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.