Yes, after the SPD unequivocally supported a pointless war that got millions killed, crushed leftist opposition, and teamed up with the conservatives to enact austerity, they did kind of burn their bridges with the KPD. And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with. The results of both of those sets of actions were disastrous.
If only the KPD had been more powerful, not only could WWII have been prevented, but WWI might have been cut short too.
And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with.
You say “the bourgeois parties,” but that’s all the parties besides the KPD. That’s more than 80% of German voters in 1932. After the depression, the war, the austerity, more people still voted for the SPD, and all the other parties, than the KPD. Those voters couldn’t all be members of the capitalist class. In fact, I’m pretty darn certain they were mostly working class people.
First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
“the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties…
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.
Yes, after the SPD unequivocally supported a pointless war that got millions killed, crushed leftist opposition, and teamed up with the conservatives to enact austerity, they did kind of burn their bridges with the KPD. And yes, the bourgeois parties hated the Marxist-Leninists much more than the Nazis who they collaborated with. The results of both of those sets of actions were disastrous.
If only the KPD had been more powerful, not only could WWII have been prevented, but WWI might have been cut short too.
You say “the bourgeois parties,” but that’s all the parties besides the KPD. That’s more than 80% of German voters in 1932. After the depression, the war, the austerity, more people still voted for the SPD, and all the other parties, than the KPD. Those voters couldn’t all be members of the capitalist class. In fact, I’m pretty darn certain they were mostly working class people.
First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.