Seite - XXXI - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

foreword xxxi Withrespecttotheessentialquestions,EwaCzerwińskaandIagreedespite minordifferences. Inviewofthepublicationofthis importanttext, Inaturally took the liberty to further develop and addmyown ideas aboutOtto Bauer andthebrandof socialismhe inspired.What todayseparatesusall fromOtto Bauer’s thought, regardlessofourvariousbackgrounds, is thewayinwhichhe didnotclaimthehistoricalnecessityofsocialismasamatterofcourse,butalso themanner inwhichheemployedtheterm‘socialism’asacompletealternat- ive to the existingbourgeois capitalist society. Inhis text,DerWegzumSozi- alismus (TheRoad toSocialism),whichwas republished several times, Bauer was only able to outline the socialist society of the future in themost vague terms. Regardless, he still assumed that this societywould be not only eco- nomically efficient, but alsomore social than the existing society. Bauerwas noadvocateofstatesocialismormerenationalisations.Heevenbroughthim- self tomakeastatementthatwouldbeprovenrightmanytimes inthefuture: ‘Nobody isworse atmanaging industrial enterprises than the state’. It is also noaccidentthathisframeworkofdividingcompanymanagementintorepres- entativesof threegroups–employees, consumers, and regional authorities– wasnotadoptedanywhere.TheYugoslavianmodel forwhichtheYugoslavian chief ideologue, EdvardKardelj, claimedMarxist authenticity– consistingof adevelopmentplanningframeworkplusworkers’ self-management–wasthe closestarrangementtothatproposedbyAustromarxism.However, itwaseven less efficient than thecentrallymanagedeconomiesof ‘really existing social- ism’. The judgements passed by both the author and myself have frequently beenreproachedfortheircontradictory lineofargument,whichonemoment criticisesfromtheleft,andthenextfromtheright.Butisnoteverycritiqueona contradictorypersonalityandcontradictorypolitics thereforecondemned, in turn,toreflectthecontradictorynatureofitsobject–inthiscase,thehistorical objectof thoughtandaction,OttoBauer–andculminateinaporia? This kind of aporia remains in any case, since no-one can tell with certaintywhetherpoliciesotherthanthoseenactedbyOttoBauerandhisgreat foe, Ignaz Seipel, would have led to different, better results.Maywe, in this and other cases, therefore cease to investigate the sources of such errors on historicalpositionsandactionsbecausewe lackdefinitivecertaintyof judge- ment?With this inmind, EwaCzerwinska’s andmy own criticisms of Otto Bauer and his theoretical constructs are not a case of knowing it all with the benefit of hindsight. Rather, they formpart of a continuation of the im- manent critique already conducted by contemporaries such as Karl Renner andHans Kelsen, whichwas confirmed by historical experience. Of course, even if hemerely proved to be an ignis fatuus in the end, Otto Bauer still