Page - 83 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

thematerialist view of history 83 ofexperienceandscience–and,according toBauer, ‘[t]here isnosuchthing as a scienceofought’.72MaxAdler tooka similar view, arguing thatMarxism was a casuistic science.73According tohim, suchamodel of sciencedidnot offeranyethical justificationofpolitics,nordid it setanyguidelines forprac- ticalaction.Marx’sanalysisofchangesinmoralconsciousnessmerelydemon- stratedtherelativityandhistoricalchangeabilityofethicalphenomena,while notsayinganythingaboutthejustificationformoralbehaviour.Inshort,Marx- ismwasethicallyneutralanddidnotcontainanymoralguidelines.ForBauer, itwasonlypossible tosolve themoralquestionbyadopting the formalismof themoral ideal.Hence, insightsofKant’spracticalphilosophy that substanti- ated the formalcorrectnessofethicsandofferedabasis formoral judgement were, inhis view, of crucial importance toMarxism.TheKantian categorical imperative, as a formal normconstituting the necessary condition for every rule, allowed for the judgingofwhichnorms functioning in societywerecor- rect.74BauernotablydirectedhisadoptionoftheKantiansolutionagainstthe ethicalrelativismfavouredbythebourgeoisieofhistime.Inthiscontext,italso hadanideological function: itdemonstratedthatMarxism,complementedby Kantianism, offered theworking class a clear and indisputable criterion for moraljudgement.BauerarguedthatKanthadprovidedthenormativeground- workforaproletarianethics–althoughforhim,thiswasnotsynonymouswith solving themost importantquestion that faced theworkers’movement. The realproblemwastofigureouthowKant’scategorical imperativecouldbeutil- isedasanefficientinstrumentofpoliticalactionintheproletarianstrugglefor field,hedoesnotmeetwiththematerialistconceptionofhistoryatanypoint.ForKant, it isnecessarytodiscovertheformallawofallought,whateverhissubjectmatter’(ourtrans- lation)– ‘DieMaterieder Imperativegehört zumForschungsgebietdesHistorikers,hier ist diematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung Leitfaden der Forschung. Kant aberwen- det sich auchhierwieder der formalenGesetzlichkeit des Sittlichen zu. SeineAufgabe ist eine ganz andere als die desHistorikers und er kann, da er sich auf einemanderen Gebietbewegt,mitdermaterialistischenGeschichtsauffassunginkeinemPunktezusam- menstoßen.FürKantgiltes,dieformaleGesetzlichkeitallesSollens,welchesimmerseine Materieseinmag,zuentdecken’–Bauer1979e,pp.880–1. 72 ‘EineWissenschaftvomSollengibtesnicht’–Bauer1979e,p.874. 73 SeeM.Adler1978,pp.76–7. 74 Kautskywas not fully contentwith Bauer’s solution. In his reply, he conceded that his ethicsdidnotofferacriteriontounitecontradictoryinterests,i.e.individualandcollective interests.However, he far fromagreedwithBauer that theproblemcouldbe solvedby a formal principle. Rather, he thought that one had to investigate the social causes of conflict, and, furthermore, assess thepossibilities of a solutionbydrawingon scientific insightsgainedfromearlierexperiences.SeeKautsky1983,pp.48–9.