Seite - 48 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

48 chapter 2 ethics froma scientistic, positivist andKantian point of view. Following his watershedmoment in 1916, he critically reviewed the theoretical and philo- sophicalperspectivesof thepastduringthesecondphase. Todiscuss Bauer’s receptionofMarx, oneneeds to consider the scientific contextwithdue regard toAustrian specifics, aswell as the social andpolit- ical conditions in whichMarxism found itself at the turn of the twentieth century.Animportantcircumstancewasthelackoffamiliaritywiththerevolu- tionary formofMarxism inAustria,9which canbe tracedback to anumber of reasons. Theworkers’ familiaritywith thewritingsofMarxandEngels, for instance,hadall butvanished.10ChristianSocial andnationalist groupsexer- ted a strong influence. Theworkers’movementwas organisationally divided for aprolongedperiod. Furthermore, no independent theory emerged in the AustrianSocial-Democraticmovementupuntil 1904. It thereforeadoptedthe theoretical andpolitical assumptionsofGermanSocialDemocracy, themost 9 Referring toAustromarxismas ‘revisionismof a special type’,AlfredPfabiganwrites: ‘In ordertounderstandthis“revisionismofaspecialtype”,weneedtotakeabrief lookatthe conditions for the receptionofMarxismin theAustrianworkers’movement. InAustria, theseconditionswereratherunfavourable.MarxandEngels’s thoughtevolved largely in GreatBritain,whichwas socially at ahigher level, and restedona foundation thatwas alientothecultureof theDanubeMonarchy:anadvanced, industrialistwayof thinking. I onlywant tomentionsomeaspectsof thismodeof thinking,whichwasan important preconditionforsocialist thoughtandmissing inAustria.TheEnlightenmentnever fully prevailedinthiscountry,utopiansocialismwasamarginalphenomenon,nomaterialism thatarguedinascientificmannerexisted,andthewritingsofclassicalpoliticaleconomy werelargelyunknown.ThesameistrueforclassicalGermanphilosophy…Especially for Hegel itwasnotnecessary toperish in 19thcenturyAustria,hewasalreadya “deaddog” whenhewasstillalive’ (ourtranslation)–Pfabigan1990,p.47andPfabigan1990b,p.53. 10 SeePfabigan1990,p.47.ErnstHanischalsosupports this inhisarticle, ‘DieMarx-Rezep- tion inderösterreichischenArbeiterbewegung’ (‘TheReceptionofMarx in theAustrian Workers’Movement’).Hanischwrites: ‘Onlyasmallnumberofworkershadamoreintim- ateknowledgeofMarxandEngels’ (our translation)–Hanisch 1978, p. 120. In the same article, however, Hanisch argues: ‘Nonetheless,Marxwas an established name for the majorityofAustrianworkers:as thecreatorof “scientificsocialism”,asagenius,asasym- bol’ (our translation)– ibid.Discussing the lackof receptionofMarxandEngels’sworks in theAustrian labourmovement,Hanischpoints out that the sdap’s dailynewspaper, Arbeiter-Blatt, printed theCommunistManifestoon7 June 1868.Furthermore, from1869 onwards, the leaders of both groups in theworkers’movement – the ‘radicals’ and the ‘moderates’–aswellascirclesofeducatedworkerswerefamiliarwithMarx’sCapitaland Engels’sTheConditionoftheWorkingClassinEngland. Inaddition,Marxismwaspopular- isedbyworkers’ calendars ina formthatwasunderstandable tothem.SeeHanisch1978, pp.93–121.