Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

download Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

of 94

Transcript of Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    1/94

    Class against Class website has several texts by Castoriadis in his S ou B phase, aswell as many other anti-statist Marxists.

    http://www.geocities.com/cordoba a!/

    "n the Content o! Socialism, #art "ne $n %&'' article by Castoriadis, published in Socialisme ou Barbarie .(evelops the idea o! proletarian autonomy, or wor ers) management.

    *hat +eally Matters$n article by Castoriadis !rom Socialisme ou Barbarie . $sserts theimportance o! wor ers) perspectives.

    he +ole o! Bolshevi deology in the Birth o! the Bureaucracy $n article by Castoriadis !rom his ournal Socialisme ou Barbarie . $re!utation o! the rots yist claim that Soviet government onlydegenerated a!ter Stalin)s ta eover.

    he Marxist #hilosophy o! istory $n article by Castoriadis !rom Socialisme ou Barbarie . 0xplores how the

    philosophical roots o! Stalinism were present in Marxism and 1eninism.

    he #roletariat and "rganisation $ %&'& article by Castoriadis, published in his ournal Socialisme ou

    Barbarie .

    http://www.geocities.com/cordobakafhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/contenta.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/wrm.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/castbolsh.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/history.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/proleorga.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakafhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/contenta.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/wrm.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/castbolsh.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/history.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/proleorga.html
  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    2/94

    On the Content of Socialism, Part One.

    From the Critique of Bureaucracy to the Idea of the Proletariat'sAutonomy

    he ideas set !orth in this discussion perhaps will be understood more readilyi! we retrace the route that has led us to them. ndeed, we started o!! !rom

    positions in which a militant wor er or a Marxist inevitably places himsel! ata certain stage in his development and there!ore positions everyone we areaddressing has shared at one time or another. $nd i! the conceptions set !orthhere have any value at all, their development cannot be the result o! chance or

    personal traits but ought to embody an ob ective logic at wor . #roviding adescription o! this development, there!ore, can only increase the reader)s

    understanding o! the end result and ma e it easier !or him to chec it againsthis experience.)

    1i e a host o! other militants in the vanguard, we began with the discoverythat the traditional large )wor ing-class) organi2ations no longer have arevolutionary Marxist politics nor do they represent any longer the interests o!the proletariat. he Marxist arrives at this conclusion by comparing theactivity o! these )socialist) 3re!ormist4 or )communist) 3Stalinist4 organi2ationswith his own theory. e sees the so-called Socialist parties participating in

    bourgeois governments, actively repressing stri es or movements o! colonial

    peoples, and championing the de!ense o! the capitalist !atherland whileneglecting even to ma e re!erence to a socialist system o! rule. e sees theStalinist )communist) parties sometimes carrying out this same opportunistic

    policy o! collaborating with the bourgeoisie and sometimes an )extremist) policy, a violent adventurism unrelated to a consistent revolutionary strategy.

    he class-conscious wor er ma es the same discoveries on the level o! hiswor ing-class experience. e sees the socialists s5uandering their energiestrying to moderate his class)s economic demands, to ma e any e!!ective actionaimed at satis!ying these demands impossible, and to substitute interminablediscussions with the boss or the State !or the stri e. e sees the Stalinists atcertain times strictly !orbidding stri es 3as was the case !rom %&6' to %&674and even trying to curtail them through violence, or !rustrating themunderhandedly,and at other times trying to horsewhip wor ers into a stri ethey do not want because they perceive that it is alien to their interests 3as in%&'%-'8, with the )anti-$merican) stri es4. "utside the !actory, he also seesthe Socialists and the Communists participate in capitalist governmentswithout it changing his lot one bit, and he sees them oin !orces, in %&9 aswell as in %&6', when his class is ready to act and the regime has its bacagainst the wall, in order to stop the movement and save this regime,

    proclaiming that one must )) now to end a stri e)) and that one must )produce!irst and ma e economic demands later.))

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    3/94

    "nce they have established this radical opposition between the attitude o! thetraditional organi2ations and a revolutionary Marxist politics expressing theimmediate and historical interests o! the proletariat, both the Marxist and theclass-conscious wor er might then thin that these organi2ations )err) or that

    they )are betraying us.) But to the extent that they re!lect on the situation, anddiscover !or themselves that socialists and Stalinists behave the same way daya!ter day, that they always and everywhere have behaved in this way, in the

    past, today, here, and everywhere else, they begin to see that to spea o!)betrayal) or )mista es) does not ma e any sense. t could be a 5uestion o!)mista es) only i! these parties pursued the goals o! the proletarian revolutionwith inade5uate means, but these means, applied in a coherent and systematic!ashion !or several do2en years, show simply that the goals o! theseorgani2ations are not our goals, that they express interests other than those o!the proletariat. "nce this is understood, saying that they )are betraying us)

    ma es no sense. !, in order to sell his un , a merchant tells me some load o!crap and tries to persuade me that it is in my interest to buy it, i can say that heis trying to deceive me but not that he is betraying me. 1i ewise, the Socialistor Stalinist party, in trying to persuade the proletariat that it represents itsinterests, is trying to deceive it but is not betraying it; they betrayed it onceand !or all a long time ago, and since then they are not traitors to the wor ingclass but !aith!ul < consistent servers o! other interests. *hat we need to do isdetermine whose interests they serve.

    ndeed, this policy does not merely appear consistent in its means or in itsresults. t is embodied in the leadership stratum o! these organi2ations or tradeunions. he militant 5uic ly learns the hard way that this stratum isirremovable, that it survives all de!eats, and that it perpetuates itsel! throughco-optation. *hether the internal organi2ation o! these groups is )democratic)3as is the case with the re!ormists4 or dictatorial 3as is the case with theStalinists4, the mass o! militants have absolutely no in!luence over itsorientation, which is determined without !urther appeal by a bureaucracywhose stability is never put into 5uestion; !or even when the leadership coreshould happen to be replaced, it is replaced !or the bene!it o! another, no less

    bureaucratic group. $t this point, the Marxist and the class-conscious wor erare almost bound to collide with rots yism. ndeed, rots yism has o!!ered a permanent, step-by- step criti5ue o! socialist and Stalinist politics !or the past5uarter century, showing that the de!eats o! the wor ers) movement-=ermany,%&89; China, %&8'-87; 0ngland %&8 ; =ermany, %&99; $ustria, %&96; >rances%&9 ; Spain, %&9 -9?; >rance and taly, %&6'-67; etc. -are due to the policieso! the traditional organi2ations, and that these policies have constantly been in

    breach o! . Marxism. $t the same times rots yism o!!ers an explanation o!the policies o! these parties, starting !rom a sociological analysis o! theirma eup. >or re!ormism, it ta es up again the interpretation provided by1enin: he re!orming o! the socialists expresses the interests o! a laboraristocracy 3since imperialist suplus pro!its allow the latter to be )corrupted) by

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    4/94

    higher wages4 and o! a trade union and political bureaucracy. $s !orStalinism, its policy serves the +ussian bureaucracy, this parasitic and

    privileged stratum that has usurped power in the !irst wor ers) State, than s tothe bac ward character o! the country and the set- bac su!!ered by the world

    revolution a!ter %&89.*e began our critical wor , even bac when we were within the rots yistmovement, with this problem o! Stalinist bureaucracy. *hy we began withthat problem in particular needs no long involved explanations. *hereas the

    problem o! re!orming seemed to be settled by history, at least on thetheoretical level, as it became more and more an overt de!ender o! thecapitalist system, on the most crucial problem o! all, that o! Stalinism-which isthe contemporary problem par excellence and which in practice weighs on usmore heavily than the !irst-the history o! our times has disproved again and

    again both the rots yist viewpoint and the !orecasts that have been derived!rom it. >or rots y, Stalinist policy is to be explained by the interests o! the+ussian bureaucracy, a product o! the degeneration o! the "ctober +evolution.

    his bureaucracy has no )reality o! its own) historically spea ing; it is only an)accident) the product o! the constantly upset balance between the two!undamental !orces o! modern society, capitalism and the proletariat. 0ven in+ussia it is based upon the )con5uests o! "ctober,) which had providedsocialist bases !or the country)s economy 3nationali2ation, planning, monopolyover !oreign trade, etc.4 and upon the perpetuation o! capitalism in the rest o!the world; !or the restoration o! private property in +ussia would signi!y theoverthrow o! the bureaucracy and help bring about the return o! the capitalists,whereas the spread o! the revolution worldwide would destroy +ussia)sisolation-the economic and political result o! which was the bureaucracy andwould give rise to a new revolutionary explosion o! the +ussian prolateriat,who would chase o!! these usurpers. ence the necessarily empirical charactero! Stalinist politics, which is obliged to waver between two adversaries andma es its ob ective the utopian maintenance o! the status 5uo; it even isobliged thereby to sabotage every proletarian movement any time the latterendangers the capitalist system and to overcompensate as well !or the results

    o! these acts o! sabotage with extreme violence every time reactionaries,encouraged by the demorali2ation o! the proletariat, try to set up a dictatorshipand prepare a capitalist crusade against )the remnants o! the "ctobercon5uests.) hus, Stalinist parties are condemned to !luctuate between)extremist) adventuress and opportunism. But neither can these parties nor the+ussian bureaucracy remain hanging inde!initely in midair li e this. n theabsence o! a revolution, rots y said, the Stalinist parties would become moreand more li e the re!orming parties and more and more attached to the

    bourgeois order, while the +ussian bureaucracy would be overthrown with orwithout !oreign intervention so as to bring about a restoration o! capitalism.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    5/94

    rots y had tied this prognostication to the outcome o! the Second *orld*ar. $s is well nown, this war disproved it in the most glaring terms. he,

    rots yist leadership made itsel! loo ridiculous by stating that it was ust amatter o! time. But it had become apparent to us, even be!ore the war ended,

    that it was not and could not have been a 5uestion o! some ind o! time lag, but rather o! the direction o! history, and that rots y)s entire edi!ice was,down to its very !oundations, mythological.

    he +ussian bureaucracy underwent the critical test o! the war and showed thad as much cohesiveness as any other dominant class. ! the +ussian regimeadmitted o! some contradictions, it also exhibited a degree o! stability no lessthan that o! the $merican or =erman regime. he Stalinist parties did not goover to the side o! the bourgeois order. hey have continued to !ollow +ussian

    policy !aith!ully 3apart, o! course, !rom individual de!ections, as ta e place in

    all parties4: )they are partisans o! national de!ense in countries allied to the@SS+, and adversaries o! this ind o! de!ense in countries that are enemies o!the @SS+ 3we include here the >rench C#)s series o! turnabouts in %&9&,%&6%, and %&674. >inally, the most important and extraordinary thing was thatthe Stalinist bureaucracy extended its power into other countries; whether itimposed its power on behal! o! the +ussian army, as in most o! the satellitecountries o! Central 0urope and the Bal ans, or had complete domination overa con!used mass movement, as in Augoslavia 3or later on in China and in

    ietnam4, it inaugurated in these countries regimes that were in every respectsimilar to the +ussian regime 3ta ing into accounts o! course,local conditions4.

    t obviously was ridiculous to describe these regimes as degenerated wor ers)States.

    >rom then on, there!ore, we were obliged to loo into what gave such stabilityand opportunities !or expansion to the Stalinist bureaucracy, both in +ussiaand elsewhere. o do this, we had to resume the analysis o! +ussia)s economicand social system o! rule. "nce rid o! the rots yist outloo , it was easy tosee using the basic categories o! Marxism, that +ussian society is divided intoclasses, among which the two !undamental ones are the bureaucracy and the

    proletariat. he bureaucracy there plays the role o! the dominant, exploitingclass in the !ull sense o! the term. t is not merely that it is a privileged classand that its unproductive consumption absorbs a part o! the social productcomparable to 3and probably greater than4 that absorbed by the unproductiveconsumption o! the bourgeoisie in private capitalist countries. t also hassovereign control over how the total social product will be used. t does this!irst o! all by determining how the total social product will be distributedamong wages and surplus value 3at the same time that it tries to dictate to thewor ers the lowest wages possible and to extract !rom them the greatestamount o! labor possible4: next by determining how this surplus value will bedistributed between its own unproductive consumption and new investments,

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    6/94

    and !inally by determining how these investments will be distributed amongthe various sectors o! production.

    But the bureaucracy can control how the social product will be utili2ed only because it controls production .Because it manages production at the !actorylevel, it always can ma e the wor ers produce more !or the same wage;

    because it manages production on the societal level, it can decide tomanu!acture cannons and sil rather than housing and cotton. *e discover,there!ore, that the essence, the !oundation, o! its bureaucratic domination over+ussian society comes !rom the !act that it has dominance within the relationso! production; at the same time, we discover that this same !unction alwayshas been the basis !or the domination o! one class over society, in other words,at every instant the actual essence o! class relations in production is theantagonistic division o! those who participate in the production process into

    two !ixed and stable categories, directors and executants, 0verything else isconcerned with the sociological and - uridical mechanisms that guarantee thestability o! the managerial stratum; that is how it is with !eudal ownership o!the land, capitalist private property, or this strange !orm o! private, non-

    personal property ownership that characteri2es present-day capitalism; that ishow it is in +ussia with the )communist #arty) the totalitarian dictatorship bythe organ that expresses the bureaucracy)s general interests and that ensuresthat the members o! the ruling class are recruited through co-option the scaleo! society as a whole.

    t !ollows that planning and the nationali2ation o! the means o! production inno way resolve the problem o! the class character o! the economy,nor do theysigni!y the-abolition-o! exploitation; o! course, they entail the abolition o! the!ormer dominant classes, but they do not answer the !undamental problem o!who now will direct production and how. ! a new stratum o! individuals ta esover this !unction o! direction, )all the old rubbish) Marx spo e about will5uic ly reappear, !or this stratum will use its managerial position to create

    privileges !or itsel!, it will rein!orce its monopoly over managerial !unctions,in this way tending to ma e its domination more complete and more di!!icult

    to put into 5uestion; it will tend to assure the transmission o! these privilegesto its successors, etc.

    >or rots y, the bureaucracy is not a ruling class since bureaucratic privilegescannot be transmitted by inheritance. But in dealing with this argument, weneed only recall that hereditary transmission is in no way an elementnecessary to establish the category o! t is easy to see that it is not a 5uestionhere o! a problem particular to +ussia or to the %&8 s. >or the same problem is

    posed in every modern society, even apart !rom the proletarian revolution; it is ust another expression o! the process o! concentration o! the !orces o!

    production. *hat, indeed, creates the ob ective possibility !or a bureaucraticdegeneration o! the revolutionD t is the inexorable movement o! the modern

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    7/94

    economy, under the pressure o! techni5ue, toward the more and more intenseconcentration o! capital and power, the incompatibility o! the actual degree o!development o! the !orces o! production *ith #rivate property and the mar etas the way in which business enterprises are integrated. his movement is

    expressed in a host o! structural trans!ormations in *estern capitalistcountries, though we cannot dwell upon that right now. *e need only recallthat they are socially incarnated in a new bureaucracy, an economic

    bureaucracy as well as a wor -place bureaucracy. Eow, by ma ing a tabularasa o! private property, o! the mar et, etc., revolution can-i! it stops at that

    point- ma e the route o! total bureaucratic concentration easier. *e see,there!ore, that !ar !rom being deprived o! its own reality, bureaucracy

    personi!ies the !inal stage o! capitalist development.

    Since then it has become obvious that the program o! the socialist revolution

    and the proletariat)s ob ective no longer could be merely the suppression o! private property, the nationali2ation o! the means o! production and planning, but , rather wor ers) management o! the economy and o! power. +eturning tothe degeneration the russian revolution, we established that on the economiclevel the Bolshevi party had as its program not wor ers) management butwor ers) control. his was because the #arty, which did not thin therevolution could immediately be a socialist revolutions did not even pose !oritsel! the tas o! expropriating the capitalists, and there!ore thought that thislatter class would remain as managers in the wor place. @nder suchconditions, the !unction o! wor ers) control would be to prevent the capitalists!rom organi2ing to sabotage production, to get control over their pro!its andover the disposition o! the product, and to set up a )school) o! management !orthe wor ers. But this sociological monstrosity o! a country where the

    proletariat exercises its dictatorship through the instrument o! the soviets ando! the Bolshevi party, and where the capitalists eep their property andcontinue to direct their enterprises, could not last; where the capitalists had not!led, they were expelled by the wor ers, who then too over the managemento! these enterprises.

    his !irst experience o! wor ers) management only lasted a short time; wecannot go into an analysis here o! this period o! the +ussian +evolution3which is 5uite obscure and about which !ew sources exist 4or o! the !actorsthat determined the rapid changeover o! power in the !actories into the handso! a new managerial stratum. $mong these !actors are the bac ward state o!the counts the proletariat)s numerical and cultural wea ness, the dilapidatedcondition o the productive apparatus, the long civil war with its unprecedentedviolence, and the international isolation o! the revolution. here is one !actorwhose e!!ect during this period we wish to emphasi2e: n its actions, theBolshevi party)s policy was systematically opposed to wor ers) managementand tended !rom the start to set up its own apparat !or directing production,solely responsible to the central power, i.e., in the last analysis, to the #arty.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    8/94

    his was done in the in name o! e!!iciency and the overriding necessities brought on by the civil war. *hether this policy was the most e!!ective oneeven in the short term is open to 5uestion; in any case, in the long run it laidthe !oundations !or bureaucracy.

    ! the management 3direction4 o! the economy thus eluded the proletariat,1enin thought the essential thing was !or the power o! the soviets to preserve!or the wor ers at least the leadership 3direction4o! the State. "n the otherhand, he thought that by participating in the management o! the economythrough wor ers-control, trade unions, and so on, the wor ing class wouldgradually )learn) to manage. Eevertheless, a series o! events that cannot beretraced here, but that were inevitable 5uic ly made the Bolshevi party) sdomination over the soviets irreversible. >rom this point onward, the

    proletarian character o! the whole system hinged on the proletarian character

    o! the Bolshevi party. *e could easily show that under such conditions the#arty, a highly centrali2ed minority with monopoly control over the exerciseo! power, no longer would be able to preserve even its proletarian character3in the strong sense o! this term4, and that it was bound to separate itsel! !romthe class !rom which it had arisen. But there is no need to go as !ar as that. n%&89, the #arty numbered ' wor ers and 9 , !unctionaries in itstotal o! 9' , members. t no longer was a wor ers) party but a party o!wor ers-turned-!unctionaries. Bringing together the )elite) o! the proletariat,the #arty had been led to install this elite in the command posts o! theeconomy and the State; hence this elite had to be accountable only to the #artyi itsel!. he wor ing class)s )apprenticeship) in management merely signi!iedthat a certain number o! wor ers, who were learning managerial techni5ues,le!t the ran and !ile and passed over to the side o! the new bureaucracy. $s

    people)s social existence determines their consciousness, the #arty memberswere going to act !rom then on, not according to the Bolshevi program,but interms o! their concrete situation as privileged managers o! the economy andthe state. he tric has been played, the revolution has died, and i! there issomething to be surprised about, it is rather how long it too !or the

    bureaucracy to consolidate its power.

    he conclusions that !ollow !rom this brie! analysis are clear: he program o!the socialist revolution can be nothing other than wor ers) management.*or ers) management o! power, i.e., the power o! the masses) autonomousorgani2ations 3soviets or councils4; wor ers) management o! the economy, i.e.,the producers) direction o! production, also organi2ed in soviet-style organs.

    he proletariat)s ob ective cannot be nationali2ation and planning withoutanything more, be- cause that would signi!y that the domination o! societywould be handed over to a new stratum o! rulers and exploiters; it cannot beachieved by handing over power to a party, however revolutionary andhowever proletarian this party might be at the outset, because this partyinevitably will tend to exercise this power on its own behal! and will be used

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    9/94

    as the nucleus !or the crystalli2ation o! a new ruling stratum. ndeed, in ourtime the problem o! the division o! society into classes appears more and morein its most direct and na ed !orm, and stripped o! all uridical cover, as the

    problem o! the division o! society into directors and executants. he

    proletarian revolution carries out its historical program only inso!ar as it tends!rom the very beginning to abolish this division by reabsorbing every particular managerial stratum and by collectivi2ing, or more exactly bycompletely sociali2ing, the !unctions o! direction. he problem o! the

    proletariat)s historical capacity to achieve a classless society is not the problem o! its capacity to physically overthrow the exploiters who are in power 3o! this there is no doubt4; it is rather the problem o! how to positivelyorgani2e a collective, sociali2ed management o! production and power. >romthen on it becomes obvious that the reali2ation o! socialism on the proletariat)s

    behal! by any party or bureaucracy whatsoever is an absurdity, a contradiction

    in terms, a s5uare circle, an underwater bird; socialism is nothing but themasses conscious and perpetual sel!-managerial activity. t becomes e5uallyobvious that socialism cannot be ob ectively inscribed, not even hal!way, inany law or constitution, in the nationali2ation o! the means o! production, orin planning, nor even in a )law) instaurating wor ers) management). ! thewor ing class cannot manage, no law can give it the power to do so, and i! itdoes manage, such a )law) would merely rati!y this existing state o! a!!airs.

    hus, beginning with a criti5ue o! the bureaucracy, we have succeeded in!ormulating a positive conception o! the content o! socialism; brie!lyspea ing, )socialism in all its aspects does not signi!y anything other thanwor er)s management o! society,) and )the wor ing class can !ree itsel! only byachieving power !or itsel!.) he proletariat can carry out the socialistrevolution only i! it acts autonomously,i.e., i! it !inds in itsel! both the will andthe consciousness !or the necessary trans!ormation o! society. Socialism can

    be neither the !ated result o! historical development, a violation o! history by a party o! supermen, nor still the application o! a program derived !rom a theorythat is true in itsel!. +ather, it is the unleashing o! the !ree creative activity o!the oppressed masses. Such an unleashing o! !ree creative activity is made

    possible by historical development, and the action o! a party based on thistheory can !acilitate it to a tremendous degree.

    ence!orth it is indispensable to develop on every level the conse5uences o!this idea.

    Mar ism and the Idea of the Proletariat's Autonomy

    *e must say right o!! that there is nothing essentially new about thisconception. ts meaning is the same as Marx)s celebrated !ormulation ) he

    emancipation o! the wor ers must be con5uered by the wor ers themselves.) twas expressed li ewise by rots y: )socialism, as opposed to capitalism,

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    10/94

    consciously builds itsel! up.) t would be only too easy to pile up 5uotations o!this ind. *hat is new is the will and ability to ta e this idea in totalseriousness while drawing out the theoretical as well as the practicalimplications. his could not be done till now, either by us or by the great

    !ounders o! Marxism. >or, on the one hand, the necessary historicalexperience was lac ing; the preceding analysis shows the tremendousimportance the degeneration o! the +ussian +evolution possesses !or theclari!ication o! the problem o! wor ers) power. $nd on the other hand, and ata deeper level, revolutionary theory and practice in an exploiting society aresub ected to a crucial contradiction that results !rom the !act that they belongto this society they are trying to abolish. his contradiction is expressed in anin!inite number o! ways.

    "nly one o! these ways is o! interest to us here. o be revolutionary signi!ies

    both to thin that only the masses in struggle can resolve the problem o!socialism and not to !old one)s arms !or all that; it means to thin that theessential content o! the revolution will be given by the masses) creative,original, and un!oreseeable activity, and to act onesel!, beginning with arational analysis o! the present with a perspective that anticipates the !uture. nthe last analysis, it means to postulate that the revolution will signi!y anoverthrow and a tremendous enlargement o! our present !orm o! rationalityand to utili2e this same rationality in order to anticipate the content o! therevolution.

    ow this contradiction is relatively resolved and relatively pulsed anew ateach stage o! the wor ers) movement up to the ultimate victory o! therevolution, can- not detain us here; this is the whole problem o! the concretedialectic o! the historical development o! the proletariat)s revolutionary actionand o! revolutionary theory. $t this time we need only establish that there isan intrinsic di!!iculty in developing a revolutionary theory and practice in anexploiting society, and that, inso!ar as he wants to overcome this di!!iculty,the theoretician,and, li ewise indeed, the militant-ris s !alling bacunconsciously on the terrain o! bourgeois thought, and more generally on the

    terrain o! the type o! thought that issues !rom an alienated society and that hasdominated humanity !or millennia. hus, in the !ace o! the problems posed bythe new historical situations the theoretician o!ten will be led to )traduce theun nown to the nown,) !or that is what theoretical activity today consists o!.

    e thereby either cannot see that it is a 5uestion o! a new type o! problem or,even i! he does see that, he can only apply to it solutions inherited !rom the

    past. Eevertheless, the !actors whose revolutionary importance he has ustrecogni2ed or even discovered modern techni5ue and the activity o! the

    proletariat,tend not only to create new inds o! solutions but to destroy thevery terms in which problems previously had been posed. >rom then on,solutions o! the traditional type provided by the theoretician will not simply beinade5uate; inso!ar as they are adopted 3which implies that the proletariat too

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    11/94

    remains under the hold o! received ideas4 they ob ectively will be theinstrument !or maintaining the proletariat within the !ramewor o!exploitation, although perhaps under a di!!erent !orm.

    Marx was aware o! this problem. is re!usal o! )utopian) socialism and hisstatement that )every step o! real movement is more important than a do2en#rograms),express precisely his distrust o! boo ish solutions, since they arealways separate !rom the living development o! history. Eevertheless, thereremains in Marxism a signi!icant share 3which has ept on growing insucceeding generations o! Marxists4 o! a bourgeois or )traditional) ideologicallegacy. o this extent, there is an ambiguity in theoretical Marxism, anambiguity that has played an important historical role; the exploiting societythereby has been able to exert its in!luence on the proletariat movement !romwithin. he case analy2ed earlier, where the Bolshevi party in +ussia applied

    traditionally e!!ective solutions to the problem o! how to direct production,o!!ers a dramatic illustra- tion o! this process; traditional solutions have beene!!ective in the sense that they e!!ectively have brought bac the traditionalstate o! a!!airs,or have led to the restoration o! exploitation under new !orms.1ater we will come upon other important instances o! bourgeois ideassurviving within Marxism. t is use!ul nevertheless to discuss now an examplethat will bring to light what we are trying to say. ow will labor beremunerated in a socialist economyD. t is well nown that in the )Criti5ue o!the =otha #rogramme,) where he distinguishes the organi2ational !orm o! this

    postrevolutionary society 3the lower stage o! communism)4 !rom communismitsel! 3where the principle )!rom each according to his abilities, to eachaccording to his needs) would reign4, Marx spo e o! the )bourgeois right) thatwould prevail during this phase. e understood by that e5ual pay !or an e5ual5uantity and 5uality o! labor-which can mean une5ual pay !or di!!erentindividuals.

    ow can this principle be usti!iedD "ne begins with the basic characteristicso! the socialist economy, namely that, on the one hands this economy is stillan economy o! scarcity where, conse5uently, it is essential that the production

    e!!orts o! society)s members be pushed to the maximum; and on the otherhand, that people still are dominated by the )egoistic) mentality inherited !romthe preceding society and maintained by this state o! scarcity. he greatestamount o! e!!ort in production there!ore is re5uired at the same time that thissociety needs to struggle against the )natural) tendency to shir wor that stillexists at this stage. t will be said, there!ore, that it is necessary, i! one wantsto avoid disorder and !amine, to ma e the remuneration o! labor proportionalto the 5uality and 5uantity o! the labor provided, measured, !or example, bythe number o! pieces manu!actured, the number o! hours in attendance, etc.,which naturally leads to 2ero remuneration !or 2ero wor and in the samestro e settles the problem o! one)s obligation to wor . n short, one ends upwith some sort o! )output-based wage.) (epending on how clever one is, one

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    12/94

    will reconcile this conclusion, with greater or lesser ease, with the harshcriticism to which this !orm o! wage payment has been sub ected when it isapplied within the capitalist System.

    (oing this, one will have purely and simply !orgotten that the problem nolonger can be posed in these terms: Both modern techni5ue and the !orms o!association among wor ers that socialism implies render it null and void.*hether it is a matter o! wor ing on an assembly line or o! piecewor on)individual) machines, the individual laborer)s wor pace is dictated by thewor pace o! the unit to which he belongs-automatically and )physically) in thecase o! assembly wor , indirectly and )socially) in piecewor on a machine,

    but always in a manner that is imposed upon him. Conse5uently, it longer is a problem o! individual output. t is a problem o! the wor pace o! a given unito! wor ers 3which in the !inal analysis is the !actory unit4, and this pace can

    be determined only by this unit o! wor ers itsel!. he problem o!remuneration there!ore comes down to a management problem, !or once ageneral wage is established, the concrete rate o! remuneration 3the wage-output ratio4 will be determined by determining the pace o! wor ; the latter inits turn leads us to the heart o! the problem o! management as the problem thatconcretely concerns the producers as a whole 3who, in one !orm or another,will have to determine that such and such a production pace on one line o! agiven type is e5uivalent as an expenditure o! labor to another production paceon another line o! another type, and this will have to done between variousshops in the same !actory as well as between a variety o! !actories, etc.4.

    1et us recall, i! need be, that in no way does this signi!y that the problemnecessarily becomes any easier to solve. Maybe even the contrary is the case.But !inally it has been posed in correct terms. Mista es made while trying tosolve this problem might be !ruit!ul !or the development o! socialism, and thesuccessive elimination o! such mista es would allow us to arrive at thesolution. $s long as it is posited in the !orm o! an )output-based wage) or)bourgeois right,) however, we remain situated directly on the terrain o! anexploiting society.

    Certainly, the problem in its traditional !orm still can exist in )bac wardsectors)-though this does not necessarily mean that one should provide a)bac ward) solution. But whatever the solution might be in such a case, whatwe are trying to say is that historical developments tend to change both the!orm and the content o! the problem. But what is essential is to analy2e boththe mechanism and the mista e. >aced with a problem be5ueathed by the

    bourgeois era one reasons li e a bour- geois. "ne reasons li e a bourgeois !irsto! all in that one sets up an abstract and universal rule-this being the only !ormin which problems can be solved in an alienated society-!orgetting that )law is

    li e an ignorant and crude man) who always repeats the same thing- and that asocialist solution can only be socialist i! it is a concrete solution that involves

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    13/94

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    14/94

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    15/94

    able to see this better by rereading the passage where Marx describes the) istorical endency o! Capitalist $ccumulation.)) #lease excuse us !or citinga long passage.

    $s soon as the capitalist mode o! production stands on its own !eet, then the!urther sociali2ation o! labor and !urther trans!ormation o! the land and othermeans o! production into socially exploited and, there!ore, common means o!

    production, as well as the !urther expropriation o! private proprietors, ta es anew !orm. hat which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborerwor ing !or himsel!, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. hisexpropriation is accomplished by the action o! the immanent laws o!capitalistic production itsel!, by the centrali2ation o! capital. "ne capitalistalways ills many. and in hand with this centrali2ation, or this expropriationo! many capitalists by !ew develop, on an ever- extending scale, the co-

    operative !orm o! the labor-process, the conscious technical application o!science, the methodical cultivation o! the soil, the trans!ormation o! theinstruments o! labor into instruments o! labor only usable in common, theeconomi2ing o! all means o! production by their use as the means o!

    production o! combined, sociali2ed labor, the entanglement o! all peoples inthe net o! the world-mar et, and with this the international character o! thecapitalistic regime. $long with the constantly diminishing number o! themagnates o! capital, who usurp and monopoli2e all advantages o! this processo! trans!ormationD grows the mass o! miserly oppression, slavery,degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt o! the wor ing-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organi2ed

    by the very mechanism o! the process o! capitalist production itsel!. hemonopoly o! capital becomes a !etter upon the mode o! production, which hassprung up and !lourished along withG and under it. Centrali2ation o! the meanso! production and sociali2ation o! labor at last reach a point where they

    become incompatible with their capitalist integument. his integument is burstasunder. he nell o! capitalist private property sounds. he expropriaters areexpropriated.

    *hat in !act exists o! the new society at the moment when the )capitalistintegument is burst asunder)D $ll its premises: a society composed almostentirely o! proletarians, the )rational application o! science in industry,) andalso, given the degree o! concentration o! business enterprises this passage

    presupposes, the separation o! property ownership !rom the actual !unctions o!directing production. But where can we !ind already reali2ed in this societysocialist relations o! productions as bourgeois relations o! production were in)!eudal) societyD Eow, it is obvious that these new relations o! productioncannot be merely those reali2ed in the )sociali2ation o! the labor process,) thecooperation o! thousands o! individuals within the great industrial units o!

    production. >or these are the relations o! production typical o! a highlydeveloped !orm o! capitalism. he )sociali2ation o! the labor process) as it

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    16/94

    ta es place in the capitalist economy is the premise o! socialism in that itabolishes anarchy, isolation, dispersion, etc. But it is in no way socialism)s)pre!iguration) or )embryo,))in that it is an antagonistic !orm o! sociali2ation;i.e., it reproduces and deepens the division between the mass o! executants

    and a stratum o! directors. $t the same time the producers are sub ected to acollective !orm o! discipline, the conditions o! production are standardi2edamong various sectors and localities, and production tas s becomeinterchangeable, we notice at the other pole not only a decreasing number o!capitalists in a more and more parasitic role but also the constitution o! aseparate apparatus !or directing production. Eow, socialist relations o!

    production are those types o! relations that preclude the separate existence o! a!ixed and stable we stratum o! directors production. *e see, there!ore , thatthe point o! departure !or reali2ing such relations can be only the destructiono! the power o! the bourgeoisie or the bureaucracy. he capitalist

    trans!ormation o! society ends with the bourgeois revolution; the socialisttrans!ormation o! society begins with the proletarian revolution.

    Modern developments themselves have abolished the aspects o! the problemo! management that once were considered decisive. "n the one hand,managerial labor itsel! has become a !orm o! wage labor, as 0ngels already

    pointed out; on the other hand, it has become itsel! a collective labor o!execution. he )as s) involved in the organi2ation o! labor, which !ormerly !ellto the boss, assisted by a !ew technicians, now are per!ormed by o!!ices

    bringing together hundreds or thousands o! persons, who themselves wor assalaried, compartmentali2ed executants. he other group o! traditionalmanagerial tas s, which basically involve integrating the enterprise into theeconomy as a whole 3in particular, those involving mar et )analysis) or havinga )!lair) !or the mar et- which pertain to the nature, 5uality, and price o!manu!actured goods in demand, modi!ications in the scale o! production, etc.4,already has been trans!ormed in its very nature with the advent o! monopolies.

    he way this group o! tas s is accomplished has been trans!ormed too, sinceits basics are now carried out by a collective apparatus that canvasses themar et, surveys consumer tastes, sells the product, etc. $ll this already has

    happened under monopoly capitalism. *hen private property gives way toState-run property, as in 3total4 bureaucratic capitalism, a central apparatus !orcoordinating the !unctioning o! enterprises ta es the place both o! the mar etas )regulator) and o! the apparatuses belonging to each enterprise; this is thecentral planning bureaucracy, the economic )necessity) !or which should issue,according to its de!enders, directly !rom these !unctions o! coordination.

    here is no point in discussing this sophism. 1et us simply note in passing thatthe advocates o! the bureaucracy demonstrate, in a !irst move, that one can dowithout bosses since one can ma e the economy !unction according to a planand, in a second move, that !or the plan to !unction, it has need o! bosses o! adi!!erent ind. >or-and here is what interests us-the problem o! how to

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    17/94

    coordinate the activity o! enterprises and sectors o! productions a!ter themar et has been abolished, in other words, the problem o! planning, alreadyhas been virtually abolished by advancements in modern techni5ues. 1eontie!)s method even in its present !orm, removes all )apolitical) or )economic)

    meaning !rom the problem o! how to coordinate various sectors or variousenterprises, !or it allows us to determine the conse5uences !or a entire set o!sectors, regions, and enterprises once we have settled upon the desired volumeo! production o! end-use articles. $t the same time, it allows us a large degreeo! !lexibility, !or this method ma es it possible, i! we want to modi!y the planwhile wor is in progress, to draw out immediately the practical implicationso! such a change. Combined with other modern methods, it allows us both tochoose the optimal methods !or achieving our overall ob ectives, once they aresettled upon, and to de!ine these methods in detail !or the entire economy.Brie!ly spea ing, all o! the )planning activity) o! the +ussian bureaucracy, !or

    example, could be trans!erred at this point to an electronic calculator.

    he problem, there!ore, appears only at the two extremes o! economicactivity: at the most speci!ic level 3how to translate the production goal o! a

    particular !actory into the production goals to be carried out by each group o!wor ers in the shops o! this !actory4 and at the universal level 3how todetermine the production goals !or end-use goods o! the entire economy4. n

    both cases, the problem exists only because techni5ue 3in the broad sense o!this term4 develops-and it will develop even more in a socialist society.

    ndeed, it is clear that with an unchanging set o! techni5ues the type o!solution 3i! not the solutions themselves, whose exact terms will vary i!, !orexample, there is accumulation4 would be given once and !or all, and that itwould be merely a matter o! allocating tas s within a shop 3per!ectlycompatible with the possibility o! interchangeable producers being able toswitch between di!!erent obs4 or o! determining the end-use products. heincessant modi!ication o! the di!!erent possible ways o! carrying out

    production along with the incessant modi!ication o! !inal ob ectives will createthe terrain on which collective management will wor itsel! out.

    Alienation in Ca#italist Society

    By alienation a characteristic moment o! every class society, but one thatappears to an incomparably greater extent and depth in capitalist society-wemean to say that the products o! man)s activity 3whether we are tal ing aboutob ects or institutions4 ta e on an independent social existence opposite him.

    nstead o! being dominated by him, these products dominate him. $lienationis that which is opposed to man)s !ree creativity in the world created by man;it is not an independent historical principle having its own source. t is the

    ob ecti!ication o! human activity inso!ar as it escapes its author without itsauthor being able to escape it. 0very !orm o! alienation is a !orm o! human

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    18/94

    ob ecti!ication; i.e. , it has its source in human activity 3there are no < )secret!orces) in history, any there is a cunning o! reason in natural economic laws4.But not every !orm o! ob ecti!ication is necessarily a !orm o! alienationinso!ar as it can be consciously ta en up again, rea!!irmed or destroyed. $s

    soon as it is posited, every product o! human activity 3even a purely internalattitude4 )escapes its author) and even leads an existence independent o! thatauthor. *e cannot act as i! we have not uttered some particular word, but wecan cease to be determined by it. he past li!e o! every individual is itsob ecti!ication till today; but he is not necessarily and exhaustively alienated!rom it, his !uture is not permanently dominated by his past. Socialism will bethe abolition o! alienation in that it will permit the perpetuate consciousrecovery without violent con!lict o! the socially givens in that it will restore

    people)s domination over the products o! their activity. Capitalist society is analienated society in that its trans!ormations ta e place independently o!

    people)s will and consciousness 3including those o! the dominant class4,according to 5uasi-)laws) that express ob ective structures independent o! theircontrol.

    *hat interests us here is not to describe how alienation is produced in the!orm o! alienation in capitalist society 3which would involve an analysis o! the

    birth o! capitalism as well as o! its !unctioning4 but to show the concretemani!estations o! this alienation in various spheres o! social activity as well astheir intimate unity.

    "nly to the extent that we grasp the content o! socialism as the proletariat)sautonomy, as !ree creative activity determining itsel!, as wor ers) managementin all domains, can we grasp the essence o! man)s alienation in capitalistsociety. ndeed, it is not by accident that )0nlightened) members o! the

    bourgeoisie as well as re!ormist and Stalinist bureaucrats want to reduce t heevils o! capitalism to essentially economic evils, and, on the economic level,to exploitation in the !orm o! an une5ual distribution o! national income. othe extent that their criti5ue o! capitalism is extended to other domains it againwill ta e !or its point o! departure this une5ual distribution o! income, and it

    will consist basically o! variations on the theme o! the corrupting in!luence o!money. ! they loo at the !amily or the sexual 5uestion, they will tal abouthow poverty ma es prostitutes, about the young girl sold to the rich old man,about domestic problems that are the result o! economic misery. ! they looat culture, they will tal about venality, about obstacles put in the way o!talented but underprivileged people, and about illiteracy. Certainly, all that istrue, and important. But it only touches the sur!ace o! the problem, and thosewho tal only in this way regard man solely as a consumer and, by pretendingto satis!y him on this levels they tend to reduce him to his 3direct orsublimated4 physical !unctions o! digestion. Bu t !or man, what is at sta e isnot )ingestion) pure and simple; rather it is a matter o! sel!-expression and sel!-creation, and not only in the economic domain, but in all domains.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    19/94

    n class society, con!lict is not expressed simply in the area o! distribution, inthe !orm o! exploitation and limitations on consumption. his is only oneaspect o! the con!lict and not the most important one. ts !undamental !eatureis to be !ound in the limitations placed on man)s human role in the domain o!

    production; eventually, these limitations go so !ar as an attempt to abolish thisrole completely. t is to be !ound in the !act that man is expropriated, bothindividually and collectively, !rom having command over his own activity. Byhis enslavement to the machine, and through the machine, to an abstract,!oreign, and hostile will, man is deprived o! the true content o! his humanactivity, the conscious trans!ormation o! the natural world. t constantlyinhibits his deep-seated tendency to reali2e himsel! in the ob ect. he truesigni!ication o! this situation is not only that the producers live it as anabsolute mis!ortune, as a permanent mutilation; it is that this situation createsat the pro!oundest level o! production a perpetual con!lict, which explodes at

    least on occasion; it also is that it ma es !or huge waste!ulness-in comparisonto which the waste!ulness involved in crises o! overproduction is probablynegligible- both through the producers) positive opposition to a system theyre ect and through the lost opportunities that result !rom neutrali2ing theinventiveness and creativity o! millions o! individuals. Beyond these !eatures,we must as ourselves to what extent the !urther development o! capitalist

    production is possible, even )technically,) i! the direct producer continues to beept in the compartmentali2ed state in which he currently resides.

    But alienation in capitalist society is not simply economic. t not onlymani!ests itsel! in connection with material li!e. t also a!!ects in a!undamental way both man)s sexual and his cultural !unctions. ndeed, societyexists only inso!ar as there exists an organi2ation o! production andreproduction o! the li!e o! individuals and o! the species-there!ore anorgani2ation o! economic and sexual relations-and only inso!ar as thisorgani2ation ceases to be simply instinctual and becomes conscious-there!oreonly in- so!ar as it includes the moment o! culture.

    $s Marx said, )$ bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction o!

    her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect !rom the best o! bees isthis, that the architect raises his structure in imagination be!ore he erects it inreality. echni5ue and consciousness obviously go hand in hand). $ninstrument is a materiali2ed and operative signi!ication, or better yet amediation between a deliberate intention and a still-ideal goal.

    *hat is said in this 5uotation !rom Marx about the !abrication o! bees)honeycombs can be said as well about their )social) organi2ation. $s techni5uerep- resents a rationali2ation o! relations with the natural world, socialorgani2ation represents a rationali2ation o! the relations between individuals

    o! a group. Bee- hive organi2ation is a nonconscious !orm o! rationali2ation, but tribal organi2ation is a conscious one; the primitive can describe it and he

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    20/94

    can deny it 3by trans- gressing it4. +ationali2ation in this context obviouslydoes not mean )our) rationali2ation. $t one stage and in a given context, bothmagic and cannibalism represent rationali2ations 3without 5uotation mar s4.

    !, there!ore, a social organi2ation is antagonistic,it will tend to be so both onthe level o! production and on the sexual and cultural planes as well. t iswrong to thin that con!lict in the domain o! production ))creates)) or)determines) a secondary or derivative con!lict on other planes; the structureso! class domination impose themselves right away on all three levels at onceand are impossible and inconceivable outside o! this simultaneity, o! thise5uivalence. 0xploitation, !or example, can be guaranteed only i! the

    producers are expropriated !rom the management o! production, but thisexpropriation both presupposes that the producers tend to be separated !romthe ability to manege- and there!ore !rom culture-and reproduces this

    separation on an larger scale. 1i ewise, a society in which the !undamentalinter-human relations are relations o! domination presupposes and at the sametime engenders an alienating organi2ation o! sexual relations, namely anorgani2ation that creates in individuals deep-seated inhibitions that tend toma e them accept authority, etc.

    ndeed, there obviously is a dialectical e5uivalence between social structuresand the )psychological) structures o! individuals. >rom his !irst steps in li!e theindividual is sub ected to a constant set o! pressures aimed at imposing on hima given attitude toward wor , sex, ideas, at cheating him out o! 3!rustrer4 thenatural ob ects o! his activity and at inhibiting him by ma ing him interiori2eand value this process o! !rustration. Class society can exist only inso!ar as itsucceeds to a large extent in en!orcing this acceptance. his is why thecon!lict is not a purely external con!lict, but is transposed into the hearts o!individuals themselves. his antagonistic social structure corresponds to anantagonistic structure within individuals, each perpetually reproducing itsel!

    by means o! the other. he point o! these considerations is not only toemphasi2e the moment o! identity in the essence o! the relations o!domination as they ta e place in the capitalist !actory, in the patriarchal

    !amily, or in authoritarian teaching and )aristocratic) culture. t is to point outthat the socialist revolution necessarily will have to embrace all domains intheir entirety , and this must be done not it some un!oreseeable !uture and byincrements, but rather !rom the outset, Certainly it has to begin in a certain!ashion, which can be nothing other than the destruction o! the power o! theexploiters by the power o! the armed masses and the installation o! wor ers)management in production. But it will have to grapple immediately with thereconstruction o! other social activities, under penalty o! death. *e will try toshow this by loo ing at what ind o! relations the proletariat, once in power,will entertain with culture.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    21/94

    he antagonistic structure o! cultural relations in present-day society isexpressed also 3but in no way exclusively4 by the radical division betweenmanual and intellectual labor. he result is that the immense ma ority o!humanity is totally separated !rom culture as activity and shares 3participe4 in

    only an in!initesimal !raction o! the !ruits o! culture. "n the other hand, thedivision o! society into directors and executants becomes more and morehomologous to the division between manual labor and intellectual labor 3allmanagement obs being some !orm o! intellectual labor and all manual obs

    being some !orm o! labor that consists o! the execution o! tas s4. *or ers)management is possible, there!ore, only i! !rom the outset it starts moving inthe direction o! overcoming this division, in particular with respect tointellectual labor as it relates to the production process. his implies in turnthat the proletariat will begin to appropriate culture !or itsel!. Certainly not asready-made culture, as the assimilation o! the )results) o! historically extant

    culture. Beyond a certain point, such an assimilation is both impossible in theimmediate !uture and super!luous 3as concerns what is o! interest to us here4.+ather as appropriation o! activity, as recovery o! the cultural !unction itsel!and as a radical change in the producing masses) relation to intellectual wor ."nly as this change ta es hold will wor ers) management become irreversible.

    3>irst published in HSocialisme ou BarbarieH Iuly,%&''.4

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    22/94

    !$A% & A(() MA%% &S

    n issue number 9 o! Pouvoir Ouvrier, a schoolteacher posed the !ollowing5uestion: *hy don)t wor ers writeD e showed in a pro!ound way how this isdue to their total situation in sociey and also to the nature o! the so-callededucation dispensed by schools in capitalist society. e also mentioned thatwor ers o!ten thin their experience Hisn)t interesting.H

    his last point seems to me absolutely !undamental, and would li e to sharemy experience on it, which is not that o! a wor er, but o! a militant.

    *hen wor ers as an intellectual to tal to them about the problems o!capitalism and socialism, they !ind it hard to understand that we accord a

    central place to the wor ers) situation in the !actory and at the point o! production. o!ten have had occasion to present to wor ers some o! my ideas,expressed in the !ollowing way:

    - he way in which the capitalist !actory is organi2ed creates a perpetualcon!lict between wor ers and management on the very issue o! how

    production is to be carried out.

    -Management is always coo ing up new ways o! chaining wor ers down toHthe discipline o! producingH as this is understood by management.

    -*or ers are always inventing new ways o! de!ending themselves.

    - his struggle o!ten has more in!luence over real wage levels than donegotiations or even stri es.

    - he resulting waste!ulness is tremendous and !ar greater than thewaste!ulness brought on by economic crises.

    - rade unions always are out o! touch with and most o!ten are even hostile to

    this ind o! wor ing-class struggle.

    -Militants who are wor ers ought to spread the word o! all examples o! thisstruggle that can be used outside the speci!ic company in which theyoriginally were produced.

    - his situation would not be changed in the least by the mere Hnationali2ationHo! the !actories and the application o! HplanningH to the economy.

    -Conse5uently, socialism is inconceivable without a complete change in the

    way production is organi2ed in !actories, and without the suppression o! the present management and the instauration o! wor ers) management.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    23/94

    hese statements were both concrete and theoretical. n each instance they provided real and precise examples. $t the same time, however, thesestatements, !ar !rom being limited to the mere description o! !acts, were anattempt to draw overall conclusions. ere we have things about which

    wor ers obviously had the most direct and complete experience. $nd yet, onthe other hand, they had a pro!ound and universal meaning.

    Eevertheless, what we discovered was that our listeners had little to say andappeared rather disappointed. hey had come to tal or to listen to people talabout things that really mattered, and it was hard !or them to believe that thethings they themselves do every day really mattered. hey thought someonewas going to tal to them about absolute or relative surplus value, about the!alling rate o! pro!it, about overproduction and underconsumption. t seemedunbelievable to them that the evolution o! modern society is determined !ar

    more by the daily movements and gestures o! millions o! wor ers in !actoriesall over the world than by some great and mysterious hidden laws o! theeconomy discovered by theoreticians. hey even wrangled over whether sucha permanent struggle between wor ers and management existed and whetherthe wor ers actually were de!ending themselves. "nce the discussion reallygot rolling, however, what they said showed that they themselves wereconducting this struggle !rom the moment they set !oot in the !actory until thetime they le!t.

    his idea wor ers have that how they live, what they do, and what they thinHdoesn)t really matterH is not only the thing that prevents them !romexpressing themselves. It is the gravest manifestation of the ideologicalenslavement brought on by capitalism. >or capitalism can survive only i!

    people are persuaded that what they themselves do and now is a private littlematter o! their own that does not really matter, and that really importantmatters are the monopoly o! the big shots and specialists in various !ields o!endeavor. Capitalism is constantly trying to drum this idea into people)s heads.

    But we also must point out that it has been power!ully helped along in this

    wor by the wor ers) own labor organi2ations. >or 5uite a long time tradeunions and w wor ing-class parties have tried to persuade wor ers that theonly 5uestions that really mattered concerned either wages in particular or theeconomy,politics or society in general. his is already wrong.But there issomething even worse. *hat these organi2ations considered as HtheoryH onthese 5uestions and what more and more has passed !or such in the public)seyes, instead o! being, as it should have been, closely connected to theexperience o! wor ers at the point o! production and in their social li!e, has

    become an allegedly Hscienti!icH theory that is also becoming more and moreabstract 3and more and more !alse4. "! course, only specialists-i.e.,

    intellectuals and leaders- now about this theory and can tal about it. he

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    24/94

    wor ers are ust supposed to eep 5uiet and try conscientiously to absorb andassimilate the HtruthsH these expertsH spout at them.

    hus we get a two!old result. he intense desire large sections o! the wor ingclass have to enlarge their nowledge and expand their hori2ons so that theymight be able to go beyond the con!ines o! their particular !actory and !orm anidea o! society at large that would aid them in their struggle is destroyed right!rom the very start. he so-called theory put in !ront o! them appears, in the

    best o! cases, as a sort o! impenetrable higher algebra or, as is the case today,a string o! incomprehensible words that don)t explain a thing. "n the otherhand, wor ers have no way o! chec ing on the content o! this HtheoryH or itstruth value; the proo!s are to be !ound, they are told, in the hundred-pluschapters o! Capital and in huge, mysterious boo s owned by wisercomrades,in whom they will ust have to place their con!idence.

    he roots and the conse5uences o! this situation are !ar-ranging indeed. $t itsorigin we discover a deep-seated, bourgeois way o! loo ing at things: Iust asthere are laws o! physics, there supposedly are economic and social laws, andthese laws have nothing to do with people)s direct experience. here are socialscientists and social engineers who now them. Iust as only the engineer cantell you how to build a bridge, so these social engineers-political and trade-union leaders alone can tell you how to organi2e society. o change society isto change the overall way in which it is organi2ed, but this does not have anye!!ect at all upon what goes on in the !actories-since that Hdoesn)t reallymatter.H

    o get beyond this situation, it won)t do to ust tell the wor ers: Spea up, it)sup to you to say what the problems are. *hat remains to be done is to teardown this monstrously wrong-headed idea that these problems as they areseen by wor ers don)t really matter, that other problems are !ar moreimportant and that only HtheoreticiansH and politicians can tal about them."ne cannot understand anything about the !actory i! one does not understandsociety at large, but nothing can be understood about society at large i! the

    !actory is not understood. here is only one way to do this: he wor ers mustspea .

    o show this ought to be the primary and permanent tas o! Pouvoir Ouvrier.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    25/94

    %he &ole of Bolshe*i" Ideology in the Birth of the Bureaucracy

    3 his article was !irst published in Socialism ou Barbarie J9'3%& 64,as anintroduction to $lexandra Kollantai)s The Workers Oppostion ,but it can standalone as a re!utation o! the standard 1eninist/ rots yist claim that the Soviet@nion only degenerated post %&86 i.e a!ter 1enin)s death,and as such has been

    published in pamphlet !orm by a number o! groups.4

    *e are happy to present to our readers the !irst translation into >rench o!$lexandra Kollontai)s pamphlet The Workers Opposition in !ussia . his

    pamphlet was published in Moscow at the beginning o! %&8%, during theviolent controversy that preceded the enth Congress o! the Bolshevi party.

    his Congress was to close discussion !orever on this controversy as well as

    on all the others.#eople have not !inished tal ing about the +ussian +evolution, its problems,its degeneration, and about the regime it ultimately produced. $nd how couldoneD "! all the revolts o! the wor ing class, the +ussian +evolution was theonly victorious one. $nd o! all the wor ing class)s !ailures, it was the mostthoroughgoing and the most revealing.

    he crushing o! the #aris Commune in %?7% and o! the Budapest uprising in%&' teach us that insurgent wor ers encounter immensely di!!icult

    organisational and political problems, that an insurrection can !ind itsel!isolated, that the ruling classes will not hesitate to employ any ind o!violence or barbarian savagery when their power is at sta e. he +ussian+evolution, however, obliges us to re!lect not only on the conditions !or a

    proletarian victory but also on the content and the possible !ate o! such avictory, on its consolidation and development, on the seeds o! a !ailure whoseimport in!initely surpasses the victory o! the troops o! the ersaillese, o!>ranco)s army, or o! Khrushchev)s tan s.

    Since it crushed the *hite armies and yet succumbed to a bureaucracy it haditsel! generated, the +ussian +evolution puts us !ace to !ace with problems o!a di!!erent order !rom those involving a study o! the tactics and methods o! anarmed insurrection or a correct analysis o! the relation o! !orces at a givenmoment. t obliges us to re!lect on the nature o! the power o! labouring peopleand on what we mean by socialism. Culminating in a regime in whicheconomic concentration, the totalitarian power o! the rulers, and theexploitation o! the labouring population have been pushed to the limit, and

    producing to an extreme degree the centralisation o! capital and its !usion withthe State, in its outcome this revolution presents us with what has been and in

    certain respects still remains the most highly developed and the HpurestH !ormo! a modern exploitative society.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    26/94

    0mbodying Marxism !or the !irst time in history-only to ma e us seeimmediately in this incarnation a monstrous dis!iguration o! it-the +ussian+evolution allows us to understand more about Marxism than what Marxismitsel! has been able to help us to understand about the +evolution. he regime

    the +evolution produced has become the touchstone !or all current ideas, notonly those o! classical Marxism, o!course, but ust as much those o! the bourgeois ideologies. his regime has proved the ruination o! Marxismthrough its very realisation and has proved the triumph o! the deepest layers o!these other ideologies through its very re!utations o! them. 0ven as thisregime has expanded to embrace a third o! the globe, has been challenged bywor ers) revolts against it over the past ten years, has attempted to re!ormitsel!, and has now split into two opposing poles, the +ussian and the Chinese,it has not ceased to raise 5uestions o! the most pressing importance and to actas the clearest as well as the most enigmatic indicator o! world history. he

    world we live in, re!lect in, and act in was launched on its present course bythe wor ers and Bolshevi s o! #etrograd in "ctober %&%7.

    $mong the innumerable 5uestions raised by the !ate o! the +ussian+evolution, two !orm the poles around which we may organise all the others.

    he !irst 5uestion is, *hat ind o! society was produced by the degenerationo! the revolutionD 3*hat is the nature and the dynamic o! this regimeD *hat isthe +ussian bureaucracyD *hat is its relation to capitalism and to the

    proletariatD *hat is its place in historyD *hat are its present problemsD4 his5uestion has already been discussed on several occasions in S. ou B and will

    be again.

    he second 5uestion is, ow can a wor ers) revolution give birth to a bureaucracy, and how did this occur in +ussiaD *e have examined this5uestion in its theoretical !orm,but so !ar we have said little !rom the concretehistorical point o! view. ndeed, there is an almost insurmountable obstacle toa close study o! this particularly obscure period extending !rom "ctober %&%7to March %&8%, during which the !ate o! the revolution was played out. he

    5uestion o! most concern to us is, in e!!ect, the !ollowing: o what extent didthe +ussian wor ers try to ta e upon themselves the direction o! society, themanagement o! production, the regulation o! the economy, and the orientationo! political li!eD *hat was their conscious awareness o! these problems, thecharacter o! their autonomous activityD *hat was their attitude toward theBolshevi party, toward the nascent bureaucracyD Eow, we should point outthat it is not wor ers who write history. t is always the others . $nd theseothers, whoever they may be, have a historical existence only inso!ar as themasses are passive, or active simply to support them, and this is preciselywhat Hthe othersH will tell us at every opportunity. Most o! the time these

    others will not even possess eyes to see and ears to hear the gestures andutterances that express people)s autonomous activity. n the best o! instances,

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    27/94

    they will sing the praises o! this activity so long as it miraculously coincideswith their own line, but they will radically condemn it, and impute to it the

    basest motives, as soon as it strays there!rom. hus rots y describes ingrandiose terms the anonymous wor ers o! #etrograd moving ahead o! the

    Bolshevi party or mobilising themselves during the Civil *ar, but later on hewas to characterise the Kronstadt rebels as Hstool pigeonsH and Hhirelings o!the >rench igh Command.H hey lac the categories o! thought-the braincells, we might dare say-necessary to understand, or even to record, thisactivity as it really occurs: to them, an activity that is not instituted, that hasneither boss nor program, has no status; it is not even clearly perceivable,except perhaps in the mode o! HdisorderH and Htroubles.H he autonomousactivity o! the masses belongs by de!intion to what is repressed in history.

    hus, it is not only that the documentary records most interesting to us during

    this period are !ragmentary, or even that they were and continue to besystematically suppressed by the triumphant bureaucracy. t is that this recordo! events is in!initely more selective and slanted than any other historicaltestimony. he reactionary rage o! bourgeois witnesses and the almost e5uallyvicious hostility o! the social democrats; the delirious ravings o! theanarchists; the o!!icial historiography, periodically rewritten to suit the needso! the bureaucracy, and that o! the rots yist tendency concerned exclusivelywith usti!ying itsel! a!ter the !act and with hiding its role during the !irststages o! degeneration-all this Hhistorical evidenceH converges on one point: itignores the signs o! the autonomous activity o! the masses during this period,or, i! necessary, HprovesH the a priori impossibility o! its very existence. n thisregard, the in!ormation contained in $lexandra Kollontai)s text is o! pricelessvalue. >irst, because o! the direct indications it supplies concerning theattitudes and reactions o! +ussian wor ers toward the policy o! the Bolshevi

    party; second and more important, because it shows that a large portion o! thewor ing-class base o! the #arty was aware o! the process o! bureaucrati2ationthat was ta ing place, and was ta ing a stand against it. t is no longer

    possible, a!ter reading this text, to continue to describe the +ussia o! %&8 asH ust chaos,H Ha pile o! ruins,H where the thought o! 1enin and the Hiron willH

    o! the Bolshevi s were the only elements o! order in a country whose proletariat had been pulverised. he wor ers wanted something, and theyshowed what they wanted through the *or ers) "pposition within the #artyand the #etrograd stri es and the Kronstadt revolt outside the #arty. Both theintraparty and the extraparty challenges had to be crushed by 1enin and

    rots y !or Stalin later to emerge triumphant.

    Bac to the main 5uestion: ow could the +ussian +evolution have produceda bureaucratic regimeD he current answer 3!irst advanced by rots y, laterta en up by the !ellow travellers o! Stalinism, and today by Khrushchev)s menthemselves in order to HexplainH the Hbureaucratic de!ormations o! thesocialist systemH4 is the !ollowing: the +evolution too place in a bac ward

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    28/94

    country, which in any case could not have built socialism on its own; it !ounditsel! isolated by the de!eat o! the revolution in 0urope 3and more particularlyin =ermany between %&%& and %&894; and what is more, the country wascompletely devested by the Civil *ar.

    his answer would not deserve a moment)s consideration, were it not !or the!act that it is widely accepted and that it continues to play a mysti!icatory role.>or it is completely beside the point.

    he bac wardness, isolation, and devastation o! the country-all incontestable!acts in themselves - might ust as well have explained a pure and simplede!eat o! the revolution and the restoration o! classical capitalism. *hat weare as ing, however, is precisely why there was no pure and simple de!eat,why the +evolution overcame its external enemies only to collapse !rom

    within, why it HdegeneratedH precisely in such a way that it led to the power o!the bureaucracy.

    rots y)s answer, i! we may use a metaphor, is li e saying, H his patientdeveloped tuberculosis because he was run down.H >eeling run down,however, he might have died instead, or contracted some other disease. *hydid he contract this particular diseaseD *hat has to be explained in thedegeneration o! the +ussian +evolution is why it was speci!ically abureaucratic degeneration. his cannot be done by re!erring to !actors asgeneral as Hbac wardnessH or Hisolation.H 1et us add in passing that thisHresponseH teaches us nothing we could extend beyond the con!ines o! the+ussian situation in %&8 . he sole conclusion to be drawn !rom this ind o!Lanalysis is that revolutionaries should ardently hope that !uture revolutions

    brea out an more advanced countries, that they should not remain isolated,and that civil wars should not in the least be devastating.

    $!ter all, the !act that Nsince the Second *orld *arO the bureaucratic systemo! rule has extended its !rontiers well beyond the boundaries o! +ussia, that ithas installed similar regimes in countries that in no way can be characterisedas bac ward 3such as C2echoslova ia or 0ast =ermany4, and thatindustrialisation - which has made +ussia the second strongest power in theworld - has not wea ened this bureaucracy at all, shows that all discussion interms o! Hbac wardness,H Hisolation,H and so !orth, is purely and simplyanachronistic.

    ! we wish to understand the emergence o! the bureaucracy as an increasingly preponderant managerial stratum in the contemporary world, we are obligedto note at the outset that, paradoxically, it appears at the two opposite poles o!social development. "n the one hand, it has emerged as the organic product o!

    the maturation process o! capitalist society. "n the other hand, it appears as

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    29/94

    the H!orced answer bac ward countries give to the problem o! their own passage to the stage o! industrialisation.

    n the !irst case, the emergence o! the bureaucracy o!!ers us no mystery. heconcentration o! production necessarily leads to the appearance within

    business !irms o! a stratum whose !unction is to ta e on the collectivemanagement o! immense economic units. he tas to be per!ormed goes5ualitatively beyond the capacities o! any individual owner. $t !irst in theeconomic realm, but gradually also in other spheres, the growing role o! theState leads both to a 5uantitative extension o! the bureaucratic state apparatusand to a 5ualitative change in its nature.

    $t the opposite pole within advanced capitalist societies, the wor ers)movement degenerates as it becomes bureaucratised, it becomes

    bureaucratised as it becomes integrated into the established order, and itcannot become integrated into this order without becoming bureaucratised.he various technoeconomic, state-political, and Hwor ing-classH elements

    constitutive o! the bureaucracy coexist with varying degrees o! success. heycoexist both with each other and with the more properly HbourgeoisH elementso! society 3owners o! the means o! production4. n any case, as the

    bureaucracy evolves, the importance o! these bureaucratic elements !or themanagement o! society constantly increases. n this sense, one can say that theemergence o! the bureaucracy corresponds to an HultimateH phase in the

    process o! capital concentration, that the bureaucracy personi!ies or embodiescapital during this phase, in the same way that the bourgeoisie did during the

    previous phase.

    $t least as !ar as its origins and its social-historical !unction are concerned,this bureaucracy can be understood in terms o! the categories o! classicalMarxism. 3 t matters little, in this respect, that today)s alleged Marxists, who!all !orever short o! the possibilities entailed by the theory they claim as theirs,remain incapable o! granting the bureaucracy any ind o! sociohistoricalstatus. hese so-called Marxists believe that there is no name !or this thing in

    their ideas, and so in practice they deny its existence and spea o! capitalism,as i! nothing had changed within capitalism !or the past century or hal!century.4

    n the second case, the bureaucracy emerges, one might say, !rom the veryvoid !ound in this type o! society. n almost all bac ward countries, the oldruling strata are clearly incapable o! underta ing the industrialisation o! thecountry. >oreign capital creates, at Hbest,H merely isolated poc ets o! modernexploitation, and the late-born national bourgeoisie in such countries hasneither the strength nor the courage necessary to revolutionise the old social

    structures !rom top to bottom, as would be re5uired by the process o!modernisation. 1et us add that, because o! this very !act, the national

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    30/94

    proletariat is too wea to play the role assigned to it by the schema o!Hpermanent revolution,H that is, it is too wea to eliminate the old ruling strataand to underta e the process o! trans!ormation that would lead, in anuninterrupted !ashion, !rom the Hbourgeois-democraticH phase through to

    socialism.*hat can happen thenD $ bac ward society can stagnate and remain stagnant!or a longer or shorter period o! time. 3 his is the situation today o! bac wardcountries, whether or not they have been constituted). )as States only recently.4But this process o! stagnation in !act signi!ies a relative and sometimes anabsolute deterioration o! their economic and social situation, as well as arupture o! the old e5uilibrium built into these societies. $ggravated almostalways by apparently HaccidentalH !actors 3which in !act recur inevitably andwhich are ampli!ied to an in!initely greater degree in a society undergoing

    disintegration4, each upset in the balance o! these societies turns into a crisis,o!ten coloured by some HnationalH component. his can result in an overt and

    prolonged national-social struggle 3China, $lgeria, Cuba, ndochina4 or acoup d)etat, almost inevitably military in nature 30gypt4.

    hese two examples exhibit immense di!!erences, but they also share acommon point.

    n the !irst type o! example 3China, etc.4, the politico-military leadership o!the struggle gradually erects itsel! into an autonomous stratum that managesthe HrevolutionH and, a!ter victory, ta es in hand the reconstruction o! thecountry. o this -end, it naturally incorporates all those members o! the old

    privileged strata who have rallied to its cause while also selecting certainmembers o! the masses. $nd as the country industrialises, it constitutes theseelements into a hierarchical pyramid that will serve as the s eleton o! the newsocial structure. his industrialisation is carried out, o! course, according tothe classical methods o! primitive accumulation. hese methods involveintense exploitation o! the wor ers and an even more intense exploitation o!the peasantry, who are more or less press-ganged into an industrial army o!

    labour.n the second example 30gypt, etc.4, the state-military bureaucracy, while

    playing a role o! tutelage with regard to the existing privileged strata, does notcompletely eliminate these strata or the social situation they represent. $lso,one can almost always !oresee that the country will not be !ully trans!ormedand industrialised until there is a !urther violent convulsion.

    n both instances, however, what we discover is that the bureaucracysubstitutes or tends to substitute itsel! !or the bourgeoisie as the social stratum

    that carries out the tas o! primitive accumulation.

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    31/94

    *e must note that this bureaucracy has e!!ectively shattered the traditionalcategories o! Marxism. n no way can it be said that this new social stratumhas been constituted and has grown within the womb o! the preceding society.

    Eor is it born out o! a new mode o! production whose development had

    become incompatible with the maintenance o! old !orms o! economic andsocial li!e. t is, on the contrary the bureaucracy that gives birth to this newmode o! production in the societies we are considering. t is not itsel! born outo! the normal !unctioning o! society, but rather out o! the inability o! thissociety to !unction. $lmost without metaphor, we can say that it has its originin the social void: its historical roots plunge wholly into the !uture. tobviously ma es no sense to say that the Chinese bureaucracy is the producto! the country)s industrialisation when it would be in!initely more reasonableto say that the industrialisation o! China is the product o! the bureaucracy)saccession to power. *e can only move beyond this antinomy by pointing out

    that in the present epoch, and short o! a revolutionary solution on aninternational scale, a bac ward country can industrialise only by becoming

    bureaucratised.

    n the case o! +ussia, one might say that, a!ter the !act, the bureaucracy seemsto have !ul!illed the Hhistorical !unction o! the P times, or o! the bureaucracyo! a bac ward country today. @p to a certain point, there!ore, the +ussian

    bureaucracy can be compared to the latter sort o! bureaucracy. he conditionsunder which it arose, however, are di!!erent. $nd this di!!erence is due

    precisely to the !act that the +ussia o! %&%7 was not simply a Hbac wardHcountry, but a country that, besides its bac wardness, exhibited certain well-developed !eatures o! capitalism 3+ussia was, in %&%9, the !i!th strongestindustrial power in the world4-so well developed, as a matter o! !act, that itwas the theatre o! a proletarian revolution proclaiming itsel! socialist 3long

    be!ore this word had come to signi!y anything one wants and nothing at all4.

    he !irst bureaucracy to have become a ruling class in its society, the +ussian bureaucracy appears precisely as the end product o! a revolution that everyonethought had given power to the proletariat. t there!ore represents a third, 5uite

    speci!ic type 3although in !act it was the !irst clearly to emerge within modernhistory4: the bureaucracy born !rom the degeneration o! a wor ing-classrevolution. t is this degeneration - even i!, !rom the outset, the +ussian

    bureaucracy accomplishes such !unctions as Hmanager o! centralised capitalHand acts as the Hstratum !or developing a modern industrial economy by everymeans available.H

    Keeping in mind precisely what came a!terward, and recollecting too that the"ctober %&%7 Hsei2ure o! powerH was organised and directed by the Bolshevi

    party and that this #arty in !act assumed this power as its own !rom day one,

    in what sense can one say that the "ctober +evolution was proletarian 3that is,i! one re!uses at least to identi!y a class simply with the party claiming power

  • 8/13/2019 Class Against Class Several Texts by Castoriadis

    32/94

    in that class)s name4D *hy not say-indeed, there has been no lac o! people tosay it-that there never was in +ussia anything other than a coup d)etat carriedout by a party that, having somehow obtained the support o! the wor ingclass, was merely trying to instaurate its own dictatorship and succeeded in

    doing soD*e have no intention o! discussing this problem in scholastic terms. "ur aimis not to as whether the +ussian +evolution !its into the category o!Hproletarian revolutions.H he 5uestion that matters !or us is this: (id the+ussian wor ing class play a historical role o! its own during this period, orwas it simply a sort o! in!antry, mobilised in the service o! other, alreadyestablished !orcesD n other words, did it appear as a relatively autonomous

    pole in the struggle and the whirlwind o! actions, organisational !orms,demands, and ideas o! this period, or was it ust a tool manipulated without

    great di!!iculty or ris , a relay station !or impulses coming !rom elsewhereD

    $nyone who has studied the history o! the +ussian +evolution even to theslight degree could answer without hesitation.#etrograd in %&%7 and evena!terward, was neither #rague in %&6? nor Canton in %&6&. he proletariat)sindependent role was clearly apparent - even, to begin with, by the very waywor ers !loc e