Page - XXVI - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

xxvi foreword writer.Thedefinitionof thenationpresentedbyBauer in thismasterpiece is, inmyopinion, still superior to all other suchattempts.WhenBauer defined thenation as ‘the totality of humanbeings bound together by a community of fate into a community of character’, he coined a formula that haduniver- sal value, but appliedespecially to theAustriannation formed in theSecond Republic – even if Bauer neither realised it nor approved of it, his thinking beingsteepedinGermannationalistcategories,andthetimebeingnotyetripe for this notion. Thiswas a sign that a theory, if correct and good in its own right, can subsequently prove itself in light of realities not yet recognised at thetimeof its inception.Bauer’sdefinitionoccupiesarationalmiddleground between romantic concepts of the nation and those based on objective cri- teria, such as language and territory, as developed by Lenin and Stalin. Suf- fice it to say, thismerit of Bauer’s perspectivedidnotmean thenationalities conceptthatheandKarlRennerhadworkedoutandintroducedintothepro- grammesofAustrianSocialDemocracywas successful inpractice. That is to say, it could not stop the decline of the old Austria, the collapse caused by itsunresolvednationalproblem. Indeed, toobserve thediscrepancybetween theory andpractice in this case is literally to study a classic example of how an intrinsically sensible theory can fail in light of present conditions and obstacles. Unfortunately, concerningnearlyall ofBauer’sother theories,notonly the inability toput themintopracticedoomedthemtofailure. Inmostcases, the theorieswereerraticandlackinginandofthemselves.AsBauerwasnotmerely a theorist, butde facto leaderofhisparty in the interwarperiod, hewasper- manentlytemptedtojustifyhispracticeideologically.Moreoftenthannot,he succumbed to the temptation. Hence, it is impossible to strictly distinguish betweenhis theories and theorems,which invokedMarxism, and the desig- nated practice they guided – andmuch less tomaintain such a distinction. JustasIexperiencedbeforesheherselfdid,EwaCzerwińskaisoftenunderthe impressionthat, forBauer, the frameworkofMarxismprovidedascreenonto whichhecouldprojecthispoliticalpractice,aswellasameansofrationalising beliefs heheldquite independently of it. Bauer conductedhis politics under theauspicesof this framework,whichhedidnotdeduce fromfactual reality, butwhichhe treatedas a self-evidentpremise tobemergedandacquainted withfactualreality. According toadictumthatwaspasseddownbut remainsunverified, from early on Victor Adler referred to Bauer as the ‘talented misfortune of the party’, thus painting apicture thatwould only later prove tragically valid. In this context, I recall the noteworthy remark of a social-democratic Federal Assemblymember named Jakob Brandeis, whom Imet decades ago in Bad