Seite - 191 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the ‘thirdway’ to socialism 191 assembly andhave the following functions: (1)monitor thework of officials andconsider thedemandsof theworkingclass inall areasofadministration; (2)educationalwork.Atthetime,Adlerbelievedthatahybridofcouncilsand bourgeois institutions insteadof a proletariandictatorshipwould secure the workingclassasimilarstatusastheproclamationofasovietrepublic.55InLöw andPfabigan’sview,Adlerfearedtheradicalismofthemassesfarmorethanhe feared the consolidationof thenational assembly andparliamentarism.56 In hismind,thecouncilswerenorevolutionaryforcethatcouldleadtotheseizure ofpower;instead,theywerejustinstrumentstoaidtheprocessof ‘growinginto socialism’withoutanyconstitutionalstatus. Bauer fully shared the sdap’s unfavourable attitude towards the council system.57Thecongressofcouncils,whichlostthesupportoftheparty,adopted a resolution in 1919 that rendered thecouncilsmereappendagesof theparty and tradeunions. The leaders’ revolutionaryproclamationsdidnot alter the factthatthecouncilsweresubordinatedtostateadministration.Theywereno morethansubsidiarybodiesaidingtoenforcetheparty line.58 55 SeeAdler1919,p.31. 56 SeeLöw,MattlandPfabigan1986,p.71. 57 His attitude towards the Hungarian soviet republic was exemplary for his ostensibly revolutionarypolitics.HewelcomeditsestablishmentonlybecauseofAustrianpolitical interests.LiketheHungariangovernment,BauerfearedthatAustriancounter-revolution- ary forcesmight gain strength and the Entente countries put pressure onAustria if it joinedtheallianceofDanubestates.AstotheHungarianrevolutionitself,hedidnotwant to consider objective and subjective factors, but only sawbloody terror. In his letter to BelaKun,hethusenergeticallyspokeoutagainst the introductionofasoviet republic in Austriaandturneddownhis invitation tovisit theHungariansoviet republic. SeeBauer 1980n,p. 1056.Note that as foreignministerBauer secretly agreed toarmsdeliveries for Czechoslovakiaagainst theHungarian republic,whichearnedhimaccusationsofbeing a traitor to therevolution–seeHaas 1985,p. 134.Thisaccusationwasunjustified insofar asBauerhadneverbeenanadvocateofRussian-stylerevolution.Hence,hedidnoteven attempttodefendhimself,merelystatingthathedidnotbelieveintheenduranceof the Hungariangovernment andexpected that aparliamentary systemandmixedeconomy wouldsoonreplaceit. 58 Because theywere under the influence of the Social-Democratic leaders, the Austrian workers’ councils rejectedthe ideaofaproletariandictatorship.Althoughtheyassumed responsibility for someadministrative functionsandtookover the rolesof self-adminis- trationandcontrolpoints, theyneverbecameindependentadministrativeorgansof the state.While they allowedworkers for relatively far-reaching participation in economic and social decision-making processes at company level, their influence upon general political decisionswas simultaneously eliminated.A lawconcerning industrial councils weakenedthesignificanceof theworkers’ councils inpolitical life.Theseorgansbecame