The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade/Chapter 1
CHAPTER I.
HOW KAUTSKY TURNED MARX INTO A
HACKNEYED LIBERAL.
The fundamental question touched upon by Kautsky in his pamphlet is the question of the essential content of the proletarian revolution, namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a question which is of the greatest importance for all countries, especially the most advanced ones, especially those which are now at war, and especially at the present moment. One may say without fear of exaggeration that this is the most important, the chief, problem of the entire class-struggle of the proletariat. Hence it is necessary to dwell upon it with particular attention.
Kautsky formulates the question in the sense that "the opposition between the two Socialist schools (that is the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks) is the opposition between two fundamentally different methods: the democratic and the dictatorial" (p. 3).
Let me point out in passing that by calling the non-Bolsheviks in Russia, that is the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, "Socialists," Kautsky has been guided by their names; that is, by the mere word, and not by the actual position which they have taken up in the fight between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. What a fine interpretation and application of the Marxism! But of this more anon. At present we must deal with the main point, with the great discovery made by Kaustky of the "fundamental opposition" between "democratic and dictatorial methods." This is the gist of the matter, and this is the essence of Kautsky's pamphlet. And this is such a monstrous theoretical confusion, such a complete renunciation of Marxism, that Kautsky may be said to have quite outstripped Bernstein.
The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the question of the relation between the proletarian State and the bourgeois State, between proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy. This, it would seem, ought to be as plain as noonday. But Kautsky, like a schoolmaster who has been going over his historical text books again and again until he has become dry as dust, persistently turns his back to the twentieth, and his face to the eighteenth century, and tediously chews, for the thousand-and-first time, in a number of paragraphs the old and ancient cud about the relation between bourgeois democracy and absolutism and mediaevalism. What a fruitful occupation in our days! What a lack of understanding of the fitness of things! One cannot help smiling at Kautsky's endeavors to represent the matter in a way as if there were persons preaching "contempt for democracy" (p. 11) and so forth. It is by such twaddle that Kautsky has to gloss over and to confuse the question at issue, for he formulates it in the manner of bourgeois Liberals as if it were a question of democracy in general, and not of bourgeois democracy, and even avoids using this precise class term, speaking instead of a "pre-Socialist democracy." Almost a third of his pamphlet, twenty pages out of a total of sixty-three, is devoted by this windbag to a twaddle which must be very agreeable to the bourgeoisie, as it paints bourgeois democracy in rosy colors, and obscures the question of the proletarian revolution.
Still, the title of Kautsky's pamphlet is "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Everybody knows that this is just the essence of Marx's teaching, and Kautsky, after all this talk beside the point, is obliged to quote Marx's words on the subject. The way, however, in which he, the so-called Marxist, has done it is simply a farce. Listen: "The whole of that view" [which Kautsky dubs "contempt for democracy"] "rests upon one single word of Marx." This is what Kautsky says on page 20, and on page 60 the same thing is repeated in a still more pointed form to the effect that the Bolsheviks have "just in good time discovered a shibboleth" (the textual word is "Wörtchen") about the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Marx used once in 1875 in a private letter.
This is Marx's "shibboleth": "There lies between the capitalist and communist society a period of revolutionary transformation of one into the other. This period has a corresponding political period of transition, during which the State can be nothing else than a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
First of all, to call this celebrated passage of Marx, which sums up all his revolutionary teaching, "one single word." and even "shibboleth," is to insult Marxism, to abjure it completely. One must not forget that Kautsky knows Marx almost by heart, and that, to judge by all his writings, he has in his desk or in his head a number of pigeon-holes, in which all that was ever written by Marx is distributed in a manner most scientific and most convenient for quotation. Kautsky cannot but know that both Marx and Engels, both in their letters and public writings, spoke repeatedly about the dictatorship of the proletariat, both before and after the Commune. Kautsky cannot but know that the formula, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is but a more historically concrete and more scientifically precise designation for that task of the proletariat in “breaking up” the bourgeois State machine, about which Marx and Engels, in summing up the experience of the revolution of 1848, and, still more so, of 1871, spoke for forty years, between 1852–1891.
How is this monstrous distortion of Marxism, by such a schoolman of Marxism as Kautsky to be explained? In terms of philosophy, this distortion is simply a substitution of eclecticism and sophistry in the place of dialectics. Kautsky is a past master in the art of such substitutions. In terms of practical politics, this distortion is simply a piece of flunkey-like subserviency to the Opportunists, that is, in the last resort, to the bourgeoisie. Advancing, since the beginning of the war, at an increasingly rapid pace, Kautsky has attained a rare virtuosity in this art of being a Marxist in words, and a lackey to the bourgeoisie in practice.
One becomes still more convinced of this when the remarkable way is examined in which Kautsky has interpreted Marx's "shibboleth" about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Listen:
"Marx unfortunately has failed to show us in greater detail how he conceived this dictatorship." (This is a thoroughly mendacious phrase of a renegade, since Marx and Engels gave us quite a number of most precise indications which our schoolman of Marxism has deliberately ignored). "Literally, the world 'dictatorship' means the abrogation of democracy. But, of course, taken literally, this word also means the undivided rule of one individual who is not bound by any laws—an autocracy which differs from despotism only in this, that it is regarded not as a permanent State institution, but as an extreme measure of a temporary character. Hence the term, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' referring as is does to the dictatorship not of one individual, but of a class, ipso facto excludes the possibility that Marx in this connection used the word 'dictatorship' in its literal sense. In fact, he speaks in this connection not of a form of government, but of a state of things which must necessarily supervene whenever and wherever the proletariat has conquered political power. That Marx did not have in view a form of government is proved by the fact that he was of the opinion that in England and America the transition can take place peacefully, and therefore, in a democratic way" (p. 20.).
I quoted this disquisition in full on purpose, in order that the reader may clearly see the kind of method employed by Kautsky, the "theoretician."
Kautsky chooses to approach the question so as to begin with a definition of the word: "dictatorship." Very well. Everybody has the inalienable right to approach a subject subject in whatever manner he desires. One must only distinguish a businesslike and honest approach to a question from a dishonest. Anyone who wanted to be serious in approaching this question ought to have given his own definition of that "word"; then the question would have been put fairly and squarely. But Kautsky did not do that. "Literally," he writes, "the word 'dictatorship' means the abrogation of democracy."
First, this is not a definition. If it was Kautsky's design not to give a definition of the idea of dictatorship, why did he choose this particular approach to the question? Second, it is obviously untrue. It is natural for a Liberal to speak of democracy in general, but a Marxist will never fail to ask the question: for what class? Everybody, for instance, knows (and Kautsky the historian also knows it) that the rebellions and even the mere "unrest" of the slaves in antiquity each time revealed the essential nature the ancient State as a dictatorship of the slave-owner. Did this dictatorship abrogate democracy among the slave-owners for them? Everbody knows that it did not. Kautsky "the Marxist." uttered a masterpiece of nonsense and untruth, because he “forgot" the class-struggle.
To make a true and Marxist proposition out of the false and liberal one given by Kautsky, it is necessary to state as follows: a dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abrogation of democracy for that class which wields it against the other class, but it necessarily means the abrogation, or at least an essential restriction (which is but one of the forms of abrogation), of democracy for that class against which the dictatorship is wielded.
But however true this proposition is, it does not give us a definition of dictatorship.
Let us examine Kautsky's next sentence: "But of course, take literally, this also means the undivided rule of one individual who is not bound by any laws." Like a blind puppy which accidentally hits with his nose now one object, then another Kautsky has accidentally stumbled here on one true idea, namely, that dictatorship is a power which is not bound by any laws; nevertheless, he still fails to give us a definition of dictatorship, and in addition, utters an obvious historical falsehood, viz., that dictatorship means the power of one person. This is not even literally correct, since the power of dictatorship can be exercised also by a handful of persons, by an oligarchy, by one class, etc.
Kautsky further points out the difference between dictatorship and despotism, but although what he says is obviously incorrect, we shall not dwell upon it, as it is wholly irrelevant to the main subject. Everybody knows Kautsky’s weakness in turning his face from the twentieth to the eighteenth century, and from the eighteenth century to classical antiquity, and I hope that the German proletariat, having established its dictatorship, may take cognizance of this amiable habit of his and appoint him to the post of master of ancient history at some boys' secondary school. To try to evade a definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat by scholastic disquisitions on despotism is either sheer stupidity or a very clumsy trick.
As a result, we find that having undertaken to discuss the dictatorship of the proletariat, Kautsky has talked a good deal that is contrary to truth, but has given us no definition. Yet he could, without relying upon his ingenuity, have had recourse to his memory and taken out from his pigeon-holes all those instances when Marx spoke of the dictatorship. He would certainly have arrived, roughly, at the following definition: Dictatorship is an authority relying directly upon force, and not bound by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is an authority maintained by the proletariat by means of force over and against the bourgeoisie, and not bound by any laws.
And this simple truth—plain as noonday to every intelligent worker (representing the masses, though not their top section of scoundrels bought by the capitalists such as the Socialist Imperialists of all countries are)—this truth, obvious to any representative of the exploited classes struggling for their emancipation, and indisputable for every Marxist, has to be extorted almost by main force from that most learned gentleman, Mr. Kautsky. How is such a phenomenon to be explained? Simply by that spirit of flunkeyism which has permeated the leaders of the Second International, who have become contemptible sycophants in the service of the bourgeoisie.
First Kautsky has committed a distortion of terms by proclaiming the obvious nonsense that the word dictatorship in its literal sense, means a single person, and then on the Strength of this distortion, has declared that therefore, with Marx, his phrase about dictatorship of a class must not be taken in its literal sense (but only that in which dictatorship does not connote revolutionary violence, but merely "the peaceful concquest of a majority in a bourgeois"—mark you—"democracy").
One must, if you please, distinguish between a "state" and a "form of government"! A most wonderful distinction, not unsimilar to that between the "state" of stupidity in the case of a man who talks silly nonsense, and the "form" of this stupidity!
Kautsky had to interpret dictatorship as "a state of domination" (this expression is used by him textually on page 21), since in that case revolutionary violence, or a violent revolution, disappears. A "state of domination" is a state in which any majority finds itself under a "democracy." Thanks to such a trick revolution disappears, to everybody's satisfaction. But this is too crude a trick, and will not save Kautsky. One cannot do away with the fact that a dictatorship means a "state" (very disagreeable to all renegades) of revolutionary violence of one class against another. The absurd distinction between a "state" and "form of government" becomes patent. It is doubly and trebly stupid to speak in this connection of forms of government, since every child knows that monarchy and republic are two different forms of government. Yet Kautsky pretends not to know that these two forms of government, as well as all transitional forms of government under capitalism are but so many varieties of the bourgeois State, that is, of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Lastly, to speak of forms of governments is not only a stupid, but also a very crude falsification of Marx, who clearly spoke of this or other form of the State, and not of forms of government.
The proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois State machine and the creation, in its place, of a new one which, in the words of Engels, "no longer is a State in the proper sense of the word." But Kautsky's position as a renegade makes it necessary for him to try and hush up; and see what kind of tricks he has to employ for this purpose.
First trick: "That Marx did not have in view in this connection any form of government is proved by the fact that he was of the opinion that in England and America the transition can take place peacefully, that is, in a democratic way."
A form of government has nothing to do with the question, since there are monarchies which are not typical for the bourgeois State, as when, for instance, they have no militarism, and there are republics which are quite typical, that is, are accompanied by militarism and a bureaucracy. This is a universally known historical and political fact, and Kautsky will not succeed in perverting it. If Kautsky had wanted to reason in an honest and business-like fashion he would have asked himself: are there historical laws of revolution which know of no exception? And the reply would have been: no, no such laws exist. These laws only refer to what is typical, to what Marx once termed "ideal," in the sense of an average, normal, characteristic capitalism.
Further, was there in the 70's of last century anything which made England and America an exception in respect of what we are considering now? Everybody familiar with the postulates of science in the domain of historical problems knows that such a question must be put, as otherwise we should falsify history as a science and should indulge in sophisms. Once this question has been put, the answer admits of no doubt; the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence in respect of the bourgeoisie, and the need of such violence is caused especially, as repeatedly explained by Marx and Engels in detail (particularly in "Civil War in France" and the preface to it) by the fact that there exist an army and bureacracy. But just these institutions in the 70's of last century, when Marx was making his observations, did not exist in England or America (though now they do exist).
Kautsky has had to be dishonest at every step in order to cover up his apostasy though here he has unwittingly revealed his inner thoughts, by using the phrase: "peacefully, that is, in a democratic way."
When trying to define the term "dictatorship," Kautsky employed every means to conceal from the reader the fundamental mark of this conception, namely, revolutionary violence. But now the murder is out: we see that the opposition is between a peaceful and a forcible revolution.
That is where the issue lies. Kautsky needed all these distortions, evasions, and sophisms, in order to "back out" from a forcible revolution, and to screen his repudiation of it, his desertion, bag and baggage, to the Liberal-Labor, that is, the bourgeois camp.
Kautsky, the "historian," is so shamelessly adulterating history that he forgets the fundamental fact, that capitalism of the pre-monopolistic era, of which the 'seventies of the last century were just the highest point, was, in virtue of its fundamental economic traits (which were most typical in England and America), distinguished by, comparatively speaking, greatest attachment to peace and freedom. As against this, Imperialism, that is, capitalism of the monopolistic era, which has finally matured in the twentieth century, is in virtue of its fundamental economic traits distinguished by least attachment to peace and freedom ,and by the greatest development of militarism everywhere. To fail to notice this in discussing the question as to the extent to which a peaceful or forcible revolution is typical or probable, is to stoop to the position of a lackey-in-ordinary to the bourgeoisie.
Second trick. The Commune of Paris was a dictatorship of the proletariat, but it was elected by universal suffrage, without depriving- the bourgeoisie of the fгапchise, i. e., "democratically." Kautsky is elated: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is, for Marx, a state which flowed necessarily from pure democracy when the proletariat forms an overwhelming majority." (p. 21.)
This argument of Kautsky is so amusing that one almost suffers from an embarrass des richesses. First, it is known that the flower of the bourgeoisie had run away from Paris to Versailles. There, at Versailles, was also the "Socialist" Louis Blanc,—which circumstance, by the way, proves the baselessness of Kautsky's assertion that "all schools" of Socialism took part in the Commune. Is it not ridiculous to represent as "pure democracy," with "universal" suffrage, the division of the inhabitants of Paris into two belligerent camps, one of which had concentrated the entire militant and politically active section of the bourgeoisie?
Second, the Commune was at war with Versailles as the workers' Government of France against the bourgeois Government. What a "pure democracy" and "universal" suffrage it was when Paris was deciding the fate of all France! When Marx gives his opinion that the Commune had committed a mistake in failing to seize the Banque de France, belonging to entire France, did he consider the principles and practice of "pure democracy?" Obviously, Kautsky was writing his book in a country where the people are forbidden by the police to act or even to laugh "collectively,"—else Kautsky would have been annihilated by laughter.
Third. I beg respectfully to remind Mr. Kautsky, who knows Marx and Engels by heart, of the following appreciation of the Commune by Engels from the point of view of "pure democracy":
"Have these gentry (the anti-Authoritarians) ever seen a revolution? Revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing in the world. Revolution is an act in which one section of the population imposes its will upon the other by rifles, bayonets, guns, and other such exceedingly authoritarian means. And the party which has won is necessarily compelled to maintain its rule by means of that fear which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. If the Commune of Paris had not relied upon the armed people as against the bourgeoisie would it have maintained itself more than twenty-four hours? Are we not, on the contrary justified in reproaching the Commune for having employed this authority too little?"
Here you have your "pure democracy!" What vials of ridicule would Engels have poured upon the head of that vulgar petty bourgeois, the "Social-Democrat" (in the French sense of the 'forties of last century, and in the European sense of 1914–1918), who would have talked about "pure democracy" in relation to a society divided into classes!
But enough! It is impossible to enumerate all the absurdities uttered by Kautsky, since every phrase in his mouth represents a bottomless pit of apostasy.
Marx and Engels have analyzed in a most detailed manner the Commune of Paris, showing that its merit consisted in the attempt to break, to smash up, the existing State machine. Marx and Engels considered this point to be of such importance that they introduced it in 1872, as the only amendment, into the partly "obsolete" programme of the "Communist Manifesto." Marx and Engels showed that the Commune was abolishing the army and the bureaucracy, was destroying parliamentarism, was cutting out "that parasitical incubus, the State," and so forth; but the all-wise Kautsky, having put his head into his night-cap, repeats the fairy-tale about a "pure democracy," which has been told thousands of times by Liberal professors. Not unjustly did Rosa Luxembourg declare on August 4th, 1914 that German Social-Democracy was now a whited sepulchre.
Third trick: “When we speak of the dictatorship as a form of government we cannot speak of the dictatorship of a class since a class, as we have already pointed out, can only dominate but not govern." It is, forsooth, organizations or parties which govern!
You are talking nonsese, sheer nonsense, Mr. Muddle-Head. Dictatorship is not a "form of government." This is ridiculous nonsense. And Marx himself speaks not of a form of government, but of a form or type of State. This is altogether a different thing. Nor is it in any way true to say that a class cannot govern. Such an absurdity can only be uttered by a parliamentary crétin who sees nothing but bourgeois parliaments and government Parties. Any European country will show Kautsky instances of government by a ruling class, as for instance, by the land-owners in the Middle Ages, in spite of their insufficient organization.
The sum-total is that Kautsky has distorted in a most unprecedented manner the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat by turning Marx into a humdrum Liberal, and that he himself has rolled down to the level of a Liberal who talks banalities about "pure democracy," disguises under attractive veils the class character of bourgeois democracy, and, above all, is mortally afraid of revolutionary violence on the part of the oppressed class. By Kautsky's interpretation of the idea of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, calculated to banish all all revolutionary violence on the part of the oppressed class against the oppressors, the world record in the Liberal distortion of Marx has been beaten, and the renegade Bernstein has been proved to be a mere puppy in comparison with the renegade Kautsky.