What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxists in the Face of Fascism: Writings by Marxists on Fascism From the Inter-war Period
Fascism’s ascent to power across Europe in the 1920s and 1930s marks one of the greatest historical defeats of the left in all of history. Yet, this catastrophic de- feat was resisted at every turn by Marxists who tried, unsuccessfully, to push the mass communist and social democratic parties to organize an opposition to the rising movements of violent reaction. Their devastating failure paved the way for the gas chamber, decades of ruthless dictatorship, and war. This important volume offers the most complete selection of Marxist writings on fascism from this period in any language and provides invaluable lessons for contemporary readers concerned with today’s far-right.
400 pages, hardcover
Published March 12, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 2, 2020
The idea of fascism haunts the left from the perspective of its failures to deal with the challenges this far right ideology set before the organised working class movement in Europe in the middle decades of the 20th century. The ‘Marxists’ who provide accounts of their struggles against the impending disaster in this valuable book range cover the viewpoints of the Stalinised Comintern and its affiliates across Europe, the critical viewpoints of figures like Trotsky, Gramsci and Andres Nin, right the way through to social democrats of various hues.
The book benefits from an excellent introduction of its editor, David Beetham, who does the service of distilling something that approaches a consensual viewpoint as to what fascism actually is from these diverse commentators and participants in anti-fascist struggle. He settles on a definition that draw most heavily on Gramsci and Togliatti, which devolves on the idea that it is a distinctive form of capitalist offensive which depends on the mass mobilisation of petty bourgeois elements, but with a significant section of the working class in tow. This popular support arose from the defeat of revolutionary movements and the failure of the socialist left to resolve the economic crisis of that period.
The obligation to consider viewpoints from the entire spectrum of Marxism makes it necessary to include a view articles setting out the ‘third period’ take on ‘social fascism’ which emanated from the official Communist parties, but this is a dip into a world of such baleful error as to make it hard to take seriously except as an example of how to get everything wrong.
The sections which reproduce the views of the more critical group of militants represented by Trotsky and the Italian currents are now part of the cannon sufficiently well-known and frequently republished to be already present in volumes on the shelves of many modern-day socialists. This is much less so with the social democrats, and it is the contributions of the likes of Rudolf Hilferding, Max Seydewitz, Alexander Schifrin, Otto Bauer and Richard Lowenthal which make this book particularly interesting.
This group were all leading figures in the Austrian and German Social Democratic parties who had played a role in the parliamentary and ministerial arenas of political struggle during the 1920s and 30s. Their instinct throughout these critical years had been to strive for working class unity ahead of the demand for ideological purity which had led to splits and the formation of mass Communist parties. Bauer accepted the logic of maintaining class unity at the highest priority meant being prepared to go into government whenever electoral majorities had been secured in order to deliver reforms like the working class housing projects that were the jewel of the city of Vienna. But as the economic crises of the period gained momentum, the refusal of the social democrats to acquiesce to the demand of the bourgeoisie to abolish tenant protection led to a swing towards the nationalist right wing and fascist parties.
In a riveting analysis of how the commitment to programmatic reform had led to social democracy emerging as a cluster of ‘interests’, Lowenthal shows how the entire political project of the party could only be bound together by bureaucratic means. This critique of reformist socialism from the insider reveals a picture that is far from the ‘social fascism’ of the Stalinists, and just as distant from the ‘treachery of the leadership’ which is central to so much Trotskyist analysis. What the best of these articles shows is the belated awareness of how socialists intent on change had been lured onto the terrain of parliamentarianism and the state, which was only too ready to dump them whenever it served the interests of capital.
In a country like the UK today the threat of fascism is not present on the immediate horizon mainly because the parliamentary state has proven adept at rolling back working class gains without feeling the need to mobilise the masses in a violent counter-revolution. The threat of socialism in this country can be blown out the water by not much more than a newspaper campaign in support of a silly English Brexit party and a set of spurious slurs against the personal integrity of leftist politicians. A long way off from fascism certainly, but also light years away from socialism.
The book benefits from an excellent introduction of its editor, David Beetham, who does the service of distilling something that approaches a consensual viewpoint as to what fascism actually is from these diverse commentators and participants in anti-fascist struggle. He settles on a definition that draw most heavily on Gramsci and Togliatti, which devolves on the idea that it is a distinctive form of capitalist offensive which depends on the mass mobilisation of petty bourgeois elements, but with a significant section of the working class in tow. This popular support arose from the defeat of revolutionary movements and the failure of the socialist left to resolve the economic crisis of that period.
The obligation to consider viewpoints from the entire spectrum of Marxism makes it necessary to include a view articles setting out the ‘third period’ take on ‘social fascism’ which emanated from the official Communist parties, but this is a dip into a world of such baleful error as to make it hard to take seriously except as an example of how to get everything wrong.
The sections which reproduce the views of the more critical group of militants represented by Trotsky and the Italian currents are now part of the cannon sufficiently well-known and frequently republished to be already present in volumes on the shelves of many modern-day socialists. This is much less so with the social democrats, and it is the contributions of the likes of Rudolf Hilferding, Max Seydewitz, Alexander Schifrin, Otto Bauer and Richard Lowenthal which make this book particularly interesting.
This group were all leading figures in the Austrian and German Social Democratic parties who had played a role in the parliamentary and ministerial arenas of political struggle during the 1920s and 30s. Their instinct throughout these critical years had been to strive for working class unity ahead of the demand for ideological purity which had led to splits and the formation of mass Communist parties. Bauer accepted the logic of maintaining class unity at the highest priority meant being prepared to go into government whenever electoral majorities had been secured in order to deliver reforms like the working class housing projects that were the jewel of the city of Vienna. But as the economic crises of the period gained momentum, the refusal of the social democrats to acquiesce to the demand of the bourgeoisie to abolish tenant protection led to a swing towards the nationalist right wing and fascist parties.
In a riveting analysis of how the commitment to programmatic reform had led to social democracy emerging as a cluster of ‘interests’, Lowenthal shows how the entire political project of the party could only be bound together by bureaucratic means. This critique of reformist socialism from the insider reveals a picture that is far from the ‘social fascism’ of the Stalinists, and just as distant from the ‘treachery of the leadership’ which is central to so much Trotskyist analysis. What the best of these articles shows is the belated awareness of how socialists intent on change had been lured onto the terrain of parliamentarianism and the state, which was only too ready to dump them whenever it served the interests of capital.
In a country like the UK today the threat of fascism is not present on the immediate horizon mainly because the parliamentary state has proven adept at rolling back working class gains without feeling the need to mobilise the masses in a violent counter-revolution. The threat of socialism in this country can be blown out the water by not much more than a newspaper campaign in support of a silly English Brexit party and a set of spurious slurs against the personal integrity of leftist politicians. A long way off from fascism certainly, but also light years away from socialism.
November 30, 2024
Marxists in the Face of Fascism is a collection of writing by left-wing thinkers and political leaders from the years between the World Wars. It shows that fascism is a complex and contradictory phenomenon that many dedicated theorists misinterpreted or underestimated. I can't summarize everything, but I'll share some points below:
The Italian Communist Party under Bordiga was caught off guard by Mussolini's coup d'état because they failed to recognize any tension between the fascist base and the existing elites.
The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Comintern massively underestimated the Nazi threat. They considered it another variety of capitalist reaction. They spent all their efforts attacking the Social Democrats (SPD). The SPD was more alert to the threat, but was absolutely committed to electoral politics, even though bourgeois democracy was exactly what created the socioeconomic preconditions for fascism to begin with.
The Austrian Social Democrats attempted to learn from these mistakes. They maintained a large, less acquiescent presence in parliament. They had the majority of the working class with them. They promised to call a general strike if parliament was illegally disbanded, but when the time came, they didn't.
Fascism was strongest in countries that were late to colonialism and didn't have foreign countries to directly exploit (Italy, Germany).
It was strongest among the petite bourgeoisie aka middle class, but once in power, was limited by the realities of capitalism and the practicalities of government. There was constant tension between various sectors of the capitalist class vying for influence within the fascist regime, as well as between the most dedicated, radical members of the party and less-radicalized government administrators.
It viciously attacked the organizations of the working class and increased their exploitation even if it decreased unemployment by preparing for war.
It occured in periods when the balance of class forces paralyzed parliament.
It usually came to power after a failed or aborted left-wing uprising.
Fascism doesn't look the same in all countries and time periods.
The Italian Communist Party under Bordiga was caught off guard by Mussolini's coup d'état because they failed to recognize any tension between the fascist base and the existing elites.
The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Comintern massively underestimated the Nazi threat. They considered it another variety of capitalist reaction. They spent all their efforts attacking the Social Democrats (SPD). The SPD was more alert to the threat, but was absolutely committed to electoral politics, even though bourgeois democracy was exactly what created the socioeconomic preconditions for fascism to begin with.
The Austrian Social Democrats attempted to learn from these mistakes. They maintained a large, less acquiescent presence in parliament. They had the majority of the working class with them. They promised to call a general strike if parliament was illegally disbanded, but when the time came, they didn't.
Fascism was strongest in countries that were late to colonialism and didn't have foreign countries to directly exploit (Italy, Germany).
It was strongest among the petite bourgeoisie aka middle class, but once in power, was limited by the realities of capitalism and the practicalities of government. There was constant tension between various sectors of the capitalist class vying for influence within the fascist regime, as well as between the most dedicated, radical members of the party and less-radicalized government administrators.
It viciously attacked the organizations of the working class and increased their exploitation even if it decreased unemployment by preparing for war.
It occured in periods when the balance of class forces paralyzed parliament.
It usually came to power after a failed or aborted left-wing uprising.
Fascism doesn't look the same in all countries and time periods.
July 17, 2025
Es una colección excelente de los escritos marxistas sobre el fascismo, no limitándose a las interpretaciones oficiales de la Internacional Comunista. La introducción de Beetham es muy buena y clarificadora.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews