Lenin on the Kautsky-Pannekoek debate

  1. Noa Rodman
    Noa Rodman
    Slowly a translation is being done of Kautsky's articles Die Aktion der Masse (1911), Die neue Taktik (1912) and perhaps also his Der jüngste Radikalismus.

    Here are some remarks I add.

    - Lenin commenting on the term:
    “mass action”?? It would be better to put this otherwise, without using this word which has the fault that, being largely caused by the German censorship (a pseudonym for revolution), it tends to obscure the concept of revolution. (There will have to be a reckoning on this later with Pannekoek + Radek & Co.!! Here is an example: there is no German censorship in Switzerland and here the term “mass action” has already brought about confusion which the reformists find useful.)
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...916/dec/07.htm

    - Kautsky takes the effort to provide a critique of Gustave le Bon.

    - With reference to Engels's famous 1895 intro Kautsky is hinting that armed insurrection is not ruled out. (Kautsky in 1906 too wrote that it was necessary to revise Engels's opinion.) In fact, the qualifications he makes in the present article (Mass Action 1911) resemble those Trotsky made in Der Arbeiterdeputiertenrat und die Revolution (https://www.marxists.org/archive/tro.../1905/ch22.htm), which also dealt with Engels's 1895 intro:
    On the one hand Engels made a very one-sided assessment of the significance of modern techniques in revolutionary risings and, on the other hand, he did not consider it necessary or convenient to explain that the evolution of the class composition of the army can become politically significant only when there is a direct confrontation between the army and the people.
    It seems Pannekoek didn't pick up the question of armed insurrection, but just stressed the ( "non-violent" resistance, though this does not mean passive http://aaap.be/Pdf/Zeitungskorrespon...ondenz-313.pdf) discipline of proletarian mass action. Trotsky didn't think this was enough, and he had occassion later against Kautsky to stress this:
    In spite of the Russian revolution, and the world discussion of this question, Kautsky, it turns out, retains the anarcho-reformist view of the general strike. We might point out to him that, in the pages of his own journal, the Neue Zeit, it was explained twelve years ago that the general strike is only a mobilization of the proletariat and its setting up against its enemy, the State; but that the strike in itself cannot produce the solution of the problem, because it exhausts the forces of the proletariat sooner than those of its enemies, and this, sooner or later, forces the workers to return to the factories. The general strike acquires a decisive importance only as a preliminary to a conflict between the proletariat and the armed forces of the opposition – i.e., to the open revolutionary rising of the workers. Only by breaking the will of the armies thrown against it can the revolutionary class solve the problem of power – the root problem of every revolution.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/tro...rcomm/ch02.htm

    This is a reference to Trotsky's own Das Proletariat und die russische Revolution in DNZ 1907 (which expounds permanent revolution, with which Kautsky agreed at the time, so Trotsky claimed in the preface):
    Revolution is first and foremost a struggle for state power. But a strike, as analysis suggests and as events have shown, is a revolutionary means of exerting pressure on the existing power. That, by the way, is precisely why the Kadet liberals, whose demands never went beyond the granting of a constitution, sanctioned the general strike as a means of struggle; but they did so only momentarily and in retrospect, at a moment when the proletariat had already recognized the limitations of the strike and realized that its limits must inevitably be transcended.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/tro.../1905/ch24.htm

    - The question of state in the Kautsky-Pannekoek debate.

    The foremost commentator on this debate is Lenin in State and Revolution. Lenin had objected to Kautsky's article already in 1912 on account of several issues, in this letter to Kamenev:
    Dear L. B., Can you get Neue Zeit, the latest issues, with the Pannekoek and Kautsky articles? If not, write, and we’ll send them over. It is necessary to read them before going to Chemnitz [SPD congress] and there to look up Pannekoek and make closer contact with him: Kautsky replied to him on some cardinal issues in an extremely opportunist way. It is very desirable to make closer contact with the Left (especially Pannekoek, who now lends a hand in the cheap “game” played by Tyszka) and to carry on agitation among them for a principled rebuff to Kautsky. It’ll be disgraceful if they do not revolt against such opportunism! Unfortunately they are short of people: Radek is practically a luminary among them....
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../sep/00lbk.htm

    One of these issues was certainly the response to war, as proven by a letter to Plekhanov http://www.revleft.com/vb/response-w....html?t=191398 . (note: Lenin had Russia's rev. situation in mind, but otherwise in a non-rev. situation Trotsky, Luxemburg and Lenin himself sometimes, agreed that one can't launch revolution at outbreak of war.)

    I claim that already in 1912 the smashing of the state was among these cardinal issues too. This is disputed by eg Marian Sawer (The Genesis of State and Revolution, The Socialist Register, London: Merlin, 1977), who writes:
    Lenin's position during this debate can at best be described as inattentive. Lenin certainly was aware of the Pannekoek and Kautsky articles in 1912, but he does not appear to have actually read the Pannekoek article until early 1917. ... Lenin regarded Kautsky's views on the state as representing Marxist orthodoxy until January/ February 1917, ...
    First, I think the letter to Kamenev clearly shows that Lenin did read it in 1912. Already in a previous letter he had asked Kamenev about Pannekoek's article (asking why Kamenev didn't respond to another, even earlier letter Lenin sent). Sadly we don't know what Lenin had asked, but it is possible that Lenin even wanted a Russian translation of Pannekoek's article (Mass Action and Revolution). Just consider Lenin's positive review of a Pannekoek brochure (Die taktischen Differenzen in der Arbeiterbewegung, 1909) + the fact that a Pannekoek 1910 article appeared in Sotsial-Demokrat on the mass strike debate (Социал-Демократ 5 VII 1910, nr. 14, p. 6-7 1910) + Раскол в Голландской Социал-Демократии. Ант. Паннекдк.

    Sawer et al. believe that it was the dispute with Bukharin that caused Lenin's supposed rethinking of his attitude towards Kautsky's position on the state. It suffices to point out that only in August 1916 Lenin reads/comments on Bukharin's draft article ('Towards a Theory of the Imperialist State'.), yet already in the first half of 1916 (before 19 June/2 july, when Lenin sent off his manuscript of Imperialism the Highest Stage) we find this remark by Lenin about Kautsky's article:

    "with vile passages about ministries, etc. (a vile opportunist article). [N.B. prior to Basle.]"
    (notebooks Iota and also Nu: https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...a/neuezeit.htm ).

    Furthermore, Pannekoek article's Imperialism and the tasks of the proletariat which repeats his 1912 claim on the destruction of state, was published first in July 1915 in Russian with Lenin expressing full agreement "in all essentials". This is one year prior to Bukharin's article.

    In conclusion, it is very likely that Kautsky's position towards the state was a problem for Lenin already during 1912.

    (note: So why did Lenin disagree with Bukharin, but agree with Pannekoek? Perhaps Bukharin didn't understood either. Bukharin wrote in his letter to Lenin in October 1916: "A great service was rendered by Pannekoek in that he, almost sole, understood the actuality of the problem [on the state].")

    I don't think Lenin claimed to have changed his view on the state. He draws the continuity to his previous stance:

    It might be asked: What should be the function of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies? They “must be regarded as organs of insurrection, of revolutionary rule”, we wrote in No. 47 of the Geneva Sotsial-Demokrat, of October 13, 1915.

    This theoretical proposition, deduced from the experience of the Commune of 1871 and of the Russian Revolution of 1905, must be explained and concretely developed on the basis of the practical experience of precisely the present stage of the present revolution in Russia.
    ...
    The immediate task is organisation, not only in the stereotyped sense of working to form stereotyped organisations, but in the sense of drawing unprecedentedly broad masses of the oppressed classes into an organisation that would take over the military, political and economic functions of the state.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...afar/third.htm

    And to his earlier stance, even before the 1905 revolution:

    The Mensheviks acknowledged the importance of the Soviets; they were in favour of “helping to organise” them, etc., but they did not regard them as embryos of revolutionary power, did not in general say anything about a “new revolutionary power” of this or some similar type, and flatly rejected the slogan of dictatorship.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...920/oct/20.htm

    - So what about the position of Kautsky? Of course Kautsky was aware of Marx's dictum on the impossibility of keeping the state machinery intact (cf Ben Lewis' translation of Kautsky 1904 series on French republic). Later in 1918 he still made an off-hand reference to it (as a comparison, in arguing against the idea of simply taking over organized capitalism (cartels and banks, supposedly an objective advance toward socialism).

    However, he disagreed with Marx on the combination of legislative and executive power. As he put it in 1922:

    In place of the State, Marx foresaw “a national delegation in Paris,” confronting “a central government with few but very important functions.” This, however, implied the same separation of legislative and executive powers which Marx desired to see abolished so far as the Commune was concerned.
    Consequently, it may well be doubted whether Marx desired the same institution for the State as for the Commune. But even if Marx wished to see all the powers of the State combined in a single body, this would signify nothing more than the persistence of memories of the great bourgeois revolution, whose forms it was the custom to regard as those of revolutions in general, inasmuch as the peculiar conditions for the proletarian revolution had not yet developed with sufficient clearness. This did not take place until the last generation.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/kau.../ch02_c.htm#se https://archive.org/stream/dieprolet...e/134/mode/2up

    But parliament would be powerless if it didn't have mass support:

    Establishing the supremacy of the parliament is a step toward democratization, but alone and in and of itself insufficient. However great is the significance of the dependency of the government on the parliament, this makes for democratization only provided that hand in hand with this condition goes the growing dependency of parliament on the great mass of the people. A parliament that does not derive its support from the mass of the people is powerless. On the other hand, the people in a parliamentary state that leaves its fate exclusively in the hands of the parliament is likewise impotent.
    Marx acknowledged the necessity for the parliament in modern politics, but just as much the necessity of pressure on the parliament from without. He who demands the supreme power be lodged in the parliament, but at the same time holds back the proletariat from all efforts to influence the parliament through methods corresponding to the nature of the proletariat as a class, he does not seriously desire the democratization of the (German) political system.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/kau...bolsheviki.htm

    ---
    After 1914 he was involved in debate against the Majority SPD in which he (typically to centrism) stressed the difference of Marxism from both the (reformist) national-liberal tactic towards the state, and (against the portrayal of Marxism as holding) the anarchist rejection of the state.
    p.542, Kautsky: Sozialdemokratische und nationalliberale Taktik, 1. Band Nr. 23 Ausgegeven am 9. März 1917 35. Jahrgang:

    "Der Kampf um die Demokratie, wo sie noch nicht besteht, ist also ein Lebenselement des proletarischen Emanzipationskampfes. Dazu gehört nicht bloß der Kampf um das freieste und ausgedehnteste Wahlrecht, nicht bloß der Kampf um die Unterwerfung der Bureaukratie unter die Selbstverwaltung sowie das Streben nach wachsender Beeinflussung und Kontrollierung der Parlamente durch die Volksmassen, sondern auch die Verwandlung der regierungen in bloße Beauftragte der Parlamente."

    1.Band Nr.24 Ausgegeben am 16.März 1917 35.Jahrgang, K.Kautsky: Die Wendung zum Nationalsozialismus im Kriege. p 567:

    "[following an Engels-quote] Hier haben wir endlich die »Verneinung des Staates«. Aber mit unserer Stellung zum jetzigen Staat hat das nicht das mindeste zu tun. Engels malt uns hier das Bild der Konsequenzen, die die Eroberung des jetzigen Staates durch das Proletariat nach sich ziehen wird. Es wird die Staatsgewalt zur Schaffung politischer und sozialer Zustände benutzen, die den Charakter des überkommenen Staatsorganismus so gründlich ändern, daß Engels sich berechtigt fühlt, das eine Aufhebung des Staates als Staat zu nennen. Aber es wäre eine Absurdität, zu glauben, diese Aufhebung werde in der Weise geschehen, daß wir dem vom Proletariat eroberten Staate die Mittel zu seiner Existenz verweigern! Das, was als »Verneinung des Staates« bezeichnet werden könnte, wird also erst dann eintreten, wenn er unser Staat geworden ist. dem wir alle Mittel bewilligen. Vorher aber, so-lange wir die »Staatsnotwendigkeiten« verweigern, »verneinen« wir den Staat nicht, weil wir ihn erobern wollen, weil ohne die Staatsgewalt das Proletariat nicht zu befreien ist."
  2. Noa Rodman
    Noa Rodman
    (moving beyond the limits of just this debate)
    I think Kautsky also claimed soviets are still within the logic of the representative principle.

    But if legislative and executive powers are combined into one institution (eg Sovnarkom), then what function is there left for the soviet (CEC) to fulfill?

    At the 11th RCP congres (pp. 92-93) one proposal by Osinsky (early democratic centralism group) was to make the Sovnarkom just an executive, and the CEC the legislative power (cf. T.H. Rigby, Lenin's Government: Sovnarkom 1917-22), an idea which Lenin dismissed out of hand.

    (Osinsky also proposed that it should be left to the chairman of Sovnarkom to unilaterally select his ministers/commissars.):

    We have the Sovnarkom as a legislative body, issuing decrees. In essence, we have adopted a tradition that comes from the temporary government, which had no parliament, – they began to legislate themselves. This habit we took over in the revolutionary period. It was necessary to legislate very quickly. And now 16 departmental people write laws. This is the result. I know this psychology being a representative of a departmental institution myself, but I am able to look at the question objectively. (Voice: Not always, brother!) I am able to watch from the sidelines as a member of the party, and at the same time, I understand the psychology of the departmental people and the way they approach the decrees. Take a project, handed out 16 copies, run, see their department, suppose the Narkomput, – one person is against, another is for, all the others are indifferent. Next, we have in the Sovnarkom sitting not "commissars" but"deputies", the actual operatives are not responsible persons, but "deputies" who in common policy
    [I'll break it off here, you can post the text in google-translate (Osinsky compared the actual law-making process to a vermicelli soup):]

    Мы имеем СНК как законодательное учреждение, издающее декреты. В сущности, мы переняли традицию, идущую от временного правительства, у которого не было никакого парламента,—они начали сами законодательствовать. Эту привычку мы восприняли в революционный момент. Надо было чрезвычайно быстро законодательствовать. И вот 16 ведомственных людей пишут законы. Таков результат. Я эту психологию знаю, так как сам представитель ведомственного учреждения, но умею смотреть на вопросы объективно. (Голос. Не всегда, брат!) Я умею наблюдать со стороны как член партии, и в то же время я прекрасно понимаю психологию ведомственных людей и то, как они подходят к декретам. Берут проект, розданный в 16 экземплярах, пробегают, видят свое учреждение, предположим, Наркомпуть,—против одного возражают, другое принимают, все остальное безразлично. Дальше—у нас в СНК заседают не „наркомы", а „замы", фактически работающие, не ответственные персоны, а „замы", которые в общей политике не обязаны разбираться. Дальше, что получается? Политбюро является решающей инстанцией. СНК всегда был безответственным пасынком по отношению к самым даже отдельным конкретным вопросам. Если имеется директива Политбюро решить вопрос так, то стоп машина: комиссары смолкают. Если надо пересмотреть по существу, попробуйте пересмотреть,—наши наркомы спасуют, потому что имеются особые директивы. Такое положение невозможно: не может учреждение, состоящее из 16 безответственных или мало ответственных людей, представителей своих ведомств, писать и решать законы! Это создало невероятный поток вер Мишелей, ведомственное разложение центральных инстанций. Что надо сделать? Здесь надо точно фиксировать одно: надо отнять у СНК законодательные функции и сосредоточить их исключительно у ВЦИКа. СНК должен быть исполнительным органом ВЦИКа. Это надо сказать совершенно точно, а так точно т. Ленин все-таки не сказал. Затем необходимо отметить, что надо иметь „кабинет" комиссаров. Только в том случае, если будет образован этот кабинет, его председатель, ответственный перед ВЦИКом, подбирает и лиц, и этот кабинет. Тогда получится необходимая спайка. Если вы сейчас скептически пробуете улыбаться, дорогие товарищи, то на XII съезде, а может быть на XIII, вы убедитесь в этом и примете эту постановку вопросов. Если мы ее не приняли с полной ясностью и серьезностью и не осуществим на нашей классовой основе в пределах нашей советской системы, то произойдет очень скверная вещь, то, о чем говорит т. Ленин: именно, нас тогда прогонят к чорту, потому что у нас будет негодная, устарелая система управления, которая не соответствует колоссально сложным задачам классового общества, которое мы теперь получаем с массой противоречий борьбы и т. д. Это первая половина дела, о которой я хотел сказать.
  3. Noa Rodman
    Noa Rodman
  4. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Crap. One bug with this board upgrade, comrade, is that I can't Quote you so easily!

    Some points, since you did say you wish to move beyond the limits of the historical debate(s):

    1) Based on a citation you provided above, I don't think Trotsky knew much about "non-violent resistance" outside of a general strike framework.

    2) Contemporarily speaking, I support the combination of legislative and executive power because of the lesser-known area of public policymaking, not a topic of discussion in the traditional Marxist works. It is so important that legislation and administration merely formalize what comes out of it.

    3) Where did Kautsky claim that soviets specifically were still within the logic of the representative principle? We both know that Lars Lih asserted this from a critical reading of the traditional Marxist works, but that's Lars Lih.

    (And we both know that I have argued in favour of demarchy from the perspective of statistical representation, not statistical delegation, but that's me.)

    But if legislative and executive powers are combined into one institution (eg Sovnarkom), then what function is there left for the soviet (CEC) to fulfill?
    Don't get me wrong. I wholly support the notion of a Revolutionary Provisional Government taking the form of an outer cabinet and an inner cabinet (just not a cabinet functioning under an "imperial presidency").

    However, based on what I said above, I think the CEC could've transformed itself into at least a Political Consultative Conference, if not a full-blown Central Public Policymaking Committee.
  5. Noa Rodman
    Noa Rodman
    as to point nr.3) I was not certain if Kautsky said this. I should take that back since I cannot find it.

    --

    I hope you noticed the translations (by comrade K.O.) of the couple of Kautsky's articles? The article on The New Tactic has a section on Government and parliament where Kautsky writes that the proletariat "must strive to make the legislative body the master of both the government and the judiciary."
  6. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    I certainly noticed.

    Also, I wonder if Kautsky ever, ever wrote about the importance of a body meeting in continuous session as a means of maximizing political accountability.