Page - 199 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the ‘thirdway’ to socialism 199 consideredonly a purely defensivemeasure, not as amethodof struggle for power. It would therefore be inaccurate to compare the theory of ‘defensive violence’ toMarx’spremiseofaviolentseizureofpowerandintroductionofa proletarianclass state.Bauer’smottowas ‘democratically ifwecan,bymeans ofdictatorshiponlyif theycompelus,andonlytotheextenttheycompelus’.77 Itwas down to thenotion that theworking classwouldnot employ force in thestruggle forpoweras longascounter-revolutionary forcesdidnotdestroy formaldemocracy. RennerandEllenbogenwereconvincedof thepolitical realismof thepro- gramme,whileBauerattemptedtoprovethatitburieddemocraticillusions.In truth, theprogrammewasevidence that theworkers’partywas tooconfident initsownstrength.Thetheoryof‘defensiveviolence’amountedtounderestim- atingtheextentofresistancethebourgeoisorganisationswouldexhibit,aswell asignoringthatthebalanceofforcesinAustriahadshiftedinthebourgeoisie’s favoursince1919.Theexpectationsthatitwouldscareoffthebourgeoisiewere notmet,evenremotely.AsKlugewrites,thethreatofdictatorshiparticulatedin theprogrammeofLinzrestedonafalseprognosis,leavingallpoliticalinitiative to theenemyand limiting theworkingclass toapurelydefensivestruggle for a legality thathad longsincebeenunderattack.78 It is thereforeunsurprising thatthesocialistcampviewedtheprogrammeofLinzwithmixedfeelings,ran- gingfromenthusiasticapplausetobitingcriticism.OttoJenssen,whobelonged to the left wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, lauded the pro- gramme.PaulLeviandArcadiusGurlandissuedcuttingrebuttals.Intheirview, theprogrammedisregarded theactual situationof theworkingclass, put too much faith indemocracy, andoverestimated thedefensive roleofviolence in the struggle for autonomy. Furthermore, itmisrepresented dictatorship as a tactic in struggle rather thana formof stateduring the transitional period.79 Trotsky, likewise, subjected the conceptof ‘defensive violence’ to a sharp cri- tique.80 The question arises as to whether the bourgeois parties themselves per- ceivedtheprogrammeasasignificantchangetotheorientationof theSocial- Democraticpartyandasathreattotheirownposition.Mostlikely,thiswasnot the case–after all, the reductionof thedictatorshipof theproletariat to the statusofaweapontodefenddemocracystrippeditof its revolutionarypoten- tial.Nonetheless,thebourgeoispartiesimmediatelyjumpedattheopportunity 77 sdap1926,p.272. 78 SeeKluge1984,p.30. 79 SeeStromandWalter 1984,p. 11. 80 SeeTrotsky1929.