The class struggle (Erfurt program)

by Karl Kautsky

General Books publication 2009 Original publication 1910 Original C.H. Kerr

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy

217 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Czech-German philosopher and politician. He was a leading theoretician of Marxism. He became the leading promulgator of Orthodox Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels.

Reviews

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though certainty popular back in the day, it is astounding to read this and see not only how terribly dry and vague this text is, but also how shaky its understanding of Capital is. It is mostly interesting as a means to understand how problematic the foundations of social democracy were.

[Tiarnán · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 'Pope' of Marxism, his earliest major work and a hugely influential one, in the form of a somewhat abridged 1910 English translation for an American audience.

This isn't a bad book, and there are some insightful turns of phrase and clever popularisations of important Marxian concepts, but - in stark contrast to the 'grab them by the throat' vivacity of a Lenin or Luxemburg - the writing is hardly sparkling. Along with the prosaic presentation, intellectually one is struck by the overriding impression that for Kautsky Marx's thought was very much an 'evolutionism'; that is to say Kautsky here exemplifies one of the worst aspects of Second International marxism: its tendency, in a period of rapid ascent for the mass unions and the German social-democratic parliamentary party, towards teleological and determinist ways of presenting historical materialism and the 'inevitable' triumph of socialism. This was in keeping with the dominant trends in bourgeois thought of the time, which rejected the idealist convolutions of dialectics in favour of a more linear and empiricist understanding of biology, physics, history, and other scientific fields. Kautsky - and Bernstein to a much greater extent - tended to concede too much to this mode of thought, as well as the resurrection of Kantian ethical norms as an apparently 'necessary' moral foundation for socialism, with these two intellectual influences affecting his later ability to objectively assess the Russian Revolutions, of both February and October 1917.

Still important reading for getting a grasp on the current 'Kautsky debate' among contemporary socialists, that has been provoked by thinkers within the DSA, as well as their critics. Next up are 'The Social Revolution' and 'The Road to Power'.

[Morgan]

The commentary [Kautsky] wrote on [the Erfurt Program] is perhaps the most widely read and most influential Marxist text of the [Second International] period.

'Karl Kautsky's Democratic Republicanism' p. 2

Few are even aware that the existing English translation - first issued in 1912 - is a bowdlerised abridgement that serves only to obscure what someone like Lenin might have taken out of the book.

Lenin Rediscovered p. 75

This book is in dire need of a new translation, but with the help of Lars T. Lih's excellent exposition of the Erfurtian outlook in Lenin Rediscovered it turned out to be a very interesting read. It is essentially split into three sections: chapters I-III provide a very brief summary of Capital, Vol. I; chapter IV outlines the necessity of socialism and debunks myths about it while speculating on some of its features; chapter V outlines the development of the proletarian class struggle, its relation to other classes and groups in society, and the 'merger of socialism and the worker movement' which Lih holds to be the essence of Second-Internationalist socialism (revolutionary social-democracy).

It is interesting to see how practically all the features of social-democratic theory are contained in this book. Chapter V demonstrates its characteristic emphasis on political freedom and on the absolute necessity of a combination of the worker movement with socialist theory, what Lih terms 'Erfurtianism'. This is also where we find perhaps the first exposition of what Lih calls the 'hegemony scenario', where the class-conscious proletariat, organized in the social-democratic party, by virtue of its crucial role in capitalist society conquers cultural hegemony, becoming the leader of the people as a whole.

I also found particularly interesting its explorations of the development of monopoly capital, militarism, and the state. Here we can see the germ of the International's theory of imperialism which Lenin synthesized so masterfully. On the other hand, I found dogmatic and tiresome its repeated assertion that 'small production' (e.g. non-collective agriculture) would inevitably disappear, even in a communist society. Yet this approach to the 'agrarian question' is explicitly against coercing the peasantry, which aligns perfectly with Lih's later assertion that the early USSR - revolutionary social-democracy's greatest achievement - was directly opposed to any policy of forced collectivization.

Finally, reading this should definitively debunk the myth that the theory of the Second International was dogmatic or mechanistic. The book's tendencies in this direction are only the result of its nature as a short, popularized exposition of general principles. Kautsky, in fact, directly denounces the fatalism which he supposedly epitomized:

When we speak of the irresistible and inevitable nature of the social revolution, we presuppose that men are men and not puppets; that they are beings endowed with certain wants and impulses, with certain physical and mental powers which they will seek to use in their own interest. Patiently to yield to what may seem unavoidable is not to allow the social revolution to take its course, but to bring it to a standstill.

Read this work; its importance in the history of socialism cannot be overstated. And, for the love of god, someone please publish it in a new English translation.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

The epitome of what one could call "vulgar" Marxism, Kautsky's text on the Erfurt Program serves as a sort of textbook for the ideology of the Second International.

It is in this textbook that the bankruptcy of Kautsky's leadership as a theoretician is exposed. Perhaps, in the realm of economic, as a very basic primer to the thought of Marx, the Erfurt Program serves a purpose. But it is overflowing with vague, moralistic statements with no true substance. This is fit for a poster, not for a supposed exposition of the totality of Marxist theory.

In analyzing capitalism, it is acceptable yet very basic. In agitating for socialism, it is extraordinarily lacking. The flaws of capitalism are pointed out, but Kautsky does not even take a solid position on whether or not revolution is required for the overthrow of capitalism. In terms of Marxist philosophy, there is none. The term "social evolution" appears as it often does in 2nd International works, while materialism is completely absent and to speak of dialectics is to see the wind. Even the term "idealist" is used not in the Marxist or philosophical sense, but the vulgar non-Marxist concept of seeing the best in something.

Just another text from the era of the 2nd International that astounds me in how Kautsky was as highly regarded as he was, and how no one dared to raise the works of Engels in opposition to his ideological bankruptcy.

Engels' "Critique of the Erfurt Program" should be read before or after as a companion to this work.

[Einzige · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Gospel of Judas - Socialist edition.
This constant uncertainty as to one’s own condition undermines one’s belief in the permanence of the existing order and one’s interest in its preservation. Whoever is kept in eternal fear by the existing order loses all fear of a new one.

Written by Kaustky the closest thing to a successor to Marx and Engels and nowadays only known for being the target of some of Lenin's spicier mockery. The class struggle is essentially a more mature version of the communist manifesto. Longer and with less invective it states the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the proposed solution, however with the greater length it takes the time to address (albeit to varying degrees) most of the basic criticisms which people think are "gotchas" that Marxists cant explain/answer. Overall probably as good a general introduction to classical Marxism as you will find which isnt too academic.

Also whilst he was definitely proved wrong by history in many areas here is one of the interesting areas where his predictions were proved right - the collapse of higher education.

The condition of the educated workers deteriorates visibly; formerly people spoke of the “aristocracy of intellect,” today we speak of the “intellectual” or “educated” proletariat. The time is near when the bulk of these proletarians will be distinguished from the others only by their pretensions. Most of them still imagine that they are something better than proletarians. They fancy they belong to the bourgeoisie, just as the lackey identifies himself with the class of his master. They have ceased to be the leaders of the capitalist class and have become rather their defenders. Place-hunting takes more and more of their energies. Their first care is, not the development of their intellect, but the sale of it. The prostitution of their individuality has become their chief means of advancement. Like the small producers, they are dazzled by the few brilliant prizes in the lottery of life; they shut their eyes to the numberless blanks in the wheel and barter away soul and body for the merest chance of drawing such a prize.

Oh and for those interested in Marxist drama you will see the subtle hints that would eventually blow up into the conflict between him and Lenin.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kautsky is a good thing to point people to if they've only read the communist manifesto and think that the only communist viewpoint is inevitable violent revolution.

He thinks that incremental reforms have an important role to play, without thinking that's all we need:

Reforms may be supported from the revolutionary standpoint.

We actually need political reforms in order to put the working class into a position where revolution is possible.

The working-class cannot develop its economic organization and wage its economic battles without political rights. It cannot accomplish the transfer of the means of production to the community as a whole without first having come into possession of political power.

Political power includes things like freedom to organize, a free press, right of assembly, and public schools. Political reforms also play the crucial role of increasing political self-consciousness, as in the following sentence:

These early struggles shook them up, imparted to them self-consciousness and self-respect, put an end to their despair, and set up before them a goal beyond their immediate future.

This self-respect is essential to the coming conflict.

This victory will not he born out of degradation.

And finally, reforms are important on their own. I think this sentence is so important:

The struggle for shorter hours is a struggle for life.

Kautsky thinks that the proletariat is increasingly ready to take political power, which contrasts him to later thinkers who are very pessimistic about the culture and consciousness of the proletariat.

One of the most remarkable phenomena in modern society is the thirst for knowledge displayed by the proletariat. While all other classes kill their time with the most unintellectual diversions, the proletarian displays a passion for intellectual culture...

The proletariat is, therefore, in a position to form an independent party. It knows how to control its representatives. Moreover, it finds in its own ranks an increasing number of persons well fitted to represent it in legislative halls.

Kautsky's sense of the role of the proletariat's consciousness leads him to a refreshing overall optimism.

Many an apparent defeat is turned into a victory. Every unsuccessful strike, every labor law defeated, means a step toward the securing of a life worthy of human beings. Every political or industrial measure which has reference to the proletariat has a good effect. Whether it be friendly or unfriendly, matters not, so long as it tends to stir up the working-class.

Yet, in contrast to other thinkers, his optimism is tempered with an understanding that victory is not inevitable.

If indeed the socialist commonwealth were an impossibility, then mankind would be cut off from all further economic development. In that event modern society would decay, as did the Roman empire nearly two thousand years ago, and finally relapse into barbarism.

Another interesting aspect of Kautsky's thought is that he didn't think that it was possible to specify the exact character of the form of life to come. That would be utopian arrogance in the face of complexity. While acknowledging his historical debt to early utopian socialists, he wants to be more intellectually rigorous. All we can do is identify trends and forces.

The socialists are no longer expected to discover a new and free social order; all they have to do is discover the elements of such an order in existing society.

But Kautsky does have a mature understanding of what administration of a socialist state would actually require.

Formerly, statesmen were essentially diplomats and jurists; today they must, or should, be economists.

Kautsky also has fantastic views on the international character of socialism. It's clear that labor problems can't be solved in one country alone.

For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system as the introduction of machinery or the forcing of women into industry.

It's also important to build solidarity with other liberation movements.

the first address sent out by the International was a letter of congratulation to President Lincoln in which this association of working-men expressed its sympathy with the abolition movement. And, finally, the International was the first organization existing in England, and the first counting Englishmen among its members, which took the part of the Irish who were oppressed by the English ruling class. Not one of these causes, that of the Poles, the Irish, or the African slaves, was directly connected with the class interests of the wage-earners.

As a theory of change, this is all a far cry from an inevitable worldwide violent revolution.

[Jesse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kautsky frequently talks about the progress, the "evolution", of "economic development" in a totally abstract way, as if the thesis of Marxism was "line goes up". The socialist party is distinguished by its commitment to making sure economic development continues. The goal is to convert entire nations into industrial conglomerates, of which individual proletarians are merely cogs in the machine. They should not attempt to alter the natural course of production - the way that factories and conglomerates are run should stay entirely the same (except without the capitalists).

The eponymous "class struggle" is solely about making sure that the workers desire and demand a higher standard of living (that only further economic development can provide). They should desire to be part of all of the achievements of the existing "civilization" and "culture". Unlike naive anarchists, true Kautskyian socialists know that the class struggle is "protracted", and that no sort of redistribution of wealth ought to occur except that which comes automatically from economic development and self-respect.

Kautsky sees two main contradictions in capitalism:
1. the lack of planning sometimes causes an industry to overproduce a good, leading to a chain reaction of failing businesses, intensified due to increased utilization of credit.
2. the economic development means that large conglomerates need even larger markets, which is why they are competing for foreign markets. This competition is leading to increased military tensions.

If not altering anything about production, what does Kautsky think socialists should demand? As far as I can tell (he's admittedly vague):
1. social ownership of large conglomerates
2. full employment
3. end of economic competition, with "production for sale" transitioning to "production for use"
4. national self-sufficiency (autarky), an end of foreign trade for everything except that which cannot be obtained in country (eg. coffee)
5. closure of borders to foreign immigrants (He swears he's an internationalist, he hopes their wages at home go up and that they'll celebrate May Day too. But perhaps that only applies to civilized peoples - he does complain that capitalism "brings the barbarians and their barbarism to us", and has no love for "the slums" with their "criminals and prostitutes, together with their innumerable dependents".)

It seems like his ideal socialist world-order would be that all "civilized" nations are turned into socially managed industrial conglomerates that willingly produce less than they are inherently capable of in order to avoid military tensions with the other socialist nations. (I guess the uncivilized nations will just have to let capitalism's "historic mission" civilize them and equalize their productivity with Europe before they can join the club.) When the economic development progresses further, the socialist nations would find some way to combine, as Kautsky repeatedly suggests that at every level of economic development there is a natural size that a self-sufficient community should take. They would eventually merge into a "United States of Europe", a development which Kautsky advocates many years later in his 1911 essay "War and Peace".

[Jadie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This wasn't as revolutionary or eye-opening to me as it had been touted by some people I know. But I undoubtedly learned a lot that I was either unaware of or had mistaken about socialist theory and the labor movement.

The book itself is naturally dated. And it becomes almost cringe-worthy having to read through Kautsky's analysis of women being forced out of their domestic lives and into industry by capitalism. Or repeatedly reading allusions to 'uncivilized' nations, whose pretensions' racism and xenophobia is barely masked.

The actual nature of the economic/political class-struggle and its progression is not so far off in this piece that it's impossible to apply the thoughts and theory to today's situations, though. What Kautsky describes in theoretical and prophetic terms about the nature of capitalism and its course is understandable and relatively easy to follow and compare to what is happening a century later. In addition, I found myself agreeing with almost all of the sections regarding the international character of capitalism (and of the socialist movement), point by point. The information, contradictions, and assertions laid out were completely relevant to what we are facing today in 2019.

Despite this, I find myself with a couple of unanswered questions after reading. As Kautsky wraps up, he briefly writes about the slum-proletariat and how they are not exploited (and therefore not the lowest of the exploited classes), but rather a parasite on society. It's hard to reconcile this attitude with the actual situation of the "slum-proletariat" in modern times. Perhaps it's a product of different eras, but it seems utterly contradictory to me to spend time talking about the exploited classes, including unskilled laborers (and referencing how defenseless they are because of their commutability) and not extend that line of thought to how capitalism has forced the creation and perpetuation of a "slum-proletariat." Dismissing and condemning this population seems ignorant, at best.
The other question I felt was inadequately answered was how the socialist/labor movement could effectively convince small producers to join its ranks. Kautsky did touch on this briefly toward the end of this piece and mentioned that small producers should have nothing to fear of the movement since it has its best interests as consumers in mind, even if it can't promise the continuation of (or regression to) land/property ownership and small-scale production. This, however, is less than convincing to me as a means of how small producers can and will be convinced to join ranks. It seems overly optimistic and perhaps even illusory to assume that small producers will be (and are) swayed by that argument.

[Michael’ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kautsky’s ‘ The Class Struggle’ is almost as troubled as it is insightful. His description of the economic forces at work in modern society is simple, intuitive and, that’s just the problem, too simple. It does not give a framework adaptable to different situations. Kautsky, like most of his socialist contemporaries, failed to see both the extent to which colonies with somewhat developed or even advanced capitalist economies could be exploited, for him the development of capitalism in the colonies seems to be the angels coming down to set free humanity, and the height to which government debt could and would soar.
The worst part of the work is Kautsky’s a-sociological treatment of the sociology of the state. The state as described in this pamphlet seems to be more of a metaphysical entity which has to be ‘proletarianised’ but remains otherwise the same. No fundamental differences between a bureaucratic, centralised executive and self-governing communes is suggested, despite these being obvious in, for example, Marx’s “The Civil War in France”, which, back in the day, was Marx’s most famous text.
There are also some moments of brilliance, however. For example, Kautsky’s description of classes in chapter 5, Popper’s “criticism” of “historism” being obviously inapplicable to it. In section 5.13 Kautsky anticipates Ulrich Beck’s methodological cosmopolitanism, presenting all its major points, it reads like an analysis of the modern nationalist revival.
For the most part this work is pretty average. The first 3 chapters are above averagely accurate and clear but dry, much of chapter 4 is rather bad and 5 is pretty good, even great in some places, though from section 9 onwards the roots of Kautsky’s latter mistakes and betrayal.

[Omar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aside from the couple of eyebrow raising comments, this was a very solid book. Some declarations/assertions need updating, but much of what Kautsky says is still be applicable today. I could see why - prior to WWI - "The Class Struggle (Erfurt Program)" was considered an essential text and read alongside "The Communist Manifesto."

[Lawrence Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book by the renegade Kautsky