Did Lenin break with Kautsky, or did Kautsky break with Kautsky?

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/videos/landing/categories?recent_tags=lars%20t%20lih&recent_start=5

You are welcome to refute the thesis, or present your own opinions, but watch the video in its entirety before posting please.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I'd dare say both, actually, but in the more informed case of Lenin the break began after NEP, not during the revolutionary period. Lars Lih cited Lenin's "textbook a la Kautsky" remark after 1921, where he used his grounding in orthodox Marxism to explore new positions outside of revolutionary strategy for the working class.

Unfortunately, Lenin became a lesser renegade when suggesting that peasants be let into the party, the very opposite of Kautsky's prevailing argument against Bebel himself not long after the Erfurt Program.

[Noa Rodman]

Kautsky's abandonment of principled rejection of coalition policy (in 1920) is a key point, but I find his argument in Road to Power for its principled rejection (how all bourgeois parties are corrupted) basically liberal common sense. He wrote (in 1924) that the SPD had lost credit in the eyes of the masses by being bound in a coalition government. So that argument about the risk of losing credit by participating in a government is one that any political party makes IMO. Also abandonment of principled rejection of coalition policy demoralizes the party membership base, the combative workers. Hence for agitation purposes Kautsky of course very well understands that one does not want to openly acknowledge the possibility of a coalition policy (before the war it was an unspoken practice of voting for the liberal candidate when there was no socialist, IIRC). I think principled rejection can also give a false sense of security against opportunism: by the idea that being in the opposition makes you somehow automatically revolutionary, but moreover by not forcing you at every concrete moment to struggle against mistaken advocates of coalition policy.

On the nature of the political system in the transition phase to socialism he wrote (in 1933, Neue Programme) that the best guarantee is a republic without presidency, introduction of militia, decentralization of state-apparatus, widest possible self-government of single organizations in the state; freedom of the press, of speech, of meetings, of elections, of representation of the people. For Kautsky (in 1922) these still lacked in the post-war French republic (e.g. France also didn't have women's suffrage) and in soviet Russia (with its bloating state apparatus), but he thought Weimar Germany was no ideal democratic republic either (in 1933 he writes that the German presidency had been even more powerful than the present French one). Thus he personally upheld the minimum programme (radical bourgeois slogans).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky's abandonment of principled rejection of coalition policy (in 1920) is a key point, but I find his argument in Road to Power for its principled rejection (how all bourgeois parties are corrupted) basically liberal common sense. He wrote (in 1924) that the SPD had lost credit in the eyes of the masses by being bound in a coalition government. So that argument about the risk of losing credit by participating in a government is one that any political party makes IMO. Also abandonment of principled rejection of coalition policy demoralizes the party membership base, the combative workers.

Principled rejection of reform coalitions is part and parcel of revolutionary Marxist strategy, comrade. It's not just that bourgeois parties are corrupted. Class independence is the main issue. That last sentence has demonstrated itself time and again, and even a British social-democratic academic pointed facts on this from a more right-wing perspective on the "radical left."


I think principled rejection can also give a false sense of security against opportunism: by the idea that being in the opposition makes you somehow automatically revolutionary, but moreover by not forcing you at every concrete moment to struggle against mistaken advocates of coalition policy.

Why the false security? If anything else, the "principled rejection" wasn't principled enough because of governmentalism at the municipal and regional level (just look at Die Linke's participation in a cuts-cuts-cuts regime in Berlin). Principled rejection involves building a credible opposition at every level of government, with elucidated alternative policies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So, what is a 'cuts-cuts-cuts regime'? I'm curious..

[Q]

Principled rejection of reform coalitions is part and parcel of revolutionary Marxist strategy, comrade. It's not just that bourgeois parties are corrupted. Class independence is the main issue. That last sentence has demonstrated itself time and again, and even a British social-democratic academic pointed facts on this from a more right-wing perspective on the "radical left."
I agree that principled opposition is essential, however I also agree with Noa that it is not any guarantee in itself.

The Dutch SP for example had the image of being a "principled" opposition party until 2006. But since it is programmatically so opportunist, it could only move to the right on this issue when the question of governmental power was posed.


Why the false security? If anything else, the "principled rejection" wasn't principled enough because of governmentalism at the municipal and regional level (just look at Die Linke's participation in a cuts-cuts-cuts regime in Berlin). Principled rejection involves building a credible opposition at every level of government, with elucidated alternative policies.
Is this the same DNZ that argued for local and regional coalition participation a while back? ;)


So, what is a 'cuts-cuts-cuts regime'? I'm curious..
It's also known as an austerity regime. DNZ is, for some reason, just employing trot-speak ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's also known as an austerity regime. DNZ is, for some reason, just employing trot-speak ;)

I actually thought I was employing Jack Conrad's language, because he says "cuts" often enough in his polemics.


Is this the same DNZ that argued for local and regional coalition participation a while back? ;)

Could you please, by all means, post a link to whatever such statement exists? :confused:

I'll eat my own words if it exists, because AFAIK I really don't recall, unless it's in a Third World, "be the goons and thugs" context (TWCS). :p

[Art Vandelay]

I love how much 'orthodox Marxists' are ridiculed on this board and yet, when a thread opens up, which gives said detractors a forum in which to actually advance a theoretical argument (as opposed to cheap one liners and petty insults), they're no where to be found.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I love how much 'orthodox Marxists' are ridiculed on this board and yet, when a thread opens up, which gives said detractors a forum in which to actually advance a theoretical argument (as opposed to cheap one liners and petty insults), they're no where to be found.

Said detractors have a tendency to engage arguments only if their opponents will resort to cheap slurs, not knowing the opposing arguments well enough. Engage the opposing arguments head-on, and what you said comes true.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I love how much 'orthodox Marxists' are ridiculed on this board and yet, when a thread opens up, which gives said detractors a forum in which to actually advance a theoretical argument (as opposed to cheap one liners and petty insults), they're no where to be found.

You're a walking cliche. Why are you even bothering to post this ridiculous flame?

If you must know, our criticisms of DNZ-ism focus on both its lack of revolutionary content, and its lack of relevance to the contemporary situation of the working class.

Therefore, a topic on some historical leftist political figure who doesn't really feature in the lives of working class today is not really of huge interest, IMO.

[Noa Rodman]

Principled rejection of reform coalitions is part and parcel of revolutionary Marxist strategy, comrade. It's not just that bourgeois parties are corrupted. Class independence is the main issue.

Speaking on corruption, around min. 13 is Papandreou in his speech at the 24th Congress of the Socialist International:
ByT11LHTN2w

[l'Enfermé]

You're a walking cliche. Why are you even bothering to post this ridiculous flame?

If you must know, our criticisms of DNZ-ism focus on both its lack of revolutionary content, and its lack of relevance to the contemporary situation of the working class.

Therefore, a topic on some historical leftist political figure who doesn't really feature in the lives of working class today is not really of huge interest, IMO.
Walking cliché? Ridiculous flame? What?


"Your" criticisms of "DNZ-ism", by the way, are in their entirety made up of straw men and rantings about "emotionally stunted DNZites", schizophrenics, nerd brigades, "acolytes" and insightful one-liners like "read a book" and "are you his lawyer?". That is, personal attacks and logical fallacies. Nothing that merits mentioning.

And as far as your personal contribution to this illustrious fight goes, I've seen only a single post you made related to it, that was of any considerably length, and it consisted entirely of ad hom attacks("you're intellectually undeveloped", "your intellect is unspectacular", "you're delusional" and so on, and you topped this of by saying "note: this is not a personal attack" :laugh:) and straw men. Again, nothing that merits mentioning.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Walking cliché? Ridiculous flame? What?


"Your" criticisms of "DNZ-ism", by the way, are in their entirety made up of straw men and rantings about "emotionally stunted DNZites", schizophrenics, nerd brigades, "acolytes" and insightful one-liners like "read a book" and "are you his lawyer?". That is, personal attacks and logical fallacies. Nothing that merits mentioning.

And as far as your personal contribution to this illustrious fight goes, I've seen only a single post you made related to it, that was of any considerably length, and it consisted entirely of ad hom attacks("you're intellectually undeveloped", "your intellect is unspectacular", "you're delusional" and so on, and you topped this of by saying "note: this is not a personal attack" :laugh:) and straw men. Again, nothing that merits mentioning.

It is so easy to get lost in the theoretical weeds, but the historical muse teaches us that at least Rosa Luxemburg saw that Karl Kautsky was moving away from revolution.

[Ostrinski]

It is so easy to get lost in the theoretical weeds, but the historical muse teaches us that at least Rosa Luxemburg saw that Karl Kautsky was moving away from revolution.Hopefully most principled revolutionary socialists saw this, no?

[Rafiq]

Hopefully most principled revolutionary socialists saw this, no?

I presume he is refering to before kautskys formal renege as well. Indeed, there is a lot even Lenin did not see in Kautaky shortly before 1914, that would justify Luxemburg's suspicion. Kautsky during and before he wrote Road to Power is a different story, though.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I presume he is refering to before kautskys formal renege as well. Indeed, there is a lot even Lenin did not see in Kautaky shortly before 1914, that would justify Luxemburg's suspicion. Kautsky during and before he wrote Road to Power is a different story, though.

Well put, Rafiq. It is historiographically nearly certain that Rosa Luxemburg even excelled beyond Lenin. She foresaw that Kautsky would go renegade years before Lenin came to that conclusion.

[Art Vandelay]

You're a walking cliche. Why are you even bothering to post this ridiculous flame?

For one I wanted noted that the only reason I am responding to this accusation (of being a 'walking cliche' due to the fact that although disagreeing, I respect your politics).


If you must know, our criticisms of DNZ-ism

If you want to focus on a walking cliche then you need to look no futher. I've already discussed this in the past, so I won't even bother discussing this any futher, cause frankly I'm not too concerned with what randoms on the internet think about my politics; all I have to say is that I would expect better from someone, as yourself boss, perhaps I overestimated you, however.


focus on both its lack of revolutionary content, and its lack of relevance to the contemporary situation of the working class.

Cool, keep throwing around those ad hominems; calling anyone in the revolutionary Marxist user group a 'dnz-ite' is fucking laughable. But by all means, continue on with your ad hominems, without ever addressing my political positions (which I doubt you could describe anyways).


Therefore, a topic on some historical leftist political figure who doesn't really feature in the lives of working class today is not really of huge interest, IMO.

Once again if this 'figure' posed no importance, you'd think it would be easy to demolish them on a theoretical level. But by all means, continue dismissing my opinions without even understanding them. :rolleyes:

What a fucking joke you've become comrade and by all means it pains me to say that; since you always struck me as a well read and reasonable comrade who could engage in polemics as opposed to petty insults.

Edit: this last accusation is so laughable I was almost tempted to not address it, to simply let the more knowledgable comrades recognize it for what it was worth; what leftist figure does feature in the lives of the working class today boss?

Double edit: Your opinions on music (bruce springsteen) are proving to be as shitty as your politics.

Triple edit (I am a bit drunk): I'm still waiting for an actual intellectual response....

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For one I wanted noted that the only reason I am responding to this accusation (of being a 'walking cliche' due to the fact that although disagreeing, I respect your politics).



If you want to focus on a walking cliche then you need to look no futher. I've already discussed this in the past, so I won't even bother discussing this any futher, cause frankly I'm not too concerned with what randoms on the internet think about my politics; all I have to say is that I would expect better from someone, as yourself boss, perhaps I overestimated you, however.



Cool, keep throwing around those ad hominems; calling anyone in the revolutionary Marxist user group a 'dnz-ite' is fucking laughable. But by all means, continue on with your ad hominems, without ever addressing my political positions (which I doubt you could describe anyways).



Once again if this 'figure' posed no importance, you'd think it would be easy to demolish them on a theoretical level. But by all means, continue dismissing my opinions without even understanding them. :rolleyes:

What a fucking joke you've become comrade and by all means it pains me to say that; since you always struck me as a well read and reasonable comrade who could engage in polemics as opposed to petty insults.

Edit: this last accusation is so laughable I was almost tempted to not address it, to simply let the more knowledgable comrades recognize it for what it was worth; what leftist figure does feature in the lives of the working class today boss?

Double edit: Your opinions on music (bruce springsteen) are proving to be as shitty as your politics.

Triple edit (I am a bit drunk): I'm still waiting for an actual intellectual response....

Ah kid, you keep shooting yourself in the foot don't you? I don't really see what relevance Bruce Springsteen has to a thread on Lenin & Kautsky, but if you'd like to inform me otherwise?? Presumably as the boss is so shit, this should be quite easy to prove on a theoretical level, right?

Anyway, just to soothe your paranoia, I wasn't attacking your personal political positions, but merely your seemingly desperate support for a political tendency on here that has been nurtured by DNZ and which I find intolerable.

For theory's sake, i'll just make the following points:

1. Lack of revolutionary content: DNZ posts in a thread supporting SYRIZAs 40 point program. Another user posts SYRIZAs 40 point program in full, highlighting its reformist, top-down, anti-democratic and class-collaborationist content. DNZ chooses to respond by highlighting 14 points which he supposes are 'good', ignoring that 65% at least of the program (even according to him) is trash.

2. The irrelevance of Kautsky to the working class today: this is the man who sold out to the pro-war lobby. He has thus, aside from to a few gossip-mongers on the left, become a totally sidelined figure in history and for good reason. I honestly - and I know you will now take whatever I say with anger and suspicion but fuck it - feel as though this is just a meaningless discussion. It's kinda circular as well, i'm not sure we can really draw conclusions on the political positions of Lenin from the question posed. Lenin's politics, after all, were influence by praxis and, to his credit (and I don't often praise Lenin), something that is in Lenin's favour is that, regardless of being able to quote him back to the early 1900s like many other Marxist theoreticians, we can actually draw upon a body of real policy implementation from the man, something we cannot do for Kautsky. In this way, it is quite difficult to conduct a meaningful comparison of the two figures, since one, for all his faults (and they are numerous and, in my opinion, outweigh his positives, though there's no time to discuss that right now), actually got his party and his class into a position where they could have potentially implemented their program. The other was just a sell-out renegade.

[Art Vandelay]

Ah kid, you keep shooting yourself in the foot don't you? I don't really see what relevance Bruce Springsteen has to a thread on Lenin & Kautsky, but if you'd like to inform me otherwise?? Presumably as the boss is so shit, this should be quite easy to prove on a theoretical level, right?

First off I'm like a year younger than yourself. Secondly I was and still am a bit drunk which is why I brought the 'boss' into the convo; stupid I agree.


Anyway, just to soothe your paranoia, I wasn't attacking your personal political positions, but merely your seemingly desperate support for a political tendency on here that has been nurtured by DNZ and which I find intolerable.

Simply cause myself and DNZ (as well as many others) view some worth in the politics of the 2nd international, doesn't mean we agree on everything, or even most things.

For theory's sake, i'll just make the following points:


1. Lack of revolutionary content: DNZ posts in a thread supporting SYRIZAs 40 point program. Another user posts SYRIZAs 40 point program in full, highlighting its reformist, top-down, anti-democratic and class-collaborationist content. DNZ chooses to respond by highlighting 14 points which he supposes are 'good', ignoring that 65% at least of the program (even according to him) is trash.

Yeah...and...so....what? Once again your simply proving how pathetic this little witch hunt is. I can name multiple people in the revolutionary Marxist user group who don't support Syriza and others outside of it (Blake's baby or Blake 3:17, can't remember which one) who find Syriza's program quite good.


2. The irrelevance of Kautsky to the working class today: this is the man who sold out to the pro-war lobby. He has thus, aside from to a few gossip-mongers on the left, become a totally sidelined figure in history and for good reason. I honestly - and I know you will now take whatever I say with anger and suspicion but fuck it - feel as though this is just a meaningless discussion. It's kinda circular as well, i'm not sure we can really draw conclusions on the political positions of Lenin from the question posed. Lenin's politics, after all, were influence by praxis and, to his credit (and I don't often praise Lenin), something that is in Lenin's favour is that, regardless of being able to quote him back to the early 1900s like many other Marxist theoreticians, we can actually draw upon a body of real policy implementation from the man, something we cannot do for Kautsky. In this way, it is quite difficult to conduct a meaningful comparison of the two figures, since one, for all his faults (and they are numerous and, in my opinion, outweigh his positives, though there's no time to discuss that right now), actually got his party and his class into a position where they could have potentially implemented their program. The other was just a sell-out renegade.

The fact that you just called him a renegade, proves he was at one point a Marxist. No one denies he became a reformist. How about actually dealing with the subject matter of the video as opposed to finding another forum for once again finding a way of making everything about DNZ.

Edit: actually I'm starting to see that is too much to ask (regardless of the thread) for this anti-DNZ crowd. Me bringing up the 'boss' was no less dumb, then you bringing up DNZ.

[Noa Rodman]

In PZM (http://libcom.org/library/under-banner-marxism-contd)Naum Lenzner reviewed "Koalitionspolitik oder Klassenkampf" by Luxemburg (1922), which I don't know the contents of (103 p.). First I thought it is just another edition of her Reform or revolution.
Korsch wrote in the same year Koalitionspolitik oder Klassenkampf? III, in: Der Kämpfer, 5. Jg., Nr. 220 (so another review perhaps).

A good task for some anti-Kautskyian to do something to learn about this...

[Noa Rodman]

Never mind
The 14-volume Complete Works will contain everything Luxemburg ever wrote—all of her books, essays, pamphlets, essays, articles, letters, and manuscripts. Most of these writings—as much as 80 per cent—have never before appeared in English, and some will be published for the first time anywhere. New English translations will be provided for her works that have been published previously.http://londonsocialisthistorians.blogspot.com/2012/12/appeal-for-rosa-luxemburg-collected.html

It's costly though


We urgently need $30,000 to fund the next volume in the series (so far we have raised $19,000 towards that goal).For one volume!

They don't say yet what is the content of all the other volumes so no clue wherein Koalitionspolitik oder Klassenkampf will be found.

The digitization project (http://socialhistory.org/nl/projects/centrale-digitization-project)of the archives of Kautsky (et al.) on the other hand shows it will be impossible to ever make a complete Kautsky works in English (I don't think it is advisable, but neither for Luxemburg tbh). There's another article by him on coalition policy which I hope to read. Tthe entire Kautsky archive would be digitizited by September 2013 and other parts earlier; something to look forward to next year.

[black magick hustla]

http://www.prole.info/texts/kautsky_lenin.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.prole.info/texts/kautsky_lenin.html

BMH, finally a constructive post from you, except that a number of comrades have already read that Dauve article, being older than either Lih's or Macnair's work. I myself read that left-com article in its entirety before reading either Lenin Rediscovered or Revolutionary Strategy. One work links "Leninism" and "Kautskyism" negatively; the other two positively (historically and contemporarily, in chronological order).

Note to newer comrades: I myself would encourage you to read the Dauve article before reading or re-reading the two positive-opinion works above. This can help put any "hipsterism" on the wayside.

[Noa Rodman]

Ok, I'll stick to this thread about class independence. In Labour Revolution Kautsky speaks of a whole new era of where coalition policy becomes unavoidable. It would have to be as short as possible, but arguably it's been going on for almost a century. Only the British electoral system (and perhaps presidential second round voting) could give a purely socialist government; but Kautsky didn't object to that (even in proportional system he could see a minority government, if the socialist party was seen as being most representative). Still, these socialist parties don't get ever a real majority of the votes.

Kautsky's argument in Road to Power and then later in Labour Revolution about coalition policy is in reference to Lassalle's notion of reactionary mass. The first time, Kautsky endorses, later he rejects it, just like Lenin first rejects it and then endorses it.


But the Manifesto adds that the "lower middle class" is becoming revolutionary "in view of impending transfer to the proletariat". From this point of view, therefore, it is again nonsense to say that it, together with the bourgeoisie, and with the feudal lords into the bargain, "form only one reactionary mass" relative to the working class.
Has one proclaimed to the artisan, small manufacturers, etc., and peasants during the last elections: Relative to us, you, together with the bourgeoisie and feudal lords, form one reactionary mass?
Lassalle knew the [I]Communist Manifesto by heart, as his faithful followers know the gospels written by him. If, therefore, he has falsified it so grossly, this has occurred only to put a good color on his alliance with absolutist and feudal opponents against the bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


Social- Democracy has renounced the fallacious theory of the “one reactionary mass.” It regards utilisation of the support of the progressive classes against the reactionary classes to be one of the most important political tasks. As long as the organisations and publications are local in character, this task can hardly be carried out at all: matters do not go farther than relations with individual “liberals” and the extraction of various “services” from them. Only a common Party organ, consistently implementing the principles of political struggle and holding high the banner of democracy will be able to win over to its side all militant democratic elements and use all Russia’s progressive forces in the struggle for political freedom.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg4auq.htm


The proletariat must strive to form independent political workers’ parties, the main aim of which must be the capture of political power by the proletariat for the purpose of organising socialist society. The proletariat must not regard the other classes and parties as “one reactionary mass”[8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/sep/protest.htm#fwV04E065); on the contrary, it must take part in all political and social life, support the progressive classes and parties against the reactionary classes and parties, support every revolutionary movement against the existing system, champion the interests of every oppressed nationality or race, of every persecuted religion, of the disfranchised sex, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/sep/protest.htm

In a 1933 brochure Kautsky doesn't go deeper into the absence of progressive lower middle class parties in the Weimar republic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ok, I'll stick to this thread about class independence. In Labour Revolution Kautsky speaks of a whole new era of where coalition policy becomes unavoidable. It would have to be as short as possible, but arguably it's been going on for almost a century.

Perhaps what you're trying to get at is a critical comparison of Kautsky's Labour Revolution on coalitions and the Comintern's "workers governments"? I'm sure the less dismissive amongst the left-coms would say, "See, the Comintern resolution is similar!"


Only the British electoral system (and perhaps presidential second round voting) could give a purely socialist government; but Kautsky didn't object to that (even in proportional system he could see a minority government, if the socialist party was seen as being most representative). Still, these socialist parties don't get ever a real majority of the votes.

What's your position on contemporary affairs, then? Votes /= Overall Political Support.

[Zederbaum]

Kautsky and coalition

Kautsky did alter his position on entering coalition, justifying his stance on the basis that the circumstances had changed.

He had based his previous policy on the expectation that the development of capitalism and the long-term rise of the organised proletariat together with Social Democracy's long record of opposition to the Kaiserreich would see it harvest the fruits of revolution. He hoped for a revolution based on the the strength of the workers organisations rather than one arising out of war (though he counselled long before the war that either was possible).

As we know, the regime collapsed on foot of defeat in the world war, a scenario not favourable to the Social Democracy. Indeed, the latter was split into three organisations, thus rendering it much weaker than it should have been.

Kautsky consistently upheld the view that a democratic republic was the best framework for the proletariat to win and keep state power and in which to develop socialism.

However, the advent of rightest reaction (death squads, rising mass fascist organisations, the recovering strength of the officer corp etc) and to a lesser extent the mania of the Communists for hopeless insurrections threatened the very existence of the republic.

Thus, in order to preserve a necessary condition for developing socialism, the democratic republic, Social Democrats should not make a principle of not entering coalitions with non-socialist forces who also had an interest in democracy. He disagreed with the view that entering into agreement with non-proletarian organisations immediately nullified the working class's independence. The labour movement was strong enough, he felt, that it could retain its freedom of movement.

He did, however, caution that a coalition could not and would not lead to socialism. It could only preserve democracy and perhaps institute some mild reforms. Socialism could only arise when the Socialist Party won a majority over to socialism

But simply because a form, the democratic republic, does not in itself constitute socialism, it does not follow that it is antithetical to socialism. In this case, the opposite is true for democracy is a necessary precondition of socialism.

On the overall question of whether Kautsky was a renegade, the evidence suggests that he was remarkably consistent in his core political positions, particularly on the value of the democratic republic.

[Noa Rodman]

Perhaps what you're trying to get at is a critical comparison of Kautsky's Labour Revolution on coalitions and the Comintern's "workers governments"? I'm sure the less dismissive amongst the left-coms would say, "See, the Comintern resolution is similar!"

I'm really thinking about coalition with bourgeois parties, but I see there is a similarity in the sense that even communists see some types of workers' government as an "important starting point", but there is a little mistake in the reference to what such types are:

The Communist International must consider the following possibilities:
1 A liberal workers’ government, such as existed in Australia and is possible in Britain in the near future.
2 A social-democratic ‘workers’ government’ (Germany).
3 A workers’ and peasants’ government. Such a possibility exists in the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, etc.
4 A social-democratic/Communist coalition government.
5 A genuine proletarian workers’ government, which can be created in its pure form only by a Communist Party.
Communists are also prepared to work alongside those workers who have not yet recognised the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Accordingly Communists are also ready, in certain conditions and with certain guarantees, to support a non-Communist workers’ government. However, the Communists will still openly declare to the masses that the workers’ government can be neither won nor maintained without a revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie.
The first two types [should be 3rd and 4th types] of workers’ governments (the workers’ and peasants’ and the social-democratic/Communist governments) fall short of representing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but are still an important starting-point for the winning of this dictatorship. The complete dictatorship of the proletariat can only be a genuine workers’ government (type 5) consisting of Communists.


http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm

So what are then a liberal workers’ government and social-democratic ‘workers’ government’ (Germany)? In Germany must be meant the USPD-SPD coalition, so was that also not an important starting point?


What's your position on contemporary affairs, then? Votes /= Overall Political Support.
Well I looked up the Australia example and there was in fact an absolute majority, though it's perhaps somewhat unique example, with such a tiny population, etc. (even with women's suffrage). It seems Kautsky was cool with FPTP election system (perhaps overconfident), but because an absolute majority in the population lacks, then it sort of forces the party prematurely to come to power (or support a bourgeois minority government from the opposition bench).

I think though even in Road to power Kautsky is arguing to stay independent in order to win the lower middle class. I think we agree that this is a vital section to win, so how do we want them to be represented; either by joining the socialist party, or by encouraging them to create their own parties (radical republican) which then can be engaged in a coalition. This is just hypothetical. I guess the problem of coalition usually is posed because there are bourgeois parties with a lot of workers in.

It would be nice if the discussion among the decists was still in existence:

a split of the VKP happened at the XV Congress, as a result of which the majority converted the XV Congress in to the founding congress of another, non-proletarian, petty-bourgeois party. My formulation of the question in one of my letters last year about the transformation of the VKP "in to a bourgeois workers' party" in the style of the postwar German social-democratic one was wrong. Apropos this I agree with your objections. It would be correct to say with a proper analogy, that the VKP transformed roughly in such a party, which the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was in 1917 – a petty-bourgeois party with a very solid [percentage] of workers. So, if the VKP is not dead, but a political party headed (precisely so) by petty-bourgeois government renegades of bolshevism and retaining in "opportunistic grip" hundreds of thousands of workers, from this also follows a slightly different approach to questions of tactics.
http://libcom.org/library/letters-smirnov-timofei-sapronov

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky did alter his position on entering coalition, justifying his stance on the basis that the circumstances had changed.

[...]

Kautsky consistently upheld the view that a democratic republic was the best framework for the proletariat to win and keep state power and in which to develop socialism.

His view on the "democratic republic" changed in the early 1900s and again during the Weimar republic.


Thus, in order to preserve a necessary condition for developing socialism, the democratic republic, Social Democrats should not make a principle of not entering coalitions with non-socialist forces who also had an interest in democracy. He disagreed with the view that entering into agreement with non-proletarian organisations immediately nullified the working class's independence. The labour movement was strong enough, he felt, that it could retain its freedom of movement.

He did, however, caution that a coalition could not and would not lead to socialism. It could only preserve democracy and perhaps institute some mild reforms.

All the while, the SPD's anti-communist Democratic Front antics fed right into the KPD's Third Period tactics.


Socialism could only arise when the Socialist Party won a majority over to socialism

Majority of what? The definition of that is the problem. Even in the best-case scenario, worker-class rule would have to alter the entire constitutional framework before proceeding further. That's why popular vote majorities and parliamentary majorities are insufficient.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm really thinking about coalition with bourgeois parties, but I see there is a similarity in the sense that even communists see some types of workers' government as an "important starting point", but there is a little mistake in the reference to what such types are:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm

I've read some stuff by John Riddell, and that's because he and a number of other leftists are trying to apply this to Greece.


So what are then a liberal workers’ government and social-democratic ‘workers’ government’ (Germany)? In Germany must be meant the USPD-SPD coalition, so was that also not an important starting point?

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair is very critical of the whole "workers government" framework, precisely because the Comintern was not explicitly clear on the conditions separating the "social-democratic 'workers government'" from the "social-democratic/Communist coalition government." He has argued that only the political DOTP (average skilled workers' salaries and recallability for all public officials, workers' militias, democratic and union rights for soldiers in the armed forces, etc.) is a sufficient starting point for united front governance.


It seems Kautsky was cool with FPTP election system (perhaps overconfident)

I'd say overconfident, given historical election results since WWII.

My position? As before, majority political support from the working class (best measured by active membership in the party-movement, not votes at the ballot box) is enough, whether this is a popular vote majority or not. When all conditions for a revolutionary period are met, then this de facto demographic plurality seizes power.


I think though even in Road to power Kautsky is arguing to stay independent in order to win the lower middle class. I think we agree that this is a vital section to win, so how do we want them to be represented; either by joining the socialist party, or by encouraging them to create their own parties (radical republican) which then can be engaged in a coalition. This is just hypothetical.

In the time of The Road to Power I think he might have gone with the radical republican option, but in his older years I think he cared less and wasn't concerned about the problems of them joining the socialist party.

[Noa Rodman]

historical election results since WWII.

Also not in "radical times", when the left parties even unite on a common program, like the 1972 elections in the Netherlands.

In Greece there is no majority even with a coalition with the Independents.

I think it's easier to get a majority vote than a majority of workers being active.

But even majority vote in proportional system is difficult, and as that is the way the socialdemocrats think to conquer power, how do they face this deadlock (I'm looking also at the pre-Godesberg Socialist International, for instance in the figure of Julius Braunthal, its secretary-general from 1951-56).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think it's easier to get a majority vote than a majority of workers being active.

Even on a purely legalistic basis, Noa (and we both know already that rule-of-law constitutionalism has flaws), that ignores the kind of "supermajority" needed to amend constitutions or usher in new ones altogether.

That line of thinking, to me, is similar to the shortcut nature of reform coalitions and strike fetishes.

Coalitionist: "We have to do enact measures for the workers now!"
Strike-ist: "Wildcat strikes, spontaneous direct action, ad hoc assemblies we call "councils," etc. will solve all our problems!"


But even majority vote in proportional system is difficult, and as that is the way the socialdemocrats think to conquer power, how do they face this deadlock (I'm looking also at the pre-Godesberg Socialist International, for instance in the figure of Julius Braunthal, its secretary-general from 1951-56).

I advocate PR, but I do so as a means of mass recruitment.

BTW, there is a compromise between majority votes and mass "hyper"-activism that has been discussed on this board before. Naturally in a mass party-movement, some workers are more active than others. The former would tend to claim representation for the latter and the class as a whole. Majority political support could entail the very active ones being supported by the more passive ones and by the class as a whole. Of course, ultra-lefts have a derisive word for this: "propagandism."

[Noa Rodman]

http://newpol.org/content/left-europe-social-democracy-crisis-euro-zone-interview-leo-panitch

[Q]

Also not in "radical times", when the left parties even unite on a common program, like the 1972 elections in the Netherlands.

The Dutch electoral system has been some form of PR since 1918 or so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://newpol.org/content/left-europe-social-democracy-crisis-euro-zone-interview-leo-panitch

LP: Well, yes, I was going to say: the whole reason it takes this quasi-anarchist form — and why the zeitgeist of the time for so many people is quasi-anarchist — is because of the failures of working class institutions.

LP: Yes. I say this and I believe it because it confirms the politics I have failed at for most of my life. Since the 1970s I and many comrades have been trying to found — and I’m in Canada, so I do it there, but I speak of it much more broadly — to found a post-Leninist, post-social democratic type of working class political organization. One which is non-insurrectionary but committed to social transformation. And my generation has failed to do that. There are others of my generation who have tried to build a better Leninism. And they were mostly Trotskyists, and that too has failed.

What’s happened in Syriza is what I’ve always wanted to happen, and called for. I have always thought it is a very difficult and slow process. In this country, for example, I meet activists who agree that we need to get beyond localism. Who agree that we need to build a cadre right across the country who are committed to building a socialist organization. In fact I’ve seen more of them here in the United States than I see anywhere else. Certainly more than in Europe, and usually more than in Canada. They’re often black activists out of these kinds of local worker action centers, or their equivalent.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

BTW, there is a compromise between majority votes and mass "hyper"-activism that has been discussed on this board before. Naturally in a mass party-movement, some workers are more active than others. The former would tend to claim representation for the latter and the class as a whole. Majority political support could entail the very active ones being supported by the more passive ones and by the class as a whole. Of course, ultra-lefts have a derisive word for this: "propagandism."

That the former 'tend to' do so doesn't make it anything other than wrong.

It's not 'propagandism' (I have no idea what you mean by this neologism, perhaps you can enlighten me?), it's just a crap idea. Representation is an active road to mass passivity and leads to a tendency to centralise and move away from democracy, as opposed to delegation at all political levels.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For your information, Boss, "propagandism" isn't a neologism. It was the slur used by the Gramsci-Korsch-Lukacs trio to denounce of orthodox Marxism of the original Socialist International, to mis-credit this to Lenin's think. It's supposed to address the very passivity you're concerned about.

As I've said before, I'm all for statistical representation, since delegation can lead to cultural discrimination.

[Noa Rodman]

I know that Q, I was agreeing with DNZ how difficult it is to get majority in PR, even when the leftist parties unite (Keerpunt '72 (http://www.sociaalvooruit.nl/index.html?wissel=http%3A//www.sociaalvooruit.nl/t110704.html)).

Indeed majority vote isn't a shortcut, DNZ, and to me it seems even more difficult than getting an active majority of workers (for Kautsky such dictatorship of a minority of proletarians would quickly degenerate). About supermajority for rewriting constitutions, I don't know. Don't CAs work with ordinary majority, or is it unanimous (I really don't know)? cf. Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Constitutional_Assembly) an example? (and since also for a legitimate constituent assembly practically it is a mess to try to exclude from the election the "bourgeoisie", having a majority in the CA means basically majority vote of the population).

Most interesting in Panitch is the description of left opposition within the social-democratic parties. On socializing banks I doubt there is (or can be) much further progress by Die Linke or SYRIZA et al. on what Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sd) already wrote in 1922.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know that Q, I was agreeing with DNZ how difficult it is to get majority in PR, even when the leftist parties unite (Keerpunt '72 (http://www.sociaalvooruit.nl/index.html?wissel=http%3A//www.sociaalvooruit.nl/t110704.html)).

Indeed majority vote isn't a shortcut, DNZ, and to me it seems even more difficult than getting an active majority of workers (for Kautsky such dictatorship of a minority of proletarians would quickly degenerate).

Of course it is, Noa. Votes can be protest votes, I-voted-this-because-my-relatives-voted-for-this-too, votes for charismatic politicians despite disagreement with key planks, and other unreliable measures of substantive political support.

Kautsky used a strawman in the "dictatorship of a minority of proletarians." Contemporarily that may justify things like Third World Caesarean Socialism as a first stage, but I'm writing here of proletarian demographic majorities.

Suppose in a First World country there exists a genuine revolutionary period for the working class. However, the political support, though a majority within the class, may be less than a crude "majority vote" over the whole population. Mainstream discourse calls this plurality. Hook or crook, this active plurality should seize power.


About supermajority for rewriting constitutions, I don't know. Don't CAs work with ordinary majority, or is it unanimous (I really don't know)? cf. Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Constitutional_Assembly) an example? (and since also for a legitimate constituent assembly practically it is a mess to try to exclude from the election the "bourgeoisie", having a majority in the CA means basically majority vote of the population).

It may be a mess, but it needs to be done. At least a large number of petit-bourgeois elements should be disenfranchised as well.

Again it is a mess, but no different from the late feudal absolute monarchies or the restriction of the bourgeois vote to property owners. A substantive DOTP should be no different in scrapping universal suffrage but maintaining equal suffrage, among other minuses and plus-es. Only once every capable body works can First World society pull off a Bukharin-Stalin on universal suffrage.


On socializing banks I doubt there is (or can be) much further progress by Die Linke or SYRIZA et al. on what Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sd) already wrote in 1922.

The radical left should revive the Gosbank SSSR model (a single state bank monopoly, straight from Marx and Engels) and nothing less. Credit unions and all that transfer economic rent to the "owners" and further reinforce rentier society relations.

By the way, how did you give up left communism so systematically? ;)

[Noa Rodman]

By the way, how did you give up left communism so systematically? ;)


I don't know if I have. I still hope that left communism doesn't give itself up to opportunism completely. It was an ICP article (http://www.international-communist-party.org/Partito/Parti299.htm) defending Stuchka which encouraged me to further ask about the Soviet legacy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For your information, Boss, "propagandism" isn't a neologism. It was the slur used by the Gramsci-Korsch-Lukacs trio to denounce of orthodox Marxism of the original Socialist International, to mis-credit this to Lenin's think. It's supposed to address the very passivity you're concerned about.

Apologies.


As I've said before, I'm all for statistical representation, since delegation can lead to cultural discrimination.

How can delegation lead to cultural discrimination, then?

[Die Neue Zeit]

How can delegation lead to cultural discrimination, then?

Boss, I called this mob rule in older posts, but it can be as simple as the immediate constituents recalling their "delegate" simply because said "delegate" has a funky hairstyle and insists on keeping it. Another, less frivolous example but not mentioned: I don't think anyone here can condone cheating on one's partner, but this kind of mob rule could bring about the scandalous downfall of the "delegate" despite a potentially commendable political record. It's the stuff of bourgeois scandalisms, a notion that can't be done away with on Day 1 of class rule. Recallability should only be available for an abuse-of-office scenario and nothing more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's entirely unreasonable to oppose delegation because somebody can in theory be recalled for any reason. In any system, people MAY vote for a peculiar reason. There's no reason to suggest this is unique to local, delegation-style systems.

You're essentially saying that more democracy, real democracy, is bad because people might vote for reasons you don't like!

[Noa Rodman]

It may be a mess, but it needs to be done. At least a large number of petit-bourgeois elements should be disenfranchised as well. Again it is a mess, but no different from the late feudal absolute monarchies or the restriction of the bourgeois vote to property owners.I think this is seen as the major break with Kautsky and the social-democratic past.

And the CA elections allowed the bourgeoisie to vote in them, right? And later with disenfranchisement did this prevent the Nepmen to use their economic power to influence the political system?

[Zederbaum]

I think this is seen as the major break with Kautsky and the social-democratic past.
Which it was, obviously, and consequently is evidence, in answer to the OP's question, that it was Lenin who broke with Kautsky and indeed with the Lenin of Two tasks of Social Democracy etc.


And the CA elections allowed the bourgeoisie to vote in them, right? And later with disenfranchisement did this prevent the Nepmen to use their economic power to influence the political system?
Good point too. From a Marxist point of view, we would expect the Nepmen and peasants to make their social weight count politically, which did, indeed occur within the party during this period and would have continued to increase over time. One of the big reasons for Stalin's revolution from above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think this is seen as the major break with Kautsky and the social-democratic past.

And the CA elections allowed the bourgeoisie to vote in them, right? And later with disenfranchisement did this prevent the Nepmen to use their economic power to influence the political system?

Yes, the hostile exchange between the renegade Kautsky and a hysterical Lenin included this problem. Bukharin suggested a new kind of "Revolutionary Convention" consisting of the Left-SRs and Bolsheviks in the CA, all the worker soviets, all the factory committees, all the peasant soviets, etc.

The exchange posed strawmen for both sides, leaving aside this Revolutionary Convention on the one hand (for Lenin to argue) and the Bolshevik violation of equal suffrage and coups d'etat of 1918 on the other (for Kautsky to point out re. soviet power).

Kautsky the Marxist would have pointed out all those and especially the breakdowns in party organization because of soviet power fetishes.

As for the NEP-men, yes that disenfranchisement certainly was sufficiently preventative.


Which it was, obviously, and consequently is evidence, in answer to the OP's question, that it was Lenin who broke with Kautsky and indeed with the Lenin of Two tasks of Social Democracy etc.

I don't recall reading anywhere about Kautsky the Marxist putting stress on universal suffrage. It was Lassalle who agitated for this, thinking that "class legislation" could be brought in with worker enfranchisement.

These days, I would think that overall political affairs and not just casting ballots or being eligible to hold political office is a more important base upon which to debate this double negative: All political and related administrative offices, and also the ability to influence or participate in political decision-making, shall be free of any formal or de facto disqualifications due to non-ownership of non-possessive property or, more generally, of wealth.

Why? Because here the Bolsheviks didn't go far enough up to and including the NEP era. Even Bordiga didn't argue pervasively enough on this topic.

[Noa Rodman]

Social democracy didn't advocate disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie in a democratic republic.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1889/political-position.htm

No peace with the present-day state.
Away with the cult of the universal and direct suffrage.
Let us continue to participate actively in the elections, using them however merely as means of propaganda, and emphasizing always that the ballot-box can never become the cradle of the democratic state. Universal suffrage will acquire its decisive influence on the state and society only after the abolition of the police and military state.


And comparing post-war SPD rightwingers (Gorlitz program) to Lassalle is a comparison doing them too much a favor (even Kautsky criticized them), as Korsch writes:
For everything Lassalle ever wrote or said about ‘universal suffrage’ and related matters is put in a totally different light by what he once said, in true bourgeois style, to a close circle of confidants. ‘Whenever I say “universal suffrage” you must understand me to mean ‘revolution”, and only “revolution”.’http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1922/gotha.htm

I want to find some reflection on the part of social-democrats in the new situation with universal suffrage and how it didn't bring majority support for the socialist party. Likely there is here a straw-man Kautsky who is supposed to naively think that socialists will very quickly gain majority once universal suffrage is won.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course revolutionary social democracy didn't.

Away with the cult of the universal and direct suffrage? That's an interesting take before "if elections could change anything, they'd make it illegal."

Anyway, the point of my double negative was to introduce the possibility, not dogmatic imperative, of going as far as I've stated, further than the Bolsheviks and even Bordiga.


I want to find some reflection on the part of social-democrats in the new situation with universal suffrage and how it didn't bring majority support for the socialist party. Likely there is here a straw-man Kautsky who is supposed to naively think that socialists will very quickly gain majority once universal suffrage is won.

Check out my posts on the Proletocratic/Proletarian-Not-Necessarily-Communist party-movement. It addresses the very real possibility of a communist maximum program not having majority political support even on Day 1 of a DOTP.

[MarxArchist]

Lenin and later Stalin broke with Marx after it became apparent Russia wasn't the spark for a global revolution and that Russia was to be isolated or surrounded by a sea of capitalism - everything since then has been a perversion of Marxism. I also think Lenin broke with Marx/Engels on the conception of the vanguard if not in theory then in practice but people excuse that because of the material and social conditions in Russia.