It is doubly and trebly stupid to speak in this connection of forms of government, since every child knows that monarchy and republic are two different forms of government. Yet Kautsky pretends not to know that these two forms of government, as well as all transitional forms of government under capitalism are but so many varieties of the bourgeois State, that is, of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Lastly, to speak of forms of governments is not only a stupid, but also a very crude falsification of Marx, who clearly spoke of this or other form of the State, and not of forms of government.
The proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois State machine and the creation, in its place, of a new one which, in the words of Engels, "no longer is a State in the proper sense of the word." But Kautsky's position as a renegade makes it necessary for him to try and hush up; and see what kind of tricks he has to employ for this purpose.
First trick: "That Marx did not have in view in this connection any form of government is proved by the fact that he was of the opinion that in England and America the transition can take place peacefully, that is, in a democratic way."
A form of government has nothing to do with the question, since there are monarchies which are not typical for the bourgeois State, as when, for instance, they have no militarism, and there are republics which are quite typical, that is, are accompanied by militarism and a bureaucracy. This is a universally known historical and political fact, and Kautsky will not succeed in perverting it. If Kautsky had wanted to reason in an honest and business-like fashion he would have asked himself: are there historical laws of revolution which know of no exception? And the reply would have been: no, no such laws exist. These laws only refer to what is typical, to
( 17 )
