Kautsky after 1909: improvised break

[Noa Rodman]

It turns out that Lenin wasn't the first to claim that Kautsky had broken from his earlier views. In fact there are two replies he gave on this topic to Paul Lensch, see Der improvisierte Bruch : von K. Kautsky 1912
(the final article is at library.fes.de/cgi-bin/neuzeit.pl?id=07.08371&dok=1911-12b&f=191112b_0513&l=191112b_0523&c=191112b_0517 )

Here is a translation of a brief passage;


I hold my writings on colonial politics, the road to power, trade policy today still as correct as at the time of their creation. What has changed since then, is not my standpoint, but the historical situation, which gives me reason now to show the other side of social development more.

The situation has not changed in a manner which makes my 'Road to power' outdated. On the contrary. The change of the situation consists of the fact that I no longer have to fight for the viewpoints developed in 'Road to power', as the facts already have proved them most evidently as correct.

This article wasn't included in the Discovering Imperialism book.

I think that it responds to a lot of Lenin's arguments made later. (it should definitely be translated, maybe another thing on the CPGB's plate)

Kautsky here again is "despicably mean" (Lenin's term for his polemic with Pannekoek)), writing that only illiterates could understand his sketch of an ultra-imperialism as a defense of imperialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given Kautsky's own admission here, I don't know. It depends on what Lenin said about Kautsky between 1910 and 1912. Now I know the context here is imperialism (the punch of which Kautsky beat even Hobson to) vs. ultra-imperialism, but the more important part is his overall change of views.

[Noa Rodman]

Kautsky denies here that he changed his views. Also in his book detailing the debates on the mass strike from 1914 he recaps his 'Road to power' without qualifications.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think so, comrade. If he hadn't changed his views, he would have advocated a revolutionary gambit (Macnair), given that there was a genuine revolutionary period for the German worker class.

[Noa Rodman]

Limiting it to the time before the war, that would mean you agree with the left, which is unlikely, so what you must mean is that Kautsky changed his views somewhere after August 1914. Unless there is a third possibility, you are taking the side of Lensch, Radek etc. here.

[Zederbaum]

... only illiterates could understand his sketch of an ultra-imperialism as a defense of imperialism.Hard to disagree with that statement.

Perhaps it would be useful if the proponents of the "Kautsky as renegade" thesis could detail precisely his failings, taking into account the various circumstances in which he was acting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Limiting it to the time before the war, that would mean you agree with the left, which is unlikely, so what you must mean is that Kautsky changed his views somewhere after August 1914. Unless there is a third possibility, you are taking the side of Lensch, Radek etc. here.

Between 1909 and 1914, both the left and the bulk of the center considered their times to be revolutionary. What other conclusion does that imply other than seizing power?

[Noa Rodman]

Sorry, the passage I meant is in Nochmals die Abrüstung / von Karl kautsky: library.fes.de/cgi-bin/neuzeit.pl?id=07.08438&dok=1911-12b&f=191112b_0841&l=191112b_0854&c=191112b_0844

He replies to Lensch who (mis)interpreted Kautsky's Mai article which spoke about the possibility of capitalists in Germany and England cooperating in mutually exploiting China (he doesn't use yet the term ultra-imperialism, but it strikes me the thing is the same), as being an endorsement of such an imperialist policy.

Comrade DNZ, the times were revolutionary, but I don't think that even the left spoke of immediately seizing power.

To press the issue, after 1909 do you think Kautsky reneged his views, and by extension on what questions do you side with the left in the pre-war time?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, the passage I meant is in Nochmals die Abrüstung / von Karl kautsky: library.fes.de/cgi-bin/neuzeit.pl?id=07.08438&dok=1911-12b&f=191112b_0841&l=191112b_0854&c=191112b_0844

He replies to Lensch who (mis)interpreted Kautsky's Mai article which spoke about the possibility of capitalists in Germany and England cooperating in mutually exploiting China (he doesn't use yet the term ultra-imperialism, but it strikes me the thing is the same).

Comrade DNZ, the times were revolutionary, but not even the left spoke of immediately seizing power, it's truly anarchist heresy of you!

I'm not saying that the very first second of a revolutionary period for the working class dictates seizing power there and then. What I am saying, comrade, is that opportunities will present themselves, and those opportunities must be seized.

Now, going back to the definition of an actual revolutionary period for the working as defined in The Road to Power (as opposed to the ill-prepared amateurism of May 1968), this line of thinking makes sense. There existed antagonisms between the state apparatus and the populace more broadly, there existed the class movement in the form of the SPD, this SPD commanded majority political support from the worker class, and the internal confidence within the state apparatus was breaking down.

Without all these, even a revolutionary party-movement would be justified in pulling off a PCF (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html) as the Bolsheviks did in the July Days.

[Noa Rodman]

The designations "center" and "left" are already biased, so not trying to lump you (and Lenin) in with the "lefts", do you nevertheless think that Kautsky started wobbling after 1909 on the issue of disarmament and his analysis of imperialism (or on other issues, and if so what are these)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The designations "center" and "left" are already biased, so not trying to lump you (and Lenin) in with the "lefts", do you nevertheless think that Kautsky started wobbling after 1909 on the issue of disarmament and his analysis of imperialism (or on other issues, and if so what are these)?

My first impression on strictly the disarmament question is yes. I'm more definite on the imperialism question, but if I have time I'll look into the disarmament stuff.

I must raise a caution: When it comes to discussing the Marxist Center, I like to relate the history to the present as much as possible. Contemporarily speaking, I believe the disarmament issue is most relevant to what I said here:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=845 ("New positions")

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-iran-possess-t129671/index.html?p=1683801 ("Should Iran possess nuclear weapons?")

So I said earlier that my first impression is that Kautsky vacillated on this, but whether the vacillation is good or bad should take into account discussions such as the above.