487653

8/2/2019 487653

1/13

Introduction to "What Is Socialization?"

Author(s): Gian Enrico Rusconi and Patricia TummonsReviewed work(s):Source: New German Critique, No. 6 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 48-59Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487653 .

Accessed: 26/03/2012 13:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New German Critique andDuke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toNew German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487653?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487653?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc

8/2/2019 487653

2/13

Introduction to "WhatIs Socialization?"*by Gian Enrico Rusconi

Korsch's"What Is Socialization?"was originally published in Hannover inMay, 1919. Composedin brief paragraphs of an almost didactic character, itdefines socialization as the "new regulation of production with the goal ofreplacing private capitalist economy with a socialist communal economy. Itsfirst phase consists of the socialization of the means of production and theresulting emancipation of labor. Its second phase consists of the socializationof labor." In a Marxist sense, the emphasis is placed on production "as theessence of social relations."Hence, production cannot be dealt with privately,as the capitalist would want, but must be seen as a "public affair of theproducing and consuming whole." Having rapidly focused on the concepts ofthe means of production, capital and wage labor, Korsch arrives at the two"differentpaths"toward socializing the means of production. One abolishesprivate power over the means of production for the benefit of the public; theother regulates and limits ownership by means of public laws, with specificpublic organizations participating in management. The latter is thusconcerned with placing production "under the control of the collectivity"without moving on to expropriation. This is Bernstein's solution. Korschrejectsit, because it is inadequate in terms of the ultimate goal. According tohim, it does not differ substantially from other forms of pseudo-socializationsuch as the joint stockcompany, the subdivision of large holdings into smallerones, profit-sharing, and even "industrial democracy," limited to mererepresentation without any decision-making powers. All of these measuresdeal with "social politics" but not with "socialization." In fact, doing awaywith the private capitalist is only a precondition for socialization, sinceproduction still remains under the control of a restrictedgroup of producers.This new type of "particular"ownershipmust be regulated so that it will notsimply displace "private"property. Thus we are at the center of the conflictbetween producers' and consumers' interests, between "particular" and"universal"interests. The danger of a new type of producer capitalism(production cooperatives) cannot be overcome by opposing forms of aconsumer capitalism (state capitalism, consumers'associations). "The goal of

*Originally published in Annali Feltrinelli (1973), pp. 1208-1218.

8/2/2019 487653

3/13

INTRODUCTION TO KORSCH 49

socialization in the spirit of socialism, however, is neither consumercapitalism nor producer capitalism, but rather true community property forthe totality of producers and consumers." The producers' rights to the fruitsof their labor and to control their work processesmust be reconciled with theconsumers'rights to share in the goods for the benefit of the collective and tocontrol the productive processes through public organizations. It is aquestion, then, of how to integrate such socializing forms as nationalizationwith syndicalism.lThus, Korsch postulates the transition from private to socialist ownershipthrough a phase of "particular"ownership held by the producers or by stateconsumer representatives and regulated by a "social policy" which wouldcorrect the two types of particularism in the interests of the collective. Inother words, "the means of production are transferred out of the powersphere of individual, private owners into the power sphere of some sort ofsocial functionaries and... there is a public, legal limitation on the powerprivileges of the present directors of social production in the interest of thetotality." This form of equilibrium should guarantee "industrialautonomy":a convergence of both universal criteria and particularistic stimuli whichassures economic efficiency and workers' active participation. This formulaseeks to overcome the defects in economic functioning--denounced by theopponents of socialism-of bureaucratization, centralization, and lack ofincentive.

Broadly outlining the proposal for socialization, Korsch does not deal withdetails. His proposal is substantially a gradualist one, even if it is firmconcerning ultimate objectives. He accepts the survival of egoistic groupincentive during the transition period, the continuation of different payscales according to performance, etc. In order to attain a socialistcommunity, a political and cultural maturation is required which cannotresult from such a brief preparatory period. At this point, however, theKorschian proposal shows its fundamental limitations at the theoretical aswell as at the political level. The concluding paragraph of the essay,significantly entitled "What Should We do?-Educating for Socialism,"contains the only political indications of the whole essay. It anticipates: (a)1. In this context Korsch observesthat "Wage labor is not in itself incompatible with socialistcommunal economy... [it] is only a technical form of distribution of profits of production"("What Is Socialization?"pp. 13-14). Further, the form of syndicalist socialization does not byitself guarantee an effective control over production as a technological fact (means andconditions of work) which is instead the essential condition for a new socialist mode of

production. These are two marginal observations which, however, reveal, in case it would benecessary,how the anarcho-syndicalist nfluence in these writings is contained within a domain ofpolitical realism deriving from various sources.

8/2/2019 487653

4/13

50 NEW GERMANCRITIQUE

"political action" through state legislation and municipal ordinances; (b) thepromulgation of cooperatives; and (c) workers'and trade union action in thebroad sense which, through the instruments of collective bargaining andparticipation in factory management, would transform industrial ownershipfrom within. As a "consciouscarrying out" of these actions, Korsch refers tothe expropriation undertaken "according to the program of the SpartacusLeague." "This last means holds no terror for those who affirm the ideal ofsocialism. It is not a means of socialization to be condemned on the basis ofsome kind of moral precept; not any more than political revolution is amorally objectionable means of political emancipation. On the contrary, thisgeneral and 'direct' action of the working class has the particular, invaluableadvantage over the other methods of socializing, in that in the struggle tocreate the socialist economic order, it evokes and develops most strongly andmost powerfully those psychic impulses in the proletariat, without whichsuch an economy can ultimately not exist, much less develop from the first tothe higher phase of communal economy."This is a passage which deserves close scrutiny. First, Korsch does not seethat the Spartacist action is de facto incompatible with the legal politicalprogram, which a posteriori would have to recognize and legalize the acts of"wild"or--as Korschput it, "extra-political" socialization. Korschdoes notgrasp the political and theoretical roots of the contrast between the legalistsocial democratic strategy and the direct revolutionary strategy of theSpartacistsor of the more radical left wing of the independents. If we stop toexamine the words used here, we discover that direct action is consideredprimarily as an expression and stimulus of moral and psychological energiesindispensable for the creation of a socialist economy. It is a pedagogic, not apolitical, operation. In these direct actions, we are still a long way fromspecifying what subjects and what political forms will push the revolutionforward. It is symptomatic that the concept of the "political" in the strictsense is relegated to formal and official initiatives of constituted power to thepoint that, in the event that such power withholds its consent, the transitionto a socialist economy seems postponed until a long, educative process foryounger generations has taken place.Korsch is not aware of these contradictions. Yet, it will be primarily thesecontradictions between the objective necessity of civilization and the lack ofpolitical will which will stimulate the process of his political radicalization.For the moment, even when he decisively distances himself from meretechnocratic and moralistic conceptions of socialization, he still remains toovague from a political viewpoint and too uncertain from a theoretical one.Debates with writers of a social democratic leaning, from which Korschhimself comes, will later help Korsch to clarify things.

8/2/2019 487653

5/13

INTRODUCTION OKORSCH 51

The essay "What Is Socialization?"catches not only Wilbrandt's attention,but also that of the Secretary of the Commission for Socialization, EdwardHeimann, author of an article in the Archiv ffir Sozialwissenschaft undSozialpolitik which has recently been called "perhaps the clearest and mostpenetrating contribution to the economic problems of socialism to appear inthe wake of the November Revolution."2 A detailed analysis of this work,which would have to be framed within sociological and economic studies of aperiod much richer than would initially be suspected, would lead us too farafield. We will only deal with some observations related to the Korschiandiscourse.Writing in April, 1919 Heimann begins by noting the colossal delay andbackwardnessof revolutionary achievements in comparison with what couldhave been expected in November 1918. He (even hel) denounces the lack ofsocialist programsbut, unlike Korsch, holds that Kautskyhad viable premisesfor a program. He vehemently attacks one of the fatal axioms paralyzing eventhe most enthusiastic social democrats, i.e., the idea that full economic

recoveryis a condition for socialization. Against this idea Heimann maintainsthat times of economic stagnation make expropriation all the easier, andlikewise the recoveryof discipline in labor, owing precisely to the stimulationof socialization. The inability to conceive of socialization as a decisive politicalact affecting the productive system and not the form of distribution is to beblamed on German socialism's traditional lack of preparation, on its"overestimation of automatic development, and on the needs andconvenience of party agitational forces which became exhausted in thecritique of the status quo and in rash promises."3 Heimann then moves on tobroadly elaborate everything from the idea of "guilds" as the guidingprinciple of a new productive organization, to specific themes and problemsof nationalization, with direct reference to the activity of the Commission forSocialization. The point, though, which typifies his position and thus acertain scientific and political ambience as well, is the rejection of workers'councils as organs of management. Drawing from the Bolshevik experience,Heimann reiterates the need for absolute managerial autonomy with respectto the "incompetent" councils. He concedes that they can perform veryimportant functions as members of the managing whole, collaboratingprimarily on issues dealing with working conditions. In order to do so, theycertainly require an overall view of the operation of the enterprise (a right toinformation), as long as this does not disturb management's administrative

2. Peter v. Oertzen, Die Probleme der wirtschaftlichenNeuordnung und der Mitbestimmungin der Revolution von 1918 (Frankfurt am Main, n.d.), p. 115.3. EduardHeimann, "Die Sozialisierung,"in Archivfitr Sozialwissenschaftund Sozialpolitik,45, 3 (1919), 540.

8/2/2019 487653

6/13

52 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

autonomy. Heimann'sposition is not purely to conserve the old structures: inperspectivehe seesjoining a council (with the above-mentioned functions) toeverytechnical sector of the enterpriseso as to create, step by step, a pyramidorganization culminating in a central council, a "parliament of guilds":"Since the nomination of top directors takes place in this parliament of theguilds, the circle is closed."4 As in the circulation of the human organism, thesystemmoves from the lowest units of the enterprise through the council, upto the parliament of guilds then descends from the general director throughthe regional and managerial functionaries down to the last worker. All this,however, takesplace within a rigorous separation of technical-productive and"democratic" tasks.As Heimann reiterates, "Conceptually, the council system has nothing todo with socialization.""Companycouncils arenecessary,not because socialismis socialist, but because it is also democratic, because it wants theparticipation of all citizens and the choice among them. They are completelydefined in and limited by the expression 'company democracy.' Socialization,on the other hand, is a rational systemof organizational measures. It can wellbe imagined that, in an absolutely pure form, socialization is decreed andrealized in an authoritarianway: the abolition of all private ownershipof themeans of production and of all profits; organization of the economy from thebottom up; the substitution of the free market with organized binding ofpurchasesto sales. Therefore, if the introduction and the strengthening of thecouncils often seems the main content of the concept of 'socialization,'this is adistortion typical of the lack of understanding of the essence of socialism anddamaging to its clarity, without compromising the fact that democratizationbecomes all the more important psychologically than socialization, the lessthat the latter initially alters the condition of the individual worker."5The distinction between socialization and democratization could not havebeen expressed more obstinately. The ethical pathos behind Heimann'sattitude, which leads him to talk about the "ascetic character" ofsocialization, is the correlate of close attention having been paid topsychological phenomena, accompanying industrial development, which canbe ideologically and politically translated by the term "syndicalism."Heimann reproaches historical materialism for having ignored completelyproblems connected with the psychological structure of behavior.Mechanization has irreversiblydeformed the vital relationship of the workerto the object of his labor, his tools. The psychological uneasiness whichderivesfrom this will not be overcome by simple expropriation for the sake of

4. Ibid., 582.5. Ibid., 582-583.

8/2/2019 487653

7/13


the community. A process is under way which cannot be controlled in termsof pure rationalitysince it is of an emotional nature: "The frequent attemptsto directly socialize single enterprises, the various strikes and work stoppagescan be explained as expressionsof a need for which the liberator'sdoctrine isaltogether inadequate. In fact, the latter is a doctrine of religious asceticismrequiring not only sobriety of thought, but also discipline of will-arequirementwhich people do not know how to fulfill in a moment of so muchexcitement.6The councils are meaningful if they seek to reconstruct the lost contact ofthe individual worker to the totality of the production process, not in materialactivity, but in the "surrogate"form of drawing nearer to management. Itwill not do, however, to forget that the councils are the result of thedissolution of unity in the relations of production: as long as this dissolutionremains, the new socialist order itself is destined to fail. In this context,Heimann refers to Korsch's"What Is Socialization?"as an intelligent attemptto ground the objective requirements of socialization with the subjectiverequirements of democratization by reconciling the interests of consumerswith those of producers. According to him, however, Korsch fails to see thatsocialism is by its very nature an economy oriented to needs and to collectiveconsumption. By juxtaposing the particular interest of producers, the veryprinciple of socialization is undermined. Behind the "syndicalist"overestimation of producers, Heimann continues, there creeps in theincurable romanticism of pretending to stop the progressivemechanization ofproduction. The goal of socialization is the liberation of labor throughunlimited development of the principle of mechanization, rather than itsromantic dissolution. "If mechanization is the evil of the modem world, theeventual hard and tragic task of socialization is the intensification of this eviltowards its abolition.7 This perspective appears spiritually fatal only to thosewho continue to think in terms of capitalist ideology and who thus seefreedom exclusively as economic freedom. In another social system, in whichthe existence of each member is guaranteed by the community, "economywould be reduced from its present status of destiny to a well-functioningapparatus."8 The path in this direction goes through mechanization andsocialization as its political solution. In order to undertake this path it isnecessary to repress the primitive instinct demanding immediategratification. Of course, each day that fails to abolish the injusticepredominating today, part of humanity's potential for socialization is

6. Ibid., 584.7. Ibid., 598.8. Ibid.

8/2/2019 487653

8/13


weakened. Will we be mature enough, asks Heimann -to perseverewith thiseffort of mind and will? The alternative is chaos. "Socialization is not just amoral necessitybut it is generally the only possiblepath if we are eventually toavoid the path to chiliasm and decline."'We have briefly outlined some of the less technical passages of Heimann'swork in order to clearly demonstrate the attitude of that part of Germanscientific intelligentsia which was predisposed to putting more decisivemeasures of economic restructuring into effect in the name of a tragic,superior"duty,"but which failed to commit itself similarlyin gauging the realpolitical significance. The danger and the obstacles are seen "to the left" ofdisordered mass movements and not in the resistance of propertied andconservativeclasses who wanted nothing to do with changes in the structure ofpolitical and economic power. A subjectively sincere ethical tone hides aninsuperable weakness in the analysis of real forces.Korsch answers Heimann with the essay "Grundsatzliches fiberSozialisierung,"published both in Der Arbeiter-Rat and Die Tat in the earlymonths of 1920, a piece which can be considered the most important of thisperiod. Here he outlines the political dimension of councils of the Russianmodel with relativeprecision and views the activityof the councils on all levelsto be in agreemerntwith planned central administration. In the polemic withHeimann there is a new theoretical turn: "The Marxist concept ofsocialization as the identity of historical development and revolutionaryhuman activity."10This concept was altogether extraneous to such thinkersasHeimann or Wilbrandt, for whom socialization is a complex of rationaltechnical initiatives, functional for optimal production. Korschhere uses theconcept of "identity"between the processof development and human activityto indicate the qualitative theoretical leap in relation to every technocraticconcept. It is a concept which will be picked up again and thematized in hissubsequent philosophical development; not, however, without major aporia.Another critical point raised by Heimann is to treat the state as an"organization of power which forcefully yokes the multiplicity of social andindividual interests into an artificial unity, which one day will have to'disappear'in the socialist community, giving way in the 'statelesssociety' toorganizational formscoordinated in an infinitely more elastic way.""IYet thisthesis, valid as the reassertion of a forgotten revolutionary principle, runs intoserious difficulties in Korsch's own development. The idea of the state asrepresentingcollective consumer interests and correcting particular producer

9. Ibid., 590.10. Karl Korsch, "GrundsAtzliches Uber Sozialisierung," in Schriften zur Sozialisierung(Frankfurt am Main, 1969), p. 81.11. Ibid.

8/2/2019 487653

9/13


interests, seemingly central in previousmonths, if left in the background. Theneed thus arises to define the state theoretically and practically as "centralizedmanagement of the economic plan." Since it is not a matter of mere technicalfunctions but of political ones, Korsch confronts the need to restore in someway a state which legitimates the use of violence and the limitation of workers'rights. Only by insisting on its character from past inheritance in thissituation, that is, on its transitoriness, can Korschtemporarily skirt the issue.It will appear again for those who, like himself, place the councils in aperspective of self-management, yet mistrusting the "unpreparedmasses"noless than the bureaucratization associated with simple nationalization. Beforeexamining Korsch's most advanced attempt (in "GrundsaitzlichestiberSozialisierung") to combine central planning and autonomous workers'councils even in its theoretical implications, we must re-examine some of hisearlier themes.In "Sozialisierungsfragevor und nach der Revolution," which appeared inDer Arbeiter-Rat around the middle of 1919, we have the first explicitdeclaration in favor of the "council system." It alone is able to manage thenew economy in opposition to every form of state bureaucracy. "To deliverthe best creation developed by the free or cartel economy (at least until theoutbreak of the war) into the hands of the bureaucrats would mean not therealization of socialism but the elimination of the economic premises whichalone pave the way to a socialist communal economy."12Thus, Korsch's firstinterest is economic recovery, and to this end he once again uses arguments ofa psychological nature, so dear to his interlocutors. Simple nationalizationwould not "compensate"for the terrible lack of liberty suffered by factoryworkers. There will be no more freedom or humanity in the work place if allthat changes is management from private hands to the state. The workersthemselves become increasingly aware of an idea of socialization decreeingcollectivization of the means of production and not simply limited to theconquest of "political power." It is the idea of industrial democracyunderstood as control from below and as participation. Korsch is well awareof the "heterodox"origin of this idea, but it is undeniable that constructiveprograms after the November Revolution came, not from official Marxists,but from groups more or less directly inspired by revolutionary syndicalism.This thesis is very explicitly illustrated in the article "Das sozialistische undsyndikalistischeSozialisierungsprogram,"which appeared in the weeklypaperof the independent, Der Sozialist: "This syndicalism initially influencedRussian Bolshevismwhen it sought to put Marxisminto practice, and today itinfluences German socialism and communism similarly with the important

12. Karl Korsch, "Die Sozialisierung vor und nach der Revolution," in Schriften, p. 52.

8/2/2019 487653

10/13


idea that the key to revolutionary struggle is not the state-political domain,but the economic one."13No "political"means leads to the socialism to whichthe masses aspire. At this point, however, Korsch feels the need to distancethe convergence of "syndicalism"and actual active forms of socialism from all"anti-authoritarian"and "anarchist foolishness."Mechanized heavy industrywill be further developed in socialist economy, inevitably resulting in aposition of dependence for the factory worker. With Lenin, there is theunequivocal reassertion of the subordination of workers to the director ofproduction during workingoperations. "But who carries out this function andfor how long is decided by the workers'democracy of the socialist society, inbusiness assemblies which have a place in the factory and in the system ofindustrial workers'councils, structuredfrom the bottom up; it is decided withcomplete freedom and with the right to change the decisions which have beenmade at any time."14This is authentic "industrialdemocracy," that justifiedpart of "syndicalism" which can be accepted without falling back toeconomically regressive forms.Korsch'sposition, which both differentiates and synthesizesthemes derivedfrom necessities of technical production and anarcho-syndicalist positions,has its reference point in Lenin. But it is reference in principle, i.e., removedfrom the concrete experiences and real contradictions in the Soviet Republic.Korschshould be aware of the critiques that begin to circulate not only fromthe right, but also from the extreme left wing; he knows the theses held by theUnions--theses which he now rejects, but which he will subsequently accept(beginning in 1926) in a very different social, political and economic context.His counter position of "economic" to "political" action suffers from thereductionist concept of politics as a complex of legal and formal measuresbestowed from above, of whose powerlessnesshe became convinced in the veryfirst weeks after the November Revolution. Now he is clearly in search of aredefinition of politics in a theoretical and practical sense, which he believesto have found in Leninism or in what he considers to be Leninism.15

13. Karl Korsch, "Das sozialistische und syndikalistische Sozialisierungsprogramm," inSchriften, p. 55.14. Ibid., p. 58.15. A leitmotiv in Korsch'swritingsduring this period which must be mentioned is that of thedivision between manual and intellectual labor- a problem involving the connection between thedemocratic and the technical-authoritarian moment. It is dealt with in "Die Arbeitsteilungzwischenk6rperlicherund geistigerArbeit und Sozialismus,"in Der Arbeiter-Rat, no. 24 (1919).According to Korsch, practical interests and not idealistic reasonspush intellectual workers o theside of manual workers ever since the Russian Bolsheviks, after initial egalitarian experiences,decided to reintroduce wage differences according to performance, with special regard forintellectual directives. The discriminating criterion passesbetween "producers"and "parasites":but the intellectual workermust be aware of the objective historical motives which have alwaysjoined the intellectual class to the ruling class, thus transforming"intellectual creativity" nto "a

8/2/2019 487653

11/13


Seen as the culmination of reflections during the 1919-1920 period,"Grundsaitzlichesiber Sozialisierung"already indicates the first blueprint ofKorsch's Marxism, even within its limits. "Socialization is the social revo-lution; it is the socialist ideal which transforms itself in reality throughpractical, human and sensuous activity."16 Explicit Marxist languageexpressesthe effort to theoretically ground socialization's"action," previouslyleft, as it were, to the pure will to act. For this, what is needed is the Marx ofthe "subjective,humanly sensuous, practically critical revolutionary activity"of the "Theses on Feuerbach," which expresses with insuperable pregnancy"the theory of knowledge of the revolutionary will." Korsch is struck by theimmediate nexus of knowledge and action, of revolution and production:"Onlyin the unification of theory and praxis is it possible to realize the newscientific conception of the world in which Marx'sfiery spirit has fused in theidentity of objective knowledge and activity (Identitat von gegenstandlicherErkenntnis und Tdtigkeit), knowledge hostile to action of the old socialscience and the will to action in the old Utopianism's hostility toknowledge."17The fusion of theory and practice does not take place in someexternal element or organizational relation, but directly in the personality ofthe revolutionary. The idea-action (Tatidee) of socialization "takes hold inthe most sudden way, typical of more genuine Marxists and of more'scientific' socialists."18 Korsch's activist Marxism is the subjective tensionarising from the conviction, based on objective "scientific"elements, of theunavoidable downfall of the capitalist system. It is not that the revolution canbe expected as an inevitable "historical development"; rather, it must bebrought about as a "practicalexercise." Here we find reference to the equivo-cation of Marxism in the Second International, which used "science"as analibi for action. Korsch does not object to the concept of socialism's"scientificity"or to the scientific method as such. He is far from any neo-job of unloading." Without diminishing the value of intellectual labor, it is appropriate toreconsiderseriouslythe famous "division."The overwhelmingmajorityof intellectual workers forKorschare essentially parasites. A minority is part of that "productivityof nature," of the naturalintellect which this minority is obliged to accept only under pressingnecessityand by representingthe proletariat. The mental laborer who collaborates with common workersonly because of veryhigh compensation is not a loyal and free ally. It is necessary to take the path toward actualabolition of the division of labor: "Aboveall, it is necessaryto suppressremunerative privileges assoon as the difficult period of transitionis over- a period which has led to considerable stalling ofpractice with respect to the idea" (Schriften, p. 66). In order to reach this, what is needed is aradical reform of the educational system through "socialization"of that sector. With respect toideas already formulated in earlier articles, Korsch recalls--although with a realistic caution--the necessity of extending manual labor to everyone.

16. Korsch, "GrundsAtzliches...," p. 70.17. Ibid., p. 71.18. Ibid.

8/2/2019 487653

12/13


Hegelian rejection of science or from the critical discourseof a Lukacs. Evenlater, when the emphasis on the dialectic seems to lead to uncertain frontiers,Korsch'sattitude toward science will retain a certain positive tone which willpermit the new course of the 1930s and the restoration of a new Marxistsocialscience. In the essayunder examination "science individually anticipates thesocial reality which is about to assert itself, and precisely through this intel-lectual anticipation it poses one of the contradictions of the creative passagefrom the old to the new forms of social and individual being."19For science toperform its essential function there is no need for any particular fundamentaloperations, but only creative fantasy which is a subjective way of evoking thesubjective moment. "Scientific knowledge can take on this particularconfiguration only in the creative fantasy of a revolutionarywho has alreadyanticipated the passage from the old to the new world. Precisely becauseKautsky and all those around him do not have this creative, reliable andrevolutionary fantasy explains their rejection of every practical ideaconcerning the future."20 Thus, we see reappearing in Korsch thoseconsiderations of psychological factors which, according to him, were one ofthe reasons for the failure of the November Revolution and of the councilmovement. He also recognizes the dispersion and the organizational uncer-tainty of the workers'ranks, but, when all is said and done, "it was socialisttheory'swithdrawal from the problems of practical realization that preventedthe demand for socialization, put forth loudly by the masses several times inthe course of the year,...resulting in a minimal practical effect."21The presupposition of clear ideas regarding socialization is a scientificapproach to the problem. Theoretically, this union of science and action inthe idea of socialization does not raise any particular questionsfor Korsch: no"foundations" are necessary. Not even the concept of "dialectic" need bebrought into play. "Science"points to all of the indications of the politicaleconomy to emerge from the experiences of the war economy (oriented nottoward profit, but national interest and productive potential) or formulatedin the various socialization projects during the months at the end of 1918which, in contrast to tendencies toward state socialism, have as their aimeconomic self-management through autonomous unities (and here we findmention of the projects--however varied-of Rathenau, Otto Bauer, TheReport on the Coal Industry of the Commission for Socialization itself,considered the most important application of the "guild principle," andfinally the experiments in the Zeiss works). Behind all these indications,

19. Ibid., p. 73.20. Ibid.21. Ibid., p. 75.

8/2/2019 487653

13/13


obviously being reconsidered, is the conviction that capitalism opens the wayto socialism not only negatively, with its own contradictions, but alsopositively, by developing those forms of social organization that socialism willhave to promote. Thus there is no doubt that social and economic sciencesengaged in this operation are exonerated from any prejudicial critique of anepistemological or "political"nature. The only valid things are the criteria forefficiency and the safeguarding of the council principle: science as a cognitiveanticipatory factor and action as a realizing factor. It is a thesis formulated ina too concise and hypothetical way. It cannot become a tool of analysis and ofeffective practical politics; yet, Korsch's further development will beconditioned by this pragmatic activist reception of Marxism.Translated byPatricia Tummons

THEORYOF i-i z e

by SHINZABURO KOSHIMURA.YokohamaNationalUniversity; dited byJESSESCHWARTZ,University f Water-loo, Ontario.CONTENTS: I--The FundamentalSchema. 2-Matrix Notationand the Re-productionSchema.3-Value and Repro-duction. 4-Reproduction and SurplusValue. 5-Prices of Productionand the"TransformationProblem." 6-Demand,Supply, MarketPrices. 7-On the FallingRateof ProfitandChanges nthe Structureof Reproduction. - MonopolyPriceandProfit.

MARX'S SCHEMAS OF REPRO.DUCTIONhavenever failedto fasci-nate generations of scholars. RosaLuxemburg,HenrykGrossman,Lenin,Tugan-Baranowsky,nd L. v. Bort-kiewiczmade use of them. The ar-chitectonics f this textbookare basedon Marx'sview of the great cycle ofproductionand circulationof com-modities. It was first published inJapanese in 1956. In our view, fewcomparableworks in Englishaffordthisglimpsento heinnerphysiology fcapitalism. t is suitable or use at theundergraduater graduate evels.170pages.$5.00 paperback; 10.00cloth.Addpostage:US orCanada$35 perbook;elsewhere$.50surface,$1.60airperbook.Makeall chequesor moneyorders(Cana-dian or US currency, please) payabletoDPG,PublishingCo. Sendorderwithpay-mentto:

DPG, PUBLISHINGCO.97 VICTORIA TREETN.KITCHENER,ONTARIO,CANADA

487653

Documents

Transcript of 487653