A working class veteran leader of the Austrian Socialist movement on the emergence of ‘Austro-Marxism.’ A major figure in the Austrian movement’s internationalist Left-wing, with his second wife, Issa Strasser, they became editors and writers for the Austrian Communist Party’s publications. Together they lived in Moscow doing Comintern work in 1923 until 1928. Both became non-aligned oppositionists, were relieved of posts in 1928 and returned to Austria in 1929. There they first corresponded with Trotsky and the Left Opposition before associating themselves with the Council Communists movement and comrades like Anton Pannekoek, remaining politically active the rest of their lives.

‘The Problem of Austro-Marxism’ by Joseph Strasser from Communist International. Vol. 3 No. 5. December 15, 1926.

AUSTRO-MARXISM is trying to conquer the world. Austrian Social-Democracy long ago aroused the admiration of its brother parties for its organisation; it seems that now the theories which dominate Austrian Social-Democracy are to become the common property of the Second International. There are dreamers who expect Austro-Marxism to re-unite all proletarian organisations into one International. Is not this an anachronism? Austro-Marxism is the Austrian game of reformism. It differs from other kinds of reformism only in that it has to adapt the Labour movement not to a strong, but to a decaying and disintegrating bourgeois State. The Austro-Marxian flashes of lightning are merely phosphorescence on this rotten mass.

From a weak State, dragging out its existence only under the greatest difficulty, the proletariat can force concessions more easily than from a strong State power—at any rate, within certain limits. This is the pride of Austro-Marxism; it was upon this that it based its theory and its practice; it was for this reason that it could feel superior to ordinary reformism, destined to a more modest role. But the overthrow of the old regime ended this glory; when the old Austria was destroyed, Austro-Marxism lost its real base, its source of strength. When this occurred, the Austrian Social-Democrats rushed into a coalition, just like the despised vulgar reformists of other countries.

Since then the Austrian Social-Democrats have become more and more like all other reformists, both in theory and in practice. It is true they have had more luck than their brothers; no proletariat was so much discouraged by the war and the consequences of the war as the Austrian proletariat; thus the Austro-Marxists once more had firm ground under their feet; they could rely upon an utter lack of all hope among the masses of workers. But even that is coming to an end. Revolution is in the blood of the proletariat; it cannot forever remain in a state of resignation.

Conquering the World

Austrian Social-Democracy is beginning to feel this clearly. This may be seen from the attempt of its leaders to protect themselves by organisational methods against the radicalisation of the Social-Democratic workers. Soon Austrian Social-Democracy will be able to serve as the model Party of the Second International. For although it no longer essentially differs from the other Reformist parties, although it has like them more and more only one aim, namely, to become capable of entering a coalition, it is ahead of them in one thing—prestige. The Second International now wishes to profit by this prestige: the theories which they obtain from Austria are the usual reformist truck, but in an elegant Austrian form, and stamped with the celebrated trade mark “Made in Austria.” This is what is called conquering the world through Austro-Marxism.

If we wish to know Austro-Marxism in its latest phase, we must look at it not only at Party congresses and at international congresses and at other such holiday occasions on which it puts on its official garb and its official “conquering” face. Much indeed may be seen on such occasions; but it is even more interesting to see Austro-Marxism at home in its negligé, when it lets itself go. Let us look at “Der Kampf,” the theoretical monthly journal of the Austrian Social-Democracy. There are about two dozen articles in the June, July and August issues of “Der Kampf.” How many of these articles deal with Austrian affairs? Throughout the whole of these three months, the theoretical publication of Austrian Social-Democracy had practically nothing to say to the Austrian workers regarding Austrian economics and politics. Practically nothing to say, despite the fact that during these three months the Social-Democrats and the Christian Socialists were engaged in the most violent battles!

But this was no exception. The “Kampf” has always acted as it did during those three months. Consciously or unconsciously it always takes flight from the realities of Austrian politics. How did it treat the new Party programme? The programme was published at the beginning of August. But this was kept a dark secret in the August issue of “Der Kampf.” Similarly in the September issue. Finally in the October issue the paper published two short articles on the programme: these articles occupied about as much space as the article in the September number on “Max Weber as Teacher and Statesman,” and not as much space as the elegaicironic observations in the February issue on “Werner Sombart’s Tragic End.”

Educational Dairy Farming

This seemed a violation of decorum, if not to the “Kampf” people, at any rate to their masters. There appeared in October a special issue of “Der Kampf” which, as the “Arbeiterzeitung” proudly declared “was exclusively devoted to a discussion on the Social-Democratic Programme.” This was eight days before the opening of the Party Congress; that is, at a time when a “discussion number” could no longer start a discussion. When the “Kampf” is forced to break silence, it speaks to save itself, but too late.

But if the “Kampf” is so antagonistic to Austrian politics and everything connected with it, in what is it really interested? Well, it publishes reports on events abroad, and in general occupies itself with cultural questions, or to put it more accurately, with a kind of educational dairy-farming. It treats cultural questions not from the point of view of the struggling proletariat, but from the point of view of the oppressed respectable petty bourgeoisie who wish to escape their misery. These people abhor alcohol and, therefore, collect stamps or beetles; they even try to keep up a literary paper, perhaps even to solve the crossword puzzles in the Sunday supplements of the newspapers. The “Kampf” does not wish to give the workers weapons, but a substitute for the material and spiritual values of which they are deprived.

A Fighting Artist

The “Kampf” wishes to comfort the workers—and can anything worse be said of a Labour paper? And it carries on this business with great zeal and devotion. Cultural questions have a good time in the “Kampf,” which even permits discussions on cultural questions. For example: in the June, July and August issues of the “Kampf,” we find an article on Karl Kraus. Who is this man about whom the “Kampf” spins out so lively a discussion?

Among German-speaking people he is to-day well-known nearly everywhere. For the non-German readers of the “Communist International” the following may be said: Kraus is a Vienna writer who for decades has been carrying on a bitter struggle against corruption. He has ferreted out corruption in the most hidden corners, he recognises it under whatever shape or form it may assume, even—that is his special love–in its literary and artistic forms. This man has now become a problem for the Austrian Social Democracy. The Austrian Social-Democracy does not know how to treat him, what attitude it should take towards him. Why? Kraus is no Socialist, and vet he has many followers in the Social-Democratic Party, yes, even enthusiastic admirers who have written letters of this sort to him:

“This week brings us two holidays which not only have something in common from the points of view of time, but also in their significance, and both of which have claims upon the attention of the Austrian proletariat. One is the great world festival of the workers who have hitherto fought in vain for their emancipation, and the other is the 52nd birthday of the revolutionary poet, Karl Kraus…an upright group which—precisely out of warm love for the noble basic idea of Socialism—is loyal and grateful to Karl Kraus! Jong live international Social-Democracy!”

The Petty Bourgeois Hero

The writers of this letter are obviously very young intellectuals. But Kraus exercises a great influence upon the Social-Democratic workers. How can this be explained? By his literary talents? He is witty, ingenious, savage, an artist, an inexhaustible fighting cock, but a writer does not triumph merely and primarily by qualities such as these but by the social tendency of his talents. What is the content of the “Struggle”? which Kraus carried on? Kraus is fighting capitalist corruption; he opposes to it the petty bourgeois ideology. This makes him the leader of all who are dissatisfied with capitalism, who are no fighting cocks, but who clench their hands in their pockets. To these people he must appear as an Individual, a Superman, a Hero—since he has the courage to struggle and demands no courage from them. And the more the Social-Democratic Party becomes petty bourgeois, the more it avoids struggle, the more friends Kraus gains in its ranks.

The Social-Democrats do not want to understand all this. It is not for this reason that they are confronted with the problem of “Karl Kraus.” This problem is more complicated. The Social-Democrats have already become so petty bourgeois that Kraus is able to say to them: Improve! And therein lies the “problem of Karl Kraus”: how is it that Kraus, the bourgeois, the non-Socialist, is able to appeal to the conscience of Socialists to warn them against petty bourgeois tendencies? Is he a revolutionist? But the Social-Democrats are also “revolutionists.” Or is he no revolutionist? In that case he could not upbraid “revolutionary” Social-Democrats with a lack of radicalism. And so the Social-Democrats are breaking their teeth on the problem of Karl Kraus.

Socialist or Bourgeois?

For example, Oscar Pollak writes (“Kampf,” :9, p. 261): “As a pessimistic anti-materialist and as one who denies evolution, Karl Kraus cannot he a Socialist.” Then he investigates in great: detail the question as to whether Kraus is not at least a revolutionary. He comes to the conclusion: “We Socialists are revolutionary because we desire a new society. Karl Kraus, the non-Socialist, is no revolutionist, because he lacks an acknowledgment of the goal.” To justify this judgement the writer says, among other things: “He who wishes to be with the revolutionary class…must experience the strongest events of our times: power through the rise, the consciousness of the movement, humility before the masses.”

Friedrich Austerlitz, editor-in-chief of the “Arbeiterzeitung,” is of a different opinion. He finds (p. 309) “that there is nothing bourgeois in Kraus, that he, whether Socialist or not, is at any rate the strongest, the most passionate anti-bourgeois which European literature possesses…” “To demand humility from him is to demand no less than he should give up himself.” “This bourgeois culture has failed to impress one man: Karl Kraus.” “The way which we have to tread has been made lighter for us by Kraus in that he has driven out the spectres which try to bar the way.”…“Do not become assimilated! That is the exhortation which he shouts to the Party. And even if he is mistaken in his judgment of the facts from which he concludes that such an admonition is necessary, even if he may be wrong in his valuation of the Party—the warning against adaptation to the bourgeois world may be superfluous, it can never be harmful.”

In this outpouring of his heart, Austerlitz writes a satire against his Party which is so malicious it might have been written by Kraus himself. But in this self-mockery he is beaten by another writes (p. 349): “If we learn from the teachings of our Socialist forerunners and masters our goal and the method of our struggle, we experience with and in Karl Kraus what it means to be unswerving, inflexible, uncompromising and logical!…We know that it is very difficult to lead a life without all compromise, and to maintain the idea of unswerving humanity quite unspotted. He alone has succeeded in doing so. That is why during the war he was our only anchor; we have to thank him that we did not become insane and did not despair of the mission of Socialism and of the future of humanity. When everything collapsed about us, he shone as the upright, civilised, complete man, as the conscience of Europe—if the working class is worthy of its future, would it give up this man, would it believe (as Pollak has declared) that it has left him behind on its way?”

Freud—a Revolutionary!

However, Kraus is not the only “revolutionary” whose praises are sung in “Der Kampf.” The psychoanalyst Freud is also celebrated there as a “revolutionist”: “Like all great spirits”—writes Friedjung (p. 259)—”Freud is also a revolutionist. His unswerving passion for investigation destroys inherited prejudices, breaks old idols, teaches us to understand the mysterious, builds for us new ways of knowledge, creates for us new ideals, and shows us a more beautiful future.”

If we understand the following correctly, Freud has also improved and completed the materialistic interpretation of history: “We begin to understand better than before why the ups and downs of revolution, which consume time and power so senselessly, must be followed by reaction so long as education does not start on a new path. The son of the revolutionist becomes a reactionary, because only in that way can he escape the intense authoritative pressure of his father and become himself. Can we not now for the first time properly understand the tragedy of the German people, on the basis of its general authoritative education? It is magnificently disciplined, good to organise, but remained politically helpless, unripe for the Republic and for anything higher.”

These then are the latest ideas of Austro-Marxism: Freud is a “revolutionist,” Kraus is a “revolutionist.” The most amusing part of it all is the fact that in a certain sense these Austro-Marxian theses are correct. Kraus is absolutely right when he sniffs at the petty bourgeois Socialism of the Social-Democrats, and in comparison with them appears revolutionary. Austro-Marxism begins its triumphal march through the Reformist world at a moment when it begins to tackle the task of cleansing the Second International from the ideological remnants of the “Two and a Half” International—i.e., of Austro-Marxism—to make room for unadulterated Reformism.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/ci/vol-3/v03-n05-dec-15-1926-CI-grn-riaz.pdf