KARL KAUTSKY – 1854 to 1938

1. A Successor to be Reconsidered

The discarded Kautsky

In the official Party history as it has been written in the past, Karl Kautsky was the best known among those who were unknown. Regarded as a renegade, he was considered as the incarnation of betrayal of the Marxist theory of the state, class struggle and revolution.

As known to us by way of Lenin, Karl Kautsky's attack on the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks as the young state power struggled to survive appears disgusting, especially to people who received their schooling under the auspices of so-called existing socialism. It was precisely his prognosis of Soviet collapse that seemed absurd in view of the success of Soviet power in the collectivization and industrialization of Russia, its historically outstanding accomplishments in freeing Europe from Hitler fascism, in shattering the colonial system, in the attainment of nuclear parity and not least the outcome at Yalta, "the socialist community of states."

Still, from the time that Gorbachev initiated perestroika and glasnost in the mid-eighties until so-called existing socialism collapsed in eastern Europe, it has become evident to those in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg and V. I. Lenin, who previously oriented themselves toward the administrative, command style of socialism – the writer of these lines included – that the social and human costs exacted for this experiment conducted in the name of socialism have been too high. A critical reevaluation of the history of socialism has not only become possible, but also urgently necessary.

Karl Kautsky comes into our field of vision because, on the basis of his understanding of Marxist positions, he was the most uncompromising and influential social democratic critic of the October Revolution and its consequences. Yet, for the vindication of the idea of socialism, the following questions can and must now be posed and answered, even though belatedly: Where was Kautsky's critique valid and where was it wrong? Where did he, already then, lay bare the roots and origins of the breakdown of the Soviet model of socialism? Moreover, eastern Europe provides fresh food for thought, so that Kautsky's hitherto singular line of anti-Communist and anti-Soviet argumentation is no longer possible. His arguments have been known to us simply through excerpts cited by Lenin and his followers in classical works for purposes of intimidation and exhortation of Party members. Nearly everything that Kautsky published after 1917 was inaccessible to the general public. Where it could be found, it was situated behind poisoned barriers of scientific institutions. Despite the many historically outmoded elements of his critique, whoever reads the political journalism that Kautsky sustained over seven decades, anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet though it was, can still trace his concern and anxiety for the dictatorship operating in the names of Marx and Engels, through his writings as the teacher of the Bolsheviks – for he was so regarded by Lenin and his associates until the first world war.

The "generally known" Kautsky

Yet, it is not simply the "renegade" Kautsky, hitherto unknown to us, who deserves our attention, but also Kautsky the Marxist, who supposedly is known. Indeed, the former official Party history did include the Marxist Kautsky – for he was counted as such from the 1880s until around 1910 – in the pantheon of leading personalities of the Second International, although his historically significant theoretical and political contribution to the workers' movement in this period was not recognized.

In the forty year history of the GDR only a single work by Karl Kautsky has appeared – his "Remarks on the Erfurt Program," edited with an instructive epilogue by Horst Bartel, and published by Dietz Verlag in 1965. In the FRG, on the other hand, recent editions have appeared of nearly all his significant writings from 1910. Because of photomechanical methods of reprinting, every year's issues of Neue Zeit ("New Times"), Kautsky's journal, including all his articles, are readily available to anyone who is interested. Omitted entirely from consideration [in the GDR] is the historical significance of this new edition of the journal for further investigation into the history of the theory and practice of socialism during the period of the Second International.

There have certainly been enough ways to demean noteworthy contributors to the development of Marxism, treat them lightly, denigrate them, tear to pieces any weaknesses in their social-theoretical conceptions, and simply denounce every criticism of Bolshevism on their parts as abandonment of Marxism. This sort of treatment affected not only Karl Kautsky, but extended from Eduard Bernstein to Nikolai Bukharin. Leninism was thus depicted as the direct and only possible continuation of Marxism. Stalin and his successors down to Erich Honecker considered themselves qualified to justify their politics as directly inherited from Marx, Engels and Lenin. Every criticism of the dictatorship of the Communist party was dismissed as a defamation of Marxism. Excellent works have been carried out by historians of philosophy in the GDR, initiated above all by Vera Vrona (Wrona), on the contradictory nature of the development of Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels, but even these were virtually unable to modify this picture of Marx and his successors that dominated the public discourse.

Why Kautsky merits our interest

Without question, after the death of Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky stood out as the most influential theorist of the Second International. Even in his own lifetime, Kautsky was a legend for those who belonged to the workers movement, a monument of Marxism, an institution of German and international social democracy in questions of theory and the practical movement. He left behind a body of journalistic and scholarly work which in quantity exceeds the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and V.I. Lenin. Kautsky corresponded with personalities all over the world, especially with leading representatives of German and international social democracy. About 13,300 letters and cards exchanged with about 2,300 correspondents, which are available in the Kautsky Archive alone of the Institut für Sozialgeschichte (Institute for Social History), are persuasive witness to that.

Kautsky was a contemporary observer of the Paris Commune, the founding of the German empire, Bismark's anti-socialist law, the rise of imperialism, the first world war, the October Revolution in Russia and the November revolution in Germany. He witnessed the collapse of the Russian, German and Austrian feudal-aristocratic military despotisms and the new political order in Europe that resulted from that. He was alive during the founding and development of the Weimar and Austrian republics, Hitler's seizure of power, and eventually the occupation of Austria by the Nazi-fascists, from whose persecution he was able to save himself only by fleeing into exile in Holland, where he died in October of 1938.

It is quite remarkable that someone of the stature of Karl Kautsky, who co-authored such diverse chapters in the history book of German and international social democracy, has barely been noticed. That is enough to emphasize that a scientific elaboration of the history of the theory and practice of socialism cannot do without Karl Kautsky.

It needs to be emphasized that

– historically significant documents of the workers movement are associated with his name. Recall merely the "Erfurt Program" of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in 1891, the "Founding Manifesto" of the Independent Socialist Party of Germany (USPD) in 1917 and the SPD "Heidelberg Program" of 1925;

– Kautsky is one of the spiritual fathers of the idea of democratic socialism;

– the major considerations that went into his assessment of the October Revolution have today turned out to be historically justifiable;*

– a critical examination of the controversy between Kautsky and Lenin over the October Revolution and its aftermath would provide a crucial point of departure for an objective analysis of the sources and essence of Stalinism and evidence regarding lines of continuity between Lenin and J.V. Stalin;

– Kautsky's characterization of the essence of the October Revolution and his critique of the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks were based on his own understanding of the theory and methods of Marxism;**

– analysis of the posture of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Socialist Unity Party of the GDR (SED) toward the work and creative activity of Karl Kautsky could illuminate how and why it could have happened that many "Marxist-Leninist" social scientists – willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly – become apologists for so-called existing socialism, and social science became the maidservent of the politics of dictatorship.

---------------

* That applies also to his criticism of the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks established by Lenin and made more pronounced by Stalin.

** An analysis of his relevant conceptions could lend significant support to the assurance that it was not the overall realization of the idea of socialism that ran aground in the collapse of the Soviet model, but merely one specific attempt to carry it out.

2. Over Six Decades as a Committed Social Democrat

The second generation

Karl Kautsky represents the second generation of theorists of scientific socialism. A generation which, as its activity began in and for the workers movement, already had at hand the most weighty fundamentals for the emancipation of the working class, thanks to the personal initiative and support of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: the Marxist conceptions of history and political economy as they had been elaborated by national social democratic parties and organizations. These historical facts alone already imply that Kautsky and other Marxist theorists of the second generation took a different route to scientific socialism than that trod by Marx and Engels, let alone their respective individual paths and points of entry.

Kautsky's path to social democracy

Karl was born in Prague on October 16, 1854. His painter father and actress mother then lived in extreme poverty. Ten years later their situation improved fundamentally due to an inheritance and the father's appointment as scene painter at the Court theater in Vienna. Presently the mother became successful and celebrated as the first socialist woman author.

The parents made every effort to obtain the best possible education for their son. Private teachers, private schools, the cloister at Melk and the gymnasium at Vienna were stations for the schoolboy Kautsky. From 1874 on he studied law, philosophy, history and economics among other subjects at the University of Vienna.

In 1875 the student Kautsky embraced social democracy, to which he swore until his death in 1938, retaining his constancy through all the storms and upheavals of the movement. The conception of socialism that occasioned this step and determined his journalistic activity was influenced by the occurrence of the Paris Commune, the socialist fiction of George Sand, the writings of Luis Blanc and Ferdinand Lasalle, the petty bourgeois socialists Johann Most and Andreas Scheu, the social reformer Karl Höchberg, the co-founder of neo-Kantianism Friedrich Albert Lange, the natural-historical materialism of Ernst Haeckel, the positivists Henry Buckle and Herbert Spencer, the petty bourgeois socialist Eugen Dühring, the Katheder socialist Albert Schäffle and the bourgeois economists Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill.

Still, this enumeration of events, currents and individuals only establishes some of the influences in the Zeitgeist, the spirit of those times, which went to form the personality of the young Kautsky.

Finally, it was the natural-scientific discoveries of Darwin during the latter half of the seventh decade of the century that exerted the dominant influence on the formation of Kautsky's social-theoretical conceptions. The conception of history that he developed at the time was, as he later emphasized, meant to be "nothing other than the application of Darwinism to social development."

How he became a Marxist

Kautsky's bold affirmation of social democracy dashed all hopes of a middle class career after the conclusion of his university education. Deliverance for the time being came from Zurich, where, from January 1880 until the spring of 1882, he was employed as scientific secretary to Karl Höchburg, who was supporting the journalistic activity of German social democracy with a substantial financial expenditure. Kautsky's stay in Zurich was decisive for his development to Marxism: First of all (as one of many consequences of the anti-socialist law of 1878), the Sozialdemokrat, the official party organ, was edited here from 1879 on. His contacts with the leaders of German social democracy became ever more intensive. On this basis a lifelong cooperation arose between him and August Bebel. Secondly, it was here that he found in Eduard Bernstein his first true teacher in the study of Marxism. Thirdly, Zurich was a place of refuge for adherents of diverse revolutionary movements, especially from eastern Europe. Added to his developing participation in German social democracy, Kautsky's encounters with these revolutionaries broadened his political horizon and made for friendships which were to last for decades. In the fourth place, August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht in Zurich arranged in 1881 for Kautsky to pay a personal visit to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in London. Its most important outcome was the fact that he found in Engels the best mentor for the further study of Marxist theory and method, and a few years later was associated with him in a mutually productive working relationship. This was true above all for their interests in ethnology, pre- and early history, and the development of social movements and theories. Finally, he was able to win the support of Friedrich Engels, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht and Johann Wilhelm Dietz for the publication of a scholarly journal. The first number of Neue Zeit appeared in January 1883 with Kautsky as chief editor, a post he held until 1917. Over a period of eighty years Neue Zeit developed into a theoretical organ of Marxism of the German and international working class. He secured his livelihood chiefly from this journal in the decades that followed. To be sure, it was not due simply to coincidence, in the form of the invitation from Höchberg, that Kautsky was able to develop himself into a theorist of Marxism. For one thing, he was qualified for the task by passion, readiness for sacrifice, journalistic capability, scholarly aptitude and organizational talent. For another, there is impressive documentation in the correspondence between Friedrich Engels and Karl Kautsky of how closely and sympathetically the founders of scientific socialism concerned themselves with the rising generation of theorists of the working class movement. After leaving Zurich in 1882, Kautsky lived chiefly in London, Vienna and Stuttgart. He found the provincial narrowness of Stuttgart especially stifling – in stark contrast to cosmopolitan London. Only at the turn of the century did he succeed in persuading Dietz, his publisher, who had his publishing house in Stuttgart, together with the party executive committee, to let him go to Berlin, the center of the German and international working class movement. Here he lived and worked until 1924.

The "Pope" of Marxism

By the end of the 1880s, Karl Kautsky, through his journalistic and theoretical activities, had acquired an acknowledged standing in social democracy as a theorist of Marxism. The basic part of the party program adopted at the 1891 Erfurt party congress issued from his pen. All this, together with the fact of general approval attests to the authority he had won in the German social democratic movement. After the death of Friedrich Engels in 1895, though Kautsky was often reviled, it was undisputed that he had become the leading theorist of Marxism in the German and international workers movement.

Collaborating closely with August Bebel, his influence also grew on the practical activity of German social democracy. At virtually every party congress he played a critical role in preparing and championing the most important decisions. This also was true for the congresses of the Second International. From the turn of the century he participated in the International Socialist Bureau, the executive of the Second International. Here too, his influence was enormous as representative of the most powerful social democratic movement.

At the turn of the century his residence in Berlin became the nerve center of German and international social democracy. He was accepted as the recognized authority on all questions of Marxism, which - in the view of the great majority of social democrats - he had substantiated impressively in many theoretical and political debates, especially in debates with Bernstein. Thanks to his position as chief editor of Neue Zeit, Kautsky was also the politician best informed on the affairs of international social democracy. Though Kautsky was defamed in his time as the "Pope of Marxism" by foes in and out of social democracy, the special standing thus accorded him nevertheless strikes a chord up to this day.

The trauma of August 4, 1914

Though Karl Kautsky was neither a member of the party executive nor the SPD Reichstag fraction, his counsel nevertheless came to be sought frequently by these bodies. So too on the eve of August 4, the start of the war, it seemed important to the leadership of the party and the party group in the Reichstag to draw him, as the leading theorist of the movement, into their declaration of consent to war credits for the government. Accordingly, he found himself in a dilemma. On the one hand, ever since 1907 he had established from the increasingly acute antagonisms of imperialist politics of the major capitalist countries that the wars which were then in prospect would contradict the interests of the working class, from which he resolutely deduced that they had to be condemned and resisted. Armed with this understanding, he had resolutely fought against national chauvinist tendencies within the ranks of social democracy, especially as propagated by Gustav Noske. On the other hand, he had championed the view in the prewar years that if the working class proved too weak to block the political course leading to war, it would likewise not be strong enough for successful resistance right after the war had broken out. In addition, those governments interested in war had been successful in using the slogan "defence of the fatherland" to mask their responsibility for its outbreak.

War euphoria was general, even among the workers. In addition, so it seems to this writer, the problem of national identity within the working class (understood positively here) had been undervalued by the left social democrats due to an overemphasis of the international aspect. Kautsky sought a "golden mean" for resolution of how and if the war credit could be accepted. His suggestion, while undoubtedly statesmanlike for the situation, was nevertheless illusory. It ran like this:

Acceptance yes, but only if the war goals of the government were announced and a binding commitment undertaken that these were exclusively defense of the homeland, with no annexations sought or undertaken. This recommendation was unceremoniously turned down by the majorities of the parliamentary group and the party executive. Kautsky then complied with the majority decision. In subsequent years the stance he had taken on August 4th became publicly known and got him embroiled in a series of disputes. During the earliest war years Kautsky distanced himself from the social-chauvinistic politics of the government socialists, asserting pacifistic beliefs and publicly supporting demands for a just peace without annexations. Regarding Germany, Kautsky followed with great apprehension the growing radicalization of the masses and their increasing indignation at the policy of civic truce. After a solution within the party to the rigid attitude of the leadership, which violated the party statutes, had proven impossible, this tendency led in due course to the founding of the USPD in 1917, in which Kautsky participated. This provided a safeguard against the developing desperate radicalization and drew together those who were protesting. In response, the SPD executive took Kautsky's defection to the USPD as an excuse to deprive their most influential critic in the German worker's movement of his most powerful weapon, the Neue Zeit. Without delay they dismissed him as chief editor.

In this connection, nevertheless, a differentiated analysis of the position of social democracy regarding August 4 is still needed, along with a considered judgment about the pacifist tendency in social democracy during World War I. No exoneration of the leadership of German and international social democracy for irresponsible and incorrect decisions, with abandonment of vital positions, should be allowed to become the last word. It is only valid to work up this chapter of the history of social democracy objectively, without trying to settle who was right and who wrong through ideological trench fighting.

The Revolution and Kautsky the statesman

The October revolution turned Kautsky firmly against any acceptance of the experiences and methods of the Bolsheviks into the German workers movement. He drew a frightening picture of the consequences of the revolution in Russia, using that depiction to dampen the revolutionary energy of the masses, directing it into peaceful channels. His fear that a radical revolution of political and economic relations in Germany would bring chaos led him to pose an alternative conception: a recovery of capitalist production from the aftereffects of the war, side by side with socialization of those areas of the economy that were already the most highly developed (entwickelsten).

It was undoubtedly his firm and shared conviction in the practicality of stepwise socialization of the privately owned means of production in and through parliamentary democracy that made it possible for him to assume the chairmanship of the Socialization Commission immediately after the German revolution of November 1918. His great authority as a theorist of social democracy undoubtedly contributed to the fact that sections of the workers movement placed their hopes on such a route to socialism. Yet, already by the spring of 1919, this vision was shown to be illusory. The USPD left the government, so Kautsky lost his place on the Socialization Commission as well as his position as outside advisor in the foreign office, which he had utilized chiefly to unearth, safeguard, publish and comment on existing documents that were available on the outbreak of the war.

Kautsky later sought to attribute the failure of his conception to inadequate time for the Socialization Commission to function effectively. But the facts spoke a different language. Serious steps toward socialization were neither begun nor were they even possible under the concrete historical conditions of those times. Kautsky was unable to avoid an experience similar to Plato's twenty-five centuries earlier (details in his Vorläufern des Neueren Sozialismus/Forerunners of Modern Socialism) his conception of social transformation broke down in the face of objective and subjective conditions. Nevertheless, Kautsky continued to develop models of socialization that were intended to influence what was actually happening.

Kautsky's hopes for a reconstitution of society leading toward social progress which had been bound up with the November revolution had thus come to nothing. And after 1919 Kautsky himself was in a complicated situation. He held neither party nor public office, nor was he was successful in founding a new paper despite many efforts. The leadership of the SPD kept its distance from him. For his own part, Kautsky turned decisively away from those forces in the SPD leadership represented by Noske, and condemned their policies of suppression. Again, in the USPD he felt increasingly uncomfortable with the left forces in the party, which were getting stronger and orienting themselves increasingly toward the Bolsheviks. Kautsky's anti-Sovietism drew him into a deepening isolation.

Only once more was he to feel connected to the pulse beat of revolutionary events. This was during the months at the turn of the year 1920/21, when he visited Georgia as guest of the Menshevik government. Nevertheless, he was deceived in his hope that social democracy might here carve out an alternative to the Bolshevik path, i.e., that the forces of a democratic socialism could be successful. Shortly after he departed Georgia, Stalin's terror was applied there too to erect a dictatorship of the Bolsheviks. Back in Germany, now almost seventy years old and with his health failing, he was no longer called upon.

Anti-Communist and candidate for the Nobel prize

In the ranks of German social democracy Kautsky was one of the first critics of the October revolution. Until the first world war he was undoubtedly the most significant Marxist theorist to the Russian workers and left intellectuals, far better known to them than Lenin. Hence, the Bolsheviks regarded their debate with Kautsky as the most important one on the "theoretical front" against counterrevolution. In his blind rage and furious hatred for the Bolsheviks he often abandoned the ground of theoretical criticism, even going so far as to justify and propagandize for counterrevolution.

The facts which have recently become known on the history of the Bolsheviks/CPSU and the Soviet Union compel a fresh evaluation of Kautsky's reflections. Still, it must be noted that Kautsky's critique of the October revolution, at a time when the progressive world was greeting this event in Russia as the opening of a new epoch in human history, was essentially destructive. Many of his most intimate friends would not and could not go along with his biased and strident anti-Sovietism and anti-communism. Was he more opinionated or farsighted than they?

In 1924, on the occasion of his 70th birthday, he received numerous tributes from representatives of the social democratic movement, whose ranks he had joined again. Friend and foe insisted on expressing their views of his work and his place in history. Still, he was no longer the theorist of social democracy. And it cannot be overlooked that to many social democrats Kautsky's personal conception of Marxism no longer seemed up to date. Consequently, in the mid-twenties he returned to Vienna, where he had begun his political life. Though hindered by a long illness he sought to complete his life's work there. Alongside his principal work of that period The Materialist Conception of History (1927), which represented the "quintessence," as it were, of his social-theoretical research, were chiefly his investigations of the relation between dictatorship and democracy (with a series of books and articles, beginning in the thirties, on actual problems of development, in particular pertinent problems in Soviet Russia and Germany). There was also his journalism on the relation between communists and social democrats and his peace research. Though he no longer stood at the peak of the movement, his works in the twenties did exert an influence on social democratic politics and thinking.

It was his public commitment to pacifism and his peace research, as evidenced by his two comprehensive works War and Democracy (1932) and Socialists and War (1937), that induced Kautsky's friends to begin a move for his candidacy for the 1938 Nobel Peace Prize It did not seem hopeless to them that at the very least he met the necessary requirements, and influential personalities around the world supported the move (though Albert Einstein in the USA, when asked for his support, firmly refused). All the same, the nomination brought no result. Though there are many speculations, there is no exact knowledge of the reasons. It was with deep joy and pride that Karl Kautsky experienced his nomination for the Nobel peace prize and the broad affirmative movement in its support.

Karl Kautsky's books were among those that the Nazis publicly threw on the pyre in 1933. They hated him not only because he was a Marxist social democrat, but also on account of the sharp criticism he had directed at fascism, especially its German form. In 1938, with the Anschluss ("accession") of Austria to Germany, the Hitler fascists had the chance to make Kautsky follow his books into the pyre. Flight, however, allowed him to avoid their grasp. By way of Prague Kautsky managed to reach Amsterdam, the final station of his exile, where he died on the 17th of October, one day after his 84th birthday. In 1944 his wife Luise was murdered at Auschwitz.

3. Karl Kautsky the Marxist

Marxist, centrist and renegade

It has been the custom among social and political scientists of the GDR (including the author of this booklet), primarily following Lenin, to divide the conceptions of the theoretical leader of the Second International into three stages: Marxist, centrist and renegade. The Marxist stage was said to have lasted approximately until 1910 (Kautsky himself understood his Marxism to have been lifelong from the 1880s). The centrist stage was held to have lasted approximately until the October revolution (Kautsky designated as centrism his concept of the Marxist center in social democracy). The stage of renegacy (so designated by Lenin in response to Kautsky's critique of the October revolution and the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks) lasted from 1917 on.

Though such a labeling of the periods of Kautsky's activity has since become untenable, the old usage will be helpful in this description of his work and influence.

Kautsky as a Marxist

Although, as noted earlier, Kautsky has been acknowledged overall in the official historiography of the Party as a Marxist, albeit with reservations, his role in the succession of Marxist thinkers has been cast into oblivion. This is quite unjust. His work as a Marxist during this period was neither slight nor unimportant. This short booklet, intended simply to promote discussion, can provide no more than an insight into his extensive achievements, an account of his most important contributions to the popularization, vindication and creative application of Marxism. It is a stimulus, so to speak, to further pursuit of his work.

First of all, there is his editorship of the Neue Zeit. Initially a monthly, then a weekly after the anti-socialist law went into effect, this journal served German and other social democrats as their forum for discussion of the theory and practice of socialism. It had a singular influence on the programmatic ideas generated by social democratic organizations in central and eastern Europe, and on the strategy and tactics of the German and international workers movement. While the Neue Zeit reached a printing of "only" 10,000-11,000 in its best years, its influence was nevertheless extraordinary. It was through this journal that the leaders of parties and trade unions, parliamentary deputies and theorists of the SPD, as well as the intellectuals of many countries interested in revolutionary change, were able to exert their influence (Neue Zeit was even read in Siberia by those under banishment and was regarded by them as their most significant intellectual and political bridge to Europe). These leaders and thinkers contributed to it and added authority through their own published papers, and were also able, in their own activity, to use Neue Zeit to influence the basic convictions and strategies of others. The status of the Neue Zeit as theoretical organ of social democracy is also indicated by the use made of it by the journalists and editors of party and trade unions papers. They had significant articles from it reprinted in the publications that they were responsible for. At the very least, they took important statements on the theory and practice of socialism as their own and publicized them.

Secondly, Karl Kautsky provided generations of German and international social democrats with access to an understanding of Marxist political economy and the Marxist conception of history, and familiarized new generations with the history of the movement. In this connection, his most important writings include: The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx, Plainly Presented and Explained (1887) – the introduction to Capital; The Class Struggles of 1789, On the Hundredth Anniversary of the Great Revolution (1889); Protection of Labor, Especially International Labor Protection Legislation and the Eight Hour Day (1890); The Erfurt Program, With Its Basic Sections Explained (1892); Parliamentarianism, Public Legislation and Social Democracy (1893). These writings, and others indicated below, reached mass editions which were enormous for those times and which were translated into more than fifteen languages. This is documentary proof of the influence that Kautsky exerted on how Marxism was understood in the Second International. That the influence of his specific version of Marxism was also accompanied by specific weaknesses, and which were not without effect, should not be denied. Nevertheless, to go into this more closely here would exceed the space limits of this booklet.

In the third place, there is Kautsky's controversy with Eduard Bernstein. Proceeding from new social phenomena associated with the rise of imperialism at the turn of the century, the latter had sought to provide a basis for a revision of essential concepts of Marxism. The attempt here was to induce social democracy to forsake the methods of revolutionary class struggle. Kautsky demonstrated that Marxist theory continued to be valid under the new social conditions as well. In his Bernstein and the Social Democratic Program, An Anti-Critique (1899) he utilized the controversy to expound on the fundamentals of Marxism. This led to his work The Social Revolution (1902), an initial analysis of imperialism with evidence for the sharpening of the class struggle and the necessity for social revolution as the solution. It was here that he first developed concepts on the task of transforming society after the political revolution of the proletariat, ideas which deserve more than historical interest.

Fourth, the editorial preparation and publication of the more important writings of Marx and Engels. The most noteworthy achievement here was the publication of Marx's Theories of Surplus Value (1904 to 1910). To be sure, Party historians of the CPSU and the SED perceived this

quite differently, even into the seventies. Faithful to the idea that a renegade should not be trusted on anything, the story was spread for decades that Kautsky had provided a false approach to the place and the classification of the Theories ... in the scheme of Marxist economics, that he had used arbitrary methods with the manuscript, that he had not been painstaking enough in making out Marx's handwriting, and so on. Kautsky's efforts were defamed from the start, and the historical fairness due him was denied. This picture was first set right in connection with publication of the Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels Collected Works (Marx, Engels Gesamtausgabe, or MEGA).

In the fifth place, there is his creative application of Marxist political economy to the analysis of trends in agricultural development during the period of capitalist ascendency. Like many works of his mentioned above, Kautsky's The Agrarian Question (1899) must be included among those that have been forgotten. Presented here are his reflections and insights on the limits of the natural environment to sustain human life by agriculture and his ideas on the relation between the size of farms and agricultural production. These writings too remain of value today. But we must keep in mind that Kautsky, basing himself on the developmental tendencies of capitalism, also concluded that social democracy did not need of any special agrarian program, and that he used his whole authority in the mid-nineties to disseminate that conviction within German social democracy. For that reason it took a long time for social democracy to develop a constructive agrarian policy.

In the sixth place is his creative application of the Marxist theory of class struggle and revolution to the conditions of monopoly capitalism. A noteworthy example of this was his analysis of the motive forces for the Russian revolution of 1905 and his determination of its prospects.

His scientific substantiation of the position of social democracy on patriotism, internationalism and war and peace in the age of imperialism was a further theoretical achievement. Kautsky advanced evidence of the dawn of the epoch of proletarian revolution in Europe and set forth the conditions necessary for a revolutionary situation. He summarized his insights and conclusions on these topics in 1909, in his The Road to Power. Some comments are in order:

With what was termed his "latest Marxist work" a hitherto unprecedented battle started between the Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party and its leading theorist. Barely had the first copies of The Road to Power been delivered when the Central Committee resorted to sleazy arguments in prohibiting any additional printing. Never before had Kautsky been treated in such patronizing fashion. It was plain to see that for the majority of the Central Committee that work was too revolutionary. This conflict between Kautsky and the leadership, kept from the party public and still not completely traceable due to the lack of documents, led to a foul compromise: The Road to Power appeared, but with changes demanded by the Central Committee. Kautsky's capitulation was obvious, although visible at the time only to those involved. He put the fundamental statements of his work into the preface, designating them merely personal views. Thus did Kautsky avoid an open debate with the party leadership.

On the one hand, his book breathed confidence in the approaching revolution. On the other, not only did Kautsky give way in this specific situation, but he also shrank from initiating an open controversy within the party over the means to be employed in the revolution itself. For that matter, Kautsky's controversy with the party leadership also marks a turning point in his position as the leading theorist of the party. That too was an outcome of the controversy. The outcome also reflected a new relationship of forces among the various tendencies within social democracy as represented in the party leadership. Although not all the considerations that led Kautsky to this foul compromise are covered in the documents, the fact that he drew back from a radicalization of the party sums it up.

In the seventh place, there were his exemplary historical works. The most important ones include: Thomas More and His Utopia (1888), Miners and the Peasant War, With Special Reference to Thuringia (1889); Forerunners of Modern Socialism (1895) and Foundations of Christianity; An Historical Investigation (1908).

In the eighth place were his pioneering achievements in developing Marxist ideas in ethics, sociology, demography and the national question. This is shown especially in his works The Intelligentsia and Social Democracy (1895), Bernstein and the Social Democratic Program; An Anti-Critique (1899), Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History (1906) and Reproduction and Development in Nature and Society (1910). Also deserving of our recognition is Kautsky's consistent struggle against racism and anti-Semitism. Not only was he the most consistent among the social democratic theorists of his time on these subjects, but he was also the one who sought to bring out the factual root causes of these phenomena in order that they be correctly understood. His work Jews and Race (1914) provides impressive documentation of this. Oddly enough, the accomplishments of Kautsky's referred to here were almost completely ignored [in the GDR] during the period of "Marxist-Leninist" social science.

Kautsky's contributions to the theory and practice of socialism have not been presented here in their full diversity, but have merely been outlined. They emphatically point toward the extensive and significant heritage of Kautsky the Marxist for today, and not merely for the historian, notwithstanding the purely verbal recognition that he has received and the irresponsible way that his contributions have been neglected and placed beyond the pale. The weaknesses in the reception of Marxism by way of Kautsky, which have been demonstrated by scientific research, and his theoretical and political weaknesses and errors do not at all justify this.

4. Karl Kautsky the Centrist

Veiled opportunism?

The year 1910 marked the moment of birth for the "Marxist center" in German social democracy. It was Karl Kautsky who coined the concept, using it to justify his position on the mass strike, which was debated that year within social democracy. After the first world war the concept of "Center" became the synonym for a trend in social democracy. In basic, essential questions of theory and practice of the workers movement this trend saw itself in the center, opposed to trends on its left and its right. It opposed both opportunism/revisionism (whose most prominent representative around the end of the 19th century was Eduard Bernstein) as well as the radical left then taking shape, whose most important spokesperson became Rosa Luxemburg. Proceeding from V.I. Lenin, centrism was regarded by "Marxist-Leninist social science" as from its very beginnings the most dangerous form of opportunism: opportunism camouflaged in Marxist colors.

For Lenin and the radical left such a judgement was obvious, inasmuch as they considered their politics as having been authorized by Marx himself. And Kautsky too maintained precisely the same regarding his own strategy and tactics of class struggle, which he had formulated and defended in the imperialist conditions after 1910. Unreconcilability between the two trends became emphatic. "Center" was considered a term of invective in the vocabulary of the radical left.

The official determination by the Party that has hitherto been operative on the content and historical role of the Center was undifferentiated, neglecting the historical role of the Center and accepting as absolute the viewpoints of individuals on Kautsky. This determination provided theoretical justification for a dogma that prevailed for decades according to which after 1909 only the revolutionary left, notably Lenin, followed in the Marxist tradition. In fact, before the first world war there was harmony on a whole range of basic questions of theory and tactics between Kautsky and representatives of various tendencies of German and international social democracy, a harmony that has either been demeaned or deliberately disregarded (e.g. the concurrence between Lenin and Kautsky). It even led for a time to utter defamation by Party historians laboring under Stalinist dogmas, with summary repudiation of August Bebel and other notable social democrats as centrists.

The strategy of attrition

We return to the mass strike debate of 1910. The spokesperson for the radical left in this debate was Rosa Luxemburg, who had cooperated closely with Kautsky before 1910, but who still maintained friendly relations with his family even afterwards. Citing experiences in Belgium and Russia, Rosa Luxemburg demanded of German social democracy that the tactics of class struggle already in use be extended to include the political mass strike. Karl Kautsky came out decisively against this, seeing the political mass strike in Germany as strictly a strategy for repression, in prelude to the proletarian revolution. And for precisely that reason, since he firmly believed that such conditions did not exist, he considered it irresponsible to provoke the ruling classes by calling for a political mass strike. By contrast, the strategy of attrition would correspond best to the objective conditions of the class struggle in Germany. This meant exploitation of all legal methods of class struggle to prepare the proletariat for the decisive battle.

Still, for the radical left, Kautsky's rejection of the political mass strike as an appropriate instrument of class struggle was just as intolerable as his advocacy and publicizing of the strategy of attrition were to the revisionist and reformist forces in social democracy. Through a politics of class harmony, these latter were attempting to replace class struggle by political integration into the ruling system.

Karl Kautsky found himself in the middle. The great weakness in his strategy of attrition was its understanding of the political mass strike in absolute terms, as exclusively a means of suppression. This led him to reduce the struggle of the working class under conditions of monopoly capitalism to one of passive reaction, to the application of strictly legal methods of class struggle so long as the adversary did not forsake the foundation of legality. Be that as it may, Kautsky's appraisal of the concrete historical situation in Germany and, based on that, his rejection of the mass strike met with Lenin's acquiescence.*

Imperialism – progress or reaction?

In the mass strike debate of 1910 and subsequent arguments over how to conduct the class struggle there were different interpretations of imperialism which got batted around in the German and international social democratic movement. A few remarks are in order on this problem:

-----------------

* In 1910 ("Historical Meaning of Inner-Party Struggle in Russia") Lenin was evenhanded between Kautsky's "theory of attrition" and Rosa Luxemburg's "strategy of overthrow," seeing their dispute as one over timing and differing estimates of the situation in Germany. (Collected Works, English edition, 16: 374-392, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986) – Translator's note.

Representatives of the radical left regarded imperialism – whose most striking manifestations were colonial expansion, militarism, an arms race, war danger, dismantling of basic bourgeois-democratic rights and intensified exploitation – as an integral and necessary outcome of the development of the capitalist mode of production. From that they derived two essential consequences: The first was that the struggle against imperialism was at the same time a struggle against the capitalist system. Imperialism could only be abolished together with capitalism. The second was that the previous methods of class struggle no longer sufficed in the age of imperialism. Social democracy would have to conduct itself actively and energetically in the confrontation with capital, accomplishing its goals with the assistance of the political mass strike. This pertained to the struggle for voting rights reform in Prussia, for disarmament and the prevention of a world war. According to this understanding of imperialism it was clear that an end to the outward manifestations of imperialism could only be accomplished by getting rid of capitalism.

The opportunists and revisionists too saw imperialism as a necessary stage in the development of the bourgeois mode of production. In contrast to the radical left, however, they considered this stage of capitalism as a higher development, in the sense of "social development," so that fighting it would conflict with objective working class interests. Hence they went so far as to argue for open social democratic support of militarism, colonialism and nationalism within social democracy.

Kautsky set himself resolutely against such a misconstruction of historical progress. To be sure, he did see imperialism as rooted in capitalism, but as representing only one possible way in which the capitalist mode of production could develop, being determined by extra-economic power, internally and externally, especially on the part of bank and commercial capital. That was the basis for his conviction that colonialism, the arms race, militarism and ultimately a world war were objectively against the interests of broad sections of the bourgeoisie, in the final analysis threatening the very existence of all society. Hence the working class would have to resist imperialism and its dangerous consequences under conditions of the bourgeois mode of production, utilizing to that end the contradictory interests to be found among the ruling classes. (In passing it may be noted that Kautsky hesitated on this for a time in view of the embrace of the imperialist idea by virtually all classes and strata.) It seemed to him that the key to such an alliance, extending across classes to oppose the arms race and the growing war danger, lay directly in the application of strictly legal methods to the class struggle. Nevertheless, under the concrete-historical conditions of Europe before the first world war, "reason" alone was not enough. Kautsky's idea that political mass action could be relinquished turned out to be illusory, as did his belief that the bourgeoisie would shrink back from war, if only for the prospect of it leading not only to destruction of capital, but also to revolution. So there remained to the working class – continuing the inner logic of Kautsky's ideas – the peculiar consolation that with the forces of peace and reason against the war danger having failed, at the very least the end of the war brought social revolution, i.e., the war hastened the the epoch of proletarian revolution.

For the credits, against the war

Following the outbreak of the first world war, Kautsky's centrist tactics continued in logical fashion. On the eve of August 4, in contradiction to his earlier views, Kautsky now allowed himself to accept war credits, as mentioned above. In so doing he proceeded from a duty to defend the fatherland and linked this with a conception according to which the International was only an instrument for peace, and was useless in war. Among other things, this included for Kautsky the right and duty of social democracy in each country to take part in defending its homeland in case of attack. International agreements within the social democratic movement could accordingly be set aside.

Quite different was the attitude of V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Undoubtedly Kautsky did provide a vindication for the social chauvinistic line of the SPD leadership as the war was getting under way. Still, to set a value on Karl Kautsky's influence during the war in this connection cannot be countenanced. A differentiated analysis, yet to be carried out, of the roots and results of centrism during the first world war would have to recognize more forcefully than has already been done that even during the earliest years of the war Kautsky repudiated the social-chauvinistic positions of those socialists oriented toward the regime. Characterizing him as a social pacifist does not help appreciably. The "social pacifism" represented by Kautsky contributed not unimportantly to the resistance growing among ever broadening sectors of the workers movement against the social chauvinist policies of the SPD party executive and the executive of the party's group in the Reichstag, policies which had not been legitimated by any majority decision. As the conflict wore on, "social pacifism" served as a suitable form for resistance to the war until better possibilities emerged.

In addition, it must be kept in mind that the entire social democratic press was sworn in and held under discipline by the leadership of the Social Democratic Party, not only according to its own social chauvinist politics, but helped by the military edicts that were then in force. Neue Zeit was among the few socialist newspapers and journals which, with all necessary caution under the conditions of censorship, fought publicly against the tutelage of the social democratic leadership.

A further consequence of his "centrist position" was that he became one of the prime movers and spokesmen of the social democratic working group that formed in 1916. The main task, in his view, was to give voice to the mass protest against the official party policies within the social democratic organizations. Accordingly, he was unable to avoid a split in the party. The party leadership was unwilling to tolerate opposition. Taking advantage of the wartime conditions to apply a dictatorial discipline, they drove the social democratic working group out of the party. The founding of the USPD in April 1917 was one consequence of this. What Kautsky saw in the USPD at this time was chiefly the possibility of organizing the opposition to the war within the workers movement. He also hoped that this new party would be able to counteract the further radicalization of those opposing the war among the working class.

The goals and principles advocated by Kautsky for social democracy at this time were reflected in a peace manifesto that he had drafted with Eduard Bernstein on behalf of the opposition. This included peace without victors or vanquished, peace in the spirit of understanding, with no violation of the defeated. Kautsky's position on war was a thoroughly unequivocal and courageous affirmation against greater German chauvinism and its adherents within the German workers movement. By analogy with the stance of German social democracy against the peace imposed by Bismarck on France after the war of 1870/71, Kautsky discerned in the policy positions of the USPD the decisive precondition for a revival of the Second International after the ending of the world conflagration. Without question, many of Kautsky's ideas were illusory, but someone as important as the American president was giving them nourishment. Unfortunately, the Versailles peace treaty and its consequences confirmed Kautsky's warning against a peace imposed by the powerful, a violation of the defeated.

Ultra-imperialism - an alternative?

Kautsky's position on the war was determined among other things by two factors: On the one hand he was convinced that the war was not purely imperialistic. On the other he believed there could be a peaceful alternative to imperialism. This he designated by the term ultra-imperialism. From a further analysis of the pre-world war capitalist mode of production, Kautsky had concluded that capitalism could develop in such fashion that cartel politics would enter foreign policy so that, through a "holy alliance of the imperialists," it would be possible to secure peace in a world still ruled by capitalism.

Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism held that capitalism had the ability and willingness to function peaceably. The concrete historical conditions under which he developed this thesis gave the lie to it, showing that it was fallacious by virtue of capitalism's attempt at the time to resolve its sharpening internal and external contradictions through the first world war. Nevertheless the theory was based on the striking vision that continual war extending over the world offered the prospect that all humanity could be destroyed, a prospect whose recognition was able to force capitalism to take on a capability for peace. A vision which under present day conditions could become a reality.

It was justifiable for V.I. Lenin to have ripped apart Kautsky's vision under the conditions of the first world war, at a time when the vision had barely been set down and war had already broken out. At the same time, his assault led to the unfortunate consequence that socialist foreign policy dismissed on principle any peace seeking activity on the part of capitalism. In the foreign policy conceptions of the Soviet Union and its treaty partners the will to disarmament was loudly proclaimed but internally undermined. Mikhail Gorbachev was the first to break through this sound barrier when he initiated his new foreign policy.

It is indeed clear however, and not only from this aspect of the matter, that even though a comprehensive scientific analysis of the ways that the Second International conceived of imperialism is urgently needed, such a study has not even begun. In its favor, in my opinion, is the fact that the differing understandings then reached of monopoly capitalism are decisive for understanding the development of the German and international social-democratic movement after the first world war and the October Revolution, and ultimately the seemingly final split that has taken place since then. These differences were decisive for the ideological alignment of the individual streams of social democracy and the establishment and justification of their political aims and methods. It was after the first two years of war that V.I. Lenin summed up his understanding of imperialism. Taking account of the war, its course and the state of knowledge then current of the concentration and centralization of production and capital, Lenin came to a determination of the essence of imperialism and its characteristic features, reflecting more or less the characteristics of the stage of development that the capitalist mode of production had then reached. Nevertheless, even though Lenin did allude in later years to the strengthened potential of capitalism, and this in the age of imperialism, the picture of a decaying, parasitic and dying capitalism that he had pointed to in 1916 was elevated among his successors to a dogma. And that increasingly stood in the way of a good look at the capitalist countries, blocked any capability for a realistic policy toward them, and became one of the causes of the breakdown of so-called existing socialism. On the other hand the dogma was a cornerstone of the system for ideological validation of the administrative command version of socialism, crucial for our faith and courage that we would prevail over capitalism, thanks to our "more progressive system."

We now return to the first world war. In contrast to Kautsky at the time, Lenin became convinced that the war was purely imperialist, and he portrayed imperialism as the last and highest stage of capitalism. The line of reasoning that followed from this judgment of the perspective of capitalism, ran like this: revolutionary class struggle against the war, transformation of that war into a civil war, proletarian revolution and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. These were concepts to which the radical left in Germany – active in the SPD from 1916 under the name "Spartacus Group," later in the USPD – attached itself and propagated.

A changed Kautsky?

The belief that a world war would trigger a revolution, for which social democracy needed to be prepared, was one that Kautsky too had advocated beforehand. The exception was that he did not entertain any doubt in the prewar years that he would oppose political mass actions after war did come. And he was confident in the perspective he held. In the November days of 1918 he did indeed regard the events as a victory and as a seizure of power by the German proletariat. Still, regarding the question of how the situation could lead to revolution, and how to deal with the fruits of such a victory, Kautsky managed in the course of the war to reach insights and interpretations that were different. In this he was influenced especially by his own conception of imperialism.

The wars that came after the mid-nineteenth century had been relatively brief and had been decided in critical battles. They had barely disturbed the living conditions of the civilian population and had failed to upset the processes of social reproduction. By contrast, the war that began in 1914 led to deep seated deformations and damage to the entire economy, and afflicted ever more unbearably almost the whole population of the states waging war. This was especially true of Germany during the first world war, though the military action was almost entirely beyond the borders of the German empire. From an analysis of these phenomena while the war was still in progress, Kautsky was able to understand that after its end a transition from a war economy to a peace economy would be imperative. From that time forward he considered that getting ready for such a transition was a decisive task for social democracy. Of course, Kautsky did not thereby rule out an economic transition of this kind within the framework of a social revolution following upon a successful political revolution. Rather, he was offering the justification that an exhausted national economy would present the revolution with the danger of ruin.

It was in this connection that Kautsky advocated a radical revolution of society after termination of the war. And it was this stand of his that demarcated him clearly from the governing socialists, and certainly from the "Spartacists." With these considerations in mind after the October Revolution in Russia, he explicitly denied that the methods of the Bolsheviks should be taken up by German social democracy, in particular the methods of war communism. This standpoint also determined his position on the possibilities of the November revolution in Germany. He envisioned in socialization a means for linking the economic transition from war to peace with a stepwise transition to a society of social justice. That this conception of his came to naught was due to the inadequacy of the conditions for its realization. The drawbacks included the split in the workers movement. However insubstantial this conception may have been at the time, there are immediate reasons why it deserves our unbiased consideration today. Similarly, a comprehensive working up is needed of the ways in which Kautsky's conceptions changed during the first world war, whether they were expedient, burdened with error, or merely insipid.

Putting brakes on the radicals, motivating the faint hearted

In principle, Kautsky welcomed and supported all social democratic perspectives associated with the November revolution. The most important for him were the realization of basic democratic rights and the overall stabilization of democracy, the securing of the economic and social achievements gained in the revolution through struggle, and the socialization of production. He believed that what he saw in Russia was moving in the opposite direction. Hence, it was in perfect accord with his understanding of centrism that he saw the chances for revolution in Germany as compromised not only by the policies of the ruling classes, but also by the schemes and methods of the Spartacists on the one hand and the rightwing leadership of the SPD on the other.

Accordingly, after the November revolution Kautsky sought to establish the objectives of the center, i.e. the USPD – though this is not exactly the same – as follows: on the one hand to put brakes on the radicals, neutralizing their efforts to drive the revolution further, so as to avoid an outbreak of civil war (cf. Russia) and the victory of reaction. On the other hand he tried to encourage those of faint heart, i.e. under the influence of the opportunists, according to whom the revolution had already gone much too far, in order to safeguard what had already been attained. At the outset he concentrated his efforts on polemics with the representatives of the radical left. Later on, however, under the impact of the events of January 1919, in which Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxenburg were murdered, he left no public doubt of his emphatic condemnation of Ebert, Noske and Scheidemann, the right wing social democrats. This was combined with unsparing criticism of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), which had been formed in January 1919 by the Spartacists. Kautsky symmetrically characterized the political goals and methods of the leaderships of the SPD and KPD as attempts to set up dictatorships of the right and the left respectively.

In opposition to those goals and methods, Kautsky set the defence of democracy and gradual socialization as the most pressing tasks before the workers movement.

The end of the USPD

An ideological trend in the workers movement referring back to Marx, but initiated and substantially formed by Kautsky, centrism found an organizational and political home in the USPD, the Independent Socialist Party of Germany. That the USPD arose and was very prominent for a time shows at the very least that there was some objective need for such a party. The fact that after 1917/18 the USPD was increasingly recognized as a force of the center, and sought to be effective in that way, made it suspect among those unequivocally taking sides: contemporaries in those days, historians in later times. This could explain, but not condone, the fact that a factual working up and evaluation of the history of the USPD and its leaders has still not been forthcoming.

This is the case too for an objective analysis, still to be done, of the polemics between Karl Kautsky and the Bolsheviks after 1917, which would take better account of the fact that each of the parties to the controversy understood its own interpretation as alone being the one valid application of Marxism to the postwar revolutionary situation. The historically rich period of 1917 to 1920 is marked not only by the issues debated in Kautsky's controversy with Lenin, but also by the eventful history of the USPD.

In a way, the year 1919 produced both the high point of the USPD as a force of the center and at the same time initiated the process of its dissolution. The sharpening of the class struggle and the energy radiating over Europe from Soviet Russia led to a further polarization between the two wings of the German workers movement. The USPD itself became a mirror and a victim of these processes. At the end of 1920 the left wing of the USPD joined with the KPD to form the United Communist Party. In September 1922 the right wing of the USPD merged with the SPD. As an ideological trend the Marxist center lost its most important and influential political foothold with the final disintegration of the USPD, with the trend itself dissolving into diffuse activity. For the time being a centrist force in the German workers movement had no further possibilities for development.

Kautsky became a member of the SPD once again. At the same time, he found himself just as alienated from the rightwing of the SPD as from the communists. He remained a protagonist of centrism, continuing to regard himself as a champion of the Marxist theory and method.

A differentiated judgement is needed

During the first world war Lenin pronounced that Kautsky had been a Marxist until 1909, after which he sank into the swamp of opportunism. He thus made a judgement which took on the force of a dogma during the subsequent period of "Marxist-Leninist" historiography and he provided justification for an undifferentiated, overall dismissal of Karl Kautsky's activity as a centrist. According to this version of the matter, Kautsky is to be excluded from the circle of Marxist thinkers. Novel theoretical insights acquired over the period of historical development since that time, and the conclusions drawn therefrom by social democrats regarding their practical activity, are held to be no longer valid for the enrichment of Marxism, but have become evaluated, often unjustly, as a theoretical justification for opportunistic politics. Errors and shortcomings in Kautsky's social-theoretical conceptions during this period became absolutized and were portrayed as a synonym for the spiritual degeneration of the scholar Kautsky.

This "ideological heritage," so-called, had disastrous consequences, even if consideration is limited to the concept and understanding of democracy that developed among communist parties after the October Revolution. And the fact that "Marxist-Leninist" social science ignored Kautsky's other significant achievements in the theoretical realm has blocked their influence too. Of particular note alongside his conception of democratization, were Kautsky's continuing investigations of changes in social structure in the developed capitalist countries, his remarkable analysis of the relation between finance capital and crises, of government debt, of the fiscal policy of the ruling classes; his outstanding contribution to the struggle against colonialism, his continuing studies of nations and the national question and last but not least his extraordinary contribution to the analysis of imperialism.

5. The Renegade Kautsky

Lenin's damning judgement

Lenin's characterization of Kautsky as a renegade has been a powerful barrier against any objective assessment by Marxist-Leninist social scientists of the development of Kautsky's socio-theoretical views during and after the first world war.

The revolutions that came to Russia in October [of 1917]and Germany in November [of 1918] at last opened the period for which the Marxist and revolutionary wing of the movement had hoped and waited, and toward which, so far as possible, they had struggled. The question of the day was now entirely concrete and practical. Would the proletariat be able to carry out a social revolution after the political one, and how and in what way was a socialist mode of production to be attained? Lenin, on the one hand, identified the role of the Bolsheviks as the leading force of the revolution with its claimed proletarian character, and he called for, justified and carried through the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship in order to secure the revolution and its results. Kautsky, by contrast, emphatically denied the proletarian character of the revolution, denounced the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks as an oppressive regime doomed to failure, which had even turned against parts of the working class and their political parties. Rejecting Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he held out his own idea of the unity of democracy and socialism. Understandably, these and other reproaches from the still most influential theorist of the international workers movement vis-à-vis the Bolsheviks had to provoke the sharpest reaction from Lenin. Just about everything was at stake: nothing less than Soviet power under conditions of intervention and civil war, solidarity of the working class in western Europe, and convincing proof for those in doubt that the methods of the Bolsheviks were a logical, consistent and thoroughgoing application of Marxism. Hence, for Lenin and the Bolsheviks, the disputes with Kautsky, exposing his attacks on the October revolution and the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks as a flagrant abandonment of Marxism, as renegnacy, were the most important tasks in the theoretical struggle against counterrevolution.

The condemnation of Kautsky by the purportedly "successful" leader of the October revolution and the Soviet state had extraordinary impact, and not only among communists and followers of Lenin in the ranks of the international workers movement. Its influence was powerful and sustained, and made its way across national frontiers. While the image of Renegade Kautsky served not only to justify the dictatorships set up by communist parties in eastern Europe, but also was seemingly confirmed by the "successes" of so-called real socialism –not to mention the fact that the work of Kautsky became taboo – interest among west European social democrats in Kautsky's activities after 1914/1917 was, oddly enough, not exactly widespread.

It is thus plain that the time has come not only to make the work of the Renegade generally available, but also that an objective and differentiated analysis and evaluation of the work and influence of Karl Kautsky after the first world war are still to be carried out.

An incorrigible Marxist?

After the first world war Karl Kautsky continued to see himself as a Marxist. Proceeding from the changing political, economic, and social transformations of bourgeois society after the turn of the century, particularly after the first world war and the revolutions in Russia and Germany, he attempted, utilizing Marxist theory and method, to develop scientifically grounded strategies for social democratic politics. These efforts were flawed by illusions, faulty evaluations and mistakes. Tied in with all this was not only the long term effect of an abridgement of Marxism, but also his abandonment of individual views of Marx and Engels and his attempts to present them in a revised version. Did the much maligned Kautsky overcome dogmas of Marxism due for attention, or did he sink down into opportunism, as still appeared to the writer of these lines only a few years ago?

In any case, his investigations were associated with noteworthy insights into social development, its perspectives, and the changing conditions for emancipation of the working class. This pertains especially to his insights into the means and methods of social democratic strategy and tactics, as he defined and developed them in pondering the interrelationships of democratic socialism and socialization. Elements of this thinking have entered into the programs and activities of west European social democracy. A critical distance is necessary, but it's my opinion that, in the aftermath of the collapse of so-called existing socialism, ideas such as these are indispensable as a groundwork for developing a concept of democratic socialism, though they have so far been neglected.

"So will I die, as I have lived, an incorrigible Marxist." So ran a public declaration by Kautsky in 1923. He held to that conviction until the end of his life. Whether and to what degree that self image is supported by the facts, an overall dismissal of Kautsky as a renegade is no answer. All the same, in my opinion, it turns out more clearly than in Kautsky's own day that his reflections on the unity of socialism and democracy constituted an alternative to Bolshevism. So far as that goes, they also provide documentary proof that the socialist idea itself is plainly not destroyed with the breakdown of the Soviet model.

Tragic-realistic prognoses

In this connection, there is the task of showing the constructive contribution that Kautsky made in his controversy with the Bolsheviks and their followers. It must again be emphasized here that elements of Kautsky's critique that appeared indefensible to the author of this discussion booklet just a few years ago have turned out in the meantime to be historically justified. This extends from his demonstration that in the final analysis objective and subjective conditions were inadequate for a successful proletarian revolution in Russia to his public recognition that any arbitrary rule, even in the name of Marxism and the working class, carries with it the germ of corruption of those in power. By the mid-twenties the example of the downfall of Trotsky had provided Kautsky with evidence that the terror apparatus of any dictatorship, once called into being, finally acquires independent power, transforming its founders and the champions of the ruling party into its servants and creatures. In addition, a prognosis ventured by Kautsky in 1931 on the Soviet Union was tragic but realistic. After fourteen years of dictatorship he saw only two possibilities for the restoration of freedom, either a popular uprising or the emergence of an opposition among the communists which would be strong enough to put through a democratization. Kautsky ultimately preferred the latter because it would not involve bloodshed. For all that, he confessed that he could not believe that the Bolsheviks, given their situation, would either tolerate deviation within their own camp or share state power with other sectors, since that would be equivalent to suicide.

According to our present day understanding, the common features of Bolshevism and fascism that Kautsky established in the twenties also deserve critical attention. His view, among other things, that both systems, despite their differing primary objectives and social representatives, end in oppression and enslavement of the working masses, has likewise been tragically substantiated by the Stalinist terror, as was his prognosis that Hitler and Stalin would eventually reach a common understanding. This was rooted in Lenin's concept of democracy, which after the turn of the century called for a dictatorship of the Bolsheviks within the party and after the October Revolution for a dictatorship of the Bolsheviks in the name of the proletariat, turning it not only against the old exploiters and oppressors, but also against those sections of the working class represented by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.

At every opportunity Kautsky firmly repudiated the claim of Stalin and his apologists inside and outside the Soviet Union that the Bolshevik regime of terror and repression was a consistent implementation of the ideas of Marx and Engels. He branded the dictatorship as a betrayal of the ideas of the founders of scientific socialism.

The end of a legend?

It becomes clear that the thesis of a Renegade Kautsky can no longer be honorably upheld. To be sure, he was a renegade in the sense that in the course of his development he relinquished convictions to which he had once adhered. In his controversy with Kautsky Lenin identified a whole series of examples, which could well have been extended. But this says nothing as to whether any given change of opinion was unprincipled or came about due to some fresh insight into social development. The rise of opposing interpretations of imperialism by Kautsky and Lenin was enough to lead to fundamental differences of opinion over questions of strategy and tactics. These differences are less to be explained by renegacy than by contrary theoretical discernments and differing conditions for action by the workers movement in individual countries. Here, social scientific research is challenged to elucidate the factual changes in Kautsky's convictions and the reasons for these changes in a more differentiated and painstaking way than in the past.

But also to be considered in this connection is the fact that the reproach of regenacy that Lenin had used was converted after his death into a legend by the Marxist-Leninist theory of history. This legend of Renegade Kautsky has served inter alia to deny and negate the collective, contradictory, disagreement-laden, multilevel process of the further development of Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels and the absolutizing of Leninism as the only possible Marxism of the twentieth century. Above all, however, the legend of Renegade Kautsky has had a not insignificant place value in the system of substantiation, justification and vindication of administrative-bureaucratic socialism as the highest form of democracy, along with the defamation of its critics in the socialist movement as anti-Marxist champions of bourgeois democracy standing in the tradition of Kautsky.

List of the Most Important Writings by Karl Kautsky

Translator's note: This list, provided in the original German version of this work, is here accompanied by translations of most entries into English (in parentheses). Where a published English translation of an entry already exists, information about it follows [in brackets]. The source for the information in brackets is p. 371 in Massimo Salvadori's Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution 1880 ‑ 1938. London and New York: Verso, 1979, reprinted 1990. Where the English title in brackets is an accurate rendition of the German, a title in parentheses is omitted. If two translations of a title are given, the one in parentheses is the more accurate. Useful discussions of these works are to be found in Gary P. Steenson's Karl Kautsky, 1854 – 1938. Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1978.

Der Einfluß der Volksmehrung auf den Fortschritt der Gesellschaft untersucht. (An Examination of The Influence of Population Increase on Social Progress.) Wein, 1880.

Irland. Kulturhistorische Skizze. (Ireland. A Cultural-Historical Sketch.) Leipzig, 1880.

Karl Marx' ökonomische Lehren. Gemeinverständlich dargestellt und erläutert. (The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx. Plainly Presented and Explained.) Stuttgart, 1887. [The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx. London, 1925.]

Thomas More und seine Utopie. Stuttgart 1888. [Thomas More and His Utopia. London, 1927.]

Die Klassengegensätze von 1789. Zum hundertjährigen Gedenktag der großen Revolution. (The Class Struggles of 1789. On the Hundredth Anniversary of the Great Revolution.) Stuttgart, 1889.

Der Arbeiterschutz, besonders die internationale Arbeiterschutzgesetzgebung und der Achtstundentag. (Protection of Labor, Especially International Labor Protection Legislation and the Eight Hour Day.) Nürnberg, 1890.

Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsätzlichen Teil erläutert. (The Erfurt Program, With Its Basic Sections Explained.) Stuttgart, 1892.

Grundsätze und Forderungen der Sozialdemokratie. Erläuterungen zum Erfurter Programm von Karl Kautsky und Bruno Schönlank. (Principles and Demands of Social Democracy. Explanations of the Erfurt Program by Karl Kautsky and Bruno Schönlank.) Berlin, 1892. [The Class Struggle. Being the 'commentary' on the Erfurt Programme. Chicago, 1910. Reissued by W.W. Norton, Inc., New York, 1971.]

Der Parlamentarismus, die Volkgesetzgebung und die Sozialdemokratie. (Parliamentarianism, Public Legislation and Social Democracy.) Stuttgart, 1893.

Die Vorläufer des Neuren Sozialismus. (Forerunners of Modern Socialism.) Stuttgart, 1895.

Friedrich Engels. Sein Leben, sein Wirken, seine Schriften. (Friedrich Engels. His Life, His Work, His Writings.) Berlin, 1895.

Konsumvereine und Arbeiterbewegung. (Consumer Cooperatives and the Workers Movement.) Wein, 1897.

Die Agrarfrage. Eine Übersicht über die Tendenzen der modernen Landwirtschaft und die Agrarpolitik der Sozialdemokratie. (The Agrarian Question. A Survey of the Trends in Modern Agriculture and the Agrarian Policy of Social Democracy.) Stuttgart, 1899.

Bernstein und das sozialdemokratische Program. Eine Anti-Kritik. (Bernstein and the Social Democratic Program. An Anti-Critique.) Stuttgart, 1899.

Handelspolitik und Sozialdemokratie. Populäre Darstellung der handelspolitischen Streitfragen. (Trade Policy and Social Democracy. A Popular Description of Controversial Questions of Trade Policy.) Berlin, 1902.

Die Soziale Revolution. Berlin, 1902. [The Social Revolution and On the Morrow of the Social Revolution. London, 1909.]

Die Sozialdemokratie und die katholische Kirche. (Social Democracy and the Catholic Church.) Berlin, 1903.

Die Vernichtung der Sozialdemokratie durch den Gelehrten des Zentralverbandes deutscher Industrieller. Eine Antwort. (The Annihilation of Social Democracy by the Sages of the Central Association of German Industrialists. A Reply.) Berlin, 1903.

Ethik und materialistische Geschichtsauffassung. Ein Versuch. (Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History. An Attempt.) Stuttgart, 1906.

Patriotismus und Sozialdemokratie. (Patriotism and Social Democracy.) Leipzig, 1907.

Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik. (Socialism and Colonial Politics.) Berlin, 1907.

Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung. (The Origin of Christianity. An Historical Investigation.) Stuttgart, 1908. [Foundations of Christianity. London, 1925. Reissued by Monthly Review Press, New York, 1972.]

Die historische Leistung von Karl Marx. Zum 25. Todestag des Meisters. (The Historic Achievement of Karl Marx. On the 25th Anniversary of the Death of the Master.) Berlin, 1908.

Nationalität und Internationalität. (Nationality and Internationality.) Berlin, 1908.

Der Weg zur Macht. Politische Betrachtungen über das Hineinwachsen in die Revolution. (The Route to Power. Political Considerations on Growing Into Power During the Revolution.) Berlin, 1909. [The Road to Power. Chicago, 1909.]

Vermehrung und Entwicklung in Natur und Gesellschaft. (Increase and Development in Nature and Society.) Stuttgart, 1910.

Taktische Strömungen in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie. (Tactical Currents in German Social Democracy.) Berlin, 1911.

Die Wandlungen in der Goldproduktion und der wechselnde Charakter der Teuerung. (Changes in Gold Production and the Changing Character of Price Increases.) Stuttgart, 1913.

Der politische Massenstreik. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Massenstreikdiscussion innerhalb der deutschen Sozialdemokratie. (The Political Mass Strike. A Contribution to the History of the Mass Strike Discussion Within German Social Democracy.) Berlin, 1914.

Rasse und Judentum. (Race and Judaism.) Stuttgart, 1914. [Are the Jews a Race? London, 1926.]

Nationalstaat, imperialistischer Staat, und Staatenbund. (Nation State, Imperialist State, and Confederation of States.) Nürnberg, 1915.

Die Internationalität und der Krieg. (Internationality and the War.) Berlin, 1915.

Die Vereinigten Staaten von Mitteleuropa. (The United States of Central Europe.) Stuttgart, 1916.

Überzeugung und Partei. (Persuasion and Party.) Leipzig, 1916.

Serbien und Belgien in der Geschichte. Historische Studien zur Frage der Nationalitäten und der Kriegsziele. (Serbia and Belgium in History. Historical Studies on the Question of Nationalities and the Goals of War.) Stuttgart, 1917.

Elsass-Lothringen. Eine historische Studie. (Alsasce-Lorraine. An Historical Study.) Stuttgart, 1917.

Die Befreiung der Nationen. (The Liberation of Nations.) Stuttgart, 1917.

Der Kriegsmarxismus. Eine theoretische Grundlegung der Politik des 4. August. (War Marxism. Laying a Theoretical Foundation for the Politics of the 4th of August.) Wien, 1918.

Sozialdemokratische Bemerkungen zur Übergangswirtschaft. (Social Democratic Observations on an Economic Transition /Toward Socialism/.) Leipzig, 1918.

Demokratie oder Diktatur. (Democracy or Dictatorship.) Berlin, 1918.

Die Dictatur des Proletariats. Wien, 1918. [The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Manchester, 1918. Reissued by Ann Arbor Paperbacks, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1964.]

Hapsburgs Glück und Ende. (The Hapsburgs: Their Success and their Ending.) Berlin, 1918.

Die Wurzeln der Politik Wilsons. (The Roots of Wilson's Politics.) Berlin, 1919.

Terrorismus und Kommunismus. Ein Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Revolution. (Terrorism and Communism. A Contribution Toward A Natural History of the Revolution.) Berlin, 1919. [Terrorism and Communism. London, 1920.]

Wie der Weltkrieg entstand. Dargestellt nach dem Aktenmaterial des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes. (How the World War Began. Portrayed from Documentary Materials of the German Foreign Office.) Berlin, 1919.

Die deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch. Zusammengestellt von Karl Kautsky. (German Documents on the Outbreak of the War. Assembled by Karl Kautsky.) Berlin, 1919.

Die Internationale. (The International.) Wien, 1920.

Delbrück und Wilhelm II. Ein Nachwort zu meinem Kriegsbuch. (Delbrück and Wilhelm II. An Epilogue to My War Book.) Berlin, 1920. This work contains Kautsky's rejoinder to criticism from Hans Delbrück, a conservative historian, regarding Kaiser Wilhelm's war guilt.

Von der Demokratie zur Staatssklaverei. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Trotzki. (From Democracy to State Slavery. A Discussion With Trotsky.) Berlin, 1921.

Georgien. Eine sozialdemokratische Bauernrepublic. Eindrücke und Betrachtungen. (Georgia. A Social Democratic Peasant Republic. Impressions and Reflections.) Wien, 1921. [Georgia, a Social Democratic Peasant Republic. London, 1921]

Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Leo Jogisches. Ihre Bedeutung für die deutsche Sozialdemokratie. Eine Skizze. (Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Leo Jogisches. Their Significance for German Social Democracy. A Sketch) Berlin, 1921.

Die proletarische Revolution und ihr Programm. (The Proletarian Revolution and Its Program.) Berlin, 1922.

Mein Verhältnis zur Unabhängigen Sozialdemokratischen Partei. Ein Rückblick. (My Relationship with the Independent Social Democratic Party. A Glance Backwards.) Berlin, 1922.

Die Marxsche Staatsauffassung im Spiegelbild eines Marxisten beleuchtet. (The Marxist Conception of the State Elucidated by a Marxist.) Jena, 1923.

Die Internationale und Sowjetrußland. (The International and Soviet Russia.) Berlin, 1925.

Die materialistische Geschichtauffassung. 2. Bde. (The Materialist Conception of History. 2 vols.) Berlin, 1927.

Wehrfrage und Sozialdemokratie. (The Question of Armaments and Social Democracy.) Berlin, 1928.

Der Bolschewismus in der Sackgasse. Berlin, 1930. [Bolshevism at a Deadlock. London, 1931.]

Krieg und Demokratie. Eine historische Untersuchung und Darstellung ihrer Wechselwirkungen in der Neuzeit. Erstes Buch. (War and Democracy. An Historical Examination and Description of Their Reciprocal Actions in Modern Times. Book One.) Berlin, 1932.

Kommunismus und Sozialdemokratie. (Communism and Democracy.) Berlin, 1932.

Grenzen der Gewalt. Aussichten und Wirkungen bewaffneter Erhebungen des Proletariats. (Limits of Violence: Prospects and Consequences of Armed Uprisings by the Proletariat.) Karlsbad, 1934.

Aus der Frühzeit des Marxismus. Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky. (From the Springtime of Marxism. Engels' Correspondence with Kautsky.) Prag, 1937.

Sozialisten und Krieg. Ein Beitrag zur Ideengeschichte des Sozialismus von den Hussiten bis zum Völkerbund. (Socialists and War. A Contribution to the History of Socialist Ideas from the Hussites to the League of Nations.) Prag, 1937.

Karl Kautskys Briefwechsel mit Victor Adler. In: Victor Adler, Briefwechsel mit August Bebel und Karl Kautsky. (Karl Kautsky's Correspondence with Victor Adler. In: Victor Adler, Correspondence with August Bebel and Karl Kautsky.) Wien, 1954.

Erinnerungen und Eröterungen. (Recollections and Discussions.) Den Haag, 1960.

STUDY QUESTIONS FROM MORT FRANK

Karl Kautsky ~V Renegade or Revolutionary?

1. What was the essential difference between the "first generation" of

Marxists (Marx and Engels) and the second generation?

2. Exactly what, in your opinion, makes a person a "renegade"? Does the

later Kautsky fit the definition?

3. Lenin argued that Kautsky had been a Marxist until about 1910, but a

renegade afterwards. Is that possible? What flaws might there have been in

Kautsky's Marxism before 1910? Can a thread of continuity be discerned in

Kautsky's Marxism before and after 1910?

4. Do you believe that it is possible for two individuals who profoundly

disagree on certain matters to both be Marxists? Why, or why not?

5. Kautsky was a writer and editor; he never led masses of people. Might

the lack of such experience have influenced his judgments?

6. A consensus among Marxists in the time when Kautsky, Luxemburg and

Lenin lived was that socialism was only to be achieved by a political mass

strike leading into a revolution. Was that consensus justifiable at the

time? Does their error in that regard make them "unscientific"?

7. Do you consider Hans-Jürgen Mende, the author of this paper, to be

scientific? How can an activist become scientific?

(see the end of this document for study questions provided by Mort Frank)

A "Discussion Prompter" from the PDS

KARL KAUTSKY – 1854 to 1938

Why Kautsky merits our interest

A differentiated judgement is needed

STUDY QUESTIONS FROM MORT FRANK