Seite - 275 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

state, democracy, socialism 275 toevadetheresponsibility for thedeterioratingeconomicsituationinAustria and the economic crisis. In 1931, their calculations did not consider that the introductionofsocialismwasprobablynotarealisticalternativeforAustriaat the time. In all likelihood, the choicewas onebetweendefendingbourgeois democracyandfacingafascistdictatorship. ManyAustrianscholarsagreethatBauerwasadversetoacollaborationwith bourgeois-peasant parties.52While this is essentially justified, a fewcomple- mentary remarksarenecessary.Bauer’s attitude towardscoalitionswas influ- encedbyhisstruggletopreservetheunityof theworkers’movementandpro- tectitsimmediateinterests.Consideringdeterioratingeconomicconditionsfor theworking class, suchas risingunemployment anda relapse into inflation, thiswasnoeasytask.Whatismore, itboretherealdanger,whichwouldpartly cometrue, thattheworkersmightleavetheranksoftheSocialDemocratsand join theCommunists and fascists instead.Bauerwasneitheranadvocatenor anadversaryofcoalitions.53Forhim,judgingtheexpediencyofformingacoali- tiondependedonthebalanceofpolitical andclass forcesacross thecountry. Depending on the occasion, hewas in favour of coalition to balance oppos- ingclass forces,which logically resulted fromhis theoryof a ‘balanceof class power’.54GiventhedomesticsituationinAustria in1931, todeclineacoalition offerwasnot a thoroughly considereddecision. Following SusanneMiller in heressay, ‘PolitischeFührungundSpontanität inderösterreichischenSozial- demokratie’ (‘Political Leadership andSpontaneity inAustrian SocialDemo- cracy’, 1985), onemaywonderwhether collaborationbetween the sdap and ChristianSocialswouldhavebeenaviableoption. It isequallydebatableasto whether itcouldhaveavertedthedangerof fascismathome.55 Thehistorical fateofthecoalitionintheFirstRepublic laidbarethecontra- dictionsof the ‘thirdway’ underbourgeois-democratic conditions. Thepolit- ical structures only allowed the Social Democrats marginal room for man- possibleat thecostofsplittingtheparty–apricenoSocialDemocratwantedtopay.See Renner1952b,p.41. 52 SeeKulemann1979,p.238;Reimann1968,p.336;Leser1986,p.281;Hanisch2011,p. 167. 53 ManyscholarssharethisassessmentofBauer’s legacy.Leser, for instance,writes: ‘Hewas not an opponent of coalition governments as amatter of principle’ (our translation) – Leser1964,p.70. 54 Likewise,Hanisch argues, ‘for the phase of relative stability, it is possible to sumupas follows:Bauerdidnot reject coalitionsasamatterofprinciple, but theconditionswere determinedexclusively by the interests of theworking class, not by the interests of the wholeofsociety’ (ourtranslation)–Hanisch2011,pp.211–12. 55 CompareMiller 1979,p.73.