Die Neue Zeit
4th April 2008, 04:12
http://books.google.ca/books?id=U1VRPOPKq64C&dq=%22John+Kautsky%22&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
Actually, I read some of the book above by a certain renegade's own non-Marxist grandson, John Kautsky. He doesn't even pretend to be a Marxist, with his separation of Leninism from Marxism in another book on the basis of Lenin's "modernization" (which in fact is based directly on Marx's remarks on primitive accumulation, the "once upon a time" explanation for the birth of capitalism - hence why "Leninist modernization," barring political intervention by foreign bourgeois elements, has been more successful and rapid than classical modernization based on the Western European model :glare: ).
He makes a questionably compelling argument with regards to the development of proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements in different countries, linking it more towards aristocracy than towards economic development. This would explain the problem of proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements in the United States.
[Of course, he is erroneous in his definition of "working class," associating the class only with manual workers (factory workers, construction workers, miners, etc.) who directly produce physical commodities.]
On the other hand, proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements sprouting up (the former at least to the "trade union" level) in countries that have had no aristocracy or at least haven't had such for quite some time (Latin America, India, and now even Germany).
If John Kautsky has a valid point (but with obvious holes), how can there be a revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement in a post-aristocratic world?
[On the other hand, one could argue that class mobility is nowadays limited to between lumpens, proles, coordinators, petit-bourgeois, and the "Class #2" (security guards, cops, lawyers, judges, and artisans), and that only now has the bourgeoisie has started to exhibit aristocratic tendencies.]
Actually, I read some of the book above by a certain renegade's own non-Marxist grandson, John Kautsky. He doesn't even pretend to be a Marxist, with his separation of Leninism from Marxism in another book on the basis of Lenin's "modernization" (which in fact is based directly on Marx's remarks on primitive accumulation, the "once upon a time" explanation for the birth of capitalism - hence why "Leninist modernization," barring political intervention by foreign bourgeois elements, has been more successful and rapid than classical modernization based on the Western European model :glare: ).
He makes a questionably compelling argument with regards to the development of proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements in different countries, linking it more towards aristocracy than towards economic development. This would explain the problem of proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements in the United States.
[Of course, he is erroneous in his definition of "working class," associating the class only with manual workers (factory workers, construction workers, miners, etc.) who directly produce physical commodities.]
On the other hand, proletarian class consciousness and socialist movements sprouting up (the former at least to the "trade union" level) in countries that have had no aristocracy or at least haven't had such for quite some time (Latin America, India, and now even Germany).
If John Kautsky has a valid point (but with obvious holes), how can there be a revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement in a post-aristocratic world?
[On the other hand, one could argue that class mobility is nowadays limited to between lumpens, proles, coordinators, petit-bourgeois, and the "Class #2" (security guards, cops, lawyers, judges, and artisans), and that only now has the bourgeoisie has started to exhibit aristocratic tendencies.]