'Revisionist' Bernstein in Hindsight

Eduard Bernstein, Die deutsche Revolution von 1918-19, Geschichte der Entstehung und ersten Arbeitsperiode der deutschen Republik. (Bonn: Dietz Nachf), 1998. [Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Heinrich August Winkler und annotiert von Teresa Löwe], pp352, €12, ISBN 3-8012-0272-0.

Reviewing this book in 2006 raises as a first question: Are we looking at either a book on the German Revolution or at Eduard Bernstein's account of this well known historical event? First, what do contemporaries know about the German Revolution 1918-19? Secondly, what do they know about Eduard Bernstein and why is it interesting to look at his account of the German Revolution? As to the first question, it seems to me that for many people, even those interested in the political history of the twentieth century, the German Revolution is not really regarded as one of the major events. It is overshadowed by the Russian October Revolution 1917 on the one hand and by the defeat of Germany at the end of World War II on the other. From this point of view it was only a secondary concomitant of the collapse of the German empire and its army as well as a failed aftershock of the October Revolution.

As to the second question, among devoted marxists Eduard Bernstein is generally known as 'the revisionist', which is why they do not read his main books on The Preconditions of Socialism (Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus, Bernstein 1899), on Cromwell and Communism, Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution (Kommunistische und demokratisch-sozialistische Strömungen während der englischen Revolution, Bernstein 1985), and on the German Revolution 1918-19 (Bernstein 1921). Conversely, non-marxist social democrats discard reading Bernstein, because in his theoretical approach he remains a devoted marxist. So, on both accounts, many might benefit from reading I in order to learn something about the German Revolution as well as to revise their prejudice about Eduard Bernstein's interpretation of socialism.

Eduard Bernstein was born in 1850. Unlike in the case of the English Revolution, which Bernstein studied as an historian, he played a part as an activist in the German Revolution and wrote his account immediately after the event. He had been a member of the Reichstag from 1902-06 and 1912-18, as a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) until 1917 when he became the co-founder of the left Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands - the USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party). Under the provisional government of the workers' councils he served as a secretary of state for economy and finance. He was really in the middle of events and consequently the book is in many ways the narrative of an eyewitness. While he attempts to assess the course of events as an impartial observer, he is nevertheless compelled to take sides in the disputes about how the revolution is to be defended. From November 1918 Bernstein's great concern was the reunification of the divided Social Democrats. He rejoined the Majority SPD in December 1918 without leaving the USPD, whilst the latter decided not to tolerate double membership at its party congress in March 1919. He worked tirelessly for a common front of the Social Democrats against the German bourgeoisie until in September 1922 the SPD and the part of USPD that had declined to join the communists unified. He died on 18 December 1932, shortly before the takeover of the nazis.

The trouble is that Die deutsche Revolution 1918-19 has not been translated and published in English. However, though this book is not unique as an account on the German Revolution, it is a most authentic analysis and touches upon a number of the most pertinent contemporary issues concerning the history and perspectives of socialism: What was the impact of the German Revolution on socialism in Europe? What is the role of the German Revolution in the transition of modes of production from feudalism via capitalism to socialism? Has ('renegade') Kautsky's critique of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' been vindicated by the collapse of the Comecon states? Is the revolution the only way to socialism?

1. The impact of the German Revolution on socialism in Europe can hardly be overestimated. It split revolutionary socialism in the country, which had been in the forefront of socialist development under the Second International of 1889, into social democracy and communism. As a result of this schism, which affected the whole of western Europe and isolated the Soviet Union, fascism could seize power in Germany and Italy and unleash the carnage of the Holocaust and World War II. The schism then took its really international dimension with the Cold War dividing not only Germany but the whole of Europe into two camps under capitalist markets and socialist planned economies. In a way the insurrection of 6-13 January 1919 in Berlin prefigured the struggle between capitalism with social security and socialism with central planning. Bernstein was aware of these dimensions at stake in the German Revolution. Despite his critical stance against Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in the German Revolution, he was well aware that both had become victims 'of the newly rising Militarism' (p236) and clearly diagnosed the danger of nationalism in Germany. In a letter to Karl Kautsky he wrote on 26 July 1924: 'We are approaching a coup d'état of the Nationalists, this seems to me unavoidable, if we keep muddling along this way.' (p22) His main concern was, therefore, to defend the achievements of the revolution against a counterrevolution.

2. As an activist in the German Revolution, Bernstein belonged to those deputies in the Reichstag who had opposed credits for the war and became a co-founder of the USPD. Based on his detailed class analysis, he regarded Germany like other west European countries by the end of the First World War as a developed capitalist industrial society, which, besides the landowners and capitalists, was composed of industrial workers and salaried employees but also significant layers of small traders, craftsmen and peasants. At this stage he assumed that a socialist revolution was doomed to fail. However he argued that 'as an administrative state it had achieved a stage of development at which already a simple democratisation of existing institutions represented a big step towards Socialism.' (p237) Taking into account this assessment of the development in modes of production and social classes, the German Revolution, like the English and French revolutions, could play a role only in the transition from feudalism to capitalism or in replacing the empire by parliamentary democracy. This was the reason why he vehemently opposed the Spartakus Bund and the 'Communist Party', who staged the Spartakus Insurrection of 6-13 January 1919 intending to disrupt parliamentary elections prepared for 19 January.

3. It is hardly possible to study this dispute between bolshevism and social democracy in Germany 1918-19 without reference to the Soviet Revolution. Lenin's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was the model for the German nascent communist movement and its opposition to an elected parliament including the nationalist and conservative classes. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht who advocated participation of the communists at the elections were defeated by 63 against 23 votes at the founding congress of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Der Gründungsparteitag der KPD, pp99-104, 124-129 and 135). Karl Kautsky, who had studied the development of agriculture in the context of the socialist revolution knew exactly what the peasantry in particular represented in the Soviet republic and warned against setting up a socialist state in which the industrial workers were still a small minority: 'In a country, which is economically still so little developed, that the proletariat represents only a minority, the maturity of the proletariat must not be expected' (Kautsky, 1918, p58). Kautsky argued that socialism without democracy would not have a chance to survive. Lenin's response in his essay "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (1918) is a fierce polemic which largely ignores rather than disproves Kautsky's argument. Bernstein had similar reservations with regard to Germany and concluded: 'Even if Social Democracy had achieved a numerical majority in the elections for the National Assembly, the participation of the bourgeois-republican parties would have been imperative for the maintenance of the republic.' (pp268 f.) Lenin's way to establishing socialism under the single communist party and a centrally planned economy was pursued not only in the Soviet Union but, after World War II, in all Comecon states. Resistance, however, remained alive, as manifested in the 1956 revolt in Hungary and the defeated 1968 reform in Czechoslovakia and the 1980 rising of Solidarnosc in Poland. The socialist state faltered in the Soviet Union by the end of the 1980s and eventually collapsed with the fall of the wall in Berlin. It is often argued that the economic weakness of the socialist state was the result of the devastation of the Soviet Union in World War II and the continuing arms race waged by the capitalist states and that this was the reason for its political weakness. This was certainly a component factor, but does it explain the largely supportive reaction of the people when the former socialist states introduced multi-party elections, abolished central planning and privatised the industries?

4. Let us, finally, consider the question of whether the revolution is the only way to socialism. Bernstein implicitly almost dismissed this as a possibility:

In the science of living beings called Biology the knowledge is established by experience and experimental investigation that organisms are the less adaptable the higher the level to which they are developed with regard to specialisation, education and functional coordination. With some restrictions with regard to the nature of the object this is true also for social organisms which we call states or, at an earlier stage of development, tribes or peoples. The less they are developed the more they tolerate measures aiming at a radical transformation. The more diversified however their inner structuring, the deeper their division of labour and cooperation of their organs have already progressed, the greater the danger of severe damage to their chances of survival, if one tries to transform them radically by means of force in a short time. (p237)

The theoretical justification is certainly an improper transfer of findings from natural to social sciences. But it illustrates Bernstein's considerations when he opted for social democracy and against bolshevism, though he did not explicitly exclude revolution as a possible way to socialism. Given that a certain stage of capitalist and industrial development was regarded as a precondition for a successful socialist revolution, and as this is hardly conceivable without a certain level of functioning state administration providing infrastructure, education, legal protection and policing, we are faced with a fundamental contradiction. Antonio Gramsci theorised in much detail the difficulty of a socialist revolution within the fabric of all the institutions of 'civil society' and led the Italian Communist Party to adopt policies of reform as a way to socialism (Gramsci, 1948-51). On similar lines in the Spanish Civil War the 'United Front', an alliance between communists, socialists and liberal democrats, was an attempt to fend off fascism. It provided the model for Eurocommunism. In 1951 the British Communist Party adopted The British Road to Socialism as a way to make progress towards socialism under parliamentary democracy. The German Communist Party, re-founded after World War II, was devoted to not repeating its mistake made in the Weimar Republic to fight against 'social-fascism' as the main enemy but to work for a 'popular front' with the Social Democrats. All this is well known and does not need to be expounded in this framework. What may however be concluded is that Bernstein's arguments have - so far - been vindicated by the course of European history of the second-half of the twentieth century. The question of whether Germany had a different option in 1918 and whether social democracy is to be blamed for the restoration of capitalism and ultimately the rise of fascism remains a matter of speculation.

Eduard Bernstein's great sympathy was with the mariners who sparked off the German Revolution of 28 October 1918 through their mutiny on the warships in Kiel harbour. They refused to raise anchors and to set sail to fight the British fleet. When, after the demise of the emperor, a provisional cabinet was formed Bernstein's prime concern was cooperation between the 'independent' and 'majority' social democrats. He had no illusions about the communists - having founded their party at the turn of the year - and their rejection of joining an alliance which was intended to prepare the elections for a new government including the bourgeoisie. He recounts crucial events in the disputes between the three fractions of socialists leading up to the Spartakus Revolt of January 1919 which, in his judgement, provided the military with the opportunity to re-establish themselves as a conservative patriotic power. Despite criticisms he vindicates the provisional government, arguing that they did not have any choice but to call for the help of the troops who than started acting on their own account: a tragic chain of events provoked by the communists. Bernstein in fact condemned bolshevism and was, in that respect, a typical representative of a predominantly anti-communist social democracy. On a personal note, in his view Karl Liebknecht highly overestimated himself and 'his power over the masses and … the possibilities of a coup' (p235). By contrast, he held Rosa Luxemburg in high regard as of a 'fundamentally poetical nature. With her socialism has lost a most talented comrade who might have provided invaluable services to the republic, if a mistaken assessment of the possibilities had not led her into the camp of illusionary politics of violence. But also those who for this reason opposed her in the parties' struggle will hold the memory of this restless fighter in honour.' (p236) Bernstein equally pays enthusiastic tribute to the workers' and soldiers' councils, whose role in the revolution he defended against allegations of incompetence and of having mishandled finances: 'In the first weeks of the revolution, when the waves of general excitement were rising high and Germany was in the danger of decay and anarchy, they have had a calming effect on the masses and in their majority proved themselves worthy as a power against agitation aiming at instigating the violence of the masses.' (p239)

This particular edition of Bernstein's Die Deutsche Revolution von 1918-19 has the great merit of being put into context through an introduction by the editor Heinrich August Winkler and the excellent annotations by Teresa Löwe. Winkler greatly acknowledges Bernstein's unwavering fight against the threat of nationalism, militarism, and fascism. That, on the other hand, Bernstein also bears responsibility for the schism between social democracy and communism does not seem to concern him too much. This however is the lasting legacy of German socialism in which Bernstein played his part. It is all too easy to put the responsibility for the split onto the communists. The majority of the German social democrats had already renounced the aim of expropriating the capitalists in 1918, though it remained in suspense whether this was a temporary tactical measure or a final decision to seek welfare and the improvement of social conditions under the auspices of the private ownership of capital. With the downfall of fascism in 1945 the same question was again on the agenda and remained unresolved until the SPD buried marxism, class struggle and the expropriation of capital for good with the Godesberg Programme of 1959. It would, however, be mistaken to accuse Bernstein of taking an anti-marxist position. He saw the need of continuing class struggle for the liberation of the working people and clearly perceived fascism as an expression of capitalism.

Teresa Löwe's annotations are invaluable. Not only has she checked all of Bernstein's quotations but she has also added many important quotes and sources which help the understanding of events where Bernstein just assumed that his contemporary readers were familiar with them. It is thanks to the annotations that this edition of the book becomes a document of extraordinary importance in that it combines the insider knowledge of a participant in the revolution with the scrutiny of the historian. The annotations (57 pages of small print) are in fact a work in their own right.

Let us conclude with a reflection on whether this book contributes to historical materialism and helps in understanding contemporary history. The fundamental thesis of this theoretical approach tells us that developments in the modes of production determine the social and political shape of societies. How then does Bernstein's analytical report of the German Revolution of 1918-19 add to our understanding of the development of capitalist societies and, perhaps, their transition to socialism? This book does not tell us much about the development of the mode of production in Germany which made for the colossal expansion of production in Germany between 1870 and the First World War and which, according to an analysis based on historical materialism, was the driving force behind the decision for war. The German imperial state fought for political power and participation in colonial imperialism corresponding to its economic power in Europe. The majority of the representatives of the working class in the Reichstag initially supported this war effort. As the war went on and claimed its horrendous sacrifices support faltered both among the political representatives and the working class and lead to the revolution demanding in the first place peace and democratic rights, to a lesser extent also the expropriation of the owners of capital. The book, however, tells us a lot about the objective and subjective class situation in Germany by 1918: first, that a layer of middle income employees and intellectuals had developed as a result of capitalist development; second, that a considerable number of small traders and craftsmen were still an important component of the economy and society; and, third, that the majority of blue collar workers did not support the politics of the independent social democrats and the communists. At the time of the German Revolution, Lenin discarded such considerations as 'sophistries' and boasted for the Soviet republic: 'A year after the proletarian revolution in the capitals, and under its influence and with its assistance, the proletarian revolution began in the remote rural districts, and it has finally proved there is no force in the country that can withstand it.' (Lenin p444) The planned economy under the 'dictatorship' of the party of the proletariat was established and industrialisation made a jump forward allowing for the defeat of the German war machinery and the first manned space ship to be launched in 1957. The socialist state however collapsed in the late eighties and private capital was or is being re-instated in all former socialist countries except - so far - Cuba. This is a lesson about the limitations of historical materialism as a doctrine and a reminder of dialectics. The working class is not automatically an agent in the transition to socialism, nor does the socialist state with a planned economy necessarily represent the working class. Eduard Bernstein's arguments should be taken serious, whether one agrees with them or not, because they shed a specific light on the failure of the socialist revolution in the twentieth century.

Jörn Janssen, European Institute for Construction Labour Research

 

Bibliography

Bernstein, Eduard. 1899. 'Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie, in Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart.

Bernstein, Eduard. 1930. Cromwell and Socialism, Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Bernstein, Eduard. 1895. Kommunistische und demokratisch-sozialistische Strömungen während der englischen Revolution. Stuttgart: J H W Dietz.

Bernstein, Eduard. 1921. Die deutsche Revolution von 1918-19, Geschichte der Entstehung und der ersten Arbeitsperiode der deutschen Republik. Berlin-Fichtenau: Verlag Gesellschaft und Erziehung.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1982. Selections from Prison the Notebooks, edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart. First published in Italian, Einaudi, 1948-51.

Der Gründungsparteitag der KPD, Protokoll und Materialien. Frankfurt am Main: Hg. Hermann Weber, Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Kautsky, Karl. 1899. Die Agrarfrage, eine Übersicht über die Tendenzen der modernen Landwirthschaft und die Agrarpolitik der Sozialdemokratie. Stuttgart: Dietz Nachf.

Kautsky, Karl. 1918. Die Diktatur des Proletariats. Wien: Ignatz Brand.

Lenin, Wladimir Iljitsch. 1959. 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky', in Against Revisionism. Moscow: Progress Publishers. First edition Moscow: Kommunist Publishers, 1918.