Accueil
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Bauer
"The political thought of Austro-marxism, especially the works of Otto Bauer and Max Adler, were unified in one central idea: its ambition to overcome the divide between Social Democracy and Communism, embodied in its purest form by Bauer’s concept of ‘integral socialism’, the idea of a process of mutual learning and dialogue." (p.XIV)
"Otto Bauer, was a true authority in the international workers’ movement in his lifetime. He entered the history of political movements as the ideological leader of Austrian Social Democracy in the First Republic ; co-founder and prime mover of Austromarxism from 1906–38, state functionary, influential theorist, and one of the leaders of three internationals – the Second International, the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (‘Second and a half international’), and Labour and Socialist International, respected parliamentarian, outstanding speaker, editor of socialist newspapers and journals, and teacher at the ‘workers’ college’. No less respected were his theoretical contributions as a historian, sociologist, philosopher, Sovietologist, political thinker, and author of texts on economics. He wrote 47 monographs and around 4,000 articles – his written publications amount to more than 10,000 printed pages. The articles Bauer wrote for the Arbeiter-Zeitung newspaper and Der Kampf monthly journal informed readers extensively on national and international political events and acute questions in the international workers’ movement and his party, and at the same time crucially influenced public opinion." (p.XVII)
-Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
"According to Bauer, democracy is not intrinsically legitimised as majority rule, but is subordinated to and legitimised by socialism. Hence, democracy becomes a means to a predetermined end. However, this also means that the order can be reversed: socialism can be introduced before democracy if the historical circumstances demand it. That is why Bauer could interpret and accept Russian Bolshevism as ‘despotic socialism’ without great difficulty – in the hope and belief, of course, that the process of democratisation would be developed later on. With respect to this, Karl Kautsky – in whose footsteps Otto Bauer walked until he discovered and began to justify ‘despotic socialism’ – was a better Marxist and democrat. He did not capitulate to the illusion that a dictatorship with terrorist features would ever turn into a democracy. What is more, he maintained the idea that Bolshevism would collapse, which, for the time being, eclipsed the Marxist perspective of capitalist collapse.
Thus, we can only conditionally consider Bauer a flawless democrat. Not only based on how we perceive democracy today, but even in terms of how his contemporaries, Karl Renner and Hans Kelsen, distinguished it. Rather, we should regard him as a democrat who adhered to democracy primarily or exclusively because, most of the time, it appeared to him as the safest road to socialism. It is no accident that there is not a single paragraph in Bauer’s collected works where the author positively refers to the continued existence of a multi-party system in a future socialist society. Bauer did not openly state what he, as a consistent Marxist, was compelled to think: that the basis for the existence of different parties would disappear with the demise of antagonistic classes. To preserve the liberty and creativity of the responsible individual was a different issue for Bauer, who was a humanist and defender of the classical legacy of the Enlightenment. This attachment to individual freedom was precisely what separated him from Bolshevism in spite of all appearances. Suffice it to say, he also hoped that individual freedom, like democracy, would be restored in the Soviet Union." (p.XXX)
-Norbert Leser, avant propos à Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
"During the night between 3 to 4 July 1938, Otto Bauer died in the Rue Turgot in Paris. He was only 57 years old. His close friend and long-time editorial assistant of Vienna’s Arbeiter-Zeitung, Otto Leichter, who was called to Bauer’s deathbed by his wife Helene, wrote: ‘There was no doubt to anyone who was able to spend Bauer’s last months with him that he died of a broken heart in the truest and saddest sense’. Bauer passed away believing that he was responsible for the defeat of the party and unhappy about his forced emigration and separation from his native country. He was also distressed over the fate of his comrades and the new party, the Revolutionary Socialists of Austria, after Hitler’s Anschluss (annexation of Austria). His death came during an unfavourable period for the workers’ movement: the threat of war was becoming increasingly likely, the masses were disillusioned with bourgeois democracy, the totalitarian system of the ussr had consolidated itself, and divides within the Social-Democratic movement were widening. Moreover, there was a lack of developed organisational principles and tactics for the workers’ struggle against fascism. Bauer’s funeral on 6 July 1938 at the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris, which commenced with a rendition of the Internationale, turned into a demonstration of workers’ solidarity. Many renowned activists of the international labour movement, party comrades, and hundreds of workers were present. As an homage to Bauer and his legacy, his ashes were placed next to the urns of the Paris Commune fighters, then wrapped in a red flag, covered in red flowers, and passed to two young Austrian socialists. Speeches were held by Léon Blum, who represented the French Socialist Party, Friedrich Adler, a friend and colleague of Bauer’s, Gustav Richter (Joseph Buttinger), the chair of the Revolutionary Socialists of Austria, and Louis de Brouckère, the chair of the Labour and Socialist International. Blum’s words were a fitting résumé of the aspirations that had defined the entire life of the departed theorist and politician: ‘Each and every one of us feels that Bauer was cut from the same cloth as leaders such as Jaure, Guesde, and Vaillant: always illuminating action through theory, always invigorating theory through action’. He did not merely want to be a socialist in parliament. Rather, he viewed his duties as issuing the guidelines of historical materialism when investigating socialist transformation and utilising the results to determine the strategy and tactics of the workers’ party." (pp.1-2)
"Otto Bauer was born on 5 August 1881 in Vienna. He was the first-born son of a wealthy textile factory owner and merchant in north Czechia, Philip Bauer, and his wife Käthe (born Greber). At that time, Otto’s family, including his sister Ida, who was a year younger than him, lived in the Jewish district, Leopoldstadt, and later changed its residence several times. The roots of his father’s family were based in Czechia, where Bauer’s Jewish grandparents originated." (pp.2-3)
"Bauer defended the freedom of religion and remained respectful towards it. He did not quit the Jewish religious community of Austria, the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde, out of respect for the religion of his ancestors and his solidarity with Jews."(note 9 p.3)
"Otto grew up in an atmosphere that was conducive to his predisposition: free from material worry, pampered by his mother who dedicated her entire time to the family, and his father, who was known for his jovial personality and liberal views. The atmosphere at home was one of ideological tolerance, mainly due to Bauer senior, who was a member of [la loge maçonnique viennoise Friedrich Schiller]. The family read the works of German and French writers and philosophers with pleasure and cultivated an interest in theatre and the arts. His father’s illness was the reason as to why Otto frequently changed schools, attending schools in Vienna and Meran. He finished grammar school in Reichenberg. In all schools, he was the best in class. In this period of his life, he had three passions: the study of German culture and history, foreign languages (he had a good command of Latin and Greek, knew Czech from early childhood, spoke French and English fluently, learned Serbo-Croatian for his studies of the history of the Balkans, and later learned Russian in a prisoner-of-war camp), and sports (particularly alpine hiking, which would remain his hobby for the rest of his life). When attending grammar school, he began to take an interest in socialist literature. He wrote a letter to Kautsky on 19 May 1904, and Anti-Dühring, The Communist Manifesto, and Capital were discussed among his circle of friends." (p.3)
"In accordance with his father’s will, which would entrust Otto with the management of the factory, he took up law studies at Vienna University in the winter semester of 1900–1." (pp.3-4)
"Bauer’s years of study were characterised by his titanic diligence and distinctly ascetic lifestyle, which he would maintain for the rest of his life. He was a rather unsocial, radical teetotaller who seldom forged friendships and kept people at a distance, which many interpreted as conceit. As Hanisch confirms, Bauer enrolled in Roman and German law, history of Austrian law, and philosophy, and additionally, history of economy in the second semester and political economy and general statistics in the third. He had an academic gap year from 1902–3 in order to do his military service. Upon returning to university, he focused his attentions on national economics, political economy, and Austrian commercial law." (note 14 p.4)
"At the turn of the century, Vienna was not only a centre of the scientific, cultural, and political life of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, but also a significant focus of the socialist movement led by Victor Adler since 1889. The policies enacted by Franz Joseph i of Austria and the governments of Eduard Taaffe, Count Kasimir Felix Badeni and Ernst Koerber turned the Habsburg monarchy into a modern capitalist state economically, and a constitutional state in the administrative realm. The convergence of the aims of monarchic state power and the interests of Social Democracy was typical of that state. The former was favourable to political circles that desired stronger links between Austria-Hungary and Germany ; in the broadest sense, it was also well disposed towards the advocates of federalism, who aimed to divide the monarchy into multiple federal states. The Social Democrats, meanwhile, aspired to preserve the unity of the multinational state. Each of these parties had different expectations concerning electoral reform. The Emperor hoped to empower the government and empire, while the Social Democrats hoped to strengthen the working class. Yet both found it important to recognise parliament as the platform of political and economic decision-making. It was precisely the sdap’s overestimation of the significance of parliament that later led to its downfall: it misread legal measures as guaranteed victories for the working class. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, Victor Adler’s tactics corresponded with the consciousness of the proletariat at the time." (p.4)
"The unification of the workers’ movement in Austria took place at the Hainfeld congress from 31 December 1888–1 December 1889, in which delegates from socialist groups of various nationalities participated. In accordance with the programme authored by Victor Adler, acquiring universal suffrage was regarded as the ultimate objective of the class struggle. Accordingly, the question of revolution was postponed indefinitely. Sheer numbers testify to the strength of the labour movement at the time: 150,000 members, 540,000 trade union members, one million votes, eight seats in parliament." (note 15 p.4)
"According to the Social Democrats, the prerequisites for the victory of socialism in the distant future were the development of class consciousness and greater historical maturity of the masses, their will to transform the constitutional order, and advanced economic conditions. The party wanted a peaceful revolution that would preserve the democratic and cultural gains of the capitalist state. The political trajectory and interpretation of socialist ideology suggested by Adler at the 1901 congress secured the sdap support from the working class and the sympathies of the progressive intelligentsia. Its electoral victories garnered the attention of students – in parliament, the sdap came second to Karl Lueger’s Christian Social Party, which represented the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and peasantry.
At Vienna University in the early 1890s, the philosopher Max Adler founded the Free Association of Socialist Students and Academics, which counted the future Austromarxists, Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferding, among its members.16In1894, this group merged with the academic debating society Veritas, in which Adler and Ernest Pernersdorfer were also involved. Under the influence of the Social Democrats, the Free Association became a powerful centre for self-education. In 1894–5, its members began to collaborate with the academic historians Ludo Hartmann and Karl Grünberg, with whom they founded the Sozialwissenschaftlicher Bildungsverein (Social Sciences Education Society).
Bauer joined both organisations. He was not only motivated by moral considerations when joining the socialist movement. His study of Marxism, Capital in particular, persuaded him that Marx’s historical materialism was theoretically correct and illuminated the path for historical and social development. He joined the so-called Bernstein debate and defended Marx’s basic premises against the attacks of revisionists. Three legacies inspired his Marxist positions on the socio-economic phenomena of the time: the philosophy of Kant ; the methodological premises of positivism and scientism ; and the Austrian school of political economy, including the views of Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, whose seminar he participated in." (p.5)
"Bauer’s philosophical and social worldview became more sophisticated after he joined the educational society Die Zukunft, the first workers’ school of Vienna founded in 1903. Its co-founders Max Adler, Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferding (who were some 10 years Bauer’s senior), and its later members Gustav Eckstein, Friedrich Adler, Wilhelm Ellenbogen, Robert Dannenberg, Anton Hannak and Bauer created the intellectual and ideological tendency that later became known as Austromarxism. Most of them were from bourgeois families, mainly within the Jewish intelligentsia, while Renner and Hannak hailed from peasant backgrounds. Actively participating in workers’ school and party organisations, they also intended to overcome the workers’ scepticism towards intellectuals in the socialist movement. Their aim was to fuse the original ideas of Marxism with philosophical, sociological, economic and legal theories and political positions which were dominant within bourgeois ideology: positivism, naturalism, social Darwinism, legal normativism, the heritage of the Austrian school of national economics, reformism, and syndicalism. German nationalism played a role in their attempts to merge these concepts to a degree. It was most evident in their reluctance to integrate any scientific and political systems that had originated from outside the remits of German culture. At least, not without first melting them in the polemical fires and then remoulding them to suit German national consciousness. Their standpoint, which became the cornerstone of Social-Democratic political practice, was in fact a collection of theories linked solely through the affirmation of socialism, which was conceived abstractly as a synthesis of general humanist values. The fact that the founders of this school actively participated in the struggles of the workers’ movement influenced the theoretical concepts they adhered to. Amongst Austromarxists, there was a certain division of labour, which affected the subject of research. Max Adler focused on philosophical, ideological and ethical matters; Hilferding attended to economic problems ; Renner concentrated on law, the state order and sociology ; and Bauer dedicated himself to sociological, historical and socio-political aspects." (p.6)
"The young ‘Viennese Marxists’, as Karl Vorländer called them later, came of age in an atmosphere of subservience to the house of Habsburg, which was saturated in clericalism, anti-Semitism, and nationalism. In this climate, national tolerance had its limits: the superiority of the German nation had to be unconditionally recognised. All of them were students of liberal-reformist bourgeois teachers. Still, they let themselves be carried away by the new zeitgeist, i.e. the unconventional literary currents of the early twentieth century (Hermann Bahr, Hugo von Hofmannstahl, Arthur Schnitzler, Karl Kraus, Robert Musil), music (Anton Bruckner, Gustav Mahler, Arnold Schönberg), architecture (Otto Wagner, Joseph Hoffmann, Adolf Loos) and painting (Gustav Klimt, Joseph Maria Olbrich, Kolo Moser and Egon Schiele among others). This was all an expression of their rebellion against traditional ideas and values. The beginning of the Viennese socialists’ scientific activity was marked by the publication of the first volume of Marx-Studien by Max Adler and Rudolf Hilferding, which was dedicated to Victor Adler. [...] [They posed] a challenge to positivism, neo-Kantianism, the psychological school of economics, and especially interpretations of Marxism held in so-called orthodox circles that were indebted to naturalism, scientism and Darwinism." (p.7)
"Their critique of naturalism stressed the importance of consciousness, ethics and culture in socio-political transformations. While agreeing that the Marxian method of explaining social phenomena and processes was imperative, they established its correctness not on the grounds of dialectics, but rather on Kant’s method of transcendental criticism (Max Adler, Bauer) or, alternatively, inductionism (Renner). The Austromarxists’ interests centred around the neo-Kantianism of the Baden and Marburg schools, Ernst Mach’s empirio-criticism, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, Hans Kelsen’s pure theory of law, Böhm-Bawerk’s theory of marginal utility, the works of Eduard Bernstein and Vladimir Lenin, the historical works of Karl Lamprecht and Karl Grünberg, and the sociological theories of Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel and Max Weber. Alfred Pfabigan’s harsh criticism that Austromarxism reflected the intellectual poverty of Austrian philosophy at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is problematic given its far-reaching influence. The period bore numerous fruits, e.g. the psychoanalytical theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, the analytical philosophy of the Vienna Circle, and the work of unconventional thinkers such as Otto Weininger and Fritz Mauthner. The Austromarxists also creatively aided the development of the Baden and Marburg schools’ neo-Kantian ideas. They crucially contributed to epistemology, the role of ideas and the conscious will in the historical process, the inseparable connection between the historical and ethical necessity in history, and the criterion of separation between natural science and social science (M. Adler, Bauer). Moreover, they re-evaluated Mach’s empirio-criticism (F. Adler, Ellenbogen) and criticised vulgar materialism and revisionism." (p.8 )
"Although Victor Adler was not an advocate of Bernstein, he concurred that it was necessary to eschew the revolutionary road to power and concentrate on strengthening the workers’ movement. He adhered to a deterministic view of the social process and believed in the inevitable self-destruction of capitalism, i.e. the advent of socialism by virtue of the ‘iron laws of history’, which Social Democracy could only accelerate. The material basis for this were social policies raising the living standard of the working class, the Social-Democratic parties’ electoral successes, particularly in Germany, and the swelling ranks of parties and trade unions. The Austrian socialists scrutinised the fate and strategies of their German sister party, whose congresses they attended before becoming organisationally and theoretically independent (1869–89). Later, they continued their co-operation, e.g. via the Karl Kautsky edited journal, Die Neue Zeit. They also had contacts with socialists in other countries: Antonio Gramsci (Italy), Paul Lafargue, Eduard Vallante, Hubert Lagardelle and Alexandre Bracke (France), Georgi Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod, Julius Martov, and Theodor Dane (Russia), Emil Vandervelde (Netherlands), Hermann Grenich (Switzerland), the Geneva Socialist Association, the workers’ parties of Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia and the United States." (p.9)
"The left of the international workers’ movement (Lenin, Trotsky) berated Austromarxism for its right deviationism, pacifism, and politics of compromise towards the bourgeoisie. Conversely, the parties of the right and the Catholic press denounced it as Austro-Bolshevism." (p.10)
"Bauer held Max Adler in high esteem. He shared his vision of a new culture and new man, and endorsed his belief in the historical mission of the proletariat. Nevertheless, he criticised Adler’s inclination for Hegelian ways of thinking, his inability to recognise the real balance of class forces, and his abstraction from the politics of the day.26 Although Adler was, from the very start, more radical than the rest of the group, he exercised friendly restraint when criticising Bauer’s personality and activism. Similarly, when Hilferding opposed Bauer’s support for Austrian union with Germany after World War i, this did not affect their personal relationship. Political differences, which were already perceptible during the early periods of Austromarxism, intensified during World War i. Max Adler assumed a leftist position, Renner positioned himself on the right, and Bauer oscillated between the two wings depending on political struggles. These divisions did not affect their organisational ties. All Austromarxists supported the idea of party unity that Bauer had inherited from Victor Adler.
The integral component of the preservation of the multinational state, had already become manifest in Bauer’s early articles and treatises. As is evident in his letter to Kautsky of June 1904, he dedicated himself to the study of economic history and economic crises, questions on tariff protection, and colonial policy at the age of 23. The results were published in the form of nine texts in Die Neue Zeit. His article, ‘Marx’ Theorien der Wirtschaftskrise’ (‘Marx’s Theories of Economic Crisis’), in which he defended Marx’s theory of value against the polemics of the Austrian School of Economics, was strongly approved of by Kautsky. Before the age of 24, Bauer had already earned a reputation as an outstanding speaker and teacher in self-education courses.
In the memoirs of his colleagues, the young Bauer is described as a rationalist who understood reality in theoretical terms, but also as a romantic who was emotionally committed to the economic, social, and intellectual liberation of the proletariat. This conflicting nature would later be reiterated to explain the lifelong contradiction between his thoughts and practice. Even during the early days, Bauer attracted the attention of scientists who had few sympathies for Social Democracy. Some of them, such as the anti-Marxist Ludwig von Mises, predicted a political future for him. Sigmund Freud, whom Bauer knew personally, did not agree with this flattering prophecy: he viewed him as a scientist and advised him against taking up politics altogether. Yet Bauer did not merely want to be a theorist and analyst. He considered it his duty to transform social reality, not just interpret it. His main reasons for championing socialism were axiological rather than economic or social. For him, socialism embraced the prospect of a moral and intellectual rebirth of individuals and societies. In his first major essays, he remained faithful to this moralistic perspective: In ‘Marxismus und Ethik’ (‘Marxism and Ethics’,1906) and ‘Geschichte eines Buches’ (‘History of a Book’, 1907), which contained his commentary on Marx’s Capital, he defended the evaluative orientation of socialism. For Bauer, socialism was principally an ethical goal, a form of social coexistence that would allow for the full realisation of all major human values. He held on to this until the end of his life, regarding it as his obligation to provide a basis for how this ideal, which he approached from a Kantian perspective, could be integrated into Marx’s laws of social development. In the aforementioned works, he attempted to provide a foundation for socialism that was reliant on the premises of Kantian ethics. He overcame his propensity for Kantianism between 1916 and 1920, yet he continued to perceive universal moral rights as the roots of democratic ideals and humanist values. His writing, which he continued even in times of political failure and after his party was defeated, was imbued with social optimism. This was manifest in his unswerving faith in the continuity and linearity of social progress and his belief in the victory of socialism." (pp.10-12)
"Bauer joined the sdap when he began his studies in the winter semester of 1900–1. At the time, the unresolved nationalities question was the central problem in Austrian Social-Democratic politics. Nationalities conflicts, Czech separatism in particular, led to the intensification of German nationalism, but also restrained economic development within the empire and caused serious disruptions to parliamentary life.Indeed, the Hainfeld programme of 1889 entirely ignored the nationalities question, advocating instead the general principles of internationalism and the abolition of national privileges. Bauer dismissed this as a ‘naive cosmopolitanism’. Victor Adler eschewed the national question at party congresses, as he feared a surge in Slavic nationalist sentiments and a consequent disintegration of the party. His was a far-sighted politics: the federal party structure, enforced in 1897 by strong centres of opposition especially in Czechia and Poland, weakened the stability of the workers’ movement. The party leadership held the view that the preservation of vast economic territories was in the interest of the proletariat. Hence, leaving aside the class aspect of the national question, the programme it adopted in Bern in 1899 demanded the transformation of Austria-Hungary into a federal state of autonomous peoples, defended the inviolability of the borders of the monarchy, and de facto rejected the right of nations to self-determination. This programme soon found theoretical support in Renner’s 1902 concept of exterritorial national-cultural autonomy. Bauer addressed this concept in several articles in Der Kampf in 1907–8 – ‘Die soziale Gliederung der österreichischen Nationen’ (‘The Social Structure of the Austrian Nations’), ‘Unser Nationalitätenprogramm und unsere Taktik’ (‘Our Nationalities Programme and Tactics’), and ‘Massenpsyche und Sprachenrecht’ (‘Mass Psychology and Linguistic Right’) – and in his most substantial work, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, which Victor Adler had encouraged him to write. When the latter text was first published in 1907 in the second volume of Marx-Studien, it earned the 26-year-old author deserved fame and international recognition. Based on the reception of Karl Lamprecht’s Die deutsche Geschichte (German History), Bauer’s text was a departure from the widespread belief among Social Democrats (such as Jean Guesde and Rosa Luxemburg) that the national idea was but a bourgeois prejudice. What is more, it attacked canonical sociological theories by Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel, and Rudolf Stammler, and challenged the Social Darwinists. One of Bauer’s achievements was that he applied Marx’s method of historical and economic analysis to explain processes of nation forming, the causes of nationalities conflicts, and the important role of national interests in the life of modern societies." (pp.12-14)
"Even though he was overburdened with teaching and publishing work, Bauer finished his studies with outstanding results.In1906, he received the doctorate in canon from Vienna University. During this period, Bauer met Helena Gumplowicz-Landau at a meeting at the Café Central. She was married to a lawyer, Max Landau, and was 10 years older than Bauer. By that time, she had already authored many treatises in economic sciences and was an influential activist in the Polish Social Democratic Party of Galicia, a territorial organisation of the sdap. Her open but critical mind and vivid temperament put a spell on Bauer – he married her in 1920. The couple had no children, but their choice turned out to be right for both: in spite of Bauer’s affairs, she remained his closest partner in intellectual work and party activism until the end of his life." (p.14)
"In 1907, the government decided on a new electoral procedure, fearing that Austria had the potential to see a revolutionary uprising comparable to the 1905 disturbances in Russia. Following this, the first democratic parliamentary elections were held in May 1907. The result was a significant electoral success for the Social Democrats: their mandates went up from 10 (1901) to 87, meaning that they became the strongest political group in parliament, and they remained so until 1912. The parliamentary group of the Social Democrats consisted of four fractions: German, Czech, Polish and Italian, as well as two Slovenian and Ukrainian representatives. Hence, there was a pressing need for a secretariat to coordinate all the work and ensure that the different national fractions advocated a common standpoint in parliament. In a move designed to demonstrate his recognition of Bauer’s contribution to Social-Democratic theory, Victor Adler suggested that the 26-year-old take up the post of secretary of the parliamentary group. He held this function until the outbreak of World War i. As parliamentary group secretary, Bauer was the initiator of the Bodenbach party school founded in 1910. In addition to his work in parliament, he engaged in plenty of party activism. From 1911–33, he attended all party congresses, from 11 November 1911, he was a member of the sdap leadership, and in 1914 he commenced his activity on the platforms of the Second International. In 1918, he became the parliamentary representative for the Social Democrats. During the second legislative period (1923–5), he was a member of about 30 committees. Among other functions, he was the chair of the constitution committee and foreign policy committee, and a member of the central, finance, legal, trade and military committees. From 1919–33, he held more than 130 speeches in parliament, speaking with a passion that lent his words great suggestive power. In his presentations on ‘Lebensmittelteuerung und Wohnungsnot’ (‘Rising Food Prices and Housing Shortage’, 1911) and ‘Wirtschaftskrise und Arbeitslosigkeit’ (‘Economic Crisis and Unemployment’, 1913), he decried the deficiencies of a social security system that led to economic stagnation, low efficiency in production, especially in agriculture, a housing shortage, and growing unemployment. It is not difficult to understand why Bauer’s appearances provoked indignation and turmoil in the ranks of the parliamentary right, as well as earning him the resentment of representatives of the aristocracy and bourgeois-peasant parties (the Christian Socials and Greater Germans)." (pp.14-15)
"Bauer combined his activity in parliament and party duties with his journalistic and publishing work. In 1907, he co-founded the central theoretical organ
of the sdap with Renner and Adolf Braun. The monthly journal, Der Kampf, was dedicated to the theory and immediate issues of the Austrian workers’ movement.39 The journal gave him the opportunity to publish 152 theoretical articles under the monikers Karl Mann, Heinrich Weber, as well as his own name. From 1911–34, he was also editor-in-chief for a socialist daily paper, the already established Arbeiter-Zeitung, initially just of the trade union section but later also the politics pages. His colleagues fondly remembered the atmosphere of integrity and responsibility that Bauer created. He was wont to appear at the editorial office after midnight to discuss the contents of the upcoming edition with Friedrich Austerlitz. His friendliness towards all colleagues and tireless enthusiasm earned him respect. Upon leaving the editorial office, he normally wrote an article for the next edition at home before going to bed. Each of his texts was a spirited reaction to the matters of the workers’ movement or the situation at home and abroad. Bauer commented on the aspirations, tasks, and tactics of the party, social and political events, the economic situation and foreign policy; he polemicised against the opponents of Social Democracy. The Arbeiter-Zeitung exerted tremendous influence when it came to forming and raising Austrian working-class consciousness.
In the period leading up the outbreak of World War i, tense relations between Austria and Serbia, as well as the threat posed by Tsarist Russia, became increasingly frequent topics of discussion at leadership conventions. The main questions were: how should the workers’ party respond if tensions escalated, and would it be possible to exploit the war situation to commence revolutionary action? Victor Adler, who had always been negatively inclined towards strikes and revolutionary insurrection, admitted that the party had not discerned any programme of war prevention and felt entirely at the mercy of the political goals of world imperialism. The question of armed proletarian struggle to achieve socialism was, as it were, a marginal one. Despite its revolutionary rhetoric, the party leadership felt that Austria-Hungary could be transformed into a bourgeois-democratic, multinational state, and it should not exceed this expectation. Using the national movements to stage an insurrection against the ruling classes was therefore out of the question. The Social Democrats, including Bauer, supported the Austrian-German alliance because they feared an expansion of imperial Russia. They did not foresee the fatal consequences it would have for Austria-Hungary: the power of the state was reinforced, and the Germans insisted on intervening in the Balkans conflict by military means.
In contrast to the German Social Democrats, the dissolution of parliament prevented the Austrian Social Democrats from declaring a firm position with respect to the international conflict. However, news articles from this period prove that they endorsed the government’s military measures. Bauer did not share Victor Adler’s attitude to the war, nor did he agree with his pessimistic assessment of the strength of the Austrian workers’ movement. He agreed with the German and Austrian Social Democrats, however, that the working class of a beleaguered country had the right of self-defence, even if it countered its class interests. This perspective was dominant among the activists of the Second International – Jean Jaurès, Édouard Vaillant and Georgi Plekhanov all took similar positions. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and other left participants who argued for instrumentalisation of the war to transform the state order were a distinct minority." (pp.15-17)
"Bauer was drafted to the Galician front as lieutenant and soon became company commander. He participated in Austria-Hungary’s victorious battles of Komarów, Rava-Ruska, and Przemyśl. The letters he sent to his party comrade, Karl Seitz, and his then-partner, Helene, in the period from 27 August–23 September 1914, testify to his courage and fighting spirit. However, they were also an attempt to absolve himself of guilt for participating in the imperialist war that he had earlier described as a threat to the development of the international workers’ movement, and initiated by the interests of big capital. Bauer felt justified, as he now thought the war against imperial Russia, the bulwark of reaction in Europe, was in the interest of the entire working class and would accelerate its liberation. During the battle on the fringes of Krakow, where the Austrians had retreated from Russian attacks, Bauer became a Russian prisoner-of-war. He spent almost three years in captivity in the pow camp of Berezovka-Troitskosavsk (renamed Kyakhta after 1935) at the Mongolian border. He found his captivity hard to endure. This much is evident from his letters, which betray his longing for party comrades, feelings of isolation, and desperation for information about current affairs. Bauer dedicated his free time to honing his language skills – he learned Russian, among other languages, but also studied mathematics. As a pow, he wrote his only comprehensive philosophical treatise, Das Weltbild des Kapitalismus (The Worldview of Capitalism). Taking Kantianism to task, the text explained the historical origins and development of modern philosophical ideas from a Marxist point of view. After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, Bauer was free to leave the pow camp due to the efforts of Victor Adler and intervention by Hjalmar Branting, chair of the Scandinavian committee of the Socialist International. Instead of returning to Vienna, however, he was resettled to Petrograd, where he spent four weeks. During this time, he drew closer to the Mensheviks, which had an impact on his later analyses and perspectives for the development of Russia, his attitude to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and his concept of the mass party." (pp.17-18)
"He moved in with a Polish socialist, Peter Lapiński, who was a follower of Martov. Furthermore, he met Martov himself." (note 49 p.18)
-Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
"The political thought of Austro-marxism, especially the works of Otto Bauer and Max Adler, were unified in one central idea: its ambition to overcome the divide between Social Democracy and Communism, embodied in its purest form by Bauer’s concept of ‘integral socialism’, the idea of a process of mutual learning and dialogue." (p.XIV)
"Otto Bauer, was a true authority in the international workers’ movement in his lifetime. He entered the history of political movements as the ideological leader of Austrian Social Democracy in the First Republic ; co-founder and prime mover of Austromarxism from 1906–38, state functionary, influential theorist, and one of the leaders of three internationals – the Second International, the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (‘Second and a half international’), and Labour and Socialist International, respected parliamentarian, outstanding speaker, editor of socialist newspapers and journals, and teacher at the ‘workers’ college’. No less respected were his theoretical contributions as a historian, sociologist, philosopher, Sovietologist, political thinker, and author of texts on economics. He wrote 47 monographs and around 4,000 articles – his written publications amount to more than 10,000 printed pages. The articles Bauer wrote for the Arbeiter-Zeitung newspaper and Der Kampf monthly journal informed readers extensively on national and international political events and acute questions in the international workers’ movement and his party, and at the same time crucially influenced public opinion." (p.XVII)
-Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
"According to Bauer, democracy is not intrinsically legitimised as majority rule, but is subordinated to and legitimised by socialism. Hence, democracy becomes a means to a predetermined end. However, this also means that the order can be reversed: socialism can be introduced before democracy if the historical circumstances demand it. That is why Bauer could interpret and accept Russian Bolshevism as ‘despotic socialism’ without great difficulty – in the hope and belief, of course, that the process of democratisation would be developed later on. With respect to this, Karl Kautsky – in whose footsteps Otto Bauer walked until he discovered and began to justify ‘despotic socialism’ – was a better Marxist and democrat. He did not capitulate to the illusion that a dictatorship with terrorist features would ever turn into a democracy. What is more, he maintained the idea that Bolshevism would collapse, which, for the time being, eclipsed the Marxist perspective of capitalist collapse.
Thus, we can only conditionally consider Bauer a flawless democrat. Not only based on how we perceive democracy today, but even in terms of how his contemporaries, Karl Renner and Hans Kelsen, distinguished it. Rather, we should regard him as a democrat who adhered to democracy primarily or exclusively because, most of the time, it appeared to him as the safest road to socialism. It is no accident that there is not a single paragraph in Bauer’s collected works where the author positively refers to the continued existence of a multi-party system in a future socialist society. Bauer did not openly state what he, as a consistent Marxist, was compelled to think: that the basis for the existence of different parties would disappear with the demise of antagonistic classes. To preserve the liberty and creativity of the responsible individual was a different issue for Bauer, who was a humanist and defender of the classical legacy of the Enlightenment. This attachment to individual freedom was precisely what separated him from Bolshevism in spite of all appearances. Suffice it to say, he also hoped that individual freedom, like democracy, would be restored in the Soviet Union." (p.XXX)
-Norbert Leser, avant propos à Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
"During the night between 3 to 4 July 1938, Otto Bauer died in the Rue Turgot in Paris. He was only 57 years old. His close friend and long-time editorial assistant of Vienna’s Arbeiter-Zeitung, Otto Leichter, who was called to Bauer’s deathbed by his wife Helene, wrote: ‘There was no doubt to anyone who was able to spend Bauer’s last months with him that he died of a broken heart in the truest and saddest sense’. Bauer passed away believing that he was responsible for the defeat of the party and unhappy about his forced emigration and separation from his native country. He was also distressed over the fate of his comrades and the new party, the Revolutionary Socialists of Austria, after Hitler’s Anschluss (annexation of Austria). His death came during an unfavourable period for the workers’ movement: the threat of war was becoming increasingly likely, the masses were disillusioned with bourgeois democracy, the totalitarian system of the ussr had consolidated itself, and divides within the Social-Democratic movement were widening. Moreover, there was a lack of developed organisational principles and tactics for the workers’ struggle against fascism. Bauer’s funeral on 6 July 1938 at the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris, which commenced with a rendition of the Internationale, turned into a demonstration of workers’ solidarity. Many renowned activists of the international labour movement, party comrades, and hundreds of workers were present. As an homage to Bauer and his legacy, his ashes were placed next to the urns of the Paris Commune fighters, then wrapped in a red flag, covered in red flowers, and passed to two young Austrian socialists. Speeches were held by Léon Blum, who represented the French Socialist Party, Friedrich Adler, a friend and colleague of Bauer’s, Gustav Richter (Joseph Buttinger), the chair of the Revolutionary Socialists of Austria, and Louis de Brouckère, the chair of the Labour and Socialist International. Blum’s words were a fitting résumé of the aspirations that had defined the entire life of the departed theorist and politician: ‘Each and every one of us feels that Bauer was cut from the same cloth as leaders such as Jaure, Guesde, and Vaillant: always illuminating action through theory, always invigorating theory through action’. He did not merely want to be a socialist in parliament. Rather, he viewed his duties as issuing the guidelines of historical materialism when investigating socialist transformation and utilising the results to determine the strategy and tactics of the workers’ party." (pp.1-2)
"Otto Bauer was born on 5 August 1881 in Vienna. He was the first-born son of a wealthy textile factory owner and merchant in north Czechia, Philip Bauer, and his wife Käthe (born Greber). At that time, Otto’s family, including his sister Ida, who was a year younger than him, lived in the Jewish district, Leopoldstadt, and later changed its residence several times. The roots of his father’s family were based in Czechia, where Bauer’s Jewish grandparents originated." (pp.2-3)
"Bauer defended the freedom of religion and remained respectful towards it. He did not quit the Jewish religious community of Austria, the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde, out of respect for the religion of his ancestors and his solidarity with Jews."(note 9 p.3)
"Otto grew up in an atmosphere that was conducive to his predisposition: free from material worry, pampered by his mother who dedicated her entire time to the family, and his father, who was known for his jovial personality and liberal views. The atmosphere at home was one of ideological tolerance, mainly due to Bauer senior, who was a member of [la loge maçonnique viennoise Friedrich Schiller]. The family read the works of German and French writers and philosophers with pleasure and cultivated an interest in theatre and the arts. His father’s illness was the reason as to why Otto frequently changed schools, attending schools in Vienna and Meran. He finished grammar school in Reichenberg. In all schools, he was the best in class. In this period of his life, he had three passions: the study of German culture and history, foreign languages (he had a good command of Latin and Greek, knew Czech from early childhood, spoke French and English fluently, learned Serbo-Croatian for his studies of the history of the Balkans, and later learned Russian in a prisoner-of-war camp), and sports (particularly alpine hiking, which would remain his hobby for the rest of his life). When attending grammar school, he began to take an interest in socialist literature. He wrote a letter to Kautsky on 19 May 1904, and Anti-Dühring, The Communist Manifesto, and Capital were discussed among his circle of friends." (p.3)
"In accordance with his father’s will, which would entrust Otto with the management of the factory, he took up law studies at Vienna University in the winter semester of 1900–1." (pp.3-4)
"Bauer’s years of study were characterised by his titanic diligence and distinctly ascetic lifestyle, which he would maintain for the rest of his life. He was a rather unsocial, radical teetotaller who seldom forged friendships and kept people at a distance, which many interpreted as conceit. As Hanisch confirms, Bauer enrolled in Roman and German law, history of Austrian law, and philosophy, and additionally, history of economy in the second semester and political economy and general statistics in the third. He had an academic gap year from 1902–3 in order to do his military service. Upon returning to university, he focused his attentions on national economics, political economy, and Austrian commercial law." (note 14 p.4)
"At the turn of the century, Vienna was not only a centre of the scientific, cultural, and political life of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, but also a significant focus of the socialist movement led by Victor Adler since 1889. The policies enacted by Franz Joseph i of Austria and the governments of Eduard Taaffe, Count Kasimir Felix Badeni and Ernst Koerber turned the Habsburg monarchy into a modern capitalist state economically, and a constitutional state in the administrative realm. The convergence of the aims of monarchic state power and the interests of Social Democracy was typical of that state. The former was favourable to political circles that desired stronger links between Austria-Hungary and Germany ; in the broadest sense, it was also well disposed towards the advocates of federalism, who aimed to divide the monarchy into multiple federal states. The Social Democrats, meanwhile, aspired to preserve the unity of the multinational state. Each of these parties had different expectations concerning electoral reform. The Emperor hoped to empower the government and empire, while the Social Democrats hoped to strengthen the working class. Yet both found it important to recognise parliament as the platform of political and economic decision-making. It was precisely the sdap’s overestimation of the significance of parliament that later led to its downfall: it misread legal measures as guaranteed victories for the working class. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, Victor Adler’s tactics corresponded with the consciousness of the proletariat at the time." (p.4)
"The unification of the workers’ movement in Austria took place at the Hainfeld congress from 31 December 1888–1 December 1889, in which delegates from socialist groups of various nationalities participated. In accordance with the programme authored by Victor Adler, acquiring universal suffrage was regarded as the ultimate objective of the class struggle. Accordingly, the question of revolution was postponed indefinitely. Sheer numbers testify to the strength of the labour movement at the time: 150,000 members, 540,000 trade union members, one million votes, eight seats in parliament." (note 15 p.4)
"According to the Social Democrats, the prerequisites for the victory of socialism in the distant future were the development of class consciousness and greater historical maturity of the masses, their will to transform the constitutional order, and advanced economic conditions. The party wanted a peaceful revolution that would preserve the democratic and cultural gains of the capitalist state. The political trajectory and interpretation of socialist ideology suggested by Adler at the 1901 congress secured the sdap support from the working class and the sympathies of the progressive intelligentsia. Its electoral victories garnered the attention of students – in parliament, the sdap came second to Karl Lueger’s Christian Social Party, which represented the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and peasantry.
At Vienna University in the early 1890s, the philosopher Max Adler founded the Free Association of Socialist Students and Academics, which counted the future Austromarxists, Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferding, among its members.16In1894, this group merged with the academic debating society Veritas, in which Adler and Ernest Pernersdorfer were also involved. Under the influence of the Social Democrats, the Free Association became a powerful centre for self-education. In 1894–5, its members began to collaborate with the academic historians Ludo Hartmann and Karl Grünberg, with whom they founded the Sozialwissenschaftlicher Bildungsverein (Social Sciences Education Society).
Bauer joined both organisations. He was not only motivated by moral considerations when joining the socialist movement. His study of Marxism, Capital in particular, persuaded him that Marx’s historical materialism was theoretically correct and illuminated the path for historical and social development. He joined the so-called Bernstein debate and defended Marx’s basic premises against the attacks of revisionists. Three legacies inspired his Marxist positions on the socio-economic phenomena of the time: the philosophy of Kant ; the methodological premises of positivism and scientism ; and the Austrian school of political economy, including the views of Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, whose seminar he participated in." (p.5)
"Bauer’s philosophical and social worldview became more sophisticated after he joined the educational society Die Zukunft, the first workers’ school of Vienna founded in 1903. Its co-founders Max Adler, Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferding (who were some 10 years Bauer’s senior), and its later members Gustav Eckstein, Friedrich Adler, Wilhelm Ellenbogen, Robert Dannenberg, Anton Hannak and Bauer created the intellectual and ideological tendency that later became known as Austromarxism. Most of them were from bourgeois families, mainly within the Jewish intelligentsia, while Renner and Hannak hailed from peasant backgrounds. Actively participating in workers’ school and party organisations, they also intended to overcome the workers’ scepticism towards intellectuals in the socialist movement. Their aim was to fuse the original ideas of Marxism with philosophical, sociological, economic and legal theories and political positions which were dominant within bourgeois ideology: positivism, naturalism, social Darwinism, legal normativism, the heritage of the Austrian school of national economics, reformism, and syndicalism. German nationalism played a role in their attempts to merge these concepts to a degree. It was most evident in their reluctance to integrate any scientific and political systems that had originated from outside the remits of German culture. At least, not without first melting them in the polemical fires and then remoulding them to suit German national consciousness. Their standpoint, which became the cornerstone of Social-Democratic political practice, was in fact a collection of theories linked solely through the affirmation of socialism, which was conceived abstractly as a synthesis of general humanist values. The fact that the founders of this school actively participated in the struggles of the workers’ movement influenced the theoretical concepts they adhered to. Amongst Austromarxists, there was a certain division of labour, which affected the subject of research. Max Adler focused on philosophical, ideological and ethical matters; Hilferding attended to economic problems ; Renner concentrated on law, the state order and sociology ; and Bauer dedicated himself to sociological, historical and socio-political aspects." (p.6)
"The young ‘Viennese Marxists’, as Karl Vorländer called them later, came of age in an atmosphere of subservience to the house of Habsburg, which was saturated in clericalism, anti-Semitism, and nationalism. In this climate, national tolerance had its limits: the superiority of the German nation had to be unconditionally recognised. All of them were students of liberal-reformist bourgeois teachers. Still, they let themselves be carried away by the new zeitgeist, i.e. the unconventional literary currents of the early twentieth century (Hermann Bahr, Hugo von Hofmannstahl, Arthur Schnitzler, Karl Kraus, Robert Musil), music (Anton Bruckner, Gustav Mahler, Arnold Schönberg), architecture (Otto Wagner, Joseph Hoffmann, Adolf Loos) and painting (Gustav Klimt, Joseph Maria Olbrich, Kolo Moser and Egon Schiele among others). This was all an expression of their rebellion against traditional ideas and values. The beginning of the Viennese socialists’ scientific activity was marked by the publication of the first volume of Marx-Studien by Max Adler and Rudolf Hilferding, which was dedicated to Victor Adler. [...] [They posed] a challenge to positivism, neo-Kantianism, the psychological school of economics, and especially interpretations of Marxism held in so-called orthodox circles that were indebted to naturalism, scientism and Darwinism." (p.7)
"Their critique of naturalism stressed the importance of consciousness, ethics and culture in socio-political transformations. While agreeing that the Marxian method of explaining social phenomena and processes was imperative, they established its correctness not on the grounds of dialectics, but rather on Kant’s method of transcendental criticism (Max Adler, Bauer) or, alternatively, inductionism (Renner). The Austromarxists’ interests centred around the neo-Kantianism of the Baden and Marburg schools, Ernst Mach’s empirio-criticism, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, Hans Kelsen’s pure theory of law, Böhm-Bawerk’s theory of marginal utility, the works of Eduard Bernstein and Vladimir Lenin, the historical works of Karl Lamprecht and Karl Grünberg, and the sociological theories of Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel and Max Weber. Alfred Pfabigan’s harsh criticism that Austromarxism reflected the intellectual poverty of Austrian philosophy at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is problematic given its far-reaching influence. The period bore numerous fruits, e.g. the psychoanalytical theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, the analytical philosophy of the Vienna Circle, and the work of unconventional thinkers such as Otto Weininger and Fritz Mauthner. The Austromarxists also creatively aided the development of the Baden and Marburg schools’ neo-Kantian ideas. They crucially contributed to epistemology, the role of ideas and the conscious will in the historical process, the inseparable connection between the historical and ethical necessity in history, and the criterion of separation between natural science and social science (M. Adler, Bauer). Moreover, they re-evaluated Mach’s empirio-criticism (F. Adler, Ellenbogen) and criticised vulgar materialism and revisionism." (p.8 )
"Although Victor Adler was not an advocate of Bernstein, he concurred that it was necessary to eschew the revolutionary road to power and concentrate on strengthening the workers’ movement. He adhered to a deterministic view of the social process and believed in the inevitable self-destruction of capitalism, i.e. the advent of socialism by virtue of the ‘iron laws of history’, which Social Democracy could only accelerate. The material basis for this were social policies raising the living standard of the working class, the Social-Democratic parties’ electoral successes, particularly in Germany, and the swelling ranks of parties and trade unions. The Austrian socialists scrutinised the fate and strategies of their German sister party, whose congresses they attended before becoming organisationally and theoretically independent (1869–89). Later, they continued their co-operation, e.g. via the Karl Kautsky edited journal, Die Neue Zeit. They also had contacts with socialists in other countries: Antonio Gramsci (Italy), Paul Lafargue, Eduard Vallante, Hubert Lagardelle and Alexandre Bracke (France), Georgi Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod, Julius Martov, and Theodor Dane (Russia), Emil Vandervelde (Netherlands), Hermann Grenich (Switzerland), the Geneva Socialist Association, the workers’ parties of Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia and the United States." (p.9)
"The left of the international workers’ movement (Lenin, Trotsky) berated Austromarxism for its right deviationism, pacifism, and politics of compromise towards the bourgeoisie. Conversely, the parties of the right and the Catholic press denounced it as Austro-Bolshevism." (p.10)
"Bauer held Max Adler in high esteem. He shared his vision of a new culture and new man, and endorsed his belief in the historical mission of the proletariat. Nevertheless, he criticised Adler’s inclination for Hegelian ways of thinking, his inability to recognise the real balance of class forces, and his abstraction from the politics of the day.26 Although Adler was, from the very start, more radical than the rest of the group, he exercised friendly restraint when criticising Bauer’s personality and activism. Similarly, when Hilferding opposed Bauer’s support for Austrian union with Germany after World War i, this did not affect their personal relationship. Political differences, which were already perceptible during the early periods of Austromarxism, intensified during World War i. Max Adler assumed a leftist position, Renner positioned himself on the right, and Bauer oscillated between the two wings depending on political struggles. These divisions did not affect their organisational ties. All Austromarxists supported the idea of party unity that Bauer had inherited from Victor Adler.
The integral component of the preservation of the multinational state, had already become manifest in Bauer’s early articles and treatises. As is evident in his letter to Kautsky of June 1904, he dedicated himself to the study of economic history and economic crises, questions on tariff protection, and colonial policy at the age of 23. The results were published in the form of nine texts in Die Neue Zeit. His article, ‘Marx’ Theorien der Wirtschaftskrise’ (‘Marx’s Theories of Economic Crisis’), in which he defended Marx’s theory of value against the polemics of the Austrian School of Economics, was strongly approved of by Kautsky. Before the age of 24, Bauer had already earned a reputation as an outstanding speaker and teacher in self-education courses.
In the memoirs of his colleagues, the young Bauer is described as a rationalist who understood reality in theoretical terms, but also as a romantic who was emotionally committed to the economic, social, and intellectual liberation of the proletariat. This conflicting nature would later be reiterated to explain the lifelong contradiction between his thoughts and practice. Even during the early days, Bauer attracted the attention of scientists who had few sympathies for Social Democracy. Some of them, such as the anti-Marxist Ludwig von Mises, predicted a political future for him. Sigmund Freud, whom Bauer knew personally, did not agree with this flattering prophecy: he viewed him as a scientist and advised him against taking up politics altogether. Yet Bauer did not merely want to be a theorist and analyst. He considered it his duty to transform social reality, not just interpret it. His main reasons for championing socialism were axiological rather than economic or social. For him, socialism embraced the prospect of a moral and intellectual rebirth of individuals and societies. In his first major essays, he remained faithful to this moralistic perspective: In ‘Marxismus und Ethik’ (‘Marxism and Ethics’,1906) and ‘Geschichte eines Buches’ (‘History of a Book’, 1907), which contained his commentary on Marx’s Capital, he defended the evaluative orientation of socialism. For Bauer, socialism was principally an ethical goal, a form of social coexistence that would allow for the full realisation of all major human values. He held on to this until the end of his life, regarding it as his obligation to provide a basis for how this ideal, which he approached from a Kantian perspective, could be integrated into Marx’s laws of social development. In the aforementioned works, he attempted to provide a foundation for socialism that was reliant on the premises of Kantian ethics. He overcame his propensity for Kantianism between 1916 and 1920, yet he continued to perceive universal moral rights as the roots of democratic ideals and humanist values. His writing, which he continued even in times of political failure and after his party was defeated, was imbued with social optimism. This was manifest in his unswerving faith in the continuity and linearity of social progress and his belief in the victory of socialism." (pp.10-12)
"Bauer joined the sdap when he began his studies in the winter semester of 1900–1. At the time, the unresolved nationalities question was the central problem in Austrian Social-Democratic politics. Nationalities conflicts, Czech separatism in particular, led to the intensification of German nationalism, but also restrained economic development within the empire and caused serious disruptions to parliamentary life.Indeed, the Hainfeld programme of 1889 entirely ignored the nationalities question, advocating instead the general principles of internationalism and the abolition of national privileges. Bauer dismissed this as a ‘naive cosmopolitanism’. Victor Adler eschewed the national question at party congresses, as he feared a surge in Slavic nationalist sentiments and a consequent disintegration of the party. His was a far-sighted politics: the federal party structure, enforced in 1897 by strong centres of opposition especially in Czechia and Poland, weakened the stability of the workers’ movement. The party leadership held the view that the preservation of vast economic territories was in the interest of the proletariat. Hence, leaving aside the class aspect of the national question, the programme it adopted in Bern in 1899 demanded the transformation of Austria-Hungary into a federal state of autonomous peoples, defended the inviolability of the borders of the monarchy, and de facto rejected the right of nations to self-determination. This programme soon found theoretical support in Renner’s 1902 concept of exterritorial national-cultural autonomy. Bauer addressed this concept in several articles in Der Kampf in 1907–8 – ‘Die soziale Gliederung der österreichischen Nationen’ (‘The Social Structure of the Austrian Nations’), ‘Unser Nationalitätenprogramm und unsere Taktik’ (‘Our Nationalities Programme and Tactics’), and ‘Massenpsyche und Sprachenrecht’ (‘Mass Psychology and Linguistic Right’) – and in his most substantial work, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, which Victor Adler had encouraged him to write. When the latter text was first published in 1907 in the second volume of Marx-Studien, it earned the 26-year-old author deserved fame and international recognition. Based on the reception of Karl Lamprecht’s Die deutsche Geschichte (German History), Bauer’s text was a departure from the widespread belief among Social Democrats (such as Jean Guesde and Rosa Luxemburg) that the national idea was but a bourgeois prejudice. What is more, it attacked canonical sociological theories by Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel, and Rudolf Stammler, and challenged the Social Darwinists. One of Bauer’s achievements was that he applied Marx’s method of historical and economic analysis to explain processes of nation forming, the causes of nationalities conflicts, and the important role of national interests in the life of modern societies." (pp.12-14)
"Even though he was overburdened with teaching and publishing work, Bauer finished his studies with outstanding results.In1906, he received the doctorate in canon from Vienna University. During this period, Bauer met Helena Gumplowicz-Landau at a meeting at the Café Central. She was married to a lawyer, Max Landau, and was 10 years older than Bauer. By that time, she had already authored many treatises in economic sciences and was an influential activist in the Polish Social Democratic Party of Galicia, a territorial organisation of the sdap. Her open but critical mind and vivid temperament put a spell on Bauer – he married her in 1920. The couple had no children, but their choice turned out to be right for both: in spite of Bauer’s affairs, she remained his closest partner in intellectual work and party activism until the end of his life." (p.14)
"In 1907, the government decided on a new electoral procedure, fearing that Austria had the potential to see a revolutionary uprising comparable to the 1905 disturbances in Russia. Following this, the first democratic parliamentary elections were held in May 1907. The result was a significant electoral success for the Social Democrats: their mandates went up from 10 (1901) to 87, meaning that they became the strongest political group in parliament, and they remained so until 1912. The parliamentary group of the Social Democrats consisted of four fractions: German, Czech, Polish and Italian, as well as two Slovenian and Ukrainian representatives. Hence, there was a pressing need for a secretariat to coordinate all the work and ensure that the different national fractions advocated a common standpoint in parliament. In a move designed to demonstrate his recognition of Bauer’s contribution to Social-Democratic theory, Victor Adler suggested that the 26-year-old take up the post of secretary of the parliamentary group. He held this function until the outbreak of World War i. As parliamentary group secretary, Bauer was the initiator of the Bodenbach party school founded in 1910. In addition to his work in parliament, he engaged in plenty of party activism. From 1911–33, he attended all party congresses, from 11 November 1911, he was a member of the sdap leadership, and in 1914 he commenced his activity on the platforms of the Second International. In 1918, he became the parliamentary representative for the Social Democrats. During the second legislative period (1923–5), he was a member of about 30 committees. Among other functions, he was the chair of the constitution committee and foreign policy committee, and a member of the central, finance, legal, trade and military committees. From 1919–33, he held more than 130 speeches in parliament, speaking with a passion that lent his words great suggestive power. In his presentations on ‘Lebensmittelteuerung und Wohnungsnot’ (‘Rising Food Prices and Housing Shortage’, 1911) and ‘Wirtschaftskrise und Arbeitslosigkeit’ (‘Economic Crisis and Unemployment’, 1913), he decried the deficiencies of a social security system that led to economic stagnation, low efficiency in production, especially in agriculture, a housing shortage, and growing unemployment. It is not difficult to understand why Bauer’s appearances provoked indignation and turmoil in the ranks of the parliamentary right, as well as earning him the resentment of representatives of the aristocracy and bourgeois-peasant parties (the Christian Socials and Greater Germans)." (pp.14-15)
"Bauer combined his activity in parliament and party duties with his journalistic and publishing work. In 1907, he co-founded the central theoretical organ
of the sdap with Renner and Adolf Braun. The monthly journal, Der Kampf, was dedicated to the theory and immediate issues of the Austrian workers’ movement.39 The journal gave him the opportunity to publish 152 theoretical articles under the monikers Karl Mann, Heinrich Weber, as well as his own name. From 1911–34, he was also editor-in-chief for a socialist daily paper, the already established Arbeiter-Zeitung, initially just of the trade union section but later also the politics pages. His colleagues fondly remembered the atmosphere of integrity and responsibility that Bauer created. He was wont to appear at the editorial office after midnight to discuss the contents of the upcoming edition with Friedrich Austerlitz. His friendliness towards all colleagues and tireless enthusiasm earned him respect. Upon leaving the editorial office, he normally wrote an article for the next edition at home before going to bed. Each of his texts was a spirited reaction to the matters of the workers’ movement or the situation at home and abroad. Bauer commented on the aspirations, tasks, and tactics of the party, social and political events, the economic situation and foreign policy; he polemicised against the opponents of Social Democracy. The Arbeiter-Zeitung exerted tremendous influence when it came to forming and raising Austrian working-class consciousness.
In the period leading up the outbreak of World War i, tense relations between Austria and Serbia, as well as the threat posed by Tsarist Russia, became increasingly frequent topics of discussion at leadership conventions. The main questions were: how should the workers’ party respond if tensions escalated, and would it be possible to exploit the war situation to commence revolutionary action? Victor Adler, who had always been negatively inclined towards strikes and revolutionary insurrection, admitted that the party had not discerned any programme of war prevention and felt entirely at the mercy of the political goals of world imperialism. The question of armed proletarian struggle to achieve socialism was, as it were, a marginal one. Despite its revolutionary rhetoric, the party leadership felt that Austria-Hungary could be transformed into a bourgeois-democratic, multinational state, and it should not exceed this expectation. Using the national movements to stage an insurrection against the ruling classes was therefore out of the question. The Social Democrats, including Bauer, supported the Austrian-German alliance because they feared an expansion of imperial Russia. They did not foresee the fatal consequences it would have for Austria-Hungary: the power of the state was reinforced, and the Germans insisted on intervening in the Balkans conflict by military means.
In contrast to the German Social Democrats, the dissolution of parliament prevented the Austrian Social Democrats from declaring a firm position with respect to the international conflict. However, news articles from this period prove that they endorsed the government’s military measures. Bauer did not share Victor Adler’s attitude to the war, nor did he agree with his pessimistic assessment of the strength of the Austrian workers’ movement. He agreed with the German and Austrian Social Democrats, however, that the working class of a beleaguered country had the right of self-defence, even if it countered its class interests. This perspective was dominant among the activists of the Second International – Jean Jaurès, Édouard Vaillant and Georgi Plekhanov all took similar positions. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and other left participants who argued for instrumentalisation of the war to transform the state order were a distinct minority." (pp.15-17)
"Bauer was drafted to the Galician front as lieutenant and soon became company commander. He participated in Austria-Hungary’s victorious battles of Komarów, Rava-Ruska, and Przemyśl. The letters he sent to his party comrade, Karl Seitz, and his then-partner, Helene, in the period from 27 August–23 September 1914, testify to his courage and fighting spirit. However, they were also an attempt to absolve himself of guilt for participating in the imperialist war that he had earlier described as a threat to the development of the international workers’ movement, and initiated by the interests of big capital. Bauer felt justified, as he now thought the war against imperial Russia, the bulwark of reaction in Europe, was in the interest of the entire working class and would accelerate its liberation. During the battle on the fringes of Krakow, where the Austrians had retreated from Russian attacks, Bauer became a Russian prisoner-of-war. He spent almost three years in captivity in the pow camp of Berezovka-Troitskosavsk (renamed Kyakhta after 1935) at the Mongolian border. He found his captivity hard to endure. This much is evident from his letters, which betray his longing for party comrades, feelings of isolation, and desperation for information about current affairs. Bauer dedicated his free time to honing his language skills – he learned Russian, among other languages, but also studied mathematics. As a pow, he wrote his only comprehensive philosophical treatise, Das Weltbild des Kapitalismus (The Worldview of Capitalism). Taking Kantianism to task, the text explained the historical origins and development of modern philosophical ideas from a Marxist point of view. After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, Bauer was free to leave the pow camp due to the efforts of Victor Adler and intervention by Hjalmar Branting, chair of the Scandinavian committee of the Socialist International. Instead of returning to Vienna, however, he was resettled to Petrograd, where he spent four weeks. During this time, he drew closer to the Mensheviks, which had an impact on his later analyses and perspectives for the development of Russia, his attitude to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and his concept of the mass party." (pp.17-18)
"He moved in with a Polish socialist, Peter Lapiński, who was a follower of Martov. Furthermore, he met Martov himself." (note 49 p.18)
-Ewa Czerwinska-Schupp, Otto Bauer (1881-1938). Thinker and Politician, Leiden / Boston, Brill, 2017 (2005 pour la première édition allemande), 388 pages.
