Even WSWS "gets it" re. Kautsky

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/perm-a19.shtml


Significantly, the first important theoretician to suggest that Russian development might take a path quite different from that foreseen in the traditional model of the bourgeois democratic revolution was Karl Kautsky.

[...]

Day and Gaido state that they hope that the publication of Kautsky’s writings on the Russian Revolution will help “to overcome the stereotypical and mistaken view of Kautsky as an apostle of quietism and a reformist cloaked in revolutionary phraseology.”

[...]

As Lenin and Trotsky insisted, Kautsky’s subsequent betrayal of socialism was a repudiation of his own work. When Lenin used the phrase, “How well Kautsky once wrote,” he expressed his own deep-felt dismay and anger over the political and intellectual collapse of the man who had been his teacher. This volume makes clear why Kautsky’s betrayal in August 1914 was so shocking to an entire generation of revolutionaries. The anthology includes so many truly splendid passages from Kautsky’s revolutionary writings that it is difficult to resist the temptation to overburden this review with citations that reveal the Second International’s “Pope of Marxism” to have been a remarkably perceptive, far-sighted and tough-minded polemicist.

[...]

If Kautsky’s vital contribution to Trotsky’s elaboration of the theory of permanent revolution needs to be stressed, it is because so much ink has been wasted by the petty-bourgeois anti-Marxist left on behalf of its efforts to completely discredit the theoretical heritage of socialism, in whose development Kautsky played a major role. The denunciations of the whole corpus of Kautsky’s work, promoted by the Frankfurt School and amplified by diverse varieties of petty-bourgeois radicalism, have been from the right, directed not at explaining the nature and objective source of the weaknesses of the pre-1914 Social Democracy, but rather against its greatest strength—that it was based on and sought to educate, politically and culturally, the working class. The study of Kautsky’s writings, written before he succumbed to the political pressures bearing down on the pre-1914 Social Democracy, will make possible a deeper understanding of the development of Marxist thought, including that of Lenin and Trotsky.

[Kléber]

Peter North
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc249/demosethell/Frases/not-funny.jpg

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Originally Posted by Peter North


Isn't that supposed to be David North?

[Die Neue Zeit]

OP corrected, guys. :crying:

[Q]

I'll remind users that this isn't Chit-Chat.

As for the OP: What made the self-proclaimed "orthodox Trotskyist" David North suddenly become so positive on Kautsky? This is unusual, although a nice opening.

[Queercommie Girl]

Personally I don't completely write-off Kautsky either. He was one of the most progressive Marxists in those days regarding the matter of homosexuality, for instance.

One key thing is that centrism is fundamentally different from reformism. Centrism essentially sees both revolution and reform as potentially possible paths to socialism, not just revolution. But centrism is never anti-revolution, whereas reformism could well be. I believe revolutionary Marxists should be willing to co-operate with genuine left reformists as long as they are not opposed to revolution itself.

Our ultimate loyalty is to the result, not the path. It is to socialism itself, not to revolution.

[graymouser]

Kautsky should be read and remembered - but critically, his betrayal counts for more than his theoretical work. Foundations of Christianity is an excellent book, but the betrayal he was a party to would not be replaced by a stack of such books a mile high.

There's nothing wrong with valuing thinkers whom you reject for one reason or another - my book shelf would be 2/3 emptier (and my wife happier!) if I only read people who I agree with on down the line. But to take Kautsky, even - to use Lenin's term - "when he was a Marxist," lock stock and barrel, seems foolhardy. The SPD had institutional problems, which Trotsky pointed out in My Life, that allowed it to take its "revolutionary" course only so long as Bebel was there to enforce it, and afterward the bankrupt leaders who had come up through the bureaucracy took charge. Reconstructing anything similar without self-criticism, which the Communist International did relentlessly in the years after World War I, would be folly.

[RedTrackWorker]

On Kautsky, I was once talking to a Trotskyist and a Maoist who were personal acquaintances (but I didn't know the Maoist) and I mentioned how I wanted to read Kautsky's writings on the French Revolution (which apparently aren't available in English), and the Maoist said, "You mean the renegade Kautsky?" I never understood why there's that attitude, when besides the fact that one should make a study of opponents' theories, Lenin (and Trotsky too) recommended reading Kautsky!


Reconstructing anything similar without self-criticism, which the Communist International did relentlessly in the years after World War I, would be folly.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

[graymouser]

I'm not sure what you mean here?
The early Comintern devoted a good chunk of its time and energy to understanding the organizational failings of the prewar social democratic parties, what they had right and what was wrong in them. This was reflected in a 1921 resolution on organization that is available online:

The Organisational Structure of the Communist Parties, the Methods and Context of their work. (Communist International). (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/organisation/guidelines.htm)

My point is that DNZ's desire for repetition of the forms of the prewar SPD without a thorough examination of what is wrong with them - a task that was already undertaken fairly well by the Comintern, whose degeneration would be on quite a different line - is begging to be a repetition of mistakes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've already highlighted the problems of the Second International at great length, most notably the problem of coalitionism. The specific model to be emulated in today's non-revolutionary environment is that provided by the USPD and its International Working Union of Socialist Parties.

Sufficed to say, the ultra-left KPD and the Comintern took a sectarian attitude towards collaborative work with the USPD and IWUSP, respectively, during the emerging non-revolutionary environment. Boot out the renegades for sure, but then unite as left-wing forces within those two organizations.

[bricolage]

Sufficed to say, the ultra-left KPD and the Comintern took a sectarian attitude towards collaborative work with the USPD and IWUSP, respectively, during the emerging non-revolutionary environment. Boot out the renegades for sure, but then unite as left-wing forces within those two organizations.
The KPD split in 1918, hardly a 'non-revolutionary environment'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring to 1920 or so. Besides, the 1919 split of the KPD itself was sectarian and ultra-left, since it was the USPD that was best positioned to seize political power.

[graymouser]

I was referring to 1920 or so. Besides, the split of the KPD itself was sectarian and ultra-left, since it was the USPD that was best positioned to seize political power.
This is a bizarre and ridiculous claim. The KPD split was over whether or not to affiliate with the Communist International, and it was a right-wing minority that stayed out of the Comintern. Despite the incredible strategic blunders of the KPD, there was no other way forward at the time - the best revolutionaries in every country were joining the Third International. When a determined right-wing minority splits from a party, it is ludicrous to say that the left majority is "sectarian" for sticking to its democratic decisions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The 1919 struggle to boot out the renegades and end the "soviet" coalition with the MSPD should have been carried out within the "outstanding role model for left politics today" (the USPD), and there should have been more revolutionary volunteers for leadership positions.

[bricolage]

I don't see what was outstanding about the USPD considering it was imbued with social democratic hangups and failed to effectively break from the utter failure that was the SPD, hell it was even in government with them! Of course this is unsurprising when you orchestrate a 'radical' split led by Hugo 'We won't abandon the Fatherland' Haase. The KPD however, at least at first and in principle, was trying to formulate itself as a communist organisation. The USPD might have been in a better position to 'seize state power', but it remained committed to social democratic reformism.


I was referring to 1920 or so.
I'd imagine in 1920 and even after it still seemed like Germany was in a revolutionary period what with the Ruhr uprising, communist strength in Saxony. Even in 1923 the KPD was still getting half a million on its May Day demonstrations, including 25,000 uniformed militia members. Of course I'd imagine a lot of this collapsed after the Hamburg uprising in October but it is still three years later than the point you stated.

I'm not saying it necessarily was a revolutionary environment (to be honest I don't think we can even make these neat distinctions, much as you would like to), just what it would have seemed like to people at the time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see what was outstanding about the USPD considering it was imbued with social democratic hangups and failed to effectively break from the utter failure that was the SPD, hell it was even in government with them! Of course this is unsurprising when you orchestrate a 'radical' split led by Hugo 'We won't abandon the Fatherland' Haase.

The coalition was a big, big mistake. Towing the line for war credits was a mistake, too, since it should have been pointed out that the Basel Manifesto was at least morally binding if not organizationally binding.

Outside a revolutionary period, someone like Hugo Haase should be worthy of at least critical support. I think you're in Germany, so you're probably more familiar with his modern-day political heir than I.


I'd imagine in 1920 and even after it still seemed like Germany was in a revolutionary period what with the Ruhr uprising, communist strength in Saxony.

The Ruhr uprising was based on nationalistic sentiments.


I'm not saying it necessarily was a revolutionary environment (to be honest I don't think we can even make these neat distinctions, much as you would like to), just what it would have seemed like to people at the time.

Kautsky's outline says it best:

1) Open regime hostility towards the masses
2) Worker-class party-movement in opposition to the regime
3) Said party-movement commands majority political support from the working class
4) Breakdown in state confidence (like breakdown in the army, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.)

[bricolage]

The coalition was a big, big mistake. Towing the line for war credits was a mistake, too, since it should have been pointed out that the Basel Manifesto was at least morally binding if not organizationally binding.
These are pretty big mistakes though, I don't they can just be glossed over.


Outside a revolutionary period, someone like Hugo Haase should be worthy of at least critical support. I think you're in Germany, so you're probably more familiar with his modern-day political heir than I.
Me? No I live in the UK.


The Ruhr uprising was based on nationalistic sentiments.
In what way? I'm not an expert on this time but I thought it was a more militant extension of the strike against the Kapp Putsch. From what I've read the strike on the whole tended to strengthen the SPD but in the Ruhr it went further than that towards most communistic aims.


1) Open regime hostility towards the masses
Well I'm sure this exists in lots of places in the world today.


2) Worker-class party-movement in opposition to the regime
Well, we'll pass on this one for the moment to avoid dredging up a rather tired debate...


3) Said party-movement commands majority political support from the working class
What like 50%? Isn't this a bit of an arbitrary number?


4) Breakdown in state confidence (like breakdown in the army, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.)
Yes, this seems fair enough.

That being said I still don't like these revolutionary/non-revolutionary distinctions.

[scarletghoul]

ewho was kautsyk was he a communist