Eduard Bernstein

El debate de las izquierdas antes de 1917. Revolución Industrial y mundo obrero.
Rasgos generales.
Los socialistas románticos: utopistas, filántropos y activistas.
La propuesta dialéctica de Karl Marx (1818-1883).
Las disputas entre anarquistas y marxistas.
La vía británica: del cartismo a los fabianos.
El pensamiento socialista tras la muerte de Marx.
El gran debate revisionista:  Bernstein / Lenin / Rosa Luxemburgo.

Nancy, éditions Arbre Bleu, 2022  ------- Célèbre pour avoir écrit les Réflexions sur la violence qui furent diversement interprétées, Georges Sorel (1847-1922) a pourtant produit une œuvre qui ne prête pas à ambiguïté sur le fond. Se voulant « serviteur désintéressé du prolétariat », il n’a cessé de questionner ce qui pourrait amener les groupes ouvriers organisés à préparer le chemin vers une société libérée des entraves asservissantes du capitalisme.
Se plaçant dans les pas de Karl Marx qu’il a contribué à acclimater en France, Georges Sorel s’est employé à ruiner le prestige de la culture bourgeoise et les stratégies politiques de séduction mises en œuvre par l’État républicain. La résistance qu’il concevait était à la mesure de l’enjeu : elle commandait d’opérer la « scission » par l’action directe et la construction de l’autonomie prolétarienne selon des principes qu’il partageait avec les syndicalistes révolutionnaires.
Ce livre apporte un regard neuf sur l’imaginaire politique de Sorel. Aux études que Willy Gianinazzi consacre à des facettes insoupçonnées de sa pensée s’ajoutent des écrits engagés du philosophe dont la plupart, publiés en Italie, l’autre « patrie » de Sorel, sont restés inconnus en France.
Plus que jamais, Sorel vaut d’être redécouvert et lu : son enthousiasme à repérer et élucider les allants populaires qui nous meuvent vers la liberté est communicatif.

This book presents six major texts and selected shorter writings by the social-democratic thinker and politician Eduard Bernstein, translated into English for the first time: Socialism Past and Present; The Social Doctrine of Anarchism; Social Liberalism or Collectivism?; How is Scientific Socialism Possible?; What is Socialism?; The Socialisation of Enterprises; and articles from the periodicals Neue Zeit and Sozialistische Monatshefte alongside several unpublished manuscripts. Written over the period 1893 to 1931, these works focus on socialism as an ideology, and trace debates about ethics, social science, and class struggle that preoccupied the early-20th-century socialist movement. Bernstein carefully demarcates the boundaries between socialism and its ideological rivals, contrasting its communitarian aspirations with individualistic liberalism and anarchism, and its adherence to democratic methods with the totalitarian violence of communism and fascism. He revisits the intellectual canon of socialist thought, recentring contributions by Ferdinand Lassalle, Karl Rodbertus, and other neglected figures alongside those of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Urging socialists to seize the opportunities afforded by their growing political representation, Bernstein addresses the strategies needed to achieve progressive policy reforms, including the prospects for realising socialism with the foundation of the Weimar Republic.

The following is the text of an article accepted for publication in Historical Research (27 October 2021). Please do not cite, copy, share, or distribute in any other way.

The 1918-19 German Revolution forced an abrupt moment of decision among German socialists in the question of ‘social reform or revolution’. This article traces the arguments of Eduard Bernstein, the founder of ‘reformism’, on the lessons Social Democracy should draw from the events of the Revolution and the transition from Kaiserreich to the Weimar Republic. It argues that Bernstein makes significant advances on his early reformism in his post-Revolution writings, and explores his refinement of the concept of ‘revolution’ as well as his critique of Bolshevism and the USSR as a new ideological rival within the socialist movement.

Introduction, Coordinates of Reform Socialism, Greece 1906-1936 1
Chapter 1, The Formation of Alexandre Papanastassiou
Chapter 2, The Sociologists’ Group 81
d. Greece, 1906-1908
e. The Sociological Society
f. The Socialist Project
Chapter 3, The People’s Party and the Labour Movement 127
d. The People’s Party
e. Socialist Awakening
f. State Socialism
Chapter 4, The Sociologists and the Venizelos Government 191
d. The Double Assembly, 1910-1911
e. The 1912 Elections
f. The Sociologists and Agrarian Reform
Chapter 5, The Left and the War 267
d. National Ideology and Internationalism
e. War and Internal Politics, 1912-1914
f. Nationalism and the Balkan Union
Chapter 6, The Left and the National Schism 339
c. The Formation of the Enemy Camps
d. The Veniselist Left
Chapter 7, The Republican Union 419
d. The Revival of the Republican Propaganda
e. White Terror
f. The Republican Union
Chapter 8, The Revolutionary Regime 533
d. The End of the Imperialist Dream
e. Reorganisation of the Left and the Centre
f. The Treaty of Lausanne and the reorganisation of the Republican Union
Chapter 9, The Republican Union Against the Liberals 599
d. The Monarchists Defeated
e. Republicans and Liberals
f. Veniselos Returns
Chapter 10, The Papanastassiou Government 665
d. The Proclamation of the Republic
e. Papanastassiou’s Internal Policy
f. The Fall of the Republican Union
Chapter 11, Republican and Monarchist Authoritarianism 733
c. The Failure of the Republic
d. Monarchist Restauration and Leftist Consolidation
Epilogue, The Defeat of Reform Socialism 757

To be Marxist at the turn of the twentieth century was highly contested.
During this crisis of Marxism, identity politics were acute, exemplified by
the private and public debate between Eduard Bernstein and Karl
Kautsky. With Bernstein’s celebrated turn away from the Marxist theory
of his day, the grounds for being Marxist were at stake. Was it possible
to criticise Marx’s analysis of industrial capitalism, his account of
historical change and his hard-nosed class politics, and yet still be in a
position to carry his name forward? Moreover, the springing-up of
another identity, Revisionist, suggested that being Marxist was
ambiguous. If one accepted Bernstein’s and the Revisionists’ point that
Marxists had become too orthodox, leaving Revisionists as the true heirs
of Marx’s critical socialist spirit, then the Marxist identity was so open as
to be meaningless. In this article, I contend that the name-calling of this
period, the Revisionismusstreit, should be seen as creative. In contrast to
politico-ideological perceptions of the Streit, which construe the clash of
Marxist and Revisionist as representative of foundational Social
Democratic party political realities, I highlight the manner in which
being Marxist—the veneration of Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’s word into
a Marxology of sorts by Marxists and Revisionists alike—held a certain
epistemic value in its own right.

Eduard Bernstein, 19. yüzyıl'ın ikinci yarısında ağırlıklı olarak Marksizm'in etkisi altında olan sosyalist ideolojiyi, Hegel'den devralınan diyalektik yöntem ve determinist tarih kuramından yalıtarak Kant'ın eleştirel felsefesi ve İngiliz ampirisizminin evrimci yaklaşımıyla sentezlemeyi denemiş bir kuramcıdır. Bu çabasıyla, Lassalle, Kautsky ve Jaures gibi düşünürlerle beraber sosyal demokrasinin belli başlı öncüleri arasında yer alan Bernstein'ın modeli, Kantçı kökenlerine vurgu yapılmak istendiğinde "etik sosyalizm", İngiliz reformizmiyle olan ilişkisine dikkat çekilmek istendiğinde ise "evrimsel sosyalizm" olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bununla beraber, sosyal demokrasiyi 18. yüzyıl liberalizminin "meşru mirasçısı" olarak nitelendiren, hatta geniş anlamıyla sosyalizmin "örgütlü liberalizm" anlamına geldiğini ileri süren Bernstein'ın modeli, daha kapsayıcı biçimde, "liberal sosyalizm" olarak da tanımlanabilir. Bu çalışmada Bernstein'ın siyasal felsefesi, miras aldığı düşünsel gelenekler ve yaşadığı dönemde yükselen düşünce akımları karşısındaki tutumuyla karşılaştırılarak ele alınmaktadır. Abstract Eduard Bernstein is a theoretician who tried to isolate the socialist ideology, which was heavily under the influence of Marxism in the second half of the 19th Century, from the dialectical method and deterministic concept of history inherited from Hegel, and instead of

Et si Eduard Bernstein, grand militant de la deuxième internationale, intime et exécuteur testamentaire d’Engels, Député SPD, père intellectuel de la révision du marxisme, constituait une figure on ne peut plus actuelle pour penser une politique progressiste ? C’est l’intuition qui a guidé le journaliste berlinois Tom Strohschneider dans l’écriture et la coordination de cet ouvrage. Un ouvrage qui fera date dans la réception politique de Bernstein, puisqu’il réhabilite, dans le camp de l’extrême gauche, celui qui passe encore et toujours pour le modèle type du traître à la cause.
-> suite sur https://eurosoc.hypotheses.org/1671

'Radicalism' and 'extremism' have been defined in generally negative terms throughout the social and human sciences (e.g., in terms of intolerance or violence). We will make progress in our comprehension of moderation once we have a more neutral conception of radicalism. I compare radical ideologies to literary genres. Just as literary genres have tropes that constrain our reading of a text and give us a sense of what we are about to read, radical ideologies also have tropes that refer back to a wider dichotomy. The vantage of radical ideologies is that, due to that dichotomic inferential background, the radical can use argumentative techniques to discredit her opponents' arguments or reinforce supporters of her cause (e.g., a Marxist can, for instance, use tropes such as 'reactionary' or 'bourgeois' to indicate that a given person, group, or argument is part of the 'wrong' side of his dichotomic narrative). Turning to moderation, I describe how Bernstein's step-by-step critique of the Marxist narrative undermines the orthodox Marxist's ability to use their argumentative techniques. In the end, we will see that Bernstein's critique partially accepts the claims of the orthodox Marxists. It is part of the nature of the moderate to weigh the claims of her opponents and accept the parts of their reasoning that are valid. Finally, we will see how this approach opens the way for an anti-radical dichotomic narrative whose central opponents are the radicals themselves.

Esta tese pretende analisar a associação entre desenvolvimento, evolução e progresso na visão de mundo forjada em torno da social-democracia alemã, na virada do século XIX para o século XX. Nesse período, diversos grupos travavam embates sobre o destino do partido social-democrata alemão (SPD), como os seguidores de Lassalle, os praktikers, os seguidores das teses de Eduard Bernstein sobre o reformismo, setores radicais (Die Jungen) e os marxistas. A despeito das disputas, porém, há um aspecto de notável consenso, que acompanhou muitos setores do socialismo europeu, assim como da maioria dos formuladores políticos do mundo no período: a significativa importância dada às ciências naturais, com destaque para Charles Darwin. Partindo do comentário de Walter Benjamin sobre Eduard Fuchs, é possível notar que, no período que antecede a aprovação dos créditos de guerra, a Primeira Guerra Mundial e a ascensão dos fascismos constituiu-se entre os social-democratas alemães uma visão de mundo associada ao progresso político e científico. Visão esta constituída por uma atmosfera de relativo otimismo simultâneo às grandes campanhas do SPD, como o enfrentamento ao militarismo alemão, as greves de grande intensidade e a resistência vitoriosa contra as leis antissocialistas de 1878. Partindo deste contexto a tese reconstitui os evolucionismos do século XIX e a seguir ilustra a recepção do evolucionismo por parte da social-democracia a partir do comentário de textos de alguns dos principais teóricos do partido no período: Eduard Bernstein, Wilhelm Liebknecht, August Bebel e Karl Kautsky. São analizados cinco tópicos principais: as aproximações e distanciamentos de Marx e Friedrich Engels em relação a Darwin; a incorporação das concepções científicas a avaliações políticas, como no juízo de Kautsky sobre a questão camponesa; a importância dada ao evolucionismo nas associações educativas para formação dos trabalhadores (Arbeiterbildung), na qual Liebknecht tem papel central; a resposta à discussão entre Ernst Haeckel e Rudolf Virchow no texto A mulher e o socialismo, de Bebel; e aspectos da teoria de Herbert Spencer que teriam influenciado as concepções de Bernstein sobre a sociedade. Os efeitos políticos das teses evolucionistas resultaram ao mesmo tempo em orientações distintas para a ação política e engendraram um vocabulário presente em interpretações diversas sobre a sociedade, especialmente no tocante à construção de uma visão de futuro envolvendo a ideia de progresso.

La dénomination de « social-traître », instaurée par Vladimir Lénine comme clef de lecture avec la naissance de l’Internationale Communiste en 1919, a connu un grand succès durant le XXe siècle. Si cette notion peut être vue comme la variante socialiste de la figure du traître en politique, pourquoi arrive-t-elle si tard dans le discours du mouvement socialiste marxiste, dans lequel la lutte de classes joue pourtant un rôle essentiel ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous proposons d’étudier la figure d’Eduard Bernstein. Grand militant de la Deuxième Internationale, exécuteur testamentaire de Friedrich Engels, considéré comme le père intellectuel du socialisme réformiste et à l’origine de la révision du marxisme, Bernstein est encore souvent perçu, et ce depuis Lénine, comme l’exemple même du « social-traître ».

It is difficult not to ask oneself what exactly happened between now and twenty-five years ago. The years after the fall of the USSR were times of great optimism for proponents of constitutional democracy, of a Third Way between market and welfare state, and of a politics of moderation. However, this last decade has seen the emergence of antagonistic forms of politics: left and right populisms, uncompromising forms of free market liberalism, minority rights activism, and a recent nativist explosion that has caught everyone by surprise. We try to understand the ideas behind these phenomena by articulating a conception of political radicalism and of its opposite, political moderation. Radicalism in the past has often been understood as the negative contrary of moderation (especially because of the previous dominance of Marxism as the main paradigm of radical politics). It has been understood as a body of ideas that are opposed to democracy, to the rule of law, to pluralism, or that are in favor of revolution and violence. The new radical trends of today, however, do not seem so straightforwardly anti-democratic or revolutionary as Marxism once was.

Instead of defining radicalism “negatively” as a collection of ideas, policies, or attitudes that deviate from a given state of “normality” (such as anti-pluralism, anti-democracy, anti-constitutional aims, or anti-traditionalism), we instead compare it to a literary genre that a group or individual can use in order to create dichotomies and a sense of “us versus them.” By describing and analyzing the thoughts of Georg Lukács, Ludwig von Mises, and Ernesto Laclau, we give examples of some “literary genres” (Marxist, free market libertarian, and postmodern), of the tropes they use to establish these dichotomies, and the way they can reinforce their arguments by using these dichotomies. In turn, we try to understand political moderation as an “anti-genre” that breaks with these attempts to create dichotomies.

The following is the text of an article accepted for publication in History of Political Thought (7 April 2021). Please do not cite, copy, share, or distribute in any other way.

In the early twentieth century, several strands of socialist thought emerged that sought to accommodate national identity within the ideology of the workers’ movement. One such contribution—hitherto neglected—came from Eduard Bernstein, who bridged the nationalist–internationalist divide in Social Democracy with a cosmopolitan account of ‘noble patriotism’. This article, which follows an earlier piece on Bernstein’s evolving foreign policy views, explores his contrasting understandings of ‘people’, ‘nation’, and ‘state’. It finds Bernstein’s account of patriotism rooted in Fichtean and Lassallean thought, and outlines his vision of an international system freed from imperial great-power politics: the ‘republic of peoples’.

Die zwei prominenten sozialdemokratischen Denker und engen Freunde, der orthodoxe Marxist Karl Kautsky und der Revisionist Eduard Bernstein, standen aufgrund ihres Streits in der „Revisionismusdebatte“ zwischen der Jahrhundertwende und 1912 in keinerlei Kontakt miteinander. Trotzdem trugen die beiden in diesen Jahren eine andere Debatte vor allem implizit aus: die über die Frage der jüdischen Nationalität und des Zionismus. Yuval Rubovitch zeigt erstmals in seinem Buch auf, wie Bernstein und Kautsky ihre gegensätzlichen Haltungen zu diesem Thema entwickelt und einander  beeinflusst haben, obwohl Bernstein zu dieser Zeit noch augenscheinlich entschiedener Antizionist war. Diese intellektuelle Debatte erstreckte sich bis zu Bernsteins Tod – als Pro-Zionist – am Vorabend des Nationalsozialismus und war eng mit dem Wirtschaftsdiskurs der zwei Theoretiker verbunden.

Kant, bir 18. yüzyıl filozofu olmasına karşın, görüşleri kendi döneminde olduğu kadar sonraki yüzyıllarda da yankı uyandırmış ve birçok kişiye ilham kaynağı olmuştur. Kant’ın ahlak felsefesi üzerinden yürüttüğü tartışmalar, onun siyaset felsefesi de dahil olmak üzere tüm felsefesinin mihverini oluşturmuştur. Kant’ın birey odaklı felsefesi, bir yandan liberal ideolojinin takipçileri arasında tartışma konusu olurken, diğer yandan da 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren sosyal demokratlar arasında tartışmalara konu olmuştur. Almanya’da Lassalle’le başlayan bu tartışmalar, Fabian Hareketi’yle sürmüş ve Bernstein’le doruk noktasına ulaşmıştır. Bu hareketler, Ortodoks Marksizmden koptukça daha etik merkezli bir noktaya evrilmiş ve adeta neo-Kantçı bir projeye dönüşmüştür. Bu dönüşümü besleyen ve sosyal demokrat revizyonizmin temellerini oluşturan tartışmaysa Bernstein ve Kautsky arasında yaşanmıştır. Kant ve Marx’ın ahlak anlayışlarını mevcut toplum üzerinden tartışan ikili, buradan sosyal demokrasiye bir gelecek planı, iktidar stratejisi ve toplum tahayyülü de çıkarmak için çabalamışlardır. Bir yandan daha muğlak bir ahlak tanımı olan Marx’ın ve dolayısıyla Marksizmin ahlak görüşleri iki tarafından yorumlanırken, diğer yandan da Kant’ın ahlak anlayışının sosyal demokrasideki rolünün ne olması gerektiği tartışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma, öncelikle Kantçı ve Marksist ahlak anlayışlarını karşılaştırarak birbirinden ayrıldığı noktaları gözler önüne sermiştir. İkinci olarak bu çalışmada, sosyal demokrasinin hangi alanlarda Kantçı felsefeyi takip ettiği, Lassalle, Fabiancı Hareket, Kautsky ve Bernstein’in görüşleri tartışılmıştır.

This book presents three later works by the German social-democratic thinker and politician Eduard Bernstein, translated into English in full for the first time: Social Democracy and International Politics: Social Democracy and the European Question; League of Nations or League of States; and International Law and International Politics: The Nature, Questions, and Future of International Law. Written at the height of WW1, they address the abrupt collapse of international socialist cooperation after its outbreak, and outline a vision for peace in Europe and beyond. Bernstein argues for an ethical, democratic approach to international relations, governed by a corpus of international law, and safeguarded by an international union dedicated to preserving peoples’ right to self-determination. He is sceptical of the state-centrism of early-20th-century liberal proposals for developing strong international institutions, while also deeply critical of militarist and imperialist political leaders and thinkers for preventing even these limited proposals from being realised. Instead, in these works, Bernstein urges social democrats to campaign for a system of international economic, legal, and cultural relations that he calls the ‘republic of peoples’, and he explores themes of patriotism, class struggle, diplomacy, and free trade that still carry resonance today.

In the early twentieth century, European Social Democracy was confronted with newly-salient problems of foreign and international policy thanks to rising tensions between the European 'great powers'. Eduard Bernstein, founder of 'revisionist' Marxism, played an increasingly central part in the ensuing debates within the socialist movement. Yet his position on questions of colonialism, anti-imperialism, militarism, pacifism and diplomacy has -- like much of his later work -- been hitherto inadequately explored and often misunderstood. This article reevaluates Bernstein's foreign policy thought, and argues that the First World War provoked a profound shift in his views--expressed in texts that deserve wider recognition in the canon of socialist internationalism.

This book presents two major texts and selected shorter writings by the social-democratic thinker and politician Eduard Bernstein, translated into English in full for the first time: The German Revolution: A History of the Emergence and First Working Period of the German Republic; How A Revolution Perished; and articles from Vorwärts and other socialist periodicals. Written in the aftermath of the 1918 German Revolution and the end of WWI, they address the overthrow of autocratic rule in Germany, and provide a live chronicle and retrospective assessment of the Weimar Republic’s foundation. Bernstein gives a detailed chronology of the German Revolution and its intellectual, economic, and political context, and offers a historical analogy in his account of the 1848 French Revolution, which differs in key respects from that of Karl Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Drawing on his own experience of the events he describes, he revisits the socialist debate over ‘reform or revolution’ that he himself had provoked at the turn of the 20th century, and consciously seeks to wrest ownership of the Revolution’s legacy away from the Spartacist and communist left. In these works, Bernstein exhorts social democrats to rally behind the nascent Republic and resist the siren-calls of its militant opponents on radical left and right, and he engages with themes of party unity, political violence, democracy, and the role of ideology that have echoed through left theory and strategy ever since.

Eduard Bernstein was born in 1850 in Schöneberg, the second child of a Jewish locomotive driver from Danzig (Gdańsk). A gifted student from an early age, he attended Gymnasium until forced to leave at 16 due to his family’s poor financial circumstances. From 1866 to 1878, Bernstein worked as a bank clerk in Berlin, during which time he became increasingly active in the German workers’ movement. He joined the “Eisenacher” Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (SDAP, Social-Democratic Workers’ Party) led by August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1872. Soon after, Bernstein had his first opportunity to shape the ideological direction of German socialism when he assisted Bebel and Liebknecht in the preparation of the 1875 Gotha Programme, which united the “Eisenacher” faction with the “Lassallean” Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein (ADAV, General German Workers’ Association) to form the Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands (SAP, Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany). A contribution to Mortimer Sellers and Stephan Kirste (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (Springer, 2021).

Intelektuálním pandánem, komplementem reformního komunismu byl revizionistický marxismus. Lze proto analogicky konstatovat, že « blbost », abych se vyjádřil jako Zdeněk Mlynář, mnoha (nejen) českých intelektuálů té doby byla ideologie revizionistického marxismu. Podobně jako reformní komunisté nechtěli odvrhnout, ale pouze opravit existující komunistický systém, revizionističtí marxisté nechtěli odmítnout, ale jenom očistit oficiální marxisticko-leninskou ideologii. Tito revizionisté stále pokládali marxismus za « nepřekonatelný horizont » (Jean-Paul Sartre) intelektuálního života. Je prý jen třeba ho zbavit « deformací » stalinské éry. Znamená to, že ostatním směrům stále bránili v tom, aby mohly marxismu rovnoprávně konkurovat.
Je třeba rozlišovat především dva marxistické revizionismy. Zaprvé marxistický revizionismus konce 19. a začátku 20. století. Jeho hlavním představitelem byl německý sociální demokrat Eduard Bernstein. Tento marxistický revizionismus revidoval Karla Marxe. Naproti tomu revizionismus reformistického období v komunistických zemích revidoval v podstatě jen Josifa V. Stalina. Zatímco pro Bernsteina je empirická skutečnost argumentem proti Marxově doktríně, revizionisté pozdních šedesátých let 20. století vyvodili naopak z krutých zkušeností s uskutečňováním marxistických idejí v praxi iluzorní závěr, že Marxovy ideje byly „zdeformovány“ a že je prý třeba se vrátit k „autentickému“ Marxovi (nebo dokonce i k „autentickému“ Leninovi).
Klíčové omyly českých revizionistických marxistů šedesátých let 20. století lze stručně shrnout následovně. Jsou zaprvé obětí starých vlasteneckých « přeludů » (jak se vyjadřuje Václav Havel), podle nichž je Československo středem či pupkem světa, zadruhé (a to je důležitější) jsou obětí optického klamu, podle něhož hrůzy komunismu plynou z jeho ztělesnění v zaostalém Rusku a z jeho mechanické nápodoby v rozvinutějších zemích. S tím souvisí zatřetí a především iluze, že je tu možná jakási doposud nikde jinde ve světě neexistující syntéza komunismu a demokracie, « socialismus s lidskou tváří », kterým se Československo jako úplně první země prý velmi přiblíží « autentickému Marxovi ». Vlivem zaslepenosti marxistickou ideologií tvrdí revizionističtí marxisté šedesátých let navzdory všem neblahým zkušenostem, že « autentický » marxismus a « autentický » socialismus « nemají nic společného » s reálně existujícím socialismem a jsou tak neschopni rozpoznat skutečné problémy.

SUMMARY To be Marxist at the turn of the twentieth century was highly contested. During this crisis of Marxism, identity politics were acute, exemplified by the private and public debate between Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky. With Bernstein's celebrated turn away from the Marxist theory of his day, the grounds for being Marxist were at stake. Was it possible to criticise Marx's analysis of industrial capitalism, his account of historical change and his hard-nosed class politics, and yet still be in a position to carry his name forward? Moreover, the springing-up of another identity, Revisionist, suggested that being Marxist was ambiguous. If one accepted Bernstein's and the Revisionists' point that Marxists had become too orthodox, leaving Revisionists as the true heirs of Marx's critical socialist spirit, then the Marxist identity was so open as to be meaningless. In this article, I contend that the name-calling of this period, the Revisionismusstreit, should be seen as creative. In contrast to politico-ideological perceptions of the Streit, which construe the clash of Marxist and Revisionist as representative of foundational Social Democratic party political realities, I highlight the manner in which being Marxist—the veneration of Marx's and Friedrich Engels's word into a Marxology of sorts by Marxists and Revisionists alike—held a certain epistemic value in its own right.

Recension de Horst Heimann, Hendrik Küpper, Klaus-Jürgen Scherer (Hg.), Geistige Erneuerung links der
Mitte. Der Demokratische Sozialismus Eduard Bernsteins, « Schriftenreihe der
Hochschulinitiative Demokratischer Sozialismus », Bd. 31, Schüren Verlag, Marburg, 2020. -> Disponible en ligne ici : https://doi.org/10.3917/cj.238.0021

Il 6 gennaio 1850 nacque a Berlino Eduard Bernstein in una famiglia ebrea il cui padre era un macchinista ferroviere. La loro condizione economica era soddisfacente per i tempi e tuttavia non priva di rinunce e momenti difficili. Bernstein dovette lasciare il Gymnasium per problemi finanziari e, dopo un apprendistato di tre anni, ottenne un posto come impiegato di banca prima alla Weimarischer Bank e dopo presso la S. & L. Rothschild. Nel 1871, insieme ad altri amici, fondò un gruppo di discussione chiamato ‘Utopia’ (ispirato all’opera di Thomas More). Forse non è un caso che in seguito, nonostante la conoscenza di un lassalliano come Friedrich Fritzsche, sceglierà di aderire all’’Internationaler Arbeiterassoziation’ di ispirazione marxista . Gli anni della crisi economica del 1973/74 furono per Bernstein «politisch und moralisch prägend für seine eigene Entwicklung»  e lo portarono ad avvicinarsi sempre più alla questione sociale e ai movimenti operai.