Volume 1: Modern-Day Kautskyism

Kautskyism past and present In three volumes Alec Abbott July 2007 Volume 1: Modern-day Kautskyism _____________________________________________________ Volume 2: Kautsky’s theory of ‘ultra-imperialism’ _____________________________________________________ Volume 3: The revolutionary Marxist theory of imperialism Posted on the internet – May 2010 __________________________________________ Preface ‘They are not internationalists who vow and swear by internationalism. Only they are internationalists who in a really international way combat their own bourgeoisie, their own social-chauvinists, their own Kautskyites.’ (Lenin, 23\209)1 Ever since Bush and Blair embarked on their predatory rampage in the Middle- East and beyond, the notion of imperialism has become a subject of intense debate among socialists. Hardly a day passes without someone, somewhere, publishing an article on imperialism. The term imperialism, to borrow from Lenin, is now ‘all the rage’, just as it was during the early part of the last century, when the imperialist powers made preparations for World War I. British socialists who a few years ago had ignored the issue of imperialism – who had even denied the imperialist character of Britain - are now falling over themselves to demonstrate their anti-imperialist credentials. Throughout the world, socialists are seeking earnestly to make sense of the welter of present day theories about the nature of contemporary imperialism. Their task is a daunting one, made all the more difficult by the pretentious nonsense that is being written on the subject. Typical is the following: ‘… to think of imperialism in Lenin's terms … is to start from a statist point of view. Lenin's notion of imperialism has little in common with Marx, but Leninism in its various forms so dominated the notion of imperialism and nation states that little else is understood by these terms. This has impoverished us deeply. So we have to start from other dynamics … I think that imperialism has a place if we understand it as the appearance, the phenomenal form, of an essential reality (the unevenness of development of the real vs. formal subsumption, of hierarchies of class compositions, as part and parcel of the fragmentation of the political, but as a fragmentation which leads to hierarchies, to uneven power relations, etc.).2 In this work, I show that the recent contributions to the debate on imperialism are essentially of two types: those that seek to uphold the Kautskyite standpoint and those that seek to refute it. The authors who fall into the first category are drawn 1 I have modified Lenin’s statement in accordance with modern usage. The original reads: ‘He is not an internationalist …’, and so forth. This substitution of pronouns does not in any way affect the main thrust of Lenin’s message. 2 ‘Empire and Oil’, by Chris Wright, October 2001. [http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/aut-op- sy/2001m11/msg00000.htm] The above passage comes from one of the many ‘Marxist’ email lists that now adorn the internet. The way in which our modern-day opportunists express themselves on them brings to mind the writings of the ‘Critical Critics’, those petty-bourgeois babblers against whom the young Marx and Engels directed their ideological fire. 1 from a variety of organisations and editorial boards and include such luminaries as Alex Callinicos, Leo Panitch, Perry Anderson, Martin Thomas, Robert Brenner, David Harvey and a good many others besides. On the face of it, they constitute a disparate collection of individuals. Some reject Lenin’s analysis of imperialism altogether, preferring instead Bukharin’s or Rosa Luxemburg’s approach to the subject (while conveniently forgetting what all three revolutionaries had in common). Others are critical of the classical Marxist texts, arguing that the post-1945 order has produced a ‘new’ type of imperialism, a ‘super-imperialism’, about which the Marxists of old had little or nothing to say. Still others purport to uphold the Leninist standpoint, but only after having ‘amended’ Lenin in accordance with ‘modern-day’ realities. Then there are those who maintain that Lenin, in contrast to Kautsky, was correct for his times, but that Kautsky, as opposed to Lenin, is correct for ours. All in all, our authors are a mixed bunch, each upholding a standpoint that seems at odds with the others. However, rather than deal with the minutia of their twists and turns, I demonstrate that their ideas represent an entire opportunist trend of thought in the international socialist movement, a trend based on a definite social stratum within advanced capitalist societies. My aim is to draw ‘firm and definite lines of demarcation’ between the Marxist and opportunist approaches to the question of contemporary imperialism.3 In addition to exposing the essentially Kautskyite character of the above authors, I engage comrades (as distinct from ideological opponents) in ‘open polemics’, an activity all too rarely practised in the international socialist movement nowadays. A wide variety of organisations, some of which are barely on speaking terms with one another, are genuinely seeking to apply Lenin’s writings to the current situation. I share many of their views, though am critical of what I consider to be a number of their theoretical shortcomings. While they have correctly drawn parallels between today’s conditions and those that prevailed at the time of the build-up to WWI, they have not fully grasped the nature of the post-1945 accord (what I term ‘the long truce’) among the imperialist powers. Nor have they reached a position of clarity on the question of the inevitability of an inter-imperialist war between the United States of America (USA) and the 3 In announcing the publication of Iskra, Lenin wrote: ‘Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination. It is understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a mere storehouse of various views.’ (4\354-5) A perfect example of a modern-day ‘storehouse’ publication is OPE-L, a ‘Marxist’ email list whose members are shielded against public censure. As the editors of OPE-L proudly announced: ‘We decided … to make our archives available to the public subject to the following condition: you may not indicate the authors of any posts that you cite.’ [ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive] Thanks to this protective policy, OPE-L can ‘let people see what is being said’, while at the same time ensuring that ‘no member of the list has to defend every word that he or she posts.’ […archive/9809/0052.html] Our modern-day ‘Critical Critics’ can now babble away to their heart’s content, without regard to clarity of thought or expression, and without having to engage in the unsettling business of drawing lines of demarcation. 2 United States of Europe (USE). In criticising these writers, my aim is not to draw lines of demarcation but rather to stimulate debate among comrades.4 This work is made up of three distinct but closely related volumes. In the first, I examine modern-day Kautskyism in all its guises and manifestations. Although at times I consider Kautsky’s writings, I do so only briefly, in order to clarify various points of contention arising from the opportunists’ self-serving interpretations. My main aim in this volume is to prepare readers for a detailed examination of Kautsky’s standpoint, but in a way that is relevant to current struggles and debates. Once readers have understood the essentials of contemporary opportunism, they will have little difficulty in grasping the importance of a study of Kautskyism. In Volume 2, I take a close look at Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism’. Many modern-day opportunists insist that only a handful of mavericks are proponents of that theory. As readers progress from one volume to the next, they will be struck by the extent to which the theory of ‘ultra-imperialism’ enjoys widespread support in the socialist movement, even among those who ‘disavow’ Kautskyism. In Volume 3, I examine the three classical schools of socialist thought (the right, centrist and revolutionary Marxist) on imperialism. I show that the revolutionary Marxists not only belonged to a definite trend within the Second International, but also based their analyses on a set of core, anti-imperialist principles. Although important differences existed within the revolutionary camp, I leave it to others to identify and examine them. An all-round analysis of revolutionary Marxism will serve a useful purpose only when based on an understanding of what the likes of Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg (henceforth Rosa) had in common. In addition, I show that the two main opportunist currents, the social-chauvinists and centrists, shared the same opportunist goals. This does not mean that they 4 After explaining that Iskra’s editorial board would be drawing lines of demarcation with a firm and purposeful hand, Lenin went on to write: ‘…although we shall discuss all questions from our own definite point of view, we shall give space in our columns to polemics between comrades. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles… Indeed…we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics…’ (4\355) This advocacy of ‘open polemics among comrades’ was one of the hallmarks of the Bolshevik’s ideological practice throughout the party’s formative years. Thus, at the 11th Congress of the RCP(B), Lenin could state, without a single member of his audience batting an eyelid: ‘It is a pity Comrade Bukharin is not at the Congress.

Load more