Page - 92 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

92 chapter 3 maincontradiction incapitalistproduction– i.e. theoppositionbetweenthe socialcharacterofproductionandcapitalistpropertyrelations–andthemain goalof thecapitalistmodeofproduction, theextractionofprofit. The funda- mentaldifferencebetweencapitalismandearlierformations,whichproduced to satisfy consumer needs, is its constant striving to increase surplus value. According toBauer, capitalismpasses through three stages: themanufacture capitalismof the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the liberal capitalism of theeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies, and imperialism,whichbegins to blossom in the 1890s.15 All three stages are inevitable andhistorically neces- sary,i.e.thechangesthattakeplacehaveanimmanentandobjectivecharacter. When describing the first stage, Bauer undertook a comparative analysis of imperialismand ‘early capitalism’.Hepointedout the similarities anddiffer- encesinanengagingfashion,concludingthatimperialismrepresentsaregres- sion to the capitalism ofmanufacture, albeit at a higher stage of economic development. Indoing so, hewasnaturally not concernedwith themodeof productionormarket activity, butwith the role of the state as a regulator of production.Heconsideredthesecondstage,liberalcapitalism,asatransitional stage characterised by the extreme liberalism that found its full expression in the physiocraticmaxim, laissez-faire, and a corresponding economic pro- gramme. Capital served as an economicmeans for state power at the time, andtheroleof thestatewas limited. In theeconomicsphere, itdefendedthe interests of its citizensby introducing tariffs toprotect thedomesticmarket. In someeconomicbranches (traffic, steel andenergy), it appliedprotection- istpolicies. Indomesticpolitics, its rolewas limited tomaintaining thesocial peace, and in foreignaffairs, facilitatingpeaceful relations toother states.As Hanischpointedout, Bauer,whenanalysing liberalism, raised an interesting questionconcerningthedifferencebetweentheeconomicandpolitical liber- alismof theAustro-Hungarianmonarchy and the liberalismof thewhole of Europe.AccordingtoHanisch,BauerestablishedthatAustrian liberalismwas detrimentaltobroadsectionsofsociety,since(1)itwasorientatedtowardsGer- manpeoples,confiningSlaviccountriestothemargins,(2)itsdrivingforcewas theeliteoftheGermanpopulation,(3)itoweditseconomicandpoliticalposi- tiontoviolenceandcorruption,and(4)itpreferredJewsintheeconomy,whose activities ledtothecrisisandultimatedemiseof liberalisminthemonarchy.16 ForBauer,threetendenciesweredecisiveinthetransitionofcapitalismtoits third, imperialist stage: cartelisationwith simultaneous tariff protection,out- 15 SeeHanisch1985,p. 195. 16 SeeHanisch1985,p. 196.