tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post1770351101987454499..comments2024-02-07T19:30:21.880+11:00Comments on Left Focus: Reflections on the democratic Marxism of Karl KautskyVaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-31102208508291912692013-03-01T09:22:24.234+11:002013-03-01T09:22:24.234+11:00Hoping you get around to reading the article then ...Hoping you get around to reading the article then - and maybe give your opinion when you get the chance? I'm reading another book on Kautsky right now too - 'Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution' - really interesting stuff - As well I have 'Kantian Ethics and Socialism' - But have not got arund to reading it either! :( I have a lot on my plate. Sorry it was so hard for you to leave a comment. We've had about 300 hits for this article now... Maybe there's a problem stopping people from leaving comments... Because generally we don't get many. It'd be great if that changed. :)Vaughann722https://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-59168469132878101762013-02-28T13:21:11.703+11:002013-02-28T13:21:11.703+11:00In other news, I just had to validate my identity ...In other news, I just had to validate my identity 3 times in order to make that comment.nunchuckingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18253794011316779363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-79086870466005931992013-02-28T13:20:09.051+11:002013-02-28T13:20:09.051+11:00I've had this page open and unread ever since ...I've had this page open and unread ever since you posted it, I need some damn time to get around and read this post!<br /><br />I've got this great book called Ethics and Marxism (or Morals and Marxism) that I illegally photocopied because it was so damn interesting - I should send you the chapter (or the whole book ho ho!) on Kautsky and Kantianism because it is AAA+ plus stuff, right on the mark!<br /><br />I WILL get around to reading this post, I swear!nunchuckingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18253794011316779363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-84841689082507139282013-02-18T17:29:15.041+11:002013-02-18T17:29:15.041+11:00I think lots of Kautsky's elaborations on Marx...I think lots of Kautsky's elaborations on Marx's works are still good to read today - and so far as Marx's ideas maintain relevance, KK's explanations of them retain relevance as well. For philosophical materialists KK's works also have relevance - although I personally disagree with pure philosophical materialism. Kautsky's critique of the Bolhseviks is also important - as the Russian Revolution ended badly - and Kautksy's 'liberal Marxism' might have had the effect that some came to Marxism through him who otherwise wouldn't have done so. KK was wrong that the revolution could not succeed in the sense of consolidating state power and developing the economy. But he was right that extreme measures - militarisation of labour, extensive Terror - were seen by so many as discrediting the socialist cause. It could also be argued that an ongoing strategy of dual power might have served the Bolsheviks better - so perhaps KK was right that dissolving the Constituent Assembly was also a mistake. Many people on the Left still look the 1917 just like the Bolsheviks looked to the Jacobins. So 'historical lessons' still matter for the radical Left.<br /><br />But Andrew is right that Leninism - and later Stalinism - did not deliver communism. And neither did the old Marxist orthodoxy. Lenin and Kautksy have insights - but alone neither of them are sufficient to guide us today. <br /><br />Personally I tend towards a liberal democratic socialism which borrows from the Marxist tradition. But if change is to come today it will probably do so on the grounds of a number of movements - and hopefully some platform for international co-ordination of strategy. Sweden shows that a lot is possible in the way of social democratic reform. But the bourgeois response to the Meidner wage earner funds shows how fierce bourgeois resistance can be even with saturation unionisation - and radical unions. Kautksy hoped for one stronghold to be secured after another - with gradual socialisation - and perhaps 'tipping points' for political and social revolution... <br /><br />Perhaps we need to think in terms of decades today as well... Gradually building a democratic mixed economy as a foothold for liberal democratic socialism... Rebuilding a mixed economy; Extending the welfare state and social wage; supporting and promoting co-operative and mutualist enterprise; resocialising infrastructure; promoting social investment in strategic industries (eg: mining); Strong unions promoting co-determination; And perhaps democratic collective capital mobilisation - something like Meidner - though perhaps more modest to begin - and perhaps aiming to include all citizens - not just workers.<br /><br />But without a way of getting there that is just a Utopia...So I am interested in how to get there as well. Tax reform and social wage extension is possible; Meaningful economic democracy would meet much more resistance.... So again - how DO we get there? Any ideas?<br />Vaughann722https://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-2611436993074579152013-02-18T16:38:47.768+11:002013-02-18T16:38:47.768+11:00Kautsky and Lenin posed different problems and off...Kautsky and Lenin posed different problems and offereddifferent answers to their problems. We can agree that the answers they offered are no longer plausible. The vanguard party (and then the authoritarian state) did not deliver communism. The workers' party and the democratic state havebarely tamed capitalism, let alone bring it to an end.<br /><br />But Lenin's question: "What is to be done?" remains very important. It still needs to be asked today.<br /> <br />Kautsky's question poses more questions than it resolves. If his question can be paraphrased as: "How can we acquire power"?, then who are "we"? Was Kautsky right (and Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy wrong) about democratic organisations being capable of democratising the context of power? What actually is 'power'?<br /><br />Kautsky has left a legacy of many interesting debating points in his writings but they are of only historical interest. They have no immediate importance for politics today.<br />Andrew Vandenbergnoreply@blogger.com