Eduard Bernstein is the consummate expression of the revisionist deviation in Marxism, a perfect example of bourgeois ideology penetrating the Marxist science within a process conditioned by the class struggle. His example is important today since, in the last instance, the same material and ideological forces producing his deviation in the late 1890’s are reproducing a similar trend in Euro-communism in the present. However, a simple comparison of Bernstein with the Euro-communists is not sufficient for understanding the revisionist problematic itself. We must question and examine the very political significance applied to the concepts of theory and theoretical practice as it has been understood, both then and now, to unravel the revisionist enigma. The nature of the state and proletarian dictatorship, the relation between theoretical practice and the other practices, plus the very character of the anti-revisionist critique, are all aspects of the class struggle that is waged in all countries at all times. By studying the way in which the class struggle of Bernstein’s time gave rise to his deviations from Marxism we will find a key to their reproduction in our own conjuncture.
1. What characterized the refutations of Bernstein given by those other than Lenin and Luxemburg? What degree of sophistication in theory did these refutations reveal? How are Lenin and Luxemburg’s critiques different and/or similar? Are they adequate? What would we add today?
2. Why did German Social Democracy’s repudiation of Bernstein make no difference in the long run? How is this similar to the repudiation of dogmatism/revisionism by certain sections of the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist movement?
3. Discuss Bernstein’s idea of the nature of bourgeois liberalism and his contention that socialism is its most “organized” form. What does this say about his conception and understanding of Marxism’s scientificity?
4. Discuss Bernstein’s view of the nature of the state and the proletarian dictatorship. Is this a Marxist view? Where have we heard this view espoused most recently?
5. What kind of relation existed between the theoretical practice of the Second International and their political, economic and ideological practices?
6. Bernstein said he tested Marxist theory with empirical reality, yet he was unable to provide theoretical proofs authenticating his “theoretical” conclusions. His discourse lacked the necessary rigor for remaining on the terrain of the Marxist problematic. Instead of using the Marxist science to aid in producing knowledge about the new era of monopoly capitalism, Bernstein simply took this new phenomena at face value and compared it to the finished product of someone else’s theoretical production. What does this say about Bernstein’s conception of theoretical practice and in what form does this conception find reproduction nationally and internationally at the present time? Why is it necessary for the PWOC and the Guardian to rectify it in their own practice? Why must we?
Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, pp. 104-165.
Julius Braunthal, The History of the International, pp. 265-271. (Braunthal is a leading German Social Democratic historian).
V. I. Lenin, “Our Programme,” pp. 210-214.
Rosa Luxemburg, “Social Reform or Revolution,” pp. 115-134.