Page - 136 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

136 chapter 4 the extent that they submit to the framework set by the cultureof theprop- ertied classes.34 For Bauer, themost important phenomenonengenderedby thedevelopmentofcapitalismwastheemergenceofaninternationallyorgan- ised labourmovement. Thismovement anticipated the political emancipa- tion of the proletariat by augmenting its position to the national class and hegemon.Towhatdegree theworkingclassbecomes the leading force in the process of national integration depends upon the degree to which its class priorities intersect with the interests of the nation. The process of integra- tionwill be finalised in a proletarian state inwhich culture is accessible to all. Inhis account,whichalsodelineated the communities of culture inmore detail, Bauer also illustrated thehistory of thenation.During the first stage, there is a clancommunityof culture, theclannation.During the second, the feudalnationunitesanarrowlyconfinedeliteoflandownersintoacommunity ofculture.Inthecapitalistnation–thethirdstage–economicandpoliticalrul- ing classesdefine theessenceof the communityof culture. This community, however, exhibitsa stronger tendency tonationalaffinitybasedoneducation andpolitics than the fragmented local communitiesof the feudal epoch.The final stage is the solidaristic community of the future, the socialist nation. Unlike all earlier communities, it is based on the equal and universal parti- cipationofall citizens innationalculture.Bauerdidnot foreseeanypotential processesofdisintegrationinsocialistsocieties. Bauer’s analysis also contained a differentiation of nations rooted in the HegeliantraditionpopularisedbyEngels,distinguishingbetweenhistoricand non-historicnations.35The introductionof thesecategories remainedassoci- 34 AccordingtoBauer, theconfinesof thebourgeoiscommunityofculturearetransparent: it encompasses thecourtnobles, landowners,highofficials, theprosperousbourgeoisie, andthenewlyemergedindependenturbanprofessions.SeeBauer1996,p.69. 35 Engelsjustifiedthedifferentiationbetweenhistoricandnon-historicnationsbycitingthe differencebetweencivilisationandbarbarism.Heequatedcivilisationwiththedevelop- mentof industry,capitalism,andtheriseof thebourgeoisie,while identifyingbarbarism witheconomicbackwardness, feudalism,andpeasantculture. SeeEngels 1977.The the- oryofnon-historicnationswasalsopresentinFerdinandLasalle’swork:heremarkedthat theFrenchhada justifiedhistorical andculturalmissionwith regards to theAlgerians, as theBritishhad towards India. SeeBernstein 1892, p. 30. Butterwegge stated: ‘Bauer’s adopteddifferentiationbetween“non-historical”andhistoricalorculturalnations,which correspondedwithhisGreaterGermanismandimpliedaGerman-Austrianculturalmis- sionwithrespect to theSlavicpeoples,wasambiguous tosay the least. Indeed,hisbook wascitedbytheGermanSocialDemocraticleadershiptojustifyitsapprovalofwarcredits forWorldWari’ (ourtranslation)–Butterwegge1981,p. 131.