Seite - 133 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the national question 133 ness. Indeed,hesuggestedthateconomictransformation, thedevelopmentof acommoditymoneyeconomyunderfeudalismandthedevelopmentofcapit- alistproduction inparticular,were thevery foundationsofnation forming,as were theaccompanyingchanges in thesocietal structure.Heviewedthepro- cessofnationformingasalong-lastinghistoricalphenomenon. Bauer’sdefinitionofnationhoodprovokedawaveofcriticismfromMarxists. Kautsky, Stalin,PannekoekandJosephStrasser, amongothers, arguedagainst it.31AlthoughIhaveexaminedthecontentsofthesepolemicsinanothertext,32 it isworthofferingasuccinctanalysisof thedebatebetweenBauerandKaut- sky, aswell as Stalin’s denunciation of Bauer’s position. In the course of his polemicwithBauer,Kautskyclaimedthatacommunitybasedonasharedhis- torical fate includednotallmembersof society,butonlyoneclass,onesocial layer,onemunicipality,oneguild,onepoliticalparty,oronestate.Hedirected his criticismagainst the concept of thenation as a community of character, pointing to the empirical diversity of individual character traits. In view of the languagedifficulties in themulti-ethnic state, he identified languageasa national principle and designated it as a nation-forming component. Bauer whollyrejectedthis, respondingthatKautskyhadnotunderstoodhisconcept of a community of fate: after all, Bauer argued, it rested on transcendental foundations.Moreover, Kautskyhadmistakenly equated commonwith equal fate.Torecognisetheaprioricharacterofsocialbondsmeanttoadmittotheir primaryexistenceinrelationtotheirhistorical formsinempiricalreality.Lan- guagewasnotadeterminantofcommunitybecause itwasaculturalproduct andinstrumentofcommunication, i.e. themeansofasecondaryorder. Itwas notpossibletoelevateittoanationalprinciple,asexamplesofdividednations that shared the same languagewerehistorically verifiable. The samegoes for nations thathadadoptedthe languageofanoccupyingpowerorof theterrit- ory they inhabited.According toBauer, languageconflicts servedasapretext toconcealeconomicandclassantagonisms.Stalin’scritique,bycontrast,allied heavilywith the factor theoryBauer rejected. Stalin interpreted thenationas amosaicof traits suchas language, territory, economic lifeandculture,and if oneoftheseassetswasmissing,onecouldnotspeakofanation.Whatismore, he accusedBauerof omitting these factors inhis analyses. Theprincipledif- ferencebetweenBauer’sandStalin’spositionswasthatBauerclassifiedcertain traits,forexamplenationalcharacterandculture,asimperativefortheessence ofthenation.Arguably,Bauer’s intentionwasentirelydefensible. Informulat- 31 SeeKautsky2009,Pannekoek1912,Stalin1913andStrasser1912. 32 SeeCzerwińska1991,pp.326–8.