War and revolution the case of Austria 1914-18

Marxist Theory · 1918-01-19

Core Argument¶

The central thesis is that the January 1918 general strike in Austria represented a genuine revolutionary opportunity — a moment when the objective conditions for proletarian revolution were fully present — but was deliberately derailed by the reformist leadership of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party (SDAP). The article argues that the failure of the Austrian revolution was not due to the absence of revolutionary conditions, but to the absence of a sufficiently developed subjective factor: a revolutionary party capable of providing leadership independent of the reformists. The Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917 is presented not as an isolated event but as the detonator for a European revolutionary wave, and the Austrian case is examined as a concrete demonstration of how reformist leaders consciously acted to prevent the working class from taking power, even when power was objectively within reach.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist understanding of revolution as a process requiring both objective and subjective conditions. It draws directly on Lenin’s distinction between a revolutionary situation (when the ruling class cannot rule in the old way and the masses will not live in the old way) and the conscious intervention of a revolutionary party capable of leading the masses to power. The article mobilises the concept of the subjective factor — the presence of a trained, centralised revolutionary leadership — as the decisive missing element in Austria.

The article also engages with the Marxist theory of the state, particularly the Leninist insistence that the working class cannot simply take over the existing state apparatus but must smash it. The SDAP’s refusal to pose the question of power, and its willingness to hand power back to the bourgeoisie after the monarchy fell, is presented as a betrayal rooted in the class character of the reformist leadership — a petty-bourgeois layer that feared revolution more than it hated capitalism.

The polemic against Karl Kautsky situates the article within the Leninist tradition’s break with centrism. Kautsky’s argument that the Bolsheviks’ gamble on European revolution had failed is refuted by pointing to the actual revolutionary movements in Austria and Germany — movements that were betrayed by the very Social Democratic leaders Kautsky defended. This places the article firmly in the tradition of the Third International’s critique of social chauvinism and centrist passivity.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article is published in July 2025, a moment when the international conjuncture is marked by the ongoing war in Ukraine, escalating geopolitical tensions between NATO and Russia, and deepening economic crisis across Europe. The parallels drawn are explicit: imperialist war creates the conditions for revolutionary upheaval, and the reformist leadership of the labour movement — whether social democratic or ostensibly left — will act to contain and betray that upheaval when it comes.

The article’s focus on the Habsburg Empire’s disintegration along national lines also resonates with the current fragmentation of multi-ethnic states and the resurgence of nationalist politics. The unresolved national question in Austria-Hungary is presented as a factor that accelerated the regime’s collapse, but which the reformists were unable or unwilling to address in a revolutionary way — a lesson for contemporary movements facing similar dynamics.

The specific data points — 750,000 workers on strike by 19 January 1918, the collapse of flour rations, the Emperor’s panicked telegram — serve to demonstrate that revolutionary situations arise from material desperation combined with political crisis at the top. The article implicitly argues that such conditions are again ripening in Europe, and that the task of building revolutionary parties capable of seizing the moment remains as urgent as it was in 1918.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The article is part of a broader corpus of historical analyses published by In Defence of Marxism that examine revolutionary moments and their betrayals. It connects directly to:

Other articles on the German Revolution of 1918-19, which examine the parallel betrayal by the SPD and the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
The IDOM magazine series on the history of the Third International, which situates the Austrian events within the broader struggle to build a revolutionary international after the collapse of the Second International.
Against the Stream episodes on the lessons of 1917-1923, which draw out the strategic implications for revolutionaries today.
The broader Marxist literature on the relationship between imperialist war and revolution, particularly Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and Trotsky’s The History of the Russian Revolution.

The article leaves open the question of how the Austrian Communist Party was eventually formed and how it navigated the subsequent revolutionary wave of 1919, including the short-lived Soviet Republic in Hungary. This is a natural continuation point for the argument.

Connections¶

Lenin, ‘To Franz Koritschoner’ — The letter quoted in the article, which criticises individual terrorism while defending Adler’s motives, and calls for systematic illegal work.
Trotsky, The Proletarian Revolution in Russia — Trotsky’s account of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations and their impact on the Austrian and German working class.
Otto Bauer, Die österreichische Revolution — The reformist’s own account, quoted to demonstrate the conscious refusal to escalate the strike into revolution.
Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat — The centrist polemic against Bolshevism, which the article refutes by pointing to the actual revolutionary movements in Europe.
Hans Hautmann, Die verlorene Räterepublik — The historical source for the Left Radicals’ leaflets and the details of the strike movement.

Key Quotes¶

“The objective conditions not only for a general strike but for a successful revolution existed everywhere. A popular saying in those days was: ‘Let’s talk Russian to our rulers!’”
“Otto Bauer, the theoretical leader of the left reformists (the ‘Austro-Marxists’), later wrote in his balance sheet on the Austrian Revolution: ‘We wanted the strike as a big revolutionary demonstration. The escalation of the strike to revolution itself, we could not want.’”
“The problem therefore was not the lack of revolutionary opportunities for the workers of Europe to take power, but the lack of the subjective factor – the presence of trained revolutionary parties and leaders capable of guiding these revolutions past the inevitable betrayals of the reformists.”
“The government became afraid that the revolutionary events in Russia could be repeated in Austria. They therefore decided to give the reformist leaders of the SDAP more freedom of action, in order to provide a safety valve to release some of the pressure building from below.”
“Kautsky shamefully hid the fact that the revolution did indeed spread to Russia’s neighbours in Europe, as the Bolsheviks predicted. And that it was precisely the reformist leaders of the Social Democracy who consciously betrayed the revolution when it first emerged in Austria in January 1918.”
“On the ground, power was in the hands of the working class, which was armed. But with the Social Democrats of both Austria and Germany thrust into government, their reformist leaders did everything possible to hand power back to the capitalists, confining the revolution to the establishment of a democratic republic.”