What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Publisher: Manchester: National Labour Press Subjects: Dictatorship of the proletariat Democracy Notes: This is an OCR reprint. There may be numerous typos or missing text. There are no illustrations or indexes. When you buy the General Books edition of this book you get free trial access to Million-Books.com where you can select from more than a million books for free. You can also preview the book there.
62 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1918
3 people are currently reading
213 people want to read
About the author
Karl Kautsky
542 books60 followersCzech-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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 20, 2023
Read Lenin's answer for a proper review: The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.
I do not particularly recommend this text unless you're interested in the desperate and frankly pathetic ramblings of a man who represents a tendency in existential crisis. If you do read it, familiarize yourself with actual concrete proceedings of the Russian Revolution beforehand. I think Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution to Brest-Litovsk is the proper text for that.
I see this text as nothing more than the wailing of international menshevism (in the figure of its foremost representative), faced with the success of genuine Marxism, Leninism, in Russia. Kautsky's motivation to write this book (and many hints in that direction can be found in the text) seems to be that the success of Bolshevism in Russia jeopardizes his comfortable legal, democratic and peaceful "struggle". The Russian revolution put on the order of the day the overthrow of capitalism, not in 100 years, but as an urgent task. That compelled Kautsky to write a little text under the guise of defending "democracy" that in effect was a defence of the impotence and the impotent strategies of the tendency he represented.
First of all, Kautsky seems to conceive of democracy (read bourgeois democracy) as the highest form of organisation of society. He rejects, or rather doesn't even stop to think about the overthrow of the bourgeois state to create a worker's state, and what that would mean. He even talks at time about the existence of "pure democracy" in some developed countries. He didn't give any specific examples, but he was shocked that Marxists in Switzerland dared to tk about taking power on Leninist lines, them who have such a perfect democracy that only needs to be tweaked! To Kautsky that is foolish because: « The control of the Government is the most important duty of Parliament, and in this it can be replaced by no other institution. » It's an unbound and abject fetishization of bourgeois democracy.
In Kautsky's conception of the fight for socialism (using fight here is generous), the social democrats strive to gain more influence in parliament and through economic means. According to him, they are sure to succeed in this because the primary strength of the proletariat (its numbers) is always increasing. So more workers, more vote, and eventually we will take power! I think he only mentioned the social importance (which is a more important aspect than the number of workers) of the proletariat through its position in the process of production ONCE throughout the whole thing, and in passing.
He also thinks that once the social-democrats take power, the bourgeoisie and the rest of the possessing classes, will just sit back and let them carry out their program. He even blames the civil war on the bolsheviks. Apparently if they allowed more democracy, that is if they granted more political freedom to the exploiters, even as they sabotaged the efforts of the new worker's state, there would have been no civil war. When I said that this is a truly pathetic text, I was not exaggerating. It's really hard for me to picture now how that man was seen as "the pope of Marxism" after Engels.
He also insists on giving more political power to the exploiters because he thinks the balance of forces might be reversed in the future and that the working class would be wise not to have antagonized its class enemies while it had power! The rise and fall of parties under bourgeois democracy is exactly the same as the rise and fall of classes in society to him. So you have to protect the minority so that when you become the minority next, you don't regret your past actions! I frankly can not even tell if he seriously considered exproriating the capitalists even once... It doesn't occur to him that the exploiters would resent being expropriated and will try to retaliate. He doesn't ever concretely consider what it would mean for the working class to come to owoer even through the fetishized "peaceful, legal, economic and moral means". This text really is a striking illustration of how low Engels' internationale had degenerated.
He even (carefully) sprinkles snide remarks about those who think that socialism should not be pictured in centuries anymore but according to whom it is now an urgent task! He rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat for the reasons I have mentionned above. He insists the bolsheviks must rule in collaboration with other hostile classes and parties. He really is a gentleman. So things as crude as class rules are unthinkable to him. He's been living so comfortably under bourgeois rule that he stopped seeing its class character and started defending it as a universal principle. His words: « Democracy signifies rule of the majority, and also protection of the minority, because it means equal rights and an equal share in all political rights for everybody, to whatever class or party he may belong. The proletariat everywhere has the greatest interest in democracy. »
He also rejects the standpoint that the Russian Revolution would be the precursor to the world revolution. I believe that this once again is a reaction to the political tasks that this conception raised for the internationale. Tasks that the 2nd internationale have completely abandoned. Kautsky even openly wonders who could be blamed for the belatedness of European revolution! He doesn't see, or rather refuses to see, his role in that. He sees the position of the bolsheviks merely as a convenient conception made up on the spot: « Consequently, we have the convenient conception that everywhere the same Imperialism prevails, and also the conviction of the Russian Socialists that the political revolution is as near to the peoples of Western Europe as it is in Russia, and, on the other hand, the belief that the conditions necessary for Socialism exist in Russia as they do in Western Europe. » On that aspect, as well as all the rest, history have already proven him completely wrong. Revolution was to break out in Germany soon after and repeatedly all over Europe.
He extends a treacherous leaf to the bolsheviks, asking them to admit that the form the Russian Revolution have taken is merely a Russian anomaly, that the dictatorship of the proletariat was only temporarily necessary in Russia due to its peculiar conditions. And that would certainly free him of the tedious task of preparing for revolution so he could focus on winning more influence in parliament! This is his last attempt to save face in my opinion. Presenting his betrayal as only an older Marxist advising the young and impatient bolsheviks. He calls on them to reintroduce bourgeois democracy (worker's democracy as expressed through the soviets is only ever reffered to throughout the text as "dictatorship") as the only way to save the revolution. Posterity have already assigned Kautsky his rightful place in the dustbin of history. Now I'll have to see how Lenin and Trotsky intervened against all the scorn this champion of democracy poured out against the young Soviet Republic.
2 stars because sometimes throughout the text you can still see that he used to be a Marxist.
I do not particularly recommend this text unless you're interested in the desperate and frankly pathetic ramblings of a man who represents a tendency in existential crisis. If you do read it, familiarize yourself with actual concrete proceedings of the Russian Revolution beforehand. I think Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution to Brest-Litovsk is the proper text for that.
I see this text as nothing more than the wailing of international menshevism (in the figure of its foremost representative), faced with the success of genuine Marxism, Leninism, in Russia. Kautsky's motivation to write this book (and many hints in that direction can be found in the text) seems to be that the success of Bolshevism in Russia jeopardizes his comfortable legal, democratic and peaceful "struggle". The Russian revolution put on the order of the day the overthrow of capitalism, not in 100 years, but as an urgent task. That compelled Kautsky to write a little text under the guise of defending "democracy" that in effect was a defence of the impotence and the impotent strategies of the tendency he represented.
First of all, Kautsky seems to conceive of democracy (read bourgeois democracy) as the highest form of organisation of society. He rejects, or rather doesn't even stop to think about the overthrow of the bourgeois state to create a worker's state, and what that would mean. He even talks at time about the existence of "pure democracy" in some developed countries. He didn't give any specific examples, but he was shocked that Marxists in Switzerland dared to tk about taking power on Leninist lines, them who have such a perfect democracy that only needs to be tweaked! To Kautsky that is foolish because: « The control of the Government is the most important duty of Parliament, and in this it can be replaced by no other institution. » It's an unbound and abject fetishization of bourgeois democracy.
In Kautsky's conception of the fight for socialism (using fight here is generous), the social democrats strive to gain more influence in parliament and through economic means. According to him, they are sure to succeed in this because the primary strength of the proletariat (its numbers) is always increasing. So more workers, more vote, and eventually we will take power! I think he only mentioned the social importance (which is a more important aspect than the number of workers) of the proletariat through its position in the process of production ONCE throughout the whole thing, and in passing.
He also thinks that once the social-democrats take power, the bourgeoisie and the rest of the possessing classes, will just sit back and let them carry out their program. He even blames the civil war on the bolsheviks. Apparently if they allowed more democracy, that is if they granted more political freedom to the exploiters, even as they sabotaged the efforts of the new worker's state, there would have been no civil war. When I said that this is a truly pathetic text, I was not exaggerating. It's really hard for me to picture now how that man was seen as "the pope of Marxism" after Engels.
He also insists on giving more political power to the exploiters because he thinks the balance of forces might be reversed in the future and that the working class would be wise not to have antagonized its class enemies while it had power! The rise and fall of parties under bourgeois democracy is exactly the same as the rise and fall of classes in society to him. So you have to protect the minority so that when you become the minority next, you don't regret your past actions! I frankly can not even tell if he seriously considered exproriating the capitalists even once... It doesn't occur to him that the exploiters would resent being expropriated and will try to retaliate. He doesn't ever concretely consider what it would mean for the working class to come to owoer even through the fetishized "peaceful, legal, economic and moral means". This text really is a striking illustration of how low Engels' internationale had degenerated.
He even (carefully) sprinkles snide remarks about those who think that socialism should not be pictured in centuries anymore but according to whom it is now an urgent task! He rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat for the reasons I have mentionned above. He insists the bolsheviks must rule in collaboration with other hostile classes and parties. He really is a gentleman. So things as crude as class rules are unthinkable to him. He's been living so comfortably under bourgeois rule that he stopped seeing its class character and started defending it as a universal principle. His words: « Democracy signifies rule of the majority, and also protection of the minority, because it means equal rights and an equal share in all political rights for everybody, to whatever class or party he may belong. The proletariat everywhere has the greatest interest in democracy. »
He also rejects the standpoint that the Russian Revolution would be the precursor to the world revolution. I believe that this once again is a reaction to the political tasks that this conception raised for the internationale. Tasks that the 2nd internationale have completely abandoned. Kautsky even openly wonders who could be blamed for the belatedness of European revolution! He doesn't see, or rather refuses to see, his role in that. He sees the position of the bolsheviks merely as a convenient conception made up on the spot: « Consequently, we have the convenient conception that everywhere the same Imperialism prevails, and also the conviction of the Russian Socialists that the political revolution is as near to the peoples of Western Europe as it is in Russia, and, on the other hand, the belief that the conditions necessary for Socialism exist in Russia as they do in Western Europe. » On that aspect, as well as all the rest, history have already proven him completely wrong. Revolution was to break out in Germany soon after and repeatedly all over Europe.
He extends a treacherous leaf to the bolsheviks, asking them to admit that the form the Russian Revolution have taken is merely a Russian anomaly, that the dictatorship of the proletariat was only temporarily necessary in Russia due to its peculiar conditions. And that would certainly free him of the tedious task of preparing for revolution so he could focus on winning more influence in parliament! This is his last attempt to save face in my opinion. Presenting his betrayal as only an older Marxist advising the young and impatient bolsheviks. He calls on them to reintroduce bourgeois democracy (worker's democracy as expressed through the soviets is only ever reffered to throughout the text as "dictatorship") as the only way to save the revolution. Posterity have already assigned Kautsky his rightful place in the dustbin of history. Now I'll have to see how Lenin and Trotsky intervened against all the scorn this champion of democracy poured out against the young Soviet Republic.
2 stars because sometimes throughout the text you can still see that he used to be a Marxist.
April 29, 2016
"As has already been said, if the title of Kautsky's book were properly to reflect its contents, it should have been called, not 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but a 'A Rehash of Bourgeois Attacks on the Bolsheviks.'
December 21, 2017
Reading marxists is becoming really boring for me. They all use diffrent language and say the same thing. They fight each other who understands Marx correctly...
July 14, 2022
I am of two minds about this book. On the one hand, it hasn’t stood the test of time. Kautsky’s predictions from 1918 about what was going to happen next in Soviet Russia turned out to be wildly off the mark. To be fair, he could not have known about the new totalitarian society that was then being born. And yet it is strange that in a book so critical of Lenin and his party, there is no mention of the Red Terror, the creation of the feared Cheka or the labour camps that grew into the GULAG. Some of Kautsky’s criticisms of the Bolsheviks come, strangely, from the left — for example, he chastises them for encouraging peasants to seize the land and divvy it up among themselves, rather than turn it over to the state.
But on the other hand, when Kautsky wrote the book in the summer of 1918, just nine months after the Bolsheviks seized power, hardly any socialists outside of Russia had a bad thing to say about them. Even Rosa Luxemburg’s short book, though critical of the Bolsheviks, is extremely enthusiastic about their revolution. But in this book, Kautsky slowly, methodically explains the connection between socialism and democracy, completely rejecting dictatorship. He even does an effective job of explaining precisely what Karl Marx meant when he used the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” on one or two occasions. (Spoiler alert: it didn’t mean banning socialist parties, shooting hostages, invading neighbouring countries and creating an entire economy based on slave labour.)
This edition of the book includes a long introduction by Kautsky’s grandson John, which is terrific — and not least because he quotes Max Shachtman, a personal favourite. John Kautsky calls his grandfather’s book “an important document in the history of Marxism and of the socialist movement and a milestone at the point of its path where communism and democratic socialism parted ways.” I would argue that it took another six years for that to happen, and that the suppression of the 1924 uprising in Georgia played a surprising role in that. But it was in this book that Kautsky first laid out the distinction between democracy and dictatorship that played such a critical role in the creation of the modern socialist movement.
But on the other hand, when Kautsky wrote the book in the summer of 1918, just nine months after the Bolsheviks seized power, hardly any socialists outside of Russia had a bad thing to say about them. Even Rosa Luxemburg’s short book, though critical of the Bolsheviks, is extremely enthusiastic about their revolution. But in this book, Kautsky slowly, methodically explains the connection between socialism and democracy, completely rejecting dictatorship. He even does an effective job of explaining precisely what Karl Marx meant when he used the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” on one or two occasions. (Spoiler alert: it didn’t mean banning socialist parties, shooting hostages, invading neighbouring countries and creating an entire economy based on slave labour.)
This edition of the book includes a long introduction by Kautsky’s grandson John, which is terrific — and not least because he quotes Max Shachtman, a personal favourite. John Kautsky calls his grandfather’s book “an important document in the history of Marxism and of the socialist movement and a milestone at the point of its path where communism and democratic socialism parted ways.” I would argue that it took another six years for that to happen, and that the suppression of the 1924 uprising in Georgia played a surprising role in that. But it was in this book that Kautsky first laid out the distinction between democracy and dictatorship that played such a critical role in the creation of the modern socialist movement.
November 16, 2025
I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor to read the works of people whose ideas I mostly despise, even if only to better argue against them without resorting to strawmen.
In fact, Kautsky’s conception of a socialistic society is so devoid of any rigorous economic policy and treatment of the proletariat as a nearly monolithic actor, that one can’t help but smile at the naïvité of the program.
On the economic front, Mises program efficiently debunked Kautsky and his “democratic” approach to socialism, as you can be as democratic, gradual, and well-intentioned as you like, but without markets and private ownership, socialism cannot calculate or allocate resources properly, a fact that every attempt at socializing the means of production has made painfully clear.
One thing I have to give him credit for is that he was from the outset a critic of the Russian strain of Marxism, something that, unfortunately, still finds many avid supporters today.
In fact, Kautsky’s conception of a socialistic society is so devoid of any rigorous economic policy and treatment of the proletariat as a nearly monolithic actor, that one can’t help but smile at the naïvité of the program.
On the economic front, Mises program efficiently debunked Kautsky and his “democratic” approach to socialism, as you can be as democratic, gradual, and well-intentioned as you like, but without markets and private ownership, socialism cannot calculate or allocate resources properly, a fact that every attempt at socializing the means of production has made painfully clear.
One thing I have to give him credit for is that he was from the outset a critic of the Russian strain of Marxism, something that, unfortunately, still finds many avid supporters today.
January 3, 2024
This short book is useful to understand Lenins' gripe with Kautsky and really puts into perspective how the many faults of the SPD were there from its foundation. Although I'm inclined to think Kautsky was genuine in his belief in his vision for democracy, contradictory as it was.
I'll give Kautsky that he was a much better writer than Lenin and that he was much more skilful (Lenin might say dishonest) in veiling his slander of Lenin.
But overall, there is a reason why Kautsky is largely forgotten. He put forth some incredible predictions on the development of (some) of the classes and especially how academics would take over socialism from uninterested workers, but ultimately, him championing democracy and even implicitly siding with the bourgeoisie opend him up to be replaced by far less principled politicians.
I'll give Kautsky that he was a much better writer than Lenin and that he was much more skilful (Lenin might say dishonest) in veiling his slander of Lenin.
But overall, there is a reason why Kautsky is largely forgotten. He put forth some incredible predictions on the development of (some) of the classes and especially how academics would take over socialism from uninterested workers, but ultimately, him championing democracy and even implicitly siding with the bourgeoisie opend him up to be replaced by far less principled politicians.
October 3, 2023
II. Enternasyonal'in ve Almanya Sosyal Demokrat Partisi'nin (SPD) teorik önderi Karl Kautsky bu broşürü 1918 yılında Rusya'da gerçekleşen Sovyet Devrimi'ni ve özel olarak Lenin'in Bolşevik partisini eleştirmek için yazar. Metin boyunca devrim sonrasında yaşanan demokrasi sorunu ele alır. Marx'tan alıntılar yaparak Lenin'in ve Bolşevizmin sosyalizmi kurmak yerine azınlığın diktatörlüğüne dayanan bir rejim kurduğunu iddia eder. Sovyet yönetiminin demokrasi sorunun gözardı ettiğini savunarak sosyalizme bu yolda ulaşamayacağını ifade eden Kautsky'nin bu metnine Lenin "Proleter Devrimi ve Dönek Kautsky" broşürü ile cevap verecektir. Bu metnin Türkçe tek çevirisi ise 2008 yılında Yazılama Yayınevi tarafından yayınlanmıştır.
October 24, 2023
if we see what intention kautsky wants to convey, we can understand how, as a western socialist thinker, the need for democracy is really crucial, so therefore sometimes people may say that they betray marxist because their focus is not fully on what marxist say, and sometimes compromise the idea of marxism with the idea of capitalism
March 25, 2024
To me he was one of the most rational and smartest of the marxist bunch, therefore he was hated by majority of the marxists.
His critique of the rest of the flock of sociopaths and genocidal marxists is an eye opener, all his books are must read for those struggling against the left.
His critique of the rest of the flock of sociopaths and genocidal marxists is an eye opener, all his books are must read for those struggling against the left.
September 9, 2023
Pretty good criticism of the methods employed by the soviet government post revolution. Interesting read today.
April 5, 2011
One of the more realistic accounts of how Socialism might come about. Despite the same shortcomings of all Marxist works (how on earth would such an economy function, why would anyone work, the b.s. about History), Kautsky creates a more plausible means of bringing people dedicated to that philosophy into power without a brutal dictator. Basically, the revolution should occur with ballots rather than bullets; without the support of the people, the revolution would require an oppressive government to maintain power, which hardly benefits the people the revolution is supposedly all about.
Of course, Kautsky's version has all of the shortcomings of democracy. Who participates directly in the democracy? A truly direct democracy is impractical, but the representative form leads to corruption as politicians try to bribe constituents with public funds. Even if they are all "good" leaders, they will disagree as to what is best for society, as Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom. Nothing will be accomplished without a decision maker who will have power for a period of time long enough to see plans carried out; that implies a dictator or private property (effectively a dictator over small amounts of property).
Worth reading. The disaster that was the U.S.S.R. was pretty well foreseen by Kautsky.
Of course, Kautsky's version has all of the shortcomings of democracy. Who participates directly in the democracy? A truly direct democracy is impractical, but the representative form leads to corruption as politicians try to bribe constituents with public funds. Even if they are all "good" leaders, they will disagree as to what is best for society, as Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom. Nothing will be accomplished without a decision maker who will have power for a period of time long enough to see plans carried out; that implies a dictator or private property (effectively a dictator over small amounts of property).
Worth reading. The disaster that was the U.S.S.R. was pretty well foreseen by Kautsky.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews