During his lifetime, Karl Kautsky was such an influential theorist he was called the “Pope of Marxism” — but he was also famously branded “the renegade Kautsky” by Lenin for his betrayals of revolutionary socialism. In recent years there have been efforts to revive Kautskyism in order to justify reformism and electoralism. This approach is as wrong as it always was: Kautskyism remains a renegade socialism that is fundamentally opposed to revolution.
If the “micro-sect” isn’t the problem, why do so many socialist organizations suffer from a lack of democracy? And why haven’t we built a mass revolutionary party yet? As Firebrand’s E. Reed argues, charting the history of the socialist movement shows how inheritances from the past continue to weigh us down.
In the wake of the 2018 collapse of the International Socialist Organization, some socialists have argued that this disaster is proof that the small group as a model to build the movement is a dead end. History proves them wrong. A look at the past development of socialism shows a small organization with discipline and clear ideas is often the best starting place for growing mass revolutionary politics.
What kind of party do we need? Or what kind of party should revolutionary socialists be focused on building? I want to propose some answers to the organizational questions we’re facing. But more than that, I want to invite those who are asking the same questions to...