The Social Revolution: Reform And Revolution, The Day After The Revolution

by Karl Kautsky, A.M. Simons (Translator), May Wood Simons (Translator)

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy

196 pages, Paperback

First published January 20, 2001

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

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is based on lectures the author delivered in 1902, which were subsequently translated into English and published in the US - no doubt in other editions including in the present one.

The book is interesting from the perspective of the author's discussion of what a socialist society would actually be like; since it was at that point all theory, it is interesting to read the rather idealistic and hopeful predictions of democratic rule and so forth. There were a number of communist revolutions after the book was written, which did not end up as utopian experiments; instead, the ideology was wielded by un-democratic dictators, in just about every case. If the revolutions did bring about needed modernization or land or social reform, would it have been possible to accomplish the same goals (banishing inequality, fairer distribution of wealth/land, raising living standards, and bringing about universal education and health care) without resorting to repression etc.?

Of course, each case was obviously anathema to the moneyed interests worldwide - for obvious reasons. And each case was continually undermined from all sides. But does that really "excuse" what happened? It may explain it, but does it excuse it?

The fact is, the laudable goals of socialism - which most people can agree are worthy - are oftentimes a direct threat to the system of unfettered accumulation that is laissez-faire capitalism, either under a democracy or under a dictatorship (or under fascism or under the rule of oligarchs). The less opportunity to make unlimited amounts of money, especially easy money that doesn't involve much actual work other than investing for example, or speculating, the more likely they are to sabotage socialist experiments. In blended or hybrid systems, the "predators" of capitalism are less likely to actively undermine the government, as they still have some opportunity to "capitalize" on development, investment, etc.

The theory was that socialism would not work out as Marx predicted unless the entire world went socialist all at once, and there was no more undermining, instead there was simply mutual assistance and help among the henceforth practically borderless countries. This was what Lenin was hoping for right after the Russian Revolution, while Russia was under siege from all sides. It didn't materialize and the difficulties in Russia led to all sorts of repressive and cruel measures. Lenin was no "saint" so he actually approved of some of the early cruel measures, although he did suffer strokes not too long afterwards - so it's questionable if he actually knew much about what was happening in the last couple of years of his life. If the revolution was great, then there should have been no need to resort to repression, the police state, the imposition of famine on rebellious or independent-minded regions. The list of horrible measures the Soviets used to maintain power goes on and on - and their cruelty has unfortunately permanently associated the ideology of socialism with authoritarianism and cruelty, which is exactly the opposite of what theorists like Kautsky had in mind when they spoke of a post-revolutionary world. The idea of the social revolution was to free people so that they could develop normally, rather than be stunted by the market economy and its unending exigencies. Yet the opposite happened - most of the time - in countries that actually carried out a socialist revolution. The revolutions might have delivered in some respects but the trade-offs were extreme, and in retrospect, as noted above, you have to wonder if the laudable goals that are also shared by non-socialist countries (health, education, development, jobs) could not have been accomplished without the rivers of bloodshed, repressions, etc. Or, were the systems in Russia and China (for example) so sclerotic and hidebound by the time they had their revolutions that only a total wrenching free from the past could have overturned society to such an extent as to give the masses of illiterate peasants a chance at an education, and so forth.

The world of Kautsky at the time he wrote his book, consisted of countries ruled by monarchs or emperors (with the exception of the USA). The USA seemed at the turn of the 20th C to offer the alternative to each system - because of its vaunted social mobility, which could create a "prince" out of a "pauper" overnight depending on luck, and various other factors. Or at least this is what legend stated. A poor immigrant might become a Rockefeller - a poor immigrant could be exploited one day, but become the exploiter the next. Therefore the "alternative" was simply allowing any and everyone a chance to join in on the social chaos - it was enough of a beguiling casino of life to attract waves of discouraged immigrants, many poor illiterate peasants, to North America. As long as there were opportunities, the allure of the USA attracted hundreds of thousands from around the world, hoping to accomplish in the USA what they could not accomplish in their hide-bound, backward homelands. Therefore, they could climb up socially - become "princes" exactly like the hated nobles in their homelands. That was the dream on offer - but it wasn't exactly an ethical choice unless you consider being an exploiter, or being driven by greed, ethical. The reason a system based on greed is inherently weak, is because it's based on a hollow, or shallow ethical base. Of course, nobody will say this because it contradicts the prevailing ethos of "greed is good." But the fact remains that such a system is going to be chaotic, and if everyone simultaneously decides to exploit their neighbor - doomed. In fact, it could lead to a complete shredding of society. Luckily, most people are basically honest and combined with government regulation/inspection/standards etc., the worst impulses to cheat and adulterate products (for example) in order to increase profits are reined in. However, it is nonetheless a system that is based on a dog-eat-dog ethos - that is, profoundly inhuman and unfriendly to cooperation. That is why, in the long run, it isn't perfect - so far, the socialist revolutions that have occurred haven't managed to combine the altruistic elements of the ideology with the principles of democracy, that is, letting people alone and giving them a measure of liberty within the framework of the more equal society. Therefore, most do not look to socialism as the answer - and so far, in the attempts at a purely socialist society, it hasn't been the answer. Still, many elements of socialism are included in most Western democracies. Still, despite the progress in Western democracies, there is still glaring income inequality, the problem of stubborn long-term unemployment, the homeless, addiction to opioids, and so forth. Capitalism doesn't solve all social problems. Yet forcing socialism on everyone doesn't solve everything either.

I spent a few weeks in China when it was still run by Mao and was in the final years of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. They were proud of some things - the fact that there were no longer any beggars, for example, and the people had received education and there was more healthcare. However, the austerity was mind-boggling, and it was clear that Mao had to enforce the isolation of the country so that the populace could not find out what was going on elsewhere and grow restive. The desire to hold onto power also drove the never-ending political campaigns - culminating in the long convulsion of the Cultural Revolution. The campaigns obviously distracted the population from stubborn backwardness -, especially in the countryside. If socialism was supposed to raise everyone up, why wasn't it happening? There was also the philosophical problem of what you could possibly tell the people - what were they actually striving for in life? The incessant anti-Western propaganda gave them a "purpose" of sorts, as the "antithesis" of the ideologically "impure" Weste- pretty much exactly analogous to religious zealotry, in which the non-faction members regard anyone who does not share their beliefs as "bad" or "impure" or "lost." So, although the people might not have anything to speak of (nor were they supposed to anyway under communism except for personal effects) they could hold onto the "pride" of being on the right track of "ideology" as they were continually advised by the propaganda machine. As soon as the Chinese dropped the anti-imperialist rhetoric and accepted some foreign investment, once Mao and his revolutionary successors The Gang of Four, were history, material goods were substituted for ideology (similar to the Western "philosophical" system wherein "worth" is measured by money or belongings rather than ideological or religious zeal). The system since around 1980 has encouraged business, entrepreneurial risk, and so forth - and from the perspective of development, it's been startlingly successful. However, the price in terms of ecological devastation has been immense. So once again there is a very negative tradeoff - this time, with the introduction of capitalism to the erstwhile communist country of China. Yes, China has been transformed since the 1980s into a Los Angeles-like super-society but unfortunately, the economic growth was based on the exploitation of the widely available cheap coal. The result is an acceleration of global warming - which will bring on many more problems than Chinese communism ever did. Therefore, a crash one day is inevitable - but hopefully will lead to a more sane re-balancing between development/greed on the one hand, and austerity/cooperation on the other. Perhaps the Covid crisis will cut down a bit on capitalism around the world. Wouldn't that be a possible silver lining to the global health tragedy? If tourism, cruise ships, airlines, construction were just decreased by 50% or so - such that the earth's atmosphere weren't perpetually bombarded with particles of pollution and GHGs - if people instead didn't travel as much, etc., if a different principle were substituted for accumulation/greed the unending "bragging" of social media - if there were different heroes rather than the rich, possibly the earth might heal and there might be less sea level rise and so forth. It would take a radically different social/propaganda message worldwide though. The heroes would no longer be the rich, for example, and those we might emulate would not be those who go after easy money. Could humankind peacefully undertake such a reversal of values - although each time anyone suggests pulling back from pure greed/accumulation as "the great motivator" they are branded as either fools or revolutionaries (or both)? Perhaps the lesson of Covid will be long-lasting change... perhaps.

Anyway, back to the book: The author discusses what social revolution is, and what could be expected after such a revolution. It is quite idealistic - obviously, a social revolution had not yet occurred on earth, and to me at least, it is analogous in a way to a religious text, except without of course the supernatural aspects and of course grounded in the here and now.

Here are some quotes:

"Marx, in his introduction to the "Critique of Political Economy," defines social revolution as a more or less rapid transformation of the foundations of the juridical and political superstructure of society arising from a change in its economic foundations."

"The contrast between reform and revolution does not consist in the application of force in one case and not in the other. Every juridical and political measure is a force measure which is carried through by the force of the State."

"...France had...in 1774 and 1775, great insurrections for the single and in no way revolutionary purpose of changing the bread tax in order to stop the rise in the price of bread."

"The great transformation which began in France in 1789 has become the classical type of revolution. It is the one which is ordinarily in mind when revolution is spoken of."

"...the conquest of political power by a new class...in this lies the essential difference between revolution and reform."

"...a political revolution can only become a social revolution when it proceeds from an hitherto socially oppressed class."

"Social revolution...is from the first incompatible with the interests of the ruling class, since under all circumstances it signifies annihilation of their power."

"...the railroad can suddenly be transformed from its function as the instrument to the enrichment of a number of capitalists, into a socialist enterprise having as its function the serving of the common good."

"...a railroad ...can [not] be changed gradually, but only at a single stroke...embracing all...simultaneously, from capitalist to socialist functions, from an organ of the capitalist to an organ of the laboring class...."

"A socialist revolution can at aa single stroke transfer a factory from capitalist to social property. But it is only gradually, through a course of slow evolution, that one may transform a factory from a place of monotonous, repulsive, forced labor into an attractive spot for the joyful activity of happy human beings."

"...as each animal creature must at one time go through a catastrophe in order to reach a higher stage of development (the act of birth or of the breaking of a shell), so society can only be raised to a higher stage of development through a catastrophe."

"However great the philosophy created by the Greeks, the idea of a scientific national economy was foreign to them. Aristotle supplies only outlines of such a system. The Greeks and Romans on the economic field produced only practical instructions for domestic economy, or for agricultural industries, such as those composed by Xenophon and Varro."

"A high economic form and a new social ideal cannot arise upon a slave economy. The single form of capital which was developed in antiquity and the Middle Ages was usury and commercial capital."

"In the Roman world...bureaucracy was first developed under the empire."

"Things took on a wholly different aspect as soon as the capitalist method of production was developed."

"The capitalist manner of production robs the ruling class of all the leisure that they previously had."

"With the help of such a powerful government a class can long maintain itself, even if it is superfluous."

"The longer...it maintains its domination...the sharper become class antagonisms, the more pronounced must be the political collapse when it finally does come, and the deeper the social transformation that arises out of it and the more apt the conquest of political power by an oppressed class to lead to revolution."

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

What is a social revolution? It is not just any revolt, but the conquest of political power, the seizure of the machinery of the State, by a previously oppressed class which then imposes its dictatorship on the rest of the society (Kautsky remains silent on the dictatorship aspect of it). In ancient and medieval social revolutions were but a structural impossiblity.
However, the advent of the capitalist mode of production and of the modern State set in motion the ever heightening contradiction between the bourgeosie and the proletariat where the latter must, by economic necessity, take control of the political reins, abolish class distinctions and socialise all production and circulation. Kautsky recognizes that democracy is not a viable route for the proletarian capture of the State (since the bourgeosie also gains strength and experience vis a vis electoral battles in proportion to the proletariat) even as it prepares the ground for the social revolution.
Not electoralism, not lying in wait for a financial or martial crsis either. Nothing less than through a large scale, organized refusal to work can the proletariat actually wrest power from the bourgeosie, though why the ruling class will not mobilize its instruments of violence, crush the strike and force the latter back into the factories instead of relinquishing their political power, Kautsky is again silent.
In the second half, Kautsky sketches out in broad strokes how the socialisation of production (both for consumption and production of the means of production) will be carried out by the proletarian regime. He envisages centrally planned productive and distributive circuit for material goods but a free association of independent creators for the fruits of intellectual labor.
Can't say I understood 100% of Kautsky's economic reasoning, but anyways I'm off to Road to Power.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

seems like i thing we should do

[Marti Martinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kautsky is proof that Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, etc., and other faux liberators were NOT real communists.