WAS THERE AND IS THERE A DICTATORSHIP OP THE BOURGEOISIE IN AUSTRIA?
D. Z. MANUILSKY
The question of who bolds the real power is decided by which class owns the means of production. Thus,-and only thus-have revolutionary Marxists invariably put the question of the character of class rule. The number of "concessions" made by the ruling class may change the form of class domination-but not its essence. The very extent of these "concessions" depends on the :relationship of forces as deter· mined by the class struggle of the proletariat. Alike in monarchies or republics; or fascist dictatorships, the means of production, the banks, the railroads, a considerable part of the land, etc., are in the bands of the capitalists, bankers and landlords, The form may change, but the content of class rule under capitalism remains the same-the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The people at the helm of state may change. The political parties of the bourgeoisie may change. The "rights" and "lefts" may replace each other. As circumstances demand, they put forward the various political programs of their governments, but all these parties and governments are defenders of the institution of private property and capitalism. The bourgeoisie and the landlords. irrespective of any friction that may take place between them, find it profitable, as the commanding class, to have two agents -the "rights" and the "lefts," the "democrats,, and the fascists-so as to fool the masses the more easily.
The change of the various bourgeois parties in power does not alter the fact that the whole apparatus of state violence remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie-the police, the detectives, the army, the jails, etc. In this apparatus continuity invariably prevails; only the higher officials change, because the party which comes to power, as the result of a general election, provides sinecures as a reward for its professional politicians who are recruited chiefly from the so-called liberal professions. The whole of the basic personnel of the state apparatus, the schools and the church, consisting as it does of faithful servants of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, formed by tens of years of careful selection, pass from left to right or vice versa. Therefore the ta k of the proletariat, as a class which stands for the annihilation of capitalism, i for the proletarian revolution to destroy this old apparatus of class rule, and build a new apparatus of proletarian dictatorship. Because the electors of bourgeois political parties are the petty bourgeoisie, the officials and the peasantry, the nature of these parties does not change, for these classes and social groups occupy an intermediate position. They waver between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They respect force and usually join the side which possesses and displays this force. Though fascism in a number of countries relies on the petty bourgeoisie, this does not alter the basic fact that fascism is an agent of monopoly capital.
Every political party, whatever it may say about itself, if it stands for capitalism, is a party of bourgeois dictatorship, no matter whether the form be fascist or parliamentary. And we have to judge of social-democracy and its Austrian leader, Otto Bauer, not by their declarations on "socialism" but by their deeds. In reality, the social-democrats are a party which stands for the conservation of capitalism. All their post-war history shows it.
After the revolution of 1918, the German and Austrian social-democrats were in power, but the existing order did not change an iota. The basis of capitalism remained untouched and the means of production remained in the hands of the old ruling classes. Did the bourgeoisie in England lose their privileges because the Labor Party was in power twice-in 1924 and in 1929-31? On the contrary, everybody knows that the Labor (government carried through a series of measures whose aim was to lower wages and reduce insurance benefit, sweeping away all that the British working class had gained during a number of years.
THE STRUGGLE OF AUSTRO-GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY FOR "SOCIALISM"
Social-democratic workers are often at a loss to know why we Communists speak of social-democracy as the party of social-fascism. But this description does not contain a shade of polemic or exaggeration. It is merely the statement of a historical fact in the general evolution of social democracy. If in the epoch of the general crisis of monopoly capitalism, its general tendencies lead to fascization, i. e., to the abolition of the social and political gains of the working class, to an increased resorting to methods of political terror and the growth of reaction, a party which in practice repudiates the proletarian revolution, and therefore stands for capitalism, cannot help passing through the whole of capitalism's process of evolution, together with it.
Why did Austrian social-democracy declare that the famous Twenty-Eighth Decree, which cut down the already meagre unemployment benefit, was a victory for its policy of the "lesser evil"? It explains this measure by stern necessity occasioned by the difficult situation of Austrian capitalism. Capitalism is passing through a crisis. It must maintain its accustomed profits, and for this purpose it makes attacks on wages and social insurance. Social-democracy, like a convict chained to a cart, passes through the whole gamut of "difficulties" together with decaying capitalism, endeavoring to persuade the workers to accept every new reduction of their standard of living without a murmur. But this position expresses the historic fact of the fascization of social-democracy.
Under the circumstances of a severe world crisis, the bourgeoisie are deliberately allowing social-democracy to take power as a result of parliamentary elections in a number of countries, so that they will be ab1e to carry out the "reforms" which the bourgeoisie require in order to maintain their profits, not by their own hands, but through the agency of social-democracy. Such was the case in England, such is the case at the present time in Sweden, where a social-democratic government was formed a few months ago. Whereas the pre-war reformism of social-democracy consisted in an attempt to divert the workers from the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism by various trifling concessions on the part of the bourgeoisie, at the present time, under conditions of crisis, we have social-democratic reformism turned inside out, "reformism" which gradually places the working class in a worse and worse position. And this is the fascization of social-democracy. In order to conceal this process of fascization, social-democracy announces the capitulationist slogan- "the period of reform has ended, the winning of socialism is at hand." But when social-democracy is in power, as in Sweden, or when it was in power, as in England, Germany and Austria, where did it win, or try to win, socialism? What has happened to the famous socialization projects of Otto Bauer and Hilferding of the revolutionary period of 1918? It is sufficient to remember what the social democratic newspapers wrote in these revolutionary years when they abandoned socialization. We must not take the ruined heritage which capitalism leaves behind it at the present ti.me, they said. Socialism cannot be built up on the ruins of productive forces, but only by taking over from the bourgeoisie the normally functioning apparatus of capitalist economy. Therefore the years of post-war economic ruin and inflation were followed by capitalist stabilization. The social-democratic theoreticians have made a complete rightabout-face in their arguments. They began to put forward the theory of "organized capitalism." But it was found that even with the "organized" functioning apparatus of capitalist economy, the social-democrats were not in a position to win socialism, because in the period of capitalist stabilization the position of the bourgeoisie becomes stronger, while the proletariat becomes weaker.
In short, revolution cannot be made either from ruins or from surplus.
TH£ SOCIALISM OF THE "COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION"
But now the world crisis appears with all its awful consequences for the workers, while the process of fascization becomes more rapid both in the apparatus of the capitalist state, and in the whole system of bourgeois political parties. Otto Bauer deliberately slurs over the process of revolutionization going on among the masses, and in his celebrated speech describes the situation as a "counter-revolutionary situation.'' That same party which did not so much let slip, but rather destroyed, the revolutionary situation existing in Austria in 1918 for the winning of socialism, considers a "counter-revolutionary situation" to be the most suitable for the winning of socialism by democratic paths. This characterization is not a chance slip of the tongue on the part of Otto Bauer, because the "socialism" of social-democracy in a "counter-revolutionary situation" is nothing more or less than the economic program of fascism. When Otto Bauer announced the bandit measures of the Austrian bourgeoisie in transferring the liabilities of the bankrupt Creditanstalt bank on to the shoulders of the workers and peasants by mean of "nat1onalization" to be a step on the way to socialism, this is defending the fascist "socialism of a counter-revolutionary situation." When another 11ocial-fas- cist cynic, Rilferding, saw a ''bit of socialism" in the decrees of Bruning for the reduction of wages, because they represented state interference, this expressed the organic fusion of the programs of fascism and social-democracy. The whole theory of modern social-democracy on "state capitalism" is nothing but the ideological justification of the fascization of bourgeois dictatorship. It is exactly adjusted to the practical measures of capital's offensive against the working class.
But how can we reconcile the statement of Otto Bauer on a "counter-revolutionary situation" with his other thesis that in Austria the bourgeoisie do not at present enjoy unlimited domination? It is precisely in a "counter-revolutionary situation'' that all the features of "unlimited" bourgeois dictatorship stand out in especially sharp relief.
IS THERE A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION IN AUSTRIA?
It is another question as to whether there is a counterrevolutionary situation in Austria at all. What are the characteristic signs of the victory of counter-revolution? There are three.
Firstly, when the bourgeoisie, with the collaboration of social-democracy, have defeated the working class and the toiling population in open struggle, temporarily crushing the revolution, they consolidate their rule buoyed up on the wave of an improving economic situation- an improved situation which helps the counter-revolution to grow into a more or less stable regime of bourgeois dictatorship.
Secondly, the intermediate classes and social groups, above all the urban petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry, scared by the magnitude of the revolution, flock over to the side of the big bourgeoisie and form a united "national front" against the working class, which bas been defeated in the fight. I is precisely this circumstance which creates consolidation, in the bourgeois counter-revolutionary camp, when there is a certain amount of confusion in the camp of revolution.
Thirdly, the proletariat, which is isolated from other classes, deserted by all its temporary allies, is so weakened, that for a number of years it is incapable of any further great class struggles. In the period of counter-revolution, it is not radicalization which takes place in the ranks of the working class, not the growth of a new revolutionary wave, but the ebb of the wave, a certain swing of the masses to the right.
If we examine the situation in Austria from this point of view, it is quite clear that there cannot be any question of a counter-revolutionary situation. Things in Austria are moving, objectively towards the maturing of a revolutionary crisis. The legend of a "counter-revolutionary situation" was invented by Otto Bauer so as to demobilize the Austrian workers, to binder their radicalization. What kind of a struggle can there be, anyway, if the Austrian proletariat finds itself faced with a counter-revolutionary situation? In the arsenal of Austrian social-democracy, the scare-crow of the counter-revolutionary situation is intended for the same part as the legend of "the hand of god" at the time of the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
Characteristic for Austria is the fact that the great mass of the Austrian social-democratic workers, systematically restrained by social-democracy, have not fought against the bourgeoisie as they should. When the working class came out, as it did, on its own initiative, on July 16, 1927, against the will of the social-democratic leaders, the movement did not spread, because social-democracy undermined the struggle. The Austrian proletariat were not defeated in open fight. Under the leadership of social-democracy, they have continually retreated. But it is not a movement to the Right which we see going on now among the working class in Austria, but a sharp swing to the Left, which is compelling Otto Bauer to make new zig-zag maneuvers on the question of the U. S."S. R., the united front, etc. This is the first point.
The second point is that Austrian social-democracy has not solved and could not solve any of the tasks of the proletarian revolution in 1918, as, let us say, the bourgeoisie solved the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in the nineteenth century in its own capitalist reactionary way. The gains won by the Austrian proletariat in its struggle do not contain anything socialistic. Austrian social-democracy deliberately announced these gains to be "a bit of socialism," so as to calm the proletariat and keep them back from proletarian revolution. The tasks of the proletarian revolution still remain to be solved. The Austrian bourgeoisie are not faced with an improvement in the economic situation but with a decline. The general crisis of capitalism can and will be ended only by a proletarian revolution.
Thirdly, only an agent of the bourgeoisie, anxious to scare the Austrian workers with talk of a "counter-revolutionary situation," could speak of consolidation in the camp of the bourgeoisie, in the present conditions of world economic crisis. The growth of the fascist movement in Austria at the present time does not by any means signify the consolidation of the bourgeoisie. If, on the one hand, it is accompanied by an intensification in the methods. of political reaction, on the other band it is also a symptom of the economic and political break-down of capitalism now beginning.
The ravings of reaction only serve to show how uncertain is the bourgeoisie as to what tomorrow may bring. "Autumn flies bite hardest!" The discontent of the masses of the petty bourgeoisie with the system of exploitation compels the fa cists to speak to these masses in the language of anti-capitalist demagogy. But this demagogy is beginning to lose its credit among the masses. A break-down is maturing in the camp of fascism itself.
THE TACTICS OF AVOIDING CIVIL WAR
ln Austria there is no "counter-revolutionary situation," but the Austrian social-democrats and Otto Bauer have done everything in their power to create one. They have led the working class of Austria from defeat to defeat by sounding a retreat with systematic regularity. The situation which has arisen in Austria today is the result of this policy. In Austria the bourgeoisie are attacking just because they know that Austrian social-democracy will not offer any real resistance, that its threats to use violence are empty, that Austrian social-democracy is only capable of violence against the revolutionary workers, that in the event of an Austrian July 20th, it will act in just the same way as did German social-democracy. The bourgeoisie know that Seitz, the Mayor of Vienna, is just about as "capable" of a revolutionary struggle as Severing or Grzesinski. And to remove any doubt on this, it is sufficient to recall the way that the Austrian workers have gone since 1918. There are certain historic dates which the Austrian working class has not the right to forget. These are the dates when it was defeated without a fight, when the positions won by it in revolution were treacherously betrayed by Austrian social-democracy. Can they forget such dates as the "self-disbanding" of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the disarming of the Red battalions of national defense by the social-democratic minister Eldersch, and the shooting down of the demonstrations of workers-who were protesting against this measure?
(...)
In view of these facts, let the Austrian workers judge whether Communists are right in saying that Austrian social democracy has worked tirelessly. to strengthen the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. And if the economic position of the bourgeoisie bas nevertheless been undermined by the crisis, it is not the fault of Otto Bauer and his party, but the result of natural processes of the general crisis of capitalism. If the Austrian workers wish to fix the moment at which Austrian fascism was born, they must seek it on the day when the workers' Soviets gave way to the Austrian democratic parliament. The further efforts of Austrian social-democracy to drag the working class backwards have continually altered the relationship of forces, and not altered them in favor of the proletariat. In Austria there has been no development from abstract democracy to bourgeois dictatorship; what bas taken place is a shifting of forces within the framework of one and the same bourgeois dictatorship.
Continue
REPUDIATION OF VIOLENCE IS REPUDIATION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE
.jpg)
No comments