marginal return on capital. Marginal return on investment

By social democracy is meant the theory and practice of socialist and social democratic parties that were formed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Social Democracy

can be described both as a socio-political and as an ideological and political movement. And inside it exists whole line national and regional variants of factions diverging in their ideological and political orientations.

For example, in relation to the socialist parties of France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, the concepts of "socialism", "Latin socialism" or "Mediterranean socialism" are used. There is a "Scandinavian" or "Swedish model", "integral socialism", characteristic of Austria, i.e., speaking of social democracy, we are dealing with a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon.

Nevertheless, all the named varieties of social democracy, with certain reservations, as a rule, are combined general concept- democratic socialism. Social democracy has its roots in the French Revolution and the ideas of the utopian socialists. But it also absorbed many ideas from other ideological and political currents. It should be especially noted that initially Social Democracy matured partly within the framework of Marxism, partly under its strong influence. At the same time, the main stimulus for the establishment and institutionalization of social democracy was the formation and steady growth in the last third of the 19th and early 20th centuries. the role and influence of the labor movement in the bosom of capitalist development. Moreover, almost all social democratic parties emerged as extra-parliamentary parties, called upon to defend the interests of the working class in the political sphere.

Social democracy emerged as an alternative to capitalism. In this capacity, she initially shared in principle the most important guidelines of Marxism for the elimination of capitalism and the radical reorganization of society through the socialization of the means of production and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its separate detachments also recognized the revolutionary path proposed by the Marxists for the elimination of capitalism and the transition to socialism.

But in real life, it turned out that the social democracy, by and large, rejected these ideas, recognized the existing socio-political institutions and accepted the generally accepted rules of the political game. The parties of social democratic orientation became parliamentary parties and made a significant contribution to the integration of the labor movement into the political system. From this point of view, the entire subsequent history of the development of social democracy can also be regarded as the history of its gradual departure from Marxism.

An important role in the evolution of social democracy was played by the socio-political practice itself, which forced politicians to take socio-historical realities into account, adapt to them, and find affordable ways to improve the living conditions of workers. The realities of life convinced the leaders of the social democratic parties of the futility of the revolutionary variant of the transition to a new social system, of the need and possibility to improve the established institutions, to accept many of the values, norms, and principles of the existing society. They saw firsthand that many of the demands of the working class could be realized by peaceful means, through the process of everyday gradual change.

The process of overcoming radical sentiments, developing the concept of democratic socialism, focused on the gradual reform of the social and political system, began at an especially rapid pace after 1917, after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which demonstrated to the whole world the true price of the revolutionary path of restructuring society.

It should be emphasized that it was precisely according to the fundamental principles of Marxism regarding the revolution, the irreconcilable class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first two decades of the 20th century. a great schism, or split, emerged in the workers' movement and the Social Democracy. Without this schism, the main line of the historical development of the modern world could have taken a different turn. But the Bolshevik Revolution and the Third Communist International that followed it actually institutionalized this split. Social democracy and communism, which grew out of practically the same social base and the same ideological sources, on the most important issues of the world order, found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades.

As if foreseeing the possibility of the emergence of authoritarian socialism (according to the Marxist idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat), the leaders of the reformist wing of social democracy set themselves the goal of building democratic socialism. The very concept of "democratic socialism" entered the scientific and political lexicon at the end of the 19th century. and included the idea of ​​political, economic and cultural integration of the labor movement into the existing system. Representatives of this wing from the very beginning recognized the rule of law as a positive factor in the gradual reform and transformation of capitalist society.

The main contribution to the development of the concept of democratic socialism was made by the well-known figure of German social democracy at the end of the 19th century. E. Bernstein. His main merit was the rejection of those ideas of Marxism, the implementation of which in Russia and a number of other countries later led to the establishment of totalitarian regimes. In this case, first of all, it was about the social revolution, the violent destruction of the old world, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the irreconcilable class struggle.

Rejecting the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat, E. Bernstein justified the need to abandon violent forms of struggle and the transition of social democracy "to the soil of parliamentary activity." As Bernstein wrote, in the political field, only democracy is the most suitable form of self-organization of society for the implementation of socialist principles: freedom, equality, solidarity.

An important contribution to the formation of the program of the new ideological and political trend was made by representatives of English Fabian and Guild socialism and reformist trends in French socialism. Austro-Marxism should also be mentioned, especially its leading theorists - O. Bauer, M. Adler, K. Renner, who actively opposed Bolshevism and Leninism. There were also such national social-democratic movements that from the very beginning developed on a purely reformist basis and experienced only a slight influence of Marxism. These include, in particular, English Laborism and Scandinavian Social Democracy.

Rejecting the revolutionary path of replacing capitalism with socialism, they at the same time declared their goal to build a just society. At the same time, they proceeded from the thesis that, having eliminated the exploitation of man by man, it is necessary to leave the basic liberal democratic institutions and freedoms intact.

In this socialist interpretation of liberal principles, Bernstein singled out three main ideas: freedom, equality, solidarity. Moreover, he put the solidarity of workers in the first place, believing that without it, freedom and equality under capitalism for the majority of workers would remain only good wishes. Here the sacramental question arose before social democracy: how to ensure that socialist society becomes the society of the greatest economic efficiency and the greatest freedom, without at the same time renouncing the equality of all members of society?

Bernstein saw the main task of Social Democracy in resolving this antinomy. The entire subsequent history of social democracy is essentially the history of the search for ways to resolve this antinomy.

In the spirit of the discussions in the German Social Democracy in Russian legal Marxism, a revision of a number of the most important provisions of classical Marxism also began. Apparently, a certain potential for development along the reformist path was also laid in the Russian Social Democracy, in that part of it that was represented by the Mensheviks, especially G. V. Plekhanov and his associates. But the victory in it, as we know, was won by the revolutionary wing headed by V. I. Lenin.

After World War II came new stage in the fate of democratic socialism. In 1951, the Socialist International adopted a new program of principles - the Frankfurt Declaration. It formulated the basic values ​​of democratic socialism, which in fact meant the final rejection of Marxism. The last dot over the "i" in this matter was put in the Vienna Program of the Socialist Party of Austria (1958) and the Godesberg Program of the SPD (1959), which decisively rejected the fundamental postulates of Marxism about the dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle, the abolition of private property and socialization means of production. Subsequently, along the same path - some earlier, others later (some - in the 1980s) - other national groups of social democracy went.

Guided by such ideas, in the implementation of which the state played an important role, in the post-war decades, European social democracy achieved impressive success. Having found themselves at the helm of power in a number of countries or having become a serious parliamentary force, the social democratic parties and the trade unions supporting them initiated many reforms (nationalization of a number of sectors of the economy, an unprecedented expansion of state social programs, reduction of working hours, etc.).

The Socialist International, which united 42 socialist and social democratic parties, became a constructive force in world development in the postwar years. European Social Democracy has made an important contribution to the cause of detente between East and West, to the preparation of the Helsinki accords, and to other important processes that contributed to the improvement of the international climate of the post-war decades.

An invaluable contribution to all undertakings of social democracy of the 20th century. it was introduced by such prominent figures as W. Brandt, U. Palme, B. Kraisky, F. Mitterrand and others.

On the whole, the Social Democrats are in favor of the gradual and concrete measures taken in the course of daily routine work, for the policy of the so-called "small deeds", which, taken together, constitute the movement towards socialism. This approach has essentially become the strategic setting of the political programs of most parties of democratic socialism. Therefore, it is not surprising that their general policy direction is determined by relatively short-term policy documents containing a list of measures to be implemented in the event of victory in the next elections.

The ideological origins of social democracy date back to the time of the French Revolution and the ideas of the utopian socialists. But there is also no doubt that it received its impulse from and under the influence of Marxist theory. At the same time, the main stimulus for the establishment and institutionalization of social democracy was the formation and growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. the role and influence of the labor movement in countries with developed capitalism. Initially, almost all social democratic parties arose as extra-parliamentary parties, called upon to defend the interests of the working class in the political sphere. This is evidenced at least by the fact that in a number of countries (for example, in Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries) trade unions are still collective members of these parties. Initially, social democracy shared the most important guidelines of Marxism for the elimination of capitalism and the radical reorganization of society on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialization of the means of production, universal equality, and so on. Some members of these parties supported the Marxists' idea of ​​a revolutionary way to eliminate capitalism and transition to socialism. But in real life, it turned out that the social democracy as a whole recognized the existing socio-political institutions and the generally accepted rules of the political game. The parties of social-democratic orientation were institutionalized and became parliamentary parties. From this point of view, the entire subsequent history of social democracy can also be regarded as the history of a gradual departure from Marxism. Real practice made the leaders of social democracy convinced of the futility of a revolutionary transition from the old social system to the new, of the need to transform and improve it. In the economic and political struggles of that era, they became convinced that many of the demands of the working class could be realized by peaceful means, through a process of daily and gradual change. Almost all socialist and social-democratic parties set as their goal a "break with capitalism." Their programs of the late XIX - early XX century. were not revolutionary in the full sense of the word, although they contained a well-known set of radical slogans. From the very beginning, the combination of revolutionary slogans with opportunistic, pragmatic political practice was characteristic of most social democratic parties. Gradually, opportunism, pragmatism, and reformism took over in the programs of the majority of the Social Democratic parties. This process went on at a particularly accelerated pace after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which demonstrated before the whole world with its own eyes the disastrous nature of the revolutionary path that was proposed by Marxism (and in its extreme forms, Marxism-Leninism). It should be emphasized that according to the fundamental ideas of Marxism about the revolution, the irreconcilable class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first two decades of the 20th century. There was a split in the labor movement and the Social Democracy. But the Bolshevik Revolution and the 3rd Communist International that followed it institutionalized this split. Social democracy and communism, which grew up practically on the same social basis and from the same ideological sources, found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades on the most important issues of the world order. The reasons for such events were rooted in the very nature of the labor movement and social democracy. As if foreseeing the possibility of the emergence of dictatorial socialism (according to the Marxist idea - the dictatorship of the proletariat), the leaders of the reformist wing of social democracy proclaimed the building of democratic socialism as their goal. Initially, rather sharp disputes unfolded on this issue, in which the opponents of this idea advanced the main argument that socialism cannot be undemocratic. But history, as they say, decided otherwise, showing that along with democratic there are Nazi, Bolshevik and other variants of totalitarian socialism. The term "democratic socialism" appears to have been first used in 1888. B. Shaw to designate social democratic reformism. Later it was used by E. Bernstein, but R. Hilferding contributed to its final consolidation. The basis of the initial concept of democratic socialism was developed in the middle of the 19th century. L. von Stein program of political, economic and cultural integration of the labor movement into the existing system. Representatives of this tradition from the very beginning were characterized by the recognition of the rule of law as a positive factor in the gradual reform and transformation of capitalist society. The development of the fundamental principles of democratic socialism, oriented towards the gradual reform of society, was proposed by E. Bernstein. In the sense of recognizing the idea of ​​integrating the working class into the existing system and its gradual evolutionary transformation, most of today's social democrats are the heirs of E. Bernstein. His main merit was the rejection of those destructive principles of Marxism, the implementation of which in Russia and a number of other countries led to the establishment of totalitarian regimes. First of all, we are talking about the installations for the destruction to the foundation of the old world in the face of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the irreconcilable class struggle, the social revolution as the only possible way to overthrow the old order, etc. Rejecting the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat, E. Bernstein justified the need for the transition of social democracy "on the basis of parliamentary activity, numerical representation of the people and popular legislation, which contradict the idea of ​​dictatorship." Social democracy renounces violent, convulsive forms of transition to a more perfect social order. "The class dictatorship belongs to a lower culture," Bernstein emphasized. He believed that "socialism, not only in time, but also in its inner content" is the "legitimate heritage" of liberalism. We are talking about such fundamental issues for both currents as the freedom of the individual, the economic independence of the individual, his responsibility to society for his actions, etc. Freedom coupled with responsibility, said Bernstein, is possible only if there is an appropriate organization, and "in this sense, socialism could even be called organizational liberalism." In Bernstein's eyes, "democracy is a means and at the same time an end. It is a means of carrying out socialism, and it is a form of realizing this socialism." At the same time, he said, not without reason, that "democracy in principle presupposes the abolition of the rule of classes, if not the classes themselves." He, too, not without reason, spoke of the "conservative property of democracy." Indeed, in a democratic system, individual parties and the forces behind them are somehow aware of the limits of their influence and the extent of their capabilities and can only do what they can count on under the given conditions. Even in cases where certain parties make higher demands, this is often done in order to be able to get more in the inevitable compromises with other forces and parties. This determines the moderation of requirements and gradual transformations. E. Bernstein persistently emphasized that "democracy is a means and an end at the same time. It is a means of achieving socialism and a form of realizing socialism." As Bernstein believed, in political life only democracy is a form of existence of society suitable for the implementation of socialist principles. In his opinion, the realization of full political equality is a guarantee of the implementation of the basic liberal principles. And in this he saw the essence of socialism. In this socialist interpretation of liberal principles, Bernstein singled out three main ideas: freedom, equality, solidarity. Moreover, Bernstein put the solidarity of workers in the first place, believing that without it, freedom and equality under capitalism for the majority of workers will remain only good wishes. Here the question arose before social democracy: how to ensure that socialist society becomes a society of the greatest economic efficiency and the greatest freedom, without at the same time renouncing the equality of all members of society? Bernstein saw the main task of the Social Democracy in resolving this contradiction. The entire subsequent history of social democracy, in fact, is the history of the search for ways to resolve it. Obviously, the priority in developing the theory of democratic socialism belongs to E. Bernstein and, in his person, to the German social democracy. An important contribution was made by representatives of Fabian and Guild socialism, possibilism and other reformist trends in French socialism. We should also mention Austro-Marxism, especially its ideological leaders O. Bauer, M. Adler, K. Renner, who actively opposed Bolshevism and Leninism. There were also such national social-democratic movements that from the very beginning developed on purely reformist foundations and experienced only a slight influence of Marxism. These include, in particular, English Laborism and Scandinavian Social Democracy. Rejecting the revolutionary way of replacing capitalism with socialism, they at the same time declared the goal of building a just society. At the same time, they proceeded from the thesis that, having eliminated the exploitation of man by man, it is necessary to leave the basic liberal democratic institutions and freedoms intact. It is significant that in the program documents of the Labor Party of Great Britain (LPW) socialism as a socio-political system is not indicated at all. Only in paragraph IV of the party charter of 1918 it is said that the LP seeks to "provide the employees of the physical and mental labor the full product of their labor and its most just distribution on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the best system of public administration and control over each branch of industry or service sector. "The Swedish Social Democrats formulated in the 20s of our century concepts of the so-called "functional socialism" and "industrial democracy", which did not provide for the elimination or nationalization of private property. An essential milestone in the development of modern social democracy was the actual "nationalization" of its various national detachments. Already E. Bernstein questioned the validity of the thesis of the Communist Manifesto , according to which “the proletarian has no fatherland.” As Bernstein wrote, “the worker, who is in the state, in the community, etc., an equal voter, and, as a result, a co-owner of the social wealth of the nation, whose children the community brings up, whose health is protected, whom he protects from injustice, he also has a fatherland, without ceasing to be at the same time a world citizen. At the same time, he firmly advocated that the German workers, if necessary, stand up for the defense of Germany's national interests. The vote of the German Social Democrats on August 4, 1914 in the Reichstag for the adoption of the law on war credits was their recognition of a common national task, an open manifestation of the subordination of class priorities to national ones. This meant, in essence, the recognition by the German Social Democracy of the existing nation-state as a positive fact of history. The war made its own adjustments to the position of the British Laborites. In particular, their pacifist internationalism was shaken. In 1915, three representatives of the Labor Party joined the coalition government. Labor representatives were involved in various government committees, tribunals and agencies. Obviously, having joined the mechanism of governing the country, they acquired a new status. By this, the German Social Democrats and the British Laborites demonstrated their transformation into a loyal political force, achieving its goals in a two-pronged process of mutual rivalry and cooperation between the working class and the bourgeoisie within the framework of the nation state. The same path was taken by the Social Democratic parties of other countries in the industrialized zone of the world. In the spirit of the discussions in the German Social Democracy in Russian legal Marxism, a revision of a number of the most important provisions of classical Marxism also began. In particular, P.B. Struve questioned Marx's idea of ​​"progressive social oppression and impoverishment of the masses of the population." Proceeding from the Hegelian dialectical method, Struve argued that the thesis of "continuity of change" serves as a theoretical justification for evolutionism rather than revolutionism. “When substantiating socialism as a historically necessary form of society,” he wrote, “the point is not to find ... elements that separate both forms, but, on the contrary ... by continuous causality and constant transitions, connecting them.” Arguing that the absolutism of concepts inherent in orthodox Marxism is the opposite of dialectics, Struve saw the task of sane people not in preparing for a worldwide catastrophe, a utopian leap into the "realm of freedom", but in the gradual "socialization" of capitalist society. Apparently, a certain potential for development along the reformist path was also laid in the Russian Social Democracy, in that part of it that was represented by the Mensheviks, especially G.V. Plekhanov and his associates. But the victory in it, as we know, was won by the Bolsheviks, who turned a huge country into a testing ground for their revolutionary experiments.

2. Austro-Marxism

3. French socialists

ECONOMIC IDEAS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

1. German Social Democrats

The evolution of the economic concepts of German Social Democracy was greatly influenced by the situation that developed in Germany as a result of its defeat in the First World War, and also as a result of the defeat of the November Revolution of 1918. Right-wing leaders of the Social Democracy played a significant role in suppressing the uprisings of the revolutionary workers and sailors. Since most of the left-wing Social Democrats went over to the KKE, right-wing and centrist forces prevailed in the ranks of the Social Democratic Party. The SPD occupied a position in the center or slightly to the right of it in the Socialist Workers' International, created in 1923 and functioning until the outbreak of World War II.

The economic views of the representatives of the SPD developed in close connection with Austro-Marxism, because traditionally strong relations were maintained between the German and Austrian social democrats. So, R. Hilferding, who occupied in 1923 and 1928-1929. post (Minister of Finance of Germany and one of the leaders of the SPD, began his career as a theorist in the ranks of the Austrian Social Democracy.

The course of the leadership of the SPD to promote the stabilization of capitalism as a prerequisite for growing into socialism, which was carried out until the fascists came to power, found a corresponding refraction in ideology. A negative attitude towards economic and political transformations in the USSR occupied an important place in the views of the ideologists of this party by the beginning of the 1920s.
At the same time, the advancement by the leaders of the Comintern of the thesis of "social fascism" in relation to social democracy gave the ideologists of the SPD a reason to justify to the broad masses of workers who support this party their line of dissociation from the KKE, which was used to seize power by Hitler and his environment.

The object of particularly sharp criticism from the ideologists of the SPD in the period under review was the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which received a comprehensive justification in the work of V. I. Lenin "State and Revolution". In the two-volume work "The Materialist Understanding of History", published in
1927-1929 Kautsky declared the dictatorship of the proletariat an "accidental expression" in Marx.

This book has long been evaluated in Soviet literature as evidence of K. Kautsky's complete renunciation of Marxism. This assessment appears to be exaggerated and simplistic. Kautsky revised the foundations of the Marxist doctrine of the origin of the state, linked the emergence of the state with external conquests, i.e., with factors of a non-economic nature. However, in many respects, Kautsky's positions retained a Marxist character, they can be assessed as a social democratic interpretation of Marxism.

The ideologists of German social democracy considered the experience of the Great
October as conditioned only by specific conditions tsarist Russia and therefore of no interest to "civilized" countries.
The latter, in their opinion, will follow the path of gradual "growing" of capitalism into socialism. It is during this period that theories
"organized capitalism" and "economic democracy".

At the Kiel Congress of the SPD (1927), R. Hilferding stated that
"organized capitalism" means "the replacement of the capitalist principle of free competition by the socialist principle of planned production.
This planned, consciously managed economy is subject to the possibility of conscious influence on the part of society through the state.
The gradual development of "organized capitalism" into socialism
Hilferding considered it possible on the basis of the use by the working class of the mechanism of bourgeois parliamentarism and the democratic state, which was interpreted as the spokesman for the interests of the whole society. Great importance was also attached to the development of "economic democracy". Apart from R. Hilferding, this concept was also presented by F. Naftali and F. Tarnov.

The ideologists of "economic democracy" spoke in favor of transferring the principles of bourgeois-parliamentary democracy to the economy. In this regard, two slogans were put forward: "control of monopolies and cartels with the full participation of trade unions" and "unification of industries into self-governing formations." They were supplemented by demands for the further democratization of capital through the issuance of small shares for workers and employees, the involvement of trade union representatives in the boards of joint-stock companies, the creation of regional and national economic councils with equal participation of representatives of the state, the bourgeoisie and trade unions.

Attracting representatives of the working class to participate in the management of the capitalist economy on various levels, although it does not mean the establishment of the power of the people (namely, this is the meaning of the word "democracy") over the economy, it can indeed lead to a limitation of the prerogatives of big capital. That is why the German capitalists met the ideas
"economic democracy" wary or openly hostile. For their implementation, it was necessary to develop a broad program of political struggle, in which various detachments of the working class and other democratic forces were to be involved. However, the ideologists of the SPD pinned their main hopes on the mechanisms of the bourgeois-parliamentary system, which at that time could not ensure the implementation of radical democratic reforms.

The intentions of F. Naftali with the help of “economic democracy” to “shut off” capitalism before the latter is broken3, in fact turned out to be only vessels. In the conditions of a sharp aggravation of class antagonisms in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the theory of "economic democracy" turned out to be far from reality. However, its main provisions in the post-war period again became widespread in the SPD.

In the conditions of the crisis of 1929-1933. SPD ideologues made significant efforts to develop recommendations to the state aimed at overcoming the crisis, especially at reducing unemployment.

R. Hilferding formulated a number of proposals to combat the crisis, emphasizing that the departure from the gold backing of the Reichsmark and many other currencies, as well as credit restrictions, played a special role in its deepening. He emphasized that if the capitalists want to "remain within the framework of the capitalist system, they must at least apply capitalist methods of poisoning, i.e., a banking policy that is correct from an international point of view"4. In this regard, Hilferding demanded that American and French banks stop accumulating gold and provide it to overcome (Crisis in Germany and Great Britain.

The anti-crisis plan of Voitinsky-Tapnov-Baade ("VTB-plan"), developed by the Social Democrats, was widely known, which was supported by many trade unions. It provided for the allocation of 2 billion Reichsmarks, in fact, by methods of deficit financing, which subsequently began to be used in many capitalist countries in accordance with Keynes's theory for public works through state railways and post offices, as well as some other corporations that had a public-shrav status. Such measures, as suggested by the authors of the VTB Plan, could provide employment for about 1 million unemployed. They recommended focusing on activities specifically in the infrastructure sector, where economic activity declined particularly sharply under the influence of the crisis, which had a negative impact on the conjuncture in related industries. For the implementation of these measures, it was proposed to the Reichsbank to allocate a long-term loan at a low interest rate through additional paper-money emission without appropriate coverage.

The ideas formulated in the VTB Plan were widely known outside of Germany as well. They were taken into account by the ideologists of the "New Deal"
F. Roosevelt, as well as J. M., Keynes in the development of his "new economic doctrine".

The economic ideology of the SPD of the interwar period made a certain contribution to the development of world economic thought. Despite the well-known inconsistency, it largely paved the way for those progressive economic transformations that were carried out after the Second World War by the Social Democratic governments of a number of leading capitalist states.

2. Austro-Marxism

Austro-Marxism is a conditional definition of theories that were in circulation, in
Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria (SDRPA). His United Nations were laid down before the First World War. During the period under review, Austro-Marxism experienced the impact of the revolutionary events of the Great
October in Russia, the partial stabilization of capitalism and the upheavals of the economic crisis of 1929-1933. The economic theories of Austro-Marxism were formed in the very diverse political situation of the First Austrian Republic (1918-1938), when the SDRPA participated in the government coalition (1918-1920), was in opposition during the 1 period of relative balance of class forces (until the last third of the 20s) and, finally, in a brutal confrontation with the bourgeoisie, who suppressed the uprising of the SDRPA military organization (February 1934). The greatest contribution to the development of the economic concepts of Austrian-Marxism in the interwar period was made by O.
Bauer and K. Renner, as well as the spouses O. and K. Leichter.

Although the Austro-Marxists welcomed the Great October, for their country they saw a different path of transition to socialism. In "The Way to
.socialism" (1919) Bauer considers the social revolution as a long process of socio-economic transformation - "a matter of creative organizational work ... the result of many years of work"5. At the same time, there is no need to deprive the bourgeoisie of the means of production. Bauer considered economic chaos and anarchy in industry to be the main threat.

Bauer constantly emphasized that the construction of a new, in his understanding, society is possible through the creation of "centers of socialism" already under capitalism. The growth in the number of such centers, the SDRPA theorist believed, could lead to the emergence of a socialist society without a radical break in the established production relations. Bauer considered the process of socialization (“socialization”) to be the main element of this path. Developing theories in this vein, he sought to take into account some of the concepts of the former reformist currents (guilders), as well as the experience of the Bolsheviks. Thus, among the "sources of the poisons of socialization" he named "the first measures of the Bolsheviks in the field of organizing the national economy"6.

However, in essence, Bauer's socialization was opposed to what was carried out by the Bolsheviks. Disagreeing with the methods of social transformation in Soviet Russia, Bauer categorically objected to the forcible expropriation of private property. Instead, he proposed to introduce a "social" mechanism for the taxation of capital, through which private property could gradually evolve into
"nationwide".

V. I. Lenin, having familiarized himself with some of Bauer's works, subjected them to serious criticism, believing that Austro-Marxist socialization distracts the proletariat from revolutionary actions. He called the variant of Bauer's socialization divorced from reality7. The practice of both the Austrian state and other countries of Western Europe, according to the firm conviction of V. I. Lenin, at that time, did not give grounds for such plans.

Having become oppositional, the SDRPA not only did not lose interest in issues economic theory, but, on the contrary, intensified the development of many economic problems. The improvement in the economic situation by the mid-1920s gave grounds to consider many issues from the point of view of the key thesis of Austro-Marxism - the possibility of the evolution of capitalism into socialism. This trend primarily dominated the Austro-Marxist understanding of the issues of ownership of the means of production, which were considered the main condition for the coming socio-economic transformations.

This trend was most clearly seen in the works of K.
Renner. In The Theory of the Capitalist Economy: Marxism and the Problems of Socialization (1924), Renner argued that expropriation is harmful to economics, because it leads to the fact that the production process is interrupted and the interest in making a profit disappears. He considered it possible to replace the expropriation of big capital with a "fair democratization of property." This, according to Renner, is all the more useful, since the functions of property, even regardless of the will of the socialists, are subject to positive
.changes. He considered the “organization of a healthy market” (a prototype of the future capitalist integration) to be an important prerequisite for socialization, developing the concept of the United States that he expressed back in the years of World War II.
Europe8.

Positions on the problem of socialization were also reflected in the main theoretical document of the Social Democratic Party of the interwar period, the Linz Program of 1926. It clearly stated the principle of coexistence of private and public forms of ownership. Such a conclusion looked ambiguous against the background of rather sharp criticism of the negative features of the capitalist mode of production. The program spoke of "the unbearable economic dictatorship financial capital, large national and international cartels and trusts", about "the indignation of the masses by the domination of capital over production", about
"the desire of the masses to snatch the means of production and exchange from capital, to make them the property of the people." However, about how obraeo.m should have been carried out
"a just democratization of property," was said in an extremely vague way.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that already under capitalism "capitalist property is deprived of its original functions"9. The Austro-Marxists considered the system of “economic democracy” to be the main method of depriving capitalist property of its functions, as K. Renner wrote about in his work “Ways of Implementation” (1929). "Economic democracy," he argued,
- takes over the functions that were previously considered inalienable prerogatives of the state power ... "10 According to Renner, the bearers of these functions should have been, first of all, industrial enterprises that arose during the years of the revolutionary upsurge.

A number of specific provisions regarding these organs of production self-government were also contained in the Linzok program. In it, the problem of economic democracy was considered primarily in relation to the public sector of the economy, which, thanks to democratization production process should be indicative of the economy as a whole. This, the Austro-Marxists believed, would contribute to the awareness of the working people of all the advantages of the economy, which is in the hands of the state.

The concept of "economic democracy" in principle did not raise any objections from the theorists of the Austro-Marxist left direction. In their opinion, the works councils should not go over to the path of class cooperation with capital. In addition, democratization in the economy, the leftists believed, should not lower the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, its ability to use active forms of class struggle. So, K. Leichter, who worked in state economic institutions, believed that the works councils should perform a “double function” - to take care of the interests of the workers and at the same time prepare them to fight for changing existing social relations. However, in the form in which works councils existed in Austria, they were not ready to perform their functions. Leichter admitted that in general "the possibilities of economic democracy under capitalism are extremely limited."

The crisis upheavals that gripped the capitalist world from the end of 1929 did not bypass Austria either. Unemployment, which was typical for the country even in the years of relative stabilization of capitalism, has turned into a real disaster for the working people. By the beginning of 1932, almost every tenth inhabitant of Austria had no job. Production was curtailed primarily in such an important sector of the national economy as the metallurgical industry. Under these conditions, the theoreticians of Austro-Marxism, who in their previous concepts proceeded from the successful development of the national economy, found themselves faced with the need for a detailed analysis of the new situation in order to propose ways to overcome the crisis, to begin searching for other than before, ways of "evolution" into socialism.

In the work "Rationalization - erroneous rationalization" (1931), written in the hot pursuit of the crisis, O. Bauer tried to consider this phenomenon based on the theory of the cyclical development of the capitalist economy. One of the main causes of the economic catastrophe
Bauer considered the overproduction of industrial products caused by the rapid development of technology, which did not fit into the framework of traditional capitalism.
In turn, he considered the lack of planning of the capitalist economy one of the reasons for the crisis of overproduction. Although in assessing the specific causes of the crisis, Bauer, like most theorists of other social democratic parties, did not give a complete, comprehensive picture, however, he clearly pointed out that this destructive phenomenon also means an ideological and political crisis of an ekstuatorial society. In his speech at the SDRPA congress (1932), Bauer noted that "the confidence of the working masses in capitalism has been destroyed and cannot be restored"12.

The theorist of Austro-Marxism concluded in this speech that the crisis at the turn of the third and fourth decades of the 20th century. finally liquidated the capitalism of the period of free competition, paved the bridge to state-monopoly capitalism. Distinctive features of this system should be a planned economy, state regulation of the economy.
Arguing with those social democrats who assumed that these features are characteristic only of the socialist social formation, Bauer believed that in fact only one of the “forms of the transition from capitalism to socialism” was outlined. It should be noted that Bauer's student, O. Leichter, in his work The Collapse of Capitalism (1932) outlined the main parameters of the MMC, correlating them with the reformist socialist ideal. In his opinion, the MMC is "no longer a purely capitalist state, because the economic laws of capitalism have already been partially implemented." But this is still far from being socialism, for "here, at the beginning of this transitional period, the economic laws of capitalism prevail"14.

Many of the practical measures taken by the Austro-Marxist theoreticians did not go beyond the measures recommended by the bourgeois economic science of that time (for example, Keynesianism), and were already carried out by both social-democratic and bourgeois governments. The ideas of state intervention in the economic life, macroeconomic regulation, some measures of a planned nature - all this was not a revelation in the mouths of the theoreticians of the SDRPA. True, on some issues the far-sighted leaders of this party proposed steps that were somewhat novel. In particular, O.
Bauer considered it necessary to have close interstate cooperation between the countries in crisis, not only on a European scale, but also with the involvement of American capital, which should help revive the economy.
Old World. To a certain extent, Bauer anticipated the post-war "plan
Marshall."

In the speeches of O. Bauer in the early 1930s, the idea was constantly emphasized of the need to coordinate anti-crisis policy with the demands of the trade union movement on the paramount importance of overcoming unemployment, on the inadmissibility of reducing social spending during a crisis, on regulating food stocks with the help of the state so that the latter covered as much of the population as possible. Bauer was one of the few figures in the then European social democracy who proposed to increase employment by reducing (to 40 hours) the duration of the working week, though not stipulating this with the possibility of maintaining the same earnings.

Bauer's economic concepts in the last, emigrant period of his activity (after February 1934, he left Austria, moving first to
Czechoslovakia, and in 1938 - to France, where he died in Paris in June of the same year) have undergone certain positive changes. He acknowledged that, contrary to previous expectations, the crisis did not lead to the rise of the labor movement, but to the strengthening of reactionary, fascist forces. On the whole, Bauer gave a correct assessment of the economic roots of fascism as a terrorist dictatorship serving with the help of the state the interests of the exploiting classes, above all big business. In his latest work"Between Two World Warriors"
(1936) Bauer clearly defined the main economic and political task of the labor movement, which arose from the situation that had arisen as a result of a rare intensification of fascist reaction: the destruction of the entire economic mechanism of capitalist society, the elimination of those forms of private property that conflict with the desire of the masses for socialist reorganization. In this way, Bauer significantly departed from the main conceptual ideas of the theory of "growing" capitalism into socialism.

Austro-Marxism of the interwar period was a synthesis of the views of ideologists various directions who differently imagined the path of transition to socialism. In a situation where, on the one hand, reactionary tendencies were intensifying in Europe, and, on the other hand, the USSR showed serious deformations in the process of socialist construction, it was extremely difficult for the theorists of the SDRPL to find the right solution to both urgent and promising socio-economic problems. However, in post-war Austria, many issues that arose in the depths of Austro-Marxism (about nationalization, participation in management, social partnership) received their own further development contributing to a positive solution for the labor movement of a number of pressing issues of economic life.

3. French socialists

The Socialist Party of France (SFIO) was formed in 1905 as a result of the merger of ideologically heterogeneous workers' organizations. During the First World War, its most influential leaders acted under the flag of cooperation with "their own" bourgeoisie.

After the Congress of Tours (1920), the leaders of the SFIO in the sphere of ideology were guided by the principles of loyalty to the "old house", that is, old traditions. In a speech at the Congress of Tours, the future leader of the socialists
L. Blum defended the "fundamental and unchanging principles of Marxist socialism" as opposed to the ""new socialism" of the Comintern." Supporters of joining the Comintern were accused by Blum of introducing into "international socialism concepts drawn from the private and local experience of the Russian revolution"15. The Bolsheviks were called followers of anarchy and carbonarism
(Blanquism), and it was argued that their mistake was to make the “seizure of power” an end in itself, while from the point of view of genuine revolutionary socialism this is just a means for “a complete change in the regime of property”16.

L. Blum was one of the first to proclaim the "inapplicability" of the Russian experience for the countries of highly developed capitalism. At the same time, one cannot fail to see that social reformism in France differed in many respects from related trends in England or Germany. At the Type Congress, the representatives of the minority, in the draft resolutions they submitted, recognized, for example, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was influenced by the revolutionary traditions of the French working class. However, in the writings of Blum, the proletarian dictatorship was interpreted as a short-term “lack of legality”, identified with violence alone and opposed to democracy17.

The general adherence to reformism did not exclude the presence within the SFIO of various factions that competed with each other. Already in the 1920s, a typical alignment of forces for the socialist parties of the West had developed here: the right wing (P. Renaudel, M. Dea and others), the left wing (J. Zhyromsky) and the centrist majority headed by L. Blum.

Right-wing theorists advocated seeking consensus with the bourgeoisie on critical issues of economics and politics. In their interpretation of the general laws of the capitalist mode of production, they were under the direct influence of bourgeois reformism. M. Dea, S. Spinas and others considered the temporary stabilization of capitalism in the second half of the 1920s as permanent and almost all-encompassing.

Thus, in the publications of the influential socialist ideologist J. Mock (it was argued that capitalism of the 20s, primarily American, had reached such a level of technical and organizational progress that a further increase in efficiency was unthinkable without a reduction in commodity prices and expansion of sales markets. Mock believed that leading US entrepreneurs have already realized that profitable growth is tightly linked to the expansion of the sales sphere, and hence to the increase in the real wages. Proceeding from this, he declared the task of the labor movement to be the struggle for "rationalization in the American way", which would cross out the agoism of "pseudo-rationalizers" who want to leave the benefits of innovation only to themselves. Mock described a future capitalist society where "the interest of the working people will become, if not identical, then at least parallel to that of the capitalists" and "modern class antagonism will gradually give way to a policy of technical cooperation among its elements."

Mock believed that the working class could not stand in opposition to organizational and technological progress. However, from this indisputable premise he drew a conclusion. that the proletarians must also agree with the capitalist form of rationalization, albeit in an improved, reformed form. A few years before the start of the Great Depression, Mock proclaimed that US innovators had already paved the way for " new firm capitalism" without acute social need, .class anti-goii.schmov, without industrial crises19. Nevertheless, it was the United States that was the first to enter the global economic crisis of 1929-1933. with its mass unemployment, the acute need of the working people.

Hopes for the self-elimination of the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie predetermined the course of the right-wing socialists in relation to the program guidelines of the SFIO. One of the leaders of this direction, M. Dea, demanded in the formulation of the main goal of the party to replace "socialism" with the broader concept of "anti-capitalism"20.

Dea proceeded from motives to include in the composition of the "anti-capitalist forces" significant detachments of small proprietors. The petty bourgeois, as well as the peasantry, were, in his opinion, the leading force in the "anti-capitalist bloc" on the grounds that they were oppressed by capital to a greater extent than the workers.

Dea tried to put forward evidence of the special revolutionary nature of the peasantry. According to him, the owner of the village, even the prosperous one, is initially inclined towards equality: “Since the peasant lives in a sphere where large differences in the amount of wealth are rare, since he knows from experience that it is impossible to “earn” millions, he has developed an instinct for equality, he does not accept the capitalist concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a few persons. We could add other features to the characterization of the peasant: to show how the variety of work performed by him develops his individualism, how the relative independence of the peasants from capitalism makes them more receptive to ideals than even the workers.

The right current within the SFIO was opposed by the left wing of the party, headed by Zh. Zhyromsky. The Zhyromsky group advocated cooperation with the communists in the development of a mass, revolutionary struggle. At theoretical justification Zh. Zhyromsky proceeded from this course from the exacerbation of class antagonisms between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in that period.
At the same time, the correct theses put forward by Zhiromsky about industrial and banking concentration, about "new forms" of capitalist production, were not brought to the point of recognizing a special, monopolistic stage of capitalism.
Therefore, the statements about the "aggravation of contradictions" acquired a general, non-specific sold character. The left socialists have not been able to rise to Lenin's doctrine of imperialism, without which a consistent criticism of opportunism is impossible. The ego prevented the organizational delimitation of the left and reformist currents in the SFIO. During the years of the Popular Front, many left-wing socialists (followers of M. Leaver) came out with unrealistic slogans for the speedy introduction of socialism.

Centrism became the dominant ideological and political current of the SFIO in the interwar period. The leader of the centrists, L. Blum, as well as the Vedas of his faction, maneuvered between the two extreme groupings in the party, leaning either to the left or to the right, depending on the situation.

L. Blum's theoretical views also turned out to be controversial. In the preface to J. Moka's book, Blum challenged the opinion of the right that "genuine rationalization of production" abolishes the antagonisms of the bourgeois order. In contrast, he wrote that attempts to rationalize capitalism conflict with the fundamental principles of competition and private initiative. It has been argued that "the increasingly obvious and shocking contradiction between the methods of production and the regime of property can only increase the need for revolution"22. The leader of the SFIO has repeatedly stated that rationalization is carried out to the detriment of the working population of France, since it provokes unemployment, creates a situation in which “profits for some turn into suffering and poverty for others”23. But this did not prevent him from expressing other, sometimes opposing ideas.

Based on Zhnromoky's arguments about "new forms of capitalism",
L. Blum interpreted these forms one-sidedly: he reduced them either to the concentration of management (but not capital), or to “super concentrations of banks”24.
The latter, in his opinion, had rather negative consequences for various strata of private owners (in trade, in small-scale production).
Blum concluded that it was primarily the petty bourgeois who suffered from the "new capitalism". Such a petty-bourgeois critique of imperialism brought his views closer to M. Dea's concept of the "alticapitalist front".

Unlike the right-wing socialists, L. Blum did not believe that the participation of socialists in the government ensures the advancement of France towards socialism.
This SFIO leader distinguished between a temporary "use of power" and a decisive
"conquest of power", in the course of which the main program guidelines of the party are implemented (socialist revolution, socialization of the decisive means of production, etc.). But specific development issues related to the transition from the use of power to its conquest, he was not carried out.

At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, centrist economists in the SFIO created many works on the problems of imperialism25. L. Laura, for example, believed that in the "imperialist era" the best guide for the proletariat
France. will be the theory of capital accumulation R. Luxembourg26. Laura recommended using the development of state-monopoly forms of regulation to create a "planned economy" free from manifestations of crisis and anarchy. On the "planned economy" they assigned the role of a kind
"non-capitalist sphere", contributing to the expansion of the market and the implementation of the social product. Since, in contrast to the pre-capitalist forms of production, the “planned sector” under capitalism will not be reduced, but. on the contrary, expand, then the imperialist countries will be able to avoid
"chronic stagnation" and "economic chaos", although at the cost of growing into socialism 27 In the future, Laura did not object to the socialization of big bourgeois property. But within the framework of his theory, the thesis about the possibility of an evolutionary transformation of bourgeois society into socialist society was preserved.

Considering the economic concepts of the SFIO in the second half of the 30s, it is necessary to note the impact that the economic crisis had on them.
1929-1933 He sharply polarized the class forces of France! and at the same time caused the radicalization of the socialist party. L. Philip, L. Laura and others made statements about "agonizing capitalism", about the need to nationalize the enterprises of the leading industries, to rid society of the dominance of the monopolistic and financial oligarchy29. In 1933, a significant part of the faction of right-wing socialists, who opposed the shift of the party to the left, was expelled from the SFIO.

The threat of the fascist danger put on the agenda the question of creating a united Popular Front with the participation of the PCF, the SFIO and the party of radicals.
Participation in this association was a major historical merit of all the political forces that formed it. The left government not only averted the fascist danger, but carried out a number of important reforms that improved the condition of the working people.

June 8, 1936 in the Matignon Palace, through the mediation of the head of the government of the Popular Front L. Blum and some ministers, between representatives of the patronage and the General Confederation of Labor, agreements were signed on raising wages by an average of 7 -15%, on the introduction collective agreements, on trade union freedoms, recognition of the right to strike, etc. In accordance with the Matipion agreements, the head of the cabinet
L. Blum submitted to Parliament a bill on a 40-hour working week and on two weeks of paid holidays, which were voted by the pskors.
The Matignon agreements were a major victory for the working people, achieved in the course of a stubborn political and economic struggle. They showed the possibility of fruitful cooperation between the left parties in carrying out radical reforms. progressive transformation.

Nevertheless, already in the autumn of 1936, the government headed by Blum embarked on the path of concessions to big capital. Over progressive tax reform, measures to combat speculation and capital flight abroad, the socialist ministers preferred the policy of devaluations, preferential loans to entrepreneurs, and cuts in public spending, which were unfavorable for the working people. Yielding to pressure from the right, L. Blum in February 1937 officially announced the onset of a "pause" in the implementation of the program of the Popular Front and a few months later submitted his resignation. However, in
1937-1939 the leaders of the SFIO continued to demonstrate verbal radicalism, demanded "structural reforms", inclusion in the program
Popular Front points on the nationalization of the leading industries, etc. The gap between leftist phrase-mongering and real politics was here to the maximum extent.

The decline of the Popular Front was facilitated by the foreign policy activities of the SFIO. While still prime minister, L. Blum became one of the instigators of the policy of "non-intervention" in the affairs of Spain, which actually sanctioned the strangulation of the Spanish Republic by Italian and German fascism.
The Socialist parliamentarians (with the exception of one) approved the Munich Agreement. After the national catastrophe of May-June 1940, 39 socialist senators and deputies voted for the establishment of a collaborationist regime
Pétain (35 voted against).

Having joined the Popular Front as leaders of the progressive, left-wing party of the world Social Democracy, L. Blum and his like-minded people soon evolved to the right. At the same time, the lessons of the interwar period have clearly shown that the coexistence of the parties of the working class, united on a progressive, leftist platform, is capable of bringing important results and substantially improving the well-being of the people.

4. English Laborism

In the interwar years, the Labor movement developed on the basis of Fabianism, which arose as a reformist antithesis to Marxism. In the center of attention of the ideologists of Laborism-S. Webb, B. Shaw, J. Cole, X. Dalton, G. Lasky and others - there was a development of the concepts of nationalization and state regulation, from the combination of which the contours of the general theory of "socialization" of the capitalist economy grew.

The new historical situation in which the British labor movement found itself - the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia, the stagnant-crisis state of the economy, the growth of anti-capitalist sentiment in the country - prompted the theorists of the Labor Party of Great Britain (LPV) to actively search for methods for implementing the ideas of Fabian socialism.

The concept of nationalization, incorporating both old and new elements, received a relatively complete form during this period, which became the basis for the implementation of the corresponding policy after the Second World War.

As an ideological justification for the nationalization of private capitalist property, the English reformists used the Fabian theories of "rents" and the state. According to the first, only the nation, by the right of social justice, is the true owner of the means of production. According to the second theory, the state, being a superclass body, protects and represents the interests of the whole society.
The combination of the conclusions from these theories served, in the opinion of the Labor ideologists, as the rationale for the priority of nationalization among the less mature forms of socialization - the creation of workers' cooperatives and municipal enterprises.
As noted by the prominent figure of the LP H. Gaitskell, the nationalization
"was regarded not as one of the means, but as the only possible and reliable means of achieving socialism"31.

The principle of obligatory presence in the economy of objective conditions under which the nationalization of private property is a desirable and constructive measure was laid in the foundation of the concept. Under such conditions, the Laborites understood a high level of concentration of capital.
Monopoly, in the opinion of most Fabians, is ripe for socialism.

The real possibility of the British Labor Party coming to power (put forward before its theorists the problem of determining priorities in the implementation of the nationalization policy. In accordance with the fact that the goal of the latter was to satisfy the general interests, the concept put industries in the foreground production infrastructure of general economic importance: energy, transport, communications. To create the necessary conditions for nationalization, a policy of forcible centralization of capital was carried out in these industries: numerous railway companies were merged into four main ones, the coal industry was forcibly cartelized.

The essential elements of the concept of nationalization include a new management model state enterprises based on the principles of a public (public) corporation. In previous years, the Labor point of view was that these enterprises should be managed by the central ministries on the model of the Post Office. The new model was based on the main principle - the elimination of the state in the face of ministries from practical guide nationalized industries. The governing body - a public corporation - was proposed to be endowed with a high degree of economic independence.
Decentralization and debureaucratization of management methods were considered as the main condition for increasing the efficiency of public
.entrepreneurship33.

During these years, new moments appear in the concept of nationalization, signifying a significant break with the old Fabian idea of ​​​​socialism, which in essence was “state socialism.” This is primarily about the position put forward by a number of theorists about the need to limit the process of stateization of the means of production within certain limits .

Thus, J. Cole in one of his books, declaring a revision of his views on socialism, spoke out “against the application of a simple formula for transferring all industries and services to the ownership of the nation, in favor of expanding effective control over the economic system as a whole”34. The abandonment of former positions was caused by a reassessment of the role of nationalization in the new conditions. Nationalization, in his opinion, is economically destructive, since it disrupts existing ties and prevents the formation of new ones.
The monopolization of production, in particular through the creation of large combined industries, contributes to the growth of the efficiency of the British economy. Nationalization should not be resorted to for ideological reasons, but only in those cases where there are specific reasons for this35.

It is obvious that the old ideological motives of nationalization are giving way to a new pragmatic approach, the tasks of increasing the efficiency of British capital.

The development of the provision on the limited nature of nationalization leads to conclusions that the British reformists have yet to draw: the need for coexistence in the economy of two sectors - public and private; that the form of ownership of the means of production, property as such, is not of decisive importance for the restructuring of the economy on a socialist footing, and state regulation is an equally important tool for the "socialization" of traditional socio-economic structures.

From what has been said, it is clear that in the interwar period there was a significant shift towards the development by Labor theorists of the problems of state regulation of the economy.

The idea of ​​centralized regulation was born out of criticism of the market mechanism, opposing the competition plan. The market and competition were seen as the source of the social and economic evils of the cashist system, especially after the crisis of 1929-1933. The goal of regulation was formulated as a movement towards socialism, and more specifically
- as the fight against unemployment, the most acute problem of that time.

Planning was supposed to cover almost all spheres of the economy. Sectoral and intersectoral plans would guide the development of industrial and agricultural production. The National Investment Authority distributed loans between the nationalized and private sectors. In function central bank included management money circulation in the country. The Department of Trade would control and direct foreign trade operations. An important element comprehensive planning was a training and retraining plan work force. Higher economic management crowned the entire national regulatory structure.

The interwar period witnessed a significant ideological evolution of English Laborism. The contours of many provisions were clearly outlined, which, after the Second World War, formed the basis of the concepts
"democratic socialism" mixed economy, a reformist version of state regulation of the capitalist economy.

1. See: Kautsky K. Materialistic understanding of history T I. M.; L., 1931.

"
2. Sozialdemokratischer Parfeitag in Kiel: Protokoll mit dem Bericht der

Frauenconferenz. Berlin, 1927. S. 168.
3. Wirtschaftsdemokratie: Ihr Wesen, Weg und Ziel/Hrsg von F Naphtali.

Berlin, 1929. S. 176.
4. Hilferding R. Gesellschaftsmacht or Privatmacht uber die Wirtschaft.

Berlin, 1931. S. 32.
5. Bauer 0. Wertausgabe. Vienna, 1975-1980. Bd 2.S 93.
6. Ibid. S. 283.
7. See: Lenin V. I. Poly. coll. op. T. 40. S. 138.
8. See: Renner K. Theory of the capitalist economy: Marxism and the problem of socialization. M.; L., 1926 - S. 137.
9. Programm der Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei Deulschoslerreichs//6auer 0. Op. cit. Bd 5. S. 1034-1036.
10. Renner K. Wege der Verwirklichung. Berlin, 1929. S. 128-129. Steiner K.

Kaihe Leichter: Leben und Werk. Wien, 1973. S. 70.
11. Bauer 0. Op. cit. Bd 5. S. 667.
12. Ibidem.
13. Leichter 0. Sprengung des Kapita Usmus. Vienna, 1932. S 138.
14. Blum L. Loeuvre. 1914-1928. P., 1972. P. 139.
15. Ibid. P. 146-148.
16. Ibid. P. 453-455.
17. Moch J. Socialisme et Rationalisation. Bruxelies, 1927 P 131-132.
18. Ibid., p. 58.
19. Deaf M. Perspectives socialistes. P., 1930. P. 36.
20. Op. Quoted from: Salychev S.S. The French Socialist Party in the period between the two world wars (1921-1940). M., 1979. S. 158; see also:

Deal M. Op. cit. R. 54-55.
21. Op. by Moch J. Op. cit. R.V.
22. Blum L Op. cif. P. 477-478.
23. Ibid. P. 462.
24. Laurat L. Limperiaiisme et la decadence capitalisfe. P „ 1928.
25. Laurat L. Laccumulafion du capital dapres Rosa Luxemburg. P., 1930. P.

193.
26. LauraS L. Economic plane conire economic enchainee. P. 1932. P. 51,

86-87, 90, 112.
27. Ibid. P. 31, 60.
28. "Philip A. La crise et economie dirigee. P., 1935. P. 203-204;
29. Laurat L. Cinq annees de crise mondiale. P., 1935. P. 98, 107.
30. Laski N. The State in Theory and Practice. L „1935. P. 29.
31. Gaitskell H. Socialism and Nationalization. L., 1956. P. 5.
32. Dallon H. Practical Socialism for Britain. L., 1935. P. 146.
33. Ibid. P. 94-96.
34. Cole G. D. H. The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy.

L, 1935. P. 132-133.
35. Ibid. P. 137-139.
36. Dalton H. Op. cit. P. 243, 310.

(Politically, J. Mok supported Blum's centrist group, but as a political economist, he clearly gravitated towards the right-wing faction of the SFIO.
(During the period under review, the Laborites formed their own government twice, in 1924 and 1929-1931.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

National problems in the works of the ideologists of the German social democracy

The German Social Democrats in the period before the First World War paid little attention either to national problems in general or to the German national question in the Bohemian lands in particular. Most of the publications on this issue belonged to natives of the German court districts, such as K. Kautsky and F. Stampfsr. Editor, since 1916 -Chief Editor- the central press organ of the SPD "Vor-Verts" was born and raised in Brunn, in Moravia. Stampfer, closely followed the development of the situation in the Bohemian lands. He, in particular, advocated a special state right for Bohemia.

Another native of the Sudetes, born in 1854 in Prague, in the family of the Czech theater decorator Jan Vaclav Kautsky, married to a German, K. Kautsky was closely associated with the socialist movement in the Bohemian lands, Kautsky was a recognized theorist of German social democracy. At the same time, he always emphasized his Czech origin and in his youth he was fond of Czech nationalism. Concerning the German national question directly, Kautsky saw no prospects for preserving Austria in its former form, noting correctly that a democratic solution of the national question in that country would lead to its transformation "into a union of nation-states." He also objected to the inclusion of non-German nationalities in the German state as a result of the war. The specificity of Kautsky's ideological and theoretical views on the national question consisted in the fact that he did not put the German national question at the forefront, did not believe that it could arise as such. Against. Kautsky drew attention to the position of the German nationalities in Austria-Hungary. Only after 1918 did he come to grips with the analysis of the Sudeten-German problem.

The leaders of the Austrian social democracy also acted as theorists of the national question and at the same time took concrete steps towards its resolution, in particular, Bauer and Renner during the period of the struggle for the socialist Anschluss in 1918-1919. In Germany, however, there has been a significant differentiation between theorists, such as K. Kautsky, G. Kunov, and party functionaries, who used the slogan of resolving the national problem in political practice. The most active promoter of the Anschluss among the German Social Democracy was P. Löbe. Born in the Breslau region bordering Poland, Löbe himself was in a position similar to the leaders of the Sudeto-German Social Democracy, as he took part in the city government of Breslau, the workers' district of the German National Assembly, where he had to fight for the Germans' right to self-determination. Up to the time of the Hitler coup, Loebe constantly stressed the need to achieve German national unity and the formation of a Greater German Republic that would stretch from the Alps to the North Sea and from the Danube to the Rhine.

Describing the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, Loebe recognized both of them as multinational states. The main difference between them was that under the rule of the Habsburgs, many peoples living throughout its territory were united. Germany, on the other hand, was a "more national state", and representatives of national minorities occupied the border regions of the empire. The Anschluss movement in 1918-1919 was assessed by Loebe as an objectively inevitable tendency for the transformation of multinational states into "purely national states". This trend continued to develop after the Second World War. But the transformation of European states took place, according to Loeb, by forcibly ousting the Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Poland. In addition to Löbe, E. Bernstein, R. Breitscheid, R. Hilferding, and A. Crispin also acted as active propagandists of the idea of ​​common German unity.

In the presentation of the history of the German Revolution of 1918, E. Bernstein also touched upon the Sudeten-German problem, which he considered from the point of view of the possibility of establishing unity with Austria. He pointed out that due to the Czechoslovak occupation of the Sudeten-German regions, Germany was cut off by Austria and could not provide that timely assistance.

R. Hilferding emphasized that he was a supporter of the idea of ​​a "single state" of all Germans. At the Kiel Congress of the SPD in 1927, he declared that "we must fight with increasing energy for the creation of a single state." Hilferding considered the establishment of "the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world" as the main result of the war. On the other hand, the war led to the emancipation of national identity in many countries of Europe, Asia, North Africa, Hilferding associated the preservation of peace with the recognition of the "right of nations to self-determination" and the granting of national autonomy to national minorities.

In addition to major, recognized theorists, the actual problems of the German national question in the countries of Central and South- of Eastern Europe was also touched upon by a number of German Social Democratic publicists, writers, and historians who did not claim leading positions in the party. National problems in Czechoslovakia were covered by G. Felinger. This author paid special attention to the development of the socialist movement in Czechoslovakia. Analyzing the question of the reasons for the split and the separation of the communist opposition, Felinger emphasized that communist ideas were not widespread among the masses. The split in the party of the Sudeten-German and Czechoslovak Social Democracy he led out of the intra-party struggle, emphasizing the clear predominance of the Czechs in the communist movement. Describing the NSDLP(Ch), Fehlinger noted an interesting detail: the party was constituted on the basis of the large industrial regions of the former Austria, in which the trade union movement was strongly developed. And it was yesterday's trade union leaders who made up the majority among the political leadership of the new party. This, in turn, predetermined the fact that the communist influence within the German trade unions was weaker than in the Czech ones. Felinger moderately supported the idea of ​​the unity of the socialist movement in Czechoslovakia.

Among the more original thinkers can be attributed the German Social Democratic writer and publicist G. Wendel, who considered the problems of the national question in the newly formed countries, in particular, in Yugoslavia, and general position Germans outside the borders of Germany. Wendel paid special attention to the Slavic-German contradictions. Looking for their causes, he focused on the events of 1848, when "the Germans, who so often acted as oppressors in world history, put forward the demand for the freedom of peoples." However, the struggle of the Germans for freedom ran into the resistance of the Slavic peoples, who became one of the factors in the failure of the democratic revolutions of 1848/49. Wendel noted that this fact largely explained the antipathy of the founders of Marxism and the leaders of the First International towards the Slavs.

Wendel noted the difference between the southern Slavs and the Czechs and Poles, who were at a much higher level of cultural and industrial development. Of no small importance was the fact that the South Slavic regions were mainly part of the more backward Hungary, so that interethnic contradictions between the Hungarians and the Slavs were based on feudal foundations, on the confrontation of the feudal nobility. Analyzing the reasons for the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, Wendel pointed out that this process was based on the "national-political demands" of its individual nationalities.

Wendel saw the purpose of his research in explaining to the Western, primarily German, proletariat the essence of the changes that occurred in Europe after the war, since "the new states in the East and the peoples who created them remain unknown quantities to us." Wendel's works give a general description of the German national question, as well as the position of the German national minority in Hungary, and, which should be attributed to the author's undoubted merits, an attempt was made from within (as a correspondent for the Berlin Vorwerts, Wendel visited many states of Eastern and South Eastern Europe) to characterize the process of the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the formation of nation-states on its fragments. At the same time, he proceeded from the traditional point of view that it was the awakening of national consciousness during the First World War that was the decisive factor that predetermined the collapse of the multinational Habsburg monarchy.

The greatest attention to questions of the theory and history of the national problem and interethnic contradictions was given in the works of the leading theoreticians of the German Social Democracy K. Kautsky and G. Kunov. The latter considered the problems of the national question as part of a reassessment of the ideological attitudes of the period of the Second International. Kunov especially emphasized the importance of the national idea in the labor movement in Ireland and Austria. Describing the process of the formation of new independent states after the end of the World War, Kunov wrote: "The demand for a national state after unification with national groups located outside its borders is the most important in the course of the general process of development and determines its historical course."

Speaking about the national character and national consciousness, Kunov emphasized that after the end of the World War, many peoples, especially the Germans, have a distinct tendency towards a "national revival", which was inherent in many other European peoples, such as the Irish, Italians, Poles and Czechs. Kunov was forced to reflect on the dilemma that arose with the Marxist approach to the national problem. On the one hand, Marxist theory provided grounds for supporting the rights of peoples to a national definition. On the other hand, there was a contradiction between the desire of individual peoples for independence and secession from the advanced, developed states, for example, the movement for the independence of the Irish against the British, in which the proletariat faced the difficult task of giving priorities.

Another problem that Kunov also faced with the blind was to determine the content of the concept of "nation". Starting from the works of Marx and Engels, Kunov came to the conclusion that the founders of Marxism themselves included not only Slovaks, Croats, Ukrainians, Czechs, Moravians, Bretons, Basques, etc., but also the Welsh and the population of the Isle of Man . In this regard, Kunov did not give a detailed commentary and criticism of this postulate, which obviously needed to be clarified. Just as vaguely, at the level of stating the problem, Kunov treated the problem of German unity. He acknowledged that this problem was "a very complex phenomenon" because "separate parts of the German nation" developed in different states in different ways. Kunow cited the example of Swiss Germans "openly sympathetic to England and France", as well as to the numerous German communities in England and America who had lived there for several centuries, which made their national identification more than problematic. He considered the process of losing a sense of belonging to a common national association from those ethnic German groups that for a long time developed outside the boundaries of their historical homeland. This position of Kunov should be recognized as generally true in relation to the distant future, which could also be applied to the position of the Sudeten Germans, who, following the logic of reasoning of this German Social Democrat, also had to gradually distance themselves from the German people in Germany and Austria. However, Kunov could not in this case see the presence of a persistent and growing Great German orientation not only among the Sudeten, but also among other German-speaking ethnic groups: Carpathian Germans, Germans in Poland, which was associated with the specific situation in which they found themselves after 1918.

Kunov, thus, proceeded from the principle of historical validity of the demand for the right to self-determination of nations and the creation of a mono-ethnic state for practically all nations and nationalities, for which he was criticized by K. Kautsky, who had a special relationship with the Social Democrats of Czechoslovakia. The ambivalence characteristic of Kautsky in his assessment of the German-Czech contradictions was also preserved in his assessment of the Sudetenland problem during the period of the end of the World War and the post-war peace settlement. Kautsky played a special, connecting role between the Social-Democrats of various nationalities in the countries of Europe; he cannot with good reason be ranked either with the German social democracy, from which he actually distanced himself from the beginning of the 1920s, or with the Austrian one: living in Vienna since 1924, he was never able to integrate into the party of the Austrian socialists. Thus, the figure of Kautsky stood apart, which was also evident in his assessment of the Sudeten-German problem. Since Kautsky and his family developed a special relationship with Czechoslovakia and played a special role in Sudeten-German history, it seems possible to dwell specifically on the problems of relations between Kautsky and the Social Democrats of Czechoslovakia.

K. Kautsky found himself involved in a conflict situation in the multinational socialist movement in Czechoslovakia. Representatives of the Czechoslovak and German Social Democratic parties considered Kautsky their ideological mentor and tried to use his authority in the fight against opponents. The Sudeten German Social Democrats were jealous of Kautsky's relations with the Czech Social Democrats, with other German political parties, organizations and publications. In the early 1920s a small scandal erupted over the publication of Kautsky's work in the Prager Presse.

The further development of relations between Kautsky and the socialists of the Czech Republic took place during the period of his foundation in Vienna (1924). By this time, the attempt of the Czechoslovak Social Democrats and the Czechoslovak leadership to use the authority of Kautsky to support the Czechoslovak state dates back. An important point was the use of Czech origin Kautsky. The latter, not without irritation, perceived the statements often repeated in the Czech bourgeois and socialist press about his Czech origin and his adherence to the ideas of Czech nationalism in his youth. "The question of Kautsky's nationality was widely debated in Germany and other European countries. Thus, according to the Czechoslovak representative in Berlin, during the period of Kautsky's activity as an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the German Republic, German nationalists equally used the epithets "Jew", "Czech" and "independent" *, which for them was tantamount to the definition as an enemy of the German people. And later, in the 1920s and 1930s, German fascists and nationalists speculated on Kautsky's international genealogy. He was called "a Jew, a friend of the Jews", he was blamed for the humiliating conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, they pointed to his "participation in a Jewish conspiracy". However, no reliable data confirming or refuting the presence of Jews among his ancestors are known. True, for some time the Kautsky family lived in the Jewish quarter (ghetto) Prague However, as K. Kautsky himself stated, this was caused purely by ansic considerations.

The Czechoslovak Social Democrats counted on Kautsky's visit to Prague with the aim of promoting reconciliation between the various national organizations of the Czechoslovak proletariat. The Sudeten German Social Democrats were also at first ready to accept Kautsky. However, as contacts between Kautsky and the Czechoslovak socialists and President Masaryk intensified, the position of the German socialists in Czechoslovakia changed. L. Cech wrote to Kautsky in December 1924 that in the conditions of the protracted conflict between the Czech and German parties, Kautsky's visit would bring him few pleasant impressions.

Czechoslovak President T. Masaryk also repeatedly invited the "Pope of Marxism" to Prague. Masaryk reminded Kautsky of their chance meeting in October 1914 and offered to continue the conversation that had begun then. Kautsky, however, heeded the advice of the Sudeten German Social Democrats and refrained from visiting the Czechoslovak capital. During the first half of 1925, there was an active correspondence between Masaryk and Kautsky regarding the possibility of Kautsky's visit to Czechoslovakia and his meeting with Masaryk. The Czechoslovak president believed that, if desired, Kautsky could play the role of a peacemaker between the warring parties of the Czechoslovak proletariat. Kautsky and Masaryk, despite their differences of opinion, felt great sympathy for each other. Both were guardians of the democratic system, both came from mixed German-Czech families.

In the second half of the 1920s. Kautsky occupied an intermediate position between the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats. He maintained close relations with the leaders of the NSDLP (Ch), including E. Paul, K. Cermak, L. Cech and E. Strauss. On the other hand, he had extensive contacts with the Czechoslovak Social Democrats, actively corresponded with A. Nemets, F. Soukup, and others.

Turned out by the mid-1920s. isolated from the German and Austrian labor movement, Kautsky continued to be the leading socialist theorist and ideologist for the socialists in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. The Czechoslovak and German Social Democrats in Czechoslovakia listened to his recommendations and advice. But while the latter often expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that Kautsky published in Czechoslovak publications, that he did not refute reports about his past as a Czech nationalist, the Czechoslovak Social Democrats expressed their full agreement with all of Kautsky's ideas. Of no small importance for Kautsky was the issue of royalties for his publications in Czechoslovak publications;

Despite the formal reconciliation of the Social Democratic parties in Czechoslovakia after 1928, there was a tacit struggle between the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German party publications for the right to publish Kautsky's works. Kautsky poorly understood all the complexities and vicissitudes of relations between the various organizations of the Czechoslovak proletariat. He maintained the traditional position of a supporter of the golden mean, advocated the reconciliation of all national social democratic organizations in Czechoslovakia. However, cut off for decades from his historical homeland, Kautsky was never able to understand and realize the full complexity of interethnic contradictions in this country. Kautsky did not hesitate to use his connections with the Sudeten-German and Czechoslovak Social Democrats in the interests of his family. Czechoslovak publications also published articles by K. Kautsky's wife, Louise, and his sons.

The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany changed the tone of relations between Kautsky and the Social Democrats of Czechoslovakia. In the first months after Hitler's victory in Germany, the Sudeten German Social Democrats did not express their opinion on this event. Only at the beginning of March 1933 did Kautsky receive a flood of correspondence from the German socialists in Czechoslovakia, who were united by a single question: "What is to be done?" Even more pessimism was added to the Sudeten socialists by the defeat of the action of the Austrian Social Democracy in February 1934.

The Sudeten German Social Democrats found themselves involved in a polemic between K. Kautsky, who condemned the tactics of the Austrian Social Democracy, which had risen to armed struggle, and O. Bauer, who defended it. Immediately in hot pursuit, on February 19, Bauer wrote in Bratislava the work "The Revolt of the Austrian Proletariat", in which he analyzed in detail the lessons of the February battles. The work concluded that an anti-fascist uprising took place in Austria. Unlike the German working class, the Austrian proletariat was able to offer worthy resistance to the forces of reaction, Bauer believed. On this occasion a polemic developed between him and K. Kautsky. In the pamphlet The Frontiers of Violence, published anonymously in Karlsbad, Kautsky admitted that in Germany the working class "surrendered without a fight." The Austrian proletariat has proved that it is morally and organizationally more "healthy" than the German one, but only in the capital, Vienna. The bulk of the Austrian working class remained passive. "The majority of the Austrian workers who did not take part in the uprising are wrong," wrote Kautsky; they capitulated without a fight, just like their German comrades.

In letters to the Czechoslovak and Sudeten-German Social Democrats, objecting to the tactics of an armed uprising and the idea of ​​establishing a dictatorship of the working class. Kautsky interpreted Czechoslovakia as "the last stronghold of democracy."

Kautsky shared the convictions of the Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats that it was impossible to establish a fascist dictatorship in that country. He associated the "moral bankruptcy" of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany with its terrorist nature, which was supposed to alienate the Germans in Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Austria from supporting Nazism. At the same time, Kautsky saw the greatest difficulties precisely in Austria, believing that in Czechoslovakia the rejection of fascism is a matter of course, and that the Nazis in these countries have little chance of gaining the support of the population. At the same time, Kautsky proceeded from his traditional arguments in favor of democracy, hoping that the Sudeten Germans would reject the ideas of National Socialism after their anti-democratic character was evident. These hopes were not justified.

After the Nazis came to power in Germany, Kautsky, who remained formally a German subject, on July 10, 1933, applied for Czechoslovak citizenship. Kautsky's petition was supported by the Czechoslovak Social Democrats: F. Soukup was of great help in this, as well as T. Masaryk himself, whom Kautsky called in his letters "my president", comparing the current situation in Czechoslovakia with the period of the Hussite movement. As a result, after more than two years of waiting, on July 19, 1935, K. Kautsky and his wife received Czechoslovak citizenship.

One of the last episodes in the active political activity of K. Kautsky is also connected with Czechoslovakia: Nobel Prize Peace of 1938. Kautsky was nominated for his services in developing the question of the origin of the First World War and for his pacifist activities. His candidacy was supported by prominent scientists and politicians of that time: L. Blum, A. Brake, J. V. Albarda, K. Renner, B. Nikolaevsky and others. A recommendation in support of Kautsky's candidacy was also given on behalf of the Social Democratic representatives of the Czechoslovak government ; it was signed by A. Gample, F. Soukup, L. Cech, Z. Taub and other Czechoslovak and Sudeten German Social Democrats. However, the Nobel Committee rejected Kautsky's candidacy, preferring the Nansen Organization for Refugees.

Only once did Kautsky visit his historical homeland: after the Anschluss of Austria, on March 13, 1938, the Kautsky couple managed to escape from Austria occupied by the Nazis and arrived in Prague. However, having not lived in the capital of Czechoslovakia even for a week, the Kautskys were forced to leave here, this time to Amsterdam. Kautsky noted his short stay in Czechoslovakia with a number of meetings with the leaders of the Czechoslovak and Sudeten-German Social Democracy. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, he dated the article "The Prague Program of 1878." Having characterized the first programmatic document of the Czechoslovak Social Democracy in many respects close to the Gotha Program of the German Social Democracy of 1875, Kautsky repeated in his conclusion his thesis about the contemporary significance of Czechoslovakia as a bastion of democracy in Central Europe. “This future looks menacingly gloomy before the last state east of the Rhine,” Kautsky remarked pessimistically. Perhaps he will soon experience the worst of what lies in the bowels of the future ... Each new defeat of democracy and the working class can lead to grave consequences in world. That is why the importance of Czechoslovakia for all of Eastern Europe is so great as the starting point for a new upsurge in our great movement for the liberation from slavery of all working people." The same idea became the main idea in Kautsky's last major unpublished work, Changes in the Labor Movement Since the World War.

The last days of K. Kautsky's life fell precisely on the period of the Munich Agreements. According to the correspondence preserved in K. Kautsky's archive, we can state how hard it was for him and his relatives and friends to experience the dismemberment of the Czechoslovakia. It can be assumed that the Munich Agreements became one of the factors that hastened the death of K. Kautsky: he died on October 17, 1938.

Kautsky summarized his views on the German national question in the interwar period in a number of fundamental research such as "Materialistic understanding of history" (1927), "War and democracy" (1932), "Socialists and war" (1937). Kautsky associated the formation of the multinational power of the Habsburgs with Turkish expansion, when the question was being decided on the basis of which state, Austria or Turkey, the development of individual peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe would proceed. Regarding the historical roots of the German-Czech contradictions, Kautsky proceeded from the fact that the events of the revolution of 1848 in Vienna, "the battles of March prompted the Slavs of the Austrian Empire to a revolutionary course of action." At the same time, Kautsky drew a line between a democratic revolution in the Austrian capital and an attempt to "revive national self-consciousness" on the part of the Czechs during the revolution, despite the fact that talking about the national character of this revolution from Kautsky's point of view was problematic, because even ten years after the revolutionary events The Czech population of Prague was only a few percent larger than the German population. The Czechs, according to Kautsky, were driven during the revolution of 1848/49. not the Czech national idea, but the ideas of pan-Slavism, the desire to achieve some kind of Slavic community, which he sharply criticized.

Kautsky emphasized that "in reality, Pan-Slavism was not connected with the national principle, since there is no real Slavic nationality, just as there is no Germanic or Romance nation." Kautsky called the reasons for the emergence of pan-Slavism the policy of the Russian Empire, which sought to push the national upsurge of foreign Slavic peoples on the basis of all-Slavic unity led by Russia. Kautsky attributed the second rise of Pan-Slavism to the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, and here the main driving force was no longer the Czechs, who by that time were guided by national principles and had moved away from Pan-Slavism, but the South Slavs. However, this surge of ideas of the Slavic community was quickly extinguished during the Balkan wars, in which the Slavic states fought each other.

Developing the views expressed in his pre-war works on the problem of the formation of new national states, Kautsky considered the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the creation on its basis of such states as Czechoslovakia as a natural phenomenon that took place in the outline of the "process of differentiation of small nations." At the same time, Kautsky again repeated his assertions, objecting to Kunov that not every nation can achieve autonomy "in the form of state independence." Kautsky regretted the division of the German people within different states, including within Czechoslovakia, while not sharing the views of Bauer, who saw Czechoslovak imperialism as one of the main culprits for the collapse of the Habsburg empire and discrimination against Germans in its former outskirts. The solution of national problems in Europe, Kautsky considered possible on the basis of the principle of the right to self-determination. He considered the implementation of this principle to be real through the League of Nations, which should develop "understanding and sympathy" between different nations, which, according to Kautsky, was to become the guarantee of "peace of nations."

K. Kautsky is a unique figure in the history of the international socialist movement, which once again proves his attitude towards the Sudeten-German problem. Apart from him, there were no major social democratic theorists in the ranks of the German Social Democracy who would have subjected national problems in Czechoslovakia to such a close analysis. Most theorists of German social democracy considered it only tangentially, within the framework of more general problems, primarily in the context of the German national problem in Europe as a whole and from the point of view of the possibilities of achieving pan-German unity.

One of the main differences between the Austrian and German socialist theorists on the national question was that the latter were mainly engaged in a critical analysis of the writings of the former, practically without creating major works themselves. This trend continued in the interwar period, with the only difference being that the national question played an order of magnitude lesser role for the SPD than for the Austrian Social Democrats. Hence - a significant decrease in interest in the national problem in general and in the German national problem in particular, which, in our opinion, was one of the main omissions of the German Social Democracy, especially in the confrontation with fascism. The Austrian Social Democrats, who actively developed the problems of the national question in the late 1910s in the 3920s, also sharply reduced their interest in this problem in the late 1920s, which again was a mistake in the conditions of the onset of right-wing forces, the growth nationalism and separatism. This, in turn, put the Sudeten German Social Democrats in a difficult position, who ideologically oriented themselves towards their Austrian and German comrades.

The father of communist ideology is considered to be the German philosopher Karl Marx, who developed his own model of building a society based on the principle of class equality and the extermination of the bourgeoisie as an exploiting layer.

Marx's teachings as the basis of communism

The ground for the birth of the Marxist ideology was the industrial revolution in Europe, as a result of which the question of the rights and freedoms of the working class became acute. The ideas of socialism existed long before Marx, but he believed that the existing socialist principles are nothing more than a means of manipulating the proletariat artificially created by the bourgeoisie.

Marx and his followers considered their own theory of the social structure of society to be scientifically sound, and as confirmation of this, they renamed it communism. The communist ideology is virtually identical to socialism; its dogma is the denial of private property and the economic equality of all people.

The teachings of Karl Marx became the main engine of socialist revolutions, the organizers of which pursued utopian ideas to create an equal class society.

According to the teachings of Marxism, an ideal, superior person is a person who has found the strength to give up material wealth, guided in life by the highest ideals of social justice, and devote all his existence and work exclusively to the public good.

In many ways, K. Marx's ideas about the ideal communist resemble the views of his contemporary Friedrich Nietzsche about the superman. The followers of both philosophers tried their best to realize the dreams of their ideological inspirers at the beginning of the 20th century.

Revisionism and Social Democracy

The concept of revisionism entered philosophical teachings as a result of criticism of the theory of K. Marx. The first revisionists, among whom was the famous politician E. Bernstein, believed that Marx's teachings were radical and did not carry any democratic principles.

Instead of destroying the bourgeois class as a phenomenon, the revisionists defended the position of cooperation with the wealthy strata, which would have a positive effect on the development and strengthening of the proletariat. A vivid example of a return to revisionist theory is the policy of N. Khrushchev, who tried in every possible way to give communism a more democratic coloring.

At the beginning of the 20th century, on the basis of Marxist teachings, a social democratic political trend emerged, which represented two directions: revolutionary radical (V. Lenin, R. Luxembourg) and reformist (E. Bernstein, K. Kautsky).

Exactly reformist movement became the basis for the formation of classical European social democracy, which focused on improving the life of the working class, but sharply denied revolutionary methods in achieving its goals.

The main task of these social democrats was to create an equal class society by taxing the wealthy, but by no means destroying the latter.

Unlike revolutionary radical forces, who seized power in Russia back in 1917, the Social Democrats took leadership positions much later - in the midst of the Great Depression. Thanks to their liberal power politics, the representatives of reformist socialism were able not only to gain authority in the political arena, but also to gain a foothold in it for a long time.