Marxism,Fascism,andTotalitarianism

ChaptersintheIntellectualHistoryofRadicalism

A.JamesGregor

StanfordUniversityPress

Stanford,California

©2009bytheBoardofTrusteesoftheLelandStanfordJuniorUniversityAllrightsreserved

Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystemwithoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofStanfordUniversityPress.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataGregor,A.James(AnthonyJames).

Marxism,fascism,andtotalitarianism:chaptersintheintellectualhistoryofradicalism/A.JamesGregor.

p.cm.

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

9780804769990

ISBN978-0-8047-6034-8(pbk.:alk.paper)1.Totalitarianism—History—20thcentury.2.Communism—Europe—History—20thcentury.3.Fascism—Europe—History—20thcentury.I.Title.

JC480.G742009

320.53094—dc22

2008022443

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-free,archival-qualitypaperTypesetatStanfordUniversityPressin10/13Galliard

ThisworkisdedicatedtoRenzoMorera,andallthoselikehim,

whopaidwithcourageanddignitythepriceofthetwentiethcentury.

Acknowledgments

Theauthorofanybookowesanincalculabledebttoaninordinatenumberofpersonswhohaveconsciouslyorunconsciously,willinglyorunwillingly,assistedinitsproduction.IntermsoftheassistanceIhavereceivedoveralifetime,Ihavebeenparticularlyblessed.Ihavelivedlongenough,andbeengivensufficientopportunity,tohavespokenwithsomeoftheprincipalprotagonistsinthestorybeforethereader.SidneyHookwasexceedinglykindtome.HespokeoftheideologicaldisputesthatcharacterizedhisrelationshipwithsomeofthemajorMarxisttheoreticiansheknew.GiuseppePrezzolinitoldmeofhisexperienceswiththeearlysyndicalistsandthefirstFascists.HespokeofhisexchangeswiththeyoungBenitoMussolini,longbeforeMussoliniwasmasterofItaly.Andtherehavebeenprofessors,Russian,Italian,andGerman,whorememberedtimes,longbeforetheSecondWorldWar,whenalltheissues,joinedintheaccountbeforethereader,werestillcurrent—andmovedpersonstopoliticalaction.

ToDr.RenzoMorera,Iamgratefulfortheaccountofhislife,which,tome,conveyssomethingofthedignityandhonorwithwhichmanypaidthepriceexactedbythepoliticalideologiestowhichthisbookisdedicated.Theideologiesofthetwentiethcenturymadeveryseriousdemandsonthoseoverwhomtheyexercisedinfluence.

Toallthosegoodpeople,staffandstudents,whoassistallthefacultymembersofalltheuniversitieswhereIhavebeenfortunateenoughtopracticemyprofession—Iwishtoextendmyheartfeltthanks.Totheeditorsofscholarlybooks—particularlyMr.NorrisPopeofStanfordUniversityPressonthisoccasion—Iammorethangrateful.Itistheywhomakepossiblethefreeflowofideasinanenvironmentwherethatflowisessential.

Tomywifeandsurecompanion,ProfessorMariaHsiaChang,andtoallthoselovingcreatureswithwhomshehassurroundedus—myunqualifiedgratitude.Byherexample,shehastaughtmetowritewithmoreclaritythanotherwisewouldhavebeenthecase.

Iwishtopubliclyacknowledgemygratitudetoallthesepersons.Theyare

responsibleforanythingthatmaybegoodintheworkbeforethereader—Iamsolelyresponsibleforanythingthatisnot.

A.JamesGregorBerkeley,California

TableofContents

TitlePageCopyrightPageDedicationAcknowledgments

PrefaceCHAPTERONE-IntroductionCHAPTERTWO-TheRootsofRevolutionaryIdeologyCHAPTERTHREE-TheHeterodoxMarxismofLudwigWoltmannCHAPTERFOUR-TheHeterodoxMarxismofGeorgesSorelCHAPTERFIVE-TheHeterodoxMarxismofV.I.LeninCHAPTERSIX-TheHeterodoxMarxismofBenitoMussoliniCHAPTERSEVEN-TheNationalQuestionandMarxistOrthodoxyCHAPTEREIGHT-RevolutionarySyndicalismandNationalismCHAPTERNINE-TheGreatWarandtheResponseofRevolutionaryMarxistsCHAPTERTEN-TheGreatWar,Revolution,andLeninismCHAPTERELEVEN-TheGreatWar,Revolution,andFascismCHAPTERTWELVE-ConclusionsNotesIndex

Preface

Thepresentworkconstitutesanefforttobetterunderstandtheoriginsofthemajorrevolutionaryideologiesofthetwentiethcentury.ItattemptstoreconstructtheevolutionofthoseideologiesfromtheirinitialsourceintheheritageleftbyKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels—totherationalefortotalitarianismtheyweretobecome.Basically,itseekstotrackthatevolutionintoLeninismandItalianFascism.

Someyearsago,ZeevSternhelltracedtheFascistideasofBenitoMussolinitolatenineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryrevolutionaryideasinFrance.Atthesametime,hemadeallusiontosourcesinthespecificallyMarxisttradition—andspokeofa“secondmaincomponent”ofFascistideologyasapeculiar“revision”oftheMarxismitinherited.a

Thepresentstudyattemptstotracetheinfluencesthatshapedthatrevision—foritwillbearguedthatmuch,ifnotall,revolutionarythoughtinthetwentiethcenturywasshapedbyjustsuchrevisionsoftraditionalMarxism.Thetracingisoftendifficult.Thereareinnumerableasidesamidsttheattemptsbyauthors,intherevolutionarytraditionsofEuropeatthetime,toaddressandresolveaclutchofcriticalquestionsthatturnedoncomplexepistemological,normative,andscientificconcernsleftunresolvedbythefoundersof“historicalmaterialism.”

ItwaslefttoMarxism’sintellectualheirstoaddressthequestionofhowmaterialism,asontologyandepistemology,wastobeunderstood.Therewasthenotionof“inevitabilities”andthe“logic”ofhistory—andthequestionofjusthowhumanchoicemightfunctioninadeterministicuniverse.AndtherewastheproblemoftheplaceofDarwinism,thestruggleforexistence,andtheinfluenceofbiologyinallofthat.WithEngels’spassingin1895,allthiswasbequeathedtothegoodofficesofMarxistswhovariedintheirgiftsandperspectives.

EvenbeforethedeathofEngels,“revisionisms”begantogatheronthehorizon.MostoftherevisionismthatwastofollowwastheresultoftheeffortsmadetoaddressallthoseproblemsleftunsettledbythefoundersofMarxism.Itistothoserevisionismsthatthepresentworkwilldirectthereader’sattention.

TheexpositionattemptstofillinsomeoftheintellectualspacethatseparatesclassicalMarxismfromitsrevolutionaryvariants,andthetotalitarianformstowhichthosevariantsultimatelycommittedthemselves.Itwillselectivelyfollowthedevelopmentofallthesevariantsintopoliticaltotalitarianism—thatpeculiarinstitutionalizationthatultimatelycametotypifytheircollectivegoalculture,andprofoundlyshapethehistoryofthelastcentury.

Onemighthaveexpectedthatintellectualhistorianswouldmakeitaprioritytoexplainwhytotalitarianismwasfosteredandsustainedbyboththerevolutionary“left”aswellastheircounterpartsonthe“right.”Infact,remarkablylittlehasbeendoneinthatregard.

MartinMalia,forhispart,spokeofthe“conceptualpoverty”associatedwithWesterneffortstocometogripswiththerealityof“communist”totalitarianism.*IwouldsuggestthatmuchofitsfailurestemsfromtheopacitythatsurroundstheideologicaldiscussionsthataroseoutoftheveryuncertaintyofthephilosophicandsocialscienceclaimsmadebyMarxandEngelsinthenineteenthcentury.Thepresentaccountattemptstooutlinesomeofthetortureddiscussionsthatcollectedaroundthoseclaims.Aswillbeargued,thosediscussionsultimatelyshapedthetotalitarianismthatemergedoutoftheputativeliberalityandhumanityofclassicalMarxism.

Itishopedthatthepresenteffortwillcontributetoourunderstandingofthetwentiethcentury—thecenturythatlongwillberememberedasperhapsthemostdestructiveinhumanhistory.Itissomethingofacautionarytale,addressedtothosewhoinsistonreadingrevolutionaryradicalismasthesolitaryhopeavailabletothemodernworld.Totherestofus,itisintendedasinformation,aspartofanattempttosettleouraccountswiththetwentiethcentury.

CHAPTERONE

IntroductionAswemovefurtherandfurtherintothetwenty-firstcentury,thetwentiethtakesonmoreandmoreanairofunreality.Inonesense,itsfeaturesrecede,andinanother,someofthosesamefeaturesbecomecaricaturesofthemselves.Ourmemorieshavebecomeuncertain.Mussolini’sFascismbecomesaburlesque,1andLenin’sBolshevismtheantechamberofgulagsandkillingfields.2Oneisleftwithafeelingofdisquiet,asthoughonedoesnotunderstandanyofit.

Foraverylongtimethetwentiethcenturyseemedtomakesense.TheplanetwascaughtupinaManicheanstruggleoflightagainstdarkness.Marxism,embodyingallthevaluesoftheEnlightenment,founditselfopposedbytheirrationalevilofreactionaryandcounterrevolutionaryfascism.Fascism,ignominiouslystruckdowninthecourseoftheSecondWorldWar,quicklylostwhatevercachetitbrieflyenjoyedamongsomeintellectualsintheWest,tobereducedtolittlemorethanapublicexpressionofprivatepathologies.3Forthenationsoftheworld,antifascismbecameacompulsorypatrimony.

FASCISMANDCOMMUNISMUntilthecomingoftheSecondWorldWar,bothMussolini’sFascismand

genericfascismhadbeenthesubjectsofpassionatedebate.Therehadbeenperfectlyrationalandobjectivediscussionoftheirrespectivemeritsanddeficits.Mussolini’sFascism,forexample,couldbespokenofaspossessedofa“completephilosophy”articulatedbyanumberof“youngintellectuals”fullycompetenttoargueindefenseoftheirpositions.Economistscouldspeakofthe“gainsandlosses”ofFascisteconomicpolicyandaffirmthat“themassofItalianssympathizewithFascismand,onthewhole,supporttheregime.”4

Afterthewar,noneofthatwaspossibleanylonger.Antifascismbecamethenegationthatunifiedthecapitalist,democraticWestandthesocialist,nondemocraticEast.Fascistswerebanishedfromhumanity.Theybecametheunprecedentedobjectsofgeneralreprobation.Theirveryessencewasdeemed

barbarous.Theirsolemotivationunderstoodtohavebeenwarandviolence.

Conversely,foryearsaftertheSecondWorldWar,JosephStalin’sSovietUnion,triumphantinthatconflict,thepresumptiveembodimentofMarxism,becamethehopeofasurprisinglylargeminorityofWesternintellectuals.Fascismwasrememberedasthetoolofamoribundcapitalism—seekingtopreserveitsprofitsatthecostofwarandpestilence.ItwasseenastheextremeoppositeofSovietsocialism.AllthesimplismsthathadbeenthecontentoftheMarxistinterpretationoffascismintheinterwaryearswereseenbymanyashavingbeenconfirmedbythewar.Manyontheleftwerepersuadedthatmonopolycapitalism,initsdeathagony,hadunleashedfascismontheworldinitsdesperateefforttostaythehandofhistory.

TheSecondWorldWarwasunderstoodtohavebeenawarbetweenimperialistswhoeachsoughtadvantageovertheother.TheSovietUnion,innocentofallthat,becamethevictimofNationalSocialistGermany—buthadheroicallysucceededinemergingvictorious.TheRedArmywasdepictedasanantifascistarmythathadsacrificeditselfindefenseofhumanity.Fortheirpart,theWesternpowerswereseenascravenspoilerswhosoughtonlyprofit,andworldwidehegemony,fromthedefeatoffascism.

SomeintellectualsinEuropeandNorthAmericafoundsuchanaccountconvincing.WinstonChurchillandCharlesdeGaulle,Europe’smostconsistentantifascistsbeforetheadventofthewar,weresomehowtransformedinto“cryptofascists.”Churchill’spostwar“IronCurtain”speechatFultonin1946wasunderstoodtoconstituteaprovocationcalculatedtosupporttheeffortof“industrialists”whohopedtouseacontestwiththeSovietUnionasthepretextfor“curbingtheclaimsoftheworkingclasseswiththehelpoftheauthoritiesandthuscompletethe[postwar]processofreorganizingproductiononmonopolisticlinesattheexpenseofthecommunity.”GeneraldeGaulle,inturn,longknowntobeananticommunist,couldonlybeanenemyofthepoorandunderprivileged,and,asaconsequence,oneexpectedtoextendaidandcomforttofascistsand“reactionaries”ofallsorts.5

SoconvincedofallthisweresomeEuropeanandAmericanintellectualsthattheycouldonlyspeakoffascismasanexcrescenceofcapitalism.SomeEuropeanssolemnlymaintainedthat“thosewhohavenothingtosayaboutcapitalismshouldalsobesilentaboutfascism.”6Therelationshipbetweenthetwowasconceivedasoneofentailment.

Marxists,formorethanhalf-a-hundredyears,hadarguedthattherecouldonly

be“twopaths...openbeforepresentsociety....[The]pathoffascism,thepathtowhichthebourgeoisieinallmoderncountries...isincreasinglyturning...or[the]pathofcommunism.”7MarxistsandleftistliberalsintheWesthadbeenconvincedbythewarthatSoviettheoreticianshadalwaysbeencorrect.Capitalismwastheseedbedoffascism,andtheonlyrecoursehumanityhadwastoprotect,sustain,foster,andenhanceSovietsocialismanditsvariants.OnlywithNikitaKhrushchev’spublicdenunciationofStalin’scrimesatthe20thPartyCongressoftheCommunistParty,didthesupportofWesternleftistsfortheSovietUnionshowanysignsofflagging.

ImmediatelyafterStalin’sdeathinMarch1953,obliquecriticismsofhisregime,bytheleadersoftheCommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion,signaledtheforthcomingdenunciation—andinFebruary1956,Khrushchevdeliveredhiscatalogofchargesagainstthedepartedleaderina“secretspeech”totheleadershipoftheParty.Inthatspeech,Stalin’sdictatorshipwascharacterizedastyrannical,arbitrary,andhomicidal,havingcreatedasysteminwhichmany,manyinnocentsperished,andinwhichprodigiousquantitiesofthenation’sresourceshadbeenwasted.LargelyunexpectedbothwithinandoutsidetheSovietUnion,thedisclosuresofthe20thPartyCongresscreatedpoliticaltensionswithinthePartyandamongSovietsympathizersthroughouttheWest.

Stalin’ssuccessorswereburdenedwiththeunanticipatednecessityofrenouncingthetyrannicalandhomicidalruleassociatedwithhisname,whileseekingtoperpetuatetheregimehehadcreated.Theywereobliged,bytheirleadershipresponsibilities,tocontinuetospeakof“socialisminonecountry,”whileatthesametime,denouncingitsarchitect.Theyspokeofa“returntoLeninism”whileabandoningsomeofLenin’smostimportantpolicies.TheyspokeofthecommitmenttoclassicalMarxism,whileatthesametimebeginningtheprocessthatwouldconcludewiththecreationofasocialist“stateofthewholepeople”—anarrantaffronttoclassicalMarxism’semphaticinsistencethatsocialismwouldseetheinevitable“witheringawayofthestate.”8

NikitaKhrushchevfashionedhimselfmasterofasystemthatrevealeditselfasincreasinglynationalisticininspiration,militaristicindeportment,industrializinginintent,andstatistbychoice.Itwasasystemthatsoughtuniformcontrolofallthefactorsofproduction,enlistedintheserviceofaneconomicplancalculatedtomakethenationamajorinternationalpower,restoring“lostterritories”tothemotherland,andsecuringitsbordersagainstexternal“imperialists.”Itwasanelitistsystem,withminorityrulelegitimizedbyaclaimofspecialknowledgeofthelawsgoverningthedialecticalevolutionof

society.9

Intheyearsthatfollowed,moreandmoreSovietintellectualsreflectedmoreandmorecriticallyonthepropertiesoftheirpoliticalandeconomicsystem.Theyseemedtorecognize,atleastinpart,thatthespecialclaimtowisdomandmoralvirtuebytherulingelitehadoccasionedthecreationofa“cultofpersonality”aroundtheirleader,JosephVissarionovichStalin,fromwhichtheyhadallsuffered.TheyappreciatedthefactthatStalinhadproceededtoimplementviewsthat“infacthadnothingincommonwithMarxism-Leninism”—butwhichheinvokedinorder“tosubstantiatetheoreticallythelawlessnessandthemassreprisalsagainstthosewhodidnotsuithim.”10Possessedof“unlimitedpower”inan“administrativesystem”—typifiedby“centralizeddecision-makingandthepunctual,rigorousandutterlydedicatedexecutionofthedirectivescomingfromthetopand,particularly,fromStalin”—Stalinismdevolvedintoamorallydefectivesysteminabjectdependenceonthewhimsofasingleman,whosesenseofinfallibilityandomnipotence,ultimatelyandirresistibly,ledtohisutter“irrationality.”11

Beforethecloseofthesystem,SoviettheoreticianshadbeguntodrawconclusionsfromtheroleplayedbyStalinintheirnation’srevolutionaryhistory.Theysuggestedthat“Stalinquicklygrewaccustomedtoviolenceasanindispensablecomponentofunlimitedpower”—toultimatelyconceiveita“universaltool”—aconceptionthatopenedtheportalstoa“tragictriumphoftheforcesofevil.”12Sovietanalystsconcludedthatallofthat,apparently,“waspaymentforbuildingsocialisminabackwardcountry—bytheneedtobuildinashortspaceoftimeaheavy(aboveall,defence)industry,andthousandsofenterprisesintheseindustries,”incircumstancesinwhichthemotherlandwas“surroundedbyenemies.”13

Bythetimeofitspassing,theapologistsfortheSovietsystem,undertheuncertainleadershipofMikhailGorbachev,hadtakenthemeasureofthesystemtheystaffed.Theysoughttoabandonallitsideologicalpretensesaswellasitsinstitutionalforms,toreplacethemwiththevaluesandfashionsoftheliberalismMarxism-Leninismhadlongdeplored.IntheyearsbetweenStalin’sdeathandtheappearanceofGorbachev,allthepropertiesassociatedwithLenin’sBolshevism,andStalin’s“socialisminonecountry,”weremadesubjecttocorrosivereviewbySovietMarxist-Leniniststhemselves—andwerefoundwanting.

TheimpactofallthatonWesternacademicsvariedfrompersontoperson.14

SomesawtheirearliercommitmenttotheSovietUniontheproductofaninfatuationwithanunattainabledream—andproceededtoabandonsocialismastheonlyalternativetofascism.OthersdismissedtheentireSovietsequenceastheconsequenceofoneman’sperversity.Otherssimplyshiftedtheirallegiancetoother,moreappealing,socialisms—inChina,Cuba,orEthiopia.Theschematizationofhistory,withexploitativecapitalismatonepoleandsocialistliberationattheother,wassimplytoofamiliarandattractivetoforsake.Whatwouldchangewouldbethesocialistcountrythatwouldbetheobjectoftheirallegiance.Marxistsocialismastheparadigmofvirtueappearsfitfullyinthewritingofintellectualstothepresentday.15Thepossibilityneverappearstohaveoccurredtothemthatthesocialismtheyhadembraced,intheformithadassumedinthetwentiethcentury,washardlytheincarnationoftheMarxismofwhichtheyapproved.

SOVIETCOMMUNISM,NATIONALISM,ANDFASCISMBeforeKhrushchev’s“secretspeech”atthe20thPartyCongressin1956,there

hadbeenscanttoleranceforanyresistancetothepoliticalsystemsimposedonEasternEuropebytheSovietsattheconclusionoftheSecondWorldWar.AttheendoftheSecondWorldWar,amongthefirstresponsesofmanyWesternintellectuals,wasthedepictionoftheentryoftheRedArmyintotheheartlandofEuropeasthecomingofanavenginghostofdecencyandliberation.Soon,however,therestivenessofthose“liberated,”andtheheavy-handedsuppressionthatfollowed,produceddisquietamongintellectualsintheindustrialdemocracies.

ThesystemimposedonafragmentofwhathadbeenGermany,forexample,wasapurgatoryofexpiationfortheatrocitiescommittedbyAdolfHitler’sNationalSocialism.EastGermany,underSovietoccupation,andtheregimeimposeduponitbyMoscow,wasexpectedtoprovideprodigiousamountsofindustrialgoodsandmaterialresourcestotheSovietUnionascompensationforthedestructionofassetsandlossoflifethatresultedfromtheNaziinvasionofthehomeland.EvenaftertheEastGermansemergedfromthedesolationofthewar,the“GermanDemocraticRepublic,”cobbledtogetherbytheSoviets,soonrevealeditselftobeanineffectual,incompetent,andunpopularpolicesystem,which,inthefinalanalysis,wasjustifiedonlybyits“antifascist”credentials.16Infact,throughthelongyearsbetweentheSecondWorldWarandthecollapseoftheSovietUnion,MoscowemployeditscertificationasantifascisttolegitimateitsruleovermuchofEasternEurope.

Duringthatsameperiod,internationalcommunism,withMoscowatitscore—havingachieveditsapotheosisinitsdefeatoffascismintheSecondWorldWar—facedthefirstcriticalchallengetoitsdominanceandcontrolinthedefectionofTito’sYugoslavia.ItwasimmediatelyclearthatTito’sdefectionfromthehighlycentralizedorganizationconstructedaroundtheSovietcenterwasnottheconsequenceofideologicaldisagreement.Originally,therewerenodoctrinalproblemsbetweenTitoandStalin.Theirsharedideologynotwithstanding,Titosimplyrefusedtosurrendercontroloveranyofhisnation’ssovereigntytoMoscow.TheYugoslavdefectionfrom“proletarianinternationalism”broughttopublicattentionwhatlonghadbeenaprivateapprehensionamongMarxistthinkers.“Titoism”wastobesymptomaticofacriticalproblemattheheartof“internationalsocialism.”

Sinceitsveryfounding,Bolshevismhadstrugglednotonlyagainst“bourgeoisnationalist,”but“nationalcommunist,”factionsaswell.EvenbeforetheBolshevikrevolution,LeninhadbeenbedeviledbythenationalismsofPolish,Baltic,andJewishrevolutionaries.DismissedasapostasiesbyLeninandhisfollowers,aftertheOctoberrevolution,theleadersofthosefactionswereincarcerated,exiled,ormurdered.

TherecouldbenoneofthatindealingwithTito.TitoBrozwasahereticofadifferentsort.Hecouldnotbedealtwithasothershadbeen.Titowastheleaderofanindependentnation,andhisnationalcommunismheraldedtheprospectofaproliferationofjustsuchstatesystems.

While,inthepast,therehadbeenanynumberofMarxisthereticswhohadadvocatedvariousformsofnationalcommunism,itwasonlywithTitothatheresyspreadtoarulingpartyandtoanextantstate.Tito’s“nationalistdeviation”compromisedtheproletarianinternational.Thevisionofaninternationalproletarianrevolutionthatwouldresultinaworldwidesocialismlostwhatevercredibilityithadhithertoenjoyed.Atthetime,observerscouldnotknowthatanewchapterinthehistoryofcommunismhadbegunwiththelonganti-TitoCominformresolutionofJune1948.

WhatTitohaddonewastoreaffirmthecouplingoftheideasofnationhoodandrevolution.IndeclaringhisindependencefrominstitutionalStalinism,Titodemonstratedthatthesentimentofnationalitymightserveasafulcrumforrevolutionarymobilization—allthecounterargumentsofLeninismnotwithstanding.TheschismaticofBelgradehadraisedquestionsforinternationalcommunismthatcouldnotbelaidtorestbypoliticalsuppression,incarceration,exile,orterror.Nationalcommunismwoulddemonstratemore

resonancethanany,atthetime,anticipated.

Aboutadecadelater,thedisaffectionofMaoZedongbecamepublicknowledge—andconfirmedtoeventhemostskeptical,thatinternationalcommunismhadfallenoneviltimes.NationalcommunismrevealeditselfanendemicfactionalthreattorevolutionaryMarxism—withthedefectionofMaotobefollowedbythenationalMarxistsoftinyAlbania,FidelCastro’sCuba,andthededicatednationalismofHoChiMinh.EventhehermeticregimeofKimIlSungandhisheirwouldultimatelytakeonnationalistcoloration.Titoismnolongerwasapersonalidiosyncrasy;itwastobeanirremediableandongoingafflictionofinternationalMarxism-Leninism.

TheSovietleadershipthatlonghadbeenself-congratulatoryinclaimingtohavesolvedthe“nationalitiesproblem”withinitsownboundaries,couldnotcontrolpoliticalnationalismintheworldoutside.Itwastobearecurrentconcernforthequondamleadersofwhathadbeenaconjecturedinternationalproletariat.

Tito,originallyamilitantStalinist,waspreparedtoopposeStalinintheserviceofpoliticalautonomyfromMoscow—anautonomythatcouldaccommodatesignificantnationalistsentiments.WhileTitocouldallowdirectexpressionofsuchvalues,asimilaroptionwasnotavailabletoothernationsofthe“Sovietbloc.”Nonetheless,itcanbearguedthatafter1948,itwasjustthosesentimentsthatmadecommunismatallviableintheSovietsatellitenations.

Whatseemedreasonablyclearwasthefactthatmostofthecommunistgovernments,sponsoredbyMoscowinEasternEurope,remainedatalleffectiveonlybecausetheircommunismwassustainedbynationalsentiment.DomesticcommunistshadcouplednationalismwiththepostwaraversiontoGermans,who,asNazis,haddestroyed,pillaged,andbutcheredtheirwayacrossvastterritoriesintheirconquestofEurope.ThosecircumstancesprovidedMoscowitsmosteffectiveraisond’être:its“antifascism.”TheSoviettreatmentofthestatesofEasternEuropewasvindicatedbyanargumentthatwarnedofapossibleriseofarevanchist,“neonazi”Germany,whichwouldthreatenregionalsecurityinthefuture.Ratherthantheputativemeritsofcommunismtoholditssatellitestogether,Moscowfellbackonitsantifascistcredentials.17ItwasnotMarxism-LeninismthattiedtheEasternEuropeancommunitiestoMoscow;itwasMoscow’s“antifascism.”

Forallthat,intheyearsthatweretofollow,nationalsentiment,quiteindependentoftheoverlayofcommunistantifascism,wouldsuccessively

animatenationalpoliticallifethroughoutthesatellitenationsofEasternEurope,inPoland,Hungary,Romania,andCzechoslovakia.Gradually,andinvaryingmeasure,thenationalcommunismsofeachofthosenationsfoundexpressioninitsowndevelopmental“socialisminonecountry,”severalwiththeirownrespective“charismaticleader,”andcorrespondingunitaryparty—untilnationalindependencefromMoscowbecamethedominantimperative.ThetruthisthattheissueoftheconnectionofnationalismandrevolutionhadneverbeenresolvedbyMarxistrevolutionariesinthetwentiethcentury.

“FASCISM,”AND“NEOFASCISM,”ASCONCEPTSUntilthecollapseoftheentiresystem,“antifascism”hadservedasthe

linchpinoftheinternationalpoliciesoftheSovietUnion.ForabouttwodecadesaftertheendoftheSecondWorldWar,Moscowreiteratedits“interpretationoffascism,”firstfullyarticulatedinthemid-1930s,identifyingfascismthe“terroristtool”of“financecapitalism.”18ThesingulardifferencethatdistinguisheditsinterpretationaftertheSecondWorldWarwasMoscow’sreadyidentificationofanypoliticalsystem,anypoliticalleader,oranypoliticalmovement,thatopposeditselftoSovietMarxism-Leninism,notonlyas“capitalist,”butas“neofascist”aswell.Thus,almostimmediatelyaftertheendofthewar,WinstonChurchill,HarryTruman,andCharlesdeGaulle,whowarnedtheindustrialdemocraciesagainstSovietmachinations,became“neo-,”or“protofascists,”accordingtoMoscow.TosatisfyMoscow’sentrycriteriaintotheclassof“neofascisms”requiredonlythatone’spoliciesbeconceived“capitalist,”or“anticommunist.”Thus,accordingtoMoscow,the“McCarthyera”intheUnitedStates,withits“hystericalanticommunism,”signaledthe“riseoffascism”intheWesternHemisphere.

Bytheendofthe1960s,whatevertherevisionsintheSoviet“standardversion”of“fascism,”Moscowcontinuedtoemploythetermtoidentifyits“classenemies.”Thetreatmentof“fascism”wasstereotypic,abstract,andlargelyahistorical.Atbest,Sovietspokesmenidentifiedfascismwithacatalogofhorrors.Theaccountoffascism’sriseandappealwasdeliveredinanunconvincingandinsubstantialrendering.AccordingtotheprevailingopinioninMoscowinthe1920sand1930s,thepropertiedelitesofGermanyhadinvoked,mobilized,organized,directed,andensconcedinpower,AdolfHitlerandhishenchmen.19ThroughouttheyearsbeforetheSovietUniondisappearedintohistory,MoscowinsistedthattheselfsamepropertiedelitesintheUnitedStates,andtheWesternindustrializedpowers,intheireternalsearchfor“corporateprofits,”werepreparing,onceagain,tovisitthesamehorrorsontheworld.

Atthesametime,drivenbyitsabstractandstereotypicinterpretationofworldhistory,Moscowdiscoveredatotallyunanticipated“fascism”onitslongborderstotheEast.Bythemid-1960s,SoviettheoreticiansbegantocharacterizeMaoismasan“anti-Marxist,pettybourgeoisnationalism.”20Giventhegenerouscriteriaforadmissionintotheclassof“fascisms,”thePeople’sRepublicofChina,inMoscow’sschemeofreality,becameafascistpower,ultimatelytomakecommoncausewithinternationalfinancecapitalism.

Thelate1960sactuallysawthetwo“socialist”powersinarmedconflictontheSino-Sovietborder.Inthecourseofallthat,BeijingtendereditsassessmentofwhathadbeentranspiringintheSovietUnion.Maoistsbegantoidentify“capitalist-roaders”amongthepost-StalinistleadershipinMoscow.Therewaseasytalkaboutthe“restorationofcapitalism”intheSovietUnion.21ToBeijing,withthatputativerestoration,theSovietUnionquicklymadethetransitionto“socialimperialism,”tofinallymorphinto“social-fascism.”22

Genuinelypuzzledbytheappearanceof“fascism”in“socialiststates,”mostcommentatorsintheWestrefrainedfromtreatingsuchidentificationsasinstructive.Suchconceptualnotionscreatedtheoreticalstressintheirantifascistrepertory.Theysimplyidentifiedtheexchangesasaformofpoliticalabusethataccompaniedthepolitical,military,andeconomictensionsbetweenthetwo“socialisms.”

Mostanglophonecommentatorschosetoextendcredittogenericcommunism,surroundingitwiththedeferenceduetheMarxistideasitsupposedlyincarnated.TheyseemedtofindimpossiblethenotionthateithertheSovietUnion,theheirofLenin,orChina,theproductofa“MarxistLongMarch,”couldqualifyas“fascist.”Whatevertheywere,orhadbecome,WesternintellectualshaddifficultyimaginingthatfascismcouldfindplaceamongtheheirsofclassicalMarxismandMarxism-Leninism.

Thefactthatbothrevolutionarysocialistsystemsemployedtheconcept“fascism”todescribetheotherwasdismissedasaproductofinternationaltension.Thetermcouldnothavemeantanythinginsuchanexchange.

Thereafter,Westernscholarshiphassought,largelyinvain,forsomedefinitionof“fascism”thatminimallywouldsatisfyresearchrequirements.Todatenonehasbeenforthcoming—oratleastnonethatsatisfiesallparticipantsinsearchforfascismorneofascism.23Intheinterim,hundredsofbooks,andthousandsofarticles,havebeenpublisheddealingwithbothtopics.Nonehavebeennotablysuccessful.

“Fascism”and“neofascism,”atonetimeoranother,havebeenidentifiedwithconservatism,adefenseofcapitalism,anticommunism,right-wingextremism,genocidalintent,racismofoneoranothersort,thuggeryofwhateversort,chauvinism,militarism,militaryrule,authoritarianism,xenophobia,homophobia,taxprotests,terrorbombings,religiousfundamentalism,simpleirrationalism,sexism,violenceatsoccermatches,religiousbigotry,vandalismingraveyards,andhatespeech.24Whattheyhavenotbeenidentifiedwithiscommunism—nomatterhowmurderousandbestialsomeMarxistdictatorshipshavebeen.25

PartoftheresponsibilityforthisderivesdirectlyfromthefactthatduringtheSecondWorldWar,theAlliedpowershadchosentoidentifytheconflictwiththeAxispowersasa“waragainstfascism”—withHitler’sNationalSocialismconjoinedwithMussolini’sFascism,tobecomeageneric“fascism,”sometimescarryinga“fascist”imperialJapaninitstrain.Bytheendofthewar,“fascism”wasidentifiedwitheverybestialityfromunprovokedattack,tothemassmurderofinnocents,thatcouldbeattributedtotheforcesofNationalSocialismorimperialJapan.ThenoncommunistAlliedpowers,foravarietyofreasons,wereaspreparedasMoscowtoidentifyanyandalloftheiropponentsinthewaras“fascists.”Theconsequencewastheartlessidentificationofageneric“fascism”witheveryenormitycommittedbyanyoftheAxispowers,anywhereintheworld,inthecourseoftheSecondWorldWar.Bythattime,thetermhaddilatedtosuchanextentthatithardlycommandedanycognitivereference;itwaslittlemorethanatermofabuse.Allthatnotwithstanding,Sovietforces,andcommunistpartisans,howeveregregioustheirconduct,wereneverassociatedwithfascism.

Ashasbeensuggested,itwasinthatparlousconditionthatthetermenteredthelexiconofthencurrentWesternacademicinquiry.Itwasusedthen,andstillusednow,toreferindifferentlytoHitler’sNationalSocialismandMussolini’sFascism(aswellastoanexpandingnumberofothersociopoliticalsystemsastimeprogressed).TogetherwithageneralleftistliberaldispositiontoforeverseemeritinMarxism,allofthatreinforcedtheinterpretationofcontemporarypoliticsasdividedalongthefaultlinesof“capitalism-fascism”and“socialism.”

LeftistEuropeanintellectualsthen,andlargelycontinuetothisday,tolaborthethesisthatfascismwasthelamentableandinevitableby-productofcapitalism.InplacesliketheGermanFederalRepublicandGreatBritain,professors,academicians,andjournalistsregularlymadeacaseforthe“bourgeois”and“capitalist”essenceoffascism.Fascismwas,andcontinuesto

be,portrayed“asaformofcounterrevolutionactingintheinterestsofcapital.”Theonly“lastingalternative”tofascismwas,andis,seeninthecreationof“aroot-and-branchsocialism”thatwillrendercapitalismandtheexistenceofthebourgeoisienolongerpossible.26Givensuchconvictionsamongthosewhoshapeopinion,thelongrevolutionary,anticapitalist,andantibourgeoistraditionofItalianFascismdisappearsintoastylized,amnesiac,historicallyinaccuratereconstruction.

Notallthehistoryoftheinterwaryearsslippedaway.Somescholarsconjuredupahalf-rememberedconceptthatearlyintheinterwaryearshadbeenused,initstime,tosubsumebothfascismandcommunism.Duringthoseyears,Fascistintellectualsthemselvesacknowledgedtheinstitutionalandstructuralsimilaritiestheir“corporativestate”sharedwiththe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat.”Thosesimilaritieswerecollectedundertherubric:“totalitarianism.”

Fascisttheoreticiansrecognizedthelogicthatsustainedallsingle-partysystems—communistandfascistalike.Intheidentificationoftheindividualwiththesinglepartystate,andtheidentificationofthesinglepartystatewithaleader,“whosewillisthewillofthegoverned,”27theyrecognizedashared“totalitarianism.”

TherationaleoftotalitarianismwasarticulatedbeforetheGreatWarof1914–1918byGiovanniGentile—theauthorofthevariantofHegelianidealismthatultimatelycametoanimateMussolini’sFascism.BeforetheFirstWorldWar,Gentilehadproposedaconceptionofpoliticalrulethatconceivedindividualsorganicallyunitedinasocietythatfounditsidentityinan“ethicalstate.”Gentileconceivedsocietyandthestateintrinsic,ratherthanextrinsic,totheindividual.LikeHegel,andAristotlebeforehim,Gentileconceivedtheindividualoutsidesocietyandthestateonlyan“abstraction.”28

Fromthatfundamentalidentityoftheindividual,society,andthestate,allthesubsequentidentitiesfollowed.Therefollowedaconceivedunityofpoliticalopinion,culture,andaspirations—andthecorrespondinginstitutionalstructuresthatendowedthoseidentitiesphysicalsubstance.

Fascistideologuesnotonlysawinthatsocialphilosophytherationaleoftheirsystem—buttheyrecognizeditsappearanceinthepoliticalruleofV.I.LenininBolshevikRussia.“Totalitarianism”wasunderstoodtocoverantidemocraticandantiparliamentariansystemsofboththepoliticalleftandright.

InDecember1921,MussolinihadhimselfacknowledgedtheaffinitiessharedbyhisFascismandLenin’sBolshevism.Hespokeoftheircommonrecognition

ofthenecessityofcreating“acentralizingandunitarystate,thatimposesonallanirondiscipline.”29

Inthecourseoftime,FascistintellectualsidentifiedasimilarrationaleintheideologyofAdolfHitler’sNationalSocialism,andinthepoliticalrationaleofChiangKaishek’sKuomintang.Ineffect,Fascistssawtotalitarianismasanovelformofgovernance,asasingularproductofrevolutioninthetwentiethcentury.Inorigin,itwasneitheroftheleftorright.

TOTALITARIANISMFascistideologuesspokeaffirmativelyoftotalitarianism.Theyspokeofthe

primacyofpoliticsovereconomics,andleadershipoverconsultation.Theyspokeofobedienceandbelief,andareadinesstostruggleagainstthereactionaryforcesofwealthandprivilege.Theyspokeofcreatinga“newhumanity”fora“newsociety”undertheauspicesofan“ethicalstate.”Totalitarianismwasunderstoodtobeauniquepoliticalcreationofthemodernage.

Fortheirpart,Fascism’sopponents,asearlyas1923,identifiedtotalitarianismasanoppressivesystemof“absolutepoliticaldominion”overcitizens.30Thereafter,thetermappearedsporadicallyoutsideFascistenvirons—almostalwaysaccompaniedbynegativeconnotation.Inthefallof1929,forexample,thetermappearedintheLondonTimes,andwasappliedtobothFascistItalyandStalin’sRussia.In1934,GeorgeSabinespokeofa“newtype”ofstatethatfoundexpressionnotonlyin“fascisttotalitarianism,”butinthe“verysimilar”conceptionofthestatethathadmanifesteditselfinStalin’sRussia.31

Inthemid-1930s,theterm“totalitarianism”wasused,withsomefrequency,toidentifynotonlythepoliticalsystemsofMussoliniandHitler,i.e.,fasciststates,butthatofStalin’sRussiaaswell.32Marxist-Leninists,predictably,tookexceptiontotheusage.Theyhadfirstusedthetermin1928,andthereafterapplieditexclusivelytowhattheyconsideredfasciststatesystems.Theyhaddecidedthattotalitarianismwasaby-productofthefinalcrisisofindustrialcapitalism.33

WiththecomingoftheSecondWorldWar,“totalitarianism”wasusedalmostexclusivelytorefertotheAxispowers.TheSovietUnion,bythattimeanallyinthe“waragainstfascism,”wasgenerallyexempt,withtheoftenunspokensuggestionthatStalin’sRussiawassomesortofincipientdemocracy.ThosesympathetictoStalin,Marxistsofoneoranotherdegreeofcommitment,giventheiridentificationoffascismandmonopolycapitalism,insistedthat“totalitarianism”couldonlyrefertofascistsystems—withfascismrepresenting

thepathologicalreactionofcapitalismindecline.34

TheidentificationofStalin’sRussiaasatotalitarianismwaslargelylefttodemocratic,oranti-Soviet,Marxists—Mensheviks,Trotskyists,andsocialdemocrats.OnlywiththeendoftheSecondWorldWardidthetermbecomeincreasinglyinclusive,torefertosocialist,aswellasfascist,systems.SuchusagehadsurvivedthroughoutthewaryearsinpublicationssuchasArthurKoestler’sDarknessatNoon,andinmoreacademicworkssuchasFranzNeumann’sBehemothandSigmundNeumann’sPermanentRevolution.GeorgeOrwellreportedthattheideaforhispremonitory,antitotalitariannovel,NineteenEighty-four,hadcometohimin1943.ForOrwell,avictoriousSovietUnionheldouttheprospectofsomethingotherthansocialdemocracy.

WiththeendoftheSecondWorldWar,thereferentsofthetermonceagainincludedStalin’sSovietUnion.Thecriterialtraitsthatgovernedadmissionintothecategoryincludedthefeaturesthathadbeencommontototalitarianismsincethefirstyearsofthe1930s.Theyincludeda“charismaticleadership,”inspiredbyaformalideologyofpretendedinfallibility,leadinganelitevanguardhousedinasingle,dominantparty,whichadministeredadisciplinedsystemofpotentialcontrolsoverallaspectsofcivillife,rangingfromtheeconomy,theflowofinformation,toculture.35

Thewarhavingbeenwon,theleadersoftheindustrialdemocraciesnolongerhadtoconcernthemselveswiththesensibilitiesoftheircounterpartsinMoscow.TherewereenoughcriticsofthepoliticalsystemintheSovietUniontoprovidetheenergytoonceagainaddresstheissueoftherelationshipbetweenpoliticaldemocracyandtotalitarianism.DeterioratingrelationsbetweenWashingtonandMoscowprecipitatedthedevelopment—andsignaledtheadventofthe“coldwar.”36

Awaveofpublications,bothpopularandacademic,madeanissueofthe“threatoftotalitarianism.”In1950,theUnitedStatesCongresspassedtheMcCarranInternalSecurityAct,whichproscribedtheentryof“totalitarians”intotheUnitedStates—aproscriptionthatexplicitlyincluded“communists”—transcendingthecustomarydistinctionbetweenthepoliticalleftandright.

Foratime,theexpression“Redfascism”enjoyedacertainvogue.37Anti-Sovietleftistshadpersistedintheiremploymentof“totalitarianism”toincludeStalinismthroughoutthewar—andimmediatelyfellintolinebehindWashington.SovietMarxists,inopposition,reaffirmedtheirstandardtheoreticalargument.In1946,aSovietofficialcontendedthatalthoughthewaragainstthe

fascismofHitlerandMussolinihadbeensuccessfullyconcluded,thefascistthreatremained.“Fascism,”hecontended,“isamanifestationofcapitalistsocietyinitsimperialisticphase,”andcouldbeexpectedtoresurfaceascapitalistsfeelthenecessityto“opposeSovietdemocracy.”38

Throughoutthecourseofthecoldwar,“totalitarianism”becameacontestedpoliticalconcept.SenatorJosephMcCarthycreatedapoliticalfirestormwithhiscrusadeagainstcommunists,and“fellow-travelers.”LiberaljournalistsobjectedthatMcCarthyismhadtakenontotalitarianfeatures—anobjectionthatsuggestedthatliberaldemocraticsystemsthemselvesmightwellsharetraitswithtotalitarianism.Totalitarianism,itwascontended,wasnotuniquelylimitedtofascismorcommunism.Itspropertiesmightbefoundanywhere.ItisacontentionthatcontinuestoresonateinWesternacademicandjournalisticcommunitiestothisday.

AsearlyastheMcCarthycommitteemeetings,liberalsandleftistsdevelopedastrategyindealingwithtotalitarianism.“Totalitarianism”wastobeatermtobeemployedagainstany“reactionary”or“quasifascist”opponentsof“democracy.”Fascismandcapitalismmightbeitsproperreferents—butcouldhardlyapplytoMarxistorMarxist-LeninistsystemssinceMarxismwasunderstoodtobeinthedemocratictraditionsoftheFrenchrevolution.39

Astheconceptenteredfulsomelyintoacademicdiscourse,itbecameincreasinglycomplexanduncertain.HannahArendtdeliveredherOriginsofTotalitarianismin1951togeneralacclaim,butheraccountcreatedproblems.40Shehadarguedthattheterm“totalitarianism”coveredtheSovietsystemaswellasthatofAdolfHitler—buthertreatmentoftheSovietUnionappearedsomewhatcontrived,asthoughitweresomethingofanafterthought.ShehadmanagedtotracethetotalitarianismofNationalSocialistGermanytoconditionscreatedbythe“bourgeoisie”ofthenineteenthcentury—tounbridledeconomiccompetition,thedissolutionofclassandcasteidentities,resultantalienation,andthecreationofthepolitical“mob.”Thebourgeoiseconomicsystemhadleftindividualsbereftofparticularity,andreducedthemtosearchfortheiridentitiesinsuchnebulousconceptsasrace.Itwasthatwhichfueledthevölkischthoughtofnineteenth-centuryGermanythat,inturn,providedmuchofthesubstanceofNationalSocialistideology.

Ontheotherhand,Arendt’streatmentofSoviettotalitarianismwasdeemed,evenbyheradmirers,asbeingfarlesspenetratingandsubstantive.41ShedidassignsomeresponsibilitytoMarxforhavingreducedlawandgovernancetosimple“reflexes”ofeconomicfactors,andshealludedtothecollectivisticand

deterministicaspectsofhissocialphilosophyasfactors.Howthatlentitselftotherationalethatunderwrotetotalitarianismwasnotclear.Onecomesawayfromthetextwithasensethat,somehoworother,“capitalism”andthe“bourgeoisie,”andnotMarx,arereallyresponsiblefortotalitarianism.Asaconsequence,theultimatesourcesofSoviettotalitarianismremainedmorethanalittleobscure.

Arendt’svolumewasoneofacollectionofnotablevolumesthatappearedaboutthesametime.KarlPopper’sTheOpenSocietyandItsEnemies,andJacobTalmon’sTheOriginsofTotalitarianDemocracyandhisPoliticalMessianismcontributedtotheongoingdiscussion.Bythe1970s,interestintheoriginsoftotalitarianism,insomemeasure,hadbeguntoflag,andmoreandmoreacademicsfoundreasontoobjecttotheconcept’semployment.

“Destalinization”hadpresumablytakenholdintheSovietUnion,andthereweremanywhosoughttoreduceinternationaltensionsbynolongerinvoking“inflammatory”politicalcharacterizations.Besides,itwasargued,theterm“totalitarianism”washardlysufficientlynuancedtoallowitsuseinsocialscienceandhistoricalexposition.Asacaseinpoint,itwasargued,Lenin’sideaswereverycomplex,andsoweretheideasofotherBolsheviks.Theirindividualandcollectivebehaviorswerehardlytheconsequenceofholdingfasttosomecollectionofuniformpoliticalconvictions.Theywererathertheresultsofacomplexoffactorsfartoonumeroustobecapturedbysobroadgaugedatermas“aformaltotalitarianideology.”42

ItwasfurtherarguedthatMussolini’sregime,whatevertheDuce’sboasts,wasneverreallytotalitarian.FascismneversucceededinabsorbingtheItalianmonarchy,theRomanCatholicChurch,ortheofficercorpsofthearmedforces.43Worsestill,Mussolinihardlymassacredanyone.GuiltyofemployingtoxicgasintheEthiopianwar,andbrutalityinsuppressinguprisingsinLibya,Mussolinikilledremarkablyfewofhisowncitizensduringhisreignofaquartercentury.44HannahArendtnotedthatfailure,anddecidedItalianFascismdidnotqualifyforentryintotheclassoftotalitarianisms.

Othersemphasizedthattheterm“totalitarian”suggestsadepictionofasystematicintegrationofallthecomponentpartsofasocietyunderthecontroloftheomnicompetentstate.Infact,criticscontended,so-calledtotalitariansystemswereanythingbutomnicompetent.Hitler’sregimewasdisorganized,andmanylivedthroughouthistenurewithlittlechangeintheirday-to-daylives—untilthedevastationoftheSecondWorldWar.IntheSovietUnion,partyrulevariedfromplacetoplace,andinMao’sChinatherewasmuchdisorder—andat

times,pandemicincompetence.Somehoworother,forcriticsoftheconcept,allofthatseemedtomeanthat“totalitarianism”asasocialscienceconceptwasoflittlecognitiveuse.Manyrecommendedthatitbeabandoned.Itsusegeneratedhostilitybetweenthesuperpowers,andprovidedlittleinsightascompensation.

Otherthanthat,manyintellectualsfeltthatanyassociationbetween“socialism,”inwhateverformittook,andfascismofanysort,wastoberejected.Thesuggestionthattheremightbesomesortofassociationbetweenthetwocouldonlyservethepurposesofcapitalisminitsstruggleagainstsocialistliberation.45Therewasfulsomesupportfortheuseofthedesignation“antifascism,”ratherthan“antitotalitarian,”toidentifythetrueenemyofmoderndemocracy.46Fascism,notsocialism,wasthefoe.

Andyet,therewerethosewhocontinuedtoarguethattheterm“totalitarian”hadasitsreferentspoliticalregimesofboththeleftandtheright—andthatthoseregimeswereofanewtype,uniquetothetwentiethcentury.47Totalitarianregimesfeatureddistinctivepoliticalrule,intermsofthesingularleaderhimself,hispreclusiveideologyandthedominantpartyitanimated.Itwasnotjustapolicestate—orsimplyapersonaldictatorship.Itwasapoliticalsystemthatarrogatedtoitselfthepowertofashion,andemitlegislationwithoutthesemblanceofthose“checksandbalances”thattypifypluralisticarrangements.Insuchsystems,thedistinctionbetweenlegislativeandexecutivebranchesisdeemedanachronistic—andthesuggestionthatjudicialreviewshouldbeindependentoftheotherbranchesofgovernmentisconsidereddysfunctional.Suchsystems,itwasheld,couldbepoliticallyeitheroftheleftortheright,socialistorfascistasthecasemightbe.

Lawinsuchsystemsisconceivedanadjunctofideology—anexpressionof“thewillofall.”Itisgenerallyformulatedandadministeredthroughthebureaucraciesofthestate—withthecourtsplayinganuncertain,ill-definedrole.Themachineryofthestateisdesignedtoservetheideologicalpurposesofthepartyasthosepurposesareunderstoodbytheleadership.Individuals,undersurveillancebypoliceandparty,areenrolledinagecohorts,political,paramilitary,andfunctionalassociations,andexpectedselflesslytoservethesystem.

Itseemsevidentthatsuchasyndromeofpropertiesservesheuristic,didactic,andmnemonicpurposes.48Itsuggestspossibleresearchtopics;itservestoorganizecomplexmaterialsforpedagogicalends;anditassistsinreadystorageandrecalloffugitiveinformation.What“totalitarianism”isnotisa“theory.”Itcanneitherexplain,inanycomprehensiblescientificsense,norpredict.Atbest,

itadvancesaverygeneraldescriptionofasyndromeoftraitsthatseemtohangtogether.Itisnotclearthatallmembersoftheclassshareallitsdefiningtraits—norisitclearhowmanyofthosedefiningtraits,orinwhatmeasure,arerequiredforentryintotheclass.

Inthepast,theconcepthasassistedsocialscientiststoexploretheactualfunctioningofthosesystemstentativelyidentifiedastotalitarian.Someseemtodisplaymoreofthetraitsthanothers,andsomeinmoreemphaticmeasure.

Someofthesystemssoidentifiedpassthroughstages.StalinismwassomethingquitedifferentbeforethedeathofStalinthanafter.Maoismwastransformedbythedeathofits“NeverSettingRedSun.”Conversely,KimJongIl’sDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKoreahasremainedstolidlythesameafterthedeathofKimIlSung.Castro’sregimeinCubadisplayssomeofthemajorfeaturesoftotalitarianism,andyetissomehowdifferent.Stalinists,Maoists,andMarxistsofsundrysortshaveteasedoutdiaphanoustotalitarianfeatureseveninpluralisticsystems.

Thefulsometraitsassociatedwiththeterm“totalitarianism”refertoadistinctiveformofgovernancethatfirstbecamepossibleintheageofmobilizablemasses,ofnationalism,ofrapidindustrialization,andmoderntechnology.Forourimmediatepurposes,itisinterestingthatsomespecialistsinsistthatonlyright-wingpoliticalmovementsincapitalistenvironscaneverbetotalitarian—whileothersmaintainthatonly“asocialistorcommunistsystemcanachievefulltotalitarianism,sincetotalcontrolrequirestotalinstitutionalrevolutionthatcanonlybeeffectedbystatesocialism.”49InEasternEurope,asSovietcontrolsweakenedinthe1980s,moreandmoresocialistscholarsacknowledgedthefeaturessharedbyfascistandMarxist-Leninistsystems.50Bythemid-1980s,writersandacademicsintheSovietUnionwerepreparedtorecognizethetotalitarianismoftheirsystem,particularlythatoftheStalinistperiod.51Thereafter,anglophonescholarshaveeitherunself-consciouslyusedthecharacterizationtoidentifyentirestagesinthehistoryoftheSovietUnion,oraspartoftheiranalysis.52

Whatseemstosurviveoutofallofthisisanacknowledgmentthatfascism,howeverunderstood,andMarxism-Leninism,inwhatevervariant,sharesomeidentifiablefeatures.OnlythemostdoctrinaireofMarxistsstillinsistthatonlyfascismwastotalitarianinpracticeorintent.Mostcomparativists,withhoweverlittleenthusiasm,arepreparedtograntimportant,ifabstractsimilarities.Bythelastdecadeofthetwentiethcenturythedebateontheissueof“totalitarianism,”itsscope,interpretation,andapplicability,hadrunitscourse.Fascism,insome

ofitsforms,wassomehowrelatedtoMarxism,insomeofitsforms.Therewaslittleagreementonhowsimilarthesetwoclassesofpoliticalsystemsmightbe,butmanyattesttothesimilarities.

Fromtheinterwaryears,whenfascismandcommunismwereclassedtogether,throughthewaryearswhenonlyfascismwasidentifiedastotalitarian,untilthefinalyearsofthetwentiethcenturywhen,onceagain,similaritieswereattestedbetweenfascismandcommunisminhoweverattenuatedaform,asearchforideologicalandhistoricaloriginshasrecommendeditself.Enoughpoliticalsystemsremainthatcontinuetosharetotalitariantraitstomaketheenterpriseworthyofthetimeandenergyrequired.

Allthatnotwithstanding,therehavebeenthose,atthecloseofthelastcentury,whohaveheldthatconcernforagenerictotalitarianismhaslittle,ifany,placeinthesocialscienceofourtime.CommunismhadcollapsedbothintheSovietUnionaswellasinitsEasternEuropeansatellites.InthePeople’sRepublicofChina,Maoistcommunismtransformeditselfintosomethingsignificantlydifferentalmostimmediatelyafterthedeathofits“Chairman.”

Theconsequencewasanalmostimmediaterefocusofpoliticalattention.Amongmany,fascismreappearedastheexclusiveconcern.Soontherewasthesuggestionthatfascism,alone,wasthe“pathological”causeofthemassmurdersthatdarkenedthehistoryofthetwentiethcentury.Fascismwasunderstoodtohavebeensodestructiveapoliticalalternativethatit,anditalone,occupiesauniqueplaceintheideologicalandinstitutionalhistoryofourtime.Marxism,inallitsvariants,recedesintohistory.Itis“fascism,”not“totalitarianism,”thatisinvokedto“understand”auniquebarbarityandinhumanitythatapparentlyexceededanythingthattranspiredundercommunistauspices.

Aspateofmonographsappearedthatarguedthatonlyfascismcouldberesponsibleforthehorrorsofthetwentiethcentury.TheargumentwasmadethatMarxismandfascismwere,andcouldonlybe,diametricopposites.MarxismwasaproductoftheEnlightenment,andwasarational,progressiveideology—whilefascismwasirrational,reactionary,andintrinsicallyevil,committedexclusivelyto“violenceandwar”fortheirownsake.Marxism,ontheotherhand,was“asmuchanethicaldoctrineasaneconomicone.”53Theirrespectivemoralityandethicsdistinguishedthetwosystems.

Ingeneral,theargumentemploysHitler’sNationalSocialism,infamousinitsgenocidalmalevolence,asparadigmaticoftheclassof“fascisms.”Thatgiven,manyhavesoughttodilatetheterm“fascism”toincludeavarietyofpolitical

systems—allunderstoodtoshareinthespecialevilthatwasNazism.Thathavingbeenestablished,Marxismanditsvariantshavebeenaccordedadistinctivemoralsuperiority.

Itisanintellectualstrategythathasleftmorethanonescholarunconvinced.Aslateas1994,WalterLaqueurcouldstillspeakofthepropertiessharedbyStalin’sSovietUnionandHitler’sNationalSocialistGermany—andothersweretocatalogthelonglistofunimaginablemoraloutragesthatstainedthehistoryofboth.54

SOMEISSUESINTHEINTELLECTUALHISTORYOFREVOLUTIONForalltheeffortsmadetodistinguishMarxismfromfascisminanyofitsreal

orfanciedforms,thereisalingeringsuspicionthatthetwoideologicalsystemsaresomehowrelated.ThesimilaritieswerenotedevenbeforeItalianFascismhadreachedpoliticalmaturity.

ManyMarxistswerethereatthebirthofFascism.Howeverstrenuouslyresistedbysome,therelationshipwasrecognizedintotalitarianism.Duringthetenureoftheregime,itwasacknowledgedbysomeofFascism’smajortheoreticians.AndafterthepassingofLeninistcommunism,itsrelationshiptofascism,ingeneral,wasacknowledgedbymanyofitserstwhilepractitioners.55

ThedifficultythatmanyhavehadwithallthatistheconsequenceofpoliticalsciencefolkwisdomthathasmadefascismtheunqualifiedoppositeofanyformofMarxism.Sofixedhasthatnotionbecomeinthestudyofcomparativepoliticsthatthesuggestionofanyaffinitiesbetweenthetwoisgenerallydismissed.Andyet,somecontemporarycomparativistsrecognizethattherewasanunmistakable“essentialideologicalkindredness”sharedbyfascismandLeninism.Itwasequallyclearthatat“certainpivotalideationaljunctures,lesextremessetouchent.”56

Itisimportanttotrytounderstandhowthatcouldbepossible.Inansweringthat,onehasafootholdonhowonemightexplaintheconcept“totalitarianism”—thathasfascismandthevariantsofMarxismasitsreferents.Attemptingtobegintoexplaintherelationshipispartofthestoryofrevolutionarythoughtattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Itisastorythatmeritstelling.Itispartofalongandcomplicatednarrativeintheintellectualhistoryofideology.ItisanaccountthathopefullylendssomesubstancetotherelationshipbetweenMarxisminitsvariousmodernguises—andtheFascismofMussolini.ItisachroniclethatperhapsalsoservestodistinguishthatFascismfromother

candidatefascisms.

ItalianFascismwasnotHitler’sNationalSocialism,anditwasnotLenin’sBolshevism—butallthreesharedsomesortofaffinity,howeverminimal.Forthepurposeofthepresentexposition,therelationshipbetweenMussolini’sFascismandLenin’sBolshevismisofcentralconcern.ItspeakstotheideologicalrelationshipsharedbyItalianFascismandoneoranothervariantofMarxism,andhelpsusunderstandwhyrelevantsimilaritiesregularlyresurfaceinanystudydealingwithmodernrevolutionarypoliticalsystems.ItisastorythatcoversalmosthalfacenturyofEuropeanradicalthought—andinvolvessomeofthemajorintellectualsofthefirstquarterofthetwentiethcentury.

Whileitisonlyathreadinthecomplextapestryofrevolutioninourtime,itisanimportantandinterestingconcern.Itdealswithrevolutionarymoralityandtheethicalsystemthatsustainsit.Itaddressestheissueofhowtherevolutionarytheoristsatthebeginningofourtimeattemptedtounderstandhumanchoiceandpoliticaldecisions.Itdealswithrevolutionanditsmotives,andviolenceanditsuses.

Inthecourseoftime,alltheseconcernswereaddressedbyself-selectedMarxistrevolutionariesattheendofthenineteenthcentury,someofwhomweretobecometheleadersofrevolutionarymovementsinthetwentieth.Historywastosubsequentlyidentifysomeas“Marxists”andothersas“fascists.”ThosewithwhomweshallconcernourselveswereallMarxistsofoneoranotherpersuasion.Themostinteresting,forourpurposes,weretoultimatelybeidentifiedas“Mussoliniani,”intellectualleadersofItalianFascism.

Itwillbesurprisingtosome—thoughcertainlynoteveryone—thatamongthefirstissuesengagedbytherevolutionarythinkersattheturnofthetwentiethcenturywerethosehavingtodowithchoiceanddeterminism,withmoralityandethics,withnationalism,withleadership,withthemobilizationofmasses,andhowrevolutionwastobeunderstoodinthebroadexpanseofhistory.Theyarequestionsthatcontinuetoshapetherevolutionarythoughtofourtime.

CHAPTERTWO

TheRootsofRevolutionaryIdeologyThediscussionthatfollowsdoesnotconstituteanattempttoexplainrevolutioninourtime.Itisanefforttooutlinesomethingofthereasons,empiricalandnormative,advancedbyitsadvocatestojustifyviolentsocialchange.

Humanbeingscharacteristicallypretendtoprovidemoraljustificationfortheirmostabominableacts.Inthatfundamentalsense,revolutionariesareeminentlyhuman.Thetwentiethcenturywasacenturyofalmostunremittingrevolution,massmurder,anddestruction.Throughoutthattime,historywitnessedthemostheinousactsagainsthumanity—andinnotasinglecasedidthemajorprotagonistsfailtoadvanceamoraland/orempiricalrationale,howeverunpersuasive,tolegitimatetheirbehaviors.Theeffort,here,attemptstomakethecasethatmuchofthejustificatoryrationaleforrevolutioninthetwentiethcenturyfounditsoriginsinthenineteenth-centuryintellectuallaborsofKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.Marxdiedin1883,tobefollowedtwelveyearslaterbyEngels.Thereafter,Marxistswerelefttotheirowndevicesinattemptingtoprovideamoralrationalefortheviolence,mayhem,anddeaththatattendedtherevolutiontowhichtheydevotedtheirefforts.Itwillbearguedthatoutofthatattemptemergedmuchofthemoralreasoningusedtojustifytotalitarianismandthemassivedestructionoflifeandpropertythatdarkensalmosttheentirepastcentury.

Inretrospect,outoftheenormousbodyofreasoningdevotedtoMarxismasarevolutionarybeliefsystem,onecanteasesomeofthoseelementswithwhichwearetodayall-too-familiar.Thereis,inthetextslefttousbyMarxandEngels,anargumentfortherejectionofany“absolute”morality.Morality,wearetoldbythefoundersofclassicalMarxism,isthatcodeofconductthatresultsin“theoverthrowofthepresent,[and]representsthefuture.”1Whyoverthrowingthepresentshouldrecommenditselfasmoralispartofthestoryoftheroleplayedbynormativereasoninginthetwentiethcentury.Outofthatreasoning,inlargepart,wastoemergethetotalitarianrationaleofLeninism,Stalinism,Maoism,

NationalSocialism,andItalianFascisminalltheirvariants.

Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,asurprisingnumberofaggressiveintellectualsarosethroughoutcontinentalEuropewhoweretoserveasleadersofthoserevolutionaryforcesthatwereultimatelytovisitunimaginabledestructionalmosteverywhere.ThoseleadersweretobefoundinimperialGermanyandAustria-Hungary,czaristRussia,monarchialItaly,andrepublicanFrance.Theycollectedaroundthemselvesrestlessforcestheyweretoanimatewithrevolutionaryideas.Itwillbearguedthatalmostallthoseleadersandthoseforcesweredirectlyorindirectly,legitimateorillegitimate,heirsoftherevolutionarythoughtofKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.

MARXISMAND“PHANTOMSFORMEDINTHEBRAIN”Moralsandethicslieatthecoreofrevolutionarycommitment.Assuch,moral

andimmoralbehavior,sustainedorabjuredbyappropriateethicalassessment,2becomescriticaltoanyrevolutionaryenterprise.Thatenterpriseisinextricablyassociatedwiththeadvocacyof,orresistanceto,violence.Atsomestageintheprocessitbecomesnecessarytosystematicallyaddressethicalandmoralquestions.Attheveryleast,theproponentsofrevolutionmustjustifytothemselvesorotherstheirendorsementofrealorpotentialviolence.

Asearlyashisfirsteffortsatrevolutionaryanalysis,KarlMarxextendedwhatcouldonlybecharacterizedasaslackinterpretationofmoralsandethics—aswellasasingularaccountofhumanconceptuallifeingeneral.InTheCommunistManifestoof1848,hesimplydismissedthenotionthattherewere“eternaltruths,suchasFreedom,Justice,etc.,”orthatanysuchideasshouldindependentlyinfluencethecourseofhumanconduct.Heargued,instead,thatsuchideas,otherthaneternal,wererelative,afunctionofthetime,place,andcircumstancesinwhichtheyfindexpression—andwhateverinfluencetheyexercise,asweshallsee,wastobeunderstoodtobethederivativeresultofobjectivefactorsthat,takentogether,heidentifiedastime-specific“modesofproduction.”

IntheManifesto,Marxsimplyaffirmedthat“man’sideas,views,andconceptions,inoneword,man’sconsciousness,changeswitheverychangeintheconditionsofhismaterialexistence,inhissocialrelationsandhissociallife.”Notionssuchas“freedom”and“justice”areartifactsofapeculiarsetofobjectiveandtime-sensitiveconditions.Marxconcludedwiththepronouncementthat“whatelsedoesthehistoryofideasprove,thanthat

intellectualproductionchangesitscharacterinproportionasmaterialproductionischanged?”3Moraljudgments,apparently,aswellastherationalegivenintheirsupport,canonlyberelative,transitory,intrinsicallyrelatedtothepeculiarconditionsattendantontheprevailingmodeofmaterialproductionatanygiventime.

Thus,aboutayearbeforethepublicationoftheManifesto,Marxhadaffirmedthat“achangeinmen’sproductiveforcesnecessarilybringsaboutachangeintheirrelationsofproduction....Thesamemenwhoestablishtheirsocialrelationsinconformitywiththeirmaterialproductivity,producealsoprinciples,ideasandcategories,inconformitywiththeirsocialrelations.”Thus,“productiveforces”employedintheprovisionofgoodsgaverisetocorresponding“socialrelations,”whichtogethermakeupthemodeofproduction.4Morality,bothinbehaviorandinprinciple,wasunderstoodtobecontingentandderivativeofaprevailingmodeofproduction.

Afewyearsearlier,in1844,theyoungMarxcharacterizedsuchaconceptionofaderivativehumanconsciousnessasa“fullydevelopednaturalism”or“humanism,”thatnecessarilyimpliedthat“religion,family,state,law,morality,science,art,etc.,areonlyparticularmodesofproduction,andfallunderitsgenerallaw.”5Howthatwastobeunderstoodwaslessthantransparent.

WhatMarx’scrypticformulationseemstomeanisthatthegenerationofmoralconceptswasthepredictableconsequenceofagiven“modeofproduction”—that,somehoworother,theprovisionofmoralprecepts“fellunderthe‘generallaw’ofproduction.”6Preciselyhowthatmighthavebeenaccomplishedremainsobscuretothisday.

Attheendof1845,inanobviouseffortatclarification,Marxspokeofthe“modeofproduction,”whichproducedthe“meansofsubsistence”forhumancommunities,assomehowgivingrisetoaninclusive“definitemodeoflife”thatwasconceivedresponsiblefortheshapingofhumanbehavior.Wearetoldthat“whathumanbeingsare,”whatthe“natureofindividuals”mightbe,“coincideswith”and“dependson,thematerialconditionsdetermining”theproductionoftheirsubsistence—both“withwhattheyproduceandhowtheyproduce.”7

ThecentralthesisofwhatMarxcalled,atthattime,the“materialistmethod”wasthat“individualswhoareproductivelyactiveinadefinitewayenterinto...definitesocialandpoliticalrelations”—whichare,apparently,“independent”oftheirindividualandcollectivewills.Themannerinwhichmaterialsubsistenceismadeavailable,andthecorrespondingsocialandpoliticalrelationsthatresult,

together“produce”the“ideologicalreflexesandechoesofthislifeprocess.Morality,religion,metaphysics,andalltherestofideologyaswellastheformsofconsciousnesscorrespondingto[themodeofproduction],thusnolongerretainthesemblanceofindependence.Theyhavenohistory,nodevelopment;butmen,developingtheirmaterialproductionandtheirmaterialintercourse,alter,alongwiththistheiractualworld,alsotheirthinkingandtheproductsoftheirthinking.Itisnotconsciousnessthatdetermineslife,butlifethatdeterminesconsciousness.”8

Tospeakof“politics,laws,morality,religion,[and]metaphysics...”as“phantomsformedinthehumanbrain”thatare“necessarilysublimates”ofthe“modeofmaterialproduction,”constitutesoneofthoseattemptsatformulatingcomplexsocialscienceclaimsthatarenecessarilypreliminarytoseriousempiricalinquiry.OmnibusclaimssuchasthosetenderedbytheyouthfulMarxarefamiliartosocialsciencepractitioners.Theyarecharacteristicallyformulatedintermsofanalogyandmetaphor.“Phantoms”aresomehow“formed”inthebrainthroughaprocessvaguelycharacterizedas“sublimation.”Allofwhichsimplydefiesconvincingconfirmationunlessthecentralconceptsareunpackedintermsofsomekindofoperationaldefinition,andtherelationshipsbetweenconceptsarespecifiedinmeasurableterms.9Unlesssuchaprocedureisundertaken,precursoryclaims,likethosefoundintheyouthfulwritingsofMarx,neverconstituteanythingmorethanresearchsuggestions.Establishingtheirempiricaltruthrequiresrelevantobservationalevidence,andthatwouldrequirefargreaterconceptualspecificitythananythingtobefoundintheearlyMarxaccounts.Theclaimsadvancedarepreliminarytoseriousinquiryandserve,atbest,heuristicpurpose.

Tobetoldthat“theformofintercoursedeterminedbytheexistingproductiveforces...iscivilsociety,”andthat“civilsocietyinitsvariousstages,[is]thebasisofallhistory...explaininghowallthedifferenttheoreticalproductsandformsofconsciousness,religion,philosophy,morality,etc.,etc.,arisefromit,”10isnottobetoldanythingthatmightbeempiricallyconfirmedinthe“real”world.Theclaimistoovagueandtherelationshipbetweenwhatisunderstoodtobe“civilsociety”11andthe“differenttheoreticalproducts”fartoouncertaintoallowconfirmation.

Suchclaimsarecomplicatedstillfurtherbyintroducingtheconvictionthat“theclasswhichhasthemeansofmaterialproductionatitsdisposal...alsocontrolsthemeansofmentalproduction,”isnothelpful.Tobetoldthat“theindividualscomposingtherulingclass...rulealsoasthinkers,asproducersof

ideas,andregulatetheproductionanddistributionoftheideasoftheirage...”clarifiesverylittle—andonceagain,defiesempiricalsubstantiation.Itpretendsthatthetruthofsuchafurtheraffirmationisunmistakablyevident,wheninfactitmerelyfurtherconfoundstheoriginal,convolutedclaimthatthe“modeofproduction”somehowexplainsthe“rise”of“allthedifferenttheoreticalproductsandformsofconsciousness,religion,philosophy,[and]morality...”12

Astillfurthercomplicationisaddedwhenwearetoldthatintheproductionofsuch“differenttheoreticalproducts,”asinallcasesofcollectiveproductiveactivities,therewasa“divisionoflabor”amongthecomponentsubsetsofthe“rulingclass.”Ontheonehand,therearethe“thinkers...[who]maketheformationoftheillusionsoftheclassaboutitselftheirchiefsourceoflivelihood.”Ontheother,therearethoseactiveownersofthemeansofproductionwho,having“lesstimetomakeupillusionsandideasaboutthemselves,”maydevelopa“certainoppositionandhostility”directedtowardthosechargedwithfashioningthesystem’sideologicalfictions.

Thosethinkerswhospecializeintheintellectualdefenseoftheveryclassprivilegestheyallenjoymaybeseenbythemembersoftheclassresponsibleforrealproductionasproviding“illusions”thatareinadequate,unimpressive,orcounterproductive.Any“oppositionorhostility”thatmightarisebetweensuchsubsetsoftherulingclass,however,Marxwentontoadd,would“automaticallyvanish...wheneverapracticalcollisionoccursinwhichtheclassitselfisendangered.”Atthatjuncture,theideasofthemoreactivemembers,theactualownersofthemeansofproduction,becomedominant.Theysupercedethoseoftheapologistsfortheclass.13

Givenallthepatentintricaciesinvolvedinsuchnotions,itishardtoimaginehowanyoneofthemmightbeconvincinglyestablishedastruebyavailableevidence.Atbest,suchanaccountdeliversaplausiblestoryofaverytangledsetofsocialandintellectualexchangesunderstoodtoapplytoallofhumanhistory.Moreinterestingforthepurposeofexposition,Marxadvancedanaccountoftheadventofrevolutionaryideasthathasimmediaterelevancetoanyunderstandingofsystemicchangeinthemodernworld.AccordingtoMarx,revolutionaryideas,asdistinctfromthosestandardlegal,philosophical,andmoralideasthatare“classillusions,”manifestthemselvesinanygivenenvironmentonlywhen“productiveforcesandmeansofintercoursearebroughtintobeingwhich,undertheexistingrelations,onlycausemischief,andarenolongerproductivebutdestructiveforces.”Whatthatseemstomeanisthatinthecourseoftime“productiveforces,”somehoworother,enterinto“conflict”with“social

intercourse.”14That,inturn,createsconditionsthatgiverisetothosewhowouldserveasagentsofrevolutionarychangetogetherwiththeveryrevolutionaryideasthatanimatetheirundertaking.Tensionsbetweentheproductiveforces(whatevertheyareunderstoodtoinclude)andproductiverelations,giverisetoaclassofpersonspreparedtooverthrowtheoldsystemforonethatisnew.

ForMarx,theexplicationofsuchgeneralnotionsinvolvesanaccountthatdemonstrateshowmodernindustryhasproduced“aclass...whichwastobearalltheburdensofsocietywithoutenjoyingitsadvantages.”15ItwasjustsuchaclassthatMarxunderstoodwouldserveasaconsciousinstrumentofthekindofchangehehadinmind.Suchanoppressedclasswouldbefundamentallyrevolutionary—butmorethanthat,becauseMarxconceivedhistory’sdevelopmentalenergyarisingfromthe“conflict”betweenproductiveforcesandprevailingsocialrelations,hearguedthatbeyondtheunproblematicrecognitionthatsuchaclassmightserveasrevolutionaryagent,itsexistencewasunderstoodtoreflectastillmorefundamentalrealityfesteringinsociety’s“economicbase.”Insomedeterminatesense,humanbeingsdidnotsimplybecomerevolutionary.Theveryexistenceofsuchanoppressedclassinmodernindustrialsocietyisthe“inevitable”(unvermeidlich)consequenceofwhatMarxunderstoodtobedysfunctions,independentofthewillofallparticipants,whichlayattheveryproductivebaseofsociallife.AccordingtoMarx,humanbeingsbecamerevolutionarybecausethe“objectivefacts”ofhistorycompelledthem.

ItisclearthatforMarxrevolutioncouldhardlybesimplytheconsequenceoffeltgrievance,oranindividualorcollectivedecisiontoact.Marxwaspreparedtoarguethatrevolutionwasafunctionofcauseshavinglittletodowithwilledchoice.Hearguedthattheveryexistenceofarevolutionaryclasswasevidenceofimpersonaltensionsbetweenentirelyobjectiveexistingandemergingproductiveforcesaswellastheconstraintsimposedonthoseforcesbyprevailingsocialrelations.Itispreciselythosetensionsthatengenderaclassofpersonscompelledtoassumerevolutionaryresponsibilities.Arevolutionaryclassarisesbecauseoftensionsattheeconomicbaseofsociety,andonlyderivativelybecauseoffeltgrievanceonthepartofitsmembers.Oncetheconsciousagentsofchangebecomeavailable,theentiresystementersintotransformativecrisis.Marxdevotedtheremainderofhisintellectuallifetotheattempttoexplainpreciselyhowsuchaprocessinitiatedandsustaineditself.

WhatwasabundantlyclearwasMarx’sconvictionthataninevitableandentirelyobjectiveprocess“reflected”itselfintheconsciousnessofproletarianagentsofchange.Theprocessgaverisetoafunctionalrevolutionaryideology

through,andwithwhich,thecrisiswouldberesolved.Therequisiteideologywouldinevitablyinfilltheconsciousnessofarevolutionaryclassthatthenwouldproceedtogivebodyandexpressiontothe“necessityofafundamentalrevolution.”16

Thereisaquaintautomaticityinallofthis.Specificmoralideasapparentlyappearpreciselywhentheyarerequired.Theyaredestinedtooverwhelmthose“reactionaryillusions”thatsupporttheclassprofitingfromtheexistingdysfunctionalrelationsofproduction.Functionalrevolutionaryideasareaproductofaconsciousnessconjuredupbythetensionsproducedbyemergingproductiveforcesthatcannolongerbeaccommodatedbytheexistingmodeofproduction.

ForMarx,thematerialproductiveforcesandcorrespondingrelationsofproductiontogetherconstituted“therealgroundofhistory”—andexplain“theformationofideasfrommaterialpractice.”17Ideas,moral,philosophical,orlegal,areepiphenomenal;theyarereflectionsofcollective,essentiallymaterial,productiveprocesses,andthesocialrelationstowhichthoseprocesses,takentogether,giverise.18Whenemergingproductiveforcescannolongerbehousedwithinexistingsocialrelations,newideas,religious,moral,philosophical,orlegal,appear—intheformofadvocacyofrevolutionarychange.Revolutionaryideas,inwhateverformtheyappear,emergeinorderthatthosesocialpracticesthathavebeguntoactas“constraints”ontheexpandingforcesofproductionmightbe“overcome.”19Theappositemoral,ethical,religious,andphilosophicalideasthatcometoanimatetherevolutionaryclassarisesimplybecausethoseideascorrespondtotheproductiveneedsofgivenhistoriccircumstances.

Astheforcesofproduction“outgrow”thecorrespondingrelationsofproductiontowhichtheyoriginally“gaverise,”aclassemergesrepresentingnewproductiveforcesthatcannotflourishwithintheprevailingsocialandpoliticalconstraintsofagivenarrangement.Thatclassissomehow“ineluctably”and“inevitably”inspiredtorevolutionaryenterprise.Correlativetothis,revolutionaryideasmaketheirappearancetosupplyanormativerationaleforjustsuchradicalsocialchange.

Thus,whilegenericcommunistideasmayhavemadetheirappearanceatvarioustimesinhistory,allthemoralandphilosophicalprinciplesimpliedbysuchideascouldonlybecomehistoricallysignificantwhencertainmaterial,i.e.,productive,conditionsmaketheirappearance.Whennewforcesofproductioncannolongerbeaccommodatedinagivensociety’seconomicbase,arevolutionaryclass,animatedbycorrespondingrevolutionaryconvictions,

necessarilyrisestoclearpassage.

SuchwasthediscussionMarxprovidedasanaccountofhowrevolutionaryideasarise,prevail,andprosper.Hemakesthemafunctionofmaterialpreconditionsidentifiedasnecessaryfortheappearanceofatrulyrevolutionaryclass,itsmoralepiphany,anditsultimatesuccessinestablishingacommunistsociety.Onlywhenmaterialconditionshavefullymaturedmightonepredicttheriseofagenuinelyrevolutionaryclass,itsspecificphilosophicalandmoralinspiration,aswellastherealpossibilityofitssuccess.Thoseconditions,themselves,renderboththeappearanceoftherevolutionaryproletariat,aswellasitsmastery,historically“necessary.”Independentofthosepreconditions,genericcommunismcouldonlyremainadistractingvelleity.Wearetoldthatif“materialelementsofacompleterevolutionarenotpresent...itisabsolutelyimmaterialwhethertheideaofthisrevolutionhasbeenexpressedahundredtimesalready.”Withouttheirnecessarymaterialpremises,suchideaswouldremainlittlemorethan“idealistichumbug.”20

Attimes,somehoworother,suchhumbugpersistsinsocietyforanunconscionablelengthoftime.Therearemanypolitical,religious,moral,andphilosophicalideas,thatanachronisticallysurviveintoourowntime,thatcouldonlybetheproductsofearlierproductivemodes.Marxhadverylittletosaythatmightexplaintheirpersistence.Hedidremark,however,thattheircontinuedexistencewouldbe,atbest,temporary.“Reality,”aftersomeunspecifiedinterval,woulddissolveall“theoreticalbubble-blowing,”all“ready-madenonsense,”simplybecausesuchirrelevanciesfailtosatisfyanyoftherequirementsoftheactualprocessesof“earthly”production.Atsomeindeterminatetime,everyonewouldunderstandthat“suchnonsense”wastobeexplained,notonitsmerits,butasnothingotherthananideationalby-productof“lifeconditions.”

ThoseweretheconvictionsthatshapedMarx’sviewthatitwouldsoonbethecasethatthe“mass”ofcontemporaryrevolutionaries,theproletariat,wouldnolongerentertainarchaicnotionsaboutreligionandthewholeattendant“learned”nonsenseaboutatranscendentmoralityemanatingfromthe“realmofGod.”21Marxinformedtherevolutionariesofhistimethatthemoralityoftheproletariatwouldrepresentthe“interests”oftheemergingproductiveforces—theproductiveforcesofthefuture—andassuchwouldrepresenttheonlydefensiblemoralityforrationalactors.

WhatemergesfromMarx’saccountisaverysingularconceptionofrevolutionarythought—andthemotivesthatinspirehumanbeingstoassumethe

moralresponsibilitiesthatattendviolenceandmayhem.InTheCommunistManifesto,theconceptionfindsexpressioninasetofmutuallysupportiveconvictionsturningonthepremisethatthecourseofhistoryis,inthelastanalysis,inevitable—andthatthemodernagentsofproduction,thebourgeoisie,aresomehowcompelledtoproducetheproletariat,destinedtobetheir“grave-diggers”—toinaugurateanewepochofuniversallibertyandabundance.22

Overtheyears,Marx’sformulationsconcerningthegeneraloutlinesofthematerialistconceptionofhistory—andtheimplicationsofsuchaconceptionintermsofmoralityandethics—didnotsubstantiallychangeirrespectiveoftheintroductionofsomemorecomplicatedsurfacefeaturesthatfoundarticulationinsynopticpropositionsandepigrammaticturnsofspeech.23Thus,inhisyouthheinformedhisreadership,asanillustrativeinstance,that“thehandmillgivesyousocietywiththefeudallord;thesteammill,societywiththeindustrialcapitalist.”Thenheproceededtoinsistthat“inacquiringnewproductiveforcesmenchangetheirmodeofproduction,inchangingthewayofearningtheirliving,theychangealltheirsocialrelations....Thesamemenwhoestablishtheirsocialrelationsinconformitywiththeirmaterialproductivity,producealsoprinciples,ideasandcategories,inconformitywiththeirsocialrelations.”24Thesecentralnotions,howevercomplexanddifficulttoconfirm,remainedconstantwithMarxthroughouthismaturity—andinthemajorworkproducedinthatfullmaturity,hewrote,“Technologydisclosesman’smodeofdealingwithNature,theprocessofproductionbywhichhesustainshislife,andtherebyalsolaysbarethemodeofformationofhissocialrelations,andofthementalconceptionsthatflowfromthem.”25

Inmuchthesamefashionashehadexpressedsuchnotionstwodecadesbefore,Marxmaintainedthatitwastechnologythatwasultimatelyresponsibleformentalconceptions26—expressingsynopticallytheclaimshehadadvancedbetweenthefallof1845andthesummerof1846.27Ifthe“handmill”mustnecessarily“giverise”tofeudalsociety,togetherwithallitsassociatedideas,theevidentimplication,giveneverythingMarxhadwrittenovertheyears,wasthattechnologymustsomehowberesponsiblenotonlyforcorrespondingsocialrelations,butfortheprovisionoftheappropriatemoralandlegalprinciples,aswellasthecustomaryusages,thatsustainpublicsecurityandsocialstabilityinanygivensociety,feudalorotherwise.

Whatevermightbesaidconcerningsuchspeculations,itseemsclearthatsomethingmorewasrequiredtoprovideapersuasiveaccountofaneminentlycomplexprocess.Stitchingtogetherthegeneralizationsthatmakeupthecoreof

thematerialistconceptionofhistorydemandedsomeelaborationifapersuasiveaccountofethicalreasoningandadaptivemoralbehaviorwastobeforthcoming.Overtheyears,otherMarxistsattemptedtosupplyjustthatelaboration.Whattheydelivered,howeverunpersuasive,wascalculatedtosupplywhatwouldpassasageneraltheoryofethicsandabehavioralaccountofmoralconduct.

MARXISTETHICSANDDARWINISMBytheearly1850s,soonaftertheappearanceofTheCommunistManifesto,

revolutionaryeffervescencehaddissipatedinEurope.Alltherevolutionaryactivityoftheprecedingfewyearshadabated,and“reaction”onceagainreasserteditself.BothMarxandEngelsrecognizedasmuch,althoughtheycontinuedtoanticipateyetotherrevolutionaryepisodesintheimmediatefuture.28Toprepareforjustsucheventualities,EngelsurgedthatMarxwritea“thickbook”thatwouldprovidethescientificgroundstosupporttheirrevolutionaryexpectations.29Inresponse,Marxundertookjustsucharesponsibility,andovertheyearsdutifullypursuedhis“CriticalAnalysisofCapitalistProduction”—toproduce,in1867,whatisnowidentifiedasthefirstvolumeofhismagnumopus,DasKapital.

Aboutthattime,in1863,FerdinandLassalle,anintellectuallyindependentsocialist,foundedtheGermanWorkers’UnioninLeipzig.30In1869,theSocialDemocraticWorkers’PartywasfoundedinGermanybysomeofMarx’sdisciples—andsoonLassalleansandMarxistsattemptedacollaborativeunion.NeitherMarxnorEngelsendorsedLassalle’sideologicalorpoliticalefforts,buttheywerenotinapositiontosignificantlyinfluencethecollaborationbetweenhimandtheirfollowers.BarredashewasfromGermanyasaconsequenceofhisearlierexileandrenunciationofcitizenship,Marxcouldonlylevelobjectionsfromafar.

BothMarxandEngelsfoundreadyreasonstoobjecttotheideologicalconvictionsandpoliticalbehaviorsofLassalle.InthejudgmentofthefoundersofMarxism,neitherLassalle’sbeliefsnorhisleadershipoftheGermanworkers’movementadequatelyreflectedtherealitiesofthethenprevailingeconomicbase.

Marx’scriticalmistrustofLassallewasnotparticularlyunique.Forsomereason,mostofMarx’scompatriotsinthesocialistmovementneverwonhisfullintellectualapproval.InMarx’sjudgment,almostallthesocialistthinkersofhistimefailedtocaptureprevailingrealityeitherintheirassessmentsorintheirpolicyrecommendations.AccordingtoMarx,allofhisrevolutionary

contemporariessucceededinbeingwrong—eachinhisownfashion.Therewere“feudalsocialists”and“clericalsocialists,”andtherewere“pettybourgeoissocialists,”andallsortsof“truesocialists”—allwronginallthewaystheycouldbewrong.Theywereeitherconfused,suborned,orintellectuallyimpaired.ProudonistsandLassalleans,FourieristsandOwenites,werealltobefoundintheirranks—allemphaticallyandirreparablywrong.

ItwasinthatcontentiousenvironmentthattheGermanSocialDemocraticmovementmadeitsappearanceundertheacknowledgedinfluenceofKarlMarx.Moreandmoreintellectualsgatheredarounditsstandards,andaformidablebodyofspecificallyMarxistargumentationmadeitsappearance.NotalwaysfaithfultotheoriginalMarxisttexts,itborewitnesstoboththerichnessoftheoriginalmaterialaswellasitsintrinsicvaguenessandambiguity.

AboutthesametimethatthenewSocialDemocraticmovementtookoninstitutionalshape,JosefDietzgen,31afollowerofMarxandEngels,undertooktoprovideGermanworkerswithaneasilyaccessibleaccountofthenewparty’sconvictions.In1869,atthetimeofthefoundingoftheGermanSocialDemocraticparty,DietzgenpublishedhisThePositiveOutcomeofPhilosophy,alooselystructureddiscussionofacatalogofphilosophicalproblems.Withinthatcontext,DietzgenoutlinedhisfirstnotionsofwhataMarxistethicsmightbe.

Atthetimeofthepublicationoftheworkthatledtohisidentificationasthe“philosopheroftheproletariat,”32DietzgensoughttoexplainallthecomplexitiesofMarxistethicaljudgmentandmoralbehaviorbyreferringto“thewantsofthesenses,”whichheconceivedtobe“thematerialoutofwhichreasonfashionsmoraltruths.”33Heimaginedthatsuchaconceptioncapturedthecentralconvictionsofwhathecalled“thematerialisticconceptionofmorality.”34Atthattime,hisconceptionofthenatureofethicalreasoningaswellastheformulationofmoralprescriptionwashardlymorecomplicatedthanthat.

Whateverthesubsequentchangesinhisanalysis,DietzgenwasforevertoarguethatMarxistethicswasaninductivescience.Likemostofthepositivistsoftheperiod,heheldthat“theunderstandingofthemethodofscience...isdestinedtosolvealltheproblemsofreligionandphilosophy.”35Whatthatseemstohavemeanttohimatthetimewas,shouldonewishtostudymorality,onewouldhavetoproceedtodescriptivelycataloghumanneeds—for“thatwhichisgoodcorrespondstoourneeds,thatisbadwhichiscontrarytothem...[for]morality,orthedeterminationofthatwhichisright,hasapracticalpurpose.”He

simplyaffirmedthat“manwithhismanywantsisthestandardofmoraltruth”—andfurther,itwasjustthose“humanwants[that]givetoreasonastandardforjudgingwhatisgood,right,bad,reasonable,etc.”36

Thosepreliminaryformulationsweretobeboundtogetherinoneuniversalprescription:“Theoneandsoleabsoluteend”ofmoraldeliberationwas,inDietzgen’sjudgment,“humanwelfare”37—and“humanwelfare”wasunderstoodtoconstitute“anendwhichsanctifiesallrulesandactions,allmeans,solongastheyaresubservienttoit.”Grantedthat,Dietzgenwassufficientlyastutetorecognizethat“humanwelfare”wasanomnibustermthatwasintrinsicallydifficulttodefine.Hedulyacknowledgedthat“humanwelfare,”assuch,wasnowheretobeempiricallyobservedinitssimplicity.Theproperreferentfor“humanwelfare,”heseemedtoargue,wasageneralizationdrawnfromaseriesofobservationsofhistoricinstancesofindividualandcollectivewell-being.Dietzgenwaspreparedtoarguethatthesatisfactionofhumanwelfare,the“soleandabsoluteend”ofallethicalreasoning,couldonlybeunderstood,inductively,byinspectingsomeindeterminatesetof“empirical...concretecases.”38

Itishardtomakeagreatdealoutofallthis.Itisnotatallevidentwhatgeneralandtranshistorical“humanwelfare”mightbe,andconsequently,whatparticularbehaviors,atanygiventime,mightdulyserveitsends.Andyet,understandingwhatmightbeimpliedintermsofbehaviorsthatsupportthatwelfareiscriticaltoDietzgen’spresentationofthe“materialisticconceptionofmorality”—forhewasconvincedthat“amoralityworthyofthatname...canbeexercisedonlythroughtheunderstandingofitsworth,ofitsvaluetoourwelfare.”Hewentontoinsistthat“moralityiseternallysacred,insofarasitreferstoconsiderationswhichamanowestohimselfandtohisfellowmenintheinterestoftheircommonwelfare.”39

Fullycomprehendingwhatageneric,universal,andabsolutehumanwelfarerequiresbecomesessentialtoafullappreciationofDietzgen’sefforttoprovideanaccountof“materialisticmorality.”Hetellsus,forexample,that“meanswhicharegenerallyunholymaybecome...sanctionedbytheirrelationtosome...welfare.”Thus,hewaspreparedtomaintainthat“when...manseekshissalvationinwar,thenmurderandincendiarismareholymeans.”Theend,heconsistentlyargued,justifiesthemeans.40

Inthesameveinandinthesameplace,hewentontotellhisreadersthattheonlyreasonwefind“slytricksandintrigues,poisonandmurder...unholy”isbecausethosebehaviorsdonotseemtoservehumanwelfare.41Itwouldseem

thatifitcouldbeshownthattheymightsoserve,theywouldpresumablytherebybeheld“holy.”

Otherthantheveryunconvincingqualityofthediscussion,Dietzgenprovidedanumberofpuzzlingaddendatohisaccount.Atonepointheproceededtoannouncethatitwouldbe“adisastrousdeception...ifanyageorclass...proclaimsitsownpeculiarpurposesandmeanstobefortheabsolutewelfareofhumanity.”42

The“philosopheroftheproletariat,”ineffect,inthecourseofattemptingtoprovideacompellingaccountofthe“scienceofethics,”counseledtherevolutionaryworkingclassthatitcouldnot,andshouldnot,declareitspurposes,andthemeansitchoseforachievingthosepurposes,as“absolutelymoral.”Atbest,moralitywasrelativetotimeandcircumstances.Theywoulddictateproperconduct.Therecouldneverbea“timeless”rightorwrong.

ItseemsevidentthatDietzgencouldnotleavehisaccountofthemoralphilosophyofGermanSocialDemocracyinsuchastate.Itwasevidentthathisfirstefforttoprovideacoherent,Marxistaccountof“proletarianmorality”wasnotintheleastpersuasive.Morethanthat,otherthanDietzgen’sreadyreferencestotheproletariat,itisnotdifficulttoappreciatethattherewasreallyverylittleinhisaccountthatwasdirectlyattributabletotheconjecturesfoundintheearlyworkofKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.

Itiseasytoappreciatewhy,bythemiddleofthe1870s,DietzgenchosetoundertakeamorecoherentandconvincingtreatmentofMarxistnormativetheory.Inmakingtheattempt,hemadeeveryefforttoremaintruetothefundamentalpremisesofhisMasters.WhatwassingularaboutthenewattemptwastheintroductionofdistinctivelyDarwinianelementsintohisexposition.BetweenDietzgen’stwoattemptsatproposingaMarxistethicaltheory,theimpactofDarwinismonhisthoughtmadeitselfevident.

ThefirststepsinDietzgen’sattemptatassimilatingDarwinistnotionsintothe“materialistconceptionofhistory”werefacilitatedbyinsisting,onceagain,onthescientificcharacteroftheentireendeavor.DietzgenconsistentlyarguedthatthemostuniquefeatureofMarxistethicswaspreciselyitsscientificcharacter.43Accordingtohim,Marxistnormativenotions,likeallofMarxisttheory,wereunalterablyandirreduciblyscientific.HereiteratedhisconvictionthatthemoralandethicalconvictionsofMarxismweresomehowtheinductiveconsequencesofdirectorindirect,individual,andcollective,sensoryobservation.Forhim,“moraltruths”weresomehowindistinguishablefromthosetruthsthatwere

empirical.Insomesignificantsense,moralitywas,forDietzgen,somethinglikea“naturalscience”44—andasDarwinismwasoneofthemajoraccomplishmentsofnaturalscienceinthenineteenthcentury—itsimplyhadtobeaccommodated.

BythetimeDietzgenputpentopaperinthe1870s,DarwinismhadalreadyexercisedinfluenceontheEuropeancontinentformorethanadecade—andMarxhimselfhadidentifiedDarwinismasanintellectualactivitysharing“affinities”withhisown“historicalmaterialism.”45Inthosecircumstances,whatDietzgendidwastotakesomeofthecentralpropositionsofDarwinism—“thestruggleforsurvival,”“survivalofthefittest,”andtheconceptionof“progressiveevolution”—andtailorthemtofitwhathetooktobetheMarxistinductive“science”ofmoraljudgment.

AsasometimesDarwinist,DietzgenbeganhisrevisedaccountofthescienceofMarxianethicswiththeconvictionthathumanwelfare,thebasisofmaterialistethics,wasshapedbythenaturalimperativetosurvive.46InTheCommunistManifesto,Marxhad,infact,alludedtotherealitythatincontemporary“bourgeoissociety,”becauseoftheexploitativenatureoftheeconomicsystem,theproletarianswerethreatenedwithextinction—acircumstancethatdid,infact,engagetheirinstinctivewilltosurvive.47

Dietzgentookthatnotionandcombineditwiththegeneralizationthatlifeontheplanetexemplified,overgeologictime,progressivedevelopment—fromthesimplertomorecomplexforms.Amongsentient,mobilecreatures,evolutionarydevelopmentwasaccomplishedthroughastruggleforexistence,acompetitioninwhichthe“fittest”survived,allowingthemnotonlytheoccasiontoreproduceandperpetuatethespecies,buttoserveasvehiclesofprogressivechangeaswell.Animallife,Dietzgenargued,wascharacterizedbyanirrepressiblewilltosurvive,andthatsurvivalimpulsedirectlycontributedtojustsuchanoutcome.

Throughaseriesofquasideductivesteps,Dietzgenarguedthatsincealllifeseeksitsownsurvival,thewilltosurvivemightwellbeunderstoodasanimperativethatcontributed,throughthestruggleforexistence,totheprogressiveevolutionofthespecies.Thewilltosurvivecreatedcompetitionandcompetitionwouldselect,forsurvival,andreproduction,thefittestamongcompetitors.Dietzgenconcludedthat,withinsuchcircumstances,itwasevidentthatindividualsurvival,perse,wasofonlyinstrumental,ratherthanintrinsic,significance.Survivorscarriedwithinthemselvesthebiologicalpotentialofbothsurvivalandreproductionoftheirspecies.Morethanthat,insurvivingtheywouldfurtherthe“fitness”ofthespeciesandcontributetotheprogressiveevolutionoflife.Thecompetitiveimpulsetosurviveallowedonlythefittestto

prevailandreproduce—totheprogressiveadvantageofthespecies.Thus,individualsmightbeconsumedintheprocess,buttheywould,inthelastanalysis,servethe“absolutewelfareofhumanity.”Dietzgenhadclosedthecircleof“materialistethics.”HecouldpointtotheDarwinianrealitiesthatgavesubstancetohisnotionofthe“welfareofhumanity.”

ItwastheconfirmedrealityofhumanevolutionthatprovidedDietzgenthe“scientific”evidenceforthatwhichhehadinsistedwasthe“soleandabsoluteend”ofmoralcalculation—theultimatenormativeimperativeofMarxistethics.Forhim,evolutionprovidedthescientificdemonstrationofwhat“humanwelfare”wastobetakentomean.Morethanthat,theentireprocessofhumanevolutionestablishedthatindividuallifemustnecessarilybesubordinatetothesurvivalanddevelopmentalneedsofcollective“humanwelfare.”Life,ingeneral,seeksitsowndefenseandselectiveperpetuity—inthecourseofwhichindividuallivesmaywellbesacrificedforthecollectivegood—allintheserviceofultimatehumanwelfare.

ItwaswithinthatunderstandingthatDietzgensoughttoprovideanaccountforethicsandmoralconductthatwascollectivisticinorientation.Moralbehavior,heargued,issimplyonewaybyvirtueofwhichthegroupensuresitsownsurvivalandevolutionarybettermentintheDarwinianstruggleforexistence.Thecompliantbehaviorofitsmembers,thereadinesstosacrificeforthecommunity,forexample,reinforcesgroupenterpriseandsurvivalpotentialinthestruggle.Moralbehavior,Dietzgenargued,isrevealedasanecessaryconditionofgrouplifeandcollectivebiologicaldevelopment.

Basedonjustsuchasetofconjectures,Dietzgenwaspreparedtoarguethat,giventhebiologicalcircumstancessurroundinggrouplife,onewouldexpect“nature”to“implantneighborlyloveintheheartofeachofus”48—simplybecausefellowfeelingprovidesthebasisforself-discipline,collaboration,andareadinesstosacrificeforthecommunity.Inanychallengingenvironmentsuchfellowfeeling,whileprejudicialtoindividualsurvival,wouldenhancegroupsurvivalandprovideagreaterprobabilityofcompetitivesuccess.

DietzgenmaintainedthatDarwinhaddemonstratedthatsociallifewassimplyoneformwithinthemultiplicityofformsthatmakeupthetotalityoforganicandinorganicreality.Thesociallifeofhumansrepresentedbutoneformthroughwhichthegeneralorganic,evolutionarylawsthattypifycosmicchangefindexpression.Whileallmatterevolves,onlyhumanbeingsattainconsciousawarenessoftheprocess.Itisthatconsciousnessthatinspirestheefforttoproduceapersuasiveethicalrationaleforwhat,intermsofhumanevolution,

wasfunctionalbehavior.Infact,andinthelastanalysis,itisevolutionitselfthatDietzgenunderstoodtobetheinitialwellspringofbothindividualandcollectivebehavioraswellastheirsustainingimpetus.ForDietzgen,itwasevolutionthatinspiredtheheartandsuppliedtherationaleformoralbehaviorandethicaljudgment.49

Althoughtherewassomesuggestionofallthatintheworksof“scientificcommunism,”50itwaslefttoDietzgentomaketheexplicitcaseforaDarwinianoverlayforwhatheconsideredtobeMarxistethics.ManyofDietzgen’sinjunctionswereclearlyMarxistinexpression,butrestedongroundsthatweredistinctlynon-MarxistandessentiallyDarwinian.

Asaconsequenceofallthat,itwasevidenttoDietzgenthatinthenaturalworldofanimalevolution—nolessforhumansthanthebeastsofthefield—individuallifemustnecessarilysubordinateitselftothedemandsintrinsictolifelivedincommon.Individualinterestsandindividualwell-being,inandofthemselves,contributedlittle,ifanything,essentialtogroupsurvivalandbiologicalevolution—thefoundationofhumanprogressandthesubstanceofultimate“humanwelfare.”ForDietzgen,itwasonly“unlimitedprogress”thatwas“absolutelymoral”—andthat“scientificallyestablished”dictumprovidedthe“objective”groundsforMarxistethicsandanimpeccableguideforindividualandcollectivehumanconduct.51

Theimplicationsofsuchaninterpretationbecamealmostimmediatelyevident.AccordingtoDietzgen,sciencehadestablishedthathumanlifewasgovernedbythecosmicprinciplesofprogressiveevolution.Thoseweretheethicalprinciples,derivedfrominductivescience,whichprovidedtheultimatemoralsubstancetohumanlife.WithinthecompassofhumanlifelivedinsocietyDietzgenwentontoarguethat,inprinciple,“absolutemoralitydemandsnothinglessthanradicalprogressor‘revolutioninpermanence.’”52Nothingwastoobstructthecontinualevolutionaryprogressofhumankind.Toattempttoimpedesuchprogresswasnotonlyreactionary;itwas,inhisjudgment,evil.Withinthatcontext,Dietzgenintroducedalltheconstituentsofhistoricalmaterialismthathadbecomestandardbythattime.Thus,whilebiological“progress”wasthegoverningprinciple—theultimateand“absolute”sourceofmorality—thetrajectoryofhumansocialevolution,fromthemostprimitivetimestothepresentday,followedstagesdeterminedbytheprogressiveunfoldingofmaterialproduction.53

Thus,fromtheultimateandabsolutemoralprincipleofbiological

development,onecouldproceedtodealwiththesuccessivestagesofsocietalevolution—whichfollowedessentiallythesamedevelopmentalprocesses.Progressivesocialevolutiontookplacethroughthecompetitionofgroupsthatcharacterizedthehistoryofcommunallife.Evolvingsocialliferequiredproductivesystemsthatservicedlifelivedincollectivities.Meetingthoseneedsthusbecomemoralresponsibilities—andfindexpressionincollectiveconsciousness.Ethicaldictates,moralimperatives,customarydeportment,deferentialconduct,andallthefamiliarpatternsofproperbehavioraredirectlyorindirectlythe“reflection”ofparticularsocialandproductiveneeds—atparticularhistoricjunctures—withintheunfoldingmodeofproduction—allassocialreflectionsontherealitiesofDarwinianevolution.

Givensuchanevolutionaryperspective,onecanarguethatprimitivemodesofproductionpromotecorrespondingprimitivemodesofconduct—thatareatasurvivaldisadvantagewhenconfrontedbymoreadvancedmodes.Thebarbarismofprimalpeoples,thesavageryandsuperstition,theoppressionandtheexploitation,isareflectionoftheprimitivemodeofmaterialproduction—destinedtofailinthecompetitivestruggleforexistence.Onlythefullmaturationoftheeconomicbaseofsocietywouldproducethemoreadvanced,andeminentlysurvivable,“reallyhumanmoralorder”54anticipatedbytherevolutionariesoflatenineteenth-centuryGermany.

Beforetheadventofsuchamorality,however,allthetermscharacteristicofmoraldiscourse—“freedom”and“justice”ascasesinpoint—necessarilyalterintheirrespectivemeaningwhenappliedtothevariousstagesofproductiveevolution.Moralterms,andtheirbindingimplications,takeonvaryingsignificanceateachstageinhumansocialevolution.Whateverthereligiousfantasy,expressionslike“brotherlylove”haveno“absolute”oreternalmeaning.The“brotherlylove”ofhuntersandgatherersis,andcanonlybe,fundamentallydifferentfromthe“brotherlylove”ofthemodernproletariat,theproductofthemodernmodeofproduction.55Whichconceptionsurvivesandprevailswouldbeafunction,notofintrinsicmerit,butofthesurvivabilityandprevalenceofthemorehighlyevolvedmodeofproductionofwhichitisaproduct.

Dietzgenunderstoodethicstobeaninductivescience,withits“commandments”andenjoinmentsafunctionofcomingtounderstandthe“realprocessesgoverningtheworld[derrealeWeltprozess]withitsmaterial,living,humanhistory.”DietzgenarguedthatitwasfromanunderstandingofthebiologicalandevolutionaryhistoryofhumansocietythatMarxists“haveproducedanawarenessofanideal,abstractnotionofmorality.”Wecometo

understandmorality,itsgenesisanditsfunction,onceweunderstanditssource.Moralityistheproductofunderstandingcosmicevolutionandtheroleplayedbyhumanbeingsinthebiologicalandsocietalprocess.Itisonlywithinsuchacontextthathumanmoralactivityisjustifiedandunderstood.

Suchnotionsareclearlytheproductofaconvictionthatatthebottomofallethicalreasoningandallmoralconductarewellconfirmedempiricalgeneralizations.Moralityissimplyapart,howeverdistinctive,ofthatstandardsciencethatgovernsourknowledgeoftheworld,thebiologicalandsocialhistoryofhumankind,andtheirrespectivesustaininglawlikeprocesses.

ThiswasthenormativetheorythatseemedtoenjoythetacitsupportofMarxandEngels56—andthat,inpart,inspiredtheGermanSocialDemocraticmovementduringthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury.Partsweretosurviveintothetwentiethcenturyand,aswillbeargued,influencedtheethicalreasoningofthoserevolutionarieswhowouldshapetheirtime.

KARLKAUTSKYANDADARWINIANMARXISMTosomeMarxistthinkersitbecameobvious,almostimmediately,whatsucha

constructionofMarxistethicsandmoralsmightimply.

KarlKautsky,oneofMarx’smostimportantintellectualheirs—clearlyfamiliarwiththeworkofDietzgen—recognizedthattheroleplayedbyDarwinisminthematerialistconceptionofhistorywouldhavetobeverycarefullyconsidered.

EngelshadaccordedDarwinismacriticalplaceinthephilosophicalarticulationofMarx’sviews.Heheldthat“dialecticalmaterialism,”themore“philosophical”componentofMarxism,waspredicatedonthreemajordevelopmentsinnaturalscience,amongwhichDarwin’stheoryoforganicevolutionoccupiedacentralposition.InhisAnti-Dühring,EngelsmadeaspiriteddefenseofDarwinandDarwinism.57

Nonetheless,itsoonbecameevidenttoKautskythatMarxisttheoryhadventuredintotroubledwaters.Afterthedeathofthefoundersofscientificsocialism,thequestionofhowDarwinismmightbeassimilatedintoaspecificallyMarxistethicalsystemremained.Itwasclearthatanythingotherthanthemostcarefulaccommodationmightbringobjectionableimplicationsinitstrain.LikeDietzgen,Kautskywaspreparedtoacknowledgethathumanbeingsevolvedasaconsequenceofa“struggleforexistence”—buthehesitatedtoconceivesuchevolutionary“progress”an“imperative”governingeitherthe

humanstrugglewiththeexternalenvironmentorconflictagainstothercommunities.Hechosenottoimputeacosmicpurposetonature.Rather,hespokeofhumanbeings,movedbytheinstinctsofsurvivalandprocreation,developingtheirrespectiveskillsintheirefforttosurviveandreproduceinthemidstofchallenge.

Animatedbysocialinstinctsandassociativeimpulse,humanbeingsorganizedthemselvesincommunitiesinwhichthedivisionoflaborimpartedan“organic”qualitytotheirassociation.Instinctandimpulsefoundexpressionasingroupsentiment,adispositiontosubmittothewillofthecommunity,todisplaycourageandcommitmentinthepursuitofcollectivepurpose.Giventhebiologicalbasisofsocialimpulse,asenseofprideandfulfillmentnormallyaccompaniessuchseeminglyvoluntarybehaviors.Kautskyspokeofsuch“sublimevirtues”asessentiallynothingotherthanbiologicallybased“socialdrives[sozialenTriebe],”capable,attimes,ofoverwhelmingtheindividual’sveryinstinctofsurvival.

Darwinhadshownthatamonggroupanimalsitwasnotuncommonforindividualstosacrificethemselvesfortheoffspringoftheircommunity—ortobeequallysacrificialintheserviceofthosewithwhomtheysharedlifeandcircumstance.Ineffect,Kautskytoldhisreaders,Darwinhadshownthatthemostexaltedmoralvirtuesfoundtheirimmediateorigininanimalimpulse.Wherephilosophersandsocialthinkershadformillenniaspokenofthemoralvirtuesofhumankindas“spiritual”innature,Darwinismhaddemonstratedtheirall-too-biomaterialisticorigin.Recognizingperhapswheresuchanaccountofethicaljudgmentandmoralbehaviormightlead,Kautskywentontopointoutthathumanbeingscannotbeexpectedtosimplyfollowinstinctualimpulse.Humanbeingsaresubjecttoconflictingimpulsesandonemustexplainwhyoneoranotherimpulseprevailsatanygiventimeorunderanygivencircumstance.

Ineffect,KautskyarguedthatasimpleDarwinismwillnotdotofullyexplainhumanmorality,northereasoningthatsustainsit.Humanbeings,giftedwithspeech,clearlyappealtoidealsandprinciplestogoverntheirbehavior—and,inmanyinstances,individualbehaviorseemsinexplicableunlessonetakesintoaccountthelifecircumstanceswithinwhichmoralchoicesaremade.Thequestionofhowhumanbeingsdecideonappropriatebehavior,orrespondtoimpulseinmorallyconflictedsituations,remainsafterDarwinianinsightsarefullyconsidered.KautskyturnedtothethoughtofMarxandEngelsforasupplementaryandpersuasiveanswer.58

MARXISM,MORALS,ANDSCIENCEInformulatinghisaccount,Kautskyaddressedhimselftotheriseofsocial

scienceinthemodernperiod.Hespokeoftheriseofstatisticalscienceandthediscoverythatcollectivehumanbehavior—theriseordiminutionincrime,theincreaseinmatrimonies,andtheincreaseordeclineintherateofchildbirth—couldbesystematicallycorrelatedwithsimilarlycalculateddeterminanteconomicfactors.Noone,heargued,woulddenythatsexualinstinctsarebiologicalinorigin,butitwasequallyevidentthattheirvariantexpressionatanygiventimeandinanygivencircumstancewaslargelytheproductofthenprevalentmaterialconditions.Similarly,onecouldspeakofthesocialinstinctsofhumanbeings—instinctstobeexplainedbyDarwinianrealities—buthowsuchinstinctsmanifestedthemselvesatanygiventimeorjuncturewas,inKautsky’sjudgment,areflectionofdeterminateeconomiccircumstances.Thosecircumstancesrequiredcarefulanalysis.

Principalamongthoseeconomicdeterminants,Kautskyargued,wasthestateoftheclassstruggleatanygiventime.Thatthesocialthinkersofthepastwereunawareofthatwasthesimpleconsequenceofthefactthatallthedominanteconomicclassesofthepastwereeitherincompetent,orhadsetthemselvesagainstanyeffortsatcognitiveunderstanding.Allpastdominantclasses,priortothemodernperiod,opposed,inprinciple,allandanychange.Theyviewedanychangeasathreattotheirdominance.Onlyinthemodernepoch,withtherapidmaturationoftheforcesofproduction,didtheopportunityarisefortheemergenceofatrulysocialscience.

Ascommodityproductionbecameincreasinglyamerchandizing,profitmakingactivity,statistics,asadiscipline,wasrequiredinordertoassesscostandprofitratios,insurancerisksforcommercialentrepreneurs,todetermineratesofreturnoninvestmentassets,andfixtaxobligations.Outofjustsuchpreoccupationstherearoseagradualrecognitionoftheneedtocomprehendsocialregularities—“sociallaws.”

Thus,withtheappearanceofthemodernbourgeoisie—withitsdemandforstandardizedinformationoneconomicmatters—therewasacorrelativegrowthininvestmentinsocialscience.Itfurtherbecameevidentthatscienceprosperedbestinanenvironmentofintellectualfreedom.Intellectualfreedominthepursuitofsciencerecommendeditself,becauseknowledgeofsociallawsenhanced,inavarietyoffashions,theopportunitiesforprofit.

Becauseofthepeculiarlifecircumstancesofthebourgeoismodeof

production,inquiryintonatural,andsubsequently,social,lawsbecamethesubjectofsystematicstudy.Atfirstuncertain,thesystematicstudyofsocietywasfinallyacceptedbythedominantbourgeoisie.Socialscienceurgeditselfonemergingcapitalistsociety,togetherwiththeintellectualfreedomthatseemedtobeitsnaturalclimate.

Asaconsequence,intellectualfreedomandthepursuitofscienceemergedas“bourgeois”values.Togetherwithagradualrecognitionoftheeconomiclawsgoverningtheproductionofsocialnecessities,sociallawsmadetheirappearance—andwithMarxandEngels,accordingtotheirfollowers,thenecessarylawsofsocialdevelopmentwerefinallyappreciated.IntheviewofMarxistsattheendofthenineteenthcentury,thearticulationofatruesocialsciencebecamepossible.Thegrouplifeofhumanbeings,inthecontextofgeneralevolution,becamecomprehensible.

ItwasinthatcontextthatKautskyspokeofaspecialbranchofsocialscience,thatsciencethatdealtwiththementalityofhumanbeingslivingincommunity.Healludedtoempiricalstudiesthatdealtnotonlywiththebehaviorofgroupanimals,butwiththedifferentialconductofhumanbeingswheninintimateassociationwiththeirpeers.

LikeEngels,Kautskyexpandedonthespecificallyevolutionarycircumstancesthatmadehumanbeingsuniqueamonggroupanimals.Hereferredtothefactthathumanbeings,inthecourseofdevelopment,cametodistinguishthemselvesfromotheranimalsbybecomingessentiallytool-makingcreatures59—andwiththemakingoftoolstocommenceapathofdevelopmentdistinctlytheirown.60Evolutionhadcreatedthepotentialamonghumansthatwouldprovidethemadistinctivefuture.

Kautskywentontomaintainthattheprocessoncebegunpursuesanineluctablecourse.Suchaninterpretationwastheproduct,atleastinpart,ofthestylizedspeechthathadbecomecommontoMarxisttheoreticians.The“productiveforces”andthe“instrumentsofproduction”wereregularlyspokenofasactive,as“developing,”forexample,ratherthanbeingdeveloped.

Revolutionwasreferredtoas“therebellionoftheproductiveforces,”or“themodeofproductionbeinginrebellionagainstthemodeofexchange.”61Wearefurthertoldthatsocialrelationsare,inturn,“dictatedbytheinstrumentoflaboritself,”asthoughtheinstrumentsare,onceagain,bothactiveanddeterminant.62Ideas,conceptions,principlesandlawsarethenspokenofasbeing“reflections”ofjustsuchacomplex,inevitableprocess.Thereis,Kautskymaintained,“an

inevitableeffectthatresultsfromtheinventionofnewtools,whichinturnprovidestheimpulseformoreinventionsandsubsequent,reactivevariationinthemodeoflife—inanunendingchainofdevelopment.”63

Withinthespanoflaw-governedgeneralevolutionaryandsocialdevelopment,inthenecessaryassociationrequiredbysurvivalitself,humanbeings,asdistinctfromlowerprimates,fashionarticulatespeech,outofwhichthoughtemerges,reinforcingsharedcommonality.Withthoughtandcommonpurpose,humanbeingsexpandtheirrangeofactivities.Theybegintoproduceingreaterabundanceandbegintocompeteforlandandadvantage.Theyenterintoconflictwithothercommunities—withwaroneofthepredictableconsequences.

Asconflictbecomesmoreinsistent,giventheprogressivesophisticationoftheveryinstrumentsofconflict,thegroupbecomesmoreandmorecohesiveandindividualsmoreandmoreidentifywiththecommunityinmortalconflictwithopponents.Inthecourseofthosedevelopments,the“sublimevirtues,”self-sacrifice,discipline,commitment,thesenseofduty,allbecomemoreemphatic.Individualsconceivetheirverysurvivalentirelydependentuponthesurvivaloftheircommunity.Inthecourseofthesedevelopments,theimmediatecauseofwaralters.Warisnolongertheconsequenceofimmediatesurvivalneeds—theseizureoffoodstuffsandmates—butbecomesasearchforsecurityofproperty.64

Theevolutionofwarfollowsdevelopmentsattheproductivebaseofsociety.Soonwarsareconductednottoprotectcommunalortribalproperty,butthepropertyofdominantclasses.Warsinthedefenseofpropertyarefoughtbythedominantclassitself,withtheunpropertiedclassesnotdirectlyinvolvedexceptasvictimsandoccasionalmercenaries.Withthedevelopmentoftheinstrumentsofproductionandtheriseofthebourgeoisie,thecharacterofgroupassociationchangesdramatically.

Inrespondingtothedemandsofthenewtechniquesofproduction,thepoliticalconceptionsofthebourgeoisiecometodominatesociety.Notonlydidtherisingbourgeoisiedemandincreasingfreedomfromfeudalconstraints,theybegantointroduce“myths”calculatedtoservetheireconomicinterests.Themythof“freedom,”forexample,aroseandwasaccompaniedbytheintroductionofa“popular”demandforsecureandunobstructedcommodityandresourcemarketsforthebourgeoisie—inorderto“freely”generatewealth“foreveryone.”Togetherwiththeotheroperativemyths,therewastheemergenceandincreasingprevalenceofthemythofnationality.Withtheprevalenceofthatmyth,therearoseanincreasingdemandforpopularparticipationinthedefenseofthe“nation.”Graduallythosedemands,theconsequenceoftheabsolute

controloftheintellectualenvironmentbythedominantbourgeoisie,drewtheentiremassofthepropertilesspopulationintopoliticalactivity.

Asaconsequenceoftheriseofthebourgeoisie,withitsappealtogenericfreedom,andnationalidentity,the“people”weredrawnintoconflictwiththefeudalnobilityanditsabsolutemonarch.Therevolutionthatcharacterizesthemodernepochthusbeganwiththeincreasinginvolvementofthemassesinthebusinessofsociety—asocietyunifiedaroundthenationasapoliticallydefinedgeographicspace—a“national”spacethataffordedthebourgeoisieareadyandaccessiblemarket.

Asthebourgeoisieexpandeditsintereststhroughincreasedproductionandcommerce,anessentialpartofthatbusinessbecametheconductofwar—anactivitythatincreasinglyinvolvedthenation’smasses.Thevirtuesof“solidarity,thespiritofsacrifice,andingroupsentiment”—duty,commitment,andpatriotism—becomebroadcastamongallthemembersofthecommunity,65inordertoservicetheeconomicinterestsoftheemergentbourgeoisie.

Onlysocialevolutionmightchangethosecircumstances.Peaceand“true”brotherhoodwouldonlybepossiblewithchangesinthemodeofproduction.Onlywhentheproductivesystemiscapableoffullysatisfyingallhumanneedswouldthe“premature”virtuesthatmakeupthepanoplyofChristianmoralenjoinments,the“loving”ofeveryone,includingone’senemies,attainanyprospectofimplementation.Onlywiththefullmaturationoftheproductiveforcesofsocietycouldanewclassarisewhosematerialinterestswouldbethoseofallhumanity.Onlythencouldthe“premature”virtueswithwhichhumanbeingslonghavebeenfamiliarbecomeareality.Truehumanity,withoutdistinctionsofclass,nationality,orrace,wouldonlyappearwiththeadventofthemodern,urbanproletariat—theobjectiveindicatorthattheindustrialsystemhadreachedproductivematurity.ClassicalMarxistshaddemonstratedthateach“economicdevelopmentcreatesitsownparticular...moralcanon.”66ThefullmaturationofthemodernindustrialsystemwouldgeneratethatsingularlyhumanmoralityofwhichEngelshasspoken.

InKautsky’saccountofa“materialistethics,”whichbythattimeincludedDarwinianinsights,humansocietiesareunderstoodtobe“organic”communities,composedofinterrelatedcomponentsthattogetherfurtherthe“purposes”ofsomesortofprogressiveeconomic“dialectic.”Inthecourseofsocialhistory,conditionsariseinwhichsocialrelations—initiallyareflectionoftheneedsdeterminedbytheextantmodeofproduction—begintoimpedefurtherdevelopment.Socialrevolutioninevitablysurfacesoutofthecrisis.

Therehasbeenasuccessionofsuchrevolutionssincetheprehistoryofhumankind.Thedistinctivenessofthesocialrevolutionofourtimeisdeterminedbythefullanduniquematurationoftheproductivebase—adevelopmentdestinedtoprovidethematerialbasisforboththeuniversalethicalrationaleforhumanfulfillmentaswellasthemoralproscriptionsandprescriptionsappropriatetothatrealization.67

Outoftheintensediscussionsturningonthenatureofethicsandmoralityattheturnofthetwentiethcentury,KautskythussoughttoprovideaDarwinistbasisforadefensibleaccountofMarxistnormativetheory.HemaintainedthathisnarrativecapturedtheessenceoftheformulationsfoundnotonlyinthewritingsofDarwinandthefoundersofMarxism,butinthoseofJosefDietzgenaswell.68HoweversuccessfulorunsuccessfulKautsky’seffortsmaybejudgedtohavebeenintermsofintrinsicplausibility,theentirediscussionturnedonseveralcriticalconceptsthatcontinuedtoprovidethesubstanceofcompetingrevolutionaryideologiesthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.

OneofthemostimportantconceptswithwhichKautskysoughttodealwaswhattheroleofindividualandcollectivewillmightbeinthemakingofhumanhistory.Itwasanissuethatlayattheveryheartofrevolutionarymorality.Itwasanissuethatdealtwiththehumandecisiontoundertake,andthewillingnesstoserve,therevolution.ItwasanissuethatfoundonlyschematicexpressionintheconceptualframeworkMarxofferedasearlyasthesummerof1846,twoyearsbeforetheappearanceofTheCommunistManifesto.

InthetextoftheGermanIdeology,wearetoldthatthebehaviorofindividuals,aswellasthatofcommunitiesofindividuals,isneithertheproductofwillfulcapricenorphilosophicalreflection,butofthematerialcircumstancessurroundingthemodeoflifeatanygiventime.Itisthe“modeofproduction,”onceagain,that“determines”forindividuals“adefinitemodeoflife.”Thatlife,whichmanifestsitselfinconsciousactsandthenormativerationaleinformingthoseacts,“coincideswith...production....Whatindividualsaredependsonthematerialconditionsoftheirproduction.”69Whattheydoisdeterminedbyaprevailing“modeoflife.”

Morespecifically,theMarxistsattheendofthenineteenthcenturywerepreparedtomaintainthatthewillthatanimatesindividualandgroupactivityisboth“conditionedanddeterminedbythematerialforcesofproduction.”Asaconsequenceofjustsuchanotion,Marxistsarguedthatindividualsdidnotchoosetobehaveinanyspecificfashion—theyrespondedtoprevailingcustomandusage—andbothwereproductsofadominantclassideology.

MARXANDENGELSANDTHECLOSEOFTHESYSTEMNoneofthiswasarguedwithmuchcoherence.Itwasnotimmediatelyevident

howideologywastheexclusiveproductofagivenclassorhowsuchideologicalconvictionsshapedtheovertresponsesofmembersofotherclasses.TheentireaccountwasaffirmedwithimpressiveconvictionbyMarxandEngelsandinitiallyrepeated,withverylittleelaboration,bytheirfollowersthroughoutthefinaldecadesofthenineteenthcentury.

Marxistsargued,throughoutthefinalyearsofthecentury,thattheycoulddemonstratetheputativerelationshipbetweenanyprevailingmodeoflife,the“reflection”ofthatmodeinclass“ideology,”andcorrespondinghumanmoralbehavior.Inonecasetheargumentusedtoprovideevidenceofsuchcontentionsproceededinsomethinglikethefollowingfashion:BecausetheGermanbourgeoisieofMarx’stime—giventhebackwardstateofavailableproductiveforces—remained“impotent,”theirtheoretical,normative,andlegalconceptionswerecorrespondinglyretrograde.Nothingelsewastobeexpected.The“inevitableconsequence”ofsuchretrogradeeconomicconditionswasapeculiarformofmonarchicalabsolutismandattendantpoliticalnationalism.Itwassimplyassertedthatboththeformsandthe“theoreticalideas”thatgavefeaturetothoseinstitutionshad“astheirbasis...awillthatwasconditionedanddeterminedbythematerialrelationsofproduction.”70

Marxistssimplyassertedthatthebeliefsthatprovidedtherationalefortheinstitutionalstabilityofsuchasocietywere“reflections”ofthepeculiaritiesofthe“economicbase.”Stabilitywasseentobeafunctionofthe“classbeliefs”thatreflectedthefunctionalrequirementsoftheeconomicsystem.Individuals,inculcatedwithprevailingbeliefs,behavemorally,thatis,theyconformtotheprevailingclassideology.Therewasnoindependentsourceofmorality.Moralitywasafunctionoftime,circumstance,economicimperative,andclassinterests.

Onlywhenemergingproductiveforcescannolongerdevelopwithintheexistingsocialrelationsdoesanothermoralitymakeitsappearance.Thesocialsystementersintocrisis.Anewrevolutionaryclassmakesitsappearanceandbecomestheagentoffundamentalsocialchange.Thehumanbeingswhobecomeconsciousparticipantsintheprocessreflectthenecessityofchangeintheformofanappositerevolutionaryideology.Inthefinalanalysis,allmoralaspirationsandethicalenjoinmentsthatbecomepartofthatrevolutionaryideologyarethenecessaryby-productoftheproductiveconditionsatthe

economicbaseofsociety.71

Onthebasisofsuchananalysis,anelaboratenormativesystemlikethatofImmanuelKant—thatprecludestheuseofhumanbeingsasmeansratherthanends—couldonlybeseen,atbest,aslittlemorethanabodyof“abstractideas”and“pioushumbug,”pennedasaratherprimitiveresponsetochallengesconfrontinganequallyprimitivebourgeoisie.AllofKant’s“self-determinationofthewill,”togetherwithhis“categoricalimperatives,”weredismissedasratherpatheticdistortionsofthematerialinterestsoftheemergingGermancommercialandindustrialbourgeoisie.72

Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,humanwill,bothinitsovertaswellasitstheoreticalexpressions,wasconceivedbyclassicalMarxismtobeadeterminateproductofmateriallifecircumstances—whichmeantessentially,thatthewilltobehave,togetherwithitscorrespondingrationale,werebutthe“reflexes”of“acertainmodeofproduction,orindustrialstage...combinedwithacertainmodeofcooperation...”73

Ineffect,humanwill,74andthebehaviortowhichitgivesexpression,wereconceivedbyMarxandEngels,andtheirfollowers,tobeafunctionof“socialorganizationevolvingdirectlyoutofproductionandintercourse,whichinallagesformsthebasisofthestateandoftherestoftheidealisticsuperstructure.”Itwas,intheirjudgment,therecognitionoftheinevitabilityofthatrelationshipthat“shatteredthe[independent]basisofallmorality.”75

BothMarxandEngelsunderstoodmorality,anditsassociated“voluntary”behavior,tobethepredictableresultofconditionsgoverningmaterialproductionandthesocialrelationstowhichthatproductiongaverise.Inanygivenhistoricalperiod,thosewhodominatethemeansofproduction“asserttheircommoninterests”throughtheapparatusofpoliticalcontrol—rationalizedbyfosteringtheillusionthathumanbehavioristheproductofindividualandcollective“freewill.”Infact,thepoliticalideologyofanygiventimeistheexclusiveproductofthe“socialorganizationevolvingdirectlyoutofproductionandintercourse.”76

Ashasbeensuggested,allofthatisunpackedintoanotionthatunderstoodphilosophy,nationalsentiment,morality,religionandlaw,togetherwithallthewilledproductsofconsciousness,thepredictableconsequenceoftheprevailingmodeofproduction.Marxhimselfspokeofhumanbehaviorasbeingthenecessaryconsequenceof“formsofintercourse”—thatariseoutoflawlikeprocessesindependentofindividualorcollectivechoice.Sincethattime,

Marxisttheoreticianshaveregularlyspokenofthe“productiveforces”determiningthe“formsofsocialintercourse”77—whichalltogetherproducethe“phantomsinthebrain”:religion,philosophy,collectivesentiment,morality,andlaw.

Giventhatcollectionofconvictions,the“superstructural”ideasofanyparticularhistoricperiodareunderstoodtobethedeterminateby-productsofthatperiod’seconomicbase,withtheprevailingideasbeingthoseofthedominantpossessorsofthemeansofmaterialproduction.Controllingthemeansofsurvival,theyimposeonthedispossessedtheirwillaslaw,asphilosophy,andmorality.

Ashasbeenindicated,atsomestageinthehistoricprocess,theproductiveforcesofsocietyenterinto“contradiction”withtheprevailingformsofsocialrelations.Insomesenseoranother,thesocialrelations—themannerinwhichproductionisdistributedandemployed—becomesa“fetter”onproduction.Productionissomehowobstructedbythemannerofdistribution—and“aclassiscalledforth”thatisburdenedwithallthedisadvantagesoftheproductivesystemandnoneofitsadvantages.Thatgeneratestheexplicit“consciousnessofthenecessityofafundamentalrevolution.”78

Thewilltorevolution,thesenseofthemoralnecessitytoact,isafunctionoftherelationshipbetweenthematerialproductiveforcesandthe“contradiction”thatobtainsbetweenthemandthesocialrelationsthoseveryforcesproduce.79Thecalltorevolution,theveryideaofrevolution,wouldbe“absolutelyimmaterialforpracticaldevelopment,”unlesstheexistingrelationsofproductionalreadystoodinconflictwiththeforcesofproduction.ThusMarxcouldconfidentlyinsistthat“allcollisionsinhistoryhavetheirorigin,accordingtoourview,inthecontradictionbetweentheproductiveforcesandtheformofintercourse.”80

Bythesummerof1846,Marxhadprovidedtheschematicoutlineofwhatwastobeforeveridentifiedasthe“materialistconceptionofhistory.”Clearlyevidentintheseearlywritingsisthedeterminismthatgovernedtheentirespeculativesystem.

Writtenintheyearsoftheirearlycollaboration,TheGermanIdeologywasthefirstcoherenteffortbyMarxandEngelsto“prove”with“scientificprecision”thatacommunistrevolutionwastheinescapable,“ineluctable,”“inevitable,”consequenceoftheforcestheninactinindustrialsociety.TheCommunistManifesto,whichfollowedin1848,waslittlemorethanasummarystatementof

thatsamespeculativeeffort.

Whatbecameclearalmostimmediatelytoanyoneseriouslyinterestedinthescienceofsociety,wastherealizationthatnothingintheseearlywritingsprovidedanythinglikeempiricalconfirmationofanyoftheclutchofcosmicclaimsthatmadeuptheirsubstance.BothMarxandEngelsunderstoodasmuch—andMarxspenttheremainderofhislifeattemptingtoproducethemissingsubstantivegroundsthatmightsupporthisearlyconjectures.Theresult,ashasbeenindicated,wasthefirstvolumeofDasKapital,whichsurvivestodayamongtheunfinishedvolumesastheywerelefttousbyEngels.81

Bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,theworkofMarxandEngels,amendedandinterpretedbytheirimmediatefollowers,providedthesubstanceoftherevolutionaryaspirationsofthetime.Outofthebodyofthatwork,anumberofcriticalconceptscanbeisolatedthatweretoinvokereactiveresponseamongthemostgiftedthinkersoftheepoch.Therewereeffortstounderstandthenatureofwilledchoice—andtheroleplayedbysentimentandmoralityinthehistoryofhumankind.Darwinism,asscienceandspeculation,exercisedunmistakableinfluenceonMarxistrevolutionarythought.

Outofallthis,revolutionaryvariantsofclassicalMarxismarose.Severalmadetheirappearanceatalmostthesametime.AfterthedeathofFriedrichEngelsin1895,nolongerwasthereanauthoritativecontroloverdevelopmentsofwhatmightpassasideologicalorthodoxy.AlmostimmediatelyafterEngels’sdeath,EduardBernstein’sfirsteffortsattheoreticalrevisionmadetheirappearance.Therenolongerwasan“official”guideforwhatwastobeconsideredMarxist“orthodoxy.”82Theresultwasarapidunravelingofthedenseideologicalsystemasithadbeenleftbyitsfounders.Aswillbeargued,bytheendofthenineteenthcentury,thefirstelementsofGermanNationalSocialism,ItalianFascism,andRussianLeninismgrewoutofthefundedsystemtocasttheirshadowsacrossthenewcentury.

CHAPTERTHREE

TheHeterodoxMarxismofLudwigWoltmannWiththedeathofFriedrichEngelsin1895,Marxismfounditselfbereftofanauthoritywhocommandedtherespectofallthoseinitsranks.Therenolongerwasasinglearbitertoresolvetheoreticaldisagreementsamongthoseexpectedtoprovidetheintellectualandmoralleadershipoftherevolution—andtherewasnolongeranyonewhocouldestablishorthodoxy,or“creativelydevelop”doctrinetobetteraccordwithemergingfacts,newscientificdevelopments,oralteredpoliticalcircumstances.WithoutEngelstoguidethem,revolutionaryintellectualscouldhardlypretendtobeabletoidentify,withfinality,whatwasa“true”renderingofanintrinsicallyporousdoctrine.WiththepassingofEngels,anyandeverychangewhateverintheinheriteddoctrinerantheriskofbeingseenas“revisionism”—asanabandonmentorcorruptionofMarxism.Asithappened,perhapsmostoftheabandonmentandcorruptionofMarxismcanbetracedtothosethinkerswhopretendedtobeitsmostfaithfulspokespersons.

AfterthedeathofEngels,themostprominentofthefirstintellectualswhoweretocandidlyventureonconsciousrevisionismwasEduardBernstein.NomorethantwoorthreeyearsafterthedeathofEngels,Bernsteinadvancedanumberofmajoremendations.1Hearguedthatasascientificenterprise,itwasincumbentuponMarxismtocontinuallytesttheaccuracyandreliabilityofitsfactualclaims.Furthermore,thecanonsofempiricalsciencerequiredthatMarxismbepreparedtoconfirmordisconfirmitspredictionsagainsttheevolvingrealityofthemodernworld.IfinheritedMarxisttheorymaintainedthatthencontemporarycapitalismmustinevitablycollapseinafinalcatastrophicdysfunction,itwasessentialforMarxisttheoreticianstoassessexistingdatatodeterminetherealpossibilityofsuchanoutcome.IfinheritedMarxismpredictedtheinevitablereductionofclassesinmodernsocietytobuttwo—thebourgeoisieandtheproletariat—Bernsteinurgedaninspectionofavailabledescriptiveandpredictivedemographicstatisticstodetermineifsuchatrendcouldbe,infact,discerned.IfMarxisminsistedthat,overtime,capitalistdevelopmentwouldproduceincreasing“emiseration”amongtheworkingclasses,Bernsteinargued

thatitbehoovedMarxism’sintellectualstoinspectthegrowingbodyofeconomicdatatoprovideconfirmation.

InalmostallthecasestowhichBernsteinalluded,heclaimedthatexistingdata,andmeasurableprojections,tendedtodisconfirmtheempiricalclaimsandsubstantivepredictionsofthefoundersofrevolutionaryMarxism.Whilestillaconvinced,ifqualified,Marxist,2BernsteinarguedthatasystematicdistinctionshouldbemadebetweenthetheoryentertainedbyMarxistsanditsapplicationinprevailingcircumstances.Heseemedtowanttomakeadistinctionbetweenthe“postulates”ofthetheoryandapplicationofits“theorums”inactualpractice.Hesoughttodrawameaningfulandconsistentdistinctionbetween“pureandappliedMarxism.”3

ItremainsuncertainwhatBernsteinexpectedtoaccomplishinattemptingsuchadistinction.Inscience,irrespectiveoftheintroductionofanynumberofadhoccausesoferror,regulardisconfirmationofempiricalclaimsnecessarilyleadstochangeintheoryitself.Onecouldnotconsistentlyholdthatatheorywastrueifitsdescriptiveorpredictiveclaimswereregularlydisconfirmed.Whateverthecase,whatisimportantforthepresentaccountisthefactthatBernsteincontinuedtourgefundamentalchangesinthebodyofinheritedMarxistthought—andyetconsideredhimself,andwasgenerallyconsideredbyothers,tobeaMarxist.

Itseemsthatthemoresuchdiscussioncommandedattentionamongpartyintellectuals,thegreaterthefrequencyandmagnitudeofchangesproposed.Bytheturnofthecentury,asaconsequence,avarietyofMarxismshadmadetheirappearance—eacharguingthatitwastruetotheideasofthefounders.4Marxismhadbeguntotakeonsomeofthepropertiesofreligiousconviction.

Likereligiousbeliefs,ingeneral,theMarxismofMarxandEngelswassubjecttoregularreinterpretationbyadepts,witheachprecipitatingoutcriesofheresyandunorthodoxy.Thefaithfulofwhatever“orthodoxy”wereconvincedthata“true”faithmightbediscernedamidthegrowingconfusion.Whatevertheirinterpretation,thefaithfultendedtobelieveittobetheonetrueexpressionofinheriteddoctrine.Eachcommunityofbelieversconceivedtheirownconstructiontobeimpeccablytrue—andthatofothersgrievously,andperhapsmaliciously,flawed.

Aswasthecaseinreligiousdisagreements,suchdisagreementsledtoabuse,mutualdisdain,andinfartoomanycases,violence.ThoseMarxists,ofwhateverpersuasion,whosucceededtopowerinwhatevercircumstances,didnothesitate

tousevituperation,excommunication,andultimately,deadlyforceagainstotherMarxistswhoembracedanalternativeinterpretationofthesacredtexts.

ThuswhileBernsteinrepresentsaclearinstanceofaMarxistwhowaspreparedtocriticallyreviewallthepropositionalcommitmentsofclassicalMarxismandadmittedhisheterodoxy,therewereothersequallyrevisionistic,whoinsistedontheirpiousorthodoxy.Therewasyetathirdgroup:thosewhoundertookcriticalreviewofMarxism,butconceivedsuchaventureasneitherorthodoxnorrevisionist.Theysimplyundertooktheirworkasanintellectualobligation.LudwigWoltmannwasoftheirnumber.

MARXISMANDLUDWIGWOLTMANNAtalmostthesametimeastheappearanceofBernstein’sDer

VoraussetzungendesSozialismusunddieAufgabenderSozialdemokratie,oneofthemoreimportantMarxistintellectualsoftheperiod—LudwigWoltmann—authoredamajorexplicationofMarxismasatheoryofsocioeconomicchangeanddevelopment:DerhistorischeMaterialismus.5ItwasthethirdofthemajorworkswrittenbytheyoungWoltmann(whowasbornin1871)specificallydedicatedtotheinterpretationandtheadvocacyofanessentiallyMarxiansocialism.6

Forourpurposes,themostimportantfeatureofWoltmann’sworkisthatonecanfindinitinsightfultreatmentofsomeofthecriticalissuesthatweretogiveideologicalshapetothemostimportantrevolutionarydoctrinesofthetwentiethcentury.OnlywiththepassageoftimehasitbecomeobviousthattheissuestowhichWoltmanndirectedhisattentionmightproveinstructiveincomingtounderstandtherevolutionsthathaveoverwhelmedhumanityoverthepastonehundredyears.

Amongthoseissuesthatweretoprovesoimportant,thequestionoftheroleofmorality,anditsrationaleinMarxisttheory,wasonethatoccupiedcriticalplace.WoltmannwastoconsistentlyarguethattheaccountfoundinthewritingsofthefoundersofMarxism,thatpretendedtoexplaintheoriginsofmoralityandethics,waslessthanadequate.ItsinadequacymoreoftenthennotledMarxistintellectualstolapseintoacaricatureoftheactualclaims.Moralandethicalideasweresimplyspokenofas“reflections”of“substructural”economicconditions.Moralprinciples,andtheirethicalrationale—accordingto“orthodoxy”—apparentlyhadnoindependenceofthe“materiallifeconditions”ofwhichtheywereadeterminateproduct.

Givensuchaconceptionoftherelationshipofthoughttothe“modeof

production,”themoralprinciplesgoverningImmanuelKant’sethicalphilosophy,ashasbeensuggested,wereunderstoodtobepassivereflectionsofthepeculiarcircumstancessurroundingtheemergentbourgeoisieineighteenth-centuryGermany.Similarly,themoralenjoinmentsoftheFrenchRevolutionwereby-productsoftheeconomiccircumstancessurroundingtheriseofa“triumphant”bourgeoisie;thoseoftheearlyChristians,asimplereactiveresponsetotheextanteconomicandclassconditionsoftheinitialcenturiesofthefirstmillennium.7

Woltmannattributedthefactthatsuchacaricatureofhowethicalthoughtisgeneratedandprogresseswaspossibleonlybecausetherereallywasnocoherentorconsistentmoral“theory”tobefoundinclassicalMarxism.WhileWoltmann,likeDietzgen,arguedthatMarxism,asadoctrine,wasmuchmoresophisticatedandcomplicatedthanmostofitsadherentsappreciated,hegrantedthattherewereissuesthatneitherMarxnorEngelshadadequatelyaddressed.Moreimportantstill,inWoltmann’sjudgment,wastherealitythatMarxandEngelshadsignificantlymodifiedtheirviewsoverhalfacentury—andthechangesmadeweresometimesdramatic.8Ifonesoughttoprovideafullaccountofthemoralandethicalthoughtofthefounders,thatrenderingwouldhavetoincorporateallchangesthathadbeenmadeovertime.Finally,WoltmannarguedthatbothMarxandEngelsoftenspokeschematicallyofverycomplexhistoricalprocesses—contenttoallowenormouslycomplexsequencestofindexpressioninmetaphorandtoremainconcealedbeneathepigrams.Allofthatleftaliterarylegacythatoftenwasmoreconfusingthanenlightening.

Takingallthatintoaccount,Woltmannarguedthatwithrespecttothefounders’theoryofthenature,origin,andevolutionofmoraljudgmentandethicalprinciples,Marxismwasincomplete.Notonlyweretheresignificantgapsinitsaccountofthehistorical,social,economic,andpsychologicalprocessesinvolved—butitleftfundamentalphilosophicalissuesunexplored.Allofthatpromptedotherstosometimesattemptrescue.

WoltmannspecificallyheldthatneitherMarxnorEngelsentertainedasufficientlynuancedconceptionofthepsychologicaldynamicsimpliedintheirconceptionoftherelationshipbetweentheideationalproductsofhumanbeingsandsocioeconomicchangeanddevelopment.Heheld,forexample,thatthefoundersofMarxismmadefartooeasytransitfromphysical,material,andclass-specificneedstothepsychologicalexpressionsinwhichthoseneedswerepresumably“reflected.”9Asaconsequencetherewerethose,likeDietzgen,whoattemptedtosupplyplausibilityofvarioussortsintheefforttoprovidemore

convincingreconstruction.

Morethanthat,WoltmannheldthattosuggestthatonemightaccountforthephilosophicalthoughtofAristotleorthatofKantbyconceivingitsimplya“superstructuralreflection”oftheeconomicsofaslaveholdingoranemergingbourgeoissocietywasentirelytoosimplistic.10Thethoughtofeitherwasfartoocomplexandintricatetoevenpretendthatanysuchreductionwascredible.

Oncetheseissueswerejoined,anumberoffurtherconcernsurgedthemselvesonMarxistintellectualsattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.WhileWoltmannwaspreparedtoarguethathumanthoughtwasconditionedbymaterialconsiderations,hewasnotpreparedtoallowthatthethoughtthatresultedwastheirsimplepsychological“reflex.”11Hewaspreparedtoacceptthenotionthatthought,ingeneral,couldbeunderstoodasafunctionalresponsetoimmediateexternalphysicalandsocialstimuli.12Grantedthat,however,whathedidinsistuponwasthatonceconsciousthoughtmanifesteditself,itwasgovernedbyprinciplesorregularitiesthatwere,insignificantmeasure,independentofmaterialcircumstances.

Withthatunderstood,WoltmannproceededtoattempttoputtogetherargumentsthatmightbettersupporttheideasofMarxandEngels.Likethem,hearguedthat“materiallifeconditions”providedthefoundationoflifeingeneral.Likethem,hearguedfurtherthathumanevolutionitselfwastheproductofmaterialprocessesgovernedbynaturallaws.Marxists,hecontinued,recognizedthatorganicevolutionwasgovernedbythe“struggleforexistence,”andthecorresponding“naturalselection”impliedby“thesurvivalofthefittest.”Thesewereamongthe“naturallaws”identifiedbyWoltmannasgoverningorganicevolution.

ItwasatthatpointthatWoltmanninsistedthatwhateverthelawsgoverningevolution,suchlawscouldnotbeprojectedoversocialevolutionwithoutrecognizingthepossibilityofgrievouserror.13Hedismissedtheattemptonthepartof“bourgeoisDarwinists”toseethedirectoperationofDarwinianlawsinhumanbehavior.WhenSocialDarwinistsattemptedtoapplythelawsoforganicevolutiontosociety,byconceivinglaissezfairebusinesspractices,forexample,theeconomicequivalentofthe“struggleforexistence”thattypifiedtheanimalworld,Woltmannarguedthattheymadethesamemistakemadebythosewhoseektoimposesocial“laws”onthe“laws”ofthought.ItwasatthatpointthatWoltmannintroducedamajormodificationintheMarxistsystemasithadbeeninherited.

Woltmannmaintainedthatoncesomecollectionofhigherprimateswerenolongercontentwiththespontaneousgroupingsinwhichtheyfoundthemselvesinnature—andcreatedthefirsthumansocieties,therewasaqualitativechangeintheprocessesgoverningtheirassociation.Socialevolutioninorganizedhumancommunities,heinsisted,doesnotfollowthesameidentifiableregularitiesasgeneralbiologicalevolution.Animalsocietiesmayfollowthelawsofbiologicalevolution,butsocialevolutionamonghumanbeingswas,inhisjudgment,qualitativelydifferent.Socialevolutionamonghumansproceedswithconsiderableindependenceofthelawsofbiologicaldevelopment—followingregularitiespeculiartoitself.

WhileDarwinismdiscoveredthenaturallawsgoverningorganicevolution,Marxism,Woltmanncontended,identifiesthespecificallysociallawsthatshapehumansociety.Thoselawsarethelawsgoverningtherelationshipofthematerialproductiveforcesandthesocialrelationshipstowhichtheygiverise.Woltmann’sargumentwasthatwhilethefoundersofMarxismhadcarefullydistinguishedtheregularitiesgoverningsocialevolutionfromthosegoverningorganicevolution,theyhadnotsucceededinmakingthesamedistinctionbetweenthelawsofsociallifeandthoseofhumanthought.Rather,theypretendedtohavediscoveredhowsociety’seconomicfoundationproducedandgovernedthe“phantomsformedinthebrain”—theprocessespeculiartohumanthought.

Woltmannarguedthatinadvancingsuchanaccount,thefoundersofMarxismhadfailedtomakeacriticaldistinction.Whileitwasevidentthatthoughtaroseoutofnaturalevolutionaryprocesses,andthatthoughtwasconditionedbysocialcircumstances,humanreflection,nonetheless,operatedwithconsiderableautonomy,respondingtodomainspecificextrinsicandintrinsicstimuliaswellasdistinctivecriteriagoverningtruthascription.Woltmannwastoarguethatinthesamemeasurethatdifferencesdistinguishtheregularitiesgoverningbiological,fromthoseofsocial,evolution,differencesofthesameorderofmagnitudecharacterizedthedistinctionsbetweentheregularitiesgoverningthe“higherdomain”ofhumanculture—morality,ethics,epistemology,science,andthought,ingeneral—andthoseoforganicorsocialdevelopment.14

Woltmanncontendedthatcomplexhumanthoughtcouldnotreasonablybeunderstoodtobeasimple“reflection”ofanything—neitherasreflectionsofanythinggoingonintheprocessesofbiological,noranythingtranspiringwithinthedomainofsocial,evolution.Thatwastrueforatleastonereason:allMarxistsrecognizedthatthroughouthumanhistory,therehavebeenthosewho

articulate“premature”moralconcepts.Thatistosay,theStoicsofantiquity,thefirstJewsandChristians,andsomethinkersoftheearliestsocieties,advancednotionsoffundamentalhumanequality,unqualifiedbrotherhood,universalcompassion,andworldpeace,longbeforethereexistedany“matureeconomicbase”towhichanyofthatmight“correspond.”15

Asacaseinpoint,inspeakingofthePeasantWarinGermanyinthesixteenthcentury,EngelsspokeofThomasMünzer,leaderofthemostoppressedofthepeasants,asentertainingaclutchof“fantastic”notionsofrevolutionarychangethathad“littlerootinthenexistingeconomicconditions.”Münzeradvocatedasocietyofequals,innocentofclassdifferencesandprivateownership—afellowshipof“Christianequalityandevangelicalcommunityofproperty.”Engelswentontospeak,withadiscernablemeasureofcontempt,of“thechiliasticdreamvisions”ofthoseearlyChristianswhohadinspiredMünzer—withtheiradvocacyofcommonproperty,equality,anduniversallove.EngelswastoarguethattheideasthatinspiredboththeearlyChristiansandMünzerhadnoprospectofsuccessbecausethe“levelofproduction...[was]notripe”forthem.16

Thequestionarises:ifprevailingeconomicconditionswereprimitive,howisitpossiblethattheideasoftheearlyChristiansdidnot“reflect”them—butratherthosesocialandeconomicconditionsthatwouldnotmaturefortwothousandyears?ClearlyMünzer’s“chiliasticdreamvisions”werenotasimplereflectionoftheexistenteconomicbase.Theyweremoralconvictionsthatweresomehow“premature.”Thenotionthata“reflection”mightbeprematurecanonlyleaveonepuzzled.Somehow,themoralideasoftheearlyChristians,andthepeasantrevolutionariesofthesixteenthcenturythatseizeduponthem,anticipatedthefutureappearanceofthefullmaturationoftheproductiveforcesofsociety—whensuchideaswouldnolongerbe“fantasies,”butwouldactually“correspond”totheir“real”foundationintheeconomicbase.

Woltmannwastocontendthatthemostpersuasiveanswertothatkindofpuzzlelayintherecognitionthatoncehumanbeingsdevelopedthefacultiesthatallowedrecall,reflection,calculation,association,andinference,theyproceededtoanticipatefutures,undertakeanalyses,andrenderjudgments,allagainstacatalogofpreferencesandfeltobjections—whichmadeethicsandmoralargumentnotonlypossible,butinescapable.Morethanthat,theprocessofmoralassessmentsanditsrulesweresignificantlyindependentofanygiveneconomicbase.

WhatfollowedwasWoltmann’sargumentthatwhilesomemore“orthodox”

Marxistswerecorrectinpointingoutthatcertaindoctrinalobjectiveshavelittleprospectofsuccessingiveneconomiccircumstances,thatrealitydoeslittletoaccountforthemoralbehaviorandethicalreasoningofparticipantsinwhatmightwellbeafutilestruggle.Individuals,singlyorcollectively,oftenundertakequixoticenterprisebecausetheirethicalprinciplesdemanditofthem.Warshavebeenfoughtformoralpurpose;anditcanbearguedthat,onimportantoccasions,humanthoughtandhumanconviction,alone,havechangedhistoryquiteindependentlyoftheprevailingeconomicbase.Moreover,howeverunlikelyofrealizationanysetofsocial,economic,ormoralprescriptionsmightbe,theirrelativeindependencefromtheeconomicbaseofsocietyisnottherebycompromised.

Woltmann’sargumentwasthatthethoughtofhumanbeingsenjoyedarelativeindependenceofbiologicalandeconomicconditions—justastheregularitiesofsociallifedisplayarelativeindependenceofthelawsofbiologicalevolution.Woltmannadmitted,withJosefDietzgen,thatbiologicalandeconomicneedsprovidedtherawincentivesofhumanbehavior,aswellasestablishingtheparametersinwhichsuccessissought,buthewentontoarguethatthebehaviorofeventhemostprimitiveofhumansdistinguisheditselffromthatofthemostadvancedlesserprimatesbyitsindependencefromjustsuchmaterialconstraints.Whatmakesbehaviorhumanisthefactthatwhatevermaypromptit,itischaracteristicallyfilteredthroughfairlyelaborateempiricalandethicalconsiderations.Thoseconsiderationsareexclusivelyhumanandproceedinanatmospheregovernedbyregularitiesthatareintrinsicallydifferentfromthoseoforganicorsocialevolution.

Asaconsequenceofhisargument,WoltmannwentontoadvocatethatrevolutionaryMarxism,beforeproceedinganyfurther,undertakeseriousphilosophical,epistemological,andethicalreflection—asintended,butneveraccomplished,byMarxhimself.Marxism,inWoltmann’sjudgment,requiredacarefulreworkingofitsepistemologicalandethicalanalyses.ItwasinthatcontextthatWoltmannadvocateda“returntoKant.”17

BACKTOKANTWoltmannmadeitclearthatacriticalconfusionlayattheverycoreof

Marxismasarevolutionaryideology.Inthecourseofhisaccount,Woltmannpointedtoanissuethatwastoremaincontestedthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.WhileDietzgenandKarlKautskyarguedthatmoralinjunctionsultimatelyrestedonanempiricalbasis,18Woltmannassertedthatmoralimperativesrequiredsomethingmorethanempiricalfactsaswarrant.

WoltmannremindedMarxistintellectualsthatwhileitwascleartoMarxthatindividualsandgroupsdifferedonthebasisofanynumberofphysicalandpsychologicalproperties,empiricalrealitydidnotinanywayinfluencehisunqualifiedmoralcommitmenttoequalityandfreedomforall—whateverthedifference.19Thatclearlyimpliedthatthemoralcommitmenttofullequalityforallhumanbeingsdidnotrequireempiricallegitimation.Woltmannarguedthatmoraljudgmentsweretobesystematicallydistinguished,inkind,fromempiricaltruths.20One’smoraljudgmentsarenotdeterminedbyfacts.Factscanbe,andalmostinvariablyare,componentsofmoralcalculation,butthewarrantforthemoraljudgmentitself—thatwhichmakesthecalculationmoral—mustbedistinguishedfromanycollectionoffacts.

Woltmannheldthatnormativetruths,ingeneral,weredistinctiveandtobedistinguishedfromthosethatwerelogicalorempirical.Normativetruthshaddifferenttruthconditionsdeterminingtheirtruthstatus.Heunderstoodnormativetruthstobeneithersimplylogicalnorempirical.Theyare,inthelastanalysis,uniquelyandinextricablypredicatedonfeltexperience.Heheldthatnormativeexperienceinvariablyinvolvesone’sfeelingsaboutart,religion,orethics,andthatfeelingsconstituteaninextricableandfundamentalconstituentofnormativeevaluation.Howevermuchmoraldeliberation—aspartofhumannormativeconcerns—involvessimplelogicorempiricalfacts,itismoralsentimentthatultimatelyinformsitspublicrationale,anddistinguishesitfromtheassessmentoffactsandlogicaloneorincombination.21

Morethanthat,Woltmannwastoarguethathumanknowledge,inarealandprofoundsense,ultimatelyrestsonfeelings—forinthelastanalysisknowinganythingultimatelyrestsonasenseofadequacy.Thesearchfortruthitself,inthelastanalysis,issatisfiedbyasenseofconviction.

Clearlytherearepragmaticreasonsforseekingthetruth.Truthisnecessarytonegotiatethedifficultiesoflife.Itisequallyclear,however,thathumanbeingscanrejecttruthsofanykindinordertodefendsomeotherdeeplyfeltconviction—moral,religious,orpolitical.Therehavealwaysbeenconsistentskeptics,philosophicalorotherwise,throughouthumanintellectualhistory.Whatdistinguishesthemfromordinarypersons,whoacceptastruethosepropositionsthatmeetthetruthconditionsoflogicandexperience,istheirindispositiontoacceptastrueanythingthatoffendscollateralbeliefsmoredeeplyfelt.

ItisclearfromeverythinghewrotethatWoltmannconceivedmoralitytobeacriticalpartofhumanlife.Theproductoforganicandsocialevolution,humanbeings,nonetheless,governedtheirlives,consciouslyorunconsciously,

mechanicallyordeliberatively,byideas,desires,needs,volitionand,ultimately,significantlyautonomous,moralsentiment.Woltmanninsistedthatwithoutsomesuchappreciationonourpart,humanexperiencebecomesnotonlyincomprehensible,butmeaninglessaswell.

ForWoltmann,noneofthatreducesthe“objectivity”ofempirical,logical,orethicaldeliberation.Propositionsareidentifiedas“true”whentheymeetpubliccriteria.Logicalandempiricaltruthsaretruebecausetheymeetthespecific,intersubjectivecriteriaforlogicalandempiricaltruth.Whatdistinguishescandidatemoraltruthsfromanyothersisthatfeelingsconstitutepartoftheadmissionscriteria.22Thatdoesnotrenderthem“subjective.”Moralsentimentscanbeexpressedandrelativebehaviorobserved.Theirtruthisnomoreintrinsicallysubjectivethananytruthentertainedbyanyone.

Woltmannwastoarguethatthereisacommonmoralsentimentthatrevealsitselfinthestudyofthehistoryofhumankind—justasthereiscommoncolorvisionthattakesprecedenceoveridiosyncraticcolorblindness.23Asaconsequence,hemaintainedthatethicscouldbetheproperobjectof“scientific”study—inthebroadestGermanicsenseofWissenschaft—thatistosay,asubjectamenabletosystematicand“objective”scrutiny.

WoltmanndistinguishedhispositionfromthatofJosefDietzgenandtheearlyKarlKautskyinthatherejectedtheircontentionthatempiricalfactsalonemightprovidethewarrantformoraltruthclaims.Alltruthclaims,inanultimatesense,requiremorethanempiricalfactsaswarrant.Thatfactsimplybecomesmorespecific,emphatic,andevidentinthecaseofethicalandmoralclaims.

WoltmannarguedthatbothDavidHumeandImmanuelKanthadmadejustsuchacaseforthenatureoftruthandmorals.24Infact,WoltmannwastoserveasaspokesmanforthosewhoheldthataneffectiveMarxismrequiredareturntosomevariantofKantian“idealism.”25

AtalmostthesametimethatWoltmannventureduponhisassessment,EduardBernsteinhimselfinvokedKantianismasacorrectivetoakindofMarxistdogmatismthathadgrownuparoundthethoughtofitsfounders.ItwasevidentthattheeffortsatreinterpretationofthephilosophicalandepistemologicalfoundationsofMarxismwerecreatingtensionsamongbelievers.By1908,FranzMehringcomplainedthattheefforttointroduceKantianismintorevolutionaryMarxismhadproducedanintellectualscandalamongSocialDemocrats.26Whateverthecase,theissuesraisedbyWoltmanntormentedrevolutionaryMarxismthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Forthepresent,itisenoughto

understandwhyWoltmannthoughtareturntoKantwasessentialtoMarxismasacreedintendedtomobilizethemoralsentimentsofrevolutionaries.

Theargumentconcerningtheepistemologicalrationalebehindmoraljudgmentandethicalassessmentwasonlyone,ifanimportant,partofWoltmann’sgeneralargumentconcerningtherelativeindependenceofphilosophicalthoughtfromitsmaterialbase.Whilehewasfullypreparedtoacknowledgethefactthatmateriallifeconditionsclearlyinfluencedhumanreflection,Woltmannmaintainedthatreflection,onceinitiated,hada“logic”ofitsown.Philosophicalthoughtoftenproceededwithitsownintrinsicdialectic—eachproblemprecipitatingasetofresponseswhichinturnprovokedstillfurtherissues.Theresultwasapatternofthoughtandassociatedreflectionshavingverylittletododirectlywiththeeconomicbaseandclassstructureofanygivensociety.Woltmanninsistedthatthehistoryofthoughttaughtnothingless.

Onceoneispreparedtorecognizethathumanthoughtisgovernedinlargepart,ifnotexclusively,byitsowncriteriaoftruthandfalsehood,ofplausibilityandimplausibility,ofapprovalanddisapproval,oflogicandillogic,thenanyprofferedtheory,scientificorethical,mustbothacknowledgeandbepreparedtomeetthem.Thenecessaryconsequenceofsuchananalysisisapreoccupationwithepistemologyandethics—thesystematicstudyoftruthassignment—anditsdeontologicalapplication.27

WoltmannmaintainedthatMarxhadfullyintendedtowriteatreatmentofjustsuchacomprehensive“theoryofknowledge,”butdidnothavetheopportunityinalifeoverwhelmedbyotherresponsibilities.Asaconsequence,Woltmannlamented,oneisleftwithonlyintimationsofwhatmightwellhavebeenarelativelysophisticatedsystem.28Woltmann’sownworkwasanattempttosupplythemissingconstituents.

Severalthingsemergefromtheeffort.Firstofall,Woltmannwaspreparedtocontendthathumanthoughtitselfwithitsrelativeindependencecan,andfrequentlydoes,actasadeterminantinhumanhistory.Humanthinkers,individuallyandcollectively,throughtheuseofempirical,logical,andnormativetruths,managedtoswaythecommitmentandbehaviorofotherstohistoricpurpose.WoltmannwastoarguethattogetherwithalltheotherfactorswithwhichMarxistswerefamiliar,humanconvictions,andthedoctrinesthatinfluencethoseconvictions,independentlyshapeevents.

Morethanthat,Woltmannwaspreparedtoarguethatgiventheefficacyofthought,itsspokespersonsboreaspecialresponsibility.Timeandcircumstance

oftencreatedconditionsthatallowedparticularindividualsorgroupsofindividualstoinfluenceeventsinafashionnotpossibleatotherjunctures.Clearly,manyfactorswereoperativeinanysuchenvironment—butthepeculiarintellectualandpoliticalgiftsofparticularindividualswerecriticalamongthem.29Woltmannwaspreparedtoarguethat,insomesense,andundersingularcircumstances,“greatmen”domakehistory.

Inatleastonenotableplace,EngelsseemedtosupportsomethinglikeWoltmann’sanalysisbyintimatingthatMarx,withhisideas,playedasingularroleinthemakingofmodernrevolution.HeaffirmedthatwithoutMarxrevolutionarytheory“wouldnotbebyfarwhatitistoday.”30That,combinedwiththeconvictionthatrevolutionarytheoryplaysaroleinthesuccessofrevolution,wouldmeanthatindividualsandtheirideologicalconvictionsmayverywellhelptodirectthecourseofhumanhistory.

Noneofthatisatallcertain.Elsewhere,EngelsseemstodenyMarx,orhisrevolutionarythought,anyspecialroleininfluencinghistoricalevents.Engelstellsusthat“whileMarxdiscoveredthematerialistconceptionofhistory...thediscoveryofthesameconception[byothers]provesthatthetimewasripeforitandthatitsimplyhadtobediscovered.”31ItwouldseemthatEngelswaspreparedtoarguethatifMarxhadneverexisted,somethinglikeMarxisttheorywouldhavemanifesteditselftoservethesamehistoricpurpose.WiththeabsenceofKarlMarx,nothinginhistorywouldhavechanged.

Dealingwithcounterfactualsis,ofcourse,verydifficult.Itdoesseem,however,thatEngelswishedtoaffirmthatrevolutionsinhistoryproceedthroughtheirownintrinsicdynamic—intermsofwhichneitherindividualsnortheirspecialgiftsplayarole.Asayouthfultheoretician,Engelsinsistedthat“revolutionsarenotmadeintentionallyandarbitrarily,butthateverywhereandalwaystheyhavebeenthenecessaryconsequenceofconditionswhichwerewhollyindependentofthewillanddirectionofindividualpartiesandentireclasses.”32

ThatseemstohavebeenthepositionmostconsistentlyheldbyEngelsthroughouthislife.Morethanfortyyearsafterhavingwrittenthatrevolutionsoccurindependentofthewillanddirectionofhumanagentsandagencies,hewrotethathistoryistobe“viewedastheproductofapowerwhichworksasawhole,unconsciouslyandwithoutvolition....Historyproceedsinthemannerofanaturalprocessandisessentiallysubjecttothesamelawsofmotion.”33

Noneofthisisunambiguous.CertainlyEngelsinsistedthathumanbeings

maketheirownhistory.Invariably,when“orthodox”Marxistsmakethatsubmission,itisquicklyqualifiedbytheaffirmationthatthemakingisundertakenunder“verydefinite”conditions—amongwhich“theeconomiconesareultimatelydecisive.”34Whatallthatmeansisexceedinglyobscure.Isitintendedtomeanthathumanbeingsaretheagentsofhistory,butmustperforminobediencetoits“lawsofmotion”?Isitunderstoodtomeanthatindividualandcollectivehumanparticipation,motivatedbyindividualandcollectivevolition,issomehowthenecessaryproductof“materiallifeconditions”andcouldnothavebeenotherwise?

Marxhimselfmaintainedthat“theideal,”thatwhichinspireshumanparticipationintheworld,“isnothingelsethanthematerialworldreflectedbythehumanmind,andtranslatedintoformsofthought”35—suggestingthekindofautomaticitythatwouldseemtodenyhumanreflectionanyindependentroleinhistory.Humansmaybethemakersoftheirownhistory,butthefoundersofMarxismseemedtoimaginethatthemakingfollowedregularitiesthathumanbeingscouldneitherinfluencenorcontrol.

Woltmann’spositionwasthathumanvolition,theproductofhumanthoughtandmoraljudgment,wasnotdetermined,althoughitmightbeconditioned,byeconomicfactors.Hearguedthatitcouldnotbeshownwithanydegreeofempiricalplausibilitythathumanthoughtsubmissivelyfollowedsocioeconomic“lawsofmotion.”Heinsistedthateverypieceofevidenceavailableindicatedthathumanthoughtandhumanwillweregovernedbyprocessespeculiartothemselves.Humanthoughtwasgovernedbyepistemologicalcriteriaofitsown—andthetruththatemergedinformedthewill—andwhilehumanbeingspossessedoftruthcertainlydidnotalwaysprevailinhistory,theydid,onoccasion,andundercertaincircumstances,significantlyinfluenceitspassage.

TheissuewastoproveimportantforMarxistsandrevolutionariesthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.AlmosteveryMarxisttheoreticianthroughoutthecenturyattemptedtopersuasivelyexplainhoweconomicconditionsenergizedtherevolutionarywillofindividualsandmultitudes.Ifaccepted,itwouldhavetobeanexplanationthataccountedforthefeltsenseoffreedomthatattendshumanchoiceandcommitment,andstilldemonstratethathistory,nonetheless,isrelentlesslydeterministicincharacter.NosingleMarxisthasyetsucceededindoingallthattoeveryone’ssatisfaction.36

Bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,itwasevidentthatMarxismwasundergoingfundamentalrevision.NotafewMarxistswerereshapingrevolutionarydoctrineandpolicybyreinterpretingsomeofthebasictenetsof

doctrinalMarxism.Woltmannwasclearlynumberedamongthem—andwhiletheanalysesofthenatureofscienceandtruth,humanthought,will,andmoralitywereissuesemployedinthereshaping,itwasDarwinismthatwastohavethemostradicalimpact.

WOLTMANN,DARWINISM,ANDMARXISMInretrospect,Woltmann’seffortstoassimilateDarwinianreflectionsonthe

natureandconsequencesofhumanevolutionintotheloosestructureofMarxisttheorywastoinfluencerevolutionarythoughtinthetwentiethcenturyinatotallyunexpectedmanner.Woltmann’saccidentaldeathin1907didnotstopthespreadofhisideastoothers,andbythemid-1930stheirinfluencewasapparentintherevolutionaryliteratureofthetime.

In1899,WoltmannpublishedamajorstudyontherelationshipofDarwinismtoMarxism.37Inthatstudy,andinsubsequentworks,WoltmanndemonstratedanimpressivefamiliaritywiththeabundantliteraturedevotedtoDarwinism.Hemadeevidenthisknowledgeofthethenavailableliteraturedevotedtoplantandanimalbiology.Heunderstoodthemechanicsandcircumstancesofevolutionasitwasunderstoodbythespecialistsofthetime.Asamedicaldoctor,heseemedtofullycomprehendtheparticularsoftheprofessionalliteraturedevotedtobothplantandhumangenetics.

ThereasonWoltmanngaveforembarkingonaspecialstudyoforganicevolutionturnedonhisstudyoftheoreticalMarxismoverthefiftyorsixtyyearsofitsarticulationatthehandsofitsfounders.LikeJosefDietzgen,WoltmannconceivedMarxismasessentiallyscientificinessence—andDarwinismwasthemajorscientificachievementofthelasthalfofthenineteenthcentury.WoltmannsoughttoreaffirmMarxism’sscientificpropertiesbyshowingthatitwasnotonlycompatiblewithDarwinismbutthatDarwinismandMarxismweremutuallyreinforcing.38

WoltmannproceededtoprovideevidencethatMarxhadearlysignaledhisinterestinDarwinism.InCapital,forexample,MarxarguedthatjustasDarwinhadshownhow“thehistoryofNature’sTechnology,i.e.,intheformationoftheorgansofplantsandanimals”providedthekeytoanunderstandingoftheprocessesgoverningtheorganicevolutionofsentientlife,hehimselfhaddemonstratedthatthe“productiveorgansofman,”tools,suppliedthe“materialbasisofall”socialevolution.39SomehoworotherMarxunderstoodthatDarwinism,likehisownsystem,affordeda“key”tothelaw-governedprocessesofevolutionasevolutionappliedtobothorganicandsocialdevelopment.40

Insomeimprecisesense,MarxpretendedtoseesymmetrybetweenDarwin’snotionsofthebiologicaldescentofmanandhisowntheoryofsocialevolution.41Marxapparentlyimaginedthatheincreasedthecredibilityofhissystembysomehowassociatingit,howeverindirectly,withDarwin’stheoryofthedescentofman.

Whateverhisulteriorpurpose,itseemsclearthatMarximaginedthatDarwinismsomehowcontributedtothecredibilityofhisownconceptionofhumansocialevolution.Fromtheperspectiveofthetwenty-firstcentury,otherthanthefactthatbothsystemstraffickedon“struggle”andweredevelopmentalincharacter,theonereallyhadverylittletodowiththeother.Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,however,giventhefactthatmanysocialistsimaginedthatDarwinismwasanaffirmationofMarxism,42thedifferencescouldonlybeapparenttothoseprofoundlyfamiliarwithboth.

Darwinunderstoodevolutioninbiologicalterms—whileMarxandhisfollowerssoughttoaccountforsocialchangeovertimebyappealingtoculturallytransmittedtechnologicalchange.43Inretrospect,itseemsapparentthattheprocessesinvolvedrequireentirelydifferentmechanismsfortheiraccomplishment.Darwinspokeoftheinheritanceofmorphologicalpropertiesthatsurvivecompetitiveselectionina“struggleforexistence.”Marxaddressedwhatheunderstoodtobetensionsthataroseovertimebetweenmaterialproductiveforcesandthesocialrelationswithinwhichtheywereaccommodated—tensionsthatmanifestedthemselvesin“classstruggle.”Otherthanthesuperficialsimilaritiesinnomenclature,thesystemsreallyhadverylittletodowitheachother.44

ItwasEngelswhochosetoassumetheresponsibilityofattemptingaserioustheoreticalaccommodationbetweenthetwobodiesofthought.45Theeffortwastoproveuncertainatbest.

ThereisnoquestionthatEngels,ingeneral,wasverysupportiveofDarwinism.WiththeexclusionofanyMalthusianelementstobefoundinthedoctrine,EngelsprovideditsspiriteddefenseinhisAnti-Dühring.Inonecuriouspassage,Engelsevenspokeofindustrialcompetition,bothnationalandinternational,asanalogousto“theDarwinianstruggleoftheindividualforexistence.”46Howeveroddthenotion,thereisnoreasontoimaginethatMarxobjectedeithertoEngels’sgeneralpositionorhisDarwiniancharacterizationofeconomiccompetitionandtheclassstruggle.47

Thatgranted,withintheirlifetimesthefoundersofMarxismneverreally

settledtheiraccountswithDarwinism.Onlyinanessay,“ThePartPlayedbyLabourintheTransitionfromApetoMan,”writtenin1876—publishedin1896afterhisdeath—didEngelsattempttoestablishsomesortoftheoreticalconnectionbetweenDarwin’sconceptionsofhumanevolutionandthoseofhistoricalmaterialism.48Theeffortwasnotanotablesuccess.

Inhisessay,Engelsproceededtoarguethatinthecourseofhumanevolutionhumanbeingsdevelopedthecapacitytofashiontools.Moresophisticatedinalmosteverywaycomparedtothoseputtogetherbylessercreatures,humantoolscametoservenotonlyinthefabricationofproductsthatsustainedandfosteredlife,butoverthousandsofyearsofusetheysomehowmanagedto“create”manhimself.Theclaimwasexceedinglycurious.SomehowEngelsthoughthemightclosethedistancebetweenDarwinianevolutionandthefullmaturationofhumankindbyusingman’stool-makingabilitiestobridgethegap.

Havingmadetheclaim,Engelsproceededtoattempttorenderitcredible.Hewentontosaythathumanlabor,employingtools,madehumanbeingswhattheyare.“Onlybylabour,”Engelsmaintained,“byadaptationtoevernewoperations,byinheritanceofthethusacquiredspecialdevelopment,”didhumanbeingsachievethathighstationtheyenjoyed.

Morethanthat,Engelscontinued,laborinvolvingtoolsbrought“membersofsocietyclosertogetherbymultiplyingcasesofmutualsupport.”Thatinturnmadecommunicationanincreasingnecessity—andEngelsinformsus,“theurgecreateditsorgan;theunderdevelopedlarynxoftheapewasslowlybutsurelytransformed”untilprimitivehumanitybegantospeak.49Theinventionoftoolshadcreatedthenecessitytocommunicateintelligently.Humanscouldtheneffectivelycollaborate.Armedwithtoolsandspeech,humanbeingscreatedsocialarrangementsthatunderwroteinitiativeandspatialexpansion—thebeginningsofincreasedproductivityandcommerceoverincreasinglygreaterdistances.Thetruesocialhistoryofhumanityhadbegun.Engelsbelievedhehadtherebymadethetheoreticaltransitionfromhumanity’sorganic,toitssocial,evolution—anapparentlyunbrokentransitionfromDarwinismtohistoricalmaterialism.

LikeDietzgen,EngelssoughttorenderDarwinianevolutionpropaedeutictothesocialtheoriesofhistoricalmaterialism.Ifthatcouldbedone,hewouldhaveestablishednotonlythecompatibilityofthetwobodiesofthought,buttheirinteractivesupport.

Infact,whateverthemeasureofsuccess,itwasachievedonlyatconsiderable

intellectualcost.LikeDietzgen,EngelswaspreparedtoacceptthathumanbeingshadevolvedinpreciselythefashiondescribedbyDarwininhismajorwork.Environmentalchallengeandcompetitionhadultimatelyproducedabipedalhigherprimate.Atthatpoint,EngelssoughttotiethattotheelementsofMarx’shistoricalmaterialism.Heattemptedtoestablishthatitwas“labor”thatwassomehowresponsibleformakingofthatprimateproducedbythe“struggleforexistence,”“naturalselection,”and“survivalofthefittest,”anintelligent,articulatehumanbeingwhoselifecametoexemplifythedynamicsofhistoricalmaterialism.

Inordertoaccomplishthat,Engelsarguedthatofallthecreaturesproducedinthecourseofevolution,itwasonlyhumankindwho,throughtheuseoftools,achievedtruehumanity.Somehowhumanevolution,asdistinctfromallotherformsoforganicevolution,nolongerproceededthroughmorphologicalvariability,competition,andselection.Humans,aftertheadventoftools,advancedtofullhumanityonlyasaconsequenceoftheuseoftheinstrumentsofmaterialproduction.

Marxism,fromthetimeofitsfirstformulation,arguedthattechnology—tools—layattheveryfoundationofsocialandhistoricchange.IfEngelscouldsuccessfullylinkhumanevolutiontotheuseoftools,atransitioncouldbeeffectedfromDarwiniantoMarxianevolution.Theproblemwasthatitwasnotatallclearthatanyofthatcouldbeaccomplishedwithanydegreeofplausibility.

Asitturnedout,intheefforttomakehisaccountintheleasttenable,Engelswascompelledtopressintoservicescientificconjecturesthatwerealreadysubjecttoreservationbythetimehewrote“TheRoleofLabour...”Toshowthattoolsproducedthechangesthatmadehigherprimatestrulyhuman,EngelsappealedtothenotionoftheinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristicsfirstsuggestedbyJeanBaptisteLamarckearlyinthenineteenthcentury.

Ifitcouldbeshownthattheuseoftoolsproducedcompetenciesthatcouldbeinherited,Engels’scasewouldbecredible.Ifsomehighlyadvancedprimatesusedtools,andtheiruserequiredvariousformsofdexterity,aswellasadispositiontosocialcooperationthroughspeech,thatwerethendirectlytransmittedtotheirbiologicalheirs,Engelswouldhavebeguntomakehiscase.

UnhappilythenotionthatacquiredcharacteristicscouldbedirectlyinheritedhadalreadybecomesuspecttothescientificcommunitybythetimeEngelswrotehisessay.Bythattime,therewastheevidencethatwastobeconfirmedintheresultsofthegeneticresearchofGregorMendelandAugustWeismann.50In

substance,thebestscienceofthetimehadbeguntoquestionthatacquiredcharacteristicscouldbeinheritedinthefashionrequiredbyEngels’sspeculations.Neithertoolsnorlabor,perse,couldexplaintheevolutionofhumanityupwardfromtheranksoflessercreatures.Engels’sattempttoprovideatheoreticalcouplingbetweenDarwinismandMarxism,inessence,wasentirelyunpersuasive.

AfterthedeathofEngels,asaconsequenceofthatfailure,theintellectualcrisisthatgraduallycollectedaroundMarxism,asasystemofbeliefs,intensified.Therewasapalpableunravelingofsomemajoraspectsoftheentiresystem.ThatwasnowheremoreapparentthaninthelaterworkofLudwigWoltmann.

THERACISMOFLUDWIGWOLTMANNAlltheelementsofavariantworldview—otherthanthatofKarlMarxand

FriedrichEngels—werealreadytobefoundinthefirstworkspublishedbyWoltmannimmediatelyaftertheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Whilenotfrequentlyacknowledged,Woltmannwastoemergeasoneofthemajortheoreticiansofanalternativerevolution,onewhoserationalewouldbring“biologyandanthropologytobearonthehistoricalsciences,sociologyandpolitics.”51

InarticulatingtheworldviewthatgrewoutofhiscriticismofMarxism,the“generallawsofheredity”wereamongthecriticalissuesaddressedbyWoltmann.52ThatwastheissueonwhichEngels’seffortstouniteDarwinismandMarxismhadfoundered.ForWoltmann,EngelshadbetrayedthesecretofMarxism’sfailure.Thetruth,accordingtoWoltmann,wasthatEngelsmisunderstoodtherelationshipbetweenDarwinismandMarxism.WoltmannarguedthatEngels’sentireefforttoassimilateDarwinismintothebodyofclassicalMarxismonlyledtoscientificembarrassment.First,EngelsattemptedtoportrayDarwinismandMarxismastwoaspectsofthesametheoryofmanandhistory.53ThenheattemptedtosmugglethenotionofhumanreproductionintotheMarxianconceptofproductionasthemotorofhistory.

Woltmannpointedoutthatindiscussingtheoriginsofthefamilyandprivateproperty,inanaccountwrittenafterMarx’sdeath,Engelspretendedthatwhilethematerialistconceptionofhistoryturnedonproductionasthe“determiningfactorinhistory,”onemustunderstandproductiontoincludethe“reproductionofimmediatelife.”54AccordingtothelaterEngels,Marxismwasapparentlysupposedtoaccommodatebiologicalreproductionaspartofthatproductionthat

servedasthe“determiningfactor”inhistory.

Woltmannarguedthatifthatwerethecase,thenalltherelevantlawsofbiologyhadaplaceinwhathadbeen,essentially,aneconomicinterpretationofhistory.ThatiswhyEngelshadmadeheredityanissueinhisexposition.Woltmannwentontocontendthatifonetookbiology,Darwinism,andthelawsofMendelianheredityseriously,Marxism,asithadcometobeunderstood,wouldhavetobesignificantlyamended.Woltmann’scriticismsofMarxismweretoturnon,butnotberestrictedto,Marxism’sfailuretoanswerquestionsraisedbyEngels’seffortstoincorporateDarwinism,humanreproduction,andthelawsofheredityintothetheoreticalfoundationofhistoricalmaterialism.

WoltmannhadaddressedtheseissuesinhisfirstpublicdiscussionsofMarxism.Inthosepublications,WoltmannrehearsedthelogicofclassicalMarxism.HecharacterizedMarxismasasystempredicatedontheprimaryimportanceof“theforcesofproduction.”Howevertheforcesofproductionwereunderstood,theywereconceived“dependentontheevolutionoftechnologyandtools.”Theforcesofproduction,inturn,gaverisetoapposite“socialrelations.”Theforcesofproduction,togetherwiththeprevailingsocialrelations,providedthereality“reflected”inthemindofparticipants.55

Thataccountgranted,thefundamentalquestionraisedbyWoltmann,earlyinhisdiscussionofthesocialtheoriesofMarxism,turnedonwhatwasunderstoodtogoverntechnologicalchangeandtheinventionoftools.HisunderstandingofDarwinismsuggestedtohimthathumanintelligenceandinventivenessmightfunctionintheprocessinfundamentalfashion.Technologydoesnotinventitself—itmustbeinvented.Thatrequirescreativityandintelligence.HewentontosuggestthatbothMarxandEngels,themselves,wrestledwithjustthatconsideration.56

Inoneplace,forexample,Marxidentified“race”asoneofthenatural“physicalconditions”thatinfluencestheproductivityoflabor.Thatproductivity,initself,wascriticaltosocialdevelopment.57Somehoworother,itwouldseem,racialtraitsinfluencedtheveryfundamentalsofhumansociallife.Engels,inhisfullestmaturity,intheyearbeforehisdeath,didspeakof“economicconditions”asthefactorthatultimatelyshapeshistoricaldevelopment,toquicklyadd,“butraceisitselfaneconomicfactor.”58Woltmannpointedoutthatitwasuncertainhowsuchnotionsweretobeunderstoodiftheydidnotalludetoheritableracialproperties.

WoltmannemployedsuchreferencestoarguethatbothMarxandEngelswere

preparedtoincludebiologicalrace—alongside,andperhapsaspartof,thematerialproductiveforces—asadeterminantinsocialdevelopment.WoltmannmaintainedthathisinterpretationwasfurthersupportedbyMarx’scommentsconcerningsomeofthepropertiesdisplayedbyworkingmen’scastesandguildsastheyhavearisen,andbeensustained,inhistory.Invariouscultures,themembersofcastesandguildsdisplayproficienciesofperformancethatdistinguishthemfromothermembersofsociety.Inmakingreferencetothoseproficiencies,Marxspokeof“thenaturallaws”that“regulate”them.Differentialperformanceistheresultofnaturallaws.Theyarethesamenaturallawsthat“regulatethedifferentiationofplantsandanimalsintospeciesandvarieties.”Marxclearlyseemedtoidentifythoselaws,thatmadecasteandguildmemberswhattheywere,asthesame“naturallaws”responsibleforhereditarybiologicalvariationandspeciation.59

WoltmanngrantedthatneitherMarxnorEngelshadasuregraspoftheimplicationsofwhattheyhadwritten.Engels’sLamarckianismclearlyobscuredthetheoreticalimplications.IfbothMarxandEngelsidentifiedraceasaneconomicvariable—andeconomicvariablesweredeterminantinunderstandinghumanhistory—itwouldseemthatracewouldplayatleastanimportant,ifnotacritical,partinthesocialevolutionofhumankind.

OnlyifracialdifferenceswereunderstoodtobethedirectandheritableproductofsurroundingeconomiccircumstancesmighttheintegrityofMarxisthistoricaldeterminismbesecured.Onlyiftheheritablepsychophysicaldifferencesthatdistinguishedraceswereunderstoodtobeconsequencesofenvironmentalinfluenceswouldtheprimacyof“materiallifeconditions”berestored.JustsuchconsiderationswouldhelptoexplainEngels’sreadinesstoinvokethesuspectbiologicalspeculationsofLamarcktopaperoverwhatwasforWoltmannacriticalissueofscientificintegrity.

WoltmannsuggestedthatbothMarxandEngelsrecognized,consciouslyorsubconsciously,thatsomeformofLamarckianismwasnecessaryforthedefenseoftheirsystem.Thenotionthatacquiredcharacteristicswouldbeinheritedwasnecessarytoprotectthecoherenceoftheirworldview.Withoutsuchanotion,acknowledgingthatthepropertiesthatdifferentiatedspecies,varietiesandracesweregenetic,andnotenvironmental,inorigin,wouldcreatetheoreticalproblemsforhistoricalmaterialism.Ifracewasaneconomicfactor,asbothMarxandEngelssuggested,andeconomicfactorswerehistoricaldeterminants,astheirtheoryinsisted,thenbiologywouldbecomepartofthe“materiallifeconditions”thatdeterminedthecourseofhumanhistory.60

Woltmannarguedthatifinvention—technologyingeneral,andtoolsinparticular—involvedtalentsthatwerebiogeneticinorigin,somefundamentalMarxisttheseswouldhavetobesignificantlymodified.Iftechnologicalinnovationmovedhistory,61andgeneticallydeterminedtalentssupplyinnovation,Marxistswouldhavetotrytounderstandhowdifferentialtalentsarise—inindividualsaswellasgroupsofindividuals.62Toexplainthecourseofhistory,onewouldhavetoexplainthecourseoftechnologicalinnovation.Toexplainthecourseofinnovation,onewouldhavetoexplaintheriseandprevalenceofindividualandcollectiveinnovativetalent.

Fromthatpoint,Woltmanndevotedhistimetoanaccountofhistoricaldevelopmentpredicatedontheconvictionthatdevelopmentturnedonabiologicalfoundationofdifferentialindividualandcollectivetalent.Thereafter,hewastospeakofhis“studyofpoliticaldevelopment...aspredicatedonunderstandingnaturalscience,thatistosay,thebiologicalandanthropological...inborn,heritableandacquiredtraits...thatarethephysiologicalbasesofallpoliticaldispositions,behaviors,andconceptions.”Thereafter,heproceededtoarguethatallmankind’shistorywastobeunderstoodasafunctionofthe“naturallawsofselectivevariationandinheritance,adaptationandselection,inbreedingandgeneticmixture,progressiveevolutionanddegenerationofhumanracesthemselves.”63

Woltmannargued,ashadDietzgen,thatDarwinismdid,indeed,provideascientificfoundationforMarxism.ThedifferencewasthatWoltmanndrewentirelydifferentinferencesfromthatconsideration.TheconclusionWoltmanndrewfromthefactthatDarwinismwaspartofthescientificfoundationofMarxismwasthatDarwinian“naturallaws,”minimally,conditionedthosesociallawsMarxandEngelshadmadethebasisofhistoricalmaterialism.Woltmannconceivedtechnologicalinventionanddevelopment,thefoundationofhistoricalmaterialism,tobetheresultofhumancreativityandtalent,differentiallydistributedamongextanthumanraces.64Woltmannbelievedhehadenoughevidencetosupporthisthesis:notonlydidheturntothesocialsciencesofhisperiod,heconductedhisownresearch.HewasthuspreparedtoresolvetheeconomicdeterminismofclassicalMarxismintoabroadlyconceivedformofbioeconomicdeterminism.Woltmannhadfinallysucceeded,tohisownsatisfaction,inassimilatingDarwinismintohisMarxism.ThepricepaidwastoentirelytransformMarxismasatheoryofhistoricaldevelopment.

Giventhenewsetofconvictionsthatlayatthefoundationofwhathadbeenhis“orthodox”Marxism,Woltmannthenturnedtotheevidenceofhistorytotry

todecideifdifferenthumanraces,distinguishedbyobservablephysicalproperties,displayedunmistakabledifferencesinheritableintellectualandcreativegifts.Thatwouldinfluencethecourseofsocialdevelopment—withthoseracesmoreabundantlygiftedwithcreativetalentsnecessarilyhavingadifferenthistorythananylesserendowedrace.Onceagain,WoltmannwastofindintheabundanceoftheMarxistlegacyenoughmaterialonwhichtohanghisinterpretation.

TherewasmorethanasuggestionofdifferentialcreativepotentialamongpeoplesinthewritingsofMarxandEngels.InalettertoEngels,datedthesecondofDecember1847,forexample,Marxwrotethat“theSpaniardsareindeeddegenerate.ButadegenerateSpaniard,aMexican,thatistheideal.AllvicesoftheSpaniards—boastfulness,grandiloquence,andquixoticism—arefoundintheMexicansraisedtothethirdpower.”Nordidthatseemtobetheresultofafitofpique,forEngelsexpressedsomeverysimilarjudgmentsinacommuniqueontheU.S.-Mexicanwarheprovidedforpublication.

Inhisaccount,EngelsopinedthattheAmericanexpansionintotheWestandSouthwestofNorthAmericaserved“theinterestsofcivilization,”since“thelazyMexicans...didnotknowwhattodowithit.”The“energeticYankees,”ontheotherhand,openedtheentireregiontotradeandindustry.Engelswasconvincedthatmorehighlydevelopedindustrialnationsweredestinedtobind“tiny,crippled,powerlesslittlenationstogetherinagreatEmpire,andthereby[enable]themtotakepartinanhistoricaldevelopmentwhich,iflefttothemselves,would[remain]entirelyforeigntothem!”65

BothMarxandEngelsseemedconvincedthattherewere“peoples”who“haveneverhadahistoryoftheirown”andwhoweredestinedtobe“forcedintothefirststagesofcivilizationthroughaforeignyoke,havenovitality,[and]willneverbeabletoattainanysortofindependence.”66MarxspokeoftheChineseasbeingafflictedwith“hereditarystupidity,”whileEngelsdeemedtheSlavsofEasternandSoutheasternEuropetobenothingmorethan“ethnictrash.”67

BothfoundersofMarxismconceivedofaclassofpeoplesas“historyless,”assomehowdeficientinenergy,whoenteredhistoryonlythroughtheagencyof“morevital”agents—tobe“absorbed”into“moreenergeticstock.”68EngelsregularlyspokeofSlavsas“dying,”“retrograde”peoples,as“phthisicalbodies,”toenterhistoryonlythroughthe“mightyGermans,”toremainforeveras“ethnographicmonuments”withintheGermanEmpire.69Heseemedtoimagine

thatonlytheGermanswerecapableofsavingcivilization,forhearguedthatwhenitisa“questionofsavingEuropeancivilization,what[matters]thefateofafewnationalities?”70

AllofthisfedintotheformulationsthatmoreandmoredominatedWoltmann’sthought.Bytheendofthenineteenthcentury,Woltmannwaspreparedtoargue,indeed,thattherewasahumanracedestinedto“savecivilization.”Itwasaraceheidentifiedasthesolecreatorofcivilization.

ConvincedthatMarxhadarguedthatracewasacriticalfactorintechnologicaldevelopment,Woltmannproceededtodrawoutwhatheheldtobesomesignificanthistoricandmoralimplications.Amongthehumanraces,Woltmannargued,somewereendowedwithgreatercreativepotentialthanothers.MarxandEngelsseemedtohavesuggestedasmuch.Puttingallofthattogether,Woltmannproceededtoidentifythatracemostresponsibleforeconomicandculturalevolution.HesettledonNordics—tall,longheaded,narrow-faced,depigmentedEuropeans—ashumankind’smostcreativeracialcommunity.71Intheyearsthatimmediatelyfollowed,inasystematicefforttoprovidethescientificevidenceinsupportofhisclaims,WoltmannundertookanumberofempiricalstudiesthatinvolvedattemptingastatisticalassessmentofthemeasureofGermanic,orNordic,geneticpotentialthatmightbefoundamongtheminoritiesofFranceandRenaissanceItaly—andcorrelatethatwiththeirrespectivecreativity.72

Onthebasisofthatsortofresearch,togetherwithhisfamiliaritywithavailableliterature,73Woltmannfelthimselfpreparedtotendersweepinggeneralizationsconcerningbiologicalraceandculturecreationwithinthecontextofwhathebythencalled“theanthropologicaltheoryofhistory”—theessenceofwhichwasthatan“Aryanrace,”Nordicinfeaturesandtalent,hasbeenresponsibleforvirtuallyalltheworld’scultures,rangingfromthoseofIndia,Persia,Hellas,theItalicpeninsula,Gaul,aswellasthoseofNorthern,Eastern,andSoutheasternEurope.Thatcreativeracealso“stronglyinfluenced”thegreatcivilizationsoftheFarEastaswell.74

BythetimeWoltmannpublishedhisPolitischeAnthropologie,hisheterodoxMarxismhadbeentransformed.Darwinismdominatednotonlyhisconceptionofhumanevolution,butsocialevolutionaswell.Thesocialdynamicswecontinuetoidentifywithhistoricalmaterialismremainedlargelyinviolable,butthemotiveforcebehindtechnologicalinventionWoltmannidentifiedwithheritableproperties—creativityandintelligence—traitsheincreasingly

identifiedwithselectindividualsandselectracialcommunities.

BythefirstyearsofthetwentiethcenturywhatemergedwasapoliticalideologythathadoriginallyfounditsinspirationinclassicalMarxism—butwhich,asaconsequenceofsystematicandsustainedcriticism,hadbeensoalteredthatitcouldonlybeidentifiedasaMarxistheresy.Whateverthatistakentomean,itobscurestherealitythatWoltmann’sracismwasthenaturalchildofclassicalMarxism.

WoltmannwasnottheonlyMarxistwhotraveledthatpath.In1862,decadesbeforeWoltmann’s“heresy,”MosesHess,the“communistrabbi”—thepersonwhopurportedlymadeacommunistofKarlMarx—madeveryclearhisracistandnationalistpredilectionswiththepublicationofhisRomeandJerusalem.75AfterhavingworkedwithMarxandEngelsonsomeoftheirmostimportantearlypublications,withtheappearanceofRomeandJerusalem,Hesswastoleavethembehind.

Inhisbook,HessmadethecaseforJewishpsychobiologicalsuperiority,toadvocatethecreationofaJewishhomelandintheefforttoassureJewishsurvival—inorderthattheymightcontinuetoprovidebenefitsforallofhumanity.TheMarxismofhisyoungmanhoodhadbeentransmogrifiedinmuchthesamemannerashadtheMarxismoftheyoungLudwigWoltmann.

Woltmann’sphilosophicalcuriositywastopropelhimstillfurther.HetookhisstudiesofDarwinism,andhisallusionstotheroleofraceintheeconomichistoryofhumankind,andtiedthemtothemoralprinciplethatJosefDietzgenhadmadethelodestarofMarxistethics.Inhisfinalworks,thehighestgoodthatshapedWoltmann’sindividualandcollectiveethicswas,asitwasforDietzgen,the“generalwelfareofhumankind.”

WhatdistinguishedWoltmann’sconceptionofthegeneralwelfareofhumankindfromthatofDietzgenturnedonWoltmann’sconvictionthatthebiologicalsurvivalandcollectiveintegrityofNordicsconstitutedtheagencyresponsibleforwhatthatgeneralwelfaremightbetakentobe.Woltmanncouldaffirm,withprofoundconviction,thatifthesecularprogressofwhichallMarxistsspokewasafunctionoftheintellectualandcreativetalentsofaracialminorityofhumanbeings,thenthesecurity,sustenance,andfosteringofthatracebecameamoralimperativeofthehighestorder.76Itssurvivalandexpansionwasthenecessaryconditionfortheproductionofallthewelfarebenefits,materialandspiritual,ofwhichMarxhadspoken—andtowhichDietzgenhadalluded.

LikeMarx,Woltmanndeploredcapitalism.Hespokeofitsdysgeniceffects.Hespokeofitsprofligateuseofhumanbeingsinitssearchforprofit.Hespokeofthephysicalandmentalcoststoworkersmarshaledbyindustrialcapitalismintotheranksoffactoryhands.Hespokeofthephysicaldeclineintheproductionofoffspringandoftheincreasingnumberoftheunfitthathadbeguntoappearinthecities.Hespokeoftheneedtomobilizesocialsentimentbehindmasseugenicsprograms,throughmoralsuasionifpossible,orbylawifnecessary.

Finally,WoltmannidentifiedtheJewsasan“alien”community.TheycontributedtothoseforcesunwillingtodefendthefutureofhumankindbyprotectingtheNordicculturerace.77Hespokeoftheirbehaviorashereditarysingularities—theunfortunateconsequenceoftheirmillennialstruggletosurviveinpathogeniccircumstances.

Beforehisaccidentaldeathin1907,WoltmannpursuedhismodificationsofclassicalMarxism—puttingtogetherelementstobefoundthere,augmentedbytheearlymoralpreachmentsofJosefDietzgen—tofabricateanideologythatwastoinspiremillionsintheyearsthatweretofollow,therebycontributingtomakingthetwentiethcenturywhatitwastobe.HisracismenteredintoastreamofconvictionscalculatedtoidentifyGermans,ingeneral,asaspecialpeople.Adecadelater,bytheendoftheFirstWorldWar,Germans,asacommunity,feltthemselvesunjustlyhumiliatedatthehandsoftheirwartimeopponents.ThepeacetreatythatendedtheconflictidentifiedthemascollectivelyresponsibleforthecatastrophicconflictthatcostEuropemillionsintreasureandlives.

Germanywasburdenedwithdisablingreparationspaymentsand,foranunconscionablelengthoftimeaftertheendofhostilities,remainedunderblockade.Therancorandbitternessthatresulted,preparedthesoilforthereactivenationalismthatwastofollow.Itwastobeanationalismhavingmoretodowithracethannation78—andWoltmannwastobefoundinthepantheonofthinkersreveredbyitsleaders.79

Apopulationsodevastatedbyeventsproveditselfeminentlysusceptibletotheblandishmentsoftheoriesthatpromisedtoidentifytheircommunityasspecial—astheultimateandexclusivesourceofworldculture.AllthosefactorscontributedtotheproliferationofracistliteraturethatfollowedtheendoftheFirstWorldWar—anditwasWoltmann’snamethatwastosurfaceinmanyofitsvolumes.

Inourowntime,Woltmann’sintimateassociationwithMarxismisrarely,if

ever,cited—andoneoftheprincipalsourcesoftherevolutionaryracismofthetwentiethcenturytherebyobscured.ItwasthedecayofclassicalMarxismthatcontributedracismtothemixofrevolutionaryideasthatweretotormentourtime.NeitherMosesHessnorLudwigWoltmanncanbedismissedasanomalies.AsthesubsequenthistoryofrevolutionaryMarxismwastoreveal,racistandreactivenationalistvariantsofMarxismweretoinspirerevolutionsthroughoutthedolefulhistoryofourmostrecentpast.

THELEGACYHoweverimportantintheintellectualhistoryofrevolution,itwouldbea

mistaketoreduceWoltmann’sassessmentofclassicalMarxismtohisracism.TherewerethemesinWoltmann’sworkthatweretoresurfaceinthethoughtofthemajorideologuesofrevolutionafterhispassing.Amongthosethemeswerefundamentalphilosophicalquestionsthatturnedonepistemologyandmoralityandhowtheyweretoberesolved—andwhatrolemoralityandethicsplayedinhumanbehavior.Anyattempttoprovideastudiedresponsetoanyofthosetopicsveryquicklyintroducedepistemologicalquestionsaswellasthosethatturnedonthe“freewill”ofindividualsinconflictedsituations.Anyattempttoanswerthelatterquestiontookonpsychologicalaswellasphilosophicaldimension.Revolutionarieswererequiredtoanswerquestionsofhumanmotivationaswellashowonemightjustifycommitment.Almostimmediatelyonefacedthecollateralproblemoftheroleofindividualsinshapingthebehaviorofothers.Throughoutthehistoryofrevolutioninthetwentiethcentury,thequestionoftheroleoftheindividualinhistoryresurfacesagainandagain—andtheanswersvaryinanynumberofways.

Woltmannwasmorethanaracist.HewasasophisticatedMarxistwhoofferedcalculatedresponsetoallthoseissues.HeteasedmanyoftheanswersoutoftheabundantliteratureofMarxismitself.Ineffect,Woltmann,perhapsmorethananyotherthinkeratthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,identifiedthetopicsthattransformedtheMarxismofKarlMarxandFriedrichEngelsintoideologicalvariantsthatweretoinformtherevolutionarymovementsdestinedtooverwhelmtheworld.

ItisarelativelysimplemattertotraceWoltmann’sideasfromMarxismtoracism—andfromthereintotheideologyofAdolfHitler’sNationalSocialism.80FarlesseasyisrelatingWoltmann’sthoughttothoseformsofMarxismthatpretendedtobetruetothethoughtofthemasters.V.I.LeninneveradmittedhehadtakenlibertieswiththeMarxismheinherited.The“Marxism-Leninism”thatresultedwastoemergeasStalinisminthelate1920sandthe1930s,tofurther

devolveafterthedeathofthe“Leader”intothepost-Stalinistandpost-SovietcuriositiesnowidentifiedwiththeCommunistPartyoftheRussianFederation.

AtthesametimethatLeninwasputtingtogetherhis“creativedevelopments”ofrevolutionaryMarxism,anotherMarxist,aleaderofarevolutionarysocialistpartyinItaly,wasundertakingsimilarlycreativedevelopments.TheresultwasyetanotherMarxistheresy:Fascism.

Overtheyears,thedirectconnectionthatrelatedalltheserevolutionarymovementswiththerevisionsofMarxismtobefirstfoundintheworkofJosefDietzgenandLudwigWoltmannhavebecomeincreasinglydiaphanous.Nonetheless,thethemesDietzgenandWoltmannaddressedrunlikeredthreadsthroughallthebeliefsystemsthatpretendtosomehowrepresenttheMarxismofMarxandEngels.AlmosteveryoneoftheissueswithwhichbothDietzgenandWoltmanndealtprovedtobecriticaltotheintellectualintegrityandthejustificatoryrationaleofthemajorrevolutionariesofthetwentiethcentury.

TheintellectuallegacylefttoourtimebythefoundersofMarxismrequiresalmostfiftyGermanicvolumesforitscontainment.Theideasembodiedinthatcorpusweredeveloped,modified,elaboratedupon,andsynopticallyexpressedinsomanywaysandinsomanypermutationsbyMarxandEngelsthemselves,itisnotsurprisingthatacolyteshavefoundalmosteverythingthere—fromtherationaleforChineseMaoism,Castro’s“Fidelismo,”andallthecuriousnotionsthatmakeuptheintellectualsubstanceoftheMarxismsfoundinsuchquaintplacesasCambodia,thePhilippineislands,Ethiopia,andthehighlandsofPeru.TheveryrichnessofMarxismassuredthattherewouldbemanyMarxisms,almostMarxisms,andnot-somuchMarxisms,thatwouldinspirerevolutionariestodestroyhalfaworldwiththeirenthusiasm.

AlmosteveryseriousrevolutionaryinthetwentiethcenturyhashadtosettlehisaccountswiththeMarxismofthenineteenthcentury.Hitler’sNationalSocialism,forone,adoptedandadaptedsomeofthecentralLeninistconvictions,andtheirinstitutionalexpressionsconcerningthecontrolofsubjectpopulations.Someofthat,itwillbeargued,canbeplausiblytracedtoconvictionscentraltoclassicalMarxism—tobecomethematicintheanalysisofbothDietzgenandWoltmann.QuiteindependentofthespecificallyracistthemesthatcanbetracedtoWoltmann’swork,therearethosegeneralthemesexploredbybothDietzgenandWoltmannthatresurfaceintheinstitutionalfeaturesofLeninism,Stalinism,andNationalSocialism,togetherwiththerationaleadvancedintheirsupport.

OfMussolini’sFascism,agreatdealmorerequiresthesaying.Fascism,whateveritsaffinitieswithNationalSocialism,wasinformedbyafundamentallydifferentbeliefsystem.ItwillbearguedthatitwasFascism,morethananyotherrevolutionarymovement,thatembodiedwhateverelementsofclassicalMarxismweretosurviveintothetwentiethcentury—andsomeofthethemesthatgrewoutofWoltmann’sworkprovideinsightbothintothefabricofFascistthoughtaswellasitsideologicaloriginsinMarxism.

Beforeanyofthatcanbeattempted,itisnecessarytoreviewLeninismasthefirst“creativedevelopment”ofclassicalMarxismintheefforttotraceitsrelationshiptothosethemeswehaveidentifiedintheworkofDietzgenandWoltmann.Directlyandindirectly,LeninwascompelledtoaddresssomeofthetheoreticalproblemsthatmadeupmuchoftheiranalysisofclassicalMarxism.ItwillbearguedthatLenin’sresolutionofthoseproblemscreatedasystemthatsharedunmistakableideologicalandinstitutionalsimilarities,atoneoranotherlevel,withNationalSocialismandFascism.Woltmann’sargumentsprovideusaconvenientpointofdeparture.

LeninwasamongthefirstrulingMarxistswhoattemptedtoaddressalmostallthosethemes.HewasfamiliarwiththeworkofDietzgenandWoltmann—justashewasfamiliarwiththeworkofGiovanniGentile—whowastoserveastheofficialphilosopherofMussolini’sFascism.LeninremarkedontheimportanceofbothWoltmannandGentileintheseriousstudyofMarxism.HespokeofWoltmann’sbook,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,asamongthemost“outstanding”worksdevotedtoMarxism—andofGentile’sworkonthephilosophyoftheyoungMarxas“noteworthy”and“important.”81Attheverycommencementofthetwentiethcentury,LeninspontaneouslyidentifiedauthorswhoweretoshapeMarxismintoideologiesthatweretoinfluencehistoryinwaysnoone,leastofallLenin,couldhavepossiblyanticipated.Butbeforetheirideasweretofullyworktheirinfluence,GeorgesSorel’sinterpretationofMarxismwastointervene.

CHAPTERFOUR

TheHeterodoxMarxismofGeorgesSorelOnthecuspofthetwentiethcentury,asdiscussionswirledaroundthedoctrinalmeaningandappliedpoliticsoftheirbeliefsystem,MarxistsineachoftheWesternEuropeannationsdevelopedinterpretationsandpracticalorientationsthatwereseenbyothersasincreasinglyheterodox.InGermany,followingtheeffortsofJosephDietzgen,andtheLassalleaninterlude,theGermanSocialDemocratssoughttosettleonaMarxismwhoseorthodoxywasassuredbythedirect,ifepisodic,interventionofFriedrichEngels.

WiththedeathofEngelsin1895,however,therewasnolongertherestraintsuppliedbyakeeperatthegate.Asindicated,EduardBernsteinannouncedhiscritiqueoftheclassicaldoctrinealmostimmediatelyafterthedisappearanceofEngels.Moreanefforttomakedoctrineconformtopractice,BernsteinrecommendedacarefulreviewofMarxism’scentralempiricalclaims.Insubstance,BernsteinaskedMarxiststoconsiderwhattacticalpoliciesrecommendedthemselvestorevolutionaryleadersifsomeofMarxism’smostentrenchedpredictionsprovedtobeincorrect.

Bernstein’sentireenterprisewaspredicatedontheimplicationthatpolicy,insignificantmeasure,wasafunctionofthetruthofMarxism’sempiricalclaims.Ifthecapitalistsystemreallycouldnotbeexpectedtospontaneouslycollapseatsomepoint,revolutionaryleaderswerecompelledtodeviseastrategytodealwithaprotractedpoliticalstruggleforworkers’rights.EveryempiricalclaimmadebyeitherMarxorEngelswassubjecttoreview—andanyclaimfoundtobewantingwouldrequireadeliberatechangeinrevolutionarypolicy.Revolutionarieswouldhavetoaccustomthemselvestoarealityinwhichneitherdoctrinalnorpolicystabilitycouldbeexpected.Marxismwouldbesubjecttoconstantrevisionunderthepressureofnewevidence,withpolicyexpectedtochangewitheachmodificationindoctrine.

Bernstein’srevisionismrevealedsomethingaboutMarxismthatalmosteveryoneseriouslyinterestedinthedoctrinewasultimatelyforcedtoaccept.

ClassicalMarxism,atitsverybirth,wasanenormouslycomplexandprecariouslybalancedideologicalconstruction—composedinpartofspeculativefactualclaims,inpartofanuncertainlogic,andinpartofunarguedmoralconvictions.Asaconsequence,throughoutitshistoryoverthenextfourorfivedecades,almostallitscriticalconceptsweretoremaincontested.TypicaloftheproblemwasMarxism’suseoftheterm“class.”Likemostofitscentralconcepts,itwasnowhererigorouslydefined.1Thepredictableresultwasthatovertheyears,theinterpretationandreinterpretationofsuchconceptsbybothfollowersanddetractorsproducedvariantsofMarxismthatweretoshapepoliticalactivitythroughoutthetwentiethcentury.

DrawingouttheimplicationsofsomeoftheconceptsofclassicalMarxism,LudwigWoltmannfashionedthe“politicalanthropology”thatwastoinspiresomeoftheleadersofNationalSocialism.HewasonlyoneofthemanyauthorsatthedawnoftheemergingcenturywhoweretofathervariantsofMarxism—eachofwhichhelpedmakeofourtimewhatitwastobecome.ThatistherealityagainstwhichonecanmeasuretheconsequencesthatfollowfromtheoriginalvaguenessandambiguityoftheMarxismleftasalegacybyitsfounders.2

Woltmann’sexplicationandultimatereformulationnowheredepartedunequivocallyfromtheMarxismheknew.Hisinterpretationturnedonhisconstrualoftermslike“race”thatarefoundinthebodyofMarx’swork—andconceptsofheritabilityfoundintheworkofEngels.Decadeslater,evenafterithadbecomeevidentwhereWoltmann’sheresieshadledhim,KarlKautskycouldstillagreethatWoltmannwascorrectinaffirmingthat“historicalmaterialismimpliesabiologicalmaterialism”andthathewasrighttoincorporateintoits“theoreticalstructuretheteachingsofDarwininianevolution.”3

Thesewerethecircumstancesinwhichtheproliferationofheresiesbegan.Woltmann’sheterodoxywasonlyoneofthefirst—ifperhapsthemostarresting.Inthecourseoftime,asMarxismbecamethebeliefsystemofapoliticalparty,ratherthanapreoccupationofsolitaryauthors,thedemandincreasedforasingle,coherent“theory”aroundwhichfollowersmightcollect.IfhundredsofthousandsofGermanworkersweretobeenlistedina“Marxistparty,”institutionaldemands,ifnothingelse,recommendeddoctrinalcoherenceandconsistency.Withthepassageoftime,inWilhelminianGermany,KarlKautskyemergedasthestandardbeareroftherequiredorthodoxy.

Bythefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,whatevertheirpoliticaltactics,GermanMarxistsbegantoacquireareputationforbeingdogmaticandinflexible

indoctrinalmatters.Moreoftenthannot,partymembersidentifiedKautsky’speculiarorthodoxywiththe“thoughtofMarx.”InthemindsofthemembersoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,thethoughtofJosephDietzgen,LudwigWoltmann,andEduardBernsteinrecededfurtherandfurtherintoheterodoxy.

RobertoMichelstenderedacontemporaryjudgmentwhenhespokeofGermanSocialDemocraticintellectualsasseeingthemselvesthe“mostauthenticheirsofMarx’sprofundities,”and,asaconsequence,giventoakindof“dogmaticintolerance”ofanyinterpretationsthatdidnotfullycorrespondtothatoftheleadershipoftheparty.4AnyMarxismthatdidnotconformtothatofthepartyintellectualswastoremainforever“heterodox”and“heretical,”ifnotinfactan“apostasy.”OutsideofGermany,thingsweredifferent.

InbothFranceandItaly,whiletherewereauthorswhosoughttoarticulateaninterpretationofclassicalMarxismtruetothefundamentalintentionsofitsfounders,therewasnoonewhoexercisedthesamedominantintellectualinfluenceasdidKautskyinGermany.Asaconsequence,bythefirstdecadeofthenewcentury,anumberofvariantsofMarxismhadmadetheirappearanceamongbothFrenchandItalianintellectuals.Inbothcountries,interpretationsofclassicalMarxismappeared,eachofwhich,almostwithoutexception,wasamajordeparturefromthatendorsedbyKautskyandtheGermanSocialDemocraticParty.5

DevelopmentsofMarxistdoctrineinbothcountriesfollowedcareersoftheirown.InFrance,asearlyasthefirstyearsofthe1870s,agroupofradicalsinParis,eachwithindependentinterpretation,soughttoinfluencethedevelopmentofthedomesticlabormovement.Bytheendofthedecade,themovementhadattractedtheattentionandsupportofJulesGuesde,whowastogoontobecomeamajorfigureintheevolutionofFrenchsocialism.Articulateandcommanding,GuesdebecamespokesmanforFrench“scientificsocialism.”Themovementdidnotremainunitedverylong.Bythebeginningofthenextdecade,theadvocatesoflaborreformthroughparticipationinparliamentseparatedfromanarchocommunistelementswhoconceivedall“bourgeois”politicalinstitutions,withoutexception,agenciesofoppression.Theyheldcapitaliststobeintrinsicallyunresponsivetoreform.Theyconceivedtheparticipationofworkers’representativesinthenationalparliamentasnothingotherthantheoccasionforstultifyingcompromiseandtheunconscionablebetrayalofworkingclassinterests.ThedivisionbetweenthosewhoadvocatedparticipationinthepoliticalsystemandthosewhoadvocatedboycottwasonlythefirstofmanythatwastofracturethedoctrinalandorganizationalunityofFrenchsocialism.

AftertheCongressofSt.Etiennein1882,thesocialistsdividedintotwomajororganizations,oneledbyGuesdeandtheotherbyPaulBrousse.Guesde’sPartiOuvrierFrançais,centralizedandeffective,soughttheoverthrowofthestateandthecreationofatransitional“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”preliminarytothefinaldissolutionofallthingsbourgeois.Guesdeandhisfollowersrejectedthenotionthatanyreformscouldmateriallyalterthelifecircumstancesoflabor,dismissingallsucheffortsas“shams.”6

Fortheirpart,theBroussists,membersofBrousse’sPartiOuvrierrevolutionnairesocialiste,acceptedthepossibilityofeffectivereform,andweredisposedtotoleratewiderdoctrinaldifferencesamongthemselves.Asaconsequence,Marxistorthodoxywasamatterofrelativelylittleconcern.MorethantheGuesdists,theBroussistsconcentratedonthepeacefulinfiltrationbytherepresentativesoflaborintomunicipal,departmental,andnationallegislativebodiesinordertoaffecttheirreforms.

Bytheendofthedecade,FrenchsocialismfurthersubdivideditselfintoAllemanists,thefollowersofJ.Allemane,whosoughtdirectappealtotheworkersintheefforttomobilizeforrevolution.TheAllemanistswereconvincedthattheprimaryresponsibilityofrevolutionarieswastoeducatetheproletariattotheirhistoricresponsibilities.

“Independentsocialists,”inturn,ledbyBenoitMalon,advocated,amongotherreformistmeasures,thegradualnationalizationofpublicservices,lawsprotectingtherightsoflabor,andlocalself-governmentforthecommunes.Infact,theindependentsprovidedtheintellectualsettingoutofwhichsomeofFrance’smostnotableparliamentarysocialists—JeanJaures,EtienneMillerand,andR.F.Viviani—weretoarise.

Finally,amongthesmallersocialistorganizations,thereweretheBlanquists,heldtogetherbyexperiencessharedintheParisCommuneofrecentmemory,andcommittedtoarevolutionaryprogram,bothconspiratorialandviolent,thatwouldresultinanticipatedcommunistoutcomes.Theyweretheadvocatesofallandanymeansnecessarytoaccomplishtheirpurpose.

Paralleltothesedoctrinaldevelopments,economicconditionsfosteredthegrowthofworkingmen’sassociations.Notonlytheprevailingconditionsoflabor,buttheveryorganizationofemployers’syndicats,recommendedcollectiveself-defensebyallpartiesinvolvedinproductiveenterprise.Bythemid-1880s,Frenchlawallowedtheformationofworkers’syndicats,andatthesametime,thecreationofaFédérationdesBoursesduTravaildeFrance—a

FederationofLaborExchanges—thatwouldprovideworkers,ineachlocality,withinformation,fostercontactwithothers,andserveasemploymentagencies.TheseevolvinginstitutionssoonbecametheobjectsofpoliticalcompetitionbythevariousMarxistandquasi-Marxistgroups.EachsoughttocontroltheresourcesandthemembershipoftheLaborExchanges.

Withinthisdynamicenvironmentvariousworkingmen’sgroupsemergedthatsawthelayingdownoftools,workstoppages,asamongthemosteffectiveweaponsavailabletothemintheirstruggleagainstthebourgeoisie.Theleadershipofthosesyndicatssoughttopersuadetheirmembersthatperhapsemployingthestrategyofageneralstrikemightservetodramaticallyaffecttheirpurposes.AlreadyinvokedbysomeBritishandAmericanworkersinpursuitoftheirinterests,theideawaswelcomedbytheFrenchsyndicats.Workstoppagesdirectlymobilizedworkerstothestrugglefortherightsoflabor.Forsome,theveryoccasionoflayingdowntoolstoattainone’srightssuggestedthepossibilityofa“generalstrike,”universalinscopeandoverwhelminginitsimplications.Itsuggestedthepossibilitythatageneralstrikemightservenotonlyasamobilizingandpedagogicalinstrumentinpreparingtheproletariatfor,butaweapontobeemployedintheachievementof,revolutionarypurpose.7

Asaconsequence,foryearsfollowingthedevelopmentoftheBourses,effortsweremadebythevariousleadersofworkingmen’sorganizationstoagreeonthepoliticalfunctionsofwhatwereessentiallyeconomicinstitutions.SomeofthepoliticallyactivesocialistsurgedtheuseoftheBoursesasstagingareasfortherevolutionarygeneralstrike.Atthesametime,thereweremanyworkingmenwhosoughttoavoidovertpoliticalactivityasthreateningtotheirimmediatewell-being.

Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,outofthatdifference,thoseworkingmen’sorganizationsthatsawthegeneralstrikeasthemosteffectiveinsurrectionarytoolavailable,begantoputtogetheragenericdoctrinethatbecameknownas“revolutionarysyndicalism,”8todistinguishtheirrevolutionaryenterprisefromsimpletradeunionactivity.OneofthefirstmajorworksthatattemptedtoprovidetheemergingmovementanaccountofitsowndevelopmentanddoctrinewasL’AvenirsocialistedessyndicatsbyGeorgesSorel—originallypublishedin1898.9

THEREVOLUTIONARYDOCTRINEOFGEORGESSORELBythetimeSorelpublishedhisL’Avenir,hewasalreadyanacknowledged

“giftedMarxist.”10Bornin1847,SorelcametoMarxismrelativelylateinlife.11WhenhewroteL’Avenir,hewasoverfiftyyearsofageandalreadyretiredfromcivilservice.BeforeL’Avenir,hehadwrittentwomajorworks,onedevotedtoananalyticaccountoftheBible,andthesecondacriticaltreatmentofthetrialofSocrates.12BothareimportantbecausetheyprovidesomeinsightintoSorel’sthought—whichwasbroadgaugedandwideranging,atoncebrilliantandlooselystructured,oftenillexpressed,yetimmenselypenetrating.Togetherwiththetwovolumes,SorelhadwrittenandpublishedaplethoraofarticlesandreviewsinFrenchandItalianjournalsduringthelastyearsofthenineteenthcentury.Ingeneral,Sorel’sprodigiousliterarylegacyhasbeenspokenofasa“greatdisorderedanddisorderlyencyclopedia.”13

Whateverelsehisworkrepresentedbythemid-1890s,itcontainedessaysthatclearlygaveexpressiontoSorel’sexplicitcommitmenttowhathetooktobetheorthodoxyofclassicalMarxism.Hislongessay,entitled“L’AncienneetlaNouvelleMétaphysique,”whichappearedinL’Erenouvellein1894,containsaclearstatementofadherencetoMarxismasadoctrineandasaprogram.14Atthattime—particularlybetweentheyears1894and1896—SorelhadnottheleasthesitancyinidentifyingMarxismasoneofthe“greatestphilosophicalinnovationsinmanycenturies.”15

Forallthat,theperiodofSorel’sMarxistorthodoxywasdrawingtoaclosewiththe1897publicationofhisPrefacetotheFrencheditionofAntonioLabriola’sLaconcezionematerialisticadellastoria.16Sorelheldthattheauthor’saccountwasanaccuraterepresentationofthethoughtofKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.17Inhisvolume,LabrioladutifullyreportedthatMarxismwasa“modelphilosophyofhistory”thatidentifiedthe“underlyingeconomicstructurewhichdeterminesalltherestofsocialorganization”—includingallthehumanresponsesthatwerethesubjectofconventionalaccounts.18

AccordingtoLabriola’srendering,understandingtheeconomicfoundationsofhistoryallowsonetoanticipateafuturethat“isnecessaryandinevitable,whatevermaybethevicissitudesandthesuccessivephasesthatcannotyetbeforeseen.”Hespokeofhistoryasbeing“allofapiece,”theendresultofprocesses“altogetherobjectiveandindependentofourapprovalordisapproval.”LikeMarx,Labriolaspokeofrevolutionasthenecessaryandobjectiveconsequencenotofhumanwillordetermination,butofthe“rebellionof...productiveforcesagainsttheconditions(juridicalandpolitical)ofproduction.”19AllofwhichsimplyreiteratedmuchofwhatpassedatthetimeastheorthodoxaccountofMarxisthistoriography.

IntheworkreviewedbySorel,LabrioladescribedMarxisthistoricalmethodasincorporatingtheprevailingconceptionofsciencethatothersspokeofas“positivistic.”LabriolahadreservationsaboutidentifyingMarxismwithpositivismbecauseofpositivism’sassociationwith“bourgeois”thinkerssuchasAugustComteandHerbertSpencer.20Whateverhisreservations,however,itwasevidentthatLabriola’sconceptionofhistoricalmethodlargelyconformedtothatwhichcharacterizedpositivism.

Labriolaspokeofthe“materialconditions”understoodto“determine”themotivesthatgoverntheindividualandcollectivewillofhumanbeings.“Inthelastanalysis,”Labriolaconcluded,themostcomplexhumanbehaviorwasexplainedbylookingtothematerialconditionsinwhichhumanbeingsfoundthemselvesstrugglingtosurvive.Likethepositivists,Labriolaspokeofthemostintricatehistoricalsequenceshaving“beenactuallyproducedbytheirownnecessitywithoutcareforourfreewillandourconsent.”Ethicsandmoralitywerecharacterizedas“thenecessaryresultoftheconditionsinwhich[persons]liveandofthecircumstanceswhichsurroundthem.”Materiallifeconditionsexplainedthecourseofhistory,Labriolaargued,andinsodoingaccountedforhumanethicaldeliberationandmoralchoice.Humandecisionswereepiphenomena,functionsof“materiallifeconditions.”Havingdivinedallthat,Marxism,hemaintained,hadbecomean“exactscience”capableofrevealingallthe“secretsofhistory”thathadhithertoconfoundedthepundits.21

Intermsofthehistoryofideas,theconvictionthatstandardsciencecouldaccomplishallthatwasatthecoreofnineteenth-centurypositivism.WhateverthereservationsLabriolahadaboutthe“bourgeois”thoughtofluminarieslikeComteandSpencer,thefactwasthatclassicalMarxismwasas“scientistic”astraditionalpositivism—claimingtoexplainallhumanbehavioremployingthestrategiesmadefamiliarbythenaturalsciences.Assuch,Marxismwaspositivistic,however“dialectical”itmayhavepretendedtobe.22

ItwaspreciselythatkindofreductionismtowhichLudwigWoltmannandanumberofhisMarxistcontemporariesobjected.Philosophicalandethicalconcernsoccupiedadistinctivedomainofdiscourse—thatmoraltruthsrestedonentirelydifferentgroundsthanthetruthsofempiricalclaims—wereconvictionsthatanimatedthoseMarxistswhorecommendedanantipositivistic“returntoKant.”Theyarguedthathumanthought,deliberationandchoice,couldnotplausiblybereducedtoa“reflex”of“materiallifeconditions.”Theconductofhumanbeingsinvolvedissuesofgraveintellectualandreflectiveconcernthatcouldnotberesolvedbypretendingtoseethemdisappearinanyaccount,

howevercomplex,ofeconomicconditions.ThatSorelmighthaveoverlookedallofthat,toendorsethereductionismofsome“orthodox”23interpretationofclassicalMarxismbywritingalaudatoryprefacetoLabriola’svolume,iscounterintuitive.

Infact,inthevolumereviewedbySorelin1897,Labriola’streatmentofindividualandcollectivehumanbehaviorleftsomelatitudeforamoregenerousinterpretationofthetalkof“necessity”and“determinism”thatpepperedhisaccount.TherewereplacesinLabriola’sexpositionwherehespokeofitbeing“reasonable”to“subordinatethesumtotalofhumaneventsintheircoursetotherigorousconceptionofdeterminism...whichwouldsubstituteautomatismforvoluntariam”—butthenagain,hegrantedthat“theprocess...isverycomplicated,oftensubtle,tortuousandnotalwayslegible.”Infact,hefullyconcededthatintheefforttoaccountforhumanbehavior,onemustacceptthefactthatanyprocessunderscrutinyisinvariablyinfluencedbyidiosyncratic“ignorance,passion,brutishness,corruption,falsehood,basenessandpresumption”—featuresthatmakepredictionhazardousatbest.Moreover,Labriolareadilygrantedthatitisthecasethattheconnectionbetweenovertconduct,moraldeliberationandethicalreflection,presumablydeterminedbyaspecific“underlyingeconomicstructure,”is“notalwayslegible.”24

ItseemsreasonablyclearthatLabriolaentertainedthedeterminismandautomaticityofMarxismonlywithreservations.HegrantedthatMarxismhadnotfullyexplainedthe“mechanismofthatformationanddevelopment”byvirtueofwhichhumanitymakesitsownhistory.25InhistreatmentofMarxismasatheoryofhistory,Labriolaappearedsomewhatreluctanttoassigntoacommunity’seconomyanabsolutelydeterminantroleinthecomplexhistoryofitsmembers’conduct.Heseemedpreparedtoallowthatneithereconomicdeterminismnorthederivativeroleofhumanwillweresoclearlyestablishedastowarranttheimmediatedismissalofalternativeinterpretations.

ItwasthemeasureofreservationconcerningthedeterminismofclassicalMarxismthatallowedSoreltoargue,inhisprefacetoLabriola’svolume,thatitwasamischaracterizationtoarguethatMarxheldthat“allpolitical,moral,andaestheticphenomenaaredetermined(intheprecisemeaningoftheword)byeconomiccauses.”Sorelheldthatsuchasuggestionwasmeaningless.“Whatmightsuchaformulamean?Tosaythatonethingisdeterminedbyanotherwithoutindicating,atthesametime,anypreciseideaofhowtheymightberelated,istoutterafoolishnessthathasmadevulgarMarxismathingofridicule.Marxcanhardlybemaderesponsibleforsuchacaricatureofhisthought.”26

NordidSorelstopthere.HewentontoarguethatMarxhadsoughttounderstandthecourseofhistorybymakingappealtosomeobscureprinciplesofpsychologythatheneverchosetoexplicate.Marxnowheregavethoseprinciplesexplicitform.SorelheldthatthepsychologyofrevolutionforeverremainedonlyhalfarticulatedinMarx’swork.27Sorelarguedthattheinheriteddoctrinerequiredanexplicationandamoreadequatereformulation.HemaintainedthatitwastheobligationofMarx’sfollowerstoattemptjustsuchamendmentsandelaborations.Thatwouldcertainlyincludereworkingtheoriginalconceptions,thelogicoftheirrelations,aswellasthepsychologicalnotionsthatspecificallylayattheirfoundation.28

WhatwasclearwasthatevenduringtheperiodofhismostenthusiasticadherencetoMarxism,Sorel,likemanyMarxistsoftheperiod,heldthattheefforttoreduceethicaldeliberationandmoraljudgmenttoantecedentmaterialcauseswasentirelyunconvincing.AsearlyasthepublicationofLeprocèsdeSocratein1889,Sorelremindedhisaudiencethathumanchoiceandhumanbehaviorcouldnotbereducedtotheexternalitiesofmaterialphenomena.Hearguedthattheefforttoreducehumanpsychologytoquantitative,exclusively“scientific,”measurewasintrinsicallyflawed.Heheldthatthedispositiontosounderstandhumanactivitywasanunhappyconsequenceofthescientificpreoccupationwiththeastronomicuniverse,withthenotionthathumanconductobeyedacausalpatternanalogoustothatwhichgovernedthemovementofsiderealbodies.29Heobjectedtotheentirenotionthat“moralproblemsmightbedealtwithemployingadeductivemethod,...asonemightinphysics.”30Onecouldnotexplainhumanconduct,northemoralcommitmentthatsupplieditsimpulse,bysimplyprovidinganaccountofsurroundingmaterialcircumstances.

In1892,fourorfiveyearsbeforewritingtheprefacetoLabriola’sMarxisttext,Sorelmadeveryclearhiscommitmenttoanotionofethicsthatnecessitateditsrelative“autonomy.”Hehadalreadyassumedanepistemologicalpositionthatallowedfordiversedomainsofdiscourse,byvirtueofwhichtherationalethatsanctionedmoralchoiceandhumanconductwasclearlydistinguishedfromthetruthconditionsgoverningspecificallyscientificandlogicalclaims.31

Sorelheldittobeintrinsicallyimpossibletomovefromonetruthdomain—ethicsandmorality—toanother—mattersoffactandlogic—withoutacknowledgingthedifferentacceptancecriteriagoverningeach.Eachrequiredaseparateprocedureforitsrespectivevindication,verification,orvalidation—quiteindependentofwhateverspeculativeassociationswereimaginedtoobtainbetweenthem.Oneentirelymissesthepointindealingwithethical

considerationsandmoralchoicewhenoneseekstoaccountforallthedeliberationsinvolvedbysimplymakingrecoursetoindividualand/orcollectiveclassmembershipormaterialinterests.Sorelcorrectlydismissedthatkindofdeterminismasphilosophically“vulgar.”32

LikemanyMarxistsofhistime,Sorelwasconcernedwithmoralbehavioracrosstwodistinctdimensions:onewasessentiallysociological—whatcausespersonstoconductthemselvesinoneoranotherfashion;theotherwasessentiallyepistemological—whatmightconstitute,underwhatevercircumstances,anethicallyacceptablerationaleforanyparticularmoralbehavior.YearsbeforehisadhesiontoMarxism,SorelhadwrittenanaccountofSocrates’conductinwhichhesoughttoassessitsmeritsagainstethicalcriteriathatwereessentiallyhistoricincharacter.33Whilehewastorefersubsequentlytofundamentaleconomicfactorsincharacterizinghistoricperiods,heneversoughttherebytoaccountforthephilosophicalandmoralcontentofhumanreflection.AlltheMarxistcategories,theintroductionofinstrumentsofproductionandtheexchangerelationstowhichtheygaverise,functionedas“factors”intheprocess,butwereneverdeterminantinaccountingforhumanthought,volition,orperformance.

In1892,inalongessayonthethoughtofPierre-JosephProudhon,Sorelreflectedonthepluriformcharacterofhumanreasoning,distinguishingbetween(1)theformalreasoningcharacteristicoflogicandmathematics;(2)theevidentiarybasisoffactualclaims;and(3)thepeculiarhistoricityofethicalreasoningandmoraljustification.34WhateverreservationsSorelhadconcerningProudhon’sviewsturnedonissuesoutsidethescopeofthepresentaccount,butwhathetookawayfromthosedeliberationsremainedcentraltohispoliticalandphilosophicalviewsthroughouttheremainderofhislife.

WhatSorelfoundinProudhon,enhancedbyhisownstudiesofantiquity,wastheconvictionthathumanbeingscouldattainvirtueonlyinwell-orderedassociation,sustainedbycoherentpedagogicaleffortstoinstillinthemdefensiblemoralprinciples.Sorelarguedthatsuchcircumstancesobtainedwhenindividuals,asproductivecitizensoldiers,werechargedwiththeobligationoftheethicalandphysicaldefenseoftheircommunity.35AlreadyapparentbeforehisconversiontoMarxism,theywerethemeshewasnevertoabandon.Moralitywasgovernedbyethicalprinciplesthatweretaughtingivenhistorical—butnotexclusivelyeconomic—circumstances.

WhenSorelchosetopursuemoralpurposebyacceptingMarxism,hehadalreadyrejectedtheindividualismthatanimatedtheindustrializingsocietyofhis

time.Hesawthatformofindividualismtoxictomoralpurpose.Conversely,SorelchosetoseeinMarxismthepromiseofarationalandorganicorderofthingsinwhicheachindividualwouldfindaproperplace,inwhichallwouldbeexpectedtomanifestcommitment,responsibility,selflessness,andsacrificeinaheroicstruggletoprotectvirtueagainstthemoralrelativismoftheincreasinglydominantbourgeoisie.36

SorelsawreflectedinMarxismtheAristotelianconceptionofmanasasocialanimal,andethicsasafunctionofcommunal,notexclusivelyeconomic,life.37ItisclearthatasanewconverttoMarxism,Soreldidspeakofmoralityasa“systemofsentimentalillusions,”largelya“reflexofaneconomicsystem.”Thatdidnotpreclude,aswillbeseen,theexistenceofmoraldecisionsandethicalprinciplesthatareotherthansimplereflexes.

Sorelunderstoodthatmoralchoiceisnecessarilyundertakenwithinacomplexeconomicreality“fabricated,worked,andcontinuallyrefined.”Moralconductdoesnottakeplaceinasocial,political,oreconomicvacuum.Asaconsequence,onemustnecessarilyconsiderthecontextinwhichhumanconductfindsexpression.38

Allofthatgranted,severalthingsappearreasonablyclearinattemptingtotracethedevelopmentofSorel’sideas.BythetimeSorelcommittedhimselftoMarxismhehadsettledonseveralproblemsthatheheldtobeofsignificance.ItwasevidentfrombothhisgeneralapprovalofProudhon,aswellashiswritingthroughthatdate,thatSorelopposedtheindividualismthattypifiedthephilosophicalandmoraldispositionsoftherisingmerchantandindustrialbourgeoisieofhistime.Moreover,heunderstoodthattheindividualismthatgrewoutofthosedispositionsresultedina“greatdisordertobefoundamongtheethicalideasoftheday,”whichSoreltracedtothefactthatthemoralprinciplesofantiquity,translatedintotheologicaldoctrine,werenolongerpersuasiveforasignificantnumberofcontemporaryactors.39

Sorelacknowledgedanimperativeinallofthat.Hechargedhimselfwiththeresponsibilityofadvocatingarebirthofvirtue,areformulationofethicalprinciples.Heanticipatedhisopportunitygrowingoutofthecircumstancessurroundingtheemergenceofanewworldofindustry.Marx,Sorelinsisted,hadsensitizedthetimetotheethicalimplicationsofanenvironmentnolongernatural,aworlduniquelydifferent,artificiallyconstructedbytheinventivegeniusofhumans,aworldofmachines.40

SorelremindedhisreadersthatMarxhadsignaledthesignificanceofthefact

thatthemodernworldhadbeenlargelycreatedbytheinventivegeniusofhumanbeings.MarxhadmadethepointthatwhileDarwinconcernedhimselfwiththe“historyofnature’stechnology,”realhistoryturnednotontheactivityofnature,butonthatofhumanity.MarxremindedusthatDarwinismdidnotcapturetherealhistoryofhumankind.Thathistoryturnedontechnology—the“materialbasisofallsocialorganization”—andtechnologywastheproductofthegeniusofhumanbeings.41

LikeLudwigWoltmannataboutthesametime,42Sorelsoughttodrawoutsomeoftheimplicationsofsuchanacknowledgment.BothWoltmannandSorelsawhistoryasahumanproduct—theresultofcreativeactionsundertakenbyhumanbeingsinconcert.Instancesofcreativity—technologicaladvances,organizationalstrategies,inventiveness—whilemanifestinindividuals,areallcollectiveproducts,thecumulativeresultofacollaborativehistorystretchingbackovergenerations.BothWoltmannandSorelinsistedthatthehistoryofhumanitywasahistorymadebyhumanbeings.Woltmannsettledonapreoccupationwiththebiologicalendowmentsthatmadeindividualandgroupcreativenesspossible,whileSorelpursuedwhathesawasclearethicalimplications.43

Inretrospect,whatbecomesevidentisthefactthatbythelastyearsofthenineteenthcentury,therewaslittlethatmightcountasasingleanddefinitive“orthodoxMarxism.”SorichinambiguityanddiscontinuitieswasitthatbythattimeatleastfourprincipalvariantsofMarxismcouldbeidentified:thatofBernsteinandWoltmanninGermany,44thecriticaldeconstructionismofBenedettoCroceinItaly,45andtheethicalreformismofSorelinFrance.

By1896,itwasevidentthatthekindoforthodoxyrepresentedbytheMarxismofKarlKautskycouldnotcontainSorel.Sorel’sMarxismbecameincreasinglyantipositivistic,rejectingthenotionthatanydescriptiveaccountofmaterialconditions,howevercomplex,couldexplainhumanethicaldeliberationorfullyaccountforhumanchoice.Inthatyearhepublishedhis“EtudesurVico,”astudythathefullyacknowledgedhelpedhimwithhisinterpretationofMarxismaswellasshapehisevolvingrevolutionaryconvictions.46

Thereafter,SorelconsistentlycitedtheinfluenceofGiambattistaVicoonhisownthought.ItwasaninfluencethatrevealeditselfinSorel’sincreasingemphasisontheroleofhumandeliberationandchoiceinmakinghistory.47SorelremindedhisreadersthatMarxhimselfhadturnedtoVicoinordertoinsistonthedifferencesbetweennaturalandhumanhistory.

Marxdidthatbyremindingusthathumanbeingsarenotresponsiblefortheformer,whileactivelyresponsibleforthelatter.Asaconsequence,inreferringtoVico,Marxurgedthatwemustunderstandhistoryinafashiondifferentfromthemannerinwhichweunderstandnature.Thatisbecauseweourselvesarethearchitectsofhumanhistory.48LikeWoltmann,SorelhadcommencedhisreinterpretationofMarx’sworkbyattemptingtoresolvesomeofitsintrinsicambiguitiesandimplicitqualifications.

In1897,SorelwrotealongreviewofSeverioMerlino’scriticalProecontroilsocialismo.ItwasaboutthetimeSorelbeganalongandintensecorrespondencewithBenedettoCroce.49BothMerlinoandCroceweretoinfluencehisunderstandingofMarxism.BothhadidentifiedfeaturesofMarxismconcerningwhichtheyentertainedgravereservations.Inretrospect,itseemsevidentthattheirassessmentsweretocontributetoSorel’sultimateinterpretationofMarxismasaphilosophical,normative,economic,andrevolutionarydoctrine.

WhileSorelundertookacarefulreexaminationofMarx’seconomicanalysesduringthisperiod,50by1899hispreoccupationwithhumanbeingsasmoralagentscametodominatehisreflections.51ItisinthatcontextthatSorelbegantodrawtogethertheideasthatmightserveasaguidetowhatwastranspiringamongworkersorganizedinsyndicats.Hisfirstself-consciousformulationofrevolutionarysyndicalismappearedinthe1898versionofhisL’Avenirsocialistedessyndicats.52

Duringthefinalyearsofthenineteenthcentury,SorelreviewedallofthoseMarxisttenetsthathadbecome“orthodox”inthemindsofmany.Hebegantoreflectonhumanpsychology,andhowhumanconductisinfluencedbothbycircumstanceandmoralchoice.Bytheturnofthecentury,heexplicitlyabjuredthenotionofdeterminismandfatalismgoverninghumanhistory.Hesawhistoryasthevariedproductofintersectingchoicesundertakenbyinnumerableindividualseachfollowinghisorherownmoralimperatives.

ItwasinthosecircumstancesthatSorelbegantospeakoflaborasaschoolofvirtue,withemphasisonthenecessityofcommitment,self-sacrifice,discipline,andsolidarityinanyproductiveenterprise.Hefoundsuchvirtuesparticularlyevidentamongworkersoftheland,peasantsandsmallholders.WhereMarxsawonlythe“idiocyofthecountryside,”andLabriolathe“stupidity”ofpeasants,53Sorelsawdevoted,industrious,sacrificial,family-andcommunity-orientedagrarianworkerswhosesenseofpersonalautonomywasfosteredbythesovereignownershipofpropertyandwhoseproductivitysustainedtheurban

workingmasses.54

InnoneofthisisthereanysuggestionthatSorelsoughtareturntoapreindustrialyoeman’seconomy.Rather,heanticipatedamoderneconomyinwhichbothurbanandruralworkersfoundtheirfulfillmentinincreasingproductivity.Inthat,heechoedmanyofthesentimentsofPierre-JosephProudhon55—dismissedbyMarxasneverhavingtranscendedthe“standpoint...ofaFrenchsmallholdingpeasant.”56

BythetimehehadcompiledhisIntroductionàl’économiemodernein1903,57Sorelwascallingfora“true”socialistrevolution,onehavinglittleaffinitywiththatproposedbyprofessionalintellectuals.SorelarguedthatMarxistintellectuals,asasubsetofintellectualsingeneral,weresoimpairedbythedisabilitiesoftheirmannerofthinkingthattheysoughttoimposearevolutionontheworkingclassesthatcouldonlyresultininjurytoindividuallibertyaswellasmassiveerosioninproductivepotential.Sorelarguedthattherevolutionanticipatedbythe“orthodoxMarxists”wholedthevariousEuropeansocialistpartiesinthepursuitofseatsinparliamentwouldinevitablyresultina“dictatorshipofideologues”—withallthenegativeconsequencesattendantuponsuchaneventuality.

Inparliament,intellectuals,astheideologuesofsuchadictatorship,wouldperformthefunctionofcourtesans.Theywouldservetopalliate,inafictive,artificial,andindecentmanner,theneedsofthosetheyrepresented.Theycouldnotoffersatisfactorysolutiontothemostfundamentalofhumanneeds:moralfulfillment.Sorelwasentirelyconvincedthatintellectualswhoservetheinterestsofpoliticalpower,underminetheintrinsicstabilityandmoralintegrityofanycommunity.

Bythattime,Sorelsawintellectuals,withalltheirpretendeddetachmentandobjectivity,asvillainsinhismoralitydrama.Intellectuals,neverhavingtofacetherealityofsignificantchoice,wereincapableofservingasmoralcounselforsociety.Sorelarguedthatthiswasparticularlytrueoftheintellectualinwhataretermed“democraticcircumstances”—fortheintellectualinsuchcircumstancesattemptstopresentaplausiblerationaleforasocialordernotbasedonfamily,orcommunity,butontherootlessnessandself-absorptionofunrelatedindividuals.58Liketheintellectualswhowouldprovidetherationalefortheanticipated“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”theintellectualswhofabricatethevindicationforparliamentarydemocracy,serveonlytocorrupthumanityandunderminethecapacityfortruemoralchoice.

By1903,Sorelhadbeguntosearchforsomesystemofpoliticalauthoritythatmightresponsiblyreacttotheincreasingwretchednessofhistime.HewasconvincedthatthesystemfosteredbythemiddleclassesofEuropehadproducedanantinomian,feckless,andirresponsibleindividualismthatauguredillforallEurope.Hesoughtricorso,59areactiverebirth,someremedytotheethicalconfusionandmoraldecaythattypified,inhisjudgment,theincreasinglydecadentEuropeofhisday.LikeVico,heanticipatedareturntothevirtuesofabygonetime,tothoseoftheeraoftheGreekcitystates,tothoseofRomeatitszenith,andtothoseoftheearlyChristiancommunities.Sorelsoughttherestorationofpreciselythoseconditionsthroughwhichindividualshad,inthepast,foundthefullnessofself—communitiesinwhichleadershipwasfoundedonthevirtuesofheroism,commitment,andgoodsense—communitiesinwhich,asaconsequence,obedience,self-sacrifice,labor,andidentificationwiththecollectivityfollowedasamatterofcourse.60

Sorelhadearlymadeveryclearthathehadverylittle,ifany,confidenceinwhatpassedaspoliticaldemocracyinthenineteenthcentury.InhisL’Avenir,hespokeof“governmentbyallthecitizens”asatransparentfiction.61Hecharacterizedhisidealpoliticalsystemasthatwhichprevailedinantiquity,intheGreekcitystatesandimperialRome.Theverycharacterofpoliticalauthorityinthosecircumstancescouldhardlypassasdemocraticinanymodernsenseoftheterm.TherealitywasthatSorel,asearlyasthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,spokeofaformofpoliticalauthoritythathadfeaturesthatwouldbecomeincreasinglyfamiliarinthecourseoftheemergingcentury.Bythefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,Sorelhadenteredintofullintellectualmaturity.Thereafter,hewastoproducethoseworksthatweretoexerciseinfluenceoverrevolutionarythoughtthroughoutmuchofthetwentiethcentury.

THEREVOLUTIONARYSYNDICALISMOFGEORGESSORELSorelpublishedtheworksthatwoulddefinehisMarxistheterodoxyatabout

thesametimethatLudwigWoltmannwasputtingtogetherhisowninterpretationofMarxism.Inthatinterpretation,Woltmanninsistedthatanycomprehensiveontological“materialism”wouldnecessarilyincludethe“biologicalmaterialism”ofDarwinism—fromwhichhedrewtheracistconsequencesthatweretoinfluencethethoughtoftheNationalSocialistsofthetwentiethcentury.62Sorel’sheterodoxMarxism,destinedtohaveequallyfar-reachingsway,wasfundamentallydifferentfromthatofWoltmann.Boththinkers,eachconvincedthathisthoughtwasfirmlyrootedinthedoctrinesofMarx,led

revolutionariesinradicallydifferentdirections.

In1905and1906,SorelpublishedinItalianandFrenchaseriesofarticlesinIldiveniresocialeandMouvementSocialiste,latertoappearasRéflexionssurlaviolence,63avolumenowconsideredcriticalinanyefforttocometounderstandtherevolutionarythoughtofthelastcentury.Weareadvisednotonlythatwewillfindinitspages“adeepandconstantpreoccupationwithethicalstandards,”butthatsuchapreoccupationwastobecomeincreasinglycommon,bytheturnofthecentury,particularlyamongrevolutionarysocialistthinkersinbothFranceandItaly.64

Between1904and1910,SorelputtogetherinasinglevolumetheopinionsinwhichhisMarxismfounditsmostmatureexpression.Firstasaseriesofarticlesandthenasasinglework,hisRéflexionssurlaviolencequicklybecamepartofthesustainingconvictionsofmanysocialistrevolutionaries.

RéflexionssurlaviolencewasdifferentfromsomeofSorel’searlierworksinsofarasthevolumeattemptedtosupplyreaderswithaverygeneralaccountofthenatureandfunctionofrevolutionwithinthecontextofadecadentandfailingcivilization.65Duringthelastyearsoftheprecedentcentury,employingtheinsightsofRenanandProudhon,Sorelhaddevotedhisattentiontocivilizationsbothinascentanddecline.Hewentontooutlinewhatheheldtobethesocialandspecificallymoralfunctionsofrevolutionsinsuchcircumstances.IntheRéflexions,allthoseconsiderationscametogether,drawingoutalltheimplicationsofhisearlierwork.66

Sorel’sworkwassingularlynotablebecauseitcastitselfathwartthethoughtofsomeofthemostformidableinterpretationsofthencontemporaryMarxism.MostofthoseMarxistthinkersofthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcenturywhofoundmeritintheorthodoxyofKarlKautskywereconvincedthatsocialismrepresentedakindof“moralhistoricism”—withhistoryautomaticallyresolvingthemostfundamentalethicalproblemsthentroublinghumanity.Socialismwassimplythefulfillmentofakindofmoraldestiny.History,throughthemechanismsmadefamiliarbyMarx,wouldautomaticallyendinanall-embracingmoralcrescendoinwhichhumankindwouldfindallphysicalandspiritualneedssatisfied.

InSorel’sRéflexionswefindanentirelydifferentconceptionofhistory,morality,andthepossibilitiesofarestorationofindividualandcollectivevirtue.InRéflexions,moralityisnotsomethingdeliveredbytheautomaticworkingsofhistory.Itissomethingthatiswoninconflictthroughindividualandcollective

effort.Virtueistheresultofmortalchallenge.Itissomethingwonbygroupsinfatalcontention.Collectivevirtueistheconsequenceofthespontaneousacceptanceofasetofethicalprinciplesbythedenizensofacommunity,livinginperil,ledbyheroesinepicbattleagainstdecadenceandmoralcowardice.Onlythosecircumstancescanensurethevictoryofmorality,andthesublimity,valor,andpersonaldignitythatwouldinevitablyfollow.

WhatemergesfromSorel’sproseisanimageofaManicheanworldinwhichtheforcesoflightfindthemselvesforeverinmortalcombatwiththoseofdarkness—inwhichgoodiseternallyatrisk,requiringperpetualdefense.Sorelprovidesanimageofaworldinwhichgoodandevilareforeverinuncompromisingcontention—inwhichthesurvivalofvirtueisneverassured,butceaselesslysubjecttochallenge.ForSorel,truevirtuesurfacesonlyonrareoccasion.Hefoundsuchvirtueinthepoor,warliketribesofyesteryear,filledwith“anenormousaristocraticpride,”inincessantstruggleagainsttheirenemies.67Itmakesitsappearance,onceagain,intheGreekcitystates;theninthemarchofthelegionsofancientRome;theninthesurvivalofthefirstChristiancommunities;andthenintherecessesofsomemedievalmonasteries.Otherthanthat,humankindlivesinacursedcreation,foreverthreatenedbytheprospectofalifetobeenduredwithouthonor,dignity,rectitude,orpurpose.68

Sorel’sexpositionissuffusedwithanalmostunrelievedpessimism.69Themodernworldisdecadentbecausetherationalesustainingalmostallitsinstitutionsispredicatedonanabidingandgraspingindividualism,anuncriticalconvictionthatcommunityistheresultofthevoluntarycomingtogetherofindividualsinordertoachievepersonalhappiness.70Individualhappinessisconceivedaninalienableright,somethingtobeobtainedautomatically,withoutthecostofsacrifice,discipline,labor,orcommitment.Theinevitableconsequenceofsuchnotions,forSorel,wasmoraldecay.

Contemporaryparliamentary,representativedemocracytypified,forSorel,theintrinsicdisabilitiesfeaturedbythemodernworld.Incontemporarydemocracies,individualscametogetheronlyinordertostruggleinconcert,eachinpursuitofindividualends,tothetotalneglectoforganic,collectiveinterest.ForSorel,moderndemocracy“sharedagreatresemblance”withthestockexchange,whereself-servingegoistslaborinthesamespace,butnotinunion,tosatisfyselfishinterests.71

Sorelsawhistimebesetbytheintersectionofseveralnegativetrends:therewastheincreasingdominanceofthemerchantandindustrialbourgeoisie,

animatedbyaninsistentindividualismandmaterialisticscientism.Therewasexpandingpoliticaldemocracy,predicatedonthehedonismandselfishnessoftheself-absorbedheirsoftheEnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution.Andthentherewasthenarrowopportunismandcrassthirstforpowerthatirresistiblydrovethepoliticalleadersofreformist,melioristsocialismtocompromiseinparliamentwiththeenemiesofrectitudeandseemliness.InSorel’sjudgment,allthesetrendscametogethertocreateanatmosphereentirelydevoidofanysavinggrace.

ForSorel,the“newsocialism,”ofwhichhewasadvocate,wasamovementofmoralregenerationforacivilizationmortallyill.Whilehewasconvincedthathis“newschool”fullyrepresentedthespiritofMarx,heacknowledgedMarx’serrors,aswellasthe“rubbish”broadcastbysomeofhisfollowers.72AsdistinctfromtheorthodoxyofKautsky’sSocialDemocracy,theclearintentofSorel’sMarxismwastocreatetheconditionsthatwouldfosterthemoralregenerationofalosthumanity.73Sorel’snewsocialismsoughtatotalrenewalofthehumanspirit,amoralrehabilitationthatwouldrequiretheemploymentofanumberofveryspecificinstrumentalitiesforitsrealization.Revolutionwouldhavetobethefirstorderofbusiness,andthatwouldnecessarilyentailthemobilizationof“inertmasses...whoarenotaccustomedtothinking.”74Thatwoulddemandmentoring,sincemassesarebothtotallyunawareofthethreateningcircumstancesinwhichtheyfindthemselvesaswellashowsuchthreatsmighteffectivelybemet.75

Allofthatwouldnecessitatetheselectionandpreparationof“rathersmallbodieswhosemembers[wouldbe]rigidlyselectedbymeansoftestsdesignedtoconfirmtheirvocation.”Thoseselectedwouldserveasan“elite,”themost“vigorousandvirile”amongthosecommittedtosalvificrevolution.They,“lessnumerousandwellselected,[would]leadthe...struggle.”Theywould“createtheideologicalunity”amongthemassesrequired“toaccomplish...revolutionarywork.”76

Theideologicalunitynecessarytoeffectrevolutionwouldbeafunctionoftheemploymentofamobilizingmyth—byvirtueofwhichpersonswouldbecalledtorevolutionaryresponsibility.Initself,Sorelunderstoodthemythtobealinguisticartifactcomposedofasetofconvictions,securefromallrefutation,andunaffectedbycriticism.Ontheoccasionofitsinvocationinsocialism’swaragainstdecadence,suchamythwouldbemadeupof“abodyofimageswhich,byintuitionalone,andbeforeanyconsideredanalysesaremade,iscapableofevokingasanundividedwholethemassofsentimentswhichcorrespondstothe

differentmanifestationsofthewarundertakenbysocialismagainstmodernsociety.”Ingeneral,suchamobilizingmythisa“framingofthefuture”—thatencloseswithinitself“allthestrongestinclinationsofapeople...whichrecurtothemindwiththeinsistenceofinstincts,”therebysupplyingtheenergynecessaryforrevolutionaryenterprise.77

ItwasclearthatSoreldidnotconceivemythtobeacognitiveproduct.Heheldthatitwasnotreasonthatmovedmassestoaction.Reason,alone,doesnotinspire;itisdevoidoftheemotiveenergythatstirshumanbeingstocombat,andtovictoryatwhatevercost.Sorelarguedthatitwasmyth,asanintegralwhole,thatprojecteditselfintothefutureasagoal—andinspiredhumanbeingstosacrifice.Mythfunctionsasmotive,asaninspirationalideathatfostersandsustainsthosenoblesentimentsthatinspireepicvirtue,virility,andheroicconduct.Sorelinsistedthat“aslongastherearenomythsacceptedbythemasses,”therewillbenorevolution.Themyth,ineffect,mustnotbejudgedasacreatureofintelligence,gaugedagainstsomemeasureofabstracttruth,but“mustbejudgedasameansofactingonthepresent.Anyattempttodiscusshowfaritcanbetakenliterallyasfuturehistoryisdevoidofsense,”andmissesthepointofthemyth’sfunction.Throughmyth,ideasarerecognizednotas“scientific”truths,butasmotiveforces.78

Soreloffersinstancesofmythsthathaveshapedhistory.HespeaksofthemythofdeliverancethatanimatedthesaintsandfollowersoftheChurchmilitantasonehistoricinstance.Hecitestheinstancesofthosemythsthatinspiredissidentreligioussectstocombat—inwhicheachofthecontendinggroupsconceivesitselfanarmyoftruthfightingthelegionsofevil.79HewritesoftheItalianRisorgimentoasshapedbythenationalistmythsofGiuseppeMazzini.

ForSorel,themythofhistimewasthemythofthegeneralstrike,theuniversallayingdownoftoolscalculatedtooverthrowtheoppressorregimebeneathwhichworkerswouldotherwiseforeverlanguish.Thegeneralstrike,inspiredbymythicenergy,wouldbe“aphenomenonofwar,”which“liketheNapoleonicbattle,”wouldseekto“annihilateacondemnedregime.”Themythwouldgalvanizemassestoepicconflictoutofwhichemerge“theelementsofanewcivilisation”andanew,moresublime,andloftymorality.80

TheattempttounderstandSorel’snotionofsocialandpoliticalmyths,togetherwiththeirroleinmobilizingmassesintheserviceofrevolution,takesonetotheverycoreofhisvariantofMarxism.Tounderstandsomethingofhisrevolutionarystrategyrequiresthatoneaddressepistemologicalissuesoffundamentalsignificance.Inmakinghiscasefortheroleandnatureofmythin

sociallife,SorelhimselfturnedtothecontemporaryphilosophyofHenriBergson.Heheldthatanyseriousefforttounderstandthecharacterandfunctionofsocialandpoliticalmythmightwellrequire“theenlightenment”tobefoundin“Bergsonianphilosophy.”81

SORELANDTHEPHILOSOPHYOFHENRIBERGSONSorelwasapparentlyfamiliarwiththeworkofBergsonasearlyas1889,

whenBergson’sEssaisurlesdonnéesimmédiatesdelaconscienceappeared.WeknowSorelreadBergon’sL’Evolutioncréatriceassoonasitbecameavailablein1907.82Takentogether,Bergson’swritingswereunderstoodtogiveexpressiontoa“lifephilosophy”—anattempttointerpretallrealityintermsoflife—todistinguishitfromthephysicomathematicalempiricalresearchesofthelastdecadesofthenineteenthcenturythattendedtoreduceeverythingtomatterinmotion.Throughthelasthalfofthatcentury,thesuccessofnaturalsciencehadbeenarresting.Bycomingtounderstandrealitythroughtheparsingoutofdiscretecomponentsinteractinginlawlikefashion,sciencehadcometounderstandtheworldinuniquelymechanisticanddeterministicform.Itspredictivesuccesshadconvincedthenineteenthcenturythatthecomplexityoftheobjectworld,andeverythinginit,couldbereducedtoobjectiveandanalyticcomponents,intermsofatoms,ergs,electromagneticwaves,andothernonobservables.Allofwhichcouldthenbereorderedinaccordancewithfixedlaws.

Inthefinalanalysis,everythingwasreducibleto“matter”invariousconfigurationsandpermutations.Humanconsciousness,courage,passion,will,commitment,sacrifice,andeverypropertyofalifelived,wasultimatelynothingotherbuttheepiphenomenalproductofbitsofprimordialmatterinteractinginaccordancewiththefixedlawsofanevolvinguniversedevoidofspirit.

Thesuccessesofstandardnaturalscienceintermsofgeneralutilityconvincedmanythattheprocesscouldrevealallthe“truths”of“reality,”bothphysicalandpsychological.Everythingwasconceivedreducibletolaw-governed,discrete,andmeasurableunitsinspace.Theresult,ashasbeensuggested,wasaformofscientism,inwhichboththesubjectandobjectworldwereunderstoodtobefullyexplicableinaccordancewithdeterminatelawlikeprocesses.

Bergsonobjected,inprinciple,tosuchanattempttounderstandlivingorganismsasthoughtheyweremachinesfunctioninginconformitywithpredetermined,calculableregularities.Herejectedallitsattendantimplications.

Hemaintainedthatrealitywasnottobeunderstoodintermsofmeasure,particularity,andcausaldeterminism.Therearethosequalitativefeaturesoflifelivedthatescapequantitativemeasurement.Onedoesnotunderstandlifeandlivingbypretendingthattheyaretobecapturedthroughthemeasurementofdiscretematerialparticlestraversingsuccessivelocationsinspaceinequallydiscreteinstancesoftime.Bergsonargued,instead,thatconsciousness,notmatter,wasatthecenterofreality,andconsciousnesswasnottobemeasuredinindependentunitsreconstructedintimeviacausalconnection.ForBergson,itwasconsciousnessasduration,aslife,thatliesatthecenterofreality.Life,likeconsciousness,wasorganic,andlikelife,consciousnesswasacontinualbecoming—andbecominghadprecedenceoverdiscreteanddiscontinuousbeing.

Bergsonrefusedtospeakofconsciousnessintermsof“states”—ofdiscretesegments.Tohim,allofthatsuggestedstasis,immobility.Heratherspokeofaconsciouslife,livedincontinuities—inwhichallthestates,towhichempiricalpsychologistsallude,mergeintoanenduringsenseofawareness,uncertain,indistinctandmoving,asurgeandflow,a“certainrestlessness.”Life,Bergsonargued,seekssurvivalandisinstinctivelymovedtomanipulateitsenvironment—itispossessedofanurgenttendencytoattemptto“actoninertmatter.”83Theidiomthroughwhichthattendencyfindsexpressionisgeometric,mathematical.Thefunctionalagencythatgivesitshapeistheintellect.Theintellectimposesgeometric,mathematicalmeasureonthegenerousflowofexperience.Beyondandpriortotheintellectanditsproducts,Bergsonisolatesthatwhichheidentifiesas“intuition”—anappreciationofthedynamicsoflifethatinvokesinusanimmediatesenseofdurationandbecoming,asenseofcontinuousandevolvinglifethattranscendstheintellectanditsdiscreteandmeasurablerepresentations.Theimmediatetruthsofintuitionareindependentof,andantecedentto,thetruthconditionsgoverningphysicalscience.84

Bergsonarguedthatoutoftheimmediateawarenessoflife,humanbeings,findingitnecessarytoadapttothedemandsofachallengingenvironment,proceedtoisolateoutofthatsensedrealitythosemeasurable,abstract,andgeneralaspectsofthingsthatallowthemtobefunctionallyuseful.Tomeettheirneeds,humanbeingsreducethequalitativeflowofconsciousness,oflife,intothediscreteandserviceablebeingofquantitativeunits.

Ineffect,Bergsonarguedthattherearetwospheresofcomingtoknow:ontheonehand,thatofspaceandrigidmatter,theproperdomainofpracticalintelligence;ontheother,thatofvitalimpulse,enduringawareness,and

intuition.Thelatter,wearetold,transcendsintellectandreason,andofferscommunionwiththevitalrealitythatisthegroundofallthings—evenifthatcommunioncanbeappreciatedonlyinfleetingfashion.85

Bergsonwastocontendthatthepracticalintellectwassterilewithouttheimpulseofintuition.Humanbeingspursuepracticalknowledgebecausetheyaremovedbythedemandsoflife.Intuitiveawareness,chargedwithvitalimpulse,informsthewilltoact.Intuitionbecomesonewiththeactofwilling.Itdeliverstheoccasionforchoice,for“freewill,”forhumanfreedom.ForBergson,asforSorel,freedomtochooseistheveryessenceofmeaningfullife.

Themistakemadebycontemporarythinkers,Bergsoncontended,istoattempttoforcelife,theveryconsciousnessoflife,intothestaticunitsandmeasuresnaturaltotheintellect.Themistakebecomesmostemphaticwhenempiricalpsychologyattemptstounderstandconsciousnessandlifeintermsofphysicomathematicalformulae.Theconsequenceofthatmistakeisaconceptionoflifeinwhichthereisnowill,nofreechoice,nopurpose,andultimately,nocomprehensiblemeaning.Formaterialists,livingissubjecttoanoverarchingdeterminism,alaw-governedarray,inwhichorganismsareconceivedtobetheanalogofmachinesthatfunctioninconformitywithfixedandcalculableregularities.Thepracticalintellectiscalledtoserviceinanefforttocomprehendlifeitself—asthoughthepartmightunderstandthewhole.

TheseweretheideasthatSorelwasconvincedwouldilluminatehis“theoryofmythsmorethoroughly.”86Infact,therelationshipofBergson’sviewstothoseofSoreldoaffordconsiderableinsightintothenatureofthemobilizingmythstowhichSorelmadeappealinhisefforttounderstandthecomplexprocessesinvolvedinsocialandpoliticalrevolution.

Bergson’sphilosophyofthenatureofscienceandunderstandingsuppliedthespecificcontextforSorel’sdiscussionofthenatureofphysicalscienceanditsrelationshiptothehumandispositiontoact.Asearlyashis“EtudesurVico,”Sorelinsistedthathumanbeingsconjureupmathematicalformulaeinordertosurviveinathreateninguniverse.LikeBergson,hewentontoarguethatmathematicswasaninstrumentalityemployedtoourimmediatematerialpurposes.Beyondthat,humanbeingssufferaprofoundandabidingneedtoactinalivingspacethatisnonmathematical.Thatspacedemandsmoraljudgmentofhumanbeings—andtherethescientificmethodisofnodirectavail.87Standardscience,inandofitself,isonlyofancillaryassistanceinthearticulationofmoraljudgmentanditsdefense.

Itislargelyaroundtheseissuesthatallthediscussionofthe“irrationalism”ofBergsonandSorelcollectsitself.Sorelisregularlyspokenofasan“irrationalist”—assomeonewhosimplyrenouncedreason.Justasoftenitissaidthatherejectedscience.Infact,Sorel,likeBergson,rejectedneitherreasonnorscience.Bothrenouncedthevulgarrenderingofscienceinwhichscienceisunderstoodtodomorethanestablishthetruthofthelawsofforce,mass,andvelocity—itreducesthesumofhumanbehaviortonothingotherthansimilarmechanicalandmeasurableregularities.

Asamanofhistime,whateverhisreservationsconcerningmathematicologicalreasoning,Sorelwasinextricablyamanofscience.Asanengineeringovernmentservice,hewasascientistinthemostpracticalsenseoftheword.Asubstantialpartofhispublishedwork,infact,wasaddressedspecificallytoscientificquestions.88LikeBergson,Sorelrejectedneithertheempirical,northemathematicological,methodsofscience.Whatherefusedtocountenancewastheirapplication,withoutqualification,totheentirerangeofhumanconduct.SorelregularlyalludedtopreciselythatwhenhecomplainedofMarxism’sinabilitytoaccountforthemoralconstituentsoftheindividualandcollectivehumanwilltoact.

Worsestill,inSorel’sjudgment,wastheutilitarianmaterialismthatEngelsattemptedtoimposeonMarxismasaphilosophicsystem.SorelcomplainedthathowevervagueandambiguousMarx’sowndoctrinemighthavebeen,itwasEngelswhosoughttomakeofMarxismavulgarmaterialismthatwasirremediablydeterministic.89

LikeBergson,Sorelcontendedthatconsciousness,thepsychologicallifeofhumanbeings,couldnotbereducedtothelawlikeregularitiesofmatterinmotion.Bergsonarguedthat,inthefinalanalysis,itwashumanconsciousnessandhumanchoicethatestablishedwhatwouldcountasevidenceconditionsfortruthclaims.Andwhateverscientifictruthsmightresult,itwasultimatelyandexclusivelythewillthatinspiredaction.Inandofitself,sciencecannotinspireactsofdevotiontoduty,thewillingnesstosufferinordertoparticipateinthedefenseofvirtue,theacceptanceofmateriallossinthecourseoffightingforothers,orthesubmissiontomartyrdomsolely“forthehonoroftakingpartinimmortaldeeds.”90Theintellect,inandofitself,doesnotinspireonetosuchenterprise.Intuitionandwillarecritical,“nonrational”constituentsoftheprocess.

ItisnotcleartowhatextentthethoughtofBergsonshapedSorel’srevolutionaryconceptions.ItseemscertainthatSorelknewofBergson’sanalysis

atthetimehegaveexpressiontohisfirstintimationsoftheroleofmythinthemobilizationofmasses.ItisequallyclearthatSorelwelcomedBergson’ssupport.BythetimeRéflexionssurlaviolenceappeared,Bergson’sviewsontheroleofintuitionandwillwerewellestablishedandwerecompatiblewiththoseofSorel.Boththeroleofmyth,aswellasthemotiveforceofactioninintuition,findsarationaleinBergson’smetaphysics.

Grantedthat,itisnonethelesstruethatSorelremainedaqualifiedMarxistthroughouttheentireperiodfromthemid-1890suntilthetimeoftheappearanceoftheRéflexions.NeitherhisBergsonianismnorhisdefenseofBernsteinconstitutedarejectionofMarxism.LikeBernstein,SorelarguedthattobetruetoMarxismonewasrequiredtobecriticalandreflectiveoftheinheritedphilosophicalandeconomicdoctrine.Unlessweddedtoanarchaicnotionofwhatphilosophyandsciencemightentail,thosetruetoMarxwereobligedtocriticallyassessthecognitivemeritsoftheprincipalpropositionsofthesystemMarxleftasalegacy.91EquallyclearisthefactthatSorelintendedtodivestMarx’sthoughtofthemisinterpretationsandthedistortionsthat,overtime,obscureditsmostimportantfeatures.Inthateffort,herefersmoreandmorefrequentlytoinsightsfoundinBergson’swork.

Thatisnotasunusualasitmayseem.ThereweresomecredibleaffinitiesbetweenBergson’sworkandthatofMarx.Therewas,forexample,Bergson’sreadinesstoacknowledgethefactthatthehumanintellectpossessedtheunique“facultyofmanufacturingartificialobjects,especiallytools.”Hewas,ineffect,therebysatisfyingtheMarxistconvictionthathumanbeingswereuniquelytool-makinganimals—afacultythatshapedtheirmaterialandspiritualenvironment.92Atleastinsuchmeasure,BergsonianismwascompatiblewithSorel’sMarxism.

Beyondthat,BergsonsuppliedSorelwithanaccountofintuitionandwillthatmadethedeterminismofthethenregnantpositivismnolongerdefensible.Bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,Sorelwasconvincedthatsciencehadgrownoutofthemechanicalpositivismthatinspiredsomanyduringthemidandlatenineteenthcentury.Bythefirstyearsofthenewcentury,manybehavioralscientistshadforsakenanynotionthathumanconductmightbefullyunderstoodastheresultoftheintersectionoflaw-governedbiomathematicalsequences.Thecorollaryofthatwastheconvictionthat“thereisnoprocessbywhichthefuturecanbepredictedscientifically”—giventhathumanbehavior,inessence,issubjecttomoralchoiceandcontingentdecision.93

BythetimehehadwrittenRéflexions,Sorel’sheterodoxMarxismtookon

someofthepropertiesthathadbecomecommonamongthosecriticalMarxistsinWesternEuroperelativelyindependentoftheconstraintsofGermanSocialDemocraticorthodoxy.Liketheneo-Kantians,Sorelraisedethicalandmoralissuesthattheorthodoxrefusedto,orwereincapableof,answering.Sorelspokeofthegeneralvaguenessandambiguitythatmadetheinheritedsystemdifficulttointerpret.HequestionedtheplausibilityofthematerialistmetaphysicsthatsustainedMarxismasacognitiveenterprise.

Thatfinalreservationwasrelatedtohisconvictionthataconsistentmaterialismcouldhardlyaccountfortheroleplayedbyethicaldeliberationandmoralchoiceinindividualandcollectivebehavior.HefoundthatthosewhoconsideredthemselvesorthodoxMarxistswereunequaltothetaskofaccountingforthepsychologyofhumanbeingsinassociation.Liketherevisionists,Sorelraisedquestionsconcerningtheeconomicandsocialpreconditionsofrevolutionandwhatthatmightimplywithrespecttothemobilizationofmasses.Finally,hesoughttoidentifythespecificinstrumentalitiesinvolvedinmovingmassestorevolution—andhespokeofthosespecialagents,thoseelites,whomhistoryhadchargedwiththeresponsibilityofbothshapingandmarshalingwarriorproducerstothesalvageofadecadentworld.

Bythefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,intheyearsbeforetheFirstWorldWar,classicalMarxismhadalreadysufferedsomeofthosemodificationsthatweretomakeitaninstrumentforanunanticipatedvarietyofrevolutions.Inthecourseofthatsamedecade,intheEast,oneofthosevarietieswastoinspireyetanotherheterodoxy.Beforeitranitscoursefromtriumphtotragedy,itwastoimpactthelivesofmillionsuponmillions—andwouldforeverbeassociatedwiththenameofVladimirIlyichUlyanov—Lenin.ItwassaidofhimthathemusthavecarefullythoughtovertheworkofGeorgesSorelandproceededtoapplysomeofitscentralprinciples“withthemostterrifyinglogic.”94

CHAPTERFIVE

TheHeterodoxMarxismofV.I.LeninTheheterodoxMarxismofGeorgesSorelwastohavedocumentedimpactonthethoughtofmanyEuropeanMarxists.Whereitcouldnotbedocumented,therewasintrinsicevidenceofitsinfluence.Therewerethose,infact,whoarguedthatV.I.Lenin’srevolutionarystrategywasaderivativeproductofrevolutionarysyndicalism.

IntheimmediateaftermathoftheBolshevikrevolution,seriousMarxistssoughttounderstandwhathadtranspired.NotafewamongthemspokeofLenin’svariantofMarxismassharingunmistakabletheoreticandpracticalaffinitieswiththerevolutionarysyndicalismsopopularinFranceandItaly.Likethesyndicalists,Lenin’sBolsheviksrejectedeffortsatsocialreformwithintheexistingstructureofindustrialcapitalism.Likethesyndicalists,theBolsheviksultimatelycametorejectparliamentarydemocracyandelectoralpolitics.Likethesyndicalists,theBolshevikswereadvocatesofviolentclassstruggle.Bothrejectedpoliticiansandprofessionallaborleaders.Theybothadvocateddirectactionbytheproletariatindemonstrations,workstoppages,sabotage,andboycottsculminating,ultimately,intheinsurrectionarygeneralstrike—toresultintherevolutionaryoverthrowofthe“bourgeoisstate”anditsentireinstitutionalinfrastructure.1

WhatevertheideologicalsimilaritiessharedbythethoughtofGeorgesSorelandLenin,however,thereisnoconvincingevidencethatLenineverconsciouslyacceptedanyofthedoctrinalelementsofrevolutionarysyndicalism.ItisunmistakablethattheLeninismwhichinspiredtheBolshevikrevolutiondisplayedfeaturesoftherevolutionarythoughtofSorel.Howthatcametobeinvolvesconsiderablespeculation.Certainlythesimilaritiessharedfindtheirorigininsomethingmorethansimpledoctrinalmimicry.

HowevercosmopolitanVladimirIlyichUlyanov—Lenin—mayhavebeen,everythingweknowofhisrevolutionaryeducationindicatesthathisthoughtwasshapedlargely,ifnotexclusively,byRussianMarxists,whoseopinions

werethoseofcentralEuropeanorthodoxy.2Thatorthodoxy,duringthelastyearsofthenineteenthandthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,wastohaveauniquehistoryinthelandssubjecttotheruleoftheczars.OriginallyfindingexpressioninthestolidorthodoxyofGeorgiValentinovichPlekhanov’sEmancipationofLaborGroup,itwastoevolveintotheheterodoxMarxismknowntohistoryasBolshevism.

OriginallyastudentofPlekhanov,Leninwastobecomeprophetofamoralistic,dogmatic,andintolerantMarxismthat,likeSorelianism,repudiatedparliamentarismandrepresentativedemocracy.ItwasaheterodoxMarxismthatproclaimed,forthefirsttimeinhistory,thelegitimacyofelitedominated,singleparty,ideologicaldictatorship.ThattherewerefeaturesofSorelianisminallofthatisundeniable.AstheheterodoxthoughtofLudwigWoltmannwastogoontoinfluenceHitler’sNationalSocialism,thatofGeorgesSorelwasclearlytosurviveinBolshevism.

GEORGIPLEKHANOVANDTHEEDUCATIONOFV.I.LENINPlekhanov,bornin1856,originallyoccupiedwithsocialandliteraryinterests

inhisyouth,turnedtoMarxismduringthefirstyearsofthe1880s.In1882hetranslatedTheCommunistManifestointoRussian,andin1883publishedhisSocialismandthePoliticalStruggle,qualifyinghimasczaristRussia’sfirstseriousMarxist.Inthatsameyear,hebecameoneofthefoundersoftheEmancipationofLaborGroup,Russia’sfirstexplicitlyMarxistorganization.ItwascommittedtothemobilizationandorganizationoftherevolutionaryRussianproletariat.

ItwasPlekhanovwholaidthetheoreticalfoundationforMarxistSocialDemocracyinRussia.InthatenterpriseheclearlybenefitedfromtheguidanceofbothKarlKautskyandFriedrichEngelswithwhomheenteredintocorrespondenceduringthe1890s.Asaconsequenceofthoseinfluences,PlekhanovpublishedhisTheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistoryin1895,anunreflecting,entirelyorthodoxrenderingofMarxismasadeterministicphilosophyofhistory.

InthatvolumehisaudiencewasinformedthatonlyinthewritingsofKarlMarxmightonefindthecognitivestrategiesnecessaryfortheestablishmentofatruesocialscience.Thatwasaccomplished,Plekhanovargued,byrevealingthattheflowofhistorywasdeterminedprimarilybytheinventionof“implementsoflabor.”Tools,theimplementsoflabor,werecriticaltothe“developmentofthe

meansofproduction,”adevelopmentthatnecessarily“bringsaboutchangesinthesocialstructure.”The“socialrelationsintowhichtheproducersenterwithoneanother,theconditionsunderwhichthey...participateinthewholeactofproduction,willnaturallyvaryaccordingtothecharacterofthemeansofproduction....Thussocialrelations...aretransformedwiththeexchangeanddevelopmentofthematerialmeansofproduction,theproductiveforces.”3The“developmentoftheproductiveforces,”Plekhanovinsisted,is“decisive”intheformationandstabilityof“socialrelations.”Takentogether,productiveforcesandthedependentsocialrelationsconstitutethe“modeofproduction”which“alwaysdetermines”the“psychologyofsociety,”outofwhichariseall“ideologies,...everyliterarymovement,everyphilosophicalidea,”all“legalconceptions.”Ineffect,all“humanthought,”accordingtoPlekhanov,isdeterminedbythesamekindoflawlikeregularitiesgoverningthemechanicalregularitiesofallmatter.4ForPlekhanov,itwasMarxwhodiscoveredallthosedeterministiclawsgoverningthehistoryofhumankind.AsDarwinrevealedthelawsofbiologicalevolution,Marxoutlinedthelawsofhistoricaldevelopment.5

Withinthatgeneralcontext,andechoingtheorthodoxyofGermanMarxists,Plekhanovunderstoodrevolutiontobeafunctionofchangesinthemodeofproduction.Whentheforcesofproductionoutgrowextantsocialrelations,revolutionistheresult.“Strugglingsocialforces”arethenecessaryconsequenceofemerging“realeconomicrelations.”Outof“acertaineconomicbasisthereinvariablyarisecertainideologicalsuperstructures...law,justice,morality,equalityandsoforth”whichinformrevolutionaryconviction.6Classes,representingeachofthestrugglingsocialforces,expresstheirgroupinterestsinideologicalterms.Thoseclassesthatrepresentthematerialproductiveforcesthathaveoutgrownexistingsocialrelationsriseupinrebellion.Revolutionhappens,andthatclass,representingtheemergingproductiveforces,inevitablytriumphs.Inthattriumph,humanityprevailsovernecessityinthesensethat“knowingthepeculiarinnerlaws”ofsocioeconomicdevelopment,onecanactinconformitywiththem.Inourtimes,thatclass,destinedtotriumphbyactinginconformitywiththepeculiarinnerlawsofsocialdevelopment,istheproletariat.Theinnerlawsofdevelopmentproducethebourgeoisie,andthebourgeoisieinobediencetothosesameinnerlaws,mustnecessarilycallforththefactoryproletariatdestinedtoreplacethem.Giventheunimpeachablefact,Plekhanovargued,thatRussiahadembarked,irreversibly,onthe“pathofcapitalistdevelopment,”ashadEnglandandGermanybeforeit,itsfuturewasinevitable.7

Givensuchacatalogofconvictions,itwasevidentthatbytheturnofthe

nineteenth,andthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,PlekhanovhadpledgedRussianMarxismtoanorthodoxynolessinsistentthanthatofKautskyandtheintellectualsoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty.PlekhanovrenouncedtherevisionismofBernstein,theracialmaterialismofLudwigWoltmann,thephilosophicalantimaterialismofBergson,and,byimplication,thehistoricalmoralismofSorel.8History,andthederivativehumanbehaviorthatprovideditssurfacedetail,weredetermined,inthelastanalysis,bythedevelopmentofthematerialproductiveforcesthatlayatthefoundationofcollectivelife.Neitherbiologicalracenormoralconvictionservedasfactorsinhumanperformance.TheontologicalandsociologicalmaterialismPlekhanovembracedallowednoroomforBergsonianorSorelianphilosophicalalternativesnorforfactors,otherthanthoseeconomic,intheshapingofhistory.

ItwastothataridMarxismthatLeninfirstgavehisfullallegiance.ItwasthatMarxismhewastotransformintoBolshevism.

IntracingthedevelopmentofMarxismintoBolshevismasanideology,itisrelativelysimple,inretrospect,toidentifythecrucialjuncturesatwhichasingularclutchofideascametogethertogiveshapetoLeninismasavariant.ItisgenerallyagreedthatoneofthosejuncturescanbelocatedatthepointintimewhenLeninwrotehisWhatistoBeDone?BurningQuestionsofourMovement.9

In1901,at31yearsofage,atatimewhenbothWoltmannandSorelwerepublishingtheirownvariants,LeninwroteWhatistobeDone?PublishedinStuttgart,theworkprovidedthefirstelementsofthatheterodoxMarxismsubsequentlytobecometherationaleofBolshevism.TheBolsheviksweretoserveastheexecutiveagentofarevolutionthatwastonotonlyfatallyinfluenceRussian,butworld,historyaswell.

WhatistobeDone?wasaworkthatgrewoutofthevaguenessesandambiguitiesinherentintheworksofthefoundersofrevolutionaryMarxism.ForallofPlekhanov’seffortsatexplication,somuchofclassicalMarxismremained,atbest,uncertaininexpression,fragmentaryindelivery,analogicallyreasoned,andempiricallysuspect,thatitwaslogicallyimpossibleforitsmostgiftedfollowerstodecidespecificallywhatallitsclaims,muchlesstheirentailments,mightbe.SomanyinterpretationsofclassicalMarxismwerepossibleatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,thatsomecriticscouldfindonlycontradictionsinitsdoctrines,whileitsenthusiastscouldinsistonitsilluminatingconsistencies.Ineffectandinfact,therewereMarxistswhoinsistedthattherecouldonlybeoneMarxism.Atnopointintime,however,wasthat

evertrue.

SincethedeathofFriedrichEngelsin1895,Marxistvariantsproliferated.WhichofthesubsequentMarxismswere“creativedevelopments,”whichheterodoxies,whichheresies,andwhichapostacies,isimpossibletodeterminewithanyintellectualconfidence.Onecanonlyattempttodocumentchangesindoctrineandallowotherstorenderjudgmentsconcerningtheirorthodoxy.

Onethingseemsevidentinallofthis.ThereisnoobjectivestandardagainstwhichdeparturesfromMarxistorthodoxymightbemeasured.Ashasbeensuggested,bothWoltmannandSorelmadepersuasiveargumentsthatEngels’sowndeparturesfromclassicalMarxism,followingthedeathofMarx,constituted,inthemselves,heterodoxies.10Allthatnotwithstanding,itwasclearthatEngelswasconvincedthateverythinghehadwrittenwasMarxistininspiration,andentirelyMarxistincontent.

ThetheoreticallegacyleftbyMarxwassorichincontent,sovastinitspossibleimplications,andsometimessoobscureinformulation,thattherereallywereveryfewideas,nomatterhowcurious,thatitwouldbeimpossibletofindwithinitscompass.Woltmannprovidedevidenceofthat—asdidSorel.WoltmannfoundasingularDarwinismandanimpliedracismwithinthedoctrinalabundancethatwasMarxism.11TheimplicationsofthatDarwinismandthatracismwerecarriedforwardasaMarxistheterodoxy,foraquarterofacentury,intotheideologyofNationalSocialism.Sorel,forhispart,foundanimplicitmoralisminthewritingsofMarxthatfreightedatransformativeheterodoxyinitstrain.

Likealltheothers,LeninwastofindinthewritingsofMarxandEngels,theelementsoutofwhichhewouldfashionhisownvariant—avariantwithwhichthetwentiethcenturywastobecomefamiliar.IntheyearsfollowingthedeathofEngels,fromthevantagepointprovidedbyKautskyandPlekhanov,outofatangleofuncertaininterpretations,LeninwastoputtogetheranassortedcollectionofideasthatweretotakeshapeasBolshevism.

DARWINISM,MARXISTORTHODOXY,ANDTHEPSYCHOLOGYOFREVOLUTIONWiththepassingofEngels,therewereseveraltheoristswhocouldreasonably

beconsideredMarxism’sintellectualheirs.EduardBernsteinandKarlKautskywerecertainlyamongtheirnumber.Forwhateverreason,Bernstein’sheterodoxywasalmostinstantlyestablishedtoalmosteveryone’sseemingsatisfaction.12Kautsky,ontheotherhand,wasgenerallyconsideredaspokesmanfor

orthodoxy.Forpresentpurposes,itisnotnecessarytoestablishthatorthodoxy—somethingthatwouldbeimpossible—giventheessentialvaguenessandindeterminacyoftheoriginaldoctrine.Thatneednotbeaproblem.ItcannotbepartoftheobligationofthisaccounttodeterminethemeasureoforthodoxyorheterodoxyofanyofthevariantsoftheoriginalMarxism.StilllessisitanobligationtoexplorethedistinctionbetweenanyorthodoxyofKautsky’stheories,andtherealorfancied“revisionism”ofhispoliticalpractice.Thatisnotofcentralinteresttothepresentdiscussion.

MoreimportantisanassessmentofsomeofthespecificsofKautsky’sthought:Howethicaltheoryfiguredinhisorthodoxy,andhowhisinterpretationofethicsandmoralbehaviorfunctionedascomponentsinhisunderstandingofhistoricalmaterialism.ItwasthatmeasureoforthodoxythattransferreddirectlyintothepublicationsofPlekhanov,whoquicklyemergedasRussia’spremierMarxist.

ItwascleartoKautsky,asitwastoPlekhanov,forexample,thathumanvolitionplayedaroleinhistory—andthathumanvolitionwasinfluencedbymoralconsiderations,ethicalprecepts,andpoliticalprospects.Thatissuehadfueledmuchofthecontroversyoutofwhichdoctrinal“heterodoxies”weretoariseamongcredentialedMarxists.Whatwasuncertainwashowethicalreflectionandmoralimperativesweretobeunderstoodinalltheirintricaciesandeffects.

AfewyearsafterthepublicationofhisEthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,Kautskyfeltcalledupontoonceagainaddressthequestionoftheplacemorality,ethics,andhumanvolitionoccupiedinclassicalMarxismasascienceofsociety.In1909,hepublishedhisDerWegzurMacht,13afairlycomprehensivesurveyofwhatheconceivedtobea“maturingsocialistreality”inadvancedindustrialnations.Accordingtohisviews,thematurationofindustrialeconomieswasdirectlycorrelatedwiththeincreasedprobabilityofanticapitalistrevolutionarysuccess.LikemostMarxistsoftheperiod,heheldthatnotonlywouldfullindustrializationrendersocialistrevolutionmoreprobable,butthatitwould,inaclearsense,renderitinevitable.Hewasconvincedthatascapitalismachievedfullmaturity,thesustaininghumanwillnecessaryforthesuccessofsocialistrevolutionwouldmanifestitself.

Thegeneralargumentwasthatthesocialistrevolution,ofwhichMarxhadspoken,wasinevitable—becausecapitalism,asaneconomicsystem,wascondemned,bythelawsgoverningitsowndynamics,toproducethemillionsofexploitedvictimswhowouldserveasits“gravediggers.”Thathavingbeen

affirmed,whatwasrequiredwasanintellectuallysatisfyingaccountofhowallthatmighttranspire.Theassurancethatrevolutionwouldbeinevitablerequiredanargumentofsomeconsiderablesophisticationtorenderitcredible.

Kautskyregularlyalludedtotheineluctabilitygoverningsocietyingeneralandrevolutioninparticular.LikePlekhanov,whosharedhisviews,KautskyessentiallyrepeatedtheclaimsthatlayatthecoreoftheworkofMarxandEngels.Whatwasmissing,asbothWoltmannandSorelargued,werethoseconnectingpropositionsthatplausiblyrelatedchangesintheeconomicbasetothemoraldecisionsthatgovernedthebehaviorofrevolutionaries.

OneoftheproblemsonwhichcriticsregularlyfocusedwasthatMarxismseemedtocharacterizehistoricprocessesasdeterministic,andrevolutionsasfatalistic.14Assuch,humaninterventionwas,inasignificantsense,automatic.Whileseeminglytheconsequenceofconsciouschoice,interventionwasalawlikeresponsetoexternalities.Norealchoicewasinvolved.

Incomingtogripswithsomeofthoseissues,Kautsky,andPlekhanovwhowastofollow,werescornfulofcriticswhoimaginedthatMarxismwasabeliefsystemthatsawonlyeconomicfactorsactiveinhistory—asthoughhistory,ineffect,proceededindependentlyofthewillofman.Onceagain—ashadanynumberofMarxisttheoristsbeforethem—bothKautskyandPlekhanovreaffirmedthatnoseriousMarxisteverbelievedthattheflowofhistorywasautomatic,advancingwithouttheconsciousparticipationofhumanbeings.Thathavingbeensaid,itwasnotimmediatelyevidentwhatthepracticalimplicationsofsuchassertionsmightbe.

Kautsky,withmuchmorespecificitythenPlekhanov,wentontoattemptanexplicationofwhatheunderstoodwasinvolved.Hearguedthathumanvolitionisafunctionoftheinteractionofinstinct,custom,andconscience.JustashehadarguedinhisEthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,hespokeoftheDarwinian“instinctofsurvival”asprovidingthepsychicenergythatinfilledhumanindividualandcollectivewill.Somoved,humanbehaviorwascharacterizedbyaninstinctivedefenseoflife.Morethanthat,theinstinct,inmorecomplexcircumstances,promptedadispositiontoseeknotonlysurvivalbutgratificationinincreasedmeasuresofsatisfaction.Asanillustrativecase,KautskycitedthefactthatbeyondtheirDarwinianinstincttosurvive,capitalistsseekpersonaladvantage,themaximizationofprofits—justasonewouldexpectworkers,onceimmediatesurvivalwasassured,toassiduouslyseekwageincreases.Itwasoutofjustsuchpredispositionsthatan“inevitable”classconflictwaspredictable.Kautsky’sinterpretationofDarwinismrenderedclass

strugglebothinevitableandvoluntarilychosen—giventheirinstincts—bytheparticipants.

Atamoretheoreticallevel,Kautskyarguedthattheinstincttosurviveandattainsatisfaction,amongthehigherprimates,issystematicallyinfluencedbyprevailinggroupcustom.Individualbehaviorisadaptedtoexistingsocialcircumstancesbypeergroupandsituationalconstraintsuntilconformingbehaviorbecomeshabitual.Fortheindividual,theconsequenceisthatbehavinginaconventionalfashion,complyingwithgrouppressurestoconform,becomescomfortable—andtheconformingindividualisspokenofasbeing“good”or“proper.”Toactinaccordancewithgroupnormsistoact“morally.”Oncethebehaviorbecomeshabitual,oneissaidtoactinaccordancewithone’s“socialconscience.”Toactotherwisewouldbetoactcontrarytosocialnormsandwouldtypicallyresultinanuneasyconscienceandgrouprejection.

Tochangeinstinctualandhabitualindividualandcollectivebehavior,accordingtoKautsky’saccount,requiresthatthemotiveforceofinstinct,andhabitualconformity,bemodifiedbypowerfulexternalinfluence.Suchinfluence,Kautskymaintained,couldonlycomeasaconsequenceofmajorchangesinsurrounding“lifecircumstances”—whichmeant,essentially,achangeinthemannerinwhichindividualsandsocietymettheirsurvivalandwelfareneeds.

Kautskywentontoarguethatmeetingthoseneedsdirectlyinvolvesproduction.AccordingtotheorthodoxMarxistsofthebeginningsofthetwentiethcentury,changesinhumanbehavior,inthefinalanalysis,wereunderstoodtobetheconsequenceofchangesinthatveryeconomicactivity:howthingsareproducedandhowtheyaredistributed.

Giventheuncertaindynamicsinvolvedintheoriginalempiricalclaimsadvancedbyitsfounders,KautskywascompelledbyhisresponsibilitiesasanadvocatetocatalogtheexternalinfluencesMarxismheldtobecapableofaffectingindividualandcollectivehumanconscience.Aspartofhisargument,KautskyengagedthestandardMarxistaccountofsocialdynamics.Aslongastheforcesofproductionremaincompatiblewiththerelationsofproduction,thepatternsofsocialconductremainessentiallyunchanged—they“reflect”thefunctionaleconomicbase.Insuchcircumstances,individualandcollectivebehaviorremainsessentiallyhabitual,routine.Onlywhentheexistingproductiverelationscannolongeraccommodatethechangingproductiveforcesdotensionsemergethatmovesocietytoseekanewequilibrium—andbothindividualsandgroupsareforcedtoaltertheirconduct.

Atsuchapointintime,theeconomicbaseofsocietyisnolongerunambiguously“reflected”inprevailingsocialnormsorinthebehaviorofgroupmembers.The“contradiction”betweenproductiveforcesandproductiverelationssomehowgeneratesaneffectiverevolutionarywillamongthoseelementsofsocietythatwillrestoreequilibriumoncemore.Humanconscience,asthemostflexibleofthefactorsgoverningconduct,servestosuitablyalterhabitual,toprovidetherationaleforrevolutionary,behavior.Thatchangeistheconsequence—onceagain,inthefinalanalysis—ofthetensionswroughtbythetechnologicallydevelopingmaterialproductiveforceswithintheconfinesofwhatincreasinglybecomesdysfunctionalclassrelations.

Theincreasingincompatibilityofproductiveforcesandproductiverelationsisspokenofaspartofarevolutionary“ripening”ofsociety.Inthecaseofindustrialcapitalism,itmeansthatsocietyhascreatedconditionsconducivetosystemicsocialchange.ThatrevolutionaryripeningisdescribedinstandardMarxisttermsastheresultofaseriesofinterlockingeffects:technologicalimprovementsaltersociety’smannerofproducinggoods;thenewtechnology,becauseofitsverynatureandrequirements,rendersimpossibleitsemploymentbyindividualartisans;instead,workersaredrawntogetherintoexpandingindustrialsitestolaboratmachinesascosteffective“wageslaves”;theyarepaidsubsistencewagesandliveinastateofthreatandincreasingpenury;intimesofabundance,theirwagesdonotriseasrapidlyasprices;intimesofeconomiccontraction,theylosetheopportunitytoworkfortheirsubsistenceandaremenacedbystarvation;thematuringofindustrialcapitalismdrawsmoreandmoreindividualsintoitslaborforce;asaconsequenceoftherapaciousnessofmajorcapitalistenterprises,themiddleclassesincreasinglyarereducedtothelevelofwageworkers;ultimately,asaconsequenceofitsintrinsicnature,unabletoprofitablyemptyitsinventories,thematuringindustrialsystemgraduallycollapsesintostagnationandfinalcrisis.Theentiresequenceisunavoidable—theresultofalaw-governedprocess.Thesocialistrevolutionbecomesinevitable.Givensomespecificsetofspecialcircumstancesforeachlocality,onecanpredictthetransformativeoutcomewiththefullassuranceofscience.15Individualandcollectivechoiceisdictatedbydevelopmentsattheproductivebaseofsociety.

Inallofthis,asbothKautskyandPlekhanovinsisted,individualandcollectivehumanconsciencehasplayedanintegralpart.Oneintuitivelyexpectsindividualsandgroupsofindividualstoseektoavoidexploitation.Oneintuitivelyimaginesthatindividualsandgroupsofindividualsnurseasenseofmoralgrievanceinsuchcircumstances.Thatsenseofoutragecanbeexpectedto

fuelrevolutionaryenterprise.

Socialprocessessoconceived,Kautskycouldconfidentlymaintainthat“thebreakdownofthepresentsocialsystem[is]unavoidable,becauseweknowthat...economicevolutioninevitablybringsonconditionsthatwillcompeltheexploitedclassestoriseagainstthissystemofprivateownership.”16Thesystem,hewenton,necessarilymultipliesthenumberandstrengthoftheexploited,anddiminishesthenumberoftheexploiters,particularlythoseofthemiddleclasses,sothatultimatelyonlytwoclasses,thegrandbourgeoisieandtheproletariat,faceeachotherwithincreasinghostilityandincreasinglydisparatecapabilities.Theoutcomeofthestruggleisfullypredictable.

Whyallthisshouldtakeplaceinevitablyispredicated,inthelastanalysis,ontheeconomictheoriesofKarlMarx—his“labortheoryofvalue,”his“theoryofnecessaryandsurplusvalue,”his“laws”oftheincreasinglyhighrateof“organiccomposition”ofcapital,therelated“decliningrateofprofit,”capitalconcentration,andsoon.Togetherwiththepredictablelossofmoreandmoremembersoftheimpoverishedlowermiddleclasstothegrowingproletariat,industrialcapitalismcreates,withtheescalatingmiserythatattendsitsexpansion,allthenecessaryconditionsforrevolution.

Amongotherthings,suchanaccountall-but-eliminatesthepossibilitythat“greatmen,”uniquelygiftedindividuals,couldhaveanysignificantinfluenceintheprocess17—anymorethangreatmencouldinfluencetherateoffreefallofobjectsinavacuum,ormightinfluencethepredictableeclipseofthesun.Kautsky,likePlekhanov,believedthatsocietyevolvedinaccordancewithwhatwereheldtobeconfirmedempiricalregularities.Therewashardlyaplaceintheunfoldingofsuchregularitiesforthe“arbitrary”intercessionof“unique”individuals,orgroupsofsuchindividuals.

Afterprovidinghisaccountoftheinevitabilityoftheprocess,18andthenatureoftheroleofindividualsinit,Kautskywentontotellhisaudiencethatwhiletheconditionsofcapitalistproductionineluctablyproducedarevolutionarydispositionamongtherelentlesslyincreasingmajorityofcapitalistsociety’sexploitedmasses,onehadtorecognizethattheprocesswasnot“automatic.”Ashasbeensuggested,bothheandPlekhanovinsistedthattheentireprocessdependedonthewilledparticipationofindividualsandgroupsofindividuals.Howeverglibtheaccount,itwassurroundedbyanunmistakablescentofparadox.Kautskycertainlyseemedfullyawareoftheproblems.

Kautskyproceededtoattemptasatisfyingresolution.Hesupplementedhis

accountofinstinct,custom,andconsciencewithafurtheranalysisofthat“freewill,”ofwhich“metaphysicians”spoke—thatfreewillthatcriticsimaginedwasessentialtothesuccessfulmobilizationofworkersforrevolution.Kautskydistinguishedbetweenanarbitrarywillandthatwillthatwastheproductofadeterminateenvironment.A“determinatewill”is“free,”buttheactionsitinspiresarenot“arbitrary”19—theyaretheresultoftheinfluenceofallthefactorscatalogedinstandardMarxistrecitations.

WhatKautskysoughttodeliver,ineffect,wasapsychologicaltheorythatpretendedtoexplainvoluntaryaction.UnlikeWoltmannorSorel,hedidnotattemptaphilosophicalanalysisofnormativeclaims.Hesought,rather,todeliveralaw-governed,sociologicalaccountofnormativechoice.Moralchoicewasnottobevindicated;itwastobeexplained.

Kautskyconsistentlydescribeshumanactionasbeinggiveninitialimpulsebythewilltosurvive.Behavioristhenshapedbycustom,andthendifferentiallyinspiredbyconscience.Thewilltosurviveisanevolutionaryby-product.Habitistheresultofsocialreinforcement.HabituationtopatternsofbehaviorhassurvivaladvantageinaDarwinianworldofgroupcompetition—consequently,weexpecthumanbeingstobecreaturesofhabit.Conscience,inturn,allowstacticaladjustmentsininstinctiveorhabitualbehavior.Thoseadjustmentsarefunctionalincommunitiesregularlyundergoingchangesin“lifeconditions.”Individualsandgroupsinvolvedintheprocessactfreely,yetinadeterminatefashion.

Usingthatlineofargument,Kautskysoughttoexplain“free”willinthecontextofwhathebelievedtobealaw-governeddeterminatesequence.Inthatcontext,hetreatedconscienceasthoughitwereanadaptivemechanism,functionalinanenvironmentthatdemandedsomefundamentalchangeinindividualandgroupbehavioratspecificintersectionsintimeanddevelopment.Suchchangeswouldbetheresultofdeliberationinvolvingeconomicimperatives—thesatisfactionofsubstance,protection,andwelfareneeds.Astheeconomicsystemevolved,humanbeingsacted“freely,”asconsciencedictated—withthosedictatesemanatingfromdeterminaterealities.

KautskyfullyacceptedthegeneralMarxistunderstandingofthenatureandcausesofrevolution.AccordingtoMarxisttheory,revolutionwastheresultofchangesintheeconomicbaseofsociety.Astheforcesofproductionevolved,therelationsofproductionwerecompelledtoadapt.Thatadaptationbecamemanifestinthevoluntarybehaviorofhumans—withconscienceasitslever.Consciencewasoneofthose“phantomsinthemind”throughwhicheconomic

needsfoundidiom.

Allofthathavingbeensaid,thereclearlywassomethingmoretoconscienceandwillthanhadbeensuggestedbytheirdepiction,inthefoundationalliteratureofMarxism,assimple“reflexes”or“phantoms”ofaneconomicbase.ThatwasthetheoreticalinsufficiencywithwhichorthodoxMarxistsstruggled.

Satisfiedwithhisversionoftherelationshipbetweenhumanchoiceandtheeconomicbase,KautskydismissedtheentirediscussionconcerningthenatureofethicaldiscourseinitiatedbycriticalMarxists,neo-Kantians,andSoreliansattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.NeitherKantnorSorelwastakenseriously.Theywere“bourgeoisspokesmen”20whopretendedthatindividualhumanbeingswerefreetomakemoraldecisionsbasedonethicalpreceptshavinglittle,ifanything,todowithprevailingeconomicconditions.

Whencriticsspokeofmoralchoiceandaninformedconsciousnessinfluencinghumanbehavior,individualandcollectivealike,orthodoxMarxistsseemedcontenttoargue,withKautsky,that“weconsiderthebreakdownofthepresentsystemtobeunavoidable,becauseweknowthattheeconomicevolutioninevitablybringsonconditionsthatwillcompeltheexploitedclassestoriseagainstthissystemofprivateownership.”21“Freewill”certainlycouldneitherindependentlyalterhumanconductnorthecourseofevents.Historyproceedsasaconsequenceofhumanactions,butthoseactionsare“free”onlyinthesensethattheyareundertakenbyconsciouspersonswhodeemthemproper.Kautsky’sargumentwasthattheyarewilledactionsthatresultfromdeterminateconditions,conditionsthatthemselvesaretheinevitableconsequenceofthe“laws”discoveredbyMarxandEngelsandembodiedinthenineteenth-centuryorthodoxyofhistoricalmaterialism.

WhatallthissuggestsisthatshouldtherebeindividualsunaffectedbytheimpactofthesociallawsdiscoveredbyMarx,theywouldremaineccentricsintheirenvironment.Historywouldsimplypassthemby.Theywouldbeineffectualpassengersonanhistoricjourneygovernedbynaturalprocessesoverwhichtheyhadnoinfluence.Howeverinitiallypersuasivesuchanaccountmayappeartobe,thedifficultiesthatcrowdarounditquicklybecomeevident.

IfMarxisttheoryistoaccountforthebehaviornotofeccentrics,butofnormalparticipantsinhistoricaction,Kautskyisrequiredtodeliversomeinsightintohowchangesintheeconomicbaseofsocietyalterhumanbehaviorsothattheentiresequenceisentirelypredictable.Foralltheanalyticmachineryinvoked,andthepersuasivelanguageemployed,therelationshipsbetweenthe

economicbaseandthepsychologyofparticipantsinthehistoricprocessarenowherespecifiedwithtestableprecision.Theplausibilityoftheassertionthattheanticipated,oractual,breakdownoftheeconomicsystemwouldcompelentireclassestoactinaspecificmannerislessthanself-evident.Torelyonintuitionsconcerningprocessesthat“compel”individuals,andgroupsof“exploited”actors,toundertakerevolutionofaspecifickindsuggestsreliancemoreonfaiththanscience.

ItiswelldocumentedthatKautskybelievedthatwhileitappearsthatideas,moralconvictionsandethicalprecepts,“causesocialdevelopment,”thefactisthat“ideasspringfrommaterialwants,”andthatifideaschangefromagetoage,“thechangesweretheresultsofalterationsineconomicconditions,thatis,inthesystemofproduction.”22WhilesuchideasinfluencedtheaccountfoundinPlekhanov’sTheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistory,theydonottellusmuch.Toarguethatchangesineconomicconditionsarecorrelatedwithchangesinideasdoesnotestablishthatthelatteraresimplyreflexesoftheformer.Toproceedfromeconomicconditionstoideas,moralconvictions,ethicalconscience,andactivechoicewouldseemtorequireagreatdealmorepersuasiveevidencethanisavailableintheformulationsofeitherKautskyorPlekhanov.

TherealityofthatissuggestedbyKautsky’srecurrentattemptstomoresuccessfullyaddresstheissueofhowhumanbeingsbecomeinfusedwiththedeterminatewillthatmakesrevolutionapredictablecertainty.Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,Kautskycomplicatedhisoriginaldeliverybyinforminghisreaders,inmorethanoneplace,thatideas,inandofthemselvescan,infact,influenceindividualandcollectivebehavior.Inhisemendationoftheoriginalaccount,thedirectionofcausalinfluencesometimesappearedreversed.

Ashisargumentmaturedintime,Kautskyargued,forexample,thatdifferentgroupsamongtheproletariat,allofwhomsufferedthesameexploitationatthehandsofcapitalism,manifestedsignificantdifferencesinbehaviordependentuponwhethertheyhad,orhadnot,beenexposedtoMarxistsocialandeconomictheory.HecitedthenotabledifferencesinthebehaviorofthoselabororganizationsimbuedwithMarxisttheorywhencomparedtothebehaviorofthosegroupsthatwerenot.

InnocentofMarxisttheoreticalinsights,proletarianelements,inresponsetoeconomicrealities,doindeedopposetheiroppressors,butproletarianspossessedofMarxisttheorysucceednotonlyinopposingtheiroppressors,butinorganizingthemselvesmoreeffectively.Moreover,theysucceedininculcatingin

theirmembersamorecertainsenseofclass-consciousness.23Apparentlyinsomecircumstances,ideas,intheformofMarxisttheory,didseemtomakesomesortofdifferenceinmountingtheforcesnecessaryforrevolution.

Kautskyseemedconvincedthattherewereintermediatestepsinexplainingthecorrelationbetweentheeconomicsystemandhumanbehavior—andthosestepsinvolvedpedagogicalresponsibilitiesonthepartofrevolutionaryleadership.Withthepassageoftime,Kautskyseemedpreparedtoarguethatinthecourseofdischargingitspedagogicalresponsibilities,revolutionaryleadershipinfluencedtheconductoftheproletarianmassesinafashionthataffectedindividualandgroupconscience—toalter,towhateverdegree,the“ineluctible”courseofhistory.

Suchanaccountintroducedthepossibilitythat,somehoworother,withinalltheinevitabilities,thechoicesmadebyindividuals,singlyoringroups,sometimesmakeadifference.Howmuchimpactthatdifferencemightmakeisdifficulttodeterminegiventheexpositorytextsavailable.24Nonetheless,intheefforttoexplainhowchangesintheeconomicbaseofsocietymightbereflectedintheconsciousnessofrevolutionaries,itbecameeminentlycleartoKautskythatallthepresumedrelationshipswerefarmorecomplicatedthananyMarxisttheoristhadanticipated.

Itisclearthatinattemptinghisexplanation,Kautskywaspreparedtoacknowledgetheroleofideas,morality,andconscienceinsomehowinfluencinghumanconduct.“Reflecting”theeconomicbaseinconsciousnesswasbeginningtoappeartoinvolveverycomplicatedprocedures.

AtthetimeKautskywroteDerWegzurMacht,itwasuncertainwhatmightcountasMarxistorthodoxywithrespecttotheissueoftheroleofideas(moralorotherwise)ininfluencingthebehaviorofasufficientnumberofindividualstoactuallymodifythe“inevitable”collectiveresponsesrequiredbytheMarxismofMarxandEngels.Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,variousMarxisttheoreticiansweretoattempttoprovideasatisfactoryanswertosuchquestions.Intheyearsthatweretofollow,suchquestionsrosemoreandmoreinsistentlyamongrevolutionarytheorists.TheyarequestionsthatariseasaconsequenceofanyseriousinspectionoftheclaimsmadebyMarxandEngelsasearlyasthe1840s.

Inhisefforttoaccountfortheroleofethicsandmoralsinthehistoryofhumanity,whatKautskyprovidedwas,atbest,ahighlyspeculative,andonlypartiallyformulated,psychologicaltheorythatattemptedtoexplainindividual

andcollectivechoice.Itisintuitivelyclearthat,inalmostanygivensituation,humanbeingsarefacedwithoptions.Compelledtoallowforhumanchoice,andaroleformoralsandconscienceinmakingthosechoices,KautskyattemptedtolimitthediscretionaryscopeofhumanbehaviortoparametersdictatedbyMarx’stheories.Inthefinalanalysisandactualfact,hisaccountprovidesforlittlemorethanthesemblanceofchoice.

TobetoldthatMarxisttheoristsarecompelledtoinculcateproletarianswiththeirbeliefs,andthatproletarianshavenochoicebuttoacceptsuchbeliefs,istomakeamockeryofhumandeliberationandhumanresponsibility.Whatappearedtobe,attimes,anallowancefortheinfluenceofideasintheunfoldingofevents,seemstohavebeensufficientlyhedgedaboutsothatKautskyactuallydeniedthesubstantiverealityofchoice.Itisaninterpretationthatwouldrenderhumanchoicenotmuchmorethanashadowofthatexpectedbymoralphilosophers.Choicesbecome,onceagain,implausible“reflections”ofeconomicrealities.Inoneplace,evenafterallofhiselaboratespeculationsconcerninginstinct,custom,andconscience,Kautskycouldstillinsistthatthemost“beautifuldreamsofwell-meaningenthusiasts,”concerningsocialgoalstobeattained,arereallynotmuchmorethanreflectionsof“economicdevelopment.”25

Insomeplaces,Kautskygoessofarastodepicthumanchoicesassharingallthedeterminismofnaturallaws.Hisrenditioncouldnothavebeensatisfyingtothose,likeSorel,specificallyinterestedinethicsandmorality—nortothose,likeWoltmann,whosoughtaseriouspsychologicaltheoryofhumanchoice.ItclearlywasnotsatisfyingtoallthoseMarxistswhoadvocateda“returntoKant”—orthose,likeSorel,whosawmoralchoicethecriticalcenterofhumanvirtue.

Kautsky’streatmentdidnotattempttoexplaintheimperativecharacterofnormativeinjunctions.Atitsbest,whatKautskylefttocommittedMarxistswasanempiricalexplanationsketch,speculativeatbest,ofindividualandcollectivepsychology,afragmentaryoutlineofwhathethoughtmightaccountforseeminglyvoluntaryhumanbehavior.Tospeakofthatbehaviorinafashionthatmakeschoicelittlemorethanareflectionofeconomicconditionsistoneitherexplainthatbehaviornoraccountforitsmoralcharacter.

Kautskydidspeakofintelligenceinfluencingchoice.Allowingthat,itisevidentthatthepropertiesofintelligencecanhardlybecapturedbyconceivingthem“reflections”ofanything.Whenwespeakofhumanbeings“reflecting,”whatwemeanisthattheyaredeliberating.ThedecisionbyrevolutionariestobecomeMarxistsisaresultofconsciouscalculationinvolvingnotonlyan

assessmentoftheempiricaltruthsofhistoricalmaterialism,buttheinescapableinfluenceofqualitativelydistinctmoralprinciples.TheonlypossiblemannerinwhichhumanintelligencecanbevoluntarilymobilizedtoMarxistenterpriseisbyestablishingthetruthandmoralpersuasivenessofitstheories.That,itwouldseem,requiresataminimum,acommitmenttotruth,aswellastheavailabilityofscientificcriteriaoftruthdetermination,togetherwithethicalpreceptsthatcontributetothemakingoftheultimatechoice.

Inthecourseofallthisdoctrinaldeliberation,duringthelastyearsofthenineteenthcentury,andthefirstofthetwentieth,ayoungLeninrehearsed,withoutapparentreservation,theentirecatalogofstandardMarxisttenetsconcerningsocialdynamicsandthemobilizationofrevolutionarymasses.Hewastospeakofrevolutionarytheoryanditsimportance,andtheresponsesmadebyhumanbeingsinamultiplicityofcircumstances.HespokewithgreatconfidenceofthefactthatMarxreferredtohis“economiclawofmotionofsociety”unequivocallyasa“lawofnature.”Heinsistedthat“sociallaws”werenothinglessthanthoseinvariantregularitieswithwhichsciencehadmadeusallfamiliar.LikePlekhanov,heinformedhisaudiencethatMarxhaddiscoveredthatofallthe“spheresofsociallife,”productiverelationswerebasicandprimary,“determiningallothers.”26

Atthatstageinthedevelopmentofhisthought,Lenininsistedthattheconvictionthat“thecourseofideasdependsonthecourseofthingsistheonlyonecompatiblewithscientificpsychology.”Thatwastrueinhisjudgmentbecause“onlythereductionofsocialrelationstoproductionrelationsandofthelattertotheleveloftheproductiveforces,providesafirmbasisfortheconceptionthatthedevelopmentof...societyasaprocessofnaturalhistory.”That,inturn,eliminatesanynotionthat“modifications”ofhumanbehavior,andanyattendantmoralchoices,aregovernedby“freewill.”Lenin,perhapslesssophisticatedthanKautsky,simplycontendedatthetime,thatMarxismwaspredicatedonthescientifictruthof“determinism,whichpostulatesthathumanactsarenecessitatedandrejectstheabsurdtaleaboutfreewill.”27Hehadnotyetbecomefullycognizantofthekindsofproblemsthathadcollectedaroundthataccount.

ItwasnotlongbeforeLeninwascompelledtoreconsiderthatinterpretationofhumanbehavior,ingeneral,andrevolutionarybehavior,inparticular.Drivenbyimmediateconcernshavingmoretodowithpartypoliticsthanphilosophyorsocialscience,Lenin’sreconsiderationwastohaveasmuchimpactonthemodernworldaswouldthedeliberationsofLudwigWoltmann.EvenasKautsky

wasputtingtogetherhismostelaborateinterpretationoftherelationshipofasociety’seconomyandthemoralchoicesofitsdenizens,LeninembarkedonaninterpretationofMarxismclearlyheterodoxinsubstanceandportentousinpossibilities.

V.I.LENINANDTHE“CREATIVEDEVELOPMENT”OFMARXISMBytheendofthetwentiethcentury,withthepassingofSoviethagiographers

andacerbicanti-Marxistcritics,itwasgenerallyacceptedthatLeninwashardlyan“orthodox”Marxist.MosthistoriansandanalystsseempreparedtograntthathismodificationsoftheMasters’teachingswereassubstantialandtheoreticallyimportantasthoseofBernstein,Woltmann,orSorel.Intermsofpoliticalrealitiesofthetwentiethcentury,Lenin’srevisionsweretochangethefaceofrevolution,thenatureofsocialism,andthehistoryofthetwentiethcentury.28

Lenin’sfirstmajorworks,writtenbeforethedeathofEngelsandthescandalovertherevisionismofEduardBernstein,werecharacterizedbytheconvictionthattheworksofthefoundersofMarxismwerenottobealteredinanyfashion.Leninwasapersonofunshakeableconviction.Oncepossessedofanopinion,hedefendeditagainstallobjectionsandallevidence—untilhefixedonanalternative—whichhethenproceededtodefendwithequalinflexibilityandconviction.29LeninhadconvincedhimselfthathewasthespokesmanforanunyieldingMarxistorthodoxy.30

Amonghisveryfirstpublications,writtenin1894,aboutthetimethatPlekhanovwaspreparinghisTheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistory,LenininsistedthatthedialecticalmethodofMarxandEngelswasnothingotherthan“thescientificmethodinsociology,whichconsistsinregardingsocietyasalivingorganisminastateofconstantdevelopment,”involvingaprocessofsuccessivestages,withone“growinginevitably...outoftheprecedingoneregardlessofwhethermenbelieveinitornot,whethertheyareconsciousofitornot.Marx,”hecontinued,“treatsthesocialmovementasaprocessofnaturalhistory,governedbylawsnotonlyindependentofhumanwill,consciousnessandintentions,but,rather,onthecontrary,determiningthewill,consciousnessandintentionsofmen.”31

TheyoungLeninimaginedthatsuchformulationswerethosetobefoundinthewritingsofKautsky,towhomheappealed,atthattime,fordoctrinalguidance.LeninrecognizedKautskyasanintellectualleaderamongtheheirsofthefoundersofMarxism.KautskyhadwrittenadraftoftheSocialDemocratic

ErfurtProgramof1891—underthedirectionofFriedrichEngels—totherebyfixhisorthodoxyinthemindsofallSocialDemocrats.32Ineffect,LeninhadreasontofullyidentifyKautskywiththeclassicalconventionsofthefoundersofrevolutionaryMarxism.33

Atthesametime,politicaldevelopmentsinGermanyrequiredappropriateresponse,andKautsky,asoneofthemajorintellectualleadersoftheparty,waschargedwiththeobligation.Oneofthemostpersistentquestionsthepartyfacedwaswhattheroleofthepartyanditsleadershipmightbeinthecourseoftheanticipatedinevitabilities.

Partydoctrineconsistentlymaintainedthatsciencehadassuredtheultimatevictoryofsocialism.Aspartoftheprocessinvolved,italsopredictedaproperrevolutionaryresponseonthepartofthe“vastmajorityofproletarians.”Therewasanemphaticairofautomaticityabouttheanticipatedrevolution.

Everythingthepartyhadinsisteduponfordecadesinvolvedaconvictionthatsocialistrevolutionwasineluctable.Givensuchconvictions,itwasnotintuitivelyclearwhatpurposethepartyoritsleadershipmightactuallyserveinsuchasequence.Ashasbeenindicated,halfacenturybefore,Engelshadwrittenthat“revolutions[are]...everywhereandalways...thenecessaryconsequenceofconditionswhichwerewhollyindependentofthewillanddirectionofindividualpartiesandentireclasses.”34Ifsuchwerethecase,whatwastheroleofpoliticalparties,theirleaders,ortheirmembers,inwhatwasseenasaninevitableprogression?

Withtime,evensympatheticcommentatorsweretroubledbytheinevitabilityoftheanticipatedrevolutionaryprocess.35Ashasbeenindicated,bytheturnofthecentury,Kautskywascompelledtoaddresstheentirecomplexissue.Anadequateanswerwouldhavetoresolvenotonlytheissueoftheplaceideas,theoreticalclaims,ethicalprinciples,andvoluntaryconductoccupyinthedynamicoftheentirehistoricprocedure,butmorespecificallywhattheroleoftheSocialDemocraticpartyanditsleadershipwasunderstoodtobeinwhatwasconceivedtobeaninevitability.

Itwascounterintuitive,therefore,thatfordecades,Marxisttheoreticiansinsistedontheimportanceoftheoryintheconductofrevolutionaryagitation.Howeverinevitablethesequence,Marxhimselfhadmadethedefenseoftheorycentraltohisentireenterprise.BothheandEngelshadassiduouslyfoughtthosebothinsideandoutsidetherevolutionaryranksinordertodefendtheintegrityoftheirtheories.EventhoughMarxisttheorycontendedthattruerevolutionary

theorysimplyhadtobediscovered—tobenecessarilyacceptedbytheproletariat—itwassomehowessentialthatMarx’sdoctrineberigorouslydefended.Somehoworother,theissuehadbecome:howwasonetoexplainthefunctionalimportanceoftheoreticaltruthinarevolutionarystrugglewhoseoutcomewaspredetermined?

ItwasevidentthatthefoundersofMarxismwereconvincedthatcorrecttheorywasanecessarycomponentofsuccessfulrevolution.Revolutionarieswererequiredtodefenditsintegrity.AfterthepassingofMarx,EngelsunderstoodtheGermanSocialDemocraticpartytobethepurveyoroforthodoxMarxismaswellasitsspecialchampion.Somehow,theinevitablerevolutionrequiredboth.

EngelsjoinedKautskyintheefforttoprovidearationalefortheexistence,maintenance,andperpetuityoftheSocialDemocraticparty.Itwasnotenoughforthepartytoperformanessentialfunction;itmustalsobeperceivedasdoingso.Howeverinevitablethesocialistrevolution,thepartymustbeseenasperforminganonsubstitutableserviceintheprocess.Inadiscussionofpreciselythoseissues,writtenattheverycommencementofthetwentiethcentury,Kautskymaintainedthat“manyofourrevisionistcriticsbelievethatMarxassertedthateconomicdevelopmentandtheclassstrugglecreate,notonlytheconditionsforsocialistproduction,butalso,anddirectly,theconsciousnessofitsnecessity.”Suchanotionobviouslyleftlittlerolefortherevolutionaryparty.

Kautsky’sresponsewastoarguethatsuchaconceptionofrevolutionwas“mechanical.”Mobilizingtheproletariatwashardlythat.ItnecessitatedcommunicatingtothemthetruthsofMarxism—andthatrequiredeffectiveorganization.Bothwerepartyresponsibilitiesinthelinkedchainofanticipatedinevitabilities.

Inmakinghiscase,Kautskyaddedstillfurthercomplexitiestohisaccountofthefashioningofrevolutionaryconsciousness—withitsinstinctual,conformist,anddeliberativecomponents.Heinsistedthatthenotionofarevolutionaryconsciousnessnecessarilymanifestingitselfautomaticallyinthecourseofeventswasgrievouslymisleading.Therequiredconsciousness,hewenton,couldnotbeexpectedtoarisespontaneously(urwüchsig).“Socialistconsciousness,”independentofallitsothercomplexities,hemaintained,“issomethingintroducedintotheproletarianclassstrugglefromwithout[vonAussenHineingetragenes].”Introducing,defending,andpropagatingthatconsciousnesswasthepeculiarresponsibilityoftheparty.

Inthecourseofearlierdiscussions,Kautskyhadmaintainedthattheavailabilityofcorrecttheoryinfluencedthebehaviorofrevolutionaries.BythetimehedeliveredhiscommentaryonthedraftprogramoftheAustrianSocialDemocraticpartyattheturnofthecentury,hewaspreparedtoinsistthatonlytheSocialDemocraticparty,ofalltheextantpoliticalparties,coulddeliverjustsuchtheoryandtherebyassure“socialistconsciousness”totheentireclassofrevolutionaryproletarians.Thebourgeoisintellectualsoftheparty,heindicated,wouldeducatetheproletarianstotheirhistoricresponsibilities.36

Itisnotatallclear,atthetime,thatKautskyunderstoodthefullimplicationsofhiscontentions.Certainlyhe,ashadallcommittedMarxists,consistentlymaintainedthattruedoctrinewasessentialtotheirpurpose—althoughithadnotbeenmadeclearwhythatshouldbethecase.Withinthatcontext,bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,Kautskywaspreparedtorecognizethatitwastheresponsibilityof“declassed”bourgeoisintellectualstoproduceit.

Marx,Engels,andKautskywerealldeclassedbourgeoisintellectuals.InthebodyofTheCommunistManifesto,MarxandEngelshadspokenof“aportionofthebourgeoisideologists,whohaveraisedthemselvestothelevelofcomprehendingtheoreticallythehistoricalmovementsasawhole...goovertotheproletariat.”37Inaffirmingthat,theywereclearlyalludingtothemselves.ThefoundersofMarxismmaintainedthatatsomestageinthepreliminariesleadingtorevolution,somebourgeoisintellectualswoulddefecttotheproletariat.Howthathappens—whenthe“principles,ideas,andcategories”thatmotivatesuchintellectualschangefrombeingreflectionsofexistingsocialconditionstoreflectionsofanalternativefuture—wasuncertain.Proletarianspresumablyentertaintheprinciples,ideas,andcategoriestheydobecausethoseprinciples,ideas,andcategoriesreflecttheirlifecircumstances—butwhyrenegademembersofthebourgeoisieshouldsimilarlycleavetothoseprinciples,ideas,andcategoriesisleftunexplained.

NeitherEngels,Kautsky,norPlekhanovundertooktoexplainthechoicesmadebythebourgeoisintellectualswhoprovidedtheoryfortheGermanorRussianSocialDemocraticparty.TheissuehungoverMarxistswithoutsatisfactoryexplanationthroughoutitshistory.Howeverthepresenceofbourgeoisintellectualsinthepartywastobeexplained,Engels,inhistime,andKautskyandPlekhanovintheirs,insistedontheexistenceoftheparty,armedwiththeorthodoxtruthsofMarxism,asnecessaryforthemobilization,organization,andcontrolofpotentialproletarianrevolutionaries.

Whatwasnewwastheclearinsistencethatwithoutthetheoreticalactivityof

committedbourgeoisintellectuals,andtheavailabilityofapartytoeffectivelydisseminatetheirproducts,theinevitabilitiesoftherevolutionmightsomehowbealtered.Thatgaveeveryappearanceofmakingtheinevitablerevolution,insomemeasure,contingentonthecerebralactivityofsomeselectintellectualsleadingaspecificpoliticalparty.

Kautskyhadalreadyarguedthatrevolutionaryideaswereessentialtotheinevitabilityofrevolution;bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,hewaspreparedtoseetherevolutionarypartyasanessentialvehicleforthetransmissionofthoseideas.WhileKautskymaynothavefullyappreciatedtheimplicationsofhisposition,itwasnotlongbeforesomeonedidmakeitallabundantlyclear—todrawoutimplicationalmostentirelyunanticipatedbyeitherKautskyorPlekhanov.

In1902,whileKautskywasstillstrugglingwiththeissues,thethirty-two-year-oldLeninpublishedhisWhatistobeDone?Inthatsingleessay,hecommittedhimself,andhisfollowers,tothebasicpreceptsofwhatweretobecome,andforeverremain,thepoliticalfundamentalsofBolshevism,thesinglepartystateanditsimpliedtotalitarianism.38

InwritingWhatistobeDone?theyoungLeninechoedmuchoftheassessmentfoundintheearlieraccountsmadeavailablebyGermanSocialDemocrats.Whatperhapsdistinguishedhisdiscussionwashisabsoluteoutrageatanyevidenceof“ideologicalinstabilityandvacillation”amongrevolutionaries.Hedisdainedthosegivento“unprincipledeclecticism”—forheheldthatonlyanorthodox“revolutionaryMarxism,”asheunderstoodit,could“guidetheworldstruggleoftheproletariat.”39Itwasself-evidentthathewasconvincedthattherewasonlyone,truerevolutionaryMarxismandhewasitsspokesman.Morethanthat,hewasconvincedthatwithoutcorrecttheory,anditsinculcationinthethoughtofthemasses,noneofthe“ineluctibilities”ofMarxismwouldmature.

Grantedthat,Leninwentontoarguethatanyideologist“worthyofthename,”mustberesponsibleforsolving“allthetheoretical,political,tactical,andorganisationalquestions”thattherevolutionarymovementmightencounter,forinhisviewhistoryhadchargedthemovement’sideologistswiththeresponsibilityofguidingtheproletariatonits“inevitable”course.Tocontendotherwise,hewrote,wouldbetosurrendertheentireenterpriseto“spontaneity,”andtothe“opportunism”andinstitutionalanarchyitbroughtinitstrain.Thetaskoftherevolutionaryintellectualisneitherto“worship”norbe“servile”withrespecttoanyspontaneitythatmightmanifestitselfamongthemasses,butto

“pointout[its]dangersanddefects,”andelevatewhateverspontaneitymightbefoundamongworkerstotheleveloffullrevolutionaryconsciousness.40

BothbeforeandafterhewroteWhatistobeDone?Leninmadeadistinctionbetweenthe“material”ingredientsofrevolutionandthe“consciousness”thatprovideddirection.Hearguedthat“revisionism”aroseoutofthefailure,onthepartofrevolutionaryleaders,toappreciatethecriticalroleplayedbyideologicaltruthintheprocess.Iftherevolutionaryintellectual,inspiredbydoctrinaltruths,doesnotleadtheproletariatinitsspontaneousreactiontocapitalistexploitation,themovementwillbedeflectedfromitscourse.Leninlamentedthattherewerethoseamongtherevolutionaryintellectualswho“haveelevatedtheworshipof,andservilitytowards,spontaneitytothedignityofatheoryandarepreachingthatSocialDemocratsmustnotmarchaheadofthemovement,butshoulddragalongatthetail-end.”41Thereafter,forLenin,“tailism”wastoremainoneofthemostgrievous“revisionist”tendenciestoafflictrevolutionaryMarxism.Revolutionswerenotspontaneous—leadershipwasrequired.

Therevolutionaryparty,andtheintellectualswhosupplieditssocialtheoriesandformulateditstactics,wereresponsibleforleadingthemassmembershipandconvertingthosestilluncommitted.Investedwithsuchresponsibilities,partyintellectualsassumethehistoricobligationofcreatingandsustaining“astrongandcentralisedorganisation,”staffedexclusivelybydeterminedandresolutedefendersofpartyideology.Onlyinsuchfashionmightpartyintellectualseffectivelyservetheinevitablerevolution.Outofallthatoneseestheoutlinesofthesinglepartystateandthetotalitarianismthatfollows.

ForLenin,theroleofideologistsintheparty,andtheintegrityofthepartyitself,requiredthatpartyideologistsandallpartyorganizationswouldhavetobeperiodically“purged.”Anyoneguiltyofdoctrinal“diffusenessandtheblurringofcleardemarcations”wouldhavetobeexcommunicated.Onlythrough“internalpartystruggles”mightarevolutionarypartyensureits“strengthandvitality.”42Onlythenmight“tailism”and“opportunism”beneutralized,anda“stronglywelded,”ratherthana“diffuse,”partyemerge.43

Inallofthisonecannothelpbutseethefeaturesoftheheroinhistory—theroleofthecommitted,moral,sacrificialleaderofmasses,withoutwhom,alltheinevitabilitiesofhistorycometonought.Whateverthepretendedrationale,Sorel’swarriorelitemakesitsappearanceandshapesthecourseofhistory.

SorelhaddiscoveredallofthisinMarxismevenasLeninwasmaturingtohisresponsibilities.Inretrospectitispossibletounearthmuchofitinthewritings

ofsomeoftheprincipalluminariesofMarxism.KautskyhadsaidthingsthatresembledthosefoundinLenin’sWhatistobeDone?—which,inturn,seemedtoechothingssaidbySorel.ThedifferencewasthatLeninhaddrawnoutallthetheoreticalandpracticalimplicationsthathadremainedlargelyinterredinpreviousaccounts—toproducehisownuniquevariantofMarxist“orthodoxy.”

BythetimeLeninpublishedWhatistobeDone?hiscentraltheseswereeminentlyclear.Anyspontaneous,automaticrevolutionaryresponseby“masses,”towhateverstimuli,wouldservenopurposewithoutthedirectinterventionofpartyintellectualsatseverallevelsandduringavarietyofstagesintheprocess.Inthefirstinstance,“withoutrevolutionarytheorytherecanbenorevolutionarymovement”—andtheprovisionoftheoryinvolvedinordinatelymorethanmighthavebeenotherwiseexpected.Withouttheconsciousintercessionofarevolutionaryelite,“inevitability”lookedmoreandmorelikeacontingency.

Lenininsistedthat“withoutGermanphilosophy,whichprecededit,particularlythatofHegel,Germanscientificsocialism—theonlyscientificsocialismthathaseverexisted—wouldneverhavecomeintobeing.”44Heseemedtobesayingthatwithoutthetheoryofscientificsocialism,theinevitabilityofrevolutionwouldbecompromised.WithoutthosethinkerswhoproducedGermanphilosophyandGermanscientificsocialismitseemsthattherewouldbenosocialistrevolution.

Grantedallofthat,therewassomethingspecifically“Leninist”inLenin’saccount.Sorelhadrejectedthemathematicologicalcharacterofsocialscience.ForSorel,therecouldbenodeterminismgoverninghumanbehavior.ForLenin,ontheotherhand,Marxismwasapositivesocialscience,sharingallthefeaturesofphysicalscience.LenininsistedthatMarxism,asasocialscience,delivereditselfofimpeccabletruthsthatdidnotrequirethekindofreviewtheSoreliansandKantianrevisionistswereadvocating.Science,Leninheld,doesnotforeverscrutinizeclaims,whethersimpleorcomplex.Scienceestablishestruths,andmakesnoprogressifitallows“oldideas”tocoexist“sidebyside”withnewones.ForLenin,itwastheunimpeachablescientificcontentofMarxismthatcertifiedtheinevitabilityofrevolution.Socriticalwasitsscientificcredibility,itshavingbeen“proved,”thatLenininsistedthatonlyrevisionistssoughtfurtherreview.Marxism,firminitsconvictions,neededonlytobeadequately“studied.”45Thereafter,forLeninists,therecouldbeonlyonetrue,scientificMarxism—whatevertherevolutionarypartysaiditwas.Theparty,anditsleadership,werepossessedof“Truth.”

Therevolutionaryintellectuals,uponwhomtherevolutiondepended,hadtheresponsibilitynotonlyofreaffirmingthescientifictruthofMarxism,jealouslyprotectingitagainstdilutionorcontamination,butofdispensingit,inpureform,totherevolutionarymassesaswell.Withoutthetruthsofscientificsocialism,theentireworkingclassmovementwouldremainconfinedtosimpletradeunionism.Workerswouldnevermaturetothepolitical,andtrulyrevolutionary,levelofconsciousness.Ineffect,“classpoliticalconsciousnesscanbebroughttotheworkersonlyfromwithout,”throughthedirectintercessionoftheparty’sdeclassedbourgeoisintellectuals,theanalogoftherevolutionaryeliteofwhichSorelspoke.46

Shouldallthatbeaccepted,severalconsiderationsimmediatelythrustthemselvesforward.Ifrevolutionarytruthisoneandimpeccable,andistobedispensedonlywiththeinsistencethatitnotbealteredinanyfashion,thenthoseselectedtoperformthatservicemustbeforeverunderscrutiny.Thatimpliedthatperiodicpurgingwouldbeinstitutionalized.Infact,atthecommencementofhisessay,Leninquoted,withapproval,FerdinandLassalle’scommentsonpartypurges:“Partystruggleslendapartystrengthandvitality;thegreatestproofofaparty’sweaknessisitsdiffusenessandtheblurringofcleardemarcations;apartybecomesstrongerbypurgingitself.”47

The“ideologicalleadership”ofwhichLeninspokeinbothWhatistobeDone?andOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack(TheCrisisinourParty)impliedakindofcontrolinescapablyhierarchicalandcentralized—ultimatelyinvokingacaesaro-papalauthoritytomaintaincoherenceandintegrity.Throughouthisdelivery,Lenininsistedonjustsuchinstitutionalfeaturesforhisproposedrevolutionaryparty.EquallyexplicitinhisproposedreorganizationofRussianSocialDemocracywastheneedfordisciplineandobedience—allofwhichpromptedcries,bytheopposition,ofanattemptbyLenintoimposea“theocracy”ontheparty,a“monstroushypertrophyofcentralism,”whichwouldrequire“blindsubmission”byitsmembers,togetherwith“asuppressionofindividuality”andaninsistenceononlyoneinterpretationofMarxismandthetacticsthatinterpretationimplies.48ThesewerethesamechargesleveledagainstSorel.

LeninconsistentlyspokeofthosewhoobjectedtohisprogramforthehierarchicalreorganizationoftheSocialDemocraticpartyas“anarchists,”“opportunists,”and“individualists,”insistingthattheywereundisciplinedandselfishintheirresistancetothe“formulatedexpressionofthewillofthewhole.”Theyrefusedtoaccepttherevolutionaryimperativethattherevolutionrequired

partydisciplineandself-sacrifice.49

BythetimehewroteOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack,Leninmadeacleardistinctionbetweenradicalideologists,whorepresentedMarxisttheory,andsimpleintellectuals.Heunderstoodideologytobetheexclusiveresponsibilityof“revolutionaryideologists,”and,likeSorel,expressedunqualifieddisdainforliberal“intellectuals.”Hespokeofsuchintellectuals,advocatesofliberalismandparliamentarydemocracy,as“unstable”andsingularly“opportunistic.”Unlikethedeclassedbourgeoisideologistswhoservedtheparty,simpleintellectualswereessentiallybourgeoisindisposition,givento“vagueness,amorphousness,[and]elusiveness,”aswellas“aristocraticanarchism”and“opportunism.”50LikeSorel,Leninsawintellectualsasgiventocompromiseandirresoluteinjudgment.

WhenhewroteWhatistobeDone?51in1901,Leninhadbeencontenttorefertothetheoreticiansandideologistswhoprovidedtheworkingclasswitharevolutionaryconscienceas“intellectuals.”Hewasclearlymorereluctanttospeakofpartyideologuesasintellectualsin1904.Inthelaterworkheseemedilldisposedtoinvestconfidenceinintellectuals,perse,whomhetendedtosee,asdidSorel,asself-servingandvacillatingmembersofthebourgeoisie.52

Acasecanbemadethathisincreasingestrangementfromintellectuals,asanidentifiablesocialsegment,mayhavebeenaresultofintrapartystrugglesafter1901.Whateverthecase,Leninseemedtohavereservationsconcerningintellectualsafter1904thathehadnotentertainedpriortothattime.

In1901,Leninstillsoughtto“efface”all“distinctions”betweenworkersandintellectuals,althoughhedidacknowledgethattherewerefundamentaldifferencesbetweenthetasksforwhicheachgroupwasresponsible.Theirrespectivetasksrequiredmarkedlydifferenttalents.Moreover,Leninbelievedthatthosewhoarebothbornwiththetalentsnecessaryforintellectualwork,andpossessedoftheappropriaterevolutionaryfocus,aresofewthattheymustnecessarilyconstitutea“vanguardelite.”EverythingsaidbyLenininhisWhatistobeDone?indicatesthathewas,likeSorel,absolutelyconvincedthatonlysuchaselectvanguardelitewascapableofsuccessfullyleadingtheproletarianmassestoMarxistvictory.53

Predicatedonthepossessionofimpeccabletruth,staffedbythoseresponsivetonoothertruths,Leninunderstoodthesinglepartyeliteaspossessedofaterriblelegitimacytowhichnootherleadershipcouldaspire.Inspiredbyadoctrineofimpeccabletruth,therevolutionarypartyhasawarranttoeducate

“immature”massestothehigherlevelsofrevolutionaryconsciousness.54Thetruthservestheultimateinterestsofall—evenifthattruthremainsobscuretothemajorityitwillbenefit.Asaconsequenceandinprinciple,the“epistemarchic”partycandemanddisciplineandobedienceofitsfollowers.Anylackofdisciplineandanydisobedienceisevidenceofillwill,ignorance,orstupidity.Inwhatevercase,thetransgressorbecomestheobjectofpoliticalandsocialsanction.Thepartypurgeshereticsanddemandsobedienceanddisciplinefromallmembersofthepoliticalcommunity.Sharingmajorattributeswiththemostexclusivistreligions,suchmodernrevolutionarypartieshavebeenidentifiedas“theurgicalinstruments,”and“politicalreligions.”55

LENINISMANDMARXISTORTHODOXYItisnotthecasethatsuchaninvolutionofwhathadbeenanessentially

rationalanddemocraticrevolutionarypersuasionwasonlyperceivedinthelongyearsbetweentheBolshevikrevolutionin1917andthe“coldwar”thatfollowedtheterminationoftheSecondWorldWar.ManyintheveryranksofsocialismforesawtheimplicationsofLenin’sheterdoxMarxismasearlyasitsfirstexpressioninWhatistobeDone?ShortlyafteritsappearancetogetherwithOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack,RosaLuxemburgpublishedalongarticleinNeueZeit,underthetitle,“OrganisationalQuestionsoftheRussianSocialDemocracy”—onlylatertobeentitled,“LeninismorMarxism?”

Inherarticle,LuxemburgrecognizedalltheominouspotentialcontainedinLenin’sheterodoxy.InproperMarxistfashion,shepointedoutthatRussianSocialDemocracylackedthematurityofworkingclassmovementsthathadariseninadvancedindustrialenvironments.Russia’surbanproletarianswerefewinnumberandscarcelyinuredtotheproductiveresponsibilitiesthatMarxisttheoryheldwouldrenderthemproperdenizensofanemergingsocialistsociety.Asaconsequence,Luxemburgargued,onecouldhardlyexpecttheworkersofRussiatopossessasocialconsciousnessadequatetothedischargeofrevolutionaryobligations.

Inthisinstance,itseemsclearthatLuxemburgrecalledEngels’sadmonitionstorevolutionarieseverywhere.InhisdiscussionofthepeasantwarinGermany,forexample,andhisreflectionsonthefateofrevolutionaryThomasMünzer,Engelsremindedhisaudiencethatnothingworsecouldbefallsuchaleaderthantoattempttofurtheraradicalsocialprogramforwhichthenecessarymaterialpreconditionshadnotyetmatured.“Thesocialchangesofhisfancy,”Engelswarned,wouldhave“littlerootinthethenexistingeconomicconditions.”Theresultcouldonlybefrustration.His“aspirations”wouldbe“distortedinthe

crudemindsofhismassoffollowers.”Hiswouldbea“premature”attempttoputtogetherasocietypossibleonlyatalaterperiod.56

InLuxemburg’sjudgment,theseweremuchthecircumstancesinwhichLeninfoundhimself.InRussia,sheremindedherreaders,“SocialDemocracymustmakeupbyitsowneffortanentirehistoricperiod.”Russianworkersremained“atomized”andsocialistswerecompelledtoattemptthebuildingofsuitableorganizationswithjustsuchunresponsivemembers.Itwaseasytounderstandwhytheaspiringleadersofsuchamassmightinsistupon“centralization,”authoritarian,andhierarchicalcontrols.

LuxemburgarguedthatLeninwassimplyaproductoftheprimitiveconditionsprevailinginczaristRussia.Asaconsequenceofitscircumstances,Lenin’sBolshevismmustbe,ofnecessity,equallyprimitive,opposedtoanysemblanceofdemocratic“spontaneity”onthepartofRussia’sworkers.Anylossofcentralcontrolwasconceivedathreattorevolutionarypurpose,allowingthepotentiallyrevolutionarymasstodissipateitsenergiesinpurposelesspursuits.Thatwasthereason,inLuxemburg’sjudgment,whyoneoftheprinciplestowhichLenincommittedthepartywas“theblindsubordination,inthesmallestdetail,ofallpartyorgans,tothepartycenter,whichalonethinks,guides,anddecidesforall.”57

InherrelativelybriefcommentaryonLenin’sproposalsconcerningtheorganizationoftheSocialDemocraticparty,Luxemburgclearlyperceivedthefirstoutlinesofanewpoliticalpartythatwoulddominatetherevolutionaryhistoryofthetwentiethcentury.Itwasapartythatforthefirsttimeinhistorywouldbaserevolutiononthehierarchicalorganizationandthedirectmobilization,byanelite,ofsociety’smasses.

Itwasanelite-centeredparty,withasmallminorityofleaders,who,becausearmedwiththemostperfectknowledgeabouttheworldandeveryoneinit,areauthorizedtorulethosewhohavenotyetbeenraisedtothesamelevelofcompetence.Becauseofthelackofcompetenceonthepartofthemasses,aLeninistrevolutionarypartywouldhavebutlittleconfidenceinarepresentativeparliamentarysystembasedonuniversalsuffrage.ForLenin,themassesrequireinformedanddeterminedleadership.Tofailtoprovidethatleadershipwouldbetofailinone’sMarxistresponsibilities.

LuxemburgperceivedtheLeninistpartyasonehavingassumedpedagogicalobligationsunlikeanyother.Ideally,Marxismsoughtthevoluntaryidentificationofmasseswiththeideologyoftheparty.InLuxemburg’sjudgment,giventhe

backwardnessofRussia,thatcouldonlybeaforlornhope.Shortofitsaccomplishment,Luxemburgargued,therevolutionarypartyexpectedthemassestosimplysubmittothe“willofthecenter.”Shefullyanticipatedthatunderconditionsshortofpedagogicalsuccess,thesystemwouldbecomeapartydominant,andperhapspersonalistic,dictatorshipoversupinemasses.58

Luxemburg’spresciencewaslimitedtoLenin’spreoccupationwithpartyorganizationandtheconsequencesofthatorganization.Behindthatpreoccupation,andLuxemburg’sanalysis,anumberofotherissuesremainedalmostentirelyneglected.WhileitwasevidentthatLeninbelievedthattherevolutionaryconsciousnessoftheworkingmassesmustbebroughttothemthroughthemediumofaspeciallygiftedvanguard,itremainedunresolvedhowthatvanguarditselfacquiredtherequisiteconsciousness.AsbothWoltmannandSorelhadsuggested,therewasnosimplecausalrelationshipbetweentheeconomicbaseandhumanpsychology.

Leninhadarguedthattheproletariat,iflefttoitsowndevices,woulddevelopnothingotherthana“tradesunionmentality.”Onlytheintercessionofafractionofthebourgeoisie,declassedandlearned,animatedbytherevolutionaryconsciousnessthathadsomehowfailedtofindaplaceamongproletarians,couldmakeoftradeunionists,trueMarxists.Revolutionaryconsciousnesswouldhavetobedeliveredtotheproletariatbyrevolutionariesnotoftheirownclass.

Howallthiswassupposedtotakeplaceisnotintheleastevident.Itisdifficulttoimaginehowtheeconomicbaseofsocietycouldbereflectednotintheconsciousnessoftheproletariat,butintheconsciousnessofafewdeclassedmembersofthebourgeoisie.

ClearlythereweredifficultieswithLenin’sconceptualizationofhowtheentireprocessmightwork.Luxemburgwasnotobligedtodealwiththesamecomplexities.ForLuxemburg,revolutionaryconsciousnessarosequitespontaneouslyamongtheproletariat.MarxandEngelsregularlysuggestedsomesortofspontaneityinthedevelopmentofclass-consciousness.Theyoftenspokeoftheactivityoftheproletariatbeingdirectlyrelatedtoeconomicfactors—beingmoremanifest,forexample,wheretherewas“moredevelopedindustry,greaterwealth,[aswellas]amoresignificantmassofproductiveforces.”59

ThespontaneityofrevolutionaryconsciousnesstowhichLuxemburgappealedwasinthetraditionofmanysocialisttheoreticians,Marxistandnon-Marxistalike.60ItwasLenin,inthiscase,whowasarevisionist.Whileitisperfectlytruethatonecanfindallusions,inthemany,manypagesoftheMarxcorpus,to

amultitudeofpossibleinterpretationsofhowtherevolutionaryproletariatcomestomatureconsciousness,Lenin’sconceptualizationoftheprocesswasclearlydistinctive,ifnotunique,amongtheorthodoxMarxistsofhistime.

The“vanguardelite”playedaveryspecialroleinLenin’srevolutionaryagenda.HoweveronechoosestointerpretLenin’sviewsconcerningproletarianconsciousness,amajorquestionremains:howdoesthevanguardeliteacquiretheconsciousnessandwillrequisitetoitshistoricpurpose?

Toattemptanyansweratall,itisnecessarytoreturntosomeofthesameissuesthatoccupiedDietzgen,Woltmann,Sorel,andKautskythroughouttheyearsbeforetheturnofthecentury.Likethemall,thereareplacesinhiswritingswhereLeninalludestothemoralconsiderationsandpartyethicsthatinfluenceeliterevolutionaryjudgment.61Infact,virtuallyeverythingLeninwrotewasquickwithmoralsentiment.Hewasconsistentlyoutragedbythebehaviorofhisclassenemiesaswellasanyundisciplinedconductofmembersofhisownparty.Allthatnotwithstanding,herefusedtoallowethicaljudgmentormoralchoiceanyeffectiveroleinhisaccountofhowrevolutionproceeds.Heaffirmed,withoutqualification,that“inMarxismthereisnotagrainofethicsfrombeginningtoend.”62Oneislefttopuzzleastothesourceofhismoralsensibilities.

LENIN’SETHICSIfthereisnoethicstobefoundinMarxism,itisdifficulttounderstandhow

onemightprovidejustificationfortheindividualandcollectivedecisiontoinvokeviolence,nottospeakofterror,inthepursuitofrevolutionarypurpose.Inoneplace,Leninsimplydismissestheissueaslackingsubstance.

Tomakehiscase,LeninquotedacharacterizationofthegenerationofconsciousnessandthedeterminationofwillthatMarxhimselfhadfound“absolutelycorrect.”IntheAfterwordofthesecondGermaneditionofCapital,wefindMarxapprovingthefollowingaccount:“Marxtreatsthesocialmovementasaprocessofnaturalhistory,governedbylawsnotonlyindependentofhumanwill,consciousnessandintelligence,butrather,onthecontrary,determiningthatwill,consciousnessandintelligence.”63

Leninfellbackonthetraditionthattookthattomeanthatthe“idealisnothingbutthereflectionofthematerial.”Thesourceofconsciousnessandthedeterminationtoactwereunderstoodtobea“reflection”ofthingstakingplaceintheexternalmaterialworld.Herepeatedthenotionthat“ideas”ofmoralityandethicsareepiphenomena,reactiveproductsof“external,objective

phenomena”—apparentlyunawareofallthefailedeffortstomakesuchaninterpretationintheleastcredible.

Howeverodditsounded,givenhisviewsconcerningthedeliveryofrevolutionaryconsciousnessbythevanguardelite,LeninsimplyrepeatedsomeoftheformulationsoftheMasters.Hemaintainedthat,irrespectiveofhowdeeplyfelttheconvictionthatone’sbehaviorsaredeterminedbymoralideasandconsciousconviction,thetruthwasthatneitherethics,will,norconsciousnesswasresponsibleforindividualorcollectiveconduct.Therealcausesweretobefoundintheimpactofmateriallifeconditionsonconsciousness—followingthepatternsmadefamiliarbythoseregularitiesgovernedbynaturallaw.64Itwasathesisthatwasmorethanfamiliar.

BythetimeLeninwrotehisfirstessays,manyquestionshadalreadycrowdedaroundsuchnotions.TheywerenevertobereallyresolvedbyMarxists.Theycontinuallyresurfacedinthereflectionsofrevolutionariesthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Ashasbeensuggested,sometracedthesourcesoflawlikehumanbehaviortoDarwinianimperatives,otherstooneoranotherformofutilitarianindividualorcollectivejudgment,andstillothersmaderecoursetoa“returntoKant.”Nonefaredparticularlywell—afactthatisnotsurprising,consideringthedifficultiesofdistinguishingthedifferencesbetweeninstinct,custom,andethicaljudgmentininformingthewill.

Lenin’sfirsttreatmentsofethics,moralconduct,andpoliticalwillweredeceptivelysimple.Theinitialforayswereveryquicklyabandonedandheundertookmoresophisticatedanalyses.Oneofhismorecomprehensivetreatmentsofthesubjectappearsinhisattempttodealwiththethoughtofhispoliticalopponents.

Inhiscritique,Leningrappledwithhisopponents’understandingofbothmodernscienceand“moralideas.”Inthecourseofthediscussion,referencewasmadetoclassmorality,i.e.,bourgeoisand/orproletarianmorality,butalsotoan“abstractphilosophicalmorality”thatseemedtohaveneitherasitsreference.Theconceptofamoralitythatisnotanimmediatereflectionofclassintereststhusmadeabrief,andsuggestive,appearanceinoneofLenin’searliesteffortstoanalyzethenatureandfunctionofnormativedecision.Hewasnottodeveloptheideaofamoralityindependentofclassinterestsanyfurther,anditwasnottoplayasubstantiveroleinanyofhisdiscussionsthatfollowed.Thereafter,moreorlessconsistently,the“objectoftheindividual’sspirituallife”wasspokenofonlyasa“representationoftheinterestsofonesocialclassoranother.”65

Thepossibilityofan“abstractphilosophicalmorality”disappearedinthedeliberationsthatfollowed.Leninattemptedtorenderacredibleaccountoftheroleplayedbyconsciousness,ethics,andwillinthecourseofhistoryusingonlythoseconceptscommonplaceintheaccountsprovidedbyMarxandEngels.UnlikeDietzgen,Woltmann,Sorel,orKautsky,Leninmadenoconsistentefforttoprovideanindependent,compellinganalysiseitherofthenatureofmoralityornormativediscourse.

Elsewhereinhiscritiqueofhisopponents,Leninfleetinglyreferstoanotherimportantnotionthatwouldinfluenceallhissubsequentrevolutionarydeliberationsconcerningloyalty,commitment,andself-sacrifice.InoutliningMarxismasempiricalsociology,hemaderecoursetotheconcept“group.”Itwillbearguedthatlikethenotionofan“abstractphilosophicalmorality,”Lenin’sspecialacknowledgmentoftherolethat“groups,”asdistinctfrom“classes,”mightplayinhistorywastoproveofsingularsignificance.66Iftherecanbeamoralitythattranscendsclassinterests,andagroupotherthanclasstowhichthatmoralitycanbeattached,theoutlinesofanentirelyalteredpoliticalideologymakesitsappearance.

Inhisanalysis,Leninrecognizedthatindividuals,perse,wereoflittlehistoricalconsequence.Itwasthebehaviorofcollectivitiesthatfoundexpressioninthe“naturallaws”thatgovernedsocieties.SomeofthatwasimplicitinthewritingsofMarxandEngels.

Marxregularlyreferredtohumanbeingsas“groupanimals(Gemeinwesen)”—andEngels,inhisTheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,spokeofgrouplifebeforetheexistenceofclasses.Beforetherewereclasses,humanbeingshadorganizedthemselvesincommunitiesoflimitedcompass,andasDietzgen,Woltmann,Sorel,andKautskyhadalreadysuggested,theirbehavior,insubstantialpart,ifnotentirely,wasafunctionofDarwiniansocialinstinctandlifelivedinassociation.Thoseassociationsthatexistedthroughgeologictimewerenotclasses.Throughmuchofprehistory,andallthestagesofsavageryandbarbarism,humanbeingslivedincollectivitiesthatcouldhardlybeidentifiedasclasses.Therewas,ineffect,moralbehaviorlongbeforetherewereclasses.

Insuchacontext,itbecomesimmediatelyapparentthatLenin’sdescriptionofmoralbehaviorasactionsexclusivelydeterminedbyspecificclassinterestsislessthanconvincing.67Togetherwiththeevidentfactthattherewasmoralityandethicalconductbeforetherewereclasses,itseemsmanifestthattherangeofmoralideasprevalentinanysocietyextendsfarbeyondthenumberofpossible

classdistinctions.Coupledwiththerealityofmoralbehaviorandethicalconcernsinsociety,beforetherewereclasses,istheacknowledgmentthattherearemoremoraldivisionsamongthemembersofalmostanysocietythanthereareclassdifferences.

MostMarxistsattempttoconcealthatlatterrealitybyobscuringthedifferencesbetweendivergentmoralities.AnythingotherthanMarxismissimplycategorizedas“bourgeois.”Christians,Jews,socialDarwinists,logicalpositivists,utilitarians,situationalethicists,pragmatists,andnarcissistsareallsomehow“bourgeoismoralists,”representinganomnibus“bourgeoismorality.”

Asthoughsuchproblemswerenotenough,thereareplaceswhereLeninrecognizesthatMarxistsshareidealswithmembersofthepetitbourgeoisie.68Infact,hespeakswithoutembarrassmentofcommonnormativegoalsthatappeartotranscendclassdifferences.Hespeaksofthedevelopmentof“individuality,”forexample,asapositivegoalmoregeneralthananythatmightbeconsideredclassspecific.Hedeploresanyconditionsthat“cramp,”“suppress,”and“stultify”thefulldevelopmentofself—conditionsnotlimitedtothecapitalistepoch.69Thereisanintimationthatself-fulfillment,asavalue,isaccordedatransclassandtranshistoricalvalidity—allofwhichsuggeststhepossibilityofarevolutionarydoctrinethatmightaddressinterestsofarecruitmentbasethatwasmulticlassortransclassincharacter.

ItisclearthatLeninconceivedself-fulfillmentbothasamoralgoal,independentofclass,aswellasarealisticprojectonlyinanenvironmentoffullindustrialmaturityandthecollectiveownershipofproperty.Butthefactthatheimaginedself-fulfillmentarealisticgoalonlyunderspecificconditionsdoesnotdiminishitstranshistoricalandtransclassqualities.Self-fulfillmentappearstohaveallthefeaturesofanintrinsicvalueagainstwhichallothervaluesbecomeinstrumental.ItwouldseemthatbehindLenin’sovertmoralandethicalrelativitythereisthestructureofaverydifferentnormativesystemthatisuniversalistic,ratherthanclassbased.

Shouldsuchbethecase,Leninism,asavariantofMarxism,mightbeconstruedtheadvocateofasocietythatprovidedthenecessaryconditionsforindividualdevelopment.Itwouldbeacreedthatconceivedrevolutionasinstrumentaltotherealizationofintrinsic,universalisticnormativevalues.WhilesomeMarxist-LeninistsweretoattempttoarticulatesucharationaleinthelongyearsaftertheestablishmentoftheSovietstate,theeffortwasneverconvincing.Nonetheless,therecognitionthattherearefeaturesofLeninismthatsuggestdifferentmoralandethicalalternativesthanthoseimmediatelyorthodoxis

importantforunderstandingtheMarxistheterodoxiesthatweretofollow.

BothWoltmannandSorelpointedoutthathumanbeingshaveentertaineduniversalisticvaluesaslongashumanbeingshavehadhistoricmemory.MajorMarxisttheoreticians,includingFriedrichEngels,seemtohaverecognizedasmuch.Theymayhavespokenofsuchvaluesaspremature,andasutopian,insistingthattheywerevaluesthatanticipated,ratherthanreflected,reality,buttheydidseemtoacknowledgetheirrealexistence.ForMarxistslikeSorel,suchvaluesareanimportantcomponentinanyattempttounderstandnormativediscourseandmoraldeliberation.

SorelpointedoutthatitwasclearthatcommunismexistedasagenerichumanideallongbeforeMarxistsanticipatedthatitmightbecomeareality.Theidealdidnotexistasareflectionofthematurationoftheproductiveforcesavailabletohumankind—itprecededit.Unlessonecantalkcoherentlyaboutthesourceandnatureofthese“premature”and“utopian”ideals,inandofthemselves,onecanhardlyclaimtohavepersuasivelyresolvedsomeofthemostbasicnormativeproblemsthatattendhumanindividualandcollectivebehavior.

MostofLenin’sdiscussion,likethatofmostMarxists,isoccupiedwithhowidealsaretobeattained,notthemoralorethicalqualityoftheidealsthemselves.Itisonethingtoaddressthematerialconditionsrequisitetotheachievementofendsandanothertoaddresstheessentialnatureofthoseendsthemselves.

Woltmann,Sorel,andtheneo-Kantiansemphasizedthosedistinctions.Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,Marxist-Leninistscontinuedtodismissthemasthoughtheylackedconsequence.Theyweremistaken.Thefactthatthereareuniversalisticvaluesthatarenotclassspecific,meansthattherearevaluesthatattachthemselves,orcanbeattached,toassociationsotherthanthoseofclass.

Thefactremainsthattherearemanyvaluesforwhichhumanbeingshavesacrificedthroughouthistorythatcannotbeidentifiedwithanyspecificclassinterests.Moreover,humanbeingshavechosentosacrificeforsuchvalueswhetherthosevaluesmightberealizedintheirlifetimesornot.Itmayormaynotbetrue,asLenininsists,thatonlybyrepresentingtheinterestsofanemergingeconomicclassmightoneeffectivelyparticipateinrealsocialchange70—butthatisaprobleminappliedsocialscienceandtacticalpolitics,notanintrinsicallyethicalissue.Leninsometimesseemedtounderstandthat—andapparentlyfeltthatitwasoneofMarxism’smeritsthatitevokedinitsfollowersawillingnesstoself-sacrifice.Forallthat,hewentontotellhisreadersthatMarxism“subordinatesthe‘ethicalstandpoint’tothe‘principleof

causality’”—asuggestionthatone’ssacrificeisnotmovedbyethicalconsiderationsbutbyiscausedbythelawlikeregularitiesofeconomicdeterminism.71

ThebestthatonecanmakeofthepositionassumedbyLeninwasthatthereareuniversalhumanvaluesquiteindependentofclassinterests,butthatitbecomespossibletorealizetheminpracticeonlywhensocietyachievesapeculiarstageinsocialevolution.Onlythendoesasocialclassappearthatiscompelledtomakethosevaluesitsown.ClearlyLenindeploredexploitation,inandofitself.Henolessdeploredviolenceandwar,inandofthemselves.Heapprovedofmultifacetedindividuation,peace,compassion,fellowship,freedom,andjustice—but,inhisjudgment,allsuchvalueswerenothingmorethan“claptrap”aslongastheywereimpossibleofrealizationincircumstancesofproductivebackwardnessandtheexploitativeproductiverelationsthatnecessarilyresult.

InthemidstoftheavalancheofwritingsoftheperiodbetweentheturnofthetwentiethcenturyandtheFirstWorldWar,LenintoucheduponthemesthatweretotransformhisMarxism.Hespokeoftheroleofethicsandmoralityinhumanbehavior—andoftheroleofmassmobilization—andthatofaspecialeliteofrevolutionaryintellectualsintheprocess.Hespokeofgroupsotherthanclassesastheobjectsofcommitmentandsacrifice.HedirectlyortangentiallyaddressedalmostallthethemesfoundintheheterodoxMarxismofWoltmannandSorel.Andhespokeobliquelyofapoliticalsystemtotalitarianincharacterthatwouldbringtruehumanityandfulfillmenttotheentireworld.

WhatthatclearlyimpliesisthatLeninentertainedamuchmorecomplicatedsystemofpoliticalbeliefs,groupdynamicsandnormativeconvictionsthanhewaspreparedtoexplicitlyacknowledge.Hadhepursuedtheirimplications,hewouldhavehadtoacknowledgetheintellectualpovertyofmuchofthatwhichhepretendedtomakehisown.Inthemakingofhistory,hewouldhavehadtoacknowledgetheroleofhumanassociationsotherthanclass.Hewouldhavehadtoacknowledgetheroleofuniversalisticmoralprinciplesintheshapingofconduct.Leninseemedforeverunwillingtopursuehisanalysestotheirultimateconclusions.AstheworldteeteredonthebrinkoftheFirstWorldWar,therewereotherspreparedtogowhereLeninwasnot.AmongthemwasanotherheterodoxMarxist,whowastoputhisstamponourtime.

CHAPTERSIX

TheHeterodoxMarxismofBenitoMussoliniTheonlyevidenceofthepresumptiveinfluenceofthethoughtofGeorgesSorelonBolshevismisfoundthroughacontentanalysisofthepublicationsofV.I.Lenin—andspeculationonhisfamiliaritywithsomeoftheworksofrevolutionarysyndicalists.1Thatinfluencecanbetracedwithoutquestion,ontheotherhand,inthecaseofthedoctrinaldeliberationsofBenitoAmilcareAndreaMussolini.Weknow,withdocumentedassurance,thatbytheageoftwenty-oneMussolinihadreadandreflecteduponatleastsomeoftheworksofSorel.2

MussoliniwasborninRomagna,innorthernItaly,in1883,andhadearlyidentifiedhimselfasarevolutionarysocialist.Hisfatherhadbeenawell-known“internationalist”(associalistsidentifiedthemselvesatthetime),andtheyoungMussolinineverconcealedhisMarxistproclivities.In1901,attheageofeighteen,hepublishedhisfirstessay,abandonedtheCatholicfaith,andmadepublicdeclarationofhissocialistconvictions.Atalmostthesametime,hedepartedItalyforSwitzerlandtoavoidconscriptionintomilitaryservice.3

InSwitzerland,Mussoliniundertookthestudyofsocialsciencewithsingularapplication,andatonepointenrolledintheUniversityofLausanne,toauditacourseonpoliticaleconomyconductedbytheinternationallycelebratedVilfredoPareto.Duringthatperiod,hepublishedareviewofPareto’sL’Individueletlesocial.AtthesametimehetranslatedmanuscriptsfromGermanandFrenchforpublication.4Bythen,hehadbecomefamiliarwithSorel’sfirstessaysontheroleofrevolutionaryviolenceinhistory.Soonafterward,heidentifiedhimselfwiththethoughtofrevolutionarysyndicalism—thatradicalMarxisminspiredbySorel.5BeforehecameundertheinfluenceofSorel,MussolinihadestablishedhisMarxistorthodoxyinanumberofpublications.Themostimportantofthemwasanantireligioustract,writtenin1904,thatwasclearlyinspiredbothbytheMarxismofMarxandEngels,andthescientificskepticismofnineteenth-centurypositivism.

THEMARXISTORTHODOXYOFTHEYOUNGMUSSOLINIAttheverycommencementofthetwentiethcentury,theyoungMussolini,

thirteenyearsLenin’sjunior,embarkedonacareerasasocialistintellectual6andagitator.HewasaconvincedMarxist,thoroughlycommittedtothenotionthatcapitalismwouldinevitablysufferthecatastrophiccollapseinherentinthedeterministic“laws”thatgovernedthesystem.7HewasaspersuadedasthemostorthodoxofMarxiststhattheentire“superstructure”ofsociety—itsreligiousbeliefsandmorality,aswellastheindividualandcollectivebehavioritsponsored—weresimple“reflexes”ofitseconomicbase.8

Barelyhavingturnedtwentyyearsofage,Mussolini’sMarxismwasinflexibly“orthodox”—asorthodoxywasunderstoodbyGermanSocialDemocracy.Hehadabsorbedthedoctrinewell.Headvocatedtheoverthrowoftheentirecapitalistsystemandthedestructionofthe“bourgeoisstate.”LikeotherMarxists,heimaginedthat,withtherevolution,thebourgeoisie,asaclass,woulddisappear.Allthatwouldbeaccomplishedbyassiduouslypursuingtheclassstruggle.Theexpropriationof“bourgeoisproperty”wouldnecessarilyfollow—tobeadministeredandproductivelyemployedbytheworkingclass,alreadycompetenttothetask.9

ItwasduringthattimethattheyoungMussolini,asasocialistrevolutionary,tookituponhimselftopublishapamphletonMarxismandreligion.Forasmallpublishinghouse,establishedbyhimselfandhisfriends—grandiloquentlycalledTheInternationalLibraryofRationalistPropaganda—MussoliniwroteabriefantireligiouspamphletentitledL’uomoeladivinità,inwhichwasrecordedhispublicresponse,inLausanne,Switzerland,toanaccountadvancedbyanowforgottenChristianevangelist.

Itwasbasicallyacompendiumofwhathadbecomestandardantireligious,rationalistic,andpositivisticargumentsagainsttheexistenceofasupernaturalcreator—aswellasadiatribeagainsttheorganizedchurchthatpretendedtorepresenthimonearth.Forcurrentpurposes,thepamphletisinterestingbecauseitcontainedsomereflectionsthathaverelevanceintermsoftheevolutionofMarxistthoughtinthetwentiethcentury.

Inhisessay,MussolinireferstomanyoftheissuesthathadcollectedaroundMarxismbytheturnofthecentury.Amongthem,theissueofaMarxistethicsoccupiedsomespaceinthis,hisfirstextendeddiscussionofhisrevolutionary

convictions.

LikemostoftheorthodoxMarxistsofhistime—KarlKautskyandV.I.Leninamongthem—Mussolinistatedunequivocally,“forus‘morality’isnothingotherthanoneoftheelementsoftheideologicalsuperstructureofhumansociety,productoftheactualsubstratumofeconomicconditions;itchangesastheeconomychanges”10—which,likeothersuchformulations,actuallysaysverylittleofsubstance.Uponanyinspectionwhatever,itmightmeanavarietyofthings.

Inoneplace,forexample,Engelssuggestedthattosaythatmoralityistheproductofeconomicconditionsmightmeannothingmorethanthatbeforemencanphilosophizeormoralize,“theymusteat,drink,haveshelterandclothing.”11Humanbeingscanthink,andentertainmoralreflection,onlyiftheysurvive.Inordertosurvive,theymustnourishthemselves.Inthatrathertrivialsense,theirthoughtisdependentuponanavailableeconomicbase—a“productoftheactualsubstratumofeconomicconditions.”IfthatiswhattheyoungMussolinimeant,itreallytellsuslittleifanything.ItsaidlittlemorewhenitwasmemorializedbyEngels.

Tobetoldthatmoralitychangesaseconomicconditionschangeisnottobetoldanythingmuchmoresubstantive.Thatmoralbehavior,anditsethicalrationale,maychangeinavarietyoffashionsasaconsequenceofchangesintheeconomy,ishardlyarevelation.“Appliedmorality”sometimesappearsverydifferentfromthe“puremorality”fromwhichitderives—noneofwhichtellsusanythingilluminatingconcerningtheoriginsofethicalprinciplesorthemoralconducttheyvindicate.

AllofthatisperhapstoodemandingwhenoneconsidersthethoughtoftheyoungMussolini,orthethoughtofLenin,bothofwhomframedtheirdiscussionsconcerningethicsandmoralbehaviorinessentiallythesamefashion.Both,atapproximatelythesametime,simplyreiteratedandreaffirmed,withoutthepretenseofanalysis,someoftheapparentcorebeliefsofclassicalMarxism.Withoutanefforttounpacksuchfamiliarclaims,oneisleftwiththeclearimpressionthattheyoungMussolinibelievedthatmoral,ethical,andphilosophicalconsciousness,ingeneral,wascomposedofnothingotherthan“reflections”and“phantomsinthebrain”—epiphenomenaoftheeconomicbaseofsociety.12Mussolinispoke,forexample,ofbourgeoismoralitybeing“modeled”afterthecircumstancesinwhichtherisingbourgeoisiefounditselfinitseconomic,andsubsequentpolitical,struggleagainstthetraditionalnobilityandtheensconcedclergyofpost-medievalEurope.Somehoworother,themoral

principlesthatgovernedthelivesofhumanbeingswereunderstoodtobeafunctionoftheirclasscircumstances.Ethicalbehaviorwasconceivedtobeasimplereflexofthespecificeconomicinterestsofaselectnumberofhumanbeings.

TogetherwiththerecitationofsomeofthecommonplacefeaturesofclassicalMarxismfoundinMussolini’stractonreligion,thereweresomeobliquereferencestoissuesnotsoeasilyclassified—butwhichbroughttomindsomeofthequestionsconcerningethicsandmoralityunintentionallyraisedbyJosefDietzgenandspecificallyemphasizedbyLudwigWoltmann.TheywerequestionsalludedtoonlyindirectlybyLeninandEngels.

LikeLeninandEngelsbeforehim,Mussolinimaderecourse,inhisexposition,toaspecifically“humanmorality,”thatheopposedtothatwhichwasreligious—amoralitythatapparentlytranscendedclassinterestsandwhichaddresseditselfto“universalhumanity,universalbrotherhood,andthefreedevelopmentofself,employingalltheenergiesintrinsictothehumanpersonality.”Mussolinispokeofamoralitywhosecriticalimperativewas:“Obeyyourconscienceandrenderyourselffullyhuman[siiuomo]!”13Suchamoralitycouldhardlybe,inandofitself,exclusivelyMarxist.Initsuniversality,itcouldhardlybeseenasasimplereflexofanyeconomicconditions.Itsthemescouldbefoundintheenjoinmentsofallreligions,inalleconomiccircumstances,andinallthewritingsofallthephilosophersofalltimesandplaces.

TheyoungMussolinispokeoftherevolutionaryefforttoassurethe“harmonicdevelopmentofhumanity,understandinglife...asafreeexpansionofactiveandlivingenergy.”Initself,itwasa“revolutionary”injunctionalreadyrecommendedbeforethebeginningoftheChristianera,bybothpre-ChristianGreekandRomanthinkers.ItwasevidentthattheyoungMussolinihardlyreflectedonthefactthatsuchaspirationsantedatedMarxismbymillenniaandcouldhardly“reflect”anyspecificeconomicbase.NoneofthatdeterredhimfromfancyinghimselfaMarxistadvocateofanewlydiscoveredcreedthatgaveexpressionto“ahallowed,humanidealcapableofbringingtruehumanitytothehumankindoftomorrow.”14

JustasLeninmadeabriefallusiontoan“abstract,philosophicalmorality”thatstoodaboveclassinterests—Engels,inthelate1870s,hadmadereadyreferencetoaproletarianmoralitythatwas“areallyhumanmoralitywhich[stood]aboveclassantagonisms.”15Nooneseemedpreparedtoaddressthefactthathoweversuchuniversalmoralitymightbeconceived,itcouldhardlybeseen

asareflexofclassinterestsoreconomicconditions—whichsuggeststhatmoralitymighthaveasourceindependentofsociety’smaterialbase.

Havingacknowledgedtheexistenceofa“reallyhumanmorality”thatcouldnotbeunderstoodtobeasimplereflectionofeconomicconditions,Marxistswereleftwithaconceptualmuddle.Thefactisthatthenotionofa“reallyhumanmorality”existinginmindbeforetheexistenceofthe“materiallifeconditions”ofwhichitwassupposedlythe“reflection”creates,attheveryleast,ananalyticconundrum.Theexistence,inconsciousness,ofamoralitythatissomethingotherthanareflectionofeconomicconditionssuggeststhepossibilitythathumanbeingsmightbecapableofclassindependentdeliberationconcerningphilosophicalandethicalissues.Shouldthatbethecase,itwouldbedifficulttoaccountforthatabilitywithintheinflexibledeterminismoftheinheritedMarxistsystem.

WhattheexistenceofamoralitythattranscendseconomicinterestsseemstosuggestissomethingWoltmannhadalreadybroughttotheattentionofthinkingMarxistssomeyearsbefore.16Ifmorality,anditsconsciousnessinmind,areolderthantheexistenceofclasses—andwouldsurvivetheirdisappearance—onecouldnotdismissthepossibilitythatethicaljudgmentandmoralconcernsmightinfluencecontemporaryhumanbehaviorindependentofprevailingeconomiccircumstances.

LikeWoltmann,MussolinimadereadyreferencetocommonelementsofamoraluniversalitytobefoundinthethoughtofPlato,Cicero,andBuddha17—thatcouldhardlybeplausiblyattributedtoacommonclassmembershiporacommoneconomicbase—andonatleastoneoccasion,Mussolinispokeofan“autonomousmorality,”independentofobediencetoanythingotherthanconscience.18Whileheacknowledged,ashadotherMarxistsbeforehim,thatsuchamoralitycouldnotbefullyattainedinpracticeuntilrequisitematerialconditionshadmatured,itwasclear,forallintentsandpurposes,thatMussoliniseemedtograntthatmoralandethicalprinciplesmightinfluencethebehaviorofactorsindependentofaspecific“materialbase.”

The“newmorality”ofwhichMussolinispoke,atthetime,drewattention,directlyandindirectly,tosomeoftheproblemsatthecenterofMarxismasacomprehensivephilosophicalsystem.UnlikeLenin,theissuewastoproveofconsiderableideologicalimportancetotheyoungMussoliniandsomeothercriticalMarxistsofhistime.

Thatthepossibilityofamoralitythattranscendedbothtimeandclass

occupiedMussolini’sattentionwasprobablytheconsequenceofhisuncommonfamiliaritywithsocialistthoughtandthesocialistliteratureoftheperiod.HereadandreviewedWernerSombart’sDerSozialismusunddiesozialeBewegung,forexample,thatcontainedanextensivecriticaldiscussioncenteredonMarx’streatmentofmoralandethicalthought.19Bythattime,alreadyfamiliarwiththewritingsofGeorgesSorel,Mussolinimadeapointofinsistingthatthecommitmenttorevolutionarysocialism,whilepredicatedonscientificconsiderations,wasessentiallymoral—acommitmenttoamoralitythatcouldnotsimplybereducedtoareflectionofthematerialcircumstancesinwhichtheproletariat,asaclass,founditself.20

By1908,Mussolinihadcomeundertheinfluenceofsomeofthemajorexponentsofrevolutionarysyndicalism.Asaconsequence,byhismid-twenties,unlikeLenin,hedevotedanuncommonmeasureofattentiontotheroleofethicsandmoralityinhumanbehavior.Mussolinibegantomakeregularreferencetomoralincentivesascriticalinpoliticsandrevolution.Thus,hespokeofsocialismasareasonedbeliefcomposedof“threeelements,onedoctrinal,onepractical,andathirdideal.”21Howonewastounderstandthatthirdcomponentremaineduncertain.ItwasequallyunclearthroughoutthoseearlyyearsjusthowMussoliniunderstoodnotonlytheoriginsandinfluenceofmoraljudgments,butthephilosophicalstatusofethicalprinciplesandidealsaswell.

Whatwasevident,bythetimeMussoliniconceivedhimselfasyndicalistin1904,wasthefactthattheoreticalsyndicalismreflectedsomeofthecentralconvictionsofSorel.SorelhadarguedthattherevolutionarygoalsofMarxismstoodindependentofMarxism’stheoreticalfrailties.WhetherMarx’snotionofthelabortheoryofvalue,orhisconvictionsconcerningtheremorselessconcentrationofcapital,ortheinevitablecatastrophiccollapseofcapitalism,weretrueorinerror,wasnotcriticaltotheresponsibilitiesofsocialrevolutionaries.Whatwascentraltotherevolutionaryenterprisewastheliftingoftheburdenofexploitationfromthemajorityofhumanbeings—thecreationofanenvironmentinwhichallmightrealizetheirhumanpotential—anexquisitelymoralpurpose.ForSorel—ineffectandinthelastanalysis—ethicsandmorality,andnotscience,layattheheartofrevolution.22

Morethanthat,formanyrevolutionaryMarxistsoftheperiodtherewereassociatedproblemsthatfeaturedanethicalormoralcomponent.Theyturnedonhumanmotivationandtheroleofleadershipinrevolutionaryepisodes.ProbablyinfluencedbybothSorelandtheItaliansocialscienceofhistime,23Mussolinihadbeguntoputtogetheracollectionofnotionsabouthowasocialistrevolution

mightproceed.LikeLenin,theyoungMussoliniwasquicktoremindhisvariousaudiencesthatrevolutionsseemtobeinvariablyledbyminorities—andonlywhensuchminoritiesprovidethefirstinitiativeswouldmassesfollow.24LikeLenin,Mussolinispokeof“proletarianelites”activeinmobilizingmasses—andofthe“people”as“alwaysingenuousandchildlike,”burdenedbya“torpidconsciousness”25—unlessledbyjustsuchelites.Asearlyasthefirstdecadeofthenewcentury,Mussolinianticipatedtheadventofanantireformist,revolutionary“authoritariansocialism.”Itwouldbeledbysocialistrevolutionarieswho,takentogether,Mussolinisawasa“vigilantvanguardoftheproletariat”—a“newelite”havingallthepropertiesdescribedbyPareto.26ItwouldbeanelitepossessedofpropertiessimilarlydescribedbyLenin—aswellasbySorelandtheprincipalspokesmenofrevolutionarysyndicalism.

Forthepurposesofdiscussion,itisinterestingtonotethatduringhisexpositioninL’Uomoeladivinità,Mussolinidevelopedyetanotherthemethatwastoinfluencetheevolution(ordevolution,asthecasemightbe)ofMarxism—amatterofsomesociologicalimportance.LikeEngelsandWoltmannbeforehim,Mussolinispoke,atcriticaltimesinhisexposition,ofgeneric“communities,”or“groups”ofhumanbeings,ashistoricactors.Onthoseoccasions,Mussolinispokeofgroupsratherthaneconomicclasses.Hespokeofsuchgroupsasbeing“associatedbyblood,locale,sexualaffinity...andintellectualinterests,”aswellaseconomicconcerns.27Therewasmoretogroupaffiliationthaneconomicinterest—aconsideration,itwillbeargued,thatwouldtransformMarxismasasystem.

Inthesamecontext,likeEngelsandWoltmannbeforehim,Mussolinispokeofsuchcommunitiesintermsofhundredsofthousandsofyearsofevolutionarytime.Hespokeofpithecanthropoid,ofhumanoid,andofhumangroups,existinginsavageryandbarbarismlongbeforeanythingakintoeconomicclassesexisted.LikeKautskyandWoltmann,Mussolinispokeofhumanbeings,throughevolutionarytime,eonsbeforespecificallyclassinterestscouldhaveaffectedthem,livinginassociationsgovernedbyinstinct,mimicry,sentiment,moralprinciple,andconscience.

Woltmannhaddrawnsomeoftheobviousimplicationsofsuchanaccount.Engelshadnot.NorhadMussolini—atthattime.Onlylater,inthecriticalyearsleadingtoItaly’sinvolvementintheGreatWar,didallthesethreadsofargumentcometogethertofashionsomeofthefabricofthefirstFascism.Intheinterim,itwasrevolutionarysyndicalismandthethoughtofSorelthatwastoinfluenceMussolini’smoreimmediatereflections.

MUSSOLINI,SOREL,ANDREVOLUTIONARYSYNDICALISMIn1909,MussolinipublishedareviewofGiuseppePrezzolini’sLateoria

sindacalista.28ItwasanessaythatremainsessentialifonewouldunderstandMussolini’sprogressionfromtheorthodoxyofGermanSocialDemocracytowhatwastobecomeoneofMarxism’smostfatefulvariants.

InthecourseofhisreviewofPrezzolini’sbook,Mussoliniindicatedthat,bythattime,hehadbeenofsyndicalistpersuasionforaboutfiveyears.29Yearslater,RenzoDeFelicearguedthatthefactthathehadbeenarevolutionarysyndicalistduringthoseyearswascentraltoMussolini’sintellectualdevelopment.DeFeliceheldthat“themostimportantinfluenceuponMussolini’sdevelopment...wasthatexercisedbyrevolutionarysyndicalism.EvenafterMussoliniconcludedhis[initial]socialistphase,theinfluenceofrevolutionarysyndicalismrevealeditselfinthe...mannerheconceivedsocialrelationsandpoliticalstruggle.”30Whatwasnotsaid,andyetwasequallyimportant,wasthefactthatMussolini’srelationshipwithPrezzolini,theeditoroftheiconoclasticjournalLaVoce,wastobeofsimilar,ifnotequal,importance.TheinfluenceofPrezzolini,andtheauthorsthatcollectedaroundLaVoce,helpedshapeMussolini’sheterodoxMarxismintowhatitwastobecome.

InwritinghisreviewofPrezzolini’svolume,31Mussolinioutlinedthebasicelementsofthesyndicalismtowhichhesubscribed.ItwasarenderingthatremainsimportantinsofarasitrevealedagreatdealaboutMussolini’sownpoliticalviews.Inhisreview,Mussolinispokeofsyndicalismasfuturedirectedandactionoriented—asidentifiedwhollywiththeproletariattotheexclusionofbourgeoisinfluence—asantiparliamentarianandopposed,inprinciple,tothepoliticsofpopularelections.Heemphasizedthedifferencesbetweenthemeliorative,parliamentarian,andparty-basedsocialismofGermanSocialDemocracy,thetentativereformismofwhatwastakentobeItalianMarxistorthodoxy,andtherevolutionaryradicalismofsyndicalism.Inthecourseofhisexposition,Mussoliniproceededtoidentifythemajordifferencesbetweenthesocialismofpartyadherentsandthesocialismofrevolutionarysyndicalism.Forsyndicalists,Mussoliniinsisted,socialismwasnothinglessthananepicconflictbetweentwofundamentallyopposedvisionsofthefuture.Likethegreatstrugglesofantiquityinwhichthedestinyoftheworldwasdetermined,theclassstrugglebetweentheproletariatandtheirantagonists,eachledbytheirrespectiveelites,32wouldbeofhistoricsignificance.

InimageslikethosethatfoundfavorintheproseofLenin,Mussolinispokeofanhistoricstrugglethatwouldrequire“newcharacters,newvalues,newmen.”Itwouldinvolveconflictbetweengroupsofhumanbeings,eachpossessedofanentirelydifferentethicalconsciousness.Thewarriorsofthesocialrevolutionweretaskedwithobligationsthatwoulddemanddiscipline,selflessness,andsacrificeofthem.“Thesocialrevolution,”Mussolinisaid,“wouldsufferaperiodofviolence,anheroic,insurrectionaryinterlude...forwhichonemustpreparetheprotagonists.”Heanticipatedanepochwhichwouldhaveasitsfatalresponsibility“thedevelopmentofhumancharacter...[and]theeconomicandmoralshapingofanewhumanbeing.”33

Thosechargedwithmakingrevolutioncouldnolongerescapeintothatformof“economicdeterminism”thatpromisedautomaticsocialchangeasaconsequenceof“inscrutablelawspoorlyunderstood.”Mussoliniinsisted,“Syndicalismunderstandshistorytobetheresultofthewilledactionofhumanbeings...wholeavetheimpactoftheirtransformativepoweronthingsandinstitutions....Syndicalismdoesnotdeny‘economicnecessity,’butsupplementsthatnecessitywithawilled‘ethicalconscience.’”34

Inthecontestbetweenprotagonists,Mussolinicontended,revolutiontakesonthefeaturesofarmedconflict,aconflictthatdemandsaheighteningofmoralsensibilitiesandselflesscommitment.Thestruggledemandsviolence,“simple,ingenuous,primitive,traditionalviolence,”directedagainstthebourgeoisstateandallitsassociatedinstitutions.Revolutionrequiresthatitsideasnotremain“ontheshelvesoflibraries,”butactivelyengagethewillandenergiesofdeterminedhumanbeings.Thegeneralstrike,thepreferredweaponofrevolutionarysyndicalism,providestheoccasionforengaginginthatviolence.Italsoaffordstheopportunityforthetrainingoftheproletariatinorderthattheymightassumethose“heroic”responsibilitiesthatwouldflowfromthedefeatoftheirclassenemyandtheconquestofthemeansofproduction.

Outofthatvictorywouldemergethe“newsocietyofproducers”thathadbecometheinspirationalidealofthemovement.Theworkers’syndicats,composedofthosetransformedintheprocessofrevolution,wouldbecomethecellsoftheemergingproducersociety.

AllofthathadbecomefamiliarintheMarxistworksofSorel.PerhapsmoreimportantforthepresentaccountisthefactthattherewereelementsinPrezzolini’streatmentofSorel’sworkthat,whilenotappearingprominentlyinMussolini’sreview,areparticularlyrelevantincomingtounderstandtherelationshipofMarxismtotheemergenceofthatfutureFascismthatwastobe

oneofitsmajorvariants.

Inhistreatment,forexample,MussolinibrieflyalludedtothefactthatPrezzoliniarguedthatthethoughtofHenriBergsonwasnotessentialeithertotheformation,ortotheplausibility,ofSorel’ssyndicalism.Actually,therewasmoretoPrezzolini’sdiscussionofBergsonianthoughtanditspossiblerelationshiptosyndicalism.PrezzolinimadeapointofthefailureofBergsonianismtoprovideacoherentphilosophicalfoundationforsyndicalism.

PrezzoliniarguedthatSorel,foravarietyofeasilyunderstoodreasons,soughttoemphasizethe“spiritual”qualitiesofhumankind.WhatthatmeantwasthatSorelhadraisedobjectiontothethenprevalentpositivismanditsintrinsic“scientisticmaterialism.”Sorelopposedthepopularscientismofhistimebecausehearguedthatsuchaconceptionoftheworldcouldonlyfosterpoliticalquietismamongthethinkersofthelatenineteenthcentury.Positivism’sdeterminismanditsreductionofalltheissuesinvolvingethicsandmoralitytomaterialcausesnecessarilyenfeebledthewillandleftnoincentivetostruggle.Ifhistorywasnothingotherthanacomplexfatality,witheventsthenecessaryconsequenceofthe“lawsofhistoricaldevelopment,”humanswerenothingotherthanmarionettesinadramaoverwhichtheyhadnocontrol.Sorelrejectedthepositivisticpretensethatanysuchdeterminismwasdictatedby“objectivescience.”

Inordertomakehiscase,Sorelarticulatedfairlysophisticatedargumentsthatsoughttodistinguishthetruthconditionsgoverningsocialsciencefromthoseappropriatetomathematicophysicaldisciplines.Ashasbeenargued,inmakingthatdistinction,Bergson’s“spiritualistic”philosophy—hisemphasisontheroleofintuition,creativity,consciousreflection,andmoralconcern—seemedsupportivetoSorel.Inresponse,PrezzoliniundertooktodemonstratethatBergson’s“lifephilosophy”wasactuallypoorlyequippedtodealwithseriousepistemologicalanddeontologicalquestions.

PrezzolinipointedoutthatBergson’sthoughtharboredwithinitselfanunresolvedandtroublingdualism:withhuman“spirit,”life,consciousness,and“vitalimpulse,”somehowopposedbyexternal“matter.”Prezzolinimaintainedthatitwouldbeverydifficultfor“spirit”tobridgethedistancebetweenitselfandapreexistentmatter.Ifconsciousnessandvitalimpulseweresomehowprimaryintheentireprocessofcomingtoknowtheworld,howdoesoneproceedfromtheimmediaterealityofconsciousnesstothatexternalmaterialitywithwhichitmustcontend—withoutmakingappealtoahostofindefensibleintellectualpresuppositions?

ItisclearthatBergsonarguedthatconsciousnessispossessedofaformofintelligencedesignedtoassisthumanbeingsintheireffortstoadapttotheworld.Itisthatintelligencethatgivesusthemeasureofthematerialworld.Positivistsandmaterialistsofallsortshadsaidnothingless.ButthereisanotherformofintelligencethatBergsonspeaksofas“intuitive,”thatrevealstheartificialityoftherealitymeasuredoutintimeandspace,inlogic,ingeometry,andinsimplemathematics.GivenBergson’sargument,whatcouldbetheepistemologicalandontologicalstatusofthatmaterialand“artificial”reality,exposedbyintuition?

PrezzoliniarguedthatgivenBergson’sviewsweareleftuncertainwhichrealityisontologicallytrue—the“practicalworld,madeupingeometricformandtiedtogetherwithabstractions,”providedbyfunctionalempiricalscience,orthatworldofflowanddynamicchangefoundinintuitiveawareness?35PrezzoliniarguedthattheresolutionofsuchfundamentalphilosophicalissuesrequiredafarmoresophisticatedtreatmentthananyfoundintheworksofeitherSorelorBergson—or,forthatmatter,intheworksofMarxorEngels.PrezzolinirecommendedrecoursetosomeformofmodernHegelianism,anepistemologicalandperhapsontologicalidealismthatwouldaddresssuchconcernsatamorefundamentallevelthananyevidentinBergson’sintuitionismand“anti-intellectualism.”36

BythetimehewroteLateoriasindacalista,PrezzolinihadtransitionedthroughphilosophicalpragmatismandgivenhimselfovertothatItalianformofphilosophicalidealismthatfoundexpressionintheworksofBenedettoCroceandGiovanniGentile.37Ineffect,PrezzoliniaffordeddomesticMarxists,Mussoliniamongthem,theoccasionofaspecificallyItalian“returntoKant”intheireffortstoresolvesomeofthephilosophicalandtheoreticalquestionsthatwereclearlypartoftheirintellectualinheritance.Prezzoliniheldthatonlysomeformofphilosophicalidealismcouldaddresssomeofthemostdemandingontological,epistemological,andethicalproblemsthatafflictedMarxistthought.ItwasacontentionthatwaslatertosurfaceamongthoseMarxistswhofollowedMussoliniintoFascism.

In1909,MussolinimadeonlyobliqueallusiontoPrezzolini’sspecificallyphilosophicalargumentsinhisreviewofLateoriasindacalista.Heeitherchosenottoaddresstheentirecomplexbusiness,orhefeltincompetenttodosoatthattime.Inanyevent,PrezzolinihadraisedanumberofcriticalissuesthatweretobecomeincreasinglyinfluentialtotheevolvingMarxistheterodoxywithwhichMussoliniwastobecomeidentified.

TherewereotherimportantsubjectsthatMussolinichosenottoaddressonthe

occasionofhisreview.Inhistext,forexample,Prezzolinimadeapointofarguingthatsyndicalismadvocatedanintegralcollectivism—dismissingthe“bourgeoisindividualism”thatSorelconceivedboththreateningtogroupsurvivalanddestructiveofvirtueandmoralconduct.Prezzolini,likeSorel,wentontoindicatethatsuchasavingcollectivismmightariseincommunitiesotherthaneconomicallydefinedclasses.Onceagain,theargumentinsupportoftheexistenceofvitalcommunitiesotherthanclassesmadetheirappearance—justastheyhadintheworksofEngelsandWoltmann—andbrieflyinthatofLenin.

Inhisbookonsyndicalism,Prezzolinisuggestedthat,inItaly,theentrepreneurialbourgeoisiemightwellhostanopennationalcommunity—composedofindividualswhosharedethnic,linguisticandculturalaffinities—tappingintogenericgroup,ratherthanaspecificallyclass,sentiment.Suchacommunity,Prezzolinimaintained,infilledbyasenseofsolidarityandmission,mightprovidethestructuredenvironmentinwhichtheproletariatmightbeeducatedtomoralpurposes.PrezzoliniwentontoarguethattheveryneedtoindustrializetheItalianpeninsula,three-fourthsofwhichremained,atthattime,economicallyretrograde,mightwellconstitutethemissionthatcouldrenderthecommunitycapableoffosteringandsustainingindividualandgroupmorality.Itwouldbeacommunityinwhichasenseofcollectivemissionwouldprovidethedemandingatmosphereofhighmoraltensionandself-sacrificethatwouldproducethefuture“warriorproducers”ofwhomSorelspoke.38

GivenhisinterpretationofSorel’sintent,itseemedevidenttoPrezzolinithatMarxism,asitwasunderstoodbyitsadvocatesatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,lentitselftoanumberofperfectlyconsistent,ifopposed,theoreticalandpracticalformulations.PrezzoliniarguedthatGermansocialists,movedbygroupsentiment,howeverorthodoxtheirMarxism,mightwellbepreparedtoidentifywiththeirnationasa“communityofdestiny”shoulditbethreatenedfromwithout—toproduceakindof“nationalsocialism.”39Whileitseemsclearthatheheldthatsuchaposturemightbeseenbyothersas“insincere,”itisequallyevidentthatitwouldnotnecessarilyappearsotoSorelians.Ingeneral,Sorelhadarguedthatgroupsolidarity,thebasisformuchofvirtueandmoralconduct,wasessentiallygeneric,withoutanyintrinsicconnectiontoanyspecificclassorcommunity.Historyhaddemonstratedthatthesenseofgroupsolidaritymightwellbeattachedtothenationaswellasanyalternative.Giventheappropriatecircumstances,itwasevidentthatSorelconceivedthatanycollectivitymight,withequalright,layclaimtotheallegianceofindividuals.

Sorelhadarguedthattribalcommunities,citystates,religioussects,aswellas

modernnationsmightserveascommunitiesofsolidarity,offeringthecircumstancesinwhichhumanbeingswouldbechallengedtoliftthemselvesabovetheirnarrowinterestsandaspiretogreaterpurposethanthesimplesatisfactionofmaterialneeds.Sorelunderstoodsolidaritytobeaconditionforthemoralelevationofhumankind.

Givenhisreview,itappearsevidentthatMussolinireadPrezzolini’stextwithconsiderableattention.Whilenotpreparedatthetimetoaddresssomeofthemoredifficultquestionsraised,hedidundertaketobegintoanalyzetheissueofwhichspecific“communityofdestiny”mightproperlyengagethecommitmentoftheproletariatasaclass.

InhisreviewofSorel’sReflectionsonViolencethatappearedshortlyafterthatofPrezzolini’saccountofsyndicalisttheory,Mussolinirepeatedhispositivejudgmentsconcerningrevolutionarysyndicalism.AllthethemesthatmadeupthesubstanceofhisreviewofPrezzolini’sLateoriasindacalistaarefoundinthesubsequenttext.Mussolinicontinuedtoidentifyhimselfasasyndicalist,40andreiteratedhiscommitmenttothemoralconceptionsofSorel.Hecontinuedtospeakofthe“newmen”whowouldemergefromtherevolutionarystrugglesofsyndicalism—andinsistedthatSorel’svisionprovidedrevolutionarieswith“amorecertaincomprehensionofMarxismthathadoriginallyarrivedinItalyinanunrecognizablestate.”41

Beyondthat,andperhapsofmoreinteresttothepresentaccount,MussolinitouchedontheissueofnationalismandtheroleitmightplayintherevolutionarypoliticsofMarxism.Inthecourseofhisdiscussion,Mussoliniacknowledgedthatnoonecoulddenytheexistenceoftheloveofcountryasasentiment.42Whatheproceededtomaintainwasthatthepatriotismofsocialismcouldonlybe“equivocal.”Theproletariat,whateveritssentimentsmightbe,hadnomaterialinterestsinthesurvivalofItalyasanation.TheItalianbourgeoisiedeniedtheItalianproletariatproperty;thelackofeducationamongItaly’sworkersdeniedthemprideinthenation’sculturalachievements;andthereactionarypoliticsofclassdominanceinItalylefttheproletariatwithoutanyformofexpression.Whateverthebasicpatrioticsentimentsoftheproletariatmightbe,thebourgeoisieleftthembereftofafatherland.43

ThediscussionleavesthereaderwithasensethatMussolini,insomemeasure,deploredthealienationofworkersfromtheirnation.AlmostimmediatelyafterhisreviewofSorelandthediscussionofunrequitednationalsentiments,Mussoliniwrote,atsomelength,ofthegloriesofItaly—ofthepoliticalandculturalachievementsofancientRome,ofthecommercialand

civilizingaccomplishmentsofVeniceandNaples,ofthebeautyanduniversalhumanizinginfluenceofthatItalythatheidentifiedas“thecommonfatherlandofgenius.”44

PerhapsmoresignificantthanthatinputtingtogetheraconnectedaccountofhisemergingMarxistheterodoxy,MussoliniwroteoftheItalyofhistimeasanItalyawakeningfromalongsleep.“Whereonceloversdreamedandnightingalessang,”hewrote,“nowfactorysirensblow.Italyisacceleratingitspaceinthegreatmarathoninwhichtheworldsupremacyofnationsisbeingdecided.”45Therelationshipofnationsamongthemselveswasamatterofconcern.

Inhisdiscussionsoftheperiod,MussoliniaddressedsomeofthecriticalissuesthathadarisenamongrevolutionaryMarxistsattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Healludedtophilosophical,scientific,andmoralconcernsthatweretoremainunresolvedamongMarxiststhroughoutthecentury.46Heobliquelyalludedtothealternativecommunities—class,racial,ornational—withwhichMarxistrevolutionariesmightidentifythemselvesinthemodernworld.47

WhatisclearinallofthisisthefactthattheyoungMussoliniwasattemptingtoaddressandresolvemattersthatwerethen,andweretoforeverremain,attheintellectualcenterofMarxism.Howscienceandphilosophyweretobeunderstood;whatrolemoralityplayedinhumanhistory;howmightnationalsentimentinfluencetheroleofrevolutioninmoderntimes—werequestionsthatremainedunresolvedamongMarxistshoweverorthodox,heterodox,orheretical.

Independentofthemoreprofoundintellectualproblems,itwasevidentthatasayoungMarxistrevolutionary,theyoungMussolinitookprideinhisnationalityandhisfatherland.48Morethanthat,heappliedSorel’sappealtoproductivismandindustrialdevelopmenttothehistoricconditionsinwhichretrogradeItalyfounditself.Equallyclearisthefactthat,atthatjuncture,Mussoliniheldthattherevolutionaryproletariat,becauseoftheexactionsofthebourgeoisie,couldneithersharehisnationalpridenorhisenthusiasmforItaly’sacceleratedeconomicandindustrialgrowth.

MuchofthediscussionthataroseoutoftheseissueswastobefoundinthecontemporarypagesofPrezzolini’sLaVoce—andinretrospect,itseemsevidentthatatleastsomeoftheimpetusforMussolini’sintellectualdevelopmentfounditsorigininPrezzolini’streatmentofthesamesubjectsthatengagedSorelandthesyndicalists.Mussolini’sfamiliaritywithLaVoce,andtheintellectualswhogatheredaroundit,helpsaccountformanyofthefeaturesofthatvariantof

MarxismwenowspeakofasFascism.

SOREL,MUSSOLINI,ANDTHEVOCIANIDuringthefirstfifteenyearsofthepastcentury,GiuseppePrezzoliniand

GiovanniPapiniwereyoungintellectualswhomanagedtoinfluencepoliticalthoughtinItalytoadegreethathardlycouldhavebeenanticipated.Independentlyortogethertheyeditedanumberofperiodicals,somemoredurablethanothers,whichsucceededinshapingthethoughtandpoliticsofseveralgenerationsofItalianswhoweretogoontohelpgoverneventsforaquartercentury.Thejournal,LaVoce,49wasonlythemostprominentofthosefoundedbytheminthecourseofthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury.

NotlongafterthefoundingofLaVoce,Mussoliniidentifiedhimselftoitseditor,Prezzolini,asalreadyoneofthejournal’s“assiduousreaders.”50LaVocehadbeenalinealdescendantofthejournalsLeonardoandIlRegno.Initstime,Leonardohadbeenavehicleforthediscussiongeneratedbyavarietyofcontestedissues.Amongthoseissues,onefindsthosethatturnedonemergingpoliticalnationalism,philosophicalidealism,anddevelopmentaleconomics.MussoliniinformedPrezzolinithathehadbeenasassiduousareaderofLeonardoashewasofLaVoce.51

Forourpurposesthatfactisofsomeimportance.ItwasaseditorofLeonardothatPapiniraisedsomeofthesamephilosophicalquestionsthatengagedSorel.ThematerialismofwhathadbecomestandardphilosophicalpositivismnolongersatisfiedPapini—andhebecameoneofthefirstspokesmeninItalytorejectpositivismandbroadcastthealternativemeritsofAmericanpragmatism.52LikeSorel,Papinisoughtamoresatisfyinganswertoepistemologicalandmoralquestionsthanthosefoundinthevariousmaterialismsthatdominatedtheintellectualcommunityofthetime.

AseditorofLeonardo,PapinicametotheattentionofEnricoCorradini,leaderofanItalianpoliticalnationalismthenonlybeginningtofinditself.TheItaliannationalismofthetimewaslittlemorethanpartiallyarticulateandcoherent.In1903,CorradiniaskedPapinitoputtogetheranintellectualrationaleforItaly’semergentnationalism—andinFebruary1904,Papinipresentedhisideastoapoliticalaudienceforthefirsttime,torepeatthematvarioussitesthroughoutItalyduringthemonthsthatfollowed.Forourpurposesseveralthingsaresignificantinthepublishedaccountofhisspeech.53

Firstofall,PapiniarticulatedaclutchofideasthatweretoregularlyresurfaceinthepagesofLaVoce.Forthepurposesofreconstructingthedevelopmentof

Mussolini’sMarxism,someofthoseideasareimportant.Papiniinsisted,forexample,thatitissentiment,passion,thatmovespersonstopoliticalactivity.Hewastoarguethatfeelingsanimatethewill,andthatitisthewillthatgivesrisetoaction.HewentontomaintainthatsocialisminItalypossessedthesentimentandthewillthatfindsoutletinaction—butheproceededtocontendthatbecausesocialistorthodoxymadeclasstheexclusivebasisofgroupidentity,Marxistrevolutionariescouldneitherunderstandnorundertakecontemporaryrevolutionwithanyhopeofsuccess.

ForPapini,theidentificationwithone’sclasshardlyprovidedthegroundsforhistoricundertakings.Identificationwithone’sclasswasanexpressionofaverynarrow,andequallyunappealing,materialism.Moreover,whentheapologistsforMarxismsoughttofurnishsomesortofaltruismtooffsettheselfishinterestsofclass,theyalmostinvariablyappealedto“humanity.”Theattempttomovefromnarrowclassidentificationtoonewithanabstract“humanity,”simplyrevealedhowfewoptionswereactuallyavailabletorevolutionaryMarxism.Toidentifywithone’sclassistoidentifywithone’smostimmediatematerialconcerns.Toidentifywith“humanity”istoidentifywithanemptyandinsubstantialPlatonicidea.Papiniheldthattoattempttoinspirehumanbeingstosacrificerequiredsomethingmore.

Inthemodernworld,Papiniwenton,itisthenation,embodyingtheimmediateinterestsofindividualsandtheirclass,butextendingfarbeyondthattoincludesharedcultureandhistory,thatservesasanhistoricactor.Itisthenation,interactingwithothernationsinbothamityandenmity,that,alltakentogether,constitutesthesubstanceandstoryofhumanity.Anydoctrinethatrousesthenationtosuchendeavorsistheproduct,notof“reflections”oftheeconomicbase,butofthephilosophicandmoraldeliberationsofmaturehumanbeings.Understandingthat,Papiniwenton,onebeginstoappreciatethathistoryismadeonlywith“heroicintensity”andareadinesstosuffer“supremesacrifice.”

Thepassionsoflife,andthedemandsmadeupontheindividualinthecourseofmeetingcollectiveresponsibilities,necessitatesleadershipbythosespeciallygiftedbynatureandcircumstances.Life,Papiniinsisted,imposedarduousdemandsonindividualslivingincommittedassociation—thatcouldonlybedischargedundertheleadershipofadedicatedelite.HeremindedhisreadersthatwelearnedasmuchfromsocialscientistsinFranceandGermanyandfromGaetanoMoscaandParetoinItaly.Beyondthat,hewenton,suchacommandingelitemustemanatefromthebourgeoisie—theItaliannobilitybeing

effete,andtheproletariatlackingthebackgroundandtrainingnecessaryforsuchresponsibility.Ineffect,byadifferentroute,PapinihadcometosomeofthesameconclusionsconcerningrevolutionashadLenin.

Lenin,likePapini,arguedthatrevolutionsaremadebyaneliteleadershipdrawnfromthebourgeoisie—mobilizinguncertainandunreflectingmasses.Lenin’s“declassed”eliteclearlysharedsomefeatureswiththatbourgeoiselitetowhomPapiniappealed.LikeLenin’srevolutionaryelite,54Papini’selitewasexpectedtobeindependentofnarrowclassinterestinordertoserveamoregenerouspurpose.Atthetime,whatdistinguishedthenotionsofPapiniandPrezzolinifromthoseofLeninturnedontheirrecommendationthattherevolutionwouldrequiretheindustrialdevelopmentoftheeconomicallyretrogradepeninsula.55

ForPapini,thegoalsofanyseriousrevolutionwouldbeshapedbythecircumstancesinwhichthenationfounditself.InItaly’scasetherevolutionwouldrespondtothemeannessofItalianlife—itsmanifestinferiorityinthemodernworld.Itwouldbearevolutionthatwouldaddressthenation’sdearthofrawmaterialsfortheeffectivedevelopmentofindustry.Itwouldbearevolutionpredicatedontheneedforspacethatmightsupportaburgeoningpopulation—onaneedformarketsforemergentdomesticindustries—ontheneedforpopularliteracy—andontheneedofaninfrastructureoftransportationandcommunication.56Allthatwouldberequiredtomakeofrevolutionsomethingglorious—andofcollectivelifesomethingmoregenerous,morevast,moreheroic.

In1904,thatwasthevisionofrevolutioncommontomanyvociani.57OnedoesnothavetosearchfartorecognizetheoverlapbetweenjustsuchideasandthoseoftheSorelians.ThatexplainssomethingoftheappealofLeonardoandLaVocefortheyoungMussolini.AtthesametimethathewasreadingSorel’spublications,MussolinifoundinLaVocemanyofthesamethemesthatmadeupthesubstanceofrevolutionarysyndicalism.Anunknownpoliticalactivistinhismid-twenties,Mussolinifoundthejournalofsufficientimportancenotonlytosubscribetoit,andsubmitarticlesforpublicationinitspages,buttovolunteerhistimeandefforttosolicitsubscriptionsinitsservice.

TheveryfactthatthejournalattractedhisattentionisimportantinanyefforttoreconstructthecourseofMussolini’sMarxistheterodoxies.LaVocewasfoundedandeditedbyGiuseppePrezzolini—withGiovanniPapinisoservingonoccasion.BothPrezzoliniandPapiniweresupremelyindependentthinkersandexchangedcorrespondencewitharosterofnotablesincludingPareto,Benedetto

Croce,GiovanniGentile,andRobertoMichels.AllweretocontributesomethingtothesubstanceofLaVoceand,asaconsequence,totheevolutionofMussolini’sthought.WhenhewrotehisreviewofPrezzolini’sbookonsyndicalisttheoryin1909,MussolinihadalreadyadaptedtohisownsystemofbeliefssomeofthemajorthemesfoundinthepagesofLaVoce.

Allthoseissueswehaveconsidered,thecommunitywithwhichonemightexpecttheproletariattoidentify,58thenatureofphilosophicalinquiryandnormativeassessment,59theroleofscienceandmoralityinrevolution,andthenatureandcompositionofrevolutionaryleadership,allcontinuedtoworktheirwaythroughtherevolutionarythoughtoftheyoungMussolini.

PersonalcircumstancesandworldeventswouldsubsequentlyinfluenceMussolini’sthoughtsontheseissues,astheywouldhisjudgmentsconcerningtheultimateinterestsoftherevolutionaryproletariat.Theywerenotquestionsthatcouldbeeasilyresolved—andtheyweretoinfluencetheongoingdiscussionsamongthemajorintellectualsofsyndicalismandrevolutionaryradicalisminItalyatleastuntiltheoutbreakoftheGreatWar.Beforethecomingofthatwar,thediscussionthatturnedonalltheseissuesbecameparticularlyintenseintheturbulentperiodleadinguptoItaly’sconflictintheMediterraneaninvolvingtheOttomanTurks.

SYNDICALISM,NATIONALISM,ANDMUSSOLINIIntheyearsimmediatelyprecedingthewarinTripoli,Mussolinichoseto

acceptapositionassecretaryforthesocialistsecretariatoflaborintheAustro-HungarianprovinceofTrent.Whilethere,hewastoworkintenselywithCesareBattisti,toassumetheresponsibilityofeditinghissocialistdaily,IlPopolo.

Morethansimplyworkingwithhim,muchofMussolini’sproseoftheperiodreflectedmuchofBattisti’spoliticalthought—andturnedonissuesthatweretoremainimportanttoMussolini’spoliticalevolutionthroughouttheintervalleadingtotheadventoftheFirstWorldWar.ThatisnottosuggestthatBattistiinspiredMussolini’sideologicaldevelopment.Itseemsperfectlyevidentthatbeforetheycametogetherbothsharedarosterofopinionsconcerningthenatureofassociationandthecharacterofhumansentiment.Byhisowntestimony,MussolinihadbeenanavidreaderofLeonardoandLaVocebeforehissojournintheTrentino.Heentertainedsomeoftheviewsthatfoundexpressionintheirpages—includingthesuggestionthatnationalsentimentmightbeapowerfulincentivetorevolutionaryassociation.

Ineffect,Mussolinibroughtwithhimacomplexsetofideasaboutsocial

revolution,bearingontheissuesinvolvedinthemobilizationofmasses.HewastofindthatheheldmanyofthoseideasincommonwithBattistiwithwhomtherewastobesympathyandanenduringmutualregard.60

DuringtheninemonthsspentintheTrentino,MussoliniworkedwithBattistiwho—whileasfirminhisinternationalistconvictionsaswasMussolini—hadneverabandonedhissenseofItalianidentity.Asastudent,Battistiwasamemberofasocietyofstudentswhoinsistedonmaintainingthatidentityinaregionthathadbeenseparatedfromthemotherlandbytreatysince1815—afterthedefeatofNapoleon.Bytreaty,theTrentinowastransferredtotheHapsburgEmperorofAustria-Hungary.

TheHapsburgschosetorenametheTrentinothesouthernTyrol.NeithertheearliertransfernorthelaterchangeofnameextinguishedthesenseofbeingItalianamongmembersoftheresidentethnicpopulation.AtalmostthesametimethattheHapsburgschosetochangethenameoftheregion,therewasthearcheologicaldiscoveryoftheTavolaClesianathatrecordedthefactthattheEmperorClaudiushad,inantiquity,extendedRomancitizenshiptotheinhabitantsoftheTrentino.TheItaliansoftheregioncitedthatfactasevidenceofthehistoricityoftheiridentity—andpersistedindistinguishingthemselvesfromotherethniccommunitieswithintheAustro-Hungarianempire.Theagitationforameasureofautonomy,thepreservationoftheItalianlanguage,andtheestablishmentofItalianlanguageschoolsforthedefenseofItalianculture,continuedthroughoutthelastdecadeofthenineteenthandthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcenturies.

Withthebeginningofthenewcentury,BattistiandtheethnicItaliansocialistsledthestruggleforItalianautonomyintheTrentino.ItwasthatstrugglethatMussoliniwaslatertoidentifyas“oneofthemostbeautifulpagesinthehistoryofthesocialistpartyintheTrentino.”61Itwasthatatmosphere,chargedwithnationalsentiment,intowhichMussoliniwasthrustin1909.

MussoliniwastoallyhimselfwithBattistiwho,asaconvincedsocialist,wasnonethelessanardentadvocateofItalianrightsinapoliticallyunresponsiveenvironment.Assuch,BattistiwasanarticulateopponentofboththeregionalliberaldemocraticpartyaswellasthepoliticalrepresentativesoftheCatholicchurch.HeheldthefirsttobevacillatingandirresoluteinthedefenseofethnicItalians,seekingonlytheinterestsoftheirclass.Inturn,hesawtheclericsasfartooaccommodativetoimperialrule.

Asasocialist,Battistisoughttodefendtherightsofnationalityaswellas

fosterthegeneralrenewalofmoralityandintegrity.Allofthatcouldbeaccomplishedonlybyinvokingthenationalsentimentsofthesubjectcommunity.“Nations,”heargued,“representanaffirmationofagrandsolidarityandanecessarystepintheunificationofhumankind.”62Outofthatsenseofnationalsolidarity,anewmoralityofhumanfraternitywasexpectedtogrow.LikemanyMarxistsoftheperiod,Battistiheldthatthedefenseofnationalitydidnotcontradicthismostfundamentalsocialistandethicalconvictions.

BattistiledthestrugglefornationalautonomyintheTrentino.Hewentsofarastoarguethatsocialistswerepreparedtostruggleforsuchrecognitionunitedwiththeirclassopponents,thebourgeoisie—ifthebourgeoisiewouldremainresoluteinthefaceoftheHapsburggovernment.63Itwasclearthatasasocialist,Battistiwaspreparedtoundertakestruggle,alliedwiththosewhoweretheoreticallyclassenemies,intheserviceoftheirinclusivenationality.

InAustria,theissueofnationalityhademergedasacriticalproblemfortheGesamptpartei—theofficialAustro-Hungariansocialistparty—asearlyasitsfounding.DuringthelastyearsofthenineteenthcenturythepartyfacedseriousinternaldissentionbecauseCzechs,Slovaks,andotherSlavicgroups,togetherwithRomaniansandItalians,allmistrustedtheGermans,whooccupiedalmostalltheleadershiprolesintheparty.TheGermans,inturn,demonstratedprofoundnationalandethnicprejudices.Becauseofthat,ontheoccasionofthebiennialpartyconferenceinViennain1897,thenon-Germanminoritiessoughttocreateafederatedorganizationinwhichthevariousethniccommunitieswouldhaveadequateandresponsiverepresentation.Theissueremainedunresolveduntiltheendofthecentury—anditwasclearthat,amongMarxists,thenationalitiesissuewouldneverfindcompleteresolution.64

Theissueclearlyinvolvedgroupidentity.Austriansocialistswerepreparedtoacknowledgethatamongthecandidatesforgroupidentitynationalitywasevidentlyasimportantaseconomicfraternity.Undersomesetofconditions,Battisti,asasocialist,wasprepared,amongtheoptionsavailable,toextendprioritytothedefenseandenhancementofnationality.

ThesewerethecircumstancesinwhichMussolinifoundhimselfduringhissojournintheTrentino.Duringthisperiod,hehadoccasiontospecificallyaddresssomeoftheconcernsthatwouldoccupyhimhisentirepoliticallife.Amongotherthings,itwasmanifestthat,likeBattistiandthevociani,heneverabandonedthenationasapossibleobjectofattachment,howeverpreoccupiedonemightbewithclassconflict.

LikeBattisti,andasasocialist,Mussoliniinsistedthatany“universalsolidarity”requiredbytherevolutionheadvocated,couldneither“cancelthefatherland”nordetractfromits“idealintegrity.”65Infact,andonceagainlikeBattisti,amonghiscomplaintsagainstthefunctionariesoftheCatholicchurchintheTrentino,MussoliniincludedthechargethattheywerepreparedtodenytheirnationalloyaltiesinacompliantandsubmissiveaccommodationwiththeirHapsburgrulers.

Mussoliniwentontoapplaudthespecialsobriety,courage,andtenacityofItalianworkers,whoemploying“Latingenius,”wouldonedaycreatethe“newman”oftheanticipatedfuturesociety—“whowouldact,produce,dominatematter,enjoythattriumphthatmultiplieslife’senergies,andmoveon,asone,toothergoals,otherhorizons,andotherideals.”66Thoseaccomplishments,howeverinternationalinultimatescope,wouldbeItalianinessence.

Withinthatcontext,andagainlikeBattisti,Mussolinideplored“chauvinism,”andthe“narrow”and“stupidnationalism”of“proprietors”orclerics,whoexploitedthesentimentof“patriotism”forpersonalorinstitutionalgain.Helamentedtheinvocationofnationalsentimentinordertoobstructthefreepassageofinternationalculturalexchangesorfuelthosehatredscalculatedtoaccomplishnothingmorethanabettheclassinterestsofthebourgeoisie.67

Inacomplexinterplayofnationalsentimentandworkmen’sidentity,Mussolini’sthoughtduringhisrespiteintheTrentinoreflectedtheinfluenceofanentireconstellationofsocialscienceluminariesandrevolutionarythinkers—includingsyndicalists68andvociani.Battistihadalreadysettledonasimilarcollectionofconvictions—andbothheandMussoliniwereinsubstantialagreementontherolenationalsentimentmightplayintherevolutionarytransformationofthemodernworld.

WhilehewasinresidenceintheTrentino,MussoliniwasurgedbyPrezzolinitowriteanextendedessayontheregion,andMussoliniagreed.UponhisexpulsionfromtheTrentinobytheAustro-Hungariangovernment,MussolinitookupthepreparationofhisstudyfortheseriespublishedbyLaVoce.69Theworkisinterestingforseveralreasons.

Inthefirstplace,Mussolini’slongessayprovidesevidencethathewaswellinformedconcerningtheavailablesocialscience,andMarxistrelevant,literatureoftheperiod.Morethanthat,inhisdiscussionofthe“chauvinism”oftheGermansocialistsintheTrentino,hecitedtheracismofLudwigWoltmannasthefoundationof“theoreticalpangermanism”—therationalefortheefforts

undertakenbythosesocialistsofGermanorigintoseekdominionoverthemultiethnicTrentino.AcknowledgingWoltmann’sMarxistideologicalconvictions,MussolinirecognizedthatwhateverorthodoxymightmeantofellowMarxists,itcouldbesignificantlystretchedintoavariantthatwastomostgrievouslyimpactthetwentiethcentury.70

ThepangermanistsadvocatedthedominanceofGermansintheregionbyappealingtotheracistconjecturesofanumberofscholarsotherthanWoltmann.MussolinicitedA.deGobineau,V.Lapouge,andH.S.Chamberlainamongthem.AsadvocatesofGermanmastery,they,likeWoltmann,arguedthatGermans,sometimesas“Aryans,”andothertimesas“Nordics,”wereespeciallygiftedcreatorsofculture.FortheGermanSocialists,Germanswerecreatorsofthemodernworld.SlavsandItalianswerecreaturesoflesserorder,destinedbybiologyandevolutionaryhistorytoasecondaryroleinmodernsociety.

Mussolini’sdiscussionofracialtheoryissurprisinglysophisticated.Hepointedtotheevidentlackofdefinitionalclarityconcerningtheconcept“race,”aswellastheabsenceofidentifiableanthropologicalevidenceunequivocallydistinguishingthemajorEuropeanraces.HedismissedracismasanimpairedefforttogathersentimentbehindakindofracialsocialismcalculatedtoassureGermansthattheirnationwouldbeaccordedaprivilegedplaceamongthe“greatpowers.”71Asobjectionableasracismmightbeasavariant,MussoliniwaspreparedtorecognizethatclassicalMarxismmightsupplytheelementsforjustsuchacuriosity.Ashasbeenindicated,bothKautskyandLeninhadbeenpreparedtorecognizeWoltmannasatheoreticallygiftedMarxist.

Mussolini’streatmentofthesentimentofnationalityamongtheItalianworkersoftheTrentinowasverydifferentfromanythingtobefoundintheworkofWoltmann.Mussoliniconceivednationalsentimentdevoidofspecificallyracistimplications—anddealtwiththephenomenainexclusivelypoliticalandsociologicalterms.

InthetextofIlTrentinovedutadaunsocialista,Mussolinispeakswithevidentprideoftheenduring“psychologicalandlinguisticethnicunityofItalians”inthepoliticallyrepressivesurroundingsoftheTrentino.72HewentontospeakofanyeffortonthepartofItalianstofreethemselvesfromthe“Austrianyoke”asintrinsicallyrevolutionary—butaddsthatmostItalianshadresignedthemselvestotheirthencurrentcircumstances—largelybecausethedominantelementsamongthem,thelandowners,thechurchmen,theownersofsmallmanufactories,andthemerchants,werealltimidandself-seeking,findingmoreevidentbenefitsinaccommodatingthemselvestotheAustriansthanany

alternative.73TheItaliansocialistsalone,amongalltheItalianelementsintheTrentino,pursuedadefenseofItalianità,ofnationality.Butinthatinauspiciousenvironment,oneonlyfoundseparatist,anti-Austriantendencies,ratherthanspecificallynationalistsentimentamongtheworkers.74

MussolinispokecandidlyofthepossibilitiesofareturnoftheTrentinotoItaly.Hedismissedit.ThebourgeoisieoftheTrentinowereneithermodernnoractive,incapableofsustainingpoliticaleffortsthathadanypromiseofsuccess.Theagrariansectorwaspassive,eveninthefaceofprovocation.Eventheworkersoftheregion,irrespectiveoftheirmanyvirtues,weremostlyinvolvedinartisantrade,weddedtosmallenterpriseandilldisposedtopoliticalassertiveness.ThemilitarywasloyaltoitsAustrianoverseers.MussoliniconcludedthatthepreconditionsforsubstantialsocialchangedidnotexistintheAustriaof1909.Asanaside,hespokeofonlyonepossibilityforrestoringtheprovincetoItaly:awarbetweenthetwomonarchies.75Howevercasualthecomment,itwasaclearcommitmenttowarasthepossibleoccasionofrevolution.

ThatwastheMarxismwithwhichMussolinireturnedtoItaly,totakeuponceagainhistasksasanagitatorandorganizerforrevolutionarysocialism.Bythattime,theItalianSocialistPartyhadexpelleditssyndicalistmembersforideologicalheterodoxy—andMussolini,onceagainsubjecttothepeculiarorthodoxyofthenationalparty,denouncedSorelforhavinggivenhimselfovertomonarchismandpoliticalnationalism.76

Whatseemedevidenttoeveryone,exceptthosemostintimatelyinvolved,wasthefactthatSorel’s“defection”tothenationalismandmonarchismofthe“classenemies”oftheproletariatwasnottheconsequenceofinconsistencyorweaknessofconviction.ItreflectedSorel’sreasonedbeliefthatthemoralrehabilitationofEuropeans,thecreationofa“newman,”bothassocialistproducerandwarrior,couldjustaseasilybeaccomplishedbymobilizingmassestotheserviceofacommunityotherthanclass.Infact,theissueofwhichassociationmightqualifyasa“communityofdestiny”fortherevolutionariesofthetwentiethcenturywastoengageMarxistrevolutionarythoughtthroughoutthesubsequentdecades.

DuringtheperiodimmediatelyafterhisdenunciationofSorel,internationaldevelopmentsbegantointrudeintothecomplexreflectionsofMussolini.HecontinuedtoentertainthesyndicalistconvictionsthathadearlierbeguntoinfluencehisthoughtwhileconductinganincreasinglyintensecorrespondencewithPrezzolini.

WhatwasclearlyinevidencewasanincreasingsophisticationandsubtletyofreflectiononthepartoftheyouthfulMussolini.Thesimplereiterationofnotionsthathadbecome“orthodox”amongGermanMarxistscertainlynolongermadeupthesubstanceofhiswritingsandspeeches.IntheTrentinohehadbeguntoarticulatenotionsofadifferentsortofsocialism,oneinwhichnationalsentimentwouldoccupyacriticalplace.

MUSSOLINI,AUSTRO-MARXISM,ANDNATIONALISMAsinternationalissuesbegantocloudthefutureofEuropeatthebeginningof

theseconddecadeofthetwentiethcentury,theyoungMussolinihadjustconcludedhisinvolvementintheethnicpoliticsofAustria-Hungary.ItwasanexperiencethatwouldexposehimtoanumberofideologicalissuesthatweretomoreandmoretesttherelevanceoftheorthodoxversionofhisinheritedMarxism.

InAustria-Hungary,Marxistsfacedanumberofspecialconcernstowhichtheydevotedagreatdealofattention.Therewerephilosophicalissues—epistemologicalandmoral—thatGermanSocialDemocratspretendednottoacknowledgeafterthepassingofJosefDietzgenandLudwigWoltmann.Therewerecontestedmatters,economicandhistoric,andquestionsconcerningtherealfactorsthatinspiredhumanbeingstosacrificeandrevolution.

AscitizensofaHapsburgempirethatwashosttoamultitudeofnations,fragmentsofnations,ethniccommunities,andpopulations,theMarxistsofAustria-Hungaryfoundthemselvesobligedtoconsiderallthoseissuesattendantuponthatdiversity.Austria-Hungarywaspartiallydevelopedeconomically,withalargetraditional,andarapidlyexpandingindustrial,sector—whichprovidedacontextinwhichtheapplicabilityandcoherenceofMarxismasatheoryofrevolutionarypoliticalconductmightbetested.

AllofthatseemstohavemadeAustro-Hungarianintellectuals,Marxistandnon-Marxistalike,moresensitivetoallthosequestionsGermanMarxistsmanagedtoneglectwithoutparticularmisgiving.OnceGerman“revisionists”hadidentifiedthemselves,theremainderoftheSocialDemocraticPartyfollowedthesomewhatstiltedorthodoxiesofKarlKautsky.TheAustro-Marxists,liketheirFrenchcounterparts,founditincreasinglydifficulttoremainwithintheconfinesofanorthodoxydefinedbyGermanrigidities.MaxAdlerandOttoBauerweretopursuesomeofthemajorissuesofMarxismasaphilosophy,atheoryofhistory,andarevolutionarystrategyintotheintensityof

thetwentiethcentury.Intellectuallyactiveatatimewhensystematicsocialsciencewasmakingitsfulsomeappearance,theyweretoproducesomeofthemostinterestingworksinthetradition.

Moreoftenthannotneglectedbyintellectualhistorians,moreoccupiedwiththedubiousorthodoxyofnotable“Marxists”suchasJosefStalin,MaoZedong,andKimIlSung,thethoughtofAdlerandBauerremainnonetheless,extremelyimportantinanyseriousconsiderationofMarxismasasystemofrevolutionaryreflection.Perhapsmorethananyofitsotheraspects,Austro-Marxism’scarefulreassessmentoftheepistemologyoftheyoungMarxandthematureEngels,togetherwiththeirtreatmentofnationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalism,arecriticaltounderstandingtheevolutionofFascismoutoftheuncertaintiesofclassicalMarxism.

OnefailstofindreferencetotheimpactofAustro-HungarianthinkersonthedevelopmentofFascism,andyettheirnamesaretobefoundintheworksofmanyofthemostimportantrevolutionarysyndicalists—thatweknowcontributedtotheideologythatwouldbeFascism.SomeofthemostimmediatethemesthatweretocharacterizeFascism:nationalism,voluntarism,elitism,anddevelopmentalism,alreadymadetheirappearanceintheyearsbeforetheItalianwarinTripoliin1911.ManyofthosethemesengagedtheattentionofAustro-MarxistsinafashionthathelpsusunderstandtheirroleinthemakingofFascism.

RetracingtheinfluenceofthethoughtofMarxistssuchasOttoBauerandMaxAdleronthedevelopmentofthatvariantofMarxismweidentifyasFascismrequiresareturntotheirworks—andthosecollateralworksthatappearedatessentiallythesametime,inthesamepoliticalandhistoricalenvironment.ThereislittleseriousdoubtthattheworkofbothMarxistandnon-MarxistAustriantheoreticiansfounditswayintotheargumentsofthevociani,thesyndicalists,andultimatelythoseofMussolinihimself.TheworkofsuchthinkersisintrinsictoanunderstandingofFascismasavariantofMarxism.

CHAPTERSEVEN

TheNationalQuestionandMarxistOrthodoxyIntheyearsimmediatelyprecedingtheFirstWorldWar,Marxism,asarevolutionarybeliefsystem,wassubjecttointensivereassessmentandextensivemodificationbyanynumberofcommittedtheoreticians—V.I.LeninandBenitoMussoliniamongthem.Howeverorthodoxtheymightimaginetheirreflections,eachcontributedtotheongoingmodificationoftheuncertainsystem.ThefactisthattheMarxismthatsurvivedthedeathofitsfoundersunderwentsignificantchangethroughouttheperiod—whetheracknowledgedornotbythoseresponsible.

Lenin,whoinsistedonhisorthodoxythroughouthispoliticallife,hadearlyintroducedconjecturesconcerningtheroleofelitesinthemobilizationofrevolutionaries—thatchangedthecharacterofMarxism—conjecturesthatcouldhardlyfindsuresourceinthewritingsofMarxorEngels.HealsohadbeguntoattemptreformulationsofMarxismthatmightaddresstheissueofrevolutioninlessdevelopedenvirons.Thechangesheintroducedwereimportantinavarietyofways.Inallofthis,hewasonlyoneamongmany.

FrenchandItaliansyndicalists,whoinsistedontheirunwaveringcommitmenttotheMarxismtheyhadinherited,introducedquestionsconcerningsomeofthemostfundamentalepistemologicalandmoralargumentsatitscore.Theyconsideredphilosophicalreductionism—tracingthethoughtandbehaviorofhumanbeingstosomeexternal,materialsource—unconvincing.Therewasobjection,inprinciple,tothenotionthatsomesortof“scientific”determinismgovernedallhumanbehavior—rangingfrommoraldeliberationtoact,toideologicalcommitment.Theconfidencewithwhichtheclaimthathumanbeingssimply“obeyed”naturallawsthatescapedtheircontrolwasincreasinglyseenasunwarranted.Theautomaticityoftheoriginalsystembecamemoreandmoresystematicallyqualified.1

Theentirequestionofhowhumanbeingscametoknow“matter”throughsimpleandcomplexsenseperceptionwasreviewedwithparticularintensity.

EvenamongcommittedMarxists,therewereprotestsagainstthe“vulgarmaterialismandself-sufficientpositivism”thatpretendedthatempiricalsciencemightrevealeverythingaboutallaspectsofexistence.InanargumentthatsharedsomeelementsofthattobefoundintheworkofGeorgesSorel,theAustriansocialistMaxAdlerarguedthatasophisticatedMarxismrecognizedthat,inthelastanalysis,“thecompleterealityofourbeingactuallyresidesonlyinthewill.”Inthatfinalanalysis,hemaintained,itwasonlytheconsciousreadinessonthepartofhumanbeings“toadmittruthasanobligation”thatmadescienceameaningfulundertaking.Grantedthat,Adlerarguedthatitwasthesenseofobligationwithwhichhumanbeingspursuedthetruththatmadescienceanenterprise“servingtheendsofmorality,asavaluetoberealized.”2

InAustria,Adlerwaspreparedtoreopentheentirediscussionconcerningtheroleofwillandmoralityinscienceandhumanhistory.InFrance,SorelundertookthereconsiderationofthoseBergsonianargumentsthatturnedonwillandmoralincentives—andimaginedthemliberatingMarxismfromthat“vainandfalsepositivism”thatconceivedallhumanbehavior“subsumed”under“deterministiclaws.”3

Perhapsmorethanthat,inthecourseofthediscussionsamongMarxists,therewerecriticalissuesthatturnedonthenatureofhumansociality.Ashasbeensuggested,Engelshadprecipitatedthediscussion.Hehadalludedtohumanassociationintermsoffamilies,tribes,gentes,kinshipsystems,andconfederationsthatenduredduringlongepochs—longbeforetheexistenceofeconomicclasses.Throughoutprehistorictimes,throughoutsavageryandbarbarism,humanbeingsknewnothingofclassdifferences—allofwhichindicatestomanythatuntilrelativelyrecenttimehumanbeingshadadaptedthemselvestolivinglifeincommunitiesotherthanclasses.4Thissuggested,inturn,thatMarxism’soriginalclaimthat“thehistoryofallhithertoexistingsocietyisthehistoryofclassstruggles”couldnotbetrue—withoutimportantqualification.Therewere“primevalcommunities,”innocentofclassdistinctions,inwhichhumanbeingsevolvedformillenniabeforetheemergenceofanygroupsthatmightundertake“classstruggle.”5Implicationsfollowedfromsuchassessments.

Woltmannhadmadeapointofjustsuchconsiderationsinmakinghiscaseforthepriorityheaccordedrace.6HepointedoutthatEngels,ingrantingtherealityofprehistorichumancommunitiesinwhichhumankindhouseditselfforgeologicepochs,hadchangedMarxismasatheoryofhistoryinfundamentalfashion.ItwasEngelswhospokeofastruggleforexistencebetween“hordes,

tribes,andraces”thatlongpredatedclasswarfare.Woltmannwentontoarguethatitwaswithinthosealternativeassociationsthathumanbeingsevolved.Heproceededtoarguethatsuchcouldbethecaseonlyifhumanshadbeenpossessedofallthepropertiesofgroupanimalswhiledenizensofsuchcommunities.ThroughtheDarwinianstruggleforexistence,andthenaturalselectionofsuitablepsychologicaltypes,membersofsuchgroupswouldhaveevolvedinto“collectivebeings”withadispositiontoidentifywithfraternitiesrangingfromface-to-facekinshipgroupstohistoricempires.Morethanthat,itwaswithinthoseprimordialcommunitiesthathumanstookonallthosetraitsthatdistinguishthemfromlesserspecies.Allthat,Woltmannargued,hadtobemoreimportantthananycontemporarystrugglebetweeneconomicclasses.

Bythefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,therewereMarxistswhowereattemptingtorenderinheritedMarxistdoctrinescompatiblewiththelatestdiscoveriesconcerningtheevolutionofhumanbeings.Engelshaddonenoless.HehadrevisedtheMarxismbequeathedtohimbyitsfounderinordertohaveitaccommodatehumanreproductionasadynamicelementofhumanhistory.AlongsidethematerialproductionwithwhichMarxmadeseveralgenerationsofhisfollowersfamiliar,Engelsinsinuatedbiologicalreproduction—propagationofthespecies—asanequallyimportanthistoricaldeterminant.Engelsintroducedthemodificationasthoughitwouldmakenodifferencetotheintegrityofthedoctrine.7

Thathumandescent,andhumangeneticmodification,implicitinbiologicalevolutionrequiredthathumanbeingsbeorganizedinself-regardingcommunities—longbeforetherewereeconomicclasses—raisedanumberofcriticalproblemsforMarxists.Itseemedimplausibletoarguethatitcouldonlybeclassmembershipthatfashionedhumanconsciousness,humanbeliefs,andhumancommitment.Everythingaboutevolutionaryhistorysuggestedthatotherassociationsmightbeasimportantasclassinthemakingofhumanbeings.

BythebeginningofthetwentiethcenturytherewereMarxistspreparedtoconsiderraceornationality,ratherthanclass,asassociationsinwhichhumansmightpursuetheirsocialandhistoricdestiny.ForWoltmannitwasrace.FormanyotherMarxistsitwastobenationality.Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury—foravarietyofreasons,boththeoreticalandpractical—nationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalismcametooccupytheattentionofmanyMarxistrevolutionaries.By1910,theSoreliansspokeofcriticalhumanassociationsintermsofthetribesandcitystatesofantiquity—andintermsofmodernnationality.Theseamlessidentityoftheindividualwithanyofthese

associationscouldproduceallthevirtueswithwhichrevolutionarysyndicalistsoccupiedthemselves.

InthefloodofproblemsthatbesetMarxismatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,nationality,nationalsentiment,andpoliticalnationalismsurfacedwithparticularinsistence.Sincethattime,Marxistshaveattemptedtoresolvetheproblemsintrinsictothevagueandambiguousintellectuallegacyleftthembythefoundersoftheirsystem.TheproblemsbecameincreasinglyarrestingamongtheMarxistsofAustria-HungaryandczaristRussia—beforeeveryonewasoverwhelmedbytheGreatWar.

CLASSICALMARXISMANDNATIONALISMKarlMarxandFriedrichEngelsleftverylittlethatmightqualifyasa“theory”

ofnationalism.Whatevertheyleftasanintellectuallegacywasintricateandconfusingandgaveeveryappearanceofbeinghopelesslyinadequatetotheunderstandingofpoliticalnationalism—thatperplexingphenomenonthatwastoexercisedevastatinginfluenceoverthehistoryoftheworldinthetwentiethcentury.

ClassicalMarxism’sinabilitytodealcompetentlywiththeentirequestionofpopularnationalismasapoliticalrealityhasbeenidentifiedspecificallyasits“greathistoricalfailure.”8Bysomeofitsmostsympatheticcritics,classicalMarxismhasbeenspokenofasbeingunable“tocometogripswiththenationalphenomenon....EuropeanMarxism’sinadequateunderstandingandconceptualisationofthenationalquestionisacknowledgedbymostcontemporarywritersonthesubject.”Mosthaverecognizedthe“recurrentinabilityoftheEuropeanMarxisttraditionadequatelytoconceptualizethenationalquestion.”9

Attheverycommencementoftheirtreatmentofthesubject,neitherMarxnorEngelshadverymuchtosayaboutnationalsentimentorpoliticalnationalism—ortheirpotentialimpactonthencurrentevents.InTheCommunistManifesto,MarxandEngelswerecontenttosimplyannouncethat“workingmenhavenocountry.”Intheirjudgment,bythemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,theveryactivityofthemanufacturingbourgeoisiealreadyresultedintherapidextinctionof“nationaldifferencesandantagonism.”Theywentontoinsist,withequalconviction,that“nationalonesidednessandnarrow-mindedness[had]becomemoreandmoreimpossible,”andthatby1848theindustrializationofthemajornationsofEuropehad“stripped[theproletariat]ofeverytraceofnationalcharacter.”10

Thereafter,nationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalismweretreatedasnothingmorethanthetransientconsequenceofdevelopmentsattheproductivebaseofsociety.Atthetime,ashasbeenargued,Marxconsistentlyspokeoftheovertpoliticalfeaturesofanypoliticalsystemas“reflections”ofits“economicbase.”11Indiscussingsomeofthemostcomplexfeaturesofsociety,Marxwouldcastthemassimply“flowing”from,andinconformitywith,theproductiveforcesatitsbase.Socialrelations,howevercomplex,weresomehowunderstoodtoarisein“conformitywith...materialproductivity”—which,inturn,wouldproduceequally“conforming...principles,ideasandcategories.”12Withinsuchaconceptualframework,nationalsentimentcouldonlybeseenastheepiphenomenalby-productofdevelopmentsattheproductivebaseofsociety.Ingeneral,Marxappearedtoconceivenationalismasconformingtofeltneedonthepartofindustrialcapitaliststosecureadomesticmarketfortheircommodities.Nationalsentimentwasnomorethanthesimpleby-productofeconomicdeterminism.

ThefoundersofMarxismwentontoaffirmthat“therulingideasofeachagehaveeverbeentheideasofitsrulingclass.”Nationalismwasconceivedapoliticalsentimentproducedanddisseminatedbythebourgeoisie.NationalismthusaroseinEuropeonlybecauseitreflectedthefeltneedsoftherulingindustrialclasses.13Theneedsofthebourgeoisieweresomehow“reflected”inthepoliticalsentimentsoftheworkingclassesthroughaprocessthatneitherMarxnorEngelseverchosetofullyexplicate.14

TheveryporosityoftheoriginalMarxistconceptualschemeallowedMarxiststoproducethemostdiverseunderstandingsofwhatnationalismwas—witheachMarxistinsistingthat,whateverthecasewithrespecttootherMarxists,hisorherownvariantwasreallyfaithfultotheoriginalsystem.Thenecessaryconsequencewasthattherewasnosingle“true”Marxistnotionofpoliticalnationalism.Theresultwasthatthroughouttheentiretwentiethcentury,theissueofnationalismcontinuedtotormentMarxists.

Anumberofotherissuescollectedaroundthemobilizingpropertiesofnationalismandthesentimentitinvoked.Inonefashionoranother,conceptssuchas“biologicalrace,”“imperialism,”“culture,”“morality,”“voluntarism,”andsimple“psychologicaldetermination,”aloneortogether,wereassociatedwithnationalisminoneoranothersense.OfallthecontestedconceptsthatmadeupthesubstanceoftraditionalMarxism,itwasnationalismthatwastoproveoneofthemostmercurial.

LENINISMANDTHENATIONALITIESQUESTIONIthasbeenarguedthatLenin,asearlyastheturnofthetwentiethcentury,had

modifiedtheMarxismhehadinheritedbyassigningaspecialplacetovanguardelitesintheprocessofmakingrevolution.Ratherthanrepeattheorthodoxconvictionthat“life”wouldmakethe“vastmajorityofproletarians”revolutionaries,Lenininsistedonthenonsubstitutableroleofminoritarianleadershipintheprocess—howeverinevitabletheprocess,initsentirety,mayhavebeenconceivedtobe.Morethanthat,Leninproceededtoarguethatrevolutionmightbeundertakenwithintheconfinesofa“backward”productivesystemratherthanbeinglimitedtotheadvancedindustrialnations.Thatrealizationmadeleadershipbyaknowingeliteallthemorenecessary.

ThequestionthathashauntedMarxismsincethatdayhasbeen:couldrevolutioninalessdevelopedindustrialeconomy,wereitsuccessful,beconceived“socialist”inanymeaningfulsense?BothMarxandEngelsunderstoodhistorytoberepletewithrevolutionsofvariouskinds.Theyalsorecognizedthattheirspecificsortofrevolution—socialistand/orcommunist—couldonlytranspireattheconclusionofthegrowthsequenceofindustrialcapitalism.BothMarxandEngelshadsystematicallyandregularlyrejectedthenotionthat“their”revolutionmightbeundertakeninprimitiveeconomiccircumstances.WhenMarxwasasked,forexample,ifrevolutionmightovertakeRussiawhileitstillremainedindustriallyretrograde,herespondedthattheissuewaswhetheronemightanticipatea“socialist,”ratherthanageneric,revolution,inaneconomyincapableofproducingtheabundancethattheoreticallywouldrenderclassconflictunnecessary.Hisanswerwasnegative.BothMarxandEngelswereconvincedthatonlythematerialabundanceofmatureindustrializationwouldbreaktherecurrentcycleofrevolutionandthereconstitutionofhierarchicallyarranged“classsociety.”Anyrevolutionthatinheritedaneconomyofinadequacywouldleavehumanbeingsstrugglingforsurvival—toreconstitutetheinvidiousdistinctionsthatprobablyprecipitatedrevolutioninthefirstplace.

ClasslesssocialismwouldbepossibleinretrogradeRussiaonlyifsuchanuprisingwerea“signalforaproletarianrevolutionintheWest.”15Onlyundertheconditionthatthenationinherit,fromtheindustrializedWest,thematerialprerequisitesofsocialistrevolution—mightarevolutioninRussiapretendtosatisfythetheoreticalstricturesofMarxandEngels.16

TheseweretheissuesfacedbyLeninashesoughttoengineerrevolutionina

Russiahehimselfidentifiedwithaneconomythatwasinastateof“shockinggeneralbackwardness.”17Initially,LeninhadpaperedoverthedifficultybyarguingthatrevolutioninRussiawouldprecipitaterevolutionintheWest,therebyrestoringtheintegrityofMarx’soriginalprescription.Thatnotwithstanding,historywastoisolaterevolutioninbackwardRussia18and,asaninevitableconsequence,transformMarxismintosomethingithadneverbeen.

ItwasnotimmediatelyclearhowMarxismwouldbetransformed,butitwasevidentthattheimmediatequestionwashowLeninistsmightaddressthenationalsentimentthatwasevidentamongtheethniccommunitiesthatmadeuptheworkingmassesofczaristRussia.ThesenseofcommunitythatinspiredethnicworkersinRussiawasunmistakablyapparent.Theyfavoredthosewhospoketheirownlanguageandwhosharedtheircommonculture.Tosimplydismisssuchsentimentsas“bourgeois”wasnotonlyunconvincing,itwascounterproductive.

Clearly,onecouldhardlyhaveexpectedallofRussia’sethnicminoritiestohavebeen“internationalist”inthesenseexpressedinthemajorworksofthefoundersofMarxism.Accordingtotheoriginalthesis,theinternationalistconsciousnessoftheproletariatwasafunctionofthematurityoftheeconomicsystem.TheconsciousnessoftheRussianworkingclassescouldnot“reflect”thematurityoftheproductivesystematthebaseofRussiansociety.Russianworkerswerenot“mature”inthetraditionalMarxistsense.Theylaboredinaneconomythatwasbackward.Undersuchcircumstances,itwasuncertainwhatsenseofgroupidentitytheymightbeexpectedtohave.

LENINANDSTALINONTHENATIONALQUESTIONIntheyearsbeforetheFirstWorldWar,giventhepeculiarconditionsthat

obtainedinczaristRussia,bothLeninandStalinhadbeenforcedtoaddressthe“nationalityissue.”TheysawtheissueasoneofcriticalideologicalandorganizationalsignificanceforRussianrevolutionaries.TheywerecompelledtodealwithapoliticalrealitythatrequiredthattherevolutionaryleadersofRussiansocialismdealwithproletariangroupsofavarietyofnationaloriginsrangingfromtheJewishBundtoMuslimassociations.UntilthetimeoftheGreatWar,giventhecomplexitiesinvolved,Leninneversucceededinresolvinghisdifficultieswithpoliticalnationalism.ThroughoutmuchofhisintellectuallifehegrappledunsuccessfullywiththeconceptasithadbeenleftbythefoundersofclassicalMarxism.

Howeverinepthistreatment,Leninsawtheissueofnationalismasof

fundamentalimportancefortheRussiaofhistime.Perhapsasmanyasfifty“nationalities”—dependingonhowonechoosestodefine“nationality”—were“prisoners”withinthepoliticalboundariesoftheczaristempire.Ifoneanticipatedmakingrevolutionwith“masses,”itwouldhardlydotohavethosemassesdividedalongthelinesoftheirconstituentnationalloyalties.19Asearlyas1913,fullyconsciousofjustsuchconsiderations,Leninhadframedhisconvictionsconcerningtheroleofnationalsentimentinthecourseofhistoricaldevelopment.Leninmadeveryclearthatinhisjudgment,the“Marxistview”wasthatnationalismwasatransientandevanescentsentiment,originallyemployedbythefirstcapitaliststounderminethedisablingfeudalconstraintsthathinderedthegrowthandterritorialexpansionofanindustrialandcommercialeconomy.Theemergentbourgeoisieinvokednationalfeelingsinordertofreethepathforcapitalistdevelopmentofanadequatedomesticmarket.Somehoworothertheself-servingbourgeoisieinspiredmassesofpeasantsandurbanworkerswithnationalistsentimentinordertosatisfycapitalistpurpose.

Moderncapitalism,Lenincontended,requiredalargemarketandextendedterritoryinordertoprofitablydistributeitscommodityproduction.Allofthathedeemed“progressive.”LikeMarxandEngelsbeforehim,heconceivedanyefforttosustainand/orfosternationalpeculiaritiesthatmightservetoreducetheextentandadequacyofthatintendedmarketas“retrograde,”andultimately,“counterrevolutionary.”Inthehistoricsense,givenMarxism’sunidirectionalconceptionofindustrialdevelopment,“progress”meanttheacquisitionandmaintenanceofthelargestpossibleterritorialarenatosustainsteadyincrementsincommodityproductionandprofitabledistribution.Sincesocialismrequiredthefullestdevelopmentandterritorialextensionoftheindustrialbase,“progress”inmanufacturingservedtheendsoftheultimatesocialisttransformationofsociety.20Local“nationalisms”andparochialsentimentsthatlimitedtheterritorialextentofsuchdevelopmentmitigatedagainstallofthat.

ForLenin,Marxistdoctrinelegitimatedthe“awakeningofthemassesfromfeudallethargy...forthesovereigntyofthepeople,ofthenation”atatimewhentheconsolidationofthenationwasthenecessaryconditionfortherapiddevelopmentofindustrialcapitalism.“But,”hecontinued,thatwas“thelimittheproletariatcangotoinsupportingnationalism.”21

Leninmaintainedthatonceindustrialcapitalismhad“matured”—thatistosay,whenitgaveevidenceofbeing“ripe”forsocialistrevolution—anymanifestationofregionalnationalsentimentwasintrinsicallycounterrevolutionary.ThatwasbecauseMarxismknewofnonationalism

appropriatetotheneedsoftheinternationalproletariat.Nationalismwasintrinsicallydivisiveatatimewhentheinternationalrevolutionrequiredaunifiedrevolutionaryclass.TheresponsibilityofMarxistrevolutionarieswasto“breakdownnationalbarriers,obliteratenationaldistinctions,andtoassimilatenations”—followingtheseculartrendsofindustrialcapitalismitself—trendsthatwereseenas“transformingcapitalismintosocialism.”22

Thoserealities,Lenininsisted,leftultimatelyonlytwoalternative“worldoutlooks”availabletorevolutionaryleaders:reactionary“bourgeoisnationalism”asopposedtoprogressive“proletarianinternationalism.”23Therecouldbenothirdalternative.

GivenLenin’slogic,aslongastheadvancedindustrialnationshadnotmaturedtothepointatwhichsocialistrevolutionhadbecomeinevitable,onecouldexpectcapitaliststoexploitnationalisminordertohelpcreatetheconditionsforfurthereconomicgrowthandindustrialdevelopment—andnationalism,underthosecircumstances,mightevenbelegitimatelyconsidered“revolutionary.”Whencapitalismhadreachedmaturity,andwas“rotten-ripe”forrevolution,theappealtonationalism,inLenin’sjudgment,wasirretrievablyreactionary.Givensuchaninterpretationofnationalsentiment,Leninseemedtoremaintheoreticallyuncertainonhowtodealwithpoliticalnationalisminlessthan“mature”economicconditions.Thereseemedtobebuttwopossibilities.Nationalsentimentrepresentedeitherthereactionaryorimmaturedispositionsofpeoplesgulledbyfinancecapitaltoserveitsimmediatepurpose,oritappealedspontaneouslytothosepeoplesstilllodgedineconomicandspecificallyindustrialunderdevelopment.Itwouldbehardtoimaginewhattheoreticalinsightwouldleadonetoimaginethattheymightbeinternationalistinorientation.

Givensuchnotions,itisdifficulttoanticipatehowresponsibleMarxistsmightdealwiththepredictablenationalismofeconomicallyretrogradepopulations.Andyet,foryearspriortotheFirstWorldWar,Leninwascompelledtodealwithjustsuchconsiderations.HispolicyrecommendationsmadeupwhathascometobeknownastheMarxist-Leninistpositiononthe“nationalitiesquestion.”

Whileunalterablyconvincedthatproletariandoctrinemustbeinternationalinessence,LeninrecognizedthatthepopulationsofmanyoftherealorimaginednationsofeconomicallyretrogradeczaristRussia,byvirtueoftheirverybackwardness,stillclungtonationalistsentiments.Inorderthattheynotbealienated,Leninadvocatedapolicyof“self-determination”foranyandallof

them.Hearguedthatpriortotherevolution,thevariousnationalitiesinRussiawouldberequiredtoremainunitedsoastoadvanceaunifiedfrontagainstcapitalists,landowners,andthedynasty.Aftertheanticipatedrevolution,the“oppressednationalities”ofRussiaweretobegrantedself-determination.ThereclearlywasameasureofduplicityintheBolsheviknationalitiesprogram.Atbest,thenationalismthatwastobeallowedtheminoritynationalitiesinpostrevolutionaryRussiawastobeadoctrinalnationalismthatwas“strictlylimited”towhatwasconsidered“progressive.”Itwasnottobeallowedtobourgeoisideology“obscuringproletarianconsciousness.”24

ForLenin,therewasnothingsubstantialinnationalism.Inprinciple,nationalismwasanephemeralformofpublicexpressionthatwasbornof,andservedexclusively,instrumentalpurpose.Whenthebourgeoisiewasconsolidating“nations”inordertoserveitsresource,productiveanddistributionisticrequirements,nationalismwasproductive—compatiblewiththecourseofhistorythatwouldculminateintheproletarianrevolution.Whenthebourgeoisiesoughttoemploynationalismtoitsownspecificadvantage—toprofit,topillageprimitivecommunitiesallovertheworld,tomobilizetheworkingclassagainstitsfellowsacrosstheborder—nationalsentimentwascounterproductive.AllofwhichLeninunderstoodtobeentailedas“tendencies”inthe“universallaw”ofcosmiccapitalistdevelopment.25

DuringtheperiodimmediatelyprecedingtheFirstWorldWar,Leninconceivednationalismaslittleotherthana“reflection”ofprevailingcircumstances.Intheimperialistnationsitservedfinancecapitalism.Intheretrograderegionsoncapitalism’speriphery,itwasthenecessaryconsequenceofapeculiarstateofeconomicbackwardness.Itwouldinevitablydisappearwitheconomicmaturity.Intheinterim,Leninrecommendeditstolerance.ForLenin,classhadhistoricsubstance,nationdidnot.Histheoreticalunderstandingofnationalism,asapoliticalphenomenon,wasreductionist—seeingitexclusivelyaby-productofclassandeconomicinterest.Itwasunderstoodasnothingotherthanatransitionalproductofmaturingindustrialcapitalism.

Almostadecadebefore,J.V.Stalin,asapoliticalworkerinthefield,formulatedverymuchthesameinstrumentalviewofnationalismassentimentandpoliticalmovement.LikeLenin,Stalinsawbothasepiphenomena.Heconceivednationalsentimentandnationalismservingspecificclassinterestsandassumingdistinctiveexpressioninthecourseofhistoricaldevelopment.26

CloserintimetoLenin’swork,in1913,Stalinexpressedhisconcernwitha“mountingwaveofmilitantnationalism”thatwas“threateningtoengulfthe

massoftheworkers.”27Hehadearlierclearlyexpressedtheconvictionthat“iftheproletariatistoachieve”itsanticipatedsocialistvictory,“alltheworkers,irrespectiveofnationality,mustbeunited.”28IntheperiodimmediatelyprecedingtheFirstWorldWar,thatunityappearedtobeinjeopardy.

Inthecourseofhisexposition,StalinundertooktodosomethingnotundertakenbyLenin.Stalinofferedalexicaldefinitionofwhatheunderstooda“nation”tobe.Hetoldhisaudiencethat“anationisahistoricallyconstituted,stablecommunityofpeople,formedonthebasisofacommonlanguage,territory,economiclife,andpsychologicalmake-upmanifestedinacommonculture.”Hewentontoarguewithconsiderableconfidencethatshould“asingleone”ofthosepropertiesbemissing,“thenationceasestobeanation.”29Heconceivednationsastransient,havingabeginningandendingsometimeinhistory.Morethanthat,Stalinconceivedthenation,anhistoricalartifact,asbelongingtoadefiniteepoch—thatofemergingcapitalism.

LikesomeofthemajorGermantheoreticianswhoprecededhim,Stalininterpretednationalism,anditsattendantsentiment,tobethesingularproductofthe“youngbourgeoisie,”seekingto“secureits‘own,’its‘home,’market.”Beforeindustrializationsharpensclassantagonisms,theemergentbourgeoisiecanrallythepeasantsandproletarianstoitscause.Theybecomenationalistsbydefault.Evenundersuchcircumstances,theenterpriseservesessentiallybourgeoisinterests.Thefact,Stalinargued,isthatnationalism,atwhateverstageitmanifestsitselfintheprocessofcapitalistdevelopment,alwaysservesthebourgeoisie.Itis,Stalininsisted,“initsessence,”anexclusivelybourgeoiscontrivance.30

PriortotheGreatWar,bothLeninandStalinmadeverycleartheirtotalrejectionofnationalismasapoliticalvehicleforthemobilizationofrevolutionarymassesintheserviceofsocialism.Neitherevercompletelyabandonedthatconviction.WithintheconceptualnotionsofMarxism-Leninism,nationalismcouldneverserve“proletarian”purpose.31Atitsverybest,andunderwhateverguise,nationalismservedonlybourgeoisinterests.Lenindidapprovetheinvocationofnationalism,however,inordertomobilizemassesforrevolutionintheregionsperipheraltotheadvancedindustrialnations—onlybecausesuchrevolutionsimpairedthesurvivalcapacityofinternationalcapitalism.Nonetheless,howevermuchsuchuprisingsmightfurthertheworldproletarianrevolution,theywereunderstoodtohavebeenundertakenintheimmediateinterestsofthebourgeoisie.32Nationalismwasconceivedabourgeoisdevice,servingdirectorderivativebourgeoispurpose.33Ingeneral,Lenin

arguedthatnationalismcouldonlydivert“theattentionoflargestratafromsocialquestions,questionsoftheclassstruggle,tonationalquestions,questions‘common’totheproletariatandthebourgeoisie”34—therebydeflectingrevolutionaryenergies.ForLeninandStalin,theproletariat,inprinciple,couldneverlegitimatelybemobilizedaroundanythingotherthaninternationalappeals—forinternationalobjectives.Nationalsentiment,bothinsisted,couldnevergiveexpressiontothetrueinterestsoftheproletariatasarevolutionaryclass.

IntheyearsleadingtotheFirstWorldWar,bothLeninandStalinwereinsistentinrejectingnationalismaspartofMarxism-Leninism’srevolutionarystrategybecausebothsawthelocalnationalismsofthemanyethnicgroupsthatmadeuptheRussiaoftheirtimedepletingthecollectiveenergiesoftheinternationalproletariat.Bothsoughtaunified,centralizedassociationofworkers,loyaltotheirclass,ratherthantoany“abstract”national,interests.

Forhispart,StalinhadarticulatedanotionofpoliticalnationalismthatwasconsiderablymorenuancedthanthatofLenin.HowevermuchStalinagreedwithLenin’soverallrevolutionaryconvictions,itremainedevidentthatheconsiderednationalismamuchmoresubstantialpoliticalproductthanonemighthavesuspected.Whythatshouldhavebeenthecaseisinteresting.

Stalin’sdefinitionofthenationsharesremarkablesimilaritieswiththatadvancedbyanotherofhisMarxistcontemporaries:OttoBauer.In1907,halfadozenyearsbeforeStalinwrotehisstudy,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”BauerproducedamajorworkofMarxistanalysisinanefforttocometounderstandthephenomenonof“proletariannationalism.”

OneoftheprincipalreasonsfortheemphaticinsistencebyLeninandStalinontheexplicitlyinternationalfocusoftheproletariatwasinresponsetoBauer’sbook.Bauer’sworkwastoinfluencethedebatedevotedtotherevolutionaryroleofnationalsentimentandnationalistconvictionsinthepoliticsoftheearlytwentiethcentury.ItwasabookwrittenbyanintellectualwhohadwitnessedtheswayofnationalsentimentontheproletariancommunitiesofhisnativeAustria-Hungary.BauerwasconvincedoftheimportanceofcomingtounderstandnationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalismifMarxismwastoeffectivelychanneltherealandpotentialenergiesofthe“oppressedclasses”totheserviceofproletarianrevolution.

Inhiswork,BauersoughttosystematicallyaddresstheissueofnationalsentimentasitclearlyfoundexpressionamongthemultinationalmembershipoftheworkingclassesofAustria-Hungary.LikeRussia,Austria-Hungarywasa

dynasticstate,apoliticalentitycomposedofthemostdiverseethnicelements,heldtogetherbyahereditarymonarchy.Giventherealityofthenationalconsciousnessexpressedbyworkersofthemostdisparateethniccommunities,BauersoughttoconstructasuitableMarxisttheoryofnationalsentimentandnationalconsciousnessthatwouldbothaccountfortheirbehaviorandsuggestfuturepolicy.

MarxandEngelshadoriginallyarguedthattheworkersofEuropehadnosenseofnationality.Theyanticipatedthedisappearanceofthenationstatewiththeworldwideexpansionofindustrialcapitalism.Theysawnoneedtoprovideamoreexpansivetheoreticalaccountofwhattheyheldtobeatransientphenomenon.Bauerhadlivedenoughandexperiencedenoughtorealizethattheyhadbeenmistaken.

Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,Baueracknowledgedthatnationalityremainedacriticalissuefortheworkingclass.Hereluctantlyappliedhimselftotheproductionofasatisfactoryrendering—absentfromthedoctrinalheritageleftbyMarxandEngels.Heattemptedtoaccountforthecontinuedinfluenceofnationalsentimentonthepoliticalbehavioroftheworkingclassatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.

Asaresultofhisefforts,Bauerproducedanaccountthathasbeenspokenofas“amajorcontributiontothegeneraldevelopmentofMarxisttheoryinthisarea.”35Itwasaresponse,howevercautiouslyexpressed,totheexplicit,anduncompromising,stancetakenbyMarxandEngelsagainstthenationalsentimentofthose“historyless”Czechs,Serbs,andotherSlavicnationalcommunities,referredtobythefoundersofMarxismasthe“wreckage”ofpeoplesinevitablydestinedtobeabsorbedintothe“greatGermanempire.”36

ItwaspreciselyamongthosepeoplesthatBauerrecognizedanabidingsenseofnationalidentitythatcouldnotbedismissedbyinsistingthattheywerewithoutanationalhistory.TheywerethepeoplesofAustria-Hungary,andtimehadmadeevidentthestrengthoftheirnationalsentiment.Bauerwaspersuadedthattheyentertainedatruesenseofnationality.Whatevertheywere,Bauerwasconvincedthatrevolutionarysocialismcouldmusterthemtoitscauseonlybyrespectingtheirnationalintegrity.

Bauerrecognizedacertainkindoflegitimacyinnationalsentiment,andarguedthatAustrianMarxistswereobligedtounderstandtheintensefeelingconjuredupbynationalculturalidentification.Whateverrevolutionarieschosetomakeofthesentimentofnationality,itwasevidenttohimthatitwasanissue

badlydealtwithintheworksofthefoundersofrevolutionaryMarxism.EvenbeforetheFirstWorldWarrevealedthehollownessofthesocialistslogansofinternationalsolidarity,Bauerhadarguedforthegenuinenessofnationalsentimentandtherealityofnationality.

Sometimebeforethewar,bothLeninandStalinappreciatedtheimportanceoftheissue.ItwasbothaconfirmationoftheimportanceofthesubjectandthetheoreticalsignificanceofBauer’sworkthatpromptedbothStalinandLenintoundertaketowriteonthe“nationalquestion”yearsbeforenationalismshatteredtheSecondInternationalandeffectivelyneutralizedinternationalismasarevolutionarycreed.

OTTOBAUERANDPROLETARIANNATIONALISMYearsbeforethecomingoftheFirstWorldWar,OttoBauerpublishedhisDie

NationalitätenfrageunddieSozialdemokratie,37abookthatwastoprovidedimensiontoMarxistdiscussiononthenationalquestion.UntilthattimetherewaslittleseriousMarxistliteraturespecificallydevotedtonationalism,andhowitwastobeunderstood.Mostoftheprecedingdiscussionhadbeenunrelentinginitseconomismandreductionism.Nationalismwaspresumedtobethesimpleproductofcapitalistinterests.Bornofthecapitalistneedforalargedomesticmarket,nationalismwasaninventionoftheself-servingbourgeoisie—arationalizationofbusinessinterests.38Developmentofthematerialproductiveforcesdetermineditsappearance,andclassinterestshapeditsideologicalexpression.Itwasconceivedamodernproduct,thefruitofemergentcapitalism.

Thetreatmentofnationalism,reflectedintheworkofbothStalinandLenin,wastoperceiveitassomethingtobethwarted.Inprinciple,nationalismwasnottoberecommendedunderanycircumstances.Socialism’sprimarytaskwasidentifiedas“regroupingtheproletariatofallcountriesintoalivingrevolutionaryforce[having]onlyoneconceptionofitstasksandinterests”—abjuringnationalsentimentandrejectinganyassociationwithpoliticalnationalism.The“immediatemission”ofsocialistagitationwasunderstoodtobe“thespiritualliberationoftheproletariatfromthetutelageofthebourgeoisie,whichexpressesitselfthroughtheinfluenceofnationalistideology.”39Nationalism,inallitsformulationsandexpressions,wasseenasnothingmorethanabourgeoissnareandsubterfuge,acoverforantiproletarianmachinations.Throughsomeoccultprocess,thebourgeoisiemanagedtoinstillnationalsentimentsintheproletariat.Suchunrealsentimentscouldonlyworkagainsttheinterestsoftheworkingclass.

Bauerwastoargueasubstantiallydifferentcase.Hewastobringtotheissuebothsubtletyandarichacquaintancewiththesocialscienceliteratureofhistime.

Thatwastrueinlargepartbecauseoftheenvironmentofwhichhewasaproduct.TheAustria-HungaryinwhichhewasnurturedgavetheinternationalintellectualcommunitysuchphilosophicalandsocialscienceluminariesasSigmundFreud,LudwigGumplowicz,ErnstMach,andLudwigWittgenstein.BauerreachedintellectualmaturityatatimeofintenseintellectualactivityinAustria,whenthenascentsocialsciencesbegantohaveanimpactontheoreticiansofeverypersuasion.

Bauerwastobecomeoneoftheintellectualleadersofwhatcametobecalled“Austro-Marxism,”andsharedintherespectaccordedMaxAdler,JuliusDeutsch,GustavEckstein,KarlRenner,andRudolfHilferding.40AllweretobespokesmenofaMarxistvariantthatwastohavemeasurableimpactonleftistintellectualsbeforeandaftertheFirstWorldWar.Ofthemall,forourpurposes,OttoBauerwasperhapsthemostimportant.Thedoctrinaldevelopmentshefosteredweretoimpact,directlyorindirectly,thelivesofmillionsinthesubsequenthistoryofEurope.

EventhemostsuperficialinspectionmakesimmediatelyevidentthesophisticationofBauer’sanalysisofnationalism.ComparedtothetreatmentthatwassubsequentlyprovidedbyLeninandStalin,Bauer’saccountisamodelofcarefulsocialscienceexplication.HeundertookaconceptualanalysisthatdocumentsnotonlyhisknowledgeofinheritedMarxistdoctrine,butconfirmshisfamiliaritywiththeburgeoningnon-Marxistsociologyofhistime.ItwasevidentthatBauer’sworkwasinspired,atleastinsubstantialpart,byseriousscholarlyconcern—aconcernthatdistinguisheshisworkfromthatofLenin.Lenin’sinterestswerealmostalwayssingularlyandexclusivelypolitical,dismissingas“bourgeois”anythoughtthat,inhisjudgment,wasnotsufficientlyrevolutionary.ThedifferenceismadeevidentatalmosteverypointinBauer’streatmentofnationalismandnationalsentiment.

Intheintroductiontohiswork,Bauerspeaksofhismotivation.HerecognizedasearlyasthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturythatthenationalquestionwouldbecentraltothepoliticalthoughtandpolicyrecommendationsofrevolutionaryMarxismintheimmediatefuture.41Heseemstohaveknownthat,atleastinpart,becausehehadexperiencedthedurabilityandtheintensityofnationalsentimentamongthepeasantsandtheworkersofhisnativeAustria-Hungary.Amongworkingclassorganizations,hehadobservedthenational

tensionsthatreadilymanifestedthemselves.

Asaconsequenceofhisincreasedsensitivity,heclearlywasnotpersuadedbythegeneralitiesconcerningthenationalquestionthatseemedtosatisfysomeMarxisttheoreticiansofhistime.Heconceivednationalsentimentashavingamoreprofoundandcompellingsourcethansimpleinculcationatthehandsofthebourgeoisie.

Itwasnotthathedeniedthecontentionthatnationalism,infact,wasoriginallyinspiredbybourgeoisinterests.Bauerwasfullypreparedtoacknowledgethatnationalismwasanexpressionofemergentcapitalism’sneedfora“generous,denselypopulatedeconomicregion,”controlledbyitsagencies,intheefforttosatisfycapitalism’simplacableneedtoprofitablydistributeitsexpandingproductivityandinvestitssurpluscapital.Elsewhere,hespeaksofthe“developmentofnations”beingaproductof“thehistoryofthemodeofproductionandofproperty”42—satisfyingatleasttherudimentsoftheMarxistinterpretationofsocialevolution.Butheclearlyfeltitimplausiblethatasentimentsopervasiveandsoresistanttochangecouldbethesimpleconsequenceofbourgeoisinspiration.

Bauer’saccountdifferedfromthe“orthodoxy”commonamongGermantheoreticiansinthatherecognizedthatwhateverbourgeoismotivestheremayhavebeenbehindtheemergenceofnationalconsciousness,inorderforittobecomeapoliticalreality,theremusthavebeenasusceptibilityamongworkersandpeasants.Thebourgeoisiecouldhardlyimposeasenseofnationalityonapopulation;therehadtohavebeenareadyreceptivitythatcouldaccountforitsacceptanceandpersistence.Nationalismmusthavefoundareadyresponseamongpeoplequiteindependentofthespecificcontentsuppliedbytransienteconomiccircumstances.ItseemsreasonablyclearthatBauerfoundthestandardMarxistexplanationfortheriseandsignificanceofnationalsentimentsimplistic.Hisworkisdedicatedtoadvancinganexplanationwithgreaterinherentplausibility.

BauersawnationalsentimentrootedintheDarwinianhistoryofhumankind.LikeDietzgen,Kautsky,andWoltmann,aswellasmanyofthelesserMarxistintellectualsoftheperiod,BauersoughttotracethecontinuitiesbetweenDarwin’sconvictionsconcerninghumandescentandMarxismasaconceptionofhistoricaldevelopment.Hesoughttolinknationalsentimenttotheevolutionaryhistoryofhumanity.Hesoughtacredibleexplanationofwhythemassofworkersandpeasantswouldbecomepossessedsoreadilyofasenseofnationalidentity.Whatevertheinfluenceexercisedbythebourgeoisie,itcouldnotalone

accountforthebroad-basednationalpassionexhibitedbymembersoftheworkingclass.

LikemanyMarxistsoftheperiod,Bauersawhumansocietygrowingoutofthoseofanimals,sharingthepropertiescommontoallsocialcreatures.Alldisplayedheritabledifferentiationthataroseinthecourseofselection,territorialisolation,andinbreeding.Hespokeofthegenetictraitsthatcametodistinguishendogamous,isolatedbreedingcommunitiesastheovert,physiological,biologicalfoundationofgroupdifferentiation.Hisinterestinthese“naturalcommunities(Naturgemeinschaften)”waslimited—introducedonlyinordertosatisfytheintellectualdemandforcomprehensiveness—anaccountoftherelationshipbetweenbiologicalandsocialevolution.Itwasaresponsetothepositivisticsearchfora“unifiedscience”thatwasapreoccupationamongintellectualsatthecloseofthenineteenthcentury.

Bauer’srealinterestswerenotwithsuchgeneric“naturalcommunities.”Hisrealconcernwaswiththespecificallyhuman“culturecommunities(Kulturgemeinschaften)”erecteduponthem.Moreover,hisinterestwasnotinprovidingadescriptiverenderingofhowparticularculturalcommunitiesemergedfromhistory,butrathertoaccountforthefactthatcommunitiesofhumansacquiredanidentifiableandentrenched“nationalcharacter”intheprocess.43

Bauerbeganhisaccountbytracingnationaloriginsbacktoautochthonousbreedingcircles,communitiesofbloodkindred(Blutsgemeinschaften),thatsharednotonlycommonphysicalproperties,butcommondestiniesaswell—bornofthefactthatallmemberssharedcommonlabor,commonsocialrelations,commonlaw,commonreligiousbeliefs,commoncustoms,andacommonlanguage.44

Hewentontocharacterizetheseprimordialcommunities,addressinghimselftothegeneralpsychologicaldispositionsthatapparentlyanimatedthem.Hespokeofthegeneraldispositionofthemembersofsuchcommunitiestofeelcomfortableinthepresenceofmembersoftheircommunity—anddiffidentwhenconfrontedbyoutgroupmembers.Hespokeofaningroupamitythatendedattheboundaryofeach“naturalcommunity”—andoftheindividual’sspontaneousidentificationwiththecommunity.Itwasidentificationsothoroughthattheonemergedentirelywiththeother.Eachindividualsawinthecommunitytheessenceofhim-orherself.45

Bauertracednationalconsciousnessbacktojustsuchgeneralpsychological

dispositions—formedintheevolutionarypast.Inhisjudgment,longbeforetherewasabourgeoisieoraproletariat,allthepsychologicalcomponentsofagenericnationalconsciousnesswereevidentamonghumanbeingsdistributedinprehistoryas“communitiesofdestiny(Schicksalsgemeinschaften).”

Outofcommondescent,acommonhistory,andcommonculture—acommondestiny—acommon“nationalcharacter”emerges,andnationsbegintomaketheirappearance.“Thenation,”Bauerinformedhisaudience,“isacollectionofhumanbeingsboundtogetherinacommondestinythatshapesthemintoacommunityofcharacter(aCharaktergemeinschaft).”46

BauerremindedMarxiststhatlongbeforethereweremodernnations,therewerecommunitiesofdestiny,distinctintheiroriginsanddurabilityfromtheoccupationalandclassassociations,thecitizenshipandmembershipinvoluntarygroupings,withwhichtheywerefamiliar.BauerarguedthattheessentiallyeconomicassociationsandgroupingsofwhichMarxandtheMarxistsspoke,whilepredicatedonmorefundamentalcommunitiesofdestiny,werefundamentallydifferent.TheclassandoccupationalassociationswithwhichMarxistsconcernedthemselveswerefoundedinrelativelyrecenttimes.Theywereproductsofimmediateoutcomepotential—materialconsiderationsthatinfluenceimmediatelifecircumstances.Classesinvolvetheirmembersinthepursuitofeconomicinterestsandmaterialcomforts.Theyareonlyindirectlyrelatedtothosecommunitiesofdestinythatthroughlanguage,law,belief,andfaithcreatetheveryspiritualessenceoftheindividualasa“species-being(Gemeinwesen).”

ForBauer,itwasclearthattheeconomicassociationswithwhichMarxistsgenerallyconcernedthemselvescouldnotandwouldnotcommandthedepthofcommitmentonefindscharacteristicofmembershipinmoreprimarycommunitiesofdestiny.ItwasinlifelivedinprimevalcommunitiesthatBauersawtheoriginsofnationalsentiment.

Thus,whileBaueracknowledgedalltheinternationalobligationsimplicitinrevolutionaryMarxism,hemadeclearthatnationalsentimenthadapoliticallysignificantimmediatepriorityoverclassmembership.Inthecourseofitsdevelopment,industrialcapitalismsucceededinmakingeducationanationalenterprise.Toserviceitsownneeds,itintroducedtheworkingclassestothehistoricandculturalpatrimonyofthenation.Withrapidcommunicationandthemassproductionofbooks,masseswereincreasinglydrawnintoanawarenessofnationhood.Motivatedbyitssearchforprofit,capitalistenterprisemadecontemporarymembersofthecommunityincreasinglyfamiliarwiththethought

oftheirantecedentsandthehistoryoftheircommunity.Moreandmoremembersofthegeneralpopulationcametosharethecharactertraitsofthehistoricnation.47Allofthatwasconstructedontherealityofpsychologicalpropertiesrootedintheevolutionaryhistoryofhumankind—propertiesalreadydisposedtoaccommodatethedeepestofcommunitysentiments.

Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,Bauercontended,theelementsofnationalsentimenthadbecomesointrinsictothepsychologyoftheproletariat,thatonecouldhardlyexpectthemtobesurrenderedfora“naivecosmopolitanism”thatentertainednodistinctionswhateverbetweencommunities.Heinsistedthattherewaseveryevidencethattheinternationalizationoftheindustrialmeansofproductiondidnotmeanthedisappearanceofasenseofnationaldifferences.48Forthemembersofmanycommunities,infact,therealizationthattheywereperceived“backward,”economicallyandculturallyretrograde,bythosenationsindustriallysophisticated,promptedaresponseamongthemthatcouldonlybecharacterizedasreactivenationalism.Asaconsequence,Baueranticipatedthatnationalismmightwellbecomeasignificantpoliticalforcetobereckonedwitheveninthosenationsthatlackedanindustrialbaseoraneffectivebourgeoisie.

Insuchcircumstances,thepursuitofinternationalproletarianunitycouldhardlybeasimplematter.InBauer’sjudgment,internationalworkingclasscollaborationcouldbeattainedonlywiththepromiseofthecontinuedculturalautonomy,intellectualintegrity,politicalfreedom,andunityofeachconstituentnationality.49Bauerarguedthatthesenseofcommunitythatunitedworkerstotheirnationalitywasnolessbindingthantheirsenseofassociationasworkers.Theirconsciousnessofnationalitywasstokedbyadeepsenseofcommondescent,commonculture,andshareddestiny,rootedindispositionsthatcouldbetracedtothelifecircumstancesofhumansatthedawnofthebirthofhomosapiens.50

Morethanthat,Bauerarguedthattheproletarianstruggleintheserviceoftheprincipleofnationalitywas,inessenceandfact,profoundlyrevolutionary.ForBauer,itwasonlysocialismthatheldforththepromiseofthefullandfreedevelopmentofindividualsofwhateverclass.Onlysocialismwouldcreatetheconditionsinwhicheachindividualcouldfullyidentify,withoutobstacle,withhisorherrespectivecommunityofdestiny.Withthatwouldcomethesenseofindividualworth,rootedinidentificationwithone’sGemeinschaft.Onlysocialismanticipatedaworldwidefederationoffreenationsgrowingtofullflower,independentoftheparochialanddivisiveinterestsofcapitalists.

ForBauer,itwascapitalismthatdistortedthesenseofuniformcommunitymembershipthatthwartedthesenseofpersonalworthimplicitinidentificationwithone’scommunity.Itwascapitalism,byfabricatingclassdifferences,thatdeniedworkersfullmembershipintheirrespectivecommunitiesofdestiny,thosecommunitiesthatprovidedthemhistory,culture,andmoralpurpose.Onlysocialism,withitsabolitionofclassdistinctions,wouldallowworkerstofullyidentifywiththosecommunitiesinwhichtheywouldfindnotonlymaterial,butspiritualfulfillment.Thosewhoobstructedallthatweretheclassenemiesoftheproletariat.51

Beyondthat,Bauercontended,themastersofcapitalismsystematicallyoffendednationalsensibilitiesbyfosteringthedominanceofthe“civilized”overthe“lesser”nations.Theadvancedindustrialnations,heargued,soughttoimposetheirlanguage,theirlaw,theircustomsandusagesonthosetheyconsideredless“civilized”—thosepeoplesdeemed,evenbysomeMarxists,tobewithouthistory(geschichtslosenNationen).52Socialismcouldonlyopposeallofthatintheserviceofnationalsensibilities.

WhileBauerwasfullypreparedtoacknowledgethedynamicroleplayedbythematerialproductiveforcesinthehistoryofcommunities,heinsistedthatnationalsentiment,asoneoftherealitiesofthetwentiethcentury,couldnotbediscountedasasimple“reflection”oftheirdevelopment.Thewillandintentionofhumanbeingswhoparticipatedinthatdevelopmentcouldnotbeconstruedconvincinglyasimplereflectionofthatdevelopmentitself.53Inhisemphasisontheroleofthatdirectedwill,BauerconstructedananalyticframeworkthatalteredmuchofthedoctrinallegacylefthimbyMarxandEngels.

Bauerarguedthatthetwentiethcenturyhadnotfoundtheproletariatbereftofafatherland.Proletarianswerenotdevoidofnationalsensibilities.Itwasnottruethattheywereindifferenttogroupdistinctions.Theytookconsciousprideintheirownnationalcultureaswellastheirownnationalhistory.Theygloriedintheirnation’spastachievementsanddreamedoffutureaccomplishment.Asaconsequence,Bauerobjected—inprincipleandforpragmaticreasons—toanyeffortmadetoamalgamateallproletariangroupsintoonecentralizedandbureaucratizedinternationalismonthepretextthatitwasrequiredforworldrevolution.54

TheimportanceofBauer’svariantofMarxismcanbemeasuredbythevenomwithwhichitwasattackedbyLeninandStalinintheyearsthatweretofollow.BothchargedBauer’sinterpretationwithmajorresponsibilityinsocialism’ssubsequentfailuretomeetthechallengeoftheGreatWar.Inanuncriticalsense,

theywereright.Ontheoccasionofthewar,theworkingmassesofEuropechosetoidentifywiththeirseveralnations—employingargumentsthatsharedasignificantsimilaritywiththoseadvancedbyBauer.Infact,someofBauer’scentralconvictionsweretoserveasabridgebetweennineteenth-centuryMarxismandtheFascismofthetwentieth.

BAUER,MARXISM,ANDLUDWIGGUMPLOWICZWhiletheprimemotivationforBauer’sworkaroseoutofhisrecognitionof

theimportanceofnationalsentimentamongEurope’sproletariat,someofhisintellectualstrategiescanbetracedtothatpreoccupationamongMarxists,attheendofthenineteenthcentury,tolinkthematerialistconceptionofhistorytoDarwiniannotionsofevolution.Yearslater,KarlKautskycouldstillinsistontheirsharedcontinuities.55HereinvokedthememoryofLudwigWoltmann,andagreedwithhim—withreservations—inseeingDarwinismasanessentialpartofthe“materialfoundation”ofMarxism.Bauerwasofsimilarpersuasion.Inhisjudgment,Darwinismwasanintrinsicpartoftherationaleofthematerialistinterpretationofhumanhistory.InattemptingtoprovidethemostcomprehensivescientificbasisforMarxism,Marxistsingeneral,andBauerinparticular,invokedDarwinismandadvancedanaccountofhumanhistorythatproceededfrombiological,tosocial,evolution.

Engelshadoriginallytenderedtheclaiminavarietyofpublicationsandwithavarietyofqualifications.56Whatevertheirqualifications,MarxistslikeDietzgen,Woltmann,andKautskyembracedDarwinismasanessentialpartofMarxismasatheoryofhistory.WhileacknowledgingDarwinismasamaterialprologuetoMarxism,KautskycomplainedthatWoltmannhadpursuedDarwinismintoracism.57Andofcourse,Kautskywascorrect.

Ofcourse,therewassomethingmoreinWoltmann’sheterodoxythansimpleexaggerationsormisinterpretationsoftherelationshipbetweenDarwinismandMarxism.WoltmannrecognizedthattheDarwinianstruggleforexistence,themechanismbehindtheevolutionofspecies,impliedasecularprocessinvolvinggeologictime.That,inturn,suggestedacatalogofpsychologicaldispositionsthatmighthavebecomefixed,throughnaturalselection,amonghumanbeingsstrugglingtosurvive.

Throughouthisexposition,Bauermadeconfidentreferencestoasimilarprocess.Hewascandidinidentifyingthesourcesthatcontributedtohisinterpretation.Inidentifyingthosesources,hedidnothesitate,ingeneral,tocitenon-Marxistsocialscienceascollateralconfirmationofhisviews,viewshe

consideredentirelyorthodox.Inoneplace,attheverycommencementofhisaccountoftheriseofnations,Bauerspecificallyreferredtothesupportivesocialthoughtofnon-MarxistItaliansociologists.58Thatallusionwasarrestingforanumberofreasons,someofwhichareimportantintheefforttotracethegradualdevolutionofMarxismasarevolutionarydoctrine.

WhileBauer’sreferencetoItaliansociologistswasgeneric,itwasimportant.Heuseditasanintroductiontohisdiscussionofnationalityanditsorigins—thethemeofhiswork.ItisstrangethatheshouldmakerecoursetoItaliansocialthinkers,when,ashasbeensuggested,hisnativeAustria-Hungarywasthehomeofsomeofthemostinnovativethinkersonthesubject.

InspeakingofItaliantheoreticians,Bauerattributedtothemtheavailabilityofalistofelementsthat,intheirrelationship,gaverisetonationalityandaconsciousnessofnationality.59Infact,onereadilyfindssuchlistsintheworksofGaetanoMosca,who,asoneofItaly’sforemostsocialscientistsoftheperiod,seemedtospeaktoalltherelevantcategoriesimmediatelyaddressedbyBauer.Inaddressingtheissueofthe“principleofnationality,”Moscaidentifieda“communityofdescent,”acomunitàdisangue,aBlutsgemeinschaft,asoneofitssignificantconstituents.Hespokeofcommonbeliefs,laws,customs,andhistory,andofa“socialtype,”aCharaktergemeinschaft,thatresults.Healludedtoadispositionalsenseofingroupamityandoutgroupenmityamongsuchcommunities—aswellastheisolationthatsuchdispositionsnecessarilyfoster.60

ThediscussioninMoscaclearlyanticipated,insubstance,thatofBauer.Whatiscurious,onceagain,isthatBauerused“Italiansociologists”tointroducehisdiscussion.YearsbeforeMoscaoranyothereasilyaccessibleItalianthinker,aprominentconationalofBauer,LudwigGumplowicz,hadprovidedasimilarlistofconstituentelementsthatcontributedtotheformationofnationalconsciousness.MoscahimselfcitedGumplowiczaseitherthesourceof,orthesupportfor,hisowngeneralizationsconcerningthefactorsthatfostergroupbuilding,andlieatthefoundationofnationality.61

WhyBauerfailedtomentionGumplowiczinthecourseofhisdiscussionconcerningnationalconsciousnessremains,tothisday,somethingofapuzzle.Gumplowiczhasbeenjudgedtohavebeenasociologistofprominence,anintellectualequalofEmileDurkheim.Hiswork,infact,is“rankedamongthemostimportantstatementsofsociologyinitsformativeperiod.”62Hewaswellknownamongthesocialtheoristsofhistime.Hewascitedinagreatdealofthesocialscienceliteratureoftheperiod—andhewasanAustro-Hungarian,a

conationalofBauer.Andyet,althoughherefers,inhiswork,toanentireinventoryofnon-Marxistsocialtheoristsofavarietyofnationalities,BauernowherementionsGumplowicz—aprominenttheoristatthenearbyUniversityofGraz.

CertainlyGumplowicz’sworkwasfamiliartoMarxistsbytheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Whythatshouldhavebeensohasalreadybeenindicated.Many,ifnotmost,MarxistswereinterestedintherelationshipofDarwinismandhistoricalmaterialism.LiketheMarxistsoftheperiod,Gumplowicz,asamonistandapositivist,soughttounifythesocialandnaturalsciences.Hisgeneralepistemologicalorientationwasfundamentallycompatible,therefore,withthatofmostMarxists.

LudwigWoltmann,asoneoftheMarxistsoftheperiod,seekingtheunionofDarwinianevolutionarysciencewiththematerialismofMarx,63madereadyrecoursetotheworkofGumplowicz.64TheimpactofGumplowicz’stheoreticaltenetsonWoltmann’sreflectionsmaywellsuggestthereasonwhyBauermayhavebeenreluctanttoemploythem.

Gumplowiczhadspokenofsocialdevelopmentbeingtheconsequence,throughouthumanhistory,ofthestruggle,amongthemselves,of“heterogeneoussocialelements(heterogenersocialerElemente)”—whetherhordes,tribes,phratries,moieties,clans,ethniccommunities,orreligiousgroups.Inoneofhismajorworks,Gumplowiczspokeofsuchconflictasinvolving“racewar(Rassenkampf)”—anunfortunatecharacterization.65Hisworkwasdirectlyconcernedwiththeexplanationofthesocialbehaviorofgroups—andhowthatbehaviorprovidedtheenergyforsocialchange.66Gumplowiczmadetheclashofheterogeneousgroupsthecenterpieceofhisconceptionofsocialchange.

By1900,WoltmannmadeallusiontothenatureofthoseconflictsbetweenheterogeneoussocialelementsofwhichGumplowiczspokeasbeingmoreprimitiveandfundamentalthananystrugglebetweeneconomicclasses.NotacknowledgingthecarefuldistinctionsofferedbyGumplowicz,Woltmannwaspreparedtospeakof“racialstrife(Rassenkampf)”asmoreelementalthanclasswarfare.67Giventhatconviction,hethereafterwastoreducethe“classstruggle,”socriticaltoMarxistpoliticalstrategies,toamatterofsecondaryhistoricalandpoliticalconcern—tofinallyabandonclassconflictasaserioushistoricaldeterminant.68WhileBauerwaspreparedtoacknowledgetheroleplayedbyprimitivegroupimpulses,heneverrenouncedtheimmediatehistoricalandpoliticalsignificanceoftheclassstruggle.

Gumplowicz’sentireargumentrestedonaconceptionofhistoricalandsocialdynamicspredicatedontheexistenceofmutuallyexclusiveandcontendingheterogeneoushumangroups(heterogenerMenschengruppen).Suchgroupswereunderstoodtobealegacyofhumankind’sevolutionarypast—possessedofpsychosocialpropertiesfixedbythecircumstancesofthemillennialstruggleforexistence.Intheefforttosurvive,suchsocialgroups,througharduousselection,wereunderstoodtohavebecomeessentiallyhomogeneousintermsoftheirowninterests,andunitedinpurposebythosegroup-buildingfactors—consanguinity,localassociation,andcommonculture—ofwhichBauerlaterwastospeak.69

ForbothGumplowiczandBauertheprehistoryofhumanitywascomposedofaquiltofsocialgroupssometimescalled“races,”andatothertimes,“nations.”Howeverthesegroupswereidentified,forbothGumplowiczandBauerthefactwasthatthehistoryofhumankindwaswrittenintheevolutionofamultiplicityofdifferent“socialelements.”Gumplowiczconceivedthosesocialelementsinperpetualconflict,andinthatconflictthedynamicsourceofadaptivesocialchange.Strife,forGumplowicz,wassimplythesurfacemanifestationoftheuniversallawofdevelopment.70Bauer,asaMarxist,seemedtobeequallypreparedtospeakofstrifeasaleverofdevelopment.Suchconflictwasscheduledtoberesolvedonlythroughsociety’sfinalsocialisttransformation.

Marxhadunderstoodthedevelopmentofsocietytohavebeenafunctionofclassstruggle,ultimatelyculminatinginthatfinalcatastrophicengagementinwhichclasseswouldbeabolishedanduniversalpeacewouldbeattained.ForMarxistslikeBauertherewastheconvictionthattherewouldbeanultimateharmonizationofclassinterestsbyvirtueofwhichallconflictwouldbedisarmed.

Therewasnoplace,withinthatfinalsolution,fornationalorgeneric“group,”conflict.ForGumplowicz,ontheotherhand,tosuggestthattheuniversallawofconflictbetweenheterogeneoussocialgroups(whetherraces,tribes,clans,federations,ornations)mightbeabridgedbytime,orinresponsetocircumstances,wasillusory.Hecounteditapieceofidealisticandessentiallyutopianwishfulthinking.71

Gumplowicz’ssociologyrestedontheconvictionthattheirreducibleelementswithwhichsocialtheoristswouldhavetodealweregroups,thatthroughoutevolutionarytime,graduallytookontheformoftribes,phratries,clans,citystates,nations,and/orempires.Onlyinthecourseofsocialevolution,incomplexsocialstructures,dosubsidiarycastes,estates,andclassesarise.Theyaretheresultofthegrowingdiversityofmaterialandmoralintereststhatcollect

incomplexcommunitiesaroundwhichancillarygroupscreateapeculiaridentity.Aslongastherearesocieties,andgroup-buildingpropensitiesamonghumankind,therewillbemutuallyexclusivecommunities.Withinthosecommunities,astheybecomemorecomplex,classeswillarticulatethemselves—andliketherelationshipsbetweenallandanygroupssincethebeginningofhistory—theytoowillbeessentiallyantagonisticandpotentiallyviolent.72Howevertheirsubsidiaryrelationshipsarenegotiatedorresolved,theintrinsicconflictsbetweentheself-sustainingcommunitiesofwhichtheywerepart—asnations,confederations,orempires—wouldpersist.Insubstance,Gumplowicz,asWoltmannafterhim,didnotconceiveclassconflictasanythingotherthanaphenomenonepisodic,limited,andperipheraltothegeneralhistoryofhumanstruggle.

Bauer,ontheotherhand,consistentlyreferstoalltheessentialsocialelementswithwhichheconcernshimselfastheproperobjectsofattentiononlyinsofarastheycontributetoourunderstandingthenatureof“nations.”Rarely,inthecourseofhisaccount,doesBauereverrefertoalternativesocialgroups.Itisevidentthathisprimarypurposeistoaddressmodernnationsandtheroleplayedinthembyeconomicclasses.Heclearlywishestooccupyhimselfwiththefailureofsociety’sdominantclassestoprovideforthefullincorporationofsubordinateclassesintothenationalcommunity.ForBauer,classstruggleremainscriticaltohisrendering,bothintermsofexplanationofhumankind’ssocialhistoryaswellasimportantinthethencontemporarypoliticalstrategy.

ForBauer,theworkingclassesevinceanabidingdesiretobefullyincorporatedinanhistoriccommunityofdestiny.Theyareheirsofahistorythathasmadethemirretrievably“collectivebeings(Gemeinschaftswesen).”Socialism’stask,heargued,wastorelieveallmembersofthecommunityoftheburdenofclassoppression,andinvidiousclassdistinction,sothatallmightachievefulfillmentthroughidentificationwiththeirfellownationals.Withinhissociologicalrationale,aswellashispolicyrecommendations,theonlysocialgroupswithwhichBauerwaspreparedtodeal,withanyapplication,werenationsandclasses.

AllthepropertieswithwhichBaueridentified“communities”wereattributedalmostexclusivelyto“nations.”Allthedispositionaltraitsandrelationshipintricaciesassociatedwithelementalsocialgroupsthatonefindsintheworksofeither“Italiansociologists”orGumplowicz,Bauerassignedalmostexclusivelytothenation.

Bauerseemeddeterminednottoassociatehisassessmentofnationalismand

classrelationshipswithanythingtobefoundintheworkofGumplowicz.ThefactthatmostofthesubstanceofBauer’saccountofpremodernsociallifecanbefoundinGumplowicz’smajorworksdidnotdeterhim.WhatheseemstohavesoughtistodisassociatehimselffromGumplowicz’sfixednotionthatgiventheuniversallawsgoverningsociallife,onecouldnotexpectthatsociallifebetweenself-conscious“elements”couldeverbeharmonious.Beforetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,Gumplowiczhaddismissedsocialismasemptyutopianism.Inhisconsideredjudgment,thesocialworldwouldforeverbebesetbythe“universallawsofgroupconflict.”73Itseemsreasonablethatasasocialist—irrespectiveofhowfascinatinghefoundthesubstanceofGumplowicz’swork—Bauerwouldchoosetoconcealanyovertassociation.Bauerinsistedthatsocialismwouldultimatelydeliveruniversalharmonytoallofhumanity.AdocumentedassociationtotheworkofGumplowiczcouldonlybeanintellectualembarrassment.Thathavingbeenacknowledged,Bauerremainedconvincedthatnationalconsciousnessandnationalsentimentwereactivefactorsinthecollectivebehavioroftheworkingclasses.WhilebothLeninandStalintreatedtheassociatedphenomenaastransientandephemeral,Baueranticipatedtheirpersistenceintheworldthatwouldfollowtheinternationalproletarianrevolution.

ThedoctrinaldifferencesbetweenthevariantsofMarxism,thatbecameincreasinglyemphaticintheyearsantecedenttotheGreatWar,weretocontributetothecreationofanalternativeandhereticalMarxism.AllthelinesofargumentthatwereevidentintheworksofMarxistsattheturnofthetwentiethcenturyweretocometogetherbeforetheFirstWorldWartosupplythelogicoftherationaleforintervention.Atthecoreofthatrationalewasanappealtothesentimentofnationality.InItaly,aswarloomedonthehorizon,itbecameincreasinglyapparentthatbothnationalismandthenotionofclassstrugglecontendedforprideofplaceinanydiscussionofrevolutionandsocialdynamics.InthedoctrinalstrugglethatoccupiedMarxistsofeverystripeduringthoseyears,revolutionarysyndicalistscametoplayacentralroleintheexchangesthatweredestinedtoshapethesubsequenthistoryofEurope.Inthatdispute,onefoundtracesofcontentionsbruitedbyOttoBauerandLudwigGumplowicz—andaroundthemonecanidentifythemesthatfindtheiroriginalimpetusinthepreviousideologicalthoughtofJosefDietzgenandGeorgesSorel.OnecanreadtheirimpactintherevolutionarythoughtofBenitoMussolini.

ItwasinthecourseofthatdisputethatMussolini,underthedocumentedinfluenceoftheoristslikeBauer,Gumplowicz,Sorel,andPrezzolini,identifiedhimselfwiththethoughtthatinsistedthatthe“universalsolidarity”requiredby

Marxistrevolutionwouldneither“canceltheFatherland”nordetractfromits“idealintegrity.”74Infact,thereismorethanasuggestionoftheworkofBauerinMussolini’sreflectionsontheroleoftheItalianproletariatinthecontestedTrentino.75Rapidly,overthenextfewyears,moreofthethoughtofGumplowiczbegantosurfaceintheproseofMussolini—andonecaughtthefirstclearintimationsofFascism.

ItwasGumplowiczwhosuppliedtheevidenceofthosepsychologicalgrouptraitsthatweretoinfluencethearticulationofFascistdoctrine.ItwasGumplowiczwhospokeofthe“unlikesocialgroups,”the“heterogeneoussocialelements,”thatappearedinhistoryinconstantcompetition—sometimesasswarms,hordes,tribes,sometimesasclans,phratriesormoieties,andatothertimesascitystates,nations,orempires—andatyetothertimesassubordinateeconomicclasses.Whatevermanifestformtheyassumed,theywereallanimatedbyasenseofcollectiveidentity,asBauer’s“communitiesofdestiny.”Theywereallself-regardinginwhateverformtheyassumed—andforeverinconflict.Gumplowiczsawtheclassstruggle,atitsmostsignificant,asnomorethanarelativelyminorinstanceofacomplexandvariedgeneralphenomenon.

Forhispart,Woltmannbecameconvincedthatracewasthebiologicalsubstratumofhordesandswarms,citystatesandnations,andofallthegroupsintowhichhumanbeingssortthemselves.ForWoltmannitwasraceconsciousnessthatsuppliedthepsychicenergyoutofwhichhistoryemerged.Racismwasthemotiveforceofhistoricaldevelopment.HecametoseeclassstruggleasarelativelyinsignificantformoftheuniversalstruggleforexistencewithwhichDarwinhadmadeEuropeanintellectualsfamiliar.

Withthesubstitutionofastruggleofracesforthestruggleofclasses,WoltmannhadtransformedtheveryessenceofMarxism.ItseemsreasonablycertainthattheworkofGumplowiczwasinstrumentaltothatconsequence.Morefundamentalthanthat,Gumplowicz’sinterpretationofsocialdynamicslaidthefoundationforaviewofhistorythatsawconflictbetweenheterogeneouscommunitiesofdestiny,howevertheyweredefined,servingthepurposesofhumandevelopment.Therewerethosewhowouldseenations,ratherthanracesorclasses,ascriticaltounderstandinghistory.

ItwasamongtherevolutionarysyndicaliststhatsuchconsiderationsweretofashionyetanothervariationofMarxism.TogetherwiththeinsightsprovidedbySorel,whoconceivedlifelivedincommuniontoprovidetheoccasionofspecialvirtue,thesyndicalistsweretoaddresstheissueofnationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalisminafashionreminiscentoftheexpositionfoundinthework

ofBauerandGumplowicz.TheimplicationsofsuchtreatmentwouldnotfullymatureuntiltheadventoftheGreatWar.

ItwouldseemthatBaueranticipatedsomeofthosedevelopments—butremainedilldisposedtoextendhisspeculationtothepointwhereitmightimpactontheintegrityoftheMarxismtowhichhehadcommittedhimself.Hewaspreparedtospeculateonthenatureofnationalsentiment,butnotreadytohazardsuchextensivemodificationsofinheriteddoctrineassomeotherMarxistsofhistime.Asaconsequence,Bauerwaspreparedtorummagethroughtheliteratureoftheemergingsocialscienceofhistimeonlyjustsoextensively.HewaspreparedtoemployDarwinianinsightsintheefforttocomprehendthedynamicsofhumansociallife,butpreparedtotakehisconclusionsonlyjustsofar.Inthelastanalysis,hechosetoprotecttheMarxismhehadinherited.Inthatregard,hewasnotunique.

OtherdedicatedMarxistswereemployingthosesameinsightsinstudiestheyidentifiedasperfectlyorthodox.Likethem,Bauerhaddrawnsomeoftheimplicationshereconsideredinhisefforttodealeffectivelywiththenationalitiesquestion.Likemanyothers,hewouldallowhisinsightstocarryhimonlysofar.Intheend,hecouldnotabandontheeconomicreductionismandthecentralityoftheclassstruggleofclassicalMarxism.Thatwastoleavehisdiscussionconcerningnationalsentimentandnationalitywithoutconclusion.Theremainderofthediscussionwaslefttoothers—whowouldthenproceedtomakehistory.

CHAPTEREIGHT

RevolutionarySyndicalismandNationalismOneofthemostdramatic,iflittleappreciated,intellectualdevelopmentsinMarxisttheorypriortotheadventoftheFirstWorldWartookplaceamongthosetheoreticiansidentifiedasrevolutionarysyndicalists.Bythefirstyearsofthenewcentury,Sorel’sideascametoinfluenceanumberofnotableMarxistintellectuals,nottheleastofwhomwasRobertoMichels,oneofthemoreimportantfoundersofmodernpoliticalsociology.Togetherwitharosterofothergiftedsocialthinkers,includingSergioPanunzio,PaoloOrano,andA.O.Olivetti,MichelswastoshapeclassicalMarxismintoamoderninstrumentofrevolutionarypolitics.

Bornin1876inCologne,theoffspringofGerman-Frenchparents,MichelswastobecomeaconvincedMarxistbyearlymanhood.1AnItalianbychoice,inthefirstyearsofthenewcentury,hewasoneofthemoreinterestingtheoreticiansofItaliansyndicalism.Hewasdescribedbythosewhoknewhimatthetimeas“agiftedandconvincedsocialist.”2Asearlyas1903,hewasoneamongmanyItalianrevolutionaryMarxistswhosawinSoreliansyndicalismaregeneratesocialism.

Togetherwithhispoliticalactivism,Michelsearlybecameoneofthemajorintellectualhistoriansofthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury.In1909,hepublishedhisStoriadelMarxismoinItalia,3whichtothisdayprovidesoneofthemoreinformativeaccountsoftheevolutionofearlyMarxistthoughtontheItalianpeninsula.PrimarilyanaccountofMarxismasatheoryofhistory,theworknotonlycatalogsthevariousinterpretationsthat,bythattime,collectedaroundtheinheriteddoctrine,butprovidesevidenceofMichels’sownorientation.

ThepeculiarhistoryofMarxianthoughtinItalypriortotheturnofthetwentiethcenturywouldhardlyconcernthepresentaccountexceptfortheinfluenceitwouldcontinuetoexerciseonrevolutionaryideasthroughoutthenextdecades.Itisclear,forexample,thatthesocialandpoliticalreflectionsof

MikailBakuninlefttracesofanarchism,libertarianism,andemphaticantistatism4thatpersistedinthedoctrinesofMarxistintellectualsinItalyuntiltheendoftheGreatWar.

Togetherwithanarchism,onefoundthesometimesdecisiveinfluenceofsocialDarwinisminthethoughtofItalianMarxists.LiketheforemostGermantheoreticians,ItalianMarxistsearlyfellundertheswayofDarwinianconcepts.Beforetheturnofthecentury,someofthecentralnotionsofevolutionarybiologyclearlyinfluencedtheMarxismofsomeofthepeninsula’smostprominentthinkers.5Asaconsequence,biologicalandanthropologicalfactorsbecamesoprominentamongsomeItalian“positivists”thatanentireschoolof“Marxist”criminalanthropologydeveloped,emphasizingthe“materialistdeterminants”ofhumanbehavior.6

IndealingwiththehistoryofrevolutionarythoughtinItaly,MichelsidentifiedallthevariantsoftraditionalMarxismthathadalreadymadetheirappearance.Inhisjudgment,allofthemcollectedaroundasetofMarxistconvictionsthatincludedconfidenceinthe“fatalityofthecommunistrevolution”inadvancedcapitalisteconomies—predicatedonthenecessaryrealityoftheconcentrationofcapitalinfewerandfewerhands,togetherwiththeextinctionofthemiddleclassesintheprocess.Togetherwiththosebeliefswastheexpectationthattheproletariatwouldsufferincreasingemiserationuntiltheentiresystemwouldendincatastrophiccontraction.7

Michelsmaintainedthat,forMarxists,sciencehadrevealedhistory’s“ineluctable”trajectory.Thetalkwasofinevitabilitiesandabsolutelypredictableoutcomes.Asaresult,andperhapsmoreinterestingthanallthat,isthefactthatinthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,Michels,almostcasually,isolatedoneofthemajorconsequencesofidentifyingrevolutionwithwhatareheldtobetheimpeccablefindingsofscience.

Inoutliningthebeliefsystemof“scientific”Marxism,Michelsremarkedthatbecausethe“revolutionaryparty”wasconceivedtobeaunique“repositoryoftruth,”itsfollowerswereexpectedtosubmittoitsleadershipwithoutreservation.8Michels,inthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,gaveexpressiontoathoughtthatwastoweighheavilyinthedeliberationsofallrevolutionariesthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.InMichels’saccountofviolentsocialchange,onefindstheunmistakablesuggestionthatsuccessfulrevolutioninourtimewasdestinedtoproduceamostsingularsystemofpoliticalrule—thetotalsubmissionofrank-and-filemembershipto“enlightened”leadership.Itwas

amongthefirstanticipationsofwhatwouldonedaybeidentifiedas“totalitarianrule.”

Togetherwiththat,MichelsproceededtoinvokeyetanotherconsiderationthathadoccupiedsomeMarxistssincethefirstarticulationofthedoctrine.InmakingtherevolutionarydoctrineofMarxism“scientistic,”toseerevolutiontheautomaticoutcomeofmaterialfactorsalone,mostMarxistsoftheperiodfailedtoassign“ideology”and“moralconcerns”sufficientinfluenceinhumanaffairs.Michelsinsistedthathumanbehaviorwasafunctionoftheintersectionofanumberoffactors,amongwhichmoralandpoliticalconvictionscouldhardlybedismissed.Materialfactorsandassociatedregularitieswereclearlyofpracticalconsequence,buthumanmotivation,Michelswastoargue,wasnolessessential.9

OneoftheresultsofthatconvictionwasMichels’sarticledocumentingtheroleofmoralconsiderationsinthepoliticalthoughtandbehaviorofItalians.10HeconceivedmoralreflectionaparticularlyimportantfactorinshapingthebehavioroftheItalianworkingclassesandtheirleadership.WhileparticularlyimportanttoItalians,hedidnotsuggestthatsuchconcernswererestrictedtothemalone.Hisearliestdiscussionsincludedregularreferencetoethicalandmoralissuespresentinthedeliberationsofallrevolutionaries,andhowthoseissuescontributedtorevolutionaryconducteverywhere.In1903,heremindedhisaudiencesthatwhilesciencemustprovidethefactualguidanceforanypoliticalmovement,theinspirationofconductmustnecessarilyturnonmoralincentive.Goals,howevermaterialincharacter,Michelsinsisted,inescapablyinvolveethicalcalculation.11Hehadtakenupathemethathadbeenrecurrent,ifunresolved,inthedeliberationsoftheveryfirstMarxists.

Michelswasconvincedthathumandeliberationinvolvedbothfactualaswellasethicalassessmentinordertoprovidetherationaleforhumanconduct.Hearguedthatthewillmustbeengagedifhumanbeingsweretoact.Hemadethecasefortheroleofmoralincentiveinthemobilizationofthosewhowouldmakerevolution.Thedecisiontoactmustbeinfilledwithnormativeenergy.Inthatsense,hewasonewithmanyofthelatenineteenth-centuryMarxistswhofoundprivativethemonofactorialinterpretationofhistoricdevelopment.Likethem,hefoundtotallyunconvincingtheinsistencethateconomicfactorsalone,howeverartfullydefined,fullyexplainedindividualorcollectiveconduct.

Therewereseveralquestionswovenintotheattempttoaddresstheissueofhowhumanconductmightmostresponsiblybeinterpreted.Thefirstquestionwaswhether,infact,humanbehaviorcouldbeexplainedconvincinglythrough

exclusiveappealtoeconomicfactors.MarxistslikeJosefDietzgenandKarlKautskyunderstoodfullwellthathumanbeingsactinresponsetomoralimperatives—andthatthewillisinformedbyconcernshavinglittle,ifanything,directlytodowitheconomicinterests.Theireffortstoprovideareasonableresponsewerenotparticularlypersuasive.

Theissuewasempirical.Itwasnotconceivablethathumanbeingscouldbeledtosacrificeandlaborwithoutanappealtoethicalprincipleandmoralpurpose.Otherthanthat,therewastheepistemologicalquestionofhowonemightunderstandaffirmationsofvalue.Oneunderstandsthetruthcriteriagoverninglogicalandempiricalclaims,buthowoneestablishesthebindingcharacterofmoralinjunctionsisnotatallclear.

Michels’spreoccupationwiththeempirical,andnottheepistemological,questionisevidentthroughouthiswritings.Nowhereinhisworkdoesonefindanyattemptatlinguisticanalysis—rigorouslydistinguishingnormativefromlogicalandfactualclaims.Inthat,MichelswasverymuchlikemostoftheMarxistsofhistime.Whatthey,likeMichels,wantedtodeterminewashowtheworldoperated.Many,ifnotmost,wantedtoknowhowrevolutionsweremade—nothowonemightvindicatethem.Whateverthecase,manydoubtedthateitherMarxorEngels,orthosewhosoughttomakeadogmaoftheirteachings,hadeffectivelyaddressedanyofthosequestions.

BythetimehewrotehishistoryofMarxisminItaly,Michelshadsettledmanyofthosequestionsinhisownmind.HisfamiliaritywithFrenchrevolutionarythoughthadbroughthimintocontactwiththeworkofGeorgesSorel—whomadehimfamiliarwithoneofthemoresophisticatedinterpretationsofcomplexhumanbehavioravailableatthattime.Asaconsequence,Michelsbecameintenselyinvolvedintheemergingsocialscienceoftheepoch.OnefindsincreasingreferencetotheworksofthemajorfiguresofmoderninquiryrangingfromGaetanoMosca,throughWernerSombartandVilfredoPareto,toGustavLeBon.TheirthoughtcontributedtothatinterpretationthatwastobecomeintegraltoacurrentofMarxismthatwasultimatelyidentifiedas“syndicalism.”

Syndicalism,becauseofthepeculiarprevailingcircumstances,achieveditsmostsophisticatedandinfluentialexpressionnotinFrance,butinItaly.12OutofsyndicalistthoughtwastoemergeoneofthemosttransformativevariantsofMarxism.

SYNDICALISM,SOCIALSCIENCE,AND

NATIONALISMAnglophoneintellectualshavespentsurprisinglylittletimeintheassessment

ofItaliansyndicalism.ThereisscantsubstanceinmuchofthatwhichisavailableinEnglish.13Unhappily,withouttracingtheevolutionofsyndicalistideasduringtheyearsbetween1902and1915,itisimpossibletounderstandthetransitionofMarxismfromtheformitwasreceivedbytheideologuesofItaliansyndicalismtothatinwhichitfoundexpressionintheFascismthatgrewoutoftheGreatWar.

Infact,thetransitcanbetracedwithpersuasiveprecision,involvingreferencetotheworksofanintellectuallyaggressivegroupofsyndicalistthinkersthatincludedMichelshimself,togetherwithOlivetti,Panunzio,Orano,EdmondoRossoni,andMicheleBianchi—ineffect,those“syndicalisttheoreticiansofthefirstrank”whoweretoserveamong“thehardcoreofthefoundersoftheFascistmovement.”14

Inretrospect,itisrelativelyeasytoidentifytheuniquenessofsyndicalistthoughtatitsinception.Ashasbeensuggested,Michelsearlyfocusedattentiononethicalandmoralissuesastheyservedtomobilizesentimentinthepursuitofrevolutionarypurpose.Inthat,hecontinuedonthepathalreadytraversedbythoseSorelianswhoprecededhim.Whatwasperhapsdifferentinhisworkwasthespecialemphasisgiventosuchconcerns.

Itwaswithinthatcontext—theconcernwithmoralpurposeandethicalgoals—thatMichelsaddressedtheissueofnationalsentimentandpoliticalnationalismthatwastobecomesocriticaltothedoctrinalinterestsofrevolutionaries.Duringthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,Michelsspokeoftherevolutionarysignificanceof“ethicalnationalism.”Hespokeoftheimportanceofakindof“Kulturpatriotismus”—acommitmenttoone’snationalitycharacterizednotbyanidentificationwithaspecificterritory,orreigninghouse,orgivensymbols,butwithagivenculture:alanguage,areligiousheritage,anhistorictradition,acommitmenttootherswhoshareone’ssenseofmoralsatisfactionintheachievementofthegreatestpossiblephysicalandspiritualwell-beingforall,irrespectiveofclassorcircumstance.15

ItwasreasonablyclearwhattheyoungMichelshadinmind.Hemaintainedthatsomethencontemporarysocialistsremainedconfusedconcerningcriticalconceptslike“nationalism”and“nationalconsciousness.”Hearguedthatnationalismcouldbeunderstoodasanaggressivedefenseofone’sconsciousnessofgroupmembership—thatmightmanifestitselfashatredandbelligerence

towardoutgroupmembers.Grantedthat,hewentontoarguethatnationalconsciousnesswasaperfectlynaturalsenseofassociationthathepredictedwouldpersistevenaftertheproletarianrevolutionforecastbyMarxists.16Thatnotwithstanding,Michelsmaintainedthatnationalities,whateverdiffidencewascharacteristicofeach,couldlivetogetherinharmonyunderspecialcircumstances.HecitedSwitzerlandasillustration—andproceededtoarguethatsocialist“internationalismdidnotrequirethatoneabandonnationalidentity”17—simplythatconditionsbecreatedinwhichself-regardingnationalitiescouldliveinharmony.Heheldthattruepatriotismdidnotconflictwithsocialistcommitmentnorruleoutthepersistenceofnationalsentiment.Truepatriotismdidnotentailanyparticularenthusiasmforthepoliticalleadersorinstitutionsofone’snativeland—orforaspecificgeographicspace.Truepatriotism,Michelsmaintained,isafunctionnotonlyoftheindividual’sidentificationwithacommunity(Volksgemeinschaft),butaconsequenceofanaturalhumansentimentcommontoallthosewhoshareanhistoricculture,havelivedlivesinfamiliarplaces,remembercollectiveachievements,andlaborincommonenterprise.

Morethanthat,Michelsarguedthattruepatriotismwasexpressedintheselflesscommitmenttothoseofone’scommunity(one’sVolksgenossen),acommitmentthatwouldgraduallyexpandtoultimatelyinclude,insomesignificantsense,theentirepopulationoftheearth,howevermuchculturaldistinctionsweremaintained.Truepatriotismwouldonedayencompassallofhumankindintheirnaturalgroupassociations.Eveninthatdistantworld,nationaldifferenceswouldremain,andhumanbeingswouldcontinuetohaveeveryrighttopersistincelebratingtheirdifferences.Truesocialistinternationalismwouldaccommodatenationaldifferencesandrespectnationalsentiments.Inthatsense,Michelsrejectedthenotionthattheproletariatknewnofatherland.Forhim,theworkingclassofeverynationregularlygaveexpressiontonationalsentiment.Hewouldexpectnothingless.18

Insubstance,MichelsanticipatedmuchoftheargumentconcerningnationalsentimentthatisnowidentifiedwiththeMarxistthoughtofOttoBauer.Ashasbeenindicated,itwasBauerwholaterwastospeakofnationalityasanaturalproductofassociation,ofsharedlanguageandsharedmemories.ItwashewhospokeofVolksgemeinschaftenas“communitiesofdestiny.”AnditwasBauerwhospokeofthepersistenceofasenseofnationalityevenaftertheanticipateduniversalrevolutionoftheworkingclass.Michelsearlierhadsaidnoless.

Whatisinterestingforthepurposesofexpositionisthefactthatthecentral

ideasofbothMichelsandBauercanbetracedbackdirectlytotheworkofGaetanoMoscaandLudwigGumplowicz—bothmajorinfluencesonthedevelopmentofsocialscienceattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Asearlyas1903,MichelshadenteredintoacollegialrelationshipwithMosca.TheydiscussedMarxismandrevolutionwithadepthandintensitythatcouldonlyhaveprofoundlyinfluencedMichels’sthought.19Togetherwiththat,MichelsregisteredtheinfluenceoftheworkofGumplowiczonhisowntheoreticaldevelopment.20

MoresignificantthanthemechanicalcitationoftheworksofMoscaandGumplowiczinhispublicationsisthefactthatonecaneasilyisolatesomeofthecontrollingideassharedbyallthree.ItisclearthatforbothGumplowiczandMosca,sociallifehasalwaysbeencharacterizedbythecompetitiveinteractionofdiversegroups,instrugglesforexistenceandpreeminence.21ForbothMoscaandGumplowicz,“socialelements,”or“socialtypes,”22whateverformstheyassume—tribal,national,confederational,oreconomicclass—interacttoweavethecomplexfabricofhistory.

Inthecourseofthathistory,groupscompete,membersdevelopasenseofingroupamity,asensethatreinforcestheirabilitiestosurviveinhazardouscircumstances.Correlativetoingroupamity,thereisoutgroupdiffidence—againadispositionthathashadsurvivalvaluethroughouttheevolutionaryhistoryofhumankind.23

TherearefeaturesinthesediscussionsthatharkenbacktotraditionalMarxistdoctrine.Ashasbeenindicated,whereMarxhadoriginallyspokenoftheuniversalcompetitionofclassesasthesubstanceofhistory,Engels,inhisOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,hadspokenofhordes,families,tribes,andgensascommunitiesincompetitionthroughthoselongagesbeforerecordedhistory.Thesewerethegroupactors—thesocialelements—inthedramaofhumanhistorylongbeforetheclasswarfareofwhichMarxhadspoken.

ManyMarxistsbeforeMichelsandBauersawinthehistoryofhumanevolutiontheoriginsofthesentimentofassociation.Theentirenotionofa“sentimentofcommunity”wasunderstoodtoberootedinthemechanicsofthecompetitivestruggleforgroupexistence.Humanbeingsweredisposedtoidentifywiththeirprimaryandderivativeassociationsasaconsequenceoftheconditionsgoverninggroupsurvivalinthecourseofbiologicalevolution.Thethousandsofyearsoccupiedinthestruggleforsurvivalhadmadehumanbeings

“groupcreatures(Gemeinwesen)”—preparedtoselflesslymergewiththosecommunitiesinwhichtheywouldworkouttheirdestinies.

Bytheturnofthetwentiethcentury,muchofthishadbecomeimplicitandexplicitinMarxistdiscussionsconcerninggrouplife.OnefounditsclearexpressionintheworksofDietzgenandmoreemphaticallyinthepublicationsofWoltmann.AboutthesametimethatGumplowiczwaspublishinghisRassenkampf,Marxistswerealreadytalkingabout“group”ratherthanexclusively“class”struggleinthemakingofhistory.Kautskyhadspokenof“socialdrives”havingbeenfixedamongbothanimalsandhumansduringthelongepochsofbiologicalevolution.Inallofthis,someMarxistsbegantoarguethathumanidentificationwithclassmembershipcouldonlybesubsidiarytoidentificationwiththevarietyof“heterogeneoussocialelements”inandthroughwhichhumanbeingssurvivedandevolvedthroughgeologictime.

AswasthecasewithEngels,Marxists,attheturnofthecentury,attemptedtoaccommodateDarwinianinsightsintotheirbeliefsystemsbyinsistingthatwhateverpredispositionsmayhavebeenfixedinhumanpsychologyinthecourseofevolution—inthemodernworld,classmembershipremainedthemostimportant.Ofalltheassociationswithwhichhumanbeingshaveidentifiedthemselvesinthecourseofevolution,class,doctrinaireMarxistsargued,ispresentlythemosthistoricallysignificant.24

WhatmostofthoseMarxistsdidnotseemtorecognizeimmediatelyisthatsuchaconstructionmakesofclassmembershipacontingentvariableinanyaccountofhistoricalandsocialdevelopment.Theidentificationofindividualswiththeirclasscouldonlybetheresultofclassmembershipbeingthemostimportantfactorintheirlives.Shouldtherebepersuasiveevidencethatindividual,orcollective,destinyisdetermined,ormoresignificantlyinfluenced,byotherthanmembershipinaneconomicclass,onecouldanticipatechangesinloyalty,commitment,andthereadinesstosacrificetofollow.

Non-Marxisttheoristshadmadethatperfectlyclear.VilfredoPareto,Mosca,andGumplowiczwereonlythemostprominentofthesocialscientistsoftheperiodwhoarguedthattheidentificationofindividualswithanassociationwastheconsequenceofavarietyofeconomic,political,andmoralinfluences.Notoneofthemwaspreparedtoarguethatclassmembershipconstitutedeithertheonlyplausible,orthemostimportant,associationinwhichhumanbeingsmightindividuallyorseverallyworkouttheirdestinies.WoltmannandSorel,bothoriginallyamongthemoreorthodoxMarxists,hadalreadyacknowledgedasmuch.OncesuchapossibilitywascountenancedbyMarxists,whatfollowed

wasnotentirelyunanticipated.

MICHELSANDNATIONALSENTIMENTRobertoMichelswasparticularlyactiveamongsyndicalistintellectualsduring

thefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury.By1908,inalongessayon“Cooperation,”25Michelsarguedthathumanbehaviorwasafunctionofmembershipinacollectivity,andwasgovernedbytheinteractionofamultiplicityoffactors.Thatprovidedtheoccasiontospeaknotonlyoftheimportance,butofthecomplexityof“classidentification.”Inthecontextofthatdiscussion,hemaintainedthatitwasrare,tosaytheleast,thatanygivencollectionofindividualsallsharedaspecific,andexclusive,“classinterest.”Individuals,inanyreallifesituation,moreoftenthannot,sharedinterestswithmorethanoneidentifiableeconomicclass.Moreover,Michelswenton,notonlyareindividualsandgroupsofindividualsmovedbyamultiplicity,andsometimes,contradictoryeconomicinterests,butitisoftenthecasethatindividualsandgroupsofindividualsaremovedbyan“immaterial”considerationthatconflictswiththosemoremeasurableandmaterial.Hespokewitheasyconfidenceoftheinfluenceoflanguage,religion,andnationalityonthebehaviorofindividualsandgroups.Hewentontoinsistthatamongthoseintereststhatwerenotimmediately“material,”wasasubsetthatengagedtheinterestsofall,irrespectiveofclassidentity.Hecitedtheexistenceoflawasonesuchinstance.26

Whileextantlaw,byandlarge,maywellservespecificclassinterests,nocommunitywouldchoosetobewithoutanylawwhatever.Onemaylabortomakelawmoreequitable,morerelevant,moreavailable,buttherewerefewwhowouldarguethattheexistenceoflawitselfwasamatterofindifferencetoanycommunity.Everyonehasaninterestintheexistenceoflaw.Ineffect,Michelsarguedthattheultimateinterestsofanycommunitycouldhardlybeservedbymaterialinterestsalone.Therewereotherinterests,morebroadlygauged,thatgovernedhumanbehavior.Theexistenceandpersistenceoflawwasone.

InAustria-Hungary,hecontinued,whileeconomicfactorswereimportant,itwaslanguage,culture,andnationality,morethanclass,thatdividedtherealm.Humanbeings,hewenton,collectthemselvesaroundsharedproperties—propertiesthatneednotbeeconomic.Asenseofgroupidentityemergesoutofavarietyofcommontraits,andweobserve,asaconsequence,theregularmanifestationofthatingroupamityandoutgroupdiffidencementionedbymostsocialscientistsoftheperiod.27

Inhissubsequentdiscussionsof“patriotism,”Michelsmadeeminentlyclearthatherecognizednationalsentimentamongthosegroup-sustainingaffectsthatuniteindividualsinviableassociation.Hewentontorecognizethatnationalsentimentwasoftenexpressedintermsofreligious,regional,anddynasticinterests.Whilenottheprimarysourceofsentiment,theyprovidedthemorespecificgroundsofself-regardinggroupmembership.28Michelswasnota“primordialist.”Hedidnotimaginethathumanbeingshavealwaysbeenpossessedofasenseofnationality.Nationalsentimentwasaspecificformofagenericsentimentthatprovidesthegroundforsustainedhumancommunion.ForMichels,thesentimentofcommunitywasaby-productofhumanevolutionaryhistory,andmadeitsmodernappearanceasasenseofnationalityundercertainconditions—theconsequenceoftheimpactofanumberofintersectingvariables.29

Nationalsentimentwasbutoneexpressionofamodernsenseofcommunity,thatarisesoutofalifelivedina“narrowerorbroaderassociation,intightlyorlooselyknitcommunities,inacertaincircleofideaswhichrenderstheindividualproudtobeamemberofthisandnoothercommunity.”30Nationalsentiment,“patriotism,”wasoneformthatthesenseofcommunitymightassumeinhistory.Classmembershipwasanother.Whichsensewouldprevailwouldbedeterminedbytheprevalenceofsomegivencollectionofnormativeandmaterialinterestsatanygiventime.Inthemodernperiod,itwasevidentthattogetherwithclassinterests,nationalsentimentwasprominentifnotpredominant.

Inaclearsense,MichelswasattemptingtoanswerthequestionofwhyMarxwouldhaveeverimaginedthatthehistoryofhumanitywastobeunderstoodastheexclusiveproductofclassstruggle.AlreadyengagedintheworkofDietzgen,Woltmann,andKautsky,Michelschosetoexplainclassmembershipbyrecognizingsuchmembershipasonlyoneformgroupassociationmightassume.Hearguedthatthesamepsychologicalqualitiesthatmadehumanbeingsclasscreatures,madethemtribal,citystate,andnationalcreaturesaswell.Whatsortofcreaturestheyweretobewasdeterminedbysomecomplexsetofhistoriccircumstances.

AtaboutthesametimethatMichelswasexploringthecomplexitiesofnationalsentiment,ItalyfounditselfpoisedtoembarkonawaragainstTurkeyinthepresumeddefenseofItalianinterestsintheMediterranean.InSeptember1911,ItaliannavalandgroundforcesengagedthoseofTurkeyinTripoliandCyrenaica.TheyquicklybroughtTripoliundersiege,bombardedDerna,and

challengedtheTurkishfleetintheDardanelles.Michels,asasocialist,wassurprisedbytheevidenceofnationalsentimentfreelydisplayedbysomanyofthemostunassumingmembersoftheworkingclasses.Howeverknowledgeablehewasconcerningthepropertiesofgroupmembership,theevidentnationalistfervorexpressedbythelowliestofItalianslefthimpuzzled.AmongMarxists,hewasnotaloneinhisperplexity.

SomeofMichels’sfellowsyndicalistswereequallysurprisedbythephenomenon.TheyweredriventotrytounderstandthebehavioroftheItalianworkingclasswhenfacedwiththeprospectofinternationalconflict.Theresultwaspublicdiscussionthatwasprotractedandsearching.

Priorto1911,therehadbeenintimationsoftherolenationalsentimentmightplayinthepoliticsofthenation,andwhenthepossibilityofwarresultedinwhatdoctrinaireMarxiststooktobeanomalousbehavioronthepartofworkersoftownandcountry,syndicalistintellectualsweredriventoundertakeastudiedanalysis.Inthemonthsprecedingtheactualoutbreakofwar,forexample,A.O.OlivettiaddressedthequestionoftherolenationalsentimentmightbeexpectedtoplayinItaly’sdomesticandforeignpolitics.31Likemanysyndicalists,Olivettirecognizedthatnationalsentimentwasperfectlynatural,theconsequenceofthelong,evolutionaryhistoryofhumanassociation.32Formodernhumanbeings,nationalsentimentwasanessentiallyculturalproduct—theconsequenceofsharedlanguage,religion,andhistoriccircumstances.Michelshadsaidasmuch.

Moreover,OlivettiwasechoingMichelswhenhespokeofnationalsentimentassupplying“mythicenergy”tocollectivepurpose.Michelshadlongacknowledgedthattheidentificationwithadefinedgroupproducedaffectcapableofgeneratingselfless,evensacrificial,behavioronthepartofindividuals.Theevolutionaryhistoryofhumanbeingsaffirmedasmuch.Atitsbest,Olivettiwastomaintain,thosedispositionsmightbeharnessedtoprogressivedoctrine,togiveempiricalmeaningtoaHegelianconceptionofagoal-directedunfoldingofhistory.33

Olivettiwentontomakeargueddistinctions.Herejectedwhatheidentifiedas“politicalnationalism”asartificial,calculatedonlytoserveexclusively“bourgeois”interests.Neithersyndicalistsnortheproletariatcouldhaveinterestinsuchacontrivednationalism.Norcouldeitherhaveinterestinthe“anthropologicalracism”producedbyintellectuals,suchasWoltmann,whosoughttomakespecialsenseofgroupsentimentinthecontextofDarwinianevolution.

Olivettiwentontoindicatethatthemostgiftedsocialtheoristsofthetime—LudwigGumplowiczforemostamongthem—treatedbiologicalraceasaderivativeandsubsidiaryproductofgrouplife.34HepointedoutthatGumplowiczdealtwithraceasagroupphenomenon,aby-productofassociatedlife.Gumplowiczdidnotconfusetherealityofgrouplifewiththeattemptsbybiologistsandanthropologiststodistinguishoneanthropologicalracefromanother.Biologistsandanthropologistssucceededonlyinmakingracean“abstract”classificatorycategory,capturingunderoneoranotherrubricsomesetofascriptivepropertieshavinglittletodowiththenaturalsentimentthatanimatedrealhumanbeings.ForGumplowicz,nationalsentiment,likeclasssentiment,isnottheresultofscientificabstraction.Botharespontaneousfeelingsnaturaltoalifelivedincommon.“Race,”astheabstractionithadbecomeforevolutionaryscientists,hardlypossessedthemythicenergybothMichelsandOlivettiwerepreparedtoassociatewiththesentimentofnationalityorclass.

Individualswerepreparedtosacrificefortheirnationorfortheirclass,buthardlyfortheirrace—definedasitwasbyabstractions.Humansentimentcouldinspirethemembersofalmostanyrealassociation.Anthropologicalabstractions,Olivettiargued,couldnotprovidethepsychologicalgroundsforanyassociationthatmightsoserve.

Olivetticoncludedhisdiscussionwiththerecognitionthatthesentimentof“nationality,”howevernatural,variedinexpressionthroughouthistory.AsbothGumplowiczandMichelshadargued,groupsentimentwasanobjectspecificexpressionofageneralsentimentofassociation.Assuch,itwasasentimentthatcouldanimateanydurablehumanassociation.Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,thatsentimentfoundmanifestexpressioninnationalismandclassidentification—thetwo“realities”withwhichtruerevolutionarieswouldhavetocontend.

Atthebeginningof1911,OlivettiwaspreparedtoarguethatitwasclasswithwhichItaly’sworkerswouldidentify.Conversely,heheldthatpoliticalnationalismaddresseditselfto,andwasacontrivanceof,themiddleclass.Hemaintainedthat,liketheabstractionsofanthropologists,thecontrivancesofthepossessingclassesentirelyignoredtherealitiesthatgovernedthelifeoftheworkingmasses.Workerscouldnotshareintheenthusiasmgeneratedbypoliticalnationalism,forworkerswereinnocentofanyknowledgeoftheculturalhistoryofthenation.Illiterateandunschooled,theyhadnoculturalorhistoricsenseofthe“fatherland.”Opposedtothe“bourgeoisgovernment”that

controlledtheirenvironmenttotheirdisadvantage,theproletariatcouldonlybemobilizedbyappealstotheirclass,ratherthantheirnational,interests.

Ascanbeappreciatedalmostimmediately,Olivetti’sanalysistraffickedontheinsightsearliersuppliedbyGumplowiczandMichels.Thedistinctionshedrewbetweennationalismandsyndicalismwerebasedonwhatheunderstoodtobetherealitiesofhistime.WiththeactualoutbreakofthewarinTripoli,Olivetticontinuedhislineofargument—butthatargumentunexpectedly,butinexorably,ledhimtomakeacaseforproletariansupportforthenation’swarinTripoli.35

Inmakinghisargument,inSeptember,forsupportingthewaragainstTurkey,OlivettiarguedthatreflectionhadconvincedhimthattheItalianproletariat,infact,didhaveamanifestinvestmentinthepresentandfutureoftheirnation.HearguedthatthewarwaspartofthehistoricprocessthatMarxismitselfhadtaughtrevolutionariestoanticipate,andinwhichtheywereexpectedtoparticipate.

Marxismhadtaughtrevolutionariesthattheanticipatedsocialrevolutionwouldbeforthcomingonlyasanaccompanimentofthefullmaturationofindustrialcapitalism—inthecourseofwhichadevelopingcapitalismwouldbedriventoexpandoverextendedregions,introducingtheelementsofmodernproductiontothoseplacesandpeoplesbypassedbyhistory.Italyhadonlybeguntoparticipateinjustthatpredictablesequence.ToobstructItaly’sparticipationinthathistoricaldevelopmentwouldbetodeflectpropergrowth,andconsignthepeninsulatothe“limboofprecapitalism”forever—andforecloseontherevolution.

ForOlivetti,itwasevidentthatthenation’sbourgeoisie,chargedbyhistorywithitseconomicdevelopment,hadfailedtodisplaythepropertiesrequisitetothetask.Forwhateverreason,Olivettimaintained,theItalianpossessingclasseshadproventhemselvespassiveandineffectual,remainingmarginaltotheprocessintendedtoshepherdthenationintothemodernera.Asaconsequenceoftheverybackwardnessofthepeninsula,theproletariatremainedentirelyunpreparedforrevolutionaryresponsibilities.Themostcompetentandaggressiveamongthemabandonedtheirretrogradeenvironmentinordertoimmigratetoplaceswheretheycouldbettersurviveandprosper.InItaly,therevolutionwasfaltering.

ThewarintheMediterraneanprovidedtheoccasionfortransformingthecircumstancesoftheworkingclassesofthepeninsula.Olivettiarguedthatitwouldgoadthebourgeoisietoonceagaintakeupthetasksofanadolescent

capitalism—developmentandexpansion.Itwouldforcethenationtotakeonpropertieswithwhichitwasnotfamiliar—aNietzscheanandBergsonianvitalitythatwasintrinsicallyrevolutionary.Tocommitthemselvestowar,thesyndicalistswouldgiveexpressiontoamanifestationof“force,audacity,andenergy...infinitelypreferabletothestagnantpettybourgeoisandreformistnotionoflifelivedwithoutchallenge.”Thewarwouldserveasa“revolutionarypropaedeutic,”theinitiationofaprocessthatwouldproducea“newcivilizationcharacterizedbyproducers,”whowouldbe,themselves,“profoundlyheroic,”toliveinanelectricatmosphereof“constructiveidealism,”united“byarobustandintrepidconsciousness”in“organicandassertiveharmony,steadfastandfree,disciplinedyetspontaneous.”36

AnimatedbythethoughtofMarx,Sorel,Nietzsche,andSchopenhauer,an“aristocraticsyndicalism”wouldinspirearevolutionthatwouldresultinthecreationofaheroic,economicallydeveloped,industriallymature,and“technologicallyadvanced,”nation—anation“stronger,wealthier,andrenewed,withanincreasedrespectforitself,...atlastnolongerburdenedbythemoralityofslaves.”37Insubstance,bytheendofthewarinTripoli—employingalltheelementsofsocialtheoryfoundintherevolutionarysocialistworksofMarx,Sorel,Michels,PaoloOrano,andArturoLabriola—OlivettihadputtogethertheclearoutlinesofaconceptionofradicalnationalsyndicalismthatwastoinfluencethethoughtofrevolutionariesthroughouttheentireperiodleadingtotheoutbreakoftheGreatWar.

Olivettiaddressedhimselftothatnationalsentimentheheldtobeaspontaneousmanifestationofacollectivewill,shapedbyculture,andinspiredbymemoriesofahistoryofachievementsthatcontributedtotheupliftofhumanity.Thatsortofnationalismgaveexpressiontoaparticular“collectivepersonality,”movedbyarevolutionaryvisionofa“concreteandprogressivereality.”

Inallthosesenses,Olivettisaw“integral”nationalismaskindredtorevolutionarysyndicalism.Bothweredynamicdoctrinesof“energyandwill.”Theybothsawpoliticaldemocracyasanexpressionofpassivityandaccommodation,offalseillusionsofuniversalfraternityandeffortlessmeliorism.LikeMichels,Olivettiarguedthattheachievementofrealpurposeinthemodernworldrequiredsoberconvictionsanimatedbynatural,ratherthanartificial,sentiment.Bothrejectedthecommonplaceconvictionsofwhatpassedasmodern“democracy.”Bothwereconvincedthatmassesareincapableofundertakingself-directedandself-sustainingactivities.Forboth,massesmust

necessarilyappealtoleadershiptoavoidlapsingintototalirrelevance.

AtaboutthesametimethatMichelswasfinishinghismasterworkontheoligarchictendenciesinpoliticalsystems,38Olivettiwasmakingthesamepointandaddressinghimselftothenecessityofeliteinterventioninthemobilizationofhumanresourcesforsocialrevolution.Olivettispokeoftheroleofmyths,andtheinvocationofheroes,toinstillinmassesasenseoftheseriousnessoflife.BythetimeofthewarinTripoli,thesyndicalistssharedallthesenotionswithdevelopmentalnationalists.39

Togetherwithallofthat,bothrevolutionarymovementswereinspiredbyanethosofproduction.Bothsawtheirrevolutionsasdirectedbyan“aristocracyofproducers,”disposedtodissipatethehedonismandselfishnessthatcharacterizedtheshallowandunfortunateworldtheyknew.Thesewerethedoctrinalelementsthathadmaturedwithintheranksofsyndicalistintellectualsby1912.Theyaretobefoundinthepublishedworksofthosemostdistinguished.40ThesameideasweretoresurfaceintheargumentsadvancedbythosewhowouldinterveneintheGreatWar.In1915,theyweretoargumentsthatweretobebruitedbyMussolini,theleaderofItaly’srevolutionarysocialists.

ItwasMichelswhowouldformulatetheargumentsthatwouldbridgethedistancebetweentheWarinTripoliandtheGreatWar.

HewouldgatherthoseargumentstogetherinhisL’imperialismoitaliano—publishedontheverycuspoftheFirstWorldWar.41Intheprefacetothatwork,Michelsremindedhisaudiencethathehadlonginvolvedhimselfinthestudyofproblemsthatcollectedthemselvesaroundtheissuesofthefatherland(patria),thenation,andnationality.Theworkhethenpresentedthereaderwasonethatsoughttounderstandthecollectivepsychologythat“approvedwithenthusiasm,andwithalmostcompleteunanimity,...[Italy’s]policyofarmedexpansion”againsttheTurksin1911.Forthefirsttimeinthemodernperiod,Italians,longheldtobeaninherentlypacificpeople,hadtakenuparms.Michelsunderstoodallofitasthefirstappearanceofa“proletarianimperialism”—anarmedefforttocompelthe“greatpowers”torecognizethat“proletarian”Italywouldnolongerserveastributary.42

MICHELSAND“PROLETARIANNATIONALISM”Theentire,complexargumentfoundinL’imperialismoitalianocontainsall

theelementsofOlivetti’srationalesupportingthewarinNorthAfrica.TheprincipaldifferencebetweenthetworesidesinthefactthatMichels’srenderingisamoredetached,didactic,andlessdramatic,presentation.Otherthanthat,one

doesnotfindanyeffortonthepartofMichelstoexplainthesequenceofeventsleadinguptothewarbyassigningexclusiveefficacytoclassinterests.ForMichels,aswasthecasewithOlivetti,thewarinTripolihadotherthaneconomiccauses.Howevermuchsomemembersofthebusinesscommunityprofitedfromthesaleofcomestibles,uniforms,andancillarymilitarysupplies,forexample,andhowevermuchentrepreneursinheavyindustryprofitedfromtheprovisionofironandsteeltogetherwiththesaleofweaponsofwartothestate,MichelsarguedthatthedesireforsuchgaincouldnothavedeterminedthedecisiontoengagetheCaliphatein1911.Therewereenougheconomicinterestsdesirousofpeacetoneutralizethoseinclinedtowardwar.43ClearlyconvincedthateconomicvariablescouldhardlyaccountforItaly’sdecisiontoundertakewaragainsttheTurks,44Michelscitedthreeinfluencesheconsideredfarmoredeterminant:demographic,political,andpsychological.45

ThatItalyfounditselfattemptingtosupportarapidlygrowingpopulationcreatedall-but-intolerablepolitical,economic,andmoralpressuresonitsrulingclass.MichelsdutifullyrecitedthestatisticsrecordingthenumbersofItalianswhohadfledtheirhomelandovertheprecedingtwodecadestoseekopportunityelsewhere.Togetherwiththataccounting,Michelsrecountedthebudgetofhumiliationssufferedbythoseworkerswhohadsettledonforeignshores.HereportedthattheItalians—almostallworkers—wereregularlydemeaned,oftenassaulted,andnotinfrequentlykilledbymobsinthelandsinwhichtheysoughtsuccor.TheywerelynchedintheSouthernUnitedStates,andmadesubjecttohomicidalassaultinFrance,inSwitzerland,inArgentina,andinBrazil.46

MichelssawthewoesofItalianmigrantstheresultofseveralfactors.Italywaspoor,andsingularlyillconsideredbythemoreadvancedcountries.ItsgovernmentwasincapableofextendinganyeffectivedefenseforItaliancitizenswhosoughtworkinforeigncountries.Italyhadneithermilitarynoreconomicleveragewiththoseforeigngovernmentsthatcontrolledthelivesofitstranslocatedcitizens.

MichelsarguedthatItaly,becauseofitsretrogradeeconomy,couldnotsupportitspopulation—andcouldnotprotectthemwhentheysoughtlivelihoodelsewhere.Thepeninsula’spopulationwasdenserthanalmostanycountryinEurope,anditsindustrialbase,whiledeveloping,wasinsufficienttoprovideemploymentforallthosewhomadethemselvesavailable.Agriculture,centuriesold,conductedwiththemostprimitiveofmethods,largelylaborintensive,stillfounditselfburdenedwithsurpluslabor.

Inthecourseofhisaccount,Michels,likeOlivetti,focusedprimarilyonthe

retrogradecharacterofItalianindustrialdevelopment.HespokeofanItalydecades,ifnotcenturies,behindtheNorthEuropeancountries.47Italywascapitalpoor,almosthalfitspopulationilliterate,andillpreparedfortasksinamodernsetting.Italy,attheturnofthetwentiethcentury,wassomethingotherthanadevelopednation.Unlikethosenations,fullycapableofmarshalingtheirownpopulationstoproductiveenterprise—Italyexporteditsworkers,toconsigntheirpresentandfuturetothecontrolofforeigners.

MichelsinsistedthattheultimateresolutionoftheproblemsthatattendthemassiveoutmigrationofItalianswastobefoundintherapidindustrializationofthenation’seconomy,togetherwiththemodernizationandgrowthofitstraditionalagriculturalsector.Intheinterim,aspacewassoughtsomewherethatcouldaccommodatethenation’ssurpluspopulationwithoutabandoningItalianstotheuncaringministrationsofforeigners.ThewarinTripoli,inhisjudgment,wasanefforttosecurethatspace.ItaliansfromthemostimpoverishedanddenselypopulatedregionsoftheSouthcouldmaketheeasytransittoLibyawheretheymightmakeabetterlifeforthemselvesundertheprotectionoftheirowngovernment.

Whilethatappearstohavebeentheintention,whatbecomesevidentinMichels’stextishisrecognitionthattheacquisitionofpartoftheNorthAfricancoast,inandofitself,woulddoverylittletosolveItaly’simmediatedemographicproblems.LibyacouldhardlyaccommodatethehundredsofthousandsofItaliansthatsoughtescapefromthepovertyofthehomeland.MostoftheavailablelandintheterritoriesacquiredbythewaragainsttheTurkswasownedbylong-establishedArabproprietors,andwashardlyarablewithoutextensiveandexpensiveirrigation.Therewaslittleindustryintheregion,andotherthantheopportunitiescreatedbygovernmentservices,theprospectsofmeaningfulemploymentforanynewimmigrantswerenotgood.

ItisnotnecessarytofollowthetextveryfartorealizethatwhileMichelsarguedthatdemographicpressureslargelyinfluencedthedecisiontoembarkonthewaragainsttheCaliphate,hedidnotexpecttheconquestofTripoli,inandofitself,tosignificantlychangethedynamicthatsawItalylosingworkerstotheserviceofothers.48Nonetheless,MichelssupportedItaly’sdecisiontowagewaragainstTurkey.WhyhedidsowasinterestingintermsofItaly’simmediatefuture.

Michelsaddressedissuesthatwerefarbroaderthanthewaritself.WhiletheconquestofaportionofNorthAfricawoulddolittletosolveItaly’simmediatedemographicproblems,itwouldcontributetothepsychologicaltransformation

ofItalians.Michelsarguedthatthewar,andthemobilizationforwar,wouldservetorekindleamongItaliansthememoriesofapastthathadseenItalytheseatofoneoftheworld’sforemostcivilizations.Thecalltoarmsmightrecalltheonetimegrandeurofthenation.Thewar,andthemobilizationforwar,mightreinvokethatsenseofhistoricresponsibilityamongItaliansthathadoncecharacterizedtheRomeofantiquity.Italianswouldspeak,onceagain,oftheMediterraneanasmarenostrum,oursea—andof“restoringtotheMotherlandthatwhichwasoncehers.”49

AnyreasonablereadingofMichels’sexpositionrevealsthathisconcernswerefarmorecomplexandcomprehensivethananysimpletreatmentofItaly’swarinTripoli.Inthat,hefollowedmanyofthesuggestionsfoundinOlivetti’saccount.Michelsfoundinthecalltoarmedconflictacalltoheroism,andproductivecreation.ItwasacalltomobilizationaroundthemythofRomanglory.50

Michelsfullyappreciatedtheroleofevocativemythsinthemobilizationofmasses.Theirefficacy,inhisanalysis,wasgeneral—notintheleastlimitedtothegatheringofItalians.Hearguedthatpoliticalsymbolisms,particularlythemythsofancientglories,servedtomobilizecollectiveenergiesinmostmoderncasesofnationalrevolutionary,economic,political,andmilitaryundertakings.Ineffect,genericcollectivesentimentcouldbeshapedintomodernpoliticalnationalismthroughthemediumofmythandcollectiveaspirations.51

InMichels’stext,onefindsanaccountofthespecificallypolitical,diplomatic,andstrategicinterestsofItalyindependentoftheissueofthewarinTripoli.ItwascleartoMichelsthatthewaragainsttheCaliphatewouldnotresolveallthedifficultiesItalywouldfaceintherelativelynearfuture.Ontheonehand,itcouldprovidebasingfacilitiesontheNorthAfricancoastthatmightchallengethesupremacyofGreatBritainandFranceintheMediterranean.Ontheother,itdistractedItalyfromitseffortstorestoreitscontroloverits“lostlands”intheTrentinoandDalmatia.TherewastheacknowledgmentthatAustriahadlongthwartedthelegitimateinterestsofItalyintheBalkans,intheAdriatic,andintheMediterranean.ItwasAustria-HungarythatoccupiedlandswhosepopulationswereItalian.ItwasAustria-Hungary’snavythatthreatenedthelongcoastofEasternItaly,defenselessbecauseofitsinhospitabilitytonavalbasesthatmightservethenation.ForMichels,itwasevidentthatvictoryinthewaragainsttheTurksdidnothingtoaddressanyofthoseissues.

Michelsheldallthosematterstobeofconcernforhisadoptednation,andthatthelackoftheirresolutioncontributedtothesenseofgatheringinternationaltension.ThewarinTripolihadmadeevidenttohimthataconstellationof

materialandmoralissuesanimatedItaliansandsignaledmomentousdecisionstobeaddressedinthenot-too-distantfuture.

Alltheelementsthattogethermadeupthesyndicalismofthefirstyearsofthecenturyreappearedinthe“proletariannationalism”Michelsidentifiedin1913.Hemadeacaseforarevolutionarynationalismthatwouldinspireanhistoricpeopletorestoreanancientgrandeurbyinfusingthemwithanethicoflaborandsacrifice,calculatedtosustainaprogramofrapidindustrializationandeconomicgrowth.Themoralimperativeswouldbe“proletarian”becauseItaly,asanation,sufferedallthedisabilitiesMarxhadidentifiedwithallthosewholabor.Italy,initsentirety,was“proletarian.”Itsopponentswere“plutocratic.”

BythetimeoftheItalo-TurkishWarof1911,themostradicalofItaliansyndicalistshadputtogetherallthecomponentsofarevolutionaryideology,rootedinMarxism,buttransformedbythethoughtofSorelandallthoseItalianshehadsweptupinhisvision.ForallitsprefigurationsfoundintheworkofintellectualslikeMichelsandOlivetti,howcomprehensivetheideologyofrevolutionarysyndicalismhadbecomeonlybecameapparentwiththecomingoftheGreatWar.

FILIPPOCORRIDONI,THEARCHANGELOFSYNDICALISMThereisperhapsnobettermannerwithwhichtoillustratethedoctrinal

developmentsamongItalianrevolutionarysyndicalistsintheperiodbetweentheWarinTripoliandtheFirstWorldWarthantotracetheminthethoughtoftheyoungFilippoCorridoni.Hewascalled,bythosewhoadmiredhim,the“tribune”andthe“apostle”oflabor,andafterhisdeath,the“archangelofsyndicalism.”IntheyearsfollowingtheGreatWar,itwashisnamethefirstFascistsinvokedinordertosignalsomethingofthecharacteroftherevolutiontheysought.

BornonthenineteenthofAugustin1887,inthetownofPausola,intheprovinceofMacerata,hewasthesonofafoundryworker,fromwhomheinheritedthesentimentsthatmadehimaMarxistattheageofseventeen,52andarevolutionarysyndicalistattwenty.Avoraciousreaderandanardentorator,heveryquicklyroseintheranksoftherevolutionarylabormovement,toprovoketheabidingconcernoftheauthorities.Afterhisfirstarrestin1907,hespentthenexteightyearsinandoutofItalianprisonsandinepisodicexile.

Hispublicationsthroughoutthisperiodaredistinguishedonlyinsofarastheyreflectedstandardsyndicalistargument.HisRiflessionisulsabotaggiowasa

rationalefortheemploymentofsabotageinthedefenseoftheinterestsoftheurbanproletariat53—thepublicationanddistributionofwhichcosthimaperiodofconfinementfortheadvocacyofviolenceagainstpersons,property,andthestate.

ThereisnothingintheseessaysthatwoulddistinguishCorridoni’sthoughtfromthatofanynumberofotherrevolutionarysyndicalists.54OnlyinthemonthsofItaly’sindecision,aftertheoutbreakoftheGreatWar,andbeforeRome’scommitmenttotheTripleEntenteinMay1915,didCorridonigiveexpressiontothosedoctrinalstatementsthatweretorenderhimtheheraldofFascism.HoweverdistinctiveCorridoni’sthoughtduringthatcriticalperiod,onecantraceitselementstotheargumentsbroadcastbythoseradicalsyndicalistswhowerehisimmediateantecedentsandintellectualmentors.55CorridoniputthoseideastogetherinsodramaticafashionthattheyinspiredmanyofItaly’sworkerstovolunteertheirservicesinthecauseofthefatherland.

InthecrisisgeneratedbytheadventoftheGreatWar,Corridoni’sconvictionshadtakenonaparticularcast.Theformassumedwasdistinctive,fashionedofcontinuitiesthatcouldbetracednotonlytoSorel,buttomanyofthosesyndicalistthinkerswithwhomCorridonisharedhislifeandbeliefs.56Ashistorywouldhaveit,Corridoniwasnottohavemuchtimetofullydevelophisideas.Asavolunteerinthearmedforcesoftheking,hewastofallintheGreatWarattheageoftwenty-eight—inanattackonAustro-HungariandefensesinthehighlandsofCarsico.Andyet,heleftsoinspiringanargument,thatlongafterhisdeathsomeofitselementsweretobeinvokedandreinvokedbyItaly’srevolutionaries.

WhileinprisoninApril1915,servingyetanothersentenceforpoliticalsubversion,Corridoniwrotehisfinal,andmostsubstantialrevolutionarytract:Sindacalismoerepubblica.Itwastoserveashispoliticaltestament,tobeidentifiedbyFascists,throughoutthehistoryoftheirparty,asoneofthedoctrinalinspirationsoftheirmovement.57LikeMichels’sL’Imperialismoitaliano,Corridoni’sSindacalismoerepubblicawasatransitionalpoliticalstatementthatdocumentsyetanotherstageinsyndicalism’spassagefromMarxismtoFascism.

Thathavingbeensaid,thereisabsolutelynodoubtthatCorridoniconceivedhislongessayofApril1915asfundamentallyMarxistinsubstance.Hesaysasmuchinhisexposition.58Hemakeseminentlyclearthathealwayswas,andremainedatthetimeofhiswriting,committedtothecentralconvictionsofthe

revolutionaryfromTrier.Heunderstoodhimselfdrawingimplicationsfromacomplexlegacy.

Infact,heproceededtoexplainwhyfew,ifany,ofMarx’spredictionshadbeenrealizedinthemorethanaquartercenturysincehisdeath.Corridoniacknowledgedthattherewaslittle,ifany,compellingevidencethatItalianindustryhadundergonetheconcentrationofcapitalinfewerandfewerhandsMarxhadanticipatedforallcapitalistsystems.Norhadtherebeenacorrelativedisappearanceofthemiddleclasses,orincreasingemiserationamongtheproletariat.

InhiscatalogoffactorsthathadinfluencedtheevolvingeconomyofEurope,CorridonicitedthosealreadyadvancedbybothMarxistandnon-MarxistanalystsrangingfromBernstein,throughKautsky,toWoltmann,andbeyond.Forhispart,CorridonichosetoemphasizetheinterventionsofthestateinthenationaleconomyasanexplanationfortheapparentinapplicabilityofMarx’s“lawsofcapitalistdevelopment.”Thestatehadconjureduptariffregulationsandprovidedspecialprivilegestoindustryandagriculturethatinsulatedthecapitalisteconomyfromthe“naturallaws”thatMarxhadarguedultimatelywouldbringdownthesystem.

Forallthat,CorridonicontinuedtoinvestconfidenceinthetruthofMarx’sdoctrine.Itwasthepoliticalbehaviorofthestatethatinterferedwiththeworkingoutoftheprocess;andthenthereweretechnologicaldevelopmentsthatrenderedcapitalistproductionsoprofitablethatindustrialistscouldaffordtobesomewhat“generous”toworkersandthereby,insomemeasure,relievethewretchednessoftheirlivesandimpairtheirrevolutionaryconsciousness.59

ForCorridoni,thathelpedtoexplainwhytherehadnotbeenthepromisedrevolution.TherewasnodoubtinhismindthatMarx’sinsightsintocapitalism,asamodernproductivesystem,hadbeenbasicallycorrect.60ButwhateverthemeritsofhisexplanationforthefailureofMarxistprognostications,onepartofhisargumentwastohavecriticalinfluenceinthedevelopmentofsyndicalistdoctrineandthearticulationofFascistideology.

Likemanyofthesyndicalistsbeforehim,CorridonirecognizedthatItalywaslaggardinitseconomicdevelopmentandtechnologicalproficiency.NotonlywasItalyeconomicallyandindustriallyretrograde,itappeared“organicallyincapable”ofresolvingitsdisabilities.Italyappeareddestinedtolanguishinunderdevelopment,sufferingallitsattendantdisabilities.Italy’sbourgeoisiehadfailedtocompletetheir“historicmission”—theindustrializationofthe

peninsula.Marxhadclearlyindicatedthatindustrialmaturationwasthenecessaryconditionforrevolutionaryresolution.Withoutschoolinginamaturecapitalistsystem,theproletariatwouldneverdevelopeithertherequisiteclass-consciousnessortheassociatedcompetenceessentialtotheassumptionofcontroloverthepostrevolutionaryproductivesystem.61

UnlikeLenin,whoseemedtoseenothinginthefactthatheproposedtomake“socialist”revolutioninanindustriallybackwardnation,Corridoni,likemanyoftherevolutionarysyndicalistsofhistime,waspreparedtodrawanumberofsignificantconsequencesfromthatreality.HeadvancedsomerelativelyspecificpolicyrecommendationsfromtherecognitionthatItalyremainedeconomicallyunderdeveloped.62

WhileLeninimaginedthattheRussianrevolutionwouldprecipitateaworldwideproletarianrevolutionthatwouldprovidetheindustrialbaseforthesocialismheadvocated,Corridoniandtherevolutionarysyndicalistsoftheperiodrecognizedthatanysucheventualitywasmostimplausible.Instead,Corridoni,andtherevolutionarysyndicalists,advocateda“revolutionarydevelopment”oftheeconomyofthebackwardpeninsula.WhatbecameevidentwasthatCorridoni,andtherevolutionarysyndicalists,hadastrategy,radicallydifferentfromthatofLenin,foraddressingtheproblemofeconomicbackwardness.

LikeLenin,Corridonispokeoftheacceleratedandacceleratingproductivityofcapitalistindustryingeneral—withtheresultthatintheadvancedindustrialeconomiesdomesticmarketswerequicklysaturated,makingitimpossibletoprofitablyclearinventories.Whatfollowedwasthefreneticsearchformarketsupplements.ItwaswithinthatgeneralcontextthatCorridonispokeofthosefeaturesofthemodernworldthathadbecomecommonplaceintherevolutionaryliteratureoftheturnofthecentury.LikeLenin,andHobson63beforehim,Corridoniarguedthatsincecapitalism’sprodigiousyieldcouldnotbesoldprofitablyindomesticmarkets—capitalistsweredriventoseekmarketsupplementsandinvestmentopportunitiesoutsidethesystem.Thatnecessitywasconsidered,bymostMarxistsandreformersoftheperiod,the“taprootofimperialism.”

Corridoniproceededfurtherwiththeargument.HedrewfromitimplicationsseeminglyabsentfromLenin’sImperialism.Corridonimaintainedthateconomicallylessdevelopednationssufferedveryspecificdisadvantagesinthegeneralprocessprecipitatedbyimperialism.Heheldthatindustriallyretrogradenationsontheperipheryofadvancedcapitalismdidnothavethecapacityto

defendeithertheirterritorialormarketintegrity.Withtoonarrowanindustrialbase,theycouldnotcreateamilitarythatcouldprotecttheirphysical,financial,orcommercialenvironment.Latecomerstoindustrywereataseriousdisadvantageinthemodernworld.Theyweredemeaned,exploited,andhumiliatedintheirrelationswith“thegreatpowers”—andfrustratedintheireffortsatrapideconomicgrowthandindustrialization.64

Withoutprotectivetariffs,domesticindustryinlessdevelopedcountrieswasoverwhelmedbyproductsfrommoreadvancedcompetitors.Lessdevelopedcommunitieswereliterallyandfiguratively“colonized.”Theirpopulationswerealienatedfromtheirhistoricpastandtheirnativeculture.Thepoornationsonthemarginsofcapitalismcouldnotprosper.Bereftofdomesticcapital,richonlyinpopulation,poisonedbyanimportedpoliticalcultureofindulgenceandindividuality,thelatecomerstoeconomicdevelopmentingeneral,andindustrializationinparticular,werethreatenedbyperpetualbackwardness,togetherwithculturalandmoraldecay.

ForCorridoni,Italyfounditselfinjustsuchcircumstances.Itstruggledtosurviveinwhathecalledessentially“precapitalistconditions.”Italiancapitalistslackedinitiative,resources,andtherequisiteautonomyforrapidindustrialdevelopment.Theinevitableconsequencewastheattendantimmaturityoftheproletariat.Italy’sworkerscouldneithermakerevolutionnoreffectivelydirecttheeconomyshouldsucharevolutionbesuccessful.65Inthosecircumstances,syndicalistscouldneitheradvocatenorexpectthekindofrevolutionthatrequiredtheparticipationofthe“vastmajority”ofapopulationcomposedof“class-conscious”proletarians.66

CorridoniarguedthattherevolutionthathadbeguntocastitsshadowoverItalycouldonlybetheconsequenceofthefailureoftheentrepreneurialbourgeoisietodischargeits“historicmission.”67Becauseindustrywasunderdeveloped,therewereonlyfewworkerspossessedofthematuritythatmightmakethemtruerevolutionaries.Theclassesonthepeninsulawerenotwelldefined.Theonlyintereststhatsustainedtheiractivitieswerelocal,material,anduninspired.CorridoniarguedthatnoneofthatcouldinitiateorsustainthekindofrevolutionMarxhadanticipated.

CorridoniarguedthataretrogradeItalyrequiredinspiration.Thetasksbeforethenation,ifiteverreallyaspiredtoattainthepromiseofmaterialprosperity,spiritualfulfillment,andequity,requiredunqualifiedcommitment,discipline,sacrifice,andlaborbytheentirepopulation—agrarians,artisans,industrialists,

andworkersalike.68Heclearlyexpectedsomeformof“classcollaboration”duringtheprocess,untilindustrializationproducedthematureworkingclassthatmightserviceasyndicalisteconomy.69

Duringtheinterim,fromeconomicbackwardnesstoindustrialmaturity,Corridoniexpectedthewarthatloomedonthehorizontoresultinthefinalterritorialcompletionofthe“belovednation”thathadonlyrecentlyachievednationhoodwiththeRisorgimento.70Initself,thatwouldstimulateeconomicgrowthandindustrialsophistication.Otherthantheimmediateeffectofresolvingthenation’sirridentistimpulses,avictoriousItaly,havingsuccessfullyconducteditselfinamajorconflict,wouldbecapableofdefendingitsfutureeconomicandcommercialinterests.

Thatwouldbeanimportantconsideration,sinceatthevictoriousconclusionofsuchawar,thenationwouldbeatthecrossroadsoftradebetweentheMediterraneanandAsia.Italywouldonceagainbecomeamercantilenation—requiredtodefenditssealinesofcommunicationandtrade.Itseconomywouldgrowanddeepen.71

Italianswouldnolongerfinditnecessarytoleavetheirhomelandtosearchforalivelihoodintheserviceofforeigners.Thenationwouldbecuredofthat“dangerousmaladythatdepriveditofitsmostyouthfulandmostardentworkers.”72

Corridonispokeofallthisaspartofan“adaptive”or“transitional”revolution.73TheconditionsnecessaryfortherevolutionMarxhadanticipatedhadnotmatured.TherevolutionthaturgeditselfonItalywouldserveastransitionaltotheeconomicandindustrialmaturityofthepeninsula.

Untiltheverydayhelefttotakeuparmsinanationalstrugglefromwhichhewasnottoreturn,hisultimatepurposeremainedforeverconstant.Therevolutionheanticipatedwouldinvolveanextensivecollaborationofclasses—illdefinedasclasseswereinthatlargelyill-definedeconomicenvironmentofretrogradeItaly.74Inthefuture,undertheauspicesofadevelopmentalrevolution,classinterestswouldbemoresharplydefined.Insomefuturetime,Corridonisoughttheadventofan“integral”and“organic”republic,arrayedinfederated,andconfederated,craftandprofessionalsyndicates.

Forthemoreimmediatefuture,hewentontoproposeapeople’smilitia,inplaceofastandingarmy,thatwouldinvolveallcitizensinthedefenseofthenation.That,togetherwiththeproposedfederationofworkers’syndicatesto

governtheeconomy,thefunctions,andhencetheprerogatives,ofthe“bourgeois”politicalstatewouldbemaximallyreduced.75Thebourgeoisstatewouldnolongercrippletheeconomywithenactmentsthatsucceededonlyindissipatingcapitalanddeflectingproductivity.

EchoingSorelandhissyndicalistcolleagues,Corridonisoughtarevolutionarysocietyofcombatantsandproducers.Tothatpurpose,headvocatedpopularlegislativeinitiative,referendum,andrecallinordertoachieveandsustaintherepublicanticipatedbytheoriginalfoundersofthemovement.

AsanactivistadvocateofItaly’sinterventionintheGreatWar,Corridonirecognizedtheroleplayedbycommitmenttothenationalcommunityintheentirehistoricprocessthatwasunfolding.WhatisequallyclearisthefactthatCorridoniunderstoodthatItalyhadonlybegunthearduousprocessofeconomicmaturation.Iftheprocessweretobesuccessful,itwouldinvolveallItaliansinacomplexanddemandingseriesofresponsibilitiesthatpromisedlittleintermsofimmediatematerialbenefit.Therewouldbeonlymoralsatisfactionsandpersonalfulfillmentforthoseanimatedbythespiritofdevotiontoamuchloved“communityofdestiny.”76

Ashasbeensuggested,manyMarxistsattheturnofthetwentiethcenturyunderstoodthesentimentofassociationthatinspiredcommitment,sacrifice,andlaborfromhumanbeings.Asagenericsentiment—theprobableproductofevolutionaryselection—itcouldinfillanynumberofalternativeassociations.BytheadventoftheFirstWorldWar,manyMarxistsunderstoodthatworkers,asaclass,couldshareasentimentofbelongingwithallcitizensofthenationalcommunity.Veryfew,Leninamongthem,refusedtoacceptsuchapossibilityordrawoutanyofitsimplications.

ITALY,REVOLUTIONARYSYNDICALISM,ANDTHECOMINGOFTHEGREATWARTheGreatWarwasthecauldroninwhichwerefusedallthoseelementsof

traditionalMarxismthathadsortedthemselvesoutofthebodyofworkleftasanintellectualheritagebyMarxandEngels.Atthecorewasarecognitionthathumanbeingsweredisposed,bynature,toidentifythemselveswithacommunityofsimilars.Longbeforeitbecameaconcernforthosewholaterbecameknownas“mainstream”Marxists,syndicalistshadwrittenextensivelyaboutthemoralandpsychologicalrelationshipofindividualsandthegroupswithwhichtheyidentifiedthemselves.

OlivettiandOranohadearlywrittenaboutthepsychologyofhumanbeingsin

association.77Bothacknowledgedthathumanbeingshaveregularlyidentifiedthemselveswithgroupsasvariedastribes,moieties,clans,religioussects,dynasties,empiresandnations—theidentificationafunctionofcontingentcircumstances.

OnlythoseMarxistswhoweretoidentifythemselvesasBolsheviksdeniedtheanalysismerit.IntheyearsbeforetheGreatWar,bothLeninandStalinrejectedthepossibilitythatmembersoftheproletariat—orpeasants,ormembersofthebourgeois—couldidentifywiththeirnation.Anythinglikethatcouldonlybetheconsequenceofcorruption,venality,seduction,or“falseconsciousness.”Throughouttheyearsthatweretofollow,thatconvictionwastocreateveryspecialproblemsforLeninandhisrevolution.

ThoserevolutionarysyndicalistswhooptedtosupportItalyinitswaragainstGermanyandAustria-Hungaryweretoidentifythemselvesas“nationalsyndicalists”—toincludeintheirnumbersomeofthemostimportantideologuesofthefirstFascism.Corridoni,who,likeMussolini,hadopposedtheWarinTripoli,decidedtosupportItalyintheGreatWar—seeingitasa“revolutionarywar”—outofwhichthenationwouldemergetransformed.Corridoni’sdecisionwasnotmadeonimpulse.ItreflectedthethoughtofArturoLabriola,oneoftheprincipalleadersofrevolutionarysyndicalism.ItwasshapedbythereflectionsofRobertoMichels,andthepoliticalconvictionsofA.O.Olivetti,togetherwithahostofnamelessandforgottenradicalswhocarriedtheelementsoftheMarxismofthenineteenthcenturyintotheFascismofthetwentieth.Itwasoneoftheprincipalleadersofsyndicalism,agiftedandknowledgeableMarxist,whoanticipatedwhattherevolutionimpliedforanationstrugglingtofinditsplaceinaworldofadvancedindustrialpowers.OntheoccasionofItaly’swaragainsttheOttomanTurks,Labriolasaidthathisnation’sfutureinescapablyinvolved“revolutionarypurpose.”ItwouldinvolveallthatspokenofbyCorridoni.Butmorethanthatheaffirmed,“LetusbeclearthatwearenotonlyincombatagainsttheTurksinTripolioragainsttheirnavaldeploymentsintheDardanelles.Westruggleagainstalltheintrigues,thethreats,theimpostures,thewealth,andtheweaponsofplutocraticEurope—thosewhorefusetotolerateanyactionsbytheminornationsthatmightcompromisetheirironhegemony.”78Howeverreluctantly,LabriolasawsomethingofItaly’sfuture,when,afterthe“mutilatedvictory,”thedevelopingnationconceiveditselfbetrayed,confined,andexploitedbyitserstwhilealliesoftheGreatWar.Beforeallthatwastotranspire,Italyhadtoendurethetrialofthemostcalamitouswarinhumanhistory.

CHAPTERNINE

TheGreatWarandtheResponseofRevolutionaryMarxistsIntheyearsimmediatelybeforetheadventoftheGreatWar,doctrinalMarxismunderwenterraticandpluriformdevelopment.OnlytheinstitutionalizedleadershipoftheGermanSocialDemocratspersistedintheirpretendedorthodoxy—andeventhere,ontheoccasionofwar,themajorityoptedtoprovidewarcreditstotheKaiser.BythetimeoftheGreatWar,Leninists,fortheirpart,hadputtogetherthefirstelementsofaBolshevikvariant.SomeGermanradicals,inturn—inspired,inpart,bythe“racialsocialism”ofLudwigWoltmann—advancedtherationaleforapan-Germansocialism1—andItaliansyndicalistsproceededtofabricatetheirowndevelopmentalnationalsyndicalismoutofMarxistcomponents.

InItaly,theofficialItalianSocialistpartysoughttoretainanineffectualorthodoxythatwashalfGermaninoriginandhalfindecisiveinpractice.Intheseparlouscircumstances,Marxismfacedthefirstmajorcrisisofthetwentiethcentury.

BetweenthetimeoftheItalianwaragainsttheTurks,andthecomingoftheGreatWar,thecomplexandcompetitivestrategic,economic,andpoliticalinterestsofsomeofthemajorEuropeanpowerscreatedthetensionsthatledtoovertmilitaryconflict.Therealorfanciedinterestsoftheprincipalpowers,alltangledinaweboftreatyobligations,inexorablydreweveryoneintothegreatestconflagrationeverexperiencedbyhumankind.Inthesubsequentconflict,massivereservesofmenandmaterielwereputintomotiontobethrownagainstopponentsequallymarshaledandarmed.Inthecarnagethatresulted,notonlyweremillionsslaughtered,butMarxismitselfasabeliefsystem,wastobecomeacasualty.

ItwasalreadyclearthatafterthedeathofEngels,Marxismbegantounravelasacoherentdoctrine.EduardBernsteinwasonlyoneMarxistintellectualwhoraisedquestionsconcerningitsempiricalsubstanceanditspredictive

competence.LudwigWoltmannpursueditstheoreticalimplicationsintoareasthatweretoentirelytransformtheverycharacterofMarxism,andGeorgesSorelwastosearchoutthemoralsubstanceofMarxismandreflectonthedynamicsofrevolution.Anentirehostofrevolutionarysyndicalistsfollowed—includingmajorsocialscientistsofthecompetenceofRobertoMichels—torestructurethesubstanceofMarxismasithadbeenunderstooduntilthattime.Inthecourseofthosetransformations,V.I.Leninintroducedhisown“creativedevelopment”—tomakeofwhathadbeenorthodoxMarxismhisownsingularunorthodoxy.

Withinthatdoctrinalturmoil,orthodoxyattemptedtoretainitslinearity,findingexpressioninthewritingsofthestalwartsoftheGermanSocialDemocraticparty.KarlKautskycontinuedtoinsistthatindustrialcapitalism,whateveritsvariableperformance,mustinevitablyendinthecatastrophiccollapseforeseenbyMarx.Therewouldnecessarilybeincreasingemiserationoftheproletariatandanacceleratingproletarianizationofthemiddleclasses.Therewouldbearegulardeclineinthestandardoflivingofallworkingpeople,withtheincreasingaccumulationofwealthinthehandsofanexiguousminority.2Allthiswasexpectedtofollowwithineluctablefatality.TheGreatWarwasreallynotmuchmorethanirrelevance.Whatevertranspired,theinevitabilitiesofscientificMarxismwoulddeterminethefuture.

FortheorthodoxyofGermanMarxism,theFirstWorldWarbrokeoutoverjustthiscollectionofconvictions.Itwasjustthatorthodoxythatwasnotdestinedtosurvive.Priortotheadventofthewar,Kautsky,followingtheleadofFriedrichEngels,hadinsisteduponthe“scientificinevitability”ofthe“catastrophiccollapse”ofindustrialcapitalismandits“automatic”transmogrificationintoproletariansocialism.3Asaconsequence,therewasverylittleovertdiscussionofhoworganizedsocialismwastobehaveontheoccasionofanintra-Europeanwar.ThesocialisttheoreticiansoftheSecondInternationalwerecontenttolosethemselvesinthetalkofthelawlikeprocessthatwouldleadEurope’sproletariattoworldwiderevolutionarytriumph.Therehadbeennoseriousdiscussionofamajorinternationalconflict—norhowsuchaconflictmightimpacttheanticipatedworldproletarianrevolution.WhensocialistsdidoccupythemselveswiththepossibilityofamajorEuropeanwar,theyspokealmostexclusivelyinslogansandepigrams.Socialistthinkersweretypicallyantimilitaryandpacifistic.Theverypossibilityofinternationalwarwaslargelydismissedasananachronism.OnesensedthatorthodoxMarxistsexpectedthatinthemostunlikelypossibilitythatsuchawarwouldoccur,socialistsandtheentireproletariatwouldsimplychoosenottoparticipate.

BytheonsetoftheGreatWarallthatseemedhopelesslyinadequatetocontendwiththerealitythatthreatenedtooverwhelmtheadvancedindustrialnations.Asaconsequence,andalthoughnotimmediatelyappreciated,Kautsky’sorthodoxybecamemoreandmoreirrelevant.Withthepassageoftime,hewastoberejectedbyLeninistsandsyndicalists,andafterthewar,theSocialDemocratswouldfailtoseriouslyhindertheNationalSocialistseizureofpowerinGermany.InItaly,Kautsky’sformofMarxistorthodoxywaslargelydissipatedwiththatnation’sentryintotheGreatWar,andinFrancehisformofMarxismfitfullycontinueduntilitflickeredoutwithFrance’sabjectdefeatintheSecondWorldWar.Kautskyhimselfpursuedafatelittledifferentfromthatofthedoctrinetowhosedefensehehaddevotedhislife.HefledGermanybeforetheadvanceofHitler’sNationalSocialism—toproceedtoVienna,tobedrivenfromthere,firsttoPrague,andfinallytoAmsterdam—wherehediedinpovertyin1938.

WhateverMarxismwastobecomeinthetwentiethcentury,itwastohaveverylittletodowithKautsky’sorthodoxy.4ItwastosurviveintheformgivenitbyV.I.Leninandhisheirs,inthevariantsfoundinFascism,andindeviantexpressionamongNationalSocialists.TheGreatWarprovedtobethecrucibleoutofwhichtheviableelementsofMarxismweretosortthemselves—tochangethehistoryofthemodernworld.Theprolix,confusing,andsometimescontradictorydoctrinesleftbyMarxandEngelsaslegacytotheirfollowersinthetwentiethcenturyweretobetestedbythechoicesmadebyMarxistsinthefaceofaEuropeanwar.Whensocialistsofwhateverideologicalorientationwerecompelledtomakedecisionsconcerningthewarthatthreatenedthefutureofallhumankindin1914,inheriteddoctrineprovedineffectual.ItwasuncertainhowMarxistsshouldbehaveinthefaceofoneofthegravestcrisesinhumanhistory.Littleinthebodyofinheriteddoctrineseemedunambiguouslyhelpful.

MARXANDENGELSONWARAstheirnationmovedcloserandclosertowar,Germansocialistshadnoclear

guidanceastohowthey,as“orthodox”Marxists,weretobehave.NeitherMarxnorEngelsleftsurecounsel.Clearly,internationalismwasfavoredinprinciple.Butwhatthatmightmeanontheoccasionofinternationalconflictwasinnowisefreeofambiguity.Intheirtime,forexample,bothMarxandEngelshadclearlyfavoredwarwhenwarwouldfurtherGermany’sunificationandexpansion.Thatwouldbepartoftheprocessthatbothidentifiedasthe“cunningofhistory”—theprocesstheyexpectedtoculminateintheproletarianworldrevolution.

Thatconjecturedprocessinvolvedtheglobalizationofindustry,withthosenationsalreadyindustrialized,thebearersofdevelopmenttolaggardregions.Thus,bothMarxandEngelscouldinsistthatthe“countrythatismoredevelopedindustriallyonlyshowstothelessdeveloped,theimageofitsownfuture”5—tosubsequentlyimplythatthemoreindustriallyadvancednations,includingGermany,wouldserveasagentsoftransformativechange.6Industriallyadvancednationswerevehiclesofdestiny.Theywouldintroduceindustrializationandeconomicmodernizationtothosecountriesthathad“notyetparticipatedinhistory.”

Inthecourseoftheirlongintellectualcareers,bothMarxandEngelshadofferedavarietyofjudgmentsconcerningwar.Abouttheonlythingthatwasclearwasthefactthattheywerenotpacifists.Attimestheyjustifiedoneoranotherwarbecausethedefeatofoneoranotherparticipantwouldbe“progressive”ineffect—defeating“reactionaries,”uplifting“retrogradepeoples,”and/orsweepingasidethe“miserableremnantsofformernations.”Theyconsistentlyspoke,forexample,ofSlavsasethnographic“debris,”ofnegligiblehistoricimportance.Awarfoughttoremovethemasanobstructionto“historicaldevelopment”wouldbejustified.7Italsosmackedofakindof“socialistracism.”

Ofthenonindustrialpeoples,thosewhowouldbetherecipientsofthelargessofthosealreadyindustrialized,thechoiceofthefoundersofMarxismremainedmore-or-lessconsistentthroughouttheirlifetimes.Manyoftheeconomicallystagnantpeopleswereseenasthe“residualremnantsofpeoples”whowouldremain“historyless(geschichtslosen)”untilandunlesssalvagedbythosemoreadvanced.BothMarxandEngelsdrewadistinctionclearlyreminiscentofthatentertainedbyEuropeansthroughmuchofthenineteenthcentury.Itwasadistinctionmadeintermsof“civilized”versus“primitive”peoples.8NeitherMarxnorEngelshesitatedinidentifyingsomeoneoranother“historyless”peopleassomehow“backward”and/or“degenerate,”havinglittleclaimonhistoricsignificance.Theyspoke,forexample,ofSpaniardsandMexicansasdegenerate—andindicatedthatthe“moreprimitive”anation,the“more‘scandinavian’itmustbe”9—demeaningbothLatinosandScandinaviansatthesametime.

ThesecharacterizationswerenotreservedexclusivelyforSpaniards,Mexicans,orScandinavians.BothMarxandEngelsspokeof“Slavonicnations”asbeingbereftof“vitality”aswell—anddestinedtobe“absorbedbyamoreenergeticrace.”10TheyalsospokeofNorthAfricansinasimilarfashion.In

speakingoftheFrenchcolonialsuppressionoftheBedouinrebellioninAlgeria,forexample,Engelsaffirmedthat“uponthewhole,itisinouropinion,veryfortunatethattheArabianchiefhasbeentaken....[The]conquestofAlgeriaisanimportantandfortunatefactfortheprogressofcivilization....Afterall,themodernbourgeoiswithcivilization,industry,[and]order...ispreferableto...thebarbarianstateofsociety.”11

Correspondingly,inaddressingtheexpansionoftheUnitedStatesintoMexicanterritoryatthetimeoftheMexicanwar,Engelsstatedthatthe“Yankeeincursion”servedthe“interestsofcivilization,”fortheybroughtwiththem“profitablemethodsofagriculture...trade[and]industry.”ForEngels,itwasallamatterofthe“influenceofthemorehighlydevelopednationontheundevelopedone.”Engelsconceiveditpartofthe“cunningofhistory”tobind“tiny,crippled,powerlesslittlenationstogetherinagreatEmpireandthereby[enable]themtotakepartin...historicaldevelopment....Tobesure,”hewenton,“suchathingisnotcarriedthroughwithoutforciblycrushingmanyadelicatelittlenationalflower.Butwithoutforceandwithoutanironruthlessnessnothingisaccomplishedinhistory.”12

Engelsspokeinverymuchthesamefashionofthe“smallindependentstatesbywhichGermanyissurrounded.”Hearguedthattheywereentirelydevoidofhistoricconsequence.Heinsistedthatthe“policyoftherevolutionaryparty”mustbeto“stronglyunitethegreatnationalities,”inordertoeffecttheabsorptionofthose“mongrelwouldbe...miserablypowerlessso-callednationsastheDanes,theDutch,theBelgians,Swiss,etc.”Givensuchanotion,thewarofGermanyagainstDenmarkin1850,undertakentoabsorbSchleswig-Holstein,was,forEngels,atruly“revolutionarywar.”13Engelsinsistedthatwherepeoplesof“twocompletelydifferentlevelsofcivilization”confrontedeachother,themoredevelopedenjoyedthe“naturalright”ofdominion.Itisaquestion,hemaintained,“ofthelevelofsocialdevelopmentoftheindividualpeoples.”Marxhadinsisteduponthesameprinciple.Warsfoughtintheserviceof“civilization”againstbarbarismandbackwardnesswerefullywarranted.Evenifsuchwarswerefoughtincontraventionofinternationaltreaties,Marxinsisted,“progresscountsformorethanalltreatiesbecausesuchisthelawofhistoricaldevelopment.”14

Thereweretimes,ofcourse,whenforbothMarxandEngels,warconstitutednothingmorethananeffortbythebourgeoisietowinsomeadvantageininternationalcompetition.Acknowledgingthat,thereremainedtimeswhentheysupportedthewarofoneindustrializednationagainstanother.Theirjudgments

concerningsuchwarsvariedwithtimeandcircumstance.Therewasnosimpletheoreticalruleapplicableineachandeverycase.Therewasnoclearmeasurewithwhichtodistinguish“progressive”warsfromthosethatweresimplyundertakenintheexclusiveserviceof“bourgeois,”ratherthan“historic,”socialistinterest.

Ineffect,bothMarxandEngelshadheldsomewars,thoseintheserviceof“progress”and“civilization,”tobewarranted—andotherwarsthatweretobedisdained.Inallofthat,thereweretimeswhenGermany’swarswereseenasbothprogressiveandrevolutionary.ForMarxandEngels,Germanyseemstohaveoccupiedaprominentplaceamongindustrialandindustrializingnations.Earlyinhisintellectualcareer,MarxhadfavoredthecreationoftheGermanEmpireasabulwarkagainstreactionaryRussia,andhesupportedGermanyinitswaragainstFrancein1870foravarietyofreasons—nottheleastofwhichwasthefactthat“his”partyhaditsbaseinthehomelandoftheKaiser.Inboth1848and1870,whenGermanyfounditselfembroiledinmilitaryconflict,MarxandEngelsexpressedtheirsupportofthefatherlandwithonlysomereservations.BothMarxandEngelsconceivedtheFranco-Prussianwarof1870asservingtheirown,aswellasuniversal,revolutionaryinterests.ForMarxaGermanvictoryagainstFrancewould“transferthecenterofgravityoftheworkers’movementfromFrancetoGermany...andwouldmeanthepredominanceofourtheoryoverProudhon’s,etc.”ForEngels,supportforaGermanvictorywasforthcomingbecauseheunderstoodthatvictorytobeintrinsically“progressive”—unitingtheproletariatincommoncausewiththenation.15MarxandEngelsextendedtheirsupportaslongasGermany’swaragainstFrancewas“defensive.”TheyproceededtoobjectwhenBismarcksoughttheannexationofAlsace-LorraineattheexpenseofFrance.

Givenallthecomplexitiesinvolvedininternationalconflict,thecriteriagoverningthesupportofMarxandEngels,aswellasitswithdrawal,wereneitherimmediatelyevidentnoreasilycalculable.EngelshadnotobjectedtoGermany’sannexationofSchleswig-HolsteinattheexpenseofDenmarkafewyearsbefore.Itwouldappearthattheirreadinesstoextendsupportforoneoranotherparticipantininternationalconflictwasgoverned,atbest,bycontingenciesnotalwaysimmediatelyobvioustoothers.

Onlyoneconsiderationappearedconstant.Throughouttheirlifetimes,czaristRussiaremainedtheenemyofEuropeandoftheanticipatedproletarianrevolution.16Asearlyas1848,bothMarxandEngelsarguedthataGermanwaragainstRussiawouldbe“revolutionary,”defeatingczarist“reaction,”while

assistingGermansinshakingoff“thechainsofalong,ignobleslavery.”TheysawwaragainstRussiaastheoccasiontofreeGermansfromthreatwhilecontributingtotheliberationofothers.17ThoseconvictionsweretohaveparticularrelevanceastheprospectofwarbetweenGermanyandRussialoomedonthehorizonin1914.

AboutthetimeofMarx’sdeathin1883,EngelsbecameincreasinglypreoccupiedwiththepossibilityofageneralEuropeanwar.LikeMarx,hesawthatwarasapossible“racewar,”awarofSlavsandLatins—ofRussia,France,andItaly—againstGermany.18HeunderstoodthatsuchawarwoulddevastateEurope,laywasteitsindustriesandpopulationcentersandrenderproletarianrevolutionincreasinglyunlikelyinthe“floodofchauvinism”thatitwouldunleash.19Hefearedthatthe“wretched,ruinedfragmentsofone-timenations,theSerbs,Bulgars,Greeks,andotherrobberbands”woulddragtheadvancedindustrialnationsintoanightmareconflict.Hearticulatedthesamesenseofdreadthroughouttheremainderofhislife.

In1887,hewentontospeculatethattheBiblicaldestructionthatsuchawarwouldwreckonGermanywouldsurelyresultin“thecreationoftheconditionsforthefinalvictoryoftheworkingclass.”20AmajorEuropeanwarwouldeitherdestroyallpossibilitiesofproletarianrevolutionorensureitsadvent.Asaconsequenceofjustthesekindsofjudgment,onereallyhadlittlesureguidancefromeitherMarxorEngelsinselectingacourseofactionintheeventofamajorEuropeanwar.

In1891,fouryearsbeforehisdeath,EngelsreturnedtothethemeofacatastrophicEuropeanwar.HespoketohismostintimatefriendsandaffirmedthattheGermanSocialDemocraticparty,ontheoccasionofsuchawar,shouldbepreparedtosupportthefatherlandagainstaforeignfoe—“onconditionthat[thegovernment]wouldbereadytofightrelentlesslyanduseeverymeans,evenrevolutionarymeans[topreserve]...thenation.”21Hewenton,in1892,inanarticlewrittenfortheannualAlmanacoftheFrenchsocialistparties,tourgeEuropeansto“realizethatifFrance,inalliancewithRussia,shoulddeclarewaronGermany,shewouldbefightingagainstthestrongestSocialDemocraticpartyinEurope;andthatwewouldhavenochoicebuttoopposewithallourstrengthanyaggressorwhowasonthesideofRussia.”22

Thus,beforehisdeath,EngelsassumedapositionconcerningapossibleEuropeanconflictthatappearedentirelyunambiguous.Inhisjudgment,Germansocialistsshouldbepreparedtosupportthefatherlandinitsfightagainstany

combinationofnationsthatincludedczaristRussiainorderthatthefatherlandmightdischargeitshistoricdevelopmentalresponsibilities.EngelsconceivedthattobeasocialistandMarxist,ratherthanaspecificallynationalist,obligation.

When,inthelatesummerof1914,EuropeanMarxistsfoundthemselvescompelledtofacetherealprospectofwar,theyhadverylittleunambiguoustheoreticguidance.ForalltheantiwarslogansrepeatedinallthesocialistconferencesforalltheyearsbeforetheFirstWorldWar,theactualadventofwarfoundMarxistsentirelyunpreparedtoeffectivelyrespond.SocialistsandMarxiststhroughoutEuropedissolvedintouncertainty.WhileitmayhaveseemedclearwhatEngelsexpectedGermansocialiststodo,itwassingularlyunclearwhatmightbeexpectedofFrenchorItalian,muchlessRussian,socialists.Thatwastobelefttotheirleaderstodecide.TheresultwasthatindividualandidiosyncraticchoicesweretoshapethefutureofEuropeandtheworldintotallyunanticipatedfashion.Inthecourseofallthat,Marxismdisappearedasasingleideology.

V.I.LENINANDTHECOMINGOFTHEGREATWARBythetimetheFirstWorldWarbrokeoverEurope,Leninhadalready

establishedhimselfasoneofRussia’smajorMarxisttheoreticians.Withinthecompassofthatrecognition,hehadalreadyarticulatedaconceptionofaMarxistpartyasoneledbyanexiguous“vanguard”ofprofessionalrevolutionaries.Otherthanthat,heattemptedtocodifytheMarxismheadvocatedinrigidlypositivisticterms,havingallthefeaturesofthescientismoftheendofthenineteenthcentury.23Whateverelsehewasdoing,LeninwasremakingMarxisminhisownimage.24

AlthoughtheevidenceofmountingcrisistroubledmanyEuropeans,theoutbreakofwarapparentlytookLeninalmostcompletelybysurprise.Morethanthat,thefirstresponsesofthevariousEuropeansocialistpartiesleftLeninincredulous.Hecouldnotbelievethatmostoftherepresentativesofthemajorsocialistparties,inRussiaaswellasthemostadvancedindustrialnations,wereextendingsupporttotheirrespectivegovernmentsinthefaceofinternationalconflict.Hecouldnotbelievethatsocialistshadboth“betrayed”theirprizedinternationalismaswellastheirinsistentantimilitarism.TheGermanSocialDemocrats,ledbyEurope’smostdeterminedopponentsofwar,votedwarcreditsfortheKaiser,invokingthefamiliarargumentthatnottodosowouldmeanavictoryfortheCzarofRussia,andforreactioningeneral.LedbyKarlKautsky,manyGermanMarxistsconceivedtheirdefenseofthefatherlandtobe

fullycompatiblewiththeirsocialistresponsibilities—andwiththeenjoinmentsofEngelsinthe1890s.

InFrance,JeanJaures,JulesGuesde,andGustaveHervé,therevolutionaryleadersofsocialism,ralliedaroundtheirowngovernmentindefenseofthefatherland.GuesdeexplainedthatFrenchworkersweremorallyobligedtodefendtheirnationagainsttheGermans,whohad“betrayedthepeaceofEurope.”InRussia,the“firstRussianMarxist,”GeorgiPlekhanov,25supportedthefatherland’salliancewithFranceandEnglandinawaragainst“reactionary”GermanyandAustria.

WhiletherewassomevacillationinEngland,ultimatelythenation’ssocialistslenttheirsupportforthewar.OnlyinItalydidMarxistsresist,demandingabsoluteneutralityfromtheirgovernmentinthefaceofEuropeanconflict.

MostofthoseMarxistswholenttheirsupportforthewarcitedthepositionsonwarassumedbyMarxandEngelsinthecourseoftheirlonglives.Ashasbeensuggested,whilethecriteriaemployedbythefoundersofMarxismgoverningtheirsupportforwarwereoftendifficulttofullydivine,itwasclearthatneitherMarxnorEngelswerepacifists—Engelsdeclaring,inalettertoBebel,thatifthe“civilizedlands”ofEuropewereattackedbyRussiaonoccasionofthewarheanticipated,hewould“mounthishorse”intheirdefense.26

AllofthiswasenoughformostMarxists.Theywerenotpreparedtodismisssupportforthewaronthegroundsofsomearcanephilosophicalorsociologicalprinciple.Theywerepreparedtocalculatehowwarmightcontributetothefurtheranceofsocialrevolution—andthusjustifytheirsupport.Mostseemedtoimaginethatthedefenseoftheirrespectivenationswouldbestservetheendsofthe“inevitable”proletariantransformationofsociety.

Amongthem,itwasLeninwhostoodapart.EarlyinSeptember1914,ontheverydeclarationofwar,Lenindeclaredtheevolvingconflicttobeneitherdefensivenorrevolutionaryincharacter.Hesawitasan“imperialistanddynasticwar”servingexclusivelytheinterestsofthe“bourgeois-chauvinists”27intentuponthe“lootingofforeigncountries”andthesuppressionofthe“revolutionarymovementoftheproletariat.”28HewentontoinsistthatanyMarxistwhoaccededtothewishesof“opportunists”and“chauvinists”intheirranks,andsupportedtheirnation’swareffort,wouldbetrayMarxism.Herefusedtocountenancethepossibilitythatanynationhadthemoralorrevolutionaryrighttodefenditselfagainstanyaggressor.

Inhisjudgment,bySeptember1914thereweremanywhohadvacatedtheirrevolutionaryobligations.TheyincludedalmosttheentireleadershipoftheSecondInternational—encompassingthosewhowerethedirectintellectualheirsofclassicalMarxism,andwhohadachievedpoliticalmaturityunderthetutelageofEngelshimself.LenininsistedthatthoseverypaladinsofMarxistdoctrinalintegrityhad“succumbedtotheblandishmentsofbourgeoisnationalism,tochauvinism”—todefendtheirdecisionwith“themosthypocritical,vulgarandsmugsophistry”—attheexpenseoftheirintegrityandthesurvivalofproletarianinternationalism.29

GiventhefactthathiswasaminoritypositionamongMarxists,LeninwasobligedtodemonstratethatwhatevereitherMarxorEngelsmayhavesaidwithrespecttowar—thatseeminglycontradictedhisposition—didnotapplyinthethenpresentcircumstances.LenininsistedthatwhathadbeensaidbythefoundersofMarxismintheirtimewas,somehoworother,nolongerrelevant.TheGreatWar,forLenin,wasa“bourgeoiswar”—absolutelynottobefoughtbytheproletariatanditsleaders.Instead,revolutionarieswereenjoinedto“raisehighthebannerofcivilwar”withthecomingofwar.Theyshouldresistserviceintheirnation’sarmedforces,disruptthemanufactureandtransportationofwarmateriel,andattempttoengenderrevolutiononthepartofthe“masses.”Lenin’sfirstandimmediateresponsetotheadventoftheGreatWarwastocallforthedefeatofhiscountryandtoadvocateafratricidalcivilwar.30Thosewhomhehimselfidentifiedasamongthe“mosteminentMarxists”ofhistime—includingKautskyandPlekhanov—alignedthemselvesagainsthim.

Bythebeginningof1915,asaconsequence,LeninsoughttoputtogetheranargumentthatmightsupporthispositionagainstsomeofthebestinformedMarxisttheoreticiansofthenewcentury.Underthepressureofthosecircumstances,hediscoveredthespecificallyimperialistcharacterofthewar.TheGreatWarreflected,inhisassessment,theneedsofindustrialcapitalismatits“lastandhigheststage.”31Leninhaddiscovereda“newstage”intheevolutionofindustrialcapitalism:imperialism.Thatnewstageexplainedwhyhisposition,andhispositionalone,wastrulyrevolutionary.

JustashehaddiscoveredatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturywhytheproletariatintheadvancedindustrialcountrieshadnotundertakentooverthrowthecapitalistsystemasMarxhadpredicted—bytheoutbreakoftheGreatWarhehadfathomedwhythenineteenth-centurystatementsandanalysesofMarxandEngelswerenolongerapplicabletohistime.HistoryhadenteredanentirelynewstageapparentlyunanticipatedbyeitherMarxorEngels.

ByFebruary1915,LeninhadmarshaledhisargumentsagainstallthoseMarxistswhohadchosentosupportthewareffortoftheirrespectivecountries.HebeganwiththecontentionthatbothKautskyandPlekhanovhadfailedtocorrectlyapply“Marxiandialecticalthinking”intheirappraisals.Eminentastheywere,theyhadfailedtorecognizethatanythingsaidbyMarxorEngelsduringthetimeoftheconsolidationofindustrialcapitalismwasnotapplicabletothetimewhenthe“objectiveconditions”signaledthefinal,catastrophic“collapseofcapitalism.”OfcourseEngelshadcalledupontheGermanpeopletofightintheirnation’sservice.Andofcourse,MarxhadsupportedGermany’swaragainstFranceandanywaragainstczarism.LeninwastoarguethatallthatwassimplyappropriatetothetimethatwaswitnessingtheconsolidationoftheEuropeancapitaliststates.Itwasirrelevant,however,toindustrialcapitaliststatesduringtheir“lastandfinal”phases.IncircumstancesthatthenthreatenedEurope,ifnottheworld,withcatastrophe,onemustbe“trulyscientific”ifoneischargedwiththeresponsibilityofmakingpolicyrecommendations.Lenininsistedthathiscritics“haddistorted”therealmeaningofthequotationsofthefoundersofMarxism.HemaintainedthatwhenEngelscalledupontheGermansto“wagealifeanddeathstruggleagainstthealliedarmiesofFranceandRussia,”itwasatatime—1891—whenGermany’sbourgeoisiewasstill“progressive,”retainingthepotentialtofurtherdeveloptheeconomy’smodernforcesofproduction.Abouttwentyyearslater,accordingtoLenin’sdialecticalassessment,Europehadtranscendedthatperiod,andhadenteredan“entirelydifferentepoch,”oneinwhichthebourgeoisiewasnolonger“progressive,”but“oldandoutmoded,”administeringasystemthat,objectivelyandscientifically,wasmoribund.32LeninhaddiscoveredthattheGreatWarwasaspecialsortofwar.Itwasan“imperialistwar,”awarthatwasbeingfoughtbyandfor“bourgeoisstates”thathad“outlivedthemselves”—onlybarelysurvivingin“thefinalstageinthedevelopmentofcapitalism.”Inthatlaststage,capitalismcouldonlyekeoutanexistenceby“plundering”othercountriesandexploitingeconomicallyretrogradepeoples.33

Leninhaddiscoveredthatindustrialcapitalismwasnolongerthesystemthathad“createdmoremassiveandmorecolossalproductiveforcesthan...allproceedinggenerationstogether.”34Ithadbecome“stagnant,”“decadent,”and“parasitic,”androtten-ripeforinternationalproletarianrevolution.35TheGreatWarwasitslast,horrificdeathrattle.

ByFebruary1915,Leninhadputtogetherhisargument.Hisessay,“UnderaFalseFlag,”writtenatthattime,containedessentiallyallthecomponentsofhis

work,Imperialism,TheHighestStageofCapitalism,whichwastobesubsequentlyidentifiedas“hismostinfluential”—tomakeofLeninismadistinctivevariantofMarxism—“theMarxismoftheimperialistepoch.”36

In“UnderaFalseFlag”Leninarguedthatthe“epoch”of“progressivenationalbourgeoismovements,”duringwhichthebourgeoisiefosteredandsustainedthedevelopmentoftheindustrialforcesofproduction,hadpassed.The“newepoch,”Lenininsisted,saw“socialandclasscontent”inthecapitalistnations“radicallychange.”Capitalismhadenteredintoaperiodof“exhaustion,”having“outliveditself,”condemnedtolapseintothegripof“themostreactionaryfinancecapital”andspiraldownward“intodecay.”37

Allofthisbespoke,forLenin,aconjunctureof“trends”:theincreasing“internationalisation”ofthe“workingmasses”;“classcontradictions”werebecomingincreasinglyacute,with“sharperandmorebitterformsofstrugglearising”;thelifecircumstancesoftheproletariatwerebecomingmoreandmoreattenuated;andthe“pressureoffinancecapitalwasbecomingintolerable.”Onlythefactthatexploitationofthebackwardregionsoftheworldallowedtheimperialistpowerstoaccrue“superprofits,”withwhichtosubornthe“pettybourgeoisie,”andaninsignificantminorityofworkingclass“aristocrats,”permitteda“briefperiod”ofcontinuedsurvivalfortheentiresystemofcapitalistoppressionandsocialdecay.38

ForLenin,allthisexplainedtheriseof“opportunism”andreactionary“socialpatriotism”intheranksofrevolutionarysocialists.39ItalsoexplainedwhyMarx’sownanalysisofwarwasinapplicabletothenewepoch.Inhistime,Marxhadunderstoodthatthe“objectiveconditions”forthe“downfallofindustrialcapitalism”hadnotyetmatured.It“wasnotsurprising,”therefore,aslongastheconditionsconducivetorevolutionhadnotyetmanifestedthemselves,that“MarxandtheMarxists”ofthepastepoch“confinedthemselvestodeterminingwhichbourgeoisie’svictorywouldbemoreharmlessto(ormorefavorableto)theworldproletariat”—andproceededtoadvocatesupportinitsservice.40

InLenin’sjudgment,by1914,allthathadchanged.BytheoutbreakoftheGreatWar,theobjectiveconditionsnecessaryforproletarianrevolutionweremanifest.Leninhadformulatedhisconvictionsonthebasisof“science,i.e.,fromthestandpointofclassrelationsinmodernsociety.”Asaconsequence,hehaddiscoveredthatthebourgeoisie,theownersofthemeansofproductioninthemodernworld,were“senileandmoribund.”Theycouldnolonger“maintain

theirrule.”Theyhadlapsedintoacrisisthatopeneda“fissurethroughwhichthediscontentandindignationoftheoppressedclasses[would]burstforth.”LeninwasconvincedthathismodifiedMarxismwasthe“lastwordinhistoricalscience.”His“dialecticalscience”hadconfirmedthe“objectivetruth”ofhisanalysis.Capitalismhadenteredintoitsfinalrevolutionarycrisis.The“imperialistwar”itselfwasevidenceofthat.Morespecifically,thefactthattheEuropeanpowers,underthecontroloffinancecapitalism,werepreparedtoconsumehumanandmaterialresourcesinprofligatefashiontoprotecttheprofitsextortedfromthebackwardeconomiesoftheworldbyexploitingtheirmarketsandaffordingtheopportunityfortheexportofsurpluscapitalwas,inLenin’smind,compellingproofofthemorbidityofthecapitalismofhistime.41

HegavedidacticexpressiontoallthisinhisImperialism,TheHighestStageofCapitalism:APopularOutline,whichfirstappearedinpamphletforminSt.Petersburgin1917.Inthatpamphlet,Lenindrewtogetherallhistheoreticalinsights—includinghisconvictionthattheproletariat,whoseconsciousnesshadbeensubvertedbycapitalistgold,couldnotmakerevolution,thusrequiringthededicatedleadershipofasmalleliteofprofessionalrevolutionaries.Atthesametime,heofferedarationaleforaMarxistoppositiontosupportingone’scountryinwartime.Hecalled,instead,foranuprisingagainstone’sgovernment—toinitiatecivilwar.Hisargumentwasstraightforward.

CAPITALISMINITSHIGHESTANDFINALSTAGETherewasabsolutelynoambiguityinLenin’sposition.Asheunderstoodthe

historyoftheworld,industrialcapitalismhadmaturedtothepointatwhichallofitsproductiveassetswerecontrolledbymonopoliesandcartels.Soaggregated,theentiresystemfellunderthecontrolofafinancialhierarchy—financecapital—itselfmonopolizedandcartelized.42

Rummagingthroughacollectionofstatisticaltables,Leninpretendedtoestablish,asfact,thatproductivecapitalnolongerplayedamajorroleinthedynamicsofmaturecapitalistsystems.Thatrolehadbeenpreempted(apparentlysometimearoundtheturnofthetwentiethcentury43)byagaggleofmoneychangers.Soindifferentweretheytoproductionthattechnologicalinnovation—soimportanttoMarxinhisanalysisofcapitalistcompetition—stagnated.Asaconsequence,smallenterprises,muchofthesourceofproductiveinnovationandmanagerialefficiency,weresystematicallyundermined—tobe“forcedout.”44Lenininsistedthatintheadvancedindustrialstates,smallenterprisesandthemiddleclasstheysupported,declinedinnumber.Withtheirdecline,therewasa

failuretoinnovate.Withoutthatimpetus,therewasstasisinagriculturalproduction.Thepredictableresultwasthefailureofagricultureintheadvancedindustrialnationstomeetthemostelementalfoodneedsoftheirrespectivepopulations.45Lenininsistedthatwidespreadmalnutritionandpersistentstarvationhadbecomeendemictothosecountries—partofhisevidencethatthemostmaturecapitalistsocietieswere“retrogressing”and“moribund.”Givenallthat,Leninconcludedthatimperialismhadalreadycreatedtheconditionsrequisiteforthe“inevitable”proletarianrevolution.

Intheworldcontext,imperialismhadbecome“parasitic.”Incapableofstimulatingandsustainingitsowntechnologicaldevelopment,thefinancialoligarchythathadaccededtocontrolinadvancedcapitalistenvironments,hadbecomeaclassofunproductiveusurers.Financecapitalistslentmoneytoimpoverishednationsinordertoexploitthemandpadtheprofitsof“couponclippers.”Thoseprofitsproducedandsustainedasubclassofrentiercapitalistspreparedtosupportthepoliciesoftheirimperialistgovernments.Thus,the“superprofits”Leninhadidentifiedasthecauseofthesubversionofwhatshouldhavebeena“revolutionary”workingclasswasalsothematerialcauseoftheconversionofmajorelementsofthedecliningmiddleclasstoideologiesof“opportunism”and“socialchauvinism.”46

ForLenin,thesuperprofitsofimperialismnotonlydeflectedtheproletariatfromitsrevolutionarycourse,butalsofueledtheopportunismandchauvinismtobefoundamongthe“pseudo-proletarian”Marxistleadersofthesocialdemocraticmovement.47Enoughoftheenormousprofitsextortedbyfinancecapitalfromtheperipheraleconomiesfiltersthroughtotheworkingclasseliteandmembersofthepettybourgeoisietoprovidea“socialbase”forimperialism.

Ratherthanemploycapitalfortechnologicalandproductiveimprovements,imperialistsexporteditforprofit.That,accordingtoLenin,rendersimperialism“parasitic.”Theselectivedistributionofrewardsamongsomeelementsoftheworking,andmiddle,classes,makesimperialism“reactionary.”Itsfailuretoprovideforitsdomesticpopulation—withthedeclineoflivingstandardsthroughoutthebulkoftheworkingclasses—generatesthenecessarypsychologicalpreconditionsforproletarianrevolution.

Lenin—atleastsincethefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury—hadarguedthattheworkingclasswouldmindlesslyfollowtheleadofanelitesubornedbytherulingclasses.OnlydireeconomiccircumstancesmightprovidetheoccasionforaMarxistleadershiptosubstituteitselfinaleadershiprole.Hearguedthatthegenericfailureofcapitalismtoprovideforitsworkers,togetherwiththehorrors

ofmassimmolationstowhichwholepopulationsweremadesubjectinthewakeoftheGreatWar,hadmadethesystem“rotten-ripe”forsocialrevolution.

Sincetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,thefinancecapitalistssoughttoseizetheterritoriesofothers,andexploitresidentpopulations,fortheirownprofit.Theworldhadresolveditselfintoexploiterandexploitednations.Thosecommunitiesthathadaccruedenormousreservesofcapitalemployedtheirwealthtoexploitthosebereftofassetsandeconomicdefenses.TheinternationalcommunityhadbecomeanarenaofakindofcompetitionentirelyunanticipatedbyMarx.Theadvancedcapitalistnationsbattenedonthebackwardcommunitiesontheirperiphery.Leninappeared,ineffect,toabandonMarx’sentireconceptionofthepredictableexpansionofmoderncapitalismtothelessdeveloped“ahistorical”regionsoftheglobe.

Marxhadarguedthatwiththeaccrualofprofitintheadvancedcapitalistnations,theexportofcapitaltothelessdevelopedcommunitieswasbothpredictableandwouldservetostimulatetheirindustrialgrowthandeconomicmodernization.Heexpectedthattherateofreturnoninvestmentincapitalpoorregionswouldbeattractivetothosewhowerecapitalrich.Theconsequencewouldbeaflowofinvestmentcapitaltobackwardeconomies,resultinginproductivegrowthandindustrialdevelopment.Territoriesthathadfoundthemselves“outsideofhistory”wouldthencecometoparticipateinitsflow.

Lenin’saccountofthe“higheststageofcapitalism”isnotableintheabsoluteassurancewithwhichitisdelivered.Nonetheless,itisnotclearhowmuchofitisreallyanempiricallyconvincingrationalefortheprogramofdefeatismforhisnativelandandhisattendantcallforimmediatesocialrevolutioninthecourseoftheFirstWorldWar.

Behindallhisconviction,andtheeloquenceofhisdelivery,therewereseriousissuesleftunresolved.Forallhisinsistence,itwasevidentalmostimmediatelythatLeninwaspreparedtograntthat,insomesenseorother,imperialismwassomethingmorethansimplyparasiticandmoribund.HisseemingrejectionofMarx’snotionoftheprogressiveroleofadvancedcapitalisminthebackwardregionswasmoreapparentthanreal.Inthecourseofhisdiscussion,Leninrecognizedthattheadvancedcapitalistcountries,giventheirabundanceofinvestmentcapital,haveandwouldcontinuetoprovidefundsforfosteringinfrastructuraldevelopmentandagriculturalproductivityinlessdevelopedeconomies.Inplaces,hetellshisreadership,forexample,that“capitalismisgrowingwiththegreatestrapidityinthecoloniesandinoverseascountries.”48Inthoseinstances,Leninappearspreparedtoacknowledgethattheadvanced

capitalistcountries,infact,fosterthemoderndevelopmentoftheretrogradeeconomiesofbackwardnations.“Financecapitalism”wouldseemtobesomethingmorethansimply“parasitic.”

InseveralplacesLenin,likeMarx,speaksofthe“exportofcapital”underwritingthedevelopmentofanindustrialinfrastructureinlessdevelopedeconomiesontheperipheryofadvancedcapitalism.Thepredictableresultcouldonlybetheintroductionofmodernproductiveenterpriseintothoseterritories.Infact,inplacesLeninheldthat“theexportofcapitalinfluencesandgreatlyacceleratesthedevelopmentofcapitalisminthosecountriestowhichitisexported.”Thus,Lenincontinued,whiletheexportofcapital“maytendtoarrestdevelopmentinthecapitalexportingcountries,itcanonlydosobyexpandinganddeepeningthefurtherdevelopmentofcapitalismthroughouttheworld.”Asaconsequenceoftheexportofsurpluscapitalfromtheadvancedindustrialregions,modernindustrywastakingrootinthemostbackwardregionsoftheglobe.Leninwarnshisreadersthatasaconsequenceofthatdevelopmentsomeofthosedependentnationsarebecomingincreasinglycompetitive—andhespeaks,asaconsequence,of“thestruggleamongtheworldimperialisms...becomingmoreacute.”Inthatcontext,hespecificallymentionsJapan.49Financecapitalismwouldseemtobeinthebusinessofcreatingitsowncompetition—somethingMarxarguedmorethanhalfacenturybefore50—andwhichLenin’sImperialism,onoccasion,seemeddisposedtodeny.

Atthesametimethatherecognizedthe“progressive”consequencesoftheexportofcapitalbytheadvancedcapitaliststates,Lenininsistedthattheresultisadivisionoftheworldinto“ahandfulofusurerstatesandavastmajorityofdebtorstates.”51Somehoworother,industrialcapitalismdevelopsrapidlyinthecoloniesasaconsequenceoffinancecapitalism’sexportofsurpluscapital,whileatthesametimecondemningitselftostagnationandthosecoloniestohopelessindebtedness.Allthat,accordingtoLenin,changestheentiredynamicofworldrevolution.

Inthatregard,hequotesRudolfHilferdingwhenhereportsthattheintrusionsofimperialismintothecoloniesstimulatesa“growingresistance”onthepartofthepeoplesinthelessdevelopedregions—presumablyaconsequenceoftheirgrowingawarenessoftheirnation’sindebtedness.A“nationalconsciousness”growsamongthem.Infinancecapitalism’sexpansionintotheeconomicallybackwardregionsoftheglobe,“capitalismitselfgraduallyprovidesthesubjugatedwiththemeansandresourcesfortheiremancipation.”52

Financecapitalismthussponsorsandfosterstheemergenceofindustrial

capitalismintheeconomicallybackwardregionsoftheworldwhile,atthesametime,providingthe“meansandresources”fortheemancipationofthepeoplesinthoseregions.Revolution,itwouldseem,wouldbeinitiatedbythepeoplesofbackwardregionsatthesametimetheywereenjoyingacceleratingeconomicmodernizationandindustrialization.ForMarx,revolutionwouldbetheproductofanuprisingofproletariansoftheadvancedindustrialcountries.ForLenin,thatwasnolongerthecase.

HisspecialinsightintotheMarxistdialecticpreparedLenintostandclassicalMarxismonitshead.Hearguedthat“parasiticordecayingcapitalism”wasnolongersubjecttorevolutionatthehandsofitsproletarianmasses.Itwouldseemthatfinancecapitalismexportedbothcapitalandnationalistrevolutiontotheperipheral,lessdevelopednationsoftheworldsystem.Andyet,inanotherplace,Leninarguedthatthesuperprofitscollectedbythe“rentierstates”fromthelessdevelopedregionspermittedthecontinued“rapidgrowthofcapitalism”—infact,Leninargued,“capitalismisgrowingfarmorerapidlythanbefore,”however“uneven”heconceivedittobe.53Ontheonehandwehavecapitalism“decaying”intofinancecapitalism,whilestill“growingrapidly,”staffedbyaworkingclasssubornedbyan“aristocracy”inthepayofthosedispensingthe“superprofits”extortedfromtheperipheralbackwardeconomies.Ontheotherhand,wehavethelessdevelopedperipheraleconomiesgrowingunderthestimulusofexportcapitalflowinginfromtheadvancedeconomies,atthepriceofincurringdebt—whichapparentlygivesrisetonationalistresistanceonthepartoftheirresidentpopulations.

Lenin’svisionoftheworld,oftentoutedasprovidingrevolutionaryclaritytotheMarxistmovementsofhistime,seemshardlythat.ItisclearthathisnewinterpretationofMarxismputrevolutionontheagendaforaRussiathatheunderstoodtobe“mostbackwardeconomically.”54RevolutionwastocometothosebackwardeconomiesthatbothMarxandEngelsconceived“unripe”forsocialisttransformation.WhereEngelshadinsistedthatany“communist”revolutionundertakeninaneconomicallybackwardregionwasdestinedtofail,toreverttotheexploitationcharacteristicofessentiallyagrariansystems,55Leninwastoinsistthatthe“proletarianrevolution”wouldoccurinjustsuchbackwardenvironments.Atthesametime,heallowedthatfinancecapitalism,“exploiting”colonieswhileitself“decaying,”mightcontinuetogrow“rapidly”forsomeunspecifiedtime—rendering“proletarianrevolution”unlikelyintheadvancedindustrialcountries—thosecountriesconsideredbyMarxandEngelstheonlyplaceswhererealsocialismmighttakeroot.56

Ineffect,Leninattemptedtoresolvethepoliticaldifficultiesofhistime—byradicallymodifyinginheriteddoctrine.Hisdiscoveryofa“newepoch”ofindustrialcapitalism—unanticipatedbyeitherMarxorEngels—wasintendedtoexplainthefailureoftheproletariattoriseupinrebellionagainstitsoppressors.Thepeculiaritiesofcapitalism’s“finalstage”wereexpectedtoaccountforthe“defection”ofworkingclassleadershipontheoccasionoftheEuropeanwar.Allofthatwasunderstoodtosupplythereasonsforcapitalism’scontinuedsurvival,irrespectiveoftheinsistenceinMarxisttheorythatitwasdestinedtosufferimminentandcatastrophiccollapse.

The“Leninism”thatresultedwasclearlyfundamentallydifferentfromthedoctrineLeninhadinherited.ItwassoontobecomeevidentthatLenin’sMarxismwastobeanattempttobringsocialismtoaretrogradeeconomy—somethingbothMarxandEngelsinsistedcouldnotbedone.

Theefforttoachievesocialisminacountryburdenedbyabackwardeconomyandravagedbywar,madeofLeninismsomethingfardifferentthananythingfoundinMarxistorthodoxy.Leninismwastoultimatelyprovidearationaleforpoliticalrulepredicatedonalltheausteritiesofalltheauthoritarianismsanddespotismslongfamiliartoprimitiveeconomies.Ultimately,Leninismwascompelledtoimposeproductivedisciplineonanessentiallypeasantpeople.Thatdisciplinewasadministeredbyasinglepartythatconceiveditselfpossessedofimpeccabletruthsaboutsocietyandhistory.Thosetruthsweredeliveredandimplementedbyacharismaticleadership,aleadershiparmedwitha“dialecticalscience”subjecttonocontrolotherthanthatofthetranscendentalinsightofaself-selected,“vanguard”aristocracy.Tocementthecommitmentofpopulationsonlypartiallyindustrialized,Marxist-Leninists,armedwiththe“newMarxism,”weretoinvokecollectivesentimentanddisciplinethatwastolookverymuchlikethesentimentanddisciplinethatwastobeenjoinedbytotalitarianseverywhere.

Leninhadteased“Leninism”outofthecomplexsystemofbeliefsthatsurvivedthepassingofEngelsin1895.ItwasoneofthevariantsofMarxismthatwouldtransfigurerevolutionarypoliticsinthetwentiethcentury.AnothervariantwastotakeformamongrevolutionaryItaliansatalmostthesametime.Tothepolitical,social,andideologicalcrisisgeneratedbytheFirstWorldWar,revolutionarysocialistsandSoreliansyndicalistsinItalyweretorespondwiththeirownvariantofMarxism.BenitoMussoliniwastobetheirprincipalspokesman.

THEBACKGROUNDINITALYWhentheItaliangovernmentchosetoenterintoarmedconflictwiththeTurks

in1911,oneofitsmostconsistentandirrepressibleopponentswasBenitoMussolini.Intheprovincesofhisbirth,heledthesocialistoppositiontothewar.Hehadmadehisgenericoppositionplainsometimebefore.HeremindedItaliansthatbeforeItalyembarkedonthe“conquest”oftheTrentino,Trieste,orTripolitania,itshouldconquerilliteracy,undertakecomprehensiverehabilitationofthenation’ssoil,pipefreshwatertotheSouthernprovinces,andprovideelementaryjusticeforallItalians.57

WhenItalybecameembroiledintheWarinTripoli,Mussolinimobilizedopposition,advocatedandsupportedageneralstrikedirectedagainsttheconflict—tosufferdenunciationandendureconfinementasaresult.Hisresponseswerethoseofan“orthodox”socialist.Consistentwiththatorthodoxy,hearguedthatmilitarismandcapitalismweresomehowintrinsicallyconnected.“Militarism,”heargued,“hasbecomeatypical,fundamentalandnecessaryexpressionofbourgeoissociety.Capitalismandmilitarismaretwoaspectsofthesamephenomenon....Oneisunthinkablewithouttheother.Nosoonerhadcapitalismemergedfromitsprimitivephaseofdevelopmentbutitgavebirthtomilitarism.Torejecttheoneistorejecttheother.”58

RadicalMarxistslikeLeninandMussolinihadconsistentlymaintainedthatmilitarismandwarwereinevitableproductsofindustrialcapitalism.59ItisnotclearwhatsuchcontentionsmightimplyintermsoftheinternationalconflictthatcastitsshadowoverallofEuropein1914.Surelytherehadbeenwars—presumablyoneofthemanifestationsofmilitarism—longbeforetherewascapitalism.Clearlyawareofthat,bothMarxandEngelshadgivensupporttoavarietyofarmedconflictsbetweenandwithinnations,bothcapitalistandprecapitalist,bothEuropeanandnon-European.Whatevertherelationshipbetweencapitalism,militarism,andwar,thefoundersofMarxismwereclearlypreparedtolendtheirsupportforatleastsomewars.

Thatnotwithstanding,bythetimeoftheFirstWorldWar,socialistorthodoxyseemedpreparedtoproclaimthatnowarwasjustified.Warwasconceivedexclusivelyabourgeoisenterprise,calculatedonlytoprofittherich.Inthosecircumstances,itseemedevidentthatMussolini’sposturingatthetimeoftheWarinTripoliwasneithermorenorlessthananexpressionofsocialism’sofficialconcernontheoccasionofthegatheringofwarclouds.

By1914,Mussolinihadaccededtotheintellectualandpoliticalleadershipof

theItalianSocialistparty.Thatleadershipinvolvedassumingtheeditorshipofthepartydaily,Avanti!—andmadeMussolinianofficialspokesmanoftheparty’sintegrityintermsofsocialistorthodoxy.

Aswellasaleaderoftheparty,Mussoliniwastheleaderofits“intransigent”andradicalwing.Hehadonlyrecentlywrestedleadershipfromthereformistsoftheparty.LeninhadfollowedtheintrapartystruggleontheItalianpeninsulaandhadwelcomedtheadventoftheMussolinianitopositionsofleadership.Inretrospect,thereiseveryreasontoarguethatattheoutbreakoftheGreatWar,“Mussolinism”sharedmanyofthedoctrinalpropertiesof“Leninism.”60

MussoliniclearlyfavoredtheelitismofLenin’sWhatistobeDone?InspiredbySorelandthesyndicalists,Mussolini,likeLenin,spokecandidlyofthe“struggleswithinhumansociety”as“beingandhavealwaysbeenastruggleofminorities.”61LikeLenin,Mussoliniwasconvincedthataminorityofintransigentrevolutionariesborethespecialresponsibilityofinformingthe“masses”oftheirhistoricobligationsandofinspiringthemtotheirdischarge.

ThedifficultyMussolinihadwasthatasanofficialspokesmanofapartyofmixedopinion,ratherthanaspokesmanofafaction,hewasnotfreetospeakwithcandor.UnlikeLenin,Mussolinifeltcompelledbyhispartyobligationstotailorhispublicutterancestotheparty’sofficialposition.Withinthoseconstraints,heclearlyfelttheneedtoexplorepolicyalternativesasanindependentMarxist.Tosatisfythatimpulse,hefoundedatheoreticaljournalin1913,Utopia,inwhichhemightspeakinthefirstperson,independentoftheorganizationalrestraintsinherenttohispartyresponsibilities.62

Intheintroductoryissueofhisjournal,MussolinispokeoftheintellectualresponsibilitiesofMarxists.Hespokeoftheintellectualcomplexityofthesystemofbeliefstheyhadmadetheirown,andofthevarietyofinterpretationstowhichthatcomplexityhadgivenrise.63Hespokeofthefailedpositivisticinterpretationofinheriteddoctrine;andoftheinabilityofitsorthodoxinterpretationtoaccountforhumanwillandcommitmentinaconvincingfashion.HealludedtotheDarwinismthathadconfoundedthesystem,andtothepoliticalreformismtowhichtheverycomplexityofthesystemcontributed.64

AtthepromptingofGiuseppePrezzolini,MussoliniundertooktolocatehisthoughtamongallthosecurrentsthatmadeupthebodyofMarxism.Inresponse,hefirstmadeadistinctionbetweentheempiricalrealitiesofhistimeandtheirideologicalanddoctrinal“reflections.”Hesoughttomakeaclearcontrastbetweentherealitiesofhistimeandtheirexpressioninrevolutionary

formulations.Thedistinctionwasimportantforhim.Hechosetooccupyhimselfwithobservedrealitiesandnottheirdoctrinal“derivations.”65Hepursuedthedistinctioninordertospeakofthedoctrinal“derivations”thatmadeupmuchofthesubstanceoforthodoxMarxism.HearguedthatsomeoftheconvictionsexpressedasthencontemporaryorthodoxywerereallyreflectionsoftherealitiestobefoundintheEnglandofthe1870s.

MussoliniarguedthatMarx,inthecourseofhislifetime,hadmanagedtocaptureacrosssectionofcapitalistrealityinhiswork.Itwasareality,heremindedhisaudience,thatwas,bythen,aquartercenturyold.MussoliniheldthatclassicalMarxismhadfixedthatrealityinlocutionsthatmanyMarxistsimaginedwouldforeverremaintrue—likeprehistoricfliesinamber.Actually,Mussoliniargued,whatclassicalMarxismhadcapturedwas“arealityinmotion.”

Mussoliniarguedthatthedistinctionbetweenthetheoryofrevolutionandtherealities,intimeandcircumstance,towhichrevolutionariesmustrespondwassometimescritical.Heheld,forexample,thattheMarxistsofthelatenineteenthcentury,followingMarx’sexpositioninDasKapital,conceivedcapitalismashavingexhausteditspotential.Somesocialists,hewenton,deceivedthemselvesintobelievingthat,infact,industrialcapitalismhadcompleteditshistorictrajectory.TheywerepreparedtoimaginethattheformulationsprovidedbyMarx,decadesbefore,hadcapturedsomesortofimmutablerealitythatcarriedinitstrainaninevitableoutcome.66

InMussolini’sjudgment,allofthatinvolvedseriouserror.Reality,heinsisted,hadawayofbafflingthosewhoattempteditscapture.Tothosewhobelievedthatindustrialsocietyhadconcludeditstrajectory,hemaintainedthat“capitalism”hadgivenevidenceof“itsulteriordevelopment.Ithasnotyetexhausteditspotentialtransformations.”67Marx’sDasKapitalcapturedbutamomentarycrosssectioninthehistoryofadynamicsystem.

Mussoliniwastoarguethatrealitywasfarmoresubtlethananydoctrine.Toillustratesomethingofhiscase,hewentontospeakofthefundamentaldualityatthetheoreticalfoundationofMarxism:thecontentionthatsocietywascomposedoftwoopposingclasses,thebourgeoisieandtheproletariat.Mussolinispokeofthecomplexitiesthatmadethatcontentionanythingbutconvincing.Hespokeoftheintractabilityofattemptingtoobjectivelycharacterizethemeaningof“class”—or,howeverdefined,howonemightpretendtounderstandthepsychologyofentireclassesandsubclasses.Hespokenotonlyofthe“heterogeneity”oftheill-definedclassesthatpresumablyshapehistory,butof

thediffusenessoftheirimaginedpsychology.Heremindedhisaudience,forexample,thatonecouldspeakofthe“youthfulandardent”industrialandintellectualbourgeoisie,andthenofthecalculatingfinanceandcommercialcapitalists—andthenofthediverse“subspecies”onemightisolate—thesmallandlargepropertyholders,aswellasofartisansandtheself-employedtechnicians.Whileallmembersoftheseclassesandfragmentsofclasses,ascapitalists,mightwellbemotivatedbythedesiretoaccumulateprofits,theyareallconceivablyanimatedbyadiversityofimmediateinterests.Asaconsequence,thereislittlethatonecansay,withmuchassurance,concerningtheirovertpoliticalconductinanygivencircumstance.A“modestrentier”mightbeclose,intermsofmaterialinterest,tothoseofunlimitedwealth,butmaybereligiousasopposedtoothersofhiseconomicfraternitywhoareatheistic.Membersofthesubclassmaydifferentiateintothosewhoaredemocraticintermsofpoliticalpersuasion,whileothersmightbeofmoreconservativebent.Stillothersmightbereformistorradical—astheirspiritmovedthem.Onemightsaynolessconcerninganyextantblocofproletarians.

Mussolini’stheoreticalpositionwasclear.Thearticulateddoctrinalreflectionswetendtosomuchadmire,oftenfollow,ratherthanprecede,reality.Withrespecttoexperiencedreality,onemustforeverbepreparedfornovelty,forunanticipatedeventsandunanticipatedcomplexesofevents.“Socialrevolution,”inthefinalanalysis,Mussolinicontended,growsoutof“anactoffaith,”nota“mentalschemeorsimplecalculation.”68Marxism,astheory,wasneithernecessarynorsufficienttomakesocialandpoliticalrevolution.

InallofthatonecannotmistaketheechoofthecontentionsofEdwardBernstein,GeorgesSorelandHenriBergson,69ofGiuseppePrezzoliniandA.O.Olivetti.TherevolutionaryMarxismwithwhichMussoliniwaspreparedtofacethecrisisoftheGreatWardistinguisheditselffromtheapparenttheoreticalintransigenceofLenin.LeninpretendedthatallhissystemicchangesinthebodyofinheritedMarxismconstituteditsonetruerendering.Mussolini,ontheotherhand,grantedthatavarietyoflegitimateinterpretationsoftheinheriteddoctrineweretobeexpected—hisamongothers.Hearguedthathiswasperhapsthemostresponsibleinadynamicandchangingreality.

BENITOMUSSOLINIANDTHECOMINGOFTHEGREATWARInJulyof1914,aftertheassassinationoftheArchdukeFranzFerdinandbya

Serbiannationalist,theAustriangovernmentpresentedanultimatumtoBelgrade

—withwhichBelgraderefusedtocomply.ByAugust,ViennawasatwarwithSerbia.Bytheendofthemonth,Russia,Belgium,andGermanyhadorderedageneralmobilizationinanticipationofacontinent-wideconflict.Intheflurryofthreats,recriminations,mobilizations,andtroopmovementsthatdarkenedthefutureofEurope,theItalianSocialistpartyannouncedits“absoluteneutrality.”Itinsistedthatsocialismwasantitheticaltoarmedconflict,recognizingthatconflictbetweennationsonlymilitatedagainstthemostfundamentalclassinterestsoftheproletariat.

Atfirst,itwasnotdifficulttomaintainthepartyposition.Mussoliniwasitsspokesman.HethreatenedthatintheeventofadeclarationofwarbytheItaliangovernment,theproletariatclasswouldmobilizeallitsresistanceagainstit.70Itwasnotentirelyclearwhatdoctrinalreasoninglaybehindsucharesponse.Ashasbeenindicated,bothMarxandEngels,intheirtime,hadsupportedoneoranothersideinthenationalwarsthathaderuptedonthecontinent.

Inthecircumstancessurroundingthethenpresentwar,ItalywasboundbytreatytoGermanyandAustria-Hungary,atreatytowhichmostpoliticallysensitiveItaliansobjectedforavarietyofdifferentreasons.Firstofall,fewinItalywerewelldisposedtowardtheCentralPowers.TherewasalongandpainfulhistoryofAustro-ItalianconflictintheUdineandTrentino.Italianshadlong-standingandheartfeltterritorialclaimsonTriesteandtheDalmatiancoast—areasheldbytheHapsburgs.AsearlyasJuly,forhisownreasons,MussolinimadehisobjectionperfectlycleartoanyactivationofthetreatywithGermanyandAustria-Hungary.Bothcountriesrepresentedretrogradeandrepressivemonarchies,opposedinpracticetothesocialismhechampioned.HethreatenedthatshouldthegovernmentofRomeundertakeanymovetomeetitsobligationsunderitsmutualdefensetreatywiththeCentralPowers,the“Italianproletariat”wouldhaveonlyonerecourse,“toriseupinrebellion.”71

Beyondthat,Mussoliniconceivedthewaraconflictbetween“imperialisms”—GermanandEnglish—aconflictthatservedtheexclusiveinterestsofthebourgeoisie.72Itwasawarthatgrewoutoftheenvironmentof“armedpeace”createdbycapitalism,thateconomicallycompetitivebourgeoisgovernmentsfinallyignitedintoanarmedconflict.73Itwasawar,heargued,inwhichtheproletariathadnodiscernible,immediateinvestment.

Irrespectiveofhisconvictions,MussolinimadehissympathyfortheTripleEntente—Britain,France,andRussia—apparent.ThatclearlydistinguishedhispositionfromthatofLenin.Withoutquestion,fromitsverycommencement,Mussoliniwasnotindifferenttothewaroritsoutcome.Whileherejectedthe

warasviolativeofsocialistprinciples,hediddistinguishbetweenwars.HedidnotinsistthatshouldthegovernmententerthewaronthesideoftheEntentethattheproletariatwouldrebel.74Morethanthat,heannouncedthatshouldAustriaattackItalybecauseofRome’sfailuretohonoritstreatyobligationstotheCentralPowers,theproletariatwouldtakeuparmsindefenseofthecommonfatherland.75

Hepointed,withapparentapproval,totheresponseoftheFrenchandBelgianproletariatindefenseoftheirrespectivehomelandsontheoccasionoftheGermaninvasion.Theimmediatecostsofwar,Mussoliniremindedhisaudience,alwaysfellmostheavilyonpeasantsandworkers.Asaconsequence,awarinitiatedbytherulingclassesinordertoservetheinterestsofthebourgeoisiemightprecipitateanyoneofseveralresponses,rangingfromaproletariandefenseofthehomelandtoasocialandpoliticalrevolutionbytheworkingclasses.

BetweenAugustandNovember1914,Mussoliniremainedspokesmanforasocialistpolicyof“absoluteneutrality,”andanunflinchingopponentofwar.Equallyclearwasthefactthathewasnotentirelycomfortablewithaposturethatallowednoroomforflexibleresponse.Morethanthat,hewasnot,likeLenin,anadvocateofdefeatism.Heexplicitlyrejecteddefeatismasanantiwarstrategy.

Inhisjournal,Utopia,Mussolinireviewedtheoptionsavailabletosocialistsontheoccasionofawarinvolvingtheirnation.InAugust,withoutidentifyingtheauthorofdefeatismasaMarxiststrategy,hespokeofthosewhoproposedto“martyrtheirnation”intheirprincipledoppositiontothe“capitalists’war.”Insteadofdefendingthenationagainstarmedaggression,itwouldseemthattheyproposedto“throwopentheirfrontierstoinvaders.”76Mussolinipursuedthelogicofsuchatactic.

HeremindedMarxiststhatthecongressoftheBoursesduTravailof1911hadrecommendedthatintheeventofwartheproletariatshouldexpressitsoppositionintheformofageneralstrike.That,Mussoliniargued,couldonlyresultinoneoftwoalternatives.Eitherthegeneralstrikewouldresultinarevolutionarycollapseofthegovernment,orthegovernmentwouldsuppresstheactionasanactoftreasonagainstthenation—andtheworkers’organizationswouldbevigorouslydispersed.Ineithercase,thenationwouldstillfacethethreatofarmedinvasion.Iftheworkers’revolutionsucceeded,theworkers’governmentwouldfacethesamethreat—andwouldbecompelledtoresistinvasionwithanationandadefenseforceintotaldisarray.Shouldthe

governmenthavesuppressedtheworkers,thenationwouldfaceinvasionequallydividedanddisabled.Ineffect,bythefirstweekofAugust1914,Mussolinihadconsidered,anddismissed,Lenin’sproposedantiwarstrategythaturgedcivilwarandrevolutionastheproperMarxistresponsetotheimpendingEuropeanwar.

Beyondthat,itseemsevidentthatbetweenAugustandNovember1914,MussoliniremaineduncertainastotheproperstrategyMarxistsshouldadoptinthefaceoftheeventsthathadoverwhelmedEurope.HewasoutragedbythebrutalityoftheGermaninvasionofBelgiumandheartenedbyFrenchresistance—andacknowledgedthatwar,fallingasitwouldmostheavilyontheworkingclasses,mightwellprecipitatesocialrevolution.77

Infact,comparedtoLenin,Mussolinihadamuchmorenuancedanduncertainnotionofthegenesis,conduct,andconsequencesofthewar.Whilegenericcapitalismwasidentifiedasprimarilyresponsible,Mussolini,likeRobertoMichelsandsomeofthemajorsyndicalists,attributedsomeoftheimmediatecausesofthewarthathadbrokenoverEuropetodynasticrivalry,domesticproblems,andpopularprejudice.Healludedtothefactthathistoryhadparsedindustrialcapitalismintonations,andeachnationsoughtitsownadvantageinitscompetitionwithothers.Headdedfurtherdimensiontotheanalysiswhenheproceededtorefertothediverseinterestsofthecomponentclassesineachpeculiarnationalenvironment.78Hewasclearlypreparedtoentertaintheinfluenceofavarietyoffactorsinshapingevents.Hespokeofdomesticeconomicconsiderations,ofmasspsychology,andofnationalenmitiesascontributingtotheoutbreak,aswellasthesubsequentconduct,ofthewar.

AsearlyasthefirstweeksofAugust,MussoliniacknowledgedthatthesocialistInternationalhadfailedinthefaceofthecrisis.Forallthereasonsintimated,someofthemostcommittedMarxistsofEuropehadoptedtodefendtheirrespective“bourgeois”nationsagainstthe“bourgeoisie”ofothernations.Marxists,heargued,hadnocleartheoreticalappreciationofwhathad,andwhatwas,transpiring.ThesocialistsoftheInternationalwerebereftofauniformandspecificallydoctrinalresponse.Byandlarge,eachnationalsocialistpoliticalorganizationtendedtosupportitsrespectivegovernment.Noneofthemajorsocialistorganizationschoseto“martyr”theirowncountryonthealtarofMarxistprinciple.79

ThroughoutSeptemberandOctober,MussolinifoundhimselfinaseriesofdebateswiththosewhoadvocatedItaly’sinterventioninthewaronthesideoftheEntente.TheypointedoutthatheclearlyfavoredtheEntente;andthathe

waspreparedtocountenanceawarinthedefenseofFranceandBelgium;andtheypointedoutthatthesocialistpositiononthewar,whichwasabsoluteneutralityinthefaceofinternationalconflict,lookedremarkablylikethatassumedbytheprincipalspokesmenofthebourgeoisie.

Onthe13thofOctober,MussoliniintimatedthathewaspreparedtoconsiderItaly’sinvolvementintheburgeoningconflict“entirelyandsimplyfromanationalpointofview—apointofviewthatdidnotexcludethatitwouldbebothnationaland‘proletarian’atthesametime.”80Onthe18th,hewrotethearticlethatwouldultimatelyseverhistieswiththeofficialpartyposition,andheraldtheappearanceofhisownspecificMarxistheresy.

Onthatoccasion,Mussolinimadetheargumentfor“activeandoperantneutrality”ratherthanthe“absoluteneutrality”officiallydemandedbytheparty.Heindicatedthatthe“absolute”neutralityofthepartyhadneverbeenabsoluteinfact.Socialists,ingeneral,hadsystematicallyandconsistentlyfavoredthenationsoftheTripleEntente.TheysoughtthedefenseofindependentandlargelydefenselessnationslikeSerbiaandBelgiumagainstthefeudalmilitarismofGermanyandAustria-Hungary.

Mussoliniarguedthathewasnolongersurewhat“absolute”neutralityentailed.Clearlyitcouldnotmeananindifferencetothefateofthenation.Thatwouldbetosacrificenotonlythebourgeoisie,buttheinterestsoftheproletariataswell.Theentirenationwouldbeconsignedtoanentirelyuncertainfuture.Theentirenation,withallitsconstituentclassesandsubclasses,wouldbemadesubjecttothefeudaldominationofGermansandAustrians.HecouldnotconvincehimselfthatsocialismrequiredthepartyleadershiptosacrificetheinterestsofItaly’sworkingclassestoanysuchloathsomeoutcome.81

Ineffect,onthe18thofOctober1914,Mussoliniarguedthat,forreasonsthathadbecomeeminentlyobvious,thesocialistpartywasnotinanypositiontomakerevolution.Tomakerevolutionintimeofwarwouldleavesocialistsfacingthedilemmahehadreviewedintheopeningweeksoftheconflict.Unlessalltheproletariansofallthewarringnationssimultaneouslyundertookrevolution,Italyfacedtherealprospectofinvasionbyitserstwhileallies.Itwouldthenhavetoabjectlysubmitto“Teutonicfury,”ordefenditself.Therevolutionmadetoopposewarwouldfinditselfcompelledtofightawar.

MussoliniwentontoconsiderthepossibilitythatthesocialistsmightsupportawaronthesideoftheEntente.Thatcouldconceivablyshortenthewar,therebysavingthelivesofanuntoldnumberofworkersinallthemajornationsof

Europe.Furthermore,theoutcomeofthatwarwouldshapetheenvironmentinwhichtheworkersofEuropewouldhavetofashiontheirsubsequentdestiny.

Mussoliniarguedthatnoneofthoseoptionswereattractive,buthistoryhadforcedMarxiststochoose.Toremainimmobileinthefaceofmovementeverywhereclearlywouldbetofailone’sresponsibilities.ItwasevidenttohimthatthesocialistsofItalyhadallowedthemselvestobeovercomebyevents,toassumeaposturethatrenderedthemobservers,ratherthanshapers,ofevents.82

Almostimmediatelyafterward,thedirectorateoftheSocialistPartycalledameetingtoconsiderMussolini’schangedposition.OnthenineteenthandtwentiethofOctober,attheconclusionofaclamorousconclaveofpartyleaders,MussolinisubmittedhisresignationfromtheeditorshipofAvanti!Fordaysafter,hecontinuedtoarguehiscase,tonoavail.Thepartywaspreparedtoaccepthisresignationaseditorofthepartynewspaper,andMussoliniwentontoseeksupportamong“revolutionarysocialists.”

Shortlythereafter,inrepeatingtheargumentsthatledhimtocontesttheparty’spositionwithrespecttothewar,Mussoliniemphasizedapointthathehadmadebeforebutwhichhadremainedlessthancentraltohisdiscussion:hesaidhewishedtoaddresstheissueofthewar“fromanationalpointofview,onethatincorporatedthatoftherevolutionaryproletariat.”83Finally,onthetenthofNovember,hespokecandidlyofthefailureofmostsocialiststohaveevercometoaseriousunderstandingofthehistoric,political,economic,andrevolutionaryroleofnationsinthecontemporaryworld.

Onthatdate,beforeanaudienceofMilanesesocialists,MussolinirehearsedthefactthattraditionalMarxistshadneverfullycometogripswiththeissueofnationality,andnationalsentiment,andtheirroleinthecourseofevents.Insayingthat,Mussolinicarefullydistinguishedhisproposedanalysisfromtheagendaof“bourgeoisnationalism.”Heargued,ashadFilippoCorridoni,thathespokeasasocialist—andthatthesocialismthathadbecomeorthodoxinGermanyhadnotaddressedallthoseissuesthatthewarhadmadevital.TheorthodoxinGermanyhadsimplyrepeatedtheslogansoftheInternationalwithoutthoughtandcriticaldistinction.Hespokeofthecriticalinterestsoftheproletariatthatwereinvestedinthenation,andthenwentontoremindhisaudiencethatbothMarxandEngelshadrecognizedtheindelibleinfluenceofnationalsentimentonhumanassociation.84The“orthodox”inItaly,followingtheleadershipofforeignorthodoxies,hadfailedtomakeanythingofit.

HewentontocitethoseinstancesintheMarx-Engelscorrespondencethat

documentedthesupportofbothMarxandEngelsforGermany’swaragainstFranceintheFranco-Prussianwar—andEngels’sspecialenthusiasmfortheefficacyofGermanarms.HeinsistedthateventhefoundersofscientificMarxismunderstoodtheroleofnationalityandnationalsentimentinhistoricevolution—andatcriticaljuncturesarguedforthecompatibilityofnationalandproletarianinterests.Onthesamedaythathereaffirmedhisdecisiontoresignhispublicofficesintheparty,andannouncedtheappearanceofhisowndaily,IlPopolod’Italia,Mussolinimaintainedthatifsocialismweretosurviveasameaningfulpoliticalmovement,itwouldhavetosettleitsaccountwiththerealityofnationalsentiment.85

Inaffirmingthat,MussolinifocusedonthesinglemostcriticalissuethatMarxismwouldfacethroughouttherevolutionarytwentiethcentury.ItwastheissueinwhichallofthevariantsofMarxismwouldseektheirultimateresolution.ItwasanissuethatwastohelpdefinethecentralheresyofV.I.LeninandbringtogetherallthethreadsoftheoreticaldissidencethathadbecomeevidentbythetimeoftheFirstWorldWar.Outofthecauldronofthefirstworldconflict,atransmogrifiednationalismwastoemergethatinitsvariedexpressionswastomakeuptheideologicalsubstanceofmostofthesocial,political,andeconomicrevolutionsthatweretoshattertheequanimityofthetwentiethcentury.NationalismwastobecometheissueuponwhichMarxistorthodoxywastofounder.ItwasnationalismthatwastoprovidemuchofthedoctrinalsubstanceforalltheMarxistvariantsofalltherevolutionarymovementsthatweretobeofsignificanceinthetwentiethcentury.Itfoundexpressioninthe“nationalism”ofAdolfHitler’sNationalSocialism,andinthe“patriotism”ofMarxism-LeninismandMaoism.Thenotionsofnationalsentimentandnationalismprovidedmuchofthedoctrinalsubstancethatinspiredtherevolutionaryzealofmillionsuponmillionsthroughoutthecentury—anditreceiveditsfirstfullandfrankintellectualtreatmentamongtheMarxistideologuesofthefirstFascism.TheyweretheMarxistradicalsofrevolutionarysyndicalism.

CHAPTERTEN

TheGreatWar,Revolution,andLeninismTheFirstWorldWarwasmidwifetothefulsomeappearanceofbothLeninismandFascism.OutofthedoctrinallegacyleftbythefoundersofMarxism,V.I.LeninandBenitoMussolinieachfashionedasystemofbeliefsthatweretomobilizemillionstoservice—tocommitment,obedience,sacrifice,andviolence.

Ashasbeensuggested,suchinvocationsareanimatedbynormativeinjunction—thatinthetwentiethcenturycharacteristicallytookonideologicalform.Ideologiesareacompoundofempiricalandmoralclaims,allcalculatedtoshapevoluntarybehavior.Suchideologiesaddressedarepresentativecollectionofthemes:thecommunityidentificationofparticipants;thecriticalvaluesthatpresumablycharacterizethecommunitywithwhichpersonsidentify;theimputedmissiontobedischargedbythatchosencommunity;aswellastheinstrumentalitiesemployedinthefulfillmentofpurpose.BythetimeoftheGreatWar,thevariantsoftraditionalMarxismthatweretodominatethecenturyhadalreadybeensuppliedtheirideologicalessentials.

Formostofthetwentiethcentury,itwasarguedthatLeninismandFascism,insomerealsense,werefundamentallyantitheticalintermsofideologicalgoalculture.Leninismwasofthe“left,”andFascismwasofthe“right.”Inmanyinstances,thecontentionwasaccompaniedbyaninsistencethatFascismwasessentially“antihuman,”fundamentallyirrational,andgiventoonlytwo“absolutevalues”:violenceandwar.1

OnlywiththefinalcollapseoftheSovietUnionhavecommentatorsmorefrequentlyspokenofLeninism’s“fundamentallyconflictual...viewofsocialreality”—andofcommunism’s“messianicforeignpolicy,”sustainedby“anenormousmilitary.”Allofthatwasunderstoodtobeinfusedwitha“sharedsensethattheRussianpeoplearesuperiorandhaveauniqueroletoplayintheworld.”2Bytheendofthetwentiethcentury,manyhadarrivedatthejudgmentthatLeninismhadbeenamostsingularkindofleft-winginternationalism.

ItisnotoddthatjudgmentsconcerningLeninismshouldhavechangedovertime.Whatisoddisthatithadtakensolong.

Thetwentieth-centuryvariantsofMarxism,giventheircommonorigin,sharedmanyfeatures.AlltheissuesraisedbyMarxistslikeDietzgen,Woltmann,andSorel—likeMichels,Olivetti,andCorridoni—cametogetherduringtheFirstWorldWartoproducetheideologiesthatmadeourtimewhatitwas.Inretrospect,theprocessthroughwhichthatwasaccomplishedisreasonablyclear.

LENINISMANDTHETRANSFORMATIONOFMARXISMTraditionalwisdomwouldhaveitthatLeninrejectedanyformofnationalism

indefenseofanunqualifiedinternationalism.Nationalismwasofthepoliticalright,andreactionary—whileinternationalismwasoftheleft,andrevolutionary.

ItisnotdifficulttolapseintojustsuchaninterpretationofLeninism.Lenin’scallforthedefeatofhisownhomelandattheverycommencementoftheGreatWarseemedtoestablishhisantinationalistcredentials.Hisdenunciationof“chauvinism”and“socialpatriotism”seemeditsconfirmation.

Lenin’sthought,actually,wascomplexand“dialectical”—anythingotherthantransparentandrectilinear.Aclearandunambiguousinterpretationofitsintentcouldnotalwaysbeforthcoming.

Foraverylongtimeitwaseasytopretendtoseeinhisdoctrineanexclusivistic“internationalism,”thatabjuredanyformofnationalism.Hewasunderstoodtohavebeenachampionof“proletarianinternationalism.”ItwassaidthatLenin,likeMarxbeforehim,imaginedthattheworkingclasseshadno“fatherland.”Asthoughallthatwerenotsufficient,aftertheOctoberrevolution,Soviettheoreticianswentontoinsistthat“nationalismistheworstenemyoftheworkingclass.”WhatthatseemedtomeanwasthatLeninhad“definitivelysolved”allthetheoreticalissuesthathadcollectedaroundnationalism,nationalsentiment,andthe“nationalitiesquestion,”andhadoptedforanunmitigatedinternationalism.3Actually,thepurportedresolutionofallthoseproblemswasachievedmoreinpretensethanfact.

GrantedthatMarxunderstoodnationalismtobeatransientphenomenon,sometimesprogressiveandsometimesnot,itwasnotatallevidenthowthatmightprovidepolicyguidancetorevolutionariesin1914,facedastheywerewiththerealityofaconflictthatwouldinvolveallthemajorpowers.Ashas

beenindicated,beforetheGreatWar,manyofMarxism’sforemosttheoreticianssawnationalism,bothasapoliticalconceptandasasentiment,involvingaveryintricatesetofempiricalandnormativeconsiderations.Giventheemergingcrisis,itwasnotatallself-evidenthowan“orthodox”Marxistmightdealwithnationalism.

WiththeoutbreakoftheGreatWar,mostMarxistsoptedtosupporttheirrespectivenationsinthearmedconflictthatthreatenedthemall.Lenin’sadvocacyofdefeatismforone’sownnationwasclearlyaminorityresponse—andmostcommentatorsunderstoodthatadvocacytobeidiosyncraticratherthanevidenceofdoctrinalintegrity.

Actually,thenotionthatLeninwas,inprinciple,antinationalisticrestsonaveryprivativeconceptionofwhat“nationalism”mightbetakentomean—neglectingtotakeintoaccountmuchofthecriticalthoughtthathadcollectedaroundtheterminthetwodecadesbeforetheadventoftheGreatWar.

CarefulconsiderationofLenin’spublicposturingduringthefirstyearsofthatwarrevealssomecriticallyimportantqualificationstothepositionhehadassumedin1913.TherealitywasthatLenin’sviewsonnationalismandnationalsentimentwereonlyseeminglysimpleandstraightforward.Infact,theywerequitecomplexandsubtle.MikhailAgurskyhasmadeacasethatLeninwas,insomefundamentalsense,aGreatRussiannationalist—grantedanationalistofanuncommonsort.4

AboutayearafterLeninwrotehis“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion”—withtheinsistencethat“Marxismcannotbereconciledwithnationalism,beitevenofthe‘mostjust,’‘purest,’mostrefinedandcivilisedbrand”—heaskedhisaudience,“Isasenseofnationalpridealientous,Great-Russianclass-consciousproletarians?”—towhichhehimselfimmediatelyreplied,“Certainlynot!Weloveourlanguageandourcountry.”5

Leninwentontoexpanduponthatacknowledgment.Hespokeofthehumiliationsufferedbyhis“faircountry”atthehandsofthosewhohadreducedRussianstothestatusofslaves.Heproceededtoaffirmthat“Wearefullofasenseofnationalpride,andforthatveryreasonweparticularlyhateourslavishpast”—apastthatwastheproductofdomesticdespotism,misrule,andexploitationbycapitalistsbothdomesticandforeign.

“Theworstenemiesofourcountry,”Lenincontinued,werepreciselythoseforces—andtheywereenemiesthatonlytheclass-conscious,Great-Russianproletariatcoulddefeat.“Fullofasenseofnationalpride,weGreat-Russian

workerswant,comewhatmay,a...proudGreatRussia”—therestorationof“Great-Russiannationaldignity.”ThatrequiredthedefeatofthedomesticandforeignclassenemiesoftheGreat-Russianproletarian—tobeachievedbyrecognizingthatthe“interestsoftheGreat-Russians’nationalpride...coincidewiththesocialistinterestsoftheGreat-Russian(andallother)proletarians.”6

Leninarguedthatthe“true”nationalismoftheGreat-Russiansfoundultimateexpressionininternationalrevolution.Great-Russianswere“fullofpridebecause[their]nation[had]createdarevolutionaryclass...capableofprovidingmankindwithgreatmodelsofthestruggleforfreedomandsocialism.”7Insuchfashion,Leninhadsucceededincombiningrevolutionarynationalismandinternationalisminasinglerevolutionaryprogram.TheGreat-Russianproletariatcouldtakenationalprideinthefactthatthey,andnottheGermansortheFrench,wouldleadtheinternationalrevolution.

Lenin’snotionswerebynomeansuniqueinthehistoryofrevolutionaryMarxism.MarxandEngelshadarguedinverymuchthesamefashion.TheirsupportforGermanyinitsregionalwars,andtheirinsistencethattheGermanproletariatborespecialhistoricresponsibilities,aroseoutofasimilarsetofconvictions.

Ashasbeenindicated,bothMarxandEngelssupportedBismarck’swaragainstFrance,forexample—largelybecauseGermany’svictorywouldtransferleadershipoftheinternationalrevolutionarymovementfromFrance,withits“bourgeois”ProudhonistsandBlanquists,to“their”SocialDemocraticpartyinGermany.ThatwouldmaketheGermanproletariatleadersoftheimminentworldrevolution.

ForEngels,“theGermanworkingclass”was“clearlysuperiortotheFrenchboththeoreticallyandfromthepointofviewoforganization.ThepredominanceoftheGermans,”hewenton,“...wouldmeanthepredominanceofourtheory...”8Germanswouldprovideboththebrainsandbrawnoftheworldrevolution.

MarxandEngelsbothsawGermansasthenaturalleadersoftheworldrevolution.TheGermanSocialDemocraticmovementwouldprovidetheinternationalproletariatitstheoreticalleadership,andGermanindustrywouldsupplyasubstantialpartofitsmaterialbase.Associatedwiththatwastheconvictionthattherevolutionrequiredthatallthesmalland“historyless”nationsonGermany’speripherybe“absorbed”intheprocess.

ThatconvictionwaspartofthegeneralunderstandingthefoundersofMarxismentertainedconcerningwhattheyheldtobethepatternofhistory.Both

MarxandEngelsconsistentlymaintainedthattheanticipatedproletarianrevolutionnecessitatedtheworldwideexpansionoftheadvancedindustrialnations.TheybothsupportedtheexpansionoftheUnitedStatesintoMexicanterritory,forexample,andtheFrenchconquestofNorthAfrica,onjustsuchgrounds.GreatBritain,inturn,wasdoing“history’swork”inconqueringSouthAsiaandbringingtothosebackwardnationsthebenefitsofamoderneconomy.9Theconsolidationoflessernationsintothosemoreindustriallyadvancedwaspartofhistory’splan.

ClassicalMarxism’sconceptionofinternationalproletarianrevolutionwasexplicit.Therevolutionrequiredtheappropriatematerialpreconditions—aproductivebasethatwasindustriallymatureandanurbanpopulationthatwasessentiallyproletarian.Intheirjudgment,therevolutionthatwasanticipatedwastobeledbyGermans,whoweretheoreticallyandorganizationallybetterpreparedthananyothercandidates.TheotherrevolutionarynationswouldcollectaroundGermanleadership.Noneofthat,ofcourse,wouldimplyGermandominance—the“historyless”and“primitive”peoplesdrawnintothevortexofrevolutionwouldsimplybecome,withoutprejudice,onewiththeeconomicallyadvanced,revolutionarycommunity—tobeliftedtothelevelofpromisedfulfillment.

ThatkindofMarxismwouldseemtosatisfybothGermannationalistsentimentandthedemandsofrevolutionaryinternationalism.10AndthatseemedthekindofMarxismLeninhadinmind.JustasMarxhaddecidedthattherevolutionarybatonhadpassed,inthecourseoftime,fromtheFrenchandBritishtoGermanworkers,Lenindecidedthat,intheimperialistepoch,revolutionaryresponsibilitieshadbeentransferredfromtheGerman,toGreat-Russian,workers.11

ThatthethoughtofthefoundersofMarxismlendsitselftosuchaconstructionsuggestsagreatdealaboutthenatureofideologyandtheroleitmightplayinthepolicycrisesthattestedtheintegrityandthesenseofresponsibilityofallMarxistsin1914.LeninentertainedmanyofthesamegeneralnotionsfoundintheworksandlettersofMarxandEngels.Likethefoundersofrevolutionarysocialism,Lenininsistedthattheimminentworldrevolutionrequiredforitssuccessthemostadvancedtheory—tobesuppliedbyBolshevismalone.LeninarguedthatallthesocialistpartiesofEuropehadshamelesslybetrayedtherevolutionbysupportingtheirrespectivegovernmentsintheGreatWar.Thatwastheconsequenceofthefailureoftheory.Theydidnotappreciatethefactthatindustrialcapitalismhadentereditsfinalstage—imperialism—nordidthey

understandalltheattendantimplications.OnlyBolshevismhadbeentruetothecause—andonlybecauseLeninhadsupplieditsleaderswithhistheoryofimperialism.

Toexplainthedefectionofrevolutionaryleadershipinalltheadvancedindustrialcountries,Leninmaderecoursetohis“theory”ofimperialism—his“creativedevelopment”ofMarxism.Withouthis“advancedtheory,”Europeansocialistshadallowedthemselvestobemisledbybourgeoisnationalismandsocialchauvinism.Withoutunderstandingthenecessityofahighlyspecialized,professional,eliteleadership,thesocialdemocratshadsuccumbedto“bourgeoisdemocratic”impulse,“opportunism,”andclassbetrayal.OnlytheGreat-Russianproletariat,armedwiththeadvancedtheoriesofBolshevism,couldleadtheworldrevolution.Bolshevismwouldgathertoitscauseallofitsneighbors,sharingwiththem“thehumanprincipleofequality.”

LeninquicklyqualifiedthatpromiseofequalitywiththeinsistencethatBolshevismdid“notadvocatepreservingsmallnationsatallcosts;otherconditionsbeingequal,wearedecidedlyforcentralisation.”12Ineffect,theGreat-Russianproletarianwouldleadtheworldrevolution,gatheringtoitself,through“centralisation,”allthosenationsnotpossessedof“advancedtheory.”

Lenin’sargumentwasadmirablycoherent,althoughnotoftenfullyappreciated.Becauseothersocialdemocratshadnotunderstoodalltheimplicationsofmodernimperialism,theycouldnotpossiblyappreciatewhatmightcountasresponsiblerevolutionarystrategy.In1917,inhis“RevisionofthePartyProgramme,”LeninchosetoemphasizeanumberoffeaturesofthemodernworldthatwouldbecomeincreasinglyimportantinthetimefollowingtheconclusionoftheGreatWar.

Hetoldhisfollowersto“morevividly”emphasizethefactthata“handfuloftherichestimperialistcountries”wereprospering“parasiticallybyrobbingcoloniesandweakernations.”Thatwasimportantbecauseamongtheconsequencesofthatrealitywasthe“riseofpowerfulrevolutionarymovementsincountriesthataresubjectedtoimperialistplunder.”Conversely,“thatplunder,byimperialistmethods,...tendstoacertainextenttopreventtheriseofprofoundrevolutionarymovements”intheimperialistnations—“averylarge(comparatively)portionoftheirpopulation”havebeencompromisedbyparticipating“inthedivisionoftheimperialistloot.”13

AnentirelynewconceptionofworldrevolutionemergedoutofLenin’snotionsofimperialism.Hisexplicationofthosenotionstookformasa

programmaticstrategyofinternationalrevolutionthatwouldinfluencemodernhistorytoadegreetotallyunanticipatedatthetime.Inretrospect,someofitsimplicationsshouldhavebeenimmediatelyevident.

ForLenin,giventhedynamicsofthe“newepoch,”theworldwasdividedinto“imperialist”and“oppressed”nations.Revolutionwaslargelyprecludedinthosenationsthatwereimperialist—theirpopulationshavingbeensubornedbytheprofitsobtainedbyimperialism’sexploitationofperipheralcommunities.Forthoseexploitedcommunities,ontheotherhand,revolutionisfosteredbytheirveryexploitation.WhereMarxismanticipatedrevolutioninadvancedindustrialcircumstances,Leninismsawrevolutionmanifestingitselffirstineconomicallyprimitiveconditions.

ForLenin,thepopulationsoftheimperialistcountriestendtobehaveascapitalistswouldhavethembehave.Theybattenonprofitsextortedfromtheweakanddefenseless—thosewhofindthemselvesinlessdevelopedcommunities.Theproletariatsoftheimperialistnations,living“bourgeois”lives,ledbyan“aristocracy”ofworkers,become“socialchauvinists,”andnationalists.

Thepopulationsoftheexploitedcommunities,ontheotherhand,becomerevolutionary.Oneseesinthemtheharbingersofthefuture.Becauseoftheirsubjectiontosystematicandprotractedexploitation,Leninanticipatedcriticalrevolutionaryenergyemergingamongthedenizensoflessdeveloped,marginaleconomies.Heanticipatedthatthepeoplesofthe“periphery,”mercilesslyexploitedbythecapitalistsofWesternandCentralEurope,wouldbedriventorevolutionaryresponse.TheBolsheviks,thevanguardoftherevolutionarymassesofGreatRussia,armedwiththemostadvancedtheory,wouldleadtheanticipatedworldrevolutionandgathertherevolutionarypopulationsofthelessdevelopedperipheryintothefold.GreatRussia,throughtheBolsheviks,wouldassumetheleadershipofworldrevolution.

WhatwasnotclearatthatjuncturewaspreciselyhowLeninexpectedworldrevolutiontoproceed.Marxhadanticipatedthatmodernindustry,withitscheapcommoditiesandeffectivecommunicationswould“batterdownallChinesewalls,”tocompelallnationsonthemarginsofmachinecapitalismtoembarkonaprocessofeconomicmodernizationandindustrialdevelopment.Heexpectedthatsuchaneventualitycouldnotbeconductedwithoutgeneratingasenseofinefficacyandimpotenceamongnativepeoples.HecatalogedthehumiliationsandthedeprivationsufferedbythepeoplesofChinaandIndiainthecourseoftheexpansionofWesterncapitalism.Hespokeoftheirincreasingresistanceto

theimposturesoftheadvancedindustrialstates.Hesawtheirpopulationstaking“active,nay,afanaticalpartinthestruggleagainstforeigners....Theykidnapandkilleveryforeignerwithintheirreach....What,”Marxasked,“isanarmytodoagainstapeopleresortingtosuchmeansofwarfare?”14

Allthatnotwithstanding,Marxdidnotconfusetheissue.WhatheanticipatedwasnotaproletarianuprisinginAsia,buta“popularwarforthemaintenanceofChinesenationality”—and,atbest,abourgeoisrevolutionthatwouldseetheChineseGreatWalladornedwiththecallto“Liberty,EqualityandFraternity.”15

MarxmaintainedthatgiventheimpactofEuropeanincursionsintoAsia,withtheattendantdemandforproduct,andtheinflowofcapital,togetherwiththearticulationofamoderninfrastructure,onecouldpredicttheemergenceofanenterprisingChinesebourgeoisie.Economicandindustrialgrowthwouldfollow.ThatprocesswouldbelargelyindependentofthematuringproletarianrevolutioninEurope—butasaconsequenceofemergingAsia’sincreasingcompetitionformarketshareandinvestment,itwouldserveasanaccelerant.

Withtheproletarianrevolutionintheadvancedindustrialnations,socialismwouldextenditselfinassistingthelessdevelopedcommunities,stillinthefirstphasesofdevelopment,tocompletetheprocessofeconomicmodernization.Theanticipatedworldrevolutionwouldthusinvolveaninteractivephasedseriesofevents.Theproletariatintheadvancedindustrialnationswouldundertakerevolutiononcethateconomicmaturationhadbeenattained.Marxunderstoodthattobethenecessary,ifnotsufficient,basisforproletarianliberation.Oncetheproletariathadestablisheditselfasdominantintheadvancedindustrialnations,itwouldhavetheresourcestoassistthelessdevelopedcountriestoachieveeconomicmaturityandcompletethecreationofthematerialsubstructureofworldsocialism.

TherevolutionaryprocesswasmuchmoreuncertaininthethoughtofLenin.Whileitwasclearthathewasconvincedthatthesocialistrevolutionwasimminenteverywhere,16itwasnotclearhowtherevolutionwouldproceed.Grantedhespokeofthe“revolutionarystruggleoftheproletariat”andthe“smashingofthestatemachinery,”andsoforth,itwasnotevidentwheretherevolutionwouldcommence,orwhichclassorclasseswouldbearitsassociatedresponsibilities.

ItseemsevidentthatLeninexpectedtheworldrevolutiontocommenceinRussia—whichhehimselfidentifiedaseconomicallyretrograde.Becauseofthedependenceofimperialismonsuchbackwardeconomiesformarket

supplementsandinvestmentopportunity,theirlosswasexpectedtoprecipitatetheinternationalrevolution.Losingitsmarketsupplements,rawmaterials,andinvestmentopportunitieswouldhastenthefinalcollapseofcapitalism.

Revolutioninindustriallyretrogradeenvironmentsimplied,attheveryleast,multiclasscollaboration.InRussia,Leninsoughtthemobilizationofthepeasants,whomadeupthevastmajorityoftheempire’sworkersandsoldiers.Bolshevikleadershipwaslargely,ifnotexclusively,composedofthoseofbourgeois,andpettybourgeois,origins.

Fortheirpart,MarxandEngelshadgenerallyspokenofthemassesthatwouldmakeupthefootsoldiersoftheiranticipatedrevolutionas“proletarians.”Theyunderstoodthatwiththematurationofmachineindustry,the“vastmajority”ofthesubjectpopulationwouldhavebecome“class-conscious”urbanworkers.Theywouldmaketherevolutionandassumeitsresponsibilities.

Leninarguedthatbecauseimperialismhaddeflectedrevolutionfrommaturetoimmatureeconomicenvironments,andtransformedtheurbanproletariatinto“laborlieutenantsofthecapitalistclass,realvehiclesofreformismandchauvinism,”thedynamicsofrevolutionaryactivityhadchangedinfundamentalfashion.Withoutfullyexploringalltheimplicationsofsuchaneventuality,Lenincontinuedtoinsistthat“imperialismistheeveofthesocialrevolutionoftheproletariat.”17Theimplicationsinvolvedveryquicklybecameapparent.

AccordingtoLenin’sthesis,revolutionwouldprobablycommenceineconomicallyunderdevelopedcircumstances.Revolutionaryleadershipwouldoriginateamongnonproletarians.Theranksoftherevolutionaryarmieswouldbedrawnfrompeasantmasses.Andyet,somehow,therevolutionwouldbe“proletarian.”

Apparently,whatmadesucharevolution“proletarian”wasitsguidanceby“correcttheory.”ThiswasmadeevidentbythefactthatLenindenouncedandproceededtopersecuteallnon-BolshevikMarxistsintheRussiathatemergedfromtheOctoberrevolution.Mensheviks,SocialRevolutionaries,independentMarxists—noneweresparedhiswrath.Inthecourseofhisearlyrule,manynon-BolshevikMarxistsweresilenced,deniedtherighttoparticipate,inalmostanyfashion,inthepoliticsofrevolutionaryRussia.Ultimately,theywereincarcerated,frequentlyexiled,andoftenputtodeath.

LeninhadcreatedaverysingularMarxism.Many,ifnotmost,Marxistsdidnotrecognizeitscontours.BeginningwithRosaLuxemburg,whoobjectedtothefirstformulationsofLeninismatthebeginningofthecentury,18toKarl

Kautsky,thedeanofGermanSocialDemocracy,thetheoreticiansofthelefthaddifficultyrecognizinganyMarxistorthodoxyinBolshevism.

BytheendoftheGreatWar,alltheproblemsthathadbesetMarxistintellectualsinthelongyearsbeforeitscoming,resurfacedwithanintensityborneofcataclysmichumanconflictandtherevolutionsitengendered.EvenbeforetheGreatWarhadcometoitsend,inthesummerof1918,lessthanayearaftertheBolshevikseizureofpowerinSt.PetersburgandMoscow,KautskywrotehisTheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,acritiqueofsomeofthecentralconceptsofLeninismastheyhadmanifestedthemselvesinthebehaviorsoftheleadershipinrevolutionaryRussia.19

InKautsky’sstudiedopinion,whateverhadtranspiredinRussiawiththeOctoberrevolution,hadverylittletodowithMarxism.BolshevismhadtransformedMarxismintosomethingitwasnot.ThatwascleartoKautskyinBolshevism’streatmentofseveralcriticalMarxianconcepts—amongthem,“democracy,”the“revolutionarymasses,”“revolutionaryleadership,”“class,”the“state,”andthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat.”ThetreatmentofallthoseconceptsnegativelyimpactedonwhatKautskyheldtobethe“truth”of“theteachingsofMarxism.”20

Kautsky’sobjectionstoLeninismrekindledallthosediscussionsthathadfueledcontroversyattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Onceagain,butwithgreaterintensity,allthosecontestedconceptsresurfaced.Kautsky’sTheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,writtenaftertheBolshevikseizureofpower,andbeforetheendoftheGreatWar,returned,onceagain,tosomeofthemostcriticalissuesthatdividedMarxistsafterthepassingofFriedrichEngels.

MARXISM,DEMOCRACY,ANDTHESTATEOvertheyears,thediscussionthathassurroundedKautsky’scritiqueof

Leninism,asitappearsinhisTheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,hassometimestakenonthepropertiesofanattempttodetermine“whatMarxreallymeant”whenhespokeofthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat.”IntryingtodetermineMarx’sprecisemeaning,suchanenterpriseseemsfutile.SomanyplausibleinterpretationscanbeimposedonthewealthoftheoreticalreflectionstobefoundinMarx’swritingsthattopretendthatone,andonlyone,interpretationiscorrect,seems,atitsbest,unconvincing.Scholarsareleftwithaclutchofcompetingplausibilitiesandveryfewcertainties.

KautskycommencedhiscritiqueofBolshevismbyidentifyingLeninismwiththesameendssoughtbyallMarxists:“tofreetheproletariat,andwithit

humanity,throughsocialism.”21Hecertainlydidnotargue,asmanydidatthetime,thatLeninismwassomethingotherthanMarxism.Rather,KautskyconceivedhimselfwarningMarxists,specificallyLeninists,thatanytacticalpoliciesundertakeninthecourseofrevolutionthatwouldimpairdemocracywouldthreatentheendsoftherevolutionitself.KautskymaintainedthathisargumentwithLenindidnotturnonends,butinvolvedaconcernthattheinvocationofimpropermeansmightjeopardizethoseveryendstowhichallMarxistswerecommitted.ThesocialismKautskywaspreparedtodefendwas“unthinkable”withoutdemocracy.22

Kautskycontendedthatnotonlywassocialismtobeattainedusingparliamentarydemocracyasanecessaryinstitutionalinstrumentality,butthatanyestablishedsocialismcouldnotbesocialismwithoutbeingintrinsicallydemocratic.Hiscritiquedidnotnecessarilyturnonthe“true”interpretationofMarx’sthoughtsaboutproletarianrevolution.HisargumentwaspredicatedonwhatheunderstoodtobetheverylogicofrevolutionaryMarxism.

Kautskyunpackedhisargumentbyreferringtoa“revolutionarywilltosocialism”asnecessarytotheaccomplishmentofMarxianpurpose—andthatsuchawillcould,andwould,onlybecreatedby“greatindustry.”Itwasindustrythateducatedwhathadbeenrurallabortotheresponsibilitiesofgovernance.Large-scaleindustrialproductioncultivatedcooperationamongproducers,andelicitedrecognitionamongthemofthecomplexitiesinvolvedinadvancedcommoditymanufacture,marketing,anddistribution—allcompetenciesrequiredofproletariansiftheyweretomanagesocialistenterpriseaftertheiraccessiontopower.23

Kautskymaintainedthataccordingtothematerialistconceptionofhistory,onlycapitalistenterprisecouldtransform“reactionary”peasants,propertilessvagabonds,“harmfulparasites...withouteducation,withoutself-consciousness,[and]withoutcohesion,”intothoseequippedtoassumemodernresponsibilitiesat“theindispensableeconomicfoundationsofproductionandthereforeofsociety.”24Onlybydischargingtheirresponsibilitiesasworkersinmodernindustrialproductionmightallthe“nonrevolutionary”elementsofsocietybetransformedinto“trulyrevolutionaryproletarians.”Onlythenwouldthemodernproletariatconstituteitselfanarmyof“self-conscious,independentmovementoftheimmensemajority,intheinterestoftheimmensemajority.”25

Workerstrainedtoproductiveresponsibilitiesindevelopedindustrybecometheknowledgeableagentsofrevolution,possessedoftheskillsnecessaryfor

mobilization,andtheorganizationaltalentsnecessarytomanagesocializedindustryaftertherevolution.That,Kautskyargued,couldonlybethecaseifthesubjectworkershadtheopportunitytobeeducatedandtoeducatethemselvestosuchpurpose.Thatwouldrequirenotonlytraininginanadvancedindustrialsetting,butaliberalpoliticalenvironmentinwhichafreeexchangeofideaswaspossibleandinwhichtheproletariathadtheopportunitytoassumespecificallypoliticalresponsibilities.Thealternativewouldfinda“proletariat...tooignorantanddemoralisedtoorganiseandruleitself.”26Insuchcircumstances,workerscouldhardlyfindliberation.ThecentralissueforKautskywasnotthepeculiaritiesofthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”buttheessentialnatureoftheproletariatwhosedictatorshipitwastobe.

Kautsky’sargumentwasthatMarxismhadtaughtitsfollowersthatsocialism’sliberatingrevolutioncouldonlyfollowthefullmaturationofsociety’seconomic,particularlyindustrial,base.Thatmaturationwouldprovidenotonlythematerialabundancenecessaryfortheabolitionofclasses,butwouldfurnishthemassofskilled,responsible,educated,andself-consciousproletarianswhowouldassurethecreationandmaintenanceofatolerant,nurturing,anddemocraticsystem.27

Kautsky’spointwasthatasocietythathastraversedthe“inevitable”stagesofeconomicdevelopment,wouldnecessarilyhostan“immensemajority”ofself-conscious,skilled,andbenevolentproletarianswhoprobablycouldestablishsocialism“withoutviolenceandbloodshed”—andcertainlywithoutpoliticaldictatorship.28Theimmensemajorityofself-confidentworkerswouldhavelittletofearfromthatsmallminorityofcapitalistswhowouldsurvivethewinnowingofthefinalstagesofcapitalism’ssenescence.

Inthecircumstancesoffullmaturityoftheeconomicbase,theformerexploitingclasscouldonlyconstitutearesidualminority.Marxhadtaughtthatamatureindustrialsystemwouldbecharacterizedbytheconcentrationofwealthinfewhands,thevastmajorityofsmallholdershavingbeenjettisonedintotheproletariat—theconsequenceofcompetitioninanenvironmentinwhichtheoverallprofitrateofenterpriseapproximatedzero.Theinevitablecollapseofthesystemwouldliterallycompeltheproletariattoassumecontrolofproduction.Constituting,astheywould,thevastmajorityofthepopulation,theproletarianswouldhardlyfinditnecessarytosuppresstheirformeroppressorswithviolence,ortodenythemcivilandpoliticalrightsaftertherevolution,inordertosecureandretainpower.WhateverMarxandEngelsimaginedthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat”tohavebeen,itcouldnothavemeanteliterule,theabolitionofcivil

orpoliticalrights,ortheinvocationofmassviolenceandterror.

AllMarxistswerecommittedtothepropositionthatsocialandpoliticalrevolution,andthevictoryoftheproletariat,wasinevitable.Theydifferedonwhetherthatrevolutionwouldbeviolent.

InaspeechdeliveredtotheCongressoftheInternationalattheHaguein1872,Marxheldthatitwasinevitablethattheproletariatwouldonedayseizepoliticalpowerinordertocreatetheanticipatedneweconomicorder.Hewentontosay,“Wedonotassertthatthewaytoreachthisgoalisthesameeverywhere....WedonotdenythattherearecountrieslikeEnglandandAmerica...wheretheworkermayattainhisobjectbypeacefulmeans.”

Twentyyearslater,whileEngelswasstillhismentor,Kautskyrepeatedsomethingofthesamejudgment.“Becauseweknownothingaboutthefinaldecisivebattlesofthesocialwar,”hedeclared,“wecannotanticipateiftheywillbebloody,ifphysicalviolencewillplayasignificantpart—oriftheywillbeconductedexclusivelywitheconomic,legislativeandmoralpressures.”29WhatKautskydidsuggestwasthatasindustrialcapitalismmatured,thelikelihoodthatphysicalviolencewouldbenecessarywouldcorrespondinglydecline.

Onceagain,thereasonsforsuchajudgmentwereclear.Asthemachineeconomyofacommunitymatured,theincreaseintheproportionofthepopulationthatwouldbeclass-consciousproletarianwouldrapidlyoverwhelmthenumbersthatmadeuptheoppressingclasses.30Kautskyarguedthattheprospectsofapeacefultransitionfromaripeindustrialsocietytoonethatwassocialistweregood.Conversely,shouldsocialand/orpoliticalrevolutionmanifestitselfinanindustriallylessdevelopedenvironment,itcouldhardlybeeither“proletarian”or“socialist.”Thebestthatcouldhappenwouldbeitsrescuebyanattendantrevolutioninanappropriatelymatureeconomy.31Revolutioninaretrogradeenvironmentcouldonlyconcludewitharestorationoftheoldclassstrife.Onlyifrevolutioninanadvancedeconomicenvironmentprovidedtheappropriatehumanandmaterialresourcesmightthesituationbesalvaged.Thus,whenMarxwasaskedifarevolutioninthebackwardRussiaofhistimecouldpossiblyresultinRussia“skippingthestages,”thattypifiedtheeconomicevolutionoftheWest,toimmediatelyachievesocialism,hereplied,“only...iftheRussianRevolutionbecomesasignalfortheproletarianrevolutionintheWest,sothatbothcomplementeachother.”32

ItwaswithinthatcontextthatKautskyinvestedsoheavilyintherolethatparliamentarismmightplayinthegeneralrunuptoproletarianrevolution.As

earlyasthetimeoftheErfurtProgram,whileEngelsstillguidedhisarguments,KautskyheldthatvotingformembersoftheGermanparliamentprovidedimportanteducationalopportunitiesfortheproletariat.Theycametounderstandpoliticallifeinwayssimplynotavailableinnondemocraticandnonparliamentarycircumstances.Fortheworkingclass,thesituationcreatedbyparliamentaryelectionsincreasedtheopportunitiesforactiveassociation,freecommunication,andmutualsupport.Onsuchoccasions,urbanworkerslearnedtoassumeresponsibilitiesanddevelopedskillsnecessaryfortheirfuturetasks.33

Parliament,Kautskyargued,wasaproductoftherevolutionaryindustrialbourgeoisieinitsstruggleagainstmonarchialabsolutism.The“absolutestate”ofthattimeconstituteda“fetter”ontheemergingproductiveforces.Intheirefforttoreducethecontrolsexercisedbythestate,thebourgeoisiesoughttomakepublicpowersubjecttothecontrolofthepublic.Toaccomplishthat,theystruggledtocreateafunctioningparliament,calculated,inwhatevermeasure,to“controlthegovernment.”34

Toaccomplishtheirpurpose,accordingtothethesis,thebourgeoisieallieditselfwithotherclassesanxioustoescapeexploitationbythenobility.Theresultwasthecreationofarepresentativeinstitutionthat,atleasttosomedegree,wasresponsivetothedemandsofthecitizenry.Givensuchviews,Kautskyconceivedthestatesubjecttotheinfluenceofacitizenrycomposedofdiverseclasses.Insuchcircumstances,hetoldhisaudience,“everyclasswillendeavortoshapethe...stateinamannercorrespondingtoitsparticularinterests.”Parliamentbecomestheinstitutionalmeansforeffectingthatpurpose.35

Inthecourseofthings,theattempttoinfluenceparliamentleadstoastruggleovertheconditionsgoverningthefranchise,voluntaryassociation,andthefreedomofadvocacy.Allclassesdevelopaninterestinthesepoliticalrightsintheirefforttoinfluenceparliamentandthroughparliament,thepermanentbureaucracyandtheexecutivestateitself.36Thus,inKautsky’sjudgment,thestatedoesnot“standabove”classes,isnottheexclusiveorganofclassrule,butconstitutesapublicagencythatcanbeinfluenced(howeverlittleorhowevermuch)bydiverseclasses.Hearguedfurtherthatgiventhecharacterofparliamentarisminademocracy,thereis“nofranchise...whichwouldsecuretothepossessingclassesalastingmonopoly.”37

SeveralthingsarerevealedinKautsky’sdiscussion.Hedoesnotbelievethatthepoliticalstateisintheunqualifiedserviceofanidentifiableclass;itcanbeinfluencedbyavarietyofclassesandsubsetsofclasses.Morethanthat,thestate

cannotbeanagencyintheuniqueserviceofagivenclassbecausetheentirenotionof“class”ruleisdifficulttofullyunderstand.Themeaningoftheterm“class”isnottransparent.Kautskytoldhisreadershipthatanyclassthatis“notorganisedassuchisaformlessfluctuatingmass,whoseexactboundariesitisquiteimpossibletomark.”Unlessagivenclassis“organizedassuch,”itcannotfunctionasanagencyofcontrol.Kautskywentontomaintainthat“incapitalistsociety,withitsconstantlychangingconditions,theclassescannotbestereotypedinfixedgrooves.Allsocialconditionsareinastateofflux.”Therefore,“classmembershipisalwayschanging”togetherwiththeirrespectiveinterests.38Controlofthestatebyasingleclassbecomesimpossible.

Kautskycarriedthelogicofhisargumentfurther.Evenaftertheproletarianrevolution,societywouldstillbehosttoallthecomplexandchanginginterestsofthevariouscomponentsofthe“fluctuatingmass”ofworkersthemselves.Whatevertheorganizationofthestate,itwouldstillhavetorespondtothosevariedinterests.Andthebestconceivablevehiclefortheexpressionandresolutionofthosediverse,andsometimesconflicting,proletarianinterestswouldbesomeformofdemocraticallyelectedparliament.

Kautskyarguedthattheproletariatdidnotconstituteamonolithicentity,eachmembersharinginterestsindistinguishablefromothers.Heheldthattheproletariat,becauseofitsdividedandvariedinterests,couldonlymanifestunanimityifhousedinanauthoritarianpoliticalpartythatimposedobedienceandconformity.Thatcouldonlyresultnotin“thedictatorshipoftheproletariat,butadictatorshipofonepartoftheproletariatovertheother.”39

Kautsky’scasedidnotturnontheissueofwhatMarx“reallymeant”byinvokingthenotionofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.ItturnedontheconvictionthatifLeninwerecorrectinhisviewsaboutrevolutionandtheattendantdictatorshipoftheproletariat,thenMarxcouldonlyhavebeenwrong.AccordingtoMarx,class-consciousproletarianscanonlymaketheirappearance,andtheideologicalsuperstructurerepresentingtheirfundamentalinterestscouldonlybeforthcoming,when“productiveforces”hadmaturedtothepointwhere“socialrelations”constituteda“fetter”ontheirfurtherdevelopment.40Kautskyarguedthatitwasatthatjuncturethatsocietymighteaseintosocialandpoliticalrevolutionwithoutviolenceandterrortoeffectandsustainit—andparliamentmightserveasthedemocraticexpressionofthepopularwillinasocialiststate.ForKautsky,thatwaswhatMarx,givenMarxism’sentiretheoreticalstructure,“reallymeant”inconjuringuptheimageofa“proletariandictatorship.”

LENINANDTHE“DICTATORSHIPOFTHEPROLETARIAT”Lenin’sresponsetoKautskywasdictatedbyanumberofimperativepolitical

concernsonlyindirectlybearingonbasicideologicalissues.Nonetheless,hisresponsewastypicalofallthosehedirectedagainsthisideologicalopponents;itwaspersonal,vituperative,uncompromising,andcouchedinstudiedtheoreticalterms.

ItwasevidentthatfromthepositionhehadassumedattheverycommencementoftheGreatWar,LenincouldonlyhaveconsideredKautskyan“opportunist.”Kautskyhadextendedpassivesupportforthe“imperialistwar.”Asaconsequence,inLenin’sjudgment,Kautskyhadirretrievablycompromisedhimself.ForLenin,Kautsky’spositionwithrespecttothedictatorshipoftheproletariatwasa“lucidexampleof...utterandignominiousbankruptcy...[anda]completerenunciationofMarxism.”HespokeofKautskyasarticulatinga“Marxism...strippedofitsrevolutionarylivingspirit”—nothingotherthanan“unparalleledvulgarisationofthetheoriesofMarxism.”41

LeninimmediatelyidentifiedKautsky’scriticismsinTheDictatorshipoftheProletariatasan“opportunistic”rationalefor“bourgeoisdemocracy,”somethingLenindismissedaseithertheresultofincompetenceorbetrayal.HescornedKautsky’sargumentsinsupportof“bourgeoisdemocracy”as“liberal”—asbeingvastlydifferentfromanythingthat,inanysense,mightqualifyasMarxist.Leninidentifiedhimselfasanadvocateof“proletarian,”ratherthan“abstract,democracy.”

Leninwaspreparedtoarguethat“proletariandemocracy”was“true”democracy,somethingfundamentallydifferentfromthedemocracyofthebourgeoisie.“Proletariandemocracy,”inLenin’sopinion,wasnothingotherthanthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”socavalierlydismissedbyKautsky.HeproceededtoexpandontheoperationalmeaningofthatdictatorshipforrevolutionaryMarxists.

Leninmaintainedthattheterm“dictatorship,”whenemployedinthephrase“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”“doesnotnecessarilymeantheabolitionofdemocracyfortheclassthatexercisesthedictatorshipoverotherclasses;butitdoesmeantheabolition...ofdemocracyfortheclassoverwhich,oragainstwhich,thedictatorshipisexercised.”Infact,“proletariandemocracy”meant,forLenin,proletarian“dictatorship...baseddirectlyuponforceandunrestrictedbyanylaws.Therevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat,”hewenton,“isrule

wonandmaintainedbytheuseofviolencebytheproletariatagainstthebourgeoisie,rulethatisunrestrictedbyanylaws.”42Givenhisinterpretation,“democracy,”forLenin,meantcoerciverulebythe“proletarianmajority”attheexpenseofthe“bourgeoisandpettybourgeoisminority.”

Theforcefulsuppressionofthebourgeoisie,andthedenialoftheircivilandpoliticalrights,grewoutoftheconvictionthatonlyviolenceanddictatorshipcouldassureandsustainthepoliticalvictoryoftheproletariatovertheirtormentors.Onlytheforcibledestructionofthebourgeoisstatemachine,andthesubsequentdenialofcivilandpoliticalrightstothoseithadservedsoeffectively,couldassurethesurvivalofproletarianvictory.

OneofthepremisesuponwhichLeninconstructedhisinterpretationwasthattheadventofsocialismnecessarilyentailedviolentrevolution.Forthatreason,Leninfeltcompelledtoaddressthenotion,entertainedbymanyMarxists,thatapeaceful,democratictransitiontosocialismmightbepossible.

ItwascommonknowledgethatMarxhadsuggestedthatGreatBritain,theUnitedStates,andHollandmightmakethetransitionfrommatureindustrialcapitalismtosocialismwithoutviolence.Kautskyhadmademuchofthefact.GivenLenin’sconvictions,suchaviewwasunacceptable.Inresponse,hearguedthatMarx’ssuggestionhadbeenexpressedatatimeinhistorybeforetheageofimperialism—which“finallymaturedonlyinthetwentiethcentury.”43LeninwaspreparedtocontendthatMarx’ssuggestionsweremadeatatimewhentheeconomicandpoliticalpropertiesoftheworldwereundergoingrapidchange,andimperialismhadnotyetmadefulsomeappearance.NeitherMarxnorEngelscouldappreciateanyofthat.ForLenin,thepossibilityofapeacefultransitiontosocialismhadbeenprecludedbytheadventofimperialism.

Onceagain,atacriticaltheoreticaljuncture,Lenin’sanalysisturnedontheconvictionthatthemodernworldhadentereda“newstage.”PivotalpartsofMarxism,intermsoftacticalpolicy,aswellassocioeconomicandpoliticaltheory,hadtoberevisedinordertoaccommodatethechangesimperialismbroughtinitstrain.Leninmaintainedthatbetweenthetimein1872,whenMarxsuggestedthatsocialismmightcometotheadvancedindustrialnationswithoutviolence,andtheturnofthecentury,thecapitalistpowershadundergonefundamentalchange.Theyhadmadethetransitiontocapitalism’smostadvancedstage:financecapitalism.Atthatstage,theentirecapitalistsystemwassubjecttothe“completedominationofthetrusts[and]theomnipotenceofthebigbanks”—allinsulatedfromrevolutionbymassivebureaucraciesanddefendedbystandingarmies.44

Giventhosecircumstances,proletarianrevolutioncouldonlyattainand“maintainitsrule...bymeansof...theterrorwhich...rifles,bayonetsandcannon...inspireinthereactionaries.”Allofthis,Leninwenton,couldonlybe“highlyauthoritarian”—abolishing,ofnecessity,“parliamentarism,”anditsattendant“parasiticexcrescence,thestate.”45

Toemphasizehispoint,LeninquotedEngels’s1891introductoryessaytoMarx’sTheCivilWarinFrance.There,Engelsaffirmedthat“thestateisnothingbutamachinefortheoppressionofoneclassbyanother,andindeedinthedemocraticrepublicnolessthaninthemonarchy.”46Allofthecivilandpoliticalrightsadvertisedbybourgeoisdemocracywere,accordingtoLenin,entirelywithoutsubstance.Everybourgeoisdemocracyretains“loopholes”initsconstitution,affordingtherulingclasstheopportunitytodispatchtroopsagainstworkers,tosuspendtherightsofassembly,andtomoveagainstanyonewhomightthreatenitsdictatorship.“Themorehighlydevelopedademocracyis,”Leninwenton,“themoreimminentarepogromsorcivilwarinconnectionwithanyprofoundpoliticaldivergencewhichisdangeroustothebourgeoisie.”47

Leninproposedthatinsteadofrepresentativeparliamentarydemocracy,theRussianrevolutionofOctober1917broughtwithit“true”proletariandemocracy—a“milliontimesmoredemocraticthananybourgeoisdemocracy”—theorganizationoftheexploitedworkersandpeasantsin“soviets,”the“directorganisationoftheworkingandexploitedthemselves,whichhelpsthemtoorganizeandadministertheirownstate.”Inlessthanayearaftertherevolution,LenincouldinsistthattheoldbureaucraticmachineofthebourgeoisrepublicofAlexanderKerenskyhad“beencompletelysmashed,...theoldjudges...allbeensentpacking,thebourgeoisparliament...dispersed.”48Proletariandemocracyhadmadeitsappearanceinwhathadbeenczarist,andbriefly,“bourgeoisdemocratic,”Russia.

Inallofthat,themeaningsaccordedcommonplacenotionslikethe“state,”“democracy,”“parliamentarism,”and“dictatorship”weretransmogrified.Leninprovidedallthoseconceptswithidiosyncraticcontent—thereaftertoinfluence,formorethanhalf-a-hundredyears,thepoliticalandeconomichistoryofRussiaintotallyunanticipatedfashion.

ForLenin,proletariandemocracyfindsexpressionina“state”thatisnotreallyastate.Theproletarian“nonstate,”forLenin,wasunderstoodtobea“democracyfortheexploited,andameansofsuppressingtheexploiters;andthesuppressionofaclassmeansinequalityforthatclass,itsexclusionfrom‘democracy’.”HethenproceededtoagreewithEngels:“solongasthe

proletariatstillneedsthestate,itdoesnotneeditintheinterestsoffreedom,butinordertoholddownitsadversaries.”Insomefinalsense,“theinterestsoftherevolutionarehigherthantheformalrights”ofbourgeoisdemocracyortheappealof“abstractfreedom.”LeninfurtheragreedwithwhatheunderstoodEngelstohavesaidindismissingthenotionthatelectionsmightprovidetheproletarianstatesomesortof“moralauthority.”Onlythe“armedpeople”coulddeliversuchauthority.Bourgeoiselectionscouldcontributenothingtotheprocess;theyhadbeenoneofthedeceptionsthatallowedthe“bourgeoisdictatorship”toexerciseitsdominance.

Leninmadeitperfectlyclearthattherevolutionarystate,“i.e.,theproletariatorganisedastherulingclass,”wasnothingotherthan“amachineforthesuppressionofoneclassbyanother.”49Therewasnothingotherthanforce,andthethreatofforce,governingthestate’sbehaviororinformingitsauthority.Thiswasastruefortheproletarian,asitwasforthebourgeois,state.

Centraltoallthatwasasignificantissue.IfLenin’srevolutionarystateisunderstoodtobenothingotherthanthedictatorshipoftheproletariat—withcivilandpoliticalrightsreservedexclusivelyforproletarians—thequestionofhowitmightbedeterminedwhowas,andwhowasnot,a“proletarian”becameanissueoffundamentalimportance.Inaddressingthatissue,Leninwasforthcoming.

Noone,otherthanthosecommittedtoBolshevism,qualifiedas“proletarian.”Leninwasveryspecific.Ofcourse,noneofthebourgeoispartiesqualified.Butthenagain,neitherdidmostoftherevolutionaries—neithertheSocialistRevolutionaries,theMensheviks,noranyoftheSocialDemocraticfollowersofPlekhanov.50AsKautskyhadanticipated,thedictatorshipoftheproletariatturnedouttobeadictatorshipofpartoftheproletariat—ledbyaself-selectedbourgeoisvanguard—overtheremainder.51

PerhapsmoreinterestingthananythingelseisthefactthatLeninhadarticulatedhispositionwithregardtothedictatorshipoftheproletariatsomeconsiderabletimebeforeKautskypublishedhiscritique.52Inthefallof1917,beforetheOctoberrevolution,LeninwrotehisStateandRevolution—which,withsomesignificantchangesinemphasis,arguedthesamecasetobesubsequentlyfoundinhisresponsetothe“renegade”Kautsky.Ineffect,Lenin’scontentionsconcerningthedictatorshipoftheproletariatwerenotafterthoughts.

WhatisperhapsmostinterestingintheaccountmadeavailableintheStateandRevolutionisLenin’sacknowledgementthat,aftertherevolution,thepoliticalstate,asa“semistate,”wouldcontinuetoexistasthedictatorshipofthe

proletariat.Inopposition,Russiananarchistswereadvocatesofthecompleteandimmediatedismantlingofthestatedirectlyfollowingtherevolution.Lenin’sresponsewasunequivocalandemphatic.

Leninmaintainedthatunlikeanarchists,Marxists—howevermuchtheydeploredtheoldstate—advocatedthefabricationofasuccessoraftertherevolutionarydestructionoftheold.ForLenin,thestatewasanecessaryinstrumentinthesuppressionofenemies—andwouldcontinuetoserveinjustsuchcapacity—untilthetimewhenclassdifferencesnolongerobtained.Untilthattime,theproletariatthat“wonpoliticalpower...[would]completelydestroytheoldstatemachineandreplaceitbyanewoneconsistingofanorganisationofthearmedworkers.”53

ForLenin,thestatewas“aproductandamanifestationoftheirreconcilabilityofclassantagonisms.Thestateariseswhere,whenandinsofarasclassantagonismsobjectivelycannotbereconciled.And,conversely,”hecontinued,“theexistenceofthestateprovesthattheclassantagonismsareirreconcilable.”

Ineffect,Lenindefinedthestateasessentiallyacontrolagency.Itnecessarilyappearedwhereverirreconcilabledifferencesappearedbetweenclasses.Conversely,thefactthattherewasastatewasevidenceofirreconcilabledifferences.Ifaftertheirrevolution,theproletariatreconstructedthestate,therewouldbeevidenceofirreconcilabledifferences.Andthatwouldjustifythereconstructionofthestate!

BecauseLeninconceivedthestatetheinevitableproductofirreconcilabledifferences,itfollowedthatthestate,anystate,wouldbeliterallyunconstrainedbylaw—inorderthatitmighteffectivelyimposeitswillonthefundamentallyantagonisticclasses.Inthatfashion,thestatewouldprevailinordertocontrolthose“conflictinginterests”thatthreatenedto“consumesociety.”

LeninmaintainedthataccordingtoMarxisttheory,thestate,bydefinition,isaninstrumentofoppression—theonlyvariationturnedonwhichclasswasbeingoppressedatanygiventime.Therecanbenostatethatisanythingotherthanaweaponintheinterminablewarofclasses.Wherethereareclassestherewillinevitablybewar.Wherethereisclasswarfare,theremustbethestate.Eveninthemost“democratic”of“bourgeois”republics,the“mostpowerful,economicallydominantclass”becomesthe“politicallydominantclass”—exercisingitspowerthroughthestate.Thatexerciseofpowermaymanifestitself“indirectly,butallthemoresurely,”eitherbythe“directcorruptionofofficials”orthrough“allianceofthegovernmentwiththeStockExchange.”54

ForLenin,thestateisalwaysandeverywhereanapparatusofcontrolandsuppression—itcanneverbeabstractly“democratic.”

ForLenin,inthecourseofthatinterminablewarbetweenclasses,thestateis,andcouldonlybe,anagencyofclasssuppressionandexploitation.Moreover,onceentrenched,thestateisresolutelyresistanttoanychangethatmightthreatenitsdominion.Asaconsequence,Lenincouldarguethatonceabourgeoisdemocracywasestablished“nochangeofpersons,institutionsorparties...canshakeit.”Thebourgeoisieevenmanagestomakeuniversalsuffrageserveasan“instrumentof[its]rule.”ForLenin,“bourgeoisdemocracy”wasnothingotherthan“democracyonlyfortherich,fortheminority,”disposed,byitsverynature,todefenditselfeverywherewiththe“utmostferocityandsavagery.”AllofthathadbeenimpliedinLenin’soriginaldefinitionofthestate,anystate.Asaconsequence,itfollowedthatonlybymeansof“violentrevolution”mightthe“armedworkers”destroythebourgeoisstate—theagencyoftheiroppression.Bymakingclassexploitationpartofthedefinitionofthestate,Leninmadetherecoursetoviolenceaninevitability.

Inplaceoftheexploitativebourgeoisstate,theworkerswereenjoinedtoestablishthe“proletariansemistate,”that“centralizedorganisationofforce,”thatwouldassurethesuppressionofitsantagonists.Morethanthat,giventhecircumstances,theproletariansemistatewasanecessaryinstrumentinassuringthesecurityandsuccessoftherevolution.

Indrawingoutalltheimplicationsofhisposition,Leninwasadmirablycandid.Beyondthesuppressionofclassenemies,proletarianrulewouldrequireanentirecatalogofpowers.Heinformedhisaudiencethat“solongasthestateexiststhereisnofreedom.Whenthereisfreedom,therewillbenostate”—foritwasevidenttohimthat“untilthe‘higher’phaseofcommunismarrives,thesocialistsdemandthestrictestcontrolbysocietyandbythestateoverthemeasureoflaborandthemeasureofconsumption.”55

Leninwasexplicit.Bolshevikswerenot“utopians.”Theydidnot“‘dream’ofdispensingatoncewithalladministration,withallsubordination.”Therequiredadministrationwouldbecome“asplendidlyequippedmechanism”tobe“setgoing”bythe“ironhandofthearmedworkers...establishingstrict,irondiscipline.”Subsequenttotheseizureofpowerandtheconfiscation“ofthemeansofproductioninthenameofthewholeofsociety,”theproletariansemistate,that“voluntarilycentralized”organizationofforce,wouldassumetheresponsibilityofleading“theenormousmassofthepopulation—thepeasants,thepettybourgeoisie,andsemiproletarians—intheworkoforganisingasocialist

economy.”ThiswasthedictatorshipoftheproletariatthatLeninspokeofasbeingonlya“temporary”requirement.Thelengthoftimeinvolvedwasunclear.Thereweretimeswhenheapparentlyconceiveditcastingalongshadowoveranentirehistoricepoch.56

Suchacoercive,centralizedagencyofmanagementandadministration,howevercharacterized,wouldhaveto“control”and/or“suppress”potentially“antagonistic”classes.InTheCommunistManifesto,Marxhadidentifiedonlytheproletariatasa“truly”revolutionaryclass.Peasantsandthepettybourgeoisie,whilesometimesintemporaryalliancewiththeproletariat,wereunderstoodtobeessentially“reactionary.”57Ifthestateisto“witheraway”onlyin“asocietyinwhichtherearenoclassantagonisms”58—realorpotential—thestatecouldonlybeexpectedtodisappearwhenclasseshadentirelydisappeared.Beforethatresolution,thestate,asthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,wouldbeobligedtocontroland/orsuppressitsrealand/orpotentialclassenemies.

AllofthisconstitutedtheprincipalcomponentsofwhatLeninunderstoodtobethe“Marxisttheoryofthestate.”Itwasthecommitmenttojustthat“theory”that,inhisjudgment,distinguishedtrue,frompretended,Marxists.Itwasaconceptionofpoliticalpowerthatunderstoodthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,theproletariansemistate,“necessarynotonlyforeveryclasssocietyingeneral,notonlyfortheproletariatwhichhasoverthrownthebourgeoisie,butalsofortheentirehistoricalperiodwhichseparatescapitalismfrom‘classlesssociety,’fromcommunism.”Throughoutthathistoricalperiod,theproletariatwouldneedthestate(thatwasreallynotastate),“notintheinterestsoffreedom,butinordertoholddownitsadversaries.”Beyondthat,throughoutthathistoricalperiod,itwouldneedthestatetoleadthemassesintheorganizationofsocialistproduction.59

LENIN,THESTATE,ANDTHEPOSTREVOLUTIONARYECONOMYLenin’sdiscussionofthe“proletariansemistate”wasanythingbutcasual

woolgathering.HisviewsgovernedBolshevikruleinpostrevolutionaryRussia.Throughouttheturmoilofwar,counterrevolution,andforeignintervention,itwaseasytoascribetocircumstancesthehomicidalviolence,andthemassivedenialofcivil,political,andhumanrights,thatcharacterizedLenin’srule.60Butitsoonbecameevident,withtheendoftheGreatWar,andeffectiveterminationofthecivilwar,thatthepatternofBolshevikrulewashardlytheproductofcircumstance.ItfaithfullyreflectedLenin’snotionsoftheroleofthestateinthe

governanceoftheproletariannationanditseconomy.

ItwasafterthedestructionoftheirdomesticopponentsthattheBolsheviksembarkedontheirmostexactingexperiments.Theysoughtto“militarize”labor,forexample,byconscriptingworkersinto“armiesoflabor,”thattheyimaginedhadbeenrecommendedbyMarxinTheCommunistManifesto.Tofeedthecities,peasantagriculturewaspillagedbyarbitraryandinefficient“requisitions”thatproducedfamineandprovokedresistanceinmanyregions.Whereorganizeddefiancewasmounted,apolicyofmassmurderwaspursued.

Grantedtheimpactofrevolution,war,foreignintervention,andcivilconflict,itwasevidentthatthebehaviorsofthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat,”withitsimposed“unconditionalandincontestableobedience,”andits“militarizedproduction,”allsustainedby“coercionandrepression,”werenotthesimple,thoughtlessresponsestocrisismanyconsideredthemtobe.ForNikolaiBukharin,oneofthemajorMarxisttheoreticiansoftheperiod,Bolshevikpolicies,howeverdraconian,constitutedelementsofthenecessary“firststage”inthepassagefromthedictatorshipoftheproletariattoestablishedcommunism.61

Bukharinspokewithouthesitationofsocialsystemsbeingsustainedbytheexerciseofpower.HealludedtothefamiliarworkofLudwigGumplowiczasevidenceofthefactthatsocialsciencehadlongsincerecognizedtherealitythat“warandrevolutionwerethelocomotivesofhistory,”andthatallofhistoryistherecordoftheexerciseofpowerasorganizedviolence.Havingestablishedthatasapremise,Bukharinaffirmedthat“intheperiodoftransitioninwhichonestructuralformofproductionsubstitutesitselfforanother,revolutionaryviolenceservesasalever.”Insofaras“politicalpoweras‘concentratedviolence’”isemployedagainsttheclassenemy(whoeverthatmightbe),itbecomesadeterminatehistoricforcewithoutwhichsocialismbecomesimpossible.62

Bukharincontendedthatduringtheperiodoftransitionbetweenthetwosocialsystems,capitalistandsocialist,“coercionbythestateisnotadministeredexclusivelyagainstthoseformerdominantclassenemiesandaffiliatedgroups.Duringthatperiod,coercionisapplied—indifferentforms—totheworkers,themselves.”ItwasevidenttoBukharin,asitwastotheBolshevikleaders,thattheproletarianmasswascomposedofavarietyofconstituentelements,onlyveryfewofwhomweresufficiently“classconscious”tobenumberedamongthe“proletarianvanguard.”Many,manyworkershadbeen,andremained,corruptedbythecapitalistsystem.Manyworkerswereindifferenttothe

revolution;andmanyweresimplyconcernedwiththeirownpersonalwell-being,lacking“interiordiscipline.”Forallthosesocialelements,statecoercionwasnecessaryuntiltheymightdemonstratetheircapacityforrevolutionary“coerciveself-discipline.”63Thatwasthepublicrationaleforwhathascometobeknownas“warcommunism”—theperiodbetween1917and1920duringwhichRussiasufferedspoliationonascaleexperiencedbyfewnationsinmodernhistory.Bukharinwroteoffthepoliticalandeconomichorrorsasnothingotherthanwhatwastobeexpectedinthe“periodoftransition”betweenthefinalcrisisofcapitalismandtheinitiationoftheprocessthatwouldleadtotheestablishmentofsocialism.

Inthespringof1918,Leninhadoutlinedthetasksofthenewproletariandictatorship.Itsprincipaldifficulty,heinformedCommunistpartyofficials,layinthe“economicsphere.”Thesemistateoftherevolutionaryproletariat,bythenidentifiedasnothinglessthanthe“highesttypeofstate,”wascompelledtorehabilitatetheproductiveforcesdamagedordestroyedintheGreatWar,andthecivilwarthatfollowed.Theveryfutureoftheproletariatdemandedthattheeconomyberevivedandproductivityberestoredandacceleratedon“anationalscale.”Thatcouldonlybeaccomplishedby“thestrictestlabordiscipline.”Thedictatorshipwasrequiredtoraisetheproductivityoflabornotonlybyinstillinginworkers“devotiontoprinciple,self-sacrificeandperseverance,”butbyimposing“powerfullabordiscipline”ontheonehandand“compulsorylaborservice”64ontheother.65

Leninwentontospeakof“intensifyinglabor,”introducingpieceworkamongtheworkers,aproceduredenouncedas“exploitative”notlongbefore.Hewarnedthatthosewhoimpedetheproductivityoflaborbycorruption,orfailuretoobeythe“strict”proceduresoftheSovietgovernment,wouldbesummarilyshot.66Tostopthreatstosustainedandacceleratedproduction,hemaintained,“requiresanironhand.”

Ashasbeenindicated,“dictatorship”meantnothinglesstoLeninthan“ironrule,governmentthatis...ruthlessinsuppressingbothexploitersandhooligans.”Suppressionwastobeemployedagainstbothclassenemiesandthoseelementsinthepopulationopposedtothe“proletariandictatorship.”Leninrepeatedthatitwouldbe“extremelystupidandabsurdlyutopiantoassumethatthetransitionfromcapitalismtosocialismispossiblewithoutcoercionandwithoutdictatorship.”67

In1920,inhisrationalefor“warcommunism,”BukharinwasessentiallygivingvoicetoLenin’sjudgmentsconcerningthenatureof“proletarian

democracy.”Leninhadmaderecoursetocoercionandhadspokenofthe“salutaryfirmness[of]shootingthievesonthespot,”aswellasthemeritsofsuppressing“ruthlesslytheelementsofdisintegration.”Bukharinspokeofthedisciplineimposedonlaborasnecessarybothforthesurvivalof“proletarianrule,”aswellastherestorationofproductiveenterprise.

By1920,sufferingthedamageinflictedbytheGreatWarandthecivilwarthatfollowed,compoundedbytheexactionsof“warcommunism,”ithadbecomeevidentthattheeconomyofrevolutionaryRussiahadallbutcollapsed.Inthatyear,industrialproductionwasbut14percentofitsprewartotal.By1921,comparedto1913,bothpercapitaworkers’productivity,andtheyieldofmajorRussianindustries,remainedatabout20percentofprewarlevels.Steelproductionwasbut5percentofits1913level.Realwagesdeclinedtoaboutone-thirdthelevelof1913.Theprecipitousdiminutionofagriculturaloutputforcedurbandwellerstodependonpillagingthecountryside—wherepopulationslivedprecariouslyatthebrinkoffamine.Itwasclearthatrestartingtheeconomyrequiredevenmorelabordisciplineandself-sacrificethanhad“warcommunism.”Production,throughdiscipline,self-sacrifice,andobedience,becamearecurrentthemeamongtheideologuesoftheBolshevikrevolution.Lenininsistedthatwhatevertalktherewasof“industrialdemocracy”wasnottobe“misinterpreted.”Thetalkof“industrialdemocracy”wasnottobeunderstoodasa“repudiationofdictatorship”or“individualauthority.”Bothwerenecessarytosustainandenhanceproduction.“Formaldemocracy,”Leninargued,“mustbesubordinatetotherevolutionaryinterest”—andtherevolutionaryinterestturnedonproduction.68

Bythespringof1921,Leninwasexplicit.Hetoldhisfollowersthat“socialismisinconceivablewithoutlargescalecapitalistengineering...andplannedorganisation....[Itis]inconceivablewithoutplannedstateorganisationwhichkeepstensofmillionsofpeopletothestrictestobservanceofaunifiedstandardofproductionanddistribution.”Theimpositionofsuch“capitalist”modalities,togetherwithcentrallycontrolledmarketregularities,wouldgivetherevolutionaryeconomyofBolshevikRussiasomeofthedefiningpropertiesof“statecapitalism.”69

LikeBukharin70atthesametime,Lenininsistedthatiftherevolutionwastosucceed,appealwouldhavetobemadetosomeformof“statecapitalism.”Leninunderstood“statecapitalism”tomeanarevolutionary“developmentofcapitalism,controlledandregulatedbytheproletarianstate”—thatwouldassuretherapiddevelopmentofheavyindustry,criticallyessentialtothesuccessof

socialism.71Thepostrevolutionaryproletarian“semistate,”that,atonetime,Leninhadarguedwouldbehardlyastateatall,hadtransformeditselfintoaformablestateapparatusthatwouldgovernsocialism’s“mostimportantandmostdifficulttask...economicdevelopment.”72

By1921,LeninacknowledgedwithoutreservationthatRussiawasaneconomicallyandculturallybackwardnation,unsuitedtoanyformofsocialismrecognizedbythefoundersofMarxism.LeninrecognizedthatwhattheBolshevikrevolutionhaddischarged,infact,wereessentially“bourgeoistasks”ina“backwardpeasantcountry”—thedestructionofthesurvivalsofmedievalismandbarbarism—thoseobstinatebarriersto“progress.”73

In1917,unawareapparentlyoftheresponsibilitiesoftherevolution,Leninhadattemptedto“erectsocialism”onaprimitiveeconomicbase—somethingbothMarxandEngelsconsistentlyhadcounseledcouldnotbedone.By1921,Leninadmittedthat“largescaleindustryistheoneandonlyrealbasisuponwhichwecan...buildasocialistsociety”—andwentontolamentitsabsenceinBolshevikRussia.WhathadbecomeevidentbythattimeweretheresponsibilitiestobeassumedbytheCommunistpartyifitaspiredtoanyformofsocialism.Becausetheindustrialbaseanticipatedasaconsequenceofworldwideproletarianrevolutionwouldnotbeforthcoming,thedictatorshipoftheproletariatwasobligedtocreateitsownonaprimitive,peasanteconomicfoundation.74

Leninadmittedthatheandhisconfrereshadbeeninerrorwhentheychosetoembarkontheflawedattemptto“gooverdirectlytocommunistproductionanddistribution”ina“country[that]waseconomically,ifnotthemostbackward,atanyrateoneofthemostbackward,countriesintheworld.”75Itwasaseriously“mistakeneconomicpolicy,”violativeofeverythingsaidbyMarxconcerningtherelationshipbetweenpoliticsandeconomics.ThemistakecostthepeopleofRussiaincalculablehardship—andthreatenedtheverysurvivaloftheregime.76

Bythespringof1921,because“ithadbecomeperfectlyclearthat[therevolutionarygovernment]couldnotproceedwith...directsocialistconstruction,”LeninannouncedaNewEconomicPolicyforrevolutionaryRussia.77Itwasadesperateeffortto“increaseproductionfirstandforemostandatallcosts.”Itabandonedallthesocialistpretensionsof“warcommunism,”andfellbackon“theways,means,andmethodsofstatecapitalism”—whichmeantthattheeconomicandindustrialdevelopmentofRussiawoulddependonthecreationofa“capitalismthatwillbesubordinatetothestateandservethe

state.”78

Therewouldbeanefforttorestoresmall-scalefamilyfarming,togetherwiththesufferanceoffreemarkets,wherepeasantsmightsellproduceafterthepaymentofastatetaxinkind.Alongsidetherevivalofpeasantagriculture,therewaspermissionforthedevelopmentofsmall,privatelyowned,commercialenterprises,togetherwiththeleasingofwhathadhithertobeenstatefirms.79Commerceandtrademarketsweretoberestarted,characterizedbyintensecompetitionandindividualincentives,withrevolutionaryRussiapreparedtograntextensiveoil,coal,andironoreconcessions(atverygenerousterms)toforeigncapitalists80—allinthedesperateefforttostimulatethegrowthofthe“productiveforces”necessaryfortheconstructionofasocialisteconomy.81

ForLenin,the“ways,means,andmethodsofstatecapitalism”thatherecommendedincludedthepaymentofdifferentialwagesthatreflectedproductivityonthepartofindustrialworkers.Itmeantthat“specialists,”andskilledlabor,wouldreceivehigherremunerationthantheirlessskilledcohorts.Italsomeantafundamentalchangeinthetraditionalroleoftradeunions.Hithertounderstoodtobedefenseagenciesoftheworkingclass,tradeunions,under“proletarianstatecapitalism,”weretoserveas“transmissionbelts”forstatepolicy.Whileexpectedtobe“apolitical”and“nonpartisan,”unionswererequiredto“assisttheworkingpeople’sgovernment,i.e.,theSovietGovernment,”whose“principalandfundamentalinterest”layin“securinganenormousincreaseintheproductiveforcesofsociety.”82

Ineffect,undertheministrationsoftheLeninistvariantofMarxism,thetradeunionswereexpectedtobeagenciesofthestate,sustainingandfosteringtheexpansionoftheproductivebaseofsociety.Thetradeunionswereinformedthatthey“mustcollaboratecloselyandconstantlywiththegovernment,allthepoliticalandeconomicactivitiesofwhichareguidedbytheclass-consciousvanguardoftheworkingclass—theCommunistParty.”83Tradeunionswerenotexpectedtoconcernthemselvesdirectlywithplanningandtheadministrationofproduction.Thatinvolvedtasksforwhicharesponsiblemanager,alone,wasaccountable.Tradeunionswereinformedthat“allauthorityinthefactoriesshouldbeconcentratedinthehandsofthemanagement.”Theall-but-exclusiveconcernsofthelaborunionsinvolvedcommittinglabortotheproductivemissionofthestate.Tothatend,tradeunionsinBolshevikRussiawereresponsibleforquicklynegotiatinganygrievancesthatthreatenedproductivity.Morethanthat,unionswerechargedwithreportingtothestateonthe“mood”ofworkers,andinmaintaininganatmosphereofcommitmentandenterprise

amongthem.84

Asthoughthatwerenotenough,tradeunionswereobligedtobepreparedto“resorttopressure”toensurethatproductivitywasmaintainedintheworkplace.Tradeunionswereunderstoodtobe“participantsintheexerciseofstatepower”—andgivenLenin’snotionsabouttherepressivenatureofthestate85—theywereadvisedthattheycouldnot“refusetoshareincoercion.”86Ifnecessary,tradeunionswereexpectedtoemploycoerciontofosterandmaintainthediscipline,obedience,self-sacrifice,anddedicationamongworkersrequiredbythesystem.

LeninwasveryclearaboutthechainofresponsibilitiesthatbeganwiththevanguardleadershipoftheCommunistparty.“Masses”wereexpectedto“spontaneously”followtheleadershipoftheparty.Thatspontaneitywasnotalways“consciously”extended.Thepartyapparentlyinvokedtechniquescalculatedtooverrideanyconsciousresistanceonthepartoftheworkers.Shouldanyofthatfail,thecomplianceofnonpartymasseswasassuredbythepresenceofthesecretpolice,theCheka,everywherewheredissidencemightmakeitsappearance.Leninneverinvestedconfidencein“spontaneous”politicalconformity.TheChekawouldremain“aneffectiveweapon”againstthosewhoplottedagainst“Sovietpower.”Moreover,shouldtheenemiesofcommunismchallengethatpower,Leninassuredthemthatthechallengewouldbemetby“terrorandredoubledterror.”87

Thus,by1922–23,thestructure,substance,andmissionoftheLeniniststatewereapparent.ItdisplayedverylittlethatmightbetraceddirectlytoitsMarxistinspiration.TheLeniniststatewasastatethatenforcedideologicalconformityanddemandeduniversalobedience—whilepromisinglittlemorethanhardworkandsystematicsacrificetoaprimitivepeasantpopulation.Whatwasofferedtosustaintheentireundertakingwasthehopeofadistantfutureinwhichthebenefitsofcommunismmightobtain.

LeninrecognizedthatnoneofthiswasanticipatedbythefoundersofMarxism.HewentontoarguethatnonewhohadwrittentomesaboutMarxismbeforetheBolshevikrevolutionhadwritten“asinglebookaboutstatecapitalismundercommunism.ItdidnotoccureventoMarxtowriteawordonthissubject.”IthadbeenlefttoLenintoputtogetherthenotionofa“Marxist”stateobligedtoeconomicallyandindustriallydeveloparetrogradeeconomy.ItwaslefttoLenintoconceiveita“Marxist”obligationtoputtogetherastatethatwouldmobilizemassesbehindasinglepoliticalparty,apartyinspiredbyimpeccablebelief,defendedbypolicesurveillanceandthethreatofterror.Itwas

lefttoLenintoconceiveastateinwhichasinglepoliticalpartyimagineditselflicensedtoaffirm,“Wearethestate.”88ItwaslefttoLenintoputtogether,forthefirsttimeinthetwentiethcentury,thetentativeoutlinesofthetotalitarianstate.

Behindthatsingleparty,withitssuggestionofGreatRussiannationalism,anditsimpeccableideology,wasasingleperson,aleaderchargedwiththeresponsibilityofmaintainingthepurityofdoctrine,theflawlesscommitmentofthevanguardparty,andthemilitaryobedienceofthemasses—allintheserviceofanuncertainfuture.Itwasasystemwhosejustificationwassoughtamidthevastnessofaninheritedideologicaltraditionthatwouldultimatelysupplysimilarjustificationsforanynumberofrevolutionarymovementsandpoliticalregimesinthetwentiethcentury.BeyondtheheterodoxLeninism,othervariantsofMarxismweretothrustthemselvesuponourtime.WhileLeninismwasthefirstsuchheterodoxytoattainstatepower,thevariantthatbroughtFascismtopowerwasperhapsthemorecoherentandconsistent.

CHAPTERELEVEN

TheGreatWar,Revolution,andFascismTheGreatWarandtheBolshevikrevolutionprovidedthedoctrinalimpetusthatgavefinalformtotheheterodoxMarxismofBenitoMussolini.ItwaswiththatvariantofMarxismthatMussoliniaccededtoruleinpostwarItaly.Otherthanthedoctrinaldevelopmentsassociatedwithit,thewarwasitselfsignificantinthatitrenderedhundredsofthousandsofyoungItalianssusceptibletotheblandishmentsofMarxist,anarchist,nationalist,andRomanCatholicrevolutionaries.

Attheconclusionofthewar,theconscriptedmassesofyoungmales,filledwiththeenergiesofyouthandschooledinviolence,returnedhome.Theyweretobetheenthusiasticfootsoldiersofrevolution.EverypoliticalfactionontheItalianpeninsulasoughttorecruitthemtopoliticalpurpose.Marxistsofallvarieties,Catholicintellectuals,anarchistsandassortednationalists,allcontendedfortheirattentionandtheirallegiance.

Inthebeginning,theeffortsoftheinterventionistMarxiststhathadcollectedaroundMussolinifaredbadly.1Someoftheinterventionistleadershaddiedinthedefenseofthefatherland.FilippoCorridoniandCesareBattisti,amongmanyothers,hadfallen.Moreover,dissidentsocialistsandsyndicalistsalike,becauseoftheiradvocacyofItalianinterventionintheGreatWar,hadbeenexcommunicatedfromtheranksofofficialsocialism.Asaconsequence,theyhadlosttheirprivilegedaccesstothepoliticallyactive“workingmasses.”

Amongthoseintheranksoftheantiwarsocialists,theBolshevikrevolutionexercisedapeculiarfascination—andliketheBolsheviks,theofficialsocialistsdisdainedthosewhohadledItalyintowhatthey,assometimesLeninists,deemeda“capitalist”war.ThesuccessofBolshevisminRussiaonlyentrenchedtheopinionamongthemthatLeninhadbeencorrect.Thewarhadbeenfoughtexclusivelyfor“bourgeois”interests.AllofthatrenderedofficialsocialismtheunqualifiedenemyofthosewhohadadvocatedItaly’sinterventionintheGreatWar.Italsomadeofficialsocialismtheenemyofallwhohadservedthenation.

Partysocialismbecametheadversaryofthecombatantsreturninghomefromthefront—Mussoliniamongthem.

FromtheverycommencementofItaly’sinvolvementintheGreatWar,theinterventionistMarxists,primarilysyndicalists,werecutofffromtheirnormalenvironment.Thosewhosurvivedthebloodlettinghadbeenoccupiedforyearsascombatants.Theircontactsintheranksoflaborhaddesiccated.Notonlyhadtheylostcontactwithcivilianlabor,theirverylifecircumstanceshadbeentransformed.Attheendofthewar,theyunderstoodfullwellthattheirworldhadbeenforeverchanged,andmanywereuncertainwhatthatmeantforthemasrevolutionaries.Unitedbytheexperienceofthewar,excludedbyofficialsocialism,uncertainintheiriconoclasm,thefirstFascists2collectedaroundthemselvesthosewhohadfoughtthewaraswellasthosewhohadbeenscandalizedbytheconsistentandovertwartimedefeatismofofficialsocialism.3

Atthewar’send,theAlliesfailedtofullydeliverontheterritorialpromisesmadetoItalywhentheeffortwasbeingmadetoenticeRometoenterthelistsagainsttheCentralPowers.That,togetherwiththesubsequentdeclineineconomicactivitythatfollowedthecessationofhostilities,producedprotractedcrisisonthepeninsula.Manyarguedthatthevictory,purchasedatsohighaprice,hadbeen“mutilated.”NotonlyhadthenationnotbeenaccordedthoseterritoriespresumablypromisedbytheTreatyofLondon,butItalyhadbeenlefttodealwithitsdomesticeconomicproblemswithoutthatwhichItaliansconsideredsuitableassistancefromwartimeallies.Therevolutionarysyndicalists,theinterventionistsocialists,andthoseoffendedbythereceptionaccordedthembypartysocialists,allgraduallycametogetherbehindMussolini:Marxistheretic,socialistinterventionist,nationalsyndicalist,andrevolutionary.

THEFIRSTFASCISMAttheendoftheGreatWar,Mussolinifoundhimselfthetribuneofan

indeterminatenumberofindependentandoftenhereticalMarxists—activistswhohadadvocatedwar,manyofwhomhadfoughtthewar,andmanywhoreturnedconvincedthattheyhadearnedtherighttoshapethefutureofthenationtheyhadserved.4Grantedtherealityofallthat,itwasclearthatMussolini,afewdaysaftertheconclusionoftheGreatWar,wasuncertainwhichpopulationelements,otherthantheinterventioniststhemselves,mightbeattractedinordertoputtogetheraneffectivepoliticalandrevolutionaryconstituency.Convincedashewasthatofficialsocialismhadcertifieditsirrelevancyinaworldthathadsufferedthegreatestcatastropheinhumanhistory,Mussoliniwaspreparedtoappealtoabroaderconstituencythanhehad

everbeforeconsidered.

Beforeallelse,Mussoliniwascertainthatthoseveteransreturningvictoriousfromthewarwereclearlyaresource.Otherthanveterans,hefullyintendedtomakeappealtotheworkingclasses,ingeneral—therecruitmentbasewithwhichhewasmostfamiliar—andmanyofwhomhadfoughtinthetrenches.5EquallycertainwasthefactthatMussoliniwaspreparedtoreachoutsidethe“proletariat,”tomakeanappealtoallthe“productiveclasses”—allthosewho“morallyandmaterially”soughttoassurethe“futureoftheFatherland.”6Heannouncedthatthemovementhewastoleadwouldbepredicatedontwoimposingandundeniablerealities:thenationandtheproductivebasethatsustainedit.7

Thefirstrealitywoulddrawtogetherallthosesharingacommonsentiment—andthatwouldprovidetheemotionalsustenanceforthedisciplinedhierarchyrequiredfortechnologicallyproficientandexpandedproduction.8Animatedbysharednationalsentiments,soldiersandproducers,workersandtheentrepreneurialbourgeoisie,9would“fuse”increativeandconstructiveenterprise.10

AllofthatwastobeheldtogetherbyadoctrineMussoliniearlyidentifiedas“nationalsyndicalism,”11adoctrinetheelementsofwhichhadmadetheirappearanceintheyearsleadinguptotheGreatWar—mostprominentlyintheworksofradicalMarxistssuchasA.O.Olivetti,SergioPanunzio,andFilippoCorridoni.12Thecentralfeatureofnationalsyndicalismwasanexplicitappealtoasentimentofnationalbelongingthatitstheoreticiansbelievedwouldengage,inprinciple,theimmediatecommitmentofallItaliansofwhatevereconomicclass.Nationalismwastobecometheenduringimperative,the“myth,”ofthesystemofappeals.

Mussolini,inissuinghiscalltoItalians,understoodnationalismasgivingexpressiontoallthosecommonsentimentsbornoflongassociation,ofsharedhistory,andoftheprideofvictory.Heunderstoodnationalismtobeasentimentthatmightserveastheinspirationforacomplexrevolutionarystrategyintendedtoassurethe“grandeur”ofthefatherland—astrategythatwouldrestore,sustain,andexpanduponthenation’shistoric“greatness,”bothwithinandbeyonditsborders.13

AllthediscussionsurroundingnationalsentimentthathadbeencommonplaceamongMarxistsofallsortsintheyearsbeforetheadventoftheGreatWarculminatedintheenjoinmentsformulatedbyMussoliniandthosewhohad

foughttheGreatWar.IntheappealtonationalismtherewastheechooftheMarxistreflectionsofGeorgesSorel,RobertoMichels,andOttoBauer—aswellasthosesentimentsexpressedbyMussolinihimselfwhenheservedasanItaliansocialistfunctionaryintheTrentino.

ThefactisthatMussolini’sappealtonationalsentiment—astherevolutionarymythofadoctrinethatwouldbringhimtovictory—wasanythingotherthanthoughtlessoropportunistic.ItrestedonabodyofliteraturewithwhichMussoliniwasveryfamiliar—literaturethatwasessentiallyMarxistinorigin—thatarguedthathumanbeingsweredispositionallysocialcreaturesidentifyingthemselveswiththatcommunitythatbestaddressedtheirmoralandmaterialinterestsatanygiventimeandinanygivensetofcircumstances.14Itwasabodyofliteraturethat,atitsbest,contestedtheprivativeinterpretationofMarxisttheorythatconceivedeconomicclass,notonlythemostimportant,buttheonly,agentofworldhistory.15

LikemanyotherMarxistsbeforehim,Mussoliniarguedthat,undercertainconditions,giventheingroupsentimentnaturaltohumanbeings,thenationmightwellserveastheclassofallclasses.16Throughouthistory,humanbeingshadassociated,sacrificed,killedandbeenkilled,intheserviceofavarietyof“communitiesofdestiny.”17Bytheearlytwentiethcentury,manysocialtheorists—Marxistsandnon-Marxistsalike—maintainedthat,atthatpointintime,thenationservedasjustthatcommunity.18

Mussoliniwastogoontoarguethatthepropertiesofthemodernworldcontributedtomakingthenationasymbolcapableofmobilizingmasses.Hearguedthatthemodernworldhaddivideditselfinto“advanced”and“retrograde”nations,withtheformercapableofdominatingthelifecircumstancesof“thosethathadbeenleftbehind.”19Hewentontocontendthattheindustriallyadvancedpowers,thosethathad“arrived”andwere“sated,”soughttomaintaintheiradvantagesagainstthosecommunitiesstillstrugglingtoachievemoderneconomicproficiency.20Deniedtheir“placeinthesun,”theeconomicallyretrogradenations,thosethatwere“proletarian,”21wereforcedtostruggletosurvive.

Mussoliniarguedthattheindustriallyadvancednations,possessedofthepowerofthepurse,aswellasthepowerprojectioncapabilitiesattendantupontheirabilitytodeploysophisticatedweaponry,couldforeverobstructthepassageofthoselesseconomicallyproficienttoanyhigherlevelintheworldorder.ThewarinwhichItalyhadadvancedindustrialnationsasitsallieshad,inpart,

obscuredthatreality,butthepeacenegotiationsatitsconclusionmadetheinequitiesabundantlyclear.

TheGreatWaritselfwasatestofItaly’sclaimtobeanequalamongequals;anditwasontheoccasionofthatwarthatMarxistsintheofficialsocialistorganizationsfoundthemselvesconflicted.Whenfacedwiththeissueofwhetherornottosupporttheirrespectivenationsinaconflictthatinvolvedthepoliticalhierarchyofnationsofanentirecontinent,theywere,inlargemeasure,confused,hapless,andhelpless.Whilemostorganizedsocialistsultimatelyoptedtosupporttheirrespectivegovernments,Italiansocialistsremaineddoggedlyopposed.Fewdrewtheoreticalconsequencesfromtheirindividualorinstitutionalbehaviorinaworldofominouspossibilities.Mussoliniwasnotoneofthem.Havingoptedtoservehisnationinwar,hewentontomakenationalismthecriticalcomponentoftherevolutionaryideologythatwouldbringhimtopower.Itwastobethenationalismofa“proletarianpeople”strugglinginaworlddominatedby“plutocratic”communitiesofwealthandprivilege.Itwasthenationalismofa“proletarianpeople”ignoredandneglectedbytheadvancedindustrialpowersbeforetheGreatWar.Itwasthenationalismofaretrogradepeopleacknowledgedonlyintheirpresenceasimmigrantstodevelopedcountrieswheretheywerewelcomedascheaplaborandculturalprimitives.22

BeforecallingthemeetingthatwouldlaunchtheFascistmovement,MussolinispecifiedthatifItalywouldredressitsgrievances,productive,economic,andinfrastructuraldevelopmentwouldbeinstrumentallycriticaltohisrevolutionarypurpose.23RecallingtheargumentatthecoreofCorridoni’sSindacalismoerepubblica24—thatItalianindustrywasonlyinits“swaddlingclothes”—andItalyaproletariannation—MussolinifocusedontheeconomicdevelopmentandmodernizationofthepeninsulaasthenecessaryconditionforItaly’santicipatedentryintothecommunityof“greatpowers.”IfItalywasnolongertobeignoredandhumiliatedbyitsneighbors,Italymustcommititselftoanarduousanddisciplineddevelopmentaleconomicandpoliticalprogram.

Tothatend,Mussolinidrewattentiontothepoliticalandeconomicposturesofthe“nationalsyndicalism”ofLéonJouhoux,andtheFrenchGeneralConfederationofLabor—toillustratesomeofthedevelopmentalconvictionsheandhispotentialfollowershadanticipatedandwerepreparedtosupport.25AttheconclusionoftheGreatWar,inapamphletentitledLestravaileursdevantlapaix,Jouhoux,asasocialist,arguedthatinordertoreconstructitsshatteredeconomy,whatFrancerequiredwasastate-sponsoredcollaborationof

productiveclasses,organizedaroundthelegalrecognitionofbargainingagentsforeach,inakindofdisciplined“parliamentofproduction.”Itwasconceivedanarrangementcalculatedtonotonly“rehabilitateandmaximizeproduction”buttostimulateandfoster“nationaldevelopment.”26

Mussoliniconceivedsuchaproposed“parliament”akindof“nationaleconomiccouncil,”addressingwhatwasclearlythe“commoninterest”ofallmembersofanationemergingfromthedepredationsofaworldwarandanticipatinganunprecedentedtrajectoryofgrowth.Composedofrepresentativesoflaborandindustry,togetherwiththoseofthestate,suchaparliamentwouldbefunctionalratherthanpolitical,responsibleforthemanagerialandtechnicaladministrationofproduction.Allthat,takentogether,wouldconstituteasystemMussoliniidentifiedas“integralsyndicalism”or“productivesocialism”—a“practicalandrealisticsyndicalism”that“transcendedtheclassstruggle”in“theinterestsofproduction”andnationaleconomicdevelopment.27

MussoliniunderstoodsuchasystemtobeparticularlyimportantinaneconomicenvironmentasretrogradeasthatofItaly.Morethansimplyrestoringprewarproduction,theproductivesocialismheanticipatedwouldcarryItalyforwardintointensiveandextensiveindustrialandagriculturaldevelopment.28Mussoliniconceivedtheintegralsyndicalismofwhichhespokeasaninstitutionalformofeconomic,particularlyindustrial,developmentalismthathadgrownoutofthe“apocalypticandmysticalsyndicalismofthe[prewar]schoolofSorel,”29reformulatedinthedevelopmentalnationalismofCorridoni.30

InthedaysimmediatelyprecedingthefoundingmeetingofFascismonthetwenty-thirdofMarch,1919,Mussolinitouchedonthecentralissuesthatwouldshapethepoliticsofhismovementintheensuingperiod.OnthesixteenthofMarch,hereaffirmedhisobjectionstothedoctrinesthathadcometocharacterizeallthe“official”socialismsofthetime.NotonlyhadItaliansocialismfailedtosupportItaly’swaragainsttheCentralPowers,continuingtoinvokeclasswarfareassomesortofresolutionofthepostwarproblemsthatthenconfrontedItalians,butmuchoftheleadership,andanotinconsiderablenumberoffollowers,expressedanenthusiasmforLeninismasithadunfoldedinRussia.31

MussoliniconsideredtheiridentificationwithBolshevismevidenceofintellectualdestitutiononthepartofItaliansocialists.Hisreasonsforthatweremany,butamongthemostimportantwashisKautskyanconvictionthatLenin’s

revolutioninRussiahadlittle,ifanythingatall,todowithsocialism—associalismwasunderstoodbyMarxism’sforemostintellectuals.32

DuringtheperiodimmediatelyfollowingtheBolshevikuprising,Mussolini,likeKautskyatthesametime,calledtheattentionofallsocialiststothefactthatLeninhadmaderevolutioninaRussiathatlackedeverypreconditionrequiredofanysocialismanticipatedbyMarxandEngels.33Mussoliniremindedsocialiststhatinorderto“liberate”allhumankind,Marxismhadtraditionallyandconsistentlyanticipatedproletarianrevolutionincircumstancesofeconomicabundance.34

Marxsawsocialismtheproductofanopulencethatcouldonlyresultfromthefullmaturationoftheoutputpotentialofindustrialcapitalism.Accordingtoaccepteddoctrine,Mussoliniremindedhisreaders,onlyuponfullmaturitywouldcapitalismachievesuchameasureofproductiveabundance.Withthatmaturity,accordingtothetheory,thequantitiesofproductreachingthemarketwouldsimplyoverwhelmeffectivedemand.Capitalismwouldproduceinsuchquantitythatitcouldnolongerprofitablyemptyitsinventories.Theabsenceofpurchasingpoweramongthe“vastmajority”of“emiserated”workers—whowereforcedbycapitalismitselftolaborforsubsistencewages—wouldmakesuchanoutcomeinevitable.Profitrates,giventhelogicofthetheory,wouldeventuallyapproximatezero.Atthatpoint,theproletariat,longschooledintheresponsibilitiesofindustrialproduction,simplywouldbecompelledtoassumecommandoverasystemnolongercapableofsustainingitselforthem.Aftertherevolution,undertheministrationsoflabor,thedistributionofcommoditieswouldrespondtopeople’sneedsratherthanprovideprofitforcapitalists.Allofthatconstitutedtheaccepteddoctrineof“inevitable”revolutionanticipatedbythefoundersofMarxism.35

NoseriousMarxisteverimaginedthatsocialismmightbeheirtoprimitiveeconomicconditions,tocollectivepoverty,anduniformmaterialandspiritualwant.EveryinformedMarxist,forhalf-a-hundredyears,hadarguedthat“nosocialordereverperishesbeforealltheproductiveforcesforwhichthereisroominithavedeveloped;andnew,higherrelationsofproductionneverappearbeforethematerialconditionsoftheirexistencehavematuredinthewomboftheoldsocietyitself.”36ThatLeninimaginedthatsocialistproductiverelationsmightbeimposedonaprimitiveeconomicbasewasnotonlyviolativeofthemostfundamentalMarxistprecepts,itwascounterintuitivetorightreason.

MussolinirepeatedKautsky’scaution:revolutioninsuchparlous

circumstancescouldonlyproduceadictatorshipofasmallcoterieofadventurers,tothedisadvantageofthegreatmajorityofworkersandpeasants.Theinevitableconsequencecouldonlybeinternecineconflictbetweenandamong“proletarian”organizations,eachsearchingforadvantageinanenvironmenttotallyunsuitedtosocialistoutcomes.37

InBolshevikRussia,Mussoliniwenton,theresultcouldonlybethatsocialistsproceededtokilleachotherwithabandon.HereportedthatMensheviks,SocialRevolutionaries,andMarxistdissidentsweredyingatthehandsofBolsheviksingreaternumbersthanhadeverfallenbeforethesecurityforcesoftheCzar.38

Morethanthat,MussolinicalledattentiontothefactthatLenin—aprisonerofcircumstances,someofwhichhehadhimselfcreated—wasfullypreparedtoreconstructthestate,withallitsappurtenances,afteritsinitialdestructionatthehandsofhis“socialists.”InoppositiontoallthathadbeensaidbyMarxism’sforemosttheoreticians,Leningaveeveryevidence,notonlyofreconstructingthestate,butofrecreatinganarmy,astraditionalinformandfunctionasanythatsupported“bourgeois”rulethroughoutmodernhistory.TheRedArmyofLeonTrotskywassentnotonlytodefendthepoliticalboundariesofthenewstate—likeeverybourgeoisarmybeforeit—butitforcibly,andwithoutcompensation,requisitionedgoodsfromthepeopleinordertosustainitsdeployments.39

Allthe“revolutionary”speculationsthatasocialistarmywouldbecomposedexclusivelyofvolunteers,withoutanofficercorps,tobegovernedentirelyby“democraticworkers’councils,”wereunceremoniouslyabandoned.Forallintentsandpurposes,theLeninistmilitaryservedtheinterestsofthe“proletarianstate”—asthestateunderstoodthoseinterests—sothatthedynamicsofrealandpotentialinterstateandintrastatearmedconflictweresimplythoseofanynonsocialiststate.

Beyondthat,Mussolinicontinued,statefunctionariesinBolshevikRussiatookonalltheunmistakableattributesofabureaucracy,notunlikeanybureaucracyinanybourgeoisnation.Howeverabundantthe“antibureaucratic”pronouncementsofLenin,itwasevidentthattheBolshevikstatecouldnotfunctionwithoutofficeholderswhoperformedinafashionindistinguishablefromthoseintraditionalbureaucracies.

Morethanallofthat,MussolinipointedtothetotalfailureofLeninismtoprotectandenhancethematerialfoundationofhisRussianhomeland.Inaworlddividedbetweenrapaciousplutocraticpowersandproletariannations,Leninhad

allowedtheeconomyofBolshevikRussiatofallintoallbuttotaldisrepair.40ThewholeofRussia,Mussoliniwenton,wasthreatenedwithfamineandmaterialdevastation.Therewerereportsthattheschoolshadceasedtofunction;thatthemajorityofindustrialestablishmentswereclosed;thatentirecategoriesofcitizenswereconscriptedtoserveinlaborarmies;thatopponentswereconfinedtoconcentrationcamps;thatarbitraryrequisitionswereimposedbyarmedbands;that“justice”wasthecapriciousproductofthoseinpower;andthatlabororganizationswerepermittedtofunctiononlyinsofarastheyservedthe“proletarianstate.”41

MussolinicondemnedLeninismasanightmarecaricatureofsocialismthatpoorlyserveditsnation’sneeds.AsaneconomicallyretrogradecommunitycompetinginaDarwinianstruggleforexistence,42ItalycouldhardlysurviverulebyLeninists.WhatItalyrequiredwasnotdysfunctionalclasswarfare,orthedissipationofassetsinpursuitofutopiangoals;itrequiredtheacceleratedconstructionofaneconomicfoundationsufficienttosupportthenation’sentryintosuccessfulcontentionwiththeadvancedindustrialpowers.

Mussoliniarguedthatsuchparamountinterestssuperseded“theclasswar.”All“productiveclasses”amongItalianssharedacommoninterestinexpandingandintensifyingproductionintheefforttosecurethenation’sproperstationintheworld.43Hespokeofallthatastheinspirationforaresponsive“newsocialism”—onethatwouldsubstituteitselfforthat“politicalandparasitic”socialismthathadsurvivedtheGreatWar.44

AtthemeetingthathistoryrecordsasthefoundingassemblyofFascism,Mussolinisimplyrepeatedwhathadbecomebythenarecurrentandrelatedsetofinterlockingthemes.45Hespokeofageneralprogramforthenascentmovement,predicatedontwofundamentalrealities:thenation,forwhichsomanyhaddiedandbeenmaimed—andproduction,withoutwhichItaly,asa“proletariannation,”46couldnotaccedeto“itsrightfulplaceintheworld”asanequalofthosecommunitiesthatwere,andsoughtpermanentlytoremain,“plutocratic.”47

ItwaswithinthatcontextthatMussoliniwentontomaintainthatFascistsdidnotrejectofficialsocialismbecauseitwassocialist,butbecauseitwasantinational,havingopposeditselftoanecessarywar,andbecauseitattemptedtomarshalthenation’sworkersbehindfailedpolicies,includingflirtationwithLenin’sBolshevism.MussoliniinsistedthatheandhisfollowerswouldhavesupportedofficialsocialismandBolshevismaswell—hadeithershownitself

capableofmeetinganyofthenation’smosturgentneeds.OfficialsocialismandBolshevismhadbeenfoundwanting.ThesocialismthatfoundanythingwhateverattractiveinLenin’sBolshevismwasasocialismthatthreatenedtoreduceItalytotherankofatertiarypowerinaworldofintenseinternationalcompetition.48

FASCISM,DEMOCRACY,ANDTHESTATEDuringthemeetingthatsawthefoundingoftheFascistmovement,Mussolini

spokeofageneralcommitmentto“agreaterpoliticalandeconomicdemocracy”foranemergent“newItaly.”Likealmostallrevolutionarymovementsoftheperiod,socialistandnonsocialistalike,thetypicalinvocationsincludedademandfor“democracy.”Rarelywasanyoperationaldefinitionof“democracy”offered,andmoreoftenthannot,thedemocracythatresultedhadverylittleaffinitywiththerepresentativedemocracyfamiliarintheWest.

LikeLenin,Mussoliniqualifiedthecommitmenttoagenericdemocracybyacknowledgingthatpoliticalmovementsareinvariablyledby“dynamicminorities”moving“staticmajorities”49—andthatFascistswouldnotbeaversetoaleadershipthatmaturedintoa“dictatorshipofwillandintelligence,”shouldcircumstancessorequire.LikeLenin,andmostsyndicalistsandrevolutionarysocialists,Mussolinihadlittle,ifany,confidencein“bourgeoisdemocracy.”HedismissedtheprewarItalianparliamentarysystemasonethatallowedself-selectedminoritiestoimposetheirwilluponpassiveconstituencies.

Clearlyalludingtotheargumentsthathadbecomeconvincingtoalmostallrevolutionariesbythattime,Mussolinirejectedparliamentarismasoneofthemostobjectionableinstitutionsoftheestablishedsystem.50Hespokeinsteadofafunctional,alternative“parliament,”onecomposedofrepresentatives,notofgeographicregions,butofproductivecategories,relatedtoeachotherunderthesupervisionofthepoliticalstate.

Antiparliamentarian,inthesensespecified,tendentiallyrepublican,Mussolinimadeclear,in1919,thatsuchconcernswereinstrumentaltotheachievementofthegoalcultureofthemovement.Itwasclearthatheheldsuchcommitmentsforevercontingentonsurroundingcircumstances.Fascistswouldbeparliamentarianorantiparliamentarian,republicansormonarchists,orfavorworkersorentrepreneurs,ortaxwarprofitsorChurchproperty,aswarrantedbyprevailingconditions.ThedrivingimperativeofFascistpoliticswouldnotturnonthechoiceofspecifictacticsorinstrumentalities,butonanyarrangementthatassuredthe“maximizationofproduction”—intheserviceofthe“grandeur”of

thenation.Sophisticatedandabundantindustrialproductionwasthecriticalandnonsubstitutablepreconditionfortheestablishmentofthenationasapoweramongthegreatpowers—thenecessaryconditionofitattainingitsappropriate“placeinthesun.”51

Whatisperfectlyclear,evenbeforetheofficialfoundingofFascismasapoliticalmovement,wasMussolini’slackofcommitmentto“bourgeoisparliamentarism.”LikeLenin,andEngelsbeforehim,52Mussolinisaw“bourgeoisdemocracy”aslittleotherthanadeception.Thefunctionaldemocracyofwhichhespokewasunderstoodtocontributetotheindustrialandpoliticaldevelopmentofthenationbyintegratingallitsproductiveelementsinagenciesthatwerecompetenttoaddresspracticalproblems.Likerevolutionarysocialistsandsyndicalistsbeforehim,Mussolinirejectedthenotionthatan“assemblyofprofessionalpoliticians”mighteffectivelyservethe“enormouscomplexityofcontemporaryItalianlife.”Betteracouncilcomposedoffunctionalrepresentativesofindustry,combinedwiththeirexpertise,whowouldcontributetothatmarvelof“Italianindustrialcreativity”—toproducetheheavyindustriesthat,withtheirpowerprojectionproducts,mightserveasabulwarkagainstthehegemonicthreatsofthosenationsindustriallymoreadvanced.53

Withsuchchanges,Mussolinicontended,socialismwouldbedisplacedfromthatrealmofairyabstractiontothefirmgroundofnationalreality.54Itwouldbeasocialismfocusedon“thenationandtheproductiveclasses”thatcomposeditssubstance.Anewanddisciplinedsocialism55wouldappear,cognizantofurgent,concreterealities.Itwouldseekexpressioninanewstructureofgovernment,displacingtheoldbourgeoisparliamentarismthatsucceededonlyinrepresentingthoseexploitative,inert,anddysfunctionalspecialintereststhat,inthepast,hadretardedItaly’stransitionintothemodernworldofindustry,machines,andpower.

Whatallthisimpliedwasadifferentkindof“democracy”thanthatwhichhadbecomecommonplaceamongreformistsocialists.ItwasdifferentfromthatliberalparliamentarydemocracygivenexpressioninKarlKautsky’sarguedobjectionstoLenin’sdictatorshipoftheproletariat.Anditwasdifferent,intermsofitsrationale,fromthedictatorshipadvocatedbytheBolsheviks.

Italianrevolutionarysocialistsofeverystripehadlongobjectedto“bourgeoisdemocracy”anditsembodimentinthe“bourgeoisstate.”Originally,therevolutionarysyndicalists,liketherevolutionarysocialists,hadrejectedanyformofpoliticalstate.Theyspokeofvoluntaryassociationsofworkers,

confederatedintolarger,similarlyvoluntary,unions,administering“things,”ratherthanrulingoverworkers.56AsEuropelurchedcloserandclosertotheGreatWar,aftertheturbulenceoftheeventssurroundingtheWarinTripoli,Italianrevolutionariesproceededtomorecloselyinspecttheirrosterofbeliefs.

AsMussolinigaveevidenceofhisincreasingintellectualrestivenesspriortothewarwiththepublicationofhisownjournal,Utopia,inwhichrevolutionariescouldexpresstheirindependentjudgment,hepublishedoneessaythatisofimportanceinreconstructingtheideologicaldevelopmentsthatwouldultimatelyresultinFascism.InJuly1914,onthecuspofthewarthatwouldtransformtheworld,MussolinipublishedanessaybyPanfiloGentile,addressingtheissueoftherelationshipbetweenworkers’syndicatesandthestate.57

Inthepreambletothatessay,Gentileadmonishedrevolutionariesthatthetimesrequiredprecisionwithrespecttodoctrine.“Revolutionaryaction,”heinsisted,“cannolongerbebasedonvaguepremises.”Itwasnecessarytospecify,withsomeprecision,theoutlinesofthekindofsocietytowhichrevolutionariesaspired,andforwhichtheyexpectedtheirfollowerstosacrifice.

Gentilearguedthatcentraltothecommitmentsofrevolutionarieswasaconceptionofthestate.Traditionally,Marxistrevolutionariesdismissedthestateasanoppressivemachineservingonlytheinterestsofthebourgeoisie.Revolutionarysyndicalistsdidnotlooktothestateforthatagencythatwouldsupervisethecomplexproductivesystemofthenationaftertheanticipatedrevolution.Syndicalistscitedthosespontaneousassociationsthatarisewithintheverybodyofindustryastheautonomousagenciesthatwouldthemselvesguidethepostrevolutionaryeconomy.Antistatistandlibertarian,syndicalistssoughtfunctionalassociationsthatwouldtaketheplaceofthepoliticalsupervision,thelegislativeandexecutivecontrols,ofthetraditionalstate.

WhatPanfiloGentileproceededtodowastocalleveryone’sattentiontothenecessityofsomehowmediatinganydifferencesthatmightarisewithinandamongthevarioussyndicalistorganizationsthatwouldguideandadministerthelargereconomyaftertherevolution.Hesoughtoutaunityintheevidentmultiplicity.Syndicalistgroups,Gentileargued,couldnotbeexpectedtosupervisethemselveswithoutsomeoverarchingruleoflaw,sanctionedbytheauthorityofsomeagencyindependentofallofthem.58Gentileidentifiedthatagencyasthestate.Howeverdifferentthepostrevolutionarystatemightbe,itwouldbecharacterizedbymanyofthefeaturesofthestatewithwhichpoliticalhistoryhadmadeeveryonefamiliar.Itwouldbethe“centralauthority”supervisingall“theagreements,accords,pacts,mutualandreciprocal

contractualobligations”sustainingproduction.Itwouldbetheultimaterepositoryofsanctionandcontrolfortheentireproductivesystem.

ThatMussolinichosetopublishGentile’spieceontherevolutionaryconceptionofthestateisinterestinginandofitself.ItisclearthatMussolinimadethedecisionwithdeliberation.Criticalissueswereraisedinthepiece,andtheyspoketotherelationshipoftheindividual,andassociationsofindividuals,tothepoliticalstate.Implicitinthediscussionwasthequestionofhowthepoliticalrealityofananticipated,multifacetedpostrevolutionaryItalywastobeunderstood.

Aswillbeargued,theissuesinvolvedwerecriticaltothetransformationofMussolini’srevolutionarysocialismintothevariantthatemergedalmostimmediatelyuponItaly’sinvolvementintheFirstWorldWar.Asallofthiswastranspiring,Mussolinigavedocumentedevidenceofhisincreasinginterestinaconceivedrelationshipbetweenindividuals,syndicatesofindividuals,revolutionaryelites,andthepoliticalstate.

AshorttimebeforehepublishedPanfiloGentile’sargumentinUtopia,MussolinireviewedGentile’searlierpublicationonpoliticalethicsfortheSocialistParty’sAvanti!59ClearlyanyreviewwrittenforanofficialPartypublicationwasconstrainedbythoseobligationsthathadledMussolinitoestablishhisownjournal.Inhis“official”review,MussoliniacknowledgedthatGentilewasarticulatingcriticismofsomebasicelementsofwhatpassed,atthattime,asMarxistorthodoxy.

Infact,Gentilewasa“criticalidealist,”ratherthanthe“materialist”or“positivist”requiredbytheorthodoxyoftheperiod.Mussoliniunderstoodtheimplications.PanfiloGentile,Mussoliniindicated,wasclearlyundertheinfluence—asMussoliniexpressedit—“oftheotherGentile.”60TheotherGentilewasGiovanniGentile,bythattimealuminaryamongItalianphilosophers.Allofthatisimportant.ItisyetanotherconfirmationofMussolini’sinterestandknowledgeoftheworkofGiovanniGentilesomeconsiderabletimebeforetheFascistrevolution.ItdocumentsastageinMussolini’spassagefromatraditionalantistatist,quasianarchisticsyndicalistviewofpolitics,toconceptionsthatweretoprovidemuchofthesubstanceofFascism.61

Inhispublicationdevotedtothe“Ethicojuridicalconceptionofsocialism,”PanfiloGentileraisedalltheproblemsthathadcollectedthemselvesaroundwhatpassedatthetimeasconventionalMarxism.Hespokeoftheabsenceofan

adequatephilosophicalrationalesustainingtheethicalconvictionsthatpresumablyinspiresocialistrevolutionaries.Likemanyofthosewhocalledfora“returntoKant,”hecalledforanappealtoamoresubstantialmetaethical,cognitivefoundationthananyfoundintraditionalMarxisttexts.Hearguedthatanynotionthatconceivedthebehaviorofhumanbeingsdeterminedbysomeformof“historicfatalism,”forexample,wasintrinsicallyinadequatetodealwiththemoralissuessurroundingthatbehavior.

Inraisingthoseconcerns,PanfiloGentilewasechoingthecriticismsleveledagainstclassicalMarxismnotonlybyWoltmann,andSorel,butbyGiovanniGentileasearlyas1897.62ItisnotcertainwhetherMussoliniwasfamiliar,atthattime,withGiovanniGentile’scritiqueofMarxism,butitisevidentthathewaslessthandismissiveofPanfiloGentile’svariationsonthesamethemes.InthecourseofhisreviewofPanfiloGentile’sbook,Mussolinialludedtothedifferent,andsometimesopposing,interpretationsofMarx’sconceptionofhowhumanbeingsaremovedtorevolution,andhowtheywereunderstoodtoperformasresponsiblepoliticalagents.Hereflectedonallofthat—anddidnotchooseamongthevariouscandidateinterpretationsofhowMarxistethicswastobeunderstood.Hisreticenceiseasilyunderstood.Atthattime,hewasaspokesmanfororganizedsocialism,andcouldhardlydepartfromacceptedinterpretations.

Ineffect,immediatelybeforetheadventoftheGreatWar,MussolinigaveincreasingevidenceofintellectualandpoliticaldisquietindealingwithwhatwasconsideredsocialistorthodoxybytheofficialSocialistParty.HewasalreadyfamiliarwithBenedettoCroce’scriticismsofinheritedMarxistorthodoxies.63CroceraisedmanyofthesameissuesfoundintheearliestworkofGiovanniGentile.64

TheperiodimmediatelybeforetheoutbreakoftheFirstWorldWarwasacriticaljunctureinMussolini’spoliticalandintellectuallife.WiththeadventoftheGreatWar,MussolinifoundhimselfmoreandmorealienatedfromtheofficialpositionontheconflictassumedbytheSocialistParty,topursuethecoursebrieflyoutlinedabove.WhilefamiliarwithhisideasbeforetheGreatWar,whatseemsclearisthataftertheterminationofthatwar,moreandmoreoftheideasofGiovanniGentilebegantosurfaceinMussolini’spoliticalprose.Thatisasignificantdevelopmentbecausethepoliticalimplicationsofattualismo,asGentile’sidealismcametobeknown,weretogiveovertshapetomanyofMussolini’sthoughtsonthenatureofthestateanditsrelationshiptothecomplexitiesofpoliticallife.

BythetimehepublishedL’attodelpensarecomeattopuro(ThinkingasPureAct)65in1912,Gentilehadsettledonhis“methodofabsoluteimmanence”—amethodthatwastohavedirectrelevancetothearticulationofFascistpoliticalthought.Gentile’sdoctrineofimmanencemaintainedthat,ifepistemologywastobephilosophicallyconsistent,allof“reality”wouldbeunpackedintocurrentthinking(experience,consciousness).66Itwasanargumentfortheultimate,“dialectical”unityofallthingsinthinking—aradicalformofphilosophicalidealismrootedinpost-Kantianthought.67

AnyefforttoadequatelytreatthetechnicalphilosophyofGentilewouldtakeusfarafieldfrompresentconcerns.WhatisrelevanttopresentreflectionisthatGentiletookMarx’ssocialandphilosophicalthoughtseriously,perhapsmoreseriouslythanothersofhistime.68HearguedthatMarx’sconceptionofhistorywasactuallyavariationofHegelianism,andasaconsequence,foreverfeaturedtheapriorianddeductivetraitsoftheoriginal.Morethanthat,Gentileargued,Marx’sconceptionofmanasaspeciesbeing,hisrejectionofthe“abstracthumanbeing”ofBritishliberalphilosophy,wasanobviouslegacyofHegelianism,69andsharedimportantaffinitieswithhisownconceptionof“absoluteimmanence.”

Thenotionofmanasa“speciesbeing”spoketophilosophicalidealism’sdispositiontoseeunitieswhereothersseeonlymultiplicities.Intermsofpoliticallife,actualistsconceivedthe“commonsense”viewofothersasexternal“things”weencounterinourpersonalpassagethroughlifetobeoneofthepervasivefictionsofthemodernworld.Foractualism,individualscannotrationallyormorallybeconceivedasindependentofeachother,as“atoms”inanaccidentalconfigurationofatoms.70

Actualism’sargumentwasthattoimaginethatindividualsstandalone,opposedto“society”or“reality,”isanindefensibleabstraction.Individualscannotconsistentlybeconceivedtobeindependentofeachotherinanymeaningfulsense,norcanrealitybe“external”tothem,singlyortogether.The“concrete”individualisone,unitedwithothersinnature,science,language,art,religion,andpolitics.Thereisaninsistentunitybeneaththeseemingmultiplicity.71Knowingtheworldandtheothersinitbecomescomprehensibleonlywhenwerealizethefundamentalunityofallthings.Nottounderstandthatisto“intellectualize”life—toseetheindividualopposedtoothersandtonatureassomethingforever“external,”andalien,inassimilableandunknowable.72

Actualistsarguedthatonlybyunderstandingthattheindividualisindissolubly

onewithhisorhercommunity—thathisorherconsciousnessisalwaysindividual,butneverprivate—mightonemakesenseoflife,science,morality,andpolitics.Suchconvictionsweretoprovidethecognitivefoundationofactualism’sconceptionofthe“ethicalstate”astheunityinwhichapeople,consciousofitselfasareality,findsexpression.73Immanentinaconsciouspeoplewasthestate.Thestatewastheunitaryrealityofthehumanmultiplicitythatconstituteditscomponents.Thestateprovidedtheindispensablegroundsthatallowedforpersonalgrowthinknowledge,morality,andbelief.Thestateprovidedthestructuralformforsecurecontinuity,andtheprevalenceoftherulesoflanguageandtheprinciplesofconduct,thattogetherallowedtheoccasionforcreativeartsandmachineproduction.74

By1906–1908,thesubstanceofthoseideaswerealreadyevidentinGentile’spublishedpedagogicalwritings.75Theywerebroadcast,andwereknowntomany,bothwithinandoutsidetherevolutionarycommunity—includingPanfiloGentile.76Ineffect,MussolinicouldhardlyescapeknowingoftheworksofGentilebythetimeoftheGreatWar.Hehadearlybeenintroducedtothem,ashasbeenindicated,throughthecommentariesofGiuseppePrezzoliniandtheauthorsofLaVoce.Manyoftheauthorswithwhomhedebatedofficialsocialism’sinsistenceonneutralityontheoccasionoftheGreatWar,wereactualiststhemselves,orwereinfluencedbyactualism.77

Gentile,forhispart,wasaninterventionist,arguingthatitwasItaly’sresponsibilitytoentertheconflictindefenseofitspoliticalandethicalvalues.Mussolinitestified,aswehaveseen,thathehadbecomefamiliarwithGentile’sworkby1908.BythetimetheFascistmovementwasfoundedin1919,itwasclearthatMussolini’sconceptionofpolitics,andtherelationshipofindividualsandclassestothestate,hadbeensignificantlyinfluenced,bothdirectlyandindirectly,bythethoughtofGentile.

DuringandaftertheGreatWar,GentilewroteextensivelyonmatterswithwhichMussoliniwasactivelyconcerned.TwomonthsbeforethemeetingthatservedasthefoundingassemblyofthefirstFascism,Gentilepublishedanessayinwhichthetwoextantconceptsofpolitical“democracy”wereconsidered.

Inthatessay,Gentilespokeofthetwo“diametricallyopposed”notionsof“democracy”thenincurrency.Hespokeoftheone,predicatedontheconvictionthatsocietywascomposedofindividualswhosomehowcametogethertocreateacommunity,andastate,thatwouldserveasguardianoftheirparochialinterests.Andhespokeoftheotherdemocracy,whichconceivedsocietyasan

organicunityintowhichbeingswereborn,nurturedandeducateduntiltheyidentifiedwiththecommunityin,andthroughwhich,theyfoundtheirmoralandintellectualsubstance.Thefirstwasafictive“democracy,”composedofasumof“abstractindividuals,”and“classes”ofsuchindividuals,thatsomehowcametogether,eachseekinghis,her,ortheir,immediategratification—andtheother,a“true”democracyinwhich“concreteindividuals”collaboratedtofosterandfurthertheinterestsofthatcollectivity,andthatstate,inwhichtheyfoundtheirtrueselves.78

Coupledwithsuchconvictionswastheconceptionthatthecommunityimmanentinconstituentindividualsmightfinditseffective,rationalwillintheleadershipofasingleindividual,oraselectgroupofindividuals.Sensitivetoprevailingcollectiveconsciousness,specialindividualsand/orgroupscouldserveasthe“democratic”voiceofall.79

BythetimeofthefoundingmeetingofFascism,itwasclearthatthedemocracytobeadvocatedandpursuedbytheemergentmovementwasademocracyfardifferentfromanythingknowntoWesternrepresentativegovernment.Distinctive,itwasanotionofdemocracysharingsomeofthepropertiesadvancedbyLenin’sBolshevism.LikeBolshevism,Fascismmaintainedthatthepoliticalstatecouldrepresentacommonessence,asortoftranscendent“generalwill.”Leninimaginedthatwilltobethecommonwilloftheproletariat—awillthatcouldnotbecapturedinpollsorthroughelections,butwasknowntoMarxiststhroughMarxism’s“dialecticalscience.”Fascistsearlyimaginedthatwilltobethecommonwillofanhistoricpeoplewhorealizethefundamentalunitythatidentifiestheindividualandhiscommunity,itshistory,itsmission,itsmoralsubstance,andthepoliticalstatethataffordseffectiveexpressiontoallofthat.80

Howeverdifferentinphilosophicalsubstance,bothLeninismandFascismrejectedthekindofrepresentativedemocracythatlegitimatedpoliticalruleintheWest.Atitsbirth,Fascismrejectedthecommonnotionofelectivedemocracy,notonlybecauseitwasseenasallowingpropertytodominatelabor,butbecausepoliticalliberalism,inandofitself,failedtounderstandthecommunitariannatureofhumanbeings.Fascistsdidnotpretendthatthepostrevolutionarystaterepresentedthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.ForFascists,theproletariatconstitutedonepopulationelementinacomplexassociation.ForFascists,itwasthestatethatrepresentedalltheconstituentsofthenationascommunityofdestiny;andforFascists,thestatewasthecommonwillofthatcommunity.Thestatewastheovertexpressionoftheessence

immanentinitsmembers.

MUSSOLINI,THESTATE,ANDDEVELOPMENTALNATIONALISMInthemonthsfollowingthefoundingassemblyofthefirstFascism,Mussolini

spokeofItaly’sinferiorityinaworlddominatedbyadvancedindustrialpowers.Hespokeofthehumiliationofthenationthathadjustemergedvictoriousfromthemostdevastatingwarinthehistoryofhumanity.Hespokeofthenation’sweaknesses,ofitscriticallackofnatural,andspecificallyenergy,resources—itslackofindustrialmineralsandchemicals,magnesium,bauxite,aluminum,sulphuricacid,andchemicalfertilizers.HespokeofItaly’sfailuretoinvestinthedevelopmentandarticulationofitscommunicationsandtransportationinfrastructure;itsneglectofitshydroelectricpowerpotential;allinanenvironmentthatseemedtoallowonly“plutocracies”toprosper.81HespokeofItaly’s“proletarian”statusincircumstanceswherepassagetoequalityofstationandconditionwaseffectivelydenied.Hespokeoftheimperativeneedtoproduce,toexpandanddeepenthemoderneconomyofthepeninsula,inorderthatItalymight“castofftheyokeoftheplutocracies.”82Hecalleduponalltheproductiveelementsofthenationtocommitthemselvestothedevelopmentalenterprisesoessentialtothefatherland.83

Mussolinilamentedthefinancialandbasicdevelopmentalcostsofthepandemicoflaborstrikesandworkstoppagesthatoverwhelmedthenation’seconomyintheimmediatepostwaryears.84

Atalmostthesametimethatsawtheinaugurationofthemovementthatwouldcarryhimtopower,MussoliniapplaudedtheworkersofDalmine,who,whileconductingprotestsagainstprevailingconditionsattheregionalmetallurgicalplants,didnotemployworkstoppagesorslowdownstoforceconcessions.Inhisjudgment,they“hadnotforgottenthenation...oritspeople,”intheirprotests,seekingresolutionoftheirgrievanceswithoutimpairingproduction.85Theprincipleemployed,towhichhemaderegularrecourse,wasthattheneedsoflaborwouldbemet,butneveratthecostofthenation’seconomicgrowthandstability.86

Longbeforehisadventtopower,Mussoliniaddressedanumberofrelatedproblemshavingtodowiththeeconomyofthenation.HespokeofItaly’shighpopulationdensity,itsdearthofarableland,andthebackwardnessofitsagriculturalmethods,resultinginitsinabilitytoproducesufficientgrainforitsownpopulation.Theresultwastodrivesomeofitsmostproductivecitizensto

seeklaborandsustenanceelsewhere,toultimatelyserveforeigninterests.87

Someconsiderabletimebeforecomingtopower,MussolinihadputtogetherafairlycomprehensivelistofeconomicissueswithwhichFascismwouldbecompelledtoface.Healsosoughttoprovidesomeaccountofhowtheymightbeaddressed.Fascism’sfirsteffortsinthatregardwerethecompositeresultoftheinteractionofthethoughtsofliberaleconomistssuchasVilfredoParetoandMaffeoPantaleone(withwhoseworkMussoliniwasfamiliar,andwithwhomheenjoyedacertainlevelofintimacy)—andthoseofsyndicalists,likeFilippoCorridoniandMassimoRocca,whowereopposedtostateinterventionintheeconomybecause,intheirjudgment,therewasconvincingevidencethatsuchinterventionservedonlynegativepurpose.AtthesametimetherewereGentileanswhoentertainedreservationsconcerningneoliberaleconomicstrategies.

ThefirstFascismwascomposedofavarietyofindividualsrepresentingavarietyofeconomicandpoliticalconvictions.TheyweredominatedbyMussoliniandthoseinterventionistsocialistswhohadlefttheofficialSocialistPartyontheoccasionoftheGreatWar.ManysharedtheviewsofthosesyndicalistswhoadvocatedItaly’sentranceintotheconflictandhadcollectedthemselvesintheoriginalinterventionist“Fasciod’azionerivoluzionaria.”AlltracedtheirintellectualoriginstotraditionalMarxismmodifiedtoaddresstheproblemsfacedbyrevolutionariesinanessentially“immature”economicenvironment.

TraditionalMarxismhadverylittletosayaboutrevolutioninsuchanenvironment,andstilllessabouttheeconomyattendantonanysuchrevolution.Whatthefeaturesofsuchaneconomymightberemainedentirelyspeculative.TherewasabsolutelynothinglikeconsensusamongcommittedMarxists.BytheadventoftheFirstWorldWar,manysyndicalistswerepreparedtoarguethatlessdevelopedeconomieswouldhavetocompletethetrajectoryofindustrialdevelopmentbeforeonemightbegintothinkofa“Marxist”postrevolutionaryproductivesystem.Thus,in1915,FilippoCorridoniarguedforanessentially“liberal”economicpolicyforretrogradeItaly—areductioninthestate’sinterventionintheeconomy,anappealtomarketforces,andrecoursetocompetitivefreetrade—inorderthatthenationmightattainthoselevelsofproductivematurationrequiredbytheoreticalMarxism.88

Infact,manysyndicalists,giventheirsuspicionsofthestate,weredispositionallyeconomicliberals.89Thepeculiarcombinationofeconomicliberalandsyndicalistthinkers,whodirectlyorindirectlyassociatedthemselves

withFascism,initiallyproducedanadvocacy,amongmanyFascists,forneoliberaleconomicinstrumentalitiesintheefforttostimulateandfosterthegrowthofthenation’slaggardeconomy.90Underthecircumstances,Gentileansextendedaqualifiedapproval—aslongasthestatewasunderstoodtoremain“strong.”

Inthe1921ProgramofthePartitonazionalefascista,neoliberalsentimentsappearedasacallforavariantofthe“Manchestrianstate,”astate“reducedtoitsessentialjuridicalandpoliticalfunctions”—divestedofanyspecificeconomicattributes—whileremainingthe“juridicalincarnationofthenation.”91Therewasaconsequentrecommendationthatparliamentbeequallydivestedofeconomicfunctions—withtheintentionthat“nationaltechnicalcouncils”bechargedwithdealingwithproblemsthatmightcollectaroundindividualsasproducers.92

WhileitwasclearthatthefirstFascistssoughttolimittheeconomicinitiativesofthestate,theycalledonthestateto“fosterandprotectthenation’ssupremeinterests.”Thoseinterestsincludedeconomic“development”andarequirementthatthestatesomehow“protectdomesticinfantindustriesagainstthreateningforeigncompetition.”Moreover,therewasacallforan“organicplanofpublicundertakingsdirectedtowardtheeconomic,technical,andmilitarynecessitiesofthenation...including[theconstructionofthenation’s]railandroadinfrastructureaswellasitselectrificationofallraillines.”93

InthemonthsimmediatelyprecedingtheMarchonRomeinOctober1922,Mussoliniformulatedthepoliticalprogramofthemovement.Hehadsettledonaconceptionofthestatethathecalled“exquisitelyFascist,”clearlyGentileaninoriginthatwouldimplementtacticalpolicies.Itwasasomewhatuncertainconceptionofthestatethat,nonetheless,wasportentousinimplication.

InamajorspeechinUdine,94onemonthbeforetheMarchonRome,MussolinirepeatedallthoseassessmentsthatprovidedthesubstanceofFascistintention.Hespokeofthehistoriccontinuitiesthattheanticipatedrevolutionwouldrespect.Hespokeoftheprimacyofthenation,therespectforlaborandthecollaborationofallproductiveelementsinaprogramofdevelopment.Hespokeoftheurgencyofcontinuedandexpandedproduction,sothatthenationmighteffectivelyfacetheimposturesofthosepowersthatsoughttodenyitaproperplaceintheworld.Andfinally,hespokeofthestate.ForFascism,Mussoliniaffirmed,conjoinedwiththeprimacyofthenation,therewastheabsolutesovereigntyofthestate.Mussolinistated,inlanguagealreadymade

familiarbyGentile,“thestatedoesnotrepresentaparty.Thestaterepresentsthenationalcommunitywithoutexception,incorporatingeveryone,superiortoeveryone,protectingeveryone,toopposeitselftoanyattemptsonitsimprescriptiblesovereignty.”

Whilenon-Fascistsupporterschosetointerpretsuchacharacterizationinasblandamanneraspossible,Mussolinididinsistthatthesovereigntyofthestatewouldrequire“absoluteandrigiddiscipline”onthepartoftheentirenation.95

Tocommunicatetothenationthesenseofthatsovereignty,inthecontextofthe“historicmission”withwhichItalywascharged,thestatewasrequiredtoexercisevigilantsuperintendenceovertheentirepoliticalprocess.

Thetalkwasofthearticulationofanetworkoftechnicalagenciesthatwouldprovideguidancetotheprogramofeconomicdevelopment.Theeconomicdevelopmentprogram,thereformofpublicoffices,therestructuringofthefinancialsystem,theeffortsatrepaymentofthenationaldebt,andtheintroductionofinducementstoincreaseinvestmentsinenterprise,wereundertakenbyAlbertoDe’Stefani,whoenjoyedtheconfidenceofMussolini.96

Almostimmediatelywithitsaccessiontopower,theFascistsundertookasequenceofjudicialandparliamentaryreforms.Agreementswereenteredintothatprovidedforlegalrecognitionoflaborandenterprisorygroups,compellingnegotiatedsettlementofdisputes.97ElectoralreformwasinstitutedthatresultedinanendtoproportionalrepresentationinparliamentandassuredpoliticaldominanceofthePartitonazionalefascista.Almostimmediatelythestateundertookthefirstorganicreformofthenation’seducationalsystemundertheadministrationofGentile,whoMussoliniidentifiedashis“teacher.”

Publicprojectswereundertaken,initiatingtheconstructionofanetworkofroads,particularlyinsouthernItaly.AlmostimmediatelyaftertheMarchonRomethatbroughtFascismtopower,thegovernmentinauguratedacompetitionamongproducersofgraintoincreasedomesticproduction.Itwascoupledwiththefirsteffortsatruralreconstructionandcomprehensiverehabilitation.Thegovernmentundertookplansforruralagronomiceducation,togetherwiththeprovisionofagriculturaltools,fertilizer,andenhancementoffarmingskills.

Withthepassageoftime,Fascismfounditselfincreasinglyconfinedbytheuncertaineconomicneoliberalismthatwasinitiallycombinedwiththepoliticaldominanceofthestate.AlloftheimperativessurroundingtheGentilean“ethicalstate”drewFascismfartherandfartherawayfromtheManchestrianstateofnineteenth-centuryliberalism.NationalistsandGentileansincreasingly

influencedpolicy.By1923,eventhesyndicalistswerecallingforthecreationofanomnipotent“Fasciststate”—distinctivefromanypoliticalformthatprecededit.98

Itseemsclearthatbythebeginningof1924,Fascismwasrestivewithintheconfinesofitsinitialpoliticalconfiguration.Howevertruethatmayhavebeen,eventswereprecipitatedbythemurderinJune,byFascistthugs,ofGiacomoMatteotti,asocialistdeputyinparliament.MatteottihadbeenseverelycriticalofMussolini—andwhileitseemsclearthatMussoliniplayednopartinthedecisiontoassaulthim,theFascistgovernmentwasseenbymany,ifnotmost,Italiansascomplicitinthemurder.ThecrisisresultedinademandforMussolini’sresignation,andprefiguredthecollapseoftheregime.

Inthefirstdaysof1925,MussoliniannouncedthatFascismwouldsuppresstheoppositionthathadcollectedaroundthemurderofMatteottiandrule,ifnecessary,withforce.99Almostimmediatelyafter,hespokeoftheemergenceofanewformofdemocracy,characterizedbytheorderanddisciplinenecessarytogeneratetheeconomicdevelopmentofanationdevoidofnaturalresourcesandcapitalpoor.100InMay,heinsistedthatFascismwouldtolerate“nothingsuperiortothestate.”Heimmediatelydrewoutthepracticalimplications.Laborandentrepreneurialsyndicates,andtheconfederalinstitutionsinwhichtheywerehoused,weretobegovernedbythestateandsubordinatedtothepoliticalinterestsofthe“eminentlyproletariannation”101asthoseinterestswereunderstoodbytheGrandCouncilofFascism.102

InJune,atthefourthnationalcongressofthePartitonazionalefascista,Mussolinispokeofemergent“newItalians,”characterizedby“absoluteintransigence,”animatedbyadisciplined“totalitarianwill,”inservicetothestate.HeadmonishedthenewItalianstobecourageous,assertive,andintrepid,butmorethanallelsetobedisciplinedandresponsivetoauthority.Theircrywastobe“allpowertoallofFascism!”103

Thus,by1925,bothLeninismandFascism,variantsofMarxism,hadcreatedpoliticalandeconomicsystemsthatsharedsingularproperties.Bothsoughttofuelanddirectrapideconomic,particularlyindustrial,developmentofbackwardcommunities,undertheauspicesofunitaryandhegemonicpoliticalparties.Theybothsoughttocontrolalltheforcesofproductionthroughasystemofcomprehensiveregulation.BothsoughtorderanddisciplineofentirepopulationsintheserviceofanexclusivisticpartyandanideologythatfounditsoriginsinclassicalMarxism,butwhichhadbeentransformedbysuigeneris“creative

developments.”Bothcreatedakindof“statecapitalism,”informedbyaunitaryparty,andresponsibletoa“charismatic”leader.

Whateverbecameofeithersystemafter1925wastheconsequenceofexternalcircumstancesandinternaldynamics.TheStalinismthatfollowedthedeathofLenin,andthetotalitarianismthatmaturedinFascism,grewoutofthesystemalreadyinevidenceby1925.NeitherStalinismnorFascisttotalitarianismwouldhavebeenpossiblewithoutthetransmogrifiedMarxistthatinfilledboth.ThatdoesnotmakeKarlMarxresponsibleforeitherStalinistorFascisttotalitarianisms—itsuggests,rather,thattraditionalMarxismissimplyafailedtheory,largelyirrelevanttothemodernworld.Itbecamerelevanttothepoliticallifeofthetwentiethcenturyonlyafteritwastransformedbytheneedsofcommunitiessufferingthedeprivations,bothpsychologicalandmaterial,intheirreal,orfancied,conflictwiththeadvancedindustrialdemocracies.Inthatsense,Marxismwasresponsibleformuchofthehumanandpropertydevastationthatmarredthetragichistoryofthatcentury.

CHAPTERTWELVE

ConclusionsBytheendofthe1920s,BolshevikRussiaandFascistItalyhadtakenonthemajorpoliticalpropertieswithwhichtheywouldbeknowntohistory.The1930swouldseethefullemergenceofauniquestatesystem,characterizedbytheinstitutionalizationofcharismaticleadership,inanarrangementthatfeaturedthedominanceofahegemonicpartyoverapopulationsummonedtoredemptivepurpose.Bothsystemsdisplayedthoseproperties.Whateverdistinguishedthetwo,therewerefundamentalsimilaritiesthatidentifiedthemasspeciesofthesamegenus.Manyofthesimilaritiesturnedonthenatureandroleofthestatewithinthatsyndromeofsimilarities.

Bythe1950s,theterm“totalitarianism”waspressedintoservicetocaptureasenseofsharedproperties.1Forourpurposes,itismoreinterestingtoacknowledgetotalitarianism’ssourceintheMarxismofthenineteenthcenturythanlaboroverthedifferencesbetweenregimes.Infact,manyofthoseputativedifferenceshaveshownthemselvestobelessthansubstantial.Inthetwenty-firstcentury,hardlyanyonegivescredencetothenotionthatMussolini’sFascismwasmalevolentandStalin’ssocialismwasnot.Today,hardlyanyonebelievesthattheonewas“proletarian”inessenceandtheothernot.Allthosepretendeddistinctionsthatmadeupmuchofthesubstanceofbitterpoliticaldisputesforhalf-a-hundredyearsnolongerseemcredible.Weareleftwithinstitutionalsimilaritiesthatarrestourattention.TheyaresharedlikenessesthatfindtheiroriginsinacomplexintellectualtraditionbequeathedtothetwentiethcenturybyKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.

BothsystemswithwhichwearehereconcernedgrewoutofthetheoreticalproblemsclassicalMarxismleftasanintellectuallegacy.MostofthoseproblemsturnedontheMarxistnotionoftherelationshipbetweenthe“economicbase”ofsociety,andits“correspondingideologicalsuperstructure.”Theinsistencethattheeconomicbase“determined”society’sideologicalsuperstructurecreatedanumberofcriticalproblemsforintellectualsand

activistsinthetwentiethcentury.That“ideas,”philosophical,moral,andlegal,werea“reflection”ofeconomicvariablesleftmanydiscomfitedandunconvinced.Thethesisseemedtodenyindividualsthecapabilitiestoreflecton,aswellasanyfreedomtochoose,theirbehaviors—renderingtheconceptofmoralresponsibilityallbutmeaningless.Thatwastofeedintoanentireconstellationofissuesthatincludedthequestionofhowethicsandmoralityrelatedtopubliclawandwhattherelationshipmightbebetweenlawandtherevolutionarypoliticalstate.

BothLeninismandFascismweretoaddressalltheseconcerns.Both,havingtheiroriginsinthesamerevolutionarytradition,weretotracedifferentpathsinthecreationoftheirrespectivestatesystems—andyetbothweretoconcludetheirlaborswithsingularlysimilarresults.

REVOLUTIONANDTHEREINTERPRETATIONOFMARXISMBythemid-1920s,Fascismhadputtogethertheessentialsofitsstate.Its

constructionwasneitherfortuitousnoratheoretical.SomeofthetheoreticalelementsthatwouldcontributetotherationalefortheFasciststatehadmadetheirappearancebeforethecommencementoftheGreatWar.BenitoMussolini,asaMarxistrevolutionary,washeirtothesametangleofdoctrinalproblemsaswasLenin.Inbothcases,alltheproblemswithwhichthefirstMarxismwasheircollectedaroundthequestionofhowthestatewastobeapprised.ThedifferencewasthatLeninpretended,untilhisdeath,thathisMarxismwastheMarxismofthefounders.MussoliniwasratherpreparedtoacknowledgethattherewereavarietyofalternativeinterpretationsofMarxism,eachofwhichhaditsmerits.

Mussolini’searlyattemptsatexplicatinghisMarxistbeliefshadrunagroundonhowethicsandmoralityweretobeunderstoodinthecontextofmodernrevolution—andultimatelyhowbothrelatedtonationalismandthepoliticalstate.Withrespecttothecomplexphilosophicalissuesofhowmoralityandethicsweretobeunderstood,hisearliestpublishedwritingsprovideevidenceofhisconcern.Howtheyinfluencedindividualandcollectivebehaviorwasapersistenttopicofhisreflections.

HavingfallenundertheinfluenceofSorelasearlyas1904,moralissuesweretooccupyMussolinithroughouttheremainderofhispoliticallife.ItwasPrezzoliniandtheVocianiwhoweretosuggestthathewouldhavetoproceedbeyondSorelandBergsontoresolvesomeoftheconcernsthathadbeguntoengagehim.Prezzolinisuggestedthatbothanalyticandsubstantiveassistance

mightbefoundinphilosophicalidealism—andbythemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthetwentiethcenturytherewerealreadytraces,inMussolini’sthought,ofGiovanniGentile’smoraldoctrines.

Apolitical,ratherthanaphilosophical,thinker,Mussolinihadfewpretenses.HedidremindothersthathewasamongthosesocialistthinkerswhohadsoughttoredirectItalianrevolutionariesawayfromtheinfluenceofamechanicalpositivismandathoughtlessmaterialism.Butitisclearthatthoseeffortswerenotentirelytheconsequenceofphilosophicalconcern.RobertoMichelshadearlyprovidedevidencethat,becauseoftheirpeculiarculturalpredilections,theentireissueofmoralchoiceandethicalvindicationwasparticularlyimportanttoItalianrevolutionaries.2Theywouldhardlybecontenttoconceivemoralandethicalissuesreducedtosimpleadjunctsoftheclassstruggle.

GiuseppePrezzoliniandtheVocianinotonlyconfirmedthatjudgment,buttheyarguedthatphilosophicalmaterialismofferedlittlethateffectivelyaddressedsuchquestions.Foratime,MussolinisoughtresolutionintheworkofWilliamJamesandthemoralrelativityofthepragmatists3—toultimatelycommithimselftosomeformofepistemological(andperhapsontological)idealism.4ThefactwasthatintheperiodimmediatelyprecedingtheGreatWar,MussolinihadbeensubjecttomanyinfluencesthatmovedhiminthedirectionofGentileanidealism.5

Ashasbeenindicated,immediatelybeforetheoutbreakoftheconflict,inJuly1914,MussolinichosetopublishanarticlebyPanfiloGentilethatarguedthenecessitytorethinktherevolutionarysocialistpositiononthe“witheringaway”ofthepoliticalstateaftertheanticipatedrevolution.6Itwasahereticalsuggestion,theproductofacriticalidealist,madetosocialistswhohadinsistedontheirantistatistconvictionsfordecades.

Intheyearsthatweretofollow,itwastobecomeevidentthatMussoliniwouldbecompelledbyeventstorevisitnotonlyhowrevolutionariesweretoconsiderrevolutionarymorality,law,andthestate,butthenatureandroleofnationalism—allwithinthatcollectionoftheoreticalissuesthathadcausedconsternationamongMarxistssincetheturnofthecentury.Outofthosedeliberations,thelineamentsofFascismfirstmadetheirappearance.

Hownationalismwastobeunderstoodinthemobilizationofmasseswasclearlyanissue.Alreadyconvincedofthespecialefficacyofelitesinthedynamicofrevolution,thequestionofhownationalism,asmyth,wastocontributetotheprocesshadtobeassessed.

ThethencurrentwritingsofGiovanniGentileaddressedallthosequestions7—andtheanswerstenderedweretoinfluencethesubsequentconstructionofaspecificallyFascistpoliticaldoctrine.8Gentilewasbothastatistandanationalist,andassuch,intheyearsimmediatelybeforetheGreatWar,influencedanumberofimportantItalianintellectuals.Theyalmostalluniformlyargued,ashadPanfiloGentile,thatsocialistswouldhavetodealwiththerealityofthepoliticalstateaftertheanticipatedrevolution.Andtheycametoargue(ashadFilippoCorridoni)thatinanenvironmentofretardedeconomicdevelopment,theclassstrugglecouldonlybedysfunctional.Acollaborationofclassesrecommendeditselfinanenvironmentwhereworkers,citizensofaneconomicallyretrogradeproletariannation,sufferedmorefromtheimposturesofforeignexploitationthanfromtheexactionsofdomesticcapitalists.Insuchcircumstances,onemorereasonablycouldexpectaconflictbetweenproletarianandplutocraticnationsthanadomesticstrugglebetweenclasses.Allofthathadgraduallycometogetherasthetheoreticalproblemsofnineteenth-centuryMarxismincreasinglyengagedtheattentionofthoserevolutionarieswhosoughttorecruitfootsoldiersinthefaceofthechallengeoftheGreatWar.

TonotafewadvocatesofItalianinterventioninthewar,ithadbecomemoreandmoreevidentthatarationaleforallofthatwastobefoundinGentileanidealism.GentilehadearlyassessedsomeofthemajorproblemsthatattendedthedoctrinesleftasanintellectualheritagebyKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.9

GentilewasamongthosethinkerswhotookMarxismveryseriously.Morethanthat,headdressedsomeofitscriticalcomponentswithrareapplication.Morethananyother,GentileassessedtheepistemologicalandnormativefoundationsofMarxism.Attheveryheartofhiscritique,GentilecontendedthatthephilosophyoftheyoungMarx,and“historicalmaterialism”initsentirety,couldhardlybeunderstoodtobematerialisticinanyfundamentallyphilosophicalsenseatall.10

Forthepurposesofthepresentdiscussion,perhapsthemostimportantfeatureofGentile’scritiqueturnedonhiscontentionthatmaterialistswereinvariablyphilosophicalindividualists—advocatesoftheprimacyoftheindividualasopposedtoanycollectivity—somethingMarxwasnot.Materialiststendedtofocusonindividualsasdiscrete,empiricalentities—tounderstandsocietyasnothingotherthananominalabstraction—nomorethananame.Formaterialists,onlyempiricalindividualswere“real.”Collectionsofindividualscouldbegivennames,buttheywereonlyrealinsomeabstractsense.

GentilewentontoarguethatMarxwasneitheramaterialist,noranominalist

intermsofhowheunderstoodsociety.GentileheldthatforMarx,societywasfarmorethananabstraction;itwasveryreal.Marx,Gentilecontended,understoodsocietytobeanorganicwhole,havingcontinuityintime,morerealthanthe“abstract”individualsofwhichmaterialistsimagineditcomposed.ForMarx,Gentileargued,individualscouldonlybeunderstoodintermsoftheircomplexinterrelationshipswithintheorganictotalitythatwassociety—andthatthosedefiningrelationshipspersistedonlyasproductsofthe“ethicalligaments”thatsustainedthem.11Implicitinsuchanunderstandingisthenotionthatmembershipinanysuchcommunitymustultimatelydependonanunderstanding,amoralagreement—thatsocietywas,insomefundamentalsense,anethicalreality.

Beforetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,attheverycommencementofhisacademiccareer,atscarcelytwenty-twoyearsofage,Gentilemadeveryclearwhatheconceivedtobetherelationshipbetweentheindividualandsociety.AssuchitnotonlyrevealedmuchofwhatGentile’ssocialandpoliticalphilosophywasabout,butagreatdealaswellaboutsomeoftheimplicationsburiedintheconceptualdensityofMarxism.

IndependentlyofitsrevelationsaboutthenatureandsubstanceofwhatGentileinsistedwastobefoundatthecenterofMarx’sthought,thenotionthatsocietywasinextricablyethicalinsubstancewastoanimatethesocialandpoliticalphilosophyofsomeofthemostimportantthinkersintheranksofthefirstFascism—andgivecharactertotheirconceptionoftheFasciststate.

MORALITY,LAW,ANDTHESTATEINFASCISMBythetimeFascismfullyrevealeditselfasacontenderforpoliticalpoweron

theItalianpeninsula,itsconceptionoftheanticipatedrevolutionarystatehadtakenform.SergioPanunzio,animportantsyndicalistintellectual,whohadexercisedinfluenceonMussolini’sdoctrinalmaturationformorethanadecade,publishedavolumeonlawandthestateinearly1921thatclearlyprefiguredfuturedevelopments.12

LikeMussolini,PanunziohadmadethetransitfromthekindofpositivismfoundintellectuallycompatiblebythefirstMarxistsduringthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury,tothecriticalidealismthathadbecomerelativelycommonamongthesocialistadvocatesofItaly’sinvolvementintheGreatWar.13Bythattime,Panunzionolongerconceivedoflaw—orthestatethatwasitssourceandsanction—asasimplereflexoftheeconomicbaseofsociety.HenolongerfoundadequatethesimplismsthatseemedtosatisfyGermantheoreticians.Therewas

nolongerappealtoeconomicdeterminism.Rather,hespokeofthenatureandfunctionofthestateanditslaws,andoftheirvindication.Hereferredtothelattereffortasametajuridicalresponsibility,asadvancingtheethicalrationalethatwarrantedbothlawandstate.

Panunziosawthestateasthepromulgatoroflaw,andlawasintended,inthefirstinstance,toorganize,administer,anddisciplineallthefactorsofproduction.Thatwascentraltothestate’spurpose.Morebroadlyspeaking,thestate’smissionhadimmediate,mediate,andultimatepurposes.Itsmoral,economic,andhistoricalresponsibilitieswouldbedischargedbymeetingpedagogical,maintenance,andsecurityobligations—allembeddedinacommonethicalmatrix.Atbest,specificclassinterests,astheywereunderstoodamongthemoreorthodox,wereatertiaryconcern.

ForPanunzio,atthecommencementofthedecadeofthe1920s,thestatewasunderstoodtobeanethicalagencythathadcontinuityintime,wasapurveyorofculture,acreatorofanenvironmentwithoutwhichindividualswouldonlysubsistandnotflourish.Hearguedthatthepurposesofthestatearesupremelyethical—thefullestpossiblemoraldevelopmentofhumanbeings.Tothatend,alltheproductivecomponentsofsociety—laborandemployersyndicates,confederationsofsyndicates,andcorporativebodies—wouldbeintegratedinlawandgovernancethroughthestate.

Panunzioalsospokeofthosespecialtimesofcrisistraversedbyeverysociety,whenspecialindividuals,chargedbyeventswithhistoricresponsibilities,expresstheimplicitwillofarevolutionarypeople.Notfarbelowthesurfaceoftheaccountofwhatheidentifiedasthe“neo-Hegelianethicalstate”wastheunmistakableoutlineofFascism,itsethos,itsinstitutions,itsvanguardelite,anditscharismaticleader.14

Inretrospectnoneofthiscanbeseenasunexpected.Itwasnotsimplytheopportunisticproductofatimeofpoliticaltroublesasitisoftenportrayed.TheprogressionofPanunzio’sthoughtcanbetracedovermorethanadozenyears.15Overthoseyears,likemanyrevolutionaryMarxists,hehadsoughttoresolvesomeofthedoctrinalpuzzlesleftbytheconventionalitiesofGermanSocialDemocracy.LikeWoltmannandSorel,PanunziofoundthepedanticorthodoxiesofKautskyunpersuasive—andlikeGentile,hefoundthenotionthatMarxwasanontologicalandsocialmaterialistunconvincing.16Overtheyears,bothPanunzioandGentileweretotraversemuchthesamepath.

Theintellectualatmosphereoftheentireperiodwasalivewithdiscussionof

“socialtheory.”Gentile’sfirstworkonMarxismwaspromptedbyarecognitionthatsuchconcernsoccupiedthetimeofmany.17Asearlyasthatfirstwork,Gentileconceivedsociety,andbyimplication,thestate,tobeessentiallyethicalinsubstance.Hisentirephilosophywaspredicatedontheconvictionthatallhumanexperiencewasrootedinethics—thatallhumanexperiencewasdefinedbychoice,bytheselectionoftruthcriteria,andattendantmoraljudgments.Onlyasaconsequenceofthosechoicesthatestablishedwhichclaimsmightqualifyastrue,might“reality”bedefinedandscientificregularitiesestablished.Allourunderstandingsoftheworldrestedonchoice,andthechoicespursuedwereafunctionofanimplicitorexplicitsystemofethics.18

WhilethesystemfoundinGentile’sworksisenormouslycomplex,asimpleandnotentirelyunfaithfulcharacterizationwouldidentifyself-fulfillment—asahumanbeing—tobewhatGentileconsideredthefundamentalpurposeoflife.19Heunderstoodself-fulfillmenttobeanongoingprocess,requiringalloflife’senergies.20

ForGentile,lifeisaspiritualunfolding,entirelymoralinessenceandimpetus.Itwasaprocessthatinvolvedcommunity.Selfhoodwouldbeimpossiblewithoutallthoseinterrelationshipsthatcreateusaspersons.Aroundtheindividual,conceivedasaparticularbeing,21thecommunityasanhistoricnation,informedbythestate,providestheconditionsnecessaryforself-realization.Law,whichprovidesfordisciplinedorder,findsitsorigininthestateasmoralarbiterofthosecircumstancessurroundingalifelivedincommunity.

Gentileearlyarguedthattheultimatesourceofthestate’sauthoritytopromulgate,sustain,modify,andadministerlawistheindividual’simplicitrecognitionthatthestateserveshisorherultimatepurpose:moralfulfillment.Itistherethatthestate’sauthoritymustfinditssource,anddisciplineitsrationale.22

Thatindividualsrecognizethemoralauthorityofthestaterequiredaneducationthatis,atonce,focused,controlled,andintegrative—everythingotherthantheagnosticanduncertaineducationcommoninliberalcommunities.23ForGentile,educationwasoneoftheprimeresponsibilitiesoftheethicalstate.

ForGentile,theindividualachievesfulfillmentonlyasadisciplinedmemberofacommunity—afamily,areligion,alanguagegroup—allsetinanhistoricassociationthat,inourtime,isanation.Thenation,whichprovidesthecircumstancesforthefulfillmentoftheindividual,isaffordedanidentity,aneffectivewill,andapersonalityincontinuity,bythestate.Itisthestate,through

itslaws,itsinstitutions,andthesecurityitextends,thatassuresitscitizensanationality,“thesacredpossessionbequeathed[them]bytheirforefatherswhichmakesthemwhattheyare,whichgivesthemaname,aculturalpersonality,andaneconomic,political,aswellasamoral,andintellectual,future.”24

ForGentile,itwasthenation,andthestatebywhichitwasinformed,thatprovidedthemoralsubstanceofthat“concreteindividuality”withinwhich“empirical”humanbeingsfoundtheirfulfillment.25Onlywithinawell-orderedcommunitymightfleshandbloodentitiesbecomemoralagents.Understandingthat,individualswerepreparedtosacrificeandlaborintheserviceofthehistoricnationanditsstate.Theyunderstoodthatinthenation’sservice,theywouldfindtheirfullhumanity.26

InallofthattherewastheclearechoofOttoBauer’sdiscussionofthecommitmentofworkingmeneachtotheirrespective“communityofdestiny.”Theissueofnationality,anditsrelationshiptotheformationofhumanpersonality,wasnotunknowntothecriticalMarxistsoftheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.TheissuesinvolvedhadbeenfullyengagedbyAustro-Marxists,Sorel,andWoltmann—Marxistsall.Withthatbackground,manycriticalMarxistsofthefirstyearsofthetwentiethcenturyrespondedtoGentile’sreasoning—theconceptswerefamiliar.

Theintractabilityoftheproblemsthatturnedonethics,morality,nationalidentity,andtherevolutionaryroleofthestate,hadbeenappreciatedamongthemost“orthodox”oftheGermanSocialDemocratsaswellassocialistsofallpersuasions.Michels,asaMarxistsyndicalist,hadwrittenabouttheroleofethicaljudgmentandrevolutionarynationalsentiment,andhadearlyspokenofa“proletariannationalism”thatmightwellinspiresacrificeanddedicationamongtheworkingclasses.BythetimeofthewarinTripoli,A.O.Olivettihadmademanyofthesamearguments27—andPanunziofollowedclosebehind.

Panunzio’sthoughthadgrownoutofthattradition,andwhenhearticulatedhisconceptionoftherevolutionaryfunctionofthe“neo-Hegelianethicalstate,”alltheconstituentsofFascistdoctrinemadethemselvesavailable.Gentile’ssocialphilosophybroughtthemtogetherbeforetheMarchonRomeinacoherencethatwastobegivenrecurrentexpressionthroughouttheentireFascistperiod.28

SomeconsiderabletimebeforetheadventofFascism,Gentileprovidedthenotionsabouttherelationshipbetweencitizensandnationalsentiment,moralimperatives,law,andthepoliticalstate,thatweretoservetheneedsof

Mussolini’sdevelopmentaldictatorship.FascistsearlyacknowledgedtheeconomicbackwardnessoftheItalianpeninsula,tofabricateaprogramtoaddresspreciselythat.

Theyunderstoodtheconsequencesofeconomicbackwardnessinthemodernworld.Italy’sinferiorityinthecouncilofnationswasassuredbythatbackwardness.Theyarguedthatthenationwas“poor,verypoor,incapableofsustainingitsownpopulation...lackingrawmaterials,andessentialcapital.”Allofwhichmadepredictableitsinternationalinferiorityandthehumiliationofitscitizens.

IfItalywastoattainanappropriatestationintheinternationalcommunity,Fascistsadvocatedthenation“dismantleallthatobstructsthenation’sfatefuldevelopment.”Theyurgedthatfrugalitybefostered,andnonproductiveconsumptionbecurtailed,inordertoassuretheaccumulationofcapitalthatwouldallowinvestmentin“theextensionandrepairofroads,irrigation,theconstructionofportsandraillines,togetherwithaggressiveexportmarketing.”29

Fascistsconceivedtheirtaskstoincludethefurtheranceofeconomicdevelopment—the“intenseandprogressiveproduction”leftundonebytheprimitiveindustrialcapitalismthatcharacterizedthepeninsulabeforetheGreatWar.Theyproposedthattheaccelerationofproductionandextensivedevelopmentbe“entirelyorganized,andinstitutionalized...byastrongstate,avirtualLeviathan,astatewithoverwhelmingjuridicalpower,”allin“theserviceofthelifeandpowerofthenation.”30Itwouldbeastatethatgavepersonalitytoanationpeopledbythe“warrior-producers”anticipatedbytherevolutionarysyndicalistsintheyearsbeforetheFirstWorldWar.31

TheprincipalFascisttheoreticiansarguedthat“everysocialmovementdeliversintohistoryanewconceptofthestateandoflaw.”ThatofFascismwasoneofa“strong,verystrongstate,basedonorder,disciplineandhierarchy,”32intheserviceofthenation’seconomic,military,andculturalenhancement.Disciplinewasthecriticalpreconditionofitssuccess.

Togetherwithdiscipline,theseamlessidentificationofcitizenswiththestate,33andwiththeleadership,werecentraltotheFascistconceptoftotalitarianism.34Throughaseriesofsubstitutions,theultimateinterestsoftheindividualwerethoseofthecommunity,andthoseofthecommunitywerethoseofthestate,andthoseofthestatewerethoseofthepartyanditsleader.

By1925,doctrinaltotalitarianismlegitimizedchangesintherulingAlbertine

constitution—thatresultedinproceduresthatsawlawemanatingfromthestate,byvirtueofprocesseslargelyinfluenced,ifnotultimatelydetermined,bytheDuceofFascism,primeminister,headofthegovernment,andleaderofthehegemonic,unitaryPartitonazionalefascista.35Theinstitutionalseparationofpowersthathadcharacterizedtheoldconstitutionwasmodifiedtoallowtheleaderofthesingleparty,andtheheadofthegovernment,tobelargely,ifnotsolely,responsiblefortheprovisionofpubliclaw.36Mussolinihadbecomethelinchpinofthesystemandauthorofthenation’slaws.

By1927,Fascistlawconceivedthenation“amoral,politicalandeconomicunity”thatsought,throughtheenactmentsofthestate,the“well-beingofindividualsandthedevelopmentofcollectivepower.”Itwasanarrangementinwhichallvoluntaryassociationsoflabororenterprisewererenderedinprinciple“organsofthestate,subjecttoitscontrol”—anduniformly“subordinatedtothesuperiorinterestsofproduction.”37

Bytheearly1930s,theFasciststatewasessentiallycomplete.38Itwasastructured,hierarchicallyarrangededifice,attheapexofwhichwastheunitarypartyandits“providential”leader—aleadergiftedwith“powerful,propheticthought,superiortoanyintheentirehistoryofcivilization.”39

By1939,Fascismhadcompleteditshistoricparabola.Inthecourseofitstenure,itdelivereditselfofafullyformedstatesystemuniquetothetwentiethcentury.ItwasuniqueamongallsimilarstatesystemsinthesensethatFascismhadarticulateditsrationalebeforeitsconstruction.Aswillbeargued,whileLenin’s“dictatorshipoftheproletariat”sharedfeatureswithMussolini’s“ethicalstate,”itwasonlythelatterthathadbeenprefiguredbyacoherentideologicalrationale.Lenin’sdictatorshipwasjerry-builtinresponsetototallyunanticipatedevents—aprocessjustifiedonlybythemostfragmentaryandinconsistentrationalizations.

SergioPanunzio,whohadanticipated,andhelpeddirect,theconstructionoftheFasciststate,undertooktowriteanexpositionthatwouldprovideanaccountofitscourseandsubstance.HisTeoriageneraledellostatofascistaisperhapsthebestsingleworkavailableonFascismasastatesystem.40Morethanthat,itcontainsanimpressivecomparativeanalysisofwhatheconsideredasingularclassofmodernphenomenaidentifiedas“revolutionarydictatorships”andthetotalitarianismstheyproduceuponmaturity.41

Panunzioidentifiesanumberofcandidaterevolutionarydictatorships,butfocusesonthoseassociatedwithV.I.LeninandBenitoMussolini—heirsofthe

exclusivisticbeliefsystemleftasalegacybyKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.Allthepropertieshewouldidentifywiththedistinctiverevolutionarymovementsofthetwentiethcenturyfoundtheiroriginintheneo-HegelianthoughtofthefoundersofMarxism.

Inspiredbyanabsolutecertaintyofconvictions,themovementsthatmountedsuccessfulrevolutionsinthetwentiethcenturyfeaturedleadershipthatconceiveditselfpossessedofanintuitiveandinfalliblegrasponreality—givenexpressioninformalideology.The“Leader”ofsuchanenterprisewouldbeanepistemarch,possessedofspecialtruthsanddirectiveinsights—“charismatic”intheWeberiansenseoftheterm.42Theideologyheformulated,fostered,andsustainedwouldbebindingonmembersduringthe“insurrectionary”phase,andoneveryoneduringtheperiodofthe“revolutionarydictatorship.”Itwouldprovidethesubstanceofthetotalitarianstatethatwoulduniteeveryoneinwhatwasunderstoodtobeaworldhistoricalenterprise.

Many,ifnotmost,ofthoserevolutionarymovementsofwhichPanunziospokefoundtheirultimateoriginsinMarxism.AnditwasMarxismthatseemstohaveinfectedthemallwiththeconvictionthatpoliticaldoctrinemightbeinfallible,toinspiresomethinglikereligiousdevotionamongfollowers.Panunziowastorefertothosefeaturesas“ecclesiastical.”Inourowntime,wespeakof“politicalreligions.”

PanunzioidentifiedallthesepropertiesinthestatesystemoftheSovietUnion.TheinformallogicthatunderlaytheprocessinLenin’sRussiawasthesamelogicfoundinthejustificatoryrationalefortheFasciststate.InspectionsofthethoughtofsomeoftheprincipalthinkersoftheBolshevikrevolutionattesttoPanunzio’sinsight.

HehimselfhadriddenMarxismthroughitsevolutionfromthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturyuntilitsmanifestationasFascisttotalitarianism.HetracedthesameprogressionintheevolutionofthestatesystemintheSovietUnion.

MORALITY,LAW,ANDTHESTATEINLENINISMThefateofMarxisminLenin’sRussiahasoccupiedtheattentionofmany

commentatorsinourtime.Therehavebeen,andare,manyinterpretationsthatattempttoaccountfortheprofounddoctrinalandpoliticalchangestowhichMarxismwasmadesubjectbyLeninandStalininthecourseoftheBolshevikrevolutionandthefabricationoftheSovietstate.

Whateverthecase,thesequencethattransformedtheintellectuallegacyleft

byMarxintotherationaleforStalinismisintrinsicallyinteresting.ConsideredtogetherwiththeprocessthatresultedinthecreationoftheFasciststate,anewperspectiveemergesonthehistoryofrevolutioninthetwentiethcentury.

ItisgenerallyconcededthatLeninwasneitheraphilosophernorasystematicsocialscientist.Inadistractedlifelivedinexile,fullyoccupiedwithrevolutionaryactivity,Leninwasillpreparedtodealwithphilosophicalandsocialscienceissuesthatrequiredintensestudyandundisturbedconcentration.Whenhedecidedtodirecthisattentiontosuchsubjects,itwasonlybecausetheyhadbeguntodividemembersoftherevolutionarycommunityintofactions—tounderminetheunitythatheconsideredabsolutelyessentialtohispurpose.Asaconsequence,Lenin’swritingonphilosophyandsocialsciencewasdrivenbyhispolitical,ratherthanspecificallycognitive,concerns.43

ThefactisthattherewaslittleintheMarxismthatLenininheritedthatwasserviceabletorevolutioninaneconomicallybackwardcommunity.TheattempttomakeMarxismapplicabledroveLeninfromonemodificationofreceiveddoctrinetoanother.Fromhisnotionofanelitistparty,ledbydeclassedbourgeoisintellectuals,toanewimperialiststageinthehistoryofrevolutionthatsaweconomically,specificallyindustriallyretrograde,nationsmakingrevolutionsagainstthepretensesof“bourgeois”nations,LeninhadreformulatedMarxismtoserveentirelyunanticipatedpurpose.

Withinthosesuccessiveandconcurrentdoctrinalmodifications,LeninhadlittleoccasiontoseriouslytreatquestionsofhowmoralsandethicsweretobeunderstoodwithinhisMarxism.44Histreatmentofbothwasnomorestudiedandacademicthanhisgeneraltreatmentofphilosophy.Likeallofhiswritingsonphilosophicalmatters,hisdiscussionofethicsandmoralswasdrivenexclusivelybypolitical,ratherthananalytic,oressentiallycognitive,considerations.OnecanhardlyaskifLenin’spoliticaldeliberationswereinspiredbyspecificallynormativeassessments,becauseLenin’smorality,anditssustainingrationale,werenotestablishedindependently,butwerethederivativeproductsofhispoliticalconvictions.Hisownaffirmationstestifiedtothat.

WhileLeninwaspreparedtomaintainthattherewas,infact,“suchathingascommunistethics...,”and“suchathingascommunistmorality,”hisanalysisoftheircharacterandscopewashardlypenetrating.Hetoldhisaudiencesthatcommunistethicsandmoralitywere“entirelysubordinatedtotheinterestsoftheproletariat’sclassstruggle....Morality,”hewenton,“iswhatservestodestroytheoldexploitingsocietyandtounitealltheworkingpeoplearoundtheproletariat.”45Ethicsandmoralitywerethusunderstoodtobesimply

instrumentalitiesintheserviceofthepriorcommitmenttoproletarianrevolution.InLenin’sview,theyapparentlymeritednomorediscussionthanthat.

Thus,towardtheendof1920,ashorttimebeforehisdeath,LeninspokeofethicsandmoralityinamannerthatfailedtoacknowledgethetimeandenergydevotedtothesubjectsbymanyoftheforemostMarxistsofthelastyearsofthenineteenthcentury.JosefDietzgenandKarlKautsky,forexample,hadbothstruggledtoprovideadefensiblephilosophicalrationaleforaMarxistethics—andLudwigWoltmannandGeorgesSorelhadrehearsedallthedisabilitiesthatattendedthethenprevailingpositivisticorthodoxies.46

Woltmann,aswehaveseen,madeapointofarguingthatethicaljudgmentsandmoralimperativescouldnotestablishtheirwarrantthroughanappealtofacts.Whilefactsmayfigureinmoralcalculation,theycannotvindicatebehaviorswithoutrecoursetospecificallyethicalgrounds.Onecannotprovideempiricalconfirmationbyprovidinglogicaldemonstrationsormathematicalproofsbyappealingtoobservations,noranultimatevindicationforethicalconvictionsbyinvokingnothingotherthanempiricaldescriptions.47Theremustbesomedistinctivenormativegroundstowhichanethicalsystemappealsinordertoestablishcredibility.Tostatethatone’smorality“stemsfromtheinterestsoftheclassstruggleoftheproletariat”istoprovideadescription,notanethicalvindication.

WhatislackinginLenin’sdiscussionisacoherentnormativefoundationformoralenjoinments.Thereisnothinginhisvoluminouswritingsthatsuggeststhatheentertainedanymoresophisticatedcomprehensionofethicsormoralitythantourgehisfollowerstobehaveintheprescribedmannerbecausesuchbehaviorswouldfurther“proletarianrevolution.”MoralityandethicsweresimplyinstrumentalintheserviceofrevolutionarypurposeasthatpurposewasunderstoodbyLenin.

Leninwasilldisposedtoentertainanycomplexnotionofthepresumptiverelationshipbetweenethicalmeansandmoralends.Untiltheendofhislife,Leninsoughttoavoidanycomplications.Ethicsandmoralityweredictatedbytheclassstruggle.Theendwascommunism,andthemeans,violentrevolutionasheunderstoodit.

NorwasLenintroubledbytheproblemofhowMarxistsmightconvincemassestoundertakerevolution.Leninhadmadethatveryclear.AfterhehadsecuredruleoverczaristRussia,heimmediatelymadelawhisinstrument.

Lenin’sviewwasclearlythatthepartyspokefortherevolution,andtherevolutionwasinthefundamentalandultimateinterestsoftheproletariatinitsentirety—whetherornottheproletariatunderstoodthattobethecase.48Aftertherevolution,thepartyanditsleadershippromulgated“revolutionarylaw”toserveitsconsolidation.Suchlawswereconceivedasservingtheinterestsoftheproletariat,initsentirety,aswellastheinterestsofitsindividualmembers49—whetherornottheyappreciatedthatfact.Thatimplied,conversely,thatanyrule,regulation,orcodifiedlaw,issuedbytheparty,itsleadership,oritscourts,servedtheultimateinterestsoftheproletariat,itsindividualmembers,andthe“highestends”ofsocialistmorality50—whetherornotanyoneotherthantheleadershipofthepartyunderstoodthattobethecase.Byanowfamiliarseriesofsubstitutions,theinterestsoftheparty,itsleadership,anditsstatebecameidenticalwiththeinterestsofthesubjectindividual.

Withinthatrationaleforthesystem,itseemedclear,toatleastsomeMarxisttheoristsinpostrevolutionaryRussia,thatamoreconvincingrationalewasrequiredtojustifythefeaturesofthesystem.Veryearlyon,somesettledonatreatmentofhowthestateandlawmightbeunderstoodwithintheorthodoxiesofclassicalMarxistargument.

Marxistshadspokenandwrittenextensivelyofthefutureofthestateandlawinapostrevolutionaryworld.SomeBolsheviktheoreticianssoughttoprovideasatisfyingaccountofhowbothfaredintheemergingSovietUnion.Aninterpretationofhowlawwastobeunderstoodwasselectedforanalysis.Itwaschoseninordertosatisfytheintellectualandmoralsensibilitiesofresponsiblerevolutionaries.

Bythemid-1920s,Bolsheviklegaltheoristsofferedanalysesoflawthattheyimaginedservedcriticalthought.Amongthem,EvgenyPashukaniswasclearlyoneofthemostimportant.HisTheGeneralTheoryofLawandMarxism,whichfirstappearedin1924,wasamongthemostimpressiveeffortsatformulatingasatisfactory“Marxisttheoryoflaw”51inpostrevolutionaryRussia.

Pashukanisconceivedhisworkatreatmentofthenatureandfoundationoflaw,inwhichheattemptedtomakeplausibletheinterpretationofmodernlawasa“reflection”ofsociety’seconomicbase,specificallyareflectionoftheinteractivepropertiesofcommodityexchangeinmodernproduction.Whatthatmeantwasthat“morallaw”wastobeunderstoodasnothingotherthan“theruleofexchangebetweencommodityowners”—itwassimplyanabstractrenderingofwhatwasexpectedtotranspireinaneffectiveexchangeofvaluesinfree

marketcircumstances.52

“Morallaw,”inturn,providedthatgroundofpubliclaw.Insomesuchfashion,thenotionsofmoralityandlawwerevacatedtoallow“classinterests”todictateboth.Pashukanis’spositionwasstraightforward.

Thestatewasanagencyofclassinterests;moralityandlawnolessso.PasukanissimplydrewouttheimplicationsofMarxistorthodoxy.Thecontentoflawwastheresultofclassinterests,anditsformwasareflectionofexistingsocialrelations,themselvestheproductoftheeconomicbase.Moralityandlawreflectedthecharacterofcommodityexchangeinthecapitalistproductivesystem.Inthatcontext,hewentontoarguethatbecauseprevailinglawcouldbenothingotherthanareflectionofprevailingrelationsofproduction,lawinapostrevolutionaryRussia,giventhesuppressionofcapitalismanditsmarket,wouldbeexpectedtogradually“witheraway.”Asimilaranalysis,appliedtothestate,wouldconfirmthetraditionalMarxistexpectationthatthepoliticalstatewouldbeaninevitablecasualtyofthesocialistrevolution.

Whateverelseheaccomplished,Pashukaniswastobecomeveryinfluential,amongintellectuals,intheRussiathatgraduallytookshapeafterthedeathofLeninin1924.HeservedasHeadoftheSubsectionoftheInstituteofSovietConstructionontheGeneralTheoryofLawandState,andhisinfluencecontinueduntilStalinconsolidatedhiscontroloverallaspectsofSovietintellectuallife.

WiththeadventofStalintotheleadershipoftheSovietUnion,Pashukanis’sinterpretationsincreasinglycameundercriticism.Anytalkofthe“witheringaway”oflaw,orthestate,was,atbest,heldtobeillconsidered.Stalinistsarguedthatwhatwasrequiredduringthe“periodoftransition”betweencapitalismandcommunisminpostrevolutionaryRussiawasnotthewitheringawayoflaworthestate,butstability,order,andabsolutecommitmentbyeverymemberofthecommunity—toassurethedefenseofthesocialistcommunityandtheestablishment,maintenance,andexpansionofitsindustrialbase.

Ratherthanawitheringawayofthestateandlaw,JosephStalinandAndreiVyshinsky,hisProcuratorGeneral,arguedthatlaw,andthestatethatprovidesitssanction,shouldbeformallyacknowledgedasessentialtothecreationofacommunistsocietyandthe“newSovietman”anticipatedbyLeninandhisrevolutionaryMarxists.53Publicandprivatelaw,administrativeregulations,andcriminalandprosecutorialcodesofconductwereallperceived,notsimplyas“reflections”ofaneconomicbase,but,asLeninhadinsisted,asinstrumentalto

thepoliticalpurposesofthesocialiststate.54

BythetimeStalinhadmaneuveredhimselfintoapositionofdominanceafterLenin’sdeath,Pashukanishadbeguntoanticipatedevelopments.HeattemptedtoshieldhimselffromStalin’swrathbyadmitting,in1932,thathehadbeendeficientinhisanalysisoflaw,itsform,andfunction.IntheefforttomollifyStalin,Pashukaniswaspreparedtoconcedethathehadunderestimatedthe“revolutionaryroleofthelegalsuperstructure”inpostrevolutionarycircumstances.Hehadbeenmistaken.Bythattime,hewaspreparedtoallowthatlawwasnotdestinedtowitheraway,butwouldincreaseitsinfluenceinthetransitionperiodbetweencapitalismandsocialism.“Itsactiveandconsciousinfluenceuponproductionandothersocialrelationships,”insuchcircumstances,hemaintained,“assumesexceptionalsignificance.”55

Bythelate1920s,Stalin’sideologuesarguedthatlawcertainly“reflected”morethanbourgeoisexchangeofcommoditiesinacompetitivemarket—anditcertainlywasnotscheduledto“witheraway.”Bythemid-1930s,PashukaniswaspreparedtosurrendertoStalin’s“creativedevelopment”ofMarxistsocialtheory.Stalinwouldhavenoneofit.His“creativedevelopments”ofMarxismhadleftPashukanisandmostindependentSovietlegaltheoreticiansdefenseless.In1937,PashukanisdisappearedintoStalin’sGreatTerror,andhisideasweredismissedaspartofa“Trotskyist,Bukharinite,fascistplot”againsttheSovietUnion.Pashukanis’sdeathsignaledthatbythe1930s,Stalinhadnotonlyabandonedthenotionthatlawwasasimplereflectionoftheequalexchangethatcharacterizedthecapitalistmarket,buthadlargelyrejectedthe“materialist”interpretationofhumanbehavior.In1934,Stalinaffirmedthat“thepartplayedbyobjectiveconditions”inthetransitionalperiodbetweencapitalismandcommunismhad“beenreducedtoaminimum;whereasthepartplayedbyourorganizationsandtheirleadershasbecomedecisive,exceptional.”56Theroleofhumanbeings,ratherthaneconomicfactors,hadbecomedecisiveinStalin’sinterpretationofsocialandpoliticalchange.Armedwiththatinterpretation,Stalinadvancedhis“theoryoflawandtherevolutionarystate.”

Toforce-drafthumanbeingsthroughthetransitionalperiodbetweencapitalismandsocialism,Stalininvokedalltheinstrumentalitiesofthepoliticalstate.HechidedMarxistsforfailingto“furtherdevelop”theMarxisttheoryofthestateandlaw.Engels’sformula,hewentontosay,anticipatingthewitheringawayofboththestateanditslawscouldnot,anddidnot,anticipatethekindsofproblemsthatwouldfaceanactualpostrevolutionary“Marxist”state.57By1930,Stalinhadalreadyinsistedthatheandthepartystoodfor“the

strengtheningofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,whichisthemightiestandstrongeststatepowerthathaseverexisted”58—anditwouldbethatstatethatwouldcreatelaw.Therewasnolongertalkofthestateanditslawsbeingthesimple“reflection”ofaneconomicbase.

SuchadevelopmentcanhardlybeattributedexclusivelytoadesireonthepartofStalintocontrolhisenvironment.ThedevelopmentappearstohavebeenanticipatedbyLenin.Evenbeforetheoverthrowofczarism,Leninspokeof“smashing”the“bourgeoisstateapparatus,”onlytoinsist,atthesametime,that“astateofthearmedworkers”wouldbeerectedimmediatelytoimposethe“strictestcontrol”overthebehaviorsofallinthenew“genuinelydemocratic”Bolshevikstate.59

Leninfullyappreciatedwhathewasproposing.WhateverMarxisttheorymayhavesaidaboutthesurvivalornonsurvivalofthepoliticalstateaftersocialistrevolution,Leninacknowledgedthatthedisciplineoflabor,theallocationofresources,thedistributionofconsumergoods,clothingandcomestibles,allwouldhavetobegovernedbycontrolsthattookoneveryappearanceoflaw,andlaw,Leninremindedhisfollowers,requires“anapparatuscapableofenforcingtheobservanceofthestandardsofright.”ThepostrevolutionaryLeniniststate,burdenedwithenormousresponsibilities,wouldbepreparedtoadministerlawwithdraconianrigor.Thatmeant,hewenton,thatthearmedworkers’state,displayingalltherepressiveandcontrolfeaturesoftheprerevolutionarystate,wouldnotonlypersist,butwouldbetheresultofeffortsundertakenbyBolsheviksthemselves.Thepostrevolutionarystatewouldbe,infact,“abourgeoisstatewithoutthebourgeoisie,”60constructed,enhanced,andmaintainedbythepartyoftherevolutionaryproletariat.

Ineffect,Leninanticipatedthecontinuedexistenceofthe“bourgeoisstatewithoutthebourgeoisie”undertheauspicesofrevolutionaryBolshevism.ThatprefiguredtheadventoftheStaliniststatewithitscharacteristiclegalstructure.

Ashasbeenargued,Leninalwaysunderstoodthestatetobenothingotherthanacontrolapparatus,employedbyoneclasstoimposeitswillonanother.Morethanthat,itappearsthatLeninunderstoodthatthe“armedworkers’state”wouldemploy“revolutionarylaw”toimposeitswillonalldenizensofthesocialiststate—irrespectiveofrealorfanciedclassmembership.61

Theonlymoralitythatcountedinsuchcircumstanceswasthemoralityoftheleadershipofthearmedworkers’state.Leninclearly“regardedlawasanarmofpoliticsandcourtsasagenciesofthegovernment.”Thoseattitudesshapedthe

contentofBolshevikRussia’sfirstcriminalcode,producedunderLenin’sdirectsupervision.Theresultwasacodethat,forthefirsttimeinthelonghistoryofjurisprudence,establishedthefunctionoflawandlegalproceedingsnotasthedispensingofjustice,buttheimpositionofpoliticalconformityonaninertpopulation.Howeverelselawmightbedefined,itwasunderstoodtobe“adiscipliningprinciplethathelpsstrengthentheSovietstateanddevelopthesocialisteconomy.”62

Therationalesupportingsuchaninterpretationofthenatureofthestate,lawandmorality,andtheiruses,wasthatonlytheself-selectedelite,theBolshevik“vanguard,”knewtheregnant“lawsofhistory”thatprovidedpoliticalinstitutionstheir“scientific”warrant.Consequently,onlythepartyleadershipknewwhatwasmorallyandintellectuallyrequiredtoachieve“thehighestaimsandtasksofmankind.”Onlytheycouldeffectivelydisciplineanentiresociety,throughtheagencyofthestateanditslaws,directingrevolutiontoitsproperterminus.63

BythetimeofthepassingofJosephVissarionovichStalin,theSovietconceptionsofmorality,law,andthestatehadtakenonstandardform.Withverylittlevariation,Sovietcommentatorsspokeofmoralityasthetotalityofsocialbehaviors,sanctionedbypublicapprovalordisapproval.64Usually,itwasheldthatapprovalordisapprovalfounditsimpetusin“classinterests,”moralitybeinginservicetothe“rulingclass.”65Moralbehaviorwasvariable,governedbytimeandcircumstances,butinvariablyservingtheinterestsofsomegivenrulingclassorclasses.66

Allofthisisofimportanceintryingtounderstandsomethingofthe“newstate”anditslawsthatmadetheirfirstappearanceinthetwentiethcentury.Asoneofthosestates,theStaliniststatewasinstructive.Asa“Marxist”state,itwasmostsingular,sharingevidentpropertieswiththe“Fasciststateoflabor.”LiketheFasciststate,theStaliniststatewasastategovernedbyaunitaryparty,a“vanguard”oftherevolution,ledbyan“epistemarch,”especiallygiftedintermsofpolitical,social,andeconomicinsight.67Thesystemwasdevelopmental,fundamentallynationalistininspiration,andgovernedbyapanoplyoflawsdesignedtosustainandfurthercomprehensivecontrol.

TheSovietsystemwasthusnot“merelyathermidorianrevivalofnationalisttradition,butanalmostfascistlikechauvinism,”andfeatured“notmerelyaleadercult,butdeificationofadespot.”68ItwasaproductofLenin’sheterodoxMarxism,transmogrifiedbyStalinunderthedemandsoftimeandcircumstance.

ForLeniniststhesocialiststate,andSovietlaw,wereproductsofpartyleadership.69Thedictatorshipwouldmanifestitselfasa“newformofstate,”distinctiveinitsfeaturesfromanythingtobefoundinclassicMarxisttheory,possessedofsalvific“truth,”andledby“thebrilliantleaderandteacher,JosephVissarionovichStalin”70—equippedtoshapethedevelopmentofthestate,anddirecttheeducationandtrainingofSovietcitizensthroughpedagogicalinstitutions,moralschooling,andtheimpositionoflaw.

Thenewstatewouldfosteranddefendtheemergent,alternativesocialistsociety.Subsequently,thevictoriousCommunistParty,throughtheagenciesofthestate,wouldguidepoliticalandeconomicdevelopment,fromthefirstperiodafterthevictoryofsocialism,throughtheextendedtransitiontothefinalstageofcommunism.Ateverystageintheprocess,thelawsofthesocialiststatewouldfunctionina“creativeandorganizationalrole,”throughthestate’scontrol,information,andpedagogicalinstrumentalities.Thestate,consistentlysustainedandstrengthenedundertheministrationsoftheparty,woulddiscipline,direct,andeducateallthemembersoftheevolvingsocialistorder.71

Bythemid-1930s,theStaliniststatewaswellestablishedtoproceedtodecimateanyremainingopposition.72Thepurgesthatfollowedsweptawayanypossibilityofdomesticresistanceandtheregimesettledintotheformthatwouldpersist,withsomealterations,untilStalin’sdeathin1953.TheworldhassincebecomefamiliarwiththecriterialtraitsthatidentifytheStaliniststate.Shornofthetransparentfictionthatitwassomehow“Marxist,”orthatitsomehowrepresentedthe“ultimateinterestsoftheproletariat,”StalinismwasacaricatureofthestatesystemofFascism.Panunzio,inhisassessmentoftheclassof“totalitarianisms,”ofwhichFascismwasone,acknowledgedasmuch.

AccordingtogenericMarxisttheory,humankind’sliberatingrevolutionwouldfollowanentirelydifferentcourse.Themoralityoftheproletariatwouldnotbetheconsequenceofeitherinstructionorlaw.Itwouldgrowspontaneouslyoutofresistancetotheoppressionofthebourgeoisieintheperiodofcapitalistrule.Socialrevolutionwouldbetheconsequenceofthegrowingtensionsbetweenthematerialproductiveforcesandproductiverelationsofadvancedindustrialcapitalism,whichwouldcauseperiodiceconomiccrises—andultimatelytheinevitablecollapseofthesystem.TherevolutionaryprogramofatrulyMarxistpoliticalpartywouldrepresentsolutionstothoseproblemsandwouldembodyanappositemorality.Suchaprogramwouldoutlinethestrategyforthedefeatoftheoppressorsoftheworkingclass,andprovideforthecreationofa“dictatorshipoftheproletariat”—thatwouldsupplytheenvironmentforthe

witheringawayofboththepoliticalstateandthelawitsustained.Thestatewoulddisappearintothevoluntaryassociationofproducers—whichwouldproceedtoplanproductiontomeettheneedsofall.

REVOLUTIONARYDICTATORSHIPSANDTOTALITARIANISMInhisanalysisofrevolutionarydictatorships,andthetotalitarianismsinto

whichtheymatured,Panunziomaintainedthattheirrespectiverevolutionaryleadershipsweresoconvincedofthetruthsoftheirconvictions,thatabsoluteadherencetotheirrespectiveideologiesbecomesameasureofvirtue.Anydeparturefromthatstrictadherencewouldinvitesanction.TheLeader,creatorandspokesmanofanexclusivisticsystemofbelief,inspiresamonghisfollowerstheconvictionthatheisapoliticalleaderandthinkersuperiortothegreatestmindsofourtime.73Hebecomestheultimatesourceofsecurity,fulfillment,andmeaning.Thesystemhecreatesishierarchical,authoritarian,moralizing,andrelentlesslypublic.Insuchcircumstances,theentirepoliticalenvironmentischaracterizedbyanatmosphereofhighemotionalsalience,publicliturgies,andmassdisplay.

Inhistime,Panunzioidentifiedextantmembersofthatclassofmodernmovements.Intheirnumber,heincludedChiangKaishek’sKuomintang,74aswellasHitler’sNationalSocialism—andhespeculatedonothers.75Heclearlydistinguishedeachbyvirtueoftheirrespectiveideologicalsubstance—theyclearlydifferedamongthemselves.ThedoctrinalexpressiongiventoMarxismbytheBolsheviksandStalinistsdistinguisheditfromtheideologyofFascism—andtheracismofNationalSocialismdistinguisheditfromboth.Itwastheirsharedinstitutionalformthatrenderedthemmembersoftheclassof“totalitarianisms.”Whethertheirideologicalcommitmentwastoproletariancommunism,ortheNordicrace,ortherestorationofItalytoitsproperplaceinthecommunityofnations,theyallchosethehierarchicallystructured,charismaticallyled,singlepartystatetopursuetheirends—astatefirstfixedinpoliticaldoctrinebyFascism.Whattheydidwiththeinstrumentalitiesthattypifiedthatstateisnowindeliblyrecordedinhistory.

Morethanthat,itwasFascism,havingdirectlyaddressedtheissueofrevolutioninaneconomicallylessdevelopedenvironment,thatanticipatedthatthetwentiethcenturywouldnotbeacenturyofclassstruggle,butacenturyinwhichlessdevelopednationswouldengagethoseindustriallyadvancedforstatus,security,space,andresources.76Whileintimationsofsuchapossibility

aretobefoundinLenin’spreliminaryassessmentsoftheinternationalimplicationsofimperialism,Fascistsarguedwithgreaterclarity,andmorecompellingevidence,thatthestrugglethatwouldtakeshapeinthetwentiethcenturywouldbeastrugglebetweennationsandnotclasses.77

Fascistsarguedthatclassstruggle,inanyliteralsense,wouldhavepreciouslittletodowiththeconflictsofthetwentiethcentury.ThosetheoreticianswhowouldprovidetheideologyofFascismunderstoodthatevenbeforethecomingoftheGreatWar.TheysharedwithothercriticalMarxiststherecognitionthatnationalsentimentwasmorepervasiveandcompellingthananyinfluencearisingfromthosematerialinterestscharacteristicallyassociatedwithclassidentification.

That,oncegranted,severalconsiderationsfollowed.Ifeconomicallylessdevelopedcommunitiessoughttofreethemselvesfromexploitationatthehandsof“plutocratic”powers,theywouldhavetoundertakerapideconomicgrowthandindustrialdevelopment.78Onlythepossessionofpowerprojectioncapabilities,affordedbyindustrialplantssufficienttosupplymodernweapons,wouldrenderlessdevelopednationssurvivableinanycontestwiththeirindustriallyadvancedprotagonists.

LongbeforeeitherLeninorStalin,itwasFascismthatfullyappreciatedthefactthatinthetroubledtwentiethcentury,arevolutionaryparty,thatsoughttherapidindustrializationofaretrogradeeconomy,wouldhavetomakerecoursetoaninflexiblestatesystemthatcouldensuretheeffectiveinculcationofanideologyofsacrifice,labor,andobedienceuponasubjectpopulation.

Panunziorecognizedthattheseobligationsimposedpedagogical,andquasireligious,obligationsontherevolutionarydictatorshipshesoughttocharacterize.79Heunderstoodthatsuchsystems,freightedwithsuchresponsibilities,couldonlyfunctioninanatmosphereofsustainedmoraltension—thatwouldfostercollectivediscipline,obedience,andselflesscommitment.Tocreateandmaintainallthat,therevolutionarydictatorshipwouldberequiredtocontroltheflowofinformationandshapetheeducationalprocesses.Therewouldhavetobeanappealtosymbols,“sacredtexts,”andcharismaticleaders—alltocreatethemoralequivalentofwar.80Therevolutionarydictatorships,andthetotalitarianisms,thatweretofollow,whetherofthe“left”orthe“right,”wereallmarkedbythesamefeatures—whatevertheirrespectivepretenses.

Inthehalf-centuryfollowingthepassingofMussolini’sFascism,theworldwitnessedtheriseandfallofrevolutionarydictatorshipsthatsharedsome,ifnot

all,themajorfeaturesofitsstatesystem.81LikeFascism,mostofthosesystemstracedtheirdoctrinalancestrybacktothedense,prolix,abundant,andsometimesimpenetrable,literarylegacyleftbythefoundersofthefirstMarxism.Maoism,KimIlSungism,andallthesatelliteMarxismsofEasternEuropeandtheBalkanspretendedtobeMarxistininspiration.EventhepoliticalobscenitythatmurderedaboutaquarteroftheentirepopulationofgentleCambodiaimagineditsideologicaloriginsweretobefoundintheMarxismofMarxandEngels.Tryingtofindthedoctrinalgroundsforthesingleparty,developmentaldictatorshipsofthetwentiethcenturyhasseenacademicsofallpersuasionrummagingthroughthepublishedworksofthefoundersofMarxismtoverylittlepurpose.Thegroundsarereadilyfoundinthewritingsofpre-FascistandFascisttheoreticianswhopublishedearlyinthelastcentury.

Syndicalists,suchasFilippoCorridoniandA.O.OlivettihaddrawnouttherevolutionaryimplicationsofItaly’sbackwardnesslongbeforeLeninandStalinrecognizedthateconomicandindustrialbackwardness,andtherevolutionaryanticipationsofclassicalMarxism,wereentirelyincompatible.BeforetheGreatWar,atatimewhenLeninwasexpectingaworldwide“proletarian”revolution,Corridoniarguedthattheprospectsofsucharevolution,inthetheninternationalcircumstances,wereallbutnil.Thatgranted,thebackwardnessoftheItalianpeninsulamaderapideconomicandindustrialdevelopmentitsonlyopinion—ifanysortofrevolutionarychangewassought.Thedoctrinethatfollowed,composedofthethoughtofarosterofrevolutionaryMarxists,wasthefirstFascism—harbingerofthetotalitarianismthatwouldincludeinitsranks,toonedegreeoranother,mostoftherevolutionaryregimesofthetwentiethcentury.82

THEENDOFTOTALITARIANISMItisnotclearthatwehaveseentheendoftotalitarianism.Whileitseems

evidentthatwewillnotseeitslikeagaininEurope,itisnotclearthatwewillnotseesomevariantinthosevastreachesofthoseunderdevelopedregionsoftheworldthatstillobtain.Nationsandpeoplesafflictedbyindustrialbackwardness,anassociatedfeelingofinefficacy,andburdenedbyanabidingsenseofhumiliation,aredisposedtothekindsofleadershipandtherevolutionaryenterprisethatproducesthoserevolutionaryregimesthatgrowintototalitarianism.

Someoftherevolutionarycurrentsthathavemostoccupiedourattentionatthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcenturyshowadispositiontowardsomekindoftotalitarianism—howeverdifferentfromLeninism,Stalinism,orFascism.WhilethesecontemporarymovementsarenotFascistinanydeterminatesense,83they

dodisplaysometotalitarianfeaturesthataugurillforourtime.

RadicalIslamistmovements,assumingsomeofthefeaturesoftotalitarianism,donottracetheirorigins,howeverremote,toFascismorMarxism.Theirconcernisnotwithproductivesystemsordevelopingeconomies.Theirsisapreoccupationwiththerestorationofanarchaicorderofagrarianandnomadicreligiosity—noneofwhichprecludesaroleforcharismaticleadershipandimpeccabledoctrine—which,inturn,elicitsconformity,obedience,discipline,andsacrificefromitsfollowers.

Atleastoneoftheserevolutionshassucceededinimposingitselfonapopulation.TheleadershipofIranhassoughtthekindofpopulationcontrolsemployedbyprecedenttotalitarianisms—butitseemsthattechnologicalbackwardnesshasrenderedtheeffortslessthanimpressive.Whateverthecase,the“totalitariantemptation”remainsamongus,perhapsinlesstraffickedplaces.Itseemsunlikelythatneweffortswouldbemadeinthoseregionsthathavesufferedafailedtotalitarianism.Inthepast,thecostsofsuchasysteminvariablyhavebeenveryhigh.

Shouldtherebeanyfurthertotalitarianisminthenewcentury,itprobablywillnotfinditsoriginsinMussolini’sFascismorinsomeformofheterodoxMarxism.Mussolini’sFascism,genericfascism,andrevolutionaryMarxism,seemtohaveallplayedthemselvesoutinthetragediesofthetwentiethcentury.TheepigonesofMussolini,Lenin,Stalin,andMarxhaverenouncedtotalitarianism.InItaly,theheirsofMussoliniabjureviolence,rejectthenotionofpoliticaldoctrinesthatareimpeccablytrue,andcompeteincompetitiveelections.IntheformerSovietUnion,partycommunistsadvocatepensionreforms,anddisavowviolence,aswellastotalitarianism,tocompetein“bourgeois”elections.

Intheindustrialdemocracies,Marxismhasbecomethesubjectofclassestaughttoundergraduates,nolongertherevolutionarycreedoftheworkingclass.Fascismhasbecomethecaricaturefoundonlate-nighttelevision.Littleremains,ineffect,ofthoseheterodoxMarxismsthatgaverisetothevariegatedtotalitarianismsofourtime.

Whathasbeenleftbehindissomethingofacautionarytale,toldinamannerthatperhapsprovidesabetterunderstandingoftherevolutionarythoughtofthepastcentury,perhapsabettercomprehensionofMussolini’sFascism,andLenin’sBolshevism—andperhapsanappreciationofthemoralandintellectualcomplexitiesinvolvedinacommitmenttopoliticalandsocialrevolution.Itisa

taleabouttheadventofrevolutionaryandtotalitarianthoughtinthepastcentury.Whatitisnotisanaccountingofthecostsinvolvedinitstenureanditspassing.

Notes

1.INTRODUCTION1OneofthemorerecentexamplesofthisisfoundinR.J.B.Bosworth,Mussolini’sItaly:LifeUndertheFascistDictatorship(NewYork:PenguinPress,2006).Capitalized,“Fascism”willrefertotheFascismofMussolini.Alowercase“fascism”referstoagenericfascismthatincludesanindeterminatemembership.

2See,forexample,MartinPabst,Staatsterrorismus:TheorieundPraxiskommunistischerHerrschaft(Stuttgart:LeopoldStockerVerlag,1997),chap.2.

3SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,InterpretationsofFascism(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPress,2000),chaps.2and3.

4SeeHerbertW.Schneider,MakingtheFascistState(NewYork:OxfordPress,1928);WilliamG.Welk,FascistEconomicPolicy(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1938),p.243.

5AngeloDelBocaandMarioGiovana,FascismToday:AWorldSurvey(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1969),p.145.SeethediscussionconcerningdeGaulleonpages170–173,181–185,191–207.

6MaxHorkheimer,asquotedinFrançoisFuret,ThePassingofanIllusion:TheIdeaofCommunismintheTwentiethCentury(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),p.368.

7RajaniPalmeDutt,FascismandSocialRevolution:AStudyoftheEconomicsandPoliticsoftheExtremeStagesofCapitalisminDecay(SanFrancisco:ProletarianPublishers,1974;areprintofthe1934edition),pp.16,17.

8SeetheaccountinF.Burlatsky,TheStateandCommunism(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,n.d.).

9SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,TheFacesofJanus:MarxismandFascismintheTwentiethCentury(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000),chap.5.

10AnatolyButenko,“ToAvoidMistakesintheFuture,”TheStalinPhenomenon(Moscow:NovostiPressAgency,1988),p.8.

11GavriilPopov,“FromanEconomist’sPointofView,”andDmitryVolkogonov,“TheStalinPhenomenon,”ibid.,pp.12,41,43.

12Volkogonov,“TheStalinPhenomenon,”ibid.,pp.48,49.

13BorisBolotin,“DogmaandLife,”ibid.,pp.30–31.

14SeetheinterestingdiscussionoftheresponsesmadebysomeoftheintellectualschallengedbydevelopmentsintheSovietUnioninPaulHollander,TheEndofCommitment:Intellectuals,Revolutionaries,andPoliticalMorality(Chicago:IvanR.Dee,2006).

15SeeMarkNeocleous,Fascism(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997).

16SeethepostmortemaccountinPeterSperlich,RottenFoundations:TheConceptualBasisoftheMarxist-LeninistRegimesofEastGermanyandOtherCountriesoftheSovietBloc(London:Praeger,2002)andOppressionandScarcity:TheHistoryandInstitutionalStructureoftheMarxist-LeninistGovernmentofEastGermanyandSomePerspectivesonLifeinaSocialistSystem(London:Praeger,2006).

17SeetheentirediscussioninFuret,ThePassingofanIllusion,chaps.10–11.

18SeethediscussioninGregor,InterpretationsofFascism,chap.5.

19TheclassicstatementofthisnotionisfoundinGeorgiDimitroff,TheUnitedFrontAgainstWarandFascism:ReporttotheSeventhWorldCongressoftheCommunistInternational,1935(NewYork:GammaPublishing,1974;reprintofthe1934edition).Theeditor,JackShulman,insiststhatDimitroff’sanalysiswasrelevanttotheUnitedStatesoftheperiod;seeibid.,pp.3–5.

20SeethemoreamplediscussioninA.JamesGregor,APlaceintheSun:

MarxismandFascisminChina’sLongRevolution(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,2000),pp.106–107.

21MaoistsintheUnitedStatesandBritainputtogetherelaborateaccountsofhowtheSovietshadabandonedMarxisminordertorestorecapitalismtowhathadbeena“socialist”society.See,forexample,HowCapitalismhasbeenRestoredintheSovietUnionandWhatthisMeansfortheWorldStruggle(Chicago:RevolutionaryUnion,1974).

22SeethediscussioninGregor,TheFacesofJanus,chap.4.

23Seeoneofthemostrecentefforts,RobertO.Paxton,TheAnatomyofFascism(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2004),particularlychap.8.

24Onefindsjustthesesortsofjudgmentsinthe1990“ReportoftheEuropeanParliament’sCommitteeofInquiryintoRacismandXenophobia,”inFascistEurope:TheRiseofRacismandXenophobia(London:PlutoPress,1991).SeealsoA.JamesGregor,TheSearchforNeofascism:TheUseandAbuseofSocialScience(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),chaps.1–3.

25ThisisnottosaythattherehavenotbeenauthorswhoseetherelationshipbetweenthevariousformsofMarxismandoneoranotherformoffascism.SeeA.JamesGregor,TheFascistPersuasioninRadicalPolitics(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1974).

26DaveRenton,Fascism:TheoryandPractice(London:PlutoPress,1999),pp.3,116.

27Asearlyas1918,GiovanniGentilewrotethatinthebestgovernedcommunities,“thewillofapeopleisthesameasthewillofhewhogoverns—andthewillofhewhogovernsisthewillofthosegoverned.”GiovanniGentile,“Ilsignificatodellavittoria,”Dopolavittoria:Nuoviframmentipolitici(Rome:LaVoce,1920),p.8.

28SeeGentile’sdiscussioninDiscorsidireligione(Florence:Sansoni,1955;thirdeditionoftheeditionof1920),particularlypp.20–23.“Theindividualhaswithinhimself,society—heforgeswithinhimselfasociality,asocietyimmanentwithinhim.”Gentile,Preliminariallostudiodelfanciullo(Florence:Sansoni,1920),p.55.

29BenitoMussolini,“Perlaverapacificazione,”Operaomnia(Florence:Lafenice,1955),17,p.295.

30SeeMarcoTarchi,Partitounicoedinamicaautoritaria(Naples:Akropolis,1981),pp.23–24.

31GeorgeH.Sabine,“State,”inEncyclopaediaoftheSocialSciences(NewYork:Macmillan,1934),14,p.330.

32“InspiteoftheopenhostilitythatexistsbetweentheU.S.S.R.,ontheonehand,andFascistItalyandNationalSocialistGermany,ontheother,therearestrikingsimilaritiesbetweenthem.”MichaelT.Florinsky,FascismandNationalSocialism:AStudyoftheEconomicandSocialPoliciesoftheTotalitarianState(NewYork:Macmillan,1936),p.v.

33SeeMartinJaenicke,TotalitäreHerrschaftinSoziologischeAbhandlungen(Berlin:DuckerundHumblot,1971),13,p.62,n.7;andthetypicaluseamongMarxistsinRobertA.Brady,TheSpiritandStructureofGermanFascism(London:Gollancz,1937),particularlypp.39–40.

34HerbertMarcuseisperhapsthebestrepresentativeofthatconviction—toapplytheterm“totalitarianism”to“bourgeoisliberaldemocracy”asearlyasthemid-1930s.SeethediscussioninDouglasKellner,HerbertMarcuseandtheCrisisofMarxism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1984).

35SeeCarlJ.Friedrich,“TheUniqueCharacterofTotalitarianSociety,”inCarlJ.Friedrich(ed.),Totalitarianism(NewYork:GrossetandDunlap,1953),pp.47–59;JuanLinz,“TotalitarianismandAuthoritarianRegimes,”inFredGreensteinandNelsonPolsby(eds.),HandbookofPoliticalScience,MacropoliticalTheory(Reading,Mass.:Wiley,1975).

36OneofthevolumesIfoundmosthelpfulwasAbbottGleason,Totalitarianism:TheInnerHistoryoftheColdWar(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).

37See,forexample,thevolumepublishedanonymouslyby“Humanus,”Fascismorosso(Rome:Faretra,1946);andThomasE.Lifka,TheConcept“Totalitarianism”andAmericanForeignPolicy(NewYork:Garland,1988),2,p.495.

38SeeGleason,Totalitarianism,p.70.Tothisday,leftistintellectualsinsistthat“fascismisfirstandforemostanideologygeneratedbymodernindustrialcapital.”Neocleous,Fascism,p.xi.

39Infact,J.L.Talmon’sTheOriginsofTotalitarianDemocracy(NewYork:Praeger,1960)wasdevotedlargelytotracingthetotalitarianoriginsoftheSovietsystemtothedemocracyoftheFrenchrevolution.

40HannahArendt,TheOriginsofTotalitarianism(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1951);seeGregor,InterpretationsofFascism,pp.96–107.

41H.StuartHughes,“HistoricalSourcesofTotalitarianism,”TheNation,24March1951,p.281.

42SeeStephenF.Cohen,“BolshevismandStalinism,”reprintedinErnestA.Menze(ed.),TotalitarianismReconsidered(London:KennikatPress,1981),pp.58–80.

43SeeAlbertoAquarone,L’Organizzazionedellostatototalitario(Turin:Einaudi,1965),pp.290–311.

44Withthecollapseoftheregimein1943,andtheoccupationofItalybyNationalSocialistforces,FascistsbecamecomplicitinthedeathofaboutseventhousandJews.ArendtapparentlyfeltthatwastoofewtoqualifyFascismasa“totalitarianism.”Sheseemedtobepreparedtoarguethattotalitarianshadtohavealargepopulationinordertocarryouttheirmassmurders.FascistItaly’spopulationwasapparentlytoosmall.OneisnotcertainhowArendtwouldcharacterizethePolPotregimein“DemocraticKampuchea,”whichsawthemassacreofaboutone-thirdofthepopulationofacountrythathadperhapsconsiderablylessthansevenmillioninhabitants.

45Ataboutthattime,HerbertMarcusearguedthat“thetotalauthoritarianstate,”thetermheemployedinplaceof“totalitarianism,”“bringswithittheorganizationandtheoryofsocietycorrespondingtothemonopolystageofcapitalism.”Marcuse,KulturundGesellschaft(Frankfurta.M.:LeibnizVerlag,1967),1,p.37.LaterhewastodevelopthesameassociationbetweentotalitarianismandindustrialcapitalisminOneDimensionalMan.

46SeetheobjectionstothattendencyadvancedbyKarlDietrichBracher,“DerumstritteneTotalitarismus:ErfahrungandAktualität,”inZeitgeschichtliche

Kontroversen:Faschismus,Totalitarismus,undDemokratie(Munich:Pieper,1976),pp.33–61.

47OneofthebetterexpositionsisfoundinLeonardShapiro,Totalitarianism(NewYork:Praeger,1972).

48SeeA.JamesGregor,“TotalitarianismRevisited,”inMenze,TotalitarianismReconsidered,pp.130–145.

49StanleyG.Payne,AHistoryofFascism1914–1945(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1995),p.206.

50Firstsuppressedbycensorship,thevolumebytheBulgarianZheliuZhelev,Fashizmut,recognizedthetotalitariantraitssharedbyprewarandwartimefascist,andthepostwarcommunist,regimes.

51SeethediscussionintheEpiloguetoGleason,Totalitarianism.

52See,forexample,DavidRemnick,Lenin’sTomb:TheLastDaysoftheSovietEmpire(NewYork:RandomHouse,1993),pp.37,410.Eventhosemostcriticalgrantedthat“thetotalitarianimageofpowerdynamicsincommunistsystemscannotbediscardedentirely.TheBolsheviksandtheChineseCommunistswhoattackedandattemptedtodestroytheRussianandChineseancienregimewereLeninists....Leninismwasapower-concentratingideologythatsystematicallysoughttoeliminatecompetingcentersofpowerandmaximizethepoliticaldominationofthevanguardparty....[Thetotalitarian]modeldidcapturecrucialdimensionsofpowerdynamicsundercommunism.”MarkLupher,PowerRestructuringinChinaandRussia(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1996),p.6.SeetheinsightfuldiscussioninWalterLaqueur,TheDreamThatFailed:ReflectionsontheSovietUnion(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),chap.4.

53Neocleous,Fascism,pp.7,17.

54SeethediscussioninLaqueur,TheDreamthatFailed,chap.4;PaulHollander(ed.),FromtheGulagtotheKillingFields(Willmington,DE:ISIBooks,2006);andStéphaneCourtois,NicolasWerth,Jean-LouisPanné,AndrzejPaczkowski,KarelBartosek,andJean-LouisMargolin,TheBlackBookofCommunism:CrimesTerrorRepression(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1999).

55SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,Phoenix:FascisminourTime(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers,1999),chap.7.

56RichardWolin,TheSeductionofUnreason:TheIntellectualRomancewithFascismfromNietzschetoPostmodernism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004),pp.144,308.

2.THEROOTSOFREVOLUTIONARYIDEOLOGY1FriedrichEngels,Anti-Dühring:HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1962),p.130.

2Forthepurposesofthefollowingdiscussion,“morality”isunderstoodtorefertotheenjoinments,prescriptions,andproscriptionsgoverningconduct—with“ethics”referringtothesystematicrationale,advancedaswarrant,forjustsuchenjoinments,prescriptions,andproscriptions.

3KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:Penguin,1998),pp.73,74.

4KarlMarx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,n.d.),pp.122,138.The“materialproductiveforces”havebeenunderstoodtoincludeanassortmentoffactorsincludinghumanandanimallabor,theforcesofnature,thenatureofthesoil,instrumentsofproduction,aswellasproductiveexperienceandskill.The“relationsofproduction”aregenerallyspokenofasreferringtohowandtowhomproductionisdistributedinanygiveneconomicsystem.SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsinPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),pp.158–169.

5KarlMarx,EconomicandPhilosophicManuscriptsof1844(Amherst,N.Y.:PrometheusBooks,1988),p.103,emphasissupplied.

6Ibid.

7KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheGermanIdeology,inKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1976;hereafterMECW),5,pp.31–32.TheGermanIdeologywaswrittenbetweenSeptember1845andthesummerof1846.

8Ibid.,pp.36–37.

9SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,MetascienceandPolitics:AnInquiryintotheConceptualLanguageofPoliticalScience(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers,2003),chaps.4,5and8.

10MarxandEngels,TheGermanIdeology,pp.50and53.

11Yearslater,Engelsspokeof“civilsociety”as“therealmofeconomicrelations—thedecisiveelement.”Engels,LudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955;hereafterMESW),2,pp.393–394.

12Ibid.,pp.53,59.

13Ibid.,p.60.

14“Fortheoppressedclasstobeabletoemancipateitselfitisnecessarythattheproductivepowersalreadyacquiredandtheexistingsocialrelationsshouldnolongerbecapableofexistingsidebyside.”Marx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,p.196.Morethanthreedecadeslater,Engelsdescribedthe“cause”ofrevolutionasbeing“themodeofproductionisinrebellionagainstthemodeofexchange,theproductiveforcesareinrebellionagainstthemodeofproductionwhichtheyhaveoutgrown.”Engels,Anti-Dühring,p.378.

15MarxandEngels,TheGermanIdeology,p.52.

16Ibid.,p.52.

17Ibid.,p.54.

18Inhisfullmaturity,afterMarx’sdeath,Engelsexpressedsuchanotioninthefollowingfashion,“Theinfluencesoftheexternalworlduponmanexpressthemselvesinhisbrain,arereflectedthereinasfeelings,thoughts,impulses,volitions—inshort,as‘idealtendencies’...”Engels,LudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,2,p.376.

19IntheGermantext,“constraint”isgivenas“Hemmnis,”oftentranslatedas“fetter”inEnglishtranslation.To“overcome[ueberwinden]”fettersmakesforanawkwardmentalpicture.MarxandEngels,“ManifestderKommunistischen

Partei,”Werke(Berlin:DietzVerlag,1959),4,p.468.

20Seetheextensivecatalogofconditionsthatmustexistif“communism,”asarevolutionaryideology,istobereal,asdistinctfromautopian,aspiration.Communism,asarevolutionaryimperative,engagestheenergiesandcommitmentofrevolutionarieswhentheproductivesystemhassuppliedthe“absolutelynecessarypracticalpremises.”SeeMarxandEngels,TheGermanIdeology,pp.48–49.

21Ibid.,p.56.

22MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto,pp.21and31.

23SeethediscussioninGregor,ASurveyofMarxism,chap.5.

24Marx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,p.122.

25Marx,Capital:ACriticalAnalysisofCapitalistProduction(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),1,p.372,n.3.

26Ibid.

27InhislettertoP.V.Annenkov,on28thDecember1846,Marxwrotethat“menarenotfreearbitersoftheirproductiveforces,”andthat“astheydeveloptheirproductivefaculties,theydevelopcertainrelationswithoneanother....Whathasnot[been]graspedisthatthesemen...whoproducetheirsocialrelationsinaccordancewiththeirmaterialproductivity,alsoproduceideas,categories,thatistosaytheabstractidealexpressionofthesesamesocialrelations.”MESW,2,pp.442,446–447.

28InMarch1850,intheir“AddressoftheCentralAuthoritytotheLeague,”theywrotethat“anewrevolutionisimpending.”MECW,10,p.278.Theycontinuedtoexpectimminentrevolutionthroughouttheirlives.

29EngelstoMarx,letterof27November1851,inMESW,2,pp.446–447.

30SeethediscussioninEduardBernstein,FerdinandLassalle:EineWürdigungdesLehrersundKämpfers(Berlin:PaulCassirer,1919).

31Dietzgen(1828–1888)enjoyedMarx’ssupport.Marxspokeofhimas

“stronger”thanhis“bourgeois”critics.Marx,Capital,1,p.16.EngelsreportedthatDietzgen,independentlyofHegelandMarx,haddiscovered“materialistdialectics.”Engels,LudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,p.386.Foryearsafterhisdeath,Dietzgenwascitednotonlyasanauthorityinthesemattersbutasoneofthefoundersof“Marxistmaterialistethics”byKarlKautsky,oneofthetwentiethcentury’smostprominentMarxistscholars.SeeKautsky,EthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Stuttgart:VerlagvonJ.H.W.Dietz,1919),pp.v,51.

32AntonPannekoek,“Introduction”toJosefDietzgen,ThePositiveOutcomeofPhilosopy(Chicago:CharlesH.Kerr&Company,1906),p.21.

33Dietzgen,ibid.,p.138.

34Ibid.,p.171.

35“Fromtheforegoingfollowsthepostulatethatmoralitymustbestudiedinductivelyorscientifically.”Ibid.,p.151;seepp.133,134,143–144.

36Ibid.,pp.136,147.

37HenrietteRoland-Holst,JosefDietzgensPhilosophieinihrerBedeutungfürdasProletariat(Munich:VerlagderDietzgenschePhilosophie,1910),pp.29–35.

38Dietzgen,ThePositiveOutcomeofPhilosophy,pp.158.Dietzgeninsistedthat“humanwelfare”was“thecommonendofallends.”Ibid.,p.159.

39Ibid.,pp.169,171,172.

40Roland-Holst,JosefDietzgensPhilosophie,p.38.

41Dietzgen,ThePositiveOutcomeofPhilosophy,pp.159,163.

42Ibid.,p.170.

43SeeJosefDietzgen,“DerwissenschaftlicheSozialismus,”KleinerephilosophischeSchriften:EineAuswahl(Stuttgart:VerlagvonJ.H.W.Dietz,1903),pp.1–11.Dietzgenregularlycalleduponthemethodsof“exactscience,”whathecalledthe“monisticworldview,theunityofnature:theunityof‘spirit’

and‘matter’,”tojustifyPartypolicies.Seeibid.,pp.112,117,137–138,139,213–214,217,226,230.

44Dietzgen,“DieMoralderSozialdemokratie,”inibid.,pp.77–78,81–83,85,87.

45Dietzgendevotedsomeconsiderablespacetoadiscussionoftherelationshipbetween“DarwinandHegel.”Seeibid.,pp.226–252;andBertramD.Wolfe,Marxism:OneHundredYearsintheLifeofaDoctrine(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1985),pp.236–237.

46Dietzgen,“DieMoral...,”p.90.

47IntheManifesto,Marxhadarguedthattheverynatureofindustrialcapitalismhadproducedconditionswhichforcedtheworkingpoorto“sinkdeeperanddeeperbelowtheconditionsofexistence.”Hewentontoarguethattheindustrialbourgeoisiewasnolongerfittorule“becauseitisincompetenttoassureanexistencetoitsslavewithinhisslavery.”Theimmediateandinevitableconsequencewouldbeacataclysmicrevolutioninresponsetothewilltosurviveoftheentireproletariat.MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto,p.65.

48Dietzgen,“DieMoral...,”pp.84,89,92.

49SeetheentiretyofDietzgen’s,“DieMoral...,”pp.77–93,particularlypp.85,87,89–93.

50ItseemsclearthatbothMarxandEngelsheldDarwininconsiderableregard,buttheynowhereseemtobepreparedtoincorporatespecificallyDarwinianelementsintotheirdistinctiveworldview.SeeEngels’sdiscussioninAnti-Dühring,pp.97–107.Engels’sdiscussionofhumanevolutionin“ThePartPlayedbyLabourintheTransitionfromApetoMan,”in1876,saysverylittleaboutDarwinism,perse.HeidentifiedthemajormechanismofhumanchangeastheLamarckianinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristics.See,MESW,2,pp.80–92,particularlypp.81–82.

51“Onlyinfiniteprogressiseternallyorabsolutelymoral.”Dietzgen,“DieMoral...,”p.92.

52Ibid.,pp.91,92.

53Ibid.,pp.78–81.

54Engelsspokeofa“reallyhumanmorality,”inAnti-Dühring,p.132.

55Dietzgen,“DieMoral...,”pp.78,83.

56SeeMarx’spositivereferencetotheworkofDietzgenintheAfterwordtotheSecondGermanEditionofCapital,p.16,andthatofEngels,LudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,p.386.

57Engels,Anti-Dühring,p.36;seeibid.,pp.97–107;andLudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,p.388.

58Seetheentirediscussionin“DiesozialenTriebe,”inDietzgen,KleinerphilosophischeSchriften,pp.57–68.

59SeeEngels,“ThePartPlayedbyLaborintheTransitionfromApetoMan,”MESW,2,pp.80,81,85.

60Seetheentirediscussionentitled“DerOrganismusdermenschlichenGesellschaft:DietechnischeEntwicklung,”inKautsky,EthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,pp.79–91.

61Engels,Anti-Dühring,pp.378,379.

62Marx,Capital,1,p.386.

63Kautsky,EthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,p.84.

64Ibid.,pp.98–106.

65Ibid.,pp.106–107.

66Ibid.,p.120.

67Ibid.,pp.86–91,particularlyp.90.

68See“Vorrede”inibid.,p.v.

69MarxandEngels,TheGermanIdeology,pp.31–32.

70Aroundthesametime,EngelswrotethattheradicalleadersoftheGreatPeasantWarofthesixteenthcenturyhadfailedtounderstandthatrevolutionarydemandscouldnotexceedthematerialcapabilitiesoftheprimitiveproductivebaseofthetime.Thewillofsuchleaderswasinfilledwith“chiliasticdream-visions,”unrealexpectationsgiventhematerialconditionsofthetime.Suchrevolutionarydemandswere“premature.”SeeEngels,ThePeasantWarinGermany,inMECW,10,pp.415,422,469–471.

71SeethediscussioninMarxandEngels,TheGermanIdeology,pp.193–195,447.

72Ibid.,pp.196–197.

73Ibid.,p.43.

74Weareinformedthat“will[is]conditionedanddeterminedbythematerialrelationsofproduction.”Ibid.,p.195.

75Ibid.,pp.43,89,419.

76Ibid.,pp.88,90.

77Prefacetoibid.,p.xvii.

78Seetheaccountinibid.,pp.45,48–49,51–52.

79In1847,inhispreambulatoryessayinpreparationforthewritingofTheCommunistManifesto,Engelswrote,“Communists...knowalltoowellthatrevolutionsarenotmadeintentionallyandarbitrarily,butthateverywhereandalwaystheyhavebeenthenecessaryconsequenceofconditionswhicharewhollyindependentofthewillanddirectionofindividualpartiesandentireclasses.”Engels,ThePrinciplesofCommunism,AppendixtotheMonthlyRevieweditionofTheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1998),p.76.

80Ibid.,pp.54,74.InhispreparatoryessaytoTheCommunistManifesto,Engelswrote,“Everychangeinthesocialorder,everyrevolutioninpropertyrelations,isthenecessaryconsequenceofthecreationofnewforcesofproductionwhichnolongerfitintotheoldpropertyrelations.”Engels,ThePrinciplesofCommunism,p.75.

81FriedrichEngelsproducedwhatarenowidentifiedasvolumestwoandthreeofDasKapitalbyquarryingthemountainsofexcerptedandannotatedmaterialleftbyMarxafterhisdeath.The“fourthvolume”ofDasKapitalwasproducedbyKarlKautsky—atEngels’sbehest—outofthoseextractsandcriticalcommentariesthatstillremainedafterthewinnowingbyEngels.

82SeethecommentsbyKarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:DietzVerlag,1929),1,pp.15–16.

3.THEHETERODOXMARXISMOFLUDWIGWOLTMANN1Firstgivenpublicexpressionin1898,itisclearthatBernsteinalreadyentertainedreservationsconcerningMarxismasitfoundformasearlyastheyearsbeforeEngels’sdeath.By1898,histhoughtsweresubjectedtoreviewbytheSocialDemocraticpartyasbeing“unorthodox,”andwiththeHanoverConferenceofthepartyin1899,wererejectedasthreateningnotonlytheideologicalintegrityofthemovement,butitspoliticalintegrityaswell.Seethe“PrefacetotheEnglishEdition,”EduardBernstein,EvolutionarySocialism:ACriticismandAffirmation(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1961;anabbreviatedversionofDieVoraussetzungenderSozialismusunddieAufgabenderSozialdemokratie,originallypublishedin1898).

2SeetheaccountinBernstein,DerSozialismuseinstundjetzt:StreitfragendesSozialismusinVergangenheitundGegenwart(Berlin:J.H.W.Dietz,1923),chaps.1and11.

3SeeBernstein,EvolutionarySocialism,pp.2–3.

4SeeBernstein,DerSozialismuseinstundjetzt,chap.8.

5V.I.LeninthoughtenoughofLudwigWoltmann’sbook,DerhistorischeMaterialismus:DarstellungundKritikdermarxistischenWeltanschauung(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1900),torecommendittohisreaders.SeeV.I.Lenin,“KarlMarx,”CollectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse),21,p.87.

6LudwigWoltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseinsmitbesondererDarlegungdesVerhältnissesderkritischenPhilosophiezuDarwinismusund

Socialismus(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1898)andDieDarwinscheTheorieundderSozialismus:EinBeitragzurNaturgeschichtedermenschlichenGesellschaft(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1899).

7SeethediscussioninKarlKautsky’sEthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Stuttgart:J.H.W.Dietz,1919,butwrittenin1906),chaps.1–3.

8SeeWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.217–225,238–251.

9Seethespecificdiscussioninibid.,p.404aswellasibid.,pp.5,234–235,250–251,255–256,303–305;consultWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.27–28.

10Woltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,pp.194–198.

11Seehiscriticaldiscussionofthenotionoftheexternalworldbeing“reflected”or“pictured”inthoughtasitreferstobothmoralandepistemologicalissuesinWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.285–291.

12SeethediscussioninWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.259–270.

13Seetheaccountinibid.,pp.79–134.

14SeethecommentsinWoltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,pp.284–285andDieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.270–275.

15SeethediscussioninWoltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,booktwo,chaps.6–9.

16FriedrichEngels,ThePeasantWarinGermanyinMarxandEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1978;hereafterMECW),10,pp.415,422,469–470.

17Woltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,p.3.“Wecanonlyacceptthehistoricaltheoryofeconomicmaterialismwithqualification.Wemustresisttheclaimthatthespirituallifeofhumanityinsocietyisthepassivereflexofeconomicrelations....Whattheethicistdemandsistherecognitionthatthehistoricalevolutiontosocialismisnotadeterministicprocesslikethatofnaturallaw,but

ratheronethatfollowsculturalpatternsthataretheresultofintellectualandmoralforces.”Woltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,pp.333,338,passimpp.333–340.“Inordertofullyappreciatethehistoryofhumanlifeprocessesonemustunderstandtheproductionandreproductionofintellectual(geistigen)lifeinitshighestideologicalformasaself-initiatingactivitywithitsownneeds,lawsandgoals.”Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.410.ItwasinthatsensethatKant’sphilosophyofpracticalandpurereasonwasunderstoodtoserveMarxismasanecessarysupplement.Ibid.,pp.402–403andSystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,pp.157–167.

18SeeKautsky’sargumentinhisEthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,chap.5,andpp.44,61,63,and67.

19“AttheveryheartofMarxistphilosophyglowsthepureflameofahigherhumanmoralitythatseeks,withthestrengthofenlightenmentandfreedom,tofindexpression.”Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.367.SeeWoltmann’scomments,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.52–53,389.

20“Ethicscannotbephysics.Physicsconcernsitselfwith[empirical]causalities.Themoralworldisteleological—occupiedwithmeansandends.”Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.398.

21SeethesophisticateddiscussioninSystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,chap.1.

22AnothermajorMarxistintellectual,MaxAdler,mademuchthesamedistinctioninhisdiscussionKantundderMarxismus(Berlin:E.Laub’scheVerlag,1925),particularlypp.90–92.

23SeethediscussioninWoltmann,SystemdesmoralischenBewusstseins,pp.72–73.ItisdifficulttomakeapersuasivecaseforWoltmann’spositionwithoutmakingthissegmentoftheexpositionaworkonmoralphilosophy.Itissufficienttosuggestthatwhilefeelingsplayaroleinalljudgmentsoftruth—onlyinmoraljudgmentsandethicsarefeelingsanintrinsiccomponentoftheirtruthconditions.Thedistinctionbetween“normal”and“idiosyncratic”sensoryexperience

becomessignificantatthispoint.Byanalogy,suchadistinctionwouldspeaktothedifferencesin“moralsentiment”thatdistinguishesindividualsandgroupsofindividuals.

24WoltmannheldthatEngels,whoproducedthebulkofallMarxistphilosophicalspeculation,arguedfruitlesslyagainstbothHumeandKant.SeeWoltmann’scommentsinDerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.v.

25Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.295–297.

26SeeBernstein,EvolutionarySocialism,pp.222–224andFranzMehringinDieNeueZeit,27(1908–1909),1,p.310.InthiscontextseetheaccountgivenbyKarlVorländer,KantundMarx:EinBeitragzurPhilosophiedesSozialismus(Tübingen:DietzVerlag,1911).

27WoltmannmadeepistemologyoneofthemajorconcernsofclassicalMarxism.See,forexample,Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.6.“Epistemology”isgenerallyspokenofasaninquiryinto“thenatureandgroundsofknowledge.”Formycharacterizationofsomeofitscriticalissues,seeA.JamesGregor,MetascienceandPolitics:AnInquiryintotheConceptualLanguageofPoliticalScience(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers,2003),particularlychap.3.

28Beforebecominginextricablyinvolvedineconomicstudies,Marxhadbeentrainedasaphilosopheranditseemsclearthathisphilosophicalsystem,hadhetheopportunitytopubliclyarticulateone,wouldhavebeensignificantlymoresophisticatedthanthatofEngels.SeeA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsinPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),chap.2.SeeWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.2.

29SeetheentirediscussioninWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.404–415.

30Engels,LudwigFeuerbachandtheEndofClassicalGermanPhilosophy,inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPress,1955;hereafterMESW),2,p.385,n.1.

31Engels,LettertoH.Starkenburg,25January1894,inMESW,2,p.505.

32Engels,“PrinciplesofCommunism,”thereplytoQuestion16,inAppendixtoMarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1998),p.76.

33Engels,LettertoJ.Bloch,21–22September1890,inMESW,2,p.489.

34Ibid.

35Marx,Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPress,1954),1,p.19.

36SeethediscussioninGregor,ASurveyofMarxism,pp.165–169,250–251.

37AlthoughthetitleofthestudyreadsDieDarwinscheTheorieundderSozialismus,itwasclearthatthe“socialism”usedinthetitlereferredtoMarxiansocialism.

38SeehisdiscussioninWoltmann,ibid.,pp.5–8.

39Marx,Capital,1,p.372,n.3.CompareWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,p.25andDerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.197,199.

40SeetheaccountinKarlKautsky,“DarwinismusundMarxismus,”DieNeueZeit,13(1894–1895),nr.23,p.709.

41InanotherplaceinCapital,Marxalludestosuchasymmetrywhenhespeaksofthe“naturalorgansofplantsandanimals”andcomparesthemtothetoolsusedbyworkmeninBirminghamfactories.Seeibid.,p.341,n.1.

42SeeWoltmann’scatalogofthesocialistintellectualswhofoundinDarwinismasupportofMarxiansocialism.Woltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.32–80.

43Atthetime,Kautskyspokewithoutqualificationoftheprimacyoftoolsandtechnology,ingeneral,withrespecttothe“superstructural”activityofassociatedhumankind.SeeKautsky,EthikundHistorischeMaterialismus,pp.127–132,particularlyp.128.SeeWoltmann’saffirmationofthesametechnologicalinterpretationofhistoricalmaterialism.Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.324,340–341andDieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.247–259.

44InhisDieDarwinscheTheorie,WoltmannreviewedtheampleliteraturegeneratedbythosewhosawthetwotheoriesasmutuallysupportiveandthosewhosawDarwinismasarefutationofMarxism.Atthetime,inhisEthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung,Kautskyattemptedtoillustratethecompatibilityofthetwo—withoutmuchenthusiasmorsuccess.

45SeethediscussioninWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.321–330.

46SeeEngels,Anti-Dühring:HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1962),p.374;seeibid.,pp.97–107.

47Marxdidexpresssomequalifyingreservations,butitisevidentthatheconsideredDarwinaparadigmaticscientist.Hadthatnotbeenthecase,EngelswouldnothavecomparedthetwooverMarx’sgrave.

48SeeWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.iii,iv,29–31,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.210–216.

49Engels,“ThePartPlayedbyLabourintheTransitionfromApetoMan,”MESW,2,pp.80–81,84,85.

50BythetimeWoltmannreportedonEngels’sthesis,hewaswriting,withoutqualification,ofbiologicalheredityintermsofMendelianandWeismannianlaws.HeclearlydismissedtheLamarckiannotionsoftheinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristics.SeeWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.208–234,504;seehiscommentsonLamarckianism,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.322.

51Woltmann,DieGermanenunddieRenaissanceinItalien(Leipzig:JustusDörnerVerlag,1936;areprintofthe1905edition),p.31.

52Woltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie:EineUntersuchungüberdenEinflussderDescendenztheorieaufdieLehrevonderpolitischenEntwicklungderVölker(Jena:VerlegtbeiEugenDiederichs,n.d.butprobably1904),pp.23–35.

53SeeEngels,“SpeechattheGravesideofKarlMarx,”MESW,2,p.167.

54Engels,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,MESW,2,pp.170–171;seeWoltmann’scomments,DieDarwinscheTheorie,p.26andDerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.218–219.

55Woltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus,p.166.

56Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.328–330.

57“Apartfromthedegreeofdevelopment,greaterorless,intheformofsocialproduction,theproductivenessoflaborisfetteredbyphysicalconditions.Theseareallreferabletotheconstitutionofmanhimself(race,etc.)...”Marx,

Capital,p.512.

58Engels,lettertoH.Starkenburg,25January1894,MESW,2,p.504.

59“Castesandguildsarisefromtheactionofthesamenaturallawthatregulatesthedifferentiationofplantsandanimalsintospeciesandvarieties...”Marxwentontospeakofthelawsofheredity,andthe“naturalselection”that“preservesorsuppresseseachsmallvariation...”Capital,p.340andn.1togetherwithp.341,n.1.SeeWoltmann’scommentsinDerhistorischeMaterialismus,pp.199,329.

60SeeWoltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie,chaps.5,7–9.

61Marxregularlyformulatedhisviewsinthefollowingsynopticfashion:“Technologydisclosesman’smodeofdealingwithNature,theprocessofproductionbywhichhesustainshislife,andtherebyalsolaysbarethemodeofformationofhissocialrelations,andthementalconceptionsthatflowfromthem.”Capital,1,p.372,n.3.

62SeethediscussioninWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorie,pp.313–314,329,331,338–341.

63PolitischeAnthroplogie,pp.1–2;conferpp.4–7,10–12,91–93.

64Ibid.,pp.149–153.

65FriedrichEngels,“DemocraticPanslavism,”inP.W.BlackstockandB.F.Hoselitz(eds.),TheRussianMenacetoEurope(Glencoe,Ill.:TheFreePress,1952),pp.71,72,75,76.

66Ibid.,p.72.

67KarlMarx,“RevolutioninChinaandinEurope”(NewYorkDailyTribune,14June1853),inMarxonChina(London:Lawrence&Wishart,1968),p.3;FriedrichEngels,“HungaryandPanslavism,”inTheRussianMenacetoEurope,p.63.

68KarlMarx,“Panslavism—TheSchleswigHolsteinWar,”inEleanorMarxAveling(ed.),RevolutionandCounterRevolution(London:Unwin,1971),p.48.

69FriedrichEngels,“PoundRhein,”inMarxandEngels,Werke(Berlin:DietzVerlag,1959),13,p.267.

70Engels,“HungaryandPanslavism,”TheRussianMenacetoEurope,p.61.

71“Forentirelymorphologicalandphysiologicalreasonsonemustcometotheconclusionthattheraceofrobustandlargeskulledhumanswithfacialdolichocephalyandlightpigmentation—thenorthEuropeanrace—isthemostperfectrepresentiveofthehumanraceandthemostadvancedproductoforganicevolution...[aswellas]themostculture-capable.Theworld’sforemostculturecreatorsarerepresentativesofthatraceorindividualsthatshowastrongintermixtureofGermanicbloodintheirveins.”Woltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie,pp.254,255.

72Woltmann,DieGermanenunddieRenaissanceinItalien(Leipzig:JustusDörnerVerlag,1936;reprintofthe1905edition)andDieGermaneninFrankreich(Leipzig:JustusDörnerVerlag,1936;reprintofthe1907edition).

73EventhosemostenthusiasticaboutWoltmann’sracismadmittedthatsomeconsiderablepartofhisresearchwasseriouslyflawed.SeethecandidcommentsofO.Reche,“VorwortdesHerausgebers,”DieGermanenunddieRenaissanceinItalien,pp.7–21.

74Ibid.,p.39.

75MosesHess,RomundJerusalem,inHorstLademacher(ed.),AusgewählteSchriften(Cologne:AkademischeVerlag,1962).AnEnglishtranslationisavailableasRomeandJerusalem(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1958).IhaveofferedabriefdiscussionofHess’sworkinA.JamesGregor,TheFacesofJanus:MarxismandFascismintheTwentiethCentury(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000),pp.159–161.

76SeethediscussioninWoltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie,pp.317–326.

77Ibid.,pp.307–309.

78Therewasasubstantialbodyofracistliteraturethatprecededthewar.AmongthemostimportantworkswereArthurGobineau’sEssaisurl’inégalitédesraceshumaines(anabridgedEnglishversionisavailableasTheInequalityofHumanRaces[NewYork:G.P.Putnam’sSons,1915])thatappearedinthemid-1850s,

aboutthetimeofthepublicationofGustavFriedrichKlemm’sDieVerbreitungderaktivenMenschenrasseüberdenErdball.In1879,GobineaupreparedamanuscriptpublishedyearslaterasDieBedeutungderRasseimLebenderVölker(Munich:J.F.LehmannsVerlag,1926).Bythe1880s,KarlPenkapublishedhisworksontheoriginoftheAryansandG.VacherdeLapouge’slecturesonthesamesubjectappeared.Betweenthe1870sandthe1880stheworksofPauldeLagardeonraceandhistorywerepublished.Attheturnofthecentury,Woltmann’sworksappearedataboutthesametimeasthoseofHoustonStewardChamberlain,theauthorofDieGrundlagendes19.Jahrhunderts(TheFoundationsoftheNineteenthCentury[London:JohnLane,1911]).Immediatelybeforehisaccidentaldeath,WoltmannservedaseditorofPolitisch-AnthropologischeRevue.Afterthewartherewasaproliferationofsuchmaterial.ForanaccountofthehistoryofRassenkunde(“racescience”)inGermany,seeHansF.K.Günther,RassenkundedesdeutschenVolkes(Munich:J.F.LehmannsVerlag,1922),chap.2.SeethediscussioninTheophileSimar,EtudecritiquesurlaformationdeladoctrinedesracesauXVIIIeSiécle(Brusselles:MarcelHayez,1922),chaps.5–8.

79SeethereferencestoWoltmannintheworksofGünther,whowastoreceivethefirstNationalSocialistGoldMedalforscience.See,forexample,hisRassenkundedesdeutschenVolkes,andhisDernordischeGedankeunterdenDeutschen(Munich:J.F.LehmannsVerlag,1925).

80SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,ContemporaryRadicalIdeologies:TotalitarianThoughtintheTwentiethCentury(NewYork:RandomHouse,1968),chap.5.

81V.I.Lenin,“KarlMarx,”CollectedWorks,21,pp.85,87,88.

4.THEHETERODOXMARXISMOFGEORGESSOREL1Onlyin1888,afterthedeathofMarx,didEngelsmakeamodestattempttodefinethecriticalterms“bourgeoisie”and“proletariat.”Seefootnotenumber1toTheCommunistManifesto.SeeSorel’scomment,GeorgesSorel,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo(Milan:Sandron,1903),p.276,n.3;andthediscussioninA.JamesGregor,TheFascistPersuasioninRadicalPolitics(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1974),pp.26–31.

2Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,BenedettoCrocecouldlamentthattheworkofKarlMarxwasfarfromeasytounderstand,notonlybecauseoftheintrinsicdifficultyofthesubjectmatter,butbecause“anyonewhodesiredtoreconcilealltheformswithwhichMarxandEngelshaveendoweditwouldstumbleuponcontradictoryexpressions,whichwouldmakeitimpossibleforthecarefulandmethodicalinterpretertodecidewhat,onthewhole,historicalmaterialismmeantforthem”—andfurther,withrespecttotheaccountprovidedinDasKapital,“throughout,[Marx]despisedandneglectedallsuchpreliminaryandexactexplanationsasmighthavemadehistaskplain.”Hestates,inconclusion,thatheisuncertainhowmanyofthe“conceptsandopinionsexpressedbyMarx...deservetoundergorevision,”butinsiststhat“Marx,asasociologist,hasintruthnotgivenuscarefullyworkedoutdefinitions.”Croce,HistoricalMaterialismandtheEconomicsofKarlMarx(NewYork:TheMacmillanCompany,1914),pp.49,78–79,115,118;seefurthercommentsonpp.55,70–71.

3KarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:VerlagJ.H.W.Dietz,1929),pp.196–197.

4RobertoMichels,StoriadelMarxismoinItalia(Rome:LuigiMongini,Editore,1909),pp.8–9.

5Seethecontemporarydiscussionintheprefacetoibid.YearslaterMichelsreferredtotheworkofAntonioGraziadeiasamajorrepresentativeofrevisionisminItaly.SeethediscussioninMichels,LateoriadiC.Marxsullamiseriacrescenteelesueorigini(Turin:FratelliBocca,1922),pp.184–185.In1897,SaverioMerlinopublishedProecontroilsocialismo:Esposizionecriticadeiprincipiiedeisistemisocialisti(Milano:FratelliTreves,1897),whichbothreflectedmanyoftheanalysesofBernsteinandanticipatedothersthatweretosubsequentlytransformMarxismasatwentieth-centuryrevolutionarycreed.

6JulesGuesde,LeSocialismeaujourlejour(Paris:Revell,1899),p.268.

7SeetheaccountinHubertLagardelle,“LeSyndicalismeetleSocialismeenFrance,”Syndicalisme&Socialisme(Paris:LibrairiedesSciencesPolitiques&Sociales,1908),pp.35–54.

8SeethecontemporarydiscussioninWernerSombart,SocialismandtheSocialMovement(NewYork:AugustusM.Kelley,1968;reprintof1908edition),chap.

5.

9GeorgesSorel,“L’Avenirsocialistedessyndicats,”L’Humaniténouvelle,1,no.9(March1898),particularlypp.304–306.“L’Avenir”wasreprintedinitsentiretyinMatériauxd’unethéorieduprolétariat(Paris:MarcelRiviere,1921).

10SeeBenedettoCroce,MaterialismostoricoedeconomiaMarxista(Bari:Gius.Laterza&Figli,1951;revisedninthedition,originallypublishedin1897),p.62.Croce’sjudgmentwasmadein1897andwasneverrevised.

11ThereisanabundanceofcompetentscholarlyworkonthethoughtofSorel.Amongthebest,inthecontextofthecentraldiscussionofthepresentwork,isthatbyZeevSternhell(withMarioSznajderandMaiaAsheri),TheBirthofFascistIdeology:FromCulturalRebelliontoPoliticalRevolution(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),chap.1.TheworkbyJamesH.Meisel,TheGenesisofGeorgesSorel(AnnArbor,Michigan:GeorgeWahr,1951)offersrichresources.PierreAndreu,Notremaitre,M.Sorel(Paris:BernardGrasset,1953)isaninsightfulaccountbyoneofSorel’smoreintimatefollowers.

12GeorgesSorel,Contributionàl’étudeprofanedelaBible(Paris:MarcelRiviere,1889)andLeProcesdeSocrate(Paris:MarcelRiviere,1889).

13SeethecommentsinMeisel,TheGenesisofGeorgesSorel,pp.15–19;GiusseppeLaFerla.RitrattodiGeorgesSorel(Milan:“LaCultura,”1933),chaps.2–3.

14SeeEdouardBerth’sPrefacetoGeorgesSorel,D’AristoteàMarx(L’AncienneetlaNouvelleMétaphysique)(Paris:MarcelRiviere,1935;areprintofthearticleof1894),p.3,andhisIntroduction,ibid.,pp.7–10.

15Ibid.,p.94.SeethediscussioninPaoloPastori,RivoluzioneecontinuitàinProudhoneSorel(Varese:Giufre,1980),chap.2,particularlypp.49–50.

16TheItalianeditionappearedin1895,publishedinBaribyLaterza.TheFrencheditionwhichcontainedSorel’sprefaceappearedasEssaissurlaconceptionmatérialistedel’histoire(Paris:GiardetBriere,1897).Labriola’sbookisavailableinEnglishtranslationasEssaysontheMaterialisticConceptionofHistory(Chicago:CharlesH.Kerr,1904).

17“Thepublicationofthisworkmarksadateinthehistoryofsocialism.”Sorel

wentontoaffirmthatLabriola’sworkwascomparableto“theclassicsofMarxandEngels.”Sorel,PrefacetoLabriola,Essais,p.19.

18Labriola,Essays,pp.35,152.Elsewherehesaysthatwhilesocietyissocomplicated“thatitconcealstheeconomicsubstructurewhichsupportsalltherest,”itisevidentthat“thelawsofeconomics...haveshownthemselvestobethedirectingpowerofsociallife.”Ibid.,pp.143,167.

19Ibid.,pp.9,15;onp.48,LabriolaprovidesastandardMarxistdefinitionofthe“materialmeans”and“relationsofproduction.”Labriolaspokewithoutqualificationofthe“intrinsicandimminentnecessityoftherevolution,”andofthe“objectivenecessity”oftheprocessesofhistory.Seeibid.,pp.26,29,30,34,73,81.

20Ibid.,pp.17–19.

21Ibid.,pp.72,74–75,101,110.Labriolaspokeofpersonsacting“notbyfreechoice,butbecausetheycouldnotactotherwise.”Ibid.,p.99.

22OneneedonlyconsultFriedrichEngels,Anti-Dühring:HerrEugenDühring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1962),partone,chapters9through11,inwhichwearetoldthat“allmoraltheorieshavebeenhithertotheproduct,inthelastanalysis,oftheeconomicconditionsofsociety,”andaretobestudiedasanyscienceisstudied,byseekingmaterialcauses“reflected”inhumanconsciousness.Ibid.,pp.131,134.InTheCommunistManifesto,Marxassertedthat“yourveryideasarebuttheoutgrowthoftheconditionsof...bourgeoisproduction.”KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,“ManifestooftheCommunistParty,”inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorksinTwoVolumes(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955),1,p.49.InthePrefacetoMarx’sTheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,wearetoldthat“Itisnottheconsciousnessofmenthatdeterminestheirbeing,but,onthecontrary,theirsocialbeingthatdeterminestheirconsciousness.”Ibid.,p.363.Ifonewishestounderstandmoral,legal,religious,andphilosophicalideas,oneisrequiredtostudy“materialconditionsofproduction.”Inprinciple,thatwouldseemtoreduceallthosedisciplinestothestatusofempiricalsciences.

23EdouardBerth,inwritingtheprefacetoSorel,D’AristoteàMarx,p.3,soidentifiedhim.

24Labriola,EssaysontheMaterialisticConceptionofHistory,pp.124,152–

154.

25Ibid.,p.64.Elsewhere,Labriolastatesthat“manhasmadehishistorynotbyametaphoricalevolutionnorwithaviewofwalkingonalineofpreconceivedprogress.Hehasmadeitbycreatinghisownconditions,thatistosay,bycreatingthroughhislaboranartificialenvironment,bydevelopingsuccessivelyhistechnicalaptitudes....Whereshallwefindthelawsofthisformationandofthisdevelopment?Theveryancientformationsarenotevidentatfirstsight....[Wefind]embryonictracesofitsoriginanditsprocessus....Infactindifferentcountriesithasdifferentmodesofdevelopment.”Ibid.,pp.77–78.Thereclearlyisenoughroominthiskindofspeculationforhumanwillandvolitiontooperatetoconsiderableeffect.

26GeorgesSorel,PrefacetoLabriola,Essaissurlaconceptionmatérialistedel’histoire,p.7.

27SeeSorel,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo,pp.48,70,88–89,123–125,241,248n.2,277–278,302.

28Ibid.,pp.12–15.

29GeorgesSorel,LeprocèsdeSocrate(Paris:F.Alcan,1889),p.329,and“Delacauseenphysique,”RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel’etranger,13,part26(1888),p.471andSaggidicriticadelMarxismo,p.181.Yearslater,SorelmadeessentiallythesamepointinSorel,Del’utilitéduPragmatisme(Paris:MarcelRiviere,1928;secondedition),pp.194–210.

30Sorel,LeprocèsdeSocrate,p.316.

31SeethediscussioninGeorgesSorel,“EssaisurlaphilosophiedeProudhon,”RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel’etranger,13,part33(1892),p.635.

32SeetheentirediscussioninPaoloPastori,“NaturaeumanitàinSorel,”Storiaepolitica,9,3(July–September1970),pp.445–461.

33SeeSorel,LaprocèsdeSocrate,particularlypp.239,316,and330–332.

34SeethediscussioninGeorgesSorel,“EssaisurlaphilosophiedeProudhon,”RevuephilosophiqueelaFranceetdel’étranger,17,33(1892),pp.634–655.Proudhonhadmadeadistinctionbetweenthematerialand/orbiological

influencesonhumanconduct,butemphasizedtheroleofethicaljudgmentinitsvindication.SeethediscussioninPierre-JosephProudhon,Qu’est-cequelapropriété?chap.4,part1.

35SeethediscussioninSorel,“EssaisurlaphilsophiedeProudhon,”17,34,pp.44–65andLaprocèsduSocrateandContributionàl’étudedelaBible(Paris:A.Ghio,1889),passim.

36SeetheintimationsinGeorgesSorel,“Scienceetsocialisme,”RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel’étranger,18,35(1893),pp.510–512andtheaccounttobefoundin“EssaisurlaphilosophiedeProudhon,”34,pp.43–47.

37Sorel,D’AristoteàMarx,pp.253,260–261.

38Ibid.,p.263.

39Inoneplace,whereheaddressestheapparent“incompatibilityofrationalscienceandidealisticmorals,”hespeaksofresolutionbeingimpossibleaslongas“thereremainstheinsistencethatindividualscontinuetobeconceivedentirelyseparatefromeachother,asthougheachoneconstitutedaspeciesuntoitself,liketheangelsinThomisticdoctrine.”Sorel,D’AristoteàMarx,pp.177–178;seeibid.,p.260.

40ItisclearthatSorelperceivedtheethicalpotentialoftheemergingindustrialworld.HemaintainedthatMarx“couldnothelpbutseekthefundamentalprinciplesofethicsinthehumanphenomenathatdeveloparoundmachinery.”Ibid.,p.260.Sorelsaid,“Iampersuadedthatworkcanserveasabasisforaculturethatwouldgivenocausetoregretthepassingofbourgeoiscivilization.”Sorel,TheIllusionofProgress(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1969),p.157.

41KarlMarx,Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),1,p.372,n.3.

42WoltmannreferredtothesamepassageinCapitalinordertomakehispointthatthematerialistconceptionofhistoryultimatelyturnedonthecreativityofindividualsandgroups.SeeLudwigWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorieundderSozialismus(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1899),p.25andDerhistorischeMaterialismus(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1900),pp.197–199.

43SeeGeorgesSorel,“EtudesurVico,”Ledevenirsocial,2,no.9(October1896),pp.809–813andhisdiscussionconcerningtheroleofraceintheprocess,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo,pp.95–108,186.

44ThebiologicalvariantnowidentifiedwithWoltmanndidnotfullymanifestitselfuntiltheappearanceofLudwigWoltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie,whichappearedaftertheturnofthetwentiethcentury.

45CrocewasneveranorthodoxMarxist,butoutofhisinitialenthusiasm,theconsequenceofhismentoringofAntonioLabriola,hepublishedhisfirstanalysisofMarxismasaninterpretationofhistoryin1896.SeeBenedettoCroce,“Sullaconcezionematerialisticadellastoria,”Attidell’AccademiaPontanianadiNapoli,26(3May1896),reprintedinMaterialismostoricoedeconomiaMarxistica(Bari:GiuseppeLaterza,1951;ninthedition),pp.1–20.Inthesamecontext,theworkofSaverioMerlino,Proecontroilsocialismo(Milan:Treves,1897),deservesmention.

46Sorel,“EtudesurVico,”Ledevenirsocial,2,no.9(October1896),particularlypp.800–813,and2,no.11(November1896),particularlypp.938–940.SeethecommentsofGiovanniSantonastaso,Studidipensieropolitico(Naples:Giannini,1973),pp.137–139.

47SeeSorel,Matériauxd’unethéorieduprolétariat(Paris:M.Riviere,1921),pp.252–253.

48Marx,Capital,1,p.372,n.3.

49Sorel,“Proecontroilsocialismo,”Ledevenirsocial,3,no.10(October1897),pp.854–888andBenedettoCroce,“ComenacqueecomemoriilMarxismoteoricoinItalia(1896–1900),”inMaterialismostoricoedeconomiamarxistica,pp.271–316.InalettertoCroce,LabriolaidentifiedBernstein,Merlino,andSorelasthoseintellectualsresponsiblefortheunravelingofclassicalMarxism.Labriola,ibid.,p.314.

50SeeSorel,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo,pp.139–142,272–274,302,306,334–336.

51SeeSorel,“Lanecessitàeilfatalismonelmarxismo,”Lariformasociale5,no.8(15August1898),pp.708–732;“Lacrisidelsocialismoscientifico,”Criticasociale,8(1898),pp.134–138;“L’éthiquedusocialisme,”Revuede

MetaphysiqueetdeMoral,7(1899),particularlypp.296–297.

52Sorel,“L’avenirsocialistedessyndicats,”L’Humaniténouvelle,1,no.9(March,April,andMay1898),particularlypp.304–306and435–440.

53Labriola,EssaysontheMaterialistConceptionofHistory,p.65.

54Sorel,Introductionàl’économiemoderne(Paris:M.Riviere,1922;twelfthenlargededition),pp.36–38,55,153–156.

55Sorel’srelationshiptoProudhonisbothwellknownandequallywelldocumented.ForsomeofSorel’sviewssee,forexample,G.Sorel,“EssaisurlaphilosophiedeProudhon,Revuephilosophique,23–24(June–July1892),pp.622–638,41–68.OneofthebestaccountsoftherelationshipisPastori,RivoluzioneecontinuitàinProudhoneSorel.

56SeeKarlMarx,“OnProudhon,”inKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,SelectedWorksinTwoVolumes(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955),1,p.391.

57ThesubsequentdiscussionwillfollowtheargumentinGeorgesSorel,Introducionàl’économiemoderne,originallypublishedin1903.

58SeethediscussioninG.Sorel,“L’Éthiquedusocialisme,”Revuedelamétaphysiqueetdelamorale(May1899),particularlypp.12–14.

59“Ricorso”issometimestranslatedas“reflux,”anawkward,butperhapsaccuraterendering.Vico’sricorsowasarestorativereaction,arebirthofanancientglory.

60Seeibid.,particularlypp.127and357.

61SeethediscussioninRichardHumphrey,GeorgesSorel:ProphetWithoutHonor(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1951),pp.70–71.

62Ashasbeenindicated,KarlKautsky,aslateasthefinalyearsofthe1920s,waspreparedtoacknowledgethatWoltmann’sheterodoxywasreasonable.SeeKarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:J.H.W.Dietz,1929),1,p.197.

63GeorgesSorel,Réflexionssurlaviolence(Paris:M.Rivere,1908);inEnglishasReflectionsonViolence(London:Collier-Macmillan,1950).

64EdwardShils’sintroductiontotheEnglishlanguageedition,Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,p.15.

65TheintroductionbyEdwardShilstotheAmericaneditionofRelectionsonViolence,pp.13–29,providesaninstructivesummaryofSorel’swork.

66Unhappily,Sorel’sexpositioninRéflexionsisnomorecoherentlystructuredortransparentthananyofhisearlierworks.Anynumberofdifferentinterpretationshavebeendrawnfromhistexts.Thereisnopretensethatthepresentinterpretationistheonlycorrect,ortheonlypossible,rendering.

67Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,p.40.

68Seeibid.,pp.40–41,43,50–51,104–105,112–113,117,136–137,234–242,249–252,254,267–269,274–278.Theappendix,“UnityandMultiplicity,”addedtothetextbySorelin1910isinstructiveinalltheseregards.

69SeeSorel’scommentstoDanielHalevyintheIntroductiontoibid.,pp.36–40.

70Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.286–287.

71Ibid.,p.247.

72Seeibid.,pp.35,59,67–68,107,159n.37,200andn.43.

73Seeibid.,pp.250,252,254.

74Seeibid.,pp.213,298.

75InseveralplacesSorelspeaksofthe“masses”andthe“workers”as“notaccustomedtothinking.”Theyrequiresomesortofintervention,eitherbylifeorbymentorsofsomesort.Hespeaksofthe“moralprogressoftheproletariat”asnecessarytotheregenerativerevolution.ItisclearfromhisexpositionthatSorelisconvincedthatpopulationscanbetaughtservility—orheroismandmoralrectitude.Seeibid.,pp.213,250,292,296.

76Ibid.,pp.298,300.

77Ibid.,pp.58–59,140,142–143.

78Ibid.,pp.57,144;seep.147.

79Ibid.,pp.48–49,234.

80Ibid.,p.301;seep.234.

81SoreltoDanielHalevy,“Introduction,”Reflections,p.53.

82HenriBergson,Essaisurlesdonnéesimmédiatesdelaconscience(Paris:Alcan,1889)—anEnglishtranslationisavailableasTimeandFreeWill:AnEssayontheImmediateDataofConsciousness(NewYork:Macmillan,1913);L’Evolutioncréatrice(Paris:Alcan,1907)—withanEnglishtranslation,CreativeEvolution(NewYork:HenryHolt,1911).

83SeethediscussioninBergson,CreativeEvolution,pp.98,153–165;andBergson,“IntroductionàlaMétaphysique,”RevuedeMétaphysiqueetdeMorale,January1905,pp.9–15,27–31.

84SeethediscussioninBergson,CreativeEvolution,pp.208,218–219,238.

85Seeibid.,pp.237,267–268.

86Sorel,“LettertoDanielHalevy,”ReflectionsonViolence,p.53.

87SeeSorel,“EtudesurVico,”pp.796–797.

88SeethenotablediscussioninSorel,Del’utilitéduPragmatisme,chap.4;and“Lesystemedesmathématiques,”RevuedeMétaphysiqueetdeMorale,8(1900),pp.407–428;“Surdiversaspectsdelamécanique,”ibid.,11(1903),pp.716–748.

89SeethediscussioninSorel,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo,pp.33,170–171,177,234,266,290,andMeisel,TheGenesisofGeorgesSorel,pp.114–115.

90Seethediscussionin“LettertoDanielHalevy,”ReflectionsonViolence,pp.50–53.

91SeeSorel,“Lespolemiquespourl’interprétationdumarxisme,”LaRevueInternationaledeSociologie(April–May1900),reprintedasaseparatebyGiard&BriereinParisin1900;andSorel’scommentsintheIntroductiontoTheDecompositionofMarxism,inIrvingL.Horowitz,RadicalismandtheRevoltAgainstReason:TheSocialTheoriesofGeorgesSorel(NewYork:TheHumanitiesPress,1961),pp.211–218.

92Bergson,CreativeEvolution,p.139.

93SeethediscussioninSorel,“LanecessitàeilfatalismonelMarxismo,”SaggidicriticadelMarxismo,pp.59–94;andReflectionsonViolence,p.142.

94SorelquotingtheJournaldeGeneve,4February1918,inReflectionsonViolence,pp.303–304.

5.THEHETERODOXMARXISMOFV.I.LENIN1MaxHirschberg,“Bolschewismus:VersucheinerprinzipiellenKritikdesrevolutionärenSozialismus,”ArchivfürSozialwissenschaftundSozialpolitik,48(1920/1921),pp.4–5.

2WhateverFrenchorItalianrevolutionarythoughtpenetratedintotheconfinesofMarxistorthodoxyamongRussianswasrejectedwithdispatch.Beforetheendofthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,PlekhanovsummarilydismissedsyndicalistthoughtasitfoundexpressioninArturoLabriola’sRiformeerivoluzionesociale(Naples:Partenopea,1904).SeeGeorgiPlekhanov,Sindicalismoymarxismo(Mexico,D.F.:Grijalbo,1968).

3GeorgiPlekhanov,TheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistory,inSelectedPhilosophicalWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,n.d.),1,pp.653–654.Inthesectioncited,PlekhanovquotesfromKarlMarx,“WageLabourandCapital,”inKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955),1,pp.89–90.

4Plekhanov,TheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistory,pp.673,676,682,690,691,704,705,712,724.

5“MarxismisDarwinisminitsapplicationtosocialscience.”Ibid.,p.740,n.

6“Thehistoricalprogressofhumanityisdeterminedbythedevelopmentofthe

productiveforces,”which,inturn,determinetheappearanceof“humanideas,feelings,aspirationsandideas.”Ibid.,p.727.Seeibid.,pp.719,724,727.

7Ibid.,pp.742,751,754,761–762,779–780.

8Ibid.,pp.648–649,658,and783–784;seealsoV.Fomina,“IntroductoryEssay,”toibid.,pp.17,28–29.

9V.I.Lenin,WhatistobeDone?inCollectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1961;hereafterLCW),5,pp.347–529.

10LudwigWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus:DarstellungundKritikderMarxistischenWeltanschauung(Düsseldorf:Michels’Verlag,1900),chap.4.SeeA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsofPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),pp.38–39.

11SorelfoundthesameevidencesthatMarxconsideredraceafactorinhistoricaldevelopment,butassigneditafarmorerestrictedrolethandidWoltmann.SorelcitesthesamereferencetoracereferredtobyWoltmann;seeGeorgesSorel,SaggidicriticadelMarxismo(Milan:Sandron,1903),p.186,andtheentirediscussionoftheroleofraceasafactoronpp.95–108.

12SeethecontemporarydiscussionbyRosaLuxemburg,SocialReformorRevolution(Colombo,Ceylon:AYoungSocialistPublication,1966;reprintofthe1900edition)andWernerSombart,SocialismandtheSocialMovement(NewYork:AugustusM.KelleyPublishers,1968;reprintofthe1908edition),chap.4.

13KarlKautsky,DerWegzurMacht:PolitischeBetrachtungenüberdesHineinwachsenindieRevolution(Berlin:BuchhandlungVorwärts,1909),chap.4.

14SeetheentirediscussioninLabriola,Riformeerivoluzionesociale,chap.6.

15SeethestandardaccountinKautsky,DieSozialeRevolution:AmTagenachdersozialenRevolution(Berlin:BuchhandlungVorwärts,1904),pp.14–21,25–27;KautskyandBrunoSchoenlank,GrundsätzeundForderungenderSozialdemokratie:ErläuterungenzumErfurterProgramm(Berlin:BuchhandlungVorwärts,1905),pp.5–6,9–14,23–27.Theultimatereferenceis,ofcourse,theeconomicworksofMarxandthecommentariesbyEngels.

16Kautsky,TheClassStruggle(ErfurtProgram)(NewYork:W.W.NortonandCompany,1971;originallypublishedinGermanin1892),p.90.

17Kautsky,DerWegzurMacht,pp.47–48.

18SeethestandardaccountinKautsky,TheClassStruggle,chaps.2,3and5,particularlypp.32–33,89,90,94,116–119,161,191.

19“Theconditionsoflifedeterminethemannerinwhichthewillmanfestsitself.”Kautsky,DerWegzurMacht,p.49.

20SeeKautsky,DieSozialeRevolution,pp.45–46.

21Kautsky,TheClassStruggle,p.90.

22Ibid.,p.115.

23Kautsky,DerWegzurMacht,pp.58–59,117.

24Plekhanovarguedthat,inthelastanalysis,economicconditionswouldcreateenoughleadersofsuitableconvictionthattheanticipatedinevitabilitieswouldresult.SeethediscussioninPlekhanov,TheRoleoftheIndividualinHistory(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1955).

25Kautsky,TheClassStruggle,p.199.

26V.I.Lenin,“Whatthe‘FriendsofthePeople’AreandHowTheyFighttheSocialDemocrats,”LCW,1,pp.136,138.

27Ibid.,pp.140–141,142.

28SeetheaccountinRolfH.W.Theen,Lenin:GenesisandDevelopmentofaRevolutionary(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1973),chap.4,particularlypp.103–114;AdamUlam,TheBolsheviks(NewYork:TheMacmillanCompany,1965),particularlyp.178.

29SeetheaccountinLouisFischer,TheLifeofLenin(NewYork:Harper&Row,Publishers,1964),chap.4,particularlyp.59.

30SeehisdiscussioninLenin,“TheTasksoftheRussianSocial-Democrats,”

LCW,2,pp.330–334.

31Lenin,“Whatthe‘FriendsofthePeople’Are,”LCW,2,pp.165,166.

32SeetheaccountinKautskyandSchönlank,GrundsätzeundForderungenderSozialdemokratie:ErläuteungenzumErfurterProgramm,andKautsky,TheClassStruggle(ErfurtProgram)(NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,1971;atranslationofthe1892edition).

33SeethediscussioninPeterGay,TheDilemmaofDemocraticSocialism:EduardBernstein’sChallengetoMarx(NewYork:CollierBooks,1962),chap.2,particularlypp.62–64.

34Engels,“PrinciplesofCommunism,”inMarxandEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishders,1976),4,pp.349.

35Ashasbeensuggested,Woltmannhadgravereservationsabouttheautomaticqualityofimaginedhumanresponsetotherevolutionarydemandsofthe“economicbase.”ArturoLabriolacomplainedthatthe“systemofMarx”hadgivenrisetothepersistent“legend”that“theevolutionofhumansocietyisaccomplishedinamechanicalandautomaticmanner...inadirectionthatismathematicallydeterminate.”Labriola,Riformeerivoluzionesociale,p.135.

36SeeKautsky’scommentaryonthedraftprogramoftheAustrianSocialDemocraticpartyinNeueZeit,20(1901–1902),part1,no.3,p.79.

37MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1998),p.20.

38SeeadiscussionofthefundamentaldoctrinalchangeinvolvedinA.JamesGregor,TheFascistPersuasioninRadicalPolitics(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1974),pp.189–191.

39Lenin,“WheretoBegin,”“OntheTwenty-FifthAnniversaryoftheRevolutionaryActivityofG.V.Plekhanov,”LCW,5,pp.17,321.

40Lenin,“ATalkwithDefendersofEconomism,”LCW,5,p.316.

41Ibid.

42Ibid.,p.320.

43SeethediscussioninLenin,“OneStepForward,TwoStepsBack(TheCrisisinourParty),”LCW,7,p.206.

44Lenin,“WhatistobeDone?LCW,5,pp.365,369.

45Ibid.,pp.353,355,371,372.

46Ibid.,pp.421–424.

47Ibid.,p.347.

48SeethediscussionsinOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack(TheCrisisinourParty),LCW,7,pp.242,245,251,293,387–389,394,396,399,400,404–406.

49Ibid.,pp.392–393;seetheregularreferencesto“anarchists”and“opportunists”toidentifythose,whoinhisjudgment,donotunderstandthemeritsofideologicalconsistency,partydiscipline,andhierarchicalcontrols.Ibid.,pp.256–259,262,274,277,284–286,327,345,347,348,357,359,360,364,366–367,371–375,382–388,391–395,403,410.

50Ibid.,pp.403–404.

51“Thetheoryofsocialism...grewoutofthephilosophic,historical,andeconomictheorieselaboratedbyeducatedrepresentativesofthepropertiedclasses,byintellectuals.”Lenin,“WhatistobeDone?”LCW,5,p.375.

52SeetheassessmentinRosaLuxemburg,TheRussianRevolutionandLeninismorMarxism?(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1961),pp.96–97.

53Lenin,“WhatistobeDone?”LCW,5,p.452.Lenintellsusthatthosesufficientlytalentedtodischargesuchfunctions“arenotbornbythehundreds.”Ibid.,p.461.

54“Wearethepartyofaclass,andthereforealmosttheentireclass...shouldactundertheleadershipofourParty,shouldadheretoourPartyascloselyaspossible....Toforgetthedistinctionbetweenthevanguardandthewholeofthemassesgravitatingtowardsit,toforgetthevanguard’sconstantdutyofraising

everwidersectionstoitsownadvancedlevel,meanssimplytodeceiveoneself...”Lenin,“OneStepForward,TwoStepsBack,”LCW,7,pp.260,261.

55SeethediscussioninTheen,Lenin:GenesisandDevelopmentofaRevolutionary,chap.4,particularlyp.115.

56Engels,ThePeasantWarinGermany,MECW,10,pp.470–471.

57Luxemburg,TheRussianRevolutionandLeninismandMarxism?,p.88.

58Ibid.,pp.86–91.

59Engels,“PrinciplesofCommunism,”inMarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto,Question19,p.80.Ashasbeensuggestedbothauthorsusedsuchlocutionsthroughouttheirwork.

60SeetheaccountinDanielGuerin,RosaLuxemburgetlaspontanéitérevolutionnaire(Paris:Flammarion,1971),chap.1.

61See,forexample,Lenin,“OneStepForward,TwoStepsBack,”LCW,7,pp.314,366.

62Lenin,“TheEconomicContentofNarodismandtheCriticismofitinMr.Struve’sBook,”LCW,1,p.421.

63KarlMarx,Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),1,p.18.

64SeeLenin’sreferencein“Whatthe‘FriendsofthePeople’are,”LCW,1,pp.169.

65Lenin,“TheEconomicContentofNarodism,”LCW,1,pp.399,403,405,406,410–411.

66Ibid.,p.410.

67Ibid.,p.411.

68“TheMarxistproceedsfromthesameideal”asthepetitebourgeoisNarodnik.Ibid.,p.416.

69Ibid.,pp.413–415.

70Ibid.,p.422.

71Ibid.,p.421.

6.THEHETERODOXMARXISMOFBENITOMUSSOLINI1LeninnevercitedanyofSorel’sworksinhispublishedwritings,andweknowthatPlekhanov,hismentor,advancedmajorobjectionstorevolutionarysyndicalismasasystem.

2Mussolini,asearlyas1904,specificallyreferredtoSorel’sworks.SeeBenitoMussolini,“Lateppa,”Operaomnia(Milan:Lafenice,1951;hereafterOo),1,pp.91–93.In1909,hementionedthathehadreadSorel’sLaruinedumondeantiquewhenitappeared.SeeMussolini,“Loscioperogeneraleelaviolenza,”Oo,2,p.163.Throughoutthisperiod,aswillbeindicated,MussolinimaderegularreferencetoSorel’sviews.

3Mussolini,“Ilromanzorusso,”Oo,1,pp.3–4and“Lamiavitadal29luglio1883al23novembre1911,”Oo,33,p.243.

4Mussolini,“Uominieidee:‘L’Individueletlesocial,’”Oo,1,pp.73–74.

5InalettertoGiuseppePrezzoliniin1909,Mussoliniindicatedthathehadbeenasyndicalistsince1904.Letterdated4April1909inEmilioGentile(ed.),Mussolinie“LaVoce”(Florence:G.C.Sansoni,1976),p.37.

6Mussolini,foravarietyofreasonsthatneednotdetainus,hasrarelybeenconsideredan“intellectual.”RenzoDeFelice,hisprincipalbiographer,doesnothesitatetosocharacterizeMussolini.SeeDeFelice,Mussoliniilrivoluzionario1883–1920(Turin:GiulioEinaudieditore,1965),chaps.2–6.Duringtheperiodbetween1901andapproximately1905,Mussoliniwasknowntobeavoraciousreader.HebegantoputtogetherahistoryofphilosophyandbeganasystematicreadingoftheworksofRobertoArdigò,theforemostexponentofphilosophicalpositivisminItaly.Hereadandreviewedmanyoftheauthorsoftheperiod,includingRosaLuxemburg,WernerSombart,andVilfredoParetoforthevariouspublicationstowhichheregularlycontributed.HeattendedPareto’slectures—allwhileworkingasadaylaborertosupporthimself.Itwasduringthisperiod,

Mussolinitranslated,fromtheFrench,PetrKropotkin’sLesParolesd’unRévolté,togetherwithapamphletbyA.H.MalotontheexploitationofworkersbytheRomanCatholicclergy.Ataboutthesametime,hetranslated,fromGerman,KarlKautsky’sAmtagenachdersozialenRevolutionandWilhelmLiebknecht’sKarlMarxundderhistorischeMaterialismus.HereceivedcertificationtoteachFrench;undertookinstructioninLatin;readandbeganasystematicstudyofGerman.Hecontributednewspaperarticlestomany,ifnotall,ofthemoreradicalsocialistpublicationsoftheperiod.HewasregularlyselectedtorepresentthepoliticalandideologicalinterestsofthemostradicalsegmentsofthesocialistmovementinItaly.

7Infullintellectualmaturity,Marxcontinuedtoinsistthatgiventhe“contradictionsinherent”inindustrialcapitalism,its“crowningpoint”mustbe“theuniversalcrisis.”Marx,“AfterwordtotheSecondGermanEdition,”Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),p.20.

8Mussolini,“KarlMarx(nel25oanniversariodellasuamorte),”Oo,1,p.103.See“Unacaduta,”“Delinquenzamoderna,”Oo,1,pp.10,14.

9Mussolini,“Paginerivoluzionarie,”“IlcongressodeisocialistiitalianiinSvizzera,”“Opinioniedocumenti:Lacrisirisolutiva,”“Uominieidee,”“Lateppa,”Oo,1,pp.51–53,54–55,70–71,74–75,91–93.

10Mussolini,L’uomoeladivinità,Oo,33,p.22.

11Engels,“SpeechattheGravesideofKarlMarx,”MESW,2,p.167.Mussolinirepeatedpreciselythatargumentinhisdiscussionofthe“ideologicalreflexes”thatcharacterizehumanreflection.SeeMussolini,“KarlMarx,”Oo,1,p.103.

12“Examineallthemovementsofhumanthoughtandyouwillfindthattheywere‘determined’byeconomicandprofanemotives.”Mussolini,“KarlMarx(nel25oanniversariodellasuamorte,”Oo,1,p.103.

13Mussolini,L’uomoeladivinità,Oo,33,pp.22–23.

14Ibid.,p.27.

15Engels,Anti-Dühring:HerrEugenDuehring’sRevolutioninScience(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1962),p.132.Engelsaddedthatsuchamoralitymightbe“possibleonlyatastageofsocietywhichhasnot

onlyovercomeclassantagonismsbuthasevenforgottentheminpracticallife.”Ibid.

16Woltmannarguedthatethicsandmoralitycouldnotbeconceivedproductsofanysetofspecificeconomicconditions.Hespokeofmoralprinciples,universalincharacter,thatborenorelationshiptoanyeconomicbase.HealsoreferredtothemoralityaboveclassintereststhatEngelsmadepartoftherevolutionaryprogramoftheproletariat.SeeLudwigWoltmann,HistorischeMaterialismus:DarstellungundKritikderMarxisischenWeltanschauung(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1900),p.229andpp.389–403.

17Mussolini,L’uomoeladivinità,Oo,33,pp.35–36.

18Ibid.,p.20.

19SeeMussolini,“SocialismoemovimentosocialenelsecoloXIX,”Oo,1,pp.43–45.

20SeeSorel’sdiscussionin“Moraleetsocialisme,”LeMouvementsocialiste,March1899,p.209and“L’éthiquedesocialisme,”RevuedeMetaphysiqueetdeMorale,May1899,p.298.

21Mussolini,“Socialismoesocialisti,”Oo,1,p.139.

22SeethediscussioninRobertoMichels,“‘Endziel,’Intransigenz,Ethik,”EthischeKultur,11,no.50(12December1903),pp.393–395.MichelswasasyndicalistauthorfavoredbyMussolini.

23SeetheaccountinA.JamesGregor,YoungMussoliniandtheIntellectualOriginsofFascism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979),pp.35–50.

24Mussolini,“Paginerivoluzionarie,”Oo,1,p.51.

25SeeMussolini’scommentsinwritingofthenightofthefourthofAugust1789,immediatelyprecedingtheFrenchrevolution.Mussolini,“Intornoallanottedel4agosto,”Oo,1,p.61.togetherwith“L’attualemomentopolitico,”Oo,1,p.120.

26Mussolini,“Paginerivoluzionarie,”and“Opinioniedocumenti:Lacrisiresolutiva,”Oo,1,pp.52,70.

27Mussolini,L’uomoeladivinità,Oo,33,p.17.

28Naples:FrancescoPerrella,1909.

29Mussolini,“Lateoriasindacalista,”Oo,2,p.124.

30RenzoDeFelice,Mussoliniilrivoluzionaria1883–1915(Turin:Einaudi,1965),p.40.

31WhatfollowsisasummaryofMussolini’sreviewofPrezzolini’saccount.Mussolini,Lateoriasindacalista,Oo,2,pp.123–128.

32Prezzolinicharacterizedtheelitismofrevolutionarysyndicalismas“anaristocracy...anorganizedminority...possessedofuniquerights...thatleadsmasses.”Ibid.,pp.95,180–181,191.

33Prezzoliniidentifiedthemoralandfunctionaleducationoftheproletariatoneofthe“mostfundamental”oftheresponsibilitiesofthesyndicates.Ibid.,pp.191–197.

34Prezzolinistates“syndicalism...placesethicalconsciousnessaboveeconomicnecessity.”Ibid.,p.46.

35Ibid.,pp.285–297,particularlypp.294–295.

36Ibid.,pp.304–306,315–316,323,330–335.PrezzolinirecommendedtheidealistepistemologyofBenedettoCroceandGiovanniGentile(seePrezzolini,“Iodevo...,”LaVoce,pp.386–391;andthediscussioninEmilioGentile,MussolinieLaVoce[Florence:Sansoni,1976],pp.13–15).

37Intheannouncementoftheforthcomingperiodical,LaVoce,bothCroceandGentilearelistedas“collaborators.”SeeGiuseppePrezzolini,IltempodellaVoce(Milan:LonganesiandVallecchi,1960),illustrationfacingp.16.PrezzoliniconsciouslymovedfromaformofpragmatismthatPapinihadfeaturedinLeonardo(seeGiovanniPapini,Pragmatismo[Florence:Vallecchi,1943;reprintofthe1913edition])toembraceidealisminCrocean,andsubsequentlyGentilean,form.

38Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.204–205.

39Ibid.,pp.77–78.

40Mussolini,“Loscioperogeneraleelaviolenza,”Oo,2,p.165.

41Ibid.,p.167.

42Mussolini,“Ilproletariatohauninteressealleconservazionidellepatrieattuali?”Oo,2,p.169.Inhisdiscussion,Mussolinifollowedtheassessmentstobefoundamongsyndicalistsingeneral.Therecognitionthat“patriotism,”howeverconstrued,wasanaturalexpressionofgroupsentiment,wasacknowledgednotonlybySorelhimself,butbysomeofthemoreinterestingsyndicalisttheoreticiansaswell.In1904,Michelsspokeofpatriotismasauniversalsentimentthatfoundexpressioninavarietyofforms.Whatheadvocatedwasakindofpatriotismthatspoketothe“moral,intellectualandeconomicupliftofone’scompatriots.”Hedidnotrejectpatriotismasanaturalsentimentamonghumans.Hedismissedtheidentificationwithone’sleadersorthespecificinstitutionsofone’snationas“true”patriotism.Hespokeoftheethicalandmoralfoundationoftruepatriotismtoreston“alifelivedtogether,withsharedspeech,cultureandacommonhistory”calculatedtoachievecollectivemoralpurpose.RobertoMichels,“RenaissancedesPatriotismus,”DasMagazinfürLitteratur,73,nos.5–6(1907),pp.153–156.

43Mussolini,“Ilproletariatohauninteressealleconservazionidellepatrieattuali?”Oo,2,p.170.

44Mussolini,“Ungrandeamicodell’ItaliaAugustovonPlaten,”Oo,2,pp.171–172,175.

45Ibid.,2,pp.172,175.

46Atthatpoint,MussolinispokewithouthesitationoftherelationshipofCroceandSorelasthoughhe,asarevolutionaryMarxist,hadnointrinsicobjectiontophilosophicalidealism.SeeMussolini,“Loscioperogeneraleelaviolenza,”Oo,1,pp.163–164.

47Inthiscontext,Marxhadarguedthatsocialistrevolutionarieswouldhavetodealwithnationalpoliticalissuesbothintherunuptorevolutionandthetransitiontointernationalism.ContemporaryMarxistshaveattemptedtoreconstructsomeofMarx’sthoughtinordertoaccommodatethat.Theyhavefounditnecessarytoattempttoaddresstherealitiesofthetwentiethcentury—

andmanythemesdealtwithintheproseofSorelandMussolinihaveresurfacedintheliterature.See,forexample,EphraimNimni,MarxismandNationalism:TheoreticalOriginsofaPoliticalCrisis(London:PlutoPress,1991).

48Mussoliniinsistedthattheinternationalistsentimentsofsocialism“didnotcanceltherealityofnations.”Mussolini,“Loscioperodeicantonieri:Zivio!”Oo,2,p.196.

49Nopretensewillbemadeherethateitherthehistoryofthejournaloranadequateaccountofthethoughtofitsmajorcollaboratorswillbeundertaken.Theselectionofmaterialandanaccountofthecontentofthejournalisgovernedbytheinterestsofthepresentrendering.TherearemanyworksdevotedtoLaVoceanditscollaborators.ThosethatIhavefoundmosthelpfulincludeGiuseppePrezzolini,IltempodellaVoce(Milan:Longanesi&C.Vallechi,1960)andPrezzolini,LaVoce1908–1913:Cronaca,antologiaefortunadiunarivista(Milan:Rusconi,1974).ForadiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenMussoliniandLaVoce,theaccountbyEmilioGentile,“Storiadiunpoliticofragliintellettualide‘LaVoce,’”inGentile,MussolinieLaVoce,pp.1–32,ishighlyrecommended.

50InApril1909,MussoliniwrotealaudatoryarticleforthejournalVitaTrentino,entitled“LaVoce,”inwhichheidentifiedhimselfwiththeenterpriseofthetwointellectuals,PrezzoliniandPapini.Hespokeofthenecessityofcreatinga“ThirdItaly,”asuccessortotheItalyofancientRome,andtheItalyoftheUniversalChurch.ItwouldbeamodernItaly,oneinwhichtimepiecesandrailroadsranontime—anItalyinwhichtherewasmoreactionandlesstalk.“LaVoce,”Oo,2,pp.53–56.

51Yearslater,MussolinitoldPrezzolinithathisreadingoftheessaysinLeonardohadhelpedtransformhimintellectually.Seetheletterof20October(perhaps1914),Prezzolini,“DaBenitoMussolini,”IltempodellaVoce,p.631.

52MussoliniacknowledgedtheroleofPapiniinthephilosophicalrejectionofthethenprevailingpositivism.Mussolini,“LaVoce,”Oo,2,p.53.Seethecollectionofarticlesdatedfromasearlyas1903;GiovanniPapini,Pragmatismo(Florence:Vallecchi,1943;reprintofthe1913edition).

53GiovanniPapini,“Unprogrammanazionalista,”inGiovanniPapiniandGiuseppePrezzolini,Vecchioenuovonazionalismo(Rome:Volpe,1967;reprint

ofthe1914edition),pp.1–36.

54Prezzolinipointedoutthattheleadershipoftherevolutionarysocialistswasalmostinvariablyofbourgeoisprovenance.Prezzolini,inhisresponsetothecommentsofVilfredoPareto,in“Laborgesiapuòresorgere?”ibid.,p.54.

55SeePrezzolini’scommentsin“LedueItalie,”ibid.,pp.71–73.

56SeethediscussioninPrezzolini,“L’Italiarinasce,”ibid.,pp.128–131.

57TheyremainconstantinPrezzolini’scommentsof1914.SeethePrefacetoibid.,pp.i–xiii.

58InOctober1909,MussoliniwrotetoPrezzolinithattheeffortto“createan‘Italian’spiritisasuperbmission.”ItwouldbenecessaryforItaliansto“knowthemselves—fromtheNorthtotheSouth—totemporizeandharmonizedifferencesandloveourselves.”Mussolini,Letterof1October1909,inGentile(ed.),Mussolinie‘LaVoce,’p.43.

59SeethediscussioninthearticlesmadeavailableinPrezzoliniandPapini,Vecchioenuovonazionalismo.SeealsothediscussioninA.JamesGregor,YoungMussoliniandtheIntellectualOriginsofFascism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979),pp.87–100.

60SeeMussolini’scommentsinYvonDeBegnac,PalazzoVenezia:Storiadiunregime(Rome:LaRocca,1950),p.131.

61Mussolini,“IlTrentinovedutadaunsocialista,”Oo,33,p.187.

62Ascited,EttoreFabietti,CesareBattisti:L’anima-lavita(Florence:Vallecchi,1928),p.131.

63SeetheaccountinL’Avveniredellavoratore,13October1898,citedinibid.,p.137.

64SeethediscussioninEphraimNimni,MarxismandNationalism,pp.124–127.

65Mussolini,“Ciccaiulo!”“Loscioperodeicantonieri,”Oo,2,pp.196,203.

66Mussolini,“VecchiaVaticanalupacruenta,”“Gliuominidelgiorno:Bleriot,”“Diquàedilà,EmigrantiItaliani,”and“L’attualità,”Oo,2,pp.194,208,238,240.

67Mussolini,“Artificioavvocatesco,”“PrimoMaggio1909,”“Medaglioniborghesi,”“Bolzano,”“Ilproletariatohauninteressealleconservazionidellepatrieattuali?”Oo,2,pp.64,101,102,119,170.

68MussoliniwasfamiliarwiththesyndicalistthoughtofRobertoMichelswhoarguedfortheimportanceofnationalsentimentintermsoflanguageandculture.Michelsarguedthatsocialistinternationalismwouldnotextinguishthedifferencesbetweenpeoples.SeeRobertoMichels,“DerInternationalismusderArbeiterschaft,”EthischeKultur,12,no.15(1August1904),p.113.LikeMussolini,Michelsheldnationalsentimenttobe“heartfelt,”theresultofthehistoricalandculturaltiesthatuniteanidentifiablebodyofpersonsincommonwillandacommondestiny.Michels,“RenaissancedesPatriotismus,”DasMagazinfürLitteratur,73,nos.5–6(1907),p.155.HevoicedsomeofthesamesentimentsonefindsinMussolini’swritingsoftheperiod—thefact,forexample,thattheproletariat,irrespectiveofanysentiments,couldhardlybepoliticalnationalistsbecauseoftheirabusebythepossessingclasses.SeeRobertoMichels,PatriotismusundEthik(Leipzig:FelixDietrich,1906),particularlypp.28–32.

69Mussolini,IlTrentinovedutodaunsocialista,Oo,33,pp.151–213.

70Ibid.,pp.153–161.

71Mussolini’scommentsontheeugenicstrategiesoftheracialsocialismofGermansocialdemocracydirectlyorobliquelyrefertoWoltmann’saccountinhis“AnthropologicalFoundationsofPoliticalDevelopment,”inhisPolitischeAnthropologie(Jena:EugenDietrich,n.d.,butprobably1902),pp.317–326.

72Mussolini,IlTrentinovedutodaunsocialista,Oo,33,p.173.

73Ibid.,pp.175–183.

74Ibid.,p.186.

75Ibid.,p.200.

76InOctober1909,Mussolinicouldspeakofthe“creationofanewworld,”thefulfillmentofaSorelian“missionterrible,graveandsublime.”“Aicompagni!”Oo,2,p.255.InNovember1910,heinsistedthatSorel’s“syndicalismwasnothingotherthanamovementofreaction.”Hewentontoinsistthathe“hadneverbelievedin[Sorel’s]revolutionism”—somethingpatentlyuntrue.“L’ultimacapriola,”Oo,3,p.272.SeethetreatmentofSorelin“Finestagione,”Oo,3,pp.289–292.

7.THENATIONALQUESTIONANDMARXISTORTHODOXY1SorelwasparticularlycriticalofanysuchinterpretationofMarxism.“Itissaid,”hewrote,“thataccordingtoMarxallpolitical,moral,andaestheticphenomenaaredetermined(intheprecisesenseoftheword)byeconomicphenomena.Whatmightsuchaformulamean?Tomaintainthatonethingisdeterminedbyanother,withoutproviding,atthesametime,apreciseideaoftheirrelationshipistoutterfoolishness.”GeorgesSorel,PrefacetoAntonioLabriola,Essaissurlaconceptionmatérialistedel’histoire(Paris:GiardetBriere,1901),p.7.TowhichLabriolaadded,“Itissaid[aboutthematerialistconceptionofhistory]thatitdemandsthatoneexplainallhumanbehaviorthroughcalculationofmaterialinterests,withnovalueaccordedidealconcerns.Theinexperience,incapacityandpropagandistichasteofsomeofthedoctrine’sadvocateshascontributedtotheseconfusions.”Ibid.,p.119.

2MaxAdler,KausalitätundTeleologieimStreiteumdieWissenschaft(Vienna:Marx-Studien,1904),pp.430–431.

3SeetheentirediscussioninSorel,“LettertoDanielHalevy,”inReflectionsonViolence(London:Collier-Macmillan,1950),pp.31–65.

4SeetheentirediscussioninEngels,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing,1955).

5SeeEngelsemendation,inthePrefacetotheEnglisheditionof1888,andfootnote2ofthetextofTheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:PenguinGroup,1998),pp.46–47,50.

6LudwigWoltmanncitesEngels’stextandthenproceedstodiscussthestruggle

forexistenceamonghumangroupsbeforetherewereclasses.SeeLudwigWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorieundderSozialismus(Düsseldof:HermannMichelsVerlag,1899),particularlypp.26,302;andDerhistorischeMaterialismus(Düsseldorf:HermannMichelsVerlag,1900),pp.217–225.

7ThemodificationofdoctrinewassoegregiousthatSovietcommentators,sevendecadeslater,wereobligedtoobject.SeeEngels,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,p.171,n.1.

8TomNairn,TheBreakUpofBritain(London:NewLeftBooks,1981),p.329.

9EphraimNimni,MarxismandNationalism:TheoreticalOriginsofaPoliticalCrisis(London:PlutoPress,1991),pp.4–5,194–195.

10KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheCommunistManifesto,pp.55,63,72,73.

11SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsinPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),chap.5.

12KarlMarx,PovertyofPhilosophy(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,n.d.),p.122.

13TheCommunistManifesto,p.73.

14ThisisnottosaythatthefoundersofMarxismfailedtomakeanyattempttoexplainhowhistoricalactorscametotheirbeliefs.Noneoftheeffortsproducedconvincingresults.Theexplanationsbecameincreasinglycomplexandconfusing.SeethediscussioninGregor,ASurveyofMarxism,chap.5.

15SeeMarx’sPrefacetothe1882RussianeditionofTheCommunistManifesto,p.34.

16Engelswasveryexplicit.Hemaintainedthat“theworstthingthatcanbefalltheleaderofanextremepartyistobecompelledtoassumepoweratatimewhenthemovementisnotripeforthedominationoftheclassherepresents....Whathecandodependsnotonhiswillbuton...thelevelofdevelopmentofthematerialmeansofexistence,ontheconditionsofproductionandcommerce....Thesocialchangesofhisfancy[have]littlerootinthethen

existingeconomicconditions.”Engels,ThePeasantWarinGermanyinKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1978),10,pp.469–470.

17Lenin,“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”CollectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPress,1960;hereafterLCW),20,p.41.LenininsistedthatRussiawas“acountrymostbackwardeconomically.”Lenin,Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism:APopularOutline,LCW,22,p.250.

18ItisevidentthatLenindidnotexpectsocialismimmediately.Hevariouslyconceivedtheprocessthatwouldultimatelyendinsocialism—butitseemsclearthathedidnotexpecttoimmediatelybringsocialismtoRussiain1917.

19SeethediscussioninLenin,“ContemporaryRussiaandtheWorking-ClassMovement,”LCW,19,p.50.

20Lenin,“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”LCW,20,p.45.

21Ibid.,p.34.

22Ibid.,p.28.“Theproletariatcannotsupportanyconsecrationofnationalism;onthecontrary,itsupportseverythingthathelpstoobliteratenationaldistinctionsandremovenationalbarriers.”Ibid.,p.35.

23Ibid.,p.26.

24Ibid.,p.34.

25Ibid.,pp.26–27.

26J.V.Stalin,“TheSocial-DemocraticViewoftheNationalQuestion,”Works(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing,1952;hereafterSW),1,pp.31,34,50–51.

27Stalin,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”SW,2,p.301.

28Stalin,“TheSocial-DemocraticViewoftheNationalQuestion,”p.35.

29Stalin,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”p.307.

30Ibid.,pp.316,317,319.

31“Marxismcannotbereconciledwithnationalism....InplaceofallformsofnationalismMarxismadvancesinternationalism,theamalgamationofallnationsinthehigherunity.”Lenin,“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”LCW,20,p.34.

32SeethediscussionofSunYat-sen’ssuccessfulantidynasticrevolutioninChinainLenin,“DemocracyandNarodisminChina,”LCW,18,pp.163–169.

33“Initsessence[thenationalstruggle]isalwaysabourgeoisstruggle,onethatistotheadvantageandprofitmainlyofthebourgeoisie.”Stalin,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”SW,2,p.319.

34Ibid.,p.319.

35Nimni,MarxismandNationalism,p.119.

36“AmongallthenationsandpettyethnicgroupsofAustriathereareonlythreewhichhavebeenthecarriersofprogress...—theGermans,thePolesandtheMagyars....Thechiefmissionofalltheotherracesandpeoples—largeandsmall—istoperish....Theyarecounterrevolutionary.”Elsewhere,“Tinynationalitieswhichforcenturieshavebeendraggedalongbyhistoryagainsttheirwillmustnecessarilybecounterrevolutionary.”FriedrichEngels,“HungaryandPanslavism,”and“DemocraticPanslavism,”inKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheRussianMenacetoEurope(Glencoe,Ill.:TheFreePress,1952.EditedbyPaulW.BlackstockandBertF.Hoselitz),pp.59,71.Thereclearlywasnoconcernfornationalsensibilities.

37OttoBauer,DieNationalitätenfrageunddieSozialdemokratie(Vienna:Marx-Studien,1907).

38SeethediscussioninKarlKautsky,“DiemoderneNationalität,”NeueZeit(1887),5,pp.355–360

39SeeRosaLuxemburg’s“ThesesontheTasksofInternationalSocialDemocracy,”inTheJuniusPamphlet(Colombo,Ceylon:YoungSocialistPublications,1967;areprintofthe1915essay),pp.85,86.MostoftheMarxistswhoassumedthispositionwerepreparedtoarguethatduringaninterimperiod,indealingwithnationalisticallyorientedassociations,thatthelureof“national

self-determination”wouldbeoffered.Itwaseminentlyclearthatonlythatmuch“self-determination”wouldbeallowedthatwascompatiblewiththe“interests”ofthe“internationalproletariat.”Stalininsistedthatnationalself-determinationwastobeunderstoodentirelyintermsof“thecorrectlyunderstoodinterestsoftheproletariat.”Whateverself-determinationBolshevismanticipatedfornationswouldhavetofindexpression“inthewaythatwillbestcorrespondtotheinterestsoftheproletariat.”Stalin,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”SW,2,pp.368,369.

40SeeTomBottomore,“Introduction,”inTomBottomoreandPatrickGoode(eds.),Austro-Marxism(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1978),pp.1–44.

41ThesubsequentdiscussionwillrefertoBauer’sprincipalworkonnationalsentimentandnationalism,DieNationalitätenfrageunddieSozialdemokratie.Pagereferenceswillbeprovidedformajorquotes.AfragmentofBauer’sworkisavailableinthetranslationsmadeavailableinthecollectioneditedbyBottomoreandGoode,Austro-Marxism.

42Bauer,DieNationalitätenfrage,pp.84–94,137,177,185.

43Seeibid.,pp.15–26,particularlyn.1,p.19.Onibid.,p.23,Bauerspeaksspecificallyofbreedingcircles.

44Compareibid.,pp.29,131,withAdolfBastian,DieRechtverhältnissebeiverschiedenenVölkernderErde(Berlin:G.ReimerVerlag,1872)1,p.viiiandtheaccountinLudwigGumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology(NewYork:Paine-WhitmanPublishers,1963;translationofthe1885edition),pp.110–112.

45Bauer,DieNationalitätenfrageunddieSozialdemokratie,pp.144–145,186.

46Seetheaccountinibid.,pp.138–145.Thedefinitionof“nation”isfoundinibid.,p.135.

47Seetherenderinginibid.,pp.77–94.

48“Nationaldistinctivenessdoesnotdiminishwiththetransferofmaterialculture.Theconsciousnessofnationaldifferenceshasneverbeensoemphaticasinourowntime,irrespectiveofthefactthatnationslearnmoreandmorerapidlyfromothernationsthaneverbefore.”Ibid.,p.158.

49Seeibid.,pp.172–174.

50Seetheentirediscussioninibid.,pp.10–26.

51Seethediscussioninibid.,particularly,pp.50,84–109,302–304,533.

52Bauer’sallusionwastothewritingsofbothMarxandEngelsthatincludedfrequentreferencestothelessindustrializedcommunitiesofEuropeasbeing“historyless.”Bauerarguedagainstanysuchcharacterization.Headvocated,instead,a“consciousinternationalism,”asopposedtoa“naivecosmopolitanism,”onethatrespectedthehistoricandculturalintegrityofthenationalsentimentofallworkers.Thegoalwouldremaininternationalrevolution,directedagainsttheexploitationofthepossessingclasses,butaninternationalrevolutionthatadvancedapoliticalprogramthatwouldrespectthenationalsensibilitiesoftherevolutionaryproletariat.Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.302–325,522,526–533.

53BauerreferstoWillensrichtungen.Ibid.,pp.110–111.

54SeeBauer’saffirmationoftheBrünn(Brno)programwhichcalledforthe“rightofeachnationalitytonationalexistenceandnationaldevelopment.”Ibid.,p.528.ItwasthiscommitmentthatdrewthescornofbothStalinandLenin.SeeStalin,“MarxismandtheNationalQuestion,”SW,2,pp.326–327;Lenin,“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”LCW,20,pp.38–39.Bothrefusedtoconsiderthepossibilityofa“national”asdistinctfroma“class”culture.

55SeetheaccountinKarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:VerlagJ.H.W.Dietz,1929),1,pp.196–219.

56“JustasDarwindiscoveredthelawofdevelopmentoforganicnature,soMarxdiscoveredthelawofdevelopmentofhumanhistory.”FriedrichEngels,“SpeechattheGravesideofKarlMarx,”inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing,1955),2,p.167;SeeEngels,DialecticsofNature(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing,1954),pp.29,265,337–338,402–404.

57KarlKautsky,DiematerialisticheGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:VerlagJ.H.W.Dietz,1929),1,pp.196–200.

58Bauer,DieNationalitätenFrageunddieSozialdemokratie,p.130.

59Inhisintroductiontotheconceptofthe“nation,”Bauermakesreferencetotheelementsthattogetherconstitutethenation:commonterritory,descent,language,customsandusage,history,law,andreligiousbeliefs.Hespeaksofthe“Italiansociologists”whoprovidesuchacatalog.Ibid.,p.130.

60GaetanoMosca,Elementidiscienzapolitica(Bari:Laterza,1953;firstpublishedin1896),1,chap.3,section2,pp.111,112;section5,p.122.

61Ibid.,pp.31,97,100,111,112,148.

62IrvingL.Horowitz,“Editor’sPreface,”toGumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology(NewYork:Payne-Whitman,1963),p.7.

63Yearslater,KarlKautskyreferredtoWoltmann’sefforttounitethetwo.KarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:VerlagJ.H.W.Dietz,1929),1,pp.196–197.

64SeeLudwigWoltmann,DieDarwinscheTheorieundderSozialismus(Düsseldorf:Michels,1899),pp.330–331.

65ItisunfortunatethatGumplowicztitledhisbookDerRassenkampfwhichtranslatesinto“RaceWar.”Theentitiesthatconductedthe“war”towhichhealludeswerealmostalwaysnon-racial.Theywereconsistentlyidentifiedas“heterogeneoussocialelements,”anypopulationelementthatdistinguishesitselffromothersonthegroundsofhighsocialvisibility,orculturaldifferences.Theyhardlyeverwereracialinanyspecificsense.Gumplowicztookpainstoindicatethattheterm“race”hadnospecificscientificmeaning.Seehisdiscussion,Gumplowicz,DerRassenkampf:SociologischeUntersuchungen(Innsbruck:VerlagderWagner’schenUniversität-Buchhandlung,1883),particularlypp.193–194.Thereasonhereferredto“race”wastoprovidesomeindicationofhowgroupdifferencesarise—throughendogamyandgeneticisolation—theresultsofingroupamityandoutgroupenmity—thesamemechanismsthatproducedbiologicalraces.

66See,forexample,thediscussioninGumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology,part4.

67SeethediscussioninLudwigWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus(Düsseldorf:Michels,1900),pp.372,396–397.Gumplowiczspokeoftheconflictbetweenhiselementalsocialgroupsasa“racialconflict

(Rassenkampf).”Hemadeveryclearthatwhenhespokeof“socialaggregates,”hedidnotmean“racial”inanybiologicaloranthropologicalsense.Heconsistentlyremindedhisaudiencethatsocialscientistsemployedtheterm“race”inwhatwas,atbest,vagueandambiguousfashion.Hewascontenttospeakof“heterogeneoussocialgroups.”MostofthereferencesthatGumplowiczoccasionallycalledracial,wouldmoreaccuratelybeconsideredethnicgroups,socialaggregates,“folkish”communities,tribes,swarms,orhordes.SeeGumplowicz,DerRassenkampf,pp.186–187.

68Ultimately,Woltmannsawtheconflictbetweenracesasthemajorhistoricaldeterminant—somethingcompletelyalientothethoughtofGumplowicz.

69SeetheaccountinGumplowicz,DerRassenkampf,pp.158–166,169–172,176–194;Gumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology,pp.153–156,158–160,168,178–179,223.

70Warwasunderstoodtobe“theresultofanaturallawofstrife,”somuchsothatevenpeacewas“onlyalatentstruggle.”Gumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology,p.208.

71Gumplowicz,DiesociologischeStaatsidee(Innsbruck:VerlagderWagner’scheUniversitäts-Buchhandlung,1902),p.115.

72Gumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology,pp.206,214–216.

73SeethediscussioninGumplowicz,DiesociologischeStaatsidee,pp.183–189.

74Mussolini,“Diquàedilà:EmigrantiItaliani,”and“L’Attualità,”Operaomnia(Milan:Lafenice,1965),2,pp.208,238,240.

75MussoliniconsideredBauer“certainlyoneofthemostformidableandgenialintelligencesamongtheAustro-Hungariansocialists.”Mussolini,“Ipericolidelriformismo,”ibid.,6,p.16.

8.REVOLUTIONARYSYNDICALISMANDNATIONALISM1InGermany,Michelsearlysufferedforhisrevolutionarysocialistconvictions.MaxWeber,whoidentifiedMichelsasagiftedscholar,lamentedthefactthata

culturednationcouldstillexactcostsfromthosewhoseideasdifferedfromthoseofthepoliticallycorrectmainstream.SeeWilfredRöhrich,RobertMichels:VonsozialistichsyndicalistischenzumfascistischenCredo(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1972),pp.7–8.

2SeetheaccountinPaoloOrano,“RobertoMichels:L’amico,ilmaestro,ilcamerata,”inStudiinmemoriadiRobertoMichels(Padua:CEDAM,1937),p.9.

3RobertoMichels,StoriadelMarxismoinItalia:Compendiocritico(Rome:Mongini,1909).ThesubstanceofthevolumeappearedinGermanin1907intheArchivfürSozialwissenschaftundSozialpolitikwhenMichelswasbarelythirtyyearsofage.

4QuiteindependentlyofBakunin’sinfluence,manyMarxistsunderstoodMarxismtobefundamentallyanarchisticininspiration.SomeofthefirstpopularizersofMarxisminEuropewereanarchists.JohannMost,whowasinstrumentalinmakingMarx’sideasknowninGermany;AriolEditeur,whotranslatedasummaryofDasKapitalforfrancophonereaders;andF.D.Nieuwenhuis,whoprovidedacompendiumofMarx’sworksforDutchspeakers,wereallanarchists.SeeMichels’scomments,StoriadelMarxismoinItalia,pp.55–61,andparticularlyp.65,n.1.

5SeethediscussioninNapoleoneColajanni,Ilsocialismo(Catania:FilippoTropea,1884).

6SeeEnricoFerri,Socialismoescienzapositiva(Darwin-Spencer-Marx)(Rome:Casaeditriceitaliana,1894)andMichelangeloVaccaro,Lalottaperl’esistenza(Turin:Bocca,1902).

7Michels,StoriadelMarxismoinItalia,pp.80,98,“AncoraunaparolasulmarxismoinItalia,”Rivistapopolare,17,8(30April1911),p.207.

8Michels,StoriadelMarxismoinItalia,p.80.

9Ibid.,pp.7,9,10,121–122;seepp.92,103.

10Michels,“DerethischeFaktorinderParteipolitikItalien,”ZeitschriftfürPolitik,3(1909),1,pp.56–91;seeparticularlypp.67–68,69–72.

11Michels,“‘Endziel,’Intransigenz,Ethik,”EthischeKultur,11,50(12December1903),p.393.

12SeeMichels,Ilproletariatoelaborghesianelmovimentosocialistaitaliano(Turin:Bocca,1908),pp.333–396;particularlypp.352,n.11,372,377–396.

13TheclearexceptionistheexcellentexpositionofsyndicalistideasfoundintheEnglishtranslationofZeevSternhell(withMarioSznajderandMaiaAsheri),TheBirthofFascistIdeology:FromCulturalRebelliontoPoliticalRevolution(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),chaps.3,4.

14Ibid.,p.191.AbriefaccountoftheprocessisofferedinA.JamesGregor,YoungMussoliniandtheIntellectualOriginsofFascism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979),chaps.5and7.

15Michels,PatriotismusundEthik(Leipzig:FelixDietrich,1906),seeparticularlypp.28–32.

16SeethediscussioninMichels,“Nationalismus,Nationalgefühl,Internationalismus,”DasfreieWort,2(1903),pp.107–111.

17“InternationalismusbedeutetnichtVaterlandslosigkeit.”Michels,“DerInternationalismusderArbeiterschaft,”EthischeKultur,12,15(1August1904),p.113.

18SeethediscussioninMichels,“RenaissancedesPatriotismus,”DasMagazinfürLitteratur,73,5–6(1907),pp.153–156.

19SeeRörich,RobertMichels,p.9.

20MichelsregularlycitedGumplowicz’sworkinhispublications;seeMichels,“Neomalthusianismus,”Frauen-Zukunft,1,1(1910),pp.42,52.

21TheunanimityofsomeofthecentralideasofMoscawiththoseofGumplowiczisobvious.MoscaarticulatesanobjectiontotheideasofGumplowiczinsofarasheimaginesthattheideasinDerRassenkampfare“racist,”andthat,moreover,theconcept“race”isfartooambiguousandvaguetoserveasanindependentvariableinaccountingforsocialevolution.SeeMosca,Elementidiscienzapolitica(Bari:Laterza,1953;fifthedition),1,pp.31,76–77,notetochapter1.WehaveseenthatGumplowicz’snotionswerenot

“racist”inthesensewithwhichwehavebecomefamiliar.Gumplowiczfullyacknowledgedthattheconcept“race,”inandofitself,wastooimpreciseanduncertaintoservescientificpurpose.Heclearlypreferred“heterogeneoussocialelement”todesignatehis“agentsofhistory.”Hespeaksofthose“elements”asbeingformedby“culture,”language,custom,art,religion,law,history,collectiveaspirations,andcommunityexperience—andappearinginhistoryashordes,tribes,moities,clans,nations,and/orclasses.SeeGumplowicz,DerRassenkampf:SociologischeUntersuchungen(Innsbruck:VerlagderWagner’schenUniversitäts-Buchhandlung,1883),pp.186–187,193,231–233,248–253;consultIrvingL.Horowitz,“Introduction:TheSociologyofLudwigGumplowicz,”inGumplowicz,OutlinesofSociology(NewYork:Paine-Whitman,1963),pp.39–49.Gumplowicz’spreoccupationwastodescribethecollectiveandindividualbehaviorofthemembersofsuch“Gemeinschaften.”

22SeeMosca,Elementidiscienzapolitica,chap.3,section2,pp.111–113.Moscaregularlyspeaksof“nationalsentiment”and“classsolidarity”aspredicatedonthesenseofcommunitybornofimitationandthesentimentoffellowfeeling.Seeibid.,chap.4,section5,pp.148–151.

23Seethediscussioninibid.,chap.7,section1,pp.240–242.

24See,forexample,thediscussioninMichels,PatriotismusundEthik,p.17.

25Michels,Cooperazione(Turin:Bocca,1908),andreprintedinSaggieconomico-statisticisulleclassipopolari(Milan:RemoSandron,1913).SeeMussolini’sreviewin“Fralibrieriviste,”Operaomnia(Florence:Lafenice,1951[Oo]),2,pp.248–249.

26Michels,Saggieconomico-statistici,pp.75–87.

27LikeGumplowicz,Mosca,Bauer,andanumberofothers,Mussoliniacknowledgesthephenomena.“Cooperation,”Mussolininotes,ischaracterizedbytwo“contradictory”features:thefirstfindsexpressioninthe“practicalsolidarity”oftheprimarygroupandtheotherinits“struggle”againstoutgroups.SeeMussolini,“Fralibrieriviste,”Oo,2,pp.248–249.

28SeethediscussioninMichels,“Wirtschafts-undsozialphilosophischeRandbemerkungen,”and“ZurhistorischenAnalysedesPatriotismus,”ArchivfürSozialwissenschaftundSozialpolitik,4,no.3(1911),pp.441–442,andibid.,36,nos.1and2(1913),pp.14–43.

29Ibid.,p.446.

30Michels,“RenaissancedesPatriotismus,”DerMagazinfürLitteratur,73,nos.5–6(1907),p.155.

31A.O.Olivetti,“Sindacalismoenazionalismo,”Paginelibere,5,4(15February1911),reprintedinGiulioBarni,AlcesteDeAmbris,ArturoLabriola,PaoloMantica,A.O.Olivetti,AlfredoPolledro,LiberoTancredi,LaguerradiTripoli:Discussioninelcamporivoluzionario(Naples:SocietàeditricePartenopea,1912),pp.11–27.ThediscussionthatfollowsisdrawnfromOlivetti’saccount.

32EngelshadtracedthatlonghistoryinhisTheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState,andhisaccountfiguredinthatadvancedbymostofthemajorMarxisttheoreticiansattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.

33SeeOlivetti’scommentsin“L’altracampana,”inLaguerradiTripoli,p.110.

34SeeOlivetti’sdiscussionin“Sindacalismoenazionalismo,”ibid.,pp.22–23.

35TheoriginalargumentiscontainedinOlivetti,“L’altracampana,”publishedoriginallyinPaginelibere,5,22(15November1911)shortlyafterthecommencementofthewar,andreprintedinLaguerradiTripoli,pp.107–122.

36Ibid.,pp.116–117,122.

37Olivetti,“Ribattendoilchiodo,”ibid.,pp.241–242.

38ItwasaboutthistimethatMichelswascompletinghismajorworkonthesociologyofpoliticalparties,Sociologiadelpartitopoliticonellademocraziamoderna(Turin:UTET,1912).Theworkhassincebecomeaclassicinpoliticalsociology.

39SeethediscussionofnationalistdoctrineasithadbeguntofindexpressionbeforetheGreatWarinA.JamesGregor,Mussolini’sIntellectuals:FascistSocialandPoliticalThought(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005),chaps.2and3.

40SeethesameintellectualdevelopmentintheworkofSergioPanunzio,whowastogoontobeamongthemostdistinguishedsocialthinkersofMussolini’s

Fascism.Seetheaccountinibid.,chap.4.

41Michels,L’imperialismoitaliano:Studipolitico-demographici(Milan:Societàeditricelibreria,1914).

42Ibid.,pp.xii,4.

43Ibid.,pp.120–121.

44“ThethesisthatItalyembarkedonthewarinTripoliforcommercialreasonscannotbesustained.”Ibid.,p.138.

45Ibid.,p.180.

46Ibid.,pp.83–84.

47Ibid.,pp.56–57.

48Michelsremindedhisreadersthatwhilethosemigrantsdidmakeregularfinancialcontributionstothesupportofrelativesthatremainedbehind—Italianworkersbenefitedtheirhostcountrybyprovidingitaconcretelegacyfarmorevaluablethananytransferstotheirdependentsinthehomeland.Theirlaborintensiveemploymentsinagricultureandindustry,theconstructionofthetransportation,educational,andcommunicationsinfrastructureoftheeconomiesofNorthEurope,NorthandSouthAmerica,werematerialvalueslosttoItaly.

49MichelsreportsthattheItaliannewspapersoftheperiodinvokedthememoriesoftheancientgloriesofRome:“PeopleofTripoli!Italydisembarksonthisshoreunitedingeographyandtheancienttiesofacommonfatherland.”Elsewhereitwassaidthat“Webringtotheselands,lapsedintodecadence,whereonceRomebroughtredemptivecivilization,thecivilizingstandardofthenewItaly.”Seeibid.,pp.115–116.

50MichelsspeaksoftheappealstothememoryofRomeasa“tacticalmethod,”usedto“igniteapassionateenthusiasm”thatwouldprovidetheenergiesforsocialrevolution.Seeibid.,p.118.

51HespokeofthemythofancientgloriesinvokedbythenationalistsofGreece,Germany,France,andSerbia.TheGreeksalludedtotheEmpireofAlexandertheGreat,orlessgrandiose,theByzantineEmpire.TheGermansreturntothe

memoriesoftheHolyRomanEmpire.TheFrenchmaderecoursetotheNapoleonicconquests.TheSerbsrummagedintheirhistoryfortheirownownmobilizingnationalmyth.Seeibid.,pp.116–117.

52SeethecommentsofVitoRastelli,FilippoCorridoni:Lafigurastoricaeladottrinapolitica(Rome:“Conquisted’Impero,”1940),p.19.

53ThereisacollectionofCorridoni’swritingsinIvonDeBegnac,L’Arcangelosindacalista(FilippoCorridoni)(Verona:Mondadori,1943)inanextendedappendix.Extensivequotationsarefoundinthetextaswell.

54Infact,OlivettiappearedinCorridoni’sdefenseinhistrialfor“subversion”—asaconsequenceofthepublicationofCorridoni’slongessayonsabotage.

55OnefindsalmostalltheelementsofCorradini’sthoughtinthepublishedworksofA.O.Olivetti.Corradini’sexpositiondiffersintheorderofpresentationandintermsofthepassionwithwhichtheyaredelivered.ItisevidentthatCorradini’sconvictionsarethoseofwhatcametobeidentifiedas“nationalsyndicalism”intheyearsaftertheGreatWar.ThereferencestoOlivetti’swritingswillbetakenfromtheunpublishedcollectionprovidedbyOlivetti’sfamily,Battagliesindacaliste:Dalsindacalismoalfascismo.Aswillbeindicated,mostofthematerialistobefoundinthepagesofPaginelibereoftheperiod.

56AlthoughthereisnodirectevidencethatCorridonihadreadanyoftheworksofMichels,therewasacommonalityofcontentthatwassureevidenceofasharedperspective.SeethecommentsofDeBegnac,L’Arcangelosindacalista,p.139.TheinfluenceofthethoughtofOlivettiisevidentthroughoutmuchofCorridoni’sessays.Seethecitationsinibid.,passim.

57TheclearestexpressionisfoundinRastelli,FilippoCorridoni,pp.23,28,71,withaPrefacewrittenbyCorridoni’sfriendandcompatriotduringhishistoryasasyndicalistleader:AmilcareDeAmbris,whoclearlyidentifiedCorridoniasaprecursorofFascism.ImmediatelybeforethefinaldaysoftheFascistSocialRepublicintheNorthofItalyduringtheagonyoftheregimeattheendoftheSecondWorldWar,youngFasciststooktheinitiativetopublisha“secondedition”ofCorridoni’sSindacalismoerepubblicaasafinaldoctrinaltestamentoftheFascistrevolution.ThetextwaspublishedinFebruary1945bythe

BibliotechinasocialeinMilan.Citationswillbemadefromthatedition.

58IntheAuthor’spreface,Corridoni’stellsusthat“syndicalism,”inhisjudgment,isnothingotherthanthepromiseofMarxism.Itisits“fulfillment.”Sindacalismoerepubblica,p.12.SeeCorridoni’sreferencestoMarx,ibid.,pp.17–18,25–26,46,77.

59Seetheentirediscussioninibid.,pp.17–23.ThiswasclearlyavariantonLenin’snotionthattheworkingclassintheadvancedindustrialnationswassubornedbycapitalism’s“superprofits”—extortedfromthelessdevelopedperipheryoftheinternationalsystem.

60Ibid.,pp.23,25.

61Seethediscussion,ibid.,pp.38,48–49,55–56.

62Corridoniarguedthat“threequartersofItalyremainedataprecapitalistlevelandtherewaslittlethatsuggestedanyimprovement.”Ibid.,p.23.

63Hobson’sbook,Imperialism:AStudy,wasfirstpublishedin1902,andhassincerunintomanyeditions.ItisclearthatmuchofLenin’ssubstanceonhisnotionsofcapitalistimperialismwasdrawnfromHobson’sbook.SeethediscussioninTomKemp,TheoriesofImperialism(London:DennisDobson,1967),chap.3.

64SeeCorridoni’sdiscussioninSindacalismoerepubblica,pp.30–34,41–42.

65Ibid.,pp.55–56.

66“Theproletarianmovementistheself-conscious,independentmovementoftheimmensemajority...”MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1998),p.22.

67Corridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica,p.70.

68Ibid.,pp.34,37–38.TwomonthsbeforeItaly’sdeclarationofwaragainstGermanyandAustria-Hungary,Olivettiwrotethat,undersomesetofcontingentconditions,“nationalinterests”mightuniteproletariansandthebourgeoisie.SeeOlivetti,“Postillaa‘Socialismoeguerrasonoterminiantitetici?’”Paginelibere,20October1915.

69SeeCorridoni,“Letteratestamento,”AppendixtoRastelli,FilippoCorridoni,pp.100–101,and“Iltestamentopolitico,”inCorridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica,pp.109–111andibid.,pp.71–72.

70Olivettihadmadethesamecasein“Rispostaallainchiestasullaguerraeuropea,”Paginelibere,30October1914.

71SeetheentirediscussioninCorridoni’s“Iltestamentopolitico,”inSindacalismoerepubblica,pp.109–111.

72Ibid.,p.90.

73Corridonispokeofthattransitionalrevolutionasa“rivoluzionediassestamento.”Ibid.,pp.71–73.SeethediscussioninRastelli,FilippoCorridoni,pp.65–66,74–75.

74SeeCorridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica,pp.48–49,97–99.

75Olivettihadmadepreciselythesamecase;seeOlivetti,“Noielostato,”Paginelibere,15November1914.

76Corridoni,shortlybeforehisdeathincombat,spokeofhis“desperatelove”forthefatherland.Corridoni,“Letteratestamento,”inRastelli,FilippoCorridoni,p.101.

77See,forexample,A.O.Olivetti,“Ilproblemadellafolla,”Nuovaantologia,38,no.761(1September1903),pp.281–291;PaoloOrano,Lapsicologiasociale(Bari:Laterza,1902).Ashasbeensuggested,similarideasarefoundamongmanyoftheearlyMarxists,andbecamethecriticalcenterofthethoughtofOttoBauer.SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,TheIdeologyofFascism:TheRationaleofTotalitarianism(NewYork:FreePress,1969),pp.72–92.

78ArturoLabriola,LaguerradiTripoliel’opinionesocialista(Naples:Scintilla,1912),pp.19and114.IntheTribunaofTurin,on27November1912,GiovanniPascolispokeofItalyas“TheGreatProletariat.”SeethecitationsinMichels,L’imperialismoitaliano,p.92,n.4.

9.THEGREATWARANDTHERESPONSEOFREVOLUTIONARYMARXISTS

1Bythetimeofhisdeath,Woltmannarguedfora“racialsocialism”inwhichallthevaluesofsocialismwouldbeachievedthrougharaciallysensitiveprogram—protectingthe“culturecreators”sothatahigherorderofcivilizationcouldbothbeprovidedandsustainedagainstthoseincapableofitscreationormaintenance.SeethediscussioninLudwigWoltmann,PolitischeAnthropologie:EineUntersuchungüberdenEinflussderDescendenztheorieaufdieLehrevonderpolitischenEntwicklungderVölker(Jena:VerlegtbeiEugenDiederichs,n.d.),pp.317–326.ArturoLabriolaidentifiedWoltmannamongthoseGermantheorists,bothsocialistsandnonsocialistswhosuppliedthetheoreticalrationaleforthepan-GermanismthatcontributedtothecomingoftheFirstWorldWar.SeeArturoLabriola,Laconflagrazioneeuropeaeilsocialismo(Rome:Athenaeum,1915),pp.100–105.Ashasbeenindicated,MussolinihadidentifiedtheMarxistWoltmannwiththepan-GermanismofAustriansocialism.SeeBenitoMussolini,Iltrentinovedutodaunsocialista,Operaomnia(Milan:Lafenice,1955;hereafterOo),33,pp.158–161.

2AllofthishadbeenpartofthetheoreticallegacyofKarlMarx.AllthosepredictionsaretobefoundinTheCommunistManifesto,writteninMarx’syouth,aswellasinthelastchaptersofthefirstvolumeofDasKapital,writteninhismaturity.

3SeetheinsightfuldiscussioninBertramD.Wolfe,Marxism:OneHundredYearsintheLifeofaDoctrine(London:WestviewPress,1985),chap.18.

4KarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:J.H.W.Dietz,1929),intwovolumes,remainsamongthebestoftheaccountsofclassicalMarxism.

5KarlMarx,Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),p.9.

6Syndicalistssawinthatlogictherationaleforpan-Germanism.SeeLabriola’sdiscussioninLaconflagrazioneeuropeaeilsocialismo,chaps.6and7.

7SeethediscussioninEphraimNimni,MarxismandNationalism:TheoreticalOriginsofaPoliticalCrisis(London:Pluto,1991),pp.26,30–31.

8Ashasbeenindicated,Woltmannhadmademuchofthedistinction—onehefoundbothexplicitandimplicitinMarx’shistoricalmaterialism.Hespokeofcivilizedandprimitiveraces,andsuggestedthatMarxhadmadethoseproperties

afunctionofgeneticendowment.

9SeeLetterof2December1847,andMarxandEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1978;hereafterMECW),7,p.422.

10ThesekindsofcharacterizationswereemployedbyLudwigWoltmannandthepan-Germanictheoreticiansamongtheturn-of-thecenturysocialiststojustifyGermandominanceintheEuropeaneastandsoutheast.InthecaseofWoltmann,thesejudgmentswereemployedtosupporthisparticularformofbiologicalracismthatwastoresurfaceinthethoughtofAdolfHitler.SeeA.JamesGregor,ContemporaryRadicalIdeologies:TotalitarianThoughtintheTwentiethCentury(NewYork:RandomHouse,1968),pp.181–212.

11Engels,“FrenchRuleinAlgeria,”inSchlomoAvineri,KarlMarxonColonialismandModernization(GardenCity:Doubleday,1968),p.44.

12Engels,“DemocraticPanslavism,”inP.W.BlackstockandB.F.Hoselitz(eds.),TheRussianMenacetoEurope(Glencoe,Ill.:TheFreePress,1952),pp.71,74–76.

13Engels,“LetterfromGermany:TheWarinSchleswig-Holstein,”MarxandEngels,MECW,10,pp.392–394.

14Marx,asquotedinLeopoldSchwarzchild,TheRedPrussian:TheLifeandLegendofKarlMarx(London:HamishHamilton,1948),pp.189–190.

15Seethediscussioninibid.,pp.334–335.

16SeetheconvenientcollectionofthewritingsofMarxandEngelsontheroleofRussiaintheprojectedproletarianrevolutioninBlackstockandHoselitz(eds.),TheRussianMenacetoEuropeandJ.A.Doerig(ed.),Marxvs.Russia(NewYork:FrederickUngarPublishing,1962).

17Wolfe,Marxism,p.25.

18SeethediscussioninWolfe,Marxism,chap.3,particularlypp.56–57.Again,thesuggestionthatsuchawarwouldinvolve“race,”suggestedtheracialinterpretationofhistorythatbecameidentifiedwiththe“racialsocialism”ofLudwigWoltmann.

19EngelstoA.Bebel,inKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,BriefeanA.BebelundAndere(Berlin:Dietz,1933),p.412.

20AscitedinWolfe,Marxism,pp.67,68andnotes29,30,31.

21Letterdated13October1891,ascitedinGustavMayer,FriedrichEngels:ABiography(NewYork:Knopf,1936),pp.514–555.

22AscitedinWolfe,Marxism,p.76.

23Tothisday,thereisnosingle,universallyacceptedinterpretationofMarx’sepistemologicalconvictions.Throughoutitshistory,Marxismhasbeencharacterizedinfundamentallydifferentfashionbysomeofitsadherents.SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsinPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),chap.3.

24LeninfabricatedhisinterpretationoftheepistemologyofMarxisminhisMaterialismandEmpiriocriticisminCollectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPress,1962;hereafterLCW),16.ItwasfashionedoutofthewritingsofthematureEngels,innocentofthenowfamiliarwritingsoftheyoungMarx.ItisnotatallclearthatEngels’sinterpretationofMarxistepistemologywasfullycompatiblewiththatofKarlMarx.ThematerialsthatoriginatefromthepenoftheyoungMarxseemradicallyincompatiblewiththepositivismofthematureEngels—andthatofLenin.SeetheaccountinGregor,ASurveyofMarxism,chap.3.

25SeethecommentsofV.Fomina’sintroductoryessaytoGeorgiPlekhanov,SelectedPhilosophicalWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,n.d.),1,p.9.

26EngelsinalettertoBebeldated17November1885inMarxandEngels,BriefeanA.Bebel,p.412.

27SeethediscussioninLenin,“SpeechDeliveredatanInternationalMeetinginBerne,February8,1916,”LCW,22,p.123.

28V.I.Lenin,“TheTasksofRevolutionarySocial-DemocracyintheEuropeanWar,”LCW,21,pp.15–16.

29“ThePositionandTasksoftheSocialistInternational,”LCW,21,pp.35,36.

30Ibid.,p.40.

31“WhatNext?”LCW,21,p.109.

32“TheRussianBrandofSuedekum,”and“UnderaFalseFlag,”LCW,21,pp.118–124,141,142.

33“TotheEditorsofNasheSlovo,”LCW,21,p.126.

34MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto(NewYork:PenguinGroup,1998),p.56.

35SeethediscussioninLenin,Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism:APopularOutlineinLCW,22,pp.241–242,276–278;seeibid.,pp.143,192.

36RobertConquest,V.I.Lenin(NewYork:Viking,1972),p.71.

37“UnderaFalseFlag,”LCW,21,pp.148–151.

38“UnderaFalseFlag,”and“TheConferenceoftheR.S.D.L.P.GroupsAbroad,”LCW,21,pp.151–153,161.

39Lenindefined“opportunism”intermsoftherepudiationofboththeclassstruggleandproletarianrevolution,togetherwiththerecognitionofthemeritsofpatriotism.“Socialchauvinism”or“socialpatriotism”wasseenasderivativeof“opportunism,”inwhichworkersweredeceivedbythepettybourgeoisieandtheexiguouslaboraristocracybatteningonthesuperprofitsofimperialistexploitationoflessdevelopedcountries.“TheConferenceoftheR.S.D.L.F.GroupsAbroad,”“TheCollapseoftheSecondInternational,”LCW,21pp.161,212,249.

40“TheSocial-Chauvinists’Sophisms,”LCW,21,pp.185–186.

41“TheCollapseoftheSecondInternational,”LCW,21,pp.211,213–216,221–224,228,235.

42Lenin,Imperialism,pp.195,205,210,218,220–223,234,254,298–300.

43Ibid.,pp.271–272.

44Ibid.,p.265.

45Ibid.,pp.241,261.

46Ibid.,p.192.

47Seeibid.,pp.192,194,278–279,281,283–284,301.

48Ibid.,pp.262,274.Thuswhilefinancecapitalistsneglectagricultureintheirowndomesticenvironments,theyseektofosteragrarianproductivityintheircolonies.Seeibid.,p.261.Leningoesontoarguethatsomeofthelessdevelopedperipheralcountries,likeJapan,arerapidlymaturingintocompetitivesystems,therebymakingthe“struggleamongtheworldimperialisms...moreacute.”Ibid.,pp.274–275.

49Ibid.,pp.241–242,243,274–275.SeetheimplicationsofLenin’scommentsonthepossibletransferofagricultural,mining,andindustriallaborfromtheadvancedcapitalistnationsto“thecoloredraces”inAsiaandAfrica.HeadmitsthatJapanhadgraduallyemergedasanindustrializingpower,asGermanyhadafewdecadesearlier,suggestingthatthereremainedconsiderableroomforindustrializationamonglessdevelopednations.Ibid.,pp.281,295.Inmakingthoseassertions,LeninwasrepeatingthoseofJ.A.Hobson’sImperialism:AStudy(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1965),abookthatweknowLeninusedinthepreparationofhisownImperialism.

50Leninobjectedtoanysuggestionthatimperialismmightbe“progressive.”HewasparticularlydismissiveifthesuggestioncamefromMarxistintellectuals.SeehisImperialism,p.270.ThefactisthatMarxandEngelsbothconsidered“colonialism”partofthe“cunningofhistory”andintegraltotheanticipated“progressive”worldrevolution.

51Ibid.,p.277.

52Ibid.,p.297.

53Ibid.,p.300.

54Ibid.,p.259.

55InhisPeasantWarinGermany,Engelsreviewedthehistoryoftherevolutionaryreligiouscommunistsofthesixteenthcentury.Ofthoseheheldthat“Theworstthingthatcanbefalltheleaderofanextremepartyistobecompelledtoassumepoweratatimewhenthemovementisnotyetripeforthedominationoftheclassherepresents....Whathecandodependsnotonhiswillbut...onthelevelofdevelopmentofthematerialmeansofexistence,ontheconditionsofproductionandcommerce...”Engelswasparticularlyemphaticaboutcommunistrevolutionariesundertakingrevolutionwhen“thesocialchangesof[their]fancyhadlittlerootinthethenexistingeconomicconditions.”Undersuchconditions,theymustinevitablyfail;theirrevolutionslapsingbackintotheoppressivefeaturesofapoliticalsystemrestingonanimmatureeconomicbase.Engels,“ThePeasantWarinGermany,”inMECW,10,pp.469–470,471.

56SeethediscussioninGregor,ASurveyofMarxism,chap.5.

57Mussolini,“Nazionalismo,”Oo,3,p.281.

58Mussolini,“L’annoch’èmorto...”Oo,6,p.33.

59OntheeveoftheFirstWorldWar,Leninmaintainedthat“thegrowthofarmaments,theextremeintensificationofthestruggleformarkets...wereinevitablyboundtobringaboutthiswar.”“TheWarandRussianSocial-Democracy,”LCW,21,p.27.

60SeetheinterestingdiscussionmakingthecomparisoninDomenicoSettembrini,Fascismocontrorivoluzioneimperfetta(Florence:Sansoni,1978),chap.1.

61Mussolini,“Perl’intransigenzadelsocialism:Leragionidelcosidetto‘pacifismo’,”Oo,5,p.134.

62SeeMussolini’scommentsin“L’impresadisperata,”Utopia,2,no.1(15January1914),p.1.

63ThefolkwisdomofcontemporaryhistoryandsocialscienceoftenpretendsthatMussoliniwasfundamentallyignorantofMarxistthought.Everythinghewroteandpublishedduringthisperiodgivesthelietothatcanard.HespeaksknowledgablyofRosaLuxemburg,OttoBauer,KarlKautsky,RudolfHilferding,andVictorAdlerinthefirstpagesofUtopia.See,forexample,Mussolini,“Il

pericolodelriformismo,”Utopia,1,no.2(10December1913),pp.1–4.Fromthetimeofhisearlymanhood,MussoliniprovidedevidenceofhisfamiliaritywithMarxistthought.

64Mussolini,“Allargo,”Utopia,1,no.1(22November1913),pp.1–4.

65Mussolinispokeofsuch“ideological”or“doctrinal”formulationsas“derivations”intheParetansense—anefforttocaptureinlanguagesomecollectionofempiricalrealitiesandtherelationshipsamongthem.SeeVilfredoPareto,TheMindandSociety:ATreatiseonGeneralSociology(NewYork:DoverPublications,1935),1,para.162.

66SeeMussolinionthe“fatalism”impliedinthepositivisticinterpretationofclassicalMarxismin“Ilvaloreattualedelsocialismo,”Oo,6,pp.181–182.

67SeeMussolini’sdiscussionin“L’impresadisperata,”Utopia,2,no.2(15January1914),pp.1–5.

68Ibid.,p.5.

69MussolinipublishedValentinoPiccoli’spositivearticleon“SorelandBergson,”intheFebruary1914issueofUtopia.Mussolinihadliterallyabsolutecontrolofwhatevermaterialenteredthepagesofhisjournal.

70Mussolini,“Abbassolaguerra!”Oo,6,pp.287–288.

71Mussolini,“MezzomilionediorganizzatisonocolPartitoSocialistaperlaneuralitàassolutedell’Italia,”and“Latriplicenonèancoraliquidata,”Oo,6,pp.311,364.

72Mussolini,“UnaccordoAnglo-Franco-Russoperladiscussionedellecondizionidipace,”Oo,6,p.359.

73Mussolini,“Lasituazioneinternazionale,”and“UnaccordoAnglo-Franco-Russoperladiscussionedellecondizionidipace,”“Controlaguerra,”Oo,6,pp.359,361,366.

74SeeMussolini’sinterviewwithGiornaled’ItaliainOctober1914,“Neutralitàesocialismo,”Oo,6,particularlyp.377.Mussolini’sposition“evolved”intheweeksbetweenthedeclarationofwarbythemajorpowersandOctober.See“

‘Lasubordinata’...,”Oo,6,p.350.InSeptember,Mussolinimadeveryclearthatintherapidlychangingsituation,“onlylunaticsandthedeadhavetheluxuryofnotalteringtheirideas.”“Lasituazioneinternationale,”Oo,6,p.363.Hespeaksofuncertaintyandvacillationinanenvironmentundergoingsuchtaxingcomplexityandcatastrophicimplications.Hisfrancophilavariedwithtime,andheacknowledgedthatawaragainstAustriawouldnotbestrenuouslyopposedbyItaliansocialists.See“Intermezzopolemico,”Oo,6,pp.382–383.

75“ShouldtheAustrians...mountapunitiveexpeditionagainstItaly[forfailingtomeetitstreatyobligations]...manyofthosewhotodayareconsideredantipatrioticwilldischargetheirduty.”Mussolini,“Deprofundis,”Oo,6,p.295.Mussoliniremindedhisreadersthatsocialists,communistsandcommunards,ratherthanthebourgeoisie,hadresistedtheGermaninvasionof1870.Mussolini,“Hervé:Laguerraeimmonda,”Oo,6,p.307.

76Mussolini,“Notediguerra,”Oo,6,pp.322–323.

77Mussolini,“Controconfusioni,lusinghe,sofismiperlaviadirittadelsocialismo:Il‘deliriumtremens’nazionalista,”Oo,6,p.343.

78Mussolini,“Icommunistielaguerra,”Oo,6,p.334.

79Mussolini,“Notediguerra,”Oo,6,p.321.

80Mussolini,“LapolemicaMussolini-Tancredi:Fralapagliaeilbronzo,”Oo,6,p.392.

81ThiswaspreciselythepositionassumedbyGeorgiPlekhanov,Russia’sforemostMarxist,inadvocatingsocialistsupportforczaristRussia’swaragainstGermany.SeetheaccountgivenbyArturoLabriola,Laconflagrazioneeuropeaeilsocialismo,pp.97–98.HewasvehementlydenouncedbyLeninasaconsequence.

82Mussolini,“Dallaneutralitàassolutaallaneutralitàattivaedoperante,”Oo,6,pp.393–403.

83Mussolini,“Laneutralitàsocialista:UnaletteradelProf.Mussolini,”Oo,6,p.421.

84Mussolini,“Lasituazioneinternazionaleel’atteggiamentodelpartito,”Oo,6,

pp.427–429.

85Mussolini,“Mussoliniriconfermalasuaavversioneallaneutralità:Ilnuovogiornalestaperuscire,”Oo,6,pp.430–452.

10.THEGREATWAR,REVOLUTION,ANDLENINISM1OneofthemostrecentstatementsofthispositionisfoundinMarkNeocleous,Fascism(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997),chap.1.VerysimilarnotionsaretobefoundinDaveRenton,Fascism:TheoryandPractice(London:PlutoPress,1999).

2SeetheintroductorydiscussiontoStevenKull,BuryingLenin:TheRevolutioninSovietIdeologyandForeignPolicy(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1992),pp.1,6;andthatinRichardPipes,RussiaundertheBolshevikRegime(NewYork:RandomHouse,1995).

3SeethediscussioninWalterLaqueur,TheDreamthatFailed:ReflectionsontheSovietUnion(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),pp.147,149.

4SeeMikailAgursky,TheThirdRome:NationalBolshevismintheUSSR(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1987).

5Lenin,“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”and“OntheNationalPrideoftheGreatRussians,”inCollectedWorks(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1964;hereafterLCW),20,p.34;21,p.103.

6Lenin,“OntheNationalPrideoftheGreatRussians,”pp.104,106.

7Ibid.,p.103.

8FriedrichEngels,LettertoMarx,15August1870.

9Seethediscussioninchapternineofthepresenttext.ThewritingsofMarxandEngelsthatcoverthisentirestrategyinextensiveexpositionareconvenientlycollectedinMarxonChina(withanIntroductionbyDonaTorr;London:Lawrence&Wishart,1968);J.A.Doerig(ed.),Marxvs.Russia(NewYork:FrederickUngarPublishingCo.,1962);andPaulW.BlackstockandBertF.Hoselitz(eds.),TheRussianMenacetoEurope(Glencoe,Ill.:TheFreePress,

1952).

10ThesewerethegroundsfortheclaimthatMarxwas,insomecomprehensiblesense,aGermannationalist.SeethediscussioninLeopoldSchwarzschild,TheRedPrussian:TheLifeandLegendofKarlMarx(London:HamishHamilton,1948).

11“Historyhasnowconfronted[theRussianproletariat]withanimmediatetaskwhichisthemostrevolutionaryofalltheimmediatetasksconfrontingtheproletariatofanycountry....[That]willmaketheRussianproletariatthevanguardoftheinternationalrevolutionaryproletariat.”Lenin,“WhatistobeDone?”LCW,5,p.373.

12Lenin,“OntheNationalPrideoftheGreatRussians,”LCW,21,p.105.

13Lenin,“RevisionofthePartyProgramme,”LCW,26,pp.168–169.

14KarlMarx,“Persia-China,”NewYorkDailyTribune,5June1857,inMarxonChina,pp.48–49.

15Ibid.,p.50andDonaTorr,“Introduction”toMarxonChina,p.xvii.

16Forexample:“Theworldproletarianrevolutionisclearlymaturing,”and“Thetimeisnearwhenthefirstdayoftheworldrevolutionwillbecelebratedeverywhere.”TheStateandRevolution:TheMarxistTheoryoftheStateandtheTasksoftheProletriatintheRevolutionand“SpeechataRallyinHonouroftheAustro-HungarianRevolutionNovember31918,”inLCW,25,p.383;28,p.131.Leninregularlyinsistedthat“imperialism”had“createdalltheobjectiveconditionsfortheachievementofsocialism.InWesternEuropeandintheUnitedStates,therefore,therevolutionarystruggleoftheproletariatfortheoverthrowofcapitalistgovernmentsandtheexpropriationofthebourgeoisieisontheorderoftheday.”Leninregularlyspokeof“theimpendingproletarianrevolutioninEurope—inAustria,Italy,Germany,FranceandevenBritain.”Lenin,“TheSocialistRevolutionandtheRightofNationstoSelf-Determination,”and“TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,”LCW,22,p.143;28,p.105.

17Lenin,Imperialism,p.194.

18RosaLuxemburg,TheRussianRevolutionandLeninismorMarxism?(Ann

Arbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1961).

19KarlKautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1964;firstpublishedin1919).

20SeethediscussioninJohnKautsky,“Introduction”toibid.,p.viii.

21Ibid.,p.2.

22Ibid.,p.6.

23Ibid.,pp.13–15.

24Ibid.,p.16.

25MarxandEngels,TheCommunistManifesto,sectionI.

26Kautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,p.17.

27KautskyhadmadetheargumentlongbeforehiscontroversywiththeBolsheviks.SeehisDiesozialeRevolution.IIAmTagenachderSozialenRevolution(Berlin:Vorwärts,1904),pp.45–48;TheRoadtoPower(Chicago:SamuelA.Bloch,1900);andParlamentarismusundDemokratie(Stuttgart:VerlagvonJ.H.W.Dietz,1911;firstedition1893).

28SeethediscussioninKautsky,TheClassStruggle(ErfurtProgram)(NewYork:W.W.NortonandCo.,1971),pp.90–91.

29Kautsky,DerWegzurMacht:PolitischeBetrachtungenüberdasHineinwachsenindieRevolution(Berlin:BuchhandlungVorwärts,1909),pp.71–72.

30“Themosteffectiveweaponoftheproletariatisitsnumericalstrength.Itcannotemancipateitselfuntilithasbecomethelargestclassofthepopulation,anduntilcapitalistsocietyissofardevelopedthatthesmallpeasantsandthelowermiddleclassesnolongeroverweighttheproletariat.”Kautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,p.29;seethediscussiononp.19.

31“TheBolshevistRevolutionwasbasedonthesuppositionthatitwouldbethestartingpointofageneralEuropeanrevolution,andthattheboldinitiativeof

RussiawouldsummontheproletariatofallEuropetorise.”Ibid.,p.62.

32Marx,“PrefacetotheRussianEditionof1882”ofTheCommunistManifesto.AgreatdealhasbeenwrittenconcerningMarx’scommentsinthePrefaceof1882totheManifesto.SeeTeodorShanin,LateMarxandtheRussianRoad:Marxand‘ThePeripheriesofCapitalism’.Inthefinalanalysis,Marx’scommentsinthePrefaceconstitutedhisclosingthoughtsonrevolutioninabackwardindustrialenvironment.Atalmostthesametimeashewrotethe1882prefacetotheManifesto,MarxwroteadraftreplytoVeraZasulich,whohadposedthequestionofwhetheraRussianrevolutionmightormightnotescapethestagesofcapitalistdevelopmentinattainingsocialism.Inhisdrafts,MarxwrotethatcommonlandownershipinRussiamightprovidethebasisforanindigenoussocialistsystemsincethe“contemporaneityofcapitalistproduction”inEuropeandNorthAmericawould“provideitwithready-madematerialconditionsforhuge-scalecommonlabor”(ibid.,p.111).MarxandEngelshadbothwrittentoomuchtoimaginethattheycouldarguethatabackwardeconomymight“skipstages”and“leap”fromanagrariantoa“socialist”economy.In1867,Marxhadwrittenthat“evenwhenasocietyhasgotupontherighttrack...itcanneitherclearbyboldleaps,norremovebylegalenactments,theobstaclesofferedbythesuccessivephasesofnormaldevelopement.”Marx,Capital(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1954),p.10.SeethecommentsbyDerekSayerandPhilipCorrigan,“LateMarx:Continuity,ContradictionandLearning,”inShanin,LateMarxandtheRussianRoad,p.80.

33SeeKautsky’sdiscussioninGrundsätzeundForderungendesSocialdemokratie:ErleutergungenzumErfurterProgramm(Berlin:BuchandlungVorwärts,1905).

34Kautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,p.26.

35SeeKautsky’sdetaileddiscussionin“MonarchischerundparlamentarischerAbsolutismus,”and“DiemoderneDemokratie,”inKautsky,ParlamentarismusundDemokratie,pp.42–63.

36SeethediscussioninKautsky’stwoforwardstothetwoeditionsofParlamentarismusundDemokratie,thefirstwrittenduringEngels’slifetime.

37Kautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,p.28.

38Ibid.

39Ibid.,p.46.

40SeethecommentsbyJohnKautskyinibid.,pp.xx–xxi.

41Lenin,“TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,”LCW,28,pp.229,230.

42Ibid.,pp.235,236.

43Ibid.,pp.237,238–239.

44SeeLenin’saccountinTheStateandRevolution,LCW,25,pp.390–391,415–416.

45Lenin,“TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,”pp.240,241.

46Engels,“Introduction,”Marx,TheCivilWarinFranceinMESW,1,p.485.

47Lenin,“ProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,”pp.244,245.

48Ibid.,pp.247,248,249.

49Ibid.,pp.250,251,255,260,268.

50SeeLenin’scommentsinTheStateandRevolution,LCW,25,p.408andpassim.

51Seeparticularly,Kautsky,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,p.85.

52Leninaddedasection,“ThePresentationoftheQuestionbyMarxin1852,”toTheStateandRevolution,in1919,makingreferencetoKautsky’spamphlet;seepp.411–413.

53Ibid.,p.484.

54Ibid.,pp.386,387,392,393.

55Ibid.,pp.463,468,470.

56Ibid.,pp.393,400,404,425,426,436.Lenininsistedthat“Marxwasacentralist.”Ibid.,p.429.

57InTheCommunistManifesto,Marxacknowledgesthatthepeasantrydoesfinditselfalliedwiththebourgeoisieinorderto“tosavefromextinctiontheirexistenceasfractionsofthemiddleclass.Theyarethereforenotrevolutionary,butconservative.Nay,more,theyarereactionary.”Engels,inhis“prefactorynote”toThePeasantWarinGermanydoesspeakof“agriculturallaborers”as“naturalallies”oftheproletariat,butitisclearthattherelationshipisnotexpectedtobeenduring.Engels,“PrefatoryNotetoThePeasantWarinGermany,MESW,1,pp.644–647.

58Lenin,TheStateandRevolution,p.406.

59Ibid.,pp.411–412.SeeLeninquotingEngelsontheroleofthepostrevolutionarystate,ibid.,p.440.Leninspokeofanarrangementinwhichthe“politicalpower”didnotsuppressthemajority—onlytheminority,the“exploiters”—hencedidnotrequirea“state.”Seeibid.,p.441.

60LouiseBryant,thewidowofJohnReed,theauthorofTenDaysthatShooktheWorld,waspreparedtoarguethat“theRedTerror”thatdevastatedRussiaintheearlyyearsoftheSovietUnionwasonlytobeexpectedgiventhedreadfulrealitiesofwarandrevolution.LouiseBryant,MirrorsofMoscow(NewYork:Host,1937),pp.48–49.

61SeetheentirediscussioninNikolaiBukharin,Economiadelperiododitrasformazione(Milan:Jaca,1971),chap.8.

62Ibid.,pp.150–152.

63Seetheentirediscussioninibid.,pp.154–157.

64Leninspeaksofintroducingcompulsorylaborfirst,beforeinstitutingitasafeatureoftheeconomy.

65Lenin,“TheImmediateTasksoftheSovietGovernment,”LCW,27,pp.241,245,251,252,253.

66SeetheaccountinGeoffreyHosking,TheFirstSocialistSociety:AHistoryoftheSovietUnionfromWithin(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,

1985),pp.68–84.

67Ibid.,pp.263,264.

68Lenin,“OnceAgainontheTradeUnions,theCurrentSituation,andtheMistakesofTrotskyandBukharin,”LCW,32,pp.74,82,84,85,86.

69Lenin,“TheTaxinKind,”LCW,32,pp.334,335,336.

70“Thesystemofsocialistdictatorshipcouldbecalledstatesocialismifthephrasehadnotbeensomisusedincommonusage.”Thephrasewouldbeserviceableifonekeptinmindthat“theworkingclasscollectivelyorganizedastheproletarianstateadministeredtheeconomy.”Bukharin,Economiadelperiododitrasformazione,pp.117–120.

71Lenin,“ThirdCongressoftheCommunistInternational,”LCW,32,p.458.Elsewhere,Lenincharacterized“statecapitalism”asasystemthatinvolved“afreemarketandcapitalism,bothsubjecttostatecontrol,”in“TheRoleandFunctionsoftheTradeUnionsundertheNewEconomicPolicy,”LCW,33,p.184.

72Lenin,“FourthAnniversaryoftheOctoberRevolution,”LCW,33,p.57.

73Ibid.,pp.51,57,58.

74Lenin,“TenthAll-RussiaConferenceofRCP(B),”LCW,33,p.408.TheacknowledgmentoftheprimitiveeconomyofRussiaisfoundthroughoutLenin’swritingsandspeeches.See,forexample,Lenin,“BetterFewer,butBetter,”LCW,33,pp.500–501.

75Lenin,“TheNewEconomicPolicyandtheTasksofthePoliticalEducationDepartments,”LCW,33,p.62.

76Lenin,“SeventhMoscowGuberniaConferenceoftheRussianCommunistParty,”LCW,33,p.85.

77InspeakingofthedecisiontoimplementtheNewEconomicPolicy,Leninsaidthat“sheernecessityhasdrivenustothispath.”“NinthAll-RussiaCongressofSoviets,”LCW,33,p.158.

78Lenin,“TheNewEconomicPolicyandtheTasksofthePoliticalEducationDepartments,”LCW,33,p.66.

79Lenin,“SeventhMoscowGuberniaConference...,”LCW,33,pp.94,99.“Thetransferofstateenterprisestotheso-calledprofitbasisisinevitablyandinseparablyconnectedwiththeNewEconomicPolicy;inthenearfuturethisisboundtobecomethepredominant,ifnotthesole,formofstateenterprise.”Lenin,“TheRoleandFunctionsoftheTradeUnionsundertheNewEconomicPolicy,”LCW,33,185.

80SeeLenin,“TenthCongressoftheRCP(B),”LCW,33,p.266,“TheInternationalandDomesticSituationoftheSovietRepublic,”ibid.,p.222,and“EleventhCongressoftheRCP(B),”ibid.,p.285.

81Lenin,“FourthAnniversaryoftheOctoberRevolution,”LCW,33,p.59,“NinthAll-RussiaCongressofSoviets,”LCW,33,p.161.Inthesamecontext,Leninspokeofundertakingthearduoustaskof“economicdevelopment”forbackwardRussia.Ibid.,p.172.SeeLenin’scommentsontheincreasingtradewithforeigncapitalistsinhisreporttothe“EleventhCongressoftheRCP(B),”ibid.,p.283,andhiscommentsonthenecessityofarequisite“materialbase”forsocialismin“OnCooperation,”ibid.,pp.474–475.

82Lenin,“TheRoleandFunctionsoftheTradeUnions,”LCW,33,pp.188,189.

83Ibid.,p.190.“ThePartyistheleader,thevanguardoftheproletariat,whichrulesdirectly.”Lenin,“OnceAgainontheTradeUnions,”LCW,32,p.98.

84Lenin,“TheRoleandFunctionsoftheTradeUnions,”LCW,33,pp.190,191,192.Thetradeunionsweretoldthatthe“rightofdecisionliessolelywiththebusinessorganisations.”Ibid.,p.190.

85“Thestateisthesphereofcoercion.”Lenin,“OnceAgainontheTradeUnions,”LCW,32,p.97.

86Lenin,“TheRoleandFunctionsoftheTradeUnions,”LCW,33,p.193.

87Lenin,“NinthAll-RussiaCongressofSoviets,”LCW,33,p.174,and“InternationalandDomesticSituation,”ibid.,p.219.

88Lenin,“EleventhCongressoftheRCP(B),”LCW,33,p.278.

11.THEGREATWAR,REVOLUTION,ANDFASCISM1Yearslater,inconversationswithYvonDeBegnac,MussolinitestifiedthatinMarch1919,whentheFascistmovementwasfounded,therewerefewpreparedtofollow.SeeYvonDeBegnac,PalazzoVenezia:Storiadiunregime(Rome:EditricelaRocca,1950),p.161.

2Theterm“fascio”isagenerictermthatrefers,ingeneral,to“association.”ItwasusedquiteindiscriminatelyinItalypriortotheGreatWar.TherewereSicilianfascithatinthe1890sorganizedagriculturalworkersincombinationsfortheprotectionoftheirinterests.Intheearly1900s,therehadbeenaFasciomedicaleparlamentare,aparliamentaryinterestgroupdevotedtotheinterestsofmedicaldoctors—andduringthewar,theMarxistinterventionistsorganizedthemselvesintoaFasciod’azionerivoluzionaria.Attheendof1918,A.O.Olivettiproposedtheterm“fascismo,”andFasciItalianidicombattimento,toidentifythevariousgroupsofMarxistinterventionists,andultimatelyallveteransthathadservedinthewar,whoopposed“antinationalsocialism.”SeeMussolini’sdiscussionin“Araccolta!”Operaomnia(Florence:Lafenice,1953;hereafterOo),12,pp.27–28.

3See,forexample,Mussolini’scomplaintagainstofficialsocialism’sdefeatismduringthewar.Mussolini,“Fiasco,”Oo,13,p.44.Therewereanynumberofsimilarcomplaintsinhisspeechesandwritingsduringthisperiod.

4Mussolinispokeofagovernmentofthosewhohadfoughtinthetrenches—a“trenchocracy”—aswellasan“aristocracyofthetrenches.”Mussolini,“‘Ilpopolod’Italia’nel1919,”Oo,12,p.70,and“AgliArditidiTrieste,”and“GuglielmoOberdan,”Oo,12,pp.80,90,“Convergereglisforzi!”Oo,13,pp.37–38.

5Mussolini,“Leottooredilavoro:UnaletteradiPrezzolini,”Oo,12,pp.9–10.

6Mussolini,“Ilnostracostituente,”Oo,12,pp.3–5.

7Mussolini,“Attodinascita,”Oo,12,p.325.InMay,thatsameyear,Mussolinimaintainedthatarealisticandactivesocialismwouldbepredicatedon“thenationandtheproductiveclasses”ofwhichitwascomposed.“Therest,”hemaintained,“wouldfollow.”Mussolini,“Dopoquattroanni,”Oo,11,p.55.Ina

majorspeechthatsamemonth,MussoliniinsistedthatItaliansmustdemonstratetheirpotentialasa“nationofproducers,”inordertoassurethemselvesaplaceamongthe“leadersofmoderncivilization.”Mussolini,“Lavittoriafatale,”Oo,11,pp.86–87.“Italians,”Mussoliniinsisted,weretomanifestthemselvesasa“newraceofproducers,ofconstructors,ofcreators.”Mussolini,“Intermezzovelivolare:Ilmiocollaudosullo‘SVA,’”Oo,11,p.171.SeeMussolini,“Dopoguerra:Andateincontroallavorochetorneràdalletrincee,”Oo,11,pp.469–470.

8InApril,Mussolinihadmadethepositionofhis“nationalsyndicalism”explicit.SeeMussolini,“Variazionisuvecchiomotivo:Ilfucileelavanga,”Oo,11,p.35.

9InMay1920,inthe“postulates”ofitsprogram,Fascism“acknowledgedtheimmensevalueofthat‘workingmiddleclass[borghesiadilavoro]’whichconstitutes,inallfieldsofhumanactivity(thatofindustryandagriculture,fromsciencetotheliberalprofessions),thatpreciousandindispensableelementfortheprogressandthetriumphofournationalfortunes.”“Postulatidelprogrammafascista(Maggio1920),”inRenzoDeFelice,Mussoliniilrivoluzionario(1883–1920)(Turin:GiulioEinaudieditore,1965),p.746.

10Mussolini,“Novità...,”Oo,11,pp.242–243;seeMussolini,“Orientamentieproblemi,”Oo,11,pp.282–284.

11Mussolini,“Ilsindacalismonazionale:Perrinascere!”Oo,12,pp.12–14.SeeMussolini’scommentsin“Ideeepropositiduranteedopolaguerradell’Unioneitalianadellaboro,”Oo,11,pp.262–263.

12Adetailedaccountoftheinfluenceofotherswouldexceedthespaceavailable.Mussolini,forexample,identifiedRobertoForges-Davanzati,andPaoloOranoasimportant.Bothwereearlyrevolutionarysyndicalists,who,beforetheGreatWar,soughttobridgethedistancebetweensyndicalismandnationalism.SergioPanunzio,ofcourse,wasfarmoreinfluentialthaneither.ForamorecomprehensiveaccountoftheworkofPanunzio,seeA.JamesGregor,Mussolini’sIntellectuals:FascistSocialandPoliticalThought(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005),chap.4,andSergioPanunzio:Ilsindacalismoedilfondamentorazionaledelfascismo(Rome:Volpe,1978).

13Mussolini,“BloccoLatino:ItaliaeFrancia,”Oo,12,p.43;see“Lanostra

rispostaalconsigliocomunalediFiume,”ibid.,p.60.

14Foramoreextensivediscussion,seetheaccountinA.JamesGregor,YoungMussoliniandtheIntellectualOriginsofFascism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979),chap.4.

15SeeMussolini’scommentsonthelackofdefinitionindealingwiththevariousclassesin“GuglielmoOberdan,”Oo,12,p.91.

16Mussolini,“Perintenderci:Intemadi‘costituente’,”Oo,12,p.53.

17Ashasbeenindicated,Mussoliniwasfullyawareofthisbodyofliterature,andfounditsessentialsunobjectionable.In1909,whenhewasinhismid-twenties,hefavorablyreviewedRobertoMichels’stract,Cooperazione,whichdealtwithgenericgroupsentiment,ingroupamity,andoutgroupenmity.Mussolini,“Fralibrieriviste,”Oo,2,pp.248–249.

18Foramoreextendedaccount,seeA.JamesGregor,TheIdeologyofFascism:TheRationaleofTotalitarianism(NewYork:FreePress,1969),pp.72–92.Inoneplace,MussoliniclearlyarguedfortheriseofEuropeannationalismasaconsequenceofpolitical,material,andmilitarycircumstances.SeeMussolini,“FranciaeItalia,”Oo,11,pp.198–199.

19SeethetreatmentinMussolini,“Unaltropasso,”Oo,12,pp.228–230.

20SeeMussolini’sdiscussionofthevarious“imperialisms”oftheperiodin“Primodell’annoprimadivagazione,”Oo,12,pp.100–103.

21MussoliniregularlyreferredtoItalyasa“proletariannation.”Ithadbecomecommonplaceamongnationalistsandsyndicaliststosocharacterizetheirnation.See,forexample,Mussolini,“Idealieaffari,”Oo,13,p.72.

22SeeMussolini,“Scoperte...,”Oo,11,pp.288–289.

23Mussolini,“Ilsindacalismonazionale:Perrinascere,”Oo,12,pp.11–14,“Precisiamo!”ibid.,pp.20–21,“Dovericomuni,”ibid.,pp.35–36,“Lapoliticanazionale:Primosquillo,”ibid.,p.223.

24SeeFilippoCorridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica(Milan:S.A.R.E.P.,1945;reprintofthe1915edition),pp.19–20,23,25–27,34,48–49,55,82.

25InSeptember,Mussolinihadreviewedandapprovedtheprogramof“nationalsyndicalism”in“‘Tuquoque,’Jouhoux?”Oo,11,pp.356–358;andinNovember,Mussolinireviewedandapproved,onceagain,theelementsof“nationalsyndicalism”asapropersocialismforapostwarEurope.SeeMussolini,“Ilsindacalismonazionale:Perrinascere!”Oo,12,pp.12–14.

26Mussolini,“Conquisteeprogrammi,”Oo,12,pp.242–245.Mussoliniapplaudedsimilarthesesarticulatedataworkers’conferenceinBerne,Switzerland.Seehisreport,“NelmondosindacaleItaliano,”and“Precisiamo,”Oo,12,pp.20–21,249–250.

27Duringthisperiod,Mussoliniregularlyspokeoftheimperativeofproductionanddevelopment.“‘Produce!’remainsthefirstandcapitalcommandmentofthehour.”Mussolini,“Unordinedelgiorno,”Oo,12,p.260.

28SeethediscussioninMussolini,“Nelmondosindacaleitaliano:Rettificheditiro,”Oo,12,pp.249–252.

29Mussolini,“Conquisteeprogrammi,”Oo,12,pp.244,245.

30SeeMussolini’scommentstoDeBegnacinPalazzoVenezia,p.116.

31ThefollowingisdrawnfromMussolini,“Apologiaocondanna?Il‘documento’Sadoul,”Oo,12,pp.301–305.

32MussoliniregularlycitedthecriticismsofLeninismbyKarlKautskytosupporthisarguments;see,forexample,Mussolini,“Fradueconferenze:IlcongressoprocessodiBerna,”“Lapoliticanazionale:Primosquillo,”“Unordinedelgiorno,”“Un’altrarequisitoria,”Oo,12,pp.204–206,223,261,275.

33“Themasters...oftheschoolofsocialism...taughtusthatsocialismcanmaterializeonlyinobjectiveanddeterminatecircumstances”thatinclude“thefactthatcapitalismhadachievedthefinalstageofitsdevelopment,anationaleconomyreducedtothecontrolofafewmonopolistsofthemeansofproductionandexchange.Opposedtothoseplutocrats,therewastobeawretchedmassofimpoverishedworkerswhowouldexpropriatethem....Sucharevolutionwouldbepossibleonlyiftheproletariathadmaturedtoeconomicconsciousness,enuredtoorganizationandmanagerialresponsibilities.”SeeMussolini,“Divagazione,”Oo,11,pp.341–342.

34ThefollowingfollowstheaccountofMussolini,“Babau,”Oo,12,pp.184–185.

35SeethediscussioninKarlKautsky,DiematerialistischeGeschichtsauffassung(Berlin:J.H.W.DietzVerlag,1929),2,part3.

36KarlMarx,Preface,TheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(Chicago:CharlesH.KerrandCompany,1918),p.12.

37Engelshadpredictedjustsuchaneventualityincircumstanceswherea“revolutionaryleader”maderevolutioninprimitiveeconomicconditions.Engels,ThePeasantWarinGermanyinKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,CollectedWorks(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1978),10,pp.469–470.

38See,forexample,Mussolini,“Gliorroridel‘banditismo’LeninistadenunciatidaunsocialistaRussonellarivistadiFilippoTurati,”Oo,11,pp.394–395.

39MussoliniarguedthatLeninhadreconstructedthetraditional“bourgeois”politicalsystem,restingthestateonthetrinityof“bureaucracy,themilitary,andthepolice.”Themilitary,Mussoliniadded,wasusednotonlytoprotectnationalborders,butalsoforterritorialexpansion.Mussolini,“Crepuscoli:Itemplilegliidoli,”Oo,14,p.337.

40SeeMussolini’scommentsin“Lapoliticanazionale:Primosquilo,”Oo,12,pp.222–223,and“Posizione,”togetherwith“Triplicecondanna,”Oo,13,pp.29,77–79.

41Mussolini,“Divagazione:Controlabestiaritornante...”Oo,12,pp.231–232.

42Mussolini,“Unaltropasso,”Oo,12,pp.229–230.

43AllthesethemeshadbeenbruitedbysyndicalistsandtheirsympathizersbeforeandearlyinthecourseoftheGreatWar.SeethediscussioninRobertoMichels,L’imperialismoitaliano(Milan:SocietaEditriceLibraria,1914),andCorridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica.

44Mussolini,“NelmondosindacaleItaliano:Rettificheditiro,”Oo,12,pp.250–251.

45ThefollowingprovidesasummaryofMussolini’spresentationinthehalloftheIndustrialandCommercialAllianceatthemeetingat9PiazzaSanSepolcro,Milan,inthemorningof23March1919.Mussolini,“Attodinascitadelfascismo,”Oo,12,pp.321–327.

46See,forexample,Mussolini,“Idealieaffari,”Oo,13,p.72.Therewasaregularrepetitionofthetwinthemes,thenationandproduction,inMussoliniwritingsanddiscourses.SeeMussolini,“Ilfascismoeleagitazionioperaei,”and“Sindacalismofrancese:Unadichiarazione-programma,”Oo,14,pp.245,286.

47Mussolinispelledouttherelationshipinanumberofplaces.Inoneplacehecatalogedtheelements:“Therecanbenogreatnessforthenation...withoutthedevelopmentofproduction...and[thatcannotbeforthcoming]withoutthenationsecuringitsplaceintheworld.”Mussolini,“LeminoranzesindacaliinItalia:Dall’episodioallasituazionegenerale,”Oo,14,p.329.

48MussolinispokeofItalianssufferinga“precapitalistmentality”inaworldofintenseeconomicandpoliticalcompetition.Hespokeofthenation’seconomyasavassaltothatofforeigners.HeinsistedthattheItalyoftourguidesandmandolinplayerswasathingofthepast,andthat“production”wastobetheimperativeguidingItaly’s“marvelousrebirth.”“Production,production,production”wastheimmediatenecessity.“Producers”weretobethenormativemodelsforthenewItaly.Mussolini,“Orientamentieproblemi,”Oo,11,pp.282–284.

49Ashasbeenindicated,Mussolinihadlongsounderstoodthedynamicsofmassmovements.Foratypicaltreatment,seeMussolini,“Ladata,”Oo,11,p.370.

50TheexplicitargumentwithwhichMussolini,asarevolutionarysocialistandsyndicalist,wasfamiliar,wasthatofRobertoMichels,ZurSoziologiedesParteiwesensof1911,whichappearedinanItalianeditionasSociologiadelpartitopoliticonellademocraziamodernain1912.Thecentralargument,commontoalltheantiparliamentaristicsentimentsoftheradicals,wasthatallorganizationshave“oligarchictendencies,”andthesuggestionthatparliamentarydemocracymightbeanexceptionwasseenasafiction.Parliamentarydemocracywasthe“chartermyth”ofbourgeoisoligarchicrule.MussoliniwasfamiliarwithMichels’sworksasearlyas1909.SeeRobertoMichels,PoliticalParties(NewYork:Dover,1959).BeforetheGreatWar,

Mussolinispokeof“parliamentarycretinism,”asconduciveto“fraud”anddeception,createdtocorruptandbecorrupted—governedbythosepossessedofwealthandtitles.SeeMussolini,“Lafattucciera,”“Ilprimocongressodei‘destri,’”Oo,5,pp.8–9,25.

51The“maximizationofproduction”wasaconstantthemeduringthefirstmonthsoforganizationforthefasci.See,forexample,Mussolini,“Orientamentieproblemi,”Oo,11,pp.282–28,“NelmondosindacaleItaliano:Rettificheditiro,”Oo,12,pp.249–251.Theindifferencetospecifictacticsforthosethatactuallyworkedwasarecurrenttheme.Mussolini,“LeminoranzesindacaliinItalia:Dall’episodioallasituazionegenerale,”Oo,14,p.329.

52Marxism,ingeneral,heldgovernmentin“bourgeois”circumstancestobelittleotherthanacommitteethatservedtheinterestsofproperty.EngelsclearlydismissedtherepresentativedemocracyoftheUnitedStatesoftheperiodasofferingnothingotherthanopportunitiesfor“politicians”toform“aseparateandpowerfulsectionofthenation”tocontroltheproletariat.SeeEngels,Introductionto“TheCivilWarinFrance,”inMarxandEngels,SelectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955),1,p.483.SeeLenin’scommentsonEngels’sviewofthe“modernrepresentativestate”asan“instrumentofexploitationofwagelaborbycapital.”Lenin,“TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,”CollectedWorks(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1965),28,p.243.Lenininsistedthatelectionscouldonlyserveasindicatorsofpublicsentimentandthatonlythe“authorityofthearmedpeople,”ratherthantheexerciseofsuffrage,coulddeterminesociety’sfuture.Ibid.,p.255.

53Mussolini,“Dopoquattroanni,”Oo,11,pp.54–55.See“Lavittoriafatale,”Oo,11,pp.86–87.

54Mussolinispokecandidlyofwhat“socialism”mightbeunderstoodtobe.Heinsistedthatsomuchofwhathadbeensocialismhadbeentransformedbyevents,thatitwasimpossibletopretendthat“socialism”hadasinglesignificance.WhateversocialismwastobeaftertheconclusionoftheGreatWar,itwouldhavetoaddresscontemporaryproblemsratherthanpretendthatitmightsimplyremain“loyal”todogmashalf-a-hundredyearsold.SeeMussolini“Divagazione,”Oo,11,pp.270–272.

55SeethediscussioninMussolini,“Dopoilcongressosindacale:

Orientamenti,”Oo,11,p.118.

56SeetheentirediscussioninSergioPanunzio,Sindacalismoemedioevo(Politicacontemporanea)(Naples:Partenopea,1911),wheretheobjectionsareraisedagainstthesuppressionofworkers’“autonomy”underthe“leadenweightofthepoliticalstate.”Seeibid.,pp.7–11,18,34–37,41–43.Atthattime,Panunzioheldthat“syndicalismprepares,withthesovereigntyofsyndicates,forthedestructionoftheunityofthestateandtheadventofparticularisticandautonomouseconomic,politicalandsocialregimecomparabletothecommunesofmedievaltimes.”Ibid.,p.57.

57PanfiloGentile,“Statoesindacato,”Utopia,2,nos.9–10(July1914),pp.273–277.

58TheseareissuesraisedearlybyPanunzioinhisdiscussionconcerningtheroleoflawinanyfuturesyndicaliststate.In1912,aboutthesametimethatGentilewrotehispieceforUtopia,PanunziopublishedhisIldirittoel’autorità:Contributoallaconcezionefilosoficadeldiritto(Turin:U.T.E.T.,1912),inwhichhearguedforthepossibiltyofthepersistenceoflawandauthoritywithouttheexistenceofastate.

59Mussolini,“Studisocialisti:Tentatividirevisionismo,”Oo,5,pp.203–207.

60Ibid.,p.206.ThegeneralindexofpersonsnamedintheOperaomnia,volume36(seep.85),doesnotciteGiovanniGentile’snameontheindicatedpage,butthatisclearlyanoversight.MussoliniisunmistakablyreferringtoGiovanniGentileasthe“otherGentile”thatservedasa“guide”toPanfiloGentile.

61Yearslater,inhisdiscussionwithYvonDeBegnac,Mussolinisaidthatby1908hehadalreadyopposedhimselftotherepresentativesystemofdemocracy—undertheinfluenceofGiovanniGentile,amongothers.YvonDeBegnac,PalazzoVenezia:Storiadiunregime(Rome:LaRocca,1950),p.133.

62SeeGiovanniGentile,“Unacriticadelmaterialismostorico,”inLafilosofiadiMarx:Studicritici,appendixtoIfondamentidellafilosofiadeldiritto(Florence:G.C.Sansoni,1955),pp.143–196.

63AnEnglishversionofthe1899editionofBenedettoCroce,HistoricalMaterialismandtheEconomicsofKarlMarx(NewYork:Macmillan,1914)is

available.

64Inhisdiscussion,MussolinireferstothecriticismsofbothCroceandSorel.BothhadarguedagainstthestrictdeterministinterpretationofMarxism—andbothsoughttoprovideadefensibleethicalrationaleforsocialism.Seeinthatregard,GeorgesSorel,“Lanecessitàeilfatalismonelmarxismo,”Saggidicriticadelmarxismo(Milan:RemoSandron,1903),pp.59–94.

65GiovanniGentile,L’attodelpensarecomeattopuro(Florence:G.C.Sansoni,1937;reprintofthe1912edition).

66SeeGentile’sdiscussionofhis“methodofimmanence”inGiovanniGentile,Lariformadelladialetticahegeliana(Florence:G.C.Sansoni,1954;athird,modifiededitionofthatpublishedin1913),chap.8.

67AnexcellentexpositionofGentile’ssocialandpoliticalthoughtavailableinEnglishisH.S.Harris,TheSocialPhilosophyofGiovanniGentile(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1960).AnEnglishexpositionofhistechnicalphilosophycanbefoundinRogerW.Holmes,TheIdealismofGiovanniGentile(NewYork:TheMacmillanCompany,1937).Ihaveprovidedabrief,summaryaccountofGentile’sactualisminGregor,TheIdeologyofFascism,chap.5andGiovanniGentile:PhilosopherofFascism(NewBrunswick:TransactionPublishers,2004),chap.3.

68Soseriously,ashasbeenindicated,thatV.I.LeninrecommendedGentile’sworkonMarxtohisaudiences.

69SeeGentile’sdiscussionin“Lafilosofiadellaprassi,”inIfondamentidellafilosofiadeldiritto,particularlypp.226–230.

70The“immanence”ofsocietyintheindividualisatthecoreofactualism’sepistemologyandpolitics.Theargumentappearsearlyinhiswritingsandrunsthroughouthisworks,inhispedagogical,religious,andtechnicalwritings.Foraninsightintohowhismethodofimmanenceoperatesinthepoliticaldomain,summarytreatmentisfoundinhislastwork,GenesisandStructureofSociety(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1960),convenientlyavailableinEnglishtranslation.AnearlyexpressionoftheimpactofhisdoctrineofimmanenceonhispoliticalthoughtcanbefoundinEnglishtranslationinGentile,“TheReformofEducation,”inOriginsandDoctrineofFascism(NewBrunswick:TransactionPress,2002).

71MarioMissiroli,anactualistofsorts,arguedinthepagesofMussolini’sUtopiathat“thestateandthecitizenareonething....Theerrorofdemocracyarisesinmaintainingthatlibertyconsistsintheslackeningofthetiesbetweenthestateandtheindividual;actuallythesetiesshouldbeeliminatedbyhavingeachcitizenfeelhimselfthestate,entirelythestate.”MarioMissiroli,“L’ItaliaelaTriplice,”Utopia,2,11–12(15August–1September1914),p.348.

72Thatwasthe“anti-intellectualism”thatcharacterizedactualism.Itwastheepistemologicalobjectiontothedispositionofintellectualstoconceivehumanexperienceascomposedofthinkingindividualsbeingconfrontedwithanunthinkingandopaque“external”reality.SubsequentdiscussantsinterpretedGentileananti-intellectualismtomeananoppositiontoreasonandreasoning—atotallyobjectionableinterpretation.SeethemoreelaboratediscussioninGregor,TheIdeologyofFascism,pp.120–127,205–238;andMussolini’sIntellectuals:FascistSocialandPoliticalThought(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005),pp.92–98.

73GentileprovidedadidactictreatmentofhisnotionsofimmanenceandtheultimaterealityofmultiplicitiesinunityinhisIntroduzioneallafilosofia(Rome:Treves-Treccani-Tumminelli,1931),chaps.1and2.Recognizingthathisaccountwaswrittenin1931,thediscussiononthenatureofthestateanditsrelationshiptosubjectindividualsisinstructive.Seeparticularlyp.16.Thenotionofthe“ethicalstate,”thepreconditionforthemoral“newman”ofFascismisfoundinitsessentialentiretyinGentile,Discorsidireligione(Florence:G.C.Sansoni,1955;thirdeditionoftheeditionof1920),pp.20–23.

74Asearlyas1920,Gentileincludedlabor,asacreativeexpressionofhumankind,intheverymakingofhumanity.SeeGentile,Discorsidireligione,p.26.ThethemepersistedthroughoutGentile’sintellectuallifeandappearsinhislastworkas“thehumanismoflabor.”SeeGentile,GenesisandStructureofSociety,pp.171–172.

75See,forexample,GiovanniGentile,“Lariformadellascuolamedia,”Rivistad’Italia(January)1906,pp.1–31.

76Ashasbeenindicated,theseideaswereknownto,andfavoredby,GiuseppePrezzoliniandtheVociani,thinkersandthoughtthathaddocumentedinfluenceonthepoliticalconvictionsofMussolini.BytheendoftheGreatWar,SergioPanunziowasemployingGentileanideasinhisexpositionofrevolutionary

thought.SeethediscussiononPanunzioinGregor,Mussolini’sIntellectuals.

77TheyincludedG.Lombardo-RadiceandMarioMissiroliwithwhosewritingsMussoliniwasveryfamiliar.BothwereGentileans.

78SeetheentirediscussioninGentile,“Leduedemocrazie,”Dopolavittoria:Nuoviframmentipolitici(Rome:Lavoce,1920),pp.107–113.Seethediscussionconcerningtherelationshipofsyndicatestothestatein“Statiecategorie,”ibid.,pp.95–100.Atthetime,Gentilespokeofthestateasbeingnotinterhomines,butininteriorehomine,asarealitywhich“abstractindividuals”intrinsicallyshare.See“L’ideamonarchica,”ibid.,p.154.Yearslater,inthe“FundamentalIdeas”oftheofficialDottrinadelfascismo,thesethoughtsaregivenexpressioninthefollowingfashion:“Fascismreaffirmsthestateasthetruerealityoftheindividual....[Fascism]isthemostexplicitformofdemocracyifthepeopleareconceived,astheyshouldbe,qualitativelyratherthanquantitatively.”Mussolini,Dottrinadelfascismo,Oo,34,p.120.

79SuchnotionsarefoundthroughoutGentile’searlywritingsandtheyareexplicitinhiswritingsatthetimeoftheGreatWar.SeethediscussioninDopolavittoria,wherehestatesthatpoliticalleadershave“historicsignificance”insofarastheyspeakforanentirepeople.Suchaleaderhasa“personality”thatrepresentsthewillofapeople,andactseffectivelyonlyinsofarasheactsastheywouldhavehimact.“Thewillofhewhogovernsisthesamewillasthatofthepeople.”SeeGentile,“Ilsignificatodellavittoria,”Dopolavittoria,pp.5–6,8.

80WhentheDottrinadelfascismoappeared,thatwasexpressedinthefollowingfashion:“Thehumanbeingisnotanindividualseparatedfromalltheotherstostandalone.ThehumanbeingofFascismisanindividualwhoisnationandfatherland,amorallawthatunitesindividualsandgenerationsinatraditionandinamission,thattranscendstheinstinctofaclosedandtransientlifeofpleasuretoawakeacommitmenttoasuperiorlifefreeofthelimitationsofspaceandtime.”Mussolini,Dottrinadelfascismo,Oo,34,p.117.

81Mussolini,“Perrinacereeprogredire:Italiamarinara,avanti,”Oo,14,pp.203–206.

82MussolinispokeofItaly’slackofindustrialminerals,ofitslackofiron,coal,andoil—allofwhichcontributedtothenation’slackofcompetitivenessontheworldscene.Mussolini,“Ilnostrodovereequellodiliberarcidalgiogodella

plutocraziainternazionale,”Oo,14,pp.222–224.

83Mussolini,“Idealeeaffari,”“L’AdriaticoeilMediterraneo,”“Chepossiede,paghi!”“Cifredameditare,”Oo,13,pp.72,142–143,224,284.

84Strikescostthenationaleconomy18.9millionmandaysoflaborin1919and16.4millionmandaysin1920.SeeGianniToniolo,L’economiadell’Italiafascista(Rome:Laterza,1980),pp.33–34.

85Mussolini,“DiscorsodiDalmine,”Oo,12,314–316.

86SeeMussolini,“Corsoaldisastro,”“Intemaferroviario:Lanostratesi,”“Loscioperoeunenormedelittocontrolanazione!”Oo,14,pp.169–170,242–243,260,andparticularly,“Ripresascioperista,”Oo,18,pp.195–197.

87Ataboutthesametime,RobertoMichels,whohadwrittenonItaly’sinabilitytosupportitsownpopulationasoneofthemotivesofitsstruggleagainsttheTurkishcaliphate,continuedtowriteextensivelyontheprocessesinvolvedintheeconomicandindustrialdevelopmentoflessdevelopednations.SeeRobertoMichels,Lavoroerazza(Milan:Vallardi,1924).Mussolini,ashasbeenindicated,wasfamiliarwiththeworkofMichelsasearlyas1909.

88Corridoni,Sindacalismoerepubblica,pp.55–101.

89SeethediscussioninMassimoRocca,“Unneoliberalismo?”Risorgimento(September1921),reprintedinIlprimofascismo(Rome:Volpe,1964),pp.45–54.InaprotracteddebatewithintheFascistPartyitself,Roccamadethecasethatmanysyndicalists,includingFilippoCorridoni,PaoloOrano,A.O.Olivetti,andSergioPanunzio,hadcontributedsubstantiallytoFascistthought.SeeRocca,“Lefontispiritualidelfascismo,”L’Epoca(10May1924),inIlprimofascismo,pp.136–137.

90SeetheentirediscussioninA.O.Olivetti,“DaGianGiacomoRousseauallaCartadelCarnaro,”Paginelibere,2November1922,reprintedinBattagliesindacaliste:Dalsindacalismoalfascismo,amanuscriptcopyofacollectionofessaysbyOlivetti,madeavailablebyhisdaughter.TobemadeavailabletotheUniversityLibraryoftheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

91Amongsomeofthemajorsyndicalists,likePanunzio,thestatefinallywasrecognizedastheultimatearbiteroflaw.

92“ProgrammadelPNF(1921),”inRenzoDeFelice,Mussoliniilfascista:Laconquistadelpotere1921–1925(Turin:Einaudi,1966),p.756.

93Ibid.,pp.756–760.

94ThefollowingaccountfollowsthatofMussolini,“L’Azioneeladottrinafascistaallenecessitàstorichedellanazione,”Oo,18,pp.411–421.

95Ibid.,pp.412–413,419.

96SeeAlbertoDe’Stefani,Larestaurazionefinanziaria:Irisultati‘impossibili’dellaparsimonia(Rome:Volpe,1978)andUnariformaalrogo(Rome:Volpe,1963).

97InJune1922,monthsbeforetheMarchonRome,Mussolinioutlinedthecharacteristicsof“Fascistsyndicalism.”Itwouldbeasyndicalismthatwascompatiblewiththemostfundamentalinterestsofthenation:themaintenanceandexpansionofproduction.SeeMussolini,“Fascismoesindacalismo,”Oo,18,pp.225–227.

98SergioPanunzio,“Lostatonazionale,”inChecos’èilfascismo(Milan:Alpes,1924),pp.14–15,andStatonazionaleesindacati(Milan:“Imperia,”1924),particularlypp.7–11,31–42,72–75,94.AlreadyinMarch1922,Panunziospokeofa“strong,powerful,anddisciplinedstate.”Ibid.,p.108.InMay1923,headvocatedtheconstructionofastatethatwasnothinglessthan“amostpowerfulLeviathan,astatewithpowerfuljudicialcapabilitiesenhancedbyan‘economicmagistrature’...togetherwithastrongmilitary.”Ibid.,p.107.Becauseoftheincreasingcommitmenttothedominanceofthestate,theanarchistintellectualsthathadcollectedaroundFascism,removedthemselves.AnarchistsoftheintellectualqualityofEttoreBartolozzi,VirgilioGalbiatiandEdoardoMalusardi,withdrewfromthePartitonazionalefascista.

99Mussolini,“Discorsodi3gennaio,”Oo,21,pp.235–241.

100Mussolini,“Sullasituazioneinterna,”“58aRiunionedelGranConsigliodelFascismo,”Oo,21,pp.248,250–251.InApril,hespokeoftheimperativeneedtodeveloptheindustrialeconomyofItalyinorderthatitsarmedforcesbepreparedforwar.SeetheamplediscussioninMussolini,“Perlariformadell’esercito,”ibid.,pp.270–279.

101Mussolini,“IltrattatodicommercioconlaRussia,”Oo,21,p.340.

102Mussolini,“Nulladeveesserealdisopradellostato,”Oo,21,pp.324–336.

103Mussolini,“Intransigenzaassoluta,”Oo,21,pp.357–364.

12.CONCLUSIONS1Thereweremanytheoreticians,duringthe1930sand1940s,whorecognizedthesharedpropertiesofthesesystems.AmongthemoreinterestingwereMihailManoilescu,DieeinzigeParteialspolitischeInstitutionderneuenRegime(Berlin:OttoStollberg,1941);RenzoBertoni,Iltrionfodelfascismonell’U.R.S.S.(Roma:Signorelli,1933);BrunoRizzi,Dovevàl’U.R.S.S.?(Milan:LaProra,1938);TomassoNapolitano,“Il‘fascismo’diStalinovverol’U.R.S.S.enoi,”Criticafascista,15,23(1October1937);B.Ricci,“Il‘fascismo’diStalin,”Criticafascista,15,18(15July1937);A.Nasti,“L’Italia,ilbolscevismo,laRussia,”Criticafascista,15,10(15March1937).LeonTrotskyspokeofthe“fatefulsimilarities”sharedbythepoliticalsystemsofFascistItalyandStalin’sRussia.SeeLeonTrotsky,TheRevolutionBetrayed(NewYork:Doubleday,1937),p.278.

2SeethediscussioninRobertoMichels,“DerethischeFaktorinderParteipolitikItalien,”ZeitschriftfürPolitik,3,no.1(1909),pp.56–91.

3Mussolini’sinterestinthepragmatistsalsowassparkedbytheVociani.Between1904and1913,GiovanniPapinipublishedanumberofessaysonthepragmatiststoultimatelyappearasPragmatismo(Florence:Vallecchi,1943;originallypublishedin1913).MussoliniwasfamiliarwithPapini’sworkasearlyas1909.SeeMussolini,Operaomnia(Florence:Lafenice,1951;hereafterOo)1,p.197;andthemoreamplediscussioninA.JamesGregor,TheIdeologyofFascism:TheRationaleofTotalitarianism(NewYork:FreePress,1969),pp.121–126.

4“YousocialistscantestifythatIwasneverapositivist—notevenwhenIwasamemberofyourparty.Forus,wedonotacknowledgeadualismofmatterandspirit;wehaveannulledthatantithesisinthesynthesisofthespirit.Spiritaloneexists—nothingelse,notyou,notthishall,northingsorobjectsthatappearinthefantasticcinematographyoftheuniverse.AllthatexistsinsofarasIthinkandonlyinmythought,andotherwisehasnoindependence.Itisthespiritthathas

returned.”MussoliniinaspeechdeliveredinDecember1921,“Perlaverapacificazione,”Oo,17,p.298.“Realityisnotpossiblewithoutthethinking...actualinconsciousness.Inordertoconceiveofarealityonemustfirstconceiveofamindinwhichthatrealityrepresentsitself.An[independent]materialrealityrevealsitselfasanabsurdity.”GiovanniGentile,TeoriageneraledelloSpiritocomeattopuro(Bari:Laterza,1924;firstedition1916),p.1.Inachapterentitled“RealityasThought,”Gentilemaintained,“Inthefirstplace,inconceivingrealityasnature,[thatnature]becomesimmanentinthought.Asaconsequence,itbecomesimpossibletoseparateitfromthoughtintheefforttorenderitindependent.”Gentile,Ifondamentidellafilosofiadeldiritto(Florence:Sansoni,1955;firstpublishedin1916),p.47.

5Mussolini,ashasbeenindicated,suggestedthathewasfamiliarwithGentile’sworkasearlyas1908.SeeMussolini’scommentstoYvonDeBegnac,PalazzoVenezia:StoriadiunRegime(Rome:LaRocca,1950),p.133.BythattimeGentilehadpublishedhiscritiqueofMarx.Marxistsweresofamiliarwiththatworkthat,aswehaveseen,Leninrecommendedit.ItseemseminentlyplausiblethatMussoliniwasfamiliarwiththework.

6PanfiloGentile,“Statoesindacato,”Utopia,2,nos.9–10(15–31July1914),pp.273–277.SergioPanunzio,acriticalintellectualinthearticulationofFascistconceptionsoflaw,morality,andthestate,citedthatarticleinhis“Ilsocialismo,lafilosofiadeldirittoelostato,”Rivistagiuridicadelsocialism,1,nos.2–3(June–July1914),pp.65–84.BythattimeitwasclearthatMussoliniwaspreparedtoconsider“criticalidealism”aspartoftherationaleofhisconvictions.

7Yearslater,UgoSpirito,oneofGentile’sforemostpupils,wrote,“[Gentilean]idealismwasoneofthefundamentaltheoreticalpresuppositionsoftheFascistrevolution.”Spirito,Ilfallimentodellascuolaitaliana(Rome:Armando,1971),p.153.AmongthoseworkspublishedbyGentilebeforetheFascistMarchonRomemostrelevanttothedevelopmentoftheFascistdoctrineofthestateandlaw,areGentile,Lariformadell’educazione:DiscorsiaimaestridiTrieste(Florence:Sansoni,1955;originallypublishedin1919),Discorsidireligione(Florence:Sansoni,1955;originallypublishedin1920),Ifondamentidellafilosofiadeldiritto(Florence:Sansoni,1955;originallypublishedin1916),Preliminariallostudiodelfanciullo(Florence:Sansoni,1958;originallypublishedin1920–1921),Sommariodipedagogiacomescienzafilosofica(Florence:Sansoni,1954;originallypublishedin1914).

8“TheHegelianethicalstate...identifiedwithGiovanniGentile...[was]adirectprefigurationofthestateofwhichMussolinispoke...and,ingeneral,oftheFasciststate,omnicomprehensiveandpossessedofeveryhumanvalue.”StelioZeppi,Ilpensieropoliticodell’idealismoitalianoeilnazionalfascismo(Florence:LaNuovaItalia,1973),p.163.

9Gentile’streatmentofthethoughtofKarlMarxinLafilosofiadiMarx:Studicritici(Florence:Sansoni,1955;originallypublishedin1899),waspublishedbeforetheturnofthetwentiethcentury,andwasrecommendedtoMarxistsbyV.I.Leninhimself.BythetimeGentilewrotehiscritique,hehadalreadyreadsomeofSorel’sassessments,andidentifiedMarx’sconceptionofhistorywiththeantiliberalconvictionthattheessenceofhumankindissocial.Thehumanbeingisasocialcreature.MarxistshadproceededtolapseintoaformofprimitivematerialismandidentifiedhumankindwiththeproductofDarwinianevolution—toreducehumanitytothelevelofbeastsofthefield—totheneglectofconsciousness,will,andethicalconcerns—withoutwhichhumanswouldhavenomotivestoact.Seeibid.,pp.163–164,167–168,183–185,226–230.ForthecritiqueofMarx’smaterialism,usinganumberoftheobjectionsofSorel,seeibid.,pp.210–219,240–241,245–255.

10ForabriefdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheepistemologicalposturesofMarxismandGentileanidealismseeA.JamesGregor,GiovanniGentile:PhilosopherofFascism(NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPress,2004),chap.5.

11Gentile,LafilosofiadiMarx,p.298;seetheentirediscusssioninibid.,chap.9,“ThePhilosophyofPraxis.”

12SergioPanunzio,Lostatodidiritto(Ferrara:Taddei,1921).

13Foramoreamplediscussion,seeA.JamesGregor,Mussolini’sIntellectuals:FascistSocialandPoliticalThought(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005),chap.4.

14Seeparticularlyibid.,chap.6.

15ForamorecompleteaccountoftheintellectualdevelopmentofSergioPanunzio,seeibid.,chaps.4and7.

16Thepathstakenbythetwothinkerswereverydifferent.Panunzio’sreforms

ofMarxismseemtohavehadtheirorigininhiswidestudyofsocialtheory.Asdistinctfromtheorthodoxinterpretationofhistoricalmaterialism,Panunziorecognized,bywayofillustration,thatwhile“groupconflict”mayhavesuppliedmuchofthesubstanceofhistory,the“groups”involvedneednotalwayshavebeen“classes.”Morethanthat,Panunzio,asalegaltheorist,didnotfindthenotionthatlawwassimplythewilloftherulingclassconvincing.Gentile,forhispart,hadepistemologicaldifficultieswithwhattheorthodoxsawasthe“materialism”ofMarxism.

17SeeGentile’scommentsin“Unacriticadelmaterialismostorici,”inLafilosofiadiMarx,pp.151–155.

18TherearemanyexpositionsofGentile’s“actualism.”PerhapsthebestinEnglishisRogerW.Holmes,TheIdealismofGiovanniGentile(NewYork:Macmillan,1937)andPatrickRomanell,ThePhilosophyofGiovanniGentile(NewYork:Vanni,1938).ThebestdevotedtohissocialandpoliticalthoughtisH.S.Harris,TheSocialPhilosophyofGiovanniGentile(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1960).

19In1914,thiswasexpressedinthefollowingfashion:“Whatmustonedo,withothersoralone,tocreatealifeworthyofliving?...Onecansay:beahumanbeing[esseruomo!]—whichmeanstocreateoneselfassuch.”Gentile,Sommariodipedagogiacomescienzafilosofica,2,p.45.Attheendofhislife,Gentilewrote:“Inprovidingthecontentofthemorallaw....Iexpresseditintheadmonition:beahumanbeing[siiuomo].”Gentile,Genesiestrutturadellasocietà(Florence:Sansoni,1946),p.44.

20Intheearlytwenties,Gentileexpressedthatconvictioninthefollowingfashion:“themorallifeistheentirespirituallifeofman—anongoingactthatcontinueswithoutend,neitherinsomefanciedidealnoranyprobability....Ahumanbeingishumaninsomuchashecontinuestomakehimself....Ahumanbeingisentirelyaspiritualprocess;foreverinthemaking.”Gentile,Preliminariallostudiodelfanciullo:Appunti(Florence:Sansoni,1922),p.1;seepp.27–28,42–43,52–53.“Humanlifeisspiritual.Itsdevelopment,byvirtueofwhichitrealizesitshumanity,isitsprogressivespiritualization....[One]hastheinfiniteresponsibility...ofaffirming[one’sown]life.”Gentile,Discorsidireligione(Florence:Sansoni,1955;firstpublishedin1920),pp.33–55.Thepurposeofinstitutionsis“thatloftymission...toarousethosepowerfulmoralenergieswithoutwhichhumanbeingscannottrulyliveashumanbeings.”Gentile,La

riformadell’educazione:DiscorsiaimaestridiTrieste(Florence:Sansoni,1955;originallypublishedin1919),p.55.

21Gentilespokeofthe“empiricalindividual,”theindividualofwhichmaterialistsandphilosophicalrealistsspeak,asan“abstraction.”The“concreteperson,”ontheotherhand,heunderstoodtobethetotalityofbeing,thelivingconsciousnessofallthings,towhichnothingisalienor“external.”

22“Ourunityofwillsisnottheresultofsuggestion,assomemaintain,orofimitation,northeconsequenceofsomemysteriousinfluenceofprestige,norisitthesubmissionofaweakwilltoonethatisstronger....Itistheconsequenceoftheverylawsofspiritualdevelopment:[illustratedinthefactthat]twointerlocutors,eventhoughspeakingdifferentlanguages,mustultimatelycometosomecomprehension.”Gentile,Sommariodipedagogiacomescienzafilosofica,2,pp.36–37.“Astateisalwaysgovernedbyaforce,apower,whoserealandpositivefoundationisfoundinthewillofitssubjects.”Gentile,Dopolavittoria(Rome:LaVoce,1920),p.151.

23SeethediscussioninGentile,Discorsidireligione,pp.20–29,andLariformadell’educazione,chap.8.

24Gentile,Lariformadell’educazione,p.8.

25“Fascismreaffirmsthestateasthetruerealityoftheindividual.”Dottrinadelfascismo,Oo,34,p.119,para.7.

26Intheearlythirties,Gentile,writingthe“FundamentalIdeas”fortheofficialDoctrineofFascism,heldthatindividuals,toachievethefullnessofself,shouldbepreparedtosacrificeuntodeathfortheirnation.Dottrinadelfascismo,Oo,34,pp.117–118,para.2.

27SeePanunzio’stestimony,inLostatofascista(Bologna:Cappelli,1925),pp.36–37.

28AtthecloseoftheFascistperiod,authorsstillrehearsedtheessentialsofthedoctrineoflawandthestate—citingthe“modernidealism”ofGentileasamongtheirphilosophicfoundations.See,forexample,GerardoPannese,L’Eticanelfascismoelafilosofiadeldirittoedellastoria(Rome:Lavocedellastampa,1942).ThesamefeaturesaretobefoundinpublicationsofthetimewhentheRegimewasinfullflower.SeeCorradoPetrone,Principididirittofascista

(Rome:Edizioni“Conquisted’Impero,”1937),particularlypp.49–55.

29SergioPanunzio,Checos’èilfascismo(Milan:Alpes,1924),pp.24–25,28–29,40,48,53.

30Panunzio,Statonazionaleesindacale,pp.117–118,122,167.GentileopinedthatItaly“nolongerwishedtobetheeasypreyofforeigners,anegligiblequantityintheworldofgreat,imposingpowers...lockedindebilitatingindividualism,inabstractthought,allowingpower,life,andrealitytoescape.”Gentile,Dopolavittoria(Roma:LaVoce,1920),p.85.

31SeethediscussioninBernardoPirro,“L’individualitàscientificadeldirittofascista,”Ildirittofascista,3,nos.7–9(28September1935),pp.242–243;andOscardiGiamberardino,L’Individuonell’eticafascista(Florence:Vallecchi,1940),passim.

32Ibid.,pp.198–199.Panunzio,Statonazionaleesindacati(Milan:Imperia,1924),pp.107–108,117–118.

33“InFascistethicstheendsofsocietyandthestateareidenticalwiththoseoftheindividual.”Pannese,L’Eticanelfascismo,p.158.

34Seetheentirediscussioninibid.,pp.13–45,particularlypp.37–38.

35“Thetotalitarianstate...absorbs,inordertotransformandempower,alltheenergies,alltheinterests,andallthehopesofapeople.”BernardoPirro,“Introduzioneeistituzionididirittofascista,”Ildirittofascista,3,nos.4–6(28April1935),p.134.

36“TheFasciststateisthedirectandimmediatesourceoflaw.”BernardoPirro,“Ildirittofascista,”Ildirittofascista,1,no.l(28October1932),p.14,andPirro,“Ilcapodelgovernoorganocostituzionaledelsistemadigovernofascista,”Ildirittofascista,1,no.6(7June1933),pp.309–322.

37“Cartadellavoro,”inAttifondamentaledelfascismo(Rome:Nuovaeditricelara,1969),pp.7,8.

38SeeGregor,Mussolini’sIntellectuals,chap.8.

39Pannese,L’Eticanelfascismo,p.7.

40SergioPanunzio,Teoriageneraledellostatofascista(Padua:CEDAM,1939).

41TheaccountthatfollowsdrawsonthatofPanunzio,foundinibid.,pp.507–520.

42RobertoMichels,bythattimeanacknowledgedFascisttheoretician,providedtheaccountof“charisma”asitwasemployedbyPanunzio.SeeMichels,“CharismaticLeadership,”inFirstLecturesinPoliticalSociology(NewYork:HarperandRow,1949),chap.6.

43SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,ASurveyofMarxism:ProblemsinPhilosophyandtheTheoryofHistory(NewYork:RandomHouse,1965),chap.3.

44SeethediscussioninAlfonsoU.Thiesen,LeninspolitischeEthiknachdenPrinzipienseinerpolitischenDoktrin:EineQuellenstudie(Munich:VerlagAntonPustet,1965),pp.322–325.Trotsky,inhistime,admittedthatLeninneverwroteanythingextensiveonethicsormorality.SeeLeonTrotsky,TheirMoralsandOurs(NewYork:MeritPublishers,1966),p.51.

45Lenin,“TheTasksoftheYouthLeagues,”CollectedWorks(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1963;hereafterLCW),31,pp.291,293.

46Aswehaveseen,DietzgensoughttoprovideatheoreticalbasisforMarxistethicsbyappealingtoDarwinism.Kautskyspokewithouthesitationofthefactthat“therewasnoplaceinhistoricalmaterialismforamoralitythatdidnotfinditsoriginsinprevailingeconomicfactors.”SeethediscussioninKarlKautsky,LemarxismeetsoncritiqueBernstein(Paris:Stock,1900),p.41,ascitedinGeorgesSorel,Saggidicriticadelmarxismo(Milan:RemoSandron,1903),pp.284–285.

47WoltmannaddressedsomeoftheseissuesinhisdiscussionofEngels’streatmentof“moralityandlaw”inAnti-Dühring(chaps.9–11),whereEngelsarguedthatthestandardsoftruthvariedineachdomainofdiscourse.Engelsclearlyunderstoodthevaryingdifferencesincertaintybetweenanalyticandempiricaltruths.WoltmannmadeapointofthefactthatEngels’sallusiontoa“trulyhumanmorality”restedonneitheranalyticnorempiricalgrounds.Ifthereisatrulyhumanmoralitythat“standsaboveclassantagonismsandaboveanyrecollectionofthem,”weareleftwiththequestionoforigins.“Trulyhuman

morality”doesnotrestonanalytictruths;itdoesnot“reflect”classstruggles.Itwouldseemthatsuchamoralitycouldonly“reflect”prevailingsocialrelations.Thatmoralitywouldbewarrantedbyempiricalfacts.Whywouldanyonefeelthatanybehaviorsthatsimply“reflect”empiricalfactshouldbemorallybinding?SeeEngels,Anti-Dühring,pp.118–132;andLudwigWoltmann,DerhistorischeMaterialismus:DarstellungundKritik(Düsseldorf:Michels’Verlag,1900),pp.228–230.

48StalinwaspreparedtorecognizethatthemajorityofCommunistPartymembersdidnotenjoya“veryhightheoreticallevel”intheirunderstandingofMarxismanditsimplications—nottospeakofthetotallackoftheoreticalsophisticationofthegeneralpopulation.SeeStalin,“ReporttotheSeventeenthPartyCongressontheWorkoftheCentralCommitteeoftheC.P.S.U.(B),”Works(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1955),13,pp.356–357.

49AfterthedeathofStalin,Sovietethicistscouldstillarguethat“thefoundersofMarxismdemonstrated,throughtheirstudyofthelawsofdevelopmentofcapitalism,thattheabolitionofprivatepropertyandtheexploitationofmanbyman...wouldallowthemostcompletedevelopmentofhumanpersonality.”A.F.Schischkin,GrundlagendermarxistischenEthik(Berlin:Dietz,1964),pp.41–42.

50Duringtheearliestperiodinthe“transition”fromcapitalismtosocialism,Leninadvocatedaformof“revolutionarylegality”thatwascalculatedtofosterandsustainconformityonthepartofworkersandpeasantsthroughtheuseofpunishmentsandterror.SeetheaccountinRichardPipes,RussiaUndertheBolshevikRegime(NewYork:RandomHouse,1994),pp.398–409.

51EvgenyB.Pushukanis,TheGeneralTheoryofLawandMarxismisavailableintwoEnglisheditions,themorerecentbyTransactionPublishersin2002,withanewintroductionbyDraganMilovanovic,andanearliereditionbyInkLinksLtd.,publishedin1978,withanintroductionbyChrisArthurandthetitle:LawandMarxism:AGeneralTheory.

52Ascited,DraganMilovanovic,“Introduction,”toPashukanis,TheGeneralTheoryofLawandMarxism,p.xv.

53InhislongdiscoursetoSovietjuristsontheroleofthestateanditslawsintheevolvingSovietUnionaftertheSecondWorldWar,Vyshinskytookthetime

topersonallyattackPashukanisasa“fascist”andanationaltraitor.SeeAndreiVyshinsky,“DieHauptaufgabenderWissenshaftvomsocialistischenSowjetrecht,”andU.Kudaibergenow,“DiesozialistischeRechtsbewusstsein,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie(Berlin:VerlagKulturundFortschritt,1953),pp.50–53,351.

54“Onceestablished,thesuperstructureof[socialist]society[whichincludesthestateanditslaws]becomesaformidablepower.Itcontributestotheconstructionandtheenhancementofthe[economic]base,andassiststhenewsocietytodefeattheoldeconomicsystem.”D.I.Tschesnokov,“DieStellungdesStaatesimSystemdesÜberbaus,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie,p.130.

55EvgenyB.Pashukanis,“TheMarxistTheoryofStateandLaw,”inSelectedWritingsonMarxismandLaw(NewYork:AcademicPress,1980),p.297.

56J.V.Stalin,“ReporttotheSeventeenthPartyCongress,”Works,13,p.374.

57Stalin,“ReporttotheEighteenthCongressoftheCommunistParty,”ProblemsofLeninism(Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse,1953),p.792.

58Stalin,“PoliticalReportoftheCentralCommitteetotheSixteenthCongress,”Works,12,p.381.

59Stalinrepeatedpreciselythesamejudgment.Hetoldhisfollowersthattherevolution“cannotabstainfrombreakinguptheoldstatemachineandsubstitutinganewoneforit.”Stalin,“OntheProblemsofLeninism,”ProblemsofLeninism,p.156.

60Lenin,TheStateandRevolution,LCW,25,p.470.

61Lenin’sentireconceptionofthestatewastoconceiveitanapparatusofcontrolandoppression,fabricatinglawstoensureitspurposes,andemploying“armedorganizations”toimposeitswill.Thatheexpectedthecontinuedexistenceofthe“bourgeoisstate”withoutthebourgeoisieisinstructive.Seeibid.,pp.386–389.

62Pipes,RussiaUndertheBolshevikRegime,pp.400–401.UnderStalinweweretoldthat“Sovietlawandcommunistmoralityfostersthegreatestpossible

productivityforsocialistsociety.ItprotectscollectivepropertyandmobilizesSovietworkerstothefulfillmentofStalinistplansfortheeconomicandspiritualtransformationofsocietyonthewaytocommunism.”PartoftheobligationdischargedbySovietlawisto“discipline”thosewhopursue“undisciplinedlifestyles.”I.Rjabko,“DieWechselwirkungzwischenRechtundMoralindersozialistischenSowjetgesellschaft,”inSowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie,pp.383–384.

63Thus,wearetoldthat“theCommunistPartyprovidestheleadershipandthecorrectdirectionintheformationanddevelopmentof...allformsofthesocialconsciousnessofsocialism.”Thepurposeisto“establishtheCommunistorder...byhavingthemassesdirectedbytheleadingwisdomoftheParty....TheleadingroleinallofthisisexercisedbytheParty....which,byitsleadingroleintheprocess,fostersandsecuresthelegalideologyoftheSovietsociety...whichfindsexpressionintheissuanceoflawbytheSovietstate....ThepoliticsoftheCommunistPartyoftheSovietUnionisthesoulofSovietlaw,andlawistheembodimentofthepoliticsoftheParty.”U.Kudaibergenow,“DassozialistischeRechtsbewusstsein,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechttheorie,pp.351–353.

64SeeSchischkin,GrundlagendermarxistischeEthik,pp.11–20.

65SeeA.Vyshinsky,“DieHauptaufgabenderWissenschaftvomsozialistischenSowjetrecht,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie,p.68.Later,inthehistoryoftheSovietUnion,sometheoreticiansofferedasomewhatmoresubtletreatmentofmorality:identifyingitasthesumtotalofsociallysanctionedbehaviors—thathadmanifesteditselfinprimitiveformsbeforetheappearanceof“classsociety.”Schischkin,GrundlagendermarxistischenEthik,pp.11–12.

66SeethediscussioninI.Rjabko,“DieWechselwirkungzwischenRechtundMoralinderSozialistischenSowjetgesellschaft,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie,pp.383–385.

67Vyshinskywasfondofquotingthe“brilliantComradeStalin”:“Marxismisthescientificexpressionofthelifeinterestsoftheworkingclass.”A.Vyshinsky,“DieHauptaufgabenderWissenschaftvomsocialistischenSowjetrecht,”ibid.,p.52.

68StephenF.Cohen,“BolshevismandStalinism,”inErnestA.Menze(ed.),

TotalitarianismReconsidered(London:Kennikat,1981),p.67.

69“OnemustacknowledgethatatthecoreofthetheoryoftheSovietstate,aswellastheSoviettheoryofthelaw,istheteachingofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.”A.Vyshinsky,“ÜbereinigeFragenderTheoriedesStaatesunddesRechte,”SowjetischeBeiträgezurStaats-undRechtstheorie,p.117.

70Ibid.,pp.109,110.

71“Underthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,lawservesasadeterminatemeansofcontrol....Lawisthewilloftherulingclass....[It]isthetotalityoftherulesgoverninghumanbehaviorthattherulingclasswouldhavesanctionedbythepowerofthestate....LeninandStalin,furtherdevelopingtheteachingsofMarxandEngels,taughtushowwemustusethelawintheinterestsofthesocialistrevolution...stabilizingandstrengtheningthestateinordertomaintaindiscipline...instructingeveryonenotonlyoftheirrights,buttheirdutiesaswell.”Vyshinsky,“FragendesRechtsunddesStaatesbeiMarx,”ibid.,pp.15,17,21,38–39,40,41,46;see“DieHauptaufgabenderWissenschaftvomsozialistischenSowjetrecht,”ibid.,p.72.“TheMarxistpartyandstatedischargeamonumentalresponsibilityinprovidingtheworkersofourlandacommunisteducation.”Schischkin,GrundlagendermarxistischenEthik,p.51.

72SeeStalin,“ReporttotheSeventeenthPartyCongressontheWorkoftheCentralCommitteeoftheC.P.S.U.(B),”Works,13,pp.353–355.

73“Mussolini,havingorganizedthepeople,intheunitaryparty,resolvedallthepuzzlementsleftbehindbythinkerslikeHegelandMarx....ThepartystateofMussoliniistheguarantee,inperpetuity,ofthecontinualpromotionofthesocialandmoralunityofapeople....[Itis]thespiritualcreationofourgreatLeader.”Panunzio,Teoriagenerale,pp.577,580–581.

74ForasystematicdiscussionoftherelationshipoftheKuomintangandparadigmaticFascism,seeMariaHsiaChang,TheChineseBlueShirtSociety:FascismandDevelopmentalNationalism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985);andA.JamesGregor,APlaceintheSun:MarxismandFascisminChina’sLongRevolution(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,2000),chaps.2–6.

75SeeSergioPanunzio,Spagnanazionalsindacalista(Milan:EditriceBietti,1942).

76AsaFascisthierarch,DinoGrandiwrote:“Modernwars,thewarsoftomorrow,willinevitablyinvolvepoornationsagainstthosethatarerich,betweenthosenationsthatlaborandproduceandthosenationsthatalreadypossesscapitalandriches....Itwillbeaclassstrugglebetweennations.”DinoGrandi,“Interventismo1915einterventismo1940,”Gerarchia19,no.11(1940),p.571.

77GrandirepeatedthesamesentimentsinDinoGrandi,“Laguerranonrisolverànulla,”writtenin1914,reprintedinGiovani(Bologna:Zanicelli,1941),p.39.

78Howeverunconvincing,FascisttheoreticiansarguedthatHitler’sNationalSocialistmovement,takingpowerinanindustriallywelldevelopednation,wasstilla“developmentalundertaking.”AftertheGreatWar,Germanywasshornofitseconomicadvantagesandreducedtoadevelopingeconomicsystem.NationalSocialistswereobligedtoundertakeaprogramofrapidandcomprehensivedevelopment.See,forexample,GuidoBortolotto,DieRevolutionderjungenVölker:FaschismusundNationalsocialismus(Berlin:R.KittlersVerlag,1935).

79Fascismwasclearlyoneofthefirst,ifnotthefirst,exemplarofthosesystemsnowidentifiedas“politicalreligions.”PanunziospokeofFascismasanimatedbythe“exaltation,...almostthereligionofthestate...infusedbyheroicandreligiousvalues...amoraldoctrineoftheheroiclifeofthespiritandofsacrifice...anecclesiasticalstate,asopposedtoanindifferentandagnosticstate.”Panunzio,Teoriagenerale,pp.5,7,10,19.

80Seen.42above.

81ThemoredetachedFascisttheoreticianstookacertainprideintheknowledgethatFascismprovidedthestatesystemnecessarytothecircumstancesofthetime.RenzoBertonifullyexpectedtheSovietUniontodevolveinsomeformofFascism.Bertoni,Iltrionfodelfascismonell’U.R.S.S.

82Onefindsoneormoreofthemajorelementsoftotalitarianism,atoneoranotherstage,inthedevelopmentofthepoliticalregimesofChiangKaishek,MaoZedong,FidelCastro,PolPot,JamalAbdelNasser,SaddamHussein,Hafizal-Asad,MuammarQaddafi,KwameNkrumah,KimIlSungandKimJongIl,amongothers.

83SeethediscussioninA.JamesGregor,TheSearchforNeofascism:TheUse

andAbuseofSocialScience(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006).

Index

AbsolutemonarchiesActualism(attualismo)Adler,MaxAdvancedindustrialnations:conflicts;dominance;Marxistview;potentialtransitionstosocialism.SeealsoCapitalism;Imperialism;Industrialization

Agursky,MikhailAlbaniaAllemane,J.AnarchismAnthropologyAnticommunismAntifascismArendt,HannahAristotleAryanraceAsia,Europeanincursions.SeealsoindividualcountriesAttualismo,seeActualismAustria-Hungary:industrialization;intellectuals;MussoliniinTrent;nationalminorities;socialistparty;southernTyrol(Trent)

AustrianSocialDemocraticpartyAustro-Marxists.SeealsoBauer,OttoAvanti!

Backwardeconomies,seeDevelopingcountries;Italy,economicbackwardnessof;Revolutionsinbackwardeconomies

Bakunin,MikhailBattisti,CesareBauer,Otto;background;onclassstruggle;oncommunities;criticismfromLeninandStalin;onDarwinism;Gumplowiczand;influence;onnationalism;DieNationalitätenfrageunddieSozialdemokratie;onnationalityquestion

Behavior,humanBelgium,WorldWarIandBergson,HenriBernstein,Eduard;influenceonMussolini;MarxistrevisionismBianchi,MicheleBlanquistsBolshevism:centralization;classoriginsofleadership;economicpolicies;elite-centeredparty;influenceson;leadershipofworldrevolution;nationalcommunistfactionsand;nationalitiespolicies;Octoberrevolution;persecutionofotherRussianMarxists;revolution;soviets.SeealsoLeninism

BourgeoisdemocracyBourgeoisie:development;economicinterests;German;individualism;Italian;Leninon;Marxon;moralsandethics;peasantsand;politicaldominance;politicalvalues;progressive;scienceand;statepowerof;warand

BourgeoisnationalismBritishEmpire.SeealsoImperialismBrousse,PaulBukharin,Nikolai

CambodiaCapital,seeDasKapitalCapitalism:developmentinbackwardeconomies;Fascismand;finance;imperialismaslaststage;inevitabilityofsocialistrevolution;Leninon;militarismand;Mussolinion;NationalSocialismand;roleofnationalism;state;warand;Woltmannon

Castro,FidelCatholicchurch,inTrentinoCatholicrevolutionariesChamberlain,H.S.CharismaticleadershipChiangKaishekChina:Kuomintang;Maoism;relationswithindustrialeconomies;relationswithSovietUnionChinese,MarxonChristians,earlyChurchill,WinstonCivilsocietyClass-consciousnessClasses:afterrevolution;contingentmembership;demographicstatistics;dominantideologies;identificationwith;interests;Italian;Kautskyon;Michelson;middle;morality;Mussolinion;productive;reactionary;relationtostate;revolutionary;ruling;useofterm.SeealsoBourgeoisie;Proletariat

Classstruggle:Baueron;Fascistview;Gumplowiczon;Kautskyon;Marxistviewofhistory;Mussolinion;predictableoutcome;Woltmannon

ColdwarColonialism.SeealsoImperialismCommunism:fallof;genericideal;religious;war.SeealsoBolshevism;Leninism;SocialismCommunistManifesto(MarxandEngels):Bolshevikinterpretations;bourgeoisintellectuals;Darwinistconcepts;inevitabilityofrevolution;moralrelativity;nationalism;peasants;revolutionaryclass

CommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion:currentpolicypositions;destalinization;members’understandingofMarxism;vanguardrole.SeealsoLeninism

Communities:culture;ofdescent;Fascistview;identificationwith;moralvirtuesofmembers;Mussolinion;national;natural;organic;otherthanclasses;Sorelon;studyoflifein.SeealsoGroups;Nationalities;Nations

Communitiesofdestiny:Baueron;conflictsamong;identificationwith;Mussolinion;nationsas;originsofnationalsentiment;prehistoric

ConscienceConsciousness:Bergsonon;Sorelon.SeealsoClass-consciousness;RevolutionaryconsciousnessCorradini,EnricoCorridoni,Filippo:death;influenceonFascism;life;Marxism;onnationalsentiment;Olivettiand;revolutionarysyndicalism;Riflessionisulsabotaggio;Sindacalismoerepubblica;onstateroleineconomy;supportofItalianparticipationinWorldWarI,

CriticalMarxismCroce,Benedetto:critiqueofMarxism;deconstructionism;idealism;Soreland;vocianiandCubaCulturalnationalism

Dalmine,ItalyDarwinism:influence;instinctofsurvival;naturalselection;socialinstinct;struggleforexistence;

survivalofthefittest.SeealsoEvolutionDarwinismandMarxism:accommodationefforts;Baueron;Dietzgenon;Engelson;humanevolution;influenceonrevolutionarythought;influentialconcepts;Kautskyon;Marxistethics;Marxon;Sorelon;Woltmannon

DeFelice,RenzoDeGaulle,CharlesDemocracy:bourgeois;Engelson;Fascismand;inItaly;Kautskyon;Leninon;postrevolution;preparationforrevolution,;proletarian;representative;Sorelon.SeealsoParliamentarydemocracy

DemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKoreaDemocraticsocialismDenmark,GermanwarwithDe’Stefani,AlbertoDeutsch,JuliusDevelopingcountries:capitalistdevelopment;conflictswithadvancedindustrialnations;economicmodernization.SeealsoImperialism;Industrialization;Revolutionsinbackwardeconomies

Dictatorshipoftheproletariat:interpretations;Kautskyon;Leninon;Marxon;StalinonDictatorships:developmental;revolutionaryDietzgen,Josef:influence;Kautskyon;MarxandEngelson;onMarxistethics;ThePositiveOutcomeofPhilosophy;onwillandmorality

EasternEuropeEastGermanyEckstein,GustavEconomicdevelopment,seeAdvancedindustrialnations;Capitalism;Industrialization;Revolutionsinbackwardeconomies

Education:Italiansystem;nationalistic;stateresponsibilityElectoraldemocracy,seeDemocracy;ParliamentarydemocracyElites,seeLeadership;RevolutionaryvanguardEmancipationofLaborGroupEngels,Friedrich:Anti-Dühring;oncivilsociety;onDarwinism;death;asdeclassedbourgeoisintellectual;ondemocracy;onevolution;GermanSocialDemocratsand;ongroups;onindividualrolesinhistory;intellectuallegacy;Marxistepistemology;onmoralityandethics;onnationalism;TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState;“ThePartPlayedbyLabourintheTransitionfromApetoMan,”;onpeasants;onPeasantWar;Plekhanovand;onracialdifferences;onrevolution;onstate;utilitarianmaterialism;onwar.SeealsoCommunistManifesto

England:potentialtransitiontosocialism;socialists;WorldWarIand.SeealsoBritishEmpireEpistemarchsEpistemologyErfurtProgramEthicalnationalismEthicalstateEthics:Kantian;materialist.SeealsoMarxistethics;MoralsandethicsEugenicsEurope,seeImperialism;andindividualcountriesEvolution:animal;geneticinheritance;Lamarckian;progressive.SeealsoDarwinismEvolution,human:Dietzgenon;Engelson;geneticinheritance;groupcompetition;Marxistview;nationalsentimentand;naturallaws;socialrelations;toolmaking;Woltmannon

Fascism:antifascismand;characteristics;comparisontoLeninism;debateson;democracyand;economicpolicies;firstFascists;foundingmeeting;futureof;generic;Gumplowicz’sinfluenceon;judicialreforms;labororganizations;leadership;linktocapitalism;Marxistinterpretations;ofMussolini;nationalismand;neo-;oppositiontosocialism;parliamentofproductiveclasses;aspoliticalreligion;post-WorldWarIIviewsof;inpower;productiveclasses;program;publicprojects;relationshipto

Marxism;similaritiestoLeninism;singlepartydominance;syndicalismand;totalitarianism;understandingsofterm;values;violenceof;Woltmann’sinfluence.SeealsoMussolini,Benito

Fascism,staterolein;anarchistcriticismof;economicrole;asexpressionofcommonwill;Panunzioon;power;relationshiptoindividuals;totalitarianism

FinancecapitalismForges-Davanzati,RobertoFrance:colonies;GeneralConfederationofLabor;Marxistvariants;socialism;syndicalism;WorldWarIand

Franco-PrussianWarFrenchRevolutionFreud,Sigmund

GeneralConfederationofLabor(France)Generalstrikes:inItaly;Sorelonmythof;syndicalisttacticGenetics.SeealsoEvolutionGentile,Giovanni;actualism;oncommunities;critiqueofMarxism;ondemocracy;educationalreforms;onethicalstate;idealism;immanencedoctrine;influenceonMussolini;Lenin’sfamiliaritywithwork;onmoralityandethics;onnationalism;philosophy;ontotalitarianism

Gentile,PanfiloGermanDemocraticRepublicGermannationalism:afterGreatWar;ofMarxandEngels;pangermanism;ofsocialists.SeealsoNationalism

GermanSocialDemocraticmovement:decline;dogmatism;ErfurtProgram;founding;Marxism,;nationalism;revolutionaryleadership;revolutionaryrole;unorthodoxyofBernstein’sthought;viewofWorldWarI,

Germany:bourgeoisie;culture;Franco-PrussianWar;PeasantWar;proletariat;warwithDenmark;WorldWarIand.SeealsoNationalSocialism

Gobineau,A.deGorbachev,MikhailGrandCouncilofFascismGreatRussianproletariatGreatWar,seeWorldWarIGreece,ancientGroups:competitionamong;Engelson;evolutionof;heterogeneoussocialelements;inhumanevolution;identificationwith;ingroupsentiment;Italiansociologistson;Leninonhistoricalroleof;lifeinbeforeexistenceofclasses;Marxistview;Michelson;Mussolinionaffiliationwith;outgroupenmity;solidarity;Sorelon.SeealsoCommunities

Guesde,JulesGumplowicz,Ludwig;Bauerand;onheterogeneoussocialelements;influence;Moscaand;onnationalism;onrace;onracewar;onsocialism;onwar

HapsburgEmpire,seeAustria-HungaryHegel,G.W.F.Hervé,GustaveHess,Moses,RomeandJerusalemHeterodoxMarxism;ofLenin;ofMussolini;ofSorelHeterogeneoussocialelementsHilferding,RudolfHistory:deterministicview;individualrolesin;Mussolinion;Sorelon;Woltmannon.SeealsoMaterialistconceptionofhistory

Hitler,Adolf.SeealsoNationalSocialismHolland,potentialtransitiontosocialismHumanevolution,seeEvolution,human

HumanwelfareHume,David

IdealismIdeologies:determinedbymodeofproduction;intwentiethcenturyImperialism:economicmotives;Italian;Leninon50;MarxandEngelson;proletarian;superprofits;underdevelopednationsascolonies;WorldWarIand

IndiaIndividualismIndividuals:economicdeterminantsofaction;“greatmen,”historicalroles;relationtostate;revolutionaryroles;selffulfillment;insociety.SeealsoLeadership;Will

Industrialization:capitalexports;educationofworkers;inevitabilityofsocialistrevolution;Italian;Japanese;aspreconditionofrevolution;proletariatand;Soviet;technologicalimprovements.SeealsoAdvancedindustrialnations;Capitalism

Intellectuals:Austrian;declassedbourgeois;ideologistsand;Leninonroleof;liberal;Mussolinias;proletariatand;inrevolutionaryparties;asrevolutionaryvanguard;socialscientists;Sorelon;syndicalists

Intelligence,BergsononInternationalismInternationalLibraryofRationalistPropagandaIntuition,BergsononIranIrrationalismIslamism,radicalItalianMarxists:antimilitarism;debatesonnationalityquestion;interventionists(WorldWarI);Michels’historyof;orthodoxy;responsestoWorldWarI,;returntoKant;revolutionary;viewsofscience.SeealsoItalianSocialistParty

Italiannationalism:developmental;emergent;Fascistgoals;languageandculture;linkstosyndicalism;Michelson;ofmiddleclass;ofMussolini;Mussolini’sappealto;myths;Olivettion;Papini’sspeechon;revolutionand;Romanempireassymbol;inTrentino;ofworkers;WorldWarIand.SeealsoNationalism

Italians:Jews;migrants;racismagainst;sociologists;inTrentino;veteransofWorldWarI,;workersItalianSocialistParty:expulsionofsyndicalists;Mussoliniasleader;Mussolini’scriticismof;neutralitypolicyinWorldWarI,;oppositiontowarwithTurkey;orthodoxMarxism;viewofRussianrevolution

Italo-TurkishWar(1911):economicfactors;effects;Michelson;Mussolini’sopposition;nationalsentimentofItalianworkingclasses;syndicalistview;workers’support

Italy:agriculture;bourgeoisie;classes;democracy;demographicpressures;educationsystem;generalstrikes;GermanoccupationinWorldWarII;Marxistvariants;migrationfrom;proletariat;territorialclaims;WorldWarIand.SeealsoFascism;Mussolini,Benito

Italy,economicbackwardnessof:advocatesofindustrialization;causes;Corridoni’spolicyrecommendations;economicproblems;Fascisteconomicprogram;immatureproletariat;industrialdevelopmentaspreconditionofrevolution;laborissues;Mussolinionneedforeconomicdevelopment;predictedbenefitsofGreatWar;Prezzolinionindustrialization;relationswithadvancedindustrialstates;syndicalistrecommendationsfordevelopment

James,WilliamJapan:economicdevelopment;seenasfascistJaures,JeanJews:Italian;morality;psychobiologicalsuperiorityargued;Woltmann’sviewofJouhoux,Léon

Kant,Immanuel,idealismKantianethics:Marxistviewof;neo-Kantians;returntoKant

DasKapital(Marx)Kautsky,Karl:criticismof;criticismofLeninism;onDarwinism;death;asdeclassedbourgeoisintellectual;ondemocracy;TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat;onDietzgen;EthikundmaterialistischeGeschichtsauffassung;ongroups;onhistory;onhumanvolition;influence;leadershipofGermanSocialDemocrats;Lenin’sresponseto;onMarxistethics;onnationalism;orthodoxMarxism;responsetoWorldWarI,;onrevolution;DerWegzurMacht;onWoltmann

Kerensky,AlexanderKhrushchev,NikitaKimIlSungKimJongIl,Koestler,Arthur,DarknessatNoonKorea,seeNorthKoreaKuomintang

Labor,seeGeneralstrikes;Proletariat;WorkersLabororganizations:Bolshevik;Fascist;guilds;Marxist;syndicats;tradeunionsLabriola,Antonio:LaConcezionematerialisticadellastoria;Croceand;onmoralityandethics;onpeasants

Labriola,Arturo:influence;onoriginsofWorldWarI,;onrevolutionLamarckianevolutionLapouge,V.Laqueur,WalterLassalle,FerdinandLaw:Gentileon;Leninon;Marxisttheory;Panunzioon;postrevolutionary;revolutionary;inSovietUnion

Leadership:charismatic;elite;epistemarchs;revolutionary.SeealsoRevolutionaryvanguardLeBon,GustavLenin,VladimirI.:oncapitalism;“CriticalRemarksontheNationalQuestion,”;criticismof;defeatisminWorldWarI,ondemocracy;economicpolicies;Gentileand;GreatRussiannationalism;heterodoxMarxism;Imperialism;intellectualinfluenceson;internationalism;Kautskyand;onMarxistepistemology;modificationstoMarxism;onmoralityandethics;onnationalism;OneStepForward,TwoStepsBack;orthodoxMarxism;onphilosophyandsocialscience;responsetoWorldWarI,;“RevisionofthePartyProgramme,”248;onrevolution;onrevolutionaryleadership;onrevolutioninbackwardeconomies;onstate;StateandRevolution;onstatecapitalism;“UnderaFalseFlag,”;WhatistoBeDone?;onWoltmann

Leninism:centralization;claimtobeconsistentwithclassicalMarxism;comparisontoFascism;criticismof;development;influenceofrevolutionarysyndicalism;morality;Mussolinion;partyorganization;proletariansemistate;rejectionofnationalismasmobilizingfactor;rejectionofparliamentarydemocracy;relationshiptofascism;returnto;revolutionarytheory;revolutionaryvanguardrole;similaritiestoFascismofMussolini;single-partyrule;stateandlaw;stateascontrolagency;totalitarianism;values;viewoftotalitarianism;Woltmann’sinfluence

LeonardoLiberalism:Fascistrejectionof;intellectuals;ofsyndicalistsLibya,seeItalo-TurkishWarLuxemburg,Rosa

Mach,ErnstMalon,BenoitMaoismMaoZedongMarx,Karl:oncivilsociety;TheCivilWarinFrance;criticismofsocialists;onDarwinism;asdeclassedbourgeoisintellectual;economictheories;TheGermanIdeology;onindividualrolesinhistory;intellectuallegacy;DasKapital;materialistconceptionofhistory;onmoralityandethics;on

nationalism;philosophy;Plekhanovand,;onracialdifferences;onrevolution;onrevolutioninbackwardeconomies;theoryofknowledge;onwar;youthfulwritings.SeealsoCommunistManifesto

Marxism:ambiguitiesandvaguenesses;class-consciousness;critical;differencesfromfascism;lackofempiricalconfirmation;modificationsinearlytwentiethcentury;pureversusapplied;revisionism;intwenty-firstcentury;variants.SeealsoDarwinismandMarxism;HeterodoxMarxism;OrthodoxMarxism

Marxistethics;Kautskyon;Soviettheoristson.SeealsoMoralsandethicsMarxist-Leninists,seeLeninismMaterialismMaterialistconceptionofhistory:criticismof;Darwinismand;determinism;Gentileon;Labriolaon;Marxon;Plekhanovon

MaterialistethicsMatteotti,GiacomoMcCarranInternalSecurityActMcCarthyismMehring,FranzMendel,GregorMensheviksMerlino,Severio,ProecontroilsocialismoMexicans,MarxandEngelsonMexico,warwithUnitedStatesMichels,Roberto:onancientRome;background;onclassidentification;“Cooperation,”;ondemocracy;familiaritywithSorel’sworks;onGermanMarxists;ongroupsentiment;L’Imperialismoitaliano;influence;influenceson;onItalianeconomy;onItalianmigrants;onItalianwaragainstTurkey;onmoralityandethics;Moscaand;onnationalism;revolutionarysocialism;StoriadelMarxismoinItalia;vocianiand

MiddleclassMilitary:Leninon.SeealsoRedArmy;WarsMillerand,EtienneModeoflifeModeofproduction:changesin;deterministicrole;Kautskyon;moralityasconsequenceof;revolutionand.SeealsoProductiveforces

Moralsandethics:Adleron;bourgeois;Dietzgenon;distinctionfromempiricaltruths;Engelson;feelingsand;GiovanniGentileon;PanfiloGentileon;humanevolutionand;independenceofeconomicconditions;AntonioLabriolaon;Leninon;Marxist;Marxon;materialistconception;Michelson;Mussolinion;prematuremoralconcepts;ofproletariat,;rationalesforrevolution;reasoning;reflectionsofeconomicconditions;relativity;revolutionaryrole;scientificstudyof;Sorelon;transcendingclassdifferences;universalisticvalues;useofterms;Woltmannon.SeealsoKantianethics

Mosca,GaetanoMünzer,ThomasMussolini,Benito:Battistiand;oncapitalism;criticismofofficialsocialism;ondemocracy;asDuce;evolutionofthought;familiaritywithMarxistthought;followers;ongroups;heterodoxMarxism;influenceson;asintellectual;Italiannationalism;ItalianSocialistPartyleadership;journalseditedandpublished;onLeninandLeninism;life;onmoralityandethics;onnationalism;nationalistappeals;nationalsyndicalism;oppositiontoItalo-TurkishWar;orthodoxMarxism;Prezzoliniand;responsetoWorldWarI,;reviewofPrezzolini’sLateoriasindacalista;onrevolution;revolutionarysyndicalism;onRussianrevolution;onsocialism;Soreland;onSovietUnion39;inSwitzerland;inTrentino;IlTrentinovedutadaunsocialista;L’Uomoeladivinità;viewofstate;onwar;onWoltmann.SeealsoFascism;Vociani

Myths:inItaliannationalism;mobilizing;nationalist;nationalityas;socialandpolitical;Sorelon

Nationalcommunities

Nationalism:Baueron;bourgeois;communismand;cultural;inEasternEurope;Engelson;ethical;Gentileon;GreatRussian;Gumplowiczon;inadequacyofclassicalMarxisttreatment;inindustrialcapitalism;Leninon;Marxistviews;Marxon;Michelson;inmodernworld;Mussolinion;myths;originsingroupsolidarity;political;proletarian;reactionary;revolutionary;inRussia;socialismand;SovietMarxistson;Stalinon;intwentiethcentury.SeealsoGermannationalism;Italiannationalism

Nationalities:inAustria-Hungary;autonomy;myths;inRussia;self-determination;inSovietUnion;inSwitzerland

Nationalityquestion,forMarxists;inAustria-Hungary;Baueron;compatibilitywithinternationalism;Germanviews;Leninistview;MarxandEngelson;Mussolinion;reactionstoWorldWarI,;inRussia;seenascounterrevolutionary

Nationalsentiment:Baueron;Corridonion;asepiphenomenon;evolutionaryexplanation;Olivettion;Panunzioon.SeealsoNationalism

NationalSocialism(German):economicdevelopmentpolicies;fascism;linktocapitalism;Marxistintellectualinfluences;totalitarianism;Woltmann’sinfluence

NationalsyndicalismNations:ascommunitiesofdestiny;conflicts;Stalin’sdefinition.SeealsoNationalismNazis,seeNationalSocialismNeofascismNeo-KantiansNeumann,Franz,BehemothNeumann,Sigmund,PermanentRevolutionNewEconomicPolicyNordicraceNorthAfrica,Frenchcolonies.SeealsoItalo-TurkishWarNorthKorea

Olivetti,A.O.:Corridoniand;Fascismand;ongroups;influence;onItalo-TurkishWar;onnationalsentiment;revolutionarysyndicalism

OpportunismOrano,PaoloOrthodoxMarxism:afterEngels’death;declininginfluence;ofGermanSocialDemocrats;ofItalianSocialistParty;ofKautsky;ofLenin;ofMussolini;Mussolinion;ofPlekhanov;ofSorel

Orwell,George,NineteenEighty-four

PangermanismPantaleone,MaffeoPanunzio,Sergio:criticalidealism;onFasciststate;influence;onlawandstate;onMarxism;onnationalsentiment;onpoliticalreligions;onrevolutionarydictatorships;onstate;syndicalism;Teoriageneraledellostatofascista;ontotalitarianism

Papini,GiovanniPareto,VilfredoParliamentarydemocracy:Leninistrejectionof;Mussolinion;socialistsupporters;Sorel’scriticismof;syndicalistrejectionof.SeealsoDemocracy

Parliamentarysocialists,FrenchParties,seeCommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion;GermanSocialDemocraticmovement;ItalianSocialistParty;Revolutionaryparties;Singlepartiesintotalitarianism

PartiOuvrierFrançaisPartiOuvrierrevolutionnairesocialistePartitonazionalefascista.SeealsoFascismPashukanis,Evgeny,TheGeneralTheoryofLawandMarxism53Patriotism.SeealsoNationalismPeasants:effectsofwar;MarxandEngelson;nationalsentiment;Russian;Sorelon;transformationbyindustrialcapitalism

PeasantWar,GermanyPhantomsformedinbrainPlekhanov,GeorgiValentinovich:TheDevelopmentoftheMonistViewofHistory;EmancipationofLaborGroup;followers;onhistory;Kautsky’sinfluenceon;orthodoxMarxism;rejectionofsyndicalism;relationswithMarxandEngels;responsetoWorldWarI,

PoliticalreligionsPolPotIlPopoloIlPopolod’ItaliaPopper,Karl,TheOpenSocietyandItsEnemiesPositivism.SeealsoSciencePragmatismPrezzolini,Giuseppe:influence;relationshipwithMussolini;onrevolution;Lateoriasindacalista.SeealsoLaVoce

Productiveforces:changesin;asgroundofhistory;Leninon;relationshiptoideas;revolutionsand;rulingclassownership;socialrelationsarisingfrom.SeealsoModeofproduction

ProletariandemocracyProletariannationalismProletarianrevolutionsProletariat:class-consciousness;democraticparticipation;diverseinterests;educationinMarxisttheory;GreatRussian;inindustrialcapitalism;intellectualsand;internationalconsciousness;Italian;knowledgeofMarxisttheory;Leninon;Marxon;membership;mobilizingforrevolution;morality;nationalism;revolutionaryconsciousness;revolutionaryleadershipand;revolutionaryrole;Russian;seenaslackingnationalism;struggleforsurvival;triumphofrevolution;urban;voluntaryparticipationinWorldWarI,;wageslaves;will.SeealsoDictatorshipoftheproletariat;Workers

Proudhon,Pierre-Joseph

Race:Aryan;definitions;economicrole;Engelson;grouplifeand;Gumplowiczon;inferiorgroups;inheriteddifferences;Marxon;Mussolinion;Nordic;socialdevelopmentand;useofterm;Woltmannon

RacewarRacism:againstItalians;literature;revolutionary;ofWoltmann;Woltmann’sinfluenceontwentieth-century

Reasoning,SorelonRedArmyIlRegnoRenner,KarlRepresentativedemocracy.SeealsoDemocracy;ParliamentarydemocracyReturntoKantRevolutionaryclassesRevolutionaryconsciousnessRevolutionarydictatorshipsRevolutionaryideas:individualandcollectiveroles;Marxon;prematureRevolutionaryparties;Bolsheviksas;GermanSocialDemocratsas;internalstruggles;Italianviews;Leninist;poweroverfollowers;purges;Soviet

Revolutionaryvanguard:declassedbourgeoismembers;intellectuals;Leninon;Mussolinion;Olivettion;Papinion;politicalpartiesas;responsibilitiesforeducatingproletariat;revolutionaryconsciousness;Sorelon

Revolutions:inadvancedindustrialnations;critiqueofMarxisttheory;deterministicview;fatalistic;individualmotives;inevitability;ItalianMarxistview;justifications;Kautskyon;leadership;Leninon;Marxistmoralrationales;mobilizingmyths;Mussolinion;orthodoxMarxistview;peaceful;proletarian;roleofnationalism;Sorelon;theoryin;violent.SeealsoRussianrevolution

Revolutionsinbackwardeconomies:Corridonion;Leninon;MarxandEngelson;inRussia;syndicalist

viewRocca,MassimoRomanCatholicChurch,seeCatholicchurchRome,ancientRossoni,EdmondoRulingclassRussia:GreatRussiannationalism;post-SovietCommunistParty.SeealsoSovietUnionRussia,czarist:capitalistdevelopment;classes;nationalminorities;potentialforrevolution;seenasenemybyMarxandEngels;urbanproletariat;WorldWarIand

RussianMarxists:influenceonLenin;persecutionbyBolsheviks;rejectionofsyndicalism.SeealsoPlekhanov,GeorgiValentinovich

Russianrevolution.SeealsoBolshevismRussianSocialDemocracy

Sabine,GeorgeSabotageSchleswig-HolsteinScience:attemptstoverifyMarxistclaims;inbourgeoissocieties;empiricism;inductivemethod;intellectualfreedom;Leninon;inMarxism;innineteenthcentury;positivism;Sorelon;studyofmoralsandethics.SeealsoDarwinism;Socialsciences

ScientificcommunismScientificsocialismScientismSecondInternationalSelf-determination,nationalSelffulfillmentSelfsacrificeSinglepartiesintotalitarianism;background;inFascistItaly;SovietexampleSlavsSocialDarwinismSocialdemocratsSocialism:antimilitarism;decline;democratic;divisions;inFrance;Marxand;nationalistresponsestoWorldWarI,;reformist;revolutionary;scientific;SecondInternational.SeealsoGermanSocialDemocraticmovement;ItalianSocialistParty

SociallawsSocialrelations:determinedbyproductiveforces;economicdeterminants;evolutionofSocialRevolutionaries(Russian)Socialsciences:anthropology;dialecticalmethods;leadingfigures;Leninon;Michelsand;Mussolini’sstudyof;non-Marxist;riseof;Sorelon

Sociologists.SeealsoGumplowicz,Ludwig;Michels,RobertoSombart,Werner;DerSozialismusunddiesozialeBewegungSorel,Georges:“L’AncienneetlaNouvelleMétaphysique,”;L’Avenirsocialistedessyndicats;Bergsonianphilosophyand;oncommunities;critiqueofMarxism;Croceand;onDarwinism;ondemocracy;ondeterminism;“EssaisurlaphilosophiedeProudhon,”;“EtudesurVico,”;ongroupsandcommunities;heterodoxMarxism;onhistory;influence;Introductionàl’économiemoderne,;Kautskyon;onlabor;life;onMarx’sviewofrace;onmoralityandethics;Mussoliniand;orthodoxMarxism;PrefacetoLabriola’sConcezionematerialisticadellastoria;Prezzolinion;LeprocèsdeSocrate;onproletariat;Réflexionssurlaviolence;onrevolution;revolutionarysyndicalism;onscience;onwarriorproducers

SovietUnion:agriculture;antifascism;backwardness;bureaucracy;Cheka;EasternEuropeand;economicpolicies;fallof;industrialdevelopment;laborpolicies;law;Marxisttheorists;massmurders;nationalities;peasants;RedArmy;relationswithChina;soviets;Stalinism;statecapitalism;statecoercion;statesystem;totalitarianism;warcommunism;Westernsympathizers;workers;World

WarIIand.SeealsoBolshevism;CommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion;Leninism;RussianrevolutionSpaniards,MarxandEngelsonStalin,Joseph:cultofpersonality;death;ondictatorshipoftheproletariat;onMarxistunderstandingofPartymembers;modificationstoMarxism;onnationalism;nationalityissue;posthumouscriticismof;ruleof;onstate;terror;totalitarianism

StalinismState:coercion;ascontrolagency;economicrole;ethical;Fascist;PanfiloGentileon;individuals’relationto;lawand;Leninistview;Marxisttheory;Mussolinion;proletariansemistate;Soviet;Stalinist;syndicalistview.SeealsoFascism,staterolein

StatecapitalismStoicsStrikes,seeGeneralstrikesSwitzerland:Mussoliniin;nationalitiesSyndicalism:collectivism;modificationstoMarxism;ofMussolini;national;nationalismquestion;rejectionofparliamentarydemocracy;revolutionary;onrevolutioninbackwardeconomies;Russianviewsof;similaritiestoLenin’sthought;tactics;viewofstate.SeealsoSorel,Georges

Syndicalism,Italian:advocacyofrevolutionarydevelopmentofeconomy;Fascist;influenceonFascism;intellectuals;nationalism;revolutionary;transitiontoFascism;viewofItalo-TurkishWar;viewofstate;WorldWarIand

Syndicats

TailismTalmon,JacobTechnology:changesin;evolutionofhumantoolmaking;humaninnovation;productivemeansand.SeealsoModeofproduction

Tito,JosipBrozTotalitarianism:characteristics;charismaticleadership;differencesamongmovements;elitevanguard;Fascist;Fascistintellectuals’view;futureof;Gentileon;lawand;Leninist;Leninistuseofterm;Marxism’sintellectuallegacyand;Mussolinion;politicalsystems;post-WorldWarIIviewsof;rightistorleftistregimes;similaritiesamongsystems;singlepartydominance;inSovietUnion;statecontrols;twentieth-centuryregimes;useofterm;viewsininterwarperiod

Tradeunions:French;Soviet.SeealsoLabororganizationsTreatyofLondonTrotsky,LeonTruman,HarryTurkey,seeItalo-TurkishWar

UnitedStates:anticommunism;democracy;MexicanWar;potentialtransitiontosocialism;westwardexpansion

Utopia

Vanguard,seeRevolutionaryvanguardVersaillesPeaceTreatyVico,GiambattistaViolence:ofBolsheviks;Corridoni’sadvocacyof;Fascist;Leninonneedfor;moraljustification;Mussolinion;revolutionary;statecoercion.SeealsoRevolutions

Virtues:evolutionand;ingroupsandcommunities;ofpeasants;premature.SeealsoMoralsandethicsViviani,R.F.LaVoceVociani:influenceonMussolini;relationshipswithMussolini.SeealsoPrezzolini,GiuseppeVyshinsky,Andrei

Warcommunism

WarriorproducersWars:economicmotives;Franco-Prussian;MarxandEngelson;moraljustification;Mussolinion;race;revolutionary;rulingclassmotives;socialistviews.SeealsoItalo-TurkishWar;WorldWarI

Weber,MaxWeismann,AugustWill:Adleron;Bergsonon;collective;determinate;Dietzgenon;economicdeterminantsofaction;inFascism;free;individual;Kanton;Kautskyon;Leninon;Marxistview;Michelson;ofproletariat

Wittgenstein,LudwigWoltmann,Ludwig:onclassidentification;onclassstruggle;criticalreviewofMarxism;criticismofcapitalism;onDarwinism;death;onevolution;Gumplowicz’sinfluenceon;DerhistorischeMaterialismus;onhistory;Kautskyon;legacy;Leninon;modificationstoMarxism;onmorality;Mussolinion;nationalism;PolitischeAnthropologie;onracialstrife;racism;onreturntoKant;onrevolution;Sorel’sdifferencesfrom;theoryofknowledge

Workers:effectsofwar;generalstrikes;Italian;nationalism;revolutionaryrole;Russian;Soviet;transformationintoproletariat.SeealsoLabororganizations;Proletariat

WorldWarI:beginningof;economicbenefitsforItaly;effectonMarxism;GermanSocialDemocraticview;Italianinterventionists;ItalianSocialistPartyposition;Italianveterans;Italianviews;Lenin’sposition;Mussolini’sposition;nationalismofworkingclasses;origins;peacetreaty;socialistresponses;voluntaryserviceofworkers

WorldWarII:Axispowers;endof;GermanoccupationofItaly;aswaragainstfascism

Yugoslavia

aZeevSternhell,withMarioSznajderandMaiaAsheri,TheBirthofFascistIdeology:FromCulturalRebelliontoPoliticalRevolution(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),p.12.*MartinMalia,“Foreword,”StephaneCourtois(ed.),TheBlackBookofCommunism:Crimes,Terror,Repression,translatedbyJohnathanMurphyandMarkKramer(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1999),p.x.