V. People's Front #7
“That will be impossible, Chancellor,” Wels replied calmly.
“Impossible? What you have done threatens the very foundations of the state and gravely violates the order of private property! How can the Social Democrats participate in such unconstitutional acts?”
“Heh…” Wels let out a leisurely chuckle. “Is it not you, Chancellor, who insists that the state must not intervene in the market and that the economy must follow the principle of autonomous private property? What law, then, have we broken in a laissez-faire market economy?”
Wels produced several prepared documents. “These are the purchase reports for those factories. All of them were legally acquired at distressed prices by legitimate British asset holders during the recession. The owners then voluntarily transferred operational control to workers’ councils of their own free will. Tell me, Chancellor—what law have we broken?”
“This is sophistry! The entire world knows who stands behind you!”
“If there is a backer, it is capital itself.”
“Are you claiming that Moscow’s funds played no part?”
“I ask you in return: why are you so certain that Moscow’s funds are involved? Russia is cut off from the rest of the world except Spain. A place where the very concept of money does not exist. How could any funds possibly enter or leave?”
Brüning, who had been raging at Wels, fell silent and stared at me.
“…Representative Heinz, chairwoman of the People’s Front. I ask you directly. Are you certain that no external funds were involved?”
“Why are you asking me?” I replied. Outwardly, I was merely playing the role assigned to me.
“The factories were purchased by a British asset holder connected to the Social Democrats. Their ownership was transferred to the workers, who now operate them. Where exactly does Moscow come into it?”
“That British asset holder could have been used to launder the funds.”
“He is a member of the British Labour Party. Unlike our own party, the British Labour Party is an established parliamentary party with no ties to the Comintern. What possible reason would the Comintern have to send funds here?”
The party I had created, the ArbeiterPartei, adhered to revolutionary methods of workers seizing the means of production—communist methods—while the British Labour Party pursued reformist socialism through expanded welfare and nationalization. At times like this, the tension between social democracy and revolutionary socialism proved useful.
“It seems you intend to brand our activities as espionage by linking them to Comintern funding. Our Communist Party and Labour Party certainly receive Comintern support, but the Social Democrats do not. I may be chair of the People’s Front, but the largest party in parliament is the SPD. And even if Comintern funds had flowed in, what of it? Money circulates. Just because funds from the Comintern passed through me does not mean the Comintern controls the People’s Front.”
“That’s…!”
“By that logic, since American companies have built factories in Germany, America must be controlling Germany. Yet that is not the case, is it?”
Of course, that did not mean foreign capital only engaged in healthy economic activity in Germany. On the contrary, American and British capital were indeed infiltrating Germany—but through the economy rather than politics, making it less visible. Even that had collapsed during the Great Depression, leaving behind only debt.
“If anything, your austerity policy of courting foreign capital is what hands Germany over to the West, Chancellor.”
This was, of course, merely a contingency to conceal Comintern funding. The Social Democrats had already been briefed. If anyone tried to expose us, we could counterattack by demanding whether they intended to pin espionage charges on a foreigner who did not even reside in Germany.
“We have spoken at length, but the result is clear: our actions have proceeded without a single illegal step.”
“No. Even if every step was legal, the very concept of collective factory ownership is unconstitutional. Under Article 153 of the Imperial Constitution, private property is an individual right protected by the state, carrying a corresponding duty to serve the public interest. Factories owned by the majority clearly intend to evade that duty by dispersing responsibility.”
“On what grounds?” Wels reclaimed the floor.
“The reason capital is held by individuals is to impose responsibility when it is misused against the public interest and to maintain social order. Property held collectively by an organization, rather than by an individual, cannot be presumed free of the intent to evade that responsibility.”
“If you understand the law so well, I wonder why you have delayed our reform proposals for nearly a month.”
“Please stay on topic, Representative Wels.”
“Your suspicions have no basis, Chancellor. It is true that responsibility for private property lies with its owner. Conversely, that means private property is only permitted to those capable of bearing that responsibility. On the streets right now are countless people with no meaningful private property, starving while their lives are mortgaged to the state and their workplaces. Yuri simply wished to give them an opportunity. By calling it collective ownership, we extend the same chance—and the same heavy responsibility that comes with private property—to the lower classes.”
“Does that make any sense? It is still the same as relieving the lower classes of the duty of responsibility that accompanies private property. That is not equality. Private property must always carry responsibility, and property owned collectively by many can easily erase the locus of that responsibility.”
“Equality? I never expected the word ‘equality’ to leave your lips, Chancellor. Is it truly appropriate to impose identical responsibilities on the upper classes, who monopolize private property and can more than fulfill their duties, and the lower classes, who are excluded from private property and have their very lives subordinated?”
Wels did not yield. “As you know, Germany currently imposes a progressive tax. Lower rates for the poor, higher rates for the wealthy—to promote social equality and wealth redistribution. What do you think of that, Chancellor?”
“From an egalitarian perspective, it is not incorrect. However—”
“You accept higher taxes on the wealthy but reject greater responsibility for private property on the wealthy. That is contradictory.”
“But imposing ever greater responsibilities on the upper classes could lead to a loss of purpose in steering society toward improvement.”
“Purpose? What purpose do the upper classes have? It is we—the legislature and the Chancellor’s executive—who bear the duty to lead the nation.”
“Even setting that aside, the state has an obligation to protect both upper and lower classes. Such interference is excessively biased.”
“That means you view the existing upper classes losing power as negative. In capitalism, anyone with ability should be able to seize wealth. You intend to prevent that. Did Adam Smith not warn against such ‘monopoly’?”
Neither Wels nor Brüning showed any sign of backing down, so the debate dragged on without end.
“Enough. Please review the reform proposals we have submitted.”
Finally, I signaled Wels to end the discussion and stepped in.
“The reform proposals presented by the People’s Front are still under legal review.”
“This is the will of the people, Chancellor!”
This man still hadn’t come to his senses.
“Please speak with His Imperial Majesty and expedite discussion on lifting the Emergency Decree as well.”
“The cabinet is overburdened. We will address matters one by one in sequence. I ask that the People’s Front carefully consider the legality of using factories for political purposes.”
Once again, the meeting concluded ambiguously.
“Parliament is still calling our demands ‘under review.’”
“Heh…”
“They’re insane. Completely.”
A few days later, at a meeting with labor union representatives, the chaos of the January general strike had yet to subside.
“To drag out the people’s demands for over a month like this—it is clearly an attempt to smother the flames of revolution with vague excuses!”
“But we cannot ignore procedural matters either. The Chancellor is essentially checking both us and the conservatives, fighting a disadvantageous two-front war.”
Wels spoke. “Therefore, it would be wise to pressure the cabinet to prevent cooperation with the National People’s Party. First, we must impress upon the government that the united will of the people takes precedence over the constitution, and push the reform proposals forward!”
Thälmann added, “Then we will submit a petition to the Constitutional Court through the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund.”
“An excellent idea, comrade.”
“It would be wonderful if the Workers’ Factory model could be introduced to large corporations as well.”
“That is beyond our control. The only way is to thoroughly dismantle the upper classes and break large corporations into multiple entities so that democracy can function.”
“The Social Democrats would likely dislike that idea.”
“We will not remain weak forever. Without reforming the system, equality cannot be achieved. Even the Communists have no reason to refuse cooperation if they agree on that point.”
“Any enterprise that cannot be operated democratically has no right to exist.”
Wels and Thälmann coordinated their opinions with remarkable harmony.
“Very well. The unions will, for now, work within the bounds of the law to force the reform proposals through a constitutional petition, while strengthening their organization and expanding membership to grow their influence.”
“Leave it to us, Chairwoman Heinz.”
“Please make greater use of friendly media on the Social Democratic side. We will actively sponsor and establish left-wing media outlets sympathetic to the People’s Front, while widely publicizing the success of the Workers’ Factory project.”
Unlike the Social Democrats, we had the Comintern—an effectively unlimited source of funds.
“For the liberation of all workers!”
If the government refused to listen to the people, we would have to make them listen by force.