Jakarta Anarchist Resistance
The Socialisme ou Barbarie Group Based in France
This memento is important for the Socialisme ou Barbarie group based in France. In the 60s they were in a relationship similar group in the UK, Solidarity. The group has now disbanded. The Solidarity important document entitled: As We See It, has been translated into Indonesia. Please look for it. Socialisme ou Barbarie is a Marxist group that inspires many of the ultra-left, the libertarian Marxists, Communists of the Left (Left Wing Communist), Council Communist, Anarchist Communists, autonomist Marxist / anarchist (Squatteris, Otonomen, Tuthe Biance, Black bloc) , Socialist, Libertarian, etc. Situationists. This document will discussed the various movements resulting in clearing up a few things.
While translating into Indonesian, I purposely let kept the original terms of words that I think have a meaning that can not be translated into the Indonesian vocabulary. Besides that, I feel these words are important for search or further study. I also created my own additional memorandum to distinguish from the overall translation of this material.
Terms troubling: NO ... heheheh. Please "hijack" this material: sample, quote, reproduce, etc. But I ask that you still specify where the original source can be found (for example on the internet state the name of the original website or give the email). This is all the more important for studing and developing this material. Just think of yourself. It would be very confusing if you obtained a document that does not mention the source, especially if that material has been translated. When the material is controversial and disjointed, the meaning of the words may be confusing. Consider this scenario: You don't speak English but you are in the United States and friends have shown you how to get to online usa casinos. But since you can't read English you decide to have the online casino site be auto translated into Indonesian. So all the rules, how to deposit and how to withdraw monies, even the name of the games are translated. One wonders how an Indonesian translation would handle such slot game names as White Bleu, Eggstrava-Ganza, Gold Rush, Seven & Bars, Flea Market, Global Cup Soccer, Chicken Little, Big Cash Win, Milk the Cash Cow, Bust-A-Vault, Surfers Paradise, and Fantastic Fruit. It might be hilarious and it might be just down right confusing. A much smarter move, since this is the world wide web, is to just find an Indonesian online gambling site written in the country's main language. OK...Perhaps that was not the best example since the discussions regarding the original documents of the libertarian Marxists, Communists of the Left (Left Wing Communist), Council Communist, Anarchist Communists, autonomist Marxist / anarchist (Squatteris, Otonomen, Tuthe Biance, Black bloc) , Socialist, Libertarian, etc. Situationists in their original written language can't be found except in the original language or iwith translations.
If you can not assist in the search and development of these documents, please, at least, support the dissemination of knowledge to the public!
Happy reading and remain critical.
Source: World Collective Action Notes http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/s_ou_b.htm Collective Action Notes, POB 39 521, Balto., MD 21212 USA Mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org, or sites Libcom , http://libcom.org/library/socialisme-ou-barbarie-linden.
Important note from the publisher:
URGENT WARNING: If you have ever purchased a domain name, BEWARE of the insidious scam that Bob Sakayama uncovers in his eye-opening post about a long-running and widespread deception targeting domain owners. We, the owners of this domain, were shocked to discover that we had been paying renewal fees multiple times a year, duped by a clever scammer posing as our legitimate registrar.
After closely examining Bob's post, we realized how the cunningly crafted emails had fooled us into believing our domain was expiring, when in reality it was not. This is a critical reminder for every domain owner to stay vigilant and protect themselves from such scams.
To avoid falling victim to this malicious scheme, follow these crucial steps:
- Carefully scrutinize any email regarding domain renewals, paying close attention to the sender's email address and wording.
- Verify your domain's actual expiration date through your legitimate registrar's website or by contacting their support.
- Never click on links in suspicious emails; instead, visit your registrar's official website directly.
- Consider enabling domain auto-renewal through your registrar to minimize the risk of accidental lapses or scam-induced payments.
Don't let yourself become the next victim! Read Bobs post to gain a thorough understanding of this deceitful tactic and safeguard your domain today.
Socialisme ou Barbarie: Theoretical Socialism
Political views and radical groups developed the theoretical Socialism or Barbarism (Socialisme ou Barbarie) from 1949 onwards, only recently gained public attention outside the French-speaking countries. (2) During the time span long enough in fact the situation is not very different in France. This group together with periodic journal by the same name was also not too gained a lot of attention. This only changed after the uprising of students and workers in France in May and June 1968. The files of the journal, which formerly did not sell (the journal ceased publication three years earlier), suddenly become hot-selling items. Many of the ideas of "deviant" who were listed there seemed to gain justification through its unexpected uprising.
In 1977 the French newspaper, Le Monde, wrote about the intellectual effort Socialisme ou Barbarie: "This work - although not widely known to the public - at least not have a strong influence on the groups that play a role in May 1968." In the writings of this group, one can find "most of the ideas that are currently widespread debate (on the issue of workers control until a critique of modern technology, regarding Bolshevism or about Marx).
In Socialisme ou Barbarie there is an attempt to consider the process of bureaucratization of social movements. The most important questions in this case: Will the present movement against the current order disintegrate or turn into a rigid hierarchy? How will militants organize themselves without necessarily exploited and frozen into a bureaucratic apparatus?
Socialisme ou Barbarie first debated this question because this group ask themselves: why did everything become so distorted in the traditional labor movement over the years. Indeed, the twentieth century labor movements have been increasingly alienating themselves from their own grass roots by establishing massive workers' and trade union bureaucracies.
In reaction to this development Socialisme ou Barbarie tried to encourage new forms of resistance. The approach used is direct democracy. History of this group is essentially a long search of a new relationship between spontaneity and organization, between practice and theory. The debate that took place during this search still has a freshness that is relevant to the present.
Intellectual Socialisme ou Barbarie Most Prominent Members
Intellectual Socialisme ou Barbarie most prominent members were Castoriadis and Lefort. Cornelius Castoriadis was born in 1922 and studied law, economics, and philosophy at the University of Athens, Greece. Before World War II, during the Metaxas dictatorship, he joined the Communist Party's youth organization. However, when Germany occupied the country and the Communist Party wants to combine themselves with the organ the resistance of the bourgeoisie, Castoriadis rejects the decision. After a short period of political quest, he finally chose to join a small Trotskyist-led Spires Stinas. This is a risky option, because when it Trotskyists Greece threatened from two sides. The occupying power (Nazi-Germany trans) pursue them at any time and in 1943 execute their most important leaders, including Pantelis Pouliopoulis and Yannis Xypolitos. (4) At the country "liberated" in 1944, the communists turn their hunt. During a "cleansing operation", the Communists killed at least 600 followers Trostkyis, often torturing them first. (5) traumatic experience which is the decisive factor in the development of next Castoriadis. The views of Trostkis about Stalinism, which he believes is only for a moment, seems more and more and less true.
Stalinists are not part of the labor movement is sucked into capitalism, as Trotsky said, but bureaucrats, who oppose the workers at once capitalism! When Castoriadis settled in France starting in late 1945 he joined the Parri Communiste Internationale (PCI), the French branch of the Fourth International, which while it has several hundred members. He immediately disseminate his new position.
Claude Lefort is an important co Castoriadis in defiance of the current building in the PCI. Born in 1924, Lefort was still a student when he met Castoriadis philosophy for the first time. Since the beginning of 1943, he had formed an underground group at the Lycée Henri IV in Paris, however the position of the Trostkyis against the Soviet Union and Stalinism never so assured him. When first heard the speech Castoriadis, Lefort was very impressed: "The analysis memukauku," he said in an interview. "I've convinced him even before he came to the conclusion. [...] I think Castoriadis argument put forward par with Marx himself, but the other Trotkyis call it as an aberration." (6)
Since 1946 onwards Castoriadis and Lefort cooperate. As is customary in the Trotskyist movement, both have a pseudonym. Castoriadis uses the name of Pierre Chaulieu, being Lefort as Claude Montal. (7) That's why they were first known as the tendency or propensity Chaulieu-Montal. (8)
Political history Castoriadis and Lefort quite different. Castoriadis once a member of the Communist Party and then members of the Trotskyist organization. In the two experiences he took the opposite view for a member. He was thus familiar with party discipline - at least for the moment. On the other hand, Lefort, had no such experiences. He spent several years as a member of a party organization and from the beginning have taken opposite views on the Trotskyist movement. Idea to identify themselves with a group or party from the beginning is very strange to him. (9) The difference between them is becoming increasingly more critical in the political debate at a later date.
If you view a little to the rear one can see that the initial period after the end of World War II - until 1947 - an order that is different from the later times. Before 1947 political relations are relatively open and flexible; The later today all changed for a long time. Tensions between the two powers superpower increased gradually. Stalin had not designed the East European countries newly conquered to follow the style of Soviet and US President Truman, has not decided to use the economic potential of the American giant as a weapon against communism.
A Strong Shift to the Left in Europe After WWII
In Western Europe the war has led to a strong shift to the left. Communist parties are becoming more popular than ever before. The percentage of votes they often grow doubled from the number before the war: there is also an increase in the number of party membership. After years of suffering in the economic depression and war society expects progress and social reform. Communist followers had been appointed to the government in many European countries. Beginning in 1947, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Iceland and Finland all have Communist ministers.
1947 years sees the end of a relatively peaceful period of existence. The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union had some time to deteriorate. Economic issues to the fore in Western Europe. While at the same time the American economy is in jeopardy because of overheating and were frantically searching for new markets. In such circumstances it is George Marshall, Secretary of State, developed a plan to offer Europe a significant assistance program. In this way a number of objectives can be achieved simultaneously: the power of capitalism in Europe will increase; American capital gain export channels; and communist influence can be beaten back. Marshall Plan (Marshall Plan) marked a turning point that brings change internaional constellation. In the countries of Western Europe communist ministers kicked out of his position. In Eastern Europe the political and economic transformation towards "people's democracy" is applied, which means that these communities began to increasingly resemble Soviet society. Polarization between the ruling bloc began to dominate developments: the Cold War began.
The French bourgeois circles happily using the Communists together a great influence in the federation of trade unions (CGT) immediately after the end of the German occupation. By allowing the communists to form a government together with the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats in 1945, Charles de Gaulle - who was a prime minister for a short time in November - hoped to discipline the workers. Monnet Plan (Plan Monnet), which regulate the issue of reconstruction, supported by the communists (PCF). The New York Herald Tribune wrote on 12 July 1946: "The key to the success of this plan, which is under consideration, is the enthusiastic cooperation of the French Communist Party."
Communist dominated labor unions are the most important in the CGT, France's largest trade union federation. The Communist leadership is responsible for the surprise move as acceptance of the main French trade unions to any adjustment of the wage system, where each worker is paid based on the number of products. This policy is also supported by the Social Democrats. Policy of the two parties "worker" France is brought to the decline in the level of wages in periods of inflation and thus help to reduce the living standards of workers.
Nevertheless integration policy of the Communists are not necessarily able to prevent the workers fight for their interests. In January 1946 the printing workers demanding higher wages, hold strikes. In July 1946, postal workers are also on strike. And in April 1947 strikes Renault car factory worker, who has nationalized a few years earlier. It is this last strike, in which followers of Trotskyists played a prominent role (a "Gaullist clutter-Trotskyist-anarchist," according to the secretary of the CGT, Plaisance), shows that the Communists began to lose control of the political development of the workers. On 30 April 1947 the Communist leader Maurice Thorez explained to the government that the PCF could no longer support the government's policy of prices and wages. Ramadier, Prime Minister of the Social Democrats, who are under pressure from Washington, using this opportunity to kick the Communists out of government a few days later.
PCF and the Social Democratic Party
PCF and the Social Democratic party, SFIO is increasingly opposed each other. SFIO, pro-American and participated in a number of the next government, so hated by the Communist party. During the period 1947-49 there was a wave of strikes throughout the country, which is currently supported wholeheartedly by the PCF and the CGT. Social Democratic Party, in his circle itself, trying to drown the resistance of workers. They financially supported the CIA. They managed to break the CGT trade union federation and form a new, more "moderate" (Force Ouvrière). Although this group remains a much smaller group than the CGT, many union members demoralized because of this split. Within a few years more than half the members of the CGT split, leaving two million members throughout the 1950s. Force Ouvriere formed with several hundred thousand members and was never able to increase the membership of this amount.
Cold War, the recovery of the economies in the 1950s and disputes between the two parties 'workers' and trade unions, resulted in a decline in militancy: radical spirit evaporates. In 1947 there were more than 22 million days of strikes; in 1952 this phenomenon dropped dramatically to only one and a half million a day. A state of radical socialists is incurable. Great political pressure exerted to all kinds of groups of the extreme left (the Council Communists, Trotskyists, Bordigis, and others) to join one or the other camp: Washington or Moscow. Those who reject such an option would not be heard, and even considered a suspect. Anticapitalist opposition entirely monopolized by the communists. There is not enough space for the independent revolutionary.
Isolation: Contradictory Consequences.
On the one hand, the loss of activity of a fairly successful practice, lead given greater emphasis to the problems of theoretical-programmatic. Naturally this results in a difference of opinion and quite often ended in conflicts great and even split. On the other hand it creates hatred against the "external" group unites the extreme left, resulting in a tangle of cooperation rather than political disagreements. A kind of "dialectic" of separation and unification.
This changed situation also led to a heated debate in the international Trotskyist movement in the body, particularly on Eastern Europe. Not too urgent to enter into this discussion in detail; which should be noted is that there is a minority in a number of countries that refused to take the Soviet Union as a "transitional society" between capitalism and socialism, as Trotsky believed. This minority group considers both East and West is a system of exploitation and repression are equally reprehensible. In the United States this view defended by a group known as the Johnson-Forest tendency. Johnson is the pseudonym of a black revolutionary CLR James, Forest is a pseudonym Rae Spiegel (Raya Dunayevskaya), a former private secretary of Trotsky. The British view of the opposition in the Trotskyist movement echoed Ygael Gluckstein of Palestine, which operates under the pseudonym Tony Cliff. The French are Castoriadis and Lefort with tendencies Chaulieu-Montal who voiced opposition to the view of the old viewpoint. All opponents have left the international Trotskyist organization, the Fourth International, between 1948 and 1951 to form his own group. They maintain regular relations with one another. Castoriadis and Dunayevskaya still cooperate in the sixties. (11)
In August 1946 Castoriadis and Lefort published an article titled "0n the Regime and Against the Defence of the USSR" in which they criticize the positive critical analysis of the Soviet Union. They especially reject the idea of Stalinist society - although some shortcomings also recognized the Trotskists (particularly the lack of democracy) - must still be defended against capitalism. Castoriadis and Lefort expounded that a new elite, "social layer" new bureaucrats, was swept to power in the Soviet Union and the elite is exclusively defend its own interests rather than the defense of the Soviet workers. For this reason the Soviet Union was a new society, which expands like a western capitalism. (12)
In the next stage Castoriadis and Lefort left the characteristics of the Soviet Union as a new society and described merely as "bureaucratic capitalism". According to them this society based on exploitation, but without the competition laws of classical capitalism, but remained associated with the type of value formation over capitalism.
A number of articles written by the opposition to convince their counterparts in the Trotskyist movement. "When this fails and Chaulieu-Montal tendency seems to fail and still stands as a small minority in the movement are also small," the dissidents have decided to break with the Fourth International. At the end of 1948, ten or twelve of them to leave the organization. (15) In March 1949 the group published their first magazine Socialisme ou Barbarie - a journal that is made quite nicely with a hundred pages or more. The reason they left the Fourth International once again explained in an open letter to the members of the Fourth International that they have left behind. Trotskyism is seen as a movement without theoretical-political force because they can not find "independent ideological basis for its existence." Trotskyism can not be fully liberate itself from Stalinism, because it continues to define itself as opposed to Stalinism.
The main article in this first publication was a long article entitled "Socialism or Barbarism," which includes a statement of the position of this group. This text mostly written by Castoriadis. As Marx wanted to provide programmatic foundation for ICL to write the Communist Manifesto, as Castoriadis attempt to formulate a political foundation for a new organization "Socialism or Barbarism." He took the world situation, which has changed in depth as a result of World War II, as a point of departure. Two "superpower" has divided the world among them: the United States and the Soviet Union. Both have kencendrungan ekspasionis and strive to dominate the other. This fact inevitably lead to World War III, which will result in a barbarism for the international community, except the power elites in the east and in the west overthrown through a revolutionary socialist revolution. Socialism or Barbarism: this option is left for humanity.
What is the meaning of the radical socialist revolution? The point of departure lies in the most fundamental contradictions of both East and West, bureaucratic and competitive capitalism: the contradiction between management and labor subordinate. It has appeared in Marx's day life that the ownership of the means of production will be able to remove injustice in the world, is now becoming clearer - one with the existence of the Soviet Union - that the state ownership of the means of production does not necessarily lead to socialism or even improve the situation. Instead, this condition actually increase exploitation and repression. The development of capitalism has shown that competition is not just a question of ownership of the means of production alone: to the extent that higher corporate ownership and ownership of capital is separated while the importance of managers versus owners increased. (17) Therefore everything then whirls at issue against the hierarchy and bureaucracy. All power should be placed in the hands of subordinates, among working people.
Since the beginning there has been a debate on organizational problems in Socialism or Barbarism. What exactly is the self-definition of these groups? Whether an independent set of militants, without having any link whatsoever responsibility, or whether it is necessary to build a common praxis in addition publish a journal? If so, whether such activity would be put on the role of pioneer or not? How the internal structure of the organization? Whether democratic centralism has ended completely, or not?
In April 1949 the majority of members of this group voted for a resolution that became the basis for the future work program. Inside the Leninist concept of the injection of political consciousness into the working class from outside is rejected, as well as the idea that the group is merely a "group of individuals" who limit themselves by publishing "a kind of academic journals." But the picture of the ideals of the group still remains more or less the old style: Socialism or Barbarism will develop into a revolutionary party, which is empowered to lead and coordinate the struggle of independent workers, who directed the seizure of state power. (18) There is opposition to this resolution , but too weak. It was only in 1951-52, after a small group of former Bordigists join the group, (19) and group memberships shrink, some members decided to voice their opinions more openly. "Especially, Claude Lefort, opposed efforts to forge a vanguard party.
Since previous years Lefort gradually develop doubts about the pioneering ideas, not through Socialisme or Barbarie, but through the article in Les Temps Modernes, the journal founded in 1945 by Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and friend and teacher of philosophy Lefort , Maurice Merleau-Ponty. (21) In late 1948 Lefort has published an important essay in this periodical journals, in which he blamed Trotsky for too long hesitant before deciding to directly against the party bureaucracy of Stalin. He pointed it comes from excessive veneration Trotsky against the party as "a kind of factor that has divine in the historical development". "The battle against bureaucracy Trotsky," according to Lefort, "do not have a strong basis for objectively Trotsky himself was a founder of this bureaucracy". When Trotsky finally rejected the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (in 1930) everything was too late. (22) In another article that was launched in 1949 Lefort pay attention to anarchism, which is well criticized. "Awareness is a consciousness traumatic anarchist," he said, "is merely a rejection of exploitation and not its abolition, which could be considered a contradiction that leads to a new historical expression." At the same time he praised anarchism as a source of inspiration for a type of radical Marxism, which opposes state power and exploitation. (23)
Lefort development of thinking led to tensions in the Socialism ou Barbarism. In June 1952, he left the organization with a number of supporters, but after a short while, he came back again. (24) Two posts later published in the journal, which explains the differences of opinion that exist within the group. Castoriadis still hold the idea that the Socialisme ou Barbarie must be a sprout for a revolutionary vanguard party; Lefort, on the other hand, put on a systematic support workers' control in the mainstream thinking. Castoriadis essence of the argument is that the group must contribute to the overthrow and destruction of capitalist society and the bourgeois state. For this reason a political party needed to lead and mengkoorinasikan resistance of the workers. The fundamental contradiction between the manager (management - trans) and subordinate labor, which dominates the east and west, can not be terminated only by a single blast: the party must strive to lead its own dissolution. Yet this dissolution can only take place after the revolution. (25) The position Lefort in this case is not an issue that is essential to achieve a revolutionary organization, but rather a matter of workers' power. The power of the workers who make revolution possible, but a revolution would not guarantee workers' power. The only way the proletariat can build its strength is through the forms of autonomous organization. Everything depends on this case and not on the party, which is merely an expression that has historically been a special experience of workers and therefore can be useless or even undesirable in other situations. This is why Socialisme ou Barbarie should not be so focused on the revolution and the seizure of state power, rather than a matter of experience of the working class in the process of organizing itself. (26) In the next article further elaborates Lefort position and try to analyze the "experience of the proletariat" as a guiding principle of working-class life. (27) With this approach Lefort become an important precursor efforts later on analyzing capitalism "from below" that do Raniero Panzieri, Edward Thompson, Erhard Lucas and others.
Heated internal debate within the group immediately followed by a discussion with people outside the group about the same problems. Group members criticized wing "left" because of their position on the pioneering, and of the "right", because they are so hated Stalinist cult of the party. Noteworthy - but also understandable, in view of dissent - that is almost automatically a division of labor created between Lefort and Castoriadis. The latter took a defensive stance against opponents of the idea of the party, while the first open attack to those who agree on the concept of the vanguard party.
In November 1953 Anton Pannekoek, a prominent aging Communist Council of the Netherlands, sent a letter to Socialisme ou Barbarie which was also published in the journal. (28) In his letter Pannekoek wrote that he sympathized with the group in many ways, but he also has two fundamental different opinion: the evaluation of the 1917 Russian revolution, and the question of the vanguard party. Unlike Socialisme ou Barbarie, he did not consider the October revolution as a proletarian uprising, which later degenerated into a bureaucratic state capitalism, but he said from the beginning this was a bourgeois event, which will not be possible to produce socialism. On the issue of the pioneer organizations, it is entirely opposed Pannekoek. He believed that revolutionaries should not build a party but are merely engaging in propaganda and theoretical debates. Their job is calling for workers' power and not "lead" the liberation struggle.
In reply, Castoriadis concentrated on organizational issues pioneer. The most main postulate is precisely because the revolutionaries do not build a party, thus paving the way for the emergence of bureaucratic dictatorship, as happened in the Soviet Union.
"If the only" guarantee "in order not to make a mistake means continuous self-aware, the only" guarantee "against bureaucratization found in a continuous action within the meaning of the anti-bureaucratic, to fight bureaucracy and with menujukkannya in practice, that a pioneer that is not bureaucratic organization is possible, and that he can maintain the bureaucratic relationship with the proletariat. Because the bureaucracy is not born of a false theoretical view, but of its requirements itself in a certain stage. Instead it is important to demonstrate through action that the proletariat can stand without bureaucracy. " (29)
Pannekoek second letter containing his description of certain elements of the theory is not loaded by Socialisme ou Barbarie. (30) Pannekoek main view is that the party could not save a revolution of bureaucratization; on the contrary, he represents "a step toward new repression". (31) In an unpublished letter to Castoriadis later, Pannekoek add a course he believes the presence of pioneering, but it seems wrong for him to look at this pioneering organization in the form of discipline: " This is always the case, "he wrote," that certain people bring understanding through their actions, through their courage, or their minds are clear. By talking and act quickly; together, people like these in fact form a pioneering, that we see emerging in each event. In fact they turn out to be a leader; (...) As they join together in a permanent group or party with programs that remain, relations this liquid turns into something that petrified. They then consider yourself as an unofficial leader and want to be followed and obeyed. " (32)
Jean-Paul Sartre took a position completely rejects the view Pannekoek. He changed the Communist Party into something veneration. In the work philosophy illustrious L 'etre et le néant 1943, he defended the view that the oppressed are always in need of an institution from outside and above them to fight. (33) In the 1950s Sartre develops this idea to show that the Communist Party is very important for the struggle against capitalism. In his article published in Les Temps Modernes glow Sartre claimed that the working class does not stand as a class as long as it is not organized in a vanguard party: "Labour is half-man (sous-homme), if he simply accept its existence"; he only became a man when he "became aware of the existence of humanity is only half." This awareness includes resistance and organization. However, the proletariat does not appear by itself - it is a process of separate factors, a thing "Third," which leads individuals isolated. This adhesive factor is the Communist Party. In short: "A worker in France at this time can only express and fulfill themselves through their actions in the classroom under the leadership of the Communist Party."
Sartre consideration - it is not a Stalinist, but the conclusion that the withdrawal (Merleau-Ponty called it "ultra-Bolshevik") - are definitely creating a contradiction between spontaneity and organization. Spontanistas underestimated, and is a "lonely" are not coherent. Organization, organizational form of the party, is everything. If workers lose confidence in the Communist Party, then they lose not only their kepencayaan to the party, but to their own class. "The World" would then be "bourgeois." (34)
Claude Lefort wrote a lengthy response to Sartre in Les Temps Modernes. He opposed the arguments Sartre at the same conclusion. Party or any radical organization, never became an external factor "third" outside the mass of workers, but it is always a form of expression of the masses. Sartre when approaching the subject of discussion "from above", Lefort once again thinking "from below":
"The issue is to understand the revolutionary struggle with menempatnya in the overall classroom experience. The dynamics of the Russian revolution can not be seen in isolation, but must be viewed in relation to the proletariat in particular, with the existence of conditions of production and the relations maintained with other classes oppressed predetermined in history; this situation can not be compared with the existing state of the proletariat in Europe. The organization Bolsheviksme, with sentralismenya hard, should not be seen as a characteristic that must exist in the labor movement, but a specific solution solely in the relationship between the mass and the vanguard. The problem is figuring out how the political bolshevik together a portrait of maturity and the weakness of the Russian proletariat. Furthermore, a person tends to ask what is the importance of the party in the experience of the workers, especially in these times. But that is exactly the problem you are trying to die -matian avoided by certain people. "
Party organization must be a flexible structure, adjusting to the social relations in which the class struggle takes place. Communist parties, on the other hand, nothing more than elements of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. In this regard, Lefort distinguish bureaucratic variants in the labor movement: the Social Democrats and Communists. Social Democrats bureaucracy refers to the interests of the ruling bourgeoisie. Communist Party bureaucracy identifies itself with the interests of the Soviet Union, because it necessarily be eternal enemies of the native bourgeoisie. Communist Party use the aggressiveness of the workers to establish a bureaucratic dictatorship based on the model of Eastern Europe and hence distort the will of the socialist proletariat. This means that the Communist Party is no longer the revolutionaries, because although the anti-capitalist but not socialist. Socialist alternative because it is only found outside the labor party "established". Because the Stalinist parties in certain respects to express the experience, for the anti-bureaucratic prespenktif important to know why the majority of working class political follow the Communists and in what ways they differentiate themselves from such political and organization associated with it. (35)
Whatever the differences that occur in the Socialisme ou Barbarie, dislike of all forms of bureaucratic and undemocratic structure is that for all group members. When the organization began to develop in the 1950s (36) opens the opportunity, not just think or write things about anti-birokratisi, but also in action. It is also supported by the increasing social unrest slowly. In the 1970s Castoriadis describes the changes that appear since 1952-53:
The Korean War had ended, Stalin was dead, East German workers rebelled, the whole public sector workers in France were on strike. The new life is blowing into the group, new people join, they become more regular publication and isinyapun increased [...] Furthermore, the group was encouraged by the Twenty Congress of the Communist Party of Russia, and of course the revolution Poznan workers in Hungary and the movement in Poland. [...] The war in Algeria started in November 1954. The government Mollet begin mobilization slowly since 1956 in order to be able to send troops to Algeria. The soldiers called for demonstrations and blockade of rail transport soldiers. Increased economic instability and movement began mengeliat. In autumn 1957 a massive upheaval in various factories - the situation is not stable and open. (37)
In this altered state like Socialisme ou Barbarie start its work in various factories. Since the beginning of this organization maintain a stance that an employer bureaucratic layer has grown among trade unions (particularly in the CGT), which has built a close cooperation with the State apparatus. The trade union bureaucracy has become an independent factor, which serves as a sort of liaison between the state apparatus and the working class, and therefore seeks to reconcile the two parties to each other. On the one hand, the bureaucracy is partly accept workers' demands to maintain its mass base, but the other side it is also seeking to meet the desires of the state apparatus to keep it "respectable" and still be accepted as a partner in negotiations with the bourgeoisie and the state. (38)
This in itself is not a new analysis; This has long been a part of the thought of the Trotskyists. The important thing is what kind of political conclusions drawn from that view. Do revolutionaries tried to subdue the union from within and transform the bureaucrats; or conversely, prefer to work outside the trade union organizations and establish a new organization? In practice the work that is carried Socialism ou Barbarie in the factory are usually more inclined to practice the latter, but not all happy with this way. In the period 1954-55 a debate on this subject took place in the journal. Daniel Mothe maintain the position that supports the work of the working class outside the unions. Other participants in the debate, such as the followers of anarchic, Fontenis, thought that revolutionaries should be active in trade unions because this is the only way for them to establish contact with the workers and win their confidence:
"Fighting from the outside indirectly decide themselves from the audience. And we also should not forget that in certain sectors, the workers dispersed into a workplace or smaller companies are not limited to, meeting the trade union is the only event while workers may be invited to meet together and listen. " (39)
Work Socialisme ou Barbarie at the plant took place at the Renault plant in Paris-Bilancourt, although some actions were also organized in sejumah elsewhere, including insurance companies. Renault is the driving force Daniel Mothe, a politically experienced workers who joined the group in 1952. As comrades other laborers he got inspiration and general ideas about what is happening in the modern capitalist companies of the group American, CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya as well as other members of this group.
Inspired by developments in the United States, American revolutionaries found in 1914 there has been a sort of cleansing in the history of capitalist management techniques. After years of the "scientific management" of Frederick Winslow Taylor applied more and more widely. Ford's system when the tire goes added to this practice (in the period 1924-28), the work process changed fundamentally. Educational level required for a worker to decline, the pace and sequence of work is no longer dictated by humans, but by machines. Influenced by the great economic recession of 1929 intensified these changes. Working masses "who hunted for work with low wages," dominated by "the staff manager who can only run the production floor through the use of gang kirminal paid [...] mafia, the killers, the foreman." (40) The structure of the new work process leaves its mark on everyday life and consciousness of the workers, according to this analysis. The important thing is to study the effects of these changes to examine the consequences of this change for the self-organization of the workers.
Since the beginning of 1946 the group around James and Dunayevskaya published a pamphlet entitled The American Worker. In this issue Paul Romano ("I am a young worker approaching thirty") depicts life inside and outside the factory .: extortion demanded fisiki work, time off, family life, and forms of resistance on the work floor. (41) This approach, which is then written in novel form, with modern capitalist reality from the perspective of the daily life of a worker (male) is very attractive for the radical left in Europe. Written by Paul Romano experience reduced glow in the journal Socialisme ou Barbarie and later in the journal in Italy. (42) The American radicals is also the first from the left is setting up working in a factory. Worker members of the group formed newspaper named Correspondence 1953. It is intended as an independent organ (not controlled by a trade union) struggle of workers in the factory. (43)
All this stimulates the Socialisme ou Barbarie to make similar efforts. Developments in the factory lowered more and more often in the journal, the story continues published under the title 'Life in the Factory' and an example of this America followed by producing a newspaper plant in France. (44) In April 1954 Renault workers in one of the workshops distribute leaflets about the level of wages; These fliers gained considerable support among groups of workers in the company and as a result the first issue of the Tribune Ouvriere, product mimeographed, an independent monthly newspaper for automobile factory workers, appeared in May 1954.J5 With or without the direct influence of Socialisme ou Barbarie newspapers with a similar shape to emerge in a short time outside Paris (Nantes, Bordeaux, Toulouse) and in another company in Paris (Breguet, Morse, etc.) at the beginnings of 1958 they decided to work together. (46)
1958 marked a separation in the history of post-war France. May 13, the army took power through a coup in the colony Algeria in the hope of fighting the Algerian liberation movement more effective. In France alone the highest circles of the state apparatus in a state of panic - the fear that they could no longer "control" developments in the country and in the countries of the colony. For a long timethere was no news about General de Gaulle, who ever becoming Prime Minister of France in '45 -'46 and over the years (1947-53) trying desperately to control affairs within his own party (the Rassemblement du Peuple Francais). Now, June 1, 1958, he ordered Parliament to reform the state apparatus. He runs this task earnestly. On December 21, he himself put himself became head of the French state. After that he concentrated more power in his hands much more. In 1962 he issued a new law that allows the president elected by the people and no longer by Parliament. His regime began to take line trap 'bonapartist'; and further characterized by a conservative dictatorship.
Castoriadis considers this development as a political expression of a profound crisis of French capitalism. Since the beginning of 1958, he has published an analysis in the Socialisme ou Barbarie which contains the important role that the continuous development of instability in post-war France. He menggangap the country has been split into two very different economic sectors: a form of a very modern and dynamic versus capitalism obsolete and backward. He predicted that these two sectors (French "1958" and the French "1858") can not tolerate each other. "The development of large-scale, of a modern industry can not, in the course of time, combined with the overall maintenance of economic sectors (agriculture, small trade, small-scale industry) in their very nature violates the ages and walks of life related elements". Survival of the backward sector, which is still continuing much political weight, has contributed much to deter the parliamentary system. He has strengthened the process of disintegration of political power of the bourgeoisie; successive governments in power have greatly subject to the interests of one particular group or another; as a result of this separation process, the power of the state apparatus to lose the ability to act on behalf of the interests of capitalism as a whole. "Parliament and the government [...] has become the exclusive instrument for the specific interests." The absence of a "workers' party" has specific reinforce this impasse bourgeoisie. Reformist pressure may force the bourgeoisie to discipline himself and consolidate itself into a conservative political party, nor is there. Because it is largely underdeveloped state apparatus of modern capitalist standpoint; systems are mostly indirect taxation, the credit system "which modernized under Napoleon III," and others. Together these factors, according to Castoriadis, produces a situation in which French capitalism after 1945 was not able to complete a coherent policy and run it. Directions developments after 13 May 1958 is to restructure the bourgeois state and eliminate backward elements in French society.
In the eyes of Castoriadis, coup de Gaulle is not a defeat for the French working class. The fact that only a small group of class workers who participated to welcome the call for demonstrations 28 May 1958 by the CGT and the Communists, from his perspective, does not mean that the working class has been defeated or depoliticized. On the contrary, the situation continues to diperbicangkan in the factory. But the workers - especially because they do not yet know whether de Gaulle would be able to "give something" - do not feel the need to fight and restore the situation to the period prior to May 13: "The workers and more generally the largest part of the wage earners feel disgusted with the capitalist republic . " Therefore, the workers waiting for the next step de Gaulle; courage will determine their reaction. If the project is successful modernization of capitalist relations in France, then a non-violent democratization seems likely. If on the other hand the project de Gaulle partially or completely failed, and the political and economic situation worsens, the protests of workers most likely to occur.
In this situation Castoriadis saw two tasks for the socialist revolutionaries: on the one hand, they should help establish the organization and newspaper workers, similar to the one started first appeared in the Renault car factory and a number of other companies; simultaneously must establish coordination of the various committees of resistance and national labor newspaper. On the other side of the revolutionaries, which is currently spread themselves all over the country and to a number of groups (the concept of "pioneering scattered"), should be invited into one organization - into a new type of party, based on the experience since 1917: "The program of this organization must be socialism, workers' control lists, the total power of workers councils that will be realized independently managing the company and society. The organizational structure must necessarily democratic-proletarian, and showed dominance rumpur roots groups in all aspects of life and organizational activity, and that includes discrimination against leaders and followers. The method works must be agreed to the grassroots and must provide access to all the militants to know what is being done organization, and control ". (47)
Castoriadis opinion concerning the French revolutionaries task is certainly not uniformly accepted members of Socialisme ou Barbarie.
In September 1958 Socialisme ou Barbarie totally broke. Two people of the Dutch Council Communists present at the event. In their report on the incident - in a newspaper published in Spartacus - they judge there are three main currents within the group:
1. A group that is still strongly inspired by Leninism, a group of former followers of Bordigist Vega; This flow accused as "right wing" by the Dutch observers;
2. The "middle" around Castoriadis;
3. The "left" around Lefort.
Using this measure, they wrote:
"It's not entirely left-wing breakaway, but the right wing and center, who deliberately asked. With very deliberately, so that the split occurred before the congress where the group left, center, and right to discuss their differences of opinion. Congress took place in Paris Saturday, 27 and Sunday, September 28th, 1958. Congress does not take place. At least do not go according to plan in advance. [••.] Two meetings were organized, on Thursday 18 and 25 September, to prepare the congress. Both right and left have set up text will be the starting point of discussion. Both the text [...] naturally has a very different character; a person can easily see the fundamental difference that exists between these two currents since a long time: but there are no signs of this situation, that the left and right groups who work within the group, will soon be over. '"[...] the existing differences will not appear as headlines in the bulletin, which is mainly done many members of the left wing. [...] The debate on the text, which begins Thursday, September 18th, of course, a great result but at the same time have a friendly character. On the day Wednesday, September 24th is something that is not expected to happen. Right group published a series of texts, which mainly menggungat position and left the group presentation. The tone of the text is very sharp. Leftist groups accused of hiding their theory "when know more", and "deliberately deceive the workers". The attitude was even described as "dishonest", while criticism from right-wing and center by the left, reversed a matter of mere mockery. In the midst of this situation preparatory meeting took place on Thursday, September 25th to lose any spills keramamah-tamahannya. Left party expects at least, no statement regarding the accusations "lies" and "fraud" would be canceled due to retaining this allegation discussion becomes impossible. The main spokesman for the middle group reject. He claimed not to be emotionally habit of late and has been quietly weighed every word in the text and do not expect to attract a single word or sentence. Hearing that comrades from the left wing stood up and left the room. On Friday, September 26th they met separately and decided that they would not be present at the congress, which started on 27. Then there was a split. "(49)
Aftermath of the Socialisme ou Barbarie Split
The aftermath of the split of Socialisme ou Barbarie is the fact that the majority of the members of the group wanted to establish a pioneer organization in a short time, because they assess the condition has the right (the coup de Gaulle, the growth of their own group). "Minority groups, who are not interested in this kind of project , is a distressing disorder, must therefore be "released" through a separation that has been prepared in advance.
In the earlier days, the attitude of the opposite Lefort has indeed been strengthened. He himself has indicated two reasons for this attitude. On the one hand, there is a growing working relationship between Castoriadis and Dunayevskaya closely in the 1950s. Lefort generally respect the views Dunayevskaya daily resistance regarding the industrial workers and their ideas about the forms of autonomous organization. However dislike Lefort to approach philosophy, which, according to Lefort, wants to create a "Hegelian terms that are not clear," a synthesis between world history and social life, is quite strong. "The closeness of the relationship Castoriadis and [Kingdom Dunayevskaya] for the first time made me realize how deeply the conceptual differences that form the basis of our political differences." On the other hand, Lefort strengthen his rejection as a reaction to the current in Socialisme ou Barbarie itself is still quite infatuated with the thought of the Bolsheviks. Within this group are mostly newcomers - including Jean-Francois Lyotard and Pierre-Francois Souyri - similarly Vega. (52)
This split is only the sudden termination of an alienation process that has been going on for years. After the split Socialisme ou Barbarie Castoriadis and Lefort published texts which underlines their position opposite. Bids key Castoriadis article is offered every organization can fall into a bureaucratic monster, but this kind of deterioration can be prevented if a permanent struggle consciously waged against such a process. Furthermore, it could very well be done by preparing a grassroots-based organizational structure. The working class desperately needs a new type of organization that refers to the spirit of this, given the need to exchange information, discuss, exchange experiences, and common action. "In his article, Lefort recognizes the need joint action of the workers as well as the coordination and exchange of experience; but he refused the party separate is needed for things like this, as suggested by Castoriadis. This task can be completed by a group of workers and workers in enterprises, without the intervention of the pioneers of a separate organization. The revolutionaries must, as far as they themselves are wage workers in a company, participated actively. And if they do as an intellectual, who stood outside the production process, they can provide theoretical and practical support to the struggle in their own conditions are willing to humble themselves before the broader movement. "
Another group that broke away in the joint Claude Lefort, who also include Henri Simon, white-collar workers who will play a role in the subsequent periods, establishing Informations et Liaisons Ouvriéres (ILO). The group publishes the newspaper of the same name. They then renamed in 1960 to Infonmations et Corresporance Ouvriéres (ICO) and stand up to 1973. (55) ICO took the position that the union has a balancing function within the capitalist system. This is the picture that captured the bourgeoisie in the trade unions themselves. This is the reason the state apparatus to absorb them into a number of consultative organs and commissions.
Workers understand this. They do not see the unions as their own organization. However as the service providers, who can they turn to services. The relationship between workers and unions like a business relationship, a relationship that is "realistic": "The unions use workers as combat troops that can be used to maneuver on board the political arena. The workers also use a union for the same thing."
Similarly at the national scale, the unions are just intermediaries workers and capitalists (and not a direct representation of workers) as well as trade union delegates at the enterprise level is only an intermediary of the staff and management. However, according to the ICO this does not mean the union of its slump, as Castoriadis thought. Instead, they create bureaucratic machine "that is very lively and efficient", which is of no use to workers. In addition to the official trade union apparatus and there is a second row: the conscious practical solidarity groups in various departments and workplaces in the company. Common interest which rolled out here take place without a union. In places like this still exist autonomous activity, which must be supported by the revolutionaries - not as a representative of an outside party, but as a friend. (56)
ICO does not want to play a pioneering role whatsoever; the only task they prepare is establishing contact with various (groups of) workers. Publication ICO is a tool to share ideas; that is not distributed as part of the propaganda of a group. However, just to exchange information and experiences. ICO survive for 15 years. However, it became increasingly clear that the group is deceiving himself. Because of their publications clearly not just a means to exchange ideas. Yvon Bourdet, who had been a member of the ICO for a long time wrote:
"Members of the militants in the group of 'ICO' [... one did not successfully realize their theories or their statements regarding the absence of theory; they do not reduce their role to a mere provider of neutral information, which limit themselves to proclaim a number of workers' struggles outside the scene; they know all too well that the story they disclose not only carelessly stories obsolete. Do they want to publish a story about the newly elected union activists (except for a stripped)? There can be no doubt that they censor their potential correspondents. "
Despite their desire to keep taking the role of the invisible, activists ICO can not prevent ourselves to operate as a group with very specific ideas. The only alternative to this situation is to ignore the purpose of the group and only print everything without restriction. However, this is an action that is contrary to the purpose for memuculkan sound of autonomous struggle. After the uprising in May 1968 when the ICO membership mengelembung this dilemma reappears. Most of the new members began demanding more advanced than the activity that has been developed ICO and causing tensions that eventually led to the dissolution of the organization.
Socialisme ou Barbarie Gradually Grew
From 1958 onward, Socialisme ou Barbarie gradually grew. Many public meetings held and its influence on students and workers at Renault Paris continues to grow. Pouvoir Ouvrier newspaper, which serves as an umbrella newspapers of various groups of workers fairly successful independent. However, Castoriadis definitely favorable development not only see this as "confirmation" of the correctness of his opinion. His attitude especially concerning the opinion of the group, some of the formulation itself, even more critical. In mid-1950 he began to summon his doubts about the important aspects of Marx's theory in a series of articles entitled "On the Content of Socialism." At the beginning of his journey Castoriadis criticizes two specific elements of historical materialism: Marx's economic theory and Marx's position on technology. Author of Das Kapital had been assumed that the labor force in capitalism labor is a commodity, just like any other. Nevertheless, in this way Marx made a fatal mistake. Because workers do not have a use-value and exchange that can be specified clearly. Capitalists who buy one ton of coal to understand how energy can be obtained from it by a certain technological level; but if he buys labor for a month, for example, he can never be sure how the results can be generated from the work force. Since labor is a commodity of man, who can resist the use of energy. For the same reason labor does not have a price, which can be determined scientifically, because of the high wages are not the result of economic laws that are not visible, but the relationship of forces between capitalists and workers. What was found is that Marx hide Castoriadis concept of class struggle - which is vitally important in another theory - from economic theory, and therefore Marx's economic theory is not sufficiently radical. If he had to include the concept of human labor as a commodity in the analysis, then all laws formulated Marx (the value of labor, increasing organic composition of capital, kencederungan falling rate of profit) will tersingakp as not a law at all, but more or less a result of the accident the relationship between forces and conflict situations. For a vision of socialism, these criticisms have a result very much. If there is no such thing as economic laws, then one can no longer maintain that capitalism is doomed due to economic problems. Historical nature becomes unpredictable and every historical situation has a definition that is open "
In the "scientific socialism" traditional, technological forces of production (machinery) is considered an independent and neutral factor. Factory, for example, described in the Capital as the pinnacle of efficiency and rationality. Capitalist technology used in the plant solely be seen as a technology. Problems in a society based on competition and profit lies entirely on the application of technology: in socialism other priorities in the production workers themselves will prepare and manage the factories. Castoriadis, on the other hand, did not consider technology as something neutral; in this field too, he sees it as a problem relationship strength and struggle. He considers the continued separation of certain tasks (conveyor belts and tile like) as a management method used to increase their control over the workers. By prohibiting any movement of the body in relation to the engine, in turn affected their independence. In socialism, a new technology must be developed, that it enriches the work process and improve the autonomy of the workers. By strictly forbidding any movement of the body in relation to the engine even further affected their independence. Technology, karenana, first and foremost is the technology class. In socialism, a new technology must be developed that will enrich the work process and improve the autonomy of the workers.
From the year 1958-59 Castoriadis combines first analysis of the major contradictions in capitalism (the contradiction between management and those who actually work) with kiritiknya to Marx's ideas on economics and technology. The new theory of growing public criticism of the idea that the main contradiction of capitalism is no longer to be found in economics (Marxist contradiction between the forms of social production and private ownership of the means of production), but in the production itself. In every company and offices, said Castoriadis, permanent struggle took place between the manager, who wants everyone to work as strong and hard as possible, and blue collar or white pekeja alienated from his own. Management face very fundamental problem: it is impossible to formulate laws and regulations covering all work assignments for all workers in the company. A minimum of space is always needed for improvisation and individuality, because there is no real thorough knowledge that can be used for all people and in all situations. That means that a particular effort is always required of pekeja, efforts are always more than required to the company. Thus this paradoxical fact, is the production process will be stopped, when everyone works in accordance obligations, according to the rules of management. It is also an explanation of the possibility of "mastery of the workers". While management force on the one hand to require cooperation among the staff, they strive limiting the scope for unscheduled activities. That is why they introduced 'scientific work organization "and similar experiments. However, the management will not really succeed in efforts to turn people into robots. (59)
Castoriadis Positioning Theory
With these thoughts Castoriadis contribute much for the theory of the radical left. But the problem is Castoriadis positioning theory as a post-war capitalism interpetasi which later proved to be unable to survive. He changed the economics of the proposition is not the most vital into the proposition that there is no longer a contradiction in capitalism. And he changed the thesis that the trend decline in the rate of profit is not an economic law into the thesis that capitalism has conquered the economic crisis. In this way Castoriadis as many other thinkers, are victims of the illusion of rapid growth that began in 1950, will continue indefinitely.
In 1959 Castoriadis spread a text in Socialisme ou Barbarie in which he not only describes capitalism stabilize itself economically, but also the living standards of the working class to be slowly improving. He added that the union has become a sort of policeman in the system; exchange worker wage increase compliance; that politics is no longer a matter of concern to the attention of the public and only certain experts, that the worker is no longer participate in the actions of the worker's party; that the whole society has been privatized. (60)
"Right-wing" as illustrated Dutch Council Communists, rejected the proposition recently. Its members could not understand how Castoriadis still mengangggap himself a revolutionary, if he saw progress very pessimistic. Pierre Souyri, in particular, threw himself to study things "classic" (Hilferding, Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin) to show how capitalism can only continuously generate new economic crisis. The conclusion was that the capitalist development long recession period interspersed with periods in which a new path for system peyembuhan explored. "Depression" long years of 1874-1896 resulted in a more modern colonialism and financial capital; bermasalahan period 1930-1950 has marked economic result by the extent of state intervention, which in turn would create various problems. (61)
Debate with Souyri, Lyotard and others on the one hand and on the other Castoriadis going on for years. The distance between these two groups became unbridgeable and lead to the division of these two groups in the year 1963. "The more orthodox" newspaper took Pouvoir Ouvrier after the first consultation. This is not too surprising in light of their beliefs about the importance of a strong workers' struggles. Castoriadis, on the other hand, maintain Socialisme ou Barbarie. Pouvoir Ouvrier still continue to rise until 1969.
After Castoriadis had broken away from important positions in Marxism, he concluded in the period 1963-65 that the entire foundation of historical materialism should be rejected. In a glowing article "Marxism and Revolutionary Theory" Castoriadis explains deliberations. (62)
First, he rejected the proposition that in human history economic development (forces of production and the factors of production) is the most important factor, because certain sectors never be the "most important" in the community rather than the other: "One can not say it general that the economy determines ideology, nor ideology determine the economic, economy and ideology does not determine one another, because of the simple things that economy and ideology [...] itself is a product of a particular stage (and in fact a very short stage) of historical development. " A common-generic perspective is needed: "In the same forest, just a few kilometers apart, two primitive tribes that have the same weapons and equipment, developing social and cultural structures that are very different from each other. Is God who decided that such presence , is a sort of "soul" of the tribe why? No, thorough research on the history of each tribe, regarding their cooperation ties, etc. which makes it possible to understand how the different developments may occur. " The position of Marx on "excellence" of the economy and the strength of production is false generalizations on one particular historical cases, especially the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe between 1650 and 1850, when the bourgeoisie is ripe to get rid of the absolute monarchy and feudal remnants kicked of the economic cycle. But the model of the historical development of this course can not be applied to a different place and era.
Second, Castoriadis opposed approaches "rationalisme objective" Marxist theory, which assumes that history is determined by certain laws. If someone approves this in mind, it is in fact the individual-indvidu and classes lost all kebebasanya, because all actions necessarily departing from the "laws" of history. In fact, the history did not develop rationally. It is a complex combination of rational and irrational; human actions often bring unwanted consequences that sometimes - partially - Themselves threaten the safety of himself. A mutual exchange between the logic of "objective", which occur beyond human control, and logic "subjective" which grew out of choice and human action. That is why, nonsense to argue - as do the Marxists - that the "secret" history has been revealed. Claims such as claiming that "our last owners the secrets of nature," and that in itself lead to an elitist thinking:
If finally there is a theory of history that is true, if there is rationality at work in event-by-event, it is clear leadership on this matter should be Left to the specialists who are qualified in this theory, to the "technician" this rationality of science. The absolute power of the party [...] becomes a philosophical status. Those who struggle for a new society which is really based on the control of the workers are no longer able to base themselves on Marx's historical materialism, but helped formulate a new theory and political practice, who realized that there was no such thing and a total view of the historical leadership: Anyone who wants to be a revolutionary can no longer consider themselves as Marxists.
Criticism From the Left Wing Towards Marxism
Criticism from the left wing towards Marxism, Castoriadis developed between 1964-65, has important consequences for the Socialisme ou Barbarie, because in this organization Castoriadis considered the "brains" of the group. Which undermine the process of political-theoretical foundation for this is believed to weaken menghasilaknj cooperation relations; the absence of "program" or any concrete objectives begun to raise a paralyzing effect. Furthermore, doubts have prompted Castoriadis toward philosophy, thinking "abstract", which is not understood by many members of the group. Journal became the most important activity of this group, but no longer the result of a collective effort. "There is no longer something that is important to maintain the magazine and groups in this state." (63) In mid-1965 issue and at the same fortieth latest issue of the journal eventually emerge. Even so the subscription and loyal readers, only to be informed about the dissolution of Socialisme ou Barbarie in June 1967. An obituary "official", in the form of leaflets, describing the growing frustration among members of the group are less than the maximum results after years of struggling. The readers of the journal did not cooperate actively with the journal and only consumes only; new members joined not because of conviction but because the revolutionary social needs; French society in general depoliticized. In such a situation there is no more space for organizations like Socialisme ou Barbarie. The group members remained active in politics, but the path each. If the possibility of a group or journal to improve again, then they would be prepared to "start a group on a foundation more firmly and with different relationships to those who have given attention tehadap work and our struggle." (64) It never materialized.
Shortly after the birth Information et Correpsondance Ouvriéres, Claude Lefort also parted ways with the group and left Henri Simon and other members behind. After this period he never again be actively involved in an organization. To understand this split, it is important to show the relationship Lefort with Maurice Merleau-Ponty (l908- 1961), which gives a great influence to him since the beginning of the 1940s and also a close friend. "'Merleau-Ponty, who is sometimes described as a philosopher ambiguous and men-two, rejects all kinds of absolute thought. According to him, it will not be possible to also learn all reality, because we are part of that reality and also influence it. The position "outside" and "on" in this world does not exist; human observation is always partial and always take the perspective that favor. For this reason we see ourselves in every way from what we see and from what we think about the world is "ambiguous". In the view of Merleau-Ponty, Socrates, asked the artisan tirelessly, it is a true philosopher, constantly in a state of temporary and was completed nature of truth. (66)
Based on the tradition to doubt everything and humility to question the "truth", Lefort began to realize that the discussion initially with Castoriadis has been going in the wrong frame.
"Within the limits of a certain logic we both partly right and partly wrong. He [Castoriadis] was right when he declared independence does not fully exist within the boundaries of organ-based workplace or industry, but must understand the scale covering the entire community. He is also correct when stating that those who understand this not only has the right to defend the idea, but also strive to achieve the goal as far as they are capable; these actions further assumptions course of action has been determined previously, that a choice must be taken within the framework of the policy, discipline, shines the forth. I also correct when I stated that the most relevant thing is not the self-concept of self-regulation, programming, or anti-bureaucratic speech, but social practice, the real social relations that can be found in the Party - which in turn, would instantly when he made himself the sole owner of the things that are revolutionary and universal, would have recoiled from the struggle subduing self organs to the strategy itself. I propose that the party has a damaging desire to consolidate and expand its position and the authorities in the party had the same destructive desire for order, maintain and strengthen its own position, in addition to different ideas of each individual. It's logical framework that must be removed, the underlying assumptions that should be rejected. "(67)
Good Castoriadis and Lefort has an idea in their own way as they stood outside world and able to uncover "the truth". They only differ in the opinion regarding the nature of truth. But is it possible discussion would take an entirely different character if one surrendered to multiply falsehood of "absolute truth"? Are not the search for truth is an ideological basis of modern bureaucracy, which tried to force everything is subject to rules which "generally valid"? On this direction Lefort began his search. He still supports the struggle for self-determination, development of democratic organs at the grassroots level, but he is now inclined identifies himself with the thought that a more decentralized. He continues to support the struggle against the monopoly of power, knowledge, and the means of production. But he rejected the idea that this struggle must be carried out according to the general plan (with or without a party) and that the idea that "everything will change" after the revolution. Through their own approach Castoriadis has reached the same conclusion. He also rejected the "rationalism" that form the basis of all thoughts related to the absolute truth. (68)
Events of May '68
Lefort and Castoriadis return with Edgar Morin,a former communist who became a radical. (69) They wrote "May 1968: The Breakthrough". Available in bookstores in early June. Of course, they are still different ideas. Castoriadis, for example, still called for the establishment of a new organization that can provide continuity and strengthen radical elan, while Lefort remained very careful in this issue. Yet there are also similarities. The uprising, inevitably also demonstrated with very clear that a revolutionary spirit can emerge, as has been claimed Socialisme ou Barbarie, not only from within the factory but from elsewhere. In all places where there is a contradiction between management and top management workers - at the university where authoritarian administration can decide the future of students, radical opposition can emerge. Lefort was especially impressed with the students, because they do not allow their struggle driven by strategic raw or rigid organization, but in action here and now. It is precisely these things that are considered Castoriadis as a mistake and one of The failure of the uprising. Of course he also dismissed ideas of master plan Leninist style, however he still thought that the uprising structure will provide more meaningful results. "(70)
I'm not going to review the further development Lefort and Castoriadis here, although it should be noted that both developed their criticism of all the theories advanced in the 1970s and 1980s. Amazing also one of the members of the group who refused the Pemkiran line of Lefort and Castoriadis in the 1950s (ie, Jean-Francois Lyotard) became the founding father of postmodern relativism Pemkiran in the 1970s. (71) The main achievement Socialisme ou Barbarie is a fundamental criticism of the social hierarchy. This criticism helped these groups to take the experience of everyday workers more seriously than other political currents at the time (although the "view from below" is still male and factory oriented ). At the theoretical level, Socialisme ou Barbarie gradually radicalized anti-bureaucratic opposition to the point where it finally reveals the deepest relationships between hierarchical structure and grouping of the absolute truth.