Page - 349 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the spectre of fascism 349 ivewhenconfrontedwiththeaccomplishedfact.What ismore, thedifference betweenhispositionandthatofRenneronthisquestionwasminimaldespite theirdivergenttheoretical justifications. Thepathosandself-assurednesswithwhichBauerspokeabouttheimmin- entrevolutioninhis finalarticlesraiseanumberofquestions.Firstly,onwhat didBauerbasehisassumptionofananti-fascistinsurrectioninGermany,what didhe fail to take intoaccount, andwhatdidheoverestimate?Secondly, did he truly believe in his ownvision of Europe’s future, given the Schuschnigg- Hitler agreement,mass arrestsofCommunists andsocialists, deportationsof Jews,andconcentrationcamps?Didhereallybelievethatthehypnoticpower ofsocialismcouldcompeteagainst fascistpropagandaandexpansion?127 LikemostEuropeanSocialDemocrats,Bauer spenta lifetimeoverestimat- ing theGermanworkers’movement’s capabilities of organisation, its possib- ilities, and its willingness to act. The theoretical and political leadership of theSocial-DemocraticPartyofGermanyobliquely conditioned this.Onecan hardly blamehim, but from theperspective of exile, hewasunable tomake arealisticanalysisof the illegalorganisations’ roomformanoeuvreunder the conditionsoffascism.Thesameisthecasefortheworkingclass’ssusceptibility tofascistrhetoric.Furthermore,hisperspectiveblindedhimtotherealitythat fascismhad solidified itself and sent its political opponents to campsorhad themassassinated.On theotherhand, it is difficult tobelieve that anexper- ienced politician and expert on the national question such as Bauerwould be uninformed about the growing nationalism in theGerman andAustrian workingclassesandSocial-Democraticparties.Likewise, it is improbablethat hewas inattentive to thecausesof lostnational revolutionsandthe resulting legacies.Hismisrecognitionof these factorsandtheir consequenceswaspsy- chological.Bauerwasa fanatical revolutionary,even ifhis fanaticismwasofa different variety toLenin’s. Itwas the fanaticismof amanobsessedwith the idea of freedom,whodogmatically and one-sidedly conflated itwith social- ism,andthereforealsowithrevolutionasatoolwithwhichtorealisetheideal. What ismore,Bauerwas incapableof critically assessinghisownperception ofhistory,andhecouldnotcometotermswiththedemiseofthesdap’spolit- icalvisionandtheendoftheAustromarxistdoctrine.Likewise,hewasunable toforgohisrevolutionaryrhetoric,whichaccompaniedhimhisentire lifeand consistently containedhollow formulas, something thathe failed toacknow- ledge. 127 Maimannposessimilarquestions in theaforementionedarticleandanswers in theneg- ative.SeeMaimann1985,p.235.