Thursday, January 23, 2020

Marxism and the Union Bureaucracy:Karl Kautsky on Samuel Gompers and the German Free Trade Unions

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/156920608X315266
Historical Materialism 16 (2008) 115–136 www.brill.nl/hima Archive

Marxism and the Union Bureaucracy: Karl Kautsky on Samuel Gompers and the German Free Trade Unions

Daniel Gaido
National Research Council (CONICE), Argentina danielgaid@gmail.com

 Abstract
This work is a companion piece to ‘The American Worker’, Karl Kautsky’s reply to Werner Sombart’s Why Is There No Socialism in the United States
 (1906), first published in English in the November 2003 edition of this journal. In August 1909 Kautsky wrote an article on Samuel Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor, on the occasion of the latter’s first European tour. Te article was not only a criticism of Gompers’s anti-socialist ‘pure-and-simple’unionism but also part of an ongoing battle between the revolutionary wing of German Social Democracy and the German trade-union officials. In this critical English edition we provide the historical background to the document as well as an overview of the issues raised by Gompers’visit to Germany, such as the bureaucratization and increasing conservatism of the union leadership in both Germany and the United States, the role of the General Commission of Free Trade Unions in the abandonment of Marxism by the German Social-Democratic Party and the socialists’ attitude toward institutions promoting class collaboration like the National Civic Federation.



PDF IN ENGLISH



IMPRINT
LuXemburg. Gesellschaftsanalyse und linke Praxis,
2019,
ISSN 1869-0424
Publisher:
Board of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung
Managing Editor:
Barbara Friedbarbara.fried@rosalux.orgTel: +49 (0)30 443 10-404
Editorial Board:
Harry Adler, Lutz Brangsch, MichaelBrie, Mario Candeias, Judith Dellheim, Alex DemiroviĆ,Barbara Fried, Corinna Genschel, Christiane Markard,Ferdinand Muggenthaler, Miriam Pieschke, KatharinaPühl, Rainer Rilling, Thomas Sablowski, Hannah Schu-rian, Jörn Schütrumpf, Ingar Solty,
Uwe Sonnenberg,Moritz Warnke and Florian Wilde


CONTENTS

STOP OR WE WILL SHOOT!
WHY THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION OF 1918/19 HAD TO END
IN POLITICAL REVOLUTION AND ULTIMATELY LOST IT AS WELL
by Ingar Solty, Uwe Sonnenberg, Jörn Schütrumpf
........................................2
 A NEW CIVILIZATION
by Alex Demirović
......................................10
ROSA LUXEMBURG AS A SOCIALIST FEMINIST
by Drucilla Cornell
...................................18 
‘NO SENTIMENTALITY PLEASE’
AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE ON ROSA LUXEMBURG
by Gal Hertz
.................................26
LETTER TO SOPHIE LIEBKNECHT
by Rosa Luxemburg
...............................................32
INNER COLONIES
THE CARE SECTOR AS A PLACE OF
‘NEW LANDNAHME’
by Tove Soiland
....................................................38
ORDER REIGNS IN BERLIN
by Rosa Luxemburg
......................................................44
REVOLUTIONARY REALPOLITIK
by Michael Brie | Mario Candeias
.......................................   .............52
ROWING AGAINST THE CURRENT TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH ROSA LUXEMBURG
by Miriam Pieschke
..........................................................60
‘NO COWARDICE BEFORE THE FRIEND!’
HOW DO WE CRITIQUE REVOLUTIONS?
by Lutz Brangsch........................66 

AUTHORS ...................................72

Council Democracy: Towards a Democratic Socialist Politics, 2018
Council Democracy: Towards a Democratic Socialist Politics, 2018
James Muldoon
The German Revolution and Political Theory, 2019
James Muldoon
A Marxian Theory of Democracy
Socialism and Democracy, 2000
Mehmet Tabak
https://www.academia.edu/3061865/A_Marxian_Theory_of_Democracy


Marx's Theory of Proletarian Dictatorship Revisited
Author(s): Mehmet TabakSource:
Science & Society,
Vol. 64, No. 3 (Fall, 2000), pp. 333-356
Published by: Guilford Press
2018
Binay  Sarkar

THE LABOUR DEBATE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE THEORY AND REALITY OF CAPITALIST WORK

https://www.academia.edu/3190057/The_Labour_Debate._An_investigation_into_the_theory_and_reality_of_capitalist_work

What is to be Done? Leninism,anti-Leninist Marxism and the Question of Revolution today

 
What is to be Done? Leninism,anti-Leninist Marxism and theQuestion of Revolution today
 
Werner Bonefeld and Sergio Tischler
I
Of one thing we can be certain. The ideologies of the twentiethcentury will disappear completely. This has been a lousy century.It has been filled with dogmas, dogmas that one after anotherhave cost us time, suffering, and much injustice (Garcia Marquez,1990).
Amid the resurgence of anti-capitalist movements across theglobe, the centenary of Lenin’s
What is to be Done?
in 2002has largely gone unnoticed. Leninism has fallen on hard times – and rightly so. It leaves bitter taste of revolution whoseheroic struggle turned into a nightmare. The indifference toLeninism is understandable. What, however, is disturbing isthe contemporary disinterest in the revolutionary project. Whatdoes anti-capitalism in its contemporary form of anti-globalization mean if it is not a practical critique of capitalismand what does it wish to achieve if its anti-capitalism fails toespouse the revolutionary project of human emancipation?Anti-capitalist indifference to revolution is a contradictionin terms. Rather then freeing the theory and practice ofrevolution from Leninism, its conception of revolutionaryorganization in the form of the party, and its idea of the statewhose power is to be seized, as an instrument of revolution,remain uncontested. Revolution seems to mean Leninism, nowappearing in moderated form as Trotskyism. OrthodoxMarxism invests great energy in its attempt to incorporate the
 
2
What is to be Done?
 
class struggle into preconceived conceptions of organization,seeking to render them manageable under the direction of the party. The management of class struggle belongs traditionallyto the bourgeoisie who ‘concentrated in the form of the state’(see Marx, 1973, p.108), depend on its containment andmanagement in the form of abstract equality. The denial ofhumanity that is entailed in the subordination of the inequalityin property to relations of abstract equality in the form ofexchange relations, is mirrored in the Leninist conception ofthe workers state, where everybody is treated equally as aneconomic resource.Hiding behind dogma, contemporary endorsements of therevolutionary party as the organizational form of revolution,focus the ‘distortion’ of socialism on Stalin, cleansingLeninism and maintaining its myth.
1
 Was the tragedy of theRussian revolution really just contingent on the question ofleadership, a tragedy caused by a bad leader who took overfrom a good leader, and should Trotsky had succeeded Lenin,would his leadership have been ‘good’, rescuing the revolutionfrom the dungeons of despair – the Gulag? Whateverdifference Trotsky might have made, is revolution really just aquestion of personalities and their leadership qualities?Orthodox accounts do not raise the most basic question of thecritical Enlightenment –
cui bono
 (who benefits) – and,instead, show great trust in the belief that revolution has to bemade on behalf of the dependent masses, so that all goesaccording to plan, including the planning of the economicresource labour through the workers state. Marx’s insight thatcommunism is a classless society and that ‘to be a productivelabourer is...not a piece of luck, but a misfortune’ (Marx, 1983, p.477), is endorsed in perverted form: the party’s directorshipover the proletariat is a fortune for the misfortunate. Thosewho take the project of human emancipation seriously, willfind little comfort in the idea that the party knows best.Contemporary anti-capitalism does well to keep well clear ofthe Leninist conception of revolution. However, itsindifference to revolution belies its anti-capitalist stance. This,then, means that the
ratio emancipationis
 has to berediscovere
Outlining a vision of Communism in 21st century as an alternative to Capitalism
(by PKD (Parivartan ki Disha), Nagpur,India)
 ‘Humanity …..chooses its present from the perspective of the future, and thus forms its present on the basis of a projected future.’