I remember how some articles on the internet (ranging from Trotskyist to bourgeois) claim that Bernsteinism didn't become widely supported by the right wing trade union bureaucracy. However, I also remember articles (also ranging from Trotskyist to bourgeois) that claimed that the Marxist leaders of the party were "Bernsteinian" in practice (through parliamentary work) while Marxist in theory. "Bernsteinian" was never defined in those articles and it could amount to an alternative word for "centrism". But it could also refer to plain reformism (especially in the case of Bebel, the lesser Marxist of the two). Yet, in different letters to Engels both Bebel and Kautsky stressed that eventually Bernsteinism was a small minority (something which Bernstein didn't want to aknowledge) in the party. Bebel even went so far as to make it clear that he was "anti-bernsteinian". Bernsteinism was something that had to be destroyed for the same reason as Lassalleanism. However, I stumbled upon this article (pdf.) from the NYT. It claims that in his last parliamentary intervention (1913) Bebel voted yes on the question of finance bills for German armament. If this is true he betrayed his own rule: "Not one penny, not one man". According the article this was done in order to create some sort of a lib-lab majority. I remember Luxemburg fighting against this kind of opportunism (in an article translated by the Weekly Worker but possibly not yet uploaded to Marxists.org). I don't want to go too far so here's my question: Kautsky's and Bebel's alledged Bernsteinism, is it derived from a false perception of Erfurtianism or were both (even before 1910) really bernsteinian (reformist) at times? (I know that Kautsky once wrote that Bebel's attitude towards the agrarian question was "reformist"; but I don't know if this attitutde was an accident or something recurring among the two.)
I see you remember my citation of Macnair's article on the five divisions in the workers' movement. It wasn't widely supported by the right-wing tred-iunionisty because Bernstein still had political demands. To be fair, Bernstein only suggested "evolutionary socialism" and dropping the maximum program. He didn't have much to say about tactical issues (such as Jaures, Millerand, and coalitionists). Before 1910, the alleged "Bernsteinism" is little more than a false perception of Erfurtism. "Being on the right" in a revolutionary situation can mean restraining spontaneous action when the cards aren't stacked in your favour. Bebel's vote, however, was a practical betrayal that set a precedent. At this point or slightly earlier, if he couldn't combat the right more aggressively, he should've at least been more aggressive in grooming Hugo Haase (like Lenin, I don't have a really really hostile opinion on Haase's renegacy, since he did German workers a favour by forming the USPD). P.S. - Perhaps "Erfurtism" isn't the right term. If even Luxemburg couldn't contemplate key elements of the DOTP in the minimum program a la Social Revolution (average workers' wage), then perhaps I'm merely giving a rosy theoretical framework to something that may not have existed back then. Nevertheless, the presence of recallability and militias does demonstrate the various commentators' false perceptions (Modern "Erfurtism" > Actual Erfurtism > Traditional Perceptions).
