me, but I also wasted my time helping horrible people climb the ladder of political posts, was forced to waste valuable time socialising with people I couldn't stand and effectively found my ability to act in a way authentic to my views on humanity and the world. And since much of my social life revolved around the party, it made breaking with it a drawn out and messy process. The Labour Party is many things, but it isn't the Worker's Party of Korea, my opposition to it and final leaving did not lead to a public humiliation campaign or time in a rehabilitation centre, the pressures to remain quiet and compliant were purely psychological and social, and they were still a hard chain to break, and I know of people in that party and other groups who never manage to break free. This is also why I stress to checking if the party (or any group really) has a reputation for extra controlling and behaviour, because even in the "free democratic world" even tiny political groups are capable of shocking levels of abuse of their own memberships.

If there is a positive spin on that time is that the first-hand experience has left me completely immune to overtures by the competition, I had no interest in Corbynmania or the constellation of Trot/comms that float around seemingly only to sap the enthusiasm out of graduates and Trade Union reps. 

One further note, many of the replies to this question on the internet egg these people on, beware counsel from strangers (yes, that includes me). One thing to keep an eye out for is people saying "Just do it" in the name of praxis and left unity, or similar terms. Personally, I'm quite sceptical of these for their own sake, but in this particular case anyone using them is exposing themselves as liars and gobshites. I make an effort not to see people in the worst possible light and try to give the benefit of the doubt where possible, but in this case there simply is no alternative reading, these people are not your friends and are clueless about the realities of practical political action and its effects. 

These terms are simply irrelevant to this discussion when applied correctly, joining and supporting an organisation opposed to your views is literally the opposite of praxis, I know the word literally is overused but here it is apt. Praxis is theory through action, so if you are not onboard with the party's theory which includes its ideological position and strategy then by definition working for that party is the opposite of praxis. An actual example of praxis is Earth Liberation Front (ELF), ELF is broadly speaking an ecological defence group heavily committed to a strategy of direct action and disruption of the extractive industry. An ELF supporter is doing praxis when they "monkeywrench" a truck belonging to a logging company, or assist in that action, that same ELF supporter is not doing "ELF praxis" when they vote for the Green party in the local elections. We could have a discussion or argument about whether that's still a good or effective thing for the ELFer to do, but that is separate from praxis as a concept.

And there is no unity amongst the "Left" in this scenario. Left unity if it means anything more than empty air is when multiple different groups work together for a common goal, an example would be France in 1968 when multiple groups came together to support the waves of factory and student occupations, they were very different in their views (Situationists, Anarchists, New Left groups, autonomists, even dissident members of the PCF) and their participation differed but, in general they worked to support and promote the actions of the workers and students. When you join a political party, however, there is no collaboration, you are committing yourself to the party line and stating you are in agreement with it. If you are not in fact in agreement with it, then you will be convinced you are wrong or expelled. Another good example of this is the turmoil in France in 1968, the PCF leadership opposed the occupations and worked to end them, members of the PCF who disagreed with this either gave into party discipline or were kicked out.

What about all the alternatives, the revolutionary factory cells, internationalist networks, militant Unions, people's armies, direct action affinity circles etc. I'd say use the same criteria laid out above, if you don't agree do not join them, and also try not to merge your social and political life into a closed circle, overlap is fine, but total merging is a bad idea. I have been a member of the Industrial Workers of the World for some time now, we have our ups and downs but at this point It's still an organisation I can work with and is willing to work with me. Sometimes people have reached out to me asking if they should join, my responses always include recommending that they meet with an actual branch or contact someone in their industry or region first and get to know them and what the IWW model is really like before making that commitment. While this is a personal piece, it is not a "copy me" and support the groups I like instead of the groups I do not like.

And if after giving the matter some thought you do find that you agree with the PCF or Labour or any other organisation, then fair enough, I wish you well. Your time is precious, and you do matter, I know first-hand how frustrating and isolating it can be, but don't waste your time and energy working for others who are opposed to your values and view you as a resource to exhaust. You'll get your fill of that in the workplace. Be patient and persevere, resist shortcuts, keep learning and thinking, and you will find a way to make an impact. Your day will come.

Text of the Soviet acknowledgment of the existence of secret agreements with Nazi Germany

 

The below text was originally used as an appendix to a longer essay on great power diplomacy in the inter war years. I am reproducing here as a standalone, as experience has taught me that the people who would benefit the most from it seldom bother to get to the end of that work once they realise where it's going.

This is a translation of the official report of the Soviet government into the Molotov-Ribbentrop talks and the agreements signed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. One fact I would stress that this report glosses over is timing, the talks were concluded on the 23rd of August 1939, the German invasion of Poland started on the 1st of September 1939, and the Soviet invasion eastern Poland began on the 17th of September, both operations were planned well in advance, that's a tight deadline for both powers if no serious moves were made in that direction prior to the successful conclusion of the talks, and also interestingly enough before the treaty became legally binding on the Soviet side as the document notes that the 24th of September was the date that the agreement came into force. 

The talks between the Soviet Union, Britain and France which the text does mention ended on the 2nd of August, which also suggests strongly that there were some parallel overtures given the quick turnaround. These talks are written off in popular history due to the low level of delegation presented by Britain and France, we know that Stalin and the Soviet leadership were offended by the conduct of the British and French governments, but the talks continued for some time. The straw that broke the camel's back for the Soviet government was the rejection of their request to station troops in Poland and Romania. Precisely why the Soviet government thought British and French negotiators had the authority to approve that request for nations that they did not represent and were not present for the talks is not clear to me. Regardless, as soon as that was rebuffed, the talks were ended.

CONGRESS OF PEOPLE'S DEPUTIES OF THE USSR
DECISION
of December 24, 1989 N 979-1
ON POLITICAL AND LEGAL EVALUATION
OF THE SOVIET-GERMAN NON-AGGRESSION PACT
FROM 1939
 

1. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR takes note of the conclusions of the commission on political and legal evaluation of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty of August 23, 1939.
 

2. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR agrees with the opinion of the Commission that the Non-Aggression Treaty with Germany was concluded in a critical international situation, in the face of increasing danger of aggression by Fascism in Europe and Japanese militarism in Asia, and had as one of its aims to take away from the USSR the threat of an impending war. Ultimately, this goal was not achieved, and the miscalculations associated with the presence of German obligations to the USSR, exacerbated the consequences of treacherous Nazi aggression. At this time, the country was faced with difficult choices.
The obligations under the treaty came into force immediately after its signing, although the treaty itself was subject to approval by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The decree of ratification was adopted in Moscow on August 31, and the instruments of ratification were exchanged on September 24, 1939.
 

3. The Congress considers that the contents of that treaty were not incompatible with the rules of international law and the treaty practice of States in making treaty settlements of this kind. But both at the conclusion of the treaty and at its ratification the fact was concealed that simultaneously with the treaty a "secret additional protocol" had been signed, delimiting the "spheres of interests" of the contracting parties from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, from Finland to Bessarabia.
The originals of the protocol have not been found in Soviet or foreign archives. However, the graphological, phototechnical and lexical examination of the copies, maps and other documents, the correspondence of the subsequent events to the content of the protocol confirm the fact of its signing and existence.

4. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR hereby certifies that the Treaty of Non-Aggression of August 23, 1939, and the Treaty of Friendship and Boundary between the USSR and Germany concluded on September 28th of that year, as well as other Soviet-German agreements, in accordance with the rules of international law, lost force at the moment of the German attack on the USSR, that is June 22, 1941.
 

5. The Congress states that the Protocol of August 23, 1939, and other secret protocols signed with Germany in 1939-1941, both in method of drafting and in content, were a departure from the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy. Delimitation of "spheres of interest" of the USSR and Germany and other actions taken in them were from the legal point of view in contradiction with the sovereignty and independence of a number of third countries.
The Congress notes that at that time the relations of the USSR with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were regulated by a system of treaties. According to the peace treaties of 1920 and the non-aggression treaties of 1926-1933, their parties undertook to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and inviolability in all circumstances. The Soviet Union had similar obligations towards Poland and Finland.
 

6. The Congress states that the negotiations with Germany on secret protocols were conducted by Stalin and Molotov in secret from the Soviet people, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b) and the entire Party, the Supreme Soviet and the USSR Government, these protocols were excluded from the ratification procedures. Thus, the decision to sign them was, in substance and form, an act of personal power, and in no way reflected the will of the Soviet people, who are not responsible for this conspiracy.
 

7. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR condemns the signing of the "secret additional protocol" of August 23, 1939 and other secret agreements with Germany. The Congress recognizes the secret protocols as legally invalid and null and void from the moment of their signing.
The protocols did not create a new legal basis for relations between the Soviet Union and third countries, but were used by Stalin and his entourage to issue ultimatums and exert forceful pressure on other states in violation of the legal obligations undertaken before them.
 

8. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR assumes that awareness of the complex and contradictory past is part of the process of perestroika, designed to provide every people of the Soviet Union with opportunities for free and equal development in an integral, interdependent world and expanding mutual understanding.
Chairman
Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
M. GORBACHEV

[Translated from Russian by DeepL, bolding my own]

Iron Front Simulator: Social Democracy vs Fascism

 

An example of the Social Democratic Party's propaganda between the wars
"Help Protect this house, Republic, Freedom, Give your vote to
the Social Democratic Party!"

"Such a general development cannot be attributed to the false tactics of any single party or to the mistakes of individual leaders. On the contrary, the conduct of individual leaders is determined largely by the sentiments of the people as a whole. It would be erroneous, however, to regard the sentiments of the moment as reflecting the natural make-up and character of the people. They are merely the consequence of the special circumstances which have brought about this profound degradation of the entire nation."

- Karl Kautsky, Hitlerism and Social Democracy, 1934

A friend shared a game they had found on Itch.io Social Democracy: An Alternative History. For brevity and clarity, I'll be referring to the game as SDA. The game's premise is quite intriguing, the year is 1928 and your task is to block the rise of German Fascism through the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The game runs in the browser, loads quickly and works very well on desktop computer and smartphone. I discovered it yesterday and have clocked over ten play throughs, most of which were on normal, but then It tried out easy to explore more paths and options. There is a hard mode which I haven't touched as beating the game on normal is extremely difficult, my one clear win was on easy after figuring out the most likely outcomes of several dead end paths.

 The game is played through text with period photographs, political posters and music recorded at the time, it keeps the User Interface concise and works really well at building atmosphere and immersing you in that world. The game can be played entirely through one tab, though checking its library is recommended both to explain the personalities and factions and to provide you with some feedback on the impact of your actions.

It turns out that even with foreknowledge of the period and the threat posed by Hitler and the Nazi party, stopping them is very difficult. Most of my games ended with Germany plunged into civil war, though I take some comfort that Hitler and Papen are not in total control of Germany, perhaps World War II can still be avoided. The Kautsky quotation at the top pops up at the start of every new game, after several attempts I think it's an excellent opener to the game. Since the player is essentially a time-traveller, the task should be easy, but the "obvious" solutions are off the table, this isn't a Hitler assassination simulation it's a Social Democracy simulation. 

You have to stop Hitler whilst remaining true to the ideology and goals of the SPD in the late 1920s. Yes, there was a time when the SPD took a firm and bloody hand to defend the German Republic from insurrectionary threats, but that was in the early days, the enemies were Communists, Anarchists and former party members and the people tasked with executions and street fighting the Reichswehr and Freikorps no longer reply to the SPD's letters and are fraternising with the SA and Stahlhelm (Paramilitary group for the German Nationalist pro-Kaiser DNVP, and also the first organisation in Germany to adopt the banner of Fascism). For years, the party has pushed for a "normal" bourgeois parliamentary way of doing things. Essentially, the SPD saved itself on Monday, but as a consequence doomed itself on Saturday.

You don't have much room to manoeuvre, yes the SPD has its own security paramilitary the Reichsbanner and then later the Iron Front, but these are dwarfed by the SA, Stahlhelm and Communist RFB (Red Front Fighters), the SPD has control of the Prussian state and has a good chance at joining the government and accessing state ministries, but institutions employ thousands in layers of responsibility and the state administrations are full of the traditional supporters of the German right, relying on them to target your enemies is not a sound strategy.

And that's just at turn one, the Wall Street crash is coming, as is the Presidential elections and a clash over the governorship of Prussia. There are many examples of the special circumstances getting in the way of the best laid plans. Using the typical methods of the SPD in the late 1920s is insufficient as a response to the far right, the only paths that can give a chance at victory are the paths that break heavily with recorded history. Building bridges with the Communist Party helps resist Nazi attacks, as does pursuing a radical restructuring of the party and an ambitious economic intervention program, though there are many barriers on those paths to derail you before the final showdown.

I think SDA is useful at showing the player a more accurate picture of party politics. Amongst the left-wing there is an obsession with the party structure, it's treated like the missing ingredient in an equation, get the party form and program right and the rest falls into place more or less. This is a major factor of the "splitting" phenomenon -though not the only one, as this also afflicts groups that aren't interested in the party form- and why elections in Europe are often contested by multiple parties with similar names, branding and ways of speaking, and why meaningful collaboration between these supposedly similar groups is so rare. They can't work together as equals because they all view each other as fundamentally wrong, and giving ground is compounding the error. And that's looking at the modern day, in the period of the Weimar Republic these parties not only split and rivalled each other over personality and position, they had all in living memory fought each other in pitched battles and street fighting and murder are still common occurrences. 

Building a broad front is extremely difficult, and the paid functionaries of the state have their own agendas and views on how things should be run. And there are factions within the party who must be appeased and convinced, the other parties have their own plans and the international situation is almost completely out of the hands of the party leadership even when they form a government. And that's just for the bourgeois democratic state, looking at the role of the party in building a new state or alternative system and the potential for control and co-ordinated action diminishes further.

Autumn Chen the games' developer has proven that it is on paper possible for a social democratic movement to stop a fascist threat, and at the same time shown that they almost certainly will fail to do so, as to effectively defeat the far right vision of government and society requires that movement to act in a manner that forces it to transform into a new more radical and disruptive form with little in the way of political logic driving that change. Playing SDA reminded me of my time playing Suzerain both in what it was teaching me and the tools it used to create a player experience. I don't do numerical or star scores, but SDA is one of my favourite games of this year.