In the End

To avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to make a few final remarks on Kautsky's article, "The Recent Radicalism". Although I can understand that in times of war there is little desire to concern oneself with the fundamental theoretical questions of tactics, we can nevertheless take comfort in the fact that mass actions are not entirely insignificant in the question of combating the danger of war.

First, when one speaks of class character as the determining cause of human action. This is not, as Kautsky believes, a cause among the hundreds of other causes that play a role in every phenomenon. The class character of masses of people is the sum of the qualities that come to them through their position in the production process, of the forces that act on their will and their action and that spring from society. Anyone who studies the action of the masses must first take this class character into account as the most important thing, and the reproach we made against Kautsky's historical investigation — that he completely ignored it — therefore remains fully valid.

Secondly, Kautsky thinks he can set up a contrast between us on the question of organizational struggles in the sense that he only wants to know about victorious struggles, while we are indifferent to whether they bring victory or defeat. Everyone understands that this is nonsense. One only fights in exceptional circumstances — when one is counting on winning and victory. But can Kautsky guarantee victory in these cases ?

If not, then if he absolutely wants to avoid defeat because of its dire consequences, the consequence would be to shrink from every fight. I have stressed, on the other hand, that devastating defeats are not or hardly possible with a highly developed organization — provided, of course, that one does not strike blindly, but fights when and in what way necessity and prospects of success dictate. There may be gradual differences between us as to when that is; but it is not we who discuss it theoretically, but others, the masses and the leaders of the organization, who decide in practice.

Thirdly, a remark on the conquest of political power. Kautsky does not say a word about the question of how the proletariat can conquer power and whether this conquest is possible without breaking the means of state power which the ruling class then uses. He does not seek to prove that my statements and views are incorrect; he only seeks to give them a name which is unsympathetic to party members and thus arouses their prejudice. But if he is right that these views are syndicalist, then that is all the better for syndicalism. If Kautsky cannot dispute the correctness of my statements, but calls them syndicalist in order to discredit them, then he is basically only making a plea for syndicalism. It would be too thoughtless of the readers of the Neue Zeit, who have read my statements, including the rejection in the Leipziger Volkszeitung, if I were to seriously defend myself against them; after all, Kautsky himself has to point out my "inconsistency" in that my position on parliamentarism is completely the opposite of that of the syndicalists. Anyone who is interested in this in more detail must refer to my work "The Tactical Differences in the Workers' Movement."

In response to my small quotation from Engels, Kautsky cites a whole series of other quotations. I have hardly quoted Marx and Engels in my articles; anyone who has fully absorbed the new science they have brought us does not need to constantly prove that he is following in their footsteps by quoting from their works. And he cannot do so when the questions are those which, in this form, did not yet exist before the Social Democrats when they were writing. I only cited Engels to show how he had nothing but scorn for the kind of state piety that was evident in Kautsky's objections. In contrast, Kautsky cites Marx himself. He could not have done better to put the difference between our methods and views into a clear light. He refers to the proposals that Marx made in the Communist Manifesto in 1847, which would require a strong state power to implement. But does Marxism consist in swearing by the specific practical proposals which Marx made under quite different circumstances, at a time when there was still no talk of a proletarian mass movement? Certainly, the way I describe the development of the social revolution is not to be found in Marx and Engels, for the simple reason that they never saw the modern phenomenon of an ever-growing proletarian mass organization with a socialist spirit; and this phenomenon must have a powerful influence on the course of the revolution and our ideas about it. In 1847, the proletarian revolution was only conceivable as the dictatorship of a minority group applying the coercive power of the state to the working class. Today we see that that revolution is only possible as rebellion and autocracy by the great masses. The view I have developed is rooted in this new phenomenon; I examined what significance it has for the social revolution. If Kautsky, on the other hand, sticks to the letter of Marx's proposals from 1847, this is not Marxism, but rather its direct opposite.

Finally, one more remark. Kautsky fears that mass actions are least likely to achieve anything if their theoretical supporters fall out with other comrades. But mass actions do not arise from theoreticians agreeing on their importance and deciding that they can begin. They arise from the necessity of the situation, from the immediate feeling of the masses, whether we want them or not. Our discussions only depend on whether they are carried out with a clear awareness of their nature, rather than instinctively.1

• 1With this submission, Comrade Pannekoek has spoken to us for the third time on the same matter, thereby exceeding the scope of editorial custom. Nevertheless, we are giving space to this letter too. I think I can waive my right to reply to him. The only thing that strikes me as noteworthy in Pannekoek's closing remarks is the assertion that Marx and Engels made their practical proposals at a time "when there was still no talk of a proletarian mass movement" — poor Chartists — and that since then conditions have changed so much that Marx's views on the conquest of political power have become untenable.

  I will content myself with underlining this sentence. Let us wait and see what conclusions Pannekoek draws from this.

  K. Kautsky