Reformist and evolutionary socialism?

[greenjuice]

Maybe this could go in the Opposing ideologies forum, if the mods see fit, but I'd like it to be in the learning so more people would read the topic and answer.

By "reformist socialism" I mean the opinion that capitalism will be surpassed by reforms, and by "evolutionary socialism" I call the opinion that capitalism is inevitable to fall because of it's internal contradictions and that workers should concentrate on improving their conditions and not on revolution because capitalism will fall anyway.

If I understood rightly, the first position was held by Bernstein, and the second one by Kautsky, right?

Can someone tell me what thinkers and organisations have supported and support these types of socialism?

[Geiseric]

Kautsky was also a reformist, however it's important to realize that Bernstein bastardized the theories Marx and Engels held regarding legal ways of carrying out the class struggle. Suffice to say, the early SPD with Wilhelm Leibchnacht and August Bebel was completely different from the WW1 era one, which developed a bureaucracy, much like the mensheviks, who cared about their seats and positions in the bourgeois government more than revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

It is important to note that Kautsky, up until after 'The Road to Power' was considered to be one of the predominant Marxist theoreticians in the world.

[Zederbaum]

By "reformist socialism" I mean the opinion that capitalism will be surpassed by reforms, and by "evolutionary socialism" I call the opinion that capitalism is inevitable to fall because of it's internal contradictions and that workers should concentrate on improving their conditions and not on revolution because capitalism will fall anyway.

If I understood rightly, the first position was held by Bernstein, and the second one by Kautsky, right?

Not quite. Both Bernstein and Kautsky cut their chops prior to the fall of the Absolutist monarchies in Europe; the Hohenzollern, Habsburgs, and Romanovs. These were regimes with unaccountable governments, no democratic control of the state (e.g. parliament had very little legal say in controlling the army). There were also restrictions on civil liberties, e.g. restrictions on voting in Prussia. Russia was the most backward of these countries, with the most repressive regime.

After Engels' death, Bernstein moved away from historical materialism (even allowing for a broad interpretation of what constitutes historical materialism) and this eased the way to his supporting alliances with non-socialist forces.

The background to this strategic choice was that he thought the Absolutist Hohenzollern regime could be reformed out of relevance, leaving it, at best, sort of like the gracious queen which our English comrades are so fortunate to have reigning over them. A long, peaceful road to ever improving reforms was possible, provided the SPD abandoned its revolutionism, which he viewed as an isolating force.

Kautsky, on the other hand, thought that the Hohenzollern regime and the other "military monarchies" on the continent would have to overthrown by revolution and and replaced by a democratic republic which he viewed as the type of state most favourable to the development of socialism. The reason for it being the most favourable for socialism was that it created the conditions which enabled the working class's organisations (the Socialist Party, trade unions, and co-operatives and their media) to grow, to learn how to administer mass institutions etc.

So, once a democratic republic was achieved, Kautksy was no longer revolutionary, although I should note he was critical of the German republic's failure to completely dismantle the influence of the Prussian officer corps.

But prior to the democratic revolution of 1918 he was revolutionary. Kautsky viewed the specifically socialist aspects of a revolution, i.e. the collectivisation of the means of production, democratic planning for social needs and so forth, as best accomplished gradually in the democratic republic. His logic here was that largescale and sudden change at the economic level would lead to social chaos and a subsequent loss in popularity for socialism itself.

[l'Enfermé]

Kautsky was a revolutionary Marxist, Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism" is what we call "reformism" today, i.e the notion that capitalism can gradually evolve into socialism through peaceful parliamentary activity.

[greenjuice]

The background to this strategic choice was that he thought the Absolutist Hohenzollern regime could be reformed out of relevance, leaving it, at best, sort of like the gracious queen which our English comrades are so fortunate to have reigning over them. A long, peaceful road to ever improving reforms was possible
I think I read somewhere that he opposed Bismarc's "State Socialism", it that true? If so, do you know why?


Kautsky, on the other hand, thought that the Hohenzollern regime and the other "military monarchies" on the continent would have to overthrown by revolution and and replaced by a democratic republic which he viewed as the type of state most favourable to the development of socialism. The reason for it being the most favourable for socialism was that it created the conditions which enabled the working class's organisations (the Socialist Party, trade unions, and co-operatives and their media) to grow, to learn how to administer mass institutions etc.
...

But prior to the democratic revolution of 1918 he was revolutionary. Kautsky viewed the specifically socialist aspects of a revolution, i.e. the collectivisation of the means of production, democratic planning for social needs and so forth, as best accomplished gradually in the democratic republic.
So Kautsky supported bourgeois revolutions in feudalist(-like) states, but after those revolutions socialism by reforms?

Also I'm sure I read about the view, that I mentioned, about fall of capitalism being imminent, and that's why workers should improve their conditions and not call for a revolution, because capitalism is going to fall anyway- who espoused that view?


Kautsky was a revolutionary Marxist,
How did he concieve the revolution?


Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism" is what we call "reformism" today, i.e the notion that capitalism can gradually evolve into socialism through peaceful parliamentary activity.
How did he envision socialism? Something like mutualism, or like communism, also, when did he think the state should stop existing? If someone could give me short anwers that'd be great, it's a bummer that wikipedia doesn't have stuff that, maybe some other encyclopedia has such summaries, if you know of such (online) source, please point me to it.

Also, I'd appreciate if someone whould tell are there any such organisations today- not modern "social-democratic parties" which just want a welfare state, but that want socialism.

[Geiseric]

Not quite. Both Bernstein and Kautsky cut their chops prior to the fall of the Absolutist monarchies in Europe; the Hohenzollern, Habsburgs, and Romanovs. These were regimes with unaccountable governments, no democratic control of the state (e.g. parliament had very little legal say in controlling the army). There were also restrictions on civil liberties, e.g. restrictions on voting in Prussia. Russia was the most backward of these countries, with the most repressive regime.

After Engels' death, Bernstein moved away from historical materialism (even allowing for a broad interpretation of what constitutes historical materialism) and this eased the way to his supporting alliances with non-socialist forces.

The background to this strategic choice was that he thought the Absolutist Hohenzollern regime could be reformed out of relevance, leaving it, at best, sort of like the gracious queen which our English comrades are so fortunate to have reigning over them. A long, peaceful road to ever improving reforms was possible, provided the SPD abandoned its revolutionism, which he viewed as an isolating force.

Kautsky, on the other hand, thought that the Hohenzollern regime and the other "military monarchies" on the continent would have to overthrown by revolution and and replaced by a democratic republic which he viewed as the type of state most favourable to the development of socialism. The reason for it being the most favourable for socialism was that it created the conditions which enabled the working class's organisations (the Socialist Party, trade unions, and co-operatives and their media) to grow, to learn how to administer mass institutions etc.

So, once a democratic republic was achieved, Kautksy was no longer revolutionary, although I should note he was critical of the German republic's failure to completely dismantle the influence of the Prussian officer corps.

But prior to the democratic revolution of 1918 he was revolutionary. Kautsky viewed the specifically socialist aspects of a revolution, i.e. the collectivisation of the means of production, democratic planning for social needs and so forth, as best accomplished gradually in the democratic republic. His logic here was that largescale and sudden change at the economic level would lead to social chaos and a subsequent loss in popularity for socialism itself.

Kautsky's theory could also be interpreted as stagism, which Trotsky counterposed (without lenin untill 1917) with his theory of perminant revolution, saying only a workers government could start the road to socialism.

[Zederbaum]

Kautsky's theory could also be interpreted as stagism, which Trotsky counterposed (without lenin untill 1917) with his theory of perminant revolution, saying only a workers government could start the road to socialism.

Well, I suppose it was stagist, but given that it was a standard Marxist trope that capitalism was a necessary stage of history under which the technological and social basis for socialism would be constructed, it’s fair to say that Kautsky was pretty mainstream on this. I suppose, too, that you could say he helped create that mainstream.

It’s worth noting the “social basis” bit. Capitalism creates and organises a working class which alone has the capacity to abolish class society.

Without the capacity to build its own organisations (unions, co-ops, party, and press) the working class cannot fulfill its historic mission. I think this is one of the often overlooked reasons for Kautsky’s hostility to post-1918 Bolshevism: their regime negated any possibility of such organisation.


which Trotsky counterposed ... with his theory of perminant revolution
Actually, Kautsky’s was one of the theorists who was thinking along the lines of permanent revolution back around 1905 and I imagine Trotsky was heavily influenced by the old man’s writings on this issue.

But permanent revolution is not in itself opposed to “stagism”. For unless we think the victorious working class can simply click its fingers and a socialist society will appear, there has to be some lag in the achievement of socialist power, irrespective if that power is to be wielded through soviets or parliament or the dictatorship of a vanguard, and an alteration of the relations of production such that we can say that socialism is now the dominant mode of production.

In short, stagism is an inevitable feature of any theory which attempts to put a magnifying glass up to events. It’s only if we content ourselves with fuzzy generalisations that we can avoid it.


saying only a workers government could start the road to socialism.
Kautsky remained adamant after 1918 that only a Socialist government (as opposed to a coalition government) could start the road to socialism. The difference between him and Trotsky revolved around how that government was to come into being and how it was to be maintained.

As above, once the absolutist monarchies were dispatched to the...eh...ash-heap of history, Kautsky thought that a Socialist government should arise out of and be maintained by victory at elections held under universal suffrage. Trotsky, on the other hand, practically gloried in the undemocratic nature of the Bolshevik regime (until, of course, it came back to bite him in the ass).

[Geiseric]

So the soviets weren't an independent working class organization? Kautsky was against demoracy more than lenin or trotsky ever were, know about the freikorps? He wasn't a true marxist at that point, he was a bureaucrat, like all bureaucrats he despises revolution.

[Zederbaum]

I think I read somewhere that he opposed Bismarc's "State Socialism", it that true? If so, do you know why?
It's true. All the Marxists opposed it for, despite Anarchist attacks, the 2nd International Marxists weren't worshippers of the state at all. Actual socialism requires democracy. There was no democracy under the absolutist dynasties. Thus, those measures would not take society in a socialist direction. If anything, they could lead to an increase in the strength of the tyrannical regimes.


So Kautsky supported bourgeois revolutions in feudalist(-like) states, but after those revolutions socialism by reforms?
Essentially, though he continued to use the terminology of revolution; he called the socialisation of production in a democratic republic a "labour revolution". But it was to be enacted progressively and not take the form of instantaneous expropriation followed by inept self-managament a la Russia in 1917.

Having said that, Kautksy's proposed measures for socialisation are actually more socialist than many of the modern day revolutionary parties, many of whom confine their policies – insofar as they manage to come up with any in a detailed way – to left Keynesism. Kautsky is concerned to push the socialisation process along. Obviously, in the context of a severely disrputed production in the aftermath of the war, getting production itself going was the first step. But his general work on socialisation would be considered way to the left these days.


Also I'm sure I read about the view, that I mentioned, about fall of capitalism being imminent, and that's why workers should improve their conditions and not call for a revolution, because capitalism is going to fall anyway- who espoused that view?
Well, you have to be careful when reading about Kautsky. A lot of the stuff out there is a warmed over version of Lenin's invective, most of which is hopelessly wrong. It's worth reading his own books. Unlike a fair amount of modern Marxism, he is very readable and clear enough that you'll know whether you agree or disagree; you won't be left scratching your head about the negation of the negation.

There is not much point talking about Kautsky's views on revolution in the abstract. We need to be more specific: revolution at what point in history? Carried out by whom? In what objective conditions? etc

He consistently held that revolution was necessary to get rid of the military monarchies. He saw their fall coming in either of two ways: they lose a major war, after which they are overthrown or the development of capitalism and the workers organisations makes their position untenable. In the second case, revolution would likely coincide with a majority socialist government and objective conditions (the level of technical and social organisation) would be favourable to transitioning to socialism.

Unfortunately, the first scenario occurred, the Socialist party split, nationalism triumphed within the party etc etc. This meant that although the monarchy was overthrown, the Socialist Party did not have a majority and was in any case led by patriotic rather than class leaders. So there was the unfinished business of winning that majority and winning the party to socialism.

I suspect that in the long term he thought socialism was inevitable. The course of history flows in its favour. But history is played out by humans. Workers have to organise for socialism. So, if by not calling for revolution after 1918, you mean did he think that workers would not have to bother working towards socialisation of the means of production and instead confine themselves with improving their conditions the answer is "no".

The confusion arises through making "revolution" synonymous with "socialism" or even "socialisation".

[Zederbaum]

So the soviets weren't an independent working class organization?
Obviously they were, at least until the Bolsheviks starting restricting that independence from mid 1918 on. They just they weren't organisations around which it was viable to build a state apparatus. They were working class organs of struggle; not organs of state. When called upon to be the nucleus of the revolutionary Russian state they just weren't up to the job.


Kautsky was against demoracy more than lenin or trotsky ever were, know about the freikorps?
I do. Not sure what it has to do with Kautsky though, since he wasn't a member of the SPD at the time. He was in the USPD.


He wasn't a true marxist at that point, he was a bureaucrat, like all bureaucrats he despises revolution.
Is bureaucrat a curse word? Kaustky was basically an intellectual, not a bureaucrat.

[greenjuice]

Thanks for the anwers.

Only another question I would like to know the answer to- are there any organisations that are for reformist socialism, I'd like to see their programs.

[Zederbaum]

Only another question I would like to know the answer to- are there any organisations that are for reformist socialism, I'd like to see their programs.
It wouldn't do to give you an easy 'yes' or 'no' answer. :)

I don't think there are any party programmes that are as clearly socialist as Kautksy's The Labour Revolution, at least among any of the major left parties.

His 'centrist' Marxism pretty much died a death, eaten away by Bolshevism and integrationist Social Democracy, which in the end accepted capitalism. I suppose the Italian Communist Party (PCI) recapitulated the same trajectory as the SPD, replete with integrationist, centrist and left wings.

So, Kautskyist Marxism is only now beginning to re-emerge having being buried under the glacial stasis of the post-1917 aura of an imaginary successful workers' revolution in Russia. Its strategic orientation is much more suited to the social and political conditions of the advanced capitalism than the insurrectionary socialism of the Trotskyists, Anarchists, Left Communists etc.

There are, however, organisations like SYRIZA or the French Left Front that seem to me to be have the potential to hew a Kautskyist path (obviously it'll be called something different). These, like all major socialist parties including the SPD, are coalitions of different tendencies. It remains to be seen how far they can develop a programme for socialisation as opposed to left Keynesism.

There are some ideas for political socialism that emanate from outside parties: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf or my own minimum programme: http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/bronterre/2012/07/27/european-minimum-programme

[Art Vandelay]

Thanks for the anwers.

Only another question I would like to know the answer to- are there any organisations that are for reformist socialism, I'd like to see their programs.

It is a dead end. I wouldn't spend to much time on it, unless from the standpoint of historical curiosity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Without the capacity to build its own organisations (unions, co-ops, party, and press) the working class cannot fulfill its historic mission. I think this is one of the often overlooked reasons for Kautsky’s hostility to post-1918 Bolshevism: their regime negated any possibility of such organisation.

Welcome back! Anyway, he focused on the wrong organs, though. The Constituent Assembly wasn't a working-class institution.


Actually, Kautsky’s was one of the theorists who was thinking along the lines of permanent revolution back around 1905 and I imagine Trotsky was heavily influenced by the old man’s writings on this issue.

Not quite. Trotsky got his ideas from Parvus. Kautsky developed his take independently, and Lenin came around to it and not to Parvus-Trotsky.


But it was to be enacted progressively and not take the form of instantaneous expropriation followed by inept self-managament a la Russia in 1917.

You've got it the wrong way around. Instantaneous expropriation followed inept self-management and parochial production, and then all that was followed by one-man management.


Having said that, Kautsky's proposed measures for socialisation are actually more socialist than many of the modern day revolutionary parties, many of whom confine their policies – insofar as they manage to come up with any in a detailed way – to left Keynesism. Kautsky is concerned to push the socialisation process along. Obviously, in the context of a severely disrputed production in the aftermath of the war, getting production itself going was the first step. But his general work on socialisation would be considered way to the left these days.

But whatever he wrote or didn't write has to be adapted to modern circumstances. Even gradual expropriation should still be expropriation, not a transfer of wealth to the purchasee. That's where things like Fiscally Conservative/Responsible Socialism comes in.


Obviously they were, at least until the Bolsheviks starting restricting that independence from mid 1918 on. They just they weren't organisations around which it was viable to build a state apparatus. They were working class organs of struggle; not organs of state. When called upon to be the nucleus of the revolutionary Russian state they just weren't up to the job.

Um, the soviets weren't even "working-class organs of struggle." More direct yet political organs of struggle could be found in the militias. More durable state organs could be found in the executive apparatus.


So, Kautskyist Marxism is only now beginning to re-emerge having being buried under the glacial stasis of the post-1917 aura of an imaginary successful workers' revolution in Russia. Its strategic orientation is much more suited to the social and political conditions of the advanced capitalism than the insurrectionary socialism of the Trotskyists, Anarchists, Left Communists etc.

There are, however, organisations like SYRIZA or the French Left Front that seem to me to be have the potential to hew a Kautskyist path (obviously it'll be called something different). These, like all major socialist parties including the SPD, are coalitions of different tendencies. It remains to be seen how far they can develop a programme for socialisation as opposed to left Keynesism.

There are some ideas for political socialism that emanate from outside parties: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf or my own minimum programme: http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/bronterre/2012/07/27/european-minimum-programme

Indeed.