La Revolución Proletaria y el Renegado Kautsky

by Vladimir Lenin

Anarchy In Petrograd. The 4th Year 1908th. Aided by the garriso'l of Petrograd, the Maximalists under Lenin have deposed the Kerensky Government, and have assumed office. They announce that this was acomplished without bloodshed, that several Ministers have been arrested, and that M. Kerensky is a fugitive. In a proclamation to the Arrny Committees they state that authority of Government has been taken over by the Military Revolutionary Committee until the creation of a Government of Soviets. At the head of their programme is " the offer of an immzdiate democratic peace." They charge their adherents in the Army to arrest officers who do not join the movement imme- diately, and not to allow uncertain military detactments to leave the front for Petrograd. There has been fighting in Petrograd for posses- sion of the Winter Palace, the headquarters of the Kerensky Government, in which a cruiser took part. The Palace is now in possession of the Maximalists. Thq Livonza has been crossed, and the enemy are pursuing the Italians towards the line of tlie Piave. Between the two rivers, the Italian report says, brave covering troops succeeded in detaining the enemy's advance. The larger units retired without molestation. Prisoners, says the German report, now number over 250,000, and captured guns to over 2,300. Part of the large increase is from the battles oni tho Tagliamento line. A large Italian force was cut off in the arm of the upper river between Tolmezzo and Gemona. Part of it is still holding out, but 17,000 men have had to surrender. Mr. Lloyd George, M. Painleve, and Signor Orlando, with their advisers, have concluded their conference in Italy. General Maude has fought another brilliant action up the Tigris.

Genres: Politics, Theory, History, Lenin, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Russia

110 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1918

About the author

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.

Reviews

[Nabilah · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I ever got called out like this by Lenin I'd pack my bag up and retire

[Clem · Rating 3 out of 5]

if someone wrote this about me i would kill myself im not even joking

[Doobs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vlad goes off on this guy lmao

[Olive Rickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this one on and off. Helps deepen understanding of proletarian democracy and the state if you’ve read state and revolution to death. Also helps answer the main criticisms still put forward about the democratic nature of USSR.

[Rocco Graziano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Has there even been a more brutal takedown of someone's entire being and philosophy? If I was Kautsky I would've killed myself in shame.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 1 out of 5]

A vile screed against a man who pointed out holes in the Soviet system and mainstream Marxist thought. Kautsky asked how a violent revolution could be prevented from collapsing into an oligarchical dictatorship, rather than the rule of the people. Lenin does not address that problem but rather accuses Kautsky of betraying Marxist thought. Marx is basically treated like prophets in the Old Testament, infallible.

Ironically enough, the all mighty History has proven Lenin wrong. Mankind will always have factions, and so long as the iron law of oligarchy remains, there will always be a distinction between those who have political power and those who do not. The larger the group of people, the more necessary it is. Marx never described the post revolution time in any detail for a reason: it ain't possible.

[Martin Empson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lenin notes at the end of the last chapter, that his last few lines were written on the same night that news reached Russia of the seizure of power in numerous German towns, including the capital by Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. For Lenin this in itself was the final rebuttal of Kautsky's politics and offered new hope for the Russia Revolution itself. Sadly this was a false dawn, but this neglected book of Lenin's remains a powerful declaration of the hopes of the revolution and a defence of the revolution itself.

Full review: http://resolutereader.blogspot.co.uk/...

[Thodoris Patsatzis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ο Λένιν περιγράφει με σκληρή και δίκαιη γλώσσα προς τον Κάουτσκι τις βασικές διαφορές επανάστασης και μεταρρύθμισης. Τις βασικές διαφορές του επαναστατικού μαρξισμού από τον προδοτικό για την εποχή εκείνη και όχι μόνο ρεφορμισμό. Βασικό βιβλίο για να κατανοηθεί και η δεξιά στροφή του Τσίπρα και όποιου δεν είναι αποφασισμένος να έρθει σε ρήξη με την ΕΕ, το ΔΝΤ και τη λιτότητα υπερασπιζόμενος το λαό!

[io · Rating 4 out of 5]

Merciless, incisive takedown of liberal mendacity and cowardice

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hiç eskimeyen ve eskimeyecek bir kitap. Gunümüzde Türkiye'de yapılan soyut, sınıfsız demokrasi tartışmalarına dair de söyleyecek çok şeyi var. Lenin genel bir demokrasi sorunundan bahsetmenin yanlış olduğunu, bir sınıfın demokrasi olarak uyguladığı rejimin diğer bir sınıf için diktatörlük anlamına geldiğini ve burjuvaziye karşı şiddet uygulamanın zorunluluğunu açıkça ortaya koymuş. Bir siyasal tip olarak Kautskyleri anlamak için elzem.

[Alex Harris-MacDuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

🔥🔥🔥🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Lenin is so salty in this, it's incredible.

[Callie M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, Lenin gets interrupted by a revolution whilst writing a future classic of Marxism! Wish he had time to sum-up. Oh well, it's still an incredible text. Lenin is so sarcastic and sharp in this, and it's great to hear the man himself debunking the same "arguments" (read: slander and lies) I hear today. 5 stars!

[RoMaAg, es decir, El Ro™ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantástico libro donde Lenin se enrabia constantemente por el libro de Kautsky. En abstracto es divertido, y en concreto concentra muchísimos de los aprendizajes que debemos sacar de la revolución rusa de 1917 (y 1905). Esencial

[Ferio · Rating 4 out of 5]

No sé si tener fiebre es lo mejor para leer este tipo de libros: por una parte no te concentras de la misma forma (y mi concentración ya es mala de por sí) y, por la otra, se te pueden ocurrir cosas raras y hacer ciertas interpretaciones equivocadas.

Este libro es una contestación a un escrito de Kautsky, ideólogo de la II Internacional, en el que Lenin critica su paso desde el marxismo a posturas burguesas, abandonando la revolución proletaria armada en pro del reformismo de la Asamblea Constituyente y resto de órganos del estado liberal clásico. Es por ello que no hay que entender la obra directamente como un ensayo sobre lo que hay que hacer al estilo de El Estado y La Revolución, sino más bien una crítica concreta desde su postura a una persona que ha divergido del camino que Lenin consideraba correcto. Aún así, viene a desgranar de una forma bastante pasional (rayana en lo dogmático) todas sus teorías sobre el paso del estado capitalista/burgués/liberal a una sociedad comunista/anarquista (no olvidemos que comparten el fin pero no los medios) mediante la exposición contrastada de lo que dice Kautsky y lo que él propone.

En realidad es un libro tan válido en su exposición ideológica como el anteriormente mencionado (a pesar de ser menos conocido), pero cambiando el estilo pedagógico del primero, mucho más centrado en las posturas de Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels, por un estilo agresivo y visceral contra quién él creía que era el lobo disfrazado de oveja de la Revolución.

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fiery response to the pamphlet "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" Kautsky published in 1918. Here Lenin takes Kautsky to task for bending over backwards for the mensheviks and bourgeosie democrats and in general failing to theoretically formulate the crucial questions pertaining to the nature of the state (an instrument by means of which one class suppresses the other). In Lenin's view, Kautsky's misplaced concerns with formal, "pure democracy" devoid of class content and class character, where the amorphous category of "people" is substituted for the concrete class content, and his accusation that the Soviets betrayed democracy, mistakingly seized state power, and made too many concessions to the small land-holding peasants, reveal the latter to be a bankrupt marxist, barely being a "marxist" in theory, while in practice he beholdens to the thought and practice of mensheviks and right socialist revolutionaries who wanted to prevent the bourgeosie-peasant revolution from being carried out all the way through to its conclusion. Hence, the label "renegade"-someone who has lost his way.
In any case, Lenin's polemic has obviously piqued my interest in Kautsky's "pre-renegade" works.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as enthralling as State and Rev, but a good read. Definitely requires you to be familiar with the history of the Russian Revolution than State and Rev does, because it’s a direct refutation of Kautsky’s real time criticisms of the fledgling Soviet republic. If you don’t know what’s going on at that time, you’re a bit lost.

Probably the most engaging part was Lenin’s jaw-dropping talent for insult-throwing. The creativity of his put-downs on Kautsky was truly entertaining.

[Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have never seen a more thorough evisceration in my life than this pamphlet. Lenin obliterated Kautsky. Kautsky looked lost and bewildered by the arguments of the great Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Lenin from the Bolsheviks continues to show a superior understanding of the fundamental essence of Marxism and in demonstrating the correctness of his ideals. Lenin is the only hope of the humanity to overcome the bourgeois-menace. The greatest of thinkers and philosophers of our day and past.

[AppoX7 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lenin dissing the great orthodox Karl Kautsky for an entire pamphlet... Pretty good stuff although most of Lenin's arguments seem pretty weak and even almost comedic in hindsight. Very interesting read noneless.

[Aitor Merino Vázquez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy interesante y con una polémica perfectamente transportable a hoy en día.

[Animesh Mitra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Politically educative and informative.

[El · Rating 5 out of 5]

فضح و تعرية ارتداد كاوتسكي و عزله عن التأثير في النضال البروليتاري عن طريق تبيان ارتداده عن الماركسية ، ارتداده الذي يخفيه وراء عبارات ماركسية شكلا ..

[Mary Carpenter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deadass, State and Revolution 2. Required reading

[Emiliano M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lenin destroys libdems,libs and socdems. Based.

[Khazziro · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Lenin exposes Kautsky's flaws and how he betrayed the proletariat with a reformist/reactionary view, straying away from the Marxist way of viewing the world and even attempting to sabotage it by trying to liberalise it into a kind of "liberal-Marxism."

Kautsky resorted to falsifications and sophistries to excuse himself from a violent revolution and to desert to liberal policy... to side with the bourgeois. Who would've thought? He distorted the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned Marx into a liberal while uttering phrases like "pure democracy."

Pure democracy for whom?

For the bourgeois and their bourgeois democracy??? This demonising the view of the exploited and their need to liberate themselves from their oppressors through revolutionary violence. The term "pure democracy" is a phrase used by a liberal who wants to fool the workers... as long as different classes exist, we can't speak of it.

We can only speak of class democracy.

Exploiters inevitably transform the state into their instrument of rule over the exploited. As long as there are exploiters who rule over the majority (the exploited), the state is something that allows them to abuse the workers. A state of the exploited, therefore, has to differ from such a state; it has to be a democracy for the exploited that must suppress the exploiters. Inevitably, the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from "democracy."
As Engels mentions:
"The state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, in order to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a free people’s state: so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist."

Kautsky, while not always talking complete nonsense, never mentioned the fact that the proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeois and suppressing its adversaries.

One important aspect I got from the book is that during conflicts between countries, if you recognize the right of your country to defend itself when trying to justify wars, you are simply approving that there is a right to have that war. And because war is something imperialist countries use as an excuse to occupy other countries, justifying it is wrong because it doesn't serve the people, no matter which country they are from. If you side with the imperialists, who are the bourgeois (the rich people's class), you betray the fight for the liberation of the oppressed class (the workers' class).

Thus, you're focusing on fighting a rich people's war which doesn't benefit the people at all, only the bourgeois and this must be seen as a point of preparation for, and acceleration of, the world proletarian revolution... this is what internationalism means, not the dog-shit Kautsky mentions.

Another aspect I found very important is that in different fights, we must understand our enemies and maintain focus. We need to keep a dialectical understanding of stages, shifting class alliances, the leading role of the proletariat, and the fight against reactionary attempts. The proletariat must not be separated in the fight against capitalism, we are all exploited here. The working class, along with sections of the petty bourgeoisie and even elements of the lumpenproletariat, can unite in the fight against the exploiters: the rich landlords, the bosses. We must spend time with the masses and have a vanguard party that can guide them on what is to be done to achieve the final goal.

This is very important so the revolution doesn't fall into a counter-revolution sabotaged by bourgeois powers aiming to keep us in the same system that will exploit us until we die.

Lenin kicked Kautsky's ass with the way this book burned his whole arguments... If I were Kautsky, I wouldn't write anything again.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Soviet power, i.e., the present form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.

The whole of this book sees Lenin, with the strength of a bulldog, completely demolishing—in an engaging and often entertaining way—the criticisms of the renegade “socialist” Karl Kautsky on Soviet power in Russia.

Many subjects are touched upon, and anyone having doubts or skepticism about the policies of the Bolsheviks in the early days of the revolution should read this book. It shows clearly that Soviet power meant the direct rule of the masses—not a coup, not a brutal dictatorship as bourgeois historians love to portray it. On the contrary, it is undoubtedly one of the most important events in human history: for the first time, the slaves fought back and won. It is precisely for this reason that the ruling class can never forgive the Bolshevik Party.

The deduction drawn from this new idea is the old one, that in a bourgeois revolution one must not go farther than the bourgeoisie! And this in spite of all that Marx and Engels said when comparing the bourgeois revolution of 1789–93 in France with the bourgeois revolution of 1848 in Germany!

As shown in the quote above, this book also indirectly confirms that Lenin was aligned with Trotsky on the question later developed as the theory of permanent revolution. This book should be read more often by Stalinists, as Lenin clearly demonstrates that the stagist theory—that one cannot go beyond the bourgeois stage in a backward country—is a Menshevik conception. This is stated clearly, in black and white, nearly a decade before the later debates on Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution.

Again:

The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the “whole” of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute liberalism in its place.

Lenin even goes so far as to characterize this position as a form of liberalism—another clear vindication of Trotsky.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of Lenin's more well-known works alongside the State and Revolution, "Left-Wing" Communism and others, in this work Lenin exposes the petty-bourgeois liberal falsities spouted in a book by the Marxist-turned-opportunist Karl Kautsky which was written following the Great October Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Much of this work is spent defending the Marxist understanding of the state which was elaborated by Lenin in the State and Revolution earlier since Kautsky, appealing to liberal notions of "pure democracy" abstract from class, spends no small amount of ink attacking the Republic of Soviets and the very concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Much of this part, taking up many chapters in Lenin's response, still remains very relevant due to the usual liberal attacks of so-called "democratic socialists" and other such philistines today who regard the peaceful transition to socialism as a possibility while negating that the state is a machine by which one class represses another.

The other major part of this work is Lenin's section defending internationalism from the social-chauvinism of Kautsky by explaining just what the significant factor in determining the character of a war is - i.e. not who the aggressor is but which classes are waging the war while the only revolutionary war is one waged by the most revolutionary class, the proletariat, in control of its own state for its own interests shattering the common opportunist legends still put forward today with the war in Ukraine among other conflicts.

In general, this is a very important work in the fight against opportunism for Leninists alongside the State and Revolution, the Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, and What is to be Done.

[Eric Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

It’s said that when he died, Lenin left behind a library in which the largest number of books were written by himself — but the second largest group were books written by Karl Kautsky. Kautsky was not only Lenin’s mentor, but was widely seen as the ‘pope of Marxism’, a voice of authority on the international Left. Nine months after the Bolshevik coup d’etat in 1917, Kautsky published a short book called ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ which expressed his reservations about what Lenin and his comrades were doing in Russia. This book is Lenin’s answer, written at a time when Russia was in the midst of a civil war. It is incredible that Lenin found the time to write such, but such was Kautsky’s importance to him. Lenin’s arguments are not convincing and more to the point, they are incredibly nasty and vituperative. He took Kautsky’s attacks very personally and much of the book consists of a series of insults, such as repeatedly calling Kautsky ‘stupid’. The arguments Lenin made in the book are long forgotten, but what lingers is a style of polemic which he pioneered, the nastiness of which you can still hear today from supporters of the authoritarian Left.

[tõnn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Üks olulisemaid leninistliku revolutsioonilise teooria teoseid. Lenin kaitseb töölisdemokraatiat ning võrdleb viimast kodanliku demokraatiaga, mida kaitses oportunismile pöördunud Kautsky. Lisaks kirjeldab ta proletariaadi diktatuuri kontseptsiooni, tuues näiteid juba toimunud oktoobrirevolutsioonist ning selle rakendamisest Nõukogude Venemaal esimestel kuudel (teos kirjutatud oktoober-november 1918).

"Kui mitte irvitada terve mõistuse ja ajaloo üle, siis on selge, et „puhtast demokraatiast" ei saa rääkida nikaua, kui on olemas mitmesugused klassid, rääkida võib aga ainult klassidemokraatiast. (Sulgudes öelda, „puhas demokraatia" on mitte ainult võhiklik fraas, mis paljastab nii klassivöitluse kui ka rigi olemuse mittemõistmist, vaid ka kolmekordselt tühi fraas, sest kommunistlikus ühiskonnas hakkab demokraatia, ümber kujunedes ja hariumuseks muutudes, välja surema, kuid ei saa iialgi „puhtaks" demokraatiaks.)
"Puhas demokraatia" on töölisi ninapidi vedava liberaali valelik fraas. Ajalugu tunneb kodanlikku demokraatiat, mis astub feodalismi asemele, ja proletaarset demokraatiat, mis astub kodanliku demokraatia asemele.

[Hantz FV · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe Lenin's wittiest work (and that's great)! Just read it. Total destruction of kautskyism. Defense of the Russian Revolution and its policy while they were still freshly written and not fully understood by every communist in Russia, let alone abroad. I particularly like the limpid explanation of the relationships between the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie as a whole and the proletariat and the poor peasantry.

Short and sweet. Not much more to say here. Again, just read it.

In my review of Kautsky's The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (that this text is replying to) I said that I did not recommend Kautsky's text. After reading this, I do recommend reading Kautsky's text first. There is a lot more bullcrap in it than Lenin has the time to address. Lenin kind of write on the assumptions that the reader has read Kautsky's text as well. It's also a great exercice to see if you'd catch the same red flags as Lenin did in Kautsky's little whiny pamphlet.

[Burak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kautsky'nin Proletarya Diktatörlüğü kitabındaki eleştirilerine cevap olarak kaleme alınan bu eserde Lenin, Kautsky'i devrime ihanet etmekle suçlar. Kautsky'nin 1. Dünya Savaşı karşısında takındığı ikircikli tutum ve "anavatan savunması" politikası sertçe eleştirilir. Bunun yanı sıra Lenin, sosyalizme giden yolda zor araçlarının önemini ve devlet denilen örgütlenmenin bir sınıfın diğer sınıf üzerinde bir baskı aracı olduğunu metin boyunca vurgular. Kautsky'i döneklikle suçlarken bunu küçük burjuva liberal bir siyasetin mantıksal sonucu olarak adlandırır. Metinde yer yer Kautsky'nin 1914 öncesi metinlerine referans vererek onun Marksizm'den nasıl saptığını kanıtlamaya girişir. Kautsky'nin Sovyetlere yönelttiği anti-demokratik uygulamalar eleştirisini teorik ve pratik örneklerle yanlışlar.