# The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 7

CHAPTER VII.
Kautsky Slanders Revolutionary Socialists and Whitewashes Opportunists.
The preceding pages were already written when No. 9 of the Neue Zeit, of May 28th, appeared with the concluding portion of Kautsky's argument on "The Collapse of Social Democracy" (paragraph 7 of his reply to Cunow). Kautsky briefly formulates all his old sophisms as well as a fresh one in defence of Socialist Chauvinism as follows:
"It is untrue that the war is a purely Imperialist war, that at the commencement of the war the choice lay between Imperialism and Socialism, or that the Socialist Parties and the proletarian masses of Germany, France, and in many respects even of England, threw themselves headlong into the arms of imperialism at the mere beck and call of a handful of Parliamentarians, thus betraying Socialism and bringing about a collapse unparalleled in history."
The new sophism and fraud perpetrated upon the workers consists in this, that the war, you see, is not "purely" imperialist war!
On the question of the character and meaning of the present war Kautsky wavers terribly, while he circumvents the precise declarations of the Basle and Chemnitz conferences as carefuly as does a thief the spot where his last theft was committed. In the pamphlet "The National State," written in February, 1915, Kautsky asserted that "in the last degree the war is an imperialist one" (p. 64). Now a fresh reservation is being made to the effect that it is not a purely imperialist war. What sort of war is it, then?
It is, it appears, also a national war! Kautsky has talked and argued until he has actually put forward the following defence, and in doing so, makes use of Plekhanov's dialectics:
"The present war is not only an off-shoot of imperialism, but also of the Russian Revolution." As early as 1904 Kautsky foresaw that the Russian Revolution would resurrect Pan-Slavism in a new form, and that "a democratic Russia must needs powerfully influence the efforts of the Austrian and Turkish Slavs after the attainment of their national independence. In such a case the Polish question would also become… Austria is bound to collapse, for with the downfall ​of Tsarism the iron hoop which now binds together diverse and hostile Nationalist elements, will break." (This last quotation is now quoted by Kautsky himself from his article written in 1904.) … "The Russian Revolution … has given a mighty impetus to the Nationalist aspirations of the East, and has added Asiatic problems to those of Europe. All these problems renedered more acute by the present war, loudly clamour for solution and exert a
Here we have another instance of the prostitution of Marxism! Because of the fact that "democratic Russia" would kindle a desire in the nations of Eastern Europe to strive after freedom (which fact is indisputable), therefore, the present war, which frees no nation, but, whatever its outcome, will enslave many, is not a "purely" imperialist struggle. Because the "collapse of Tsarism" would mean the downfall of Austria, due to its undemocratic national structure, therefore counter-revolutionary Tsarism (which has temporarily gathered strength, is plundering Austria and has in store still greater oppression for the peoples of Austria) has taken away from the "present war " its purely imperialist character, and has given it, to a certain extent, a national one. Because the ruling classes deceive dull witted men of the lower middle class and down-trodden peasants by means of tales concerning nationalist aims of the imperialist war, therefore a man of science, an authority on "Marxism," a representative of the Second International, has the right to reconcile the masses with this deception by means of the "formula" that the ruling classes are possessed of imperialist aspirations while the "common people" and the proletarian masses are possessed of "nationalist" ones.
Here we see dialectics turned into sophistry of the meanest and basest kind!
The national element in the present war is represented only by the struggle of Serbia against Austria, a fact which was noted, by the way, in the resolution of our party's conference at Berne. Only is Serbia and amongst the Serbs have we a national liberation movement of many years standing, and one which embraces millions of the masses. The war between Serbia and Austria is a "continuation " of this movement. Had this been an isolated phase of the war, having no connection with the general European war, i.e., with the covetous and plundering aims of England, Russia, etc., ​all Socialists would have been bound to wish success to the Serbian bourgeoisie; this would have been a naturally correct and absolutely necessary inference to draw from the nationalist phase in the present war. But Kautsky, the sophist, who is at present in the service of the Austrian bourgeois, clerics and generals, fails to draw this inference!
More than that. Marx's dialectics, the last word as regards the scientific evolutionary method, forbids an isolated, that is to say, a one-sided and distorted examination of a subject. The national phase in the Austro-Serbian war has and can have no serious significance as compared with the general aspect of the European war. If Germany is victorious she will strangle Belgium, a portion of Poland, and perhaps a portion of France, etc. If Russia is victorious she wilt strangle Galicia, also a portion of Poland, and Armenia, etc. If the war ends in a draw the former oppression of nationalities will remain in force. To Serbia, which constitutes about one-hundredth of the participants in the present war, the war represents a "continuation of the policy" of a bourgeois liberation movement. But for the other 99% of the participants, the war represents a continuation of the imperialist policy; that is to say, the struggle of the decrepit bourgeoisie capable of depraving, not liberating, nations. The Triple Entente, in "freeing" Serbia, sold the interests of Serbian freedom to Italian imperialism for its help in plundering Austria.
Although these facts are known to everyone, Kautsky distorts them shamelessly so as to whitewash the opportunists. "Pure" phenomena cannot, and do not, exist either in nature or in society. This is precisely what Marx's dialectics teach whilst showing us that the very conception of purity implies that human investigation has been applied in a narrow, one-sided manner, and not with the object of thoroughly examining a given subject in all its complexity. "Pure" capitalism does not and cannot exist in this world; it always contains an admixture of feudal, lower middle class,and other elements. Hence, to say that the war is not a "purely" imperialist war—when it is a question of the masses being flagrantly deceived by the imperialists who purposely screen the objects of their naked robbery by "nationalist " phraseology—proves that one is either hopelessly dull and pedantic or a trickster.
​The whole matter lies in that Kautsky supports the fraud which the imperialists perpetrate upon the common people in saying that "for the masses, including the proletarian masses," national problems "were the decisive factor," and for the ruling classes "imperialist tendencies" were this factor (p. 273). Kautsky upholds this fraud when he pretends to "confirm" his statement by a dialectical reference to "infinitely varied reality" (p. 274). Reality is no doubt infinitely varied; this is a sacred truth! But just as certain is it that in this infinite variety there manifest themselves two principal and basic currents: (1) that the objective contents of the war are a "continuation of the policy " of imperialism, that is to say, of the plunder of other nations by the decrepit bourgeoisie of the "Great Powers" (and their governments); and (2) that the prevailing subjective ideology consists of "nationalist" phrases scattered broadcast to stupefy the masses.
We have already examined Kautsky's old sophism, repeated afresh, alleging that those of the "Left" had made out that "when the war broke loose" the choice lay between "imperialism and socialism." This is a shameless exaggeration, for Kautsky knows well that the men of the Left had put forward a different alternative: that the party should either join in the imperialist plunder and deception or preach, and prepare for revolutionary action. Kautsky also knows that only the German censorship prevents the men of the Left from exposing this idle tale which he spreads in order to pander to the Suedekums.
As regards the relation between the "proletarian masses" and the "handful of parliamentarians," Kautsky here puts forward one of the most hackneyed objections:
Karl Kautsky, the former political and scientific authority, has buried himself by his conduct in seeking to employ such pitiable subterfuges. He who does not understand this is hopeless as regards Socialism. It is for this very reason that Mehring, Rosa Luxemburg and their adherents refer in the Internazionale to Kautsky and Co. as most despicable fellows; and this is the only correct tone to adopt.
Only think of it! It was but a "handful of parliamentarians," of officials, journalists, and so on, who were in a position to speak with a certain amount of freedom of their attitude towards the war. That is to say, to speak without making themselves liable to being seized on the spot and marched off to the barracks, or without running the danger of being shot forthwith. Kautsky now ignominiously blames the masses for the treason and fickleness of this social stratum! Kautsky himself had written dozens of times, in the course of years, to show that the tactics and ideology of this stratum were connected with opportunism. The first and fundamental rule of scientific investigation in general, and of Marx's dialectics in particular, is that the writer should examine the connection between the present struggle of the currents within Socialism (the struggle between the current which speaks of treason, indeed shouts it from the house top, and the one which perceives no treason) and the struggle which, prior to this, had been going on for whole decades. Kautsky does not even hint at this nor does he desire to put the question of tendencies and currents. Hitherto there existed currents, but now they are no more. Now there exists only the big names of "authorities," which are always used by servile people as trump-cards. And these authorities find it very convenient to quote each other and to cover up each other's "sins" in friendly fashion on the principle of one dirty hand washing the other.
​The cuckoo praises the cock because the cock praises the cuckoo!
In his servile ardour Kautsky even goes so far as to kiss the hem of Hyndman's garment, making out that the latter but yesterday went over to the side of imperialism. Yet, for many years articles have appeared in the same Neue Zeit and in dozens of S.D. papers of the whole world which told of Hyndman's imperialism! Had Kautsky been sincerely interested in the political biographies of the men he names, he would have had to recall whether or not these biographies contained traits and events which, not "in one day," but in the course of a decade prepared such a transition to imperialism. He would have recalled whether or not Vaillant had been captured by the adherents of Jaurès, and Plekhanov by the Minimalists and the revisionists. He would have recalled whether or not Guesde's revolutionary current died before the eyes of everyone in the Guesdist paper, Socialism—a model of lifelessness and incapacity, a paper which could take up no independent line on any important question. Kautsky would have recalled whether or not he himself had manifested indecision (let us add—for those who place him, and rightly so, side by side with Hyndman and Plekhanov) on the question of Millerandism, at the beginning of the struggle with Bernstein, and so forth.
But we do not see even the least attempt made to investigate, scientifically, the biographies of the leaders mentioned. No attempt is even made to examine whether these leaders defend themselves by their own arguments or by repeating the arguments of the opportunists and capitalist class, or whether, for example the actions of these leaders acquired a serious political significance in consequence of their being especially influential, or in consequence of the fact that they joined a foreign and really "influential" current supported by the military organisation, namely the bourgeois current. Kautsky makes no attempt to investigate the question; he is merely concerned with throwing dust in the eyes of the masses and with deafening them with the sound of authoritative names; and with preventing them from putting clearly ​and thoroughly examining the question in dispute.
" … The masses, to the number of four millions, turned to the right about at the command of a handful of parliamentarians. …"
Every word of this contains an untruth. There were not four, but one million members in the German party organisation, and the common will of this mass organisation (as of any organisation) was expressed only by its one political centre, i.e., by the "handful" which betrayed Socialism. This handful was consulted and called upon to vote; it was in a position to vote, write articles, and so forth. No one, however, even consulted the masses. Not only were they prevented from voting, they were rent asunder and driven, not "at the command" of a handful of parliamentarians, but at the command of the military authorities. The military organisation was in existence and its leaders committed no treason; it called upon the "masses" one by one and confronted them with the ultimatum—enter the army (as your leaders advise you) or you will be shot. The masses could not act in an organised way, for their previously created organisation, incarnated in the "handful" of Legiens, Kautskys, and Schiedemanns had betrayed them.
For the creation of a new organisation time is needed as well as courage to cast aside the old one that is rotten and has outlived its usefulness.
Kautsky tries to defeat his opponents of the Left by alleging that they advocated what was nonsensical, that they put the question as though "in reply to the command to go to war the masses should have revolted within twenty-four hours"; should have led "socialism" against imperialism, since in the opposite case the masses would have shown "lack of courage and would have committed treason." This is pure nonsense by which compilers of badly written bourgeois booklets sanctioned by the police "defeated" the revolutionaries; and Kautsky now prides himself on ​trotting out this nonsense. Kautsky's opponents of of the Left know full well that revolutions cannot be "made"; that they grow out of crises and breaks in history—crises which have become objectively ripe (apart from the will of parties and classes). Kautsky's opponents know that masses without an organisation are deprived of a single will, that the struggle with a powerful terrorist military organisation of the centralised states is both a slow and a difficult process. In view of the treason committed by the leaders the masses could do nothing at the critical moment; the "handful" of leaders, however, could and should have voted against the credits, should have opposed the "political and industrial truce" and refrained from justifying the war. They should have spoken in favour of their own governments being defeated and should have set up an international apparatus for the promotion of fraternisation in the trenches; they should have organised the publication of illegal literature, and to preach the need for passing to revolutionary action, and so forth.
Kautsky knows full well that in Germany those of the Left have such action or, more correctly speaking, similar action in view, and that they cannot speak of it openly and plainly, in view of the military censorship. The desire to defend the opportunists at all costs leads Kautsky to commit an unrivalled baseness: while sheltering himself behind the back of the military censor he ascribes pure nonsense to those of the Left, assured that the censor will see to it that he is not exposed.
* ↑ Kautsky is here hinting. obviously, at the Internazionale, the paper conducted by Rosa Luxemburg and F. Mehring, where they shower well-deserved contempt upon the policy of the Executive Committee of the German S.D. Party, its parliamentary fraction, etc., that is to say, the official bodies which direct the party policy.
* ↑ They voted of their own accord and had a perfect right to vote for the credits—but they could also have voted against them; even in Russia men were not flogged or ill-treated for this.
* ↑ "How can this be opportunism?" exclaimed L. Martov when giving a paper at Berne (vide the "Social-Democrat," No. 80), "when … Guesde, Plekhanov, Kautsky, etc! "We must be more careful when we accuse of opportunism such men as Guesde," wrote Axelrod (the Golos, Nos. 86 and 87). "I am not going to defend myself." Kautsky in Berlin seconds them, "but … Vaillant and Guesde, Hyndman and Plekhanov!"
* ↑ The S.L.P. since its inception has consistently shown that Hyndman has been an opportunist for over 15 years. It was only when his betrayal of Socialism stank that the B.S.P. opposed him.—Trans.
* ↑ Kautsky's reference to Vaillant and Guesde, Hyndman and Plekhanov is characteristic from another point of view. Frank imperialists, such as Lensch and Haenisch (not to mention the opportunists), refer mainly to Hyndman and Plekhanov in order to justify their own policy. They have a perfect right to refer to them, and they speak the truth in this respect that it is, indeed, one and the same policy. But Kautsky speaks with contempt of Lensch and Haenisch, these radical Socialists who have gone over to imperialism. Kautsky thanks God that he is not like these publicans, and that he disagrees with them and remains a revolutionary. The last is not meant as a joke! But, in reality, Kautsky's position is the same. Kautsky, the hypocritical Chauvinist, with his goody-goody phrases, is much more loathsome than such simple-minded Chauvinists as David and Heine, Lensch and Haenisch.
* ↑ Amongst other things, it was not at all necessary to close down all the S.D. papers in reply to the prohibition to write upon class hatred and the class struggle. It was a base and pusillanimous thing to consent to the condition that they should abstain from writing upon it, as in the case of Vorwaerts. Vorwaerts died a political death when it did this. L. Martov was quite right when he pointed this out. Some legal papers could have been preserved by making a declaration to the effect that they were not party or S.D. papers, but merely papers which were ministering to the technical needs of a portion of the workers, that is to say, that they were non-political papers. But why could there not have existed illegal S.D. literature criticising the war, as well as legal literature omitting such criticism—legal literature which would have omitted to speak the truth yet refrained from uttering falsehoods?