The Iron Front chiefly opposed the Sturmabteilung (SA) wing of the Nazi Party and the Antifaschistische Aktion wing of the Communist Party of Germany.[1] Formally independent, it was intimately associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The Three Arrows, originally designed for the Iron Front, became a well-known social democratic symbol representing resistance against monarchism, Nazism, and communism during the parliamentary elections in November 1932. The Three Arrows were later adopted by the SPD itself.[2]
The Iron Front was formed on 16 December 1931 in the Weimar Republic by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), along with the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (ADGB), the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, and workers’ sport clubs.[3] The Iron Front chiefly opposed the paramilitary organisations of both the fascist National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), i.e. the Nazi Party, and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).
The Iron Front was regarded as an anti-communist and “social fascist terror organisation” by the KPD, who regarded the SPD as their main adversary.[5] In response to the formation of the Iron Front, the KPD founded its own activist wing, Antifaschistische Aktion (Antifa), which opposed the social democrat SPD and the fascist NSDAP.[6]
On January 30, 1933, the day Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the KPD asked the Iron Front, the SPD, the general trade union association ADGB and their organisations, and the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold to declare a general strike against Hitler. The Iron Front declined, issued a call on February 2 to “all comrades of the Reichsbanner and the Iron Front”, warning against participating in “wild actions organised by irresponsible people”, and exhorted members to “turn all Iron Front events into powerful rallies for freedom”.
Later the SPD is involved in their arrest. What’s “illogical” or not factual here?
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered in 1919. The Iron Front was founded in 1931. Claiming that all Iron Front members in 1931 and 1932 supported those 1919 murders is nonsensical.
The claim is a straw man fallacy, a fabrication to paint people who actively oppose their version of totalitarianism in a bad light.
I get the point. You could also generally argue that all of these would become nazi soldiers sooner or later, but thats still a big generalization that isnt very fair to history.
These days, we’re anti-authoritarian communist. Communism isn’t inherently bad, but using Stalin and Mao iconography and being an apologist for them just means you’re an idiot who hasn’t read any history.
Growing up in the US public school system really painted communism in the worst light. They really only focused on those two dudes and never talked about any successful implementations of communism. I always felt like they weren’t fairly representing communism in my schools. I feel like it could work but haven’t found any successful examples. Could you provide a few communism successes?
It should be understood that Communism, as Marx expressed it, was more of a guideline to a future, a goal. As Marx once said, “If there is one thing that is for certain, it is that I am not a Marxist.” Marx understood that the path forward would be best understood by revolutionaries addressing the real concerns and paths presented, not theorists. Theorists provide a framework, a vital framework, but only a framework.
The end-state of things, Communism, that is to say, a classless, moneyless society, has not been achieved in any industrialized society. However, what people often mean when they say Communism is Socialism - the control of the means of production by the proletariat (basically everyone who works for a wage). Socialism has had a great many successes, some of which are still extant today, but little discussed. One of the most common forms of socialism in the modern day is worker’s co-op’s. Mondragon Corporation still exists, for example, and is extremely successful - in it, the workers all own a share of the company, instead of that going to outside investors, and decisions are made democratically.
Market Socialism in Yugoslavia operated similarly, with democratic workplaces. Yugoslavia enjoyed superior economic growth to the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, and a higher standard of living, despite having a comparable GDP (Yugoslavia was very devastated after WW2, and even before it was kind of a backwater, so they started from a lower position).
Some of what is said about socialism is scare-mongering - but much of it is conflating one form of self-professed socialism (A Soviet-style command economy) with socialism as a whole, which makes about as much sense as conflating marijuana with meth because they’re both drugs. Many people have no other conception of socialism other than the Soviet-style command economy. But socialism, at its core, in all of its forms, is about workers controlling their own labor and what it produces. Not the bosses, not the investors, not the aristocrats. The worker, allowed to enjoy the full or near-full value of what he creates.
I should also mention that capitalism does have a few advantages, at least insofar as every socialist experiment thus far has gone. Economic growth, primarily.
Capitalism concentrates capital into the hands of investors who are not very risk-averse, because they lose relatively little (just the investment) if things go pear-shaped. This means that the investor class takes a very “Move fast, break shit” approach to the economy - which, in aggregate, is actually very efficient in optimizing growth, at least relative to other forms of economic systems attempted thus far. The market, as a whole, reacts very quickly under capitalism - though that also makes it volatile.
However, it also has the tiny, tiny problem of “Move fast, break shit” being a really shitty fucking deal for workers who are the ones who are getting their shit broken, and aren’t rich enough to weather failure. A lot of waste is involved, a lot of suffering. A lot of… well, broken shit.
And the concerns of wealth accumulation leading to an aristocracy, of course, and innumerable other inequality-driven problems.
Also anticommunist. These are the people on board with the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Kael Liebknecht.
Ah yes, being against an ideology means you are okay with anything anybody has ever done in the name of being against that ideology.
Im anti-capitalist. Does that mean im “on board” with Mao Zedong’s atrocities?
They didn’t state any of that, though. They were simply adding detail.
They very clearly, with no logical basis whatsoever, insulted every single person in the image
How have they insulted them? What is inaccurate?
Later the SPD is involved in their arrest. What’s “illogical” or not factual here?
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered in 1919. The Iron Front was founded in 1931. Claiming that all Iron Front members in 1931 and 1932 supported those 1919 murders is nonsensical.
The claim is a straw man fallacy, a fabrication to paint people who actively oppose their version of totalitarianism in a bad light.
I see your point and appreciate the explanation
Please read up on the iron front, SPD and the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
I get the point. You could also generally argue that all of these would become nazi soldiers sooner or later, but thats still a big generalization that isnt very fair to history.
These days, we’re anti-authoritarian communist. Communism isn’t inherently bad, but using Stalin and Mao iconography and being an apologist for them just means you’re an idiot who hasn’t read any history.
Same back then. The Iron Front was made of SocDems AND DemSocs. It was Stalinism they opposed.
Growing up in the US public school system really painted communism in the worst light. They really only focused on those two dudes and never talked about any successful implementations of communism. I always felt like they weren’t fairly representing communism in my schools. I feel like it could work but haven’t found any successful examples. Could you provide a few communism successes?
It should be understood that Communism, as Marx expressed it, was more of a guideline to a future, a goal. As Marx once said, “If there is one thing that is for certain, it is that I am not a Marxist.” Marx understood that the path forward would be best understood by revolutionaries addressing the real concerns and paths presented, not theorists. Theorists provide a framework, a vital framework, but only a framework.
The end-state of things, Communism, that is to say, a classless, moneyless society, has not been achieved in any industrialized society. However, what people often mean when they say Communism is Socialism - the control of the means of production by the proletariat (basically everyone who works for a wage). Socialism has had a great many successes, some of which are still extant today, but little discussed. One of the most common forms of socialism in the modern day is worker’s co-op’s. Mondragon Corporation still exists, for example, and is extremely successful - in it, the workers all own a share of the company, instead of that going to outside investors, and decisions are made democratically.
Market Socialism in Yugoslavia operated similarly, with democratic workplaces. Yugoslavia enjoyed superior economic growth to the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, and a higher standard of living, despite having a comparable GDP (Yugoslavia was very devastated after WW2, and even before it was kind of a backwater, so they started from a lower position).
Some of what is said about socialism is scare-mongering - but much of it is conflating one form of self-professed socialism (A Soviet-style command economy) with socialism as a whole, which makes about as much sense as conflating marijuana with meth because they’re both drugs. Many people have no other conception of socialism other than the Soviet-style command economy. But socialism, at its core, in all of its forms, is about workers controlling their own labor and what it produces. Not the bosses, not the investors, not the aristocrats. The worker, allowed to enjoy the full or near-full value of what he creates.
I should also mention that capitalism does have a few advantages, at least insofar as every socialist experiment thus far has gone. Economic growth, primarily.
Capitalism concentrates capital into the hands of investors who are not very risk-averse, because they lose relatively little (just the investment) if things go pear-shaped. This means that the investor class takes a very “Move fast, break shit” approach to the economy - which, in aggregate, is actually very efficient in optimizing growth, at least relative to other forms of economic systems attempted thus far. The market, as a whole, reacts very quickly under capitalism - though that also makes it volatile.
However, it also has the tiny, tiny problem of “Move fast, break shit” being a really shitty fucking deal for workers who are the ones who are getting their shit broken, and aren’t rich enough to weather failure. A lot of waste is involved, a lot of suffering. A lot of… well, broken shit.
And the concerns of wealth accumulation leading to an aristocracy, of course, and innumerable other inequality-driven problems.
Pro-Democracy. Daily reminder that a significant portion of these Communists couldn’t abolish Democracy quick enough.