Anyone disagree that '...Renegade Kautsky' by Lenin is awesome?

[RedKobra]

Been reading 'The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky' by Lenin. I'm actually surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. Its clear Lenin doesn't hold Kautsky in especially high regard (he clearly once did). What are peoples opinions on the work? Do you agree with Lenin or do you think he has misrepresented Kautsky? I think there's some bluster in there for sure, for example claiming that Kautsky is worse than Bernstein. Lenin can't honestly have thought that, surely? In general though it is definitely a powerful piece of writing.

[Rafiq]

Kautsky proved worse than Bernstein precisely because he was so distinguished as leader of the movement. Kautsky, *the* face of the Second international's betrayal was far more treacherous, far more heinous and impactful precisely because Kautsky was not as bad as Bernstein, I.e. Kautsky's renege to the precedent he set for himself as the father of Marxist politics made him all the more contemptible.

[RedKobra]

Kautsky proved worse than Bernstein precisely because he was so distinguished as leader of the movement. Kautsky, *the* face of the Second international's betrayal was far more treacherous, far more heinous and impactful precisely because Kautsky was not as bad as Bernstein, I.e. Kautsky's renege to the precedent he set for himself as the father of Marxist politics made him all the more contemptible.

Yeh, I suppose when you put it like that.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You might enjoy this article while Lenin's is fresh in your head https://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Yup. So was Lenin's Judas Trotsky's Blush of Shame. The old revolutionary had a way with words.

[Noa Rodman]

-anecdote about Lenin wanting Kautsky to send his book: http://www.revleft.com/vb/chicken-and-rice-t191647/index.html

-The dispute whether soviets should be state organs during the DotP is still going on, for example within the leftcom milieu, between the ICT (yes) and ICC (no).

-Lenin's charge against Vandervelde's book Socialism versus the State is interesting (in the appendix), some quotes:

"The proletarian revolutionary differs from the liberal precisely in that he, as a theoretician, analyses the new significance of the Commune and the Soviets as a state.
The liberal is willing to talk about what will happen when it is not necessary to govern men; the government of men will disappear and give way to the administration of things only when the state in all forms withers away.
Why not indulge in such innocuous dreams?
But talking about this relatively distant future, Vandervelde overlays, obscures the task of tomorrow, namely, the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. About the proletariat having to crush the bourgeoisie’s resistance to their expropriation-not a word."

So Vandervelde is familiar with, admits, agrees with and quotes this fundamental proposition of Marxism (that the state, even in a democratic republic, is nothing but a machine for the suppression of one class by another), but ... he does not say a single word on the “unpleasant” (for the capitalist gentlemen) subject of the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters! The elucidation of the tasks of revolution as distinct from the tasks of reform, - there's no word that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, but must smash it!To be fair to Vandervelde he does write the following on p.130-31 in 'Socialism vs. the state':
Vandervelde wrote:
As a matter of fact it seems undeniable that
Engels and Marx, at least in the Manifesto,
suppose that at a given moment the proletarians,
donning the boots of the police-state, will appropriate
the coercive powers created by the bourgeoisie,
to govern against the bourgeoisie, that
they will, in a word, to make the social revolution,
utilize the instrument of rule forged by the
master class to make revolution impossible. Now,
with a proletariat powerfully organized, we may
admit that it would be far less a question of
utilizing the bourgeois State for other ends, than
of substituting for it a new State which is, from
now on, in process of formation in the great
trade-union, co-operative and political federations
of the working class.
That does not mean, assuredly, that nothing
ought to be preserved, even provisionally, of the
old state-machine. But, to speak frankly, we
have trouble in admitting that this instrument of
domination and oppression can, without essential
modifications, be used as a means of liberation
and enfranchisement. Engels moreover admits
this to a certain extent when he writes (see the
introduction to Civil war in France) that in the example
of the Commune, the proletariat, heir to this
scourge, ought, while awaiting its complete abolition,
"to attenuate, as far as possible, its most
grievous effects.

- I recently got 2 early Kautsy short texts (1881), one against state socialism and one against the immediate abolition of the state (he directly targets Bakunin). Nothing new from what he wrote in the Erfurt commentary, but I thought I'd just mention it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Been reading 'The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky' by Lenin. I'm actually surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. Its clear Lenin doesn't hold Kautsky in especially high regard (he clearly once did). What are peoples opinions on the work? Do you agree with Lenin or do you think he has misrepresented Kautsky? I think there's some bluster in there for sure, for example claiming that Kautsky is worse than Bernstein. Lenin can't honestly have thought that, surely? In general though it is definitely a powerful piece of writing.

I disagree. While in some way it is a powerful piece of writing as you say, in others it betrays the lack of understanding of pre-war socialdemocracy on Lenin's behalf (and it might be worthwhile to recall that this man thought that the Vorwarts edition where voting on war credits was reported on was a German intelligence fake), but that wasn't in any way or form specific to either Lenin of the revolutionary social democracy of Russia so the point might be half-moot (if such a thing exists).

[Sharia Lawn]

I disagree. While in some way it is a powerful piece of writing as you say, in others it betrays the lack of understanding of pre-war socialdemocracy on Lenin's behalf (and it might be worthwhile to recall that this man thought that the Vorwarts edition where voting on war credits was reported on was a German intelligence fake), but that wasn't in any way or form specific to either Lenin of the revolutionary social democracy of Russia so the point might be half-moot (if such a thing exists).

In what ways does it "betray a lack of understanding of prewar social democracy"?

[Noa Rodman]

For all Lenin's "way with words" and lack of "understanding pre-war social democracy" at least he still put up a fight with arguments.


Kautsky’s disgraceful rubbish, childish babble and shallowest opportunism impel me to ask: why do we do nothing to fight the theoretical vulgarisation of Marxism by Kautsky?

Can we tolerate that even such people as Mehring and Zetkin keep away from Kautsky more “morally” (if one may put it so) than theoretically.... Kautsky has found nothing better to do now than to write against the Bolsheviks, they say.

Is that an argument? Can one really so weaken one’s own position? Why, that is only putting a weapon into Kautsky’s hands!!

And this instead of writing:

Kautsky has absolutely failed to understand and has distorted in a purely opportunist way the teaching of Marx on the state , on the dictatorship of the proletariat , on bourgeois democray , on parliamentarism , on the role and significance of the Commune, etc.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/20x.htm

I think Lenin also points out in the preface that already before the October revolution, he had dealt with Kautsky in State&Revolution, namely the pre-war polemics with Pannekoek. There was a translation announced of Kautsky's reply to Pannekoek: http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/

Also about the response to war, already in 1912 Lenin was troubled by the merely passive response Kautsky advocated in case of war: http://www.revleft.com/vb/response-war-kautsky-t191398/index.html?t=191398

[Noa Rodman]

Here is a translation of pat of one of the Kautsky pieces I mentioned (1881).


The abolition of the state.

As a necessary consequence of the fact that the state only exists because of the antagonism between the ruling and the ruled class, it appears that the first act of the coming revolution* , which wants to overcome class division, is the abolition of the state.

This was also Bakunin's view. "The revolution as we understand it," he says, "will have to destroy the State and all the institutions of the State, radically and completely, from its very first day... We are the natural enemies of such revolutionaries – the would–be dictators, regulators, and trustees of the revolution – who even before the existing monarchical, aristocratic, and bourgeois states have been destroyed, already dream of creating new revolutionary states, as fully centralized and even more despotic than the states we now have. etc." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm

The anarchist thus will, as soon as the revolution breaks out, decree the abolition of the state, and, supposing that he has more luck than Bakunin on September 28 1870 in Lyon, destroy the state with its instruments of power, army, bureaucracy, police, etc., and hereupon leave it to each individual person, to carry out as best as possible the transition from the old to the new society.

Now what will happen?

The influence of the revolution will naturally in the given case, where it has no instruments of power, no army, no bureaucracy, no police, be able to extend itself only so far as the revolution itself. Every country however has its Vendée, its Tirol, its Pomerania. There the state organization remains existing, there the counter-revolution finds a fixed stronghold, while the revolution strains everything to disorganize itself.

The loyal Pomeranians, Tyroleans and Vendéans march in compact masses, destroying one "free" group and commune after the other. And at the same time the supporters of the overthrown system rise themselves up and organize the reaction within the zone of the revolution.

What is to be done?

One organizes hurriedly what one has destroyed, an army against the external, a police against the internal foe and a bureaucracy, to raise the means to maintain both of these, one spurs a welfare-committee, or whatever one may name the thing, thus a government, in short one does everything what a ruling class does in order to keep its sway - [B]the state is again there.

If the first act of the revolution were to consist in destruction of the state, then the second act for the sake of self preservation, would have to consist in building the state again.

Let us assume a Freischar-corps has everything that it needs to be victorious, just no artillery. Finally it succeeds, after great losses, in conquering a battery. What does one do? Instead of turning to cannons around and point them against the foe, one nails them up, so that they can no longer harm anyone!

This nailed up logic is anarchist logic.

The proletarian revolution will not become victorious first then when all other classes besides the proletariat have vanished and as a result of the concentration power of capitals the whole proletariat faces just one capitalist, rather this revolution will occur, once the proletariat is able to obtain the predominance over the other classes in virtue of its dedication, its enthusiasm, its organization and discipline. The victory of the proletariat does not yet involve the extinction of all class antagonisms. The coming revolution will for the time being raise the proletariat not to the sole, but to the ruling class; the antagonism between rulers and ruled will remain, and therefore the proletariat also will require a government, which as tool of the ruling class keeps the ruled ones with all available means under control.

This may sound very undemocratic, but necessity will force us to it.

The industrial proletariat as ruling class is however a contradiction, which itself strives to dissolution. The victorious proletariat can only do two things: either it appropriates the capitals and makes the previously ruling classes into its servants: this is posited as the goal by the literate and illiterate of our movement, though already the small number of property-owners in comparison to the property-less demonstrates the absurdity of such claim. The impossibility of this by our opponents attributed goal does to be sure not need to be elaborated here. Is this impossible, then the victorious proletariat can use its power as ruling class only to remove the class divisions as fast as possible.

A revolutionary proletarian government can in its action towards the other classes have only goal: not to make them servants, but to disintegrate them. The classes, whose interests run diametrically counter to the proletariat, big capital and big landownership, are directly destroyed, i.e. their property will directly have to be made possession of the whole, which is also without the heads of the property-owners possible, since property has the pleasant characteristic of not being inseparably tied to the body of the owner. With small landownership and small capital one will deal, depending on how they put themselves to us, probably by a compromise initiate their absorption by the ruling class.

This will be the task of the revolutionary government, which if required will have to implement with violence. That this task cannot be solved with one bang, that the means for its implementation must change depending on the political, social and technical relations, is clear. Whatever form these relations may take, one thing is certain: The interests of the proletariat demand that is absorbs as fast as possible the other classes. The longer the proletariat is the ruling class, the less it will be a ruling class, until finally all class division are vanished.

It seems the piece goes on to give a Marx reference, but they forgot to scan that page.

[Noa Rodman]

Kautsky, with the learned air of a most learned armchair fool, or with the innocent air of a ten-year-old schoolgirl, asks: Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain: —to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie;
—to inspire the reactionaries with fear;
—to maintain the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie;
—that the proletariat may forcibly hold down its adversaries

In 1881 Kautsky wrote exactly this (see my post above).

It's strange that Kautsky (afaik) never acknowledged Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. He certainly replied to Lenin's State&Revolution, even made notes on "Left-wing" communism: infantile disorder (https://libcom.org/library/bolshevik-matters-karl-kautsky).

Maybe he was too busy with other things?

[Noa Rodman]

Now I translated this article in full: https://libcom.org/library/abolition-state-karl-kautsky

[Devrim]

In what ways does it "betray a lack of understanding of prewar social democracy"?


Basically, Lenin didn't see it coming. He was surprised by the 'betrayal' whereas the left of the German SPD expected it.

Devrim

[Tim Redd]

Been reading 'The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky' by Lenin. I'm actually surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. Its clear Lenin doesn't hold Kautsky in especially high regard (he clearly once did). What are peoples opinions on the work? Do you agree with Lenin or do you think he has misrepresented Kautsky? I think there's some bluster in there for sure, for example claiming that Kautsky is worse than Bernstein. Lenin can't honestly have thought that, surely? In general though it is definitely a powerful piece of writing.


Lenin's central point in this work was that in an inter-imperialist war (like WWI and WWII) the proletariat of the involved imperialist countries should oppose the war and the involvement of their bourgeoisie in that war. And the proletariat should use every opportunity presented by the war to seize power from the bourgeoisie when possible through the means of proletarian led revolution. On this I have 100% agreement with Lenin.

In this work Lenin demonstrated how Kautsky sided with the German imperialists in WWI and that the line of the proletariat should be what I just laid out.

Lenin also delineated the nature of revisionism in general and used examples of Kautsky's revisionism and revisionism by supposed communists and communist parties in other other countries - even in Russia by the Mensheviks.