Bringing Kautsky Back?
Article originally published in Issue 3 of Rupture, Ireland’s eco-socialist quarterly, buy the print issue:
After spending a century in obscurity, usually only considered in passing as a cautionary tale or cartoon villain, the ideas of Karl Kautsky have become a topic of debate on the left in recent years. Here Cian Prendiville makes an initial contribution to the discussion and argues that even ‘the best of Kautsky’, as promoted by some of his modern day advocates, is not enough to provide us with a strategy to achieve a democratic socialist society.
Once considered the ‘Pope of Marxism’, this early-twentieth century theoretician of the German Social-Democratic Party (SPD) was mainly remembered as the ‘Renegade Kautsky’ whom Lenin lambasted for his opposition to the Russian Revolution.
However in the last decade, and in particular since the rapid growth of the Democratic Socialists of America, there has been a resurrection of his ideas, notably by those involved in Jacobin Magazine in the US. He was part of the ‘centre’ or ‘centrist’ current of the SPD that situated itself between the revolutionary wing of the movement, led by Rosa Luxemburg and the reformist wing of people like Eduard Bernstein. This makes him appealing to those who are attracted to the idea of a socialist change, but are not convinced of the potential for ruptural or revolutionary change. He seems to represent a middle path.
There are two ideas of Kautsky’s that are attracting attention and support in the resurgent American socialist movement:
His case for a ‘parliamentary (or democratic) road to socialism’, which claims to avoid the dangers of both reformism and revolution, and
The SPD’s organisational approach, which is held up as a model for ‘big tent’ or ‘broad party’ organising, unifying revolutionaries, reformists and centrists and sinking deep roots in the working class.
In this article, I will deal primarily with the more recent discussion around a ‘democratic road to socialism’, supporting what I think are the strong points of this strategy, but also highlighting some important weaknesses, and arguing that we must go beyond Kautsky’s ‘centrism’.
Reform or Revolution?
The current debate was sparked off at the start of 2019 by two articles in Jacobin making the case for Kautsky, leading to a flurry of responses and counter-responses. This led to an in-person debate with DSA Bread & Roses caucus member Eric Blanc in the pro-Kautsky corner and socialist activist and professor Charlie Post for the anti-Kautsky side. The edited transcript of that exchange is available online and acts as a good introduction to the debate so far1.
Blanc’s argument is nuanced and attractive in parts. He argues that “in conditions of parliamentary democracy, the path to socialism is very likely going to have to pass through the universal suffrage election of a workers’ party to government.”, and that too often the revolutionary left have rejected this. Instead, he argues, they have followed a ‘traditional Leninist view of revolution’. He sums this strategy up, unfairly I believe, as first awaiting “a deep crisis and the emergence of institutions of dual power”, such as workplace councils which challenge the power of the bosses, and then in that crisis arguing that “these dual power institutions will have to, through an insurrection, overthrow the entire existing state”.
This presentation comes across as a strawman caricature of the revolutionary left perspective, counterposing the ideas, as Charlie Post says, of a “democratic road versus insurrectionary road”. Perhaps some revolutionary forces may fall into seeing the socialist transformation of society as merely a sort of ‘live action roleplay’ of the Russian revolution. But even the Bolshevik leaders themselves were arguing, by the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, that in countries with strong parliamentary traditions the road to socialist revolution could involve the election of a workers’ government. The point of difference between ‘Leninist’ and ‘Kautskyian’ strategies is to be found elsewhere.
Post, and many of the others who have rebuffed Blanc’s argument, do so by counterposing electoral campaigning to building mass struggles, arguing against a focus on electoral campaigns. This seems to also somewhat caricature the position of Blanc and co, painting their arguments as simply a reheated parliamentary reformism, whereas, at least in words, they have emphasised the need to combine electoral campaigning with building mass movements.
Reform & Revolution
Marxists should not set ourselves up as the killjoy at the socialist party, who says they've seen it all before, tries to set down the rules of what is allowed and not allowed and, when the party goes off script, warns that it will all end in tears. Marxism isn’t a set of rules, it is a method of analysis based on an accumulation of experience, from which flows analysis and theory. It can help predict strategic dangers and come up with paths to avoid them and strategies to win, but it does not have a pre-existing set of permanent answers for every occasion.
The 2019 debate became a bit of a proxy for an argument about whether American socialists should support the Bernie 2020 campaign. Post and the other critics of Kautsky correctly pointed to the dangers of the socialist movement being absorbed into the Democratic Party, and the danger of an elected democratic socialist government being pulled into the mere administration of capitalism or crushed by the state. However when a socialist upsurge is finding expression in a place we might not ideally choose, in this case in the Democrats, the task of Marxists is to be part of that fight. We should not simply dissolve into the movement, but instead propose tactics and strategies to avoid those dangers, for instance pushing the movement to break from the Democratic Party to build an independent socialist party. We must develop strategies to use electoral struggles that are taking place to strengthen the grassroots power and organisation of the working class, not simply counterpose them.
The neo-Kautskyites are correct when they point out that in modern democratic capitalist states, the struggle for socialism usually involves the struggle to elect a socialist government. Of course that’s not the only possible path; for instance in France in 1968 the country was on the cusp of a socialist revolution without such an electoral dimension. Instead, a mass general strike spurred workers to take over the factories, nearly overthrowing the semi-dictatorial De Gaulle government. However, a more common trigger has been the election of left governments. We have seen again and again in Chile 1973, France 1981, Venezuela and Bolivia in the 2000s and Greece more recently how the election of left governments put the question of who really runs society on the agenda. Of course putting a question on the agenda is not the same as answering it as we would wish.
The election of a socialist government would be the beginning, not the end of a successful struggle for the socialist transformation of society. The one-percent will use every ounce of their power and influence to resist and even overthrow this government. We saw the dirty tactics they used against Corbyn and Bernie, imagine what they would do to prevent a socialist government from taking power. Bold, revolutionary policies will be needed, as well as a powerful, organised working class movement on the streets and in the workplaces.
At times the neo-Kautskyites speak in these terms, with Blanc saying that “[in] order to succeed, that revolution is going to have to resort to, and rely on, extra-parliamentary mass action and disruption”. However, at other times, such as in Bhaskar Sunkara’s “Socialist Manifesto” a picture is painted of a slow transition to socialism without any major head-on clashes with the capitalists. Of course, we should be clear that our preference is that the capitalist class accept that their time in control has ended and respect the election of a socialist government. American Marxist, James P. Cannon, at one point even suggested pensioning them off in return for accepting the will of the majority. However, all the evidence is that instead they will resist the election of a socialist government with every weapon at their disposal .
One key weapon the capitalists have is their control over the commanding heights of the economy. This power was used in the 1980s to grind the French economy to a halt through a strike of capital to oppose the social-democratic policies of the Mitterand government. A socialist government would need to be willing to disarm them of the weapon of economic sabotage by quickly bringing the banks and other major companies into public ownership and putting them under democratic workers’ control. This vast wealth and economic apparatus could then be used to reorient our economy, tackle the housing, health and climate crises and deliver real improvements in people’s living standards, solidifying support for socialist change.
Another weapon in their hands will be the state itself, in particular what has been called its ‘repressive apparatus’ - the army and police force. In 1973 in Chile, we saw a right-wing army general Pinochet use the military to stage a coup to overthrow the democratically elected socialist government there. We have seen similar attempts in recent years in Bolivia and elsewhere (see Michael Coleman’s article on the Pink Tide in this edition). In the US there were plots for military coups against Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and against the Wilson Labour government in the UK in the 1970s. We should expect similar scheming and coup attempts against a genuine socialist government. This is a serious threat which we must prepare the working class to confront if we are to achieve socialism.
In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected as president of Chile, on a radical policy platform of nationalisation of healthcare, copper mining and more, as part of a ‘Chilean way to socialism’. This victory was against massive resistance internally and internationally, with the CIA spending millions of dollars on anti-Allende propaganda, and financinging right wing parties in Chile.
This government set about implementing many of these policies, improving the living standards of workers and expanding public services. The major copper and coal mining industries were brought into public ownership, with their wealth used to benefit working people rather than US big businesses and the Chilean elite. This succeeded in expanding support for the broad left ‘Popular Unity’ coalition Allende led, and in the 1973 parliamentary elections they increased their vote.
However the ruling class of Chile, backed up by US imperialism, did not simply accept defeat. Economic sabotage was organised, with big businesses going ‘on strike’. From 1972 onwards, it became clear plans were being organised for a right-wing coup against the government. In June 1973 there was a failed coup attempt, organised by a Lieutenant Colonel.
The rising threat of a coup was met by an increase in self-organisation by working class people. Independent workers’ committees, called ‘cordones industriales’, were organised, bringing together workers’ representatives to push for nationalisation of more companies and oppose capitalist sabotage of the government. After the failed coup attempt, workers marched calling on the government to arm the working class to defend against another coup chanting ‘Allende, Allende, El pueblo te defiende’ - the people will defend you.
However, instead the government’s response was to try to calm down the capitalist reaction through concessions. The right-wing General Pinochet was brought into the cabinet in order to reassure the elite. Emboldened, Pinochet went on to organise a brutal coup on September 11 1973. This dictatorship murdered thousands, and turned Chile in the test-lab for neoliberalism.
The example of Chile is a warning to us. Winning an election is not the same as winning power. The election of a socialist government is the beginning of a revolutionary struggle, in which the need to move decisively to disarm the old elite of their economic, military and propaganda power and empower democratic self organisation of working class people becomes urgent.
To smash or not to smash?
On this point, again, Blanc resorts to a caricature of the ‘Leninist approach’, criticising “calls to destroy the entire existing state”. Of course there are some who chant at every demonstration about the need to ‘smash the state’. Some may even consider the riot cops and An Post both examples of state bodies to be destroyed, but I’d wager they are rare.
Revolutionary socialists should differentiate between state-provided services or nationalised industries and the ‘repressive apparatus of the state’ such as the police, army and legal system. These repressive bodies are the ‘armed bodies of men’ Engels talked about which the capitalist class rely on to defend their interests. We have seen many times how the police, courts and army are used against protestors here in Ireland, or to instigate coups against governments across the world. This is the repressive apparatus a socialist government would need to ‘smash’, in order to disarm the ruling class.
It is on this question of whether to ‘smash’ or ‘maintain and transform’ the state that the real division between ‘Kautskyism’ and a revolutionary strategy lies. It is true that too often how exactly this ‘smashing’ could actually be done has been left vague, but that doesn’t invalidate the need to do it. More discussion, debate and experience is needed to flesh out a full programme for how to achieve this. Without being prescriptive as to how things will actually develop, here are some ideas I would personally raise to sketch out a possible path for consideration:
1) As a socialist movement grows, it should develop strategies to separate the rank and file of the state forces from their upper echelons. It will be important to conduct work inside the army in particular to build up solidarity between soldiers and workers, with the aim of winning them to supporting the socialist transformation of society, or at least refusing to be used as a battering ram against a democratic socialist government, even if ordered to by commanding officers.
2) On election, a socialist government would need to, at the very least, initiate a radical overhaul of the state forces. Bodies such as the Special Branch, Special Criminal Court, Public Order Unit and the Military Intelligence Directorate in the south, for example, should be disbanded immediately and the police fully de-militarised. They would need to root out far-right and racist Gardai, generals, as well as reactionary leading civil servants, and bring the police under the democratic control of working class communities.
3) However, even such a ‘reform’ approach would likely be met with significant resistance, the scale of which the neo-Kautskyists do not seem to take into account. This struggle would likely raise the need for a more fundamental change, if that hadn’t already been proven. In the past, socialists, and even Kautsky, called for the disbandment of the army and it’s replacement with ‘an armed people’, echoing some of the sentiments of the more radical elements in the American Revolution. Now it may be more appropriate to speak about the replacement of the army and the police force with new bodies democratically controlled by working class communities.
Dual power
A government following such a programme would quickly face all manner of resistance from the capitalist class. It would need to inspire working class people into activity through transformative policies such as building an Irish NHS, a socialist Green New Deal, nationalisation of medical, energy and other major industries. Only a mass movement and organised working class would be able to resist the avalanche of opposition from the ruling class. A more timid or gradualist socialist government would not avoid this problem. It would face the same sabotage and opposition, but without delivering bold change for working class people it would be easier for the capitalist class to undermine.
Time and again in such situations the working class has set up structures to organise their power in a truly democratic manner. We got a taste of this with the popular assemblies of Occupy, and similar structures in the Indignados in Spain and Movement of the Squares in Greece. In more revolutionary situations we have also seen the formation of elected committees or councils in workplaces and neighbourhoods.
These have gone by many names, ‘cordones’ in Chile, or ‘showras’ in Iran. and perhaps most famously ‘soviets’ in Russia. Fundamentally they are thoroughly democratic bodies of self-organisation by the working class and oppressed layers. The development of such organisations in workplaces and communities represents what Lenin called ‘dual power’. In workplaces, for instance; strong organisation of workers challenges the authority of the boss to do what he likes. In some cases such workers’ councils have even taken control of work rotas, hiring and firing, or even booted the management out all together.
We have seen how American far-right forces have attacked and even killed left wing activists, and we have seen brutal treatment of protesters by cops including here in Ireland. In a radicalised situation, with strong working class organisation and a serious prospect of a socialist government, such attacks would likely escalate and need to be defended against. In such a situation, there would be a need for democratically controlled workers' defence force, along the lines of Connolly’s Irish Citizen Army, to protect meetings and marches. If a coup against a socialist government was later attempted, such a workers’ defence force would also be indispensable to help resist it.
Marxists should prepare people for the need for such organs of working class power, and when they develop we should be at the forefront of strengthening their power and authority. A socialist government should encourage this kind of self-organisation, and give these bodies power over their workplaces and neighbourhoods. We should follow the radical democratic principle that decisions should be decentralised to the lowest level possible.
Our aim therefore is not just to implement a few minor improvements in the state, but to create a fundamentally different state, a radically democratic, socialist state where ordinary people have a direct say in the decisions that affect their lives, in their communities and workplaces and where elected representatives are subject to instant recall and live on the same income as those they represent.
Conclusion
Despite having regularly come across general critiques of Kautsky, it is only in recent years, spurred on by this debate, that I have actually really read Kautsky himself and engaged with the arguments of those who seek to refresh his ideas for today. This article is meant only as an initial response to some of the debate about Kautsky and the ‘neo-Kautskyian’ ideas that have grown in recent years. It has, by nature, been limited and introductory.
There is much more to be written on this subject, including more directly on the writings of Kautsky himself, some of which are only now being made available in English. As the socialist movement is rebuilt, and begins seriously discussing and debating the road to socialism in the 21st century, the discussions and debates of the last century over the ‘democratic road’, and the connected debates in the 1920s over the idea of a workers government, should be looked at again with fresh eyes. There were many mistakes, many things have changed since, but there are also many lessons to be learned, as we attempt to plot out our own road to revolution.