MIRIAM GASSNER
Is "Marxism" once again a visual aid?
There has been a lot of talk these days about the anti-democratic spectre. But the Austro-Marxists linked their dream of social revolution to parliamentary democracy.
Comment of the others / Miriam Gassner
May 13, 2023, 07:00
Marxism is an overused term, says Miriam Gassner in her guest commentary. Gassner is an adjunct professor at the University of Vienna and a senior research fellow at the University of Freiburg, where she conducts research on the influence of Marxism on the creation of the 1920 Federal Constitutional Law.
"Marxism is a good pair of glasses to look at the world."
Andreas Babler's commitment to Marxism in an ORF interview has triggered a wave of emotions even outside the Austrian social democracy: The fact that Babler "allows himself to be carried away by such statements is worrying. A possible party leader of the SPÖ should not advocate revolutions, but should stand with both feet on the ground of democracy," said JVP Secretary General Dominik Berger, for example.
Controversial ideology
Hardly any concept polarizes as strongly as that of Marxism to this day. For some, it is an anti-democratic spectre, a harbinger of expropriation and dictatorship; for others, it is synonymous with social justice, a strong welfare state and equality of opportunity. Under the umbrella term of Marxism, everything - and nothing - can be understood, from the mindset of Karl Marx's followers in their dispute with the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin over the direction of the International Workingmen's Association ("First International") in the 19th century, to "Soviet Marxism" in the 20th, to the New Left in Germany today. Originally, Marxism simply stood for the economic and social theory developed by Marx and Friedrich Engels; shortly thereafter, it developed into its own philosophy and scientific-theoretical current, which in turn soon gave rise to many different orientations that often had only peripheral points of contact with Marx's original ideas.
Undifferentiated attribution
As a political, scientific and ideological current, Marxism is commonly attributed to both socialism and communism. A wide variety of individuals have been collectively and undifferentiatedly referred to as "Marxists" to this day: from the Frenchmen Paul Lafargue and Jules Guesde in the 19th century to the Russian communists Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky in the 20th century to the former leader of the Austrian Green Party, Eva Glawischnig, whom ÖVP politician Andreas Khol once called "a beautiful Marxist." So how can Babler's statement be understood, and what orientation of Marxism does he mean? Babler made one thing clear in this interview: he comes from Austrian Social Democracy, is a "grassroots man" and was politically socialized through the youth organizations of the SPÖ during the Vranitzky era. This period also saw the strict "exclusion policy" toward the FPÖ, which Babler advocates as well as a "strong welfare state" and a return to the (historical) roots of social democracy. With his statement about Marxism as a "visual aid," he obviously refers to "Austromarxism," a current that emerged from the Viennese socialist student movement toward the end of the 19th century and that in many respects also stood in opposition to revolutionary Marxism.
The "third way"
The Austromarxists (who included, for example, the later Federal President Karl Renner, the later State Secretary of Foreign Affairs Otto Bauer, the later German Reich Minister of Finance Rudolf Hilferding and the later Member of Parliament and professor at the University of Vienna Max Adler) founded a "third way" between reformism and Bolshevism and attempted to apply the Marxist method to political and social problems of the declining Habsburg monarchy.
"Of all three political camps, the Austromarxists were the only ones who never fought democracy."
These "gentlemen comrade doctors," as the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky pejoratively called the Austromarxists, always made - and this must be emphasized - the "social revolution" and the "establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat" dependent on the achievement of an absolute majority within the framework of the actually existing parliamentary democracy, thus setting themselves apart from the Leninist interpretation of Marxism.
"While respecting all democratic rules of the game, significant social reforms were implemented."
Even though the Austromarxists guided the fortunes of the young Republic of (German) Austria only between 1918 and 1920, and it took until 1945 for them to resume government responsibility, significant social reforms were implemented in these two years after the founding of the republic, observing all democratic rules of the game: for example, the eight-hour day was enshrined in law, a workers' chamber law was passed, social insurance was expanded, child labor was banned, and a vacation entitlement for workers was introduced. With numerous school reforms, "Red Vienna" became a "Mecca of pedagogy," and (educational) opportunities for women were also significantly expanded starting in 1918. Finally, on Renner's initiative, a federal constitution was drawn up, which is still in force today with amendments and whose "elegance" was recently praised by Federal President Alexander Van der Bellen.
Radical Rhetoric
Yes, the rhetoric of the Austromarxists in the First Republic was - as with all political parties of that time (!) - characterized by great radicalism ("democracy, that's not much - socialism is the goal"). But of all three political camps, the Austromarxists were ultimately the only ones who never fought democracy. It is against this background that Babler's Marxism saga is to be evaluated. His saying appears as a sign, an announcement to include a concrete ideology in the party program again instead of standing for everything and nothing, as a reflection on the actual roots of Austrian social democracy and not as a call for an anti-democratic revolution. (Miriam Gassner, 5/13/2023)
Source (Austria)
