1. I quote here from an unpublished statement of David Abraham’s research interests

2. SeeWinkler, Heinrich ed., Organisierter Kapitali mus: Voraussetzungen und Anfänge (Göttingen, 1974). W'inklers recent study of the labor movement in the foundation years of the Weimar Republic (the first of three gigantic volumes) can be regarded as the culmination of a long fifteen–year turn against the sixties enthusiasm for the RäteSeeVon der Revolution zur Stabilisierung. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1918 bis 1924 (Berlin/Bonn, 1984).Google Scholar

3. Luthardt, Wolfgang ed., Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterbewegung und Weimarer Republik: Materialien zur gesellschaftlichen Entwicklu 1927–1933, 2. (Frankfurt, 1978.Google ScholarA number of the authors in the Luthardt volumes have been affiliated with the Ebert-Stiftung.For an introduction to the work of the latter, see the annual volumes of theArchiv fiir Sozialgeschichte and Dieter Dowe, Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung in der Friedrich–Ebert–Stiftun (Bonn 1982.Google ScholarThe other major forum for work of this kind is thInternationale Wissenschafttiche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der Deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (IWK) based in Berlin.Both the Archiv (1961) and the IWK (1965) were launched in the 1960s, but graduated into major vehicles of research during the 1970s. It is also instructive to compare the approach of the contributors to the Luthardt volumes with the tenor of the celebrated fascism discussion in Das Argument in the 1960s, which rarely took SPD thinking seriously.See for comparison Beetham's, David valuable compilationMarxists in Face of Fascism: Writings by Marxists on Fascism from the Inter-War Perio ((Mancheste, 1983).Google Scholar

4. See here Salvadori, Massimo Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution 1880–1938 (London, 1979), and Geary, Richard J.“Karl Kautsky and the Development of Marxism”(Ph.D.diss., University of Cambridge, 1971), together with Steenson’s, Gary and Kautsky, Karl, 1854–1938: Marxism in the Classical Years (Pittsburgh, 1978).Google Scholar For Bo Gustafsson, BernsteinMarxismus und Revisionisms: Eduard Bernsteins Kritik des Marxismus und ihre ideengeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, 2.(Frankfurt, 1972), and Fletcher’s, Roger polemically disfigured but important Revisionism and Empire: Socialist Imperialism in Germany 1897–1914 (London, 1984).Google ScholarGoode, Patrick has edited a selection of readings from Kautsky, which goes some way to rectifying the extraordinary paucity of his works in English:Karl Kautsky: Selected Political Writing(London, 1983).For the Austro-Marxists seeBottomore, Tom and Goode, Patrick eds., Austro-Marxism(Oxford, 1978), and the valuable historiographical essay by Gruber, Helmut“History of the Austrian Working Class: Unity of Scholarship and Practice”, IL WCH, 24 (Fall 1983), 49–66.Google Scholar

5. Karl Kautsky, Salvadori and Claudin, Fernand“Democracy and Dictatorship in Lenin and Kautsky”, in New Left Review, 106(November–December 1977), 59–76.Google ScholarSee alsoHindess, BarryParliamentary Democracy and Socialist Politics (London, 1983); Lenin, A. J.Polan and the End of Politics(London, 1984);and most recently, Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London, 1985). These references are highly selective. An important revisionist view of the socialist tradition could also be abstracted from Hobsbawm’s, Eric writings on Gramsci, the PCI, and other national movements, too numerous to be mentioned here. For the wider context, see Eley, Geoff “Reading Gramsci in English: Observations on the Reception of Antonio Gramsci in the English-Speaking World 1957–1982, ” European History Quarterly, 14 (1984), 441–78.Google Scholar

6. Compare the tone and substance ofAnderson's, Perry early essay “Sweden:Mr.Crosland’s Dreamland,” and “Sweden II: Study in Social Democracy”, in New Left Review, 7 and 9 (January–February and May–June 1961), 4–12 and 34–45Google Scholar, with the more recent discussions by Pontusson, Christiansen, and Therborn: Jonus Pontusson “Behind and Beyond Social Democracy in Sweden,” in New Left Review, 143 (January-February 1984), 69–96; Niels Christiansen, “Denmark: End of the Idyll,” ibid., 144 (March-April 1984), 69–96; Niels Christiansen “Denmark: End of the Idyll,”ibid., 144 (March-April 1984), 5–32, Göran Therborn “The Prospects of Labour and the Transformation of Advanced Capitalism”, ibid., 145 (May-June 1984), 5–38, and “Why Some Classes Are More Successful than Others” ibid., 138 (March-April 1983), 37–55. A key text here is Gosta Esping-Anderson, Social Class, Social Democracy and Stale Policy: Party Policy and Party Decomposition in Denmark and Sweden (Copenhagen, 1980), but see the wider literature cited in Pontusson’s article.

7. The lines of intellectual affiliation here are extremely complex and would require an entire article in themselves. One runs through the Kapitalistate group inthe 1970s and the subsequent work of Erik Wright; another through the international and left poitical science connections of the European Center at Harvard; another through the cognate discussions of British-non-Marxist sociologists like Frank Parkin and Michael Mann; another through late-1970s discussions of corporatism; and still another through the work of Adam Przeworski at Chicago, where David Abraham himself was trained. The journal Politics Society has provided something of a meeting place for these. For another entry into this discourse, see the contributionsby Offe, Panitch, Sabel, Hunnius and the associated discussions inLiebich, Andréed., The Future of Socialism in Europe? (Montreal, 1979).The precise relationship between these related theoretical agendas and the “Gramscian” or “left-Eurocommunist” problematic currently influential in British Marxism (particularly associated with Marxism Today) would be well worth exploring.Google Scholar

8. Anderson, Esping, Social Class, Social Democracy and Slate Policy, 36.Google Scholar

9. The concept of populism provides a good insight into this contrast. As Abraham observes, the Godesberg departure ushered in an extremely diffuse notion of the SPD as a Volkspartei, in which the latter lost its connotations of combative populism and became all but devoid of specific theoretical content. In SPD usage it implied no notion of class alliances and popular democratic campaigning remotely resembling the Gramscian sense. Religion is a good example of this, because both the SPD and the PCI found themselves facing powerful Christian Democratic Parties with a popular Catholic base, and the efforts of, say, Herbert Wehner and Enrico Berlinguer to defuse their parties’ anticlerical reputations bear some superficial similarities. But where the SPD sought simply to take religion out of politics, the PCI has tried to make it a site of fruitful contradiction on which some fairly sophisticated ideological and cultural campaigns have been conducted. For some Eurocommunist discussions of the “popular,” see the following:Hall, Stuart“Notes on Deconstructing ‘the Popular,’ ” in Samuel, Raphael ed., People’s History and Socialist Theory(London, 1981), 227–40; Jessop, Bob“The Political Indeterminacy of Democracy” Hunt, Alan ed., Marxism and Democracy (London, 1980), 55–80Google ScholarMouffe, LaclauHegemony and SocialistStrategy; Patrick Wright, “A Blue Plaque for the Labour Movement? Some Political Meanings of the ‘National Past,’ ” in Formations of Nations and People (London, 1984), 42–65; Forgacs, David“National-Popular: Genealogy of a Concept ”Google Scholar, ibid., 83–98; Chambers, Iain and Curti, Lidia“A Volatile Alliance: Culture, Popular Culture and the Italian Left”Google Scholaribid., 99–121