8/13/2019 Castoriadis Comunicacion125.Full

1/3

http://the.sagepub.com/Thesis Eleven

http://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/072551368701600112

1987 16: 125Thesis Eleven

Cornelius CastoriadisCommunication

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Thesis ElevenAdditional services and information for

http://the.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://the.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1987Version of Record>>

by Javier Benyo on October 22, 2012the.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.citationhttp://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.citationhttp://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://the.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://the.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://the.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://the.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.full.pdfhttp://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://the.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://the.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://the.sagepub.com/content/16/1/125.citationhttp://the.sagepub.com/

8/13/2019 Castoriadis Comunicacion125.Full

2/3

125

2. The best recent source of these arguments is J. Roemer, ed.,Analytical Marxism,(Cambridge University Press, 1986).

3. See, for example, J. Elster, Explaining Technical Change, (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1983) J. Roemer,A General theory of Exploitation and Class, (HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982); E.O. Wright, Classes, (New LeftBooks, London, 1985);A. Przeworski, Capitalism and Social Democracy, (Cam-bridge University Press, 1985).

Communication

Cornelius Castoriadis

The Sozialwissenschaftliche Literatur Rundschau has published, in its Nr

12(1986), a review by Hauke Brunkhorst of my books published up to now inGerman (&dquo;Die Zunkunft des revolutionaaren Projekts&dquo;, pp.40-45). It is not, of

course, my intention to comment upon the review itself. But there appears in it a

sentence which, irrespective of the undoubted good faith of the author, containsa malevolent and to my eyes slanderous misrepresentation of my positions (as DrBrunkhorst himself easily admitted in personal conversation).

The sentence in question states: &dquo;When Castoriadis to-day, like all Parisian

intellectuals, condemns the policies of detente and salutes (greets, begrsst) thenew

missiles of theAmerican President, he may be wrong, but at least he knowswhat he is talking about. He has never entertained illusions concerning thestalinist real socialism&dquo; (p.40, italics in the original).

The fact is that I never condemned the policies of detente, neither could I

have done, for this would have meant that I would have entered the discussion of

which would be the better policies for the present Western Governments and

regimes, something I have consistently refused to do in over forty years of

political writing. I have only explained that the &dquo;detente&dquo; policies have never

prevented the Russians from pursuing their expansionist enterprises - and com-mented, in advance, that &dquo;to say that the Dillinger gang, in such and such cir-

cumstances, is stronger than theAl Capone gang, does not entail either that one

admires the former, or that he pities the latter&dquo; (Devant la querre, Paris, Fayard,1981, p.10).

The notion that I could have &dquo;saluted&dquo; theAmerican missile in Europe is

plainlyridiculous. In dozens of

talks, interviews,articles etc.

(includingones

given to Taqeszeitung and Pflasterstrand in 198 1) 1 have always stressed that &dquo;to

these Governments and to these States (i.e. of the &dquo;~est&dquo;), one can grant not the

slightest confidence on the level of realism, nor the slightest solidarity on the levelof principles.&dquo; (&dquo;Which Europe? Which Threat? Which Defence?&dquo;, Le Monde26 Febr. 1983, p.2 - reprinted in Domaines de Ihomrne I~e Seuil Paris, 1986,

pp.86-90). More recently, I stated in an interview with the Bayerische Rundfunk

(reproduced in F. Rotzer, Franzosische Philosophen in Gesprach, Boer, Munich1986, pp.46-5): &dquo;In any case, I refuse this dilemma (between nuclear war and

by Javier Benyo on October 22, 2012the.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/

8/13/2019 Castoriadis Comunicacion125.Full

3/3

126

enslavement). There is the activity of human beings, who can struggle againstboth Governments.&dquo; (ibid., p.65. Interview of 22 Feb. 1985).

The origin of this slander is not difficult to trace. It is to be found amongthose elements in the &dquo;pacifist&dquo; movement whoi for years now have professional-

ly specialized in explaining how weak and innocent Russia is and who, instead of

refuting my analysis of the Russian regime, its bombs rather than butter policiesand its external expansion, find it of course much more convenient and expedientto distort the views of the opponent, so that nobody would look at them seriously

and without prejudice.We all know where, when and by whom these methods were invented. Their

resurgence within the so-called &dquo;pacifist&dquo; movement, especially in Germany and

Britain, is ominous and disturbing.

"How Do We Invent?"

(An obituary to David Cooper)Fiona Mackie

David Cooper died during 1986. Our loss is not yet fully comprehended. Davidwas a skilled craftsman: no longer speaking from earlier more recognized profes-sional sites. Speaking instead from the pit-face of the everyday. Honing new con-crete praxes with others.Asking &dquo;how do we invent~&dquo; - &dquo;a diffuse pattern of

communication&dquo;, a &dquo;professional worker whos actually a political animator of

scenes which occur daily in society&dquo;, &dquo;other categories&dquo;, &dquo;invent a sense&dquo;.Concrete work - research in Naples and Parma, at the interface between social

groups and practices, each speaking separate languages that clash in the welfare

experience of those marginalized by centralization. David worked to uncoverthose barriers. Out of rupture, to realize transformations.

He sought already the applications and insights of the new science. A new

book, he said, &dquo;may be called The Geometry of Freedom &dquo;A post-quantamgeometry against which the rigid systems of classical physics and the socialtheories that reflect it are an agonized flaw in the flux. We must invent new waysto speak it now.

David listened also to his own ghosts. He wanted language to express that

politically crucial experience avoided as delusional. In a trajectory from nor-mal enclosure lie new sensitivities. The political requires &dquo;a deconstruction ofoneself&dquo;. Alternatives are thrown up within conditions of &dquo;genocidal ecocide

... and the now near fatal loss of our minds&dquo;; requiring us to live the proximityof &dquo;ecstatic joy and total despair&dquo;. Out of chaos, to invent for ourselves!

by Javier Benyo on October 22, 2012the.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/