This article by Lenin is a review of the book «Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm. Eine Antikritik.
Stuttgart. 1899» («Bernstein and the Social-Democratic Program.
A Critique. Stuttgart. 1899»), written by Kautsky in
1899 in response to Bernstein's famous book *Die Voraus
setzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratien*
(«The Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy»), which came out
in the same year and soon became the gospel of the revisionists.
From the memoirs of N.K. Krupskaya (published by the Institute, 1926,
p. 24) it is known that Lenin read Kautsky's work, forwarded
to him by A.N. Potresov, in exile, in the village of Shushenskoye, and translated
it there. The translation under the title "Collection of Articles" appeared
only in 1905 in St. Petersburg, in a second edition - in 1906>
there. At the same time, in exile, at the end of 1899, Lenin also wrote
a review of Kautsky's book, apparently intending it for
some legal journal. However, neither this review nor the following one (see p. 34) appeared in print. Both reviews
were looked through by someone, as evidenced by the corrections
made by an unknown hand.
In the preserved manuscript, unfortunately, the first page is missing, i.e. there is no title or beginning of the article.
2.
* REVIEW OF THE BOOK: «KARL KAUTSKY.
BERNSTEIN UND DAS SOCIALDEMOKRATISCHE
PROGRAMM. EINE ANTIKRITIK».
...In the introduction, Kautsky expresses several extremely
valuable and apt thoughts on the topic of what conditions
a serious and conscientious critique must satisfy if those undertaking it do not want to confine themselves to the narrow framework of soulless pedantry and *Gelehrtertum*, if they do not want to lose
sight of the close and inseparable connection of "theoretical Reason" with
"practical Reason," and, moreover, with the practical Reason not
of individual personalities, but of the masses of the population, placed in special
conditions. Of course, truth is above all, says Kautsky, and
if Bernstein has come to a sincere conviction of the falsity
of his former views, then it is his direct duty to express his conviction with full clarity. But the trouble is that

Bernstein lacks precisely directness and definiteness: his
pamphlet is strikingly "encyclopedic" (as Antonio
Labriola has already noted in a French journal *)), it touches on
a mass of problems, an abyss of questions, but on none of these questions
does it give a complete and clear exposition of the critic's new views.
The critic only states his doubts, throwing difficult and complex questions, barely
touched by him, without any independent development. From this—sarcastically remarks K[aut-
sky]—such a strange thing happens that Bernstein's supporters understand his book in the most different ways, and
Bernstein's opponents all understand it the same way. The main
objection that Bernstein makes to his opponents is that he is not understood, that they do not want to understand him.
A whole series of journal and newspaper articles written by Bern-
stein in response to his opponents has not clarified his
positive views at all. -
Kautsky begins his *Antikritik* with the question of method.
He considers the objections of Bernstein against the materialist
understanding of history and shows that Bernstein has confused ["determinism" with "mechanism"] the concept of "deterministic" with the concept *of "mechanical," confused freedom of will with freedom of action, identified without any basis historical
necessity with an obligatory, hopeless situation of people. The hackneyed accusation of fatalism, which Bernstein also repeats, is refuted by the very basic premises of
Marx's historical theory. One cannot reduce everything to the development of
productive forces, says Bernstein. One must "take into account" other factors. - Very good, replies K[aut-
sky], but every researcher should do this, no matter what
understanding of history he is guided by. Whoever wants to force
us to abandon Marx's method, a method that has so brilliantly
justified itself in practice and continues to justify itself, must
go one of two ways: either he abandons the idea of regularity, the necessity of the historical process altogether,
and then he throws overboard all attempts at a scientific
substantiation of sociology. Or he must show how one can derive the necessity of the historical process from other factors (e.g., ethical views),—show it by an analysis that could withstand even a distant comparison
with Marx's analysis in *Das Kapital*. Bernstein not only does not make

REVIEW OF K. KAUTSKY'S BOOK the slightest attempt to do this, but, limiting himself to the uninformative
commonplace about "taking into account" other factors, continues to use the old materialist
method in his book, as if he had not declared it insufficient!
In places, even, as Kautsky shows, Bernstein applies this method with the most impermissible rudeness and one-
sidedness! Further, Bernstein's accusations are directed against
dialectics, which supposedly leads to arbitrary constructions, etc., etc. Bernstein repeats these phrases (which have
already become nauseating even to Russian readers), without making the slightest attempt to indicate wherein lies the incorrectness of
dialectics,—whether Hegel or Marx and Engels are guilty of methodological errors (and what
exactly). The only thing with which Bernstein tries to justify and support his opinion is an indication of the "tendency" of one of the concluding paragraphs
of *Das Kapital* (on the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation).
This accusation is worn out to the last degree: it was made by both Eugen Dühring 2) and Julius Wolf 3) and many
others in Germany, it was made (we add on our own) by Mr.
Yu. Zhukovsky in the 70s 4) and Mr. N. Mikhailovsky in the 90s
5) — the very same Mr. Mikhailovsky who once exposed
Mr. Yu. Zhukovsky for this accusation of acrobatics 6). And what
proof does Bernstein give in support of this worn-out nonsense?
Only the following: Marx began his "research" with already prepared conclusions, because *Das Kapital*
comes in 1867 to the same conclusion that was put forward by Marx back in the 40s. Such "proof"
is tantamount to distortion,—replies Kautsky,—because Marx based his conclusions not on one, but on two studies, as
he accurately stated in the preface to *Zur Kritik* (see
Russian translation: "Critique of Some Provisions of Political
Economy" 7)). The first study was conducted in the 40s,
after Marx left the editorial office of the *Rheinische Zeitung*.
Marx left the editorial office because he had to talk about material interests, and he realized his unpreparedness
for this. From the public arena,—Marx wrote about himself,—I withdrew
into the study room. Thus (Kautsky emphasizes with a hint at Bernstein), having doubted the correctness
of his judgments about material interests, in the correctness of the
then prevailing views on this issue, Marx did not consider of their doubts as so important as to write a whole
book about them, as to inform each and all of them. No, Marx un-
dertook to study in order to pass from doubting the old views
to some positive new views. He began to study
French social theories and English political economy. He became close to Engels, who was studying in detail
at that time The Actual Condition of the Working Class in England.
The result of this joint work, of this first research, were the well-known conclusions, which both writers set forth
with complete definiteness at the end of the 40s. From 1850 Marx
settled in London, and the favorable living conditions in London
for scientific pursuits prompted him "to set about studying the sub-
ject from the beginning and to proceed to a critical processing of the new
material" ("Cr[itique of] some] provisions]", 1st ed., p. XI.
Emphasis ours). The fruit of this second study, which lasted
for a long series of years, were the works: "Zur Kritik"
(1859) and "Das Kapital" (1867). The conclusion to which "Capital" came
coincides with the previous conclusion of the 40s, because the second
research confirmed the results of the first research.
("My views, however they may be judged, are the result of conscientious and long-term research," Marx wrote in
1859 (ibid., p. XII). Is it not true, asks Kautsky, how similar this is to conclusions prepared long before the study
itself?
From the question of dialectics Kautsky moves to the question
of value. Bernstein says that Marx's theory is not finished,
that it leaves many problems "by no means yet fully explained." Kautsky does not even think of denying this: the theory
of Marx is not the last word of science, he says. History brings with
it new facts and new ways of researching, requiring further development of theory. If Bernstein attempted to
use new facts and new ways of researching for the further development of theory, everyone would be grateful to him. But Bernstein does not even think of this, but
limits himself to cheap attacks on Marx's students and completely unclear, purely eclectic remarks of the kind that
the marginal utility theory of the Gossen-Jevons-Böhm school8)
is no less valid than Marx's labor theory of value.
Both theories retain their significance for different purposes — says
Bernstein, for Böhm-Bawerk has a priori the same right to abstract

REVIEW OF K. KAUTSKY'S BOOK from the property of goods that they are produced by labor,
as Marx — to abstract from their property that they are
utilities. Kautsky points out that it is completely absurd —
to consider two opposite, mutually exclusive theories suitable for different purposes (and Bernstein does not say
for what purposes one or the other theory is suitable). The question is
not at all about what property of goods we are entitled a priori
(von Hause aus) to abstract from, but about how to explain the basic
phenomena of modern society, based on the exchange of products,
how to explain the value of goods, the function of money, etc.
Let Marx's theory still leave a number of problems unexplained,
but Bernstein's theory of value is a problem that is already completely unexplained. Bernstein also quotes Buch 9), who
constructed the concept of "marginal density" of labor, but
Bernstein gives neither a complete exposition of Buch's views, nor
a definite statement of his opinion on the matter.
Buch, apparently, is confused in contradictions, making value
dependent on wages, and wages — dependent on value. Feeling the eclecticism of his remarks on
value, Bernstein tries to defend eclecticism in general. He
calls it "the rebellion of sober Understanding against the inherent
tendency of every dogma to compress thought into a narrow vice." If Bern-
stein remembers the history of thought — replies Kautsky, then he
will see that the great rebels against compressing thought into tight
vices were never eclectics, that the desire for unity, integrity of views was always inherent in them. The eclectic is
too timid to dare to rebel. After all, if I politely scrape before Marx and [then] at the same time
politely scrape before Böhm-Bawerk, then this is still very far from a rebellion! Let them name me, says Kautsky,
at least one eclectic in the republic of thought who would be
worthy of the name of rebel!
Moving from the method to the results of applying the method, K[aut-
sky] dwells on the so-called Zusammenbruchs theorie, the theory of collapse, of the sudden collapse of Western European
capitalism, a collapse that Marx supposedly considered inevitable
and linked it to a huge economic crisis.
Kautsky says and shows that Marx and Engels never put forward a special Zusammenbruchstheorie, never linked Zu-
sammenbruch necessarily with an economic crisis. This is — a distortion of opponents, who one-sidedly expound Marx's theory,
snatching isolated passages from isolated writings without meaning, in order to then victoriously refute the "one-sidedness" and "crudeness" of the theory. In fact, Marx and Engels
made the transformation of Western European economic relations
dependent on the maturity and strength of the classes put forward by the latest
history of Europe. Bernstein tried to assert that this is not Marx's theory, but Kautsky's interpretation and expansion of it,
but Kautsky with accurate quotations from the works of Marx of the 10s
and 60s, as well as an analysis of the basic ideas of Marxism,
completely refuted this truly quibbling trick of B[ern-
stein], who so unceremoniously accused Marx's students of "apologetics and quibbling." This place in Kautsky's book
is especially interesting, especially since some Russian
writers (e.g.[example], Mr. Bulgakov in the journal "Nachalo") 10) hurried
to repeat that distortion of Marx's theory that Bernstein presented
under the guise of "criticism" (Mr. Prokopovich also repeats this distortion
in his book "The Labor Movement in the West"
SPB. 1899).
Kautsky analyzes the main tendencies of modern economic development with particular thoroughness in order to refute
Bernstein's opinion that this development is not going in the
direction that Marx characterized.
It goes without say- ing that the chapter "Large and Small Production," as well as
other chapters of Kautsky's book devoted to political-economic
[analysis] *) and containing quite extensive numerical material, cannot be set forth here, and we have to limit
ourselves to a brief indication of their content. Kautsky emphasizes
that we are talking precisely about the direction of development in general
as a whole, not at all about details and superficial phenomena,
which cannot be taken into account in all their diversity
by any theory. (This [self-evident] simple, but often forgotten truth is reminded to the reader by Marx in the corresponding chapters of "Capital.") By a detailed analysis of the data
of the German industrial censuses of 1882 and 1895, Kautsky
shows that these data brilliantly confirmed Marx's theory
and put beyond any doubt the process of concentration of capi-

*) The word "analysis" is omitted by Lenin and inserted by an unknown hand. Ed.

REVIEW OF K. KAUTSKY’S BOOK tality and displacement of small production. Bernstein himself, back
in 1896 (when he himself still belonged—Kautsky ironically notes—
to the guild of apologists and quibblers), fully acknowledged this
fact, and now immeasurably exaggerates the power and significance of small production. For example, Bernstein estimates the number
of enterprises with fewer than 20 workers at several hundred thousand, “apparently adding an extra zero in his pessimistic zeal,”
because there are only 49,000 such enterprises in Germany. And besides, who isn’t counted by statistics as a small entrepreneur:
cab drivers and messengers and gravediggers and fruit peddlers and seamstresses, even if they work at home for a capitalist, etc.,
etc.! Let us note Kautsky's particularly important remark in theoretical terms, that small commercial and industrial enterprises (like
those mentioned above) are often, in capitalist society, only
one of the Forms of relative overpopulation: ruined small
producers, workers who cannot find employment turn (sometimes temporarily) into small traders, peddlers, renters
of apartments and corners (also “enterprises,” registered by statistics
on a par with all kinds of other enterprises!), etc.
Overcrowding in these professions does not indicate the vitality
of small production at all, but the growth of poverty in capitalist
society. But Bernstein emphasizes and exaggerates the significance of small “industrialists” when it speaks, in his
opinion, for him (in the matter of large and small production),
while remaining silent about them when it speaks against him (in the matter
of the growth of poverty).
Bernstein repeats arguments long known to the Russian public
that joint-stock companies “allow” capital to be broken up and “make unnecessary” its concentration, and
cites some figures (cf. No. 3 of “Life” for 1899) on the number
of small shares and ). Kautsky replies that these figures prove absolutely nothing, since small shares of different companies can be
the property of large capitalists (which Bernstein must admit). In support of the fact that joint-stock companies
increase the number of people of property, Bernstein provides absolutely
no evidence, and cannot provide it, because joint-stock
companies in fact serve to expropriate the trusting and small-propertied public in favor of large
capitalists and speculators. The growth in the number of shares only indicates that wealth tends to take the Form of shares,
but this growth says absolutely nothing about the distribution of wealth.
In general, Bernstein approached the question of increasing the number of people of property, the number of owners, with astonishing levity, which did not
prevent his bourgeois supporters from extolling precisely this
part of Bernstein's book and proclaiming that it was based on
"colossal numerical material." Bernstein turned out to be so
skilled, Kautsky ironically notes, that he placed this colossal
material on two pages! He confuses the wealthy and capitalists,
although no one denied the increase in the number of the latter.
He takes data on income tax, ignores the fiscal character of it, and the mixing of income from property with income from
salary, etc. He compares data obtained in different ways
(e.g., about Prussia) and therefore incomparable, from different times.
He even goes so far as to borrow figures on the growth in the number of people of property in England (and even prints these figures
in bold, as his main trump card!) from the feuilleton of some
street newspaper, singing the jubilee of Queen Victoria and
handling statistics lightly to the point of пес plus ultra!
The source of this information is unknown, and it is impossible to obtain such
information on the basis of English income tax data, because these data do not allow us to determine the number of payers
and the total income of each payer. Kautsky takes from Kolb’s book 12 ) data on the English income tax for 1812–
1847, and shows that they, just like Bernstein’s feuilleton data, show (as it were) the growth in the number
of people of property—and this during a period of terrible growth in the most terrible
poverty of the people in England! A detailed {analysis of Bernstein's data
leads Kautsky to the conclusion that Bernstein did not provide
a single figure that actually proves the growth in the number of people of property.
Bernstein also tries to derive this phenomenon theoretically:
capitalists, he says, cannot themselves consume the entire surplus
value, the amount of which is increasing so colossally;
therefore, the number of wealthy people consuming it is growing. Kautsky
has no great difficulty refuting this comical argument, which completely ignores Marx's theory of realization
(this theory has already been presented more than once in Russian literature).
It is especially interesting that Kautsky refutes it not only with theore-
tical arguments, but also with concrete data, testi-

REVIEW OF K. KAUTSKY’S BOOK fying to the growth of luxury and extravagance in Western European
countries, the influence of rapidly changing fashion, which so
exacerbates this process, the mass of unemployed, the enormous growth
of “productive consumption” of surplus value—i.e., the investment of capital in new enterprises, especially European
capital in railway and other enterprises in Russia, Asia,
Africa.
Bernstein declares Marx’s “theory of poverty” or “theory of impoverishment” abandoned by everyone. Kautsky shows that this
is again a distorted exaggeration of Marx’s opponents, who did not
put forward such a theory. Marx spoke of the growth of poverty,
humiliation, etc., pointing alongside this to a counteracting
tendency and those real social forces which alone can give rise to this tendency. Marx's words about the growth
of poverty are fully justified by reality: firstly, we actually see that capitalism tends to generate
and intensify poverty, which reaches enormous proportions
in the absence of the above-mentioned counteracting tendency.
Secondly, poverty grows not in the physical, but in the social
sense, i.e. in the [sense] *) of discrepancy between the rising
level of needs of the bourgeoisie and the needs of society as a whole
and the living standards of the working masses. Bernstein ridiculed
such an understanding of “poverty,” saying that this is an understanding in
the Pickwickian sense. Kautsky, in response to this, shows that
such people as Lassalle, Rodbertus, Engels stated with complete
certainty about the need to understand poverty not only
in the physical, but also in the social sense. In the “Pickwickian” club, —
he parries Bernstein's irony, — a not bad society, as you can see, gathers! Finally, thirdly, the words about the growth of poverty retain all their truth in relation to the “borderline areas”
of capitalism, understanding the word borderline both in the geographical
sense (countries into which capitalism is only beginning to penetrate,
often generating not only physical poverty, but also direct starvation of the masses of the population) and in the political-economic
sense (handicraft industry and, in general, sectors of the national
economy in which backward methods of production still prevail).

*) The words “in the sense” were omitted by Lenin in the manuscript and inserted
by an unknown hand. Ed.

Extremely interesting and especially instructive for us
Russians*) is also the chapter on the "new middle class." If Bernstein
wanted only to say that a new middle class – the intelligentsia – is appearing in place of the falling petty
producers, then he would be right, says Kautsky, and points out that he already
noted the importance of this phenomenon several years ago. Capitalism
in all areas of national labor is rapidly increasing the number of employees,
and is making an ever-increasing demand for the intelligentsia. The latter occupies a peculiar position
among other classes, partly adhering to the bourgeoisie in its
connections, views, etc., and partly to wage workers, as
capitalism increasingly deprives the intellectual of an independent
position, turning him into a dependent hired hand, threatening to lower his standard of living.
The transitional, unstable, contradictory position of the social stratum under consideration is reflected in the fact that those half-hearted, eclectic views, that hodgepodge of opposing principles and points of view, that
desire to rise in words to the sublime regions and to obscure with
phrases the conflicts of historical groups of the population, are especially
widespread among it – which Marx so mercilessly lashed with his sarcasms
half a century ago.
In the chapter on the theory of crises, Kautsky shows that Marx
did not at all put forward a "theory" about the ten-year cycle of industrial
crises, but merely stated the fact. The change in this cycle
in recent times was noted by Engels himself. It is said that
cartels of entrepreneurs can counteract crises by limiting and regulating production.
But here is America – a country of cartels, and instead of restriction, we see in it a huge growth
of production. Then, by restricting production for the domestic
market, cartels expand production for the foreign market,
selling goods at a loss on it and charging domestic consumers monopoly prices. With protectionism
this system is inevitable, and there is no reason to count on the replacement of protectionism
by a system of free trade. By closing small factories, concentrating and monopolizing production,
introducing improvements, cartels thereby significantly worsen

*) The words "for us Russians" are crossed out, and instead, an unknown
hand has written above them "not for Germans alone." Ed.

REVIEW OF K. KAUTSKY'S BOOK the position of producers. Bernstein thinks that speculation,
which generates crises, weakens as the conditions of the world
market turn from indefinite to definable and known; but he forgets that it is precisely the "indefinite" conditions
of new countries that give a huge impetus to speculation in old
countries. Kautsky shows with statistical data the growth
of speculation precisely in recent years, as well as the growth in the number of
signs foreshadowing a crisis in the not-too-distant future.
From the rest of Kautsky's book, we note the analysis of that
confusion into which people fall who confuse (like Mr.
S. Prokopovich, the aforementioned work *)) the economic power
of certain groups with their economic organizations, we note
Kautsky's indication that Bernstein elevates purely temporary
conditions of a given historical situation into a general law, – the refutation
of Bernstein's incorrect views on the essence of democracy, – an explanation of Bernstein's statistical error,
who compared the number of industrial workers in Germany
with the number of voters, forgetting the small detail that not all workers
enjoy the right to vote in Germany (but only men who have
reached 25 years of age) and that not all participate in elections. We can
only strongly recommend to the reader interested in the
question of the significance of Bernstein's book and the polemics about
it, to turn to German literature and in no case to trust those biased and one-sided reviews of supporters
of eclecticism, which predominate in Russian literature. We
have heard that part of the book by Kautsky under review is supposed
to be translated into Russian. This would be very desirable,
but it will not replace familiarity with the original.**)

*) The words "aforementioned work" are crossed out, and instead an unknown
hand has written above them "and others." Ed.
**) The article is signed by an unknown hand: "Vladimir
Ilyin." Ed.

1) Article by Antonio Labriola "A propos du livre Bernstetin" ("By the way about Bernstein's book") in the journal "Le Mouvement Socialiste" No. 8,
May 1, 1899, pp. 453-458.
2) Lenin has in mind E. Dühring's book "Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Sozialismus" Leipz. 1879, S. XIV + 574 ("Critical History of National Economy and Socialism").
3) Book by the German professor of political economy J. Wolf (born 1862) "Socialismus und kapitalistische Gesellschaftsordnung". Stuttgart 1892, S. 639 ("Socialism and the Capitalist Structure of Society").
4) Lenin has in mind Y. Zhukovsky's article "Karl Marx and his book on 'Capital'" in "Vestnik Evropy" No. 9, 1877.
5) Lenin has in mind N. K. Mikhailovsky's article in "Russkoye Bogatstvo" Nos. 10, 1893, Nos. 1, 2, 10, 1899, under the title "Literature and Life" (see Coll. Works of Mikhailovsky, vol. VII).
6) Lenin has in mind the article by B. K. Mikhailovsky "K. Marx before the court of Mr. Y. Zhukovsky" ("Otechestvennye Zapiski" No. 10, 1877, pp. 321-356).
7) Karl Marx "Critique of Some Positions of Political Economy". Translated from the German by P. P. Rumyantsev, edited by A. A. Matilov.
Published by Bonch-Bruevich. Moscow 1896. Pp. XII + 163.
8) Gossen, Hermann (1818-1858), Jevons, Williams (born 1835), Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914) – bourgeois economists, representatives of the so-called "Austrian school," attempting to explain all economic phenomena from the point of view of "subjective assessments" (the theory of "marginal utility").
9) Book by L. von Bortkiewicz «Über die Elemente der politischen Oekonomie». 1-te «Intensität der Arbeit. Wert und Preis der Waren» Leipzig. 1896. S. 240 («The Fundamental Elements of Political Economy». 1st «The intensity of labor. The value and price of goods». SPb. 1896).
10) Lenin has in mind Bulgakov's article: "On the question of the capitalist evolution of agriculture" ("Nachalo", Nos. 1-2, 1899, pp. 1-21).
11) Lenin has in mind S. Steinburg's review "A New Book on Historical Materialism" ("Zhizn" No. 3, 1899, pp. 358-371) of the aforementioned book by Bernstein.
12) Kolb's book "Handbuch der vergleichenden Statistik der Völkerzustands und Staatenkunde". S. XXIY+886. Leipz. 1875 ("Handbook of Comparative Statistics of the Situation of the People and the Study of the State").