IN THE WINTI R

MODERN QUARTERLYA Journalof Radical Opinion

Can Democracy Survive? A SymposiumTha Challenge of the New World V. F. CalvertonTha Two Roosevelts Ernest Sutherland BatesEpoch of Counter-Revoluöon Karl KorschStephen Crane as Social Criöc Russel B. NyeTha Nature of Russian Economy R. L. Worroll

Editorials Reviews

SPECIAL OFFER: FOUR ISSUES FOR $ 1

THE MODERN QUARTERLY16 St. Luke's Place New York City

READKarl Korsch: Karl Marx $1.75Outline Study Course in Marxian EconomicsBased on Volume I of Capital .50Partisan Review .. - - -- -- ---- - .40J. Harper: Lenin als Philosoph (German) .30The Inevitability of Communism .25Rosa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution .25Rosa Luxemburg: Marxism or Leninism .10The Bourgeois Role of Bolshevism .10International Review .15World-Wide Fascism or World Revolution .05What Next for the American Workers .05Proletarian Outlook -- --- - -- - .05Back Numbers of Living Marxism. .10

Subscribe to Living Marxism. 8 Issues $ 1

Order from:

COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCEP. o. BOX 5343, CHICAGO, !LL.

7J:·r.Irteen Cent:s

FROM MARX TO HITLER

THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY

CURBING BIG BUSINESS?

ON THE IMPOTENCE OFREVOLUTIONARY GROUPS

THE STATE AND THE REVOLUTION

BOOK REVIEWS

11

LIVING MARXISMVol. IV No. 7JUNE 1939

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE,Cbieago, IllInoK.P. O. Box 6343,

Tbis magazine, publisbed by tbe Groups of Couneil Communists, eonseiou.ly opposeo aUforms of .eetariani.m. Tbe seetarian eonf'nses tbe interest of hi. grouP. whether It la aparty or a union, witb tbe intere.t of the claea, It ia our purpoee to di.eover the aetuaJproletarian tendpneies in their baekward organizatlonal anjl theoretieal forms: to effeet adiaeusaion of them beyond the boundaries of tbeir organlzationa and the eurrent dogmatlea:to facilitate their fusion into unilied aetion: and thu. to help them achieve real aignificanc •.

The uu.igned artiele. expre •• the view. of the publiahera.

KARL KAUTSKYFROM MARX TO HITLER

In the faU of 1938, Kar! Kautsky died in Amsterdam at the age of 84-years. He was considered the most important theoretician of the Marxistlabor movement after the death of its founders, and it may weIl be said thathe was its most representative member. In him were very clearly incorporat-ed both the revolutionary and the reactionary aspects of th at movement. Butwhereas Friedrich Engels could say at Marx's grave that his friend "was firstof all a revolutionist," it would be difficult to say the same at the grave ofhis best-known pupil. "As a theoretician and politician, he will always'remains an object of criticism,' wrote Friedrich Adler in memory of Kautsky,"but his character lies open, his whole life he remained true to the highestmajesty, his own conscience.Y"

Kautsky's conscience was formed during the rise of the German Socialdemocracy. He was bom in Austria, the son of a stage painter of the ImperialTheatre in Vie~na. As early as 1875, though not as yet a Marxist, he con-tributed to German and Austrian labor papers. He became a member of theGerman Social Democratie Party in 1880, and "only now," he said of him-self, "began my development towards a consistent methodical Marxism."··He was inspired, like so many others, by Engel's A nti-Duehrinç and washelped in his orientation by Eduard Bernstein, who was then the secretary tothe "millionaire" Socialist Hoechberg. His first works we re published withHoechberg's help and he found recognition in the labor movement throughhis editorship of a number of socialist publications. In 1883 he founded the

·Der Sozialiatiache Kampf. Paris, November 5, 1938, p. 271.··K. Kautsky, Aus der Fruehzeit des Marxismus. Prague 1935, p. 20.

193

magazine Neue Zeil, which under his direction became the most importanttheoretical organ of the German Social democracy.

Kautsky's literary and scientific work is impressive not only because ofthe scope of his interests but also because of its volume. Even a selectedbibliography of his writings would fill many pages. In this work comes tolight all that seemed and all that was of importance to the socialist movementduring the last 60 years. It reveals that Kautsky was first of all a teacher,and that, because he looked upon society from a schoolmaster's perspective, hewas weIl suited to his role as the leading spirit of a movement which aimed ateducating workers and capitalists alike. Because he was an educator con-cerned with the "theoretical side" of Marxism, he could appear more revolu-tionary than was consistent with the movement he served. He appeared an"orthodox" Marxist who tried to safeguard the Marxian inheritance as atreasurer who desires to preserve the funds of his organization. However,what was "revolutionary" in Kautsky's teaching appeared revolutionary onlyin contrast to the general pre-war capitalist ideology. In contrast to the rev-olutionary theories established by Marx and Engels, it was areversion tomore primitive forms of thinking and to alesser apperception of the implica-tions of bourgeois society. Thus, though he guarded the treasure-chest ofMarxism, he had not beheld all it contained.

In 1862, in a letter to Kugelmann, Marx expressed the hope th at hïenon-popular works attempting to revolutionize economie science would in duetime find adequate popularization, a feat that should be easy after thescientific basis had been laid. "My life work became clear to me in 1883,"wrote Kautsky;"it was to he designated to the propagandizing and popularization, and, asfar as I am ahle to, the continuation of the scientific results of Marx's think-ing and research."···However, not even he, the greatest popularizer of Marx, has fulfilled Marx'shope; his simplifications turned out to be new mystifications unable to com-prehend the true character of capitalist society. N evertheless, even in theirwatered form, Marx's theories remained superior to all the social andeconomie bourgeois theories and Kautsky's writings gave strength and joy tohundreds of thousands of class conscious workers. He gave expression t~their own thoughts and in a language nearer to them than that of the moreindependent thinker Marx. Though the latter demonstrated more than oncehis great gift for cogency and clarity, he was not schoolmaster enough tosacrifice to propaganda the enjoyment of his intellectual caprice.

When we said that Kautsky represented also what was "reactionary" inthe old labor movement, we are using that term in a highly specific sense. Thereactionary elements in Kautsky and in the old labor movement were objecti-vely conditioned, and only by ä long period of exposure to an inimical realitywas developed that subjective readiness to turn defenders of the capitalistsociety. In Capital Marx pointed out that"a rise in the price of labor, as a consequence of accumulation of capital,

••• Aus der Fruehzeit des Marxismus, p. 93.

194

only means, 'in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain fhe wage-worker has already forged for himself, allowaf a relaxation of the tensionof it."····The possibility, under conditions of a progressive capital formation, of im-proving labor conditions and of raising the price of labor transformed theworkers' struggle into a force for capitalist expansion. Like capitalist competi-tion, the wor kers' struggle served as an incentive for further capital accumu-lation ; it accentuated capitalist "progress." AH gains of the workers werecompensated for by an increasing exploitation, which in turn permitted a stillmore rapid capital expansion.

Even the class struggle of the workers could serve the needs not of theindividual capitalists but of capital. The victories of the workers turnedalways against the victors. The more the workers gained, the richer capita!became. The gap between wages and profits became wider with each in-crease of the "werkers' share." The apparently increasing strength of laborwas in reality the continuous weakening of its position in relation to that ofcapital. The "successes" oHhe workers, hailed by Eduard Bernstein as a newera of capitalism, could, in this sphere of social action, end only in theeventual defeat of the working class, as soon as capital changed from expan-sion to stagnation. In the destruction of the old labor movement, the sightof which Kautsky was not spared, became manifest the thousands of defeatssuffered during the upswing period of capitalism, and though these defeatswere celebrated as victories of gradualism, they were in reality only the gra-dualism of the workers' defeat in a field of act ion where the advantage isalways with the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, Bernstein's revisionism, based onthe acceptance of appearance for reality and sugested by bourgeois empiricism,though at first denounced by Kautsky, provided the basis for the latter's ownsuccess. For without the non-revolutionary practice of the old labor move-ment, whose theories were formed by Bernstein, Kautsky would not havefound a movement and a material basis on which to rise as an importantMarxian theoretician.

This objective situation, which, as we have seen, transformed thesuccesses of the labor movement into just so many steps toward its destruc-tion created a non-revolutionary ideology which was more in harmon,: ..&the 'apparent reality, and which was later denounced as social-reformism, o~-portunism, . social-chauvinism, and outright betrayal. However, this"betrayal" did not very much bother those who were betrayed. Instead, themajority of the organized workers approved of the change of attitude in t~esocialist movement since it conformed to their own aspirations developed man ascending capitalism, The masses were as little revoluti?na~y as theirleaders and both were satisfied with their participation in capitalist progress,Nor only were they organizing for a greater share of the social ~rod~ct, butalso for a greater voice in the political sphere. They learned to think in terrasof bourgeois democracy; they began to speak of themselves as ~o~~um~rs;they wanted to take part in all that was good of culture and civiljzation-

• ••• Capital. VoL I, p, 677 (Kerr ed.)195

Franz Mehring's History of the German Social Democracy typically ends ina chapter on "Art and the Proletariat." Science for the workers, literaturefor the workers, schools for the workers, participation in all the institutionsof capitalist society - th is and nothing more was the real desire of the move-ment. Instead of demanding the end of capitalistic science, it asked for laborscientists: instead of abolishing capitalistic law, it trained labor lawyers; inthe increasing number of labor historians, poets, economists, journaliste,doctors, and dentists, as weU as parliamentarians and trade-union bureaucrate,it saw the socialization of society, which therewith became increasingly itsown society. That which one can increasingly share in one will soon finddefendable. Consciously and unconsciously the old labor movement saw inthe capitalist expansion process its own road to greater welfare and recogni-tion. The more capital Hourished, the better were the working conditions.Satisfied with action within the framework of capitalism, the workers' or-ganizations became concerned with capitalism's profitability. The com-petitive national capitalistic rivalries were only verbally opposed. Althoughthe movement was at first striving only for a "better fatherland", and waslater willing to defend what had already been gained, it soon reached thepoint where it was ready to defend the fatherland "as it is."

The toleranee that Marx's "followers" displayed towards the bourgeoissociety was not one-sided, The bourgeoisie itself had in its very struggle a-gainst the working class learned to "understand the social question." lts in-terpretation of social phenomena became increasingly more materialistic; andsoon there was an overlapping of ideologies in both fields of thought, a con-dition increasing still further the "harmony" based on the actual disharmonyof class frictions within a rising capitalism. However, the "Marxists" weremore eager than the bourgeoisie to "learn from the enemy." The revisionisttendencies had developed long before the death of Engels. The latter, andMarx himself, had wave red and displayed moments in which they werecarried away by the apparent success of their movement. But what withthem was only a temporary modification of their essentially consistent think-ing became "belief" and "science" for that movement which learned to seeprogress in larger trade-union treasures and greater election votes.

Af ter 1910 the German social democracy found itself divided into thleeessential groups. There were the reformists, openly favoring German irn-perialism; there was the "left"; distinguished by such names as Luxemburg,Liebknecht, Mehring, and Pannekoek ; and there was the "center," trying tofollow traditional paths, that is, only in theory, as in practice the whole of theGerman social democracy could do only what was possible, i. e., whatBernstein wanted them to do. To oppose Bernstein could mean only to opposethe whole of the social demoeratic practice. The "left" began to function assuch only at the moment it began to attack social democracy as a part ofcapitalist society. The differences between the two opposing factions couldnot be solved ideationally; they were solved when the Noske tenor murderedthe Spartacus group in 1919.196

With the outbreak of the war, the "left" found itself in the capitalistprisons, and the "right" on the General Staff of the Kaiser. The "center"led by Kautsky, simply dispensed with all problems of the socialist movememby declaring that neither the Social democracy nor its International couldfunction during periods of war, as both were essentially instruments of peace."This position," Rosa Luxemburg wrote,"is the position of an eunuch. Aiter Kautsky has supplemented the Com-munist Manifesto it now reads: Proletarians of all countries unite duringpeace times, during times of war, cut your throats."?

The war and its aftermath destroyed the legend of Kautsky's Marxist"orthodoxy." Even his most enthusiastic pupil., Lenin, had to turn awayfrom the master. In October 1914 he had to admit that as far as Kautskywas concerned, Rosa Luxemburg had been right. In a letter to Shlyapnt-kow,·· he wrote,"She saw long ago that Kautsky, the servile theoretician, was cringing to themajority of the Party, to Opportunism. There is nothing in the world atpresent more harmful and dangerous for the ideological independence of theproletariat than this filthy, smug and disgusting hypocrisy of Kautsky. Hewants to hush everything up and smear everything over and by sophistryand pseudo-learned rhetoric lull the awakened consciences of the workers."

What distinguished Kautsky from the general run of intellectuals whoflocked to the labor movement as soon as it became more respectable and whowere only too eager to foster the trend of class coUaboration, was a greaterlove for theory, a love which refused to compare theory with actuality, likethe love of a mother who prevents her child from learning the "facts of life"too early. Only as a theoretician could Kautsky remain a revolutionist; onlytoo willingly he left the practical affairs of the movement to others. However,he fooled himself. In the role of a mere "theoretician," he ceased to be arevolutionary theoretician, or rather he could not become a revolutionist. Assoon as the scene for a real battle between capitalism and socialism after thewar had been laid, his theories coUapsed beeause they had already beendivorced in practice from the movement they were supposed to represent.

Though Kautsky was opposed to the unnecessarily enthusiasticchauvinism of his party, though he hesitated to enjoy the war as Ebert,Scheidemann, and Hindenburg did, though he was not in favor of anunconditional granting of war credits, nevertheless, up to his very end, hewas forced to destroy with his own hands the legend of his Marxian othodoxythat he had earned for himself in 30 years of writing. He who in 1902···had pronounced that we have entered a period of proletarian struggles forstate power, declared such attempts to be sheer insanity when workers tookhim seriously. He who had fought so valiantly against the ministerialism ofMillerand and Jaures in France, championed 20 years later the coalitionpolicy of the German social democracy with the arguments of his former op-ponents. He who concerned himself as early as 1909 with "The W ay to

'Dieinternationale. Spring 1915.**The Letters of Lenin. London 1937, p. 342."'''·Die Soziale Revolution.

197

Power", dreamed after the war of a capitalist "ultra-imperialism" as a wayto world peace, and spent the remainder of his life re-interpreting his past tojustify his cIass collaboration ideology. "In the course of its cIass struggle,"he wrote in his last work,"the proletariat becomes more and more the vanguard for the reconstructionof humanity, in which in always greater measure also non-proletarian layersof society become interested. This is no betrayal of the c1assstruggle idea. Ihad this position a1ready before there was bolshevism, as, for instanee, in1903 in my artic1e on 'Class - Special - and Common Interests' in the NeueZeit, where I came to the conc1usionthat the proletarian class struggle doesnot recognize class solidarity but only the solidarity of mankind."*

Indeed, it is not possible to regard Kautsky as a "renegade." Only atotal misunderstanding of the theory and practice of the social democratiemovement and of Kautsky's activity could lead to such a view. Kautskyaspired to being a good servant of Marxism; in fact, to please Engels andMarx seemed to be his life profession. He referred to the latter always inthe typical social-democratic and philistine marmer as the "great master", the"Olympian," the "Thunder God," etc. He felt extremely honored becauseMarx "did not receive him in the same cold way in which Goethe receivedhis young colleague Heine."·· He must have sworn to himself not todisappoint Engels when the latter began to regard him and Bernstein as"trustworthy representatives of Marxian theory," and during most of his litehe was the most ardent defender of "the word". He is most honest when hecomplains to Engels···"that nearly all the intellectuals in the party... cry for colonies, for nationalthought, for a resurrection of the Teutonic antiquity, for confidence in thegovernment, for having the power of 'justice' replace the class struggle, andexpress a decided aversion for the materialistic interpretation of history -Marxia~ dogma, as they call it."He wanted to argue against them, to uphold against them what had been es-tablished by his idols, A good schoolmaster, he was also an excellent pupil.

Engels understood this early "degeneration" of the movement only tooweIl. In answering Kautsky's complaints, he stated,····"that the development of capitalism proved itself to be stronger than the rev-olutionary counter-pressure. A new upsurge against capitalism would needa violent shock, such as the loss by England of its domination of the ')vorldmarket, or a sudden revolutionary opportunity in France."But neither the one nor the other event occurred. The socialists no longerwaited for revolution. Bernstein waited instead for Engers death, to avoiddisappointing the man to whom he owned most,-before proclaiming that "thegoal meant nothing and the movement everything." It is true that Engelshimself had strengthened the forces of reformism during the latter part of hlslife. However, what in his case could be taken only as the weakening of the

I

I

*K. Kautsky, Sozialisten und Krieg. Prague 1937, p. 673.**Aus der Fruehzeit des Marxismus, p. 50.*"Ibid., p. 112••••• Ibid., p. 155.198

individual in his stand against the world, was taken by his epigones as thesouree of their strength. Time and again Marx and Engels returned to theuncompromising attitude of the Communist Manifesto and Capital as, for in-stance, in the Gotha Program Critique, which was delayed in its publicationin order not to disturb the compromisers in the movement. lts publicationwas possible only after a struggle with the party bureaucracy, whichcircumstance led Engels to remark that,"It is in fact a brilliant thought to have German socialist science present,after its emancipaton from the Bismarckian socialist Laws, its own socialistlaws, formulated by the officials of the Social Democratie Party."·

Kautsky defended an already emasculated Marxism. The radical, rev-olutionary, anti-capitalist Marxism had been d~feated by capitalist develop-ment. At the Congress of the Workers' International in 1872 in The Hague,Marx himself had decIared:"Some day the workers must conquer political supremacy, in order to es-tablish the new organization of labor... Of course, I must not be supposed toimply that the means to this end will be the same ·everywhere... and we donot deny that there are certain countries, such as the United States andEngland in which the workers may hope to secure their ends by peacefulmeans."This statement allowed even the revisionists to decIare tbemselves Marxists,and the only argument Kautsky could muster against them, as, for instanee.during the Social Demoeratic Party congress in Stuttgart in 1898, was thedenial that the democratization and socialization process cIaimed by therevisionists as in progress in England and America, also held good forGermany. He repeated Marx's position as regards the eventuality of a morepeaceful transformation of society in some countries, and added to this remarkonly that he, too, "wishes nothing else but to obtain socialism witbout acatastrophy," However, he doubted such a possibility.

I t is understandable that on the basis of such thinking it was only con-sistent for Kautsky to assume after the war that with the now possible morerapid development of demoeratic institutions in Germany and Russia, tbemore peaceful way to socialism could be realized also in these countries. Thepeaceful way seemed to him the surer way, as it would better serve that"solidarity of mankind "that he wished to develop. The socialist intellectualswished to return the decent, with which the bourgeoisie had learned to treattem. After all, we are all gentlemen! The orderly petty-bourgeois life ofthe intelligentsia, secured by a powerful socialist movement, had led tbem toemphasize the ethical and cultural aspects of things. Kautsky hated themethods of bolshevism with no less intensity than did the white guardists,though in contrast to the latter, he was in full agreement with the goal ofBolshevism. Behind the aspect of the proletarian revolution the leaders ofthe socialist movement correctly saw a chaos in which their own positionwould become no less jeopardized than that .of the bourgeoisie proper. Thelrhatred of "disorder" was a defense of their own material, social, and in-tellectual position. Socialism was to be developed not iIlegally, but Ie-

*Aus der Fruehzeit des Marxismus. p. 273.199

gally, for under such conditions, existing org~nizations an~ leade,:s wouldcontinue to dominate the movement. And their successful interruption of theimpending proletarian revolution demonstrated that not only did the "gains"of the workers in the economie sphere turn against the workers themselves,but that their "success "in the political field also turned out to be weapons a-gainst their emancipation. The strongest bulwark against a radical solutionof the social question was the social democracy, in whose growth the workershad learned to measure their growing power.

Nothing shows the revolutionary character of Marx's theories moreclearly than the difficulty to maintain them during non-revolutionary times.There was a grain of truth in Kautsky's statement that the socialist movementcannot function during times of war, as times of war temporarily create non-revolutionary situations. The revolutionist becomes isolated, and registerstemporary defeat. He must wait till the situation changes, till the subjectivereadiness to participate in war is broken by the objective impossibility toserve this subjective readiness. A revolutionist cannot help standing "outsidethe world" from time to time. To believe that a revolutionary practice, ex-pressed in independent actions of the workers, is always possible means to fallvictim to demoeratic illusions. But it is more difficult to stand "outside th isworld," for no one can know when situations change, and no one wishes to heleft out wh en changes do occur. Consistency exists only in theory. It can-not be said that Marx's theories were inconsistent; it can, however, be said,that Marx was not consistent, i. e., th at he, too, had to pay deference to achanging reality and, in non-revolutionary times, in order to function at all,had to function in a non-revolutionary manner. His theories were limitedto the essentials of the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, buthis practice was continuous, dealing with problems "as they came up,"problems which could not always be solved with essential principles. U n-willing to retire during the upswing period of capitalisrn, Marxism could notescape functioning in a manner contrary to a theory resulting from therecognition of a real and always present revolutionary class struggle. Thetheory of the everpresent class struggle has no more justification than thebourgeois concept of progress. There is no automatism keeping things rollinguphill ; instead, there is combat with changing fortunes; there is the deathlockof the struggle and the utter defeat. Mere numbers of workers opposed to thepowerful capitalist state at times wh en history still favors capitalism do norrepresent the giant on whose back the capitalist parasites rest, but rather rhebull who has to move in the directions his nose-stick forces him to go_ Duringthe non-revolutionary period of the ascending capitalism, revolutionary Marx-ism could exist only as ideology, serving an entirely different practice. Inthis latter form it was again limited by actual occurences. As a mere ideologyit had to cease existing as soon as great social upheavals demanded a changefrom an indirect to a direct class collaboration ideology for capitalisticpurposes.

Marx developed his theories during revolutionary times. The most ad-vaneed of the bourgeois revolutionists, he was the dosest to the pr'ol.etariat.,

I200

The defeat of the bourgeoisie as revolutionists, their success within thecounter-revolutio?, convineed Marx that the modern revolutionary class canbe only_the w~rkmg class, a?d he developed the socio-economie theory of theirrevolutl~n: .Llke ma~y o.f his contemporaries, he underestimated the strengthan~ flexibility of capitalism, and expected too soon the end of bourgeoissociety. Two alternatives opened themselves to him: He could either standoutside the actual development, restricting himself to inapplicable radicalthinking, or participate under the given conditions in the actual struggles,and reserve the revolutionary theories for "better times." This latteralternative was rationalized into the "proper balance of theory and practice,"and the defeat or success of proletarian activities became therewith the resultof "right" or "wrong" tactics once more; the question of the proper organl-zat ion and of correct leadership. It was not so much Marx's earlier con-neetion with the bourgeois revolution that led to the further development ofthe Jacobinic aspect of the labor movement called by his name, but the non-r~volutionary practice of this movement, because of the non-revolutionarytimes.

The Marxism of Kautsky, then, was a Marxism in the form of a mereideology, and it was therewith fated to return in the course of time intoidealistic channels. Kautsky's "orthodoxy" was in truth the artificial pre-servation of ideas opposed to an actual practice, and was therewith forced in-to retreat, as reality is always stronger than ideology. A real Marxian"orthodoxy" could be possible only with a return of real revolutionary situa-tions, and then such "orthodoxy" would concern itself not with "the word"but with the principle of the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariatapplied to new and changed situation. The retreat of theory before practicecan be followed with utmost clarity in Kautsky's writings.

The many books and articles written by Kautsky deal with almost aHsocial problems, in addition to specific questions concerning the labor move--ment. However, his writings can be classified into Economy, History, andPhilosophy. In the field of political economy, not much can be said about hiscontribution. He was the popularizer of the first volume of Marx's Capitaland the editor of Marx's "Theories of Surplus Value," published during theyears from 1904 to 1910. His popularizations of Marx's economie theoriesdo not distinguish .thernselves from the generally accepted interpretation ofeconomie phenomena in the socialist movement, - the revisionists included.As a matter of fact, parts of his famous book "The Economic Doctrines ofKarl Marx" were written by Eduard Bernstein. In the heated discussionwaged at the turn of the century concerning the meaning of Marx's theoriesin the second and third volume of Capital, Kautsky took very small part.For him the first volume of Capital contained all that was of importance tothe workers and their movement. It dealt with the process of production,the factory, and exploitation, and contained all th at was needed to support aworkers' movement against capitalism. The other two volumes dealing ingreater detail with capitalist tendencies towards crises and collapse did notcorrespond to immediate reality and found little interest not only by Kautsky

20~

but by all Marxian theoreticians of the upswing period of capitalism. In areview of the second volume of Capital, written in 1886, Kautsky expressedthe opinion that this volume is of less interest to the workers, as it dealslargely with the problem of the realization of surplus value, which after allshould be rather the concern of the capitalists. When Bernstein, in the courseof his attack upon Marx's economie theories, rejected the latter's theory ofcoUapse, Kautsky defended Marxism by simply denying that Marx ever haddeveloped a special theory pointing to an objective end of capitalism, and thatsuch a concept was merely an invention of Bernstein. The difficulties andcontradictions of capitalism he searched for in the sphere of circulation. Con-sumption could not grow so rapidly as production and a permanent over-production would lead to the political necessity of introducing socialism.Against Tugan-Baranowsky's theory of an unhampered capitalist develop-ment proceeding from the fact that capital creates its own markets and canovercome developing disproportionalities, a theory which influenced the wholereformist movement, Kautsky" set his underconsumption theory to explainthe unavoidability of capitalist crises, crises which helped to create the sub-jective conditions for a transformation from capitalism to socialism. However,25 years later, he openly admitted that he had been wrcng in his evaluationof the economie possibilities of capitalism, as "from an economie viewpoim,capital is much livelier today than it was 50 years ago.··

The theoretical unclarity and inconsistency that Kautsky··· display-ed on economie questions, were only climaxed by his acceptance of the oncedenounced views of Tugan-Baranowsky. They were only a reflection of hischanging general attitude towards bourgeois thought and capitalist society.In his book "The Materialistic Conception of History," which he himselfdeclares to be the best and final product of his whole life's work, dealing asit does in nearly 2000 pages with the developement of nature, society, and thestate, he demonstrates not only his pedantic method of exposition and his far-reaching knowledge of theories and facts, but also his many misconceptions asregards Marxism and his final break with Marxian science. Here he openlydeclares "that at times revisions of Marxism are unavoidable. •••• Here henow accepts aU that during his whole life he had apparently struggled against.He is no longer solely interested in the interpretation of Marxism, but is readr.,to accept responsibility for his own thoughts, presenting his main work as hisown conception of history, not totally removed but independent from Marxand Engels. His masters, he now contends, have restricted the materialisticconception of history by neglecting too much the natural factors in history.

·Neae Zeil, 1902, No. 5.•• K. Kautsky, Die Materialistsche Geschichtsauffássung. Berlin 1927. Vol.n, p. 623.•• ·The limitations of Kautsky's economie theories and their transforma-tions in the course of his activities are excelently described and criticized byHearyk Crossmaaa in his book "Das Akkumulations--und Zusammenbruchs-gesetz des kapitalistischen Systems" (Leipzig 1929), to which the interestedreader is referred.••• ·K. Kautsky, Die Materialistische Geschichtsautfassung. yol. rr, p. 630.202

He, however, starting not from Hegel but from Darwin. "will now extendthe scope of historical materialism till it merges with biology."· But hisfurthering of historical materialism turns out to be no more than areversionto the crude naturalistic materialism of Marx's forerunners, a return to the,position of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, which Marx had overcome with hisrejection of Feuerbach. On the basis of this naturalistic materialism, Kautsky,like the bourgeois philosophers before him, cannot help adopting an idealisticconcept of social development, which, then, when it deals with the state, turnsopenly and completely into the old bourgeois conceptions of the history ofmankind as the history of states. Ending in the bourgeois demoeratic state,Kautsky holds that"there is no room any longer for violent class cdnflict. PeacefuIly, by wayof propaganda and the voting system ean confliets be ended, decisions bemade."··

Though we cannot possible review in detail at this place this tremendousbook of Kautsky, ••• we must say that it demonstrates throughout the dou-btful character of Kautsky's "Marxism." His conneetion with the labor move.ment, seen retrospectively, was never more than his participaiton in some formof bourgeois social work. There can be no doubt that he never understood thereal position of Marx and Engels, or at least never dreamed that theoriescould have an immediate conneetion with reality, This apJ!5lrently serieusMarxist student had actually never taken Marx seriously, Like many piouspriests engaging in a practice contrary to their teaching, he might not evenhave been aware of the duality of his own thought and action. Undoubtedlyhe would have sincerely liked being in reality the bourgeois of whom Marxonce said, he is "a capitalist solely in the interest of the proletariat." Buteven such a change of affairs he would reject, unless it were attainable in the"peaceful" bourgeois, democratic manner. Kautsky, "repudiates theBolshevik melody that is unpleasant to his ear," wrote Trotsky, "but does notseek another. The solution is simple: the old musician refuses altogether toplay on the instrument of the revolution."····

Recognizing at the close of his life that the reforms of capitalism that hewished to achieve could not be realized by democratie, peaceful means,Kautsky turned against his own practical policy, and just as he was in formertimes the proponent of a Marxian ideology which, altogether divorced fromreality, could serve only its opponents, he now became the proponent ofbourgeois laissez-faire ideology, just as much removed from the actual con-ditions of the developing fascistic capitalist society, and, just as much servingth is society as his Marxian ideology had served the demoeratic stage of capit-alism. "People love today to speak disdainfully about the liberalisticeconomy," he wrote in his last work;

·K. Kautsky, Die Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung. Vol. n, p. 629."Ibid., p. 431.•• ·The reader is referred to Karl Korsch's extensive criticism of Kautsky'swork, "Die Materialistische Geschichtsauft'assung. Eine Auseinandersetzungmit Karl Kautsky." Leipzig 1929.• ••• L. Trotsky, Dictatorship VB. Democracy. New York 1922, p, 187.

203

"however, the theories founded by Quesnay, Adam Smith, and Ricardo arenot at all obsolete. In their essentials Marx had accepted their theories anddeveloped them further, and he has never denied th at the liberal freedom ofcommodity production constituted the best basis for its development. Man.distinguishes himself from the Classicists thercin, that when the latter saw incommodity production of private producers the only possible form of pro-duction, Marx saw the highest form of commodity production leading throughits own development to conditions allowing for a still better form of produc-tion, social production, where society, indentical with thc whole of the work-ing population, controls the means of production. producing no longer forprofit but to satisfy needs. The socialist mode of production has its ownrules, in many respects different fr om the laws of commodity production.However, as long as commodity production prevails, it will best function ifthose laws of motion discovered in the era of liberalism are respected."*

These ideas are quite surprising in a man who had edited Marx's"Theories of Surplus Value," a work which proved exhaustively"that Marx at no time in his life countenanced the opinion that the new con-tents of his socialist ad communist theory could be derived, as a mere logicalconsequence, from the utterly bourgeois theories of Quesnay, Smith, andRicardo."" •However, th is position of Kautsky's gives the necessary qualifications to outprevious statement that he was an excellent pupil of Marx and Engels. Hewas such only to the extent that Marxism could be fitted into his own limitedconcepts of social development and of capitalist societv. For Kautsky, the"socialist society", or the logical consequence of capitalist developrnent ofcommodity production, is in truth only a state-capitalist system. Wh en oncehe mistook Marx's value concept as a law of socialist economics if only ap-plied consciously instead of being left to the "blind" operations of the Marker,Engels pointed out to him--- that for Marx, value is a strictly historicalcategory; that neither before nor after capitalism did th ere exist or couldthere exist a value production which differed only in form from th at of capit-alism. And Kautsky accepted Engel's statement, as is manifested in his work"The Economie Doctrines of Karl Marx,;' (1887) where he also saw valueas a historical category. Later, however, in reaction to bourgeois criticism ofsocialist economie theory, he re-introduced in his book "The Proletarian Rev-olution and its Program" (1922) the value concept, the market and moneyeconomy, commodity production, into his scheme of a socialist society. Whatwas once historical became eternal; Engels had talked in vain. Kautsky hadreturned from where he had sprung, from the petite-bourçeoisie, wh;;') hatewith equal force both monopoly control and socialism, and hope for a purelyquantitative change of society, an enlarged reproduction of the status quo, abet ter and bigger capitalism, a better and more comprehensive democracy -as against a capitalism climaxing in fascism or changing into communism.

The maintenance of liberal commodity production and its political ex-pression were preferred by Kautsky to the "economics" of fascism because the

*Sozialisten und Krieg. p. 665.··K. Korsch, Karl Marx. New York 1938, p. 92. See aIso: Engels Prefaceto the German edition of La Misere de le Philosophie, 1884; and to thesecond vol. of Capital, 1895.·"·Aus der Fruehzeit des Marxismus, p. 145.204

Iormer system determincd his long grandeur and his short misery. Just as hehad shielded bourgeois democracy with Marxian phraseology, so he nowobscured the fascist reality with demoeratic phraseology. For now, by turningtheir thoughts backward instead of forward, he made his followers mentallyincapacitated for revolutiorrary action. The man who shortly before hi~death was driven from Berlin to Vienna by marching fascism, and fromVienna to Prague, and hom Prague to Amsterdam, published in 1937 abook* which shows explicitly that once a "Marxist" makes the step froma materialistic to an idealistic concept of social development, he is sure toarrive sooner or later at th at borderline of thought where idealism turns intoinsanity. Therc is a report current in Gcrmany that wh en Hindenburg waswatching a Nazi dcmonstration of storm troops he turned to a General stand-ing besidcs him saying, "I did not know we had taken so many Russianprisoners." Kautsky, too, in this his last book, is mentally still at "Tannen-berg." His work is a faithful description of the different attitudes taken bysocialists and their forerunners to the question of war since the beginning ofthc 15th century up to the present time. It shows, although not to Kautsky,how ridiculous Marxism can become when it associates the proletarian withthe bourgeois needs and necessities.

Kautsky wrote his last book, as he said, "to determine which positionshould be taken by socialists and democrats in case a new war breaks outdespite all our opposition to it."*- However, he continued,"There is no direct answer to this question before the war is aetually hereand we are a11 able to see who eaused the war and for what purpose it isfought." He advocates th at "if war breaks out, socialist should try to main-tain their unity, to bring their organization safely through the war, so thatthey may reap the fruit wherever unpopular political regimes eollapse. In1914 this unity was lost and we still suffer from this ealamity. But todaythings are mueh clearer than they were then; the opposition betweendemoeratic and anti-democratie states is much sharper; and it ean be ex-pected that if it comes to the new world war, all socialiste will stand on theside of democraey."After the experiences of the last war and the history since then, there is noneed to search fort the black sheep th at causes wars, nor is it a secret anylonger why wars are fought. However, to pose such questions is not stupidityas onc may believe. Behind this apparent naivete lies the determination toserve capitalism in one form by fighting capitalism in a not her.I t serves to "prepare the workers for the coming war, in exchange forthe right to organizc in labor organizations, vote in elections, and assemble informations which serve both capital and capitalistic labor organizations. Itis the old policy of Kautsky, which demands concessions from the bourgeoisiein exchange for millions of dead workers in the coming capitalistic battles.In reality, just as the wars of capitalism, regardless of the political differencesof the participating states and the various slogans used, can only be wars forcapitalist profits and wars against the working class, so, too, the war excludesthe possibility of choosing between conditional or unconditional participation

• Sozialisten und Krieg.•.•.Sozialisten und Krieg, p. VIII.

205

in tbe war by tbe workers. Rather, the war, and even the period precedingtbe war, will be marked by a general and complete military dictatorship infascist and anti-fascist countries alike. The war will wipe out the lastdistinction between the demoeratic and the anti-demoeratic nations. Andworkers will serve Hitler as they served the Kaiser; they will serve Rooseveltas they served Wilson; they will die for Stalin as they died for the Tsar.

Kautsky was not disturbed by the reality of fascism, since for him,democracy was the natural form of capitalism. The new situation was onlya sickness, a temporary insanity, a thing actually foreign to capitalism, Hereally believed in a war for democracy, to allow capitalism to proceed in itslogical course towards a real commonwealth. And his 1937 predictions in-corporated sentences like the following:"Tbe time bas arrived where it is finally possible to do away with wars as ameans of solving political confiicts between tbe states."> Or, "The policyof conquest of the Japanese in China, the ltalians in Ethiopia, is a last echoof a passing time, the period of imperialism. More wars of such acharactercan hardly be expected."··There are hundreds of similar sentences in Kautsky's book, and it seems attimes that his whole world must have consisted of no more than the fourwalls of his library, to which he neglected to add the newest volumes onrecent history. Kautsky is convineed that even without a war fascism will bdefeated, the rise of democracy recur, and the period return for a peacefuldevelopment towards socialism, like the period in the days before fascism. Theessential weakness of fascism he illustrated with the remark that"tbe personal character of the dictatorships indicates already that it limitsits own existence to the length of a human life."·"He believed that after fascism there would be the return to the "normal" lifeon an i'ncreasingly socialistic abstract democracy to continue the reformsbegun in the glorious time of the social democratie coalition policy. However,it is obvious now that the only capitalistic reform objectively possible today isthe fascistic reform. And as matter of fact, the larger part of the "socializa-tion program" of the social democracy, which it never dared to put intopractice, has meanwhile been realized by fascism. Just as the demands of theGerman bourgeoisie were met not in 1848 but in the ensuing period ofcounter-revolution, so, too, the reform program of the social democracy, whichit could not inaugurate during the time of its own reign, was put into practiceby Hitler. Thus, to mention just a few facts, not the social democracy butHitler fulfilled the long desire of the socialists, the A nschlus of Austria ;.not social d e m 0 c r a c y but fascism established the wished-for statecontrol of industry and banking; not social democracy but Hitierdeclared the first of Maya legal holiday. A careful analysis of what thesocialists actually wanted to do and never did, compared with actual policiessince 1933, will reveal to any objective observer that Hitler realized no more

·Sozialisten und Krieg, p. 265."Ibid., p. 656.•• ·Ibid., p. 646.206

this respect; it is really touching tosee, in eeonomies for instance, howcapitalists become "progressive so-cialists," and bow socialists turn"progressive capitalists"; bow every.body is willing to sacrifice bere andmodüy there, to bring about a fusionof ideas that can "serve society."Indecision is the mark of a11politicalgroups; fear rules tbe world, the fearof fundamental acelal changes in-stead of the present makeshüts,which solve notbing and, in post-poning the real issues, enable themto grow more complex. Fear leadsto des p a i r. Tbe "anti-fasciststruggle", it is often pointed out,transforms this struggle itself into asemi-fascist movement, not to men-tion the fact that the methods em-ployed by both are quite oftenidentical. In the bourgeois campproper tbe situation is no different.During the last election campaign,many a Republican spoke like thebest of the New Dealers, and theNew Dealers turn their welfareeconomics into war eeonomics in thegood old Republican tysle. No onelikes capitalism as it appeara today,and no one wants to do without it.(If we did not get so hungry wateh-ing this procedure, it would befunny). .

than the program of social democracy, but without the socialists. LikeHitler, the social democracy and Kautsky were opposed to both bolshevismand communism. Even a complete state-capitalist system as the Russian wasrejected by both in favor of mere state control. And what is necessary inorder to realize such a program was not dared by the socialists but undertakenby the fascists. The anti-fascism of Kautsky illustrated no more than the factthat just as he once could not imagine hat Marxist theory could be sup-plemented by a Marxist practice, he later could not see that a capitalistreform policy demanded a capitalist reform practice, which turned out to bethe fascist practice. The life of Kautsky can teach the workers that in hestruggle against fascistic capitalism is necessarily incorportated the struggle a.gainst bourgeois democracy, the struggle against' Kautskynism. The life ofKautsky can, in aH truth and without malicious intent, be summed up in thewords: From Marx to Hitler.

207

THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACYAs chaotic as the time, are

the ideas of men. Bewildermentin economie and political mattersis apparently still i n c rea sin g.Certain unmistakable t ren d s inthought and action, however, indi-cate that this confusion may be alsoregarded as a process of clarification.Slowly, and in a roundabout way,people beg in to recognize thegeneral direction in which societymoves. Attempts at adaptation to itecourse involve many inconsistencies,resulting from the attempt to movein traditional paths. According tomany of his critics, inconsistencycharacterizes the writings of HerbertAgar. * At times, they contend, hewrites Hkea fascist, and on otheroccasions, like a man inspired by the"People's Front." In recognition ofthe two-fold meaning of confusedthinking, we may regard his bewil-derment as his specific quality, forhere he reflects only an actualsituation and voices a general desireto harmonize the needs of the in.dividual with those of society with-out disturbing the latter too much.Almost everybody feels for him in

*The Pursuit of Hopptnese: The Story ofAmerican Oemocracy. By Herbert Aqar .Houqhton Mifflin. $ 3.00.

Agar concerns himself with thehistory of the Demoeratic Party, avery bad history, in his opinion."Much of the time since the CivilWar," he writes, this party "haseither been sound asleep or it hasbeen a cheap imitation of th eRepublican Party. But when it hasamounted to anything at all - asunder Bryan, Wilson, Roosevelt -the party has been fumbling with theold problem: how to run a would-bedemocracy the size of an empirewithout exploiting some regions forthe benefit of others ;... how to run awould-be democracy which is also arich capitalism without exploitingthe proletarian class (p. 246)." Agarhas an idea as to what a democracyshould be, and measures capita listdemocracy by his own abstraction.Reality is found wanting, for it didnot and does not correspond to hisideal. However, more t h a n ahundred years of attempts at "realdemocracy" are not, even in itspresent impasse, able to convinceAgar that the case is lost. He has theunanswerable argument that "realdemocracy," i. e., his "ideal democ-racy", may not be considered im-possible, for it has never been triedin earnest.

Agar bewails the fact that thehistory of the Democratie Party hastoo often justified Bryce's sayingth at the American parties resem bletwo identical bottles with differentlabels. He doesn't realize that noparty derives its functions from itsideology, but from the entire socialsituation. Just as far removed as isthe Democratie Party from Jefferson,so the Republican Party is removedfrom Hamilton. Agar's idealistic at-titude makes him a good writer anda bad historian. He is not able tounderstand the history of Americandemocracy nor the motives of theparty heroes; he can point only tocontradictions between theory andpractice, and to decide against thelatter. The disparity between realityand ideology based on class relationshe sees as a conflict between meansand ends, conditioned by time andplace. To him, "the ends areabsolute. They will remain as trueand as desirabIe as they ever were,no matter what changes come overthe world (p. 43)." However, in the208

process of comparing reality with hisideal, he cannot help but attack mostbitterly the whole of the experienceddemocracy, and he salvages from itno more than Jefferson's slogan,"equal rights for all, special privileg-es for none." Agar's indignation in-spires him to an excellent descriptionof party practices, and here he saysmore than he knows.

The history of democracy fromJefferson to Roosevelt continuouslydemonstrates to Agar th at "thepolitical success of the Jeffersonianparty did not bring with it anequivalent triumph for the Jeffer-sonian ideas (p. 40.)" The meansemployed unfortunately turned a-gainst the end aspired to. But theend aspired to never conformed toAgar's absolute idea; it consisted ofspecific, concrete goals, which inturn determined the means employedto reach them. The contradictionAgar construes between means andends is artificial. The limited rnean-ing of Jefferson's phrase was clear atthe time it was coined. Long beforethe American Revolution the peoplehad experienced class conflicts. 'I'herecognition of cla ss differenees un-derlies all ideas incorporated in theConstitution, which was regarded asan instrument to help the industrialand mercantilistic interests arisen inthe East to counteract the pressureof the agricultural majority. Thedefense of the new property formswas the basis of the Constitution,and was created by men intending tocapitalize the ~untry according tothe English example. Jefferson'sdemocracy also was based on thedefense of private property. "It isnot necessary to demand economieequalitarianism in order to makeJefferson's phrase come true," Agarwrites, "but it is clearly necessaryto demand economie justice (p 42)."Jefferson wanted justice for thefarmers, the majority of the popula-tion, who even from the days ofShay's Rebellion knew that theywould have to pay for th develop-ment of American capitalism.

However, Jefferson's Realpolitik,not to speak of its idealizstion, was,for external as well as internalreasons, defeated at its start. An ex-clusive agricultural economy asdesired by J erson would sooner or

later have to be industrialized to es-cape colonization and foreign ex-ploitation. The War of Independencecould not be undone; its success hadalready established the fact that thetrend was toward industrialization,which would eventually subordinateto itself both forms of farming, theplantation system in the South, asweIl as the independent farming inthe Northwest. Only while capit-alism was still weak was it possibleto harmonize the plantation systemwith independent farming, and aslong as it was possible it was done,not as an inconsistency in Jeffersonand his followers, as Agar assumes,but as a political expediency to op-pose the growing capitalistic forces.If wasn't a democracy of the Agartype that Jefferson was fighting for,but simply agricultural advantagesand property. Both parties from theoutset were interested only in groupproblems and not in social philoso-phies. The kernel of Jefferson'sideal is a class issue, and each classnecessarily claims to fight for thehappiness of the whole of society.J efferson's demand for decentralizedpowers was not a mere principlederived fr om ethical considerations,but a practical policy for fighting the"Federalists", who emphasized theneed for centralization in opposingsuccessful majorities 0 th e r wis edifficult to contro!.

Jefferson's lost cause was taken upwith fresh vigor by Jackson in anew and last attempt to push backadvancing capitalism. He foundedthe "type of party machine, the typeof national convention, the type ofspoils system," which, to the despairof Agar, still exist. In Jackson's case,too, Agar admits that he "did notlive up to his own theory of govern-ment... His contribution to theDemoeratic Party is not a set ofdoctrines, but a way of feeling aboutlife (p. 152)." This way of "feelingabout life", meaning the "defense ofthe plain people against the finan-ciers and the men of big property,"always remained mer e feeling."Wh en the party came to power itdid not pass a single measure whichwas directly in the interest of thesmall farmer or of the city poor ......An efficient and disciplined partywas created to serve the dernocratte

ideal. But the party did not servethat ideal (p. 179):" Aftel' Jacksonthe Demoeratic Party became th~party of the Southern slave econ-orny, nourished by the industrial rev-olution in England. which had crea-ted a seemingly inexhaustible marketfor cotton. Little remained even ofthe demoeratic phraseology. Fromthe Cicil War "until the election ofRoosevelt the Demoeratic Party wasnever again the dominant party."Till Roosevelt, "the Wilson Admin-,istration was the only proof that it isstill pessible to use the Federal gov-ernment to promote progressive andDemocratie aims (p. 323)." How-ever, Wilson's policy led to the "warfor dcmocracy", the real demorcacyof the battIe field. And to judgefrom the r e s u lts so far ofRoosevelt's progressive liberalism, itseems clear th at it too serves ten-dencies quite opposed to democratieideals.

AU this does not destroy Agar'soptimism. It is wrong, he says, tothink th at all this "was 'inevitable',that an economy of private property'must' develop into an economy rul-ed by vast monopolies, that the freecitizen of the Jefêerson dream, 'must'become the helpless pensioner offinance or of the State... Thesethings were done deliberately; if wedeplore the results they can bedeliberately undone (p. 354)." Cer-tainly those things were done "de-liberately", for the property-rela-tions permitted it, and the elementssuffering thereby were not able tohinder this development. Certainlythis can be changed "deliberately",if the "victims" of previous event :create the power to do so. The factis, however, that they did not arrestthis development, that they are nowfaced with its recults, and cannozhelp but operate on the basis of thisnew condition. Agar, however, IS notinclined to change an old order intoa new one, he wants merely to"undo" what was done; he wants toput history in reverse .. Irifluencedby southern AgrariaDlam, whichpreaches a utopian self-sufficiency ofpauper ized farmers, he wants amoral revolution to win back a past,which, as he has just discovered, ex-isted only in his fantasy. .

It is truc that Agar does not grvehis own answcrs to the pro biems

209

posed, that he only wishes to dra-matize the great need for facingthem. However, his editorship ofFree America, the magazine to "pro-mote independence", as weIl as hispresent book, gives one a clue as towhat he would consider a solution ofthe social question. "Is there a lawof nature requiring rich nations tokeep some of their people unprivileg-ed as swine?" he asks. By pointingto the poorer yet capitalistic Scan-dinavian countries he answers in thenegative. Forgetting his own re-searches, he now contends that "ourown past history shows that a systemof widely ditributed property canserve the American ideaL The storyof a modern industrial nation suchas Sweden shows the same thing(p. 362)." Thus, uncritically, heaccepts the many fairy tales recentlytold about the Scandinavian democ-racies, which, because of their en-ormous profits from the precedingand the impending war, their highlyagricultural character and theirwonderfully trained labor movement,are still able to hide the classstruggle and the existing miseryfrom clever journalists and the"public" in general. Even apart fromthese misconceptions, it is notpossible to compare Sweden withAmerica. Sweden's peculiarities areunderstandable only in conneetionwith the whole European situation.If a comparison must be made, thencoutinents should be compared withcontinents ; any other comparison ismeaningless. Besides looking toSweden, Agar wants to interest hlsreaders in "adult education" andin "co-operative enterprises" of thetype created by the citizens of NovaScotia, who have "lifted themselvesout of poverty, ignorance, anddespair." But so have many otherpeople outside of Nova Scotia whohave been favored by particularcircumstances not given to all ofsociety. His solutions are groupsolutions, possible only on a smalIscale, and unable to attain socialsignificance.

Traditional, individualistic think-ing, when disturbed, usually movesalong grooves outlined by Agar. Itis understandable why the petty-bourgeois mind, confronting develop-ing forces that threaten its security,210

should look with nostalgie Ionging tothe past, and go back to the oldideas of the radical petty-bourgeoi-sie. Like Proudhon and his follow-ers of a hundred years ago, Agarregards free competition of small en-terprises as the ideal state ofeconomie development, eapable ofeliminating all privileges arisingthrough money and land monopolies.In this way, control from above isdeemed unnecessary, pro fits are ex.pected to disappear, and each onewill receive the fruits of his labor."I do not intend," Proudhon pointedout, "to do away with private pro-perty, but to socialize it; that is, toreduce it to small enterprises anddeprive it of its power." However,despite his demoeratic dream, Agar,iÎi distinction to Proudhon and inrecognition of "time and place",realizes that "the inequalities be-tween regions and classes have be-come unbearable ;... that they cannotbe diminished except through theuse of the federal power, and that itseems that Americans who stillcherish Jeffersonian principles mustsupport the use of that power(p. 367)." But there arises then areal calamity, as "all history show!that it is easier to confer power upongovernments than to withdraw it.""To solve this last problem, he ap-peals to the "wisdom" of the people,however, the "wisdom" of the peopleunfortunately falls also under gov-ernrneittal control, as a supplementto the acquired economie and polit-ical powers. Indeed, the pursuit ofhappiness is difficult; democracy nowhas to be realized by dicta tori almeans, which, in order to be success-fuI, needs "unselfish" and "un-greedy" people, so that in the end,"wh ether we make America a ood ora bad country will depend upon whatwe make, individually, of ourselves(p. 368)." With this nobody woulddisagree, not even Herbert Hoover.But try to teil it to the unemployed.

The ideas which Agar offers tothe public are safe ideas. In theartificial struggle of democracy ver-sus dictatorship he chooses bothsides, as almost everybody else does.The "people" of Vienna recentlydemonstrated that th is attitude isnot the exclusive right of lonethinkers, but a re al mass phenom-

~

enon: Schuschnigg in the forenoon,Hitler in the afternoon - what isthe difference? One has to swim withthe stream whatever deviations itdescribes. The absolute idea isalways with us; the rest doesn'tcount, and has never meant any-thing, as Agar's book shows. Thedemocracy for which he is pleading,even if its attainment were possible,wouldn't be much different from thedemocracy he dislikes; for in anatomized private property society,which is unequal from the beginning,and thereby able only to reproduce

continually its inequalities on analways larger scale, and which, sofar as it has equalizing powers, onlyequalizes misery for more and stillmore people, - this democracy,offered today as the way out of thepresent unbearable situation, canserve only as an ideological weapontowards a completely different end.As an idea, Jeffersonian democracymight very weIl be a big help not inthe quest for a real collectivism, butin the only democratic strugglepossible u n der capitalism, thestruggle of all against allo

CURBING BIG BUSINESS?In June, 1938, the Roosevelt Administration created the Temporary

National Economie Committee for the purpose of making a complete studywith respect to concentration of economie power in American industry, theeffect of such concentration upon dedine of competition and tax policies, ap-parently to give affirmative encouragement to competitive enterprises.

Monopoly capital has pushed the smaller capitalists against the wall. Theweaker competitor who for decades advocated th at "competition is the life oftrade" is now demanding legislative action to stem the one-sided distributionof high profits into the pockets of monopoly capitalism. However, theirdemand is quite illusionary, as were all previous attempts to "curb" bigbusiness.

Looking backward, we note that the struggle of the opposing fractionswithin the capitalist dass has been noticeable for the last 75 years. It alwayshas been the aim of the smaller capitalist and industrialist to prevent thegrowing concentration of capital through legislative efforts. The struggle,however, usually ended in scraps of paper. The Interstate Commerce Law,1887, the Anti Trust Law, 1890, and many others, were enacted only to beinterpreted and perforated until they had no teeth left. Part after part wasdedared inoperative by the courts, all efforts to en force the law broke on thepowerful opposition of the monopolist ic concerns.

The economie rrecessity of cooperation of government and i~dus~ryduring the World War, and the encouragetnent of industry for consohda~,onbv the decisions of the Supreme Court during this period gave the consolida-tion movement renewed impetus. Consolidation for war profits without so-called unfair practices became the demand of the hour. As in previous timesthe government in its public campaigns made a distinction between good andbad trusts, purposely overlooking the fact that the mere existence of trustsconstituted a violation of the "laws of the nation."

The post-war period created a new phase of trustified industry: co?-centration of control by means of holding companies and investment ~rus~s inorder to eliminate competition and create greater profits. These orgamzatlOns,

211

the subsidiaries with a minimum amount of investment. The following is apractical example of the working possibilities:

If a group of bankers want to get hold of a certain profitable industry,or a concern financial control of some competitors' assets, with, say, a capitali-zation of 75 million dollars, listed as 25 million dollars in bonds, 25 milliondollars par value of non-voting stock (pref.) and 25 million dollars parvalue common stock, all they have to do to gain complete legal control is topurchase on the market 50 % of the common stock at market value-par valuc.The stockbolders of the common stock, as the only voting stock, influence enddetermine the policies of the enterprise, and are therefore the controllingpower of the management policies. The investment of the group interested inthe above outlined concern would have been J21/2 million dollars. Thtsgroup would now form a legal holding company by setting up an organizationto take over the 121/2 million dollar investment. The new "holdingcompany" would issue its own securities based on the credit of the investeomoney. The issue would consist of 5 million dollars of bonds, 21/2 milliondollars of pref. stock, and 5 million dollars common stock of the "HoldingCompany." It then throws the bonds, including the pref. non-vering stock,on the market, with almost half of the common voting stock. The rernain-ing 21/2 million dollars of common stock is now the only factor requisite tokeep control over the 75 million dollars operating company. the proceeds otthe issues sold are paid in turn to the original investors, who now form thecontrolling group as "holding company" of the operating company. A secondholding company may be set up to buy the remaining stocks of the originalholding company. This procedure can be duplicated again and again, so thatat the end - or top - organization, a 1% investment controls an entire in-dustry and its subsidiaries. It minimizes the investment and increases thepower over the whole structure of production.

In the case of the Commonwealth Power investigation, to cite an ex-ample, it was found that control over the vast enterprise was accomplished byan actual investment of 91/2 million dollars controlling a total of over 239million dollar assets.

The directors of the holding company are voted into the offices of mostof its subsidiaries and operating companies as chairman and trustees. Theseinterlocking directorials are the main control over all matters of policy andfinance of the subsidiary companies. For instance, in 1920, 202 officials anddirectors of the Morgan and Insull U tilities held 1984 interlocking directe-rates, out of which the following economical groups we re represented:

Poaitiona beid by tbe 202 offidala

through the practical means of interlocking stock holdings and directorites,were soon to play a decisive role in the development of the economie structure.For the first time we observe in the 1920's the increasing number of holdingcompanies as a modern form of monopolization. At the end of the decadewe find monopolies dominating by such methods production in the UnitedStatcs as follows: 75% of steel production capacity was owned by 6cornpanies ; 70 % of the rubber tire production was in the hands of 4companies: electrical equipment industry was dominated by 3 big corpora-tions; and the automobile industry was ruled by 2 giant integrations. Thefollowing cornpilation illustrates this concentration movement :

Number of firma merged or aquired

1918-1928 During 1928

Iron and SteelOilLumber and PaperTextilesChemiealsCoalFoodstuff

1364765510505355296963

1725685

1489618

267I

11111I

Kumbcr of COltCC,.n5 disappearing from tbc economie field

192419251926192719281929

368554856870

10581245

The succesful operation of the holding companies as an instrument ofconcentr~tion w~r::lnts ~ closer study of its ~orking possibilities, as onlythrough lts use IS rt possible today to have such multi-billion dollars enter-prises as :he American Telephonc and Telegraph Company, the United SteelCorporation, and many others.

The holding company is today the most effective means or device forcombining under single control the properties of one or more companies or in-dependent corporations. I t grow to be the propelling force which sped up theexpansion and centralization of a large part of American industry, the upwardtrend of American modern monopoly capitalism which was checked onlypartlv by the depression of the last ten years. lts power lies in the buying otcontrol of competing enterprises, centralizing production, cornbining vast in-dustrial units into one big unit, and at the same time acting as financingagcncy for thc capital requirements of its subsidiaries.

The holding company constitutes generally a form of financial super-structure, a systern of parent holding companies, holding companies, andoperaring companies, thereby mcrging the credit of all companies with thecredit of the top organization for speculatien and financial manipulations.Thc pvrnmidinjr of the voting control gives the holding company control over212 #'-

586 directorates527 "158 "479 "

Power IndustryFinancial CorporationsRailroadsIndustry and Commerce

The holding company establishes a sphere of influence by private pater-nalism; it not only receives fees from the operating companies based on grossincome but in addition, it makes enormous profits on merchandise required by

213

and sold to the subsidiary companies. It receives, furthermore, fat profits onaIl contracts let out, finaIly gets commission on securities, for their issuance,sale and exchange.

The World War had driven production capacity beyond the limits setup on production by capitalist social relations. Suddenly this expansion cameto a stop. The demand for investment capital in the production field dropp-ed, it entered the financial channels of trusts and investment fund organiza-tions, "created new profits" by raising the actual value of the existing pro-ductive plant value to dizzy heights. Artificial booms and rains of profitattracted money. The financial capitalof the holding companies and in-vestment trust organizations mounted enormously. This growth was not dueto production operations but to financial manipulations, which increasedthe number of issues on the markets and thereby decreased the value of thesecurities. This inflation of the security prices out of proportion to the un-derlying values was an important factor in the making of the coming coIlapseof the market. The following figures show the increase of pro fits made onthe market:

Monetary Income Erom Capital invested in Financial Institutions

19251929

27,072,000 MiIlion Dollars89,668,000" "

Rise in Pro6ta Erom 1923 to 1929

Financial corporationsSpeculative pro fitsNon-financial corporations

177%300%

14%

Industrial capitalism, more or less concerned with the making of profitthrough production of goods was faced by a finance-capitalist development?erivin~ its profits through the promotion of stoc~ This condition led to anmcreasing exploitation of the American production industry by financecapital, The finance-capitalist group was weIl represented in the control ofnon-banking corporations. On January 1, 1932, the Morgan group, typicalof many others, sat on the boards of 60 non-financial corporations with atotal asset of 30 billion dollars.

The depression beginning 1929 and the years thereafter again accelerat-ed the development of new mergers and consolidations to effect heigherefficiency and greater exploitation. We find at the end of the year 1932 thefollowing prosperous billion dollar giants weathering the depression :

Gross Asseb as oE January 1, 1932

American Telephone and Telegraph Co.Pennsylvania Railroad Co.United Steel CorporationStandard Oil Co. of New YorkGeneral Motors CorporationElectric Bond and Share Co.Cities Service Co.

$4,235,749,0002,781,800,0002,279,802,0001,827,010,0001,313,920,0001,231,641,0001,194,450,000

214

Monopoly capitalism today, in spite of aIl governmental legislation,restriction, the NRA, the Public Utility Holding Act, etc. of the RooseveltAdministration, is well protected under the demoeratic form of the U nitedStates government. Trustification and monopolization, although opposedand protested vigorously by the weaker competitors, are constantly growing.By instigating the creation of the National Economie Committee, the gov-ernment makes only a demoeratic gesture which in the end will assure a morefit organization of industry and a profitable functioning at the sacrifice of thesmaller capitalist. This is done with the help aitd aid of the biggest corpora-tion heads and financial giants who have been asked to cooperate with theCommittee - the same leaders who have been accused of exerting thesinister influence in destroying the little fellows.

I

However, while monopolies grow at the expense of free business in-itiative, with increasing concentration of economie power through financialcontrol over production and distribution of goods, the future of th is develop-ment points to its own defeat. At one time monopolization meant extra profitsand unlimited expansion, but today in the decline period of capitalism, modemconcentration and centralization are forced upon the economie structure withgrowing competition among the monopolist ic enterprises themselves. T'herestrietion and regulation of production and distribution becomes more andmore difficult. Losing out to the monopolistic competitor means the loss ofmillions of dollars capital investment. The fight to eliminate tbe monopolist iccompetitor in turn affects the stability of the system, sharpens the struggle ofcapitalism for existence. The government is forced to proteet the interestsof the big corporations by regulating production, stabilizing prices and givingfinancial aid to unsound institutions in order to prevent a nation-widerepercussion. In this and other ways, monopoly capitalism has the tendencyto prolong the period of stagnation of the production process, but the at-tempts to restore the disturbed "equilibrium" will preserve and carry overinto the next atrificial boom period surplus productive capacity which, in turn,tends to increase the impact of the coming new depression.

The trends of concentration cannot be curbed by governmental agencies;yet, in order to disperse for a while the fears of the smaller capitalists andappease them, the National Economie Committee will in its studies andfindings try to prove in the end that today "freedom of enterprise and com-petition" is a healthy factor in American industry. However, a point will beapproached where the growing difficulties may require a more rigoroussolution. As an economie adviser of the Federal Trade Commission com-mented while a witness before the National Economie Committee:" ...There appear to be symptons indicating that monopoly has so far weaken-ed the body of capitalism that both are in danger of dissolution... theabandonement of free capitalism, here as in other nations, will require theabandonment of democracy ... to be followed by some kind of authoritariansocial order ..."

P.W.

215

DISCUSSIONOn The Impotence of Revolutionary Groups~

The difference between the radicalorganizations and the broad massesappears as a difference of objectives.The former apparently seek to over-throw capitalism; the masses seekonly to maintain their living stand-ards within capitalism. The revolu-tionary groups agitate for the aboli-tion of private property; the people,called the masses, either own bits ofprivate property, or hope some dayto own them. The communist-mind-ed struggle for the eradication of theprofit-system; the masses, capitalist-minded, spcak of the bosses' right toa "fair profit." As long as arelatively large majority of theAmerican working class maintainthe living conditions to which theyare accustomed, and have the leisureto follow their pursuits, such asbaseball and the movies, they aregenerally weil content, and aregrateful to the system that makesthese things possible. The radical,who opposes this system and therebyjeopardizes their position within it,is far more dangerous to them thenthe bosses, who pay them, and theydo not hesitate to make a martyr ofhim. As long as the systern sati=f.eatheir basic needs in the accustomedmanner, they are well satisfied withit, and whatever evils they behold insociety. they attribute to "unfairbosses," "bad administrators," orother individuals.

The small radical groups - "in-tellectuals" who have "raised them-selves to the level of comprehendinghistorical movements as a whole,"and who trace the social ills to the

*Beginning with th is ortiele. we are dev-otinq space in LIVING MARXISM to ageneral discussion of problems concerninqworkers and workers' organizations. Theviews expressed in this space are these ofindividual workers and are not necessarilyshared by the Groups of Council Com-muntsta. We invite our readers to participatein these discussions.

216

system rather than to individualssee beyond the objectives of theworkers, and realize that the basicneeds of the working class can notbe satisfied for more than a tempo-rary period under capitalism, andthat every concession that Capita Igrants Labor serves only to postponethe death struggle between these ad-versaries. They therefore atleast in theory - strive continuallyto turn the struggle for immediatedemands into a struggle against thesystem. But beside the realities ofbread and butter which capitalismcan still offer a majority of theworkers, the radicals can submit onlyhopes and ideas, and the workersabandon their struggles the momentthcir demands are met.

The reason for the apparentdifference of objectives between therevolutionary groups and the work-ing class is easy to understand. Theworking class, concerned only withthe needs of the moment and ingeneral content with its socialstatus, reflects the level of capitalistculture - a culture that is "for theenormous majority a mere trainingto act as a machine." The revolu-tionists, however, are so to speak de-viations from the working class; thcyare by-products of capitalism; theyrepresent isolated cases of workerswho, because of unique circum-stances in their individual lives, havediverged from the usual course ofdevelopement in that, though born ofwage slaves, they have acquired anintellectual interest, that has availeditself of existing educational pos-sibilities. Though of these, manyhave succeeded in rising into thepetty-bourgeoisie, others, whose ca-reers in this direction were blockedby circumstances. have remainedwithin the working class as in-tellectual wor kers. Dissatisfied withtheir social status as appendages to

#-

machines, they, unable to rise withinthe system, ri se against it. Quitefrequently cut off fr om associationwith their fellow workers on the job,who do not share their radical views,they unite, with other rebellious in-tellectual wor kers and with un-successful careerists of other strataof society, into organizations forchanging society. If, in their struggleto liberate the masses from wageslavery, they seem to be acting fromthe noblest of motives, certainly itdoesn't take much to see that onesuffers for another only when he hasindentified that other's sorrow withhis own. But whenever they have thechance to rise within the existingsociety they, with rare exceptions,do not hesitate to abandon their rev-olutionary objectives. And wh en theydo so, they offer sineere and soundlogic for their apostasy, for, "Doesit require de ep intuition to com-prehend that rnan's ideas changewith every change in his material ex-istence?" Sports in the develope-ment of capitalism, the revolutionaryorganizations, sm a 11, ineffectual,buzzing along the flanks of the broadmasses, have done nothing to affectthe course of history either for goodor ill. Their occasion al periods ofactivity can be explained only bytheir temporary or permanent for-saking of their revolutionary aims inorder to unite with the wor kers onimmediate demands, and then it wasnot their own revolutionary rolethat they played, but the conser-vative role of the working class.When the workers achieved theirobjectives, the radical groups lapsedagain into impotence. Their role wasalways a supplementary, and nevera deciding one.

II.It is the writer's conviction

that the day of the revolutionaryparty is over; that revolution-ary groups under present conditionsare tolerated, or rather ignored, onlyas long as they are impotent: thatnothing is so symptomatic of theirpowerlessness as the fact that theyare permitted to exist. We have of-ten stated th at the working cla •• ,which will endure while capitalismlasts, and which cannot be obliterat-ed under th is system, can alon e wage

a successful struggle against ca-pitalism, and that the initiative cannot be taken out of its hands. Wemay add here that after all the con-servatism of the working class todayonly reflects the still massivestrength of capitalism, and that thiomaterial power cannot be cast out ofexistence by propaganda but by amaterial power greater than that ofcapital.

Yet from time to time members ofour own group tak e to taskthe group's inactivity. They decIarethat, isolated as we are from theclass struggle as it is waged today,we are essentially mere study groupsthat will be completely out of touchwith events whcn social upheavalsdo occur. They state that since theclass struggle is omnipresent in capit-alism, it behoves us as a revolution-ary organization to de epen the classwar. But they do not suggest anyspecific courses of action. The factthat all the other radical organiza-tions in the field, though strivingdesperately to overcome their isola-tion, are nevertheless insignificantMarxist sects like ourselves, does notconvince our cri tics of the futility ofany action that small groups cantake.

The very general statement thatthe class war is ever-present andth at we should deepen it, is madefirst of all in the assumption that theclass struggle is a revolutionarystruggle, but the fact is that theworkers as a mass are today con-servative. It is assumed that theclass war aims directly at theweakening of capitalism, but the factis that, though it serves this ultimatcpurpose, it is directly aimed atsecuring the position of the workerswithin the society. Furthermore,the actual class struggle is notwaged through revolutionary organi-zations. It is waged in the factoriesand through the unions.

In America today it is being wagedby such organizations as the A. F. ofL. and the C. I. 0., and though hereand there across the continent arisesporadic strikes that are outlawed byall the existing conservative organi-zations and that indicate the formthe class war may take when aIlthese organizations are completely

217

emasculated by the State, thesewerkers' movements are infrequentand isolated today. True, the leader-ship of both the C. I. O, and the A.F. of L. is conservative, but then 50is the membership of both unions. Inorder to retain their membership andattract more workers to it, theunions must wrest concessions fromthe capitalist class for them; theworkers remain in the unions onlybecause they obtain such concessionsthrough them; and to the extent thatthey do obtain such concessions forthe workers, the unions are wagingthe class struggle. If, therefore, weare to plunge into the class struggle,we must go where the struggle isbeing wagc:l. We must concentrateon either the factories or the unions,or both. If we do 50, we mustabandon, at least overtly, our rev-olutionary principles, for if we givethem expression, wc shaIl swiftly bedischarged from the job and expeIledfrom the union, and, in a word, cutoff again from the ciass struggle andreturned precipitantly to our formerimpotent state. To become activein the class struggle means, then, tobccome as conservative as the largebody of workers. In other words, aseoon as we enter the class struggle,we can contribute nothing special toit. The only alternative to th iscourse is to continue as we are,clinging impotently to our principles.Regardless of which course wcpursue, it is obvious that we cannotaffect the current of events. Ourimpotence îllustrates what should beobvious to a11: That history is madeby the broad masses alone.

The Groups of Council Com-munists distinguish themselves from.all ether revolutionary groups inthat they do not consider them-selves vanguards of the workers, norleaders of the workers, but as beingone with the workers' movement.But this differencc between our or-ganization and others is only anideologic difference, and reflects 110

corresponding material difference.In practice we are actuaIly like a11the other groups. Like them, wefunction outside the spheres of pro-duction, where the class struggle isfought; Iike them, we are isolatedfrom the large mess of workers. Wediffer only in ideology from aIl the218

other groups, but then it is only inideology on which aIl the othetgroups differ. Practically there isno difference between aIl groups.And if we were to fo11owthe sugges-tion of our critics and "deepen theclass struggle," our "Leninistic"character would become quite ev-ident. Let us assume, for example,th at it is possible for us as an in-dependent group to organize theworkers of some industrial area. Thefact that they have not moved oftheir own accord without our aidmeans that they are dependent uponus for their initiative. By supplyingthe initiative, we are taking it outof their hands. If they discoverth at we are capable of giving themthe initial impulse, they will dependupon us for the subsequent impulses,and we shaIl soon find ourselvesleading them step by step. Thus, theywho advocate that we "intensify"the class war are not merely ignor-ing the objective conditions thatmake such an act questionable, butare advocating also our leadershipover the masses. Of course, they mayargue that, realizing the evils of sucha course, we can guard against them.But th is argument is again on anideologie level. PracticaIly, we sha11be compeIled to adjust ourselves tocircumstance. T h u s it becomesobvious th at by such a practice wewould function like a Leninist group,and could at best produce only theresults of Leninism. However, theimpotence of the existing Leninistgroups shows the improbability ofthe success of even such a course,and points once more to the obsoles-cence of smaIl revolutionary groupsin regards to real proletarian needs,a condition perhaps forecasting theapproaching day when it s h a I Ibe objectively impossible for anysmall group to assume leadership ofthe masses only to be forced in theend to exploit them to its own needs.The wor kin g class alone canwage the revolutionary struggle,even as it is today waging alone thenon-revolutionary class struggle, andthe reason that the rebeIlious class-conscious workers band into groupscutside the spheres of the real classstruggle is only that th ere is as yetno revolutionary movement withinthem. Their existence as small

I-

groups, therefore, reflects, not asituation for revolution, but rathera non-revolutionary situation. Whenthe revolution does come, theirnumbers will be submerged within it,not as functioning organizations, butas individual workers.

But though no practical differencebetween us and other revolutionaryorganizations is permitted by theobjective conditions, we can at leastmaintain our ideologie difference.Therefore, where a11groups see rev-olution in the most impossiblesituations and believe that aIl th at islacking for revolution is a groupwith the "correct Marxist line";where, in a word, they exaggeratethe importance of ideas, and in-cidentaIly of themselves as carriersof those ideas - an attitude thatreflects their careerist proclivities-we wish to see the truth of eachsituation. We see that the classstruggle is today still conservative;th at society is characterized notsimply by this single struggle but bya multiplicity of struggles, whichvaries with the multiplicity of stratawithin the system, and which 50 farhas affected the struggle betweenCapita] and Labor in the interest ofthe former.

But because we see not merely theimmediate situation but also thetrends th:erein, we realize that thedifficulties of capitalism are pro-gressively increasing and that themeans of satisfying even the im-mediate wants of the working classare continously diminishing, Werecognize th at as a concomitant ofthe increasing non-profitability ofcapitalism, is the progressive lev-elIing out of the divisions within thetwo classes, as capitalists ex-propriate capitalists in the upperclass, and, in the lower class, as themeans of subsistence, the better toextend them, is apportioned moreand more uniformly among themasses, for the sake of averting thesocial catastrophes attendant uponthe inability to satisfy them. Asthese developments are taking place,the divided objectives of the upperclass are converging towards oneobjective: the preservation of thecapitalist exploitative system; andthe divided objectives of the work-ers are, despite the increasing

ideologie conf~û~n, converging to-wards one objective : a fundamentalchange of present socio-economicforrns of life. Then will we, onlyanother strata of the working classnow, or, more correctly, an offshootreally merge with the entire work~ing mass, as our objectives mergewith theirs, and we shall then loseo u r s e I v e s in the revolutionarystruggle.

But the question may be raisedwhy, then, realizing the futility ofthe act, do you band tcgether intogroups? The answer is simply thatthe act lIerves a personal need. It isinevitable that men sharing a corn-mon feeling of rebellion against asociety that lives by exploitation andwar should seek out their own kindin society, and in their oppositionemploy what ever weapons faIl totheir commando Unable to rebel a-gainst the system with the restof the population, they will opposeit alone. Thc fact th at they en-gage in such action however futileit may appear establishes the basisfor the prediction that when thelarge masses, reacting to the com-pulsives of the objectively revolu-tionary situation, feel similarlyaffected, they too will band togetherout of the same urgency and they toowill use whatever weapons faIl totheir disposal. When they do so,they will not rise fr om ideologicalfactors, but fr om necessity, and theirideologies will only reflect thenecessity then, as do their currentbourgeois ideologies reflect thenecessity today.

This view of the revolutionary in-effectiveness of smaIl groups is ac-counted a pessimistic one by aIl theradical organizations. What if thisview does indicate the inevitabilityof revolution? What if it does pointto the objective end of a pre-es-tablished leadership of thc masses.and to the eventual end of allexploitation? The radical groups arenot happy with this picture. Thevderive no pleasure from the prospectof a future where they have no moresignificanee than their fellow humanbeings, and they condemn a view ofsuch a future as a philosophy ofdefeatism. But actually we havespoken only of the futility of smallradical groups; we have been quite

219

Lenin was busy reconstructing thestate, but still they disagreed as tothe value of the state. Martov,however, thought that it was wrongto destroy the capitalist state, for heproved that Bolshevism could notlead to socialism and implied that itmust lead to capitalism. Consequent-ly he admitted that the Bolshevikewere building a capitalist state, -but still they disagreed. Martov wasagainst the soviets, but so was Lenin,and Martov proved it with Lenin'swords, so that it becomes quite diffi-cult to see the sense of it allo TheSocialists in Germany made use ofthe soviets to save capitalism ; theBolsheviks to gain power and installstate capitalism. Martov is right inpointing out th at the soviets haveonly enabled shrewd politicians tocome to power. However, this truthbecomes for him an absolute one forall eternity. What are "soviets"anyhow? In our opinion they meanthat workers assembie for action andtry to run their own affairs. That itwas possible to use these soviets forend. opposed to the needs of theworkers does not do away with theneed for self-action, self-initiative,self-organization of the workers, notonly against capital, but also againstparties and groups trying to makeuse of these soviets for their partic-ular interests. Call these organiza-

optimistic as to the future of theworkers. But to aIl radical organiza-tions, if their groups are defeated,then aIl is defeated, and if theirgroups are dying, then all is dy ing.In sueh pronouncements thereforedo they reveal the true motivationsfor their rebellion and the truecharacter of their organizations. We,however, should find no cause fordespair in the impotence of thesegroups. Rather we should behold

tions any name you want; only theirfunctions matter, and the formationof soviets in Russia, of workerscouncils in Germany, of shop-stewards in England, etc., despite alltheir limitations and the fact thatthey could be used by parties, muststill be considered the first in-adequate attempts of the workers toact for themselves and to find theform of organization in which theycan assert themselves. To be forsoviets means to reject both theBolsheviks and the Socialists, in-cluding Martov, who af ter all has noalternative to offer than the educa-tion of the masses under bourgeoisdemocracy. The proletarian dictator-ship he says, "can only be conceivedin a situation where the proletariathas effectively united about itself'all the healthy elements' of thenation ... It can only be establishedwhen historie development will havebrought aIl the healthy elements torecognize the advantage to them ofthis transformation." In other wordshe accepts a dictatorship when suchis no longer necessary, and looks atthings from the school-master per-spective, that men must change firstbefore they can change society. Buthow this is possible he doesn't say.His whole argument is based onsocial conditions no longer existing.

in it reason for optimism regardingthe future of the workers. For inthis very atrophy of all groups thatwould lead the masses out of capit-alism into another society we areperhaps seeing for the first time inthe history of society the objectiveend to all political leadership and tothe division of society into economieand political categories.

Sam Mo••

BaaK REVIEWSThe State and the Socialist Reuolutlon, By Martov. International Review,New York, (64 pp. 25c.)

Socialists prefer bourgeois democ-racy to bolshevist dictatorship. Theyare opposed to proletarian dictator-ship even if it were genuine, and notmerely a screen for party rule.However, as Socialists they canhardly deelare themselves againstsocialism, and so they wait patientlyfor the time when capitalism will gettired of itself and change into so-cialism. This restful attitude in-duces them to oppose any "prema-ture" a t tem p t to overthrowcapitalism. Conditions have to be"ripe" - better still, over-ripe. Inthe Russian development they foundsupport for their "Marxist position."Here was revealed that it is notpossible to jump into socialism untilcapitalism has played its role to theend. However, according to theirviews, what could not be done inbackward Russla was no longer ne-cessary in advanced Germany, wherethe Socialists were busy actualizingsocialism. For the workers of bothcountries, the results were the same.The Bolsheviks never hesitated tobutcher workers who did not wish tobuild socialism in the jumpingmanner; the Socialists in Germanyhad their Noskes to take care ofworkers who could not see that so-cialism was marching gradually.Martov's pamphlet discusses these"opposites," though he doesn't careto consider the Socialists as "real-istically" as he does the Bolsheviks,There can be little doubt th at if the220

force of circumstance in Russiawould have allowed the Mensheviksto remain in control of the govern-ment, then sooner or later, under theexisting general conditions, theywould have been fot-eed to introducethat dictatorship which Martov de-nounces as inconsistent with Marx-ism. It was the bad luck of the So-cialists to read the wrong pages inMarx and to look with Ionging eyesto the "successes" of Western So-cialism which gave the Bolsheviks theopportunity to do what could bedone, and what eventuaIly wouldhave been done, - if not by a work-ers' party, then by a recuperatedbourgeoisie, - that is, the seizure ofpower in the Jacobin manner. It wasthe popular idea that the Bolshevikswere out to make socialism. Martovrefused to believe that the Bolshe-viks could do what couldn't be done,and he wrote these convincingarticles. Martov, arguing againstLenin, points out, with Lenin's argu-ments that Lenin did not deny, th atthe use of the slogan "All Power tothe Soviets" served merely as an in-strument to get his party into power.He then proceeds to prove that sovietpower means party dictatorship,which, as a method copied from thebourgeois revolution, can never serveto institute socialism. It is not easyto make arguments out of agree-ments, and Martov's pamphlet provesthis, For instance, Martov thoughtit wrong to destroy the state, and,.

Mussolini's Roman Empire. By Geoffroy T. Garratt. The Bobbs-MerrilCompany. (310 pp. $2.50.)

in Ethiopia as well as in Spain, for.the purpose of keeping Italy at leastneutral in the event of trouble withGermany.

Spain's strategic position has be-come immensely important since thedevelopment of the submarine andthe bombing airplane. She is now thebest c 0 u n try from which to"squeeze" both France and England.These are, in Garratt's opinion, thereasons for the German-Italian in-vasion in Spain. "To Italy," hewrites, "intervention opened possibil-ities of the Mediterranean at lastbecoming a Roman Sea. To Germany,it meant the chance in any futurewar of making an effective blockadeof England, as weIl as of forcing

221

The reasons for ltaly's imperialismare no different from the reasons forthe imperialism of any other nation.Entering tardily upon the imperi-alistic stage; Italy met great dif-ficulties in carrying out its imperi-alistic designs. This book, writtenby an English liberal, describes therivalries between Italy, Franco, andEngland 0 ver the possessions inAfrica and the control of the Med-iterranean. The prelude to the con-quest in Ethiopia, the war itself, andits aftermath, as wel! as the reac-tions of other nations to this enter-prise, are impressively iIlustratedand interpreted. According to theauthor, England's policy was one ofcomplicity with Italy in her ventures

••••••••

personal aspirations of his Apostlesdistorts history and is intended toserve only Nomad's special interpre-tation of history.

Individuals are, in the course oftheir lives, bound to make proposalsand suggest policies not always inkeeping with their general philoso-phy. If such "careless" statementsare cited in an organized fashion,they can be made to serve all pur-poses. However, such "revelations"explain rather the psychology of thecoUectors of these statements thanthe characters of the men who madethem. History is something morethan evil character or the will top 0 w e r. Consequently, Nomad'sprogram for the workers to "mistrustboth his masters and his emancipa-tors," may be correct, but it is notenough to solve their problems.

To explain fascism or bolshevismas the result of the aspirations ofpower-hungry inteUectuals, to seehistory as the transformation ofrebels into renegades and no morecorresponds to the bourgeois con:ception of history as a mere succes.sion of states and leaders. Themasses are here only the tools withwhich individuals and groups work tosatisfy their own interests. Thisabsolute idea of Nomad's is only areflection of the absolute idea rulingbourgeois society that all humanactivity, is determined by the desirefor profit. Like other bourgeoisideologists, Nomad, in looking back-ward and forward, is able only torediscover the essential charac-teristics of present-day society in a11past and future societal forms.

France to keep large armies on hersouthern frontier." However, if Eng-Jand's acceptance of Italy's Ethiopi-an conquest was regarded as a rneansof isolating Germany, this policy, asweU as the ether policy of supportingGermany's imperialistic drive toisolate Italy, has so far not beensuccessful. The Rome-Berlin axisstill intact, forces England to mak~further concessions. To break thiscombination by force, if not by anyother way, remains essential to Eng-land. However, in Asia also, Englandfaces a showdown with Japan, andher reluctance to enter a Europeanwar is not at last determined by theAsiatic situation. It is not possible

to assume with Garratt that conser-vative and pro-fascist elements inEngland, out of their hatred fordemocracy and "leftism," betraytheir own national interests by play-ing into the hands of Italy andGermany. So far England simplycontinues its old policy of divide andrule, and waits for a better oppor-tunity to break up the new Europe-an combination that is able tochaUenge its supremacy. The pos-sibility of war exists at any moment.The change from retreat to attackmight af ter a11 be forced upon Eng-land. However, this change will in-dicate anything but a return todemocracy and the end of "be-trayals."

ApostIes of Revolution. By Max Nomad. Little, Brown & Company.(467 pp.; $ 3.50).

T'he Oriçin of the Inequality of the Social Classes. By Gunnar Landtman.The U niversity of Chicago Press. (44 pp. ; $ 5.00).This book continues the series of

short biographies th at Max Nomadbegan with his previous book, Rebel.and Renegades. This time he dealswith Blanqui, Marx, Bak u n i n,Nechayew, Most, Makhno, and Stalin.AU of these biographies are interest-ing reading.

Nomad describes as "the chiefobject of his work" the explanationof the ever-recurring tragic failuresof aIJ revolutionary mass move-ments," which he finds "in the in-herent contradiction between the in-terest of the leading group which isstriving for power, and those of theuneducated rank and file yearningfor a better share of the good thingein life; and in the inexorable logic ofevery revolutionary struggle, whichnecessarily results in the establish-ment of a new aristocracy, regardlessof the democratie, socialist, com-munist, or anarchist ideas professedby its champions ... The essence of allrevolutionary struggle is the en-thronement of a new privilegedminority."

As the individuals and movementsthat Nomad deals with were and areacting in capitalist society, he caneasily demonstrate that they wereneither able nor willing to free them-selves fr om capitalistic methods andaspirations. Their participation inbourgeois affairs, changes, move-222

ments and revolutions, necessarilyimbued them with capitalistic charac-teristics. It is not difficult to showthat those individuals and move-ments were not consistent as regardstheir proletarian aspirations. How-ever, history is a wide field, andthough Nomad deals with many of itsphases, he does not deal with themost important and therefore doesnot understand the reasons for theadmixture of bourgeois and pro-letarian elements in the herces heselects. For example, the limitationsof Nomad's historical writing may beseen at once if only compared withbooks like Arthur Rosenberg's "De-mocracy and Socialism," wherein theauthor deals also with figures likeBlanqui, Marx and Bakunin butwhere he explains them more out ofthe whole social development insteadof out of their personal desire forpower. Words and actions of thesemen whieh are almost incom-prehensible in Nomad's text becomeunderstandable in Rosenberg's de-scriptions. What a p p e are d inNomad's text as the chauvinism ofthe German Marx comes to light asan attempted realistic policy of co-ordination of many national and rev-olutionary upheavals for specificpolitical goals expected to furtherworld revolutionary inter ests. Theemphasis that Nomad lays upon the

Landtman endeavors to examinethe various circumstances which havecontributed to the rise and develop-ment of social differentiation. First,he deals with the incidence of in-equalities through biological factors,- sex, age, and personality. Thenhe fo11ows the emergence of prtvileg-ed classes, - the nobility, the priest-hood, and the traders. The crigin ofslavery, intra-tribal as weU as extra-tribal, is als 0 discussed in greatdetail. FinaUy the origin of gov-ernment is investigated.

On the cover of the book it isstated that the author denies that

economie factors are to be blamedfor the forging of class distinctions.However, we could not discover anymaterial in the book justifying sucha statement, or the statement itself.It is true only that Landtman is notable to distinguish between anthro-pological and economie categoriesand is also for that reason not clearas to the relative importance of thedifferent factors involved in the for-mation of classes. The book is,nevertheless, by virtue of its rich em-pirical material of great interest. Itcontains an exhaustive bibliography.

Ámerican Labor. By Herbert Harris. Yale University Press.(459 pp.: $3.75)Unions of T'heir Own Choosing. By Robert R. R. Brooks. Yale UniversityPress. (296 pp.; $3.00).

sidered in their relations to present-day problems. The peculiarities ofthe American lab or movement areexplained out of the peculiarities ofAmerican capitalism, as for instance,the identification of proletarian withagricultural problems during thefrontier period, and the rapidity ofthe capitalist development since theCivil War. The second stage in the

223

As regards readability, Harris'"Am erica Labor" is one of the finestvolumes yet published on this sub-ject. He begins with a generalreview of the origins of the Americanlabor movement. A number ofmisconceptions regarding ideologyand practice of this movement arecleared up. Things already knownappear in a new light by being con-

history of labor begins af ter theCivil War and achieved expression inorganizations such as the Knights ofLabor, superseeded later by the A. F.of L. The struggle between laborand capital centered around wagesand hours. The greatest part of thebook deals with the history of select.ed unions such as the United MineWorkers', the Carpenters', the News-paper Guild, the Ladies GarmentWorkers Unions, Railroad Unions,United Automobile Workers' Union,and the Textile Workers' OrganizingCommittee.

Harris makes clear that the mainproblem of today is the I a b 0 rproblem. However, his work doesnot do full justice to all the variouaforms in which the labor movementappears. His selections are not en-tirely representative of all streamswithin the labor movement. He failsto realize fully th e capitalisticcharacteristics of the A. F. of L. andC. 1. O. Uni ons, nor does he paysufficient attention to the attemptsmade by the workers to fight thebureaucratization and capitalizationof "their" organizations.

His history includes the present--the sit-down strikes, the C. 1. 0., andthe modern "changes" in labor rela-tions. The relationship of spon ta-neous activity to organizational ex-igencies is demonstrated by actualoccurrences. Harris, in judging theresults of the struggles betweencapital and labor, is i n c I i n e d tosuspect that the latter has gained theupper hand, at least as regards the"right to organize." The desire for

security replaces th e traditionalcapitalist ideology; th is Harris main-tains is a new ideology reflectingrecent changes in the social structureof society. Though his reformistichope will undoubtedly be shatteredin the coming class struggles, wewish to emphasize however, that as awhole his book is so instructive thatno worker should fail to read it.

Brooks' book deals with questionsof collective bargaining and theNational Labor Relations Board. Thelatter institution Brooks welcomes asan important instrument for thefurther democratization of industrialrelations. He demonstrates the "im-partiality" of the decisions and thecharacter of this organization whichis designed to minimize capital-laborfriction. Brooks also deals with thequarrels which have arisen betweenthe A. F. of L. and the C. 1. O. inregard to the N. L. R. B. The needfor the N.L.R.B. he deduces from thedevelopment of industry which de.stroyed the direct relation betweenemployer and employee. To safe-guard economie peace this new ar-bitration institution is needed ~solve the problems arising betweencapital and labor. The N. L. R. B.is at the same time an expression ofthe growing governmental influenceon socio-economie matters, a n dBrooks thinks that this would servedemocracy quite weil though manysee therein trends towards fascism.The book is worthwhile reading sinceit shows very clearly the functionsof such institutions in securing capit-alist society.

The New Deal in Action. By A. M. Schlesinger. The Macmillan Company.(47 pp.; $ 0.60).

This pamphlet is a continuation ofthe authors Political and SocialGrowth of the United State. to thespecial s e s s ion of Congress,November, 1937. It gives an useful

outline of the relief, recovery andreform measures of the New Deal, asweil as of the labor movement andAmerican foreign policy under theRoosevelt administration.

LIVING MARXISM depends primarily upon its readers for circulation.Send addresses of your friends. we will mail them a sample copy.Help to win new subscribers; send contributions to the Sustair..ingFund.

224