Sebastiano Timpanaro On Materialism NLB | Translated by Lavr(Chaps og wor poised in Book Neti ‘Shima speared in Qu eign Val XN No ‘ahem by Lawtece Gare Ge NEB ‘Thine ne pubes ONEB ios [NEB 7 CS, Landon We et in Bem by Servi Fibmeting Li, Macher fd pnt oy Lowe Brydon, Tar, Nol Designed by Rath Pence Contents Foreword Introduction to the English edition 1. Considerations on Materialism 2. Praxis and Materialism 3. Engels, Materialism and ‘Free Will’ 4 Structuralism and its Successors 5. Kar] Korsch and Lenin's Philosophy Index40 Luciano Della Mea Foreword Tam only too wellawate of what might he termed the pre-sientiic znd pre-phlosophics! nature ofthese exays In them, requirements 320 seated and polemical postion taken ups bat thle theoretical stanoe is neither rigorously grounded nor filly developed. My decision, despite eis, 10 publish them together in book form i based on te Beli that, at te present stage of Marsstdscasion, they cn fells provisional funtion of enc simula In recent yeats, in connection with the cniss of the official ‘communist parses, the Chinese cultural revolution and the nse of new revolutionary utente in the Wes, we have seen a revival of ‘theoresical interes, The need co struggle against reformism has cleat shown how evsntial iis no eo simply entrench ones in 4 defence of Marxist-Leninist orthodox, but to rethink Marsina in the light of everything new that bas accurted in the eapcalist ‘West in China and in the third world. Unfortanately, however, ‘hetwormain interpretations of Marx which ave come oinfiuence the revolutionary left in the Westin recent yeurs~ one furnished by the Frankfurt schoo! and it vasious ofpring, the other by Althusser ~ allow very litle of Marxism to survive. Moreover, and this is fr more grave, they represent im many respects step backwards: the former because allowing in the path of tendencies which were alteady very widespread in the Western Marsison of the ewenties and this, iv ignores the need to found a “cent Socialis and sees in science anly bourgeois false objectivity: the later because, althougl: ie daes proclaim mont emphatesly the scientific character of Marxism, takes from twentieth-centary epstemology + Pltonise concept of scence which isnot that oF Marx and Engels and which makes it impossble to pore correctly the relation beeween theory and practice‘Anyone who saw these interpretations simply as smelt errors, without understanding that they reflect objective difficulties ‘cing the working-class movement in the advanced capitalit countries, wonld be 2 very poor Marxist indeed, The main way 10 defeat thesetendencies, in other words, snot through philosophical discussion alone, bur through a study of contemporsty capi, the comtemporary proleasat and the nexus between capitalism and imperialism: 2 sendy, it goes without saying, liked to and consiandy verified by political action, And ye, atthe same time, it would be jue as unMareis to seck to reduce Marxism to 2 revolutionary sociology, purging it of those aspects of « genetal ‘canception of reaity which are nota reside of nineteenth-entry metaphysics but an essential component of a doctine which, in the broadest sense posible, poses the problem ofthe real Uberation of mankind. ‘hiss why, in my view, itinecesiry to reconfirm and develop smatenalism: in other words, om the one hand to reawert the need to found communism scientifically and on the other to reject all ‘hose conceptions of science which emerged from the ideal tm of he late nineteenth century. The eeactionaey character of thie tum was perceived a the very begining of this century, with sMimizable clearsghtedness, by Lenin. This book says t09 itde shout Lenin’ philosophic thought and ite eaten to hs politeal ” thought and action though dwells st greater length ona closely related problem, the evahuntion of Engel scontabution to Marais, But even from the tle tha isaidhetet willbe clear that donot share the fcleant+-Leninism which currently fishinablein ange sections of the revolutionary lett in the Wert. I do tot shate it ther as fi asthe relation between party and els is concerned (a problem which, although ie certainly posed in very diferent terms fodayffom those of Hat 10 be Dove? and the practice of the pre-Stlinist Bolshevik party, nevertheless cannot be eolved by afte en avant, by adenialof the necesity--howeves provisional and perilous fora pay), o7 with respect to the specifically philo- sophical part of Lenin's work. One spect of Lenin's greames consists precisely in having understood that valuntassm, subjeci= vism and the refusl of science may constiute a momentary revolubonaty simula, but cannot be the bass ofa sold revoke sionary doctrine. This doesnot imply that We should await che mytlucal ‘spontaneous collapse’ of capitalism, or conceal behind 3 Prfser 9 scholastic profession of Leninisos an acceptance in enense of reformism, a the oficial communist parties doin the Wet. It does not mean that we should underesznate she indispensable role of the sabjective clement i the struggle agains eaptaliam, What it does mean is understanding tha te formation of thee mbjscive ‘ongitions themselves (wath all she problems which arise fora the unequal development of revolutionary consciustes, from the geste problems when applied to the natal sciences. In 0 fa a fhe natural sciences were (an sill are) more advanced along the path of sietieity, the unsatifactory character of tatements 20% formulated in quantitative terme it sharpened. But one should remember that Marx himself was ot atall hose to the ides of Gialecacs of nature. On the contrary, it sa wellknown fact that hae gave a small example oft in a note tothe chapter onthe Rate land Amount of Sorplis Value! Book laf Capital and ina leer fo Engels he sated he was convinced that "Hege!s discovery ~ the Jaw of merely quantitative changes turing inta qualitative changes = Tholds} good abe in isxory and natural science (A statement suchasthisrulesoutthe posbiliythathere Mare wasonly engaged fn a ‘Breaion’ with the dialectic; do the antisEngelsans then ‘maintain that he occasionally allowed himself to beled astray by Engel?) Furthermore, and this is te important pois, the debate ‘on Marxism and the dialectic cannot confine fel ercly to the {question oflogic, but must encompass the concepts of sipersion, the rationality of history, progres. and the rhythm of historical becoming. Iris cezainly important point out, 2s Collet does, that the conception af contradiction’ a + logical and ontological general law ofall reality obscures one's understanding of 'opposi- ‘Bons in reality» But the problem arses also im another form, On the one hand, one can interpret the dialectical hythm of develop- rent in the sticr sense of a process of development through succesve ‘supersesions'(negationaffrmations) and in that ase fone i forced to admit that wis only on ofthe possible rhyehms, ‘even in human history. In point of fac there are slo reform proceses, involving a gradual transtion as well as desroctive, ‘hondilectical negations. The revolutionary can and certainly mute express a preference forthe dislecical rhythm of develop- tent and must work foe itsralizaton, But he mast also admic that in many exssit isnot realized, becaus it requires the most fvout- ableafconditons! the oprested class must be mature enough to be able to distinguish that part of che ruling claws heritage which ‘deserves to be preserved and a the sme ome ie mast mints 3 fntigonistic consciousness trong enough to rest the temptations acs Sad Cerne Mow 8 5 ee “Sfarstom and ee! foot oe aso om his point’ Marxian he Disks’ ges ond Free Will 91 of reformisn, The fact shat no revolution corresponding to a ‘ehasial- Marais’ modelhasyeteaken place points up the difislty fof etting in motion a dialectical proces in relation co the pasage from the captaliet system tothe socialist sytem: but it would be ven more dificult to ft the passage, for example, from slave soiery to feudal society into a dalcticl schema, ‘On the other hand, it is possible co contend that any at al Iisiorieal proceses are dialectical, in that they representa syne ‘of being and non-being, Here one interprets the dialectic ro mean hon-stasis or becoming, and it corresponds to that mode of thinking. which rejects rigid schemata, hypostatratons, and Supposed ‘eternal’ and metahistorial concepts. Of course, that ase the dislectic encompass all of reality. But i remains at an Sriremely general level, a kind of Heachtanism which does not fo justice fo the specificity of Maras in relation £0 all other theories which do sot deny the bistoricity of reality “This ambiguity, which i the primary reson why more presse terms and concepts should be substituted forthe dialectic, s ako the primacy reason for the dificlty which has been and will sine to be encountered in making dis sbscicoion. In reality, the dialectic enable one to assert he historicity ofall ality and to opt for a particular kind of historicity (movement throagh Dpegabons-afirmations) within the framework of that asertion, voiding the need to make a clear disincaon between the wo levels. According to the occasion, # enables one to wage a fight gaint static and mecaphysial conceptions of reality or against a purely gradualist evolutionism; again faith inthe absolutenes of Exrain clasifeatons of againet an empifiosm that leads to Scepticism, It ako allows, and this iva point one should emphasize, {Kind of elastic (and therefore more restant) optimism with Fegatd tothe struggles which the proletariat must wage against ts {las enemy. The more the bourgeoisie develops and strengthens Jef the more ie develope and srengihens the class which it oppress. Every victory of the bourgeoisie serves only to lay the Biss for aneven more seeping defeatin dhe future In heeleventh ‘of his Flictinsgerrache (Refugees' Dialogues, Brecht showed rca inght in characterizing dis vision of the dialectic ay 2 "sense ‘Sf humour’ that has become second nature ia relation to s6cio~ histoncal events; he brought to ight ss energizing efficacy and pethaps alo the danger (revealed in Zils inal quip) shat shouldoe the decisive criss be Tong in coming, the dialectic becomes a form of faith and consolation + Once one decides, therefore, to do without this concept which is too elasve and overly burdened with a dangerous speculative Irritage, one mus single out all hose things which were jostfably defended by the founders of Marsism and by this followers the name ofthe dialectic ~ 50 chat they ean then be reformulated ina scientific manner. To return co Engels, it would be 9 serious mistake co believe that Dialeaics of Natwe can be edaced com= pletely to verbal games about the negation ofthe negation or the pasiage from quancy into quality. As we heve een, thre writings also contain the polemic against ahistorical conceptions of nate (@ polemic that doesnot spate Hegel all and gives due emphasis to Kant’s hypothesis on the formation of the solar system) they contain the poletaie against social Darwinism; they contain she clearcut affirmation of te need noto lapse into either vitalsm, ‘or an overly simpltc mechansim ~ i. of the need to maintain the autonomy, if only relative, of the various ‘levee they contain the polemic agains the Yorcbly fixed lines of demarcation and distinctions berween clases, and the recognition thae “thse ‘ntagonisms and distinctions ae infact to be found in uate, but only with relative validity, and that on the other hand their Imagined rigidity and abroluteness have been itodaced into nature aly by our mind.” In short, Dialect of Nate called for logic ofthe historical eaences~ a eal that had become urgent fever since poliieal economy (thanks to Marx) and the natural sciences (thanks to Lyell and Darwin) had incorporated dhe hhstonical dimension, One should bear in mind that much of wentieth-century epistemology has retumned to either subjective 2s Becta readin pet: “The ho fr he Distt emigaon, ‘Toe keene deca refs They ae eager cae of ceed the tad nethng eer hen cange iat ensaus rani it le Tat ow ich a mary hae co snd ey have sou year ae ‘icon TheDaies map tatwayrfoun, Daaleech, Paktinggomate, et, ek age p 1S cod pee Dain p17 ho Hegel fr Bind aps Rieter lied ciel nyse ‘ready a protedieatocuon” non BY Benes nd reece fama on “The "Mechanic Congdon of Nau’, is ito ge a rece and Free Will 93 ‘oF Pltonist conceptions of science, accompanied by a rejection of leat a sighting ofthe great discovery of the historicity of nature (or els giving ita spinitabsic interpretation a did Bergson) suo that contemporary Hegelian Marxism avoidsthe'trdency’ of ‘the dialectic of nae only because ithas again sought refuge ina pparely human sphere and has adopted a moralisi-obscuransst tude in elaon to sence, Given dese Grcumstances, one has {adit chat che salvaging ofthe worthwhile chemes in Enge’s philosophy all remains an open question ‘Of courte, to regatd the Hegelian dialectic as philosophy’ la gilt coacience before disolving into tience itself meant that one opted an akogetier too Germanocentsic view of philosophy, that one accepted the idea of a work-historical movement of thougit tending towards and colminaing ia Hegel, and that one therefore underestimated a great deal ofthe most advanced thought ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This mistaken outlook, Stemmed. from an inflesible adoption of shat Young Hegelian jdenofa division oflabour between France, England, and Germany, according to which Germany, while the most backward on she level of economic development and politial action, was atthe head of the world movement on the level of pure thought." On the other hand, Marx and Engel’s Hegelanism gave not tundue emphasis to the role often occupied by phuosophers as precursors of offal science (for eeample, with regard 10 evol~ Tonism, which had been a ‘phuntsy’ of thinkers or heretical ‘cients before it became accepted scenic theory). In Dialects ‘of Nature this emphasis is often excesive. Nonetheless, one must ‘ot forget that precisely on cis level t once happened that Engels Iba to restrain Marx's unjustified enebaiasm for Pierce Trematx’s Ongine er nansformations des hommes ~ an “ideological enthusiatn to which Engels counterposes 3 “scientific refuttion In general, tshould be acknowledged thar Marx, in his concrete activities a theoretician and historian of politcal economy in the (Grands and Capital, bad actually Hoerated himself from the iegelian heritage and’“dilectical’ schemata more than Engels See Gene Lapis istodusion co the Elin edn of The Genser ei coapanicce beeen Mars and Enh fom 7 Auga 10 cer ese Wi rapd tsps [tered fo by Lamar ace 22 iSong fm ect oe te a-Engctans ea of% ‘But, frse of al thas to be born in mind that Engels was not a specialist in ether dhe natural sciences or ethnology ~ whetess Doth Marx and Engels were specialists in political economy and "har the relationship berween ‘general ides’ and empirial research presented itself, therefore, in a diferent way fer each of them. (One its to take into account also Engels’ greater propensity for dlidacne canty, his aversion (or beter and for worse) towaeds that hairspliceng and selediversion with intelectual and verbal ‘games in hich Marx indlged a mes, and thus alo the risk be ‘an of daifting co the opposite extreme of oversimpliieaton and “oncwidedness'. Schmidt has strseed the fie of these two cov siderations; but as usual he draws unacceptable conclusions ftom i sn che sense that authentic Marxism is presumed to have no interest ina nature in and for itelf The second has been steed by Erie Hobsbavem and Gianni Sof, whose opinions on the Marx-Engels Felationship are among the most perceptive and balanced thst 1 know Nevertelus, with regard tothe second consideration one should not confuse the dference in mentality (which endoubtedly fexiss) with the diference in “lerary genre” A compendium designed essentially t seve » polemical or expository purpose fone thing, a fll theoretical treatise is another, and an as yet ‘unfinished work in which the authori exchanging opinions wie hhimsclf and stil keeping open various solutions a third again. ‘Apart ftom the author’ own propensities, chete is necesatly 2 uliferent degree of ‘problematicty’ among chese three diferent Kinds of writing. When Marx sums up his philosophy in «few propositions, asin the detested preface of 1859, hei jus as‘one- sided and schematic 3s Engels; indeed, Bernstein based his cain that Marx was more dogmatic than Engels preitely on that pre~ face Today there 3 tendency to discover a more modem and problematical Mare ~a Mars who ie actually able to answer all fhe problems of working-class stuggles in the neoncpialst ‘countries on the basis ofthe unpublished works and exaltin, foe example, che Grunirise above Capital, as does Martin Nicolas This isa tendency chat leads roa forcing of Marx's thought, and ‘See Bie Hobsbem, Inredacton to Map’ PreCepati an Surat, New Yor ois. 99. 8 6. 8 make pedo Seo pene ‘Edted Bein, Ecinry Sidi, London 100 m4 “ Mao Nash “Te Unkache Matt Nw La Read Ri 96, ges nd Fee Wil 95 ahocretesan acc dchotomy bree the problematic’ Marx dd ee dogoatc Engle "A forte former coneration, i should be renemBezed hat ihre tose fo every oe ta tet ae Engl sasnoc hima ates pt im a dadvamage wih fepec to Maryn the sv sins irs re that his ose Coc wth mtr) ess bl psec Wh tc diy (only ocesnaliy) he tr of hat eomceto frogs his hic moter ad nherted om Hegel athcennceprevourtnéigon,Aleadyinbrnatson Darwin in Daas Nene, Eng sess thatthe evoton of the spesccamotbe repre condo Selon nay tet om) gener copay of adaption to aera et (mean whee ron re eerste ean, bar whet ths agpation a whole on mean regres uss ell 2 popes (Gr mance adapeion to parovoe Be lens afose.-Eachadvancein onpani croton atthe same ime ‘eqresooy fing ansed eeolsbon and excading evolon Tuip many olker tccfons? Wh regard to the coune of ium try av wel Engels may, om the ane hand, eehemend ina on the hier necesty of solnce and oppesion 2° ane all forms of moraiie rciminaton (without ance ENG) hee would nor be modes socal’). But, onthe ther ian, be cl aention wit no kat vebemenc 10 the tebe carson ened by every advance ane ned oly thik of ¢heconcason tothe thi chapter of The Ogi fhe Pian the dramatic enon of The Pesan Varin Germany One ofthe reasons moveove, why De Onin ofthe Fay 3 et ejoyed Stecos for te wrong fesons and as ner even ks ostily Sberedieds that ance was st fe egarded aan paradigm to which al Marais netology and preiory fad to entorm, twas thought tat it ould be dupesed wt 000, ‘Cthowed inl nega otis ak (es part dhe ouedsted ‘heat of Morgan's studi which Engst eds his pot of [anne ape decor and treachery ubdernine and topple te oly cae* departure. In reality, the lating value of The Origin ofthe Family Js Based on twin foundations: firs, the question we have alesdy mentioned of the fasion between natural history and uma history second, the Rousseauesgue and Fourieist spirit which permeates the entite book with its ever-present extigee of civil Tasion and its hypoctses, which extends from the socio-economic evel righ through tothe level of xexal relations andthe insito- tion ofthe family ~a level on which Engels was miuch mote open~ Iminded and forward-looking than Marx ‘But the coun background agunst which Engels projected his vison of human history put other limits as well onthe concept of [progres Inall ora cf materialism theresa fundamental contrast Berween an Enlightoument dha, confident shat every eman- ipaton from myeh and dogma, every teumph of truth, i it feel contrbution to our grestorhappines, and the emergence ‘of pesmi themes that are the meviable result of a de-mytho- Togized view of the human condition. As long a8 a group of intellectuals organically inked tos cascontheriseand engaged ina struggle gains the humiliating and oppresive old prejudices, the former characteristic prevails and materialism isoen as esr tially a liberating philosophy. If however, the struggle bogs dow Ciecass renlteFhistortcal dillionment or simply because oF The onset ofa phe of relative roilstablity, the second charsc- teviie comes tothe fore, ater completely effacing the former, ie times (si the case of Leopardi coexisting with tin a decate balance. The postivit era saw satfied materialist ike Bichner and Moleschottn the bourgeois camp. But tals saw a resargence ‘Sepenimim, which ended towardsnostlgiceligosty among the Tes lncid minds and towards 2 coherently pesimisic conception of reality smong the more cd (although never so Incas to be Sole to overcome their class origin), This coherent pessimism 1 siz oie Schl eco rema, The Gna of Name ee ee FO pd fe scomergene of Howse hemes ir MemeE risEauy eV, Gers, Rare il el mars Te Eee tee dccpamcng owner the reagent of Mss Fatal cm by Beane! Fany, Mw nf Pre Sec eg Wink trace he bool a src rovin” of ng mot he Ne ek races te th a ewmaiy l oeetlde). FeeieyDe os kd of asia he noun tat evn cn pny Weleda er ‘BEatguntbe ofte eal Engl and tere espa ges nd Fee Wil 9 represented a single unchanging vision ofthe ‘human condition ‘which was inspired by the insurmountable physial-biologica limitations of man a wellasby historically ranietsocul relations. CCarducc and Pasco on the one band, and Verge on the other, ‘represent the move obvious examples in Taian literatore ofthe theo Kinds of pesimistic reaction. ut it would be easy enough to confirm the pheyomenon on 4 broader sale, not solely alan ot merely literary. Indeed, among the impulses that gave nse co the ‘deli resorgence ache end ofthe nineteenth century, one hasto| numberalo thisbewildermene produced by apessimism which was ‘unable to resume and elaborate on the srgaling” path shown by’ [Leopardi in the Ginetra and therefore had to ether fll back on some form of religion or else “le forward’ towards rationalist, fciviem, In the writings of Croce and Géntile neo-ideslism is ‘repeatedly represented asa new zeligion destined to overcome the dismay caused by positivist materialism. On the other hand, his, immanentet religion ~ which did away with crade myths of transcendence and only called fr the espaciy to negate one's 0% ‘empirical ogo’ and experience immortality in #0 far at one identified with a supeaindivideal Spit ~ appeared in torn t0 ‘many to be too barren, and was not forceful enough to prevent ‘many elapos into the old mythological religions and many Highs Df blind activism ‘Theoretican and militant of revolutionary clas, endowed with 4 singularly energetic and_ dispassionate temperament, Engels entsinly did not identity with the ner urmasl ofthe bourgease lf the ate ninesenth century, Not only wat he devoid of mosalgia for the "tedious notion of personal immortality’ s" but even the heroic pesimitm of 2 Leopard, supposing Engels had known it ‘other than superficially, in all ikeinood would net have been very ongenial to im. One can imagine that at the most Engels would Ihave viewed ia the individual tragedy of an inellec too exalted to belong to the liberal-moderate herd but barn too soon andinan “*Gioeaps Pall Gtessot): lean poe, whove Inc, manda senstendel accom o's paheiie and mansions mecha ‘'Glran! Vee rove): flan novels: wer ards veleced a clinch ve of heat he mame ome ey depicted teers a the out onthae tec cri) ie alone es) wt mop or ESELRe Vicon our eet ln Letra emp 9b). “t Engle Laat Poh and the Bod Clas Cran Ppt, 2 ivtligah Sued Woe m oe welame >.‘environment to9 isolated to know of the new hope of mankind, the working class, But the question ofthe end ofthe human race ‘which weighed so heavily on positivist culure as 2 whole in the Tate nineteenth century, did not afect only the “beloved ego’ ofthe pllistine anxious for a place in paradise, But also had an impact fn the ulimate prospects of communis "This question wat persivenly present in the late Engel. At fist, i must have seemed possible to him to incorporate the end ofthe human race and of the sls system within the framework of the dislecic in a ‘let-Hegelian’ sense, i. by accentuating the tteabnegative moment according to which ‘all that exis ‘serves 0 pris’ In his sketch ofthe history of socialist cheories, Engels remarks that “Fourier .. handles dialectics in the same masterly way ashis contemporary Hege!’ and then goeson to: ‘With the sme use of dialectics he Brings our the fac, in opposition to the talk about the ilimitabe perfecbiiy of man, that cach hnstorical phate has its ascending, but abo descending curve, and {applies this conception also othe Stare ofthe whole human sac. [AsKant introduced into natural science the ultimate destruction of| the eet, so Fourie introduced into historical though che ultimate extinction of humanity" ‘Bor could one really erm ‘dialetial” a devastation in which the patrimony of knowledge and civilization accumulated by the fhuman race up t0 its highest tage, communism, would not be paved on and more fully articulated but rather would be seatered to the winds? The more thorough ereatment which Engels gave, at about the same time, to this question in his Introduction «0 ‘Disktis of Nature does indeed bepin with the maxim so dear to him, all bat comes into being deerves to perish’. Bute then goes fn to give a picture ofthe farure end of eur world in which a tragie sense (though ics a serenely tragic sense) about the destiny ‘of mankind predominates, ‘Millions of yess may elapse, hundreds ‘of thowsands of generations be born and dic, but inexorably the time willcome when the declining warmth ofthesun willnoJonger bufice to mele the ee thnusting elf forward from the poles; when thehhuman race, crowding more and more about the equatr, will finally no longer find even there enough heat for life; when sradually even the last trace of organic bfe will vanish; and the Egeland Free Wil 99 carh, an extinct frozen globe like the moon, will circle in deepest Grknes and in an ever narrower orbit about the equally extinct fan, and at lst fll into it. Other planets will have preceded i others wil follow iy instead of the Bright, warm sola system with itsharmonious arrangement of members, only a eld, dead sphere ‘will sill purse it lenely path through universal space. And wae ‘il happen to our solar system will happen sooner or later to all the other systems of our inland universe, i will happen to al he fother innumersle island univercs, even to those the light of ‘which will nver reach the earth while chere sa living herman eye "Thici a passage which enables us to see how strongly Engels fele bout thi Lacretan theme ofthe end of the world. There is 00d desl of similarity of expresion berween one of Engels Sentences and the close of Carduce's ode Sw monte Muri: fn the rarer soto I'equatoredieto i richiamt del calor foggents/ Feseenaata prote abbis una solfemins, un uomo "(ll man’s exhausted progenylconfined beneath the equstor/by the call oF Aceting warmtjhas s single female, one man). This similarity between the two texts i all che more stikng in that one cannot Smagine two authors more diferent from one another and tere tno possiblity thac one was derived from the other Ie represen further evidence of the wide difosion ofthis theme among even ‘the most diverse areas of European cultre in the late niescenth “War thisto be the epilogucto not only aur own history and that ‘of other galaxies but alto to the entire universe? Engels’ answer ‘wasn, Matter, which posteses movement as its indestructible Characteristic, was to give rte to new aggregations and diferen- tations, to new worlds which would be produced ‘even if only afer millions and miions of years and more or less by chance ‘bye with dhe necesiy that is also inherent in chance’. And condi~ tions fvourable to the genesis of organic life would arse agin, for a shore interval’ of cormic history, on one ofthe plancts of| these worlds", » We have the cereumty that mate remains temally the sane i allt tansformations, that none of its ae- ‘bates can ever be lost, and therefore, also, chat with the sme iron necessity chaeit will exterminate on the cath its highest creation, Diss of Nae, p20.the thinking ming, s must somewhere ete and at another time agsin produce i ‘Thus, we have the view ofan “eternal cyce' of macusive events ‘of cosmie destruction and reormation, without the transmission fof any cltaral patrimony from one to the other ~ a view much ‘more similar to that of certain ancient philosophies (one need only think ot the Stole’ concept of a periodic univer holocaust fepyres) than to the madern concept of progestin any ofits viriogs forms, including the Rousteatian one of return ro maure "The Introduction 10 Dials of Nate conclades paradoxically swith a vision which it would be bard to tm dialectical, even in the sence ofsdnlcical matevialsm. Engels never confronted this problem explicitly, preoccupied as he was with other interes and Other teks within the svorking-las movement ~ tasks which ‘ere much more urgent and demanding chan any meditation on the end of ce works! ‘Bat that the problem did not altogether escape him can be seen in the remarks he devoted to 3 some ten eats later in the fist chapter of Ludwig Feverbch, immediately following. upon his ‘demonstration of the possibilty of revolaionary interpretation fof the Hegelian dslctic "Ie is noe necessary, het, to go into the {Question of whether this mode of outlook i thoroughly in accord ‘withthe present postion of mitral seence which preictsa possible fend fr the cath, and foritsabitbiiy ily contain one: which thereore recognizes that for she history of humanity, to, thet pot only an ascending but aio a descending branch, At any rate ‘we stil nd ourselves a considerable dsance ftom the turning [point de which the historical course of ciety becomes one of ‘decent, and we cannot expect Hegelian philosophy to be con- ‘ermed with asubject which natural scene, int time, had not at Sllpaced upon the agenda as yo."* Hlre the prediction of the end ‘of the humas race and of our world is no Tonger regarded, asi was in the pasage cited from Ant-Diving, as an example of| revolutionary dialectics, but as mi an objection chat is prob ably valid agaist the dsiectical conception. The discussion is postponed to later date and also is declared less than urgent; but ftisnot sumed tht the question has been resolved. Bek oer pe oe Byglsend Free Will 101 A ready and facile solution was to be provided by the anti ‘materialist philosophies that sprang up at the beginning of the twentieth century. According to those self-assured thinker, the ‘external world has a¢ is contents otly thought thinking ise How can thoughe be shin by its own contents? The end of the hhuman race and the end of the solar system are thus pure and simple nonsense, spectes created by “naive realm’. And since, whenever you scratch a ewentethcentury Marxist, nine times ‘out of ten he turns out to bea lef-ideaist, one cannot rule ost the posibiiry that many anti-Engesin Marxists (not Colle, but probably Schmide, Fetscher, Havemann and varios others) sill agree withthe scintillating line of ressoning of those delist, Ang although they may replace thought’ with ‘praxis, ehie docs ot change very much? ‘Another consequence of the Hegehan-vulgar-materilst ime broglo into which Engels (and, following his example, Kautsky snd Plekhanov) is supposed ta have mancuvred Marxist i, according to Colle, the aceptance of tlic view of human hastory. By giving an Hegehan definition of freedom se 'conscis- ness of nocesity' and by constructing a metaphysical material ‘vaguely inherited from Spinoza, Engels, Plekhanov, and Kausky tllegedly fled to grasp that connection between causality and finals which i "che key to historical materialism’. Marx, onthe a the st fer decade he pote of ele side’ beso a Immneine cat to man arta Bary alone nat roon og ‘Sposa the oer poem (enc exinesen” of mankind) habs ficeone Whether nat posi an he dest mh ie wry dont tate though eae plosean lamang tat hi etic drains Sthich upto now by srred myn fctons of echawcaue ina 2 att ey econ el fe le eae mom ‘cienceetionl terms That he quem no ‘argent dest mae at [rie acd nt bee begged yy ed the prsage fom the elm of neesty vo te resin offeedor vem aay ‘ike She eemalexsecce of te bunny ores cargpeaane ‘ehh repens ott caatin burp a peseeaen wc hm af nkerte osm nny snotierpesex ta aot Sseplyepued ao tat hy hve to ov ane set coors bop wit ‘ew tial aces new vestry ec. aering ons ate pest ‘ithe tad ofthe words abe tothe nin of aon’: papel pope Spent ily sn ose of ag infec am eer ERP Semet can Pac cee‘other hand, had made very clear in a famous pasage of Capita that the distinetve characteristic of man sn relation to animals i hs capacity to et» goal for bitnelf and to subordinate means 9 that end, thereby overtuming the cause and effect relationship. However, a closer reading, not confined to the chapter of An lng om Freedom and Necesity’ and 2 few wolated pases fiom Plekhanov and Kautsy, shows thatthe capacity to order ‘means to ends a 4 characterstic poalarto human acnon was well recognized by Engels and hie mich more kimited followers, In his ‘esny om the process of humnanization ofthe ape, Engel ses that “thefurhes mien become removed from animals... the more their cect on nature assumes the character of 2 premeditated, planned Seion daected cowards definite ends known in advance” He then ‘emphasizes the point farther: “in short, the animal merely ase ‘extemal nature «5 man by his changes makes i serve hit end, ‘masters it, This i the inal, essential dsincaon between man and ther animals, and once again is labour that ings about chi Sistincton.°S The same distinction i taken op again in chapter IV fof Lang Feuerbach ad sgeitcant elaborations were made by [Kaasky in Ethie and the Matenaist Conception of Har # Kausky notes cha the development of the bram cor chs organ into = centre for the collection and elaboration (and not just the mere pasive reception) of sense impresons. Whereas in the lower animal there isan unmediated Succesion of stim and responses, in thehigher animal these rwo elements are mediated precsely by the brain's elaborative fanction, which in man tkes on an alto ‘gether new importance with the emergence of language and the [Posibility of forming ‘abstract concepts and scientific notions and ‘belief. Thisenables man to master naturein par, and pives human Ihisory character and chythm deren irom the preceding history ‘of mature [But in addition to this recognition of human acion as fnalisic Gets eR nn. Manion nt Ha Seis obvious that a hor wat 8 spying but meson and at SRE sbuce Ray lace hts ce Basu Teen ia {Supe Tho uf Drwavm’ dT Bl Wart) [Bans bowever ins ono explo tl ond alo compen Bryce and Bree Will 103 action (which is perfectly consistent with the pasage from Capita referred to by Collet), Engels and later Kautsky and Plekhanov io on to make certain essential distinctions, without which one uns the risk of lapsing back ito the old mythological conception Df free wil’ asthe Austro-Marxiss did and as much of eabeojuent Marxism has done. To hegin with, Engels remaths, there exists 4 gap berwcen the goal and the elt of our actions that becomes ‘wider and wider a distant resultsare taken ingoaccou nce ad trie removed’) and when the effects asin ftom the combination ‘of many individual wills are considered. This observation shocks [Alehuser, who needs only hear mention ofa distinction between individual wills and dir results before he acewses Engels of having forgotten Marx's polemic agsnst the “robinsonades of elasical ‘bourgecis philosophy and economics Althuser’santi-humanism ‘husarives ata denial of dhe individual asa relatively independent psycho-pysicl ensity ~ which i no batter, despite the scenic ppomposity with which is dechimed, shan the old denial of the fempirial ego on the pat af idealism. Nor does it make any nse to objec thatthe individual wills are determined in turn dy the general socio-economic situation. Engel knew this very well, but he also knew thatthe reflections of 2 socioeconomic situation at the level of consciousness and the changes inthis situation which individuals seek o realize through theit varios plans of action are infinitely varied even within the same socal casa result of the infinite diversification in cultural background, physical tempers= ‘ment, et. For this reason alone —n0e to mention other factors sich asthe unpredictability ofthe reactions ofthe opposing cass and of the many stata and individuals who ate insoficiently polite, ce ~ the results are greatly diferent from the plans. Engels prob ably thought primarily in terms ofthe historical experience of the French Revolution. We have our owen confirmation i the ex perience ofthe October Revolution, More accurate are AIsers SSbservations sith regard to the Jess than perfect consistency, i thelettert0Bloch, between thisquestionoftherelaionshipberween individual intentionsand collecuve outcome andthe ther question ofthe relationship berween sructure and sipertractre, Here we ta be helped by the observation that those remarks did not have Sas Ader, For Mare, Loodn 1960, pp. 2 f Naat, pp 19-3029 nd the ieee Blok of 2104 thelr origin in the leter to Bloch, but were caried over from preceding writings (Dialetis of Nate, pp. 19-20, 292 and the fourth chapter of Ludwig Feuerhact) without Engels having fle the need te recapitulate the entire line of argument. But a comt- parison wih thos eurlieformulatans aso shows how forcign to Engels was the ‘optimistic’ belief ascribed to him by Althuser, according to which the fusion of indivi wills would produce a “general effect as che resale of and of miracle or pre-established ‘harmony * Oa the contrary, Engels views the great gap between intentions and results 25 proof that mankind has only emerged in pate from its ‘natural’ phase and has yer to ‘leap’ into the realm freedom, The two pasages cited from Dialeaes Nature stat his very desl, Seconuly, and 25 we mentioned zbove, men's wills ste not an snconditioned primum, but ate themselves the product of «sum fof biological, socal, cleural etc. causes. Engel ighly notes tht the imconsitency ‘does not lie in the fact chat idea! driving Forces are recognized, bat im che investigation not being carried farther bck behind these ino their mosive causes # And Plekhano®, polemicizing with Stammler, notes chat not only i the choice | 2 means necesarly dermined by its tlaionship tothe end Gf wish to bain hit end, Las make use of thin sans bu sem the choc ofthe ends necessarily determined by al ofthe preceding history of che individal * Iisnos true, a8 Collet seems to believe, ‘hatthis argument rendersmagntory what wat std above about the ausalty-Aalsm nexus. The espacity to make plans and to onder ‘means i relation to ends ssl within man's powers, aa conse ‘quence of an intelletsal development engendered exentally by labour. It isshovn, however, to beillesory to claim thatthe deter= mination of the end isnot caused, or that 2€ 4 certain pint there develops in man, 2 product of natate, a process whereby he is torally released ftom the bondage of nature at least with regara to his ‘will. The formula of wmualzende Praxis ~ quite suggestive preciscly because ofits various posible meanings canbe given = ‘miraculst meaning which doesnot lead toa mature Marxism bat to Dewey andall the forms of pragmatism that makeno attempt to fives scensficexplanation of prass itself. And mature Marxiem— pid pas Ins Foc n Ma Eng, Sled Wes one volume cus! Ion pp sa [Tne mort by Rom Homes kr ow hit Bagels and ree Will 10s ‘not just that oF Engels bu also that of Mary's embareaing preface of 1859 ~ explicitly rejects thar meaning, and elk instead about indispensible relations independen¢ of thei will which men enter into in the proces of production. From what we have Sid, it ca als be seen hove deveptiveitisto identify freedom with the so~led ‘subjective conditions’ of ou action and necessity with the ro-alled “objective conditions, I relation co extreme forms of voluntrie sbjectivism, an pel objective conditions is already a step forward, Nonetheles, the element of necesiy" des not refer solely tothe existence oF non tsistence of the means suited to a given exd; rather itis abo Inherent in the subjective factor, nthe determination of the end andin the possesion ofa will that isenergedic and persevering ‘enougl topursuethatend. In fac athe work related toedacaton, propaganda and agitation ie directed towards the teansformation| and orientation ofthe ‘subjecive condition (i.e. men's wil) na particular ditection. To the extent that this Work meets with succes, the will of those who have bean edusted sre determined by ehis work isl (and by all che biologiesl, socal, ete. circum stances without the existence of which no education or propaganda campaign can succeed). To che extent that it does ot meet oth Ssocess the wis Uae wh have been educated are determined bu are cused by all che other antecedent circumstances. Tete iy of course, 2 diference besween an authoritarian education (or @ dogmatic and sectarian form of propagands) and an educition which atemprs co shape responsible’ and fre’ individuals, But in the scientific and non-myshological meaning ofthe term, respon sible an free mean that 4 person is sare af the means bested to attain the greatest posible happiness and that hei aware ofthe social, non-individuaisic, character of this objective and of the sean for attaining it. Thus, Colles satement that man is both ‘ausalty ond finals, ease and effect, does not go far enough, The finalism exists ensirely within the causity ~ it is nota kind of ‘reverse side" to causality, sii with Kantian man, wito i pheno ‘menon inserted within 2 causal chain and noumenon endowed ‘witha metaphysial freedom. Thesemedhing more that man poset in relation to animals is a gretter capacity to forsee and order ‘means in relation to an end and a greater understanding inthe sletermination of the end, but it i nota greater measare of eee ‘sill in choosing between various ends,106 (Ofcourse, both Collett and Havemann ate correct in expressing their dstfictuon with the Spinosist and Hegelian formulation ‘of freedom as consciousness of necesity" which Engels adopts in ‘AnicDilhring. Bor why is this formulation unsastactory? Not ibersuse of is anti-vohuntarism, but because of is anrhedonissn: Tbeeause it denies the importance of dhe meaning of freedom asthe absence painful constant and hepresenezof those conditions ‘which ens the happiness ofthe dividual, and because insists hat man not only recognize necessity but abo glory and efface himself i it, Thus, i part ofthat conception of philosopny as sscenciem and selt-represion (in short, « kind of religion for ‘educated persons) which Marxism uteny rejects (On this poine Mariam obviously ano-Spnorst and chetefore av unqualified appeal to Spinoza (with whom Marxism has Gonda- ental points of contact on other mater) would be an errr. Ise hecewaty to add, however, that Engel, in the chapter in Av ‘Dibrng oa Freedoms and Necessity’ (achapesr which part oftbe ‘mote general reatment of ‘Morality nd Law, snd whieh devotes ‘only afew pagestothe problem that scesallysntcrestsus), articulates that formaulasion not so much in the Spinozist sense of an aaqaies ‘ence in and apotheosis of reality, a inthe Baconian sense that tatare obeys ws only if we obey i ‘Freedom doet not consis the dream of independence of marural laws, Buti the knowledge fof these Laws and in the possiblity this gives of stomatal making thom work owards define ends." The final clave, sehich We hase italicized, intoduces an esental dstincsion because it does away ‘withthe old concept of “inner fecedom's and the subsequent par ‘ofthe argument as Wel sows clearly that for Engels freedom will bye filly relied only with the advent of communist society and ‘with complete mastery over the fosces of ature Te sill maine Slightly unclear what fs meant by complete mastery over nature snd upto what point thisis posible fs we haveseen, Engel didnot Ihold fo limitesly optimistic outlook wich regard to the dixtane furure of the human race) Also unsetiled is the question of the extent to which certain “apolitical” (as oppored to. generically “egotitieal) tendencies on the part of the great majority of men ae themselves + pare of 3 human nature’ which isnot readily tlkered leaving aide those moment of exceptional socal ension Anise, 15. Bags and Fee Wal 207 ‘when the majority becomes polidcized ~ and therefore represent an obstacle to the realization and maintenance of a communist Seciety which is‘clasles'in the broadest sense ofthe term." ‘Oneida deeply rooted inthe Marxism ofthe rwentith century isthat the densl of free wil leas co fatliem alo tthe politial level eto that notorious waiting forthe ‘spontancous collapse’ of capitalism. Ihink thatthe reply to cis objection which given bby Plekhana in hisessy on “The Role ofthe Individeal in history” isa vad, even though iisfar fom definitive, Pekhsnow noted, inthe Gist place, that history gives us many examples of people ‘who denied ffce will and yet exerted themselves with great free fhlnest, sich asthe Moslems a the ime of thei great conquers, oF Calvin, or Cromwell: Inthe second place, he pointed out tar ifan individual regards his actions as indispensable in order to obtain tn objective (ef he believes that among those evens ‘govemed by necessity’ ate numbered not only the ations of others but also bison action). the denial offre willhen comes to mean for im 2 ‘complete inability to remain inactive’ [As isd, this reply is not definitive becans, in seeking to refute the proponents of a igouristic, Kantian type of eis (Plekhanov’s aceual adversaries im this essay, it stuates itself to0 much on their terran. In other words, it merely attempts to show thatthe very Kind of ‘heroic’ conduct which, according to 2 Kantian, is made potsibl only by the doctrine of moral freedom and the extegorieal Imperativecan bechcited just as easily from the Spinovi- Hegelian theory offeedom as the recognition of necessity, This moreover, isa danger to which those who seck to theorize materiale ethics offen snecumb, Limiting chemselverto giving materialist ground tng to traditional moral precepts and modes of condacy, they Fl to call into question the content ofthese. Theit materialist fervour tven leads them to attempt to show that there is no man more Imorl than the materialist inthe sense that one is more radically shmiene and detached from his own immediate interes, This tendency, which is present even in he great Epicurms, canbe found ‘Mex When ening ceva: with he qston fama’ boli! oasons Phe nayemptaeel a vette ecu ‘stein MerPablaet. "the Mle the Indvioal in Histor" in Fundamental rom of Maro pve108 {nies most conventional and conservative form in many works of nineeenth-centary poskivism, for example in Ardigs's Movle 14 potvini®» Obviously, Plekhanov's case is diferent; while he asst fee from socal-patrosic involutions, he war well aware of the diference in content beeween ‘our morals and their (ot ‘Trotsky would havesaid). Nonetheless, even ‘our moralipresented themselves tim in a eigouristc guise. Thus, in his analysis ofthe ‘motives underlying moral conduct, Plekhanov sei ld to ovet= {generalization and oversimplifieaion. Ij rare that someone who Srifices his own immediate interests and fights for a higher paige does so because he considers his ov contribution ta be inreplateabie. More commonly, he does 0 ~ atlas initally~ in response to 2 namber of ‘extemal’ preiites sich ae fea of the low esteem of others or fear of no longer being able to belong toa group into swhich he hat by now Become integrated and on the basis of whote “sale of valuer he hav become accuttomied t0 Judging himselfand others, etc: Moral codes based on pureinward~ ness, on duty for duty’s sake, or on the unmediated identity of novwiedge ofthe good amd moral action, al take as ther’ prinep ‘what if anything shold be s destination ~a destination which rans ‘he risk in tara of degenerating into 2 dreary exaltation of sacrifice van end in tel ond of Forgetting tho he lsmte a of man Acton is after all man's happines. The statement that morality 2 social fet should not be understood simply in the sesethst every soxtiety and every class as is moral code, ba also inthe sense thst fhe impulse to scnfce onerelf for other would not arise (except pethaps in some instances related in origin 0 animal instinct love for one's children et) ifethers didnot bring pressreo beat, tn one form and degree of intensity ot another, on each individual for that purpose, and if each individual had noe already compro= mised himself by soliciting and asesing positively such forms of altrstic behaviour. Certainly, sn dhe conflict between immediate hedonistic impulses and the teapale to fight for more genet, broadly gauged ineeress, the dominance of one over the oer hat nothing todo with eeedom” inthe spirtuastic rn, ‘Nor can it be sai thatthe desmythologizing of fice wil! and ‘praxis’ lead to “historia usificationism”- This pointhas a certain importance becasse historical jutifestionism has played an Reber Arig (ak-130: fl’ gre poi piaephe. (8 Bagels and Fie Will 109 important, thogghalwayssecondiry rolein the crisisof Gramsci Since 1956 and in the face that hierical audies in Realy have ance {gain boen moving towards the right (or, which amounts tothe ‘ime thing, cowards an insipid apaliGcizaion) ~ while che new frneration of Marsists no longer made up primary of historians Tike its predecesir, bat i instead made up of philosophers, with alldhe advantages and disadvantages implied by that. Hisorcal justification can have an openly idealist vesion, ccording to which iis seoumed that history s ently “etional fsitely progresive,entzely atone with the very development of the Spirit, Ieisnedles to point out to what degre dis conception sands opposed to historical material, Here once agais one finds the deceprive character of the concept of eudom 5 con sciousness of necesity, It tends to lead to a confusion of causal necesty (which does not imply any glorification of fits compli, Since the nevesary event may be ete unjus and retrogresive, mttely nconsistent with the happinesrofgrest masse Fen) with 1 imaltic or even providensia!necesity Bot historical jusifcatonism assumes also another and more insidious function. On the one hand, i supposes that there sat objective siration so absoluely binding that onlya single course of {ction ic prune and all orher cations are enndemme in aeanee ‘to fature On the other hand, ieasumes the essence of pliticl subject (whether individsal or aroup) totally ee ftom corporstive limitations and sectoral interests, totaly capable of disceming that, sgl obligatory choice with perfect uccity. When satedin dese terms, all the negative effects of political choice (the starvation of southem peasants in postunificton Ialy, the suppression of say posibiliry of discussion and inisative trom below in Stains, Rusia ec.) can then be regarded 25 the ‘necessary price’ of the step forward that was being undertaken at that parsicuar historical moment. Andany criticism ofthe action taken by the Kalan Right fr the Stalinist bureaucracy comes to be regarded as moralistic, stopian, antibioric ete “This conception is mistaken both in ts way of characterizing the objective conditions which obviously have a very great dete mining force, but not such asto foreclose the posity of ariving| 2 diferent solaions and in its way of characterizing the political Subject which may commit eror inthe execution of particule poliey and even opt for a mistaken policy, preciely because che‘olutionsarenotcompletely binding. A poiticalciteisundoubsedly theexpresion of given social clas; but that elite may give exprer- sion tothe immediate aspirations of ks clas (including featates has ‘may be premature or oudated), rit may tend to expres the lass amore fundamental, long-range needs; it may focus on one oF another sara or social group within che case may draw the lines ofthe edationship beeween the class that represents and the subaltern orhegemontzed clases and stata ina number of dlferent ‘ways = ether more authoritarian or more inclined to atempt st least 2 partial consensus Whether iti oriented towards one 0: the other of these various aptions depends on its cltual-politica background ina broad sense chat encompasses both the immediate socio-economic station sn which the choice among the various ‘options presents itself and dhe entire “pant of that ling group and ‘cach ofits members ~2 pas that ince the effects af the peevions practical expevienees and curcents of thought they have been ‘exposed to, the pliucaland cultural education they have received, and finally, with regard to single individuals, cheirpsycho-pysial ‘constitution and thei mil and local mien" ‘The failure of revolusion in Wester Europe and the need to build socialism in backwaedand besieged country stinsartount- able limits tothe actions of any communist leader, even the mose incemationals with the greatest rust in demactay Irom below. This is confzmed by the act that both Lenin in is ist years and Trossky before he entered the opposition were themselves ‘Stalin’ toa certain degree. Buti Stn’ Stalii (ad in he Stalinism of che bureaucratic group led by him and personified Dy him) there was also an exre measure of brutal authoritarianism, denialofany possibility of dissent, manipulation ofthe entire works ‘communist movement, falsfieation of Marxism in order to adapt it to all the contingent shifts in Russan sate policy Ard his extra measr, chs extea price thatthe working clas of the USSR rim ms which mes in edn of hrm me rece toad ane sputeets Fi thine a Nl ese ‘eteitseseppoung sms Vcr ga snd Pvoudbon Wiheepoad fo the posit moombers of the relng prop may coment masa the temas of Ano Gris, Selene Prt Nero Londen ‘oy ae eee i ae nna ne tian éarms et inc canted dems os pevege span hed which ‘Supaly repre gels and Fee Wil 231 and of the entire world was made co pay, was 2 result ofthe fact tha the Stalinist rubng group was telfin many ways a produce of Russian backwardnes, ofan ikasimilated Marxism, of formar tion that was too narrowly national, ec. Stalin did not commit she ‘errors atid crimes he did as che rot ofa Fee choices being what dhe had become, he could not have acted any differently, But this Imposiiry of acung differently was not the consequence solely of the objective situation, asthe historia rationalizers maintain, bbut also of subjective shortcomings. Different men would also Ihave had ro implement policies that were largely authoritarian and, in many respects, non-secaise (assuming that they were “unsiccesfil in sting off «new revolutionary tide in the Wes) Tr the depres of authoritarianiam wouldhave hoon very diffrent and thus the right-wing involution undergone by the US an the people's democracies during the post-Stalnist era would abo have boen les dissrous, ‘As Thave mentioned, historical jussificationism has had an ‘important role in the vicsitades of Itaan leRewing culture during this second post-war period, Till t9s6 2 jossifetionst trcinide prevailed aiong Talian communist or philo-commanist Jntelleemls in relton to Stalinism. This represented 2 mélange fof a tadition of revolutionary thought which took as is model the French Revolution (aecesity and historia justification of the ‘Terror sidan anti-democratic and anichomanist Crocean clere (orth ts view of polities as the expression of force rather than of {ustice, wich its file references to Machiavell and perhaps even to Marx butits sabtandal adherence to Treischke, Bismarck and the “Prussian” conception of politi). In realty, these wo com= ponent elements were quite heterogeneous with respect to one fnother, The former accepted violence a painful but transitory ice to be paid forthe construction oft wacety without violence. ‘The latter viewed violence a5 a permanent element inthe biory fof mankind, and ridicufed all egalitarian, lbereanan and pacifist cogrammel But in the minds of most lalan Marxists, by origin Iistorciss and Croceans, the diffrence was not altogether clear. And one of the reasons for the great cultural-polieal success enjoyed by Palmiro Togtiat for 2 good fifteen years was the fact thas he personified this confusion and typified with undeniable culture and shill the histories Seainst (a opposed to the fanatical sand sectarian Stalin),