Are there any Kautskyist Social Democratic Parties left?

[heiss93]

Are there any Kautskyist Social Democratic Parties left?

The parties of the 2nd international generally adhered to orthodox Marxism at least in words, despite having Bernstein revisionist currents. It was generally assumed by most parties that power could be assumed peacefully through elections.

World War I and Leninism basically destroyed the 2nd international, and most former social democratic parties split into Communist and Bernsteinist factions. Most former SI parties, are today far to the right of even Bernstein, and advocate at most a third way Blairite welfare state.

Are there any social democratic parties left, that advocate reformist electoral policies, but at the same time have an end goal beyond managed welfare capitalism but a classless society?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You need to get your Eurocommunist-leaning head straightened here.

First, Kautsky before the war stated that the mass Social Democracy should not rely too much on electoral support during revolutionary periods, because states could suspend them. "If voting could change anything they'd make it illegal."

Second, there's a sharp difference between cheap electioneering ("reformist electoral policies") and at least building up mass support to make wholesale changes to constitutions or draft new ones all based on the party's political program.

[I should personally add that, even before revolutionary periods, not all protest votes count as political support for party programs, as evidenced by some Russian liberals voting for the KPRF in the Duma elections only for the sake of the opposition preserving "democracy."]

[Tatarin]

I think not, unless there is some small never-heard-of party, then no. Social democratic parties have completely abandoned any goal of actually changing society. Do they talk about helping the less fortunate? Sure, but with taxes, or programs or some other ways.

I see it like this; the social democratic parties are basically like a break to the openly free-market-huggers parties. They are the psychologists who tell you that things are not so bad as they seem, and when people are fed up "with taxes and socialism", they elect the real hardcore capitalists who will take the economy to new heights.

I mean, a while back the Swedish social democratic party considered having a planned economy as a goal (even after this they marched with the North Vietnamese ambassador in protest against the US war on Vietnam) , today it's leader accepts "the importance" of companies and privatisation. Even after the recent termination of state-owned medicine distribution, there has been not one word of re-nationalising it all again (despite the hightened prices), or at least restricting it or taxing it to death.

In short, social democracy today picks up the pieces of a previous government, rearranges it, and hopes everyone likes it. No wonder SD parties are shrinking all over the place. This isn't to say that social democracy is the worst thing ever befallen, the welfare state has in one sense hightened the awareness of welfare and equality, and it stands as a great historical example as to why the need of force from the left (as well as the right-wing force that changed/s it into liberalism).

[Thirsty Crow]

I have to agree with Tatarin.
From my experience, socialdemocrats have been in a state of shock and apathy since Tatcher and Reagan, at least. And thus the New Labour and a more "realistic" perspective arose. "Realistic" here implies the acceptance of flexible labour policies (to a certain extent) and other elements of the existing order of affairs, i.e. the financialized late capitalism.

However, when critically assessing the role of socialdemocrat parties, I think one should clearly divide two levels of that assessment. The first level concerns the parties' attitude (and actions!) towards the goal - a classless society wherein free development of all is a prerequisite for an individual's free development.
The second level concerns actions which are taken in order that the conditions of the working people be bettered and ameliorated.

As far as this second level is concerned, I'd like to offer an example from my country.
The neoconserviatives/neoliberals (basically, there is NO difference between neoliberalism and neoconservatism in Croatia) won the last elections.
They managed to burst a nice hole in the budget, a hole whose size is like a black hole's.
What is interesting here is that the socialdemocrats maintained during the campaign that they will introduce the Tobin tax, which was proven enough in order to avoid serious consequences from the crisis (which Croatia, with its dear neocons in charge DID suffer and DOES suffer).

In this case, and similar ones, I think we should grant the existing socialdemocrat parties the benefit of a doubt (well, Blair's Labour excluded :D).

[Q]

@Tatarin and Menocchio: This thread was about Kautsky's center, not about Bernstein's rightwing that evolved into today's social-democracy, or what is left of it...

At the OP: I'm not sure what your question is. Kautsky's center entailed two basic strategies:
1. The strategy of "patience" by building up mass organisations of the working class. This as opposed to the leftwing of the party that strived for the "mass strike strategy" in which to call for an indefinite general strike so the working class could take over society. Kautsky was opposed to this and urged the need for political education and the conscious takeover of society by the masses as a final result of their fight for self-emancipation (as opposed to "tricking" them into power via a mass strike).

2. The strategy of "principled opposition" towards any bourgeois or petit-bourgeois parties. This as opposed to the rightwing which had no issues with coalitions in local and, later on, national assemblies. In coalitions the workers party became responsible for maintaining the capitalist state, while perhaps forcing some concessions from it, thusly becoming an integral part of it.

If you're simply asking if there are any mass parties left using the center strategy, then the answer is no, although there are some groups with this stance, like for example the CPGB.

[Thirsty Crow]

@Tatarin and Menocchio: This thread was about Kautsky's center, not about Bernstein's rightwing that evolved into today's social-democracy, or what is left of it...


But I think, as you've pointed out in the final sentence of your post, that one cannot speak of a Kautskyist socialdemocrat party today. Of course, there are groups, but if the focus of this discussion is parliamentary struggle, i.e. parliamentary parties that are being run along Kautskyist lines - the discussion will be brief since there are...no such parties.
Maybe the reason for this confusion is that the term "socialdemocrat" has been almost entirely appropriated by Bernstein-like "tendencies".
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[el_chavista]

Trivia: When did the SDPD officially renegade Marxism?
In 1959, in the "Godesberg program."

[AmericanRed]

The SPD didn't officially dump Marxism until the Bad Godesberg program in 1959, true. Its immediate post-WWII leader, Kurt Schumacher, considered himself a Marxist and -- I gather -- could be considered a "left Kautskyan."

I think the Austrian Social Democratic Party was officially Marxist until the 1970s. I don't know much about its political practice except that it was considered to be one of the most left wing parties in the reborn, 1950s Socialist International.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know. He, like the renegade Kautsky (i.e., not pre-WWI Kautsky), may have confused political support with electoral support.

[AmericanRed]

I don't really know. I recall reading that he gave the occupying U.S. forces in Germany a bit of a headache -- he denounced them relentlessly. And he had no interest in cooperating with the CDU, unlike post-Schumacher SPD leaders.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe Schumacher can be Die Linke's equivalent of the Maoist view on Stalin among the "Five Classics" (as being too unoriginal, too mechanical via purges and not public denunciations or cultural revolutions, and thereby the least consistent revolutionary):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-leadership-die-t127698/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=553

;)