Wang Xingping: The Theoretical Characteristics and Limitations of Austro-Marxism
Austro-Marxist national theory was initially proposed by the Austro-Marxist Karl Renner and systematically expounded by Otto Bauer. Theoretically, it belongs to a branch of Western Marxism, and it adopts national cultural autonomy as a program for governing national affairs within multi-ethnic states. For over a hundred years, this national theory has been highly controversial in both history and reality, theory and practice, having been subject to key critiques by Lenin and Stalin. After World War I, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire largely signified the failure of this theory; however, its influence never fully dissipated. Indeed, it received renewed attention in some countries following the drastic changes in Eastern Europe [1]. For instance, Estonia implemented the Law on Cultural Autonomy for National Minorities in 1993, and Russia promulgated the Law on National-Cultural Autonomy in 1996, using it as a legal basis for resolving domestic ethnic issues. Regarding Austro-Marxist national theory (Bauer’s national theory) and its core theory and practice of national cultural autonomy, the Chinese academic community has conducted research and analysis from multiple perspectives and put forward several insightful views. Among them, Ma Hong, Sun Jun, Meng Fei, and Wang Xingping have evaluated the theory of (Bauer's) national cultural autonomy, while Wang Li, He Junfang, Sun Lianqing, and Peng Qian have paid attention to and introduced the national cultural autonomy policies implemented by Russia in recent years. In this regard, the views of Mr. Wang Xien are quite representative. Addressing the phenomenon where "during the more than one hundred years from the Second International to the present era, the influence of national cultural autonomy has persisted like a continuous thread, to the point that voices calling for a re-recognition, evaluation, and even 'introduction' of national cultural autonomy have occasionally been heard in China in recent years," he analyzed the critiques of national cultural autonomy by Lenin and Stalin and emphasized the conclusive viewpoint that "national cultural autonomy must never become an option for our ethnic policy." Given this, the present article provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Austro-Marxist national theory (Bauer’s national theory) and the critiques leveled against it by Lenin and Stalin. Furthermore, it attempts to add a modest contribution to relevant research in the Chinese academic community by analyzing the theoretical characteristics and limitations of its theoretical matrix—namely, Austro-Marxism—a genealogical perspective that has yet to receive further attention from scholars.
I. The Emergence of Austro-Marxism
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, as capitalism transitioned from the stage of free competition to the stage of imperialism, Marxists following Marx and Engels engaged in fierce debates over the socio-political phenomena they faced, based on their respective positions. This led to the formation of various schools, such as the revolutionism represented by Lenin, the revisionism represented by Bernstein, and the eclecticism represented by Austro-Marxism. Among these, Austro-Marxism is a school of Marxism that has been highly controversial and widely influential. To traditional Marxists, Austro-Marxism was a synonym for the bourgeoisie and opportunism. In the eyes of Western scholars, however, Austro-Marxism produced many outstanding Marxist theorists and strategists.
On the eve of World War I, the American socialist Louis Boudin collectively referred to the intellectuals engaged in Marxist research in Austria as "Austro-Marxists." Later, the Marxist school that emerged and formed in Austria from the early 20th century to the 1930s became known as "Austro-Marxism." Most Austro-Marxists had their own theoretical specialties and made many exploratory attempts and contributions to the dissemination of Marxism and the use of Marxist theoretical methods to solve practical problems, producing several influential representative figures. Karl Renner served as a member of parliament for the Social Democratic Party before World War I and served as the first Chancellor and first President of Austria after both World War I and World War II. His positivist legal thought, which combined Marxism with the social role of Austrian law, made him the first person to conduct a Marxist legal positivist analysis. Rudolf Hilferding served as the Austrian Minister of Finance after World War I, formulating a series of financial policies based on his own economic theories. Hilferding studied the changes in capitalism in the new era and accurately analyzed the role played by finance capital in capitalist society; his theory of finance capital provided a direct theoretical source for Lenin's theory of imperialism. Max Adler primarily engaged in research on Marxist philosophy and methodology, proposing the famous theory of "socialized consciousness." Otto Bauer was a renowned theorist of the Austrian Social Democratic Party and served as the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs. He systematically studied the national question from both theoretical and strategic perspectives, offering numerous discourses on the concept of the nation, national formation, and national issues. Along with Karl Renner, he became a primary representative of the theory of national cultural autonomy. His national theory and the emphasized proposal of national cultural autonomy later became a highly influential school of Western Marxist national theory.
The main representatives of Austro-Marxism were adept at theoretical analysis, and most held important positions in government departments. They undertook various reform attempts to solve the national problems, worker education, public health, and medical services facing the country, and they participated in the formulation and implementation of many programs and policies of the Austrian Social Democratic Party. The Austro-Marxists applied Marxist theory and practice to social reality, providing theoretical sources and practical experience for later democratic socialism. Their strong academic and intellectual tendencies in fields such as ethnology, economics, law, and sociology had a profound impact on later Western Marxism and presented distinct theoretical characteristics.
II. The Theoretical Characteristics of Austro-Marxism
During the period of the Second International at the beginning of the 20th century, Marxism underwent a process of transformation from a traditional form to a modern form. This was mainly manifested in the shift from the monistic demand for class revolution to pluralistic considerations of nationality, democracy, and culture; from the general principles of revolutionary theory to specific social practical strategies; and from a focus on the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe to the East and colonial countries, among others. Against this background, Austro-Marxism, which emerged from the Second International, formed its own theoretical characteristics in the process of applying Marxist theory and methods to examine the reality of Austria.
First, treating Marxism as an empirical sociology for studying specific social problems. Regarding Marxism as an empirical sociology within the scope of experience and knowledge to study specific social problems is a distinct theoretical characteristic of Austro-Marxism. The reason Austro-Marxism differs from traditional Marxism-Leninism and constitutes a unique school is that it treated Marxism as an empirical sociology for researching specific social issues, thereby forming its own systematic theoretical innovations. The idea of using Marxism as an empirical method for studying specific social problems was first proposed by Carl Grünberg. Grünberg believed that Marxism is an empirical method for studying specific social issues, which needs to be fully demonstrated through research on concrete problems. This view of Grünberg’s was inherited by later Austro-Marxists, who proceeded to conduct empirical sociological analyses of specific social problems; he is thus known as the "Father of Austro-Marxism." Later, Max Adler absorbed the theory that "social existence determines social consciousness" from the Marxist historical materialist view of history and proposed the theory of "socialized consciousness." However, the "socialized consciousness" he summarized was different from the social consciousness built upon material relations of production referred to in classical Marxism; in fact, he reduced "socialized consciousness" to subjective consciousness. Based on the Marxist theory of the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, Karl Renner "systematically discussed the empirical and positive relationship between law, economy, and society, enriching the architectural metaphor in classical Marxist theory through detailed empirical investigation. This analytical research, possessing a strong positivist and empirical character, opened up a new direction." Otto Bauer, meanwhile, conducted historical and economic analyses of the national question. His analysis of national formation, national change, and national consciousness was built upon the production changes of capitalist industrialization, which was influenced to a certain extent by Marxist historical materialism.
Second, an eclecticism that seeks reconciliation and unity amid diversity. Compared to Lenin's revolutionism and Bernstein's revisionism, Austro-Marxism exhibited typical eclectic characteristics, striving to seek reconciliation and unity from a diversity of different theoretical trends, which was reflected in its political strategies and proposals. Although Austro-Marxists had different fields of research and expertise, they tended to seek synthesis and unity among various theoretical resources, social trends, and schools. This emphasis on synthesis and unity was first a reflection of the geography and cultural traditions of Austria as a Central European country. Situated in Central Europe, Austria was simultaneously influenced by Eastern and Western Europe in terms of politics, culture, and social development. Under the influence of developed Western European countries, the Austro-Hungarian Empire established a capitalist industrial system as early as the mid-19th century and began implementing universal suffrage in the 1880s—something the other empires did not have. As the capital, Vienna was a truly international metropolis; scholars, politicians, and merchants from all nations seemed able to find their spiritual home in this cultural capital, experiencing the exchange and collision of different cultures and ideas. This cultural environment ensured that from the beginning, Austro-Marxism possessed characteristics different from the Marxism of other countries—namely, a unity of multiple trends of thought and viewpoints. As Bauer said, "If Marx and Engels came from Hegel, and later Marxists came from materialism, then the young 'Austro-Marxist school' came partly from Kant and partly from Mach." In fact, various trends such as Mach’s theory of empirical elements, Kant’s transcendental epistemology, ethical socialism, Hegelian philosophy, and positivism were all reflected in Austro-Marxism. Max Adler’s theory of "socialized consciousness" was a synthesis of the social nature of the human being in Marxism and Kantian transcendentalism; Bauer’s theories of national evolutionary politics, integral socialism, and the equilibrium of class forces were a synthesis of revolutionism and revisionism. Seeking unity amid diversity was the primary goal of Austro-Marxism. This goal was both a reflection of the Austro-Marxists' "Habsburg Empire sentiment" and the result of their attempt to seek reconciliation between revolutionism and revisionism. It was precisely this reconciliation that led them to choose an eclectic path. However, this eclecticism was sometimes a strategic choice to avoid conflict and achieve compromise, while at other times it often became a tool for the struggles and exploitation of powerful forces. For example, the core proposal of Austro-Marxist national theory—national cultural autonomy—was an embodiment of this eclecticism. It attempted to seek a compromise between maintaining the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire and addressing the rising calls for national self-determination within its borders; the result was destined for failure. Even when the working class had formed a united force against Fascism, the Austrian Social Democratic Party, led by Bauer, still did not dare to take action, instead fantasizing about opposing Fascist forces through a balance of power. Consequently, they missed the excellent opportunity for a working-class uprising, were eventually suppressed by Fascist forces, and were forced into exile, leading to the dissolution of Austro-Marxism as a unified school.
Third, it possesses a scientistic preference for empiricism. Scientism, also known as pan-scientificism, was a social trend with broad influence in Europe during the late 19th century. Originating from the Second Industrial Revolution sparked by the discovery and application of science and technology, it prevailed in the natural sciences. Scientism and its many achievements also profoundly influenced the social sciences. It was against this backdrop that the Vienna Circle and logical positivism emerged in Austria; Austro-Marxism, in turn, applied empirical research methods to fields such as ethnology and economics. "Most thinkers, including the Austro-Marxists, were full of affinity for positivism and the subsequent logical positivism." Through empirical research, they discovered the new characteristics and shifts appearing in capitalism across political, economic, cultural, and ideological dimensions. In this sense, empirical research "not only promoted systematic 'Marx studies' worldwide but also became a pioneer of later Western 'Marxology'." Overall, however, Austro-Marxism’s absorption of Western scientific trends came at the cost of abandoning the Marxist class standpoint and betraying the interests of the proletariat, which fundamentally deviated from the basic nature of Marxism. Although they still maintained a critique of capitalism, this critique did not translate into practical revolutionary action; instead, it tilted toward intellectualization and empiricization. "They completely equated Marx’s classic critique of capitalism with empirical capitalist political economy, treating the ideal model of the capitalist mode of production established by Marx in Capital either as an abstract commonality of various empirical forms of real-world capitalism, or as a 'working hypothesis' proposed for the study of those forms." The Austro-Marxists saw the gap between traditional Marxism and capitalist reality, but their empirical preference prevented them from seeing that the essence of Marxism lies not in the empirical description of capitalism, but in its essential critique. It was precisely this empirical preference—getting bogged down in specific issues—that caused them to ignore the revolutionary essence and theoretical generalizability of Marxism as it conforms to historical trends, leading them to become "echo-worms" [2] for capitalist social theory and official propaganda. The "national-cultural autonomy" advocated by Austro-Marxist national theory fully embodies this limitation.
III. The Theoretical Limitations of Austro-Marxism
Austro-Marxism treated Marxism as a theory for analyzing capitalist society. Methodologically, it inherited the academic nature of Marxism while simultaneously carving out a path distinct from traditional Marxism, thereby forming a new school. Most Austro-Marxists were intellectuals with theoretical cultivation; they possessed both an academic sensitivity to social problems and the passion and political experience of statesmen. This gave them the opportunity to transform their theoretical views into specific national policies, thereby realizing the "unity" of "explaining the world" and "changing the world"—that is, the unity of theory and practice. However, the theoretical characteristics of Austro-Marxism determined its inherent limitations to a certain extent.
First, the Austro-Marxists transformed the Marxist historical materialism from a theory of proletarian revolution into a branch of knowledge and empirical sociology for analyzing society, thereby stripping Marxism of its theoretical essence. The emergence of Marxism was both a result of the internal contradictions of capitalist society and a theoretical requirement of the proletarian movement. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement within capitalist society and a spiritual weapon against capitalism, while the proletariat is the material weapon against capitalism. By turning Marxism into an empirical sociology for analyzing society, Austro-Marxism fundamentally deviated from the class character and revolutionary nature of Marxism. Because of this deviation, they confined themselves to engaging in strategic struggles within the capitalist democratic system, becoming obsessed with capitalist parliamentary democracy, which led them toward opportunism and reformism, and eventually into the embrace of the bourgeoisie. In this regard, Lenin’s critique hit the nail on the head: "Haase and Kautsky, Friedrich Adler and Otto Bauer can go on talking in circles, writing volumes, and making endless speeches, but they cannot escape the fact that they have actually revealed their total ignorance of the dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power; they are in fact petty-bourgeois democrats, 'socialists' of the Louis Blanc and Ledru-Rollin type, and at best they are mere playthings in the hands of the bourgeoisie—at worst, lackeys directly serving the bourgeoisie." In his analysis of the relationship between class consciousness and national consciousness, Bauer was confined by the local perspective of empirical sociology and was unable to comprehensively understand the links and differences between the class question and the national question. Bauer believed that national consciousness, rather than class consciousness, is what people form first in their lives. Bauer’s empirical identification of national consciousness was not without reason; he simply failed to understand that the Marxist method of class analysis is not an empirical description of people's actual social relations, but a division of groups based on social relations. The purpose of this division is to reveal the relationship between the ruler and the ruled under class domination, whereas national consciousness happens to obscure this social relationship. This is also why classical Marxism maintains that national contradictions are, in the final analysis, class contradictions.
Second, Austro-Marxism was formed and developed by a group of intellectuals through the founding of journals and under the influence of the trend of empirical science. This determined their empiricized and academicized stance toward Marxism, which led to an inversion of Marxism in terms of both method and purpose. Marxism itself does indeed require academic depth, but the purpose of academic requirements is to serve the liberation of the proletariat and humanity. If this goal is forgotten, the so-called revolution is merely a theoretical revolution. Recalling his encounter with the Austro-Marxists in Vienna, Trotsky said: "These were very highly educated people who knew more about many fields than I did. I listened to their first conversations at the 'Central' Café with full attention, almost, one might say, with reverence. But soon, my attentiveness was mixed with bewilderment. These people were not revolutionaries. Moreover, they belonged to the very type that is the exact opposite of a revolutionary." What they truly cared about was not the working class; rather, it was their own reputations and social status. Bebel’s 1885 criticism of the petty-bourgeois habits of Members of Parliament was not misplaced when applied to them: they "forgot their own proletarian origins. Parliamentary seats satisfied their ambition and their vanity; they were quite content to think of themselves as belonging to the 'elite of the nation,' found the parliamentary comedy delightful, and took it very seriously... they also became alienated from practical life and did not know what it was actually like." National-cultural autonomy likewise reflects this inversion of method and purpose, attempting to reconcile long-standing national oppression and national contradictions within a multi-ethnic feudal empire, while forgetting the basic principles of Marxist national theory and the historical mission of supporting the liberation of oppressed nations.
Third, the Austro-Marxists were confined within the ruts of the Western rationalist tradition, failing to see the revolutionary transformation of Western traditional rationalism brought about by Marxism. Marxism broke through the objective realism based on reason in the Western tradition, taking human sensuous activity—that is, practice—as its starting point. Based on the fundamental principles of historical materialism, the classical Marxist writers found the key to revealing the development of social history: the dialectical relationship between the productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, thereby pointing the way for the proletarian revolution. The contribution of historical materialism lies in the discovery of the irrational aspects within the realm of actual material production, outside of Western traditional rationalism (i.e., metaphysics). This refers to the unequal relations—social power relations—hidden by capital in the form of equivalent exchange. These power relations manifest as "past labor accumulated in the form of money (i.e., capital) dominating current living labor (i.e., the life activity of the worker). The relationship between domination and being dominated is power. Power is not a rational relationship, but a sensuous one." The irrational characteristic of power dictates that it can only be dismantled through irrational means—that is, revolution—just as Marx said, "material force must be overthrown by material force." Being confined within Western traditional rationalism meant that the Austro-Marxists remained bound by the logic of capital; regardless of their practical efforts or theoretical sophistication, they could not stop themselves from degenerating into bourgeois opportunism and reformism. It was precisely because Lenin and Stalin recognized this that they severely criticized Austro-Marxism, particularly the highly influential national theory of Bauer.
IV. Lenin and Stalin’s Critique of Bauer’s National Theory
In the early 20th century, the national theory of Bauer and other representative figures of Austro-Marxism, along with the program of national-cultural autonomy they proposed, caused a strong reaction within the Social Democratic parties of various European countries. It gained particular support from the Russian Bundists. Because it "seriously blurred the class perspective in the proletarian revolution and became a major ideological obstacle to Marxist parties in formulating national programs," Lenin and Stalin subjected it to a comprehensive critique.
First was the critique of Bauer's concept of the "nation." Concepts are the fulcrum of theory. Bauer believed that "a nation is the totality of people bound together into a community of character by a community of fate." This might be called the core of Bauer’s national doctrine. In response, Stalin pointed out in Marxism and the National Question in 1913: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." Stalin criticized Bauer’s so-called "community of national character" as a concept divorced from reality; it merely reflected an abstract character and failed to recognize that any national character is formed under specific historical conditions and life experiences. Taking an abstract community of character as the core of the national concept was, in essence, a manifestation of idealism. Conversely, Stalin believed that a nation is based on "a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture," which fully embodies an understanding of the core essence of a nation; it is the manifestation of "social existence determines social consciousness" in the concept of the nation. Stalin’s critique of Bauer’s concept of the nation reflected the fundamental difference in class attributes and standpoints between materialism and idealism. Austro-Marxist theory was deeply influenced by bourgeois idealist theories such as Kantianism and Machism, whereas Marxism is the philosophical expression of the proletariat and materialism. Stalin’s purpose in criticizing the idealistic nature of Bauer’s national concept was to expose its bourgeois nature, which attempted to cover up the core essence and class attributes of the nation. As is well known, Stalin's definition of the nation and his critique of Bauer's concept were highly praised by Lenin; possessing political, logical, and academic depth, they became a core concept and classic discourse of Marxist national theory.
Second, he critiqued national cultural autonomy as the "most refined" and "most harmful" nationalism of the bourgeoisie. National cultural autonomy is the core content of Bauer's [4] national theory; its main thrust is to satisfy the demands of national freedom and cultural development solely through cultural autonomy. It attempted to realize the transition from a traditional feudal system to a modern democratic system while maintaining the unity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This clearly ran counter to the revolutionary requirements and the trends of the times regarding national liberation and independence—namely, national self-determination. It obscured the class essence of protecting ruling interests, which is why Lenin criticized it as the "most refined" and thus the "most harmful" nationalism. It is called the most refined nationalism because Bauer’s national theory is a theoretical system constructed from national concepts, national sentiments, national evaluation, and national consciousness. In his analysis of the evolution of the national community, Bauer utilized the Marxist theory of historical stages to divide it into different phases: the primitive clan community, the feudal knightly cultural community, the bourgeois national cultural community, and the socialist labor community, reflecting the historical and social nature of national development. Within his theory of national cultural autonomy, he also proposed the non-territorial principle, national cultural equality, and the free choice of the national individual, expressing a pursuit of national liberalism and multiculturalism. It was precisely this refinement that allowed Bauer's national theory and his advocacy for national cultural autonomy to gain support from Social Democratic parties across European countries. Through his critique of national cultural autonomy, Lenin "not only effectively guided the practice of the Russian proletarian revolutionary struggle, but also greatly inspired and supported the national liberation movements of the vast oppressed nations of the world." Lenin criticized national cultural autonomy as a bourgeois national theory because it merely served as a national strategy for bourgeois rule. The so-called national freedom and national equality mentioned in Bauer’s proposal were, in essence, a reproduction of the bourgeois view of liberty and equality.
Third, he critiqued the opportunist line of Bauer’s national theory. At the beginning of the 20th century, national contradictions in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were prominent, and class contradictions were acute. In this context, the national theory proposed by Bauer hoped to realize the freedom and equality of all nationalities and the right to develop their own languages and cultures through the form of parliamentary democracy, while maintaining national unity. Lenin criticized Bauer's national theory and his obsession with parliamentary democracy as opportunist democracy, which is essentially restricted to the bourgeois scope; it "drags a correct democratic demand backward into peaceful capitalism instead of pushing it forward toward social revolution." Clad in the garb of Marxism, Bauer ultimately failed to escape the shackles of opportunism and took the path of reformism, attempting to resolve the deep-seated national problems of the Austro-Hungarian Empire through national cultural autonomy and capitalist parliamentary democracy. This was not only a betrayal of the Marxist theory of national self-determination but also a futile opportunist line. This indicates that "he completely failed to see the shifts of the era and the world-historical significance of the liberation of oppressed nations in the East; domestically, he attempted to reconcile national contradictions through reformist methods to maintain the multi-national Austro-Hungarian Empire."
Fourth, he critiqued Bauer’s national theory for violating the principle of proletarian internationalism. In The National Question and Social Democracy, Bauer wrote: "We fulfill our national task by leading the proletariat in the struggle against the class state and class society. The internationalist principle required for the proletarian struggle is therefore also a means of our national policy." However, the essence of Bauer's national theory was a departure from proletarian internationalism. "Workers of the world, unite!"—this is the fundamental spirit of proletarian internationalism. The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is world-historical; it cannot be completed by any single country or nation alone. Based on the righteous demands of the proletarian revolution and the liberation struggle of oppressed nations, Lenin insisted on national self-determination under the leadership of the proletarian party and opposed the theory of national cultural autonomy. He believed that the proletarian party must unite the national liberation struggle of oppressed nations against imperialism with the proletarian revolutionary struggle. Western scholars have pointed out that "Bauer's national theory attempted to sustain the system of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by implementing cultural autonomy, thereby satisfying the demands for democratic rights and free cultural development of various nations without changing the state system," which clearly ran counter to the historical trend of national self-determination for oppressed nations. After World War I, various nations within the Austro-Hungarian Empire became independent one after another and established their own nation-states; the empire eventually collapsed. This fully confirmed the profound insight and foresight of Lenin’s critique of Bauer’s national theory.
V. Conclusion
As a product of Austrian cultural and historical traditions, Marxism, and various Western trends of thought, Austro-Marxism developed its own theoretical characteristics and limitations in the process of solving specific social problems. Austro-Marxism treated Marxism as an empirical sociology for solving social problems, reducing it to a mere sociological theory and neglecting the theoretical quality of the Marxist theory of national self-determination and the pursuit of human liberation. Immersed in the background of pluralistic unity in Austrian history and cultural tradition, Austro-Marxism attempted to seek reconciliation and unity among various political trends and social forces, which manifested politically as eclecticism. Influenced by positivism, Austro-Marxists remained confined within rationalism and failed to see the revolution Marxism brought to traditional Western rationalism. It was precisely this limitation that led them to indulge in the illusions of the bourgeois parliamentary democratic system, reformism, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
The theoretical characteristics and limitations of Austro-Marxism deeply influenced Austro-Marxist national theory; Bauer’s national theory is a typical expression of this empirical sociology, eclecticism, and rationalism regarding the national question. Based on the standpoint of proletarian revolution, Lenin and Stalin carried out a comprehensive critique of it, exposing its inherent attributes of bourgeois reformism and opportunism. Since the end of the 20th century, with changes in inter-ethnic politics worldwide and the increasing prominence of governance issues regarding national affairs in multi-national states, Austro-Marxist national theory, as one of the important schools of modern national theory, has regained attention. It has also provided space for some in Chinese academic circles to imagine the theory and practice of governing national affairs. History and reality have repeatedly proved the correctness of adhering to the path of resolving national problems with Chinese characteristics, because "the Marxist views of the state, nation, culture, and history have revealed the foundation and direction of the ideological basis of the community of the Chinese nation, serving as the guide and support for the construction of the community of the Chinese nation." Therefore, "national cultural autonomy can never become an option for our national policy." After all, Bauer’s national theory, with national cultural autonomy as its core content, was not only "falsified" by the critiques of Lenin and Stalin, but even its theoretical progenitor, Austro-Marxism, possesses unavoidable limitations.