The Right to Be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything 0915179350, 9780915179350

Table of contents :
Preface by Bob Black
Contents
Introduction
1. Wealth
2. Individualism and Collectivism
3. The Dialectic of Egoism
4. The Resonance of Egoisms
5. Communist Society
6. Radical Subjectivity
7. Pleasure
8. Sexuality
9. Authority
10. Morality
11. Revolution
Postnotes
Appendix: Preamble to The Founding Agreements of For Ourselves: Council for Generalized Self-Management
Reading List

Citation preview

the right to be greedy

for ourselves

loompanlcs unlimited port townsend washlngton

Not copyrighted. Any of the material in this book may be freely reproduced, translated or adapted, even without mentioning the source.

ABOUT THIS BOOK

TH E R I G HT TO B E G R E E DY: Theses O n T h e Practica l Necessity O f Dema nd i ng Eve ryth i ng, as it was published by For Ourselves, Co uncil for This book contains th e c omple te text of

Generalized Self-Management easier, we h a ve re typese t from we h a ve added a Preface by before th e text, and a reading

in 1 9 74. To make reading the original. For this edition, Bob Black, which appears lis t a t the end of the tex t.

This edition published by: Loompanlcs Unlimited PO Box 1 1 97 Pt. Townsend, WA 98368

Typesetting, layout and graphics by Patrick Michael.

PREFACE by Bob Black Most libertarians think of themselves as in some sense egoists. If they believe in rights, they believe these rights belong to them as individuals. If not, they nonetheless look to themselves and others as so many individuals possessed of power to be reckoned with. Either way, they assume that the opposite of egoism is altruism. The altruists, Christian or Maoist, agree. A cozy accomodation; and, I submit, a suspicious one. What if this antagonistic interdependence, this reciprocal reliance reflects and conceals an accord? Could egoism be altruism's loyal opposition? Yes, according to the authors of this text. What's more, they insist that an egoism which knows itself and refuses every limit to its own realization is communism. Altruism and (narrow) egoism or egotism they disparage as competing and complementary moralisms in service to capital and the state. They urge us to indulge a generous and expansive greed which goes beyond self-sacrifice and petty selfishness to encompass the appropriation of everything and everyone by each and all of us. "Wealth is other people," wrote Ruskin. The radically and rationally (self· )conscious egoist, appreciating this, enriches him-self in and through other subjectivities. In social life at its (con)sensual and satisfying best ·· sex, conversation, creation -- taking from and giving to others constitute a single play-activity rich with multiplier effects. For the lucid and Judie egoist, anything less than generalized egoism is just not enough. The individualists have only worshipped their whims. The point, however, is to live them. Is this a put-on, a piece of parlor preciosity? There is more than a touch of that here. Or a mushminded exercise in incongruous eclecticism? The individualist egoist is bound to be skeptical, but he should not be too quick to deprive himself of the insights (and the entertainment!) of this unique challenge to his certitudes. The contradictions are obvious, but whether they derive from the authors' irrationality or from their fidelity to the real quality of lived experience is not so easy to say. If "Marxism-Stirnerism" is conceivable, every

orthodoxy prating of freedom or liberation is called into question,. anarchism included. A polemic is practical or it is nothing. The only reason to read this book, as its authors would be the first to agree, is for what you can get out of it. At least for those not conversant with Hegelian Marxism, "critical theory" and the latest French fashions in avant garde discourse, the mode of expression in this work may seem unusual. But it's very much in the tradition of those (mainly European) oppositional currents -- such as dada and surrealism -- which tried to combine political and cultural iconoclasm. In the late l 950's, a French-based but international organization called the Situationist International resumed this project at a high level of intransigence and sophistication. The situationists drew attention to the way the "spectacle" of modern capitalism (including its Leninist variants), the organization of appearances, interposes itself between isolated and enervated "individuals" and a world which they produce by their activity but neither control nor comprehend. Mediation supplants direct experience as the fragmentation of daily life into so many standardized prefab roles produces individuals with a dazzling array of forced "choices" but drained of effective autonomy by the loss of initiative to create their own lives. Politically, the situationists bitterly denounced the established left, but moved toward an ultra-left stance themselves when they embraced council communism. Calling for the abolition of work -- its transformation into productive playlike pastimes -- on the one hand, and for workers' councils, on the other, is only one of the contradictions which the sits failed to resolve. The French general strike of 1968 vindicated the sits' thesis that the affluent society had merely modernized poverty, and even showcased a number of their slogans, but the S. I. was at a loss what to do next and broke up

in 1972. Ever since, situationist ideas -- and poses -- have percolated into popular culture, and the Sex Pistols' manager Malcolm McLaren was perhaps the first to sell a denatured situationism to the trendies. In the early l 970's, "pro-situ" groups (as they are known) formed in Britain, in New York City and especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. One of these groups, Negation, reformed as For Ourselves around 1973, and by the following Mayday produced the present text. For Ourselves was particularly beholden to the situationist Raoul V aneigem whose celebration of the "radical subjectivity" of "masters without slaves"

figures prominently in the theory espoused in The Right to Be Greedy. All too soon the group collapsed, some of its members regressing into Marxism from which they had never really escaped. The text manages to be at once too Marxist and oblivious to the extent of its incompatibility with Marxism. Too Marxist, in that the illusion of Man as essentially producer persists, and a "democratically" planned economy based on the councils is touted as the structural basis of a new and free society. And too enamored of Marxism in that the attempt to square communist egoism with the Marxist scriptures is far more ingenious than persuasive -- though perhaps it does show that Marx was more radical than he himself supposed. It's a pity For Ourselves didn't try to Marxize Stimer as it Stirnerized Marx: then we might have a better sense of the level at which it just might be possible to harmonize the two great revolutionary amoralists. Egoism in its narrowist sense is a tautology, not a tactic. Adolescents of all ages who triumphantly trumpet that "everyone is selfish," as if they'd made a factual discovery about the world, only show that they literally don't know what they're talking about. Practical egoism must be something more, it must tell the egoist something useful about himself and other selves which will make a difference in his life (and, as it happens, theirs). My wants, needs, desires, whims -- call them what you will -- extend the ego, which is my-self purposively acting, out where the other selves await me. If I deal with them, as the economists say, "at arm's length" I can't get as close as I need to for so much of what I want. At any rate, no "spook," no ideology is going to get in my way. Do you have ideas, or do ideas have you?

Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything

FOR OURSELVES Council for Generalized Self-Management

CONTENTS Introduction

I. WEALTH

§13 to §22

II.INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM Ill.THE DIALECTIC OF EGOISM

§50 to §62

IV.THE RESONANCE OF EGOISMS V.COMMUNIST SOCIETY VI.RADICAL SUBJECTIVITY VII.PLEASURE VIII.SEXUALITY

§74 to §78

§88 to §93

IX.AUTHORITY

§94 to §99

X.MORALITY

§100 to §118

XI.REVOLUTION

§119 to §126

Postnotes Citations Notes Appendix: Preamble

§63 to §68

§69 to §73

§79 to §87

§23 to §49

INTRODUCT I ON 1. G reed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of com m u n ist soc iety. 2. The p resent forms of g reed l ose out, in the end , beca use they tu rn o u t to be not greedy eno ugh .

3.

The repress i o n of e g o i sm can never tota l ly s u ceed , except as the dest r u ct i o n of h u m a n subj ectivity, the ext i n ct i o n of the h u m a n spec i es i tse l f, beca use eg oism i s an essen tial momen t of h u m a n su bjectivity. I ts rep ress i o n si m p ly means t h at it retu rns i n a h i d den, d u p l i c itous fo rm . If i t ca n not sh ow i tse l f in the open m a rket, it w i l l f i n d i tself or c reate fo r itself a black m a rket . I f i t is not to l e rate d i n t ranspa re ntt relatio ns, the rep ressed se l f wi l l sp l i t i n two ; i nto a represen ted self, a perso n a l o rga n izat i o n of a p pea rances, a persona, a n d t h at wh i c h c ringes and p l ots beh i n d this character-armour. tt The rep ress i o n of eg o ism , contra ry to the d i ctates of e very one of t h e so-called " Co m m unists" ( i n opp os it ion to Ma rx a n d E n g els) , from Len i n r i g h t d own to Mao , ca n never be t h e basis of com m u n ist soc i ety . Moreove r, the re pressive co n cepti o n of " co m m u n i s m " m isses p recisely the w h o l e po int . It m isses o u t o n t h e validity of t h e egoistic m o m e n t . T h i s is tru e even in the in verted form in wh i c h it e m e rg es f ro m an i m m anen t critiq u e of a l tru i stic i deo logy: i f I d i e, the world d i es for me. Wi t h o u t l i fe, I can not l ove a n oth e r. However, what it m isses i n " t h eory " - i . e. , i n i ts i d eo l og i ca l rep resentati ons - it n onet h e l ess p reserves in p ract ice, a n d p rec ise l y w i t h the hel p of t h at ve ry i d eology: its real basis i s t h e egoism of t h e state-ca pital ist bu rea u c ra cy. T h i s i d eology of se lf-sac rifice serves a d m i rabl y the task of extract i ng s u rp l us-l abou r fro m the proleta riat. The act u a l neg ati o n of n a rrow egoism is a m atter of transcendance ( "a u f h e b u n g " ttt) , of the t ra n si t i o n f ro m a narrow to a q u a l i tati vely expa n de d form of egoism . The

orig inal self-expansion of egoism was i d e nti cally the d e m ise of the pri m i t i ve com m un i ty. But its fu rther self-expansion will resolve itself into a com m u nity once agai n . It is only when g reed itself at last {or rather, once ag a i n) beckons in the d i rect ion of com m unity that that d i rect ion w i ll be take n . Here t h e anc i ent C h rist i an t ruth that no earthly fo rce can withstand h u m an g reed rej oins us on o u r s i d e of the barri c a d es. 4. I t was the st rug gle ove r the i r g rowi ng wea lth wh i c h rent asunde r t h e early triba l and vi llag e com m u n i tiest. The elabo rat i on of t h e patri archal pattern, the g rowth of ex­ change-relations, of usu ry, d ebt-slave ry, and wa r ca n a l l be traced to th is. I t is only when the sa me motive wh ich ori g inally occasi oned th is d issolution of com m u n i ty calls for its reconst itution that t h e co m m unity can be constituted aga in. And t h is motive is, si m p ly, the s truggle for a richer life. For only that motive i s i rresistable : only that m ot i ve - g reed - can und o i ts own work. It is only w h en that same subjective m o m ent, t h ro u g h the h istorical deepening of its own possibility, tu rns agai nst i ts own present objectifi­ cat i on - i n a word , capital {capital ist private p rope rty, privative a p p ro p riat i o n ; that is, privatization , excl usion "soci ety" as an association of strange rs, of estrangement in short, the totali ty of alienat i on) - t h at t h e t h reshold of the g reat transfo rmat ion i s reached . A n d t h e st rug gle of t h is n ew subj ecti v i ty ag ainst the previous obj ectifi cation {global cap italist soci ety; i n a word , capita l) , the p rocess of the neg ati on of that obj ectifi cation I S the com m u n ist revoluti on. 5. We have no doubt t h at people are co rru ptible, but we know for ou rselves that t h e re are t h ing s m ore tem pting , mo re sed uctive, than money, capital, and Powe rt - s o m u ch so that no g enu inely g reedy h u man bei n g cou l d possibly resist t h e i r allu re - and i t is u pon this co rru p t ibi l ity of m an that we found ou r ho pes fo r revolution. Revolut i on is noth i ng oth e r than the self-accele rating spread th rou g h o ut soc i ety

of this m o re p rofound co rruption, of th is deeper sed uc t i o n . Cu rrently, g reed is always p u rsued and associated with iso lat i on and privat i s m s i m ply because everyon e u nder the re i gn of capital i s conde m n ed to pursue g reed i n this na rrow way. G reed d oesn't yet know its own potential ity . We say once again: the p resent forms of g reed lose out i n the end beca use t h ey t u rn out to b e n o t g reedy enough. 6. Narrow g reed is a hol dover f rom ti m es of natu ral sca rcity . Its desi res a re rep resented to itself in the fo rm of com­ m o d i t i es, power, sex (-o bj ects} , and even m o re abstractly, as m oney and as i m ag es. We a re tol d in a thousand ways that only th ese few th ings are wo rth having - by r u l e rs who work to i ns u re that these a re the onl y t h ings avai l a ble (to be boug ht.} The s u rvival of nar row g reed in a wo rld of pote n t i a l plenty is p ropagated i n t h e fo rm of ideology b y those very people who control access to th ese thi ngs. U l t i m a tel y , i n o u r dai l y l i ves, w e suffer t h e h u m i l i ation o f being forced accom­ p l ices in the m a i nte nance of t h i s sca rcity, t hi s poverty of choice. 7. Narrow g reed wi l l tu rn against itse lf. No m o re powe rfu l wea pon a g a i nst g reed cou l d poss i b l y be found than g reed itself. The re co u l d be no m o re form i dable tool for trans­ fo rm ing na rrow selfishness than t h is selfishness itse l f. In its own p rocess, thro u g h its own d eve l o p m ent, it m ust d iscove r a f u lle r for m of g reed , and a riche r form of wea l th. It m ust d iscover i ts own na rrowness. A fro ntal assau l t on som eone's narrow se lfishness wi l l run up a g a i nst his strong est d efenses. Wou l dn't it be easi e r to t u rn t h at st rength a round u pon itse lf? Wo u l dn't i t be easier to i nd u ce that pe rson to transform (hi m } ( h er} se l ft t h ro u g h (his} ( h e r} o w n d esi res? Th is is the m e th o d o f seduc tion. It i n volves spea k i n g from what is most rad i c a l in you to w h at is most rad ica l in t h e other person; t h at is, speaki n g from what you real l y h a ve in common : root su bject i v i ty; ra dical subjec tivity, the b asis, at l ast h istorica l ly d is-cove red , u pon "

"

w h i c h to work out the constru cti on of a u then tic c o m m unity. T h i s is the met h od of imm a n e n t critiq ue;tt of t he evocat i o n of self-critiq ue. I t i s t h e prac tice o f dialec tic itself. H i e R h o d u s ! H ie Salta! 8. The perspective of communis t egoism i s the pers pective of t h at sel f i s h ness w h i c h desi res n oth i n g so m u c h as our other selves , of t h at ego i s m w h i c h wa nts noth i n g so m u c h as ot her eg os; of t h at g reed wh i c h i s g reedy to l ove - l ove bei ng the total t a p p ro p ri at i o n of man by man. 9. O u r reversal o f perspecti ve on eg o i s m , t o u r deto urn e ­ me n t tt of "g reed , " a n d the sca n d a l o u s effect w h i c h t h i s p rod uces a n d i s i n tended t o p rod u ce i n t h e p reva i l i n g consc i o u sness, i s n o mere fo rmal trick, a n d no a r b i t rary play on words . Words, and prec i sely because of t h e i r mea n i n g s , are a rea l part o f h i story, of t h e " h i storical m ateri al , " and of the h isto rical p rocess . To abandon t h em to thei r u s u rpers, to i nvent n ew words, or to u se other words because of t h e d i ff i c u lty of wi n n i n g back t h e t rue, h i storic words, i s t o aban d o n t h e f i e l d t o t h e enemy. I t i s a t h eo ret i cal co n ­ cess i o n , a n d a p racti cal c o n cess i o n , w h i c h w e can n ot afford . To d o so wou l d o n l y add to t h e confus i o n , a confusi o n w h i c h , i n part, forms t h e basi s o f the esta b l i sh ed order.ttt Our reversal of pers pective, o n the contrary, i s c l arifyi n g with i n t h e very terms o f t h e confu s i o n . I t i s al ready a revo l ut i o n ary act at t h e l evel of the s u bjective c o n d itions of revo l uti o n : the reversed perspecti ve - the re volved perspec­ tive - is the perspective of revo l ution itself. I d eo l ogy is t h e sublime h u stle. T h e use-val ue of i d eology i s a s a too l fo r exp l oitat i o n - the i deo l o g u e u ses i d eo logy to co n you i nto letti n g h i m put h i s ego i s m a bove you rs , in the name of altru i s m , m o ral ity, and the " g eneral i nterest . " O u r wi n n i n g back i n a positive con n otat i o n o f a word l i ke " g reed " o r "selfish ness " - t h e centra l , u n iversal, a n d m utual ly ag reed u pon pej o ratives of t h e two extreme rep resentat i o n s of

modern capita l i s m , private capital ist a n d state capit a l i st w h ich try to confi ne the total i ty of poss i b l e oppos i t ion with i n t h e u n iverse bou nded b y thei r pol a r pseudo-oppositi o n - i s s u c h a n a c t b eca use i t locates pre cisely the poi nt of th e i r esse ntial u n ity, the exact poi nt of depart u re for a revol uti o n a ry movement wh i c h , by b rea k i n g away there, si m u ltaneous ly, i d e ntical l y , a nd si n g u larly breaks with both . No l ess i s o u r exp ro priat i on of a wo rd l i ke "co m m u n i sm" such an act , for it is al ready an "exp ro p riat i o n of the exp ro priators . " 1 The " F ree Wor l d " is not free a nd th e "Co m m u n i st Wor l d " is not co m m u n i st. 1 0. We use the wo rds "com m u n i st society" to mean the d i rect opposite of that wh i c h m asque rades as s uch in the present wor l d n ame l y, b u reau c rat ic state-capital i s m . t T h at the c lass ical p rivate ca p i ta l i st soci eties of the " West" - them­ se l ves maturi n g towa rd a form of state-capita l ism - col l ud e w i t h the " Eastern" powers i n the p ropagation of th i s l i e, i s hardly a n acc ident, a n d s h o u l d come as no su rprise. I t i s , rath er, o n e facet among myriads of a n "antag o n i stic cooper­ ati o n " t t w h i c h reveals the h i dden essential u n ity b i n d i n g together these pseudo-opposites. The t ru e com m u n i st society beg i ns with t h e exp ro p riation of the whole of capital ist soc i ety by "th e associated p rod uc­ ers , "2 wh i c h , i f we are to j u d g e by the n u merousttt h istor­ i cal attem pts at t h i s process so fa r, w i l l take the fo rm of a g lobal o rgan ization of wo rkplace, com m u n ity, reg ional , etc. , co u nc i ls; the workers' councils, o r, to u se th e i r o rig i nal , R u ssian n a m e , exp ropriated ( i n fact, as i n name) by the B o l shevi k b u reaucratas - t h e So viets. ideo logy,

11. We conceive the realized social i n d ivid u a l , "co m m u n ist m a n , " as h avi ng for h is p roperty - that is, fo r the o bject of h i s a p p ro p ri at i o n - h i s w h o l e soc i ety , t h e tota l i ty of soc i a l l i fe. A l l of soc i ety is wealth for h i m . H is i nte rcou rse with h i s society - Le. , h i s l iv i n g relations with the rest of the

soc i al i nd ivid uals and th e i r objectif ication - i s i n its total ity the appropria tion of social life. Prod uctive activity becomes a form of i n d i v i d u a l consu m pt i o n j u st as cons u m ption itself is a form of (se lf} p rod uction . T h e act i vity of the s i m u lta n eous appro p riation by each i nd i v i d u a l of a l l t h e rest, or of t h e appropriat ion of soci ety by al l at once - i nter-appropriat i o n ( realized i nte r-su bjectivity, o r co- p roperty} - itsel f con stitutes the tota l ity of soc i a l p roduction. T h is a p p ropriation by a l l at once o f a l l i s n o n e ot h e r th an t h e resonan cet state o f egoism: "Comm unism i s t h e p ositive abol ition of priva te property, of human self-aliena tion , a n d [is] thus the rea l appropria tion of h uman natu re t h roug h and for man . "3 I n com m u n i st soc iety, accord i n g to i ts co ncept, the "form of i ntercou rse"4 becomes the tota l a p p ropriat i o n of man by man . Soc i a l i n d ivi d uals can a p p ropriate one an oth e r subjec­ tively ( i . e . , as subjects}, a n d a/I-sidedly, throu g h a l l the forms of h u ma n i ntercou rse - by ta l k i ng tog ethe r, p rod uci ng together, making love together, etc . , etc . , and t h e fru its of t h e i r a p p ro p r i at i o n , i . e . , th emselves i n t h e i r developed ri c h n ess, become thus t h e p roperty of themsel ves, and of all of soc i ety, of all the oth e r social i n d ividuals. The fru its of you r a p p ro p riation , of you r consu m ption or physical a n d emotional ri c h es, i s somet h i n g fro m w h i c h I a m excluded a t t h e level o f i m med i acy, of i m me d i ate consu m p­ tion : you eat the pear, therefore I cannot eat j ust t h at b i te of j ust that pear; you share you r love with t h i s person , and I a m perhaps exc l uded from s h a ri n g myself a t t h is m o m e n t with you . B ut this is not at a l l a p roblem for m e , for I am busy e l sewhere, with the same p roj ect and praxis of self­ e n ri c h m e n t on my own a n d toget h er with ot h e rs. But late r, med i ately, when I com e back to you , you r ap pro p ri atio n , a n d the self-e n ri c h m ent you d e rive from it, com es back t o m e , becom es my con s u m pt ion , m y appropriation , in m y appro­ pria tion of you , a n d is the richer for it. Today, we h ave to be

j ealous of each others' p leasu res n ot beca use ou r pleas u res are so many and so g reat, but because they are so meagre and so few . Here, on the ot her s i de of poverty, o n t h e ot her side of scarcity, my j ealousy wou l d on ly deprive myself, my exc l usion of you r pleas u re wou l d only exc l u d e my own, and I am free at last to take p leasu re i n you r p leasure. Whereas , wit h i n the real m of poverty, yo u r st ren gth is a th reat to me, you r development is at the expense of m i ne, and in general you r add i t i o n is my su btraction; on the contrary, i n the soci ety of real ized wealt h , you r strength i s my st ren gth, the i n ner wealth of you r bei ng i s my wea l th, my pro perty, and every one of you r h u ma n powers is a multiplica tion of my own . T h u s , the contrad i ction between my consu m pt i on and you rs, betwee n my app ropriation, my property, a n d you rs; the con f l i c t between my wel l-bei n g and you rs becomes its opposite: synthes is; identity; i nter-reen forcement; i n ter­ a m p l i f i cati o n ; resonance. 1 2. The pos itive concept i o n of ego i s m , the pers pective of com m u n ist eg o i s m , is the very heart and u n ity of ou r theoret ical and p ract ical co herence. This perspective is the essence of what sepa rates u s fro m bot h the left an d t h e ri g ht . W e ca n n ot al low its f u n d ame nta l i m porta n ce t o b e obscu red , or o u rselves to be m i staken for either the r i g h t or t he l eft . We can not al low any Len i n i st org an i zation to get away with c l a i m i n g t h at it i s on l y ' a little b i t pregnant' with state­ cap ita l i s m .

I . WEALTH 1 3. "When t h e narrow bou rgeo i s form h as been peeled away, what i s wealth , i f not the u n ive rsa l ity of needs , capac i t i es , enjoyments, p rod uctive powers, etc. , o f i n d ivi d u a l s , p ro ­ d u ced i n u n i versal exchan ge*?"5 We rea l ize t h at t'1is expanded concept of exch a n g e may b e d ifficult to accept fo r a reader whose objective life has been d o m i nated by exchange-value rel ationships. However, the c ritique of exchange-value is not to be confused with an a bstract o r *

1 4. "The exchange of h u man activity with p roduct i o n i tself as wel l as the exchange of h uman produc ts with one another i s eq u i valently the species-activity a n d s pecies-s p i rit whose actual, con scious , authentic existence is social activity and social satisfaction . As h uman nat u re i s th e true comm unal nature , or com m u nal bei n g of man , m e n th rou g h the activat i o n of t h e i r na ture create and p roduce a h u man m oralistic negation o f exchange itself as such. The concept o f excha nge i s m uch " bigger" than the concept of excha n ge-va l ue - or quid pro quo - exch a n g e : of commodity exchange- relations. Exchan ge-val u e exchange is a transitory, an historical , disappearing necessity. Exchange as such, however , is a necessity of society in genera l , of socia l existence as s uch, both with regard to society's rel ations to natu re and with regard to its self-re latio n s , the socia l re lations proper: "The labou r-process . . . is h u m a n action with a view to the p rod uction of use-va l u es, appropriation of nat u ra l su bstances to human req uirements; it is the n ecessary conditio n for effecting exchange of m atter between m a n and Nat u re; it is the everl astin g natu re-im posed condition of hu man existe nce, and therefore is in dependent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, in com mon to every such phase . " [Karl Marx, Capital, A Critique Of Political Economy, I nternational P u b lishers, (New York, 1 967) , pp. 1 83-4. See also, Karl M a rx, " F ree H u man Prod u ctio n " , in Easton a n d G u ddat, Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, D o u b l eday and C o m pany, ( G a rden City, 1 96 7 ) . p. 277 .) Exchange-value is histo rica l l y specific to a certain phase of t h e development of the socia l productive forces (of the social individ u a l ) : exchange in general is historical ly genera l , independent of any given form or stage of h uman society. Exchange characterizes in fact not o n l y the l a b o u r-process genera l ly, b ut every aspect of hu man activity ; intercou rse with other hu m a n beings a n d with nature. I n fact, al l inter-actio n , social a n d natura l , a n d a l l l ife-processes i n genera l conversation, dining, sexual interc o u rse, and even " passive" contemplation of natu re - fal l within this expanded concept of exchange - are at t h e very l east, "exchange-of-action . Even in o ne-sided gift-givin g ; even when someone g ives you a n object and you give no object in direct return - let a l o ne an exchange-value equivalent in ret u rn - an exchange has taken p l ace, tho ugh not a n exchange-val u e ( c o m m odity) exchange; not an exchange o f the sort which reproduces the law of va l u e. ( I n capita list society there also exist vario u s u n derdeveloped forms or approximation s of exchange-val u e relationships, e . g . barterin g - even the bartering of "favo rs" . I n fact, q uid pro quo - literal ly "this for that" - is, in a society based on p rivatized su rvival , a standard and a paradigm which pervades not o n l y "eco no mic" rel ationships as such, but comes t o dominate all as pects o f socia l life - including the most " i ntimate" personal relationsh i p . ) Com m u n ist society i s inconceiva b l e with any b u t the m ost minimal , marginal su rvivals of exchange- value exchange, but it is likewise inco nceivable with out exchange; exchange in objects, informatio n , energy, experience, etc. between man and man and between man and n atu re - without what M a rx cal l s "social metabolis m " . "

com m u nal bei n g , a soc i a l bei n g wh ich is n o abstractly u n iversal power opposed to the si ngle i n d ivi d ual , but is the nature or bei n g of every si n g l e i n d ivid ual , h i s own activity, his own l i fe, h is own s p i rit, h i s own wealth . "6 1 5. "The new p roleta riat i n he rits the ric hes of the bo urgeois wo r l d and it g ives it its h isto rical c hance. Its tas k is to transform and dest roy t hese r i ches, to constitute t hem as part of a h u m a n p roject: the tota l appropriation of nat ure and h u man natu re by man. A real ized h u m a n n at u re can o n l y mean t h e i nf i n ite m u lt i p l icat i o n o f real desires a n d thei r gratifi catio n . "7 1 6. The reso n a n ce of eg o i s m s h as to be l ooked at from the po i nt of v i ew of wealth ( greed ) : devel oped i n d iv i d u a l s m ake a r icher com m u n ity , and a r i c h e r com m u n ity ma kes fo r richer i nd ivid u a l i t i es . Beyo n d a certai n stage of the deve l op­ ment of p rod u ctive forces, " co l lectivism=the s u p press i o n of i n d i vi d u a l i ty" i s a forfeiture of wealth for the com m u n ity, j ust as " i n d i v i d u a l i s m t h e s u p re s s i o n of co m m u n i ty" is a fo rfeitu re of wealth for the i nd ividual ist. 1 7. The i m p overished man typical of capital i st soci ety,t the so-cal led " g reedy" m a n , i s the man who i s only exc ited by money, who i s on ly i nte rested in f rag men ts of other peo p l e - i n b uyi ng thei r s k i l l s , th eir services, t h e i r pro d u cts, a n d the rest i s " n o n e o f h i s b us i n ess . " H e l i ves i n a world of prostitutes , that i s , a wo r l d of proleta rians . He is the m aste r of the pa rtia l appropr i ati o n of m a n by m a n , that i s , of =

exploita tion .

T h e rich m a n , t h e greedy m a n o f com m u n i st soc iety, i s the mar:i who has d i scovered how to a p propri ate the ri c h est "th i n g " a ro u n d , the most i nteresti n g a n d va l u ab l e object, the subject, beginning with the appropria tion o f h ims elf as s uch;

the man who has soc ial ly m astered the poss i b i l i ty toget h e r with the n ecessary con ditions o f t h i s to tal appropr i ati o n of man by man , the coherence of wh ose soc i a l l ife is the self-

n eed of m a n . Th is is the sec ret of what we mean when we say: t h e n eg ation of capital i s the real iztion of real wealth , s u bj ectivity and obj ectivity. The com m u n ist egoist, the gen u i nely g reedy perso n , wants ot h e r su bj ects . The narrow egoist, the exploiter, only wants somethin g from t hem . 1 8. A soc i ety rich i n selves is the o n l y rea l l y ri c h soci ety. R i c h n ess in su bjects, i n su bjecti vity, in p ractica l l y a nd c reative l y p o tent h u m a n be i ngs, i s f i n a l l y t h e on ly real wealth for the subject. 19. Ul t i m ately, wealth is not h i n g b u t socie ty itself. 20. The log ic of exchange-va l u e , of commodity exc hange­ rel ations, is the very log i c of n arrow egois m itself. In the exc hang e of a com mod ity w h i c h I own, for money owned by som e body else, I h ave parted with , a lien a ted, the use val u e of the com modity. It is lost to m e , in orde r that I may rea l ize its exc h a n g e-val ue, its money for m , its general use-va l u e , that is, its ex p ress ion in the form of genera l soci a l u s e f u l n es s o r a b s t ra c t l a bo u r-t i m e , w h i c h I c a n t h e n reconve rt i nto any part i c u l a r use-va l u e to t h e extent that its p rod uct ion has, by my stag e of capita l ist development, ass u m ed the form of com modity- p roduction . I ts gene ral u s ef u l n ess - i ts usefu l n ess as m o n ey , as exc h a n g e-va l ue - is h e re i n di rect contrad i ction to its parti c u l a r usefu l n ess, its spec ific use-va l u e .

T h e log i c o f exhcange-relations i n com m u n ite soc i ety, ac­ cordi n g to t h e i n n e r coh erence of its con cept, is qu ite to the cont rary however. The use-va l u es in whose produ ction I part i c i pate , and i n whose consu m ption you and I both part i c i pate , a re not lost to me except if I con s u m e them i m­ med iately, i . e . , you r con s u m ption of t hem i s not a loss for me. They a re social use val u es, and soc i ety is my l arger se lf, my necessary self, a bsol ute ly n ecessary to m y p roduction

and reprod uct i o n . ( Even if I sh o u l d take u p t h e l i fe of an iso­ lated he r m it, a savage, using not h i n g of soc ial pro d uction but my own socially-prod u ced subjectivity and knowledge, and somehow s u rvive at it, my changed self-activity wou l d s h o rt l y re n d e r m e a differen t person.) T h e i r use-val u e , consu med d i rectly b y others returns to me i n the fo r m o f the mai ntai ned o r i m proved creat i ve capacity of those others i n socia l prod ucti o n ; i n t h e fo rm o f the reposited o r i n creased pro d uction of the c l ass of h u ma n bei ngs u po n whom my rep rod uct i o n depends -th e s i ng le c lass - or rat her, t h e s i n g l e g l o b a l n o n-cla ss of a s s o c i ated p ro d uce rs, w h o pro d u ce t h e to tality o f t h e wea l t h I cons u m e; w h o t h u s prod u ce m e , or rather, p rod uce t h e necessa ry p rerequ i sites to my production o f my self. Thus, no social u se-val u e i s a l i e nted from m e . Rather, al l of it stays wit h i n m y (expan ded ) se l f , a cc u m u lates t h e re, a n d g oes to e n h a n c e t h e tota l q u al ity of my l ife. Therefo re, also, with i n the g l o bal p roduction-p lan n i n g process o f t h e cou n c i l s , I h ave a leg i ti m ate beef wheneve r asked to part i c i pate i n some pro d u ction w h i c h d oes not sat i sfy th i s logic. Any product i o n wh i c h does not sat isfy t h i s log ic i s t r u l y social ly d estruct i ve, anti-socia l , a n d a n a n t i ­ use-va l u e (anti-wea lth). I t i s therefo re, a t very best, a waste of my t i me, t h at is, of my life. Anyt h i n g t hat is n ot worthy to be preserved wi l l have to be destroyed . 21 . " T h e independen t, m a terial fo rm of wealth disappears a n d wea lth is s h own t o b e si m p l y t h e acti v i ty o f m e n . Eve ryt h i n g w h i c h i s n ot t h e res u lt o f h u m a n activ i ty, o f l a bo u r, i s nature a n d , as s u c h , i s n ot soc i a l wea l t h . The p h a ntom of t h e world of g oods fades away and it i s seen to be s i m p ly a conti n u a l l y d i sappeari n g a n d conti n ua l l y rep rod uced obj ect ivi sati on o f h urnan labou r. A l l so l i d mate rial wealth is o n l y t h e transi tory m ateri a l izati o n of social l a b o u r, c rystal l izat i o n of the p ro­ d u ct i o n p rocess wh ose m eas u re is ti m e , t h e m eas u re of a m ove ment itse lf. "8 22. I n the last a n a l ys i s , a l l you h ave to g i ve i s yo u rself. Yo u r self i s yo u r o n l y g ift . I f you d o n 't possess you rself - i . e., i f

you l et you rse l f be forced to sell yourself - you have noth i n g to bestow u p o n a n other i n divi d u a l , a n other self. I n the realize d society cal l ed co m m u n ist soci ety, exchange m u st beco me visi b l y and fu l ly what it a lways was essen t i a l l y : se l f exchange.

I I . I ND I V I DUA L I S M A N D C O L LECTIVI S M 23.

"To be avo i d ed above a l l is estab l ish i n g 'soci ety' once agai n as an abst raction over agai nst the i n d i vi d u a l . The i n d ividual i s the socia l being.t The expressi o n of his l i fe even i f it does n ot appear i m m ed i atel y i n the fo rm of a com m u nal expression ca rried out together with othe rs is therefo re a m a n i festati o n a n d affi rmat ion of social l ife. The i n d i v i d u a l and generic l ife of m a n y are not distinct, however m u c h - a n d n ecessa r i l y so - t h at m o d e of e x i s te n ce of i n d i vi d u a l l i fe is either a m o re pa rticular o r a m o re general mode of generic o r generic l i fe a m o re part i c u l a r or universal mode of i n d i v i d u a l l i fe . . . . T h o u g h man is therefo re a unique i n d i v i d u a l - a n d p recisely t h i s particularity makes h i m an i n d ividua l , a rea l l y in dividual com m u nal be i n g - he is eq ual ly t h e to ta lity the i d eal tota l i ty, the subj ective exi sten ce of society as thoug ht and expe r i e n ced . "9 ,

24.

"Altu rism is the other side of the coi n of 'hell-is-other­ people'; o n l y th is t i m e mystificati o n appears u nder a positive sig n . Let 's put an e n d to t h i s o l d so l d i e r c rap once a n d for a l l ! For others to i nterest m e I m ust fi n d i n myself the energy fo r suc h an i n te rest. What b i n d s m e to others m ust g row out of w h at b i n ds me to the most exu berant a n d dem a n d i n g part of my wi l l (vo l o n t �) to l i ve; not the oth e r way a ro u n d. It is a l ways myse lf that I am l oo k i n g fo r i n other peo p l e ; my e n ri c h m e n t ; my rea l izati o n . Let everyon e u n d e rsta n d t h i s a n d 'each fo r h i m self' take n t o i t s ulti m ate c o n c l u s i o n w i l l be transfo r m ed i nto 'al l for eac h . ' The f ree d o m of one wi l l be the freed o m of a l l . A c o m mun ity which is n ot b u i l t o n the

d e m a n ds of i n d i v i d u als a n d thei r d i alect ic can o n l y rei nforce the oppressi ve v iole nce of Powe r . The Oth e r i n w h o m I do n ot f i n d m yself is n oth i n g but a t h i n g , a n d alt r u i s m leads m e to the love of thi ngs, to t h e love o f my isolat ion . . . For m yse lf, I recog n ize no eq u a l i t y except that wh i c h my w i l l t o l i ve acco rd i ng to my d esi res recog n izes i n the will to live of others. R evolution a ry e q u a l ity w i ll be i n d i v isi b l y i n d i v i d u a l a n d collect i ve. " 1 0 25. "Let us not ice f i rst of al l that the so-called righ ts of man . . . are si m ply t h e r i g hts of a member of civil socie ty, t hat is, of egoist i c m a n , of m a n se pa rated from oth e r men and fro m t h e c o m m un i ty . . L i be rty i s , therefo re, the ri g ht to d o everything w h i c h d oes not ha rm othe rs. The l i m its wit h i n w h i ch each i n d iv i d u a l can act w ithout harm i n g others are d eterm i n ed by law, j ust as the bo u n dary between two fields is m a rked by a sta ke. It is a q uestion of the l i be rty of man reg arded as an iso lated m o n a d , withd rawn i nto h i mself . .. L i berty as a ri g h t o f m a n i s not fou n d ed u po n t h e relat i o n s betwee n m a n a n d m a n , b u t rath e r u po n t h e separat i on o f m a n from man. It i s the ri g ht o f such se parat i o n .t T h e rig ht o f the circumscribed i n d ivi d u a l , withd rawn i nto himself . .. It leads every m a n to see in oth e r men , n ot the realiza tion, but rather the limitation of his own li be rty. "tt1 1 26. "Too m a n y co rpses st rew t h e pat h s of i n d iv i d u alism a n d col lectivism. Un der two apparently contrary rat i o n a l ities has raged a n i d e ntical g a n gsteris m , a n i dentica l op p ressi o n of the isolated ma n . " 1 2 .

27. Is it necessary once a g a i n to p o i nt out the self-a bsu rd i ty of the o n e-sided a bst rac t i o n s "the i n d i v i d u al" a n d "soc i ety , " a nd of t h e i d eolog ies fo u nded on this o n e-si ded ness " i n d i v i d u a l is m " (o r "egoism " ) a n d so-called "so c i a l ism " (or "col lectivism " ) ? We c a n b e i n d i v i d uals o n ly socially. We can be soc ial only individually.

I nd i v i d uals co nstitute soci ety. Soci ety const i t u tes i n d i v i d u a ls. 28. D i g d e e p l y e n o u g h i nto t h e i n d i v i d u a l and you wi l l fi n d soci ety. D i g deeply e n o u g h i nto society a n d yo u w i l l f i n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l . D i g deeply e n o u g h i nto e i t h e r a n d y o u wi l l co m e o u t t h e "other" side. T h e conce pt na med " t h e i n d ivi d u a l , " f u l ly g rasped , i s the sa m e as t h e co ncept n a m ed "soc i ety . " The concept n a m ed "society , " f u l l y g rasped , is a lso "the i n d i v i d u a l . " One is i m possi b l e , does n o t exis t, without the other. At t h e heart of soci ety is i ts " o p posite , " t h e i n d i v i d u a l . A t t h e ce nter of t h e i n d i vi d ua l is h is "a n tith esis , " society. We m ust speak of t h e s ocia l in dividual. Both of t h e abst ract u n i ve rsals, "soci ety" a n d " the i n d i v i d u a l " f i n d t h e i r concre te un ivers a l i n the social individual. 29. Soci ety, w i t h o u t the i n d i vi d ua l , is em pty, is w i t h o u t its existence, j ust as t h e i nd i v i d u a l , w i t h o u t soci ety, i s w i t h o u t i ts existe nce - a n d e v e n o u tside h u m a n soc i ety, is n ot a h u m a n i nd i v i d u a l (even i f i t s h o u l d chance to su rv ive as a biological i n d i v i d u a l . H oweve r, eve n as such , i t i s t h e issue of a h u m a n soc i a l - in t h is case , sex u a l - relat i onsh i p ) . Un less both these m o m e n ts ca n b e aff i r m ed simultaneo usly, un ivoca lly; g rasped as a si n g l e , u n i ta ry concept - i n fact as a conceptual singula rity - t he i r co nt rad ict i o n h av i ng been t ranscen d ed (to beg i n with , in t h o u g ht) , then n e i t h e r "the i n d i v i d u a l " nor "soc i ety" h as been u n dersto o d .

30. Se l f-prod uct i o n ca n o n ly be soci a l ; soci ety is self­ p rod uct i o n , t h at is, society is the o n l y possi b l e means-of­ p rod uct i o n of sel ves. You ca n n ot eve r ta l k a b o u t the "self" w i t h o u t i d e ntica l l y i m pl i cat i n g o r ta l k i n g a b o u t "soc i ety . " T h e "se l f " exists o n l y i n associ ation with oth e r sel ves, i . e . i n a n d a s a n associat i o n o f sel ves, a society. I t i s n o acc i d e n t that the Lat i n root o f "co nsciousness" con-scien tia means l itera l l y "together- k n owledge;" "to k n ow together. " 1 3 -

-

Subject i v i ty i s esse n t ia l l y intersubj ective, that is, es sen ti ally social.

31 . You r " i nd i v i d u a l ity" i s a l ready a "soc i a l structu re , " a n d has been s o from its very inception ( i ncl u d i n g , f ro m its very conception) . 32. I n d i v i d u als are p rod uce d o n l y by society. Society i s prod uced o n l y b y i n d i v i d u a ls. 33 . Soci ety can be rea l ized o n l y egoist ica l ly, j ust as t h e ego can be arr i ved at, can be rea l ized , and is possi b l e at all only socially.

34. The sel f is p re-em i ne n t ly a n d essential l y soci a l ; soci ety i s pre-em i n en t l y a n d esse n ti a l ly self-ish . 35. I f t h e ph i losop h e rs of o ne-si ded i n d i v i d u a l -ism , of narrow egoism - t h at is, of t h e axi o logy of t h e self - wa n t to u n derst a n d M a rx's social-ism, t h ey sh o u l d refl ect on h i s statement to the effect t h at the other is a necessary part o f your s e/f.14

36. The pri n ci p l e " I want noth i n g o t h e r t h a n myse l f " - t h e pri n ci p l e of se lf-des i re, se l f-attac h m e n t (sel f-cath exis, o r se lf-ce ntrat i o n ) - beco mes t h e pri n ci p l e of d a i l y l if e i n com m u n ist soci ety o nce i t i s soci a l l y act u a l ized t h at t h e oth e r i s a necessary pa rt of my se lf.15 Soci ety beco mes an o bject of cath exis wit h o u t th is a n y longer n ecessitat i n g p roj ect i o n - i d e ntificat i on - i . e . , t h e a l i e n ati o n o f cath exis from t h e self - o nce t h e soci a l n atu re of t h e se lf, a n d t h e "se l f n atu re " o f society has beco me a pal pable a n d t ranspa rent t r u t h o f experi e nce . 37. State-ca p i ta l , i n s u b l at i n gt pri vate cap ita l , n eg ates or

rep resses p r i vate ca pital . T h e i d eo l og y of a n t i - i n d i v i d u a l is m - t h at i s , of co l l ectivism o r o n e-si d ed soci al ism - so esse n t i a l to Mao ism i n p a rticu l a r a n d to revo l ut i o n a ry i d eo l ogytt i n g e n eral is co n g ruent p recisely with t h e p roject of the rep ressi o n of p r i vate ca pital ism a n d p r i vate accu m u l a­ t i o n , together wit h t h e c h a ractero log ical te n d e n c i es co rre­ spo n d i n g to t h ese , on t h e p a rt of b u rea ucrat ic ca p i tal ism (state-ca p i ta l ism ) . Th is pol icy of re p ressi o n , typ i f i ed by the Mao ist slogan "smash sel f , "ttt also h as t h e effect of i n h i b i t i n g t h e e m e rg ence of communis t egoism with i n t h e h o m e p ro letari at; a fo rm of e g o i s m w h i c h t h e b u rea ucracy confo u n ds, consci ously o r u n co n sc i o usly, with b o u rgeois e g o ism. 38. Eve n p ri vatism i tse l f is a s ocial expression (see t h esis 23) ; a n express i o n of social l ife i n a def i n ite h isto rica l form of soci ety. T h at is, p r i vatism is i tse l f an exp ress i o n of the social in dividual produced by contem pora ry society. Peo p l e who d o n ot t h i n k d i a l ecti ca l l y e n d u p m a k i n g enormous erro rs h e re, p ractica l l y as wel l as t heoretica l ly, beca use t h ey can not g rasp conte m po rary an ti-socialism as i tse l f a social tru th , an ( a d m i tte d l y se lf-rep rod uci n g ) subjec tifica tion ( i . e . , i n tern a l izat i on ) , o f ca p i t a l ist soci ety , wh i ch is p recise ly a n a n ti-social society. S o m uch s o t h a t 'the socia liza tion o f socie ty' i s , wh e re cap i t a l ist soci ety is concerned , b u t a n ot h e r n a m e f o r t h e p roject o f soci a l revo l u t i o n i tse lf. The i d eo l o g i es of a n ti-socialism a re based o n the misery of associa tion (co l l ect i ve boredo m , i na ut h e n t i c associat i o n , etc.)* u n d e r contem pora ry co n d i t i o ns, that is, o n t h e m isery of associatio n-as-alienation a n d as-es trangement. T h ey a re exp ressio ns of t h e p o verty o f social life i ts v i rt u a l n o n­ existence as such i n t h e wo rld of st ra n g e rs, t h e bellum omnium con tra omnes, wh i ch is capital ist soc i ety. -

-

*

" Let's face it: human relatio n ships being what social hiera rchy has made of them , im perso nality is the l east tiring form of conte m p t . " (Vaneig e m , op. cit. , footnote 1 0, p . 36.) It was a si m i l a r (thoug h m o re isolate) d isgust whi ch d rove Lui s Nada, i n the va pid ity of the postwar years, to decl a re: " I n genera l , I consider the h u m a n race to be a daily i ntrusion on my life . " (Quoted from The L ife and Times of Luis Nada, by An n a von Scht u k , Ex N ihi l o P u b l ishers , 1 974, p. 23 1 . )

39.

Th e leftist , tra pped i n t h e permanent false c h oice between fo l l owi ng h is own i m m ed i ate des i res and sacrifi c i n g for h is id eals, d esp i ses t h e "selfish " perso n who u n hes itat i ng l y ch ooses i m m ed i ate, private satisfact i o n . The g e n u i ne com­ m u n ist also despises t h is latter type , b ut fo r the opposite reaso n : bei n g restri cted to i m m e d iat e private satisfact i o n is not sat isfy i n g e n ou g h . To the co m m u n i st, f u rt h e r m ore, for such "se l fish " people to re m a i n sat isfi ed with th e i r p riva­ tized, a l i e nated l ives is a d i rect barri er to the real i zat i o n of the co m m u n ist's own expanded se lf- i nte rest. So m ewh e re i n every ran k a n d fi le l eft i st l u rks a co nfused i ntu i t i o n that t h i s i s t h e rea l reason fo r h i s co nte m pt: b u t t h is i nt u it io n i s co nti n u a l l y st ifl ed by t h e l eftist's o w n i ns iste nce o n t h e " n ecessity" o f sacri fice. 40.

The l o n ely i n d iv i d ua l ism of Ayn Ran d , 16 et al., is o n l y a l i enat i o n accepted an d al i e n ation perfected . Comm u n ist i n d iv i d u a l ism o r i n d i vi d u a l ist comm u n ism i s t h e n a m e fo r t h e so l ution t o t h e r i d d l e of pre-h istory, w h ich , wh i l e i t h as m ome ntari ly, at ti m es and pl aces i n t h is cen t u ry , ex isted , a s yet k nows n ot its own n a m e . 41.

Any "co l lectivism " o n o u r part is a n individualis t co l l ec­ tivism . Any " i n d iv i d u a l ism " on o u r part is a collec tivis t i n d ivi d u al ism . 42.

" N ot h i n g i s more to m e than myse lf. "17 F i n e . As it sta n ds, th is t h eorem is whol ly acce pta b l e . T h i s i s a classi c state m e n t of t h e ego ist ic post u l ate by th e cl assic ex ponent of i n d i v i d u a l ist an arc h ism and n arrow egoism , a n d a n · early antag o n ist o f Marx, Max St imer. H is l atter-day fol l owers, consc i o us and u nconsc i o us, i ncl ude t h e "Obj ec­ tivists, " t h e " c l assical l i bera ls, " a n d t h e so-ca l l ed " l i berta ri a n rig ht" i n g e nera l . Th e p rob l em is t h at, i n t h e f u rt h e r e l a borat i o n o f h i s own boo k , Sti rn e r's ow n u n dersta n d i n g of

h is own state m e nt p roved to be u n eq u a l to it. Stimer p roved to be i nse nsitive to wh at t h e concept of "self" - i n o rd e r to be adequ ate to rea l i ty - m ust entai l ; wh at m u st be its content, i f it is expa n d ed ( i . e . , d eveloped) beyon d t h e l evel of its sel f-co n t radict i o n - n a m e l y a l l of t h e oth e r sel ves wh ich i n term u tu a l ly "co nst i tute" or p rod uce it; in s h o rt , soci ety. T h i s e r ro r in g e n e ra l m ust be attri buted to u n deve l o ped concrete self- k n owledge; Stimer d i d not k n ow h i mself, h is own tr u e i d e ntity. H e d i d n ot k n ow h i mse l f as soci ety, o r soci ety a s h is rea l se lf. 43.

I f t h e val i d ity of t h e e g o istic m o m e n t h as n ot been u n d e rstoo d , t h e n n ot h i n g h as bee n u nd e rstood . For each soci a l i n d ivid u a l , wh en h is l ife is at sta ke, eve ryt h i n g is at sta ke. I f I a l l ow myse l f to be sacrifice d , then I h ave a l l owed t h e wh o l e wo r l d - a l l possi b l e val ues - to be sacrificed as fa r as I am conce rned . If I am l ost, t h e n a l l t h e wo r l d is l ost to me. Each t i m e a person d i es, a wo rld d i es. 44.

The co m m u n i ty of e g oists is t h e o n l y possi b l e co m m u n ity n ot fo u n ded o n the re press i o n of i n d i vi d u a l deve l o p ment a n d t h us u lti m ate ly of col lective d eve l o p m e n t as wel l . 45.

"Com m u n ist ego ism " n a m es t h e syn t h esis of i nd i v i d u al­ ism a n d co l l ect ivism, j ust as communist socie ty n a m es t h e act u a l , m ateri a l , sensuous so l ut i on to t h e h isto rical co n t ra­ d icti o n of t h e " pa rt i cu l a r " and t h e 'g e n e ral' i nterest, a co n t rad ict i o n e n g e n d ered especia l l y i n t h e c leavage of soci ety a g a i nst itse l f i nto cl asses. Th is "so l ut i o n " can n ot be of the form of a m e re i d ea or abst ract i o n , but o n l y of a co ncrete form of soci ety. 46.

The global a n d exclusive powe r of wo rkers' co u nci ls, of the anti-state , t of the associ ated p ro d u ce rs, tt o r " g e n e r l ­ i z e d se lf- m a n ag e m ent"* t h at is, concerted egoism , is t h e *

"Genera l ized self-management" is a term which has been used by situatio nists to describe the m ode of production of com munist society. It refers to the process

p rod uct i ve force and the soc i al relati o n of product i o n which can supersed e all t h e results of the u ncoo rd i nated e g o isti c act i v i ty of m e n . These are , i n thei r totality, aliena tion; t h e u nco nscious develo p m e n t of the eco n o m y , a n d t h e u nco n­ scious product i o n by t h e p roleta r i at of the eco n o m ic "laws" of cap italism , with all t h e i r d i sast rous co nsequ ences for t h e p roletariat. The theory of co m m u n ist egoism is co m plete only as a theory of revolu t i o n a ry o rg a n izat i o n a n d as a theory of revoluti o n a ry p ract ice i n general; as a theory of t h e new social relat i o ns a n d a s a theory of t h e p ractice of t h e counc i ls. That is, it is adeq uate o nly as a theory o f com m u n ist soc iety and a s a theory o f the t ransi t i o n fro m (state) cap ita lis t to c o m m u n i s t soc i ety. O bv i o u s l y then , these th eses h ave still a long way to go toward the c o n c rete. whereby we take d i rectly i nto o u r own hands every aspect of social l ife . This m u st mean the dete r m i n ate negation of Capita l , co m mod ity p ro d u cti o n , and of a l l sepa rate powers, i . e . . of a l l powers other t h a n that o f t h e associ ated produce rs themselves. E m b ry o n i c forms of self-management h ave appeared repeated l y t h roughout modern h i story. I t s very poss i b i l ity was fi rst demonstrated i n the Paris Com m u ne of 1 871 , and t h roughout the twentieth century of the m ovements of workers' councils. Workers' councils have arisen repeatedly, usually in critical situations where the i neptitude of the p resent owners of society had been clearly and p ract i c a l l y d e m o n st rated . On such occas i o n s ( R u s s i a 1 905, K r o n stadt 1 92 1 , Spain 1 936-37, etc . ) p roletarians h ave recogn ized that they've been ru n n i n g everyt h i n g a l l along , and that n o w it was o n l y a matter of ru n n i n g everyt h i n g for th emselves. If gen eral ized self-management means "a soci ety in w h i c h the f u l l a n d free development of every i n d i v i d u a l f o r m s the r u l i n g p r i n c i p l e , "20 it can al low n o acco modation to any h ig h e r auth ority, fet i s h , o r reified social re lat i o n s h i p . I n t h e past. situation ists h ave clearly recogn ized t h a t the i m po rtance of self- management is not o n l y its form, but also and dec i s i vely its con ten t - c learly "self- m a nagement" of the present world ( i . e. of com mod ity p rod uct i o n , etc . ) is of l i ttle i n terest to a rad ical su bject. They have bee n i nterested o n l y i n the self-management of the tota l and q u a l i tative transfo rmat i o n of the wo r l d . W e have since expanded the definition of generalized self-management to include more sides of its manifold dialectic. As we now use it, it must mean not only the management by selves of the world (and presumably of a world of marvels), but furthermore it must mean the management of self. What we are talking about is the dialectical unity of subject and object whereby our activity - i. e. o ur sensuous relationship with the objective world - becomes the realization, i. e. actualization i. e. the objectification of our subjectivity - of our selves. The making explicit of a ll that we are implicitly. This is largely wha t Marx was getting at when he spoke of man's en vironment as his "inorganic body ". 21 A necessary meaning of Marx "I must be everything "22 (emphasis added) now becomes clear in its manysidedness. "We want the whole world to be our conscious se/f-creation "23 i. e. not only the creation by but the crea tion of our selves. ( This concept is to be further expanded in an

47. The essence of co m m u n i s m is ego ism ; t h e essence of egoism is co m m u n ism . T h i s is t h e world-cha n g i ng secret wh ich t h e wo r l d at l a rge sti l l kee ps from i tself. The u n rave l i n g of this secret as t h e e mergence of rad ical su bject i v i ty is not h i n g other than the process of the formati on of co m m u n ist soci ety itself. I t al ready conta i ns the object i ve process. 48. " B ut m a n is o n ly i n d i v i d u a l ized t h roug h t h e p rocess of h istory. H e orig i na l l y appea rs as a generic being, a tribal bein g , a h e rd a n i ma l - t h o u g h by n o means a ' p o l i t ical a n i m a l ' i n the pol i t ical sense. Exch a n g e itself is a maj o r a g e n t 01 th is i n d i v i d u a l izat i o n . " 2 6 49. Th us, i n a sense, al l h isto ry h as (i n t h e l o n g run and if o n ly i m p l icitly) been a p rocess of i n d ivid ual i zati o n . Th i s i nd i ­ v i d u a l izat i o n reaches i t s h i g h est po i n t o f advertisemen t i n the epoch of corpo rate capitalism. B ut p r ivate pro pe rty's upcoming a rticle which will probably appear in our journal. ) C l early therefore, any form of "self-management" w h i c h does not deci sively put a n end to all forms of c o m m od ity p rod uction and, i ndeed , of labo u r itself, l oses a ltogethe r t h i s s i de of the d i alectic. I n a " self-managed" wo rkers enterprise (of e.g. the anarcho-sy n d i ca l ist o r T itoist mode l ) , the workers at best manage their non selves , i . e . , the p rocess and the congelation of their own a l ie n acti vity ( non-se/f­ management) . " G eneral ized self- management" i n its ful lest sense must be the b reakdown not o n ly of all separate power, but of separat i o n per se ( lega l , pol i t i cal , socia l , personal, etc . ) . We must be e verything! Thus, "the proletaria ns, if they are to assert themse l ves as i nd i v i d ua l s , wi l l h ave to abo l i s h the very co n d i t i o n of their existence h i therto (which has, moreover, been that of a l l soc iety up t o the present) , namely, labou r. T h u s they f i n d themselves d i rectly o p posed to the form i n w h i c h , hitherto, the i n d i v i d u a l s , of w h i c h soc iety consists, have g i ven themselves col lective express i o n , that i s , the State. I n order, therefo re, to assert t hemselves as i n d i v i d uals, they m ust overth row the State."24 What is genera l ized self-ma nagement, " i f not the a bsol ute ela borat ion of [man's) c reat i ve d i s positions, without any precond itions other t h a n t h e a n tecedent h i storical evo l u t i o n w h i c h makes the tota l ity of t h i s evo l u t i o n , i.e. the evolution of a l l h u man powers as s u c h , u n m easu red by any previously established yardstick - a n end i n itself? What is t h i s , if n ot a situati o n where m a n does n o t rep roduce h i mself i n any determi ned form , but prod u ces his tota l i ty? Where he does not seek to rema i n someth i n g formed by the past, but i s in the abso l ute movement of becom m i ng ?"25 What if not all the world as the real izat i o n of our pass i ons? ­

" i n d ivi d ual i sm" is n a u g h t b u t its most cherished i l l usi o n . The p redo m i nant c h a racteristic of p rivate p roperty is a m aterial­ i zed rei fication where t h e egoism o f its su bjects (cap ita l i sts a n d wo rke rs a l i ke ) i s s u pressed a n d su bord i n ated to the pseudo-su bjectivity of t h e " economy for itself. "t The t ruth of t h e cap i tal i st soci ety a n d its p ri vate p ro perty is n ot i n d ivid ual p ro perty, b u t d ispossess i o n - viz. , the pro letariat. T h e truth of p ri vate prope rty i s n oth i n g oth e r than t h e p rod uct i o n , rep rod u cti o n , a n d g rowth of a d ispossessed a n d prope rty­ l ess cl ass, i .e., the cl ass of wag e-l abou r. Private p roperty is t h u s t h e ve ry negat i o n of i n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d of i n d i vi d ual p roperty. For t h e ove rwhe l m i n g m aj o r i ty o f its su bjects, i .e. the prol etariat,. private p roperty is by no means i n d ivid ual p roperty, b u t rat h e r i t is loss ( i . e . sale - a l i enati o n ) of self, bei n g-for-a nother. Even th e capital ists a re at best m e re agents of cap i ta l - managers of th e i r own (and of the g e n e ra l ) d ispossessi o n . Th e myth ica l " i nd i vid u a l i s m " of cap i ta l i st society can o n l y be real i zed i n its own negat i o n a n d i n the neg ati o n o f th e soc iety f r o m wh i c h i t sp ran g . T h us t h e Paris Com m une of 1871, t h e fi rst rea l i zed " D i ctators h i p o f the P roletariat, "tt 27 attem pted to abo l ish private prope rty in o rd e r " to make i n d ivid ual prope rty a t rut h . " 28 "The cap i ta l i st m od e of appropriation, t h e resu l t of the cap i ta l ist mode of p rod uct i o n , prod uces ca pita l ist pri vate prope rty. T h i s is the fi rst negation of i nd i vid ual pri vate p rope rty, as founded o n the labor of t h e p roprietor. But ca p ita l ist p rod uct io n begets, with t h e i n exora b i lty of a l aw of N atu re, i ts own negat i o n . It is t h e n egation of negat i o n . Th i s does n ot re-esta b l is h private p roperty for t h e prod ucer, but g i ves h i m i n d ivid ual property [!] based on t h e acqu isitions of t h e capital i st e ra: i .e., o n coo perat i o n a n d t h e possess i o n i n common of t h e land a n d o f t h e means o f p rod u cti o n . "29 The revo l ut i o n o f g e n e ra l i zed self- m anagement is t h e move m e nt from . na rrow to fu l l ego i s m , e g o i s m 's own self-e n rich m e n t . I t i s egoism's ascen t fro m t h e real m of n ecessity t o t h e rea l m of freed o m .

I l l . TH E D I A L ECT I C O F E G O I S M 50.

The concept of com m u n i st soci ety can be arrived at, by one pathway, th roug h the analysis and devel op ment of the self-co ntrad iction of eg o i s m , of the self-contra d i ctory struc­ tu re of the egoistic p roj ect. Com m u n i st soc iety itself, and the se lf-tra n scendance of the narrow egoi s m of privat ized m a n , c a n o n l y be t h e outcom e o f the i m m anent a n d h i storical dialectic of egoism itself. 51 .

The egoistic p roject, i n o rd e r to beco me adeq uate to itself, m u st i nc l ude m o re than one eg o. 52.

Com m u n ist ego is m , l i kewise com m u n ist society, is o n l y the fi n a l t conclusion o f the i m manent critiq uett. the self­ critique - of bou rg eo i s eg o is m , of p rivatized l ife. 53.

" Communism is s i m p l y i n com prehen s i b l e to o u r saint* becau se the com m u n i sts do not put eg o i s m agai nst self­ sac rifice or self-sac rifice ag a i n st eg o is m n o r do they express t h i s contrad iction theoretica l l y either i n its se nti m ental or i n its h i g h-flown i deolog i ca l fo r m ; o n t h e contrary, they demonst rate the material basis e ngenderi n g i t , with w h i c h it d isappears of itself. The com m u n ists do not p reach morality at al l , s u c h as St imer p reach es so extensively. They do not p u t to peo p l e t h e m o ra l d e m a n d : l ove o n e a n ot h e r , do n ot be eg o i st s , etc . ; o n t h e c o n t ra ry , t h ey a re we l l aware t h at eg o i s m , j u st a s m u c h a s s e l f- s a c r i f i c e , is i n d ef i n i t e c i rc u m sta n ces a n ecess a ry fo rm o f t h e self-asse rt i o n of i n d ividuals. H e n ce , t h e c o m m u n i sts by no m ea n s wa n t , as Sa i n t M ax b e l i eves, a n d as h i s l oy a l Do ttore Grazian o ( A r n o l d R u g e) re peats afte r h i m . . . , to do away with t h e ' p r i vate i n d i v i d u a l ' f o r t h e s a k e of t h e ' g e n e ra l , ' s e l f­ sac r i f i c i n g m a n . . . c o m m u n i st t h e o ret i c i a n s , t h e o n l y o n es w h o h a v e t i m e t o d ev o t e t o t h e s t u d y o f h i s t o r y , a re *

Max Stimer.

d ist i n g u ish ed precisel y because t hey a l o n e h ave discove red t h at t h ro u g h o ut h isto ry the ' g e n e ral i nterest ' is created by i n d i v i d u a l s w h o a re defi ned as ' p r i vate persons.' They know t h at th is co n t rad ict i o n is o n l y a seeming o n e becau se one side of it, t h e so-cal led ' g e n e ral , ' is co nsta ntly bei ng p roduced by the other side, p r i vate i nterest, and by n o m e a n s o p p oses t h e l atte r a s a n i n dependent fo rce with a n i n depe n d e n t h isto ry - s o t hat t h i s co ntrad i ction is i n p ractice always bei n g dest royed a n d reprod uced . Hence i t i s n o t a quest i o n of t h e H eg e l i an ' n egative u n ity' o f t w o si des of a co ntrad ict i o n , b u t of t h e m ateri al l y d eterm i n ed d estr uc­ t i o n of t h e p reced i n g materi a l l y d ete rm i n ed m ode of l i f e of i n d i vi d u als, w ith t h e d i sap pearan ce of w h ich t h i s co n trad ic­ t i o n , toget h e r with i ts u n ity, a lso d isappear. "3 0 54.

T h e su p e rsess i o n of p r i vate e g o ism fo l l ows t h e sa m e cou rse as private ego ism .31 The path out of n a r row egoism is t h e stra i g h t and n a rrow path of t h is ego ism itself . 32 ( B ut, as E i nstei n a rg ued with respect to physical ti m e-space, w hat is st ra i g ht a n d narrow from t h e n a r row v i ewpo i n t of t h e i m m anent o bserv e r m ay be a n yt h i n g but st ra i g ht t o a larger v i ew - h i g h ly cu rvac i ous, in fact; even cu rved b a c k on itself. ) The a bst ract negat i o n of ego ism - rep ressi o n - wi l l n o t s u ff i c e , b u t o n l y i ts de term ina te n eg at i o n , a n d i ts immanen t negat i o n - t h at is, a u tonega tion. 55.

The deve l o pm ent of ego ism - t h e h isto rica l p h e n o m ­ e n o l ogy of su bject i v ity - is a d i a l ect ic also i n t h i s sense: t h e way out of na rrow e g o i s m passes t h ro u g h n a rrow e g o ism itself. And a ll a ttempts to block th is way tend only to in h ibit th e de velop m e n t and arrest it a t th is narro w stage.

56.

Private ego ism is egoism i n co n f l ict with its own esse nce. ( B ut t h i s becomes true visi b l y , and therefo re f u l l y , once, a n d o n l y once, t h e co nd i t i o ns n ecess i tat i n g n arro w appropria ­ tion - often l u m ped slo p p i ly u n d e r the co nfusi o n ist category "sca rcity" - a re g o n e and the co n d i t i on s f o r a

f u l ler, wider app ropriat i o n have matu red . Specifical ly, t h i s means the co n d itions fo r the appro p riat i o n of other people as subjects ( m utual ity} as op posed to m e rely as objects (ex p l o i tat io n } . T h u s , for exam ple, the p resent " recessio n , " the g rowth o f poverty a n d d esperation w h i c h it entai ls, has bee n at fi rst a major set-back i n t h i s regard , and has d rast i cal ly c u rtai l ed the dai l y experiential base w h i c h fo r a wh i l e - at the peak of the " p rosperity" of the s ixt i es - made t h i s c ri t ique feel true.} 57 .

What we ten d not to be i m m ed iately aware of is that the prevai l i n g narrow and i m poveri s h i n g form of eg o i s m , of self­ g rat ificat i o n , is one deeply m i xed with its op posite; with the ren un cia tion of se lf-g ratificat i o n ; that the " g reed " we norma l l y experience is a g reed rad i cal l y ad m i xed with its own n ega tion, with the e m b i ttered renuncia tion of g reed , bas i n g i tself as it m ust o n the narrow c o n d itions of self­ e njoym e n t p resently ava i l a b l e and espec ial l y fo rmerly ava i l ­ able to it, u n der co n d i t i o n s of extre me deprivat i o n and toi l . Spec i f i ca l ly, t h e form o f se l f-enjoyment w h i c h i s exc l uded, the secret se l f-den ial h i d i n g at the heart of privati zed egoi s m , is the den ial of al l the social pleas ures , the c o m m u n a l pleas ures of spo ntaneous g regari ousness, the warmth of h u man so l i darity, the exu berance of a u then tic fest ivity - the pleasures of associa tion a n d social sa tis­ fac tion i n general . The vest iges of these are confi ned with i n the eve r-narrowi n g c i rc l e of the p rivate fa m i l y , itself the n u c l ear rem nant, adapted by cap ita l , of the bygone prim­ itive-c o m m u n ist ki nsh i p societies and t h e i r "exte nded fam­ i l ies , " wh i c h p u b l i cizes i ts f i nal self-critique in the b u rgeon­ ing rates of d i vo rce, d i vo rce bei n g recog n ized as and offi cial ly titled "est rangement . " T h i s especial ly in the "advanced " cap ita l i st cou ntries - that is, the countries wh i c h have reac hed the advanced stag es of social aliena­ tion.

The lag i n appro p riat i o n of the newer c o n d i t i o n s of " n o n ­ scarc i ty , " of potential and ( t o some extent al ready} actual abu n dance, is the context in w h i c h the present h i stori cal

stage of the 'd i a l ect i c o f e g o is m ' m ust be u n de rstood. T h e positive m o m ent o f t h e ea rly " h i p" movement (of w h i c h m o m e n t tod ay's p rofessi o n a l st reet verm i n and g u tte r h i p p iest a re i n no sense t h e hei rs) - the wh o le l i b i d i n a l emerg e nce w h ich beg an i n t he sixt i es, a n d n ow , i n the recession of t he sevent ies, is e c l i psed ag ai n - is com pre­ hensi b l e i n part as a beg i n n i n g of the a p p ropriat i o n of those new cond i t i o ns. 58.

The roo t illusion of a l l pious and ascetic i d e o l o g ies is that, si n ce exp l o itat i o n is the part i al app ropriat i o n of m a n by m a n , the way to rid t h e wo rl d of t h is "si n " is i n i nst i t uti n g the non­ appropria tion of man b y m a n , rat her than the total appro ­ pria tio n : t h at the way to the neg ati on ( " q u i eti n g " ) of d esi re i s its repression rather t h a n its fulfillme n t: t o u c h m e n ot a nd I wi l l to u c h not t h ee. T h e l o g i c of privat i o n . The pro b l e m o f t he m ise ry o f narrow ego ism ad m i ts of on l y two sol utio ns: either ( 1 ) i ts exa g g e rat ion to t h e p o i n t w h e re it ove rsp i l ls its own l i m i ts; its expa nsi o n u n t i l i t becom es o n e with t h e total i ty, red i scoveri n g p recise l y within itself i ts s u p posed op posite and t h at wh ich it formerly exc l u d ed , or (2) its rep ress i o n , a n d with that evi d e ntly, the u n e n d i n g rei g n of the prese n t form, wh ich is all that i ts h i sto r i ca l re p ress i on h as s o f a r s u cceeded i n p ro d u c i n 9 . 59.

Com m u n ism is not t h e se l f-repression of egoism. I t is o n l y w h e n n a r row ego ism wan ts t o tra nscend itself for its o wn deepe s t reasons: when it f i n ds i nte rnal reaso ns, e g o i stic reason s; when it sees itse lf beco m i n g i ts own r u i n , d efeati n g to i tse l f, se lf-defeati n g - a n d therefore se l f-contrad icto ry, that it bri n gs itse lf to its o wn e n d , and co m m u n ism beg i n s. Pri vate eg o ism h isto rica l ly is i ts own u n doi n g . I ts exe rcise b ri n gs about its own soc i a l izat i o n - social egoism . C o m ­ m u n ism is t h e negat i o n o f e g o ism o n l y by vi rt u e o f be i n g a h i g h er fo r m of eg oism - e g o i s m 's own h i g h e r fo rm . N a rrow egoism , the ideology of sel f-g ratificat i o n and se lf- rea l­ izat i o n , and the practice of exclusive se l f-g ratif icat i o n a n d

se lf- rea l izat i o n beco mes, at a ce rtai n stage i n its d eve l op­ ment, a fette r u po n se lf-rea l izat i o n and a fette r u po n self­ g rat ificat i o n . I t beco m es t h e m a i n l i m i t and o bstacle to i ts own goals. I t beco m es a barrier to i tse l f . T h is is t h e sel f­ negativity wh ich awakens i n i t the d esi re f o r i ts own transce n d a nce: for sel f-transce n d ance, a su persessi o n i n acco rd w i t h i tse l f , w i t h i ts own essence, a n d o n i ts own terms, basi ng itse l f o n t h e possi bi l ity of t h e co m m u n ity of g ratificat i o n as t h e u n l i m i ted a m p l ificat i o n of g ratificat i o n . T h i s is t h e i m m a n e n t se lf-critique of na rrow e g o ism; t h e deat h se ntence wh ich it p ro n o u nces u po n i tse l f . Th us t h e dete rm i n ate negat i o n of n a rrow egoism ca n o n l y be th ro u g h i ts o w n o rga n ic deve l o p m e n t , its o w n fu rt h e r deve l o p m e n t . T h a t i s , i t ca n o n l y be s elf-negati o n . " Ha p p i n ess" a t t h e expense of others; the excl usi o n of t h e oth e rs' h a p p i n ess from you r own h e nceforth a p pea rs as a m ise ra b l e basis; as the opposite of h a p p i n ess, as m ise ry, a n d p ri vate p roperty as a wealth of p o ve rty, co m pa red to t h e new basis wh ich h as g rown u p secret l y w i t h m o d e rn soci ety i tself. C o m m u n ism is t h e co m p re h e n s i o n of excl usive eg oism as his torica lly self-con tradic tory a n d t h us fi n ite: doomed to perish - as n ot ete rnal " h u m a n natu re " b u t , on t h e co n t ra ry, sel f-ca n c e l l i n g ; t ra n s i t o ry; transitional; as the d ec i d ed l y u n n at u ra l (anti-soc i a l ) co n d ition o f m a n prior t o the h i stor­ i c a l s e l f-c o m p l et i o n of t h e h u m a n s peci es. Co m m u n is m i s t h e co m p re h e nsi o n of b o u rgeois e g o i s m a s a lrea dy conta i n ­ i n g a n d i m p l y i n g i ts o w n h is torical nega tion , a s co nta i n i n g i ts o w n n e g at i o n i n e m b ryo, - co nta i n i n g t h e seeds o f i ts own d est ruct i o n - by vi rt u e of i ts be i n g false to itself. Soci ety, "soci a l i s m " - a n d social production - was i ts repressed essence a l l a l o n g . 60. A l l a l o n g the l i n e , co nsci ously or not, " m e fi rst" h as a l ways been t h e necessa ry pattern of eve ryone's p ractice. Eve ryo n e a t every m o m e n t of thei r l i ves co nsc i o usly o r not acts i n h i s o w n se l f-i nterest a t s o m e le vel. A nyth i n g else wo u l d be i n co n ceiva b l e , i m poss i b l e.t U na b l e to p u rs u e his desi res d i r e c t l y , a m as o c h i s t u s e s t h e m e d i a t i o n of p a i n . T h e

m asoch ists of m o ra l ity, i d e o l o g y a n d ca uses seek pl easu re by means of the pai n of s u b o rd i n at i n g t h e mse l ves th ro u g h th ese p roj ect i o ns. The m oral i d ea l ist atte m pts to g et w h at h e wants t h ro u g h t h e m ed i ati o n of h is p rojected i d ea l , because h e d oesn ' t k n ow h o w to g e t w h at h e wants d i rect l y . H e d oesn ' t k n ow t h e ,._; ra c tical m e a n s wi t h i n h i mse l f a s t h e su bj ect a n d ce nter o f t h at p ractice, s o he posits h is ce n te r o utsi de of h i mse l f as a r i g i d ified g e n e ra l izat i o n w h ich is to " d eci d e fo r h i m . " I n so d o i n g h e m a k es the m istake of t h i n k i n g t h at co nsistency w i t h h is i d eal is al ways co nsistency w i t h h is self- i nt e rest . 61 . " Com m u n ist egoism " n a mes t h e n eg ati o n of the negation of p ri m i t i ve egoism ( n a rrow e g o i sm ) . B u t t h e aspect of t h e p rocess a s a n im m a n e n t o r self-critique, a n d n eve r a n external o r m echa nical n e g at i o n ( e. g . t h e "smash se lf"t i d e o l o g y of Mao ism ) m ust a bove a l l be em p hasized , a g a i nst a l l coercive a n d b u rea ucrati c meth ods. Soci al ( i zed ) eg o ism , co m m u n ist e g o ism , is t h e n e g at i o n of t h e n e g at i o n of capital ist eg o i s m , but i t is the self-negat i o n of the self­ n eg ati o n of t h at ego ism . T h i s seco n d negat i o n is essential to n a r row e g o ism i tself, n o l ess than t h e fi rst n e g ati o n , w h ich p rod uces i ts a n t i t h esis - m o ra l is m , a n t i -e g o ism; a l t r u i s m . This seco n d n eg a t i o n is n ecessary to n a rrow e g o i s m , to the p reservat i o n of i ts own prem ises, o n ce i t advances to a ce rta i n t h resh o l d i n i ts sel f-deve l o p m e n t . T h e p ro pe r method to catalyze - to sti m u late and accelerate - this p rocess i n a n other, i . e . , fro m the "outs i d e , " i s the evocat i ave m ethod ; the method of seduction. T h e method of reb uke, t h o u g h use­ fu l at certa i n c r u cial t u rns here too, is, espec i a l l y i n the form of the method of chastisement, m o re adequate to the f i rst, not the seco n d , negatio n of n arrow eg ois m . The m ethod of c h ast i s e m e n t is t h at of fo rc i b l y d raw i n g o u t m o ra l p ro­ j e ct i o n s f ro m t h e psyc h e , of c reat i n g " h a n d l e s " i n t h e v i ct i m 's head for easy m a n i p u l at i o n ("hand l i n g") b y author­ ities of ideolog ues of a l l sorts, of i nsti l l i n g s u b m i ss i veness, of i nd u c i n g the s p l i t in the v i cti m between the sense of duty a n d t h e s e n se of in c l i n a ti o n ; of form i n g t h e g u i l t - l o o p of

a l i e n ated se lf-co n t ro l . T h e seco n d negat i o n means, o n t h e co ntra ry, t h e n ega tion of a l t r u i s m , the ove rco m i n g of a l l t h ese se parat i o ns; the co l l a pse of t h e p roj ect i o ns b ack i nto t h e psyche; their re­ own i n g i n t h e coa l esce nce of t h e self: t h e cen tra tion, i nstead of t h e a l i e nati o n , of sel f-co n t ro l . T h i s is t h e very form a tion of t h e "se l f " capa b l e of "se l f " m a n ag e m e n t . 62.

D o n 't get us w ro n g . Ma ke no m ista ke. Th is t h eo ry is no a po l o g i a for na rrow ego ism . We h ave no i nte rest i n t h at negat i o n of a l t ru ism w h ich is s i m p l y a ret u rn to n a r row ego ism ; a regression . Co m m u n ist egoism , a n d not a l t r u i s m , is t h e true opposite of n arrow egoism . Co m m u n ist egoism, a n d n ot n a rrow e g o ism , i s t h e true opposite of a l t r u i s m . A l t h o u g h altru ism a n d n arrow e g o i s m a re co m m o n l y taken as true o p p osites, t h ey h ave t h is in co m m o n : a n i m m a n ent critique of either m ust a r rive at co m m u n ist egoism. That is, com m u n ist egoism is the syn thesis of a l t ru ism and n a rrow egoism . Com m u n ist egoism is si m u lta n e o u sly, identica l l y b o th of t h e m a n d n eith er; i t is t h at unita ry rejec tion of both w h ich is a lso t h e i r unitary a ffirm a tion . t

I V . TH E R E S O NA N C E O F E G O I S M S 63.

" I n p l ace of t h e o l d b o u rgeois soci ety w i t h i ts c l asses a n d class a n ta g o n isms, we sha l l h ave an assoc i at i o n i n wh ich the free deve l o p m e n t of each is t h e co n d it i o n for t h e f ree deve l o p m en t of a l l . "33 64.

" I n t h e l a b o rato ries of i n d i v i d u a l creat i v ity, a revo l u t i o n a ry alchemy t ransm u tes t h e b asest metals of everyday l ife i nto g o l d . F i rst and forem ost, the pro b l e m is t o d isso l ve the consc i o usn ess of co nstra i nts - t h at is, t h e fee l i n g of i m potence - i n t h e mag netic exe rcise of creativity; m elt them i n t h e su rg e of creat ive power , in t h e se re n e affi rmat i o n of i ts g e n i us. Meg a l o m a n i a , ste r i l e o n t h e l e v e l o f p rest i g e

and t h e spectacl e , represents i n t h is context an i m po rtant stage i n the stru g g l e o p posi n g the ego to the coalesced fo rces of con d iti o n i ng. "Tod ay, n i h i lism rei g ns t ri u m p h a n t , and i n its n i g ht the spark of c reat ivity, w h ich is t h e spark of a l l real l ife , sh i nes o n l y t h e m ore bri g h t ly. And wh i le the project of a s u pe rior org a n i zati o n of s u rv i val proves abort i ve, t he re is, as t h ese spa rks beco m e m o re freque n t and g rad u a l ly d isso lve i nto a si n g l e l ig h t , t h e p ro m ise of a new org a n i zat i o n , based t h i s t i m e o n a h armony o f individua l wills . H isto ric becom i n g has ta ken us t o t h e c rossi n g po i n t w h e re rad ica l su bjectivity i s confro nted w i t h t h e possi b i l ity o f transform i ng t h e wo rl d . Th i s p rivi l eged m o ment i s t h e reversa l of pe rspective. "34 65.

Co m m unist society is conce i va b l e o n ly on the fo undation of the resonance of egoisms . T h u s its basis i s the co hesi on of egoisms, whereas heretofore ego ism has appeared as the force of separation and privatization par excellence. 66.

The esse nce of t h e resonance of ego isms is th is: t h e other person is a part of y o u r wealth . 35 67 .

The reso na nce of egoisms is t h e un i ty, t h e syn t h esis, the si n g u l a rity, of the " part i cu l ar" and t h e " g e n e ra l " i nterest : com m u n ist society. 68 .

The coh esi o n of co m m u n ist soci ety, once t h e t h res h o l d of i ts co n d it i ons-proper has been reach ed, is conce i va b l e on this basis: that the com m unity, society, associa tion itsel f is the g reatest personal va l ue t h at t h e soci a l i n d ivi d ua ls each possess. T h at is, t h e i r social rela tionships are t h is g reatest va l u. e and t h i s g reatest wealth . T h e social rela tion itself becomes t h e u n i tary, u n ified, and u n i ve rsa l means to the atta i n m ent of eve ry end ; to the g ratificat i o n of every n eed , and th us a lso an end i n i tse l f . Soci ety h o l ds togeth e r to t h e extent that t h e soc i a l i n d ivi d uals f i nd a g reater va l u e i n its rep rod uct i o n t h an in any act t h at wo u l d destroy it.

V. C O M M U N I ST S O C I ETY 69. " . . . i n p l ace of t h e wea lth and p o verty of p o l iti cal eco n o m y , we have t h e wea lthy m a n and t h e p l e ntitude of h uman n eed . The wealthy m a n is at t h e sam e ti m e t h e one who needs a co m p l ex of h u m a n m a n i festat i o ns of l ife, and wh ose own self-real izat i o n exists as an i n ne r n ecessity, a need. Not o n l y the wea lth but also t h e p o verty of man acq u i res, in a soc i a l ist perspecti ve, a h uman a n d t h us a soc i a l mean i n g . Poverty is t h e passive bond wh i c h l eads man to experie nce a need for t h e g reatest wealth , the other person . T h e sway of t h e o bjective entity with i n m e , t h e se nsuo us eru pti o n o f my l ife-act i vity, is the passion wh i c h h ere beco m es t h e ac tivity of my bei n g . " 36 70. "A u th e n tic common life arises n ot t h ro u g h reflectio n ; rather i t comes about fro m t h e need and egoism of i n d i v i d ua ls, that is, i m me d i ate ly fro m t h e act i vat i o n of th e i r ve ry existence. I t i s n ot u p to m a n whet h e r t h is co m m o n l i fe exists o r n ot . H owever, so l o n g as m a n d oes n ot recog n ize h i mse l f as man and does not organ ize t h e wo rld h u man ly, t h is common life appears in t h e form of a liena tion , because its subject, m a n , is a be i n g a l ienated from i tself. "37

71 .

We a n t i c i pate a p rofo u n d reve rsa l of perspecti ve at the t h resh o l d of co m m u n a l soc i ety, in w h i c h any possi b l e strictly pri vatized va l u e wi l l pale i nto i nsi g n ifi cance, and b e experi e n ced as narrow and i m poverished , i n com parison to the i n d i v i d u a l , perso n a l , " p ri vate" val ue to each soc i a l i n d i v i d u a l of h is socia l existence. And th is att i t u d e wo u l d b e t h e n , u nd e r th ose con d i t i o ns, n o m e re i deal istic post u re o r p i o us wish , n o m e re m o ral a bstract i o n , no rep resentat i o n over and a bove t h e rea l co n d it i ons - wh i c h is a l l i t c a n eve r be today - but, on the contra ry, wo u l d a rise from the most i m m ed i ate, palpable, and concrete facts of l i fe. I n creasi n g l y u p to t h e p resent, si nce the b reak- u p of ea rly

com m u na l fo r ms, al l wealth has been pri vate, t h at is, o n l y private prope rty has been recog n ized a s wea l t h . I n the futu re, if t here is a futu re, the n a rrow and the pri vati zed wi l l be revealed as the essence of poverty, and wea lth wi l l be rea l ized as s o c ial wea lth , as wealth in h u man bei n gs; in thei r rel ations and thei r capaciti es, i n the i r facu l ties a n d thei r objectificat ions. t That is, the g reatest wea lth, and the necessary co n text of al l wealth , is socie ty itself. 72.

The cen t ra l problem of co m m u n ist soc i a l relat i o n s is the fol l owi n g : what is to be the basis of h u m a n re l ati onsh ips, of the i nterpe rso nal co hesion, beyo n d k i nsh i p and exch an ge­ val u e, t h at is, beyon d the blood-re la tions wh ich formed the i ncred i b le b i n d i n g-force, a n d g reat weak ness, of p r i m i tive com m u n ist soci et ies, an d the exch ange-va lue rela tions i nto wh ich these i ncreasi n g ly d issol ved in t h e fo rm ati on of cl ass­ soci eti es? The so l ut i o n can o n l y be of the fo r m of real affi n ity, p ractical l y, sensuously d iscove red a n d verified, p ractically superseded a n d d isso lved ; free assoc i ati o n ; the reso na nce of passio ns. B u t within t h is statement of the so l ut i on, eve ryth i n g sti l l re m a i ns to b e sai d . 73.

Let's get one t h i n g stra i g ht ri g ht n ow. Al l t h is tal k of " h i storical necessity" a n d " i nevita b i l i ty" on l y succeeds i n m a k i n g o f t h is m ystic " n ecessity" a pse u d o-subject, a n d of decoy i n g atte n t i o n from the real s u bj ects, ourselves . Com­ m u n ist society is " h isto rica l l y dete r m i n ed " an d "obj ectively dete r m i ned " to be p rod uced o n l y t o the exte nt that we are subjectively " bo u n d and determ i ne d " to p rod uce i t. And t h is d oes not at a l l deny that s u c h a su bj ect i vity has its n ecessary o bjec ti ve conditions that can o n ly d eve l o p h istorica l l y .

VI. RAD I CA L S U BJ E C T I V I TY 74.

What is this " rad ical su bjecti v i ty" ?38 From now o n , the

revo l ut i o n ary su bj ect is the c onscious - a n d posit i vel y sel f­ consci ous - eg oist, as opposed to the u n co n scious o r negatively self-conscious (g u i lty) egoists among whom the revo l u t i o n ary wal ks u n recog n i zed b u t recog n i z i n g the m . H e can sustai n t h is positive attitude toward h is expa nded egois m , and its fi rst si g ns in oth e rs, by v i rt u e of h is com prehension of its posit i ve soci al outco m e i n a society, sepa rated from t h is one by the social-psych o-t h e rapeutic process of revol uti o n , in wh ich the eg o ism of each is the fi rst cond i t i o n fo r the fu lfi l l ment of the eg oism of a l l . 75.

Contra ry to the i d eo l og ical bana l i ty, it is o n ly the most g reedy people who can n eve r be " b o u g h t off. " * 7 6.

Wh at we h ave cal led "co m m u n ist egoism " is essential l y t h e sam e as what Vaneigem a n d h is situat i o n ists h ave n a m ed " rad ical su bj ectivity. " In al l thei r writi n gs, i t is there i n "spi ri t , " i f n ot ever fu l l y i n " l etter. " I n thei r fai l u re t o devel o p t h i s concept i n al l its ram ificat i o ns, and coherize thei r w h o l e practice w i t h i t , a n d i n the rem nants o f m o ral i s m a n d secu l a r C h rist i a n ismt wh ich there i n sti l l rem a i n e d , w e l ocate t h e very root of thei r fa i l u re. 7 7.

Rad ical su bject i vity, that is, com m u n ist eg oism o r the ( real ized ) "soci al i nd iv i d u al "39 ( Ma rx) is the concrete uni­ versal wh ich is emergent i n o u r ti me. It is the particu l a r wh ich is ( potential ly) e very where. Rad ica l su bj ect i vity is o u r very root, the root of what w e a l l h ave i n co m m o n , the rea l basis of co m m u n ity. Root s u bj ectivity - the " p ri m itive" h u m a n root - co u l d only be d iv u l ged as such at the far end of p re-h isto ry, as the o u tco me of the p rocess of that p reh isto ry itself, and as the secret basis of its su pe rsessi o n . That i s to say, they can not be bought off with i n the n arrow rea l m o f corru ptions normally offered . We are the l ast to deny that "every man h as h i s price . " But j ust as Hegel demonstrated that mere quantitative differe nces c a n , past a certa i n poi nt, actu a l ly become q ua l itative changes, so the rad ical s u bj ect escalates his p rice so high that it finally transcends a ltogether the rea l m of exchange-value, and for that matter, of a l l partial appropriati ons. *

78. " I am n oth i n g , b u t I must b e everyth i ng . " 4 0 With i n the monst rous decre p i t u d e of co ntem porary "so­ ciety, " t h e n i h i l ist, its comm o n p l ace p rod uct, k n o ws o n l y the fi rst half of this statemen t . I am noth i n g . Therefore, anyt h i n g else can o n l y be l ess t h a n n oth i ng t o me. I n t h e upside­ down wo rld of a l i e nat i on, it is the total ity of th i ng s , of comm o d i t i es, of mo ney, of capita l , t h at is everyth i n g , a n d w e , t h e work e rs w h o make i t , are s h i t . T h e n i h i l ist is l i ke a syl l o g i s m suspended at t h e m i n o r pre m ise, a n ac robat wh ose some rsau l t is broken in m i d -fl i g h t . For h im, the l og i c o f t h i s em p i rical trut h , t h is truth o f expe r i ence, of d a i l y l ife , does n ot i mmed iately tu m b l e over i nto its o p posite, its necessary co ncl usi o n : I am n oth i ng , but I must be every­ thing! - t h e conc l u s i o n that wou l d m a ke a revo l u t i o n a ry of him. We pro d u c e commod ities, mon ey, capita l . We p rod uce eve ryt h i n g th at m a k es up s ocial wea l t h . We m ust bec o m e exp l icitly w h at w e a l ready a r e i m pl i c itly : everyt h i n g ! T h i s becom i n g -vis i bl e, t h is beco m i n g-t r u e o f t h e soci al t ruth exp resses t h e total process of t h e com m u n ist revol u t i o n .

VI I . P L EAS U R E 79. B o u rgeois pol i t ica l eco n o m y, the sc i e n c e of t h e ex­ change-va l ue , was always o n l y the fa lse consciousness o f the economy, a n d t h e s c i e n c e o f a l ienatio n .t Th i s is t h e fi rst a n d f i n a l m essage of its M a rxi a n critique. With t h e d y i ng-out of exc h a n ge-va l u e, the sci ence of use-v a l u e {th u s al l t h e con crete sci e n ces , n ow u n if i e d t h ro u g h t h e i r u n ified subjec­ tive use} wi l l become the o n l y usefu l sci ence. A n d t h e sci e nce o f use-va l u e is the science of pleas ure . 80. " Real eco n o m y - sav i n g s - consists i n the sav i n g of work i n g time {the m i n i m u m , a n d reduct i o n to the m i n i m u m , of p rod uct i o n costs} ; b u t t h is sav i n g i s i de n t i c a l with the

deve lo p ment of prod uct ivity. Eco n o m isi n g , t herefore, does not mean the g i v i ng u p of pleas u re, b u t the d evelopment of powe r and p rod uct i ve capacity, and thus both the capacity fo r and means of enj oyment. The capacity fo r enjoyment i s a cond i t i o n of enjoyment and therefore its pri mary m eans; and this capacity is the development of an i n d i v i d ual 's talents, and thus of the p rod uct i ve fo rce. To eco n o m ize o n labo u r ti me means t o i ncrease the am o u nt of the free t i m e , i .e. t i m e fo r the com plete development of the i nd iv i d ual , which agai n reacts as the g reatest p rod uct i ve fo rce o n t he p rod uctive fo rce of labour. From t he stan d po i nt of t he i m med iate p rod uct i o n p rocess it m ay be considered as prod uct i o n of fi xed capital ; this fixed capital bei ng man hi mself. It i s also se lf-evident that t he i m med iate labo u r t i m e can n ot rem ai n i n its abstract co ntrad ict i o n t o free ti me - as i n bou rgeois eco n o my . Work can n ot beco me a game* as Fou rier wou ld l i ke it to be; his g reat merit was that he declared that the u lt i m ate o bject m ust be to raise to a hi g her level n ot d istri b u t i o n b u t the m od e of p ro d uct i o n . F ree ti me - which This does not at a l l mea n , for Marx, that p roductive activity can not become pleas u rable, attractive, self-real i z i n g activity. I t only means that work can not become " p lay" in the sense of frivolous p lay i n class soc ieties, where the s u bject's su rvival is not i m m ed iately at stake in his activity, i .e . where h i s su rvival is guaranteed by the prod uctive activity of others and where h i s activity is confi ned to a seq uestered zone and specialized social categ ory " p lay" which is n ot a l l owed to overspi l l i nto "serious" social prod uction p roper. "Work" activity thus has an aspect of conscious necessity, danger, which frivolous " pl ay" activity lacks. T h is i n d icates how the resol ution of the p resent contrad ict i o n between " work" and " l e i s u re'' , or " p rod uction" and "consu m pt i o n " , can n ot take the form of one-sided ly e m b rac i n g the antithesis o f work, " play " , b u t o n l y of t h e u n itary negat ion of both - th at i s , t h e negation o f thei r contradiction itself; thei r synthesis: free creative activity, or "free h u man prod ucti o n " . There is another passage in the G rundrisse where i n Marx seems to pass over the same reg i o n of h i s conceptual-manifold, with sl ightly m o re amplitude on this aspect of the q u esti o n : " It seems to b e f a r fro m [Adam] S m ith's thoughts that the i ndividual ' i n his normal state of health , strength, activity, skill and efficiency,' m ight also req u i re a normal portion of work, and of rest from rest. I t is true that the q uantity of labo u r to be p rod uced seems to be conditioned by external c i rcu mstances, by the pu rpose to be ach ieved , and the obstacles to its ach ievement that have to be overcome by labou r. But neither d oes it occ u r to A. S m ith that the overco m i n g of such o bstacles may itself constitute an exercise in l i berty, and that these external p u rposes lose thei r character of mere natu ral necessities and are establ ished as p u r poses which the i n d iv i d u a l h i mself fixes. The res u l t is the self-realizati on and objectifi catio n of the s u bject, the refore rea l freed o m , whose activity i s precisely labour. Of co u rse he is *

i nc l u des l e i s u re ti me as wel l as t i me for h i g her activities n atu rally tra nsforms a nyone who enjoys i t i n to a d ifferent person, and it is t h is different person who then enters the d i rect p rocess of p rod uct i o n . The man wh o is bei ng formed fi nds d i sci p l i ne i n th i s p rocess , wh i le fo r the man who is a l ready formed it is pract i ce, experimental science, m aterial­ ly creat ive and self-object ifying k nowledge, an d h e co nta i ns with i n h is own head the acc u m u lated wisdom of soc i ety. "41 81. The maj o r shortco m i n g of contem porary i n d ivid u als is thei r incapacity for pleasure. O u r d a i ly l ives a re i m pov­ e rished i n pa rt because we are o pen to the worl d , a nd therefore to pleas u re (as we l l as to pai n ) o n l y i n such narrow a n d l i m i ted ways. Th ese a re the defenses, the ch a racter-ar­ m ou r, con g ruent with a worl d overl oad ed with pai n , a wo rld of suffe r i n g , which was a n d i s the world of poverty w ith its stru g g le fo r ex i ste nce, its "wa r of al l ag a i nst al l , " where to be open is to be weak, and to be weak is to be made a vict i m . T h e self-co ntrad iction of bo u rgeois egoism sharpens a nd beco mes consc ious o n ly i n the envi ron ment of that i n c i pi ent worl d of pl enty a n d wo rld of pleasu re wh i c h bo u rgeois c orrect i n say i n g that labour h as always see med to be rep u lsive, a n d fo rced u pon t h e worker from the o utside, in its h i sto rical form of slave- l a bour, bond-labour, a n d wage-labou r, and t h a t in this sense n o n - l a b o u r c o u l d b e o pposed to it as ' l i be rty a n d happi n ess'. "Th i s is d o u b l y true of this contradictory labo u r which h as n ot yet created the su bjective and objective cond itio n s ( w h i c h is lost w he n i t abandoned pastoral conditions) wh i c h make it i nto attractive labou r and i n d ividual self-real izati o n . T h is d oes not m ean t h at labou r can be m ade merely a j oke, as Fourier naively expressed it i n shop-g i rl terms. Rea l l y free labour, the com posi n g of m usic for exa m ple, is at the same time dam n ed seri ous and demands the g reatest effort. T h e labour concerned with material prod u cti o n can o n l y have t h is character i f ( 1 ) i t is of a social n atu re, (2) it has a sc i entific c h a racter a n d at the same t i m e is u n i ve rsal labour, i.e. i f it ceases to be h u man effort as a defin ite, tra i n ed natural force, g i ves u p its pure l y n atura l , primitive aspects and becomes a n act ivity of a subject contro l l i n g all t h e fo rces of nat u re i n the prod uction process . M o reover, A. S m i t h is th i n k i n g o n l y of the s laves of capita l . For exa m ple, even the sem i-artistic wo rkers of the M i ddle Ages ca n n ot be i n c l uded in h i s d ef i n i t i o n . " [ Karl Marx, "Grundrisse der Kritik der Politishen Okonomie, " cf. N icolaus, Pen g u i n , 1 973, p. 6 1 1 -61 2 , a n d David M clel l a n , H arpe r & Row, 1 97 1 , p. 1 24. Marx a n d Engels early o n referred to this transit i o n from u nfree to f ree modes of h u m a n productive activity as 'the a bol ition of labo u r' - " A ufh e b u n g der Arbeit" - see The G erman I deology, P rog ress P u b l i s h ers, 1 968, pp.70, 77, 8 6 , 96, 224, 240 , a n d foot note p. 70 . ) .

soc iety, d u ri n g the p rosperity p h ase of i ts econo m i c cyc l e, itself foreshad ows; that is, o n ly when t h e walls which lock out pain beg i n to be percei ved i n d a i l y expe r i e n ce as walls wh ich lock o u t pleasure. The strug g le against the socia l o rg a n i zati o n fo r pa i n and for the soc i a l o rg a n izat ion for pl easu re is the revo l ut i o n a ry stru g g le. The p rob l e m , form u lated another way, is t h e p resent narrow c h aracte r of "the a p p rop riati o n of nat u re and h u man nat u re by ma n . "42 82.

In the revo l uti onary p rocess, the st ru g g l e is the st ru g g l e of p l easu re ; the p l easu re is t h e p l easu re of st ru g g le. 83.

Today, peo ple o p p ress eac h oth e r by t h e smal l n ess of thei r d esi re; t h e i r poverty of social n eeds; thei r lack of a f u l ler egoism , a ful ler g reed . We a re aski n g people to ask fo r more, so that we can ask for m o re , and g et m o re from them - get what we can on ly g et by be i n g a l l owed to give more. We do n ot ask you fo r m uc h : we ask from yo u o n l y you r own eg oism, a n d w e d o s o not o u t o f altru ism , b u t for our o wn egois tic reasons. From the depths of o u r own , we ask you for t h e depths of yo u rs. But i n ask i n g you for t h at, we ask yo u to g i ve everyt h i n g you 've g ot; to g i ve you r al l . 84.

" Positive h u man self-consc i o usness"43 can o n l y be g uilt­ wh i c h can o n l y mean com m un ist egoism, the e g o ism wh i c h d oes n ot exc l u de the p l eas u re of other eg os, but on t h e contrary, a p p ro p r i ates t h is as its own p leasu re, i n cl u d es it p recise l y for its o wn selfish reasons . less egois m ,

85.

The negatively self-consci ous egoist is t h e g uilty egoist, the e g oist who strives after h is own narrow d esi res g u i lt i ly, a n d t h us works agai nst h i mself; resists h i mse l f - opposes a part of h is own e n e rg y to h is own p roj ect . I t is t h e e n e rg y p resently tied- u p i n g u i lt, i n sel f-po l i c i n g , i n sel f-rep ression - characte r-a rmor - wh i c h , once freed,

can bu i l d t h e n ew world Peopl e seek i ng , i n good con science and without g u i lt, m ore p l eas u re for t h e i r own everyday l i ves, contai n the whole of the revol uti o n . .

86.

Se l f-sacrifice is always Ch rist i a n . Always. 87.

The e x pa nsi o n of egoism refe rs n ot o n l y to the expansion ( of se lf- i dentity) over many selves at any one t i m e , but a lso to its expan s i on over t i me "at " a n y one self. The sac rifice of a futu re, g reater pleasu re to a m o re i m m ed i ate b ut l esser one is prec i sely that: sacrifice; n ot t h e other way aro u n d . The responsi ble i n d ivi d ual m ust d ecide for himself what is to h is g reatest advantage: th is t h eo ry is no morality that can decide tor him . Th e theory and practice of expande d eg oism can h ave no co nso rt with any ideology of hedonism , any more than with any b rand of puritanism. T h i s theory a n d p ract ice is i nsepara b le from the expan ded consciousness o f pleas ure wh ose poss i b i l ity has devel oped i n t h e h isto rical l abo u r­ p rocess , i n the expans i on of h u m a n capac i ties se l f-powe rs, and needs. And it i s i nsepara b l e no l ess fro m that pleas ure of conscio usn ess wh ich it i m p l ies and con tains and w h i ch si m u ltaneo usly conta i ns it. Se lf-d isci p l i n e , as d i rect ly op­ p osed to authoritarian d isc i pl ine, exte rn a l ly i m posed and i nte rnal i zed a s such - th e coherent use of my l i fe for m yse lf, acco rd i n g t o my own immane n t standards and to e n ds of my own , is i n i tse l f al ready a pl easu re for me. Se l f-m aste ry, the consci o u s a n d effective w iel d i n g of m yself fo r m yse lf i n the worl d , i s i n deed a n es the tic se l f-pl easu re. I t is the art of l ife. * When my self is the wo rk of m y own a rt, a n d my own work of a rt, then I take pleasu re i n m yself. Then I k n ow myself as wealth - for m yself as wel l as for oth e rs. I know myself as rich , as rich i n myself, as a wealthy man th ro u g h my sel f-possessi o n . A n d yet th is subject i ve wealth, t h i s ric h n ess i n self w h i c h I possess is also s o ciety. "

"

,

•

The ideology of h i ppy-s l o b b i s m w i l l f i n d no asy l u m h e re.

Th is is p roven by the fact that outsi de soci ety , or without it, all my wealth wo u l d with e r i nto d ust. The iden tity of myself and my soc i ety is proven by the fact that the non -existence of soc i ety i m p l i es the non-exi stence of m yself. B u t t h is is a d i alecti ca l , medi ated i d e n tity, not a fo rmal , abstract, i m­ m ed i ate o n e ; an ident ity that p rese rves w i th i n itself the m o m e n t of d i fferentiation .

VI I I . SEXUALITY 88. "The i m med i ate, nat u ra l , a n d necessa ry relation of h u man bei n g to h u man be i ng i s also t h e relation of malet to female. t I n t h is na tural species rel ationsh i p man's rel ation to n atu re is d i rectly h is relat i o n to man , and h is relat i on to man is d i rectly h is rel at i o n to n at u re , to h is own na tural funct i o n . Thus, i n t h i s rel ation is sensuo usly re vealed, red u ced t o a n observa b l e fa ct, the extent t o w h i c h h u man n atu re h as become natu re fo r m a n and to w h i c h nat u re h as become h u man nat u re for h i m . From t h is relat i o ns h i p m a n 's whole l eve l of development can be assessed . I t fo l l ows from the c ha racte r of th is rel at i o nsh i p h ow far man has become, a n d h as u n derstood h i mself as, a species-being, a h uman being. The rel ati on of man to wo m a n is t h e m ost na tural relation of h u man be i ng to h u ma n bei n g . I t i n d i cates, the refo re, h ow far m a n 's na tural behavi o r h as become h uman , and h ow far h is human essence h as beco me a natural essence fo r h i m , h ow far h is h uman na ture h as become na ture fo r h i m . I t a lso shows h ow fa r m a n 's n eeds h ave beco m e h uman needs, and conseq uently how fa r the oth e r perso n, as a perso n , h as become o n e of h is n eeds, a n d to w h at extent h e is i n h is i n d i v i d u a l existence at t h e sam e t i me a soc i a l bei n g . "44 89. Orgast ical ly pote ntt sex ual experience is t h e very arche­ type of t h e resonance of ego isms: the i m mediate u n ity of pl easu re-g ett i n g a n d pleasu re-g ivi n g . 90. I d o n 't j ust want a f u l l e r sex l ife; I want m y whole l ife to be

a "sex- l ife " ! 91 . The soc i ality of m a n reveals i tself nowhere m o re stro n g l y than i n sexual soci ability and sexual sol i dari ty. The sexual need, mo re p rofo u n d ly a n d more i m medi ately than any oth er, reveals the fa l l acy of na rrow egoi s m - the n eed to touch another perso n, anothe r's body; to be physical ly c l ose, to caress a n d be ca ressed . Perhaps i t is out of the desi re, co ng ruent with narrow egoism, to deny the i n ter­ subject ivity of t h i s m ost profo u n d ly i ntersu bjective of needs, that so ma ny pervers ions beg i n ; in order to "obj ectify"* the subject who is the a i m of t h i s need . But here also is a t h resho l d , a nd an "att ractor" t where the expansion of ego i s m ca n stop, can get h u ng - u p for epochs: a co l l ecti v e eg oism t h at never g rows b i gger t h an the cou ple, the col l ect i ve of two; the iso l ated d u o, t he n u c lear fam i ly. We have h e re t h e ideology w h ich h o lds that the egoi stic project cou l d beco me adeq u ate to i tse lf if only it i ncl u ded two egos. Th i s is but another fo rm of the i d eo l ogy of anti -social i s m ; the ideology t hat seeks to deny the social i n g red i ent in the i n d i v i d u a l , the self, the pe rsonal wo rld , and e nds up by denyi n g and de p l et i ng the sel f as well ; ends u p with an em ptied self. Acco rd i ng to this i deology, only t h e pe rso nal , i nt imate, fam i ly worl d , t h e p rivate world of the home, is real . The strang e , crazy, cold "outs i d e" wo rld - t h e soc i a l world - i s held to be u n rea l , thou g h i t m ust be re lated to, if on l y to support t h is narrow " rea l " worl d . This i deology kn ows soc i ety o n l y as a n i nvas i o n of pri vacy. T h is is t h e i d eo l ogy that wi l l keep the pe rso nal wo r l d n arrow and i m pove rished , and the socia l wo rld men ac i n g and a l i e n . W i l l we g et beyond it? Do enoug h want to? Need to? O n ly time w i l l tel l , Capital­ ist anti-social i s m is n ow rap i d l y reach i ng its l og ical con c l u ­ sio n : t h e d estruct i o n o f soci ety. Over t h is q uesti o n , a l l of ou r T h is is "obj ectify" not used i n the sense of the su bject who i nsc ri bes h i mself i n the objective world through h i s activity; expresses h i s s u bjectivity i n o bjects and objective states-of-the-world he creates, but in the sen se of the s u bject who i s treated l i k e a t h i n g ; turned into a pse u d o-object. These t w o se n ses a re t h us a l most exactly o p posite. T h roug hout, we i nd icate t h i s second usage by encl osi n g the word in d o u b l e q uotes, to d i sti ngu ish it from the u n q u oted u sage . •

l ives a re at stake. 92.

Fre u d even bases his case for i nsti n ctual re pressi o n on the post u l ate of such an eternal co nd ition as desc ri bed above (with t h e h e l p of a few of h is typical reifiedt fa lse antit heses) . "The conf l i ct between civi l i zati o n a n d sexua l i ty i s caused by the c i rcu msta nce that sexu al love is a relati onsh i p between two peo ple, in wh i c h a th i rd can o n l y be superfl u ous or d i st u rb i n g , whereas c i v i l izat i o n is fou nded on relations between l arger g ro u ps of pe rso ns. When a l ove relat i onsh i p is a t its h e i g h t n o roo m is l eft for a n y i nte rest i n the su rrou n d i n g world; the pai r of lovers are suffi cient u nto themselves, do not even n eed the ch i l d t h ey h ave i n common to make them h ap py. "45 L i k e m ost calls for m oral enfo rce­ ment, it ass u m es, u n bek n ownst to its author (wh o character­ isti cal l y bel i eves, o n the contrary, t h at peo p l e a l ready want too m u c h and a re a l ready too selfis h ) that h u ma n g reed wi l l not expa n d beyond a certa i n n arrow domai n . 93.

The early women 's m ove ment was o n e of t h e few loc i i of the nearly self-conscious e m ergence of rad ical s u bj ecti vity wit h i n the New Left. The wo men who created i t refused to put off the stru g g l e aga i nst the i r spec i a l oppression u n t i l "afte r t h e Revol utio n . " I f h u ma n be i n gs have red u ced each other to sexu al pseu do-obj ects, have " o bjectified "* each other sexual ly, t h i s is by n o mean s t h e on ly o r the most fundam ental way i n wh i c h t h ey h ave been " o bjectified . " Th is is on ly one facet of a general deh u m a n izat i o n and de-su bject ificatio n . The overco m i ng of this speci f i c " o bjectification , " of the problem posed m ost su bjective l y by the ea rly wo men's l i beration m ove m ent, and named "sexi s m " by t h e partisans of that m ovement, can o n l y be of t h e fo rm of sexual subjec tivity as op posed to t h i s sexual "object-ivity, " and (expa nded) sexual egoism as opposed to sexual du ty, sexual self-sacrifice, and * Here again the sense of "objectified" d iffers from our normal usage, which i s the reason we put quotes around it. See the footnote to thes i s 91 .

sexual exploita tion . This so l ution i s o pposed ide ntical l y to t h e various d i rect i ons ta ken by the later i deolog i cal exp ro­ p riators of the women 's m ove m e nt; name l y t h at of the a bst ract negat i o n of sex ism - co u n ter-sexism (an t i - m as­ cul inism) , reverse exp loitation t h ro u g h t h e i d eo l og i cal man i p u lat i o n of male g u i lt, sexual a bst i n e nce, o r m o ra l i stic l esb i an ism . Lately, m ore an d more women h ave felt cal led o n to act i n a n ew r o l e - that o f "siste r. " T h e j oy o f t h e i n i t i a l a bstract u n i ty h as b een re pl aced by the th reat of exc l usion for u n­ sisterly beh avior. Opp ression takes a new fo rm : wo m e n o ver wo m e n . I t 's n ot t h e m o ments of g e n u i ne war m t h and i nt i m acy , of authentic community, with i n the women's movem e n t t hat we want to cri ticize, but precisely the ideology t hat u lt i mately poisoned t h ese. The " co m m u n ity" fou n ded on gender is sti l l an a bst ract com m u nity, st i l l a fa lse com m unity; st i l l t h e d o m i n at i o n over the i nd i v i d ual and her desi res t h roug h the use of a bstract catego ries and external q u a l ities, by the i deolog i cal repre­ se n ta tives of t hese. The pse udo-co m m u n i ty of "sisters" assu med and m oral istica l ly e n fo rced - is sti l l a commu n ity founded on opp ressi o n : the re pressi o n of rad ical s u bj ec­ t i vity; t h e rep rese ntat ion and enforce m e n t of a n a bstract d ete r m i nat i on defi n i n g a g ro u p of peop l e - in t h i s case, g e n dert - over agai nst t h e i r concrete part icu l arity and t h e i r conscio us self-deter m i n ation . Bosses come i n al l g e n d e rs, no l ess t han i n a l l colors. H ow much h u m i l iation wi l l i t take to l earn t h at a boss havi ng si m i lar skin col o r or the sa me type of sexual g la n ds "objectifies " one n o less t h a n a ny oth er? N ext t i m e a fem i n ist bu rea ucrat add resses you as "Sister, " l iste n to the tone of h e r vo ice. Why is she wh i n ing? Do h e r wo rds fal l l i ke a th reat, o r l i ke a cha i n ? W h at i s it t hat she wants from you? Does she wan t a su bject o r a slave; a sex, i . e. , a wal k i ng a bstract i o n , o r a perso n ?

IX. AUTH O R ITY 94.

The development of general ized self- m a n agement is i m peded by, p rec isely, generalized incapacity for se/f­ management - the terror at the thought of f reed om ; frozen subjectivity; the authoritaria n perso n a l ity. Th is usual ly takes the fo rm of a d i re fea r a n d d istrust of others i n a situat i o n of revo l u t i onary sel f-management - "the other g u y is a fu ck­ u p" ; "the other g uy is too stu p i d and i r respo nsi b le to eve r m ake i t work , " etc. - val i d fears, to wh i c h we can o n l y say that eve rybody is ri g h t about everybody else to date. The authoritarian perso n a l ity is essentia l ly the slavish personality, the person a l i ty that n eeds authority - that p recisely can 't manage with o u t it. This c h aracter-struct u re hides i ts essence i n the rol e of t h e m aste r; it reveals its essen ce i n the ro le of the sl ave. Capital i st soc i ety is soc iety fou nded on the expanded rep rod uction of t h e habit of s u b m i ss i o n , of the aliena tion (dis-owning) of s u bj ectivity (wage-labo u r) . The p ro l etarian is p recisely the de-su bj ec­ tified m a n , the pseudo-object, ru led by the pseudo-s ubject, capita l , wh i c h he p ro d u ces and rep rod u ces. Revo l ution ary practi ce is therefo re the practice of "subjectifica tion "; t of the expan ded reprod u ct i o n of s u bjectivity, or rad ical s u b­ jects . tt The de tournemen t of m o ral ism (of t h e pseudo­ crit i q u e of "g reed ") , the val id at i o n and expan s i o n of ego i s m , i s t h u s an essent i a l m o m ent o f revo l ut i o n ary p racti ce. And t h i s is a m o ment of that m o ment. Beyo n d the need of a u t h o rity l i es the auth ority of needs a n d the a u thority of desire. 95.

I n any h i e rarc h i cal rel ati onsh i p the d o m i n ator as wel l as the s u b m issive pays h i s d ues. The price paid for the " g l ory of com m a n d " is i ndeed h eavy. Every tyrant resents h i s d uties. H e i s releg ated to d rag the dead wei g ht of the d o rm ant creat ive potential of the s u b m issive a l l a l o n g the road of his h i erarc h i cal excu rs i o n . O bvi ously, this can not com pare to

t h e a m o u nt of pl eas u re-e n e rgy re leased pl ayfu l ly an d wi l l i n g ly, n ot coe rc i ve l y , w h en e veryone p l ays t h e g a m e . ( T h e p rice o f o n e 's authority ove r ot h e rs i s t he s u m -total o f one's acce ptance of t h e sa m e autho rity ove r o n eself . ) 96.

I n a sel f-managed society, the preventio n of com m u n a l sq u a l o r, o f s o c i a l m a l p ra c t i c e i n g e n e r a l ( t he n o n -fu l f i l l ­ m e n t of p rod uct i on-pl a ns, etc . ) depends, not on n o body bei ng an a u t h o r i ty, b u t on e verybody bei n g a n a uthority w here his own needs and desi res, h is own i nterests, are conce rned . A n d this m eans expanded self-i n terests; social se l f- i n terests. Th is m eans t h at anybody m u st be self­ a u t h o r i zed to mess with anybody e lse befo u l i ng a co m m u n a l pl ace, i m ped i n g co l l ect i ve l y ag reed-u pon p rod uct i o n , etc. , and m ust kno w how to do so. On l y such a n on-cent ral i zed , a l l -sided flow o f p ractical-c ritical feed back a n d soci a l d i a l og u e ca n repro d u ce such a soc i ety. T h e e n d o f speci a l ized s u p e rvision can o n l y be i n the p ro cess o f genera l ized supe rvision a n d co l l ect ive self-s u pe rvis i o n . Th e e n d of t h e speci a l po l ice d e pe n ds on g e n e ral sel f-reg u l at i o n , that i s , gen e ralized self-management - peo p l e ta k i n g responsi b i l ity fo r th e i r soc i a l needs. T h i s i s t h e opposite o f t h e rep ressive co ncept i o n , "se l f-po l icing " based o n th e present external pol i ci n g , wh ich serves an alien i nte rest, a n d is i nterna l i zed a s s u c h . 97.

In t h e soci al ist society of t h e fut u re - i f it i s t o be at a l l eve ryone wi l l have to be h is own expe rt , h i s own a u t h o rity, on "savoi r-vi v re , " o n " h ow-to- l i ve . " T h e re w i l l be n o h i g he r a u t h o r i ty over a g iven m atter t h an t h e g e ne ral asse m b l y o f th ose sel f- i nterested i n t h at m atte r. 98.

Every t reatise on t h e theory of pract i ce is a " Traite de Sa voir- Vivre, "46 a " Treatise on Ho w to Live, " whether its author fu l ly k n ows i t or not. " H ow-to-l ive" is j ust the gen era l p ro b l e m o f t h e t h e o ry of p ract i c e sta ted most subjectively.

99.

F reedom from extern a l a uth ority means bei n g yo u r own authority; self-a uthority. Freedom = sel f-m aste ry. The mea n­ ing of t h e p h rase " a world of m aste rs without sl aves"47 ca n be co ncei ved o n l y i n t h e co ncept of self- m astery. B u t t h is ca n n ot be l i m ited to " i n d i v i d ua l " se lf- m aste ry. T h e co nce pt of i n d i v i d u a l se l f-m aste ry a l ready necessa r i l y i ncl udes the moment of social self-m aste ry. Com m u n ist soci ety ca n only mean t h e co nscious se lf-m aste ry of the tota l ity of t h e i r social se lf product i o n by the associ ated p roducers. Self-deter­ m i n ati o n , se lf-gove r n m ent, se lf- m a n agement - i n th e i r necessary, completed m ea n i n g , ca n mean n oth i n g less. The g e n era l name of the pro b l e m we co nfro nt i s "to lea rn h ow to l i ve, " i.e. socially, how to "associate. "48 " L i ve " h e re is op posed to merely su rvi v i n g , and to dyi n g s u p pose d l y t ryi n g t o l i ve (the " beauti f u l l ose rs" sy n d rome) , etc. B u t t h i s h as n oth i n g to do with morality - n oth i n g , that is, b u t to a bolish it!

X. M O RAL I TY 1 00.

The o l d moral question of whether one "th i n ks fi rst of o n eself or of others" fal ls apart wh e n we co me to t h i n k only of ou rselves and for this reason n e g ate the o therness of oth e rs. 1 01 . I ntel l i g ence ends w h e re m o ra l ity beg i ns. Mora l i ty e n ds w here i ntel l i gence begi ns. The t h eo ry of practice , t h e u n itary critique of a l l ideology, m ust at the same t i m e be the cri t ique not o n l y of any m o ra l ism , but of any possible m o ra l ism. Eve ry m o ra l is su bj ect ivity d is-owned and su bj ectivity a l i e n ated. Every m o ral is a psychic totem , a mental fetish­ object , befo re wh ich the mora l fetishist s u b o rd i n ates h i m­ self, bows d own, and offers sacrifices - i ndeed offers him­ self i n sacrifice. Every i d eal is separated s u bjectivity; a part of the self sepa rated off, ejected , frozen , a n d he l d o ver the rest of the self. I t is a depletion of s u bjectivity, a l oss of free-

d om, a c h o ice made i n advance. The formation of a m o ral ideal is at the same t i m e a dec l i n e in su bjective mobil ity and mane uve rab i l ity; a bal l-and-chain about the dance r's a n k l e ; a self-lam i n g a n d self- mai m ing i n the da nce o f l ife . 1 02. M o ral i ty and that wh ich ties you to it, self-g u i lt, g u i lt f o r even bei n g , is an e normous e ncu m b rance. You ca n th row it off! Y o u can d rop a l l that wei g hty m ora l bagg age, before it d rags you d own ! You d o n ' t need it! It is but a poor s u bstitute for t h e f i ne too l of p ract ica l i n tel l i gence, expan ded sel f­ i n terest, sel f-co nsciousness i tse l f . When , if I sh ou l d e nco unter a contrad ict i o n between a usefu l a bstract i o n I had made a bout m y p ract ice , a n d m y concrete se l f- i n te rest i n a g i ven sit u at i o n , i f I aba n d o n m y concrete des i re i n fav o r of the p ract ice o f t h at abstractio n , that mere g e n e ral i zat i o n , o u t o f abstract respect for s u pe r­ ficial "co nsi stency, " o r, say, at the beh est of another, who t h reaten s m e with t h e word "hypocrite," then I a m p rojecting that a bstract ion i nto a pos i t i o n a bove myself, freez i n g i t i nto a " p ri nc i p l e , "t a m o ra l , a n d I am re p rod uci n g as an i d eo l og u e t he other pe rso n w h o h as reb u ked m e in com parison to t h at moral, by bei ng suscepti b l e to h i m expro priati n g the rep resen ta tion o f my-self w h i c h I have e rected or co ndoned, and usi ng i t against my rea l se lf. As a m e re ge n eral izati o n , a pra c tical a bs tra ction as th eory I h ave al ready refuted it for myself i n p ract ice, p rove n its i n val i d ity for th is insta n c e . B u t as a moral re ifica tion , o n the contra ry, it is m y duty to o bey it. Not I b ut "it" is m y master: "it" g i ves the o rd e rs, I a l i e n ate my wi l l i n to i t; " i t" i s the subject o f m y p ractice, I " its" o bje c t. 1 03. The p rojecti o ns of m y su bj ect i v ity, n u rtu red by g u i l t, st ick o u t of m y head l i ke so many h and les offe red to a n y m an i pu l ato r, any i d eo l og u e, who wants t o g et a hold o n me, and whose trade skill is the a b i l i ty to percei ve such h a n d l es. On l y when I d isso lve my g u i l t , when I f ree myself t o be sham elessly selfis h , when I g rasp selfishness as my only -

-

"duty " - ta k i n g ca re of m yse l f as necessa ri ly m y f i rst responsi b i l i ty - ca n I be free.

social

1 04.

The critique of t h e totem ic re lat i o ns h i p , c l a rified by Feuerbach49 in re l at i o n to rel i g i o n , thence a p p l i ed to po l itical eco n o m y by Ma rx,5 0 and l ately develo ped o n e-si d e d l y by t h e Gestalt t h e ra p ists (espec i a l l y Pe rls51) l ocates t h e i nve rsi o n that l i es a t t h e heart o f a l l d o m i n ati o n a n d a l l self-enslave­ ment. Tote m i c fet ishism or project i o n l ies also at the heart of eve ry m o ra l i d e o l o g y , w h i c h i s reve a l e d a l s o i n t h e o bse rvati o n that every i d e o l ogy i s a m o ra l ism , a n d a soc i a l plan f o r the a l l ocat i o n o f g u i lt. Wh i le useable precisely f o r the sam e e n d s , ideol ogy i n genera l , m o ra l ism i n part i c u l a r are i n essen ce the m o re so p h i sti cated a n d su btle means o f exploitation, as opposed to naked coercion. 1 05.

I t is m y g u i lt a b o u t my desi res wh ich m a kes m e suscepti b l e to ideolog ical exp l oitat i o n b y oth e rs, a n d which m oti vates m e in produci n g excuses a n d j ust i f icati o n s ( rati o n a l izatio ns) i n t e r m s of t h e d o m i n a n t i d eo l og y (th e i d e o l o g y wh ich I l et d o m i n ate m e ) . The trick o f ideo l og y consists i n t h is: to re- p resen t d esi res i n a pse u d o- u n i ve rsa l - i . e . , u nsel fish , altru istic - a n d t h e refo re u n rep roac h a b l e, fo rm, a lways i n terms of some abstract "general i nterest." I n o r d e r t o r e c o n c i l e m y s e l f w i t h i d e o l o g y I m u st m a k e m y s e l f a l i a r . B u t i t i s a lose r ' s g a m e. T h e l a wye rs o f t h e d o m i n a n t cl ass a l ready have i t set u p i n advance t h e i r way, and h e re I am o n t he i r terra i n . The use-va l u e of p ractica l g e n e ra l izat i o ns is t h at of th eory - i ntel l i g e n ce o f h u m a n p ractice; k n owledge o f mea ns, tech n iques, a n d co nse­ quences. T h e use-va l u e of m o ra l ity is t h at of ideology - to d o m i n ate others, to atte m pt to get what is wan ted in a narro wly se lfish way, by rep rese nt i n g i t as u nse lfish , u n i ve rsa l , i n a cl i mate w h e re transpa ren t se l f i sh n ess, a n d transpa rency a bo u t d esi res, is n o t to l e rated , i s chastised. 1 06.

I n t h e a bst ract n eg at i o n of m o ra l i ty, i ts m e re a n t i t hesis -

typ i ca l especi a l ly of the situationis t mentality mo ral ism i s transfo rmed i nto an t i - m o ra l ism, w h ich i s real ly o n ly a n anti­ m o ral i s m moral i sm, and not tru l y the o pposite of mo ra l i sm at a l l . Accord i n g to the log ical su bstructu re of th i s i d eol ogy, one has a d uty to do at a l l ti m es what is i mmo ral acco rd i n g to the domi nant ideology - t h at i s, the i deo log y b y w h ich t h e sit u ati on ist st i l l d efi n es and domi n ates h i mse lf, t h o u g h here in a negat i ve form. T h u s it is abs tra c tly requ i red to l i ve by steal i n g , t o practi ce sexual p romiscu ity, to l ive i n squ a l o r, to d ro p o ut of sch oo l , to never wo rk, etc . , etc. Th i s is sti l l qu a l itative ly as fa r from t h e d ete rm i n ate n egation of m o ral ism as is m o ra l ism itself. 1 07. As fo r o u rselves, we have n o m o ra l ity. We have only ou r fee l i ngs, o u r needs, o u r d esi res; ou r t h o u g hts, o u r con­ sci ousness, o u r pract ical knowledge of p racti cal co nse­ que nces, at each g i ven stage of o u r deve l o p ment. I n short , o u r su bject i v i t ies , o u r se lves. Co m passi o n d oesn 't need to be coe rced o ut of us; it com es n at u ral l y. We feel oth e rs ' sufferi n g , a s wel l a s t h e i r joy, b ecause w e are ope n to fee l i n g o u r own . 1 08 . " T h e abo l iti on o f re l i g i on a s t h e illusory happi n ess o f men is a demand for t h e i r real h ap p i n ess. The ca l l to abandon t h e i r i l l usi o ns about th ei r co nd i t i o ns i s a call t o abandon a condition which req u ires illusions. T h e i r criticism of rel i g ion i s, t h e refore, the embryonic criticism of this va le of tears of wh ich re l i g i o n is t h e h a lo . " Criticism h as pl ucked t h e i m ag i n a ry flowers from the cha i n , not i n ord e r t hat m a n sha l l bear t h e ch a i n wit h o u t cap rice or co nso l ati o n , but s o t hat h e shal l cast o f f t h e c h a i n a n d p l uck the l i vi n g fl ower. The cri t icism o f rel i g i o n d isi l l usions man s o t h at h e wi l l t h i n k , act, a n d fash i o n h i s rea l i ty a s a m an who has lost h is i l l usi ons a n d regai n ed h i s reason ; so t h at h e w i l l revo l ve about h i mse l f a s h i s own t rue su n . Re l i g ion is only t h e i l l uso ry su n about which m a n revo lves s o l o n g a s he does n ot revo lve a b o u t h i m self . "52 -

As w i t h rel i g i o n , so with respect to t h e oth e r p roj ectio ns, i n d i v i d u a l and co l l ecti ve (co m m od it i es, m o n ey, ca pital , t h e state, i d eo l og i es o f every descri pti o n , m o ral ity i n particu l a r, reified [ h i e ra rch ica l ] i nsti t u t i ons of a l l so rts - pse u d o­ su bjects a l l . Try su bst i tu t i n g them i n ! ) 1 09.

" T h e crit icism of rel i g i o n e n ds with t h e doct r i n e that man is the suprem e being for m a n . It e n ds, t h e refo re, with t h e c a tegorical impera tive to o verthro w a ll those con ditions i n wh ich m a n i s a h u m i l i ated , e nsl aved , desp ise d a n d rej ected bei n g . "53 1 1 0.

T h e criticism of m o ra l i ty e n ds with t h e doctri n e that you a re t h e s u p re m e bei n g for y o u . (That is, you r bei n g , yo u r se lf-co nsci o usness, yo u r bei ng-fo r-yo u rself, is t h e n eces­ sa ry m ed i u m t h ro u g h wh ich a l l ot h e r val u es - which const i t u te o r g i ve co ntent to i ts va l u e - i ncl ud i n g my val u e f o r yo u , o r myse l f a s o n e o f yo u r val u es, co m e i nto be i n g fo r you . I f you sh o u l d l ose yo u r b e i n g , t h e n a l l ot h e r b e i n gs, a n d t h e rewi t h a l l val u es, wou l d be l ost to yo u . Fu rt h er, and m o re concretely, to t h e exte n t t h at we p rod uce soci a l ly, a n d t h at we p rod uce a soci ety; that we exch a n g e sel f-powers a n d t h e i r o bj ect i ficati o ns, t h at w e d e p e n d u po n o n e a n ot h e r fo r t h e rep rod uct i o n of o u r-sel ves, then my l oss, o r t h e l oss of me, is yo u r l oss, and a d e p l et i o n of yo u r self) . I t en ds, t h e refo re, with the categ o r ical i m perative to ove rth row a l l th ose co n d i t i ons u n d e r wh ich you, t h e su bject, a re s u b o r­ d i nated to so me thin g - so me fetish , so m e tote m , som e p roj ect i o n , so me re ificat i o n , so me cause, so m e i d eal , som e m oral , so me pri nci p l e , so me pse u d o-su bj ect - some bei n g su p posed l y " h i g he r t h a n you r self. " 1 1 1.

What ca use o r ideal is t h e re , what p roj ect i o n o u t of you rse lf, that ca n be h i g h e r, for you , t h a n yo u , i ts so u rce? What exte rnal to yo u r se l f t h at you val u e can warrant fo r you you r sacrifice? What va l u e is t h e re t h at you wo u ld not l ose if you l ost yo u rself? So met h i n g can be a val u e fo r yo u o n l y if i t

i ncl u des a n d conse rves i n it yo ur self, the necessary fou n dat i o n of a l l you r val u es. When you a re l ost to you , a l l the e m a n a t i o n s of you rse lf, and a l l the val ues i n the world t h at you affi rmed, are lost for yo u a lso; cu t off at t he i r ro ot. Ta k i n g risks is a n other m atter. Yo u m ust gamb l e yo u r self i n order to g a i n any va l ue ; yo u m ust risk yo u r-self i n o rde r to g a i n yo u rse lf back aga i n m o re rich ly. What is cal l ed "coward ice" is not t h e practi ce of t h e real i zation exp ressed above, b ut i ts opposite: too l ittl e val ue placed on one's self, and o n t hose val u es and oth e r persons wh ich are part of it, so that one fai l s to defe n d one's self in the expanded sense, o r m ista kes m e re s urvival fo r l ife. 1 1 2. It is not by any means on ly t h e na rrowly "se lfish ," " egoistic" d esi res and tend encies w h ich a re rep ressed cont i n ua l l y ( mora lis tically, w h i l e at t h e sam e t i me bei ng rei nfo rced prac tic a lly) i n the dai ly l ife of p rivatized soci ety, b ut also - rea l l y, m o re so, - t he " n on-eg oi s t i c, " t h e so­ c a l l e d " u nselfish" tend encies: nat u ral g reg a rio usn ess, spon­ taneous h u ma n so l i da rity, nat u ra l co m p assion and e m pat hy, si m p l e soci a b i l i ty a n d l ove. There is an energy prod uced i n each h u ma n bei n g eve ry d ay w h ich a i ms a t a social satisfact i o n a n d w h ich if n ot sat i sf i ed soci a l ly t u r n s a g a i n st i tse l f , b ec o mes d e p ress i o n, w i t h d rawal , etc. U n l ke tri bal soc i et i es , w h e re i n t h ese " u nse l fish tend e n c i es" fo r m t h e m a i n base of soci a l s u rv i va l , i n o u r society, overdeve l o ped ( l ate) ca pital ist society, t h ese e m ot i ons o n l y b reak s u rface o ccasi o n a l l y, exceptiona lly. I n t h e vast a ccu m u l ati ons of constant and variable cap ital t known today as "cities," the co n t i n u a l steadfast r e p ress i o n of t h ese ten d enci e s is i n­ c reasi ng ly a necessity of su rv i va l . W i t h i ncreasi n g rarity d oes soci a l g ood-fee l i n g p ass between stra n g e rs o n the street. Any st ra n g e r is best rega rded an e n e m y . A n d t h ese teem i n g a n t- h i l ls are a world of strangers . T h e g row i ng p h e n o m e n o n of m ass, ran d o m m u rd e rs can be u n dersto od as a beco m i n g a p parent of w h at was a l ways essential to cap i ta l i st soci ety, n ow enteri n g i ts h istoric extre m i ty : "the wa r of a l l a ga i n st a l l "

is beco m i n g armed.* Once a naest h etized , b eg i n n i n g in the early l ife of t h e i n d iv i d u a l , th ese soc i a l d esi res a n d tendencies ca n usual l y b e re-evoked o n l y falsely, artificia l ly, coercively. H e nce t h e bel i ef that t h ese e m ot i o ns n eed t o b e enfo rced th rou g h t h e man i p u lat i o n o f g u i lt. Anyone sti l l manifest i ng such ten den­ cies in t h e i r d i rect, spontaneous form i nto you n g ad u l thood is i m med i ately suspect, o r at best , consi dered " na i ve" and a "foo l " fo r h is apparent " i dea l ism " and/or " c h i l d ish n ess" (despite a l l the altru ist ic pretenses of offi c i a l society) : t h ese e m ot i o n a l tendencies bei n g seen as a weak ness (wh i c h , i n t h e soc iety of estrangement, t h ey u nd o u bted ly are, u n t i l o r u n l ess suc h an i nd i v i d u a l deve l o ps fu l l consc i o u sness of t h ese tendencies and of t h e i r soci a l context, appropriat i n g t h ese a s part of a revo l u t i on a ry p roj ect) . 1 1 3.

I l i sten to crit icism because I a m greedy. I l iste n to crit icism because I am selfis h . I wo u l d not deny myse l f another's i nsi g h ts. B u t egoistic criticism is a use-va l ue o r it i s noth i n g ; use-val ue n o t o n l y to i ts rec i p i e n t , b u t to i ts d o n o r a s we l l . I wo u l d n o t bother t o criticize someone i n w h o m I had n o i nt e rest . Anyt h i n g e lse wou l d be se rvice re ndered to a n i d ea l , a m o ra l p roject i o n - on ly a m o ral ist seeks to strike agai nst what co ntrad icts h i m , h is m o ral , equally ove r t h e wh o l e m a n ifo l d of space-t i m e ; o n l y an ideal is "etern a l " i n t h i s way. Whereas I am m o rtal. My l i b i d o is co ncentrated a ro u n d myself; i ts i ntensity fa l ls off expo n e n t i a l ly with subjec tive d i stance fro m i ts sou rce. T h i s egoistic criticism is t h e opposite of t h e masoch istic a n d r i t u a l ized (spectacu l a r) "criti cism and self-cr it icis m " of Mao ist m o ra l i ty. A u thoritaria n criticism a i ms at my repres­ sion, at re i nforci n g and rep rod uci ng passivity and se rvi l ity, at m a i n ta i n i n g u -.e h a b i t of su b m issi o n . I t a i ms at weake n i n g , rat h e r t h a n stren gthen i n g , my su bj ectivity, a t keep i n g m e a n authoritarian perso n a l i ty - a sla ve . •

I n some cases these ra ndom m ass k i l lers prove to be not o n ly the m ost apparent extre m i t y of the war of all agai ns1 a l l , but a lso a consc i o u s self-critique of it. In many cases the act i ve n i h i l i st d e l i be rate ly a n d consciously epitom izes everyt h i ng h e hates.

Ego i stic criti c i s m , on the co ntrary, ai m s at stre n g then i n g m e , i n t h e m utual i nterest o f my self a n d m y critic, for t h e benef i t o f o u r common wealth and ou r common projec t . I t i s imman en t criticism , criticism o f me i n my o wn inte res t . By the same to ken , for s u c h c riticism to be possi ble, fo r so meone's criticism to " i n terest" me, I m ust see m yse lf i n the m , and them i n m yself; we m ust share a co m m on i nte rest , a concrete com m u n ity. 1 1 4. The criti q u e of revo l ut i o na ry ideology, an a rch ist and Le n i n i st al i ke , with i ts sa crificial colle c tivis t moral ity an d , i n partic u l ar, the cri t i q u e o f Maoism with i ts m ora lity of po verty , revea l s o n ce and fo r al l t h e p o verty o f a ll m ora lity . And t h i s in a dou ble sense. First, in that m o ral i ty i s t h e i d e o l o g i c a l p rod u ct o f povert y ; o f t h e u n d e ve l o p e d state of h u man prod uctive fo rces , and especia l l y of the c l eavage of the "genera l " and "particu lar" i n terests , wh ose root i s the se l f-cl eavage of society; soc i a l classes. M o ra l i ty is the exp ression of the i rreco n c i l ab i l ity of c lass a ntag o n isms. I t locates the general i nterest as a projec tion out of a soci a l situation i n wh i c h it cou ld o n l y be fo u nd a s a c o n tra dic tio n . In moral ity, the cont rad i ction i s represented as an abst ract ide ntity of the i nte rests of a l l men, as the i nterest of an abstract man who h as no real soc ial ex i ste nce. Second, i n the se nse that m o rality - w h i c h i s p roject i o n , o r self­ disown i ng - is a deplet i o n of the real social wealth , of su bjectivity, the wealth of t h e self . 1 1 5. O u r s u bj ect ivity and o u r self- red i scovery i n eve ry h ere and now, i .e . our self-rep rod u ct i o n , is the only possi b le g u aran­ tee of our su bjectivity. We m ust re-wi n o u rsel ves co n sta ntly. " Co m m u n ist ego ism " can be made i nto an i deo logy. " T he right to be g reedy" c an be t u rned i nto a m o ral ity. Eas i l y . No object i ficat i o n is i m m u ne. Th i s i d eol ogy beg i n s wheneve r so me b u reaucrat - for t h i s act wo u l d confirm h i m s o b e i n g - tries t o order m e , i n the n a m e o f my "se l f- i n terest, " t o desist from som e activity I h ave f reely u ndertaken , on t h e

g rou nds t h at i t is "objectively " sacrifi c i a l , and I le t him get ( He re i s revealed the lie of re presentati o n : he rep resen ts me even agai nst myself - he owns "me," is m o re " m e" than I a m . ) I f I keep t h i s u p, the fi nal scenario can be ea s i l y e n v i s i o n e d : s o m e b u r e a u c rat p o i n t s a g u n at m e sayi n g : " I n t h e n a m e o f you r expanded self-i nte rest, that of the proletariat as a w h o l e , we h ave dete rm i n ed that it is best fo r you fo r us to k i l l you" and p u l ls the trigger (cf. K ronstadt, the i deo l ogy of the National Cauc u s of Labor Co m m ittees, etc . ) . t a way with it.

1 1 6. I n a revo l utionary situat i o n it takes m u c h m o re than the m e re wish to p revent a b u reau c racy from arisi n g . The roots of bu rea u c racy l i e in personal self den ia l , * in t reat i n g m yse l f a n d my desi res i n a b u reauc rati c man n e r, i n s h o rt, bei n g a b u reau c rat with myself. The mere a bstract negat i o n of its i nst itutional ized fo rm i s l i ke arriv i ng with a b u c ket of water afte r the h o use has al ready bu rned down. I n every rat i o n a l i zati o n and hesitati o n , i n every st utteri ng and swal­ lowi n g down of desi re, of felt resentments , m i scom m u n i ca­ tions a n d secret h u m i l i at i o n s l i e the seed s of o u r dem ise, ou r Ther m i dor. The log ical o utg rowt h of any self denial by any revo l u t io nary is the t ri u m p h of the cou nte r-revo l u t i o n and the rei g n o f the Bolshevi ks a l l over agai n . " . . . , it i s a lways t h e p r i n c i ple o f usef u l suffering and wi l l i ng sacrifi ce that fo rms the most sol i d base for h i er­ archical power. "54 The m o m e n t yo u sit by pass i vely w h i l e not g etti n g w h at you want, you a re p repari n g the g ro u n d for you r own d estruct i o n . 1 1 7. We a re o n the verge of l i b e rat i o n o n ly when i t can be said of each of us that he/she h as beco me so rebel l i o us, so i rrep ress i b l e , and so u n ru l y that she/he can n ot be mastered by anyt h i n g l ess than h is/h er self ( i .e . , a m o n g oth e r t h i ngs, •

If you d o n ' t k now by now that narrow egoism is self-d e n i al , you m i g h t as we l l stop r i g h t h ere.

when no mere p roject i o n o r re ificatio n of a part of o u rselves wi l l suffice, any longer, o r wi l l be able s uccessfu l ly to ru l e over u s ) . 1 1 8. The "ga m e " * * is a fo rm of armor, ideology i s a "gam e , " c h a racte r-armor i s co m p u l sive ro le-play i n g , t h e "scri pt" is the sel f-i mage p rojectd t h ro u g h ti me, the tem po ra l i zed self­ spectacle. I n the wh ite heat of the act of t h e i r com pre­ hensi o n as l i ved experience a n d as i nterpersona l p rax i s go i ng on a l l a rou nd us, these n a mes, and the co ncepts they name - game, arm or, ideology, ro l e, character, scri pt melt i nto o n e . The self-spectacl e , the spectac u lar s e l f self-representa ­ tion - wi l l be fo u n d n ecessa ry, a n ecessa ry use-val ue, a necessary i n terpersonal too l , i n fact, a "su rvival k it," and th u s b e r e p rod u c e d , s o l o n g as ( 1 ) the dis s o n a n c e o f egoisms, t h e total i ty o f c o n d i t i o n s kn o w n i n g e n eral as "pove rty, " "scarc ity, " p reva i ls, a n d conseq u e ntly, (2) peo p l e ca n n o t g et w h a t t h ey wa n t ofte n e n o u g h by b e i n g t ra n s ­ parent with o ne a n o t h e r , by s i m pl y asking for it, a n d , ( 3 ) they can not o r w i l l n ot take the risk of ask i ng , the gam b l e of transpare n cy , either fo r fear of the pain of refusal or o ut of the desperation of thei r need , and wo u l d therefo re prefer to ext ract w h at they can by c i rc u itous means, by su bte rfu g e a n d decepti o n , d ecoy and tri c ke ry - i n s h o rt, by i ntrans­ parent m eans. The spectac u l a r p resentation of se l f in everyday l ife , the person a l o rg a n i zati o n of fa lse ap pea ran ces ( " persona") partly com pu lsive and i nvo l u n tary , as es pecial ly i n m u sc l e armor - t h e l ittl e l i e - these are t h e m eans o f t h e de vious rou te to t h e real izati o n of des i re . I n the i r conscious part, t h ey w i l l be res o rted t o so l o n g as t h e m o re d i rect m e a n s , tra nspare n cy , d oes not work a n y bette r. I n th e i r m ore u n co n sc i o u s , co m p u lsive part , they are the mark of re p res­ s i o n and d o m i natio n , the coweri n g w i n ce of the w h i pped -

T he word "game" i s em p loyed here, not i n t h e se nse o f t h e theory of situations and of t h e construction of situati ons developed by the Situation ist I nter n ationa l , but i n the sense of t h e "Transactional Anal ysis" ideo l ogy of psychotherapy. * *

c u r, frozen i nto a post u re. Character-armor is i ndeed t h e form of people's compl icity i n t h e s p e c t a c l e . N o t t h at fee l i n g g u i l ty a b o u t o n e ' s c h a racte r-a r m o r w i l l d o a n yt h i n g b u t exac e r b ate t h i s p ro b l e m .

XI. R EV O L U T I O N 1 1 9.

" Prod uctive forces and social re lations h i ps - the two d i fferent s i d es of the deve l o p ment of the soc ial i n d i vi d u a l appea r to be and are, on ly a m eans for ca pital , to enable it to p rod uce from its own cram ped base. B u t i n fact they are the material cond itions that w i l l s h atte r t h i s fo u n d ati o n . "55 1 20.

I n t h e e n d , egoism is o u r o n ly friend ; in t h e l ast analysis g reed is t h e only th i n g we can trust. Any revo l u t i o n a ry w h o is to be cou nted on can o n l y be i n it for h imself - unselfish people can al ways switch l oyalty from o n e p roj ect i o n to another. Fu rthermore, o n l y the most g reedy peo p l e can be re l ied o n to fo l l ow th ro u g h on thei r revo l u t i o n a ry p roj ect. Oth ers l ess g reedy can al ways be bought off so as to stop s h o rt of th emselves . 121.

The p ract i cal necessity of g reed and the truth of o u r state ments concern i n g t h e fai l u res engendered by g reed w h i c h is not g reedy e n o u g h are demonstrated conti n ua l l y i n t h e h i sto ry o f t h e modern revo l ut i o n a ry move ment. J ust as, in 1 87 1 , i nternal ized i deol ogy and a m isera b l e h a n dfu l of g u ards were e n o u g h to dete r t h e armed Com m u na rds f rom se i z i n g t h e Fren c h N ational B a n k at a ti me w h e n money was d esperatel y needed, so in 1 968 French i nsu rge nts ( myst ified by trade- u n i o n i st and anarc h o-sy n d i ca l i st i deology) fa i led to com pre h e n d a l l the world a ro u n d them as social property (and t h e refo re th eirs) and t h u s te nded to restrict self-

org a n i zation t o "thei r own" work p l aces. T h o u g h g reedy an d egoist i c i n their own rig ht, both th ese movem ents fe l l vi cti m to t he mystificat i o n , the fet ish i s m of p rivatized territory. I n bot h cases, the revoluti onaries were left i n palt ryn ess , the pathet i c p ossessors of mere fragments of a revol u t i o n (t hese frag m e nts by the i r very nat u re s u b l ated into naug ht ) . In both cases it was a l i m ited g reed , i n th e i r theo ry and th e i r s p i r i t , that led t o the pract ical ( indeed eve n m ilitary) defeat o f these revo l u t i on ari es. The mean i n g of Marx's "I am noth i n g , b ut I m u st be everyth i n g " u n fo l d s its truth fu l l y when we real ize that o n ly when we become everyt h i n g shall we cease to be not h i n g . 1 22 . " Revo l u t i o n ceases t o b e a s soon as it is necessa ry to be sac rifi ced to i t . " -gra ffitto, Paris, May-June, 1 968. 56 1 23. The social revo l ut i o n is when social h u man be i ng s , soci a l i n d ivid uals wa ke u p i ns i d e t h e l i v i n g , wak i n g n i g h t mare o f privatized l ife. 1 24 . Revo l ut i o n is t h e social m o m ent o f t h e col l apse of al l proj ections. I n t h e m o m ent of s ocial revo l ut i o n t h e p rese nt, the his torical p resen t , t h e p resence o f his tory opens u p l i ke the sky . 1 25 . D o n ' t be too afra i d . What is left after the col l apse of a l l projecti o n s i s y o u , yo u r self, p recisely t h at i n y o u w h i c h alone was n o t self-p roj ecti o n . Do n 't pan ic - yo u 've been lost so l o n g , i t m ay take yo u a m o ment, afte r the d e l u g e , to f i n d yo u r self aga i n , t h e re at the ce nte r of eve ryt h i n g . A pres le deluge, m o il After t h e d e l u g e : yo u ! A n d yo u r self w i l l not b e fo u n d a l o n e . 1 26 . The road to fu rther evol u t i o n passes t h ro u g h revo l u t i o n . T h e pat h t h at leads from su rvi val to l i fe passes t h ro u g h the

va l l ey of the shadow of death . We have decided to go, to take the gam b l e, for o u rselves. Do you want to come with us, fo r you rself? We wa nt yo u . We need yo u . You decide.

F O R O U R S E LV E S ! M ay 1 , 1 974

P O ST N O T E S I . CITAT I O N S

Thesis N o . 9 1 . "Along with the constantly d i m i n is h i n g n u m ber of mag nates of capita l , who usurp a n d monopol ize a l l the advantages of this transfo rmation, g rows the mass of m isery, oppressi o n , slavery , deg radation , exploitati o n ; but with this too grows the revo lt of the work i n g class, a class a l ways i nc reasing i n n u m bers, and disci p l i n e d , u n i ted, organ ised by the very mechanism of the process of capita l ist reprod uctro n itself. T h e monopoly o f capital becomes a fette r u pon t h e mode o f p rod ucti o n , w h i c h h a s s p r u n g u p and flourish ed a l o n g w i t h , and u n d e r it. Centra l i zati o n o f t h e means o f p rod uction a n d social ization of l a b o r a t l ast reach a p o i n t where they become i n c o m patible with the capita l i st i nteg u ment. This i nteg u m e nt is bu rst as under. The k ne l l of capitalist-private p roperty sou nds. The expropriators are expropria ted. " ( Karl Marx, Capital, A Critique of Polit ical Economy, vol. I , I nternational P u b l ishers, 1 967, p. 763, e m phasis o u rs.) No. 1 0 2 . Th e p h rases "the associated p roducers , " "free and associated labor," o r "th e associated workers," occ u r aga i n a n d again t h roughout Marx' works w h e n h e seeks to name o r c h a racterize the social relat i o n of p rod uction of com m u n ist society: association itself. This is somet h i n g that Len i n ists of every variety scru p u lously avoi d menti o n i n g for, with all their tal k of the "social i st state" and "workers' governments, " etc. they wou l d m u c h rat h e r all this be conve n i ently fo rgotten. No m o re apt p h rase could be contrived to name and descr i be the manag ment of society as a system of workers' cou n c i l s than precisely "the associated prod ucers . " A few selected citations o f representative passages where this description occu rs are l isted bel ow: Karl M a rx , Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, vol . 1 , I nternati onal P u b l i s h e rs, ( N ew York, 1 967) , p . 80 ; vo l . I l l , p . 437 , p. 607 , p . 447. David Mcle l l a n . The Grundrisse, ( Harper and Row, 1 97 1 ) p. 1 52 . Capital Vol. I V Theories of Surplus Value (Part Ill), P rog ress P u b l ishers ( Moscow, 1 971 ) p. 273. Karl Marx, Writings on the Paris Commune (in The Civil War o f France ( F i rst D raft) ) , Hal D raper, ed . , Monthly Review Press, 1 97 1 , p. 1 55. Karl M a r x , " I nstructions for the Delegates of the P rovisional G e n e ra l Counc i l . T h e Different Questions." #5: "CO-OPERATIVE LABO U R . " p . 8 1 i n Karl Marx a n d F re d e r i c k E n g e l s . SELEC TED WORKS, v o l . 2, Prog ress P u b l i s hers, ( M oscow, 1 969) . Karl M arx, "The N a t i o n a l izati o n o f T h e L a n d p . 290, ibid. . "

No. 1 1 3 . Karl Marx, " Economic and P h i losophical M a n uscri pts" i n T . B . Bottomore , Karl Marx, Early Writings, M c G raw- H i l l , ( N ew York, 1 963) , p. 1 55 .

4. T h is is M a rx' ea rly term for what he l ate r cal ls the " social re lations of p roduction". See: Karl M a rx and F rederick Engels, The German Ideology, Prog ress P u b l ishers, ( M oscow, 1 968 ) , pp. 89, 92, etc. No. 1 3 5 . Karl Marx, G rundrisse , i n " P re-Capitalist Economic Formations, " Hobsbawn and Cohe n , translators and ed itors, I nternati onal P u b l i shers, ( New York, 1 965 ) , p. 84. No. 1 4 6 . Karl Marx, "Money and Al ienated Man , " i n Easton and G uddat, Writings Of The Young Marx On Philosophy And Society, Doubleday, ( Garden City, 1 967) , pp. 271 272. No. 1 5 7 . Situation ist I nternational (Mustaph a K h ayat i , et a l . ) , On the Poverty of Student Life (publ ished by Black & Red , Detroit, M l .) , p. 24. No. 2 1 8 . Karl Marx, Theories Of Surplus Value, Part Ill, ( vo l . IV o f Capital) , Prog ress P u b l ishers ( M oscow, 1 97 1 ), p. 429. No. 23 9 . Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1 844 ( o u r translati on) cf. T . B . Bottomore, op. cit. p. 1 58 and Easton and G u ddat, op. cit. pp. 306-307 . N o . 24 1 0. Rao u l Vaneigem, Treatise On Living For The Use of the Young Generation, pp. 45-46.

No. 25 1 � . Karl M a rx , Bruno Ba uer, Die Judenfrage, i n T . B . Bottomore, op. cit. , pp. 24-2 5 . N o . 26 1 2 . Rao u l Vanei gem, op. cit. , p. 1 1 . N o . 30 1 3 . H e i n z v o n Foe rst e r , " L o g i c a l S t r u c t u re of E n v i ro n m e n t a n d its I nte r n a l Representation , " i n Proceedings o f the 1 962 Design Conference, Aspen, Colorado, R . E. Eckerstrom, editor, (Herman M i l ler, 1 963) . N o . 35 1 4 . Karl Marx, "Free Human Production, " in Easton and G uddat, op. cit. , p. 281 : "Su ppose we h ad p roduced t h i ngs as h u man bei ngs: i n h i s prod uction each of us would have twice affirmed h i mself and the other . . . . I wou ld have been the mediator between you and the spec i es and you wou l d h ave experienced me as a rei n tegrat i o n of you r own nat u re a n d a necessary part of you r self . . . " N o . 36 1 5. Ibid. N o . 40 1 6 . Ayn Ran d , The Virtue of Selfishness; A N ew Concept of Ego ism , New American Li brary, ( New York, 1 965 ) , passim. ----- - , Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, N ew American L i b rary, ( N ew York, 1 964 ) . No. 4 2 1 7. M a x Sti mer, The Ego A n d Its Own, Li bertarian Book C l u b , ( New York, 1 963 ) , p. 5, i n "Al l T h i ngs A re N ot h i n g To M e . "

N o . 46 1 8 . - Karl M a rx and Frederic k Engels, Writings On The Paris Commune (fro m t h e first draft, by Marx , of The Civil War I n France) , Hal D raper, editor, p p . 1 50-1 54. see also: Karl Marx, The Civil War In France: The Paris Commune, I nternation a l P u b l ishers ( New York, 1 968 ) , pp. 54-6 1 , espec ially p . 58 . See: G u y Debord , Society Of The Spectacle, Black and Red , ( Detroit, 1 970) , thesis No. 1 79 i n Chapter VII "The O rgan izat i o n of Territory." or: Situationist International No. 1, Review of the American Secti o n , J u ne, 1 969, p. 27. also: Raou l Va neigem , Notice To The Civilized Concerning Generalized SelfManagement. 1 9. - from Eugene Schu l ki n d , The Paris Commune of 1871: The View From The Left, J onathan Cape, (London, 1 972) , p. 1 64. [The docu mentation contai ned in t h i s b o o k o f the socialist tendencies wit h i n the Com m u ne, and the infl uence therein o f t h e F i rst I nternat i o n a l , a r e , i n g e n e ra l , asto u n d i n g relative to w h a t h a s been ava i lable before and q u ite t h ri l l i ng . ] 20. Karl Marx, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, op. cit. , p. 5 9 2 . V o l . I . 2 1 . see Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1 844 , I nte rnational Publ ishers, ( N ew York, 1 964) , passim . i n the chapter " Estra nged Labou r" see also Pre-Capitalist Economic Formulations, op. cit., pp. 85-99 where this concept i s developed considerably. 22. Karl Marx: see citati on No. 40; see thesis N o . 78. 23. FOR O U R S ELVES, Preamble To The Founding Ag reements ( see appendix) . 24. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, ( P rog ress P u b l ishers, Moscow or I n ternat ional P u b l i shers, New York) c losi ng l i n e of Part O ne. I n one edition ( The German Ideology, Part One, with selections from Parts Two and Three and Supplementary Texts, New World Paperbacks, New York, 1 970) the text i s a rra nged somewhat differently a n d t h e passage appears o n p . 8 5 . 25. K a r l Marx, Grundrlsse i n " Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, " loc . cit. , p . 9 6 . No. 48 26. K a r l Marx, "Grundrisse" i n " Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations," loc. cit., p . 96. No. 49 27. I n the words of Frederick Engels: " Look at the Pa ris Co m m u n e . T h at was the Di ctatorsh i p of the Proletariat!" ( Karl M a rx , T h e C i v i l War i n France: The Paris Commune, op. cit. , p. 22 , closing l i ne of the Introduction by Frederic k E n gels. ) 28. Karl Marx, The Civil War In France, op. cit., p. 6 1 . 29. Karl Marx, Capital, A Critique Of Political Economy, vol . I , op. cit. ,

p.

763 .

No. 53 30. Karl Marx a n d F rederick Engels, The German Ideology, op. cit. , p. 272 . N o . 54 3 1 . Karl Marx, " Economic and P h i l isophical Man uscri pts" , in T . B . B otto m o re, op. cit. , p. 1 52 (in " Private P roperty And Com m u n ism" ) . 3 2 . Situation ist I nternational , O n The Poverty Of Student L ife, op. cit. ,

p.

1.

N o . 63 33. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, in Lewis

Feuer, Marx & Engels, Basic Writings On Politics And Philosophy, D o u b leday, ( N ew York, 1 959) , p. 29 . N o . 64 34. Rao u l Vaneigem , Traite• de Sa voir- Vivre a /'Usage des Jeunes Generations, Galli mard, ( Paris, 1 96 7 ) , p. 200 . [translation o u rs.] N o . 66 ::SS. Karl M a rx , " Economic and P h i l osoph ical Manusc ri pts," i n T.B. Botto more, op.

.;it. , pp. 1 64 , 1 65 . etc. (see a lso theses 69 and 88) . N o . 69 36. Karl M a rx , " Econom i c and P h i l osop h i ca l Man uscri pts," in T . B . Botto more, foe. cit. , pp. 1 64-1 65, ( Man uscri pt I l l ; " Private Property and Com m u n i s m " ) . No. 70 37. Karl Marx, " M oney and Alienated M a n , " i n Easton a n d G u ddat, op. cit. , p . 272. No. 74 1 38. Raou l Vaneigem , Traite de Savoir- Vivre a /'Usage des Jeunes G enera tions, op. cit. , Chapter 23: "The U n itary Triad: Real ization - Com m u n i cation - Partici pa­ t i o n ; " Section 3 - "Rad i cal S u bjectivity," pp. 255-258, and passim.

N o . 77 39. Karl Marx, " Grundrisse: Foundations of the C riti q u e of Pol itical Economy ( R c ugh D raft) " , translated by Marti n N icolaus, Pen g u i n , ( Lo n d o n , 1 973) , passim. N o . 78 40. Karl M a rx , Contri b u t i o n to t h e C ritisq u e of H e g e l 's P h i losophy of R i g ht. I ntrod uct i o n . Quoted i n King Mob Echo n u m be r one, Lond o n , Apri l 1 968, (cover q u otat i o n ) . ( I n some cases t h i s has been translated as a s l i g htly weaker "I am noth i n g , a n d I should be everyt h i n g . " ] No. 80 4 1 . K a r l M a r x , The Grundrisse, translated and ed ited b y David M c l e l l a n , Harper & Row, (San Franc isco, 1 97 1 ) , pp. 1 48-1 49 . cf. Karl M a rx , G rundrisse, translated by Mart i n N icolaus, op. cit. , pp. 7 1 1 -7 1 2 . N icolaus. i n true Maoist a rev-l ife fash i o n , translates the German " Gen uss" and " G e n u s s e s , " w h i c h M c l e l l a n t r a n s l ates as " p l ea s u re" and " e n j oy m e n t , " as "consu mptio n . " He has i ndeed prod uced , as best as can be, the s ta te-capitalist translation of the Grund risse, as is evide nced also in his renderi ng of "ager p u b l icus" ("co m m o n land," cf. Hobsbawm & Cohen; Karl Marx, "Pre-Capitalist Eco n o m i c Formations," op. cit., p. 67) i nto "State property" (see p. 471 , footnote 620 ) . No. 81 4 2 . Situat i o n i st I nternational, O n The Poverty Of Student Life, op. cit., p. 2 4 , (see thesis No. 1 5 for f u l l q u ote) . N o . 84 43. Karl Marx, " Economic and P h i loso p h i cal Man uscri pts , " i n T . B . Bottomore, foe. cit., p. 1 67 . No. 88 4 4 . Ibid., p. 1 54 . No. 92 4 5 . Sig m u n d F re u d , Civilization and its Discontents, H ogarth Press, ( Lo n d o n , 1 94 9 ) ,

pp. 79-80. N o . 98 46. Raoul Vane igem , Trait{ de Sa voir- Vivre a /'Usage des Jeunes Genera tions, op. cit . .

N o . 99 47. Ibid., C hapter 21 , "Master Without S l aves. "

48. (see citation 1 9 ) . N o . 1 04 49. Ludwi g Fauerba c h , The Essence Of Christianity, translated by Geo rge E l i ot, Harpe r & Row, ( New York, 1 957) , passim ( see for e xa m p le p. 73 ) . 50. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 , op. cit., Chapter 1 , Section 4, "The Fet i s h ism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof," pp. 7 1 -83. 5 1 . F . S . Pe rls, Ego, Hunger, a nd Agression : The Beg i n n i ng of Gestalt Therapy, Random H ouse, (New York, 1 969) , pass i m , and especially Chapter V I I , " F i rst Person Singular," pp. 21 6-21 9. N o . 1 08 5 2 . K a r l M a r x , " C o n t ri b u t i o n to t h e C r i t i q u e of H e g e l ' s P h i l o s o p h y of R i g h t . " I n t rod uct i o n , i n T . B . B o tt o m o re,

op. cit. ,

p.

44 .

No. 1 09 53. Ka rl M a rx, " Contri bution to the C ritiq u e of Hegel's Ph i l osophy of R i g ht." I ntrod uction ( o u r tra nslati on) . cf. i b i d . p . 52 and John Lewis, The Life and Teaching of Karl Ma rx, p. 7 ( f ronti spiece ) , I nternational P u b l i s h ers (New York, 1 965) . No. 1 1 6 54. Raoul Vane i g e m , Treatise On L ving For The Use of the Young Generation, op. cit., p. 41 , i n Chapter 4, "Suffe r i n g . " No. 1 1 9 55. Ka r l M a rx, G rundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Okonomie, p. 1 43 ( M c le l l a n , o p . cit. ) a n d p. 706 ( N icolaus, op. cit. ) . N o . 1 22 56. Situationist I nternational ( R eview of the American Section) No. 1 , op. c it., p. 41 . 5 7 . Frederi c k Engels, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Part I l l . Karl Marx a n d Frederick Engels, Selected Works in Three Volumes, P rog ress P u b l is hers, ( M oscow. 1 97 0 ) . pp. 1 44-1 45. [The sa m e statement a p pea rs a l m ost verbati m in Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring, Herr Duhring's Revolution in Science ( N ew World Paperbacks, New York) , pp. 303-304. ] 58. Ibid. , p p . 34-35 .

I I . N OTES thesis No. 3

t

By "transpa rent" relations we mean relations beyond duplicity; re lations i n wh ich t h e essen tial is also visible, i . e . , i n w h i c h the essence appears . "Trans-

parency" is when you can see from the s u rface of social phenomena t h rough i nto thei r core; when thei r truth is apparent on the surface. On the contrary, the social relations of capital ist soci ety are opaque; shot th ro u g h with a contradiction between appearance and essence; t h i n gs are, more ofte n t h a n not t h e exact opposite of what they appear to be. For example, in capita l , the apparent social i m pe rative of the p rod u c t i o n of maximal use-value - "we're h e re t o serve you ; " "to p ro d u c e a q u a l i t y p r o d u c t , " e t c . - c o n c e a l s t h e i r u l te rior m ot i ve o f t h e prod uction o f maximal exchange- value ( profit) , a n d t h i s h idden, essential i m perative reveals itself only where the two i m pe ratives come i nto conflict, in which case the use-value is sac rificed to exchange-va l u e ( p l a n n ed obsolescence, p rod uction of wo rth less prod ucts, fad p roducts, destructi on of crops a n d other p rod ucts to keep prices up, and i n general , the tendency of a l l prod ucts produced as commodity-capital to deteriorate in q ua l i ty over time; the "tendency of use-val u e t o fa l l . " M a rx envisioned the emergence o f transparency i n social re lations a s a n aspect of t h e emergence o f com m u n ist society, i n t h e followi n g words: " Let u s now pictu re to o u rse l ves, by way of change, a com m u n ity of free i n d i v i d u a l s , c a r ry i n g o n t h e i r w o r k with the means of p roduction i n common, i n w h i c h t h e labou r-powe r o f a l l the d i fferent i n d ividuals is consciously applied as the co m b i ned labou r-power of the com m u n ity . . . . The social relations of the i n d i vi d u a l producers, with regard both to their labour a n d to its p rod ucts, are in this case perfectly s i m ple and i ntel l i g i ble, a n d that with regard n ot o n l y to p rod uction but a lso to d istri bution . . . . [ m ystification] ca n , i n any case, o n l y then f i n a l ly va n ish , when the practical relations of every-day l ife offer to m a n n o n e but perfectly i nte l l i g i ble a n d reasonable relations with regard to h is fel l owmen a n d to Natu re . . . - ( Ka rl Marx, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, book I , I nternati onal P u b l i s h e rs, ( New York, 1 967) , pp. 78-79, i n Chapter 1 , Section 4 : "The Feti s h i sm of Commodities a n d the Sec ret Thereof" ) . "

tt Character: An i n d i vidual's typical struct u re, h i s stereotype m a n ner o f acti ng and reacti n g . The o rgonomic concept of c h a racter is functional a n d b i ologica l , and not a stat ic, psycho log ical o r mora l i stic concept. Character A rmour: The sum tota l of typical character attitudes, which a n i n d ividual develops as a b l oc k i n g agai nst h i s emotional excitati ons, res u l t i n g in rig idity of the body, lack of emotional contact, " d ead n ess." F u nctionally identical with the m usc u l a r a rm o r. - (Wi l h e l m Reich , The Function of the Orgasm, Meridian ( N ew York, 1 97 1 ) , Glossary, p p . 359-360. ) General ly, c h a racter a rmor may b e viewed a s frozen modes o f otherwise normal behavi o u r - the poi nt is the i n a b i l ity of a n i ndividual to c h oose o r to change certa i n as pects o f h i s behavior. M etaphorically, it is t h e u nseen s h i e l d that b l ocks express i o n a n d perception of a person's "core , " their s u bjectivity, keep i n g it from t h e s u rface a n d usually from c o n sc i o u s n ess. I t i s the ina u thentic self - the fictitious o r non-self - that conceals and harbors the real self. The i nv o l u n t a ry modes of b e h av i o r t h at c h a racterize a r m o r a re g e n e ra l l y " l e a r n e d " d u ri n g c h i l d hood as a " rat i o n a l " res ponse to a n i rrat i o n a l , o p p ressive wo rld. T h u s , armor is essentia l l y not a thing located i n each i n d i vi d u a l , but a social relation, a layer of callous, deadened to the self and other, b u i l t up in the wear and tear of (anti-)social i nteracti ons; i n the agony and consta nt danQer of a l i e n ated associat i o n . T h i s is demonst rated i n t h e followi n g o bservati o n : change a person's s oc i a l r e l a t i o n s and h i s a r m o r i n g , h i s c h a racter-adj u s t m e n t , w i l l also beg i n to

change, to re-adapt, to become congruent aga i n with h i s soc i a l life, h i s new relationsh i ps. Thus, it is erroneous to l ocate armor simply in the i ndividual taken separately, although it is true that his social relations, his way of relating and s u rviving social ly, may be " reflected" - mapped onto his body - i n the form of muscular armoring; of a pattern of c h ro n i c contraction i n the various muscular seg ments. Character-armo r is th us ( 1 ) the personal aspect of the spectacle . It i s the personal organization of false appearances; self-representati o n ; the self-spectacle. It is the self-image one seeks to project to others; the "front" one p uts u p ; the role one plays; the "reputation " one acc u m u lates. The projected , s u rface motives belong i ng to characte r are at the same t i m e a s u rface denial and rep ression of ce rta i n forb i d d e n , i m perm issi ble motives, w h i c h pers ist beneath the surface of characte r as ulterior motives, conscious or not. In thei r more conscious part, t hese ulterior m otives express themselves as character in the form of l y i n g , cheat i n g , t r i c k e ry, t h e c o n , hypoc risy, e t c . - a l l t h e fam i l i a r bac ksta g e o f the s pectacle of "good characte r." Character is the very locus of i nterpe rsonal duplicity precisely the "duplication " of the self ( cf. Karl Marx , "Theses on Fau e rbach," thesis IV, in The German Ideology, Prog ress P u b l ishers ( M oscow, 1 968 ) , p. 666 , see also Marx' remark i n h i s P reface to A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy: " J ust as o u r o p i n i o n of an i nd iv i d u a l is not based on what he t h i n k s of h i mself, so we can not j udge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness." i n Lewis Feuer, op. cit. , p . 44) . Character-armor is also (2) the personal aspect of capital. In the p roletarian , characte r is the l oc u s of h i s " nature" as a commodity, h i s use-val ue to capital as an obed ient pse udo-object , and hence h i s exchange-va l u e - h i s ex ploita b i l ity - as "labou r-power;" as a worker. C hara cter-armo r is the encrustation s u rro u n d i n g h i s se lf; a s h i e l d s h i e l d i n g both the world and h i s pseudo-se lf f r o m h i s own pote ntial subjectivity. I t is built up through long years of social labour-t i m e bestowed u pon him by other i n d i v i d u a l s - h i s pa rents, priests, school teachers, pol iceman, and authorities of every sort, i nc l u d i ng h i s own peer g roup - and is p a rt of the l a bour­ time soc i a l l y necessa ry to prod uce a usable proletarian wretch fro m the ava i lable h u man raw-material, hence is i n c l uded i n the (exchange-) value of lab o u r-power. It is the "va l u e-added" to the i nd ividual as he "matu res" by the labo u r of t h ese social authorities, the i m med iate and (semi-consious) agents of class society, who must see the rep rod uction of i n d ividuals characterologically cong ruent with capitalist social relations; with capita l . The prod uction-process o f character must t h u s be comprehen ded with i n the critique of political economy, as an aspect of the reprod uction-process of capita l , of capita l i st society, as a whole. T h i s process, the prod uction p rocess of p roletarians, a special form of commodity prod uction carried out i n spec i a l factories known as "schools," "ch u rches," "prisons," "fa m i l ies," etc . , is usually referred to, in genera l , a s "chi ld-rea r i n g , " "educatio n , " or "social izatio n . " It consists i n ( a ) t h e dest r u c t i o n o f subjectivity i n i t s d i rect for m , a n d ( b ) the development o f a n a rrow f o r m o f su bjecti vity, i n an i n d i rect ( perverted ) fo r m , medi ated b y authoritarian perm i s s io n . It i s t h e tota l ity o f t h e p rocesses o f "adaptati o n " necessary t o m a ke t h e p roletarian "fit" to e n d u re the " l ife" of a worker. When the process m i scarries, as it often does these days, the prod uct is sa id to be " u n e m p l oyable" - useless to capital . In the "fi n ished" prod uct, the adult, character-armor is the reposito ry, the objectification of t h i s process, the location of a l l the stored p rograms, habits, practices, roles, and behav i o r patterns necessa ry to t h e proletarian s u rv i val k i t - s u b m i ssiveness, slavi s h n ess, s e l f-contem pt, pass i v i ty, o bed i e n ce , i rrespo n s i b i l ity, g u i l t, fear of

freed o m , and so o n . Character-armor is the layer of frozen subjectivity that makes the worker fu nctional as a worker i n capital ist society, i . e . , m a n i p u lable as a pseudo­ object. I t i s w hat makes the worker suitable for authoritarian management. I t is what makes h i m ( p resently) incapa_ble of self-management. The way through the p ro b l e m i s to h ave people n ot armored but "armed" - physically, psychologically and t heoretical l y - to bring what is i nvolu ntary more u nder conscious contro l .

ttt " T o transcend ( a ufheben) h a s t h i s double mean i n g , that it s i g n ifies to keep o r to p reserve and also to make cease, to f i n i s h . To preserve i n c l udes this negative element, that someth i n g is removed from its i m med iacy and therefore from a Determi nate Bei ng exposed to external infl uences, i n o rd e r that it may be preserved. - Th us what is transcended is also p reserved; i t has lost its i m mediacy and is not o n that acco u nt a n n i h i lated. - In the d i ctionary the two determi nations of transcen d i ng may be cited as two mea n i ngs of this word . But it should appear as remarkable that a lang uage should have come to use one and the same word for two opposite determ i nations. I t is a joy for specu lative thought to find words which i n themselves have a specu lative mean i n g . . . " - ( G .W . F. Hegel, Science of Logic, vol ume I , "Objective Log i c , " translated by W . H . J o h n ston and L G . Struthe rs, H u ma n ities P ress, ( N e w York, 1 966) , pp. 1 1 9-1 20; "Transcendance of Beco m i ng . " Observation: the Expression "to transcend" . ) t h e s i s No. 4 t " A l l prev i o u s forms of society foundered on the deve l o p m e n t of wea lth - or, which a m o u nts to the same t h i n g , o n the development of social prod u ctive forces. Therefore ancient p h i l osophers who were aware of t h i s b l u n t l y d e n o u nced wea lth as destructive of c o m m u n i ty . " - ( Karl M arx, Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie. Quoted i n K a r l Marx, The Grundrisse, transl ated and ed ited by D a v i d M c le l l a n , Harper & Row, (San Francisco, 1 97 1 , p. 1 20).

thesis N o . 5 By " Power" with a capital "P," we mean separate power; alienated power, t w h ose m aj o r m o d e r n exa m p l es a re state power and t h at soc i a l power k n o w n as " c a p i ta l " . In state-capital i s m , the h i g h est form of capita l i s m , these two, a l ways i n te rpenetrant essentially, become one visibly. In pre-modern ti mes, in Medieval E u rope, the C h u rc h wou l d be another exam ple of separa te social power. We h ave n o q ua rre l with " power" as s u c h , that is, with self-power - the power of social self-dete r m i nation and self-pro d u c t i o n ; creative, p rod u ctive fac u lties a n d p o w e r o v e r one's o w n l ife. On the con trary; t h i s is the very development a n d e n r i c h ment of i n d ivid ual ity itself. On the contrary; The re-a p p ropriation of ou rselves, the repossession of o u rselves from capita l , the re-own i ng of a l i enated self-powers, i s the essen tial p u rpose of o u r revol u t i o n , the co m m u n ist revol u t i o n ; a n d i s o u r p u rpose i n it. I t s h o u l d be o b v i o u s , then, f r o m w h a t has b e e n said , that Powe r i s the opposite of power. The g reater the Powe r of the State and Capita l , the m ore powe rless, the m o re impotent are we, the proletariat, for that Power is noth i ng other than o u r l ost, o u r alienated power; the labou r-power we sell to capital and the political power we g ive u p to o u r " representatives."

It was n ecessary to say this because of the l eg i ons of mora l istic masochists and wors h i ppers of i mpotence presently traipsing through the spectacle, fo r whom we m i g ht otherwise have been m i staken. T h ese self-castrated passiv-ists believe that, not j ust Power, but power also, corrupts, absolutely, and desperatley "fear to touc h i t , " a l o n g w i t h m o n ey a n d capital, o u t o f d read o f being i nstantly corru pted by it. They have neve r let themselves g rasp that the only way to be safe from this patheti c "corruption" is to be - not beneath it, but beyond it. For an acco u n t , u n s u rpassed i n its b ri l l i a n c e , of the d ialect i c of self-powers and thei r a l ienati o n , see Lorra i ne a n d Fredy Perl m a n ' s book-length d eto u r nement of revo l utionary ideology, Manual For Re volutionary Leaders , " by" " M i c h ael Vel l i " ( Black A n d Red, 2 n d ed . , ( Detroit, 1 974, p p . 1 1 -49. ) (Unfortunately for a l l of u s , the Perlmans decided to truncate thei r theory j u st at the t h reshold of its p ractice, by abstractly negat i n g revolutionary organizat i o n - to the effect that a l l o rgan izatio n i s hierarchical o rgan ization and a l l revolutionary organiztions i s necessai rly L enists o r g a n i z at i o n - a n d so e n d u p e m b rac i n g i m p o t e n c e f o r t h e m s e l v e s a s revo l utionaries . )

thesis N o . 7

t

From here on out, u n less otherwise specifical l y i n d i cated , the use of mas c u l i n e p ron o u n forms i s meant to i n c l ud e t h e fem i n i ne, s i n ce t h i s i s t h e c l osest th i n g t o a u n itary p ro n o u n the E n g l ish l a n g u age conta i ns, for most p u rposes.

tt I m manent c r i t i q u e i s critique w h i c h bases i tself in the same fou n dati o n , l o g i ca l , etc . , which forms the core o r esse nce o f the object of t h e c r i t i q u e ; crit i q ue w h i c h l ocates itself inside i t s object. I t t h u s l ocates the internal contrad ictions o f i t s o bject - the self-co ntrad ictions - beco m i n g a critiq ue w h i c h i s essentia l to the obj ect of critique itself. T h u s i m manent critique i s a n i n t i mate, i nternal c r i tiq u e , i n fact, a se/f­ critique of the object, a c ritique based on the i nte rnal stan d a rd s of the o bject of the critique itself, a n d n ot a n external o r a l i e n c r i t i q u e a j u d gement from a stan d po i n t o u t s i d e t h a t w h i c h i s j udged. =

thesis N o . 8

t By "tota l a p p ropriation" we mea n , i n genera l , all-sided a p p ropriation - that i s , soc i a l re lations n o t rest ricted to a spec i a l ized a n d compartmenta l i zed i n terc hange of " t h i ngs" o r of parts of people as " t h i n g s " ( m oney, com mod i t ies, i mages, etc. ) as i n the p resent organ izat ion of soc i a l i nteract ion accord ing to roles, w h i c h enforces a strict sepa rati o n o f the vari o u s aspects a n d i n te rests o f l i fe. " Tota l a ppropriation" i s , a m o n g other t h i n g s , where yo u a re no longer confi ned to "ta l k i n g s h o p " even i n the shop . By "tota l " appropriation of a n o t h e r pe rson w e mea n , i n part i c u l a r , a n a ppropriat i o n of them w h i c h i nc l u d ed i n itself their appropria tion o f y o u ; i.e. i t c a n occ u r o n l y when it i s rec i p rocal , when eac h person i s b o t h appropriator a n d appropri ated. T h i s i s u n l i ke e i t h e r the c a s e o f the a p p ro p riation o f a n object, w h i c h can't " a p p ropriate bac k , " or the partial a p p ropriation (exploitation) of a subject; the a ppropriation of a s u bject as if a n object, excluding, d isrega rd i n g his or h e r d e s i res, needs, expectations, a n d reciprocal appropria tion of the a p p ropriator. T hat is, we wo u l d mean that you a p p ropriate t h e i r a p p ro priat ion of you as itself a necessary part of t h e m ; i n c l ude i n the "them" that you "total ly" appropriate th e i r d e s i res,

needs, att i t u d es, and expectati o n s w i t h regard to you i n some way; appropriate their s u bjectiv ity as the essential part of them; relate to it. "Total aP.propriation " is thus the encou nter by a su bject of another s u bject as a subject. It w o u l d i n vo l ve the a ppropriati o n of the other person ' s response to y o u , i n c l u d i n g of the i r respo nse to your responses to them. T rue i nfi n ity. T otal appropriation exi sts when you can (actual l y and d i rectly - not j ust vicario u sly) a p p rop riate someone else's j o y as your own.

One m i g ht very wel l say that there i s p lenty about contemporary "subjects" that one not only doesn't want to appropriate "totally," but i n fact doesn't want any part of. And to t h i s we could only agree, with however the additional commentary that ( 1 ) most of what we don't want any part of is non-self, non-subjectivity (frozen subjectivity; armor) to beg i n with, a n d : (2) this negated subjectivity has to be dealt

with in one way or another anyway: no matter what, i t has to be faced , eve n i n present-day society - perhaps 90% o f the fuck- u ps i n p resent-day capita l i st busi ness-practice are due to such c haracterolog ical " personal ity factors. " And i n t h e context o f associated production, where sustai ned assoc i ation is an egoistic

necessity, the pro b l e m becomes a q u esti o n of what i s the best way of confronting these "factors, " from a n expanded-eg o i stic p o i n t of view. T h e re i s n o d oubt that

" total appropriation" wi l l be, among other t h i n g s , a conflictual process, a figh t. Di rect " a p p ro p riati on" - i . e . , h e re-and-now contestati o n - of s u c h " person a l i ty k i n ks" as they come up i n the soc i a l ( re ) p ro d u ctive process, rath e r than i n t h e i r avoidance or pol ite tolerati o n - w h i c h bespeaks a n attitude of res i g natio n to the person tolerated as a stati c b e i n g i n capable of f u rther self-deve l o p ment, a n d to the person tolerating as i m potent to p rovoke change - ca n , where a p p ro p riate, render d a i l y soc i a l i nteraction itself an accel e rated " psychotherapeutic" g rowth process. Expa nded eg o i s m , that is, total a p p ro p riati o n , i s a process. O n ly as expl oitation in soc ial re lati ons l i ves out its use-va l u e wi l l we beg i n to deve l o p expanded egoism concrete l y . At the beg i n n i ng s of co m m u n i st society, rad ical s u bjectivity wi l l not m i ra c u l o u s l y m a n i fest itself in everyo n e , at the same t i m e , to the same degree of i ntensity o r sustai ned ness. The deve l opment wi l l be a n i rreg u l a r process. To abstractl y affi rm an i d y l l i c , nonconflictual i mage of total a p p ro p ri at i o n of another when i n fact the other rema i n s to vary i n g deg rees a frozen subject is to mora l l y p roject a n d i d eal ize tota l appropriat i o n . Total appro p riation i s a soc i a l - h i storical p rocess w h i c h g rows o u t o f peo ple's c o l l ective transformation of the world a n d themse l ves. The fact t hat we fee l a need for such tra n s parency shows that the p rocess has a l ready beg u n . B u t al ready t h i s p rocess has come i nto c o n f l i c t with the objecti ve c o n d i t i o n s ( i .e. the p resent soc ial relati ons) . U lti mately, only in revo l u t i o n can we succeed i n rid d i n g o u rsel ves of a l l t h e m u c k o f ages a n d become fitted to fo u n d soci ety a new.

thesis No. 9

t By "egoism" we mean somet h i n g w h i c h , in its ful l development, is quite d i fferent from , i n fact , " i nfi n itely" d i fferen t from or opposite to "egot ism . " E g o t i s m is personal p ractice i n favor of one's self-spectacle, one's s oc i a l image, one·s persona. I t i s precisely, therefo re , acti v i ty i n the i nterest of one's n o n -self, t r u l y self­ less act ivity. Whereas, by egoism we mean, on the contrary, personal activity in the i n te rest of one's authentic self, to the extent o n e recog n izes a n d k n o ws this self at any g i ve n time, h owever narrowly o r expandedly. Egot i s m i s s pectac u l a r , other­ centered ( a l ienated ) , the vicarious l i v i n g of your o wn l ife; egoism is autonomous,

fou n d ed on self-cen t rati o n and on conc rete, soci a l self-knowledge. Egotis m is t h us one of the lowest forms of egoi s m . It is, l i ke moral i sm. egoism by means of a p rojection, and turns into its opposite.

t t The term " detournement", e m p l oyed espec ial l y as a tech n i cal term by situat i o n ists , ha s been defi n ed a s the revolutionary p ractice " b y w h ich the spectacle is turned back on itself, turned inside out so that it reveal s i ts own i n ner work i n g s . " ( L oa ded Words: A Rebel's G u i d e To S ituat i onese, New Morning, February, 1 973, New Morn ing Collective, Berkeley, Cal i forn ia, p. 1 4. ) This mode of p ractice is not conf i n ed m ere ly to t h e t u r n i n g -aga i nst-them selves of the words, the l a n g u age, of s pectacu l a r ideology. The tec h n i q ue has also been a p p l ied to t he m o m e n tary sei z u re of the spectac u lar i mages of vari ous d o m i nant i d eolog ies and i n stitutions for the p urpose of broadcasting thro u g h said i m ages a revo l u t i onary c r i t i q u e . Such " mome ntary ex p ropriation " of the means of comm u n i ­ cation h a s been u s e d , f o r exam ple, i n cases w here fraudulen t m e m o rand u ms attributed to pro m i nent b u reau c rats, posters a n n o u nc i n g events or o p i n i o n s i n the name of d o m i n ant spectac u l a r o rg a n i zat i o n s , p ress rel eases o r othe r works attributed to govern ment officials or other spectacu lar ( i maged) personages, issues of newspapers o r o t h e r pe r i o d i c a l s , advert i s i n g m ate r i a l s , etc . , have been d i ssem i nated and the res u lting scandal o r confusion of den ials u sed as a lever to gain p u blicity for revolutionary theory.

ttt Word s - written and spoken - a re, in the beg i n n i ng, the o n l y means of production wh i c h we, as proletari a ns, possess: the ve ry means of p rod uction of revo l u t i onary consciousness i tself. thesis No. 1 O

t

"State-capitalism " is a term used to descri b e the form ( stage) of capita l ist society w h i c h is cha racterized in d ifferent ways and to different deg rees by state manageme n t of the economy, wh i l e def i n it i vely capital i st re lati ons ( sepa rati o n of the prod ucers from the accu m u lated means of p roduction, wage-labour, etc.) are l eft i n tact. H i sto r ical l y , state-capita l i s m h as taken widely varied fo rms, ran g i n g from relati vely m i nor reg u l ation of the p r i vate i nstit utio n s to total national ization of basic i n d ust ries i nto a state-monopol ized national Capita l . Its forms va ry from rig ht-wi ng (fascist) to left-wi n g (Len i n i st/Sta l i n ist) a n d other forms " i n betwee n" (Soc ial Democ rati c , Nasserist, a n d " African Soc i a l i st" i n Qenera l , Peruvian m i l itari st­ "com m u nal ist," etc . ) " I n any case. . . the official rep resentative of capital ist soci ety - the state - w i l l u l t i mately h ave to u n de rtake t h e d i rect i o n of p ro d ucti on . . . But the transfo rmation . . . i nto state owners h i p d oes n ot d o away with the cap ita l i stic nature of the p rod uctive forces . . . . The modern state, a ga i n , is only the o rganizati on that bourgeois society takes on in ord e r to s u pport the exte rnal conditi ons of the ca p ital i st mode of prod uct ion against the enc roac h ments of the i ndivi d ual capita l i st as of the workers. Th e modern state, no matter what its fo rm, is essen t i a l l y a cap ita l i s t m a c h i n e , the state of the capita l i sts, the ideal perso n if icat i o n of t h e total national capita l . The more i t proceeds t o the tak i n g over of prod uctive fo rces , the more d oes it actua l l y become the national capita l ist; the more c itizens does i t ex p l o it. The workers remai n wage-wo rkers - proletari ans. The capital ist rel ati on is n ot d one away with . I t is rather b rought to a h ead ."57

tt " . . . the global decom pos i t i o n of the b u reaucratic a l l ia nce [world Stal i n is m ] is

i n the last a n a l ysis the least favorable factor for the present deve l o p ment of capita l i st society. The b o u rgeoisie is i n the p rocess of l os i n g the a d versary w h ich objecti vely supported it by p rov i d i n g a n i l l usory u n ification of all n egat i o n of the exist i n g o rder." - ( G u y Debord , The Society of the Spectacle, Black a n d Red, ( Detroit, 1 973) , thesis 1 1 1 . ) - cf. Sey m o u r M e l m a n , Pen tagon Capitalism: The Political Eco nomy Of War, M c G raw- H i l l , (San Fa n c i sco, 1 97 1 ), Chapter 9 , " 1 984 By 1 974? Or, Can The State-Management Be Stopped ? " , p . 21 5 : " U n t i l now, the m ost d u ra b l e sou rce of s u p port for sustai n i n g and e n l a rg i n g the operati o n of the state-management has been the pattern of antag o n istic cooperation between the U . S . state­ management and its Soviet c o u n te r-part . "

ttt Wo rkers' c o u n c i l s have emerged h i stori c a l l y as a revo l u t i onary force beg i n­

n i n g with the Paris Com m une of 1 87 1 , where they took the form of a co m m u n ity cou n c i l without work-place cou nc i l s ( g i ven the u n developed state of the facto ry system i n the Paris of that t i me) ; i n R u ssia i n 1 905 and agai n i n 1 9 1 7 i n the form of city-wide (and later nationwide) Soviets and factory com m ittees; in Germany d u ri n g 1 91 8- 1 9 1 9 as the classical "Sold iers' and Workers' cou n c i ls;" in Italy in 1 920 (the T u r i n Soviet, etc. ) ; in the K r o nstadt Soviet of 1 92 1 ; in Spa i n d u ring 1 936-7 i n t h e form of t h e Cata l o n i a n workers' c o u n c i l s and peasant cooperati ves; i n H u n g ary in 1 956, wh ere for the fi rst t i m e s i n ce K ro nstadt workers ' cou n c i l s appeared as the organs of revo l utiona ry strug g l e agai nst a state-capita l i st b u reaucracy i nstead of a b o u rgeoisie; i n Algeria in 1 963; a n d m ost rece ntly i n C h i l e ( 1 9 70-73 ) in e m b ryonic forms s u c h as the commandos communales (com m u n ity p roto-cou nc i l s ) and the cordones industriales ( m u l ti-workplace p roto-co u n c i l s ) , w h i c h we re, however, sti l l l a rgely d o m i nated b y vari ous b u rea u c racies.

thesis No. 1 1

t The root def i n ition of " resonance" c o m i n g from Physics, from the mechanics of osc i l lators , is revea l i n g here. For exam ple: " (a ) a n abnorma l l y large response of a syste m havi n g a nat u ral freq ue ncy, to a period ic external sti m u l u s of the sa me, or nearly the same, freq uency. ( b ) the i n c rease in i n tensity of sound by sympathetic vi brat i o n of other bod ies." ( C . L . Barn h a rt & J e s s Ste i n , The A merican College Dictionary, Random House, ( N ew York, 1 964) , p. 1 033, " resonance, n . " ) . That i s , mechanical reso nance occu rs w h e n t h e natural freq uency of osci l latio n the " i m manent," "essential , " or internal freq uency - of the resonat i n g object is identical to the freq uency of externally "forced" osc i l lati o n , i.e., to the external freq uency. Social resonance occu rs as inter-recognition; when social i n d i vid uals reco g n ize themselves in ea ch other, the other in themselves, and themselves in the world they p rod uce; when they recog n ize thei r concrete universality. I t occ u rs when what "society" needs of them is also what they need of themselves: thei r own production; thei r own development; t h e i r own self-realiza tion ; when what " society" needs of them i s not i m posed as an external, a l i e n force, coerc i vely b y the state or u nconsc iously, as the " law of va l ue , " by capita l , but as t h e i r own, i ntern a l l y generated self-force, wel l i ng-up spontaneously with i n them. F ro m each accord i n g t o his des i re, t o eac h acco rd i n g to h i s des i re . T h i s i s poss i b l e susta inedly on ly o nce the necessary social conditions for s u c h a recog n i t i o n and such a need h ave been

produced historically, i . e . , o n l y once certa i n re lations of h u manity to itse l f , name l y , interproduction g rasped early i n an a l i e nated form as the "eternal truths" of rel i g ions, have b e c o m e fact, that is, beco me h istori ca lly ma terialized. -

thesis No. 1 7 t Note that this "typical ity" app l i es to both capital ist and proletarian i n d ivid uals -:- spans the class d i vide. "The ideas of the rul ing class are i n every epoch the ruling id eas: i .e., the c l ass w h i c h is the ru l i ng material force of society, is at the same t i me its ru l i ng intellectual force. The class which h a s the means of material prod uction at its d i s posa l , has control at the sam e time over the means of mental p rod u ctio n , so t h at th ereby, genera l l y speak i n g , the i deas of th ose who lack the means of mental p rod uction are s u bj ect to it. The ru l i n g i d eas a re n oth i n g more than the i d eal ex pression of t h e dominant materia l re lationships, the dom i na n t materia l relation­ s h i ps g rasped a s ideas; hence of the re latio nsh i ps w h ich make the one c lass the r u l i ng one, hence t h e ideas of its dom i nance." - ( Ka r l M a rx an d Frederic k E n g e l s , The G erman I d eology , P rog ress P u b l i s hers, ( Moscow, 1 96 8 ) , p. 61 . )

thesis N o . 2 3

t T h e passage may appear t o b e con f u s i n g here a n d throughout, perhaps i n part

because t h e tra nslators d id n ot c o m p rehend the dialecti c a l co ncepts bei ng u sed nor the f u l l rad ica l i ty of what was being asse rted , wh ich, to t h e K a ntian or " Fl atl and" mind i s i m possi ble or absurd . For i nsta nce, "soc i a l be i ng" = "the bei n g of society" ; " t he existence of society" ; " soci a l existence" - and not j ust "a " social b e i n g . Marx is assert i n g h e re that the social i nd iv i d u a l is the essence of soc iety; the s ubstance and "na ture " of soc iety - the p l a ce where the c ha racter of soc iety, the social cha racter , becomes visible, man i fest.

.thesis No. 25

t

Capitlaistic l i berty is the offic i a l sanct i o n for each to e n hance and g a r n i s h his own separate m i sery in private, with the blessing of la w. Capita l i stic l i be rty i s the right to put ri bbons on shit.

tt T h e concept of freedom used h e re by M a rx i s obviously the non-li near,

s u peraddit i ve concept as opposed to the l i near, atomi stic one c entra l to b o urgeois society.

thesis No. 37

t

The te rm " s u blation" i s someti mes u sed as the tec h nical En g l ish eq u i valent for the German "aufhe b u n g " as developed by Hegel (see the t h i rd note to t hesis No. 3).

tt

Revol utiona ry theory a n d revol utiona ry ideology are not o n l y d i fferent, but opposed . 'Re vo l utionary theory' names t h e theory of the p rod uction of social revolution; of the practices necessary to this production - the coherent system of

ideas of how to create com m u n ist society. 'Revolutionary ideology' names the representation of this revol utionary theory by state-capital ist b u reaucracy; the transformat i o n of revolutionary theory i nto a spectacle t h ro u g h which the last stand of capita l , as state-capital, momentarily strengthens its position by masq u erad i n g a s the very negation o f capita l , i.e. as com m u n ist society. T h e d isti nction h a s never been more aptly put than in these words of Guy Debord : "Revol utionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology and knows it." - ( G u y Debord, Society of the Spectacle, Black and Red, ( Detroit, 1 970) , l ast thesis in Chapter IV, "The Proletariat As S u bject And As Representation.")

ttt The s l ogan " smash self!" was i ntrod uced d u ri n g the period of the so-ca l l ed

" Cu lt u ral Revolution" i n C h i na. See for i n stance the pamph let w h i c h was compi led out of "exe m p l a ry stories" which appeared i n the official p ress aro u n d the time of that spectacu l a r ruckus, entitled (appropriately) " Fear Neither Hards h i p Nor Death in Serv i n g the People" (Fore i g n Lang uages Press, Pek i n g , 1 970) , w h ich pamp h let d i scusses "the p r i n c i p l e of wholly and entirely serv i n g the peop l e and utter devotion to others without any thought of self. " (p. 55. )

thesis N o . 4 6

t T h e term "a nti-state" was e m p l oyed by t h e situati on ists t o des i g n ate the

organ ization of socia l self-management, the powe r of the workers' councils w h i c h , altho u g h i t would b e a n administration of society, wou l d n o t be a "state, " b u t , on the contra ry , host i l e to every form of "state." A wel l - k n ow n authority on Marx' views descri bed the anti-state character of the Paris Com m u ne t h u sl y: " T h i s was, therefore, a revol ution not aga i n st t h i s or that, legiti mate, constitutiona l , repu b l ican , or I m peria l i st form of State Power. I t was a Revo l ution agai nst the State itself, of this s u pernat u ral ist abortion of society, a res u m ption by the people for the peo ple of its own social l ife. It was not a revo lution to transfer it from one fraction of the rul i n g c lass to the other, but a Revo l ution to break down this h orrid machi nery of C lass d o m i nation itself . . . . The Commune - the reabso rption of the State power by soc iety as its own l i v i n g forces i nstead of as forces control l i n g and s u bd u i n g it, by the popular m asses themselves, form i n g thei r own fo rce i nstead of the organ ized force of thei r own s u p ression - the pol itical form of thei r social e m a n c i pati o n , i n stead of the a rtificial fo rce (appropri ated by their o p p ressors) (their own force op posed to and organ ized agai n st them) of society wiel ded for thei r op pressi o n by t h e i r enem ies . The f o r m was s i m p le l i ke a l l g reat th i n g s . . . . It beg i n s t h e emancipa tion of labour - i t s g reat goal - b y d o i n g away with the u n productive and m i sc h ievous wo rk of the state parasites, by cutt i n g away the springs w h i c h sacrifice a n i m mense portion of the national prod uce to the feed i n g o f t h e state m o n ste r on the one side, by d o i n g , on the o t h e r , the real w o r k o f a d m i n i stratio n , l ocal and nati o n a l , for work i n g m a n ' s wages. I t beg i ns, therefore, with a n i m me n se savi n g , with economical reform as well as political transformat i o n . " 1 6

tt

(SEE Citation 2.) Even as early as the Paris Com m u ne of 1 87 1 , at a time and place where the objective social izati on of the means of p roduction had not proceeded very far ( i n terms of large factories, etc . ) , t h i s theory of associated production had beg u n to beco me consciously revolutionary practice. The docu ment q u oted below, a mandate from two labour unions for thei r delegates to

the Com m u ne's C o m m i ssion on Labo u r O rgan ization, p roposes a for m of what wou l d appear to be counci l -cap ital i s m , a n d e m p l oys the term "associate" to desig nate the prod ucers after they have ceased to be p roletarians: "At its meeti ng of April 23rd , 1 871 , i n keepi n g with the Com m u ne's decree of Apri l 1 6t h , t h e Mechan ics U n i o n a n d the Associat ion of M eta l-Workers have desig nated two citizens to the Com m ission on Labou r Org a n ization a n d g i ven t hem the following i nstructions. "Consideri n g : That with the Com m u n e , product of the Revo l u tion of M a rch 1 8th, equal ity m ust n ot be an em pty word; That the valiant stru g g l e to exter m i nate the c leri cal-royal i sts has, as its o bject i ve, our econom ic emanc i pation; That t h is result can only be o bta ined th rough the formation of workers' assoc i ations, w h i ch a l one can transform our position f rom t hat of wage-earne rs to that of a ssociates; "Therefore i nstruct o u r delegates to s u p port the fol lowing objectives: "The abolition of the expl oitation of man by man , last vest ige of slavery; "The o rgan ization of l a b o u r in m utual associati ons with col lect i ve and i n a l ien able capita l . " 1 9

thesis N o . 49

t " T he s pectacle s ubj ugates l i vi n g m e n to i tself to the extent that the eco n o m y has tota l l y su bj u gated them. I t is no m o re than the economy deve l o p i n g for itself. It is the true reflection of the production of thi ngs, and the fa l se o bjectificat i o n of the p rod ucers . " "The s pectacle with i n society correspo nds t o a concrete m a n ufacture of a l ienati o n . Eco n o m i c ex pansion is mai n l y the expansi o n of prec isely this i n d u strial p rod ucti o n . Th at wh ich g rows with the econ o m y movi ng for itself can o n ly b e the a l ienation w h i c h was p recisely at its o ri g i n . " - ( G u y D e bord , Society o f the Spectacle, op. cit. , respectively theses 1 6 and 32.)

tt I t is i m po rtant a bove a l l here to n ote t h at this "di ctato rsh i p of the proletariat" can be nothing oth e r than the i nternational power of the workers' c o u n c i l s itself. I t i s a dictatorship o f the sti l l-proletarian class over t h e rem n ants o f t h e bo u rgeoisie and the b u reaucracy, because it acts coercively aga i n st their effo rts to re­ expropriate social powe r a n d , whenever it (that is, the ge neral ass e m b l ies of the workers) deems n ecessary, by fo rce of arms. But it i s a n an ti-state dictatorship, especi a l l y with regard to the s u p ress ion of the state-cap i talist bu reauc racy, with respect to w h i c h , the supressi o n of the state a n d the s u pression of the class are one in the sam e (it goes without sayi n g that the "su p ress i o n " of a c lass as a class, its destruction as such, does not necessa r i l y e n tai l the " dest ruct i o n " o r " l i q u idat i o n " of the i n d iv i d u a ls who com posed it; i t is the class dete r m i nation w h i c h is to be determi nately n egated here, n ot b i o l og i cal i n d i v i d u a l s , and soc i a l rel a t i o n s can not be n egated without "negati n g " i n d ivid uals) . On the concept of the "anti-state, " see fi rst n ote to thesis 46. In a letter to A ug u st Bebe! ( March 1 8-28, 1 875) Engels ( a s a a e1egau o n 01 " " ' "'"" ' a n d Marx) gave a c ritique of the d raft prog r a m m e of the U n ited Soci al-De mocratic Workers' Party of Germany. H i s severe c riti c i s m , part i c u l a r l y of its m u dd l ed ly statist aspects, is of m u c h s i g n ifi cance not o n l y for this part i c u l a r prog ra m me, but f u rthermore it sheds much l i ght toward a correct i nterpretatioh of v i rtual l y all of his and Marx's works: "The whole tal k about the state s h o u l d be d ropped , especia l l y s i nce the

Com m u n e [the Paris Com m u ne of 1 87 1 ), which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word . The people's state h as been th rown in our faces by the Anarc h i sts to the point of d i sg u st, alth o u g h a l ready M arx's book agai nst P ro u d h on [ The Poverty of Philosophy) and later the Communist Manifesto d i rectly declare that with the i ntrod uction of the social i st order of society the state w i l l d isso l ve of itself and d i sappear. As, therefore, the state is only a transitional i nstitution w h i c h is used in the struggle, in the revo l uti o n , to h o l d down one's adversaries by force, it is p u re nonsense to tal k of a free people's state: so long as the proletariat sti l l uses the state, it does n ot use it i n the interests of freedo m but i n order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes poss i b l e to speak of freedo m the state as such ceases to exist. We wo u l d therefore propose to replace state everywhere by Gemein wesen , a g ood old German word w h i c h can very wel l convey the mean i n g of the French word co m m u ne! 58 T h i s criti q u e is perhaps one of the m ost i m portant statem e nts ever made by Engels or M a rx.

thesis No. 52 t " Fi n a l " for bou rgeois society a n d for h u man pre-h i story; but only the beg i n n i ng for h uman history, for com m u n ist soci ety - that is, socialized humanity.

tt

(see second n ote to thesis N o . 7 . )

thesis No. 57

t Not t h at we p refer t h e psyc h e de l i c c ret i n s a n d n o u veau- B a b b i tts of h i p capita l i s m . ( Berkeley has provided a n i n terest i n g development of these respective forms. Here thei r abstract u n ity has d i g ressed i nto a disgust i n g sym biosis between the "wi n ner" and " loser" forms of the h i p movement's rem nants. Thus we have the rise of the merchants of cou nter-c u l t u re, whose "success" largely feeds off the conti n u i n g degeneracy of the post-psychedelic l u m pens.) thesis No. 60

t

Here even the old " h u m a n nat u re" a rg u ment - i n all cases the l ast recou rse of bou rgeois i deology - i s tu rned against itself and the m i se rable creti ns who wou ld p ropagate it.

thesis No. 61

t

(See the th i rd n ote under t h e s i s N o . 37. ) .

thesis N o . 62

t

This rel ationsh i p m i g ht be clarified in terms of a dialectical symbolic logic, with p , -p, and --p symbolizing states - "states o f affairs, " states of some system, states of the world" - or symbo l i z i n g sentences which represent " statements " ; for m u lae about or formula tions of these states of affai rs. The ti Ida " - ", the negation s i g n , h ere symbol izes some tr::insformation, some determinate negation, of the sentential

l etters, such as p , to which it is appl ied as a p refix (the exact content of this operator t h us has to be specified in eac h case). Thus --p is related, by negation to -p and to p. The dou bly-slashed equals-sig n , #, is h e re employed as the sy mbol for the relation of d ialectical contrad iction . With p represent i ng t h at (soc i a l ) state of affa i rs cha racterized as " narrow egoism," -p rep resenting the state of "altru ism," and --p "com m u n ist egoism," we can formulate t h i s relation as fol lows: (--p # p) & (--p # -p) & (p # - p ) , or s i mply: ( p # --p # -p)

The l atter two conjuncts would be g ranted truth even by formal log i c , but the f i rst bel o n g s exc l u s i vely to d ialectica l log i c . O n l y a vestige, a s hadow of the f i rst conj u n ct holds with i n formal log ic: "A senten ce and its negat i o n a re ca l led contradictories of one another. T h o u g h any sente n ce of the form -o has two eq u ivalent contradictories, o and --o, it has beco me custom ary to speak l o ose l y of the contradictory of a sentence . " - [Be nson Mates, Elementary Logic, Oxfo rd U n iversity P ress, (New Yo rk, 1 972) , Seco n d Edition, p. 1 1 9n . ] T h e above q u otation holds f o r d i alecti cal logic as wel l , except that i n the case of d i a lectical l og i c , o and --o would not be e q u ivalent, but rather w o u l d be also contradictories. We m i g h t clarify t h i s by model i n g dialectical logic as i nvolving not m erely two truth-values, but rather (at l east) th ree related truth-states ( real ly, an indefinite number of negation-related truth-states - see dotted t ragectory in fig u re 1 . ) . We m i g ht depict the relat ions among the se ntence-symbols p, -p, and -- p in te rms of a truth-state-space, as fo l lows , the different states being connected l i n ked semantically a nd/or temporal ly - as extreme points or " mo ments" along a state-space trajectory:

y

(- - - -p) .....

- ... -

-

(- - -p)

''.� f"

z

x p'

figure 1. T ruth-Space for Dialectical Logic

p is an oppos ite of --p because, relative to p, -p h as an extreme val ue of the trajectory coord i n ates in a com ponent d i rection a way from p (in this case the -y d i rection ) . T h i s criter i a of relative extremity g i ves a n immanent standard of "oppositeness." I .e., for exam ple, the poi nt p' is more the opposite of --p than p is,

but i t d oes not occ u r i m manently, that is, on the traj ectory, and so i s not an immanent opposite of --p, but rather o n l y an abstract opposite of it. By this same c riteri o n , -p is an opposite (or contrad ictory) of --p ( i n the +x d i recti on) , as wel l as of p (also in the +x d i recti o n ) , and vice versa. and so on. Thus p, -p, and --p

correspon d , i n an approximate way, to aspects of, respectively, the "thesis," "anti­ thesis," and "synthesis" of vulgar d i alecti cs. So under these defi n i tions the formulae ( 1 ) hold for the depiction of figure 1., and for them it represents a val i d "model" or " i n terpretation . " We can arrive at a formal-logica l version of this model by reduction, s pec it1c a 1 1y,

red uction by one d i mension (the y d i mension) - yield i n g a k i n d of "top view" of figure 1 :

z

,,,,

...

/

- -p

(or) P

,

I I \ \

'

\ '

0 '

'

.... ..

-p

x

I

__ .,,,

"'

/

I

figure 2. Truth-Space for Formal Log i c ( " F l atla n d " ) T h e g reat advantage o f t h e D i a lectical Log i c ( F i g . 1 ) i s seen concretely b y usi ng the i nterpretation: p: (the) " narrow egoi sm" (theory) is true of the wo rld . � p : "altruism" i s true o f the worl d . - - p: "com m u n ist eg oism" is t r u e o f t h e worl d . The m o d e l posits p� - p � --p as t h e cou rse of an evolution relat i n g ( " c o n n ect i n g " ) t h e t h ree states. I t c o u l d be i nterpreted as depict i n g , f o r exam ple, t h e evol u t i o n of t h e social i nd i v i d u a l from a state of n arrow eg o i s m to o n e of a l t r u i s m to expanded ego i s m , o r the evol u t i o n of a soci ety from a state

characterized as (by) " narrow egoism" and "altruism" to one characterized as "commun ist egoism . "

Here i n d eed p and --p, " stacked " one on top of the other, appear to coi ncide,

hence are "equivalent." The d imension i n w h i c h the separation of p from -p occurs is here i n v i s i b l e . The trajectory from p to -p to -p aga i n is here merely a vicious

circle, getti n g nowhere new. It mere l y bespeaks a n endless, i nel u ctab l e Ka ntian oscillation wit h i n the " a nti n omy" of narrow egoism (p) versu s a l t ru i s m (-p ) . Th e y d i me n sion m i g h t b e posi ted here a s t h e te m pora l , h i stori c a l di mens i o n as e i ther the coord i nate for h istorical time i tself or for som e time-like state-va riable (= a state-variable whose m ag n i tude grows m onotonic ally with t i me) . W i t h the elimination of this d i m e ns i o n (abstraction from t i m e , fro m h i story, fro m concrete dura tion) , the depiction suceeds as a mod e l of t he formal log i c of t h ese sente nces ( p, -p, -- p) and t h e i r i n ter- m ut u a l re lations .

thesis N o. 71 t O bjec tification n a m e s the specific q u a l ity of human prod uct i o n i n genera l . Objectification is the making objective, t h e m a k i n g i nto a n external , i m med i ately obse rvable, sensuously man i fest object, of someth i n g that was subjective, i nvisi ble, i nternal to the s u bj ect prod u c i n g the o bjectificati o n . Through his activity, even if this activity is only an i n stantly p e rishable gesture, the su bject i nsc r i bes h i mself in the o bjec t i ve world , makes the part of it upon w h ich he l a b o u rs i nto a reflection of h i mself; materializes h i s th oug ht, h i s i n tensions, his needs, h i s desires, h i s imaginations. T h i s i s the external i zat i o n of t h e i nter n a l : exterio rizat i o n ; exte n sion . This is t h e self-objectification of the subject.

thesis N o . 76 t We use the term "secu lar Ch rist i a n ity" to refer to a l l those non-theolog ical ( "secu larized") ideolog i es wh ich g rew u p out of the long h isto r i cal d ecom position of C h ristian ity, for m i n g i ts sec u l a r con t i nuation, up to and incl u d i n g the C h u rc h of Len i n , and wh i c h a l l of them featu re self-sac rific ial and m o ral-fetish i st syndro mes, coup led w i t h an interpretati o n of h um a n behavio u r in terms of a con cept of sin ( n o matter w h at t h i s concept happens t o b e named i n a part i c u l ar i deolo g i cal vari a n t, o r whether it is recog n ized a s such and n a m e d i n t h a t part i c u l a r v a r i a n t at a//) . I n fact, a part of the i n itial i m petus w h ich led to the form u l at i o n of this t h eory (the theory of com m u n i st egoism) arose from the perso nal contact of seve ral of our fou n d i ng mem bers with the mal-practice of one of the ear l y pro-situ ati o n i st g ro u ps i n B e rkel ey, n a m e d (appropriately) "Contra d icti o n , " who b u s i e d t h emselves preci sely with going around condem n i n g , "excludi ng" ( exco mm u n icat i n g ) , and "breaking with" everyone i n sight in retribution for sins agai nst various situat i o n ist anti-morals; sins such as "being bourgeois," "partici pati n g in spectacular l ife, " etc . The general n a me for the "s i n " concept central to t h i s pa rtic u l a r brand of sec u l a r C h ristian i deo l ogy w a s " separati o n " - havi ng " separation" i n one's dai l y l ife was the g e neral fo rm of re probate behaviou r. That s u c h "separations" m i ght be a source of conscious m i se ry of w h ich an i n d i v i d u al m ight g lad ly rid h i m- o r her-se!f at the ear l i est possi ble opportu n ity, without need of moral ist i c coercio n , see med n ever to occu r to these Pontiffs, evidently because of their s i n g u larly ung reedy i n vestment in sado-masochistic t ransactions. - (cf. Negation , The State and Counter-Revolution: What Is Not To Be Done, ( Berkeley, Cal i forn ia, 1 972) , p. 1 1 ; a l so: Tom Wood h u l l , "Cou n c i l-Com­ m u n i s m , W i l hel m Reich, And The Riddle of Modern History," New Morning, January, 1 973.)

thesis No. 79 t It s h o u l d be no secret by now that the secret of the econo m i c a n c h o rage of the concept of a l ienation i n Marx is i n n o n e other than the exact, j u rid ical-ec o n o m i c mean i n g of t h a t term : to " a l i enate" i s to sell; "al ienat i o n " i s "tra nsfer of p ro perty" ; the very activity of commodity - or " quid pro quo " - exchange itself. T h u s the theoret ical c o m prehension of the a l i e n at i o n of man i n capital ist soc iety is g ro u nded i n the self-a l i enation of the worker; the fact that the p roletarian m ust sell himself to capital for a wage, and thereby forfeit a l l contro l ove r his p roduct ive, c reati ve l ife, and over the objective wo rld which he produces i n the exercise of that l ife - the fact of the proletarian's self-d i s possess i o n . T h e fact of h i s dispossession o f t h e means o f ( re)production o f h i s l ife u n d e r c a p i ta l i s m is t h u s o n l y a c o ro l l ary of h i s n on-owners h i p o f himself in produ ctio n . B o u rgeois p o l itical economy i s the science of se l l i ng ; of t h e soc i a l acti v ity o f exchange-va l u e exchange a n d prod uction. I t is fi rst of a l l i n this sense that b o u rgeois pol itical econo m y (and, for that m atte r, b u rea u c ratic " Ma rxist" " p o l itical eco nomy") i s "the science of alienation. "

thesis N o . 88 t To avoid confusion because of the way the term " m a n " is e m p l oyed i n the rest of the passage, we have altered the t ranslation here, w h i c h read "the relat i o n of man to woman" to read "the relation of male to female."

thesis No. 89 t " O R GA S TIC PO TENC Y. Essentially, the capacity for complete surrender to the involuntary convulsion of the orga n i s m and complete discharge of the excitat i o n at the acme of the gen ital e m b race. I t i s a lways l ac k i n g i n neu rotic i nd i v i d u a l s . I t pres u pposes t h e p resence or esta b l i s h ment o f t h e genital c h a racter, i . e . absence of a patholog ical character armor and m uscular armor. O rgastic potency is usual l y n o t dist i n g u ished f r o m erective and ejac u l ative potency, both of w h i c h a re o n l y p re req uisites of o rgastic potency. - (Wi l h e l m Reich, The Function of the Orgasm, vol . I of The Discovery Of The Orgone, World P u b l i s h i n g Co m pa n y , ( New York, 1 97 1 ), pp. 360-361 , ( G l os­ sary) ) .

thesis N o. 9 1 t (Th i s is a b i t of system s-theory state-space term i n o l ogy. " Attractors" a re the " ruts," the "vicious ci rc les" where evol ution gets h u ng - u p a n d tarries; where evolutionary t rajectories are "captu red , " someti mes for long periods. All of the maj o r h istorical social-relations ("modes of p rod uct i o n ; " "forms of i nte rcou rse, " or "means of p rod uction " as Marx someti mes cal l s them i n the Grundrisse) - the p r i m itive com m u n a l , the "asiatic," the slavery-based , the feud a l , the capital ist, etc . , c a n b e seen a s "attractors" i n social evo l ut i o n , with t h e "asiatic " mode of p rod uction ( " O riental despot i s m " ) represe n t i n g , as a h i g h l y h istory-res ista nt for m ,

a particu l arly stro n g "capt u re." See Hans J. B remerma n , " O n the Dynamics and Trajectories of Evo l utionary Processes" i n Biogenesis And Hom eos tasis Spri n ger­ Verla n g , 1 971 ) ,

.

thesis No. 92

t Reifica tion n a m es the i n vers i o n of abstract a n d con crete - the t reat i n g of a bstract i o n s as if they were exte r i o r t h i ng s , and more specifi c a l ly, the i n vers i o n of subj ect and object - the treating of o bj ects or abstractions as i f they we re s u bj ects; of s u bjects as if they were objects or abstract ions. thesis No. 93

t T he comm u nity of "sisters" i s the society of rad ical subjectivity, the con c rete

u n ity of selves, the resonance of egoisms turned o n its head! Here lies the s u p reme reification . The wou ld-be concrete p a rticu lar is not a conc rete part i c u l a r ( i .e. a su bj ect, self-dete r m i nately objectified) a t a l l , b u t rather o n l y a part i c u l a r case of the abstract u n i versal (in t h i s case, " sister") . . . not h i ng other than an a bstraction of an abstraction - concrete i n vers i o n , reification, bei n g -for-anoth er; a ma terial­ ized self-spectacle. T h i s reification is epitom ized in ideoloo ical moral isms of " l i be ration" in "sisterhood," such as when the spontaneous, subj ective negativity by a n i n d i vidual ego is met with the apho ristic moral i s m that "Sisters don 't treat each other that way!" -

thesis No. 94

t "Subjectificatio n " ( i n qu otes) i s here the con t rary of "o bjectification" (in q u otes ; see the footnote to thes i s 91 ) ; it m eans not the making subjective of the objective, as i n the p rod uction of k n owledge ( " i nternal i zatio n of the external " ) , etc. but rather the making more subjective of the pseudo- objective; of a s u bject w h o has bee n red u ced to a pseudo-object - the ret u rn of su bjectivity to the real su bjects, previously " de-subjectified. " tt Obviously, th i s n ecessa rily includes the se lf-objectification of t h i s new i nte rsub jectiv ity. thesis No. 1 02 t While we c riticize the use of the term "princi ple" when this usage is a sym ptom of p rojection (self-dis-own i ng ) , as i n ph rases l i ke " Let's l ive up to our princi ples , " there is a usage o f t h e term w h i c h , w e recogn ize, escapes t h i s critiq ue. That is the usage where " p ri n c i ple" serves as a synon y m of "i nvariant," " law, " "sec ret," " key , " �tc.,., a s i n "The pri n c i ple o f t h i s mach i n e i s . . . " or "The pri n c i p l e o f t h i s social relatio n 1s . . . etc.

thesis No. 1 1 2

t

For a defi n ition of the terms "constant capital " and "variable capita l " see Karl

M a rx , Capita l, A Critique of Political Economy, book I . I nternati o n a l P u b l ishers, ( New York, 1 96 7 ) , C hapter V I I I , p . 209 et passim.

thesis N o. 1 1 5

t The " National Caucus of Labou r C o m m i ttees" - N C LC - is the major l eft danger to the authentic revol ut i o n a ry movement i n the "West," n o w zero i n g - i n on it fo r the k i l l from one side, at the same t i me that the i nc reas i n g l y desperate forces of c lass ical pri vate capita l i s m , themselves t u rn i n g state-capita l ist, zero-i n on it from the other i n the context of the p resent, a n d rap i d l y deepe n i n g , general soci a l crisis. N C L C i s about the o n l y relatively l i ve, dynam i c tendency o n the Left in the U .S . , the o n l y o n e which i s i n any sense contemporary with the present h isto r i cal mome nt, and, despite its i n c reasi n g l y para n o i d h ysteria, is sti l l l u c i d enough to be the o n l y Len i n i st organ izatio n o n the s c e n e e v e n potentially capa b l e of b r i n g i n g t h e Stalinist variety ( pure- bureaucrat i c rul i n g-class; near-a bsol ute suppression of pri vate capital } , as opposed to the Fascist variety (hybrid, bureaucrati c/bourgeois rul i ng­ class; hybrid , state/private capital} of state-capita l i st tota l itarian i sm to power i n the U . S . " The organ ization has had a meteoric rise, and cont i n ues to g row rap i d ly.

a rt i c l es w h i c h conta i n many b r i l l iant developments - sec retl y b orrowi n g m u c h f r o m Reich - w h i c h we m u st g reed i l y app ropriate, Lyn M a rc u s , the Fu h rer o f N C LC , reaches a n a l m ost Maoist ( c f . q u ote i n the t h i rd n ote to thes i s 37 ) p i t c h o f psyc ho-pathology i n h i s tyra n t i n g s o n the su bject of g reed , self- i n te rs!, selfi s h n ess, etc . : " T h e w i l l o f t h e w o r k e r m u st bec o m e t h e w i l l t o d o t h at w h i c h i s i n t h e h i st o r i c i n t e rest o f t h e w o r l d ' s w o r k i n g c l ass a s a w h o l e ; n o t h i n g e l se . I f t h e w o r k e rs

passionately c l i n g to any contrary senti ment of i ma g i ned self-i nterest t h at senti ment m u st be seized upon a n d ri pped out of them. N o h u m a n b e i n g has the r i g ht to be l i eve o r 'fee l ' anyth i n g except that w h i c h i m pe l s him t o act i n the h istoric i n te rs! of the world's worki n g c l ass as a w h o l e . " - (Lyn M a rc u s , "The Sex ual I m potence Of The Puerto R ican S o c i a l i s t Party, " The Campaigner, 7: 1 , Novem ber, 1 973, p. 44) . (see a l so Lyn M arcus, " Beyond Psychoanalysis," The Campaigner, Sep­ tember/October 1 973, pp. 88-89, et passim.)

APP E N D I X: Pream ble to The Founding Agreements of

FO R O U R S E LVES Council for Gen era l ized Self-Manag e m e n t

We have w o k e n up to d i scove r that our l i ves are beco m i ng u n l i vea b l e . From bor i n g , m e a n i n g less j o bs to t h e h u m i l i at i on of wa it i n g e n d l ess ly i n l i n es, at d e s k s and c o u nters to rec e i ve o u r s h a re of s u rv i val , fro m p r iso n l i k e sch ools to r e p e t i t i o us m i n d less " e n te rta i n m e n t , " f rom desol ate and cri me-ri d d e n streets t o the st i f l i n g i solati o n of h o m e , o u r d ays a re a tread m i l l o n w h i c h we ru n fast e r a n d faste r j u st to keep the sa m e pace . L i k e t h e i m m e nse maj o rity of t h e p o p u latio n , we h ave n o c o n t ro l ove r t h e u se to w h i c h o u r l i ves a re p u t : w e a re p eo pl e w h o have n ot h i ng to se l l b u t o u r ca pacity to wo r k . We h ave c o m e t og ethe r b eca u se we ca n no l o n g e r to l e rate t h e way we a re fo rced to exist, we ca n n o l o n g e r tol e rate b e i ng sq u ee z e d d ry of ou r e n e rg i es, be i n g used up and t h rown away o n l y to create a world t h at g rows m o re a l i e n and u g l y eve ry d ay . T h e syste m o f C a p i ta l , w h eth e r i n i t s " Weste r n " p rivate­ co r oorate or " Easte rn" state- b u rea uc rat i c fo r m , was b rutal and exploitat i ve even d u ri n g its ascent: n ow, where it i s in decay, i t po iso ns a i r and water, p rod uces g oods and servi ces of d ete riorati n g q ua l i ty, a n d is l ess a n d l e ss a b l e to e m p l oy us eve n to its own adva n tage. I ts log ic of accu m u l a t i o n a n d co m pe t i ti o n l eads i n e xo ra b l y towa rd i ts o w n col l a pse. Even as i t l i n ks a l l the peo p l e of the wo rld tog eth e r i n one vast netwo r k of p rod ucti o n a n d cons u m pt i o n , i t isol a t es us from each o t h e r ; eve n as i t sti m u l at e s g reate r a n d g reate r advances i n t e c h n o l o g y a n d p rod u cti ve p o we r, it f i n d s i tsel f i n capa b l e o f p u tt i n g th e m to use: even a s it m u l t i p l i es t h e poss i b i I i t i e s f o r h u m a n se l f- re a l izat i o n , we f i n d o u rse l ves st ra n g l ed i n l a ye rs of g u i lt, fea r a n d sel f-co n te m pt. -

,

,

B ut i t i s we ourselves - o u r stre n g t h , o u r i ntel l i g e n ce, o u r c reat i v i ty, o u r pass i o n s - that a re the g reatest p rod u c t i ve powe r of a l l . I t i s we who p rod uce a n d re prod uce the world as i t is, in the i mage of Capita l ; i t i s we w h o rei nfo rce in eac h oth e r the c o n d i ti o n i n g o f fa m i ly, sch o o l , c h u rc h a n d med i a , t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g t h a t keeps us s l aves. W h e n w e d ec i d e togeth e r t o e n d o u r m i sery, t o ta ke o u r l i ves i nto o u r own h a n d s , we can rec reate the world the way we want i t . T h e tec h n i c a l reso u rces a n d world w i d e p rod u ct i ve n etwo rk deve l o ped u n d e r the old syste m g i ve u s the mea n s : the c r i s i s a nd c o n t i n u i n g c o l l a pse of t h a t system g i ve u s the c h a n c e a n d the u rgent need . The ru l i ng i d e o l og ies of the wo rld s u pe rpowe rs , with th e i r i nte rloc k i n g sets o f l i es, offe r us o n l y t h e fa l se c h o i ce of " Com m u n i s m " vers u s " Ca p i ta l i s m . " But i n the h i story of revo l uti o n d u ri n g t h i s c e n t u ry ( R uss i a , 1 905 ; Germany, 1 9 1 920; Spai n , 1 936-3 7 ; H u n g a ry, 1 956) we h ave d i scovered the genera l form th ro u g h wh i c h we can ta ke bac k powe r ove r o u r own l i ves: workers ' councils . At thei r h i g h est moments, th ese c o u n c i l s were po p u l a r assem b l i es in workp laces a n d com m u n ities, j o i ned together by mea n s of stri ctly m a n d ated d e l eg ates who ca rried out d ec i s i o ns a lrea dy m a de by th e i r asse m b l ies a n d w h o cou l d be reca l led by them a t a n y t i m e . The cou n c i l s orga n i zed thei r o w n defe n se a n d resta rted p rod uct i o n u n der the i r own management. By n o w , t h ro u g h a syste m of c o u n c i l s at the loca l , reg i o n a l , a n d g l obal leve l , usi n g m o d e rn telecom m u n i cat i o n s a n d d ata p rocess i n g , we can coord i nate a n d p l a n wo rld p rod uct i o n as we l l as be free to shape o u r own i m med iate envi ro n ment. Any c o m p ro m i se with b u rea u c racy a n d off i c i a l h ie rarchy, a n yt h i n g s h o rt of the tota l power of worke rs' c o u n c i l s , can o n l y reprod uce m i se ry and a l i en at i o n in a new form , as a g ood look at the so­ cal led " Co m m u n i st" c o u ntries wi l l show. For t h i s reaso n , no po l i tical pa rty can re present the revo l ut i o n a ry move m e n t or se i ze power "on its beh a l f , " s i nce t h i s wou l d be s i m pl y a c h a n g e of r u l i n g c l asses, n ot thei r a b o l i t i o n . T h e p l a n of t h e free l y assoc i ated prod u cers i s i n abso l ut e oppos i t i o n t o t h e d i ctato ria l P l a n o f state a n d c o rpo rate p rod ucti o n . Only a ll o f u s tog e th e r c a n decide wha t is b e s t for us .

Fo r these reasons, we cal l u p o n yo u and u p o n a l l the h u nd reds of m i l l ions l i ke you and us, to join us i n the revo l uti onary t ransformat ion of every as pect of l ife. W e want to abol i s h t h e syste m of wage and sa laried labor, of com mod ity exc han ge-val ue and of profit, of corporate a nd b u reauc ratic powe r. We wa nt to decide t h e n atu re a nd cond itions of eve ryth i ng we do, to manage a l l soc i al l ife c o l l e ctively a n d d e mocratica l l y. We wa nt to end t h e d i vision of m e n tal f ro m manual work a n d of " f ree" time f rom work t i m e , by b ri ng i n g i nto play a l l of o u r a b i l i ties for enj oya b l e c reative activ i ty. We want the w h o l e wo rld to b e o u r conscious self-c reation, so that o u r days a re f u l l of wonder, l earn i n g , and pleasu re . Noth ing less . I n setti n g d own th is m i n i m u m p rog ra m , we are not try i n g to i m pose an i d ea l o n real ity, n o r a re we a l o n e i n wa n t i n g what we wa nt. O u r i d eas a re a l ready i n everyone's m i n ds, consci o u s l y o r u n consc i o usly, beca u se they a re n oth i n g but an exp ress i o n of the rea l m o ve m e n t that exists a l l over t h e planet. But i n o rd e r to w i n , t h i s movement m u st know itse lf, i ts a i m s , a n d i ts enemie s , as n eve r before . We do n ot s peak for t h i s move ment, but for o u rse l ves as of it. We rec og n i ze n o Ca u se ove r and above o u rse lves. B u t o u r selves a re a l read y socia l: t h e w h o l e h u ma n race p rod u ces t h e l ife of eac h one of i ts m e m b e rs, now m o re t h a n eve r befo re . O u r ai m is si m p ly to make t h i s p rocess co n sc i ous for t h e fi rst t i m e , to g ive to the p rod u ction of h u m a n l i fe the i mag i n ative i n te n s i ty of a work of art . I t is i n t h i s spi rit that w e cal l u p o n y o u to o rg a n ize , a s we are d o i n g , w h e re you work and w h e re you l i ve , to beg i n p l a n n i ng t h e way we can run soc i ety toget h e r, to d efe nd you rse l ves agai nst the deepe n i n g m i se ry that is be i n g i m posed on a l l of us. We ca l l u p o n yo u to assa u l t acti vely the l i es, t h e self­ dece pt i o n s born of fear, t hat keep eve ryon e f roze n i n p l ace wh i l e the wo rld is fal l i ng a p a rt a ro u nd us. We cal l u pon you to l i n k up with u s and with oth e rs who a re d o i n g the same t h i n g . A bove a l l , we ca l l u p o n yo u to ta ke yo u rsel ves and yo u r desi res seri o usly, to rea l ize yo u r own powe r to m aste r yo u r own l i ves.

I t i s now o r never. I f we a re to h ave a f ut u re, we o u rselves m u st be t h at f u t u re.

FOR O U R S E LV E S ! February 1 6 , 1 974

R EA D I N G L I ST

The A ction-Image o f Socie ty: On Cultural Politiciza tion,

by Alfred Wi l lener ( Pantheon Books, 1 970) . A S w i s s soc i o l o g i s t ' s a n a l ys i s o f t h e F re n c h stu d e n t movement, w i t h seri o us atte ntion paid to the situat i o n i sts and ki n d red tendencies. The A ssa ult o n Culture: Utopian Curren ts from L e ttrisme

by Stewart H o m e ( London : Aporia Press & U n po p u l a r Books, 1 988) . to Class War,

Very brief, very part i san th u m bnai l h i sto ries of postwar c u l t u ra l rad ical c u rrents. H o m e i s con­ tem pt u o u s of the SI i n its fi nal decade of " Debord­ ist" d o m i nat i o n a n d he t r i es to d i m i n i s h , u s i n g m u ch m o re d eclamatio n t h a n doc u m e n tati o n , so­ ca l led "specto-s ituat i o n ist" i n fl u ence on pol i t i cs a n d m usic. ( Not surpri s i n g l y he's a l ready p u b l i s h ed th ree different h ost i l e revi ews of the G re i l Marcus book, none of w h i c h mention Home as the author of a com pet i n g commod ity . ) At its best perhaps i n t h e i n tercon nect i o n of m ove m e n ts a n d cu rre n ts ot her than the situat io n i sts. The Book o f Pleasures, by Rao u l Va n e i gem ( Pe n d i n g Press, 1 983, Box 99, 234 Camden H i g h St reet, London NW1 , U . K . ) .

Fi rst p u b l ished i n 1 979, a weak seq uel t o Van e i ­ g e m ' s maste rfu l Re volution o f Everyday Life.

Con tribu tions to the Revolutiona ry Struggle In tended to be Discussed, Corrected, and Principally Put Into Practice Without Delay, by Ratge b ( B ratach D u b h E d i t i o n s , 1 98 1 , BCM Box 7 1 77, Lo n d o n , U . K . ) .

A pse u d o nymous pam p h l et by Va n e i g e m , pub­ l ish e d i n 1 974 (fo u r yea rs after his res i g nat i o n from t h e S . I . ) , a conte m p o ra ry "Catec h ism of t h e Revo­ l ut i o n a ry" ma rred by t h e n a i vete w h i c h i n h e res i n t h e format . The refl ecti o n s o n t h e m i l itary aspects of m o d e rn u rban revo l u t i o n b reak n ew g ro u n d , h owever. A n Endless Passion ... A n Endless Banquet: A Situa tionis t Scrapbook, edited b y l wo n a B laz wick. ( Lo n d o n : I CA/

Verso, 1 989) . I ss u ed - i n i m itat i o n of an early Debord book with sand paper covers, t h i s acco m p a n i m e n t to t h e Lond o n vers i o n o f a 1 989 S I a rt exh i b i t i o n stresses SI reverberat i o n s in B rita i n , such as the i nfl u e nce of p u n k . Italy: A u tonomia - Post-Political Politics, (Se m i otext (e) , V o l . I l l , N o . 3 , 1 98 0 , 522 P h i l os o p h y H a l l , C o l u m b i a U n ivers i ty, New York, N Y 1 0027, $6.00) .

Book-length a n t h o l ogy o n t h e t h e o ry a n d p rac­ tice of "auto n o m i st" res i stance in I taly, with scath­ ing if b r i ef attacks o n t h e Red B ri g ades as c reatu res of t h e I t a l i a n G ove r n m e n t by t h e s i t u at i o n i s t s Debord a n d Sang u i n etti . L ips tick Tra ces: A Secre t History o f the 20th Cen tury, by G re i l M a rc u s , ( C a m b r i d g e , M as s a c h u s e tt s : H a rv a r d U n ivers i ty Press, 1 989) .

An utterly d i sorgan i zed ro m p th rou g h severa l c u ltu res of rejecti o n s u ch as dada, l ettrism and its s uccessor, s i t u atio n i s m . Marcus, a p rom i nent roc k c ritic, regards the S I t h ro u g h a m u s i c prism i n a way I ' m s u re the s i ts wou l d say was at best pec u l ­ iar. N ot a g ood i ntrod uction u n less poss i bly fo r p u n k s , b u t M a rc u s h a s d o n e s o m e o r i g i n a l researc h a n d h is 1 982 Village Voice a rti c le (the g e rm of t h i s boo k ) b ro k e t h e A m e r i c a n m e d i a b l ackout of t h e S I . On The Passage o f A Few People Through A Ra ther Brief Period Of Time: The Situa tionist Interna tional, 1 957- 1 9 72.

(Cambri dge, M assach usetts: M I T Press, 1 989) . A coffee tab l e book to accom pany an ex h i b i t of S ituat i o n ist art ( ifacts) wh i c h went fro m Pari s to Lon d o n to Boston in 1 989. It recovers the aest h et i c d i mension o f t h e e a r l y S I ( p re- 1 962) so s uccess­ fu l ly s u p p ressed by the Debord ist faction that i t was u n known t o p ro-situs s u c h a s For O u rselves. by G i anfranco San g u i n ett i ( B M Ch ron os, 1 982, London, WC 1 V 6XX, U . K. ) . On Terrorism and The Sta te,

T h i s v i g orous i f n ot fu l ly su bstanti ated arg u ment by an i m p o rtant s i t u at i o n i st t h at Red B r i g a d e s T e r ro r i s m w a s o rc h e s t r a t e d by t h e I ta l i a n i n ­ tel l ig e nce servi ces got t h e author prosecuted i n h i s n ative I taly. Espec i a l ly i nteresti n g i n its d i ssecti o n of t h e conservatism o f the I tal ian Com m u n i st Party . The Origins of Modern Leftism, by R i chard G o m b i n ( H am ­ m o n dswort h : Pel ican Books, 1 975) .

A s h o rt vo l u me s u rveyi n g t h e c u rrents of m odern revo l u t i o n a ry t h e o ry, the s i t u at i o n i sts i n c l u d ed ,

wh i c h a re a n tag o n i st i c to M a rxism-Le n i n i s m ; by a sym pathetic French acad e m i c . Preface To The Fourth Italian Edition o f "Th e Society of the Spectacle, " by G uy Debord ( B . M . C h ro n os, 2d ed .

1 983, London WC1 N 3XX U . K . ) . Debord c rowi ng that even ts s i n ce 1 967 have borne out h is analys i s in Society o f the Spectacle, but with some s u g g estive remarks about the modesty w h i c h stat i s m affected i n the 1 970's ( re m e m b e r Carter? ) . Protest In Paris: A na tomy o f a

Re volt,

b y Bernard 8 .

B rown (General Lea rn i n g Press, 1 974) . A n acco u nt of t h e M ay Days by a h ost i l e c o n ­ servato- l i beral American pol it i cal s c i e ntist, v i s i b l y resentfu l over events w h i c h gave l i e t o h i s p l u ral i st e n d - o f- i d e o l o g y i d e o l o g y , w h i c h n o n e t h e l e s s docu ments t h e i m portant part played b y a ha ndfu l of s i t u at i o n i sts a n d th e i r enrage a l l i es. The Re volution of Everyday L ife,

by Rao u l Van e i g e m ( Left

Ba n k Books/Rebel P ress, 1 983) . An "authorized" t ra n s l at i o n of Vaneigem's Trea t­ ise on Living for the Use of the Younger Generation

( 1 967) , orig i n a l ly co m m issioned, c u riously, by the l i bertarian p u b l isher Free L i fe Ed i t i o ns, wh i c h wen t o u t of b u s i ness befo re p u b l i s h i n g it. (Th e re was a n ot her, earl ier t ra n s l at i o n , by Lon d o n 's P ractical Pa rad i se P u b l i cati o n s ( 1 972) , now o u t of p r i nt . ) Debord wrote t h e class i c i st s i t u at i o n i st analys i s . Va n e i g e m w rote t h e ro m a n t i c ist o n e - a l u s h , sen s u o u s , wi de-ra n g i n g t reati se on how to l ive. The t ra n s l ator, Donald N i c h o l son-S m i t h , was expel led

fro m the S . I . i n 1 967, w h i c h is credentials e n o u g h , I d a resay. Situa tion ist In terna tiona l A n thology, ed ited and t ranslated by Ken K n a b b ( B u reau of Pu b l i c Sec rets, PO Box 1 044, Berkeley, Cal ifo rnia 94701 , $1 0.00) .

The o n ly E n g l ish-lang u ag e anthology (wort h men­ tio n i n g ) of S . I . texts, p rod uced by the sole (o n e­ man) su rvivo r of t h e Bay Area s i t g rou ps. Some B. P.S. pa m p h l ets and j o u rnals of the 1 970's may be had from the same sou rce. Society of The Spectacle, by G u y Debo rd (2d ed . 1 977, B l ack & R ed , PO Box 02374, Detro it, M i c h i gan 48202) .

O n e of t h e maj o r situation i st works, albeit a ce re­ bra l , rather dau nti n g o ne; De bo rd was central to the S. I . from beg i n n i ng to e n d . Wo rth a c l ose read­ ing. b y Larry Law ( Box 99, 84 b, Wh i te­ chapel H i g h Street, Lo n d o n E 1 7QX, U . K . ) . Spectacular Times,

A series o f a d oze n -odd p rose col l age boo k l ets w r i tt e n a n d / o r asse m b l e d by t h e l at e E n g l i s h anarc h o-situat i o n ist Larry Law. Some go off on tangets rem ote f rom t h e o ri g i nal S . I . project ( l i ke "an i m al r i g hts" ) , b u t many a re eas i ly d i g esti b l e i n t rod uctions t o situat i o n ist fa re. The S ituation ists Reconsidere d , by Tom Ward , ( Left Field/ Downtow n , 1 5 1 F i rst Aven ue, N ew Yo rk, N Y 1 0003) . Mentioned h e re o n ly because the author i s the o n ly ex- m e m ber of For O u rselves who has " recon­ sid ered" t h e S I . Ward had l i ttle to do with The Right to Be Greedy, whose p r i n c i pal a u t h o r was B ru ce

G a rd ner. H i s art i cle, orig i na l l y p u bl ished i n 1 985, is n o l o nger usefu l as an i nt rod u ctory text ( b igger a n d better ones abou n d ) , a l t h o u g h i t exh i bi ts h i m p l u g g i n g h is own ven t u res and t h ose o f h i s c ro n i es. H e retai ns o n ly the world of the situat i o n i sts : thei r co u n c i l i s m , thei r eco n o m i c determ i nati o n a n d t he i r bad m a n ners. I n a footn ote referri ng t o t h i s Loom­ pan i cs ed i t i o n he cal ls the p u b l i s h e r " r i g h t w i n g " w i t h o u t t ro u b l i n g t o ex p l a i n w h y a r i g h t -w i n g p u b l i s h e r wo u l d re p r i n t a " c o m m u n ist" p o l e m i c written b y a g ro u p Ward bel o nged to.

S O U RCES L i ke m ost fringe esoterica the foreg o i ng texts a re of often evan escent and a lways u n p red i ctable ava i l a b i l ity. We l i st the add resses of several p u b l ishers but the real ity is they m ay fo l d even as others get i nto t h e game. We reco m m e n d c o n ta c t w i t h as m a n y s u b- u n d e rg ro u n d d ist ri butors as possi ble, t hey m ay stock a book l o n g after its p u b l isher van ished in the h aze. Bes ides Loom pa n i cs U n l i m ited , t ry: Auto n o med i a P O Box 568 B roo k l y n , NY 1 1 2 1 1

L i bertarian Book C l u b 339 Lafayette St Room 202 N ew York, NY 1 00 1 2

Cou nter Prod u ct i o n s PO B o x 556 London S ES ORL U n i ted K i ngdom

M a rg i nal D istri b u t i o n 37 V i ne Ave Toronto, O ntario Canada

Fift h Estate Boo ks PO Box 02548 Detro it, M l 48202