Kautsky, Bernstein and Lenin: Imperialist takes on revolutionary socialism

 

Kautsky (top left), Bernstein (top right) and Lenin (bottom).

The ultra-imperialist and culturally idealist views on social development and the transition of society to revolutionary socialism, which have been adopted by Kautsky, Bernstein, and Lenin, appear to have stemmed from the doctrines of idealism and dialectical materialism, specifically those of Hegelian, Kantian, and Baconian origins. This reflects the emphasis of Eurocentric principles and the ideas of economic sovereignty and the preservation of superpower influence, thus appearing to them as being of significant influence in assisting revolution. However, it can be argued that this merely allows already influential and capitalistic leaders of imperial superpowers to further increase their influence and achieve more success in preserving the existing capitalist society, rather than bringing about any significant socialist reform with the interests of the general people in mind.

The idea of materialism being considered as how one can appear to have greater economic and political influence due to their ability to produce and own more high-value goods (as deemed by Bacon), as well as, according to Foley, functioning as "the grounding of behaviour and thought in the way a given society is organised", as opposed to merely being related to consumerist values (Foley, B, 2019). This, in conjunction with idealism, was considered by Hegel to be a natural state and a means of becoming socially and politically influential, thus explaining its importance in assisting revolution through the pro-imperialist and capitalistic means that Kautsky, Bernstein, and Lenin favoured.

Hegel's reasoning aligns closely with Kant's and Bacon's perspectives on this point. It proves to be an adequate explanation of the idea that social and economic evolution is essentially the product of social, political, environmental, and geographical factors that influence these material gains (Pregger-Roman, C.G., 1984). This includes the historic colonial and imperial influences on a nation's materialist development, its economic assets, and consequently its ability to achieve capitalist imperialism as a result. Equally, as described by Frank when observing the products of imperialism and the prevalence of mercantilism and industrial capitalism in allowing for the global south to experience social and economic advancement, capitalism can be defined as merely a "series of exploitative commercial relationships" (Pregger-Roman, C.G., 1984), without referring to relations of production, or observing the comparative gains for the colonial and capitalist superpowers responsible for this transition. This would thus interfere with any intentions to achieve socialist revolution, and would, according to this representation, present Kautsky, Bernstein and Lenin's takes on revolutionary socialism as being inherently capitalist and only really allowing for revolution that is purely within the interests of the specific group of proletarians seeking to preserve existing systems and gain social and economic status within the hierarchical ranks of these systems. The most influential and revolutionary capitalist proletarians would appear more likely to succeed in this endeavour. This could be linked to Lenin's ideas of vanguardism (by which the most influential and socially powerful proletarians would undemocratically seize control of society, and fulfil their revolutionary aims, thus subsequently achieving greater social influence; this form of revolutionary socialism essentially amounts to a form of dictatorship amongst the proletariat), and could also perhaps foreshadow future dictatorship led by the imperial nations. The key ideals of Kautskyian imperialism are parliamentary and require national governmental intervention to assist the proletariat, allowing them freedom and ultimately permitting them to achieve the supremacy they desire. This can be observed in Kautskyism, which is described as essentially "belief in the inevitability of social revolution: dressing in evolutionist terms Marx's theory concerning the historical tendency for the accumulation of capital" (Meldolesi, L., 1984), as well as that authoritarian control and violence are essential for assisting this. This would therefore present these specific post-colonial property relations as being characterised by feudal intentions, thereby preserving capitalist ideals and acting as the antithesis of socialism.

Bernstein's views on these matters appear to be very much in line with Kautsky's, and likewise present socialist imperialism as favouring the development of individual nations and the implementation of social and economic reforms nationally, rather than taking an internationalist stance, considering foreign policy to be comparatively secondary in importance. It can also be assumed that left-wing and liberal centrists are more likely to gear their policy towards achieving internationalist aims (Fletcher, R., 1979). However, this is, according to Fletcher, to a lesser extent, considering he did show some concern about foreign policy, unlike Kautsky, as well as being less revolutionary in his means of using imperialism as a means of achieving social advancement. Furthermore, it proves to be helpful to note his advocacy for revisionism (as in seeing the transition to socialism as an evolutionary process that takes place over a long period, as opposed to being achieved directly through colonisation and revolution) in explaining his presence as a "monolithic juggernaut" in German politics, and the reason for Germany's Social Democratic Party during his political career appearing to be "a shaky conglomerate beset by serious fissiparous tendencies" (Fletcher, R., 1984). This line of thinking, along with the need to respond effectively to the decline caused by rising global capitalism and the recovery from the Great Depression, gained popularity during this period as a result (McDonough, T., 1995). Because of this, Bernstein's philosophy can be perceived as lying between various conflicting ideologies, and thus not appearing overtly ideologically left-wing or right-wing, nor overtly pro-imperialist. While many revisionists may support unionisation and the formation of cooperatives to facilitate the gradual increase in the influence of the masses, this was not the case for Bernstein, especially considering his more parliamentary stance on achieving this desired change.

However, Kautsky and Bernstein's perspectives on revolutionary imperialism differ from those of Lenin to some degree. This can be observed through Lenin's intentions to separate the general people from the political leaders, considering them as distinct parts of society with differing levels of influence (this perhaps appears to be evident to an even greater extent among the proletariat through his aims in achieving revolution through vanguardism), thus allowing for Leninism to appear to act as the "sublation of centralism to mass politics", and the presence of contrasting social groups being fundamental in assisting the formation of the "union of free individuals" to fulfil socialist aims (Jal, M., 2011). Yet what all these philosophies have in common is that they are all built upon Hegelian dialectics, with Lenin having referred to these as the "algebra of the revolution". Leninism does not appear to be a response to Marxism or a means of responding to Lenin's criticisms of Marx's doctrine, but more a product of his experiences and reactions to the behaviour of others, paving the way for his counter-revolutionary ideals to be introduced. Lenin appears to be somewhat less dogmatic than Bernstein, as a result of these values, and does not place the same emphasis on parliamentary reform as a means of achieving a socialist revolution, hence his intention to achieve social change through the rising influence of the lower classes (or the "people down below" as he referred to them as) along with the centralisation of power, as well as notably saying that "the source of power is not a law enacted by parliament" or purely based off of economically orientated behaviours (Willoughby, J., 1995) but instead the rising influence of the supposedly most politically influential proletarians in working class society. While appearing not to present as bureaucratic in these situations, in that he advocated for the removal of the police, army, and bureaucratic state influence (Jal, M., 2011), his vanguardism and intentions to assist the proletariat in achieving revolution prove otherwise. This could perhaps predict and explain the rise to power of Stalin and Mao, who adopted Lenin's ideas, both of whom presented themselves as powerful imperialists with significant global influence.

While a significant contrast in attitudes and means of accepting imperialism and initiating revolution, as well as the main groups to which this would appear to be of interest, is very much apparent between the three philosophers analysed within this post, the overriding view that idealist principles, as well as the counterpoint of dialectical materialism appear to all be very much agreed on. These are established as the principal causes for recognising the relative merits and flaws of imperialism and socially oriented capitalism in achieving revolution. The divide between the parliamentary and the general public appears to be the primary reason for conflict in the initiation of revolution, as well as the reasons for the lack of success and comparative reduction in democratic values in implementing such reforms. The overall consensus appears to be that more democratic and socialist principles should be the sources from which revolutionaries should take inspiration, which also begs the question as to why revolution has purely appeared to have acted as a means of preserving capitalist society through achieving liberation of the working classes, albeit for feudal gains and exacerbating existing class structures. This presents imperialism as a means of facilitating socialist revolution, which is essentially a contradiction of terms.

Beattie, J et al., (2014). Rethinking the British Empire through Eco-Cultural Networks: Materialist-Cultural Environmental History, Relational Connections and Agency in Environment and History, November 2014, 20(4), 20th Anniversary Issue (November 2014), pp. 561-575. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43299706

Dawson, A., (2016).  Imperialism in Keywords for Environmental Studies eds Adamson, J., et al. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15zc5kw.47

Fletcher, R., (1979). A Revisionist Looks at Imperialism: Eduard Bernstein's Critique of Imperialism and Kolonialpolitik, 1900-14 in Central European History, Sep., 1979. 12(3) (Sep., 1979), pp. 237-271. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545868

Foley, B., (2019). Historical Materialism in Marxist Literary Criticism Today. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbcd2jf.5

Gronow, J., (2016). The Question of Democracy and Dictatorship: Lenin’s Critique of Kautsky the Renegade in On the Formation of Marxism. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h23p.17

Jal, M., (2011). In Defence of Leninism in Economic and Political Weekly, JANUARY 1-7, 2011, 46(1) (JANUARY 1-7, 2011), pp. 55-62. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27917989

McDonough, T., (1995). Lenin, Imperialism, and the Stages of Capitalist Development in Science & Society, Fall, 1995, 59(3), Lenin: Evaluation, Critique, Renewal (Fall, 1995), pp. 339-367. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40403507

Meldolesi, L., (1984). The Debate on Imperialism Just before Lenin in Economic and Political Weekly, Oct. 20-27, 1984. 19(42/43) (Oct. 20-27, 1984), pp. 1833-1839. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4373698

Morgan, D.W., (1979). The Journal of Modern History, Sep., 1979. 51(3) (Sep., 1979), pp. 525-532. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1876635

Pregger-Roman, C.G., 1984. Dependence, Underdevelopment, and Imperialism in Latin America: A Reappraisal in Science & Society, Winter, 1983/1984. 47(4). pp. 406-426. DOI:https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402520

Willoughby, J., (1995). Evaluating the Leninist Theory of Imperialism in Science & Society, Fall, 1995, 59(3), Lenin: Evaluation, Critique, Renewal (Fall, 1995), pp. 320-338. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40403506

Karl Marx's London: Walking in Marx's footsteps

 This weekend, I made my metaphorical pilgrimage to London to visit all the significant places in Marx's life, starting with his first home in London, and ending at Highgate Cemetery, where he was buried. It was through this trip that (along with having walked through three London boroughs and been introduced to parts of the city that I had never seen) I got to appreciate Marx's legacy and respect him as, once upon a time, a London resident who studied in the library, drank at pubs, and shopped in high streets like I do. The feeling gained from walking down the same streets and trying to visualise him living, working, rallying and resting offered a whole other dimension to the socialist movement and truly brought it to life. In this post, I will present photographs and provide commentary on the places I visited that hold significance for Karl Marx.

Now a restaurant, 28 Dean Street in Soho was Marx's London home. His blue plaque, erected in 1967, can be seen on the wall. He lived here with Jenny von Westphalen from 1851-1856.

Moving on from Dean Street, the Spirit of Soho mural on Broadwick Street commemorates London's history. Marx can be seen near the centre of this mural, to the left of the clock.

The Red Lion Pub shown above was the site of many socialist rallies and political activities led by Marx and Engels.

Another pub, the Dog and Duck, while not specifically associated with Marx, was frequented by Orwell and even has its own specific Orwell room.

The British Museum reading room and the Marx Memorial Library were two places in which Marx studied and wrote. The Marx Memorial Library is open to the public and sometimes has guided tours.

Finally, I visited Highgate Cemetery, where Marx (along with many other notable people) is buried. His grave was beautifully maintained and featured a bust of Marx carved in stone, and the inscriptions of "Workers of the world unite" and "The philosophers have only observed the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change things". People had left flowers, notes, and gifts for Marx, which included, amusingly, a cigarette, a pear, a can of beer, and a biscuit!

The caste system and its influence on India's development

India is a nation that has undergone significant social and economic growth, which has been significantly influenced by globalisation, westernisation, and past colonial and neo-colonial activities, primarily driven by US and European influences. However, in addition to the main gains from this, which appear to have been geared more towards supporting the capitalist needs of the already economically successful developed world, the traditional values that remain pertinent in Indian society have also appeared to somewhat hinder this development. A prominent example of this is the caste system.

The caste system consists of several castes (defined by Britannica as being "ranked, hereditary endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation") which influence an individual's position and relative social and economic influence on society. Emphasis would be placed on ancestry and family history (including surnames) when determining an individual's caste. Caste differs from class in that, as Berreman describes the system as "a hierarchy of endogamous divisions in which membership is hereditary and permanent" (Berreman, G.D., 1960), it cannot be changed through social activity, meritocracy, hard work, or the exploitation of others. It is an unchanging state that one is born into and remains throughout one's entire life. While this model of society had appeared to perhaps have been more influential historically and only remains of importance in situations such as marriage and those of religious and cultural significance in Indian society today (Desai, S and Dubey, A, 2011), it is something that has proven hard to shift altogether, and appears to be a significant aspect of India's political, cultural and religious landscape concerning development today, albeit perhaps being changed due to westernisation and the rising conformity of the Indian population to practises of greater prevalence in religions associated more with western culture and values. However, this could perhaps be disproved through arguing that the caste system still also could be seen as influential in certain western societies, for instance when looking at the race based relations in the USA (Berreman, G.D, 1960), and the influence of western culture on ideas regarding Aryanism (with Aryans being considered the highest caste in India's caste system) in India. Equally, when existing in more secular societies such as the UK and the USA, such systems would clearly appear much less prevalent; yet, classism, elitism, and other hierarchical ideas would still remain commonplace as a means of further dividing society, including the more globally accepted views on the traditional class system. It is through observing and evaluating the similarities and differences between these two versions of the caste system, as well as in their application to India's political system and development both historically and in the present day, that the extent of the system's prevalence in today's Indian society can be assessed.

While imperialism appears to be highly eulogised within the Western world and considered as the reason for India's development, as well as an effective means by which the colonisers can simultaneously further support their own interests, it is only on a highly superficial level that this appears to have been considered in a particularly positive way by the Indian population. Despite its illusion of modernity and improved civilisation within India, it is ironically the reason why archaic values persist. These include the caste system. This is likely because those who are most in favour of globalisation, cultural change, and the influence brought about by colonialism are often those from higher castes in positions of great wealth and power, who can thus use this change to their advantage. The transition to a liberal and progressive state, albeit one overseen and controlled by those in positions of power, as is observed in many capitalist Western nations, can be noticed as a result. It is also important to note that development is described in this manner based on the criteria and metrics of highly developed capitalist nations, and reflected through the similarities in culture, behaviour, and economic situation between them and other less developed countries, which rely heavily on globalisation and westernisation to assist with this process. While some improvements socially and culturally (i.e., regarding gender equality, human rights, and standards of living) would likely be observed in these nations, they also maintain the same rigid class structures as their less developed counterparts, albeit perhaps in slightly different ways. This would, therefore, suggest that colonial and neo-colonial relations with the Western world have had limited influence on diminishing the caste system in India.

Equally, the previous point I made regarding there being a caste system in the US (although appearing more racially as opposed to socially orientated), that still has a vital role in determining one's relative social influence, proves to be effective in providing evidence for the view that there is arguably limited correlation between levels of development and the prevalence of caste and classism in today's society. The phenomenon of feudalism, by which the lower-waged proletariat work to support the survival of the bourgeois (who are free to exploit them to suit their own capitalist needs), is the very reason why caste and class remain. With regard to the opposing view that caste, while still a part of one's identity and not yet obsolete in Indian society, only being taken into account for situations such as arranged marriage, this arguably does not diminish its influence in that its importance in increasing one's attractiveness as a partner, or their ability to provide their spouse with improved social and economic opportunities is clear. While class may perhaps outweigh this, this doesn't mean that caste is not less significant, and proves that it still is an integral part of present day Indian society, regardless of social and economic advancement, and that it will continue to influence India's development for the future.

Berreman, G.D., 1960. Caste in India and the United States. Published in American Journal of Sociology, Sep., 1960. 66(2). pp. 120-127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2773155

Deshpande, A. and Deshpande, A., 2011. Colonial Modernity and Historical Imagination in India. 72(2). pp. 1311-1324. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145742

Desai, S. and Dubey, A., 2011. Caste in 21st Century India: Competing Narratives. Published in  Economic and Political Weekly, March 12-18, 2011. 46(11). pp. 40-49. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41151970

Lai, J. and Anuar, A., 2021. Measures of Economic Vulnerability and Inter-dependency in the  Global Economy. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28287

Menon, R., 2011. Re-imagining Development in India. Published in Social Scientist, September-October 2011. 39(9/10). pp. 35-53. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23070103

O'Hanlon, R. and Washbrook, D., 1991. Histories in Transition: Approaches to the Study of Colonialism and Culture in India. 32(1). pp.110-127. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289105

Olcott, M., 1944. The Caste System of India. Published in American Sociological Review, Dec., 1944. 9(6). pp. 648-657. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085128

Raj, S.E., 1985. Published in Transformation (1985). 2(2). pp. 10-14. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43052102

Sodhi, J.S., 2008. An Analysis of India's Development: Before and after Globalisation. Published in Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Jan., 2008. 43(3). pp. 317-354. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27768139

Marxism 2025: A review

It's been a couple of weeks since my last post. Have been busy sorting out some life stuff, manic university business, and have started work with the Workers Party. Anyways, I'm back now with some more posts.

Top: Me on my way to Marxism 2025. Bottom: the festival.

Yesterday, I paid a visit to London to attend the Marxism 2025 festival. Set in a Shoreditch studio featuring a pop-up socialist bookshop and talks by a variety of prominent and well-renowned speakers including Jeremy Corbyn, Yanis Varoufakis, and Rima Hassan, the current and ever-changing influence of socialist ideas on society globally, as well as the vast array of forms they exist in in day to day life could be brought to life and celebrated. From technological feudalism and capitalism within AI, to the legacy of global imperial influence on the cultural and economic factors influencing revolutionary ideals within Iran and Palestine, the extent to which we live in a capitalist society, as well as the importance of us as individuals on a community level, be that through membership to trades unions, publicly protesting, or changing consumer habits in acting on these issues.

The opening talk by Anne Alexander regarding the UK and the US's colonial influence on the Middle East and the competition economically between these Middle Eastern nations, and the exploitative and capitalist, technologically driven Israel, provided an interesting and analytical take on the matter, as well as allowing for questions as to what developed such a revolutionary culture and the extent to which the need to resist imperialism and Western influences assisted this. This was then followed by several trade union activists from Unite presenting on the importance of unions, the working and student populations, and grassroots projects aimed at improving the socioeconomic situation and promoting the welfare of the people. A very successful midday rally, featuring Jeremy Corbyn, was followed by much applause, as was Rima Hassan, who had arrived from France to speak of European support for Palestine and the flaws and lack of transparency within the EU in responding to the conflicts taking place within the Middle East. Yanis Varoufakis (who joined virtually from Greece) in his reflection on the link between technological development and feudal capitalism, and the relative influence of AI on capitalist societies, proved to present the contexts by which the principles devised by Marx can remain ever important in today's society, and provides contexts to which these principles would not have occurred to many to have applied.

Events like this prove to be important in further celebrating our individuality and significance within the closely knit and highly diverse Marxist community, as well as in society as a whole. The considerable diversity of ages, cultures, and demographics that attended this festival was also pleasing to see, and it appeared to present a warm and positive atmosphere, reflecting the left-wing community within the UK. I also enjoyed seeing the many Palestinian keffiyehs of various colours and designs (I was wearing a pink and black one that day) that the attendees were wearing, as well as being impressed by the vast array of books on ideology and global politics, and on international development within the global south (very much my field of interest and helpful for my studies). I bought a few of these. 

I would highly recommend this festival to all socialists, whether new to or highly knowledgeable about the principles of Marxism, and I will certainly be returning next year.