DOCSLIB.ORG

Kautsky's Interpretation of Karl Marx's Economic Thought

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kautsky's Interpretation of Karl Marx's Economic Thought chapter 5 The Capitalist Law of Appropriation: Kautsky’s Interpretation of Karl Marx’s Economic Thought One would expect that the phenomenon of revisionism would have had some- thing to do with the question of the dual nature of consciousness of the work- ing class. However, revisionism was never a serious theoretical problem for Kautsky. He could cherish illusions that the theoretical authority and the pro- gramme of the party were not seriously challenged by revisionism because, in his opinion, revisionism had not yet presented any alternative scientific the- ory endangering the role of Marxism in the movement. As a matter of fact, it had not presented any theory at all. In this respect, it could better be compared to the historical school of national economy.1 On the other hand, one would expect Kautsky to have wondered why the proletariat, in his opinion already a decisive majority in the developed capitalist countries, had not been ready to take over state power. The only explanation he offered was that the proletariat was not yet ripe for its historical mission. Regarding Germany, Kautsky’s optimism in this respect, shared by Engels,2 was understandable. During the relatively short period since the abolition of the socialist law, the party had succeeded quite well in the parliamentary elec- tions. The final victory was only a question of time. Minor setbacks could be explained by concrete political conditions. In England, however, the situation should have been theoretically more challenging. The increase of the prolet- ariat and its organisation into trade unions had tended to weaken the revolu- tionary spirit of the labour movement. As a matter of fact, in England – as was already pointed out by Engels – there had not been any genuinely socialist movement of importance, but only ‘eclectic, average socialism’.3 However, Kautsky never developed any theoretical explanation for the phe- nomenon of revisionism or reformism inside the party and trade unions. He clearly understood revisionism as only a singular event in the development of Social Democracy and did not analyse it at all in the wider context of emerging 1 Kautsky 1902–3a, pp. 727–8. 2 Engels 1974–2004f, pp. 521–2. 3 Engels 1974–2004c, p. 297. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004306653_007 Jukka Gronow - 9789004306653 Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 04:22:28AM via free access the capitalist law of appropriation 79 reformist tendencies in the labour movement. In 1902, in The Three Crises of Marxism [Die drei Krisen des Marxismus] Kautsky could already state that the newest crisis in Marxism, the challenge posed by revisionism, had been over- come and had not left any permanent effects on Social Democracy: ‘Above all, it had almost no affect at all on the main thing, i.e. practical Marxism, almost completely untouched, which is understandable’.4 This crisis did not have any real reasons: it was caused exclusively by the personal reaction of certain per- sons. Thus it did not leave any permanent traces and ‘as of yet, the most recent crisis of Marxism has not even brought about a fundamental revision of our programmes’.5 In an article written shortly after the Dresden Party Congress in 1903, Kautsky could triumphantly announce that ‘the declarations and votes in Dresden signify the burial of theoretical revisionism as a political factor’.6 Finally, in an article dedicated to the seventieth birthday of Bernstein in 1920, Kautsky could even afford to give his former opponent credit for hav- ing discussed the new problems posed by imperialist politics and economic prosperity, and connected with the relations of Social Democracy with rad- ical bourgeois parties.7 At the same time, Kautsky nevertheless preserved his old position, and stated that the development of capitalism had subsequently made the problems posed by Bernstein obsolete: When imperialism went from its first stage into its second stage, when prosperity and continual trade-union victories were replaced by rapid inflation and the stagnation of the trade-union struggle, the question of the correctness of Marx’s prognoses ceased to play a role.8 The problems posed by Bernstein were thus understood to have been connec- ted only with a specific economic conjuncture of capitalism. However, even according to Kautsky’s own conception, reformism was a natural feature of the labour movement in its initial stages of development. Without the polit- ical guidance of the party provided with a socialist theory, the labour move- ment could never become conscious of its genuine interests. Obviously, Kaut- sky believed that once the labour movement was politically organised and the proletariat had adopted the essentials of scientific socialism, reformism could 4 Kautsky 1902–3a, p. 727. 5 Ibid. 6 Kautsky 1902–3d, p. 814. 7 Kautsky 1920a, pp. 45–6. 8 Kautsky 1920a, p. 47. Jukka Gronow - 9789004306653 Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 04:22:28AM via free access 80 chapter 5 no longer gain any permanent footing in the movement. Revisionism was only a temporary indiscretion on the part of some party intellectuals caused by ignorance and insufficient knowledge of the wider perspectives of social devel- opment. There are several explanations as to why the proletariat cannot attain a general and common class consciousness in its economic struggle scattered throughout Kautsky’s work (petit-bourgeois traditions and remnants, labour aristocracy, and so on), but the main obstacle is clearly one of principle: there are limits of principle to economic consciousness that can never be overcome automatically. In this respect, Kautsky’s dualism is rather devastating. Political consciousness and the struggle for power – whether inside or outside of parlia- ment – have practically nothing to do with the daily interests of the wage work- ers, yet the labour movement is supposed to develop automatically and out of necessity into a revolutionary political party. The mediator is the Social Demo- cratic Party in possession of the scientific socialism and the right strategy. The best form of political struggle in this respect is parliamentary politics. Electoral campaigns have an important organisational function. They are the best means of organising the proletariat of the whole country into common action.9 Theoretically, Kautsky’s conception of the economic vs. socialist conscious- ness of the wage workers, and the political consequences drawn from it, are deeply rooted in his interpretation of Marx’s ‘economic thought’. Kautsky’s book The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx [Karl Marx’ Ökonomische Lehren], written in co-operation with Bernstein and under the guidance of Engels,10 was originally published in 1887. It could be argued that at least in some of its basic interpretations, The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx presents the core of the Marxism of the Second International; the fundamental aspects of this inter- pretation were shared by most theoreticians of the time. The basic idea behind the Kautskyan interpretation of Capital was the his- torical character of its economic theory; Capital is basically a presentation of the historical development of capitalism, the most important part of which is the presentation of the historical law of capital accumulation. Kautsky is quite explicit in his interpretation in this respect. In the preface to his book, he formulated the task of his presentation not only as a popularisation [Gemein- verständlichung] of Capital, but also, in an important sense, as a further devel- opment of Marx’s economic thought.11 9 Kautsky 1911a, p. 137. 10 Steenson 1978, p. 66. 11 Kautsky 1906b, pp. ix–x. Jukka Gronow - 9789004306653 Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 04:22:28AM via free access the capitalist law of appropriation 81 According to Kautsky, Marx’s Capital is often said to be very difficult to understand and hard to read. In Kautsky’s opinion, this complaint is totally mis- placed. The presentation in Capital is superior in its beauty and clarity; its style is classical. And yet it must be admitted that many a reader has found it very dif- ficult to understand. The presentation should not, however, be made respons- ible for the many misunderstandings. Economics is by its very nature a difficult field of study; society is such a complicated formation. The part of economic science which Marx called ‘vulgar economics’ is easy enough to understand for anyone familiar with the business transactions of everyday life. Knowledge of everyday business life is not, however, sufficient for the study of Marx’s critique of political economy. The theory presented in Capital can be comprehended only when the relevant historical and contemporary facts are known: Understanding Marx’s Capital, which establishes a new historic and eco- nomic system in the form of a critique of political economy, not only presupposes a certain historical knowledge, but also a recognition of the facts presented by the development of big industry. Those who are not at least partly aware of the facts from which Marx derives his historical laws will remain in the dark when it comes to the meaning of these laws, and may complain about mysticism and Hegelianism. Even the clearest presentation will be of no use to them.12 Knowledge of the relevant historical facts is, however, problematic, because Marx himself did not – for some odd reason – always present them in Capital.13 The chapters on big industry [grosse lndustrie] carefully present the relevant historical facts, whereas they are clearly missing at the beginning of Capital. And Kautsky takes it upon himself to supplement the presentation in this respect: 12 Ibid. 13 In a letter to Werner Sombart in 1895, Engels formulated the task of the further develop- ment of Marx’s Capital in terms similar to those employed by Kautsky. In discussing the problematic nature of value in capitalism (in a ‘developed system of exchange of commod- ities’), Engels stated that, in capitalism, value is hidden as opposed to the immediate value of undeveloped exchange.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dictatorship of the Proletariat’
    Revolution and the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ Vanessa Walilko DePaul University March 2004 V.I. Lenin has been accused of being “power-crazed” and “a fanatic believer in a Communist utopia” (Getzler: 464).1 To others, Lenin is considered to be the “greatest thinker to have been produced by the revolutionary working class movement since Marx” (Lukacs: 10). By still others, he is considered a “cynical authoritarian” or a “revolutionary idealist”2 (Rereading: 19). It has also been proposed that Lenin “had a compulsive need to dominate” and that he “was indeed a revolutionary fanatic” (ibid: xvii). Yet Lenin identified one reason for his writings: to clear up those aspects of Marx’s and Engels’ theories which had been “ignored and distorted3 by the opportunists” (State and Revolution: 384, Rereading: 5).4 Despite the fact that Marx and Lenin agreed on many points regarding revolution and the role the proletariat would play after they had secured power for themselves, many of Lenin’s ideas are at the same time quite distinct from the theories that Marx put down in The Communist Manifesto and The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850. This paper will address their similarities and differences in views regarding the necessity of the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx understood that the material conditions of life, particularly the political economy determined human consciousness (Theory and Revolution: 34). Marx believed that history was driven by the class struggle.5 This class antagonism eventually evolved into an open fight which “either ended in a large revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Manifesto: 1).6 The revolution,7 therefore, was the catalyst for radical social change.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery, Capitalism, and the “Proletariat”
    1 1 The Slave-Machine: Slavery, Capital- ism, and the “Proletariat” in The Black Jacobins and Capital Nick Nesbitt This essay argues that C. L. R. James’s Marxist humanism is inherently inade- quate for describing the distinction and transition between slavery and capitalism. To do so, the essay interrogates James’s famous claim in The Black Jacobins (1938) that the slaves of St. Domingue were “closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in existence at the time,” by comparing James’s understand- ing of the concept of proletariat—there and in World Revolution (1937)—with Marx’s various developments of the concept across the three volumes of Capital. This analysis distinguishes James’s political and historicist deployment of the term from Marx’s analytical usage of the notion in his categorial critique of capitalism.In contrast with James’s linear, Marxist-humanist understanding of the passage from slavery to capitalism, Marx himself demarcates a well-defined delineation between these two basic categories, understood in Capital as analytically (as opposed to historically) distinct modes of production.The essay thus concludes by analyzing Marx’s conceptual differentiation of slavery and industrial capitalism in Capital, drawing on Etienne Balibar’s analysis of the concepts of mode of production and transition in Reading Capital (1965). The slaves worked on the land, and, like revolutionary peasants everywhere, they aimed at the extermination of their oppressors. But working and living together in gangs of hundreds on the huge sugar-factories which covered the North Plain, they were closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in existence at the time, and the rising was, therefore, a thoroughly prepared and organized mass movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Petty Bourgeoisie’
    Comments on the Term ‘Petty Bourgeoisie’ (S.H. — 4/28/19) Introduction First, I apologize for the length of this essay; as I got into the issue I kept thinking of additional aspects and related topics that should be mentioned. (Of course there are no doubt many more aspects not mentioned here!) And of necessity a discussion about how the petty bourgeoisie is defined must also discuss just how the proletariat and the bourgeoisie should be defined. These are not totally separate issues. Second, in this discussion I am not going to make any distinction between the various English and French spellings: I am taking the most common English term, ‘petty bourgeoisie’ to be the same thing as the ‘petit bourgeoisie’ and the ‘petite bourgeoisie’. Third, it is certainly true that the term ‘petty bourgeoisie’ is used in different ways by different people; i.e., it means different things to different people. Although some other conceptions will be mentioned, I am not setting out to catalog all the many different conceptions and to treat them all with equal validity, as a general lexicographical study would do in creating entries in a standard (bourgeois!) general-purpose dictionary. Instead, I am setting out to say 1) how I think the term has been used within Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, and 2) how I think it should be used within that theory in the U.S. today. In other words, I am setting out to define a technical term within MLM theory, but to also talk about a number of additional issues that come up in this regard.
    [Show full text]
  • Keywords—Marxism 101 Session 1 Bourgeoisie
    Keywords—Marxism 101 Session 1 Bourgeoisie: the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. Capital: an asset (including money) owned by an individual as wealth used to realize a fnancial proft, and to create additional wealth. Capital exists within the process of economic exchange and grows out of the process of circulation. Capital is the basis of the economic system of capitalism. Capitalism: a mode of production in which capital in its various forms is the principal means of production. Capital can take the form of money or credit for the purchase of labour power and materials of production; of physical machinery; or of stocks of fnished goods or work in progress. Whatever the form, it is the private ownership of capital in the hands of the class of capitalists to the exclusion of the mass of the population. Class: social stratifcation defned by a person's relationship to the means of production. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png Class struggle: an antagonism that exists within a society, catalyzed by competing socioeconomic interests and central to revolutionary change. Communism: 1) a political movement of the working class in capitalist society, committed to the abolition of capitalism 2) a form of society which the working class, through its struggle, would bring into existence through abolition of classes and of the capitalist division of labor. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: the idea that the proletariat (the working class) has control over political power in the process of changing the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership as part of a socialist transition to communism.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Realist Arguments in Marx's Capital
    Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital Hans G. Ehrbar Published 2002 Contents Note iii 3 Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital 1 3.1 From Hegel to Bhaskar ............................ 1 3.2 Marx’s opening moves ............................ 4 3.3 Surface and core of the economy ....................... 6 3.4 From surface to core ............................. 13 3.5 The double character of labour ........................ 14 3.6 From core to surface ............................. 16 3.7 The fetish-like character of commodities ................... 19 i Contents 3.8 The exchange process ............................. 22 3.9 The curse of money .............................. 24 3.10 Does critical realism make a difference? ................... 28 ii Note This essay was published as chapter 3 in [BFR02]. This collection was published by Routledge; c 2002 selection and editorial matter, An- drew Brown, Steve Fleetwood and John Michael Roberts; individual chapters, the contribu- tors. The print edition of the book says: All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now knows or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. ISBN 0-415-25012-9 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-25013-7 (pbk) iii Note iv 3 Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital 3.1 From Hegel to Bhaskar <43> In Capital, Marx uses Hegelian concepts and terminology extensively. For instance, shortly after the beginning of the first chapter, Marx concludes that the exchange value of commodities must be the ‘form of appearance’ of some ‘substance’, called ‘value’, which is different from exchange value itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political and Social Thought of Lewis Corey
    70-13,988 BROWN, David Evan, 19 33- THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT OF LEWIS COREY. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Political Science, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT OF LEWIS COREY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By David Evan Brown, B.A, ******* The Ohio State University 1969 Approved by Adviser Department of Political Science PREFACE On December 2 3 , 1952, Lewis Corey was served with a warrant for his arrest by officers of the U, S, Department of Justice. He was, so the warrant read, subject to deportation under the "Act of October 16 , 1 9 1 8 , as amended, for the reason that you have been prior to entry a member of the following class: an alien who is a member of an organi­ zation which was the direct predecessor of the Communist Party of the United States, to wit The Communist Party of America."^ A hearing, originally arranged for April 7» 1953» but delayed until July 27 because of Corey's poor health, was held; but a ruling was not handed down at that time. The Special Inquiry Officer in charge of the case adjourned the hearing pending the receipt of a full report of Corey's activities o during the previous ten years. [The testimony during the hearing had focused primarily on Corey's early writings and political activities.] The hearing was not reconvened, and the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, as charged, was never formally settled.
    [Show full text]
  • FRANTZ FANON and the "LUMPENPROLETARIAT" Peter
    FRANTZ FANON AND THE "LUMPENPROLETARIAT" Peter Worsley IN 1960, I attended the All-African People's Congress in Accra, Ghana. The proceedings consisted mainly of speeches by leaders of African nationalism from all over the continent, few of whom said anything notable. When, therefore, the representative of the Algerian Revolutionary Provisional Government, their Ambassador to Ghana, stood up to speak for his country, I prepared myself for an address by a diplomat-not usually an experience to set the pulses racing. Instead, I found myself electrified by a contribution that was remarkable not only for its analytical power, but delivered, too, with a passion and brilliance that is all too rare. I discovered that the Ambassador was a man named Frantz Fanon. During his talk, at one point, he almost appeared to break down. I asked him afterwards what had happened. He replied that he had suddenly felt emotionally overcome at the thought that he had to stand there, before the assembled representatives of African nationalist movements, to try and persuade them that the Algerian cause was important, at a time when men were dying and being tortured in his own country for a cause whose justice ought to command automatic support from rational and progressive human beings. I think this incident reflects one special quality that is characteristic of Fanon's writing also : its passion. It is also ruthlessly honest and highly intellectual, if not always worked-through. It is this special blend of intellect and passion that stamps Fanon's work as the pro- duct of a unique and powerful mind.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels
    University of Central Florida STARS PRISM: Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements 1-1-1938 The history of the Communist manifesto of Marx and Engels Vladimir Viktorovich Adoratsky Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/prism University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Book is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in PRISM: Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Adoratsky, Vladimir Viktorovich, "The history of the Communist manifesto of Marx and Engels" (1938). PRISM: Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements. 491. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/prism/491 The History of the . COMMUNIST MANI FESTO of MARXand ENGELS The History of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO of MARX and ENGELS By V. ADORATSKY Director, Marx- Engels - Lenin Institute INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS NEW YORK CONTENTS Ii. HI~RICALBACKGROUND ......... g The League of the Just; Criticism of Kriege's ~cntalSocialism; The Struggle Against Karl Gh; Events Leading to the Manifem. IV. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCEAND MEANINGTODAY ... 27 1938 All Rightz Reserved PRINTED-- IN THE usa. THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO OF MARX AND ENGELS THEManifesto of #he Communist Parry (the Cornmimid Mrmif*) saw the light of day shortly More the February Revolution of 1848. In this brilliant work written ninety years ago-seventy years More the victory won in 19x7 by the great socialist revolution-Marx and Engels announced the oncoming proletarian revolution, gave strictly scientific pun& for its historic necessity, and foretold the inevitable downfall of the bourgeoisie and the viaory of the proletariat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Class in Canada in the Twentieth
    “The Development of Class in Canada in the Twentieth Century”: A Critique Anthony Thomson 1975 Leo Johnson’s essay on the development of class in Canada1 is significant in many respects. With the contradictions of monopoly capitalism becoming manifest, and the world-wide trend of countries seeking independence as background and formative factors, the nationalist upsurge in Canada has given rise to the embryo of a distinctive Canadian social science. Tracing its roots to the works of Harold Innis, the new social science is at once historical, political, sociological and based on a political economy which is couched increasingly within a Marxian framework. Johnson’s work clearly is part of this trend and therein lies much of its positive value. It might be conceded nevertheless that this new social science (which is not a purely Canadian phenomenon but on the contrary one that is being felt throughout the capitalist world), in Canada, runs the risk of being somewhat ethnocentric in its concentration on ‘things Canadian’ to the extent that it misinterprets both Marxism and Canadian history, a problem encountered, for example, in some of the work of Tom Naylor. Canadian experiences sometime need interpretation in the light of some more global processes. That is, while it is obviously incorrect to try to fit the Canadian facts into an imported theoretical framework derived from an analysis of concrete conditions elsewhere that proves to be inadequate in that context, it is also incorrect to carry out indigenous analysis in isolation from those theories that provide important insights into the nature of social transformation in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Struggle and the Proletariat
    chapter 12 Class Struggle and the Proletariat As mentioned in the previous chapter, class struggle is the material form of class consciousness under given material conditions and their contradictions. Class struggle occurs against the capitalist class relation which operates at dif- ferent levels: a more fundamental level, and a level at which effects of the op- eration of the logic of the class relation is manifested and produces effects in the form of low wages, unemployment, etc. The struggle against the latter, the symptoms of the operation of the class relation, is the trade union struggle, which is mistakenly often equated with class struggle as such. Class struggle, class struggle proper, is the struggle against the very relation itself. It is the struggle to abolish the class relation and to construct a new society that pre- serves the positive features of the current society but goes qualitatively beyond it. Class struggle proper is the struggle that may build on, but must go beyond, the trade union form of the struggle and its aims. Many of the conditions that further and hinder trade union struggle that were discussed in the previous chapter apply, more or less, to class struggle proper as well. Class struggle is rooted in the fundamental contradiction in class relations: labourers produce wealth together in a collective process but it is appropriated by a tiny elite, resulting in deprivation and misery for workers. According to Marx and Engels, ‘the class struggle …[is] the immediate driving force of his- tory’; it is ‘the great lever of the modern social revolution’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discreet Charm of the Petty Bourgeoisie: Marx, Proudhon, and the Critique of Political Economy
    The Discreet Charm of the Petty Bourgeoisie: Marx, Proudhon, and the Critique of Political Economy by Ryan Breeden B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2018 Associate of Arts, Douglas College, 2016 Thesis SuBmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of History Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Ryan Breeden 2020 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2020 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Declaration of Committee Name: Ryan Breeden Degree: Master of Arts Thesis title: The Discreet Charm of the Petty Bourgeoisie: Marx, Proudhon, and the Critique of Political Economy Committee: Chair: Thomas Kuehn Associate Professor, History Mark Leier Supervisor Professor, History Roxanne Panchasi Committee Member Associate Professor, History Stephen Collis Examiner Professor, English ii Abstract This thesis examines Marx and Engels’s concept of the petty Bourgeoisie and its application to the French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Rather than treating the concept as purely derogatory, I show that for Marx and Engels, the petty bourgeoisie was crucial in their Broader critique of political economy By emBodying the contradiction between capital and labour. Because of their structural position between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie are economically, politically, and socially pulled in two separate directions––identifying with either the owners of property, with propertyless workers, or with both simultaneously. This analysis is then extended by investigating Marx’s critique of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. I argue that for Marx, Proudhon was not wrong Because he was a memBer of the petty Bourgeoisie.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenin's Critique of Kautsky the Renegade
    chapter 13 The Question of Democracy and Dictatorship: Lenin’s Critique of Kautsky the Renegade Lenin first accused Kautsky of being a renegade of Marxism after the Russian Revolution. Until then, Lenin, like many others, had regarded Kautsky as a real and genuine Marxist. The best-known and most vehement criticism of Kautsky was first introduced by Lenin after Kautsky’s direct and unconditional critique of the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin’s critique reached its utmost forcefulness after the publication of Kautsky’s The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in 1918. Kautsky had become a ‘renegade of Marxism’. In The Proletarian Revolution and the RenegadeKautsky,1 Lenin criticised Kautsky’s conception of democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialist character of the Russian Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat were the main targets in Kautsky’s TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat. The relation between dictatorship and democracy was understood both by Lenin and by Kautsky to be the leading question.2 The analysis of these two methods of government was the main idea in Kautsky’s pamphlet. Kautsky’s interpretation of Marx’s concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat was, in Lenin’s opinion, totally false, even though Kautsky tried to defend his own position as a genuine Marxist interpreter by claiming that Marx understood the dictatorship of the proletariat not as a form of government, but rather as a specific state of affairs or condition, a mediating state between a bourgeois and real proletarian government.3 Lenin thought that Kautsky’s attempt was ridiculous.
    [Show full text]