It has become customary to trace the deficiencies of Kautsky's ''ortho
dox Marxism'' to a reified social ontology that leaves no room for pol
itical will and secretes a separation of theory from practice. But thi
s sort of interpretation does not stand up to careful examination of K
autskyan texts and their insertion in the political context of the Ger
man Social-Democratic Party (SPD); it obscures, and hence risks reprod
ucing, the real theoretical and political limitations of Kautskyan ort
hodoxy. Bernstein's revisionist challenge counterposed social diversit
y and the diversification. of the working class to the orthodox thesis
of class polarization. Kautsky's failure to generate an innovative re
sponse is best explained as the product, not of a separation, but of t
he conjunction of an abstractly universalistic theorization of working
-class unity with the parliamentary political project of the SPD. This
union of theory and practice effectively depreciated any evidence of
the necessary unevenness and complexity of the process of working-clas
s unity and so, paradoxically, could reproduce divisions in the class.
The appreciation of unevenness and complexity that is required in ord
er to avoid the failures of Kautskyan orthodoxy suggests, in turn, a n
otion of the working-class movement as a unity-in-diversity, a communi
ty, and the need for a correspondingly rectified understanding of the
unity of theory and practice.