Some Similarities and Differences Between Bernstein's and Kautsky's Thoughts

Text/Oven

foreword

It is very difficult to discuss the similarities and differences of the two people's thoughts in detail. Since I am not familiar with philosophy, I will not discuss the content of Bernstein's Neo-Kantism, but can only discuss the theories of the two in other aspects. A simple explanation. Not limited to simply listing their similarities and differences, but trying to write more. In the original I mentioned the attitude towards the Bolsheviks, but after some consideration I thought that this could be a separate article, since Bernstein and Kautsky on the whole have similar attitudes on this issue.

If we want to talk about differences, we must first talk about a similar experience. Kautsky and Bernstein both came under Engels. After Marx died, Engels became the only mentor, and under his guidance, Kautsky and Bernstein Gradually growing up, Kautsky first wrote for the "Social-Democrat", then founded the SPD theoretical journal "New Age" and served as editor-in-chief until 1917. Bernstein was the editor of the "Social-Democrat", and later served as "The Social Democrats". A regular contributor to New Times. From the inception of Neue Zeit in 1883 to the death of Engels in 1895, the two were led by Engels and played a role as a rare theoretician in the Social Democratic Party. Bernstein's main experience was called the glorious decade. The Erfurt Programme of 1891 is a model of the cooperation between the two. The first part of the programme was drafted by Kautsky, and the second part of the programme was drafted by Bernstein. A question has also become a question that is frequently mentioned later. The two helped Engels to theoretically purge the party of Lassalleism, just as Liebknecht and Bebel purged the party of Lassalleans. As a result, Marxism temporarily occupied the mainstream within the Social Democratic Party, and both were regarded as representatives of orthodox Marxism. With the increasing influence of the German Social Democratic Party in the International, the two also became influential figures in the Second International. Marxist theorist.

From "Gerlitz Program" to "Heidelberg Program"

I would like to start with the last two programs and put this at the top. After all, programs are a concentrated demonstration of theory. One was from 1921 and the other was from 1925. The former was participated by Bernstein and the latter by Kautsky. can be used as a comparison.

The "Gerlitz Program" has a clear meaning at the beginning, transforming the SPD from a proletarian party to a people's party. We should note that although we usually use the people, there is a clear difference between the proletariat and the people, and looking back The historical party of the proletariat, when it changed the proletariat to the people, fell into revisionism in theory. That is, in the "Gerlitz Programme", Bernstein advocated that the German Social Democracy should be a party of the whole people, not just for the proletariat.

"The German Social Democratic Party is the party of the working people in urban and rural areas. It strives to unite all the physical and mental workers who depend on the fruits of their labor for a living under a common understanding and goals"

But Kautsky's Heidelberg Programme begins with the working class. In the part of the theoretical program, the Heidelberg Program also used the working class as more and mentioned the proletariat.

In terms of economics, Bernstein still acknowledged the concentration of capital and enterprises and the widening gap between the rich and the poor after the war, but he did not admit it before, and this point will be discussed below. Kautsky's "Heidelberg Programme" introduced Hilferding's theory of financial capital, and used a certain length to explain this problem.

“The world war and the peace treaties forced at the end of the war have further exacerbated this process. It has accelerated the concentration of business and capital, deepening the divide between capital and labor, between rich and poor.”

Both programs were written shortly after the end of the First World War, so they both mentioned a true alliance of equal rights of all peoples, which is often mentioned in the Second International.

On the doctrine of the state, the formulation of the "Gerlitz Program" is that Bernstein specifically listed this passage in his commentary:

"The Social Democrats are determined to defend with all their strength the freedoms they have won. It sees the democratic republic as an unalterable form of state conferred by historical development, and any violation of it would be an injury to the people's right to exist."

But we know that the essence of the state is not like that. The Heidelberg Programme tried to bridge the essence of a democratic state and the state, so it cleverly adhered to a little Marxist theory of the state, instead of praising a democratic state, but calling it the most favorable form of state.

"Now they have the state form of the democratic republic, and maintaining and expanding this state form is absolutely necessary for their liberation struggle. They cannot socialize the means of production without holding political power."

Regarding internationalism, the "Gerlitz Program" puts internationalism on the program of action, and only mentions the establishment of a new League of Nations and the revision of the Treaty of Versailles, but the "Heidelberg Program" mentions internationalism in the theoretical part and does not emphasize Amend the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, the Heidelberg Programme states:

"The struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat is a cause in which the workers of all countries participate. The German Social Democracy is conscious of the international solidarity of the proletariat and is determined to carry out all the obligations it entails. The lasting happiness of the nations is today only through their solidarity and cooperation can be achieved.”

The "Gerlitz Program" also has the shadow of ethical socialism, which is the same as what Bernstein and others have always emphasized. When it comes to the moral community, ethical socialism is discussed in the subsequent "Goldesberg Program". . But the Heidelberg Programme does not mention it at all.

"It is a necessary means of liberating the working people from the yoke of capitalist domination, increasing the results of production, and elevating human beings themselves into higher forms of economic and moral community."

The concluding part of the last two programs, the former is the "Gerlitz Program" and the latter is the "Heidelberg Program". But what should be seen is that Bernstein also wants to eliminate classes, and is obviously more left than the later party program.

"The German Social Democracy reaffirms the belief in the Erfurt Programme that it is not fighting for new class privileges and priorities, but for the abolition of class domination and class itself, for equal rights and equality for all, regardless of sex and origin It struggles with obligations. It struggles with the awareness that it is a struggle that determines the destiny of mankind, whether within national or international communities, in empires, states and towns, in unions and cooperatives, in workshops or families This struggle is going on everywhere.”

"Social-Democrats fight not for new class privileges and priorities, but for the abolition of class domination and class itself, for the equal rights and duties of all people, regardless of sex and origin. From this point of view, they not only oppose exploitation and Oppressing wage-workers, and fighting against and fighting against any kind of exploitation and oppression, whether it be against a nation, a class, a political party, a gender or a race.”

Engels' introduction

When talking about Bernstein revisionism, we inevitably have to refer to Engels' "Introduction to the Class Struggle in France", in which Engels admitted that he and Marx both had optimistic expectations for the demise of capitalism, And called universal suffrage one of the sharpest weapons in the struggle, praising the achievements made under the legitimate struggle. This introduction was first used out of context by the old Liebknecht in "How the Revolution Should Be Goed". The old Liebknecht was full of passion, but he did not think too much about theoretical issues. It shows that he slipped into reformism.

"Our old vanguard Friedrich Engels addressed this subject in his introduction to the recently published pamphlet on the class struggle in France, when the signs of preventing the coup d'état had already appeared. His usual master strokes point out that...with the development of economy and technology, the revolutionary technology of the often oppressed classes also changes. He points out that the proletarians of today should be calm, regardless of any provocation, Not going back to the old-fashioned barricade revolution; gradually infiltrating a decaying capitalist society with socialist ideas, in which he has a more revolutionary means at his disposal."

Because of the restrictions on publishing in the German Empire, Neue Zeit also deleted Engels' words about revolution in this article, which made Engels's part about legal struggles to be exaggerated, and Engels did not write new works after this. Nor does it mean to change the introduction, which is regarded as Engels' political testament. Although Engels expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Raul Lafargue and others:

"This introduction is somewhat marred by the excessive demands of our Berlin friends, who wished not to say anything that would be used by the Reichstag as a pretext for passing the draft law to prevent a coup d'état. Under the present conditions I have concession."

However, this dissatisfaction has not been publicly stated, so the problem of this abridged version has not been pointed out, and the abridged version is also considered to be the original intention. And these theories of legal struggle have indeed been repeatedly mentioned in the future. We also have to remember that this article was written by Engels. Whether it is an abridged version or not, Engels has the idea of legal struggle on the parliamentary line after all, and his thoughts in his later years directly Teach Bernstein and Kautsky. And here comes the problem of the coexistence of parliamentary struggle with the legal path and the revolutionary theory upheld by traditional Marxism. Now that Engels admitted that revolutionary theory was flawed and developed it, Bernstein could also develop Marxism and add his own understanding. For this introduction, Bernstein often took out the legal part of it to prove that his theory was the development of Marxism. Kautsky once mentioned Engels' close friend (ie Bernstein's close friend, Bernstein's Road to Power) without name. Enstein) put the distorted view to Engels, and called this Engels's most brilliant feat. That said, Kautsky does not feel that the peace theory here should be particularly pointed out.

Bernstein's preliminary correction

I don't see Bernstein as a long-hidden conspirator, so I look for clues to prove his cunning in his articles published before 1896, so it is enough to discuss articles after 96, "The Problem of Socialism" 1 The series of articles was the beginning of his revisionism. Bernstein did not agree with the thinking of the SPD at that time. He felt that although the SPD quoted Mann's theory, it was utopian about the realization of socialism. Although the SPD's program and theory were Marxist, but it did not deal with reality realistically, and pinned his hopes on the overthrow of the capitalist system. He rejected the "catastrophic theory" and believed that "growing into socialism" should also be considered. In order to refute the fantasy, he moved out of Mann again and praised Mann's spirit of seeking truth from facts. Of course, this is only for his words after all:

"Whatever the purpose is, it doesn't matter to me, sport is everything."

On the colonial issue, Bernstein's attitude can be described as disgusting. In the article "Collapse Theory and Colonial Policy", he proposed:

"Social-Democracy will oppose atrocities and deceitful plundering of uncivilized or barbarian peoples, but Social-Democrats will also renounce any resistance to the incorporation of these peoples into the sphere of civilized institutions, which it considers inappropriate, and will likewise give up Any principled objection to expanding the market is considered utopian."

That is to say, colonial means can be adopted under certain conditions for the sake of civilization, which means that it is for the purpose of colonization, but the purpose is for civilization, because in the final analysis Bernstein is still anti-colonial.

"Realistic and Empty-Theoretical Factors in Socialism" is a refutation of the old tune, and Plekhanovkao's "Bernstein and Materialism" specifically refutes this article at the philosophical level.

These are some of the things that belong to a group of articles in the "Problems of Socialism", which are not obvious in content, but the content expressed in Bernstein's letter to Kautsky is more direct, perhaps in private letters.

In February 1898, Bernstein wrote two letters to Kautsky when he was arguing with Parvus on Collapse and Colonial Policy. It must be mentioned here that Bernstein had been living in London, England after the German expulsion order in the 1880s, so Kautsky initially believed that Bernstein was only under British influence. In his letter to Bernstein, he believed that Bernstein was Enstein's goal of achieving his goal without the revolution is only in England, and this goal cannot be achieved in Germany, because Germany, like most countries in Europe, is a country that is constantly strengthening its military power (he repeated at the Stuttgart Congress. once this view). In response to this objection, Bernstein said in his letter that he agreed in principle, but he believed that a revolution in Germany was also impossible, and the economic preconditions for the Social Democratic Party to come to power alone had not yet been met. For this purpose, only a coalition government can be formed with the bourgeois democratic parties. Regarding the coalition government, it will be explained in detail in the Millerland question.

Let's talk about the first letter. This should be a clear demonstration of Kautsky's conflict with Bernstein. Bernstein repeated the previous point, but more sharply. Kautsky, as a theoretician, had always insisted on revolutionary theory at that time, which means that the SPD has always been a revolutionary party in theory, but in reality, Bernstein proposed The questions and slogans raised by the SPD in the parliamentary election campaign are far from revolutionary theory. In practical actions, the SPD chose the legal path of parliamentary struggle in the daily slogans, but insisted on the revolution in the party platform and Kautsky's mouth. Enstein saw this as empty talk that didn't help the real problem, and what he wanted was an improvement that matched what he thought was the status quo. From this, it can be deduced that Bernstein's purpose is to unify the SPD's words and deeds and declare itself a reforming party.

The problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat

The second part of the letter is mainly about the dictatorship of the proletariat , which has also been repeatedly mentioned in Bernstein's subsequent writings, so it is represented by the one mentioned here:

The working-class movement we see in Germany today, as organised workers' democracy, is far more promising for me in the long run than a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is, for me, anarchy, and anarchy at its worst, Jacobinist anarchy. This anarchy is generally the basis for the original form of Marxism expounded in the Communist Manifesto.

You believe that democracy should be protected from me. Oops, dear baron, then you're wasting gunpowder on a convert...Socialism for me is, after all, democracy, self-governance.

This passage denies the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the words Jacobin anarchy and Marx are used interchangeably. There is no doubt that Bernstein pitted the dictatorship of the proletariat against workers' democracy. According to Engels, the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the Paris Commune was also workers' democracy. Bernstein does have a problem with his understanding of this, but this problem is widespread within the SPD. This point can be emphasized. Here is a point to explain. For the later Leninists, the dictatorship of the proletariat was a concept that was brought up every day, but in the German Social Democrats, this concept was brought up after Engels published Marx's "Brother" in "New Era" in 1891. Criticism of the Programme." In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a concept that was often brought up before, so criticizing this concept did not have as much impact on the Social Democrats as criticizing Marxist economics. Therefore, Kautsky does not stress much about the dictatorship of the proletariat. In his article "Bernstein and the Programme of Social Democracy", he is rather vague about the dictatorship of the proletariat:

Democracy is best suited, other things being equal, for preventing an unnecessary sharpening of the class struggle, because it is free and makes it possible to see clearly the balance of power among parties and classes.

With regard to the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we can leave it to be settled in the future with all peace of mind. Even then, we didn't have to tie our hands and feet. But the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is relevant for the time being insofar as our expectation that class rule will end under democracy determines whether we insist on the independent class organization of the proletariat.

Kautsky and Bernstein just like democracy, and regardless of the authenticity of this democracy, they both have the same opinion on the question of democracy. Kautsky was hesitant on this issue, because in his opinion, dictatorship and democracy are opposites. After the Bolshevik Revolution, he wrote "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat", which severely criticized the Soviet-style dictatorship of the proletariat and denied what Lenin believed. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political system and regards it as a state. He proposed that the dictatorship of the proletariat should not be what Lenin thought, but the most widely used democracy based on universal suffrage, and the power of government is subject to universal suffrage. Of course, he also used the word dictatorship in a twisted way. Although he recognized the word dictatorship of the proletariat, he actually hated dictatorship. Perhaps he had been under the Kaiser for a long time. Bernstein and Kautsky There is a natural love for democracy, but it does not consider the nature of democracy.

Cataclysm controversy

The Bernstein issue was brought to the fore at the Stuttgart Congress . This conference was the first head-on theoretical confrontation between Kautsky and Bernstein, mainly on catastrophic theory . Bernstein proposed:

"I object to the notion that we face the imminent collapse of bourgeois society and that Social Democrats should determine their tactics or turn their tactics away from it in anticipation of this imminent great social cataclysm. I do not Stick to my opinion without any compromise... Friedrich Engels, one of the authors of the Manifesto, has unreservedly admitted the latter error in the preface to The Class Struggle in France. But very Obviously, since economic development will take much longer than originally assumed, the form that development will take and the shape it will take must also be unforeseeable and impossible to foresee in the Communist Manifesto. here." - Bernstein, "Written Statement to the Stuttgart Congress of the German Social Democrats"

On the occasion of this kind of ruling, Bernstein drew out the content of Engels' "Introduction" for the first time, proving that the catastrophe theory of "Common Announcement" was wrong, and then denied the catastrophe theory. Socialism is not something that a sudden revolution can do. To this question, Kautsky's answer to Engels did not mention that the catastrophe theory is wrong, and then he mentioned the situation in Europe at that time. Kautsky recognized the catastrophe theory and believed that the European continent was on the verge of catastrophe. He believed that Bernstein was in the UK and could not understand the actual situation in Germany and the real struggle of the German Social Democratic Party. Therefore, the false democracy in Germany could not follow Bernstein's theory. The idea is gradually improved.

"We see a cataclysm brewing everywhere in Europe. Isn't Austria facing a cataclysm? Isn't Italy facing a bloody cataclysm? Isn't Spain? Bourgeois liberty and militarism and clericalism are brewing in France. An uphill battle between the There is a future in which the path suggested by Bernstein is unthinkable." - Kautsky, "Speech at the Stuttgart Congress of the German Social Democracy"

The Stuttgart Congress was not only for Kautsky and Bernstein, but Rosa Luxemburg also emerged at this Congress, criticizing Formar's rhetoric about Marx and trying to put a high hat on the British Trade Union. the behavior of. But after that, Kautsky also did not see a short-term cataclysm, and he also conceived of ultra-imperialism.

Prerequisites and Tasks

Not only did Kautsky think that Bernstein changed his views because of the British environment, Bebel also believed that Bernstein was often influenced by the environment to change his views, and Liebknecht also felt that Bernstein was influenced by the development of the British bourgeoisie. Overwhelmed. In Bernstein's reply to Bebel, Bernstein emphasized that although he was in England, he looked at the problem from German statistics, and after that, after Kautsky and V. Adler's suggestion Under the following circumstances, the author's "The Premise of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy" was published, which is different from the general discussion before. In this book, Bernstein quoted a large number of statistics, and the conclusions are roughly as follows:

The British Textile Trust has a large number of share holders, a considerable number of common shareholders, and the capital is not concentrated. Therefore:

"The form of the joint-stock company counteracts, to a significant degree, the tendency to concentrate property through corporate concentration."

The proportion of taxpayers in Britain, France, Germany and other countries has increased (that is, the income level has been relatively increased):

"The number of property owners did not increase 'more or less', but simply increased, that is, absolutely and relatively."

The total number of workers employed by large enterprises in the UK and other countries is not as good as that of small and medium-sized enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises still have an impact on large enterprises. The monopoly of everything has not come, so the words of the Erfurt program have become empty words, especially this sentence:

"In parallel with this monopoly of the means of production, scattered small enterprises were crowded out by huge large enterprises, hand tools were developed into machines, and the productivity of human labor increased enormously. But all the benefits of these changes were lost to capitalists and big landowners. Monopoly means, for the proletariat and the declining middle class - the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry - an increasing risk of survival, poverty, oppression, slavery, humiliation, exploitation."

The Erfurt Program as a program is naturally general, but Bernstein's data proves that the Erfurt Program's theoretical views do not correspond to actual facts. This is different from the issue of Erfurt's program, which was briefly discussed before. Before, it was still about political practice. Here, we mainly talk about economic development. Although it is still a refutation of the catastrophe theory, it is undoubtedly much more persuasive than before. Later, Kautsky and Bebel both responded with articles, and also responded with a large amount of data. Kautsky pointed out a point that the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is not the theory of impoverishment, that is, Bernstein proposed that the number of the rich should increase. The problem does not mean that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be eased, but the growth rate and ratio of proletarian wages are not as fast as the national economic growth rate over the same period, and unemployment has not been resolved but is expanding. Of course, this is a different number quoted based on the duo's different positions, nothing new.

revolution

In Premise and Task, we can also talk about Marxism and Blanquism. Bernstein's contrast between Marxism and Blanquism is similar to Bernstein's previous article "Real and Utopian Elements in Socialism," in which Bernstein acknowledged that Marxism was different from the original Utopian socialism, but Add your own fantasies. This article is also similar. It claims that the difference between Marxism and Blanquism is only in terms of strategy, but Manne, like Blanqui, overestimated the transformative effect of revolutionary violence on socialism, while Bernstein It is believed that for Manne, the revolution should be similar to the 17th and 18th centuries, especially the French Revolution, but this kind of revolution did not materialize in the 19th century. In his writings, he took a step closer from Jacobinism to Blanquism. Then, after criticizing Mann's revolutionary views, the only means of change is reformism.

Regarding revolution , Kautsky has a book called "Social Revolution", which explains the revolution very well, and also clearly draws a line between social reform and social revolution. As long as you deny that political revolution is a means of social reform, it is social reform. Pai, Kautsky has a passage that I think is an appropriate counterattack to Bernstein and Jaures' belief that socialism can be realized step by step in a capitalist society.

"The idea of a Social-Democratic progressive mastery of the various branches of a ministry is as absurd as an attempt to divide the childbirth operation into several childbirth operations successively over several months, each of which removes a particular organ from the state of a fetus. become an independent child, while the child remains attached to the mother's umbilical cord until he learns to walk and speak."

In this essay, however, Kautsky's mechanistic pedantic habits are also evident in that he provided a formula for revolution: 1. High class tensions; 2. Great centralized bureaucratic-military nation-state; 3. Political Economics and Economic Development. (It’s not in vain that Jaures mocked the SPD.) Of course, Kautsky has no objection to taking the parliamentary road, but Kautsky’s thinking is quite different. Kautsky believes that with the continuous strengthening of the power of the proletariat in the parliament, the bourgeoisie, as the ruling class, will Make the parliamentary system useless, then only the proletariat can make the parliamentary system play its due role, and only when the proletariat seizes power can the parliament be reborn. (Interestingly, in 1905 Bernstein also admitted that the German Reichstag was getting weaker and weaker, but Bebel always insisted that the Reichstag was OK!) In fact, here, the general idea is that the parliamentary system will follow the capitalism. development and decline, but the parliamentary system is still needed. Then only the success of the proletariat can save it. So Kautsky would strongly oppose the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly during the subsequent Bolshevik Revolution.

Millerand joins the cabinet

After discussing a few issues of principle, I will talk about a practical matter. For the Socialists of the Second International at the turn of the 1920th century, the Millerland incident was undoubtedly the hottest topic. I don’t need to introduce more, just talk about Bernsch. Tan and Kautsky's approach to this issue. This is obvious. The French Social Democratic Right Wing, represented by Jaures, supported Millerand's entry into the cabinet and regarded it as a success for the socialists, while the French Social Democratic Left Wing, represented by Guede, was firmly opposed. The French party is not unified, so this matter cannot be resolved within the party, and it has also caused widespread heated discussions in the international community. As the largest party, there are also different opinions within the SPD. Bernstein has an article "Paris and Main" here. "Z", the words mentioned in it are similar to those of Jaures, let's make a small comparison (upper Bernstein, lower Jaures):

"History tells us quite the opposite, that a class never takes power all at once, but - except for attacks that do not last - always take it piece by piece."

"The reason why the great riots of various pagan and independent religious beliefs in the 12th and 13th centuries had power, and the later Reformation had great power, was precisely because it took part of the power of the old church."

In fact, the refutation of these Kautsky theories has been mentioned above, but this event is not only theoretical, but more practical, so I think Kautsky's attitude towards practical revisionism should be mentioned. When the Millerland incident was brought to the Second International Congress, Kautsky was commissioned to draft a so-called rubber resolution. The resolution first affirmed that in a totalitarian state power cannot be seized piece by piece (this is more interesting here). It is necessary to judge what a totalitarian regime is), but later on whether or not to allow socialists to enter the government cabinet, Kautsky's resolution proposes that it should be decided by its own party. The views of Jaurès and Bernstein represent right-wing views. They believe that the German party also went from not participating in elections to participating in parliamentary elections, while the French party itself has participated in the election of municipal mayors, from the parliament to the cabinet, from the municipality. To the central government, they are all part of the bourgeois state apparatus, and there is no qualitative change, so it is not unacceptable for Millerand to join the cabinet. Bernstein also envisaged the division of the bourgeoisie into a conservative camp and a reform camp, so the prohibition of participation in the cabinet was inherently difficult to be convinced, and Kautsky could only pass a vague resolution, limited by each party. However, in this case, there is Millerand's example and Kautsky's resolution that socialists joining the bourgeois cabinet are only bound by their own party. This created the first opening for the parties of the First World War to join their own governments. Gued, who stood on the front line against Millerand, probably did not expect that he would join the bourgeois cabinet more than ten years later. Kautsky's decision is not his personal opinion. In the article "Socialist Congress and Ministers of Socialist Party Members", he proposed that joining a bourgeois cabinet should not be a matter of principle but a matter of tactics. He is not against joining a bourgeois government in principle. , Here Kautsky again gave a formula for joining the bourgeois cabinet, one of course is the consent of the party as we said, and the other is a state of emergency. Kautsky is clearly opposed to a single Millerand entering the cabinet. He also opposes the SPD joining the German government. He believes that a coalition government will be the beginning of the SPD's degeneration. In the Millerland incident, Jaurès sent a consultation to the leaders of several parties in the Second International. Bernstein Furth, Malwanker and others believed that they should participate in the coalition government whenever they could. Bebel, Hyde Men, Plekhanov, Lavrov, Luxemburg and others have the same attitude as Kautsky. The two leaders of the German Social Democratic Party, Liebknecht and Paul Singer, are completely opposed to it. Therefore, we can say that Liebknecht did not slip into reformism. On the contrary, his attitude towards the coalition government was very strong. Determined.

I think the debate on scientific socialism is a dispute over words, the content of which has been discussed long ago, and new similarities and differences cannot be discovered.

mass strike

The issue of mass strikes was mentioned at the beginning of the Second International, and the Russian Revolution of 1905 was a hot topic until the First World War. On this issue, Kautsky came here mainly because of his debate with the revolutionary leftists represented by Luxemburg. Kautsky and Luxembourg parted ways in a back-and-forth debate. Kautsky's centristism was cut off from the revolutionary left in Luxembourg. Within the SPD, the general strike debate began at the Bremen Congress in 1904, a resolution was passed at the Mannheim Congress in 1906, and a more timid resolution was passed at the Jena Congress in 1913. It is very interesting that Bernstein was the first group of people in the SPD to support the general strike. This person really cannot be said to be a typical right wing of the SPD, and the typical one has to be Norsk. From 1901 to 1912, Kautsky and Bernstein actually broke up, so the two did not come to debate again, but the two people's ideas on the issue of the general strike were still somewhat different.

Bernstein had a transformation process. When the general strike was just hot, that is, before and after the 1905 Russian Revolution, Bernstein supported the general strike. At the Bremen Congress, Bernstein said that although he was moderate, it did not mean Weakness and lack of energy, this place deserves an original sentence, look at Bernstein's tough attitude:

"Jaurès emphasized in Amsterdam - as we all know - that the German people had no revolutionary traditions other than the year 1848, which soon passed away; I am astonished how deeply rooted in us is the idea of police obedience , people silently tolerate, for example, the dissolution of meetings... But if, for example, someone tries to take away our right to vote, then I hope the German workers will think that they will never give up this right, They are powerful enough to take all the forms of resistance at their disposal."

A year later, a resolution was passed at the Jena Congress, which roughly met the demands of the leftists like Liebknecht, and Bernstein also agreed. However, it is necessary to point out that this resolution considers that mass strikes should be a passive means of attack after the political rights of the working class have been violated. The conference in Mannheim claimed to approve the resolution of the 1905 Jena conference, but introduced trade unions, which required mass strikes to be passed only if both parties and trade unions agreed, but the views of revolutionary leftists such as Luxembourg were already based on the general strike. advance the German revolution. At the Jena Congress in 1913, the rightists even wanted to directly deny mass strikes, but Bernstein changed his original attitude. He cited the Swedish trade unions as an example. Hence the fact that it opposes the possibility of a mass strike. Luxembourg and other revolutionary leftists believe that the general strike should not be caused by the interference of the party and trade unions, but by the masses. The party should stand on the front line of the mass strike and continue to publicize the general strike. This of course failed.

As a centrist leader, Kautsky was not so radical on this issue. He was in favor of discussing political mass strikes at first, and he also believed that the possibility of political strikes had a greater role to play. He was more direct than Bernstein in his polemics with the left. Regarding mass strikes, he believes that mass strikes are less important than parliamentary elections, and conflicts with the German government should be avoided when preparing for elections. Second, Russia held a strike because conditions in Russia were not as good as those in Germany. Russia had no parliament to use, but the Germans could use legal means to fight. Third, Kautsky always believed that mass strikes can only be a temporary strategy, and this temporary strategy cannot bring about the overthrow of the bourgeois regime, but can only require the bourgeois regime to make concessions. Fourth, in the face of the parliamentary idiocy accused by the left, Kautsky felt that the German Social Democratic Party was a dynamic and powerful proletarian party, which was destined for the SPD to engage in parliamentary activities instead of falling into the whirlpool of parliamentary idiocy. Parliamentary idiots are not much different.

I would now like to say a few words about what happened at the Mannheim Congress. Although it is a bit off topic, at the Mannheim Congress, the trade unions and the SPD can already decide on the issue of mass strikes. In fact, since the end of the 19th century, the German trade unions have already It is a reformist organization, and its independence is continuously strengthened. As the leader of the trade union, Legin declared that the trade union seeks "quiet development", and the rejection of violent revolution is a major characteristic of the trade union. However, the success rate of the German trade union strike movement is not high, and there are cases where trade union leaders sign contracts with capitalists on the way to strike. Strikes are not an easy job, so reformism within German trade unions has developed rapidly, and many rightists are also closely connected with trade unions. , some revisionist materials are still works of preaching to the workers. Before the Mannum Congress in 1906, the SPD negotiated with the trade unions, and the final result was that the party and the trade unions had the same powers on the issue of the general strike, which was actually a step to separate the trade unions from the party. Another thing is the change of the constitution of the organization. The section "Work Report" has been added. The executive committees of various regions need to provide reports to the executive committees. Organizations at all levels have also become divided into constituencies. These are good soils for cultivating bureaucracy. The constituency committee only needs to care about the votes, and the Central Executive Committee only needs to be a bureaucratic bureaucrat. I don't know why I can agree with Bebel, the elder of the Eisenach faction, who was famous for democracy in the past.

Under this system, it is only a matter of time before Albert and others come to power. It should be said that it is only a matter of Bebel Singer's lifespan.

World War I

There were a lot of small problems in the First World War, one of which must be the same is that Bernstein and Kautsky both had a pacifist stance, but their attitudes were a little different when the First World War broke out. Bernstein, who started out as a majority in favor of military appropriations, had several justifications for his defense at the start of the war (the numbers were added by me).

"1. Marx and Engels... Bebel and Liebknecht left their swearing-to-death attitude against Tsarist Russia as a legacy to the German Social Democrats; 2. The German Social Democrats also enslaved Poland and deprived Finland of their rights. , Russia, which oppresses five million Jews politically and economically, sees it as a country that "should go to ruin"; 3. Large parties, or parties with great parliamentary prestige, are voted upon by parties linked to this prestige The pressure of objective responsibility makes it impossible for them to decide their own votes for the purpose of demonstration, as small parties can do." - Bernstein, "The International and European War of the Working Class"

The conclusion is that the tutors do not want to let Tsarist Russia live, Tsarist Russia enslaves other ethnic groups, and the Social Democratic Party has a mission to defeat Russia. Every sentence is correct, and every sentence is embarrassing in Germany. Bernstein's turn is also related to the war of aggression and self-defense. The German army of 15 years has obviously been in France. This war of claiming German self-defense has of course become aggression. Bernstein is not the kind of villain and magnanimity of Noske, and Bernstein's behavior is somewhat idealistic, just as he strongly condemned the SPD government when he learned that Liebknecht in Luxembourg had been killed. When he finally understood that Germany was engaging in aggression, his conscience still ached. Later, on the issue of Germany's war guilt, Bernstein was relatively clear. He once mentioned:

"It is a brazen distortion of the truth to trick people into saying that the government of Wilhelm II was not guilty of the war, but that Germany was being viciously attacked by a jealous enemy."

Kautsky was scolded in World War I mainly for his ultra-imperialist theories, but pacifism to a lesser extent. However, it is still necessary to talk about his pacifist position. As a person who adheres to the "old principles", Kautsky initially followed the old Li Bebel in the Franco-Prussian War, thinking that this should be an abstention (but he ineligible to vote in parliament), and he didn't see it as an imperialist war at first. However, in the confrontation with Kuno, it was still recognized. By 1915, the three of Hazekautsky Bernstein had a close position on the issue of war. Co-published "The Urgent Matter" (that is, at this time, Bernstein re-called Kautsky as the dear baron), which was an appeal to the Social Democrats, which mainly put forward the fact that Germany was expanding, and the Social Democrats should recognize the war. substance. But there is no accusation of the SPD's position at the beginning of the war, and no indication of the nature of the war. This is not the era of Lao Li and Bebel. The leaders are bureaucrats represented by Albert. The attitudes of these three did not stimulate the leaders of SPD, and they still worked hard to invest in funding projects. At this stage, Kautsky and Bernstein were not in the mood to argue about the revision of orthodoxy, nor would they break off diplomatic relations, and neither the right or the left would welcome them. It can only be said that a few veteran newspaper groups are warming up. Unlike the leftists, the centrists represented by Kautsky believe that they represent the orthodox principles of Marx, and that only by staying in the party can they work better and even influence the rightists. Therefore, both Haase and Kautsky believed that the SPD problem should be solved through intra-party struggle, not out of the party. But the Executive Committee did not think so, and finally voluntarily fired a large number of party members, and Kautsky left "New Era".

I don't need to talk much about things after this, but I've been very talkative.