ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about the bio, life and political ideas of Karl Kautsky.
Life and Time of Karl Kautsky:
Karl Kautsky was born in 1854 and died in 1938. His father was a Czech and mother a German. When Kautsky was just a youth he came in touch with socialism or socialist thought, because in those days the political and economic ideas of socialism were not widely discussed and propagated.
At the age of twenty Karl Kautsky entered a university and immediately came in contact with socialist party and the supporters of socialism. We, therefore, find that his inclination to socialism was spontaneous or inborn.
To be well acquainted with socialism or socialist philosophy Kautsky thoroughly studied economics, history and other branches of social science. Malthus once propagated that economic poverty of the people was mainly due to the overpopulation. But Karl Kautsky challenged this view. He said that the economic and other related factors were chiefly responsible for the poverty of the people.
By the eighties of nineteenth century Karl Kautsky was partially able to establish himself as a socialist thinker because he wrote a number of articles in various magazines and published small books.
His association with socialism went from deep to deeper practically from 1885. He lived in London from 1885 to 1890. During this period he came to be associated with Engels and was influenced by him.
In those days London was an active centre of communist or socialist thought. We may call it a hub. Many of the budding socialists went there and discussed socialism at their heart’s content.
He authored several books and the most important of them was The Road to Power which was published in 1907. He thought that Marxism is a natural scientific materialism. It can be applied to society for its general upliftment.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Any analysis of Kautsky’s political philosophy will invariably remain incomplete if we don’t throw adequate light on his relation or connection with The Second International.
Kolakowski, in his monumental work Main Currents of Marxism, makes the following observation:
“The figure of Karl Kautsky dominates the theoretical development of Marxism for the whole period of the Second International. While certainly not an outstanding philosopher, he was the chief architect and, so to speak, the embodiment of Marxist orthodoxy”.
He was a great supporter of orthodox Marxism and in support of his stand he incessantly argued with other participants. His role was crucial in establishing Marxism as a “serious intellectual discipline.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Kolakowski says that in general sense he was not an orthodox Marxist. He did not hesitate to criticize some major or important views of Engels. Kolakowski is of opinion that he was “pedantically orthodox” in the sense that he believed that in order to explain and understand social phenomena Marxism is indispensable.
Again, for the purpose of analysing various elements which dominate or influence society Marxism will considerably help. Kolakowsky concludes. “It was thanks to his interpretative work that the stereotype known as scientific socialism—the evolutionist, determinist and scientistic form of Marxism—became universally accepted in its main lines”. Kautsky argued with great labour and patience in various sessions of Second International that the philosophical aspects of Marx must be seriously thought and analysed.
It is not possible to go into the depth of Marxian philosophy with meagre knowledge. The main currents of Marx’s philosophy shall be studied and analysed in the proper perspective, because Marx was a great materialist.
Political Ideas of Karl Kautsky:
1. Revolution and Socialism:
In The Road to Power and other works he emphasised the necessity of socialism and in order to set up a socialist state the only road is revolution. He criticised the arguments and suggestions of utopian socialists as to the setting up of a socialist society.
He called appealing to the industrialists and capitalists as “political fantasy” because the industrialists will never abandon the path of exploitation.
What remains, therefore, is, if socialist society is an “objective” necessity, then the only way to achieve it is revolution. This revolution can be launched only by the workers, peasants and by those who are exploited.
In The Road to Power the point he made clear is that without the direct action to be taken by the working class, which may be called revolution, the building up of a socialist society will remain a far cry.
There is an unbreakable relationship between revolution and socialism; peaceful means and parliamentary processes, according to Kautsky, are incapable of establishing socialism. Naturally revolution is an inescapable means. Explaining the nature of revolution.
Kolakowski observes:
“A revolution, in the sense of a conscious seizure of political power by the organized proletariat, was an essential and inevitable precondition of socialism”.
Karl Kautsky was quite faithful to Marx on a number of issues and aspects and as regards the necessity of revolution there is no deficit in his faithfulness. Following Marx he said that revolution is not something which will be achieved without any labour, rather it is to be achieved through continuous struggle. In this struggle the proletarians must involve themselves directly and effectively.
That is the primary responsibility of the proletarians, to participate directly in the entire process of revolution. We, therefore, find that people’s participation is an indispensable precondition of revolution.
The working class must realize that the capitalist class in all ways will obstruct the efforts for revolution. But the proletarians must take an uncompromising attitude towards the goal (to achieve a revolution and set up a socialist society).
Many Marxists have explained the ideas revolution, role of the proletariat and their desire to participate in revolution in their own fanciful ways. But Kautsky was a strict follower of Marx and he said that mere existence of poverty is not a sufficient precondition of class struggle.
He has further observed that the poverty in its extreme form must lead to class antagonism and class polarisation. But the polarisation of classes is not a wishful thinking, it has several preconditions.
Following Marx’s views Kautsky says that the development of capitalism must reach the highest point of its manifestation and that stage will be highly favourable for antagonism between the two major classes. Moreover, the antagonism will be irreconcilable. There is nothing new in this opinion of Kautsky.
The irreconcilable relation between the two major classes bourgeois and proletarian will again remove the hurdles on the way of formation of a working class party. We find that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Kautsky all emphasized the irreconcilability of class antagonism.
Some pseudo-Marxists say that the falling rate of profit will lead to the collapse of capitalism. But, following the line of Marx, Kautsky said that mere fall of profit is not enough for the breakdown of capitalism, it will collapse due to the inability of capitalism to cope with the progress of technology.
2. On Nature of Socialism and Capitalism:
Explaining the nature of socialism Kautsky says that it aims at the emancipation primarily of the working class because it is the most exploited one and subsequently it aims at the emancipation of the whole human race.
This emancipation comes through several means and the foremost among them is the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. Socialism will also do away with the management of state by the bourgeoisie.
On this point there is a difference between the anarchists’ view of state and Marxists’ view. The anarchists argued for the abolition of state because it is the embodiment of all ills that are generally found.
Karl Kautsky says that the state will remain and continue to exist, but its nature and function will undergo radical changes.
The whole state will be transformed into an organ of social administration which will look after the general management of society’s material production, its distribution and other related matters.
Like Engels he does not directly talk about the abolition of state. But he talks of nature, purpose and functions of state which is socialist. A socialist state is no class state; it is a state or political organisation for all people. A socialist state aims at the welfare of all, development of all and happiness of all.
Karl Kautsky has said that a socialist state will never come into existence at a single stroke of revolution. First of all a political revolution will free the state from bourgeois rule. He calls it the first stage of socialist state. But this is not all.
In his The Social Revolution (1902) he says that in order to be a true socialist state there shall occur another revolution and it is social revolution.
A political revolution will simply capture the state power. But a social revolution will free such a state from all the bourgeois evils. Hence a mere political revolution transforms a capitalist state into a socialist state.
Karl Kautsky mentions various forms of struggle which might be used to capture state power and according to him strike or general strike might be used, but the use of such a weapon must be done with utmost caution.
Un-cautious use of strike should be avoided. He cautioned the working class to avoid Blanquism or the Blanquist way of revolution. Louis-Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) wanted “to carry out an insurrection to replace the capitalist state power by its own revolutionary dictatorship” Kautsky disfavoured the insurrectionary methods for the capture of power.
Karl Kautsky has said that capitalism is fully responsible for a revolution. Because it created all sorts of exploitation and oppression from which common people in general and working class in particular suffer.
Naturally they will try to free themselves from exploitation and oppression. He reminds us by saying that the workers are not responsible for the crises from which capitalism suffers.
The capitalism digs its own grave and workers through a revolution throw the capitalism into that grave. At the initial stages the capitalists were able to fight away the crises of capitalism, but when all the means were exhausted capitalism was unable to get itself rid of the crises.
At the penultimate stage the workers, through revolution, were able to destroy capitalism. Karl Kautsky has also said that only one crisis is not enough for a revolution.
So far as crises in capitalism and its destruction are concerned Kautsky’s analysis faithfully follows Marx’s line of thought. In this regard he has succeeded in establishing himself as an orthodox Marxist. He is not at all an original thinker. Of course he does not claim this.
3. Other Political Ideas:
Kautsky was a faithful follower of Marx and when Lenin gave the leadership of Bolshevik Revolution (or February Revolution) in 1917 he welcomed it and he called this Revolution a “new epoch for all Europe.”
He believed that this Revolution would advance the revolutionary zeal of the fighting forces of all the capitalist countries. Particularly the proletarians will be inspired by this. But after few days he was disheartened.
He thought that the establishment of a revolutionary state was not all for a real revolution. It must combine both democracy and socialism because it was his firm belief that one is not complete without the other. If a party consisting of a very small section of supporters imposed socialism upon the masses that can never be called democracy.
Behind socialism there must remain the support of the majority people. But in post-revolutionary Russia the Bolshevik Party was the determiner of all social and political issues. This practically threw democracy in a dustbin.
There arose a controversy between Lenin and Kautsky on a vital issue. Kautsky said that in order to settle all the political issues a parliament is to be convened which will represent the majority people.
In other words a parliament will be a manifestation of democracy. But unfortunately Kautsky’s suggestion was ignored and finally this embittered the relationship between the two topmost Marxists.
On the relationship between democracy and socialism Kautsky said:
“Democracy and socialism not differ in the sense that one is a means and the other is an end, both are means to the same end. For us socialism is unthinkable without democracy. By modern socialism we mean not only a social organisation of production, but also a democratic organisation of society”.
This explanation on the relationship between democracy and socialism is really unique. Lenin differed, but the argument of Kautsky is unassailable. Even today we hold the view that both democracy and socialism are two sides of the same coin.
Karl Kautsky held different view on the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (1918) he pointed out the following meanings or aspects:
(1) The proletarians will get majority in parliament and they will get it through democratic process where other parties will participate. That is, the proletarians will capture power through the democratic process.
(2) The proletarians will set up a socialist society through democratic means where all other parties having full faith on socialism will participate. But the party led and controlled by the working class will have the priority.
(3) Though the proletarians will play the dominant role they will not take any step to suppress different rights and freedoms of citizens.
(4) The government headed by proletarians will make elaborate arrangements for holding periodical election to verify its popularity. In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat will honour popular consent.
(5) The government led or controlled by the proletarians will administer the state by nonviolent ways but only in special circumstances, such as counter-revolutionary situation, the government of the proletarians will apply force or violent measures.
What Kautsky has said in his analysis of the meaning of dictatorship of proletarians is quite analogous to democratic or parliamentary system. Lenin did not accept Kautsky’s view about proletarians’ supremacy and parliamentary system. Explaining his opinion Kautsky claims that Marx also used the term in this sense.
To Marx, dictatorship of the proletariat meant overall domination of the proletarians which is also called the hegemony of the workers. But the hegemony or the dictatorship shall always be based on democratic means and procedures. The workers will not impose anything upon the people.
Karl Kautsky further maintains that Marx never thought of establishing a socialist society through dictatorial means. But to Marx democracy had a different meaning. In society there shall exist social and political equality as well as economic equality.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
No economically powerful class can exist in a socialist society. Naturally all will get enough opportunity to exercise all the rights.
In bourgeois democracy the economically powerful class controls everything, but in a state having dictatorship of the proletariat there will exist no such class. In bourgeois democracy, the bureaucracy, for all practical purposes, controls all the aspects of state affairs.
Explaining Marx’s view Kautsky says that in a bourgeois system of government the minority always runs the administration and the working class or proletariat is controlled and exploited. But in democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat the majority will rule and there will prevail democratic process and atmosphere.
There shall be no scope of exploitation of one class by another. Kautsky further observes that in a democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat there shall not exist any reference to any particular class.
We thus see that Karl Kautsky explains the concept of dictatorship of proletariat chiefly in the background of democracy and in this regard his claim is Marx viewed both democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat in this light.