"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (1918)
by V. I. Lenin
HOW KAUTSKY TRANSFORMED MARX
INTO AN ORDINARY LIBERAL
At present
we must deal with the main point, viz., with Kautsky's great discovery of
the "fundamental contrast" between the "democratic and dictatorial methods."
That is the crux of the matter; that is the essence of Kautsky's pamphlet.
And that is such a monstrous theoretical muddle, such a complete renunciation
of Marxism, that Kautsky, it must be confessed, has far excelled Bernstein.
The question of the dictatorship
of the proletariat is a question of the relation of the proletarian state
to the bourgeois state, of proletarian democracy to bourgeois democracy.
One would think that this is as plain as noonday. But Kautsky, like a schoolmaster
who has become as dry as dust from quoting the same old textbooks
on history, persistently turns his back
on the twentieth century and his face to the eighteenth century, and for
the hundredth time, in a number of paragraphs, incredibly tediously chews
the old cud over the relation of bourgeois democracy to absolutism and medievalism!
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."First of all, to call this celebrated proposition of Marx's, which sums up the whole of his revolutionary teaching, "a single word" and even "a little word," is an insult to and complete renunciation of Marxism. It must not be forgotten that Kautsky knows Marx almost by heart, and, judging by all he has written, he has in his desk, or in his head, a number of pigeonholes in which all that was ever written by Marx is most carefully filed so as to be ready at hand for quotation. Kautsky cannot but know that both Marx and Engels, in their letters as well as in their published works, repeatedly spoke about the dictatorship of the proletariat, before and especially after the Paris Commune. Kautsky cannot but know that the formula "dictatorship of the proletariat" is merely a more historically concrete and scientifically exact formulation of the proletariat's task of "smashing" the bourgeois state machine, about which both Marx and Engels, in summing up the experience of the Revolution of 1848, and, still more so, of 1871, spoke for forty years, between 1852 and 1891. ...
Kautsky
chose to approach the question in such a way as to begin with a definition
of the "word" dictatorship. Very
well. Everyone has a sacred right to approach a question in whatever way
he pleases. One must only distinguish a serious and honest approach from
a dishonest one. Anyone who wanted to be serious in approaching the question
in this way ought to have given his own definition of the "word."
Then the question would have been put fairly and squarely. But Kautsky does
not do that. "Literally," he writes, "the word dictatorship means the abolition
of democracy." In the first place,
this is not a definition. If Kautsky wanted to avoid giving a definition
of the concept dictatorship, why did he choose this particular approach
to the question?
Secondly, it is obviously wrong. It is natural for a
liberal to speak of "democracy" in general; but a Marxist will never forget
to ask: "for what class?" Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the
"historian" knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among
the slaves in antique times at once revealed the fact that the antique state
was essentially a dictatorship of the slaveowners. Did this dictatorship
abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everybody
knows that it did not. Kautsky
the "Marxist" said this monstrously absurd and untrue thing because he "forgot"
the class struggle. . . . In order
to transform Kautsky's liberal and false assertion into a Marxian and true
one, one must say: dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of
democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over the other classes;
but it necessarily does mean the abolition (or very material restriction,
which is also a form of abolition) of democracy for the class over which,
or against which, the dictatorship is exercised. But, however true this assertion may be, it
does not give a definition of dictatorship. ...
As a
result, we find that, having undertaken to discuss the dictatorship, Kautsky
rattled off a great deal of manifest lies, but has not given a definition!
Yet, without trusting his mental faculties, he might have had recourse to
his memory and extracted from his "pigeonholes" all those instances in which
Marx speaks of dictatorship. Had he done so, he would certainly have arrived
either at the following definition or at one in substance coinciding with
it:
Dictatorship
is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat
is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.
And this simple truth, a truth that is as plain as noonday
to every class-conscious worker (who represents the masses, and not an upper
stratum of petty-bourgeois scoundrels who have been bribed by the capitalists,
such as are the social-imperialists of all countries), this truth, which
is obvious to every representative of the exploited classes that are fighting
for their emancipation, this truth, which is beyond dispute for every Marxist,
has to be "extracted by main force" from the most learned M. Kautsky! How
is it to be explained? Simply by that spirit of servility with which the
leaders of the Second International, who have become contemptible sycophants
in the service of the bourgeoisie, are imbued. Kautsky first committed a sleight of hand
by proclaiming the obvious nonsense that the word dictatorship, in its literal
sense, means the dictatorship of a single person, and then--on the strength
of this sleight of hand--he declared that "hence" Marx's words about the
dictatorship of a class were not meant in the literal sense (but in one in
which dictatorship does not imply revolutionary violence, but the "peaceful"
winning of a majority under bourgeois--mark you--"democracy").
One must, if you please, distinguish between a "condition"
and a "form of government." A wonderfully profound distinction; it is like
drawing a distinction between the "condition" of stupidity of a man who
reasons foolishly and the "form" of his stupidity. Kautsky finds it necessary to interpret
dictatorship as a "condition of rulership" (this is the literal expression
he uses on the very next page, p. 21), because then revolutionary violence,
and violent revolution, disappear. The "condition of rulership"
is a condition in which any majority finds itself under . . . "democracy"!
Thanks to such a fraudulent trick, revolution happily disappears
! But the trick is too crude and
will not save Kautsky. One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes
and implies a "condition," one so disagreeable to renegades, of revolutionary
violence of one class against another. The absurdity of drawing a distinction
between a "condition" and a "form of government" becomes patent. To speak
of forms of government in this connection is trebly stupid, for every schoolboy
knows that monarchy and republic are two different forms of government. It
must be explained to Mr. Kautsky that both these forms of government,
like all transitional "forms of government" under capitalism, are but varieties
of the bourgeois state, that is, of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Lastly, to speak of forms of government is not only
a stupid, but also a very crude falsification of Marx, who was very clearly
speaking here of this or that form or type of state, and not of forms
of government. The proletarian
revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois
state machine and the substitution for it of a new one which, in the
words of Engels, is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word."
But Kautsky finds it necessary to befog
and belie all this -- his renegade position demands it. ... In defining dictatorship, Kautsky tried
his utmost to conceal from the reader the fundamental feature of this concept,
namely, revolutionary violence. But now the truth is out: it is a question
of the contrast between peaceful and violent revolutions.
That is where the trouble lies. Kautsky had to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries and fraudulent falsifications only in order to dissociate himself from violent revolution, and to conceal his renunciation of it, his desertion to the liberal labour policy, i.e., to the bourgeoisie. That is where the trouble lies. Kautsky the "historian" so shamelessly falsifies history that he "forgets" the fundamental fact that pre-monopoly capitalism -- which reached its zenith actually in the 1870's -- was by virtue of its fundamental economic traits, which found most typical expression in England and in America, distinguished by a, relatively-speaking, maximum fondness for peace and freedom. Imperialism, on the other hand, i.e., monopoly capitalism, which finally matured only in the twentieth century, is, by virtue of its fundamental economic traits, distinguished by a minimum fondness for peace and freedom, and by a maximum and universal development of militarism. To "fail to notice" this in discussing the extent to which a peaceful or violent revolution is typical or probable is to stoop to the position of a most ordinary lackey of the bourgeoisie. ...
To sum up: Kautsky has in a most unparalleled manner distorted the concept dictatorship of the proletariat, and has transformed Marx into an ordinary liberal; that is, he himself has sunk to the level of a liberal who utters banal phrases about "pure democracy," embellishing and glossing over the class content of bourgeois democracy, and shrinking, above all, from the use of revolutionary violence by the oppressed class. By so "interpreting" the concept "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" as to expunge the revolutionary violence of the oppressed class against its oppressors, Kautsky beat the world record in the liberal distortion of Marx. The renegade Bernstein has proved to be a mere puppy compared with the renegade Kautsky.
Take
the bourgeois parliament. Can it be that learned Kautsky has never heard
that the more highly democracy is developed, the more the bourgeois
parliaments are subjected by the stock exchange and the bankers? This does
not mean that we must not make use of bourgeois parliaments (the Bolsheviks
made better use of them than any other party in the world, for in 1912-14
we captured the entire workers' curia in the Fourth Duma). But it does mean
that only a liberal can forget the historical limitations and conditional
character of bourgeois parliamentarism as Kautsky does. Even in the most
democratic bourgeois state the oppressed masses at every step encounter the
crying contradiction between the formal equality proclaimed by the
"democracy" of the capitalists and the thousands of real limitations
and subterfuges which turn the proletarians into wage slaves. It is
precisely this contradiction that is opening the eyes of the masses to the
rottenness, mendacity and hypocrisy of capitalism. It is this contradiction
that the agitators and propagandists of Socialism are constantly exposing
to the masses, in order to prepare them for revolution! And now that
the era of revolutions has begun, Kautsky turns his back upon it and
begins to extol the charms of moribund bourgeois democracy.
Proletarian democracy, of which Soviet government
is one of the forms, has brought a development and expansion of democracy
hitherto unprecedented in the world, precisely for the vast majority of the
population, for the exploited and toiling people. To write a whole pamphlet
about democracy, as Kautsky did, in which two pages are devoted to dictatorship
and scores to "pure democracy," and fail to notice this fact, means
completely distorting the subject in a liberal way. Take foreign policy. In no bourgeois state,
not even in the most democratic, is it conducted openly. The masses are deceived
everywhere, and in democratic France, Switzerland, America, England this
is done on an incomparably wider scale and in an incomparably subtler manner
than in other countries. The Soviet government has torn the veil of mystery
from foreign policy in a revolutionary manner. Kautsky has not noticed this,
he keeps silent about it, although in the era of predatory wars and secret
treaties for the "division of spheres of influence" (i.e., for the partition
of the world among the capitalist bandits) the subject is one of cardinal
importance for on it depends the question of peace, the life and death of
tens of millions of people.
Take the organization of the state. Kautsky picks at
all manner of "trifles," down to the argument that under the Soviet constitution
elections are "indirect," but he misses the essence of the matter. He fails
to see the class nature of the state apparatus, of the machinery
of state. Under bourgeois dcmocracy the capitalists, by thousands of tricks--which
are the more artful and effective the more "pure" democracy is developed--push
the masses away from the work of administration, from freedom of the press,
the right of assembly, etc. The Soviet government is the first in
the world (or strictly speaking the second, because the Paris Commune began
to do the same thing) to enlist the masses, specifically the exploited
masses, in the work of administration. The toiling masses are barred
from participation in bourgeois parliaments (which never decide important
questions under bourgeois democracy; they are decided by the stock exchange
and the banks) by thousands of obstacles, and the workers know and feel, see
and realize perfectly well that the bourgeois parliaments are institutions
alien to them, instruments for the oppression of the proletarians
by the bourgeoisie, institutions of a hostile class, of the exploiting minority.
The Soviets are the direct organization of the toiling
and exploited masses themselves, which helps them to organize and
administer their own state in every possible way. And in this it is the vanguard
of the toilers and exploited, the urban proletariat, that enjoys the advantage
of being best organized by the large enterprises; it is easier for it than
for all others to elect and watch elections. The Soviet organization automatically
helps to unite all the toilers and exploited around their vanguard,
the proletariat. The old bourgeois apparatus- the bureaucracy, the privileges
of wealth, of bourgeois education, of social connections, etc. (these practical
privileges are the more varied, the more highly bourgeois democracy is developed)--all
this disappears under the Soviet form of organization. Freedom of the press
ceases to be hypocrisy, because the printing plants and stocks of paper are
taken away from the bourgeoisie. The same thing applies to the best buildings,
the palaces, the mansions and manor houses. The Soviet power took thousands
upon thousands of these best buildings from the exploiters at one stroke,
and in this way made the right of assembly--without which democracy is a
fraud--a m i l l i o n t i m e s more "democratic" for
the masses. Indirect elections to nonlocal Soviets make it easier to hold
Congresses of Soviets, they make the entire apparatus less costly, more flexible,
more accessible to the workers and peasants at a time when life is seething
and it is necessary to be able very quickly to recall one's local deputy
or to delegate him to the general Congress of Soviets. Proletarian democracy is a m i l
l i o n t i m e s more democratic than any bourgeois democracy;
Soviet power is a million times more democratic than the most democratic
bourgeois republic. ...
Kautsky does
not understand this truth, which is so clear and obvious to every worker,
because he has "forgotten," "unlearned" to put the question: democracy for
what class? He argues from the point of view of "pure" (i.e., nonclass?
or above-class?) democracy. He argues like Shylock: my "pound of flesh"
and nothing else. Equality for all citizens--otherwise there is no democracy.
We must ask the learned Kautsky, the "Marxist"
and "Socialist" Kautsky:
Can there
be equality between the exploited and the exploiters?
It is
monstrous, it is incredible that one should have to put such a question in
discussing a book written by the ideological leader of the Second International.
But "having put your hand to the plough, don't look back," and having undertaken
to write about Kautsky, I must explain to the learned man why there can
be no equality between the exploiters and the exploited.