Kautskyism and the theory of Imperialism>

Several concepts of modern capitalism have emerged from the ranks of German Social-Democracy. One of them represented the “justification of modern relations and the subordination of working-class policy to the interests of imperialism. From the recognition of the necessity of imperialism, it created the theoretical foundation for a national-liberal (and sometimes even national-imperialist) policy. It was about this position that Parvus said at the time when it was first formulated: “It restricts its criticism to external manifestations only and preserves the opposition’s stance solely by the grace of the colonial bandits and various scoundrels who care only about filling out the newspaper column marked 'colonial horrors'. Another concept also did not doubt the historical necessity of imperialism. From here it goes on to, however, theoretically(!!) conclude that we are experiencing the ultimate development of the capitalist mode of production, and to the political conclusion that it is time for the working class to take the path of revolutionary destruction of capitalism. This is the least formalized of all the social-democratic concepts of modern capitalism, it is largely located in the sphere of unresolved contradictions, its theoretical implications have not been systematically worked out and its extremism sometimes too unceremoniously rejects real relations. In addition, in the hands of one of its representatives, Rosa Luxemburg, it took on a clearly erroneous form. However, in the works of its other representatives there are many elements for the construction of a genuine Marxist theory of imperialism. This will refer to Parvus, Pannekoek, Lengau, and Radek. Finally, the third concept, emerging from the depths of German Social Democracy, is constructed by the “centre.” It denies imperialism as a transitional stage from capitalism to socialism. It cohabits with good old books and refuses to recognize contemporary relationships, if in these books nothing is written about them. It is afraid of the decisive actions dictated by the modern economy. It hopes to bring back the old, original relations of “peaceful”, “free” capitalism: after all, it would so simply, so serenely lead us to socialism! Its author is Kautsky, who developed it himself and developed it in full accordance with the evolution of centrism. As for Hilferding, although he proceeded from the position of the same centrism and received considerable laurels from right-wing theoreticians his theory never became the theory of the party. It can be said that Hilferding’s theory enjoyed greater prominence among the Russian Marxists than among the Germans¹. Kautskyism remained the official concept of imperialism in the German theatre, an examination of which we consider to be our aim.

In 1901, in the book “Social Democracy and Trade Policy,” written in connection with the expiry in 1903 of the terms of the most important German trade treaties and the appearance on the political forefront of the question of the further course of imperial trade policy, Kautsky had to for the first time coherently characterized the characteristics of modern capitalism. Young business cartels and syndicates, especially in heavy industry; steep agricultural protectionism; a rapidly growing, in the capitalist environment, taste for industrial protectionism; a rise in prices, especially in agriculture; aggressive colonial policies; thwarting the economic struggle of the working class; use of state power in the service of the ruling capitalist clique and the general intensification of the political reaction — these are the patchy features of the new capitalist entity that manifested itself at about that time. Much here was absolutely for, theoretically yet not captured, politically incomprehensible. However, the fact that something looked like the old, long-surpassed stage (protectionism, colonial politics, etc.) thus promoted analogies with the undeveloped, imperfect forms of capitalism, as well as that important fact, that the socio-political manifestations of the new system collided sharply with the abstract, “habitual” and “self-evident” idea of strengthening democratic and cultural principles — all this severely impeded the scientific analysis of the newest capitalist phenomena. The task of a Marxist is: to give a dialectical systematization of these phenomena, i.e. understand from where, how and where they grow, each individually and collectively, as a single system. It is impossible to say that “Kautsky did not see this task and did not try to solve it." But did he succeed in this?

The next place from the book “Social Democracy and Trade Policy" shows how clearly and comprehensively did the Kautsky of that period understand the new capitalism. The reader, we hope, will forgive, if we present here almost completely the chapter under the beautiful name — "The New Policy of Violence.” Violence is the essence of the cartel economy (German: Cartellenwirtschaft); cartels are trying to fight violently, to suppress their opponents not yet with guns and cannons, but with violent measures of economic struggle...

No less violently do the cartel-monopolists (Kartellemonopolisten) operate in foreign countries. First, they try to destroy their competitors by driving down the prices. They can afford a longer decline in prices abroad, as protectionist duties are so high and the cartels prosper so greatly that the industrialists are able to raise the prices much above the normal in the domestic market and through the increase in prices of the products in their homeland to receive additional profits that reward them for the dirty competition in the world market. But since the competitor begins to imitate these noble methods, they soon become unworkable.

Then they go further and try to forcibly acquire a market in which they would occupy a preferential position. Colonial and expansionist policy now appears on the scene. This policy, in turn, causes conflicts or threatens conflicts between competing industrial powers, a struggle with violent economic measures threatens to be transformed into a struggle with gunpowder, lead and dynamite. Further preparations necessary for the war benefit the cartel economy; the consequence of all this is an increase of colonial adventures, the increasing dangers of war.

Thus, instead of the spirit of free trade, the spirit of violence among the industrial bourgeoisie is intensified. Previously peacefully minded, it dreamt of eternal peace, condemned war as a remnant of medieval barbarism, which can serve only dynastic and feudal purposes; now it is more and more filled with the spirit of violence, no matter how bitterly some individual ideologists cry about it.

Protectionism is only a link in this chain of the new industrial system, which is the newest and probably the last form of manifestation of the capitalist mode of production. But he who recognizes this link alone must, if he wants to be consistent, recognize the other links that are logically connected with it.. Unfortunately, this remarkable place serves Kautsky only for characterizing the general economic and political tone of the “new industrial system”. Kautsky conducts a theoretical analysis on a completely different path without touching the most profound of the points mentioned, but for the most part contradicts them.

“The modern mode of production is based on the division of labor between the industrial and agrarian states and the ever increasing export of industrial products from the former and agrarian from the latter” (p. 116). “The necessity of exporting industrial products for their exchange with agricultural is a consequence of the increasing accumulation of capital" (p. 121).

With these words, Kautsky gave a better formulation of his theoretical views during the period under consideration. The sloppiness, colourlessness and underdevelopment of the formulation reflect quite well the state of the ideas of the author. When certain questions are explained, these fundamental ideas are examined, however, with insufficient perseverance.

First, protection: “The new patronizing system is a system of a modern state, exporting the products of industry and importing life supplies.

In the modern patronizing system, the main role is played by agricultural duties; they are the centre, the axis, around which everything revolves, and industrial duties are only a more or less important appendage. With the old patronage system it was the other way around" (pp. 54-55)². The second, export of capital. The logical difficulties that arise for Kautsky are “overcome” in such a way that the export of industrial capital in monetary form (capital investment abroad), which is characteristic of the process, is replaced in Kautsky’s view by the export of means of production (commodity exports). Kautsky’s theoretical construct is extremely simple: old capitalism exported means of consumption (textiles), the new one — means of production (machines, etc.); and this change should, among other things, be especially evident in the consolidating system of relations between the industrial and agrarian countryside... But what about the direct export of capital abroad that is growing in our time (financing, etc.)? For Kautsky, this is only a means for an advanced country to develop its own industry, a dubious means, because the industry here “paid for its own growth”³. But what about the fact that it was precisely (and only) the industrial development of a backward country that used to, first and foremost, shrink its import of consumer goods and raise its demand for the means of production? Does this not show that the phenomenon that Kautsky presents as the relationship between an industrial and agrarian country (the export of capital in the form of means of production) is in fact the relationship between an industrial and an industrialized country?

Third, the desire of the industrial countries to monopolize the markets of the agrarian countries. Kautsky in the pamphlet considers two ways in which it is done. First, the idea of new customs unions (Panamerican, Central European and of Great Britain). He believes that failure of this idea is unavoidable for the reason that, unlike the old customs unions of the last century, “modern plans of customs unions seek to unite those states each of which conducts an independent political and economic life, that are located on different levels development. Every single one therefore needs a special policy. All the trade-and-political contradictions that exist inside the state in the form of class contradictions act here in the form of state contradictions between the classes that are fighting amongst themselves" (p. 114). In order not to discredit his scheme, Kautsky had to change the actual relations. It is clear to everyone that if the plans of the customs union of the advanced and backward countries are not feasible, it is not because the interests of agrarian and industrial countries are inconsistent, but on the contrary, in the main, because a growing industrial capitalism comes in the way of harmonizing these interests. But, according to Kautsky, it should be quite possible to have a customs union of industrial countries that are economically homogeneous: is there not, already in 1901, a very slight hint of the future theory of ultra-imperialism here?

Secondly, “the aspirations of the great industrial countries to monopolize part of the world market” leads to “the subjugation of agrarian countries through policy of expansion and violent imperialism.” But “the soon the latter will be completely divided, then only one way will remain to expand the monopolized region: not the struggle between the industrial and agrarian states, but a bloody struggle of the great industrial powers among themselves — a world war.”

And the final conclusion of Kautsky’s scheme at that time was: “A World War is only one of the alternatives to the modern, world-wide trading system that is at the brink of death; the second alternative is a socialist society" (pp. 116-117). To what extent it was a Marxist speaking about this contradiction, the reader will find out at the end of the chapter.

We have briefly summarized in his own words the author’s theoretical understanding of the modern stage of capitalism, which Kautsky developed in 1901. Within this system of views, there was no logically legitimate place for a “cartel economy”. The latter is located by Kautsky outside the main scheme, or, more accurately, is introduced into it by Kautsky from the outside; “Cartel economy” thus does not determine the basic law of modern capitalism, but is not generated by it either. But then the “cartel economy” only strengthens the immanent tendencies of the “new industrial system”; it itself grows out of other, for this system, secondary and unrelated sources, and therefore cannot be a necessity for it. Indeed, in the resolution on trade policy proposed by the Kautsky at the Stuttgart Party Congress of 1898 and adopted by the Congress, two points are devoted to the maliciousness of the system of cartels and trusts for economic development.

But if cartels can only be said to be harmful to capitalist development, then what remains of the “new industrial system”? After all, it then turns out that this “new system” is not at all qualitatively different from the good old capitalist system; after all, Kautsky acknowledges that the foreign policy of classical England in its classical capitalist development represented the desire of an industrial country to expand into the agrarian regions. The essence of the new industrial system turns out to be a simple quantitative development of the old. And the best proof that Kautsky did not go beyond the limits of classical capitalism in his ideas about the modern economy and that he overlooked the quantification of the modification of the capitalist system lies in the method he uses when criticizing protectionism and export of capital, as he criticizes these phenomena from the point of view of their profitability for capitalist management. Many pages are covered with arguments and numerical calculations that are designed to prove that capitalism itself is “not interested” in either protectionism or export of capital. That “for industrial countries, like Germany, France, the United States, England, free trade is the least of evils” (p. 60). That the productive forces that would otherwise remain inside the country are flowing abroad, and the development of foreign industry is supported at the expense of the industry of their own country” (p. 61). That protectionism, export of capital, colonial policy are beneficial only to a group of privileged capitalists, especially owners of heavy industry, and the entire capitalist world is groaning under their burden.⁴

For Kautsky in 1901, modern capitalism is decaying capitalism — capitalism that develops its negative properties to the extreme, extremely intensifying the exploitation of the working class and oppressing the consumer. The task of Social-Democracy is to cut off these harmful growths on the capitalist organism and thereby also ensure the normal and rapid development of the productive forces, albeit, with some damage to certain groups of capitalists. Is such a policy real? Of course, Kautsky asks no such question. The whole book about trade policy is written without asking such a question. This utopianism is rooted in the inevitable contradictory nature of the working-class policy, since it (the policy) does not, in the era of imperialism, have the aim of preparing for a “socialist revolution” as its basis and its core. Of course, one cannot blame Kautsky of 1901 for preaching an unrealistic trade policy⁵. Its unrealistic nature came from the undeveloped relations that characterise the transition from developed capitalism to decaying capitalism. A “good” real policy was at the time meant only for those leaders of the working class who were orienting themselves in conditions of the decline of the class struggle, towards the consolidation of “national interests,” that is, imperialist leaders of the workers’ movement. Already in 1898 Max Schippel conducted a “real” policy, not out of fear, but a matter of conscience.

We see that in 1901 Kautsky, who observed the birth of the “new industrial system,” failed to theoretically capture the wealth of the new phenomena and new forms and come to an understanding of these as a system. His analysis is one-sided. He saw only the contradictions of the new system, but did not notice that these are contradictions of progressive factors and of a progressive process. Meanwhile, it is only this contradictory progressive nature that allows us to talk about the “industrial system” of modern capitalism. In the “cartel” Kautsky saw only “a policy of violence", but did not want to understand that the rise of cartels and trusts are a spontaneously growing trend towards planned economy, which is inevitably irrational under capitalism, and therefore violent and painful. In protectionism and export of capital, Kautsky saw only the “constraining of the productive forces and the expansion of capitalist exploitation," but did not notice that the export of capital and protectionism is a natural, inevitable, but inevitably antagonistic and violent method, with the help of which contemporary capitalism is developing the world economy.

We are living in a period of “a new, perhaps, final form of manifestation of the capitalist mode of production,” Kautsky writes in 1901 (p. 51). But why is this the final form? After all, if it is possible to overcome the harmful properties of modern capitalism, then it will continue to develop well. The reformist answers this question: modern capitalism is capitalism, that is in an organized, and, consequently, peaceful manner growing into a socialist system. But wherefrom does Kautsky, a revolutionary who even refuses to accept the organizational forms of modern capitalism, draw his conclusion about the final form of manifestation of the capitalist mode of production? It is from here: “We are approaching the moment when the division of labour between the industrial and agrarian state is narrowing more and more, thanks to the fact that the former are increasingly outweighed by the latter. Once such a number of agrarian states are turned into industrial ones, when the ones that remain are insufficient to absorb all the products of the industrial states and are not able to supply them with the necessary quantity of food supplies and raw material, then this division of labor has reached its ultimate goal. We should not, however, think that here we are talking about a very distant future“ (my italics, E.L.) ... Moreover, one cannot expect that commodity trade, stemming from the position of universal debt, will long survive the division of labour between industrial and agrarian states".

“But these destroy the very foundation that has thus far made possible the rapid development of industrial exports that has become a necessary condition for the existence of developed capitalist industrialised countries. What then remains? Then surely there will come a moment when the current trading system will collapse just as Manchester collapsed in the second half of the 1970s."

This reasoning sheds light on the historical stages of the theories of imperialism and helps to understand the theoretical evolution of not just Kautsky. There is no doubt that, in particular, R. Luxembourg built her own landmark under the impression of Kautsky’s views-the dominant views in German social democracy. As for Kautsky himself, I must say that he logically derived his theory of the collapse of capitalism from his basic thesis, which characterizes the modern mode of production as based on the division of labour between the agrarian and industrial countries.

So, the moment is near when “the current trading system will collapse just as Manchester system collapsed in the second half of the 1870s”. So what is next? How does Kautsky conceive of further development? The answer is found in his articles on the Anglo-Boer War.

“The times of liberalism have passed, we will never return to them” (327). The banner of freedom and antimilitarism, which was lost by the bourgeoisie, must be raised by the proletariat. Two ruins of Manchesterism are fighting for domination over the minds of the English proletariat, two ideas — socialism and imperialism. Ultimately, the Manchester views will only be replaced by the socialist views, which, in foreign policy, and precisely in colonial politics, do not differ much from Manchester views” (308). “If the policies of Rhodes and Chamberlain fail, then it will serve as a powerful impetus toward socialism and at the same time increase hopes for development in a democratic, and consequently, in a relatively peaceful way.” “The more this is clarified, the sooner the broad masses of the British proletariat will lean toward further development of the present capitalist system in the sense of socialism, instead of striving for imperialism” (p. 112) (“The Common Problems of International Socialism,” St. Petersburg, 1906).

So that’s the sort of socialism Kautsky had in mind when he formulated the two alternatives of the developments in the near future! Socialism, that he gave a call for, already in that spotless dawn of centrism was “democratic” and a “further development of the present capitalist system in the sense of socialism”.

In the period that we are now going to study Kautsky’s views on modern capitalism were expounded chiefly in connection with the colonial problem, namely in connection with the polemics about the relationship of social democracy to contemporary colonial politics, which took place, approximately, in 1905-1909 in the international socialist spheres. First of all we are referring to Kautsky’s book Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik [Socialism and Colonial Politics], Berlin, 1907, written during the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International.

That was the time when the basic relations of the imperialist era had sufficiently crystallized. Incessant international conflicts centred around the colonies, some of which led to wars (the 1900 Boxer war, England vs. Tibet, Germany vs. Guerrero, Russo-Japanese war), and each of the rest represented a war of five minutes; the frantic growth of armaments and the wave of “patriotism” rising among the inhabitants of all countries, that is, chauvinism; the onset of a reaction supported and pushed by finance capital. The main divisions have also already occurred in the labour movement. Opportunism got consolidated, even reinforced by a faction of the social-imperialists (especially Leitner). And looking back at that epoch from a distance of two decades full of great tests such as war and the post-war struggle of the working class, we see that the “centre” by that time had fully formed and been politically determined. Then the 4^th of August, which seemed to the contemporaries to be a steep turn and a betrayal of the past days, we are forced to regard as a perfectly natural development of the tendencies that had taken hold of the “centre” already in the period under consideration. Take, for example, the colonial question, close to our topic. Bernstein in Stuttgart justifies his old programme of socialist colonial policy. “A large part of our economy is built on products from the colonies, with which the natives do not know what to do.” David in Stuttgart, however, mocks Ledeburg, who defends the liberation of the colonies: “Humanity would prevail then in the colonies, on the contrary, they would again fall into barbarism,” and the Dutchman Van Kol, reporter, proclaims: “With weapons in hand we go to the colony “... Kautsky is fighting against socialist colonial policy with the directness and perseverance of a genuine Marxist- revolutionary. But Kautsky is only a theorist of the “centre”. Well, as for the actual leaders of the centre (to which Kautsky, in fact, never belonged), how did they behave in this dispute of the greatest importance? Bebel in 1906 in the Reichstag developed the idea of civilizational colonial policy. Paul Zinger at the Essen Party Congress in 1907, reporting on behalf of the party about the Stuttgart International Stitch essay, ridiculed the whole of the dispute. He said: “It was, in fact, more a dispute about words, than a deep fundamental difference”. And then he adds “In general, I believe that for us, Social Democrats, it is a mistake and fraught with distorted notions, if we were to equip ourselves with this word (colonial policy). What we can demand in our present society, and what we must demand (since we are talking about the Reichstag faction) also in the contemporary colonial policy is – on the contrary — a civilizing policy this is opposite to the civilizing policy".⁶ It is characteristic that at the same time, Jaures preached “peaceful intrusion” in Morocco, and Vanderveld in a remarkable article on the colonial position (“NZ”, 1907-1, p. 829), with admirable dexterity and wriggling, and sprinkling the oaths with socialism, class hatred, and the last and first day of creation, confuses the colonial question with colonization. “The nature of the dispute over colonial policy must change, on the basis of the indisputable fact that the question whether to colonize or not, will soon acquire an exclusively historical interest much more with regard to even greater exploitation of the colonies, than with regard to settler colonies." The conclusions are clear: support the socialist colonial policy, although not named as such. But here is what is most remarkable: in his article (“Sozalistische Kolonialpolitik” [Socialist Colonial Policy], “NZ”, 27 -2) Kautsky in response has nothing positive to say in challenge and, after having used many vivid expressions in order to prove the fanciful nature of Vandervelde’s plan “to help the natives to go the way that one fine day will lead them to independence”, he at the same time takes the position of Vandervelde about the need to change the nature of the dispute. Singer, an intelligent person, perhaps, was not all that wrong.

One way or another, the years described here were the best period for Kautsky. It is in this short period of time (after the revolution of 1905) that he expressed his well-known assessment of our revolution, his ardent statements against militarism,⁷ his criticism of socialist colonial policy, his leftist speeches on the general strike, his decisive position on the taxation policy. About one of the works he wrote during this period “Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik" (1907), Lenin said: 'This pamphlet was written in the far off times when Kautsky was still a Marxist”.⁸ And about “The Way to Power” (1909), Lenin wrote: “The most complete, the most favourable for a German Social Democrat (in terms of the hope that it gives) presentation of views on the tasks of our era”.⁹ Yes, it is so especially in the sense of the hope it gives. For the greatest contradiction of the “centre” and the deep foundations of its internal impotence lies in the fact that in the era of the ultimate development of capitalism, in the era of the utmost deepening of its antagonistic properties, people who wrote on their banner the violent destruction of capitalism were oriented in their practice — and then in theory — to a softening of capitalist contradictions. The “centre” reflected in itself the inevitable internal contradiction of the mass working-class movement, since in the era of imperialism, it continues in the direction that corresponds to the pre-imperialist development of capitalism and does not go beyond its limits. Sooner or later this contradiction finds its natural (and the only) resolution — the working-class movement changes its direction, and is heading toward a revolution. Kautsky, for many reasons, was fit to eradicate centrism sooner than later. The excellent knowledge of Marx and Engels, the theoretical hardening in the struggle against revisionism,¹⁰ the absence of any connection with the professional movement that nourished the deepest roots of opportunism, the comparatively weak party- bureaucratic and party-parliamentary work that created the psychology of the Social-Democratic leader — all this makes it understandable, why it was specifically Kautsky who became the person who “fostered the most propitious hopes from this German social-democrat”. Alas, he has not justified these hopes. The “official theorist”¹¹ nullified all the makings and all the prerequisites of a revolutionary.

But at that time Kautsky’s fate had not yet been decided. He wrote: “Nowadays socialism has become an economic necessity, and the time of its advent is only a question of power. To deliver this power to the proletariat is now more than ever the most important task of Social- Democracy. There is nothing more strange than those socialists who believe that along with this one should take care of the further development of the forces of capitalism" (Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik, p. 37). “The proletariat is now so strong that it can with great tranquillity expect an impending war. There can be no more talk of a premature revolution at a time when the proletariat has extracted from the state as much power as it could derive from it, and when the state’s reorganization has become a condition for its further rise" (“The Way to Power", 1918, p. 73). “Caring friends are afraid that Social-Democracy through revolution does not come prematurely to state power.” But, if it is possible for us to prematurely achieve state power, then this will be the acquisition of the ghost of 'power before the revolution,' that is, before the proletariat has won real political power. So far this has not been possible, so Social Democracy can take part in the state power, only by selling its political power to the bourgeois government. The proletariat, as a class, can never win in this war; at best, only the parliamentarians can win who have cut a business type deal" ("The Way to Power", p. 78).

A lot of such quotes can be cited from Kautsky’s writings of that period. Refer specially to the article “Positive Arbeit und Revolution ,” [Positive Work and Revolution] "N. Z.", p. 27-2. What, then, is the theoretical–economic foundation on which this brilliant revolutionary spirit rested?

1. “Production again and again finds its boundary in the market. If the capitalist mode of production increased in the greatest degree the productivity in the production of mass products, then at the same time it limits the mass consumption of workers who produce these products to a minimum, i.e. produces an increasingly large surplus of mass-produced goods of personal consumption that must be sold to others outside the working class. The place for the sale of this surplus is created, first of all, by the destruction of primitive rural home industry and handicrafts first in their own countries, then in other countries.” But this kind of market expansion is much slower than the expansion of production. From time to time the latter again comes up against obstacles" (“Sozialismus und. Kolonalpolitik", p. 35).

2. Already in the 1880s, a rapidly narrowing consumer base led the old capitalist countries to a protracted crisis. This crisis cannot be resolved by normal capitalist methods, i.e. methods inherent in healthy, progressive capitalism, that is developing its productive forces. This proves that the capitalist mode of production has outlived itself. It seemed that the expansion of the market for personal items came to its limit. There remained, as it were, one way out: an increase in the consumption of the working class. The overcoming of the capitalists, whose immediate interests were opposed to the expansion of proletarian consumption, and the victory of the working class seemed to be a persistent economic necessity, the implementation of which must occur in a short time" (Ibid., p. 36).

3. "Therefore, the capitalists are compelled to overcome the narrowing of the consumption base by unnatural methods. They found a number of openings to prolong their dominance, although they all boiled down to trying to squeeze the productivity of labor on one hand and, on the other hand, to intensively waste its products. By this, what the capitalists achieve is that the production moves forward, at times even at an exceptionally high pace, but at the expense of labour productivity, which is partly inhibited, is partly wasted without profit" (p. 36). What are these unnatural methods?

4. Firstly, limiting “external competition through protectionism, with not only industrial but also agricultural duties being introduced. But this clearly shows that the task of protectionism is not to accelerate industrial development, but to ensure super profits to the owners of the means of production at the expense of consumers, by reducing consumption" (p. 36).

5. Secondly, restriction of internal competition by means of entrepreneurial conglomerations. “Not the improvement of technology, but the improvement of the entrepreneurial organization is now becoming a decisive factor of profit.” Realisation of super profits by increasing monopolistic prices, (184) which is all the more feasible, “the less the mass of manufactured goods, i.e. their supply on the market" (p. 36, 37).

6. Thirdly, militarism. “Mankind has never seen such a hideous and colossal system of shrinking of the productive forces.” “But the capitalist mode of production has gone so far that it needs this madness if it is to continue to exploit the working masses” (p, 37, 99).

7. Fourthly, export of capital. In order to avoid the need to produce more and more means of consumption for the workers of one’s own country, capitalism produces increasingly the means of destruction and production and the means of communication for foreign countries, “i.e. mainly for economically backward agrarian countries." But, so that they could buy the goods intended for them, the capitalists of the exporting country deliver them the necessary money and thereby remain the owners of all these structures and means. “Capitalists export their products not as commodities for sale, but as capital for exploitation.” You should not, however, think that this system develops the productive forces of agrarian countries¹².

8. Fifthly, the interests of exporting capital give rise to the colonial policy. But colonial policy also represents “a means of prolonging the life of capitalism, not by speeding up the development of the productive forces, but by delaying them” (p. 44).

The first thing that catches your eye is a significant step forward in comparison with the views of 1901. The clumsy, shapeless primitive conception of the division of labour between the industrial and agrarian country as the “basis of the modern mode of production,” gave way to the theory of realization. In two or three private specific question we come across formulations that represent not just the development of old views, but a direct rejection of these old views. So in the old view, if the agrarian duties were considered the core of the modern customs system, the industrial ones were considered as an appendage, but now it is just the opposite way: “not only industrial, but also agricultural duties” are introduced.

But, of course, the most significant part is the attempt to cover all of the most characteristic features of the modern economy, proceeding from one single principle — the growing difficulties of realisation. As early as 1902, Kautsky came to formulate this principle in "The Theory of Crises." “The demand from the capitalists and the workers exploited by them is insufficient to absorb the means of consumption created by a large capitalist industry.

The latter should look for an additional markets outside of capitalism — in industries and countries that do not yet have capitalist production” (Russian edition, 1923, p. 36). But only in 1907 this general trend of capitalist development was considered in application to the modern segment of this development and, thus, a detailed theory of modern capitalism was proposed.

“The New Industrial System,” for which Kautsky had no theoretical significance in 1901, in the theory of 1907 is fitted in neatly. This is achieved by means of the basic proposition that the tendency of increasing difficulties in realizations leads in the 1880s to a situation when realisation becomes impossible under the old methods of capitalist management. The “new industrial system” here appears as the only method that still remains available to capitalism if it wants to continue to extort surplus value. Therefore, capitalist conglomerations, colonial policy, militarism are now seen by Kautsky as phenomena that can only disappear together with capitalism. “Overcoming militarism, as well as the system of cartels and trusts, is now possible only through socialism” (38). The same is true of the colonial policy that according to Kautsky was a consequence of the export of capital (p. 75 et seq.). With protectionism, however, it is not so easy¹³.

So, the constitutive beginning of the “new industrial system” is the difficulty of implementation, which has grown and grown into impossibility of realization. But are not capitalist conglomerations a simple and direct result of processes of concentration and centralisation in the capitalist society? There is no doubt that the difficulties of implementation (in particular long-term depression) speed up these processes, but would not these processes lead to cartels and trusts without a continuous increase in implementation difficulties?

And is capitalist expansion (in this case — the export of capital) not capitalist — and a normal capitalist — method of developing the world economy? Why should the development of capitalism within the framework of the old European states be regarded as natural, progressive, normal, and the emergence of capitalism in Asia, etc., be assessed as an unnatural clinging of the capitalists to their mode of production, which has become economically conservative?

And then a direct contradiction, to which the constitutional principle of Kautsky's theory leads: a constant and growing surplus of means of consumption is softened (erased) by a system of strengthened production of means of production. One of the Kautsky formulations was given above, when he expressed his views on the export of capital. But then we have before us the old-old theory of “systematic surplus,” which has not even renewed its vocabulary.

Even further. In Kautsky’s scheme, all the four signs of modern capitalism that he makes note of — the capitalist unity, militarism, the export of capital and the colonial policy generated by the latter — all are theoretically, so to say, equally important. They all flow in parallel to one another from the extremely narrowed basis of consumption. They all flow in parallel to one another from the narrowly-restricted basis of consumption. But is this not just a superficial observation, not thought out synthetically? Are there not between these four phenomena deeper mutual connections and dependencies, such that some of them (phenomena) are only derived from some other? Is an internal connection, and not only external, between these phenomena through a narrow base of consumption that is equally remote from them, not a characteristic feature of these phenomena?

There is a striking tension in Kautsky’s scheme. But, of course, it is superior and richer than the primitive views of 1901. To a certain extent, it is also more interesting than the future theory of Rosa Luxemburg, which, however, is dressed in a completely peculiar form of criticism of Marx’s reproduction schemes, but in its content represents a step backward because Kautsky tried to explain the full diversity and richness of modern capitalist reality, while Rosa stayed frozen on the formulation of a law common to the whole of capitalist history. Her great merit in the history of political economy, however, of course remains, but it is also a fact that by proposing the most diverse and profound justification for the theory of systematic surplus, one that is especially strong precisely because it was openly directed against Marx, Rosa Luxemburg finally rubbished the sceptical theory about capitalist development.

We must pay attention to the side of Kautsky’s views, which forms the link between the scheme of 1901 and 1907. The reader has noticed, of course, that Kautsky exclusively presents all modern economic forms, the whole “new industrial system” in a negative light. As far as militarism is concerned, this is obvious and in complete consonance with direct understanding. But when it comes to the export of capital, Kautsky does not hesitate to “forget” the elementary truth that the penetration of capitalism into the natural environment not only ruins the indigenous population, polarizes it, degenerates natural relations into capitalist ones, and develops the prerequisites for transformation of a stagnant feudal economy into the accumulating capitalist economy. Kautsky’s reasoning astound us by its naivety and helpless indignation... Most remarkable, however, is the general formulation of the economic content of the new system. The methods here “all boil down to, on the one hand, to squeeze the productivity of labour, and on the other, that all the large amounts of products are thrown to the wind.” But how then is it possible that “production increases, sometimes even exclusively at a high pace”? After all, the postscript: “at the expense of the productivity of labour, which is partly inhibited, partly wasted, is designed to resolve the contradiction, but only repeats the first formulation, and does not explain how that production can grow."

With an absolute denial of modern capitalism, which even explains the case of an “exceptionally successful rate” of production growth by restriction of the social productivity of labour (understand it as you like!), which refuses to see that it is the “modern industrial system” which is not comparable with anything in the past that moves forward productive forces It is a denial which limits itself to a bookish, and, in fact, philistine scepticism and completely ignores the real social processes. Certainly, with such a rejection of any progressive significance of modern capitalism, revolutionary conclusions become obvious. We have, above, looked up a whole page of revolutionary extracts from various works of Kautsky in the period under consideration. We can now supplement them with a few quotations, which are especially aimed at imperialism, which Kautsky, in fact, at the time (as always) identified with the desire for colonial conquests. “The imperialist idea arises simultaneously with cartels, new protectionism, a system of militarism and marinism of the new colonial era, beginning in the 1980s. It is closely connected with all this and is the child of the entire economic situation that has increasingly transformed capitalism from the means of developing the highest productivity of labor into a means of delaying this development" (Sozialistische Kolonialpolicy (p. 65). “But imperialism is unable to provide for the industry neither the market, nor the suppliers of raw materials. On the contrary, it threatens the free interaction of buyers and sellers in the world market, but only such intercourses can satisfy the modern industry" (p. 66).

Meanwhile, imperialism is nearing its end. “All of East Asia, like the whole of the Mohammedan world, has risen for an independent policy in order to counter any kind of external domination. This brings to a stop the development of imperialism. It can progress no longer. Meanwhile, it becomes necessary to develop it further as capitalism keeps developing (“The Way to Power", p. 71).

For Kautsky of that period, imperialism, therefore, is inextricably linked with the last stage of capitalist development, the collapse of imperialism means the collapse of the whole capitalist system. And he exclaims with enthusiasm: “Imperialism is the only hope, the only idea shimmering in the future before the eyes of existing society. Outside of it, only there is one outcome — socialism. The insanity of 'world politics' will grow until the proletariat captures the power to direct the foreign policy of the state, does not overcome the politics of imperialism, replacing it with 'socialism'” (“The Way to Power,” p. 68).

In reviewing Kautsky’s views of 1901, we were convinced that Kautsky, not understanding the contradictory progressiveness of the “modern industrial system,” sees in it nothing more than a corrupted capitalism, and believes that Social Democracy can and must fight the latest perversions of “natural” capitalist development, which are generated by the “policy of violence” of some powerful capitalist groups. However, on the one hand, they are contrary to the interests of the rest of the capitalist world and, on the other hand, an obstacle on the path of direct movement towards socialism. We saw, in 1905-1909, that Kautsky outgrew this childish babble. But the main theoretical approach to the phenomena of modern capitalism remained essentially the same as in 1901: the same corrupted capitalism. The difference is that now Kautsky sees in this corruption the agony of capitalism, from which it can no longer be saved. Kautsky does not want to see that modern capitalism is immeasurably higher than the old capital, in terms of the ability to rationalize the use of productive forces, in terms of capacity for quantification and expansion. It acquired this capacity unprecedented in history due to the fact that new higher forms of social production developed within its fold that it adapts to its own requirements, and to which it must adapt itself, in order to contain in its confines the expanding productive forces. The product of this reciprocal exchange are ugly, irrational economic forms, the function of which is to merge and direct to one goal all the unconnected and mutually exclusive contents. The irrationality and morbidity of these forms increase as the productive forces (intensively and extensively) develop further and as the shell of capitalist economy is unable to contain them. To the extent that, in connection with this, the capitalist system loses the economic ground, it attempts to supplement and replace it with a system of violence that becomes the economic method and ideology of modern capitalism; in a word, that the “modern industrial system” shows itself to be devilishly elastic and diverse, having on its side the mighty force of inertia of the economic process and also not less mighty human agency made up of the most diverse groups (including for some time also some layers of the working class) that all are riveted by the capitalist form of production to the chariot of capitalism, being, of course, supplied with completely different economic motives. Kautsky does not even remotely realize this complex dialectic of the “new industrial system”. He does not even say a word about the contradiction between the capitalist form of property and the size of the productive forces. Even in an exemplary-developed form (1907-1909), his simplified mechanical conception touches upon only the surface of the phenomena, and that too in a one-sided manner. Where lie the roots of Kautsky’s weak philosophy of corrupted capitalism that is completely useless, of course, for the revolutionary proletariat?

Export of capital, modern protectionism, colonial policy, militarism are all phenomena of the world economy. Essentially, all these are capitalist methods of resolving the basic economic question of modernity, the creation and rational organization of an economic territory encompassing the entire globe. Deepening, expanding and concentrating in the extreme the production apparatus, pushing the framework of economic ties to the limits of the world market, and, at the same time, consolidating one separate national economy into a monopolistic system, and turning a national state into a direct function of this system, capitalist development brings mankind close to this issue. Can it be resolved by capitalist economic methods? This is the central problem around which revolve all other problems of the contemporary period of history, which in a long historical period is represented as the epoch in which capitalism and socialism compete with one another as to which of them will be able to create and develop a rational world economy. In this greatest of struggles of all human history, capitalism is doomed. Why? Because if the world division of labor must be carried out as a task of capitalist activity by methods of capitalist competition, then a growing and hopeless antagonism of the process is ensured. Because in order to realise the objective trend, that has been put on the order of the day, a world division of labour is required, that is, the equivalence of all parts of the world economy. However, capitalism promotes the point of interest of the capital that is being exported, etc., i.e. division into active and passive members of the world economy, into subjects and objects, or what is easier to understand — the exploiter and exploited. In practice, this means the struggle of several “activists”. It is precisely at this point that the interests of monopoly-organized capitals of different countries collide. Instead of the planned organization of the world division of labour we get the forcible incorporation of new areas into one or the other system of the national division of labor and the struggle that occurs over such inclusion. Instead of dissolving national economies into a single world economy, we have the consolidation and isolation of national economic entities. The war gives rise also to the economic ideology of autarky. Thus, the tendency to create a world economy inevitably is turned by capitalism into a tendency to a division of the world economy.

This is the problem of imperialism in real life. Kautsky, who at this time correctly pointed out a number of reactionary political consequences of imperialism, confined his theoretical criticism to these, because he was not in a position to reveal the actual economic contradictions of modern capitalism. Indeed:

1. Protectionism. The historical task of the old protectionism was the creation of a national capitalist economy, and the function of modern protectionism is the creation of world capitalism in the era when the national economy has already been assembled in a monopolistic system. Hence the defensive character of the first and offensive character of the second. Hence the possibility of agrarian duties in the system of cartel protectionism, an opportunity that, given sufficient strength of the landowner class, turns into reality. Of course, Kautsky does not see this. For him, old protectionism had an excuse in that it protected the domestic industry from squeamish foreigners and defended it with low duties. For the present protectionism, Kautsky refuses to recognize any objective grounds: in fact it contributes only to the plunder of the fatherland by a privileged group of capitalists and delays national consumption. “For industrial countries like Germany, France, the United States, England, freedom of trade is the least of evils,” he states in 1901, a view from which he was not free even by 1907.

2. Capital export – the export of capital – is the tendency of modern business toward a rational distribution of productive resources on a world scale, as it is realized in the conditions of the capitalist form of social production. Having as objective function a reduction in the unevenness in the development of individual components of the world economy, the export of capital leads to increasing complexity of this unevenness, to the intensification of the exploitation of backward nationalities, to their subordination to the interests of exported capital, to the creation of rentier states. But even in this completely contradictory form, the objective process nevertheless makes its way. Of course, Kautsky does not see all this. All his criticism of the export of capital consists in patriotic condemnation: after all, he develops foreign countries at the expense of his native fatherland.

3. Colonial policy. It, according to Kautsky, is only a consequence of the export of capital. We have shown above how, in order to justify the exclusively destructive role of colonial policy, Kautsky throws the basics of Marxism overboard.

4. Capitalist conglomerations, monopolies is the production system of modern capitalism. It grows as a natural result of the previous capitalist development, constituting the highest limit of the concentration and centralisation processes inherent in capitalism. It comprises (including monopoly banks, which Kautsky completely ignores) the organizational and regulatory apparatus that capitalism makes use of for the solution of the problem of the rational world division of labor. The connection between this problem and the economic apparatus for its solution is thoroughly dialectical. These emerge simultaneously.

This is nothing but an adequate economic form of the social production process at that stage of development (extensive and intensive), when the world economy has itself become a critical problem. On the other hand, the monopolistic system itself accelerates the execution of world economic tasks. There is a profound contradiction in the system of monopoly capitalism. It more or less successfully organizes national capitalism and imparts a gigantic force by “fusing” it with the apparatus of state power (the latter Kautsky does not see). It, thus, equips national capitalism in the struggle for the world economy. But it is here, at the world arena, where the Sphinx-like riddle of the modern economy promises death, the monopolistic system, i.e. the only possible “planned” system of capitalism, finds its limit. Once again it is confirmed that the methods of capitalist production are an economic correlate of only that segment of human history that embraces the epoch of national consolidation of mankind. Within the national economy, capitalism is able to establish some semblance of a planned production process, albeit at the expense of an unprecedented increase in oppression over the consumer and with the inevitable presence of an external sphere of exploitation. But for the world economy, capitalism, even in the era of the world economic problem, offers only competition and, moreover, one that constantly turns into its highest form – militarism and wars. The capitalist mode of production finds its collapse due to the immanent inability to rationally organize the world’s productive forces precisely at a time when the rational world economy becomes conditio sine qua non of economic, and therefore of all, human development. By this time – and this is the epoch in which we live – capitalist development prepares a class that, through the experience of destructive and painful disasters and the “peaceful” methods of capitalism of the last formation, learns to understand the destiny of the capitalist system and its historical task. It takes upon himself the difficult task of eliminating the capitalist mode of production and establishing a new socialized economy that meets the requirements of economic development.

All this, of course, Kautsky does not see. Economic criticism here is essentially replaced by political condemnation, and this latter is based mainly on patriotic arguments: cartels and trusts restrict national production, squeeze domestic consumption, and so on.

Look at how Kautsky drags the working class back to the national trough. In 1901, with such an argument he wants to prove that the export of capital for the working class is unprofitable: “The workers do not consider it their international duty to reduce their ability to get work and to burden themselves only so that their exploiters can also exploit other countries and draw workers from these countries into competition with the workers of their own country" ("Trade Policy," etc., p. 71).

And in 1907, Kautsky, while explaining why the working class must oppose colonial policy, points out two reasons: “the ethical sense of the proletariat and the common interests, that unites it with the working people of all the countries”; what Kautsky understands by this solidarity, can be seen from the reservation he makes immediately: “in Germany, its recent colonial policy does not yet allow to truly feel the arrival of expropriated blacks from Africa to Europe with the aim of lowering earnings over here” ("Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik”, p. 62)¹⁴.

Is it not a remarkable historical curiosity, when the mortal enemy of opportunism, Kautsky of 1907, educates the working class of the advanced countries in the spirit of national-capitalist superiority and privilege? The revolutionary nature of Kautsky on questions of imperialism was practically reduced to the programme for combating the competition of foreign workers, i.e. simply to the programme of national limitations. And this was in his best years, in those years when we were accustomed to regard Kautsky as an irreproachable revolutionary Marxist. This happened, in large part, from the fact that the core of Kautsky’s notions of modern capitalism itself was rotten. It not only did not comprehend contemporary capitalism, but ran counter to its driving forces and tendencies.

The years 1910-1912 were a turning point in the development of the Social Democratic centre. During this three-year period, the formation of the centre ends in its becoming a consistently reformist trend of the working-class movement, i.e. the tendencies of “real politics” that have long been making themselves known acquire their final form. By the end of this period, Pannekoek could rightly equate the tactics of the centre with the revisionist one. But the doubts of sobriety at the beginning of this period were negligible. The process was completed quickly and easily, as if a dam had been broken, that was stopping its development. It unfolded in the form of a struggle against the leftists and also jointly with the right wing at the Congresses, in the press and in everyday practice. Three clashes constitute this struggle —1909-10 with Rosa Luxemburg and Pannekoek, 1911-12, with Radek and Leschpe, 1912 with the whole of the left wing. From the centre, mainly Kautsky was speaking. In 1909-10 was the year of the issues of strikes by the working class, the role of parliamentarism, the tactics of deprivation. In 1911-12 the discussion was about the attitude toward the war, the slogan of disarmament and, in general, of imperialism. In 1912, the core issues of the revolution and preparations for it were touched upon. In this struggle, a revolutionary course was taking shape within German Social-Democracy, each time adherence to the principles in the disputes increased, and by the third stage we faced a clash of two different ideologies in their main elements. The character of the dispute had crystallized and become clear. And if the leftists still argued with caution, arguing for Kautsky of the past against the present one, and if, on the other hand, the concept of the left radicals suffered due to its incompleteness, infantile leftism and contradictions, yet for both parties by the end of the struggle clearly it was a matter of change in tactics, that the opposition uses the new tactics to counter the “the old tested tactics, built into the system in its negative aspect" (Pannekoek).

It is enough to point out two facts from the party politics of these years so that the content of the process would become unequivocal: the weakening of the election campaign to the Reichstag, aimed at setting up a parliamentary bloc with the liberals (“free-thinkers”) and the faction’s vote for additional taxes, although taxes were clearly necessitated by increase in armaments. And what about Kautsky? We saw that in 1909 he wrote at his best in the sense of the hopes raised by this Social Democrat. By 1911, his fate had already been decided. We know, for example, his classical reformist attitude toward the campaign of a general strike for the Prussian electoral reform, when he came up with the following plan: “If it were possible to conduct such work in the Reichstag so that it would show the masses that the right to vote in the Reichstag is of great practical value to them, then they would also understand the importance of electoral reform in the Prussian Landtag ... Only through the growing importance of the Reichstag in the minds of the masses can the latter come to understand the meaning of suffrage. On the contrary the path, proposed by the dreamers about mass actions — to present the fruitfulness of the Reichstag and by this very fact also the importance of suffrage right as of little value, is the most erroneous path”¹⁵. It is known that, at about this time, in a polemic against Pannekoek, Kautsky wrote: “Never and under no circumstances can this (i.e., the victory of the proletariat over the “hostile government”) lead to the destruction of state power, but only to a well-known shift in the relations of forces within state power ... And the purpose of our political struggle at the same time, as in the past, is the achievement of state power through the acquisition of a majority in the parliament and the transformation of the parliament into a lord over the government.”¹⁶ We know this naive petty- bourgeois sweet idea of Kautsky about the coming of a “new liberalism” which he carried around and which he preached in 1911-1912. It is known, for example, that in 1911 Kautsky wrote in connection with the question of the attitude of Social-Democracy to the war: “Then everyone, even internationalists in conviction, will immediately become patriots”, and a year later, polemicizing with Pannekoek, the centre mouthing the same Kautsky exactly writes the self-portrait: “In general, if the fatherland is attacked, there are not many Social Democrats who would refuse to defend it"... At this time, Kautsky quickly became the leader of theoretical “semi-officialism” in German Social-Democracy¹⁷. Never before has theoretical knowledge been directly, from case to case, subordinated to practical tasks, as Kautsky does in the period under review. Truly unprecedented cheapening of theory. Opportunism possesses a magic wand: the one whom it touches, loses the need, and hence the ability of synthetic thinking, and thus gets hopelessly lost for Marxism.

This political downslide¹⁸, supported by theoretical sweetening was challenged by the left radicals, supported by a broad wave of a revitalized labour movement. Radek in the following words gives the diagnosis of the party illness: “The intellectual life of the party lagged behind the rate of capitalist development” ... “We need to eradicate from our consciousness all the vestiges of the old ideology, which once had justification in part, but now contradicts reality and leads only to delusions “. And Pannekoek gives a general formulation of the tasks: “The mass actions that have taken place to this day constitute only the beginning of a period of revolutionary class battles, during which the proletariat must not passively wait until outside-emerged catastrophes begin to shake the world, must itself ceaselessly advance, so that, moving forward in a hard, full of sacrifices to work, to create his own strength and his freedom. “This constitutes the 'new tactic' that can rightfully be called a natural continuation of the old tactics in its positive aspect.”¹⁹

Our tasks can not include the presentation or criticism of radicalism in the German Social Democracy. We dwelt somewhat on the party battles of 1910-1912 to make clearer the discussion on imperialism that took place at this time between Kautsky, on the one hand, and Radek-Lensch on the other, and without which it is impossible to understand the history of Kautsky’s views to imperialism. In essence, this discussion summed up the general theoretical basis for disputes over tactics, and this contemporariness, even the profound relevance of the discussion on these theoretical-economic questions, explains the perseverance and acuteness of the struggle on both sides.

The practical core of the dispute was the question of disarmament, as a socialist slogan against the impending war. But from the very beginning it was clear that this was only part of the big question of the attitude of Social-Democracy towards imperialism. And Radek correctly wrote about the latter: “The main difference in our attitude towards imperialism consists in our characterisation of its nature. What is imperialism, what is its relation to capitalist development in general, and to the expansion of world economy in particular?"²⁰

A detailed analysis of their theoretical arguments would reveal many interesting things for the history of the scientific theory of imperialism. We are here at the sources of the Marxist theory of modern capitalism, which found its masterful implementation later, in the works of Lenin. However, this side does not occupy us here. In this connection it is enough for us to emphasize the conclusions of the “radicals.”

“Capital views imperialism as its last refuge. Trusts and cartels have given it the opportunity to counter the development of productive forces or, at least, to avoid the consequences, unfavourable for capital in the form, for example, of falling prices. Militarism and colonial enterprises replace the shrunken domestic market. The growing power of the state gives it the opportunity to suppress the proletariat. Capital does not know that all these are palliatives that, for a time, will help it to stay afloat on the surface and give it only some reprieve before the execution ... It is clinging to imperialism with all its might and is ready to break all the resistance that it will face in achieving its imperialist interests. ... Thus, the proletariat is confronted with the fact that, imperialism is a real danger for him, and that there is no possibility of imposing another policy on capitalism, without snatching political power out of its hands. This leads the proletariat to carry on the struggle for socialism ... The question of socialism has now become the question of power. If the working class snatches power from the hands of capital, then it will have no goal other than the realization of socialism. It follows that only the final eradication of imperialism unites the workers in the struggle for socialism, from which imperialist policies should save the bourgeoisie. Imperialism against Socialism!" (“German Revolution”, Vol. I, pp. 141-142).

And Lensch developed the idea that capitalism in our time suffocates on its own fat. “The cartel system has stretched to the limit the revolutionary contradictions between the powerfully rising productive forces of society and the private-capitalist mode of production” (“Improvisation”, "N.Z.", 30-2, 365). “Imperialism is the last phase of capitalist development, which necessarily leads to socialism.” “Imperialism really means the era of revolution, it is the last word of capitalism” (“Miliz und Abrustung” [Militia and Disarmament], “N.Z.", 32-2, 769-70). “Socialism has ceased to be a distant ideal, it has become the inevitable goal of practical politics. We have absolutely nothing to oppose to the capitalist appeal to imperialism, except for the call for socialism “(Die neuen Wehrvorlagen” [The New Military Templates], “N.Z.", 30-2, 74).

The same idea was being proved by Pannekoek: “Socialism is not a new state that will come somewhere at the end of the path, when the train has travelled far enough and its strength is exhausted. Socialism means a completely new, different direction of development, which can be started at every point of the current development, and which, in fact, will begin from the day the proletariat conquers power" ("Das Wesen unserer Gegenwartsforderungen” [The Essence of our Present Demands], “N.Z.”, 30-2, 814) .

Hence the attitude of the left-radicals to the disarmament slogan is clear. They remembered Bebel’s phrase at the Jena Party Congress: “The sign of the times is not disarmament, but armament.” Lensch pointed out: “We must eliminate rivalry in armament not as a partial manifestation of imperialism, not as a special disease for which we have a special medicine in petto — such quackery the party has always rejected — but in its connection with general imperialist development" (Miliz und Abrustung”, “N.Z”, 30-2, 772). And Radek gave this general formulation: “Social democracy must not see its task in seeking a curative balm from wounds inflicted by imperialism, but in a principled struggle against this imperialism, in refusing all its combinations and in defeating them.”²¹

He counterposed the requirement of a new course to the position that in the tactical “tasks of Social-Democracy absolutely nothing has changed." He wrote in the fall of 1911: “The building of organizations, the acquisition of all means of power, which we are able to seize and retain by our selves, the study of the state and society and the enlightenment of the masses: other problems we are still not able to collectively solve and systematically set for ourselves and for our organizations. The practical tasks that we can and must set for ourselves do not constitute new tactics, they represent a continuation of the tactics that for more than four decades have led the party from one victory to another” ("Die Aktion der Masse, [The Action of the Masses]" "N.Z.", 30-1, 117)

Kautsky did not accept the analysis of the era — “imperialism or socialism” — given by the left-wing radicals. For him, the philosophy of the age was expressed in another alternative. “The question of the suspension and limitation of naval armaments has in fact become the most persistent question of the decade and posits the option: disarmament or world war” (Der improvisierte Bruch, N.Z., 30-2, 523). “War or disarmament — that is the problem. Social Democracy is a determined opponent of war. She wants to prevent it at any cost. Therefore, it must strive at all costs to have the rivalry in armaments voluntarily suspended” (Nochmals die Abrustung",”N.Z.”, 30-2, 848).

Kautsky expounded his views on modern capitalism in the most coherent manner in the article in Neue Zeit of May 1, 1912 ("Der erste Mai und der Kampf gegen den Militarismus" [May 1 and the Fight against Militarism]). The following thoughts should be recognized as fundamental in this article:

First thought. It is necessary to distinguish among the phenomena of capitalism, those that represent a vital necessity for the capitalist mode of production, from those that, although resting on economic reasons, do not constitute an economic necessity. An example of the first kind of phenomena is the appropriation of surplus value or the continuous expansion of the market. An example of the second type of phenomena according to Kautsky is the desire for an extension of the working day or the seizure of colonies and spheres of influence, which leads to rivalry in armament. The second series of phenomena no more than constitute mechanisms to implement the vital trends of capitalism. But if these paths are cut off, then capitalist production will find others, and perhaps even better ones. Therefore, the suppression of the armament system “does not mean the collapse of capitalism, but only the necessity of using other methods of capitalist expansion. But all imperialism as a whole is a phenomenon of the second kind, i.e. although it arose on an economic basis, it is not an anomic necessity." “Imperialism,” he wrote in another year in another article (“Nochmals die Abrustung”, “N.Z.”, 30-2, 51) – is not tantamount to the naturally necessary desire “to expand, open up new markets and spheres, it is only a special method for carrying out this aspiration, a method of violence ... Violence does not in any way constitute an indispensable condition for economic progress.“ The second thought." Short-sighted greed, the strongest instinct of the capitalists, generates from their side such actions, which for the sake of a momentary benefit harm the long-term interests of their own class. Counteracting the exploiting greed of the capitalists can very often benefit the long-term interests of bourgeois society.”

These two thoughts constitute the premises of the Kautskyite syllogism about imperialism. It is not difficult to guess what the conclusion is. “Our agreement of opinion with the bourgeois defenders of disarmament rests on a commonality of interests in this matter between the bourgeois world and the proletariat. It is not at all a sentimental expression, but the sober fact that the bourgeois society as a whole will just as thoroughly be disrupted by the war as the proletariat, even more disrupted than the proletariat ... These are very real interests that are capable of exerting considerable pressure in favour of disarmament through an international agreement, at least to the more far-sighted sections of the bourgeoisie or to those sections of it that are particularly affected by increasing armaments".²²

And Kautsky thus formulates the task of Social-Democracy: “Our immediate task must be: supporting and strengthening the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois movement against war and armaments” (“N.Z”, 29-2, 101). With the philosophy of this era, Kautsky’s programme is linked in the following way: As a result of the agreement of governments, there would be a “situation that, of course, would not have ruled out for sure and, once and for all, any war, but at least, it would push it back. And this could lead to the fact that the war between European great powers would be eliminated forever, since the strength of the European proletariat grows with each passing year" (May article 1912, 108).

But the critical point for any theory of imperialism is that it needs to be checked on facts. Kautsky undertakes to confirm his theory with a concrete political calculation. And I must say that the arrogant helplessness, naive sobriety and self-satisfied uncritical approach of the philistine reaches its peak. Kautsky wants to prove that there is no basis for a struggle between Britain and Germany, and in general between European powers. “Africa is completely subjugated, South Africa is reconciled with England ... At the moment there is no African problem that would cause a contradiction between the great powers.²³ There is nothing more to think about the division of China between the great powers ... In general, in Asia, imperialist methods of forcible conquest are becoming increasingly unsuitable, at least for Western Europeans, who can only reach Asia by sea. But all the European powers have an adversary in Russia. It would be effective in the interests of the international solidarity of the proletariat, as well as economic development, if Germany, Britain, and France concluded an agreement on halting increasing armaments and on protecting the integrity of China, Persia and Turkey against Russian encroachments” (“Nochmals die Abrustung", "N.Z.", 30-2, 851-52).

This was the birth of the future theory of ultra-imperialism. Even then, Kautsky tried to scientifically substantiate the trend toward super-imperialism. In an article in May 1912 , we read: “What has been happening in the relations between capitalist enterprises for two decades is now beginning to show up in relations between capitalist states. All of them are striving for expansion, all of them are increasingly constraining and restricting each other, increasing, thus, the means of war and multiplying the costs of their expansion to the point that nothing remains of the profits. As it becomes increasingly clear that the continuation of competition means destruction of all the participants, the time is approaching when competition between states will be replaced by cartel agreements. This is by no means a rejection of expansion of the national capital, it means only a transition to a cheaper and safer method."²⁴

On this note we can end the presentation of the first version of the theory of ultra-imperialism. His theoretical unattractiveness saves us from the need to engage in detailed criticism. Moresoever, the left-radical writers, in the struggle against whom this theory was evolved, noted its mistakes rather well. Radek, polemicizing with Kautsky, established his main methodological sin – use of abstractions, as a result of which instead of living capitalism several abstract categories conjured up that Kautsky combines in manner useful for him. Radek correctly pointed out that this scheme is not sufficient even for the exposition of the general laws of capitalism, not to mention the special forms of manifestation of the capitalist mode of production in different historical periods. Radek also explained the connection between Kautsky’s tactical position and his understanding of imperialism. And Lensch perfectly expressed this dependence on politics of Kautsky’s theory, saying that “historically the whole idea has arisen on grounds of parliamentarism”.²⁵ But if in the theoretical polemics with the center, the left turned out to be stronger, this does not mean that they possessed an impeccable theory of imperialism. Their position was sensitive to real life; and this made their original theoretical and economic postulates full-blooded even when they were incorrect. The Left exceeded Kautsky, the more so as they used in their argumentation the same basic principles on which their bare-boned opponent once stood. Let us recall that the favourite method in their political polemics was putting Kautsky’s past views in contrast to his present ones. This also applies to the theory in which they relied on Kautsky’s old works. Of these, the leftists uncritically accepted two most important and erroneous propositions: the grounding of imperialism in the growing difficulties of implementation;²⁶ and — related to it — the notion of imperialism as a policy of expansion of modern capitalism.²⁷ These profound errors, as it were, strengthened the revolutionary substance of the left-radical theory, but not more successfully than it was with Kautsky’s theory of 1905-1909. We saw that the revolutionary nature of the latter was an undefended revolutionism, and, moreover, it was deprived of defence precisely from a crucial angle; from real life situation, from the point of view of successes of imperialist capitalism. To a large extent this applies to the theoretical views of left- radicals.

The Chemnitz Party Congress, which took place in the fall of 1912 and discussed the question of imperialism, adopted a Kautsky resolution based on a Kautskian report of Haazo, but it was decorated with revolutionary words. Pannekoek’s formula: “There is only one way: through imperialism to socialism", met no response. A tremendous theoretical task arose before the left movement: to substantiate its position more profoundly, more consistently and broadly, and, first of all, to give a systematic theory of modern capitalism. That was the problem: the left had a healthy sense of life, there was a clear picture of the phenomena and influences of imperialism, there was a real picture of a whole series of connections between the individual manifestations of imperialism, it was the understanding that a new system of relations had been created, but their attempts at comprehending this system and its main regularities were weak and inconclusive. Rosa Luxemburg undertook to fill this gap. It was a magnificent attempt, but not the one that was needed. Rosa Luxemburg’s book, in the theoretical mirror, reflected the tremendous impatience of the growing revolutionary movement — in all its strengths and weaknesses. Rosa Luxemburg failed to break free from the old social-democratic schemes of growing difficulties of realization, it merely gave this scheme a logical form of iron determinism, so that it could not bend in any direction, exactly as it happened with Kautsky scheme of 1905-1909.²⁸

But a similar theoretical problem faced the Social Democrats of the centre. The pre-Congress polemic with the leftists revealed the theoretical helplessness of the centre. The earlier scheme of Kautsky, developed by him in 1907-1909, with his revolutionary foresight at its core, was powerless in the face of the organizational and material successes of imperialist capitalism.²⁹

Of course, Kautsky does not grieve about this. On the contrary, the inconsistency of the revolutionary theories concocted by them in the previous years only strengthens his conviction that the time for all revolutionary practice is untenable for our time. A new theory of modern capitalism must prove that “the transition from capitalism to socialism can be accomplished without economic collapse.”³⁰ Kautsky is trying to adapt his old scheme on the pragmatic development of industry and agriculture to new tasks.

Source: https: //drive.google.com/file/d/11BtI4PH6KEDyCLYzUs4U73wqLo01oePD/view?fbclid=IwAR3w3oaX6ZA0kYhZmcdMSTYca5sfS6AF9uADcy1ByXmeN1n7hIAWTtIykBU

1 However, later — during and especially after the war — Hilferding’s argument was widely used by open opportunism.

2 “Alpha and the omega of the newest protectionist policies are agricultural taxes... i.e. first of all duties on grain bread, wood, etc." (74). The same is repeated in the speech at the Stuttgart Party Congress of 1898: ^“Now the industrial duties are represented only by correlates of grain”. “Handbuch der Sozial-Demokratische Parteitage von 1863 bis 1909” [Manual of the Social-Democratic Party Congresses from 1863 to 1909], Munich 1910.

3 Example: Russia buys industrial products in Europe. “The money for this she gets from Belgium, France, Germany, and buys these products from the industries of these same countries — ships, rails, cars. The industry of these countries is flourishing, but it has itself paid for its growth" (p. 58).

4 Thus, the contemporary colonial policy is judged by Kautsky in the following manner (1898: "Aeltere und Neuere Kolonialpolitik" [Old and New Colonial Policy], article in N. Zeit, 16-1, p. 806 and following pages). “On close examination one will find, that the needs of industrial development did not create the latest phase of colonial policy, but, on the one hand, it is the needs of those classes, whose interests are in contradiction with the needs of economic development, and on the other hand, the needs of the State whose interests contradict the interests of a developed civilization. In other words, just like the customs policy, the latest phase of colonial policy is reactionary. For economic development, it is absolutely irrelevant; on the contrary, it is even harmful.” See also the article “Militarism and Socialism in England, written during the Anglo-Boer War (collection “Next Problems of the International Socialist”, St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 316).

7 In 1905, Kautsky rejected the criterion of a defensive and offensive war for our era; see his article in “N. Zeit", and in Stuttgart and Essen, he acted with great fire against this criterion.

9 “Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism”, in the collection “Against the Stream”.

10 True, in this struggle Kautsky, on a number of significant issues, failed to grasp the fundamental errors of revisionism. Kautsky often fought a battle on a non-Marxist platform, accepted Bernstein’s erroneous position on the question, while fighting against him within the limits of that position. An example of this is given below, in the final chapter.

14 Here is another example of Kautsky’s practical opportunism from this period of is theoretical golden period — this time from colonial politics. In the same book, where he has set out, full of critical and almost revolutionary imagery, the theory of modern capitalism, in “Sozialismus and. Kolonialpolitik”, Kautsky’s practical position on the colonial question is stated in the following words: “It would be absolutely superfluous if today we ourselves puzzled over the question of what should be done in each individual colony in order to move its liberation forward. To seek solutions to this complex problem, which is different for each colony, would mean doing absolutely unnecessary work, for the capitalist class will never voluntarily give up any colony”.

“The mechanisms of the power of the capitalist nations are so incredibly large that one cannot expect that any of the revolts of the natives could at the present time achieve their goal. They can only worsen the fate of the natives. No matter how we raise such uprisings and no matter how we sympathize with the insurgents, social democracy can not encourage it" (pp. 75-76). In another place from the same book we come to know the true meaning of all of Kautsky’s teachings about the revolutionary tasks of the working class. Concerning the question of the realization of socialism, Kautsky declares: “On this issue, one can only engage in empty fantasies without any practical purpose, for our behaviour today cannot be linked with it” (p. 59). Such, to put it mildly, are some twists in the practice of the “left” formation.

17 In 1913, R. Luxemburg, to whom this expression belongs, wrote about Kautsky’s theoretical exercises: “This is such an officiousness that has never been practiced in our party and, certainly, never in the spiritual and theoretical life of social democracy. In any case, it is the use of a theory that has nothing to do with the spirit of Marxism. Being far from the spirit of Marxism, such theoretical knowledge trails behind practice and which for all that is encouraged and committed by the highest officials of social-democracy concocts a calming gruel.” ("N.Z." p, 31-?, p. 841 ”Das Offiziosentum d Theorie" [The Officousness of Theory]).

18 “Our struggle against imperialism”, an article in “N.Z.", May, for 1 volume “German Revolution", p. 161.

22 For Kautsky’s philistine naivety, it is characteristic that in the notorious English proposal for disarmament he saw proof of his idea of the significance of bourgeois pacifism. In the article “Nochmals d. Abrustung”. “N.Z." 2, 847, one can read incredible arguments for a Marxist: "The British and French governments do not believe that rivalry in armament is a vital condition of capitalism. On the contrary, they are of the view that with a reduction in armaments they would have achieved much more. And they are completely right, since England and France are rapidly approaching the point from which further growth of weapons is no longer possible.

24 Kautsky continues: “Thus, the capitalists of Britain and Germany would not have lost anything if both states coordinated their foreign policy on this basis to reduce their armaments. By coming together, these countries, at least could induce the other European countries to join this deal of theirs and disarm, and the capitalists of these countries could make inroads with least hindrance into all the countries of the Eastern Hemisphere much more vigorously". (107-108 ).

25 Radek – "German Revolution", v. I. Lensch, “N Z.”, 30-2, 771; Lensch is directly referring to the slogan of disarmament, but in the context of the whole these words should be related, in general, to imperialism.

26 Lensch wrote: “Capital draws the last regions of the globe that are not yet subject to it into the vortex of capitalist development. It grabs the last reservoirs, from which you can still pump out vitality and life possibilities. But as soon as they are exhausted, the final hour of capitalism will arrive." “There are growing difficulties stemming from the contradiction between the productive force of labour that has developed to the extreme limits and the, more and more, narrowing of the spheres of realization of surplus capital.” The same is true of Radek (see, for example, collection Herm. Revolyuts., Vol. I, pp. 170-171).

28 In order to characterize what was required of the left movement in terms of theory, even at that time, the fact must be noted that even the most prominent of Rosa’s political associates did not agree with Rosa’s theory. This applies in particular to Pannekoek, as well as to Radek.

Kautskyism and the Theory of Imperialism