Karl Popper and the Problem of Historical Laws (1959)

KarlPopper andtheProblemof HistoricalLaws‘

[I959]

Publisher'snote:ThisessaywaswritteninEnglishandfirstpublishedas ‘NotesontheProblemofHistoricalLaws’inPartisanReview,vol.36,no.I, NewYork,1959.

KarlR.Popper’sThePovertyofHistoricismisdedicatedtothe ‘memoryofthecountlessmenandwomenofallcreedsornations orraceswhofellvictimtothefascistandcommunistbeliefin InexorableLawsofHistoricalDestiny’.

Theconcernwiththeroleofpoliticalviolence,expressedinthis Dedication,appearsinPopper’sbookintheframeworkofadiscussionofhistoricalandsocialtheory.Inthecourseofthedis— cussion,certaintheoriesemergetowhichthetendencyto violenceseemstobegermane,namely,thosewhichbelievein inexorableandpredictablelawsofhistory.Someofthesetheories —Poppercallsthem‘holist’—couplethisbeliefwiththenotion thattheState,Society,ortheNationare‘totalities’over,above, andotherthanthemeresumtotaloftheircomponentparts, governedbylawsoftheirown,towhichtheindividualsare subordinated.Thenotionoftotalityinturnimplies,inthese theories,thepossibilityoftotalitariancontroloverallindividual relationships,specificevents,institutions,etc.Popperthus stipulatesaconnectionbetweenmethodologicalandpolitical totalitarianism:theformerprovides,asitwere,thelogicaland philosophicaljustificationforthelatter.Consequently,alogical refutationoftheformerwouldprovethefactualimpossibilityof thelatter.Politicaltotalitarianismwouldthenbeshownas ‘Utopian’—andthisisindeedtheresultofPopper’sargument— anargumentwhich,asweshallsee,doesnotinvolvemuch ingenuity.Asanantidoteagainsttotalitarianism,Popperrecom— mendsapluralistic,gradualistic,and‘piecemeal’approachto historyandsociety,whichrefrainsfrom‘holist’notionssocon— ducivetoholistpoliciesandholistsacrificesto‘historical destiny’.

BeforeexaminingPopper’sargumentfurther,Iwishtodiscuss brieflythecontextinwhichitappears.Itisaphilosophical,more exactly,amethodologicalcontextinwhichtheapplicationof wholesaleviolenceisexplainedintermsofaspecificphilosophyof historyandsociety.Moreover,responsibilityisassignedtothe

philosophyofhistoricallawanddestiny(althoughperhapsnotthe entireresponsibility),whichincludes,undifferentiatedbyPopper, thefascistideologyandthecommunisttheory.Andthesame philosophyisheldtobelogicallyfaulty,unscientific,andinthis senseirrational.Iwishtoraisethequestionwhetherthephilosophicalcontextinwhichhistoricalviolenceisdiscusseddoesnot developtheproblemonalevelofmisplacedabstractness,thus divertingattentionfromtherealfactorsofviolence,fromits societalfunction,andfromthehistoricalmeansofcombatingit.

Nowitiscertainlytruethataphilosophyofhistoryhasfrequentlybeenusedtojustifytheliquidationofcountlessindividualswho,bytheirfaithororigin,bytheirpositioninsociety,by theiropinionsandactions,wereconsideredasstandingintheway ofhistoricaldestiny.ExamplesmaybeadducedfromRobespierre’sRepublicofVirtuetotheStalinistterror.Onemightnot stressundulytheconceptofhistoricaldestinyifonegoesfurther backandaddspracticallyallcrusades,inquisitions,religiouswars —eventhosedeclaredinthenameoftolerationandreligious freedom.ItisalsotruethatMarxiantheorycontainsthenotionof inexorablelawsofsociety—althoughhereitispreciselythe abolitionoftheseoppressivelawswhichistheaimandtherationale ofthesocialistrevolution.Itismuchlesscertainwhetherthe fascistideologyhastheideaofinexorablelawsofhistory—rather thedenialofhistory,actingagainsthistory,regressionto‘nature’ arecharacteristicoffascism.Butthisislargelyirrelevanttothe questionwhether,inallthesecases,beliefinhistoricaldestiny reallyexplainsterror.Iproposethatitdoesnot:whereitwas prevalent,itwasderivativefromandconditionaluponother factorsinsuchasensethatadiscussionwhichneglectsthese factorsabstractsfromtheessentialandsuggestsanincorrect interpretationofthecauses,thefunction,andtheprospectsof historicalviolence.Ifthesefactorsarepresent(Ishallpresently trytoindicatethem),thereisnophilosophyofhistorywhichmay notlenditselftothesystematicuseofviolence.Asthehistoryof liberalismfromtheseventeenthtothepresentcenturyshows,the gradualistandpluralistapproachisnoexception—beitonly

KarlPopperandHistoricalLaws195 becauseofitsincapacitytopreventviolenceandbyitsreadiness (withgoodconscience)tomeetviolencewithviolence.

Iadmitthatthislastpointcanbeconcededonlyiftheindictmentofmassexterminationisnotfromthebeginningrestricted andmadetoconformwiththestandardsandcriteriaofthesociety fromwhosepositiontheindictmentislevelled.InPopper’scase, thesestandardscallforafundamentaldistinctionbetweenlegal andextra-legalmassextermination:betweenwarandcivilwar, invasionandpoliceaction,inasuccessfulandinafailingrevolution,byalegallyconstitutedandanotyetthusconstituted government.

Butdoesnotacceptanceofthesedistinctionsimplyrecognition thattherearehistoricallyverydifferentformsandfunctionsof massviolence,which—whileallmorallyrepugnantandcondemnable—haveverydifferentcausesandaims?Thequestionhas directbearingonPopper’sanalysis:becauseheabstractsfromthe realfactorsofmassviolence,hearrivesatafalsegeneralization, obliteratingthepoliticalfeaturesofterrorinthecontemporary periodandminimizingitsscopeandprospect.

Therealfactorsofmassviolencearethosewhich,inthe respectivesociety,makeforthesuspensionofthe‘normal’ controlsandofnormallawandorder.Thefactsarewellknown andabriefreminderwillsuffice.Inthecaseoffascism,the expansionistpolicyof‘rectifying’thepeacesettlementsof1919 andofgainingmoreLebensraumforthedefeatedstatescouldno longerbepursuedwithintheframeworkoftheestablisheddemo— craticsystemanditslargelabouropposition.Theunprecedented degreeofviolencecorrespondedtotheextentofsacrificesand costsimposeduponthepopulation.Thepeoplemustbetiedto theregimewithallconceivablemeans:shareinthespoilsand shareintheguilt;theymustalsobecompensatedfortheir victimization.Hereisperhapsthegroundonwhichthe‘irra— tional’forcesarereleased:sadisticcruelty,destructiveness,and stupidity—revengeagainstwhateverandwhomevercanbeblamed fortheoldandthenewmiseryoftheunderlyingpopulation. Comparedwiththesefactors,thephilosophyof‘historical

destiny’seemstobenegligible.Indeed,rarelyhasanideology beenamoretransparentrationalization,amoreexpendablebyproduct.

Inthecaseofcommunism,thebasicfactorsoftheterrorareof averydifferentnature.Themassexterminationsaccompanying thefirstFiveYearPlanoccurredinthecourseoftheviolent collectivizationandindustrialization,undertakenagainstabackward,apathetic,orhostilepopulation.Evenifonestretchesthe Marxiannotionofinexorablelawsofhistoricaldevelopmentto theextentthatitstipulatesadvancedindustrializationasan indispensablepreconditionforsocialism,itwillbehardtomain— tainthatthisnotionplayedanydecisiveroleinStalinistpolicy. Rapidbuildingupoftheeconomicandmilitarypotentialof Sovietsocietyinordertoenableittowithstandthe‘threatof capitalism’andespeciallyoffascismappearsasthedrivingforce behindthispolicy,andno‘holist’philos0phyisrequiredtoex— plainit.Thetheoreticaldiscussionwascrushed,notconsum— mated,bytheStalinistplan.Astothepurgesofthemiddleand latethirtiesandthenagainofthelateforties:Icannotseehow theyareattributabletoaphilosophicalconceptbyanystretchof theimagination.

Thesebriefcommentsmayservetoindicateoneofthemajor defectsofPopper’sbook.Aphilosophicalanalysiswhichremains abstracttotheextentthatitneverreachesthehistoricaldimensioninwhichmassviolenceemergesandoperatesisoflittlevalue inexplainingandcombatingit.Ishallattempttoshowthat Popper’sgeneralizationsaretheoreticallyuntenable—butthey alsodoviolencetotheempiricalfactsandevents.Tobesure, terrorisandremainsinallitsformsandcircumstancesacrime againsthumanity—aninstrumentofdominationandexploitation. Thisdoesnotchangethefactthatterrorhashadverydifferent historicalfunctionsandverydifferentsocialcontents:ithasbeen usedforthepreservationofthestatusquoandforitsoverthrow, forthestreamliningofadecliningsocietyandforthereleaseof newpoliticalandeconomicforces.Understandingthehistorical functionofterrormaybeanindispensableweaponforcombating

it.Thehorrorofslaughterdoesnotwipeoutthedifierence betweentheJacobinterrorandthatofthepost-Thermidorian reaction,betweentheterrorofthedyingCommuneandthat againstit,betweentheRedandtheWhiteterror—adifference whichisnotasubtlephilosophicalpointbutastruggleofopposing politicalforcesthatchangedthecourseofhistory.

II

Popper’sanalysisoftotalitarianismispartofhissweepingcritique ofhistoricism.ThemeaningwhichPoppergivestothistermis sn'ikinglyunusual:

...Imeanby‘historicism’anapproachtothesocialscienceswhichassumes thathistoricalpredictionistheirprincipalaim,andwhichassumesthatthis aimisattainablebydiscoveringthe‘rhythm’orthe‘pattern,’the‘laws’or the‘trends'thatunderlietheevolutionofhistory....AndIhavenothesitatedtoconstructargumentsinitssupportwhichhavenever,tomyknowledge,beenbroughtforwardbyhistoriciststhemselves.Ihopethat,inthis way,Ihavesucceededinbuildingupapositionreallyworthattacking. Thelaststatementdeservessomeattentionbeforewetakeacloser lookatthisnotionofhistoricism.Whatastrangemethod:to buildupapositionreallyworthattackingandthentoattackit! Whydoesthecritichavetoconstructthetargetofhisattack?I wouldhavepassedoverthestatementasameremannerofspeech ifIdidnotbelievethatthismethodischaracteristicofmuchof contemporaryphilosophicalanalysis.InreadingPopper'sbook,I oftenstoppedandasked:againstwhatishereallyarguing?who hasactuallymaintainedwhatheissoeflicientlydestroying?And oftenIwasunabletoidentifytheattackedtheory(especiallysince Popperisextremelysparingwithreferences).

Inthephilosophicaltradition,‘historicism‘hasbecomeawell definedterm,referringtothoseschoolsofthoughtwhichemphasizethehistoricaluniquenessand‘equivalenoe'ofcultures. Historicismthusimpliesaratherhighdegreeofpluralismand relativism,perhapsmostcharacteristicallyepitomizedinRanke’s

phrasethatallhistoricalperiodsare‘unmittelbarzuGott’.Neither predictabilitynortheideaofhistorical‘laws’playsacentralrole inthesetheories.Certainly,itwouldbeentirelyunjustifiedto insistonconformitywithlexicographicalusage.However,Ithink thatsuchastrangedeviationfromusageshouldhavefirmer groundsthanaconstructionbuiltfromdisparateelementsof disparatetheories.Popper’sconstructionisgeneralenoughto includepracticallyalltheorieswhichtakehistoryseriously,which seeinitthe‘fate’ofmankind:hisoppositiontohistoricismisin thelastanalysisoppositiontohistory.Andtheconstructionis selectiveenoughtoenablehimtoestablishalinkbetween historicismandtotalitarianism.

Thebookdividesthewholeofwhatiscalled‘historicism’into twomaintypesoftheory:pro-naturalisticdoctrines,whichclaim thatthemethodsofphysicalsciencecan,atleasttoalargeextent, beappliedtothesocialsciences,andanti—naturalisticdoctrines, whichdenysuchapplicabilityandinsistonascientificmethod germanetothesocialsciences.Popperpresentsandcriticizesboth typesoftheoriesandconcludesthatneitheronecanlayclaimtoa rationalandscientifictheoryofhistoryallowingpredictability.He sumsuphismainargumentagainstthepredictabilityofhistory asfollows:thecourseofhistoryis‘stronglyinfluenced’bythe growthofhumanknowledge,butwecannotpredict,by‘rational orscientificmethods’,thefuturegrowthofscientificlmowledge; consequently,wecannotpredictthefuturecourseofhistory.By thesametoken,therecannotbeasocialscienceora‘theoretical history’correspondingtotheoreticalphysics;there‘canbeno scientifictheoryofhistoricaldevelopmentservingasabasisfor historicalprediction’.Thefundamentalaimofhistoricistmethod istherefore‘misconceived;andhistoricismcollapses’.Popper’s dictumofcollapseseemstobesomehowpremature.Heargues thata‘theoreticalhistory’correspondinginmethodandaimto theoreticalphysicsisimpossible-astatementwhichfew‘historicists’wouldcontest.Theessentialdifferencebetweenthemethod ofthehistoricalandthatofthephysicalscienceshasbeenoneof themajorpointsinthephilosophicaldiscussionsincethe

nineteenthcentury,butonelooksinvainforadiscussion(oreven mentioning)ofthosetheoreticaleffortswhichweredecisiveforthe foundation,development,andcritiqueofhistoricism:Droysen, Dilthey,Simmel,Windelband,Rickert,Troeltsch—tomention onlyafew.Thesearenotmerelyadditionalnamesorreferences whichmayormaynotbethere;theiranalysisofconceptualization inthesocialandphysicalsciencesandofthe‘rationality’of historyhasdirectbearingonPopper’sarguments.Failuretoface theirpositionsinfullstrengthmayaccountformuchofthethin— nessandabstractnessofPopper’sdiscussion.

Butapartfromthisfailure,Popper’sargumentagainsthistoricalpredictabilityseemsinitselfinconclusive.Tobesure,the growthofhumanknowledgehas‘stronglyinfluenced’thecourse ofhistory.However,assuchafactor,ithasinturnbeenhistoricallyconditioned.Itseemsthatscientificknowledgehasreally influencedthecourseofhistoryonlyasacceptedknowledge,that istosay,ifandwhenitcorrespondedtotheneedsandcapabilities ofsociety.Thelatterarefactsandforceswhichoperateinany givensocietyasobservabletrendsandtendencies,andthese providethegroundforhistoricalpredictability-whichisnever morethanprojectionoftendencies.

Thereareothertheorieswhichposithistoricalpredictability andmorerigidandsweeping‘laws’ofhistoricaldevelopment. Theyaremostlycyclicaltheories,assumingareturnofthepat— ternofthepast.Ultimately,theyarederivedfromtheideaofthe basicunchangeabilityofhumannature,whichassertsitself throughallvariationsandinnovations.ThucydidesandMachiavelli,Vico,SpenglerandToynbeemayserveasexamples.Their conceptionisfundamentallydifferentfromthataccordingto whichthelawsofhistoricaldevelopmentallbutprecludeareturn ofthepatternofthepast—somuchsothattheyalmostappearas thelawsofhumanfreedom,circumscribingtheconditionsforthe exerciseofhumanfreedom,forthepossibilitiesofchange. Popper’spresentationandcritiqueobliteratesthedecisive differencebetweenthesetypesoftheoriesbysubmergingbothin theconstructedsyndromeof‘historicism’.Weshallpresently

returntothispoint,afterafurtherbriefexaminationofthe syndrome.

III

Popper’sabstractmethodologicaldiscussioncomestolifewhenit revealsitsconcretepoliticalimplications.Hismosttellingargumentsagainsthistoricismareinthelastanalysispoliticalarguments,andhisownpositionisinthelastanalysisapolitical position.Thepoliticaldimensionisnotmerelysuperimposed uponthemethodological:thelatterratherrevealsitsownpolitical content.Theawarenessofthisrelationshipanditsoutspoken developmentisarewardingfeatureofPopper’sbook.

Thepoliticalimplicationsofthecritiqueofhistoricismcentre onthenotionof‘holism’.(Theworditselfseemstorevoltagainst itsformation!)Accordingtothisnotion(whichPopperattributes totheanti—naturalisticdoctrines), socialgroupsmustneverberegardedasmereaggregatesofpersons.The socialgroupismorethanthemeresumtotalofitsmembers,anditisalso morethanthemeresumtotalofthemerelypersonalrelationshipsexisting atanymomentbetweenanyofitsmembers.

Thusfarthisisaveryharmlessnotion,andonemaydoubt whethereventhemostradicalempiricistwouldseriouslydenyit. Poppergoesontodistinguishtwomeaningsoftheword‘whole’: (1)thosepropertiesoraspectsofathingwhichmakeitappearan organizedstructureratherthanamere‘heap’,and(2)‘thetotality ofallthepropertiesorasPectsofathing,andespeciallyofallthe relationsholdingbetweenitsconstituentparts’(myitalics).The firstmeaning,usedinGestalttheory,isacceptabletoPopper, whileherejectsthesecondasentirelyinapplicabletothesocial sciences.Itisrejectedbecauseawholeinthissensecanneverbe describedandobserved,since‘alldescriptionisnecessarily selective’.Norcansuchatotalityeverbetheobject‘ofany activity,scientificorotherwise’.Popperlinksmethodologicaland

politicaltotalitarianism:‘Itisformanyreasonsquiteimpossible tocontrolall,or“nearly”all’therelationshipsembracedby society,ifonly‘becausewitheverynewcontrolofsocialrelations wecreateahostofnewsocialrelationstobecontrolled’.‘Inshort, theimpossibilityisalogicalimpossibility'(myitalics);logically impossiblebecausetheattemptwouldleadtoan‘infiniteregression’—asitwouldinthestudyofsocietyasawhole.Popperhimselfseemstobesomewhatuneasy;headdsafootnotewhichsays that‘Holistsmayhopethatthereisawayoutofthisdiflicultyby denyingthevalidityoflogicwhich,theythink,hasbeensupersededbydialectic’andhesaysthathehastriedto‘blockthisway’ inhisarticle‘WhatisDialectic’(Mind,vol.49N.S.,pp.4031?.).I donotknowwhothe‘holists’mightbethatentertainsuchhope andthat‘may’denythevalidityoflogic,butthereferencetothe dialecticsuggeststhatPopperisthinkingofHegelandthe Marxistswhoarethuschargedwithanillogical‘totalitarian intuition’—althougheventhe‘holist’Stalinemphaticallyasserted thevalidityof(traditional)logic.Atstakeisnotthevalidityof logicbuttheadequacyofthelogicapplied.Butthenotionthat societyismorethanthemereaggregateofitspartsandrelations doesnotimplythatallor‘nearlyall’publicandprivaterelations withinsocietymustbeanalysedinordertocomprehendthe ‘structure’ofasociety.Onthecontrary,thehypothesisthatsuch astructureprevailsandassertsitselfinandthroughallinstitutionsandrelations(defininganddeterminingthem)doesnot precludebutcallsfora‘selective’analysis—onewhichfocuseson thebasicinstitutionsandrelationsofasociety(adistinctionwhich must,ofcourse,bedemonstratedandjustifiedlogicallyaswellas empirically).Similarly,forthetotalitariancontrolofsocietyitis notnecessarytocontroldirectlyallor‘nearlyall’relationsbecause controlofthelee]positionsandinstitutionsassurescontrolofthe whole.Certainly,everynewcontrolcreatesnewsocialrelations tobecontrolled,butfarfrombeinganimpossibleinfinite regression,thisconstellationperpetuatesandpropelsthecontrols oncesecuredinthekeypositionsandrelations:the‘new’relations arepreshapedandpredetermined.(Itmightbenecessarytopoint

outthatthesecommentsdonotimplyorsuggestthattotalitarian control,onceestablished,isunbreakable,butthatbreakingit dependsonchangingtheverybasisoftotalitariansociety.)

Ifthecritiqueoftotalitarianism,insteadof‘constructing’its target,wouldlookattheactualtheoriesandattherealityof totalitarianism,itcouldhardlyassertthattotalitarianismisa logicalimpossibility.PoppercitesMannheim’spropositionthat ‘thepoweroftheStateisboundtoincreaseuntiltheStatebecomesnearlyidenticalwithsociety’;hecallsthispropositiona ‘prophecy’andthe‘intuition’expressedinitthe‘totalitarian intuition’.NowIthinkitisratherobviousthatthecitedpassage haslongsinceceasedtobea‘prophecy’andhasbecomeastate— mentoffact.Moreover,onemaycriticizeMannheimonmany grounds,buttocounthimamongthe‘holists’andtochargehim withthe‘totalitarianintuition’istoconfuseananalysisofobservabletrendswiththeiradvocacyandjustification.

ThisconfusionischaracteristicofPopper’sconceptof‘holism’, whichcoversanddenouncesequallytheorieswithatotalitarian andthosewithananti—totalitarian‘intuition’.Bythesametoken, theconceptobliteratesthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenthe criticalnotionofinexorablehistoricallaws,whichseesinthese lawsthefeatureofan‘immature’andoppressivesociety,andthe conservativenotion,whichjustifiestheselawsas‘natural’and unchangeable.TheideathattheNationortheStateorthe Societyaretotalitiesoverandabovetheindividualswhomustbe subordinatedtotheinherentlawsgoverningthesetotalitieshas oftenjustifiedtyrannyandtheenslavementofmenbythepowers thatbe.Butthecategoryof‘holism’isalsoappliedbyPopperto theoppositetheoreticaltradition,exemplifiedbyMarxiantheory. Accordingtothistheory,theappearanceoftheNationandthe StateandtheSocietyasseparatetotalitiesreflectsonlyaspecific economicstructureofclasssociety,andafreesocietyinvolvesthe disappearanceofthis‘holism’.Popperjoinsthetwoincompatible theorieswithwhathecalls‘Utopianism’andthusestablishesthe allianceofPlatoandMarx—afantasticsyndromeplayingan importantpartinhisdemonstrationofthe‘unholyalliance’

betweenhistoricismandUtopianism.Thelatternotionsoon revealsitsconcretepoliticalcontent:

...wefindhistoricismveryfrequentlyalliedwithjustthoseideaswhichare typicalofholisticorUtopiansocialengineering,suchastheideaof‘blue— printsforaneworder,’orof‘centralizedplanning’.

ForPopper,PlatowasapessimisticUtopianholist:hisblueprint aimedatarrestingallchange;Marxwasanoptimistwho‘pre— dicted,andtriedactivelytofurther’theUtopianidealofasociety withoutpoliticalandeconomiccoercion.

Wedonotwishtodwellagainonthesemanticsoftheterm Utopianism:asthewordlosesmoreandmoreofitstraditional content,itbecomesaninstrumentofpoliticaldefamation.

Industrialcivilizationhasreachedthestagewheremostofwhat couldformerlybecalledUtopiannowhasa‘topos’amongthereal possibilitiesandcapabilitiesofthiscivilization.Moreover,ideas andeffortswhichoncewere‘Utopian’havebeenplayingan increasinglydecisivepartintheconquestofnatureandsociety, andthereisawarenessofthetremendousforceswhichmaybe releasedandutilizedthroughtheencouragementof‘Utopian’ thought.IntheSovietUnion,sciencefictionwritersarebeing takentotaskforlaggingbehindscienceintheirdreamsand phantasiesandtheyaretoldto‘gettheirimaginationoffthe ground’(NewYorkTimes,9July1958).Politicalinterestinmaintainingthestatusquoratherthanlogicalorscientificimpossibility todaymakesrealpossibilitiesappearasUtopian.Popperlends weighttohisattackonUtopianismbyagain‘constructing’the theoryheattacksratherthancriticizingthetheoryasitactuallyis. ItishardlyjustifiabletocallMarx’sbriefoutlineoftheinitial institutionalprerequisitesforsocialismablueprintforthe‘social engineering’ofanidealsociety(hedidnotmakecentralized planningthedistinguishingfeatureofsocialism,andhenever designatedsocialismasan‘idealsociety’).

Butthismaybeirrelevantexegesis:whatreallymattersto Popperistheargumentagainstthe‘holistic’ideaofsocialchange, i.e.theideathat‘socialexperiments,inordertoberealistic,must beofthecharacterofUtopianattemptsatremodellingthewhole

ofsociety’.WehavealreadyindicatedthebasisforPopper’s rejectionofthisidea:hiscontentionthat‘thewholeofsociety’is alogicallyandscientificallyuntenablenotion.Againstit,Popper advocatesthe‘piecemeal’approachtosocialexperiments,concentratingonthefightagainst‘definitewrongs,againstconcrete formsofinjusticeorexploitation,andavoidablesufferingsuchas povertyorunemployment’.Hesupportsthispositionbya pluralisticphilosophyofhistory.Accordingtoit,onemay interprethistoryintermsofclassstruggles,orofreligiousideas, orofraces,orofthestrugglebetweenthe‘open’andthe‘closed’ society,etc.:

Allthesearemoreorlessinterestingpointsofview,andassuchperfectly unobiectionable.Buthistoricistsdonotpresentthemassuch:theydonot seethatthereisnecessarilyapluralityofinterpretationswhicharefundamentallyonthesamelevelofbothsuggestivenessandarbitrariness(even thoughsomeofthemmaybedistinguishedbytheirfertility—apointof someimportance).

Theparenthesiscontainsindeedapointofsomeimportance—so muchsothattheconceptof‘fertility’,ifelaborated,maywell cancelthecompleterelativismexpressedintheprecedingpassage. Andastothehistoricistsnotseeingthisrelativism:theview expressedbyPopperhasbeenoneofthemostrepresentative positionsoftraditionalhistoricism.

Popperhasherewithrestatedsomeofthephilosophicalfoundationsofclassicalliberalism;Hayekloomslargeinthesupporting footnotes,andthecritiqueofhistoricismislargelyajustification ofliberalismagainsttotalitarianism.Liberalismandtotalitarianismappearastwodiametricallyopposedsystems:opposedintheir economicsandpoliticsaswellasintheirphilosophy.The questionis:doesthispicturecorrespondtotheactualrelation betweenliberalismandtotalitarianism?Itisavitalquestion,and especiallyvitalforagenuineandeffectivecritiqueofanti-liberal

philosophies.OnedoesnothavetoaccepttheMarxianthesisthat free,competitive,privatecapitalismleads,preciselybyvirtueof itsinherentnormaldevelopment,tototalitarianism(i.e.increasingcentralizationofeconomicandpoliticalpower,ultimately exercisedbythestate)inordertosuspectthataliberalisticsociety isnotimmunetototalitariantrendsandforces.Thetendency towardstheincreasingpoweroftheStateissufficientlynoticeable insocietieswhicharenotexactlycharacterizedbyapredominance of‘holist’doctrinesandinwhichthe‘piecemeal’ratherthanthe totalitarianapproachprevailed.Wereliberalgradualismand pluralismperhapsderivedfromthebeliefina‘law’noless ‘inexorable’thanthatassumedbythe‘holists’,namelythelawof themarket,expressingtheharmonybetweenthefreelycompeting privateinterestsandthegeneralwelfarePHasthemarketequalized oraggravatedtheinitialinequalityandtheconflictsofinterests generatedbyit?Hasfreecompetition,economicandintellectual, preventedorpromotedtheconcentrationofpowerandthecorrosionofindividualliberties?Havenotthesetrends,inthe democraciestoo,reachedthepointwheretheStateisincreasingly calledupontoregulateandprotectthewhole?Theexistenceof countervailingpowersseemstobeoflittleavailiftheythemselves impelcentralization,andiftheoppositionisinthesameboatas thepowerwhichitopposes.Moreover,industrialcivilizationhas, atthenationalandinternationallevel,socloselyinterrelated economicandpolitical,localandlargescale,particularand generalprocessesthateffective‘piecemealsocialengineering’ appearsasafiectingthewholestructureofsocietyandthreatening afundamentalchange.Whetherornotthesetrendsleadto terroristictotalitarianismdepends,notonaphilosophyofhistory andsociety,butontheexistenceofsocialgroupswillingand strongenoughtoattacktheeconomicandpoliticalrootsof totalitarianism.Theserootsareinthepus-totalitarianera. Ifthesearereallytheobservabletrends,thentheabstract oppositionbetweenliberalismandtotalitarianismimpliedin Popper’spresentationdoesnotadequatelyexpressthestateof afiairs.Instead,thelatterratherseemstosuggesta‘dialectical’

relationshipbetweentwohistoricalperiodsofoneandthesame formofsociety.Popper’srejectionofdialecticsisnotincidental: ananti-dialecticallogicisessentialtohisargument.Itisso becausedialecticallogicisthroughoutpermeatedwithwhathe designatesas‘historicism’:itsmethodsanditsnotionsareshaped inaccordancewiththehistoricalstructureofreality.Farfrom ‘denyingthevalidityoflogic’,dialecticallogicintendstorescue logicbybridgingthegapbetweenthelawsofthoughtandthose governingreality—agapwhichisitselftheresultofthehistorical development.Dialecticallogicattemptstoaccomplishthistask bybringingthetwomanifestationsofrealitytotheiractual commondenominator,namely,history.Initsmetaphysicalform, thisisalsothecoreofHegel’sdialectic:SubjectandObject,Mind andNature—thetwotraditional‘substances‘—arefromthe beginningconceivedasanantagonisticunity,andtheuniverseas theconcretedevelopmentoftheirinterrelation.Thisundertaking involvedaredefinitionoftheformsandcategoriesoftraditional logic:theylosttheirmodeof‘yes’or‘no’,‘either—or’andassumed that‘ambiguous’,dynamic,evencontradictorycharacterwhich makesthemsoridiculoustotheprotagonistsofpuritybutwhich correspondssocloselytoreality.Therealisticcharacterof dialecticalthoughtcomestofruitionintheinterpretationof history.Thelattermaybestbeillustratedbycontrastingitwith Popper’sviewthathistoriansareinterestedin‘actual,singular,or specificevents,ratherthaninlawsorgeneralizations’.Incontrast totheoppositionbetween‘singular’and‘law’,‘specific'and ‘general’expressedinPopper’sstatement,thedialecticalconcep— tionholdsthattheactual,specific,singulareventbecomescomprehensibleonlyifitisunderstoodasconstitutedbythe‘general’, astheparticularmanifestationofa‘law’.Andthis‘general’is somethingveryconcreteanddemonstrable,namelythesociety inwhichthespecificeventsoccurataspecificstageofitsdevelopment.Thedialecticalnotionofhistoricallawsimpliesnoother ‘destiny’thanthatwhichmencreateforthemselvesunderthe conditionsofunmasterednatureandsociety.Thelessasocietyis rationallyorganizedanddirectedbythecollectiveeffortsoffree

men,themorewillitappearasanindependentwholegovernedby ‘inexorable’laws.Themannerinwhichmenexplainandexploit nature,andthesocietalinstitutionsandrelationshipswhichthey givethemselvesareactualandspecifichistoricalevents,butevents whichoccuronagroundalreadyprepared,onabasealready built.Onceinstitutionalized,eachsocietyhasitsframeworkof potentialitiesdefiningthescopeanddirectionofchange.His— toricaldeterminismhasfreedomasaconstitutiveelement:the latterisdefinedandconfinedbythe‘whole’—butthewholecan be(andconstantlyis)redefined,somuchsothatthehistorical processcannotevenberegardedasirreversible.Thereare‘laws’, thereishistoricallogicinthesequenceofancientslavesociety, feudalism,‘free’industrialcapitalism,statecapitalismandcontemporarysocialism:oneemergeswithintheotheranddevelops, undertheprevalentconditions,itsownlawsoffunctioningasa wholesystemofmaterialandintellectualculture—ademonstrable ‘unity’.However,theseverylawsdonotallowpredictabilityof progress.Thepresentsituationindicatesclearlyenoughthata returntooriginalbarbarismappearsasahistoricalpossibility. Again:certainlynotasaninexorable‘destiny’inacycleofgrowth anddecay,progressandregression,etc.butasaman-made destiny,forwhichresponsibilitycanbeassignedandwhichcanbe explained(asfailure,impotence,evenimpossibilitytoactotherwise)—explainedintermsofthestructureoftheestablished societyandtheformsofcontrol,manipulation,andindoctrination requiredforthepreservationofthisstructure.Itthenappears thatthealternativetoprogressivebarbarism(andtherehave alwaysbeenalternatives!)maywellinvolveachangeinthe structureofsociety,inotherwords,a‘holist’changewhichis Popper’srealbé‘tenoire.

Here,Isuggest,isthedrivingforcebehindPopper’sattackon historicism.Itis,Ibelieve,inthelastanalysisastruggleagainst history—notspelledwithacapitalH,buttheempiricalcourseof history.Anyattempttorescuethevaluesofliberalismand democracymustaccountfortheemergenceofasocietythatplays havocwiththesevalues.Attheattainedstage,thisdevelopment

threatenstoobliteratethedifferencebetweenwarandpeace, betweenmilitaryandciviliandrill,betweentechnicalandintellectualmanipulation,betweentherationalityofbusinessandthat ofsociety,betweenfreeanddependententerprise,privacyand publicity,truthandpropaganda.Thesetendenciesareafflictions ofthewhole:originatingfromthecentre(i.e.thebasicsocietal institutions),theypenetrateandshapeallspheresofexistence. Moreover,theyarenotconfinedtototalitariancountries;they arenotattributabletoa‘holist’or‘Utopian’philosophy;andthey haveassertedthemselveswithintheframeworkofpluralistic institutionsandgradualistpolicies.Contemporarysocietyis increasinglyfunctioningasarationalwholewhichoverridesthe lifeofitsparts,progressesthroughplannedwasteanddestruction,andadvanceswiththeirresistibleforceofnature—as governedbyinexorablelaws.Insistenceontheseirrational aspectsisnotbetrayaloftheliberalistictradition,buttheattempt torecaptureit.The‘holism’whichhasbecomerealitymustbe metbya‘holist’critiqueofthisreality.

Freedomandthe HistoricalImperative [I969]

Publisher’snote:ThisessaywasdeliveredinEnglishasalectureatthe RencontreInternationaledeGenévein1969andfirstpublishedinFrenchas ‘LaLibertéetlesimpératifsdel’histoire'inLaLibem‘ctI'OrdreSocial, EditionsdelaBaconniére,Neuchitel,1970.Thetextusedhereisthe author’sEnglishoriginal.

‘HistoricalImperatives’:thephrasesuggeststheexistenceof historicallawsgoverningthedevelopmentofcivilization,and,if linkedwiththeconceptoffreedom,itsuggeststheideaofprogress inhistory.Ishalltrytodiscussthetopicwithoutacceptingthe highlyquestionableassumptionsimpliedintheformulationof thetheme.

Imperativesoccurinhistoryfirstasindividual,personal necessitiesofaction,derivedfromtheacceptanceofspecific goals,ends.Theyarenevercategoricalbecausetheydepend,for theirvalidity,ontheacceptanceofsuchgoals.Touseagainthe familiarexample:ifCaesarwantedtodefeatPompei,itwas imperativeforhimtocrosstheRubicon.Thiscourseofaction wasprescribed,inCaesar’sevaluation,bytheendtobeachieved andbytheprevailingcircumstances.Thesewere‘given’,thusthe ‘ought’followedfromthe‘is’-—aconditional‘ought’.Butthe sameexamplemayservetoillustrateaverydifferentimperative, whichcontainstheindividualgoalandtheconditional‘ought’ whiletranscendingthemtowardsasupra-individual‘goal’tobe achievedbysupra-individualaction:pmxis.Theinstitutionsof theRomanstatewerenolongeradequatetocopewiththeconflicts whichhaddevelopedwithRomansociety,andnolongeradequate totranslateintorealitythepossibilitiesofgrowthopenedbythis society.Self—preservationandgrowthmadeimperativesweeping changesintheexistinginstitutions:thetransformationofthecity stateintotheempire,oftherepublicintothemonarchy.Hegel’s ‘cunningofreason’:inandthroughthepersonalambitionsand actionsofCaesar,thetransitiontoa‘higher’stageofthehistorical development,i.e.offreedom,istakingplace:theSubject,without losingwhateverfreedomitmayhavehad,becomestheObjectof historicalnecessity.Ishallcomebacktotheconceptofthe ‘higher’stageof‘progress’explicitinHegel’snotion:thereare goodreasonstorejectit—reasonswhichbecomemoreevident everyday.NowIwanttodiscussthequestionwhetherHegel’s theorymustberejectedbecauseitisbasedonamere‘value judgement’,namely,thatprogressinfreedom(quantitativelyand qualitatively)isahistoricalnecessity.Theanswerdoesnotdepend

onacceptanceordenialofhisconceptofReasonasthedriving forceinhistory.Wecanwellassumesomesortofimpulse, instinctivestrivingforfreedominherentinman,withReason superimposedonitbytherequirementsoftheRealityPrinciple. Tojustifytheconceptofobjectivehistoricalimperatives,wehave torecognizeonlyonefact(or‘value’)ashistoricaldatum,namely, thatthedynamicofhumanexistenceisself-preservationand growth,i.e.notonlysatisfactionofbiologicalneedsbutalso developmentoftheneedsthemselvesinaccordancewiththe possibilitieswhichemergeintheconstantstrugglewithnature (andwithman).Anditisalsoafactthatthisstrugglewithnature hasledtoevermoreandlargerpossibilitiesofsatisfactionof needs.Ifthisisthecase,wecanmeaningfullyspeakofgrowth(in thesenseindicated)asaforceinhistory(withoutanyteleological andmoralconnotations,regardlesswhetherthiskindofprogress isgoodorbad,andwhetheritimpliesprogressinfreedom).And thenwecanmeaningfullyspeakofhistoricalimperativesinasmuch astheoperationofthisforcedependsonchanginggivensocial andnaturalconditionswhichdefinespecificalternativesofpraxis: the‘is’containsthe‘ought’;thelattermustbefreedfromthis containmentbyobsolescent,andsurmountable,formsofreality. Nowwecanraisethequestionwhetherfreedomisimpliedor postulatedbytheseimperatives.Inonesenseitcertainlyis:the individualmustbefreetoacquirethemeanstoattainhisend: self-preservationandgrowth.However,thiskindoffreedomis variabletothehighestdegree:inhistory,itrangesfromthemere physicalabilitytoacceptandusethemeansofsubsistence,tothe powerofdominationandexploitation.Anditincludesarich freedomofchoicewithinastrongframeworkofrepression,of unfreedom.Thereisonebrutefactwhichmustguideany unideologicaldiscussionoffreedom:sincethebeginningsof recordedhistoryandtothisveryday,thelibertyofsomehas alwaysbeenbasedontheservitudeofothers,andtheonlyconcept offreedomthatcorrespondedtothefactswastheconceptof ‘inner’freedom,inalienableandpracticableeveninprisonandat thestake.WhethercalledChristianfreedom,orfreedomof

conscienceandworship—thishasbeentothisverydaytheonly freedomavailabletomanasman:‘essential’humanfreedom. Essentialindeedifthebodyisinessential,andifthisistheonly freedomwhichcanbeclaimedaspertainingandasgrantedtoall men,regardlessofclass,race,religion.Freedomofthoughtis alreadyofadifferentorderandfarless‘real’:itisfreedomonlyif translatableintoexpression,andthelatterhasbeenpolitically restrictedthroughouthistory—ifnotbydirectcensorshipthenby withholding,fromthelargerpartofthepopulation,theintellectualandmaterialmeanswhichwouldenablethemtodevelop andexpressfreethought.Iffreedomisman’sabilitytodetermine hisownlifewithoutdeprivingothersofthisability,thenfreedom hasneverbeenahistoricalreality—tothisveryday.Doesthis meanthattheimperativesofhistoryprecludetherealizationof freedominanyotherthanapartial,repressive,ideologicalform? Inotherwords:havethehistoricalconditionsnotyetmaturedto thepointwheretheself—preservationandgrowthofhuman existencewouldberealself—determination,notonlyofcertain groupsorindividualsbutofthespeciesman—humanity?The affirmativeanswerisfamiliar:suchintegralfreedomisprecluded bythepersistenceofscarcity,therequirementsofthestruggle withnature,andtheasocialcharacterofhumannature.Marxian theoryintegratesthesethreefactorsintothegeneralconceptof historyasthehistoryofclassstruggles.Theobjectiveimperatives ofhistoryweredefinedbythenecessityofassuringthepreserva— tionandgrowthofaspecificformofclasssocietywhichmilitated againsttherealizationoffreedom.However,theproductiveforces (thetermdesignatingthesum-totaloftheresourcesforliberation availabletoagivensociety)developedwithintheclasssocieties havereachedthestagewheretheytendtoexplodetheclass organizationitself:atthisstage,freedombecomesanobjective possibility;atthisstagetoo,thehistoricalSubjectappearscapable ofbuildingasocietyinwhichtheimperativesofself-preservation andgrowthcanbecometheimperativesoffreedom:reconciliationofnecessityandliberty.Again,the‘is’impliesthe‘ought’, thestatusquocallsforitsabrogation:theprevailingmaterialand

intellectualconditionsdemandaradicallydifferentformof societyinordertosustainhumanprogress.

Ihavebrieflyre—statedtheMarxianconceptioninorderto showhowitsverylimitations,nayitsobsolescence,testifytoits validity.Ifthereisanyconceivablesenseinwhichitcanbesaid: ‘ifthefactscontradictthetheory,theworseforthefacts’—hereit is.OnecouldimagineMarxlookingattheworldtodayandsaying: ‘Itoldyouso,notinmypredictionsbutinmyanalysisofyour society.’Thisanalysisshowedthatalldevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesbytheestablishedsocietywouldperpetuateand increasetheproductivityofdestructionandrepression,andthat thisfatallinkcouldbebrokenonlybythepraxisofaclasswhose vitalneedwas,nottheperpetuationandameliorationbutthe abolitionoftheestablishedsociety.Andthisabolitionwouldbe liberation:freedomappearsfirstasnegation;the‘positive’ definitionoffreedomremainsanX,anopenvariable—just:selfdetermination.

Itmustbenotedthat,inthisconception,freedomdoesnot appearasahistoricalimperative,inthesensethattheprevailing conditions‘prescribe’itasthenecessarynext(orhigher)stageof thedevelopment.Theprevailingconditionsareobjectively ambivalent:theyofferthepossibilityofliberation,andthatof streamlinedservitude,i.e.thevastadministrative‘Gehiiuseder Hfirigleeit’(houseofbondage)whichMaxWeberenvisaged.This istheambivalenceofprogress:quantitativeand/orqualitative; technicalprogressand/ortheemergenceofself-determinationas thewayoflife,intellectualandmaterial,ofanewrationalityand sensibility.Qialitativeprogressmaywellentailnotonlyaredirectionbutalsoareductionofthedevelopmentoftheproductiveforceswherethelatterpromoteswasteandaggression, anddemandsthesubjectionofmantothemachine.Thetransitionfromservitudetofreedomrequiresatotaltransvaluationof valuesbutitdoesnotrequirethatself-propellingquantitative progressonwhichcapitalismdependsforitssurvival.

Oyantitativeprogress,ashistoricalimperative,ispartofthe ideologyandpraxisofdomination.Tothedegreetowhichthe

latterdependsonthetechnologicalincreaseintheproductivityof labourandontheprivateappropriationofsurplusvalue,itmust ofnecessityfosterandexpandtheproductionofcommodities. Andthehighertheleveloftheproductivityoflabour,thelarger themassofluxurygoodswhichbecomenecessitiesoflifeand whichhavetobepurchasedbyintensive,alienatedlabour.Under thetechnologicalimperative,societycreatesalltheneedsforthe satisfactionofneedswithaminimumoftoilwhilesubjectingthe satisfactionofneedstotheconstantlyexpandingapparatusof labour.Inotherwords,withinthecapitalistframework,technical progresscreatesthepreconditionsforfreedomwhileatthesame timeunderminingthem.Liberationdoesnotdependonthe prevalenceofabundance(aself—propellingnotionwhichallows theconstant‘postponement’offreedom),andtheformula‘to eachaccordingtohisneeds’doesnotimplytheinsatiabilityof humannature.Thelatterconcepttoobelongstothearsenalof domination:itjustifiestheperpetuationofalienatedlabourand thesubmissiontoit.Freedompresupposesastageintheconquest ofnaturewherethevitalnecessitiesoflifecanbeprocuredwitha minimumofworkandtimesothatproductionbeyondtheneces— sitiescanbecomeamatterofself-determination.Marxbelieved thatthisstagewasinsight,intheadvancedindustrialcountries, alreadyinthe18605.Lackingwere,notthematerialconditions butthepoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkingclassesandtheir organizations.‘Therootofthingsisman’:theanalysisofthe prospectsofliberationmustbreakthroughthereificationwhich mystifiestheestablishedsocietyaswellasthealternatives.It takesthehistoricalSubjectofchangeassomethingthatexists likeanobject,whileinfactthisSubject(Marx’srevolutionary class)comesintobeingonlyintheprocessofchangeitself.Itisa collectiveSubject,andinthissenseanabstraction,butthe abstractioncomestolifeintheindividualsactinginsolidarityin acommoninterest.

TheSubjectemergesasthedecisivefactor:thehistorical imperativesareinthelastanalysisgivenbymen.Fortheobjective conditionswhichdefinetheseimperativesarenever‘unilateral‘,

unambiguous:theyalwaysoffer,notone,butseveralalternatives. Thehistoricalchoice:socialismorbarbarism,eachofthetwoin difl'erentforms.TheSubjectisfreetochoose:inthischoiceofa possiblehistoricalpraxiswhichtranscendstheestablishedpraxis istheessenceofhumanfreedom.Andthisfreedomisnota‘fact’, neitheratranscendentalnorahistoricalfact—itisthefaculty (andactivity)ofmen‘synthesizing’(organizing)thedataof experiencesothattheyrevealtheirown(objective)negativity, namely,thedegreetowhichtheyarethedataofdomination.And thisradicallycriticalsynthesisofexperienceoccursinthelightof therealpossibilityofa‘betterworldtolivein’,inthelightofthe possiblereductionofpain,cruelty,injustice,stupidity.Tothe extenttowhichthisdualexperiencehasseizedtheconsciousness andsensibilityofman,tothatextenthasheplacedhimselfunder thehistoricalimperativem-r’é'éoxev:therevolutionaryimperative.Itisindeednotonlyapoliticalbutalso(andperhapseven primarily)anintellectualandmoralimperative,forintelligence andmoralitythemselvesbecomerevolutionaryfactorsiffreed fromtheirserviceashandmaidensofrepression.Apparentlyone canlivequitehappilyinstupidity,andinaworldwheregenocide, torture,andstarvationareeasilyacceptableasjust‘thewayoflife’ —butitisgettingincreasinglydifficultandrequirestheincreasinglyglobalmanagementofhumanneedsandfaculties.

‘Tocomprehendtheworldinordertochangeit’:thisformulationoftherevolutionaryimperativeisanempiricalpostulate, derivedfromtheverybanal(andquite‘unscientific’)experience ofunnecessarysuffering—unnecessaryinasmuchasitisnot requiredbythestruggleforexistencebutimposedbythemanner inwhichthisstruggleisorganizedanddirected.Sincethereisno scientificlogicaccordingtowhichthisimperativecanbevalidated, itisindeedamoralimperative.Therehasalwaysbeenadual moralityinhistory:thatofthestatusquo,andthatofitssubversion:affirmationandnegation—notforthesakeofnegation, butof‘saving’humanvaluesinvalidatedbytheaffirmation.This revolutionarymoralityisrepressedinallthosewhohavelearned (orwereforced)tolivewiththissuffering—easilywhenitisthe

lotofothersoutofsightwhobearitnicely,lesseasilywhenitis theintrojectionofallthefrustrationsrequiredbystatusand business.Withtheachievementsoftechnicalprogressunder advancedcapitalism,thisimmoralityofthebeneficiariesofthe highandblindstandardoflivinghasspreadoveralargepart, probablythemajorityofthepopulation;thusithasbecomea vitalelementinthecohesionandperpetuationofthestatusquo anditsstreamlinedextension.Underthesecircumstances,the validityoftheimperativeseemsanythingbutuniversal:applicableonlytothetechnicallybackwardpeoplesoftheearth,and eventheretheimperativeseemstobenomorethanthetruism thatpeoplewilltrytosubvertintolerableexistentialconditions. Inordertoclarifythisproblem,wehavetoraisethequestion: whichisthestructureandcontentoffreedomasenvisagedinthe revolutionaryimperative?

Isuggestedthattheessenceofhumanfreedomisinthe theoreticalandpracticalsyntheseswhichconstituteandre— constitutetheuniverseofexperience.Thesesynthesesarenever merelyindividualactivities(acts)buttheworkofasupraindividualhistoricalSubjectivityintheindividual—justasthe KantiancategoriesarethesynthesesofatranscendentalEgoin theempiricalEgo.IhaveintentionallyusedtheKantianconstruc— tionofexperience,thatistosayhisepistemologyratherthanhis moralphilosophy,inordertoelucidatetheconceptoffreedomas historicalimperative:freedomoriginatesindeedinthemindof man,inhisability(orratherinhisneedanddesire)tocomprehendhisworld,andthiscomprehensionispraxisinasmuchasit establishesaspecificorderoffacts,aspecificorganizationofthe dataofexperience.Thehumanmindisconstitutedinsuchaway thatitsubjectsthedatareceivedbythesensestocertainconcepts ofrigidlyuniversalorderintimeandspace,andthisactisthe preconditionofallactivity,practicalaswellastheoretical.For Kant,theorganizationofexperienceisuniversalbecauseit happenstobetheverystructureofthehumanmind:thetranscendentalapriorirestsontheacceptanceofafact.Theuniversalityofthisstructureisaformalone:timeandspaceandthe

categoriesconstitutethegeneralframeworkforallexperience. NowIsuggestthatKant’stranscendentalconstructionof experiencemaywellfurnishthemodelforthehistoricalconstructionofexperience.Thelatterwouldbedistinguishedfromthe formerinasmuchastheformsofintuitioninwhichthesense dataappeararepoliticalspaceandpoliticaltime,andtheirsynthesistakesplaceunderpoliticalcategories.

Intheuniverseofthisexperience,allthingsappearasdataofa hierarchy:anordercomposedofrelationshipsofdominationand subordination.Tobesure,thingsareimmediatelyexperiencedas specificusevalues,asaesthetic,sexualobjects,etc.However, reflectionrevealsthattheirStellenwertisdeterminedbythepower structureprevailinginsociety.IfMarxdefinesthesocialwealth ofacapitalistsocietyasamassofcommodities,hemakesthis reflectionthemethodologicalprinciple.Ascommodities,things expressandperpetuateexploitation,unfreedom—theyareavail— ableaccordingtopurchasingpower,whichisinturndetermined bytheclasscharacteroftheproductiveprocess.Thesynthesisof thedataunderpoliticalcategoriesisanempiricalsynthesis,its universalityisarelative,historicalone,butvalidfortheentire societyinallitsbranches,initsmaterialandintellectualculture. Ittransformseverydayconsciousnessandcommonsenseinto politicalconsciousnessandpoliticalsense.Andinthistransformationoriginatesthehistoricalimperativeoffreedom:not onlyliberationinordertoobtainalargersliceofthecake,orin ordertoparticipateactivelyintheadministrationandmanagementoftheestablishedsystembutreplacementofthesystem itselfbyoneofself-determinationonthebasisofcollective controlofthemeansofproduction.Thissocialistformulaisnot restrictedinitsapplicabilitytotheadvancedindustrialsocieties: self—determinationandcollectivecontrolhavealwaysbeen possiblealternativesoftheorganizationofthestrugglefor existence;mutatismutandis,theimperativeoffreedomhasalways beentherepressedimperativeofhistory.

Today,thisrepression(material,intellectual,psychological)has attainedanintensityandefieaivenesswhichmakesitquestion­

ablewhethertheimperativeoffreedomwilleverbetranslated intoreality.Today,itismorethaneverbeforeanimperativein thesensethatitexpressesan‘ought’whichimposesitselfonthe individualagainstinclination(Nezgung),personalneed,interest. Theseneeds,satisfactions,interestsseemtoinvalidatethe imperative,oratleasttomakeitappearasanabstractidea,relic ofapreviouspoliticaltradition,surpassedandcontradictedby therealityoftheadvancedindustrialsocieties.There,liberation easilyappearsasthedisruption,evendestructionofamaterial (andcultural)well-beinginwhicheventheprevailinginhuman workingconditionsmayseemthelesser(andreducible)evilcom— paredwiththeterrifyinguncertaintiesandhorrorsofrevolution. Thematerialandintellectualculturewhichisthemarkof oppressioninthesesocietiesmaywellcontinuetointegratethe populationintothecapitalistsystem,andthelattermaywellbe abletoreproduceitselfonanenlargedscalethroughnee-colonial exploitationabroadandmilitarizationathome,plustheprofitable conquestofouterspace,andthecollaborationoftheSovietUnion. Tobesure,thiskindofprogressisthemanifestationofthe aggravatinginternalcontradictionsofthesystem,butitcangoon foraverylongtime,ravagingthepeople,theland,thesea,andthe air,pollutingthebodiesandtheminds—withthelatteradapting themselvestothesituation.Sothatthefinalexplosionofthese contradictionswillnotbethetransitiontoahigherhistorical stagebutrathertoaperfectbarbarismwherefreedomand automatismcoincide.

Conflictbetweenlibertyandliberation:thelatter,i.e.self— determination,wouldindeedreduce,andperhapsevenabrogate, thoselibertiesofchoiceandexpressionwhichreproduce,inthe individualswhoenjoythem,theestablishedsystem.Forselfdeterminationpresupposesliberationfromthisverysystem.Seen inthelightofthissystemanditsverymaterialbenefits,liberation appearsnotonlyasasubversivebutalsoasahighlyabstract, ‘intellectual’,utopianidea.Triumphofthemoralityofaffirmation,ofpositivism.Notthe‘materialism’ofthepeopleistoblame, notthehighlevelofwell—being,butthatitispreciselythekindof

well—beingwhichisrequiredinordertoreproduceandprotect theexistingpowerstructure:thesatisfactionsareaggressiveand yetsubmissive,administeredandyetspontaneous,standardized andyetindividual.Thisunityofoppositespermeatestheentire structure:itfindsitssupremeexpressioninthefactthatthepeople freelyelecttherulerswhoperpetuateunfreedom.Thelibertyof themastersgoeshandinhandwiththelibertyoftheslaves—once thelatterhaveacceptedthepropositionthatrealself-determina— tionoftheoneisirreconcilablewiththatoftheother-provided thatself-determinationmeansmoreandotherthanthefree choiceofcommodities,varietiesofalienatedlabour,andofpoli— ticalbosses.

Still,theargumentagainstliberationisaverystrongone.In whosenameandauthoritycantherevolutionaryimperativebe imposeduponmillionsandgenerationsofmenwholeadareasonable,goodandcomfortablelife?Ibelievethereisoneanswer(and notanadequateone),namely,therightiswiththevictimsofthis systemofwell—being,thevictimswhopaysuchalargepartofthe costsandwhoareexcludedfromitsblessings,theobjectsof internalaswellasexternalcolonization.Forthem,freedommeans firstofallliberationfrombrutalandcorruptregimesofexploitation,foreignandindigenous.Thisprocesswillinevitablyshatter thecohesionofthesocietiesofwell-being.Confrontedwiththis threat,theymobilizeandmilitarizethemselvestoprotectthe rightorderwithbrutalforce,therebyprovingtheirself—validating hypothesisthatfreedomdemandsrepression.Infact,theyare provingthattheirownfreedomisincompatiblewiththatofthe others.Buttheanswerisinadequatebecausetheliberationofthe backwardpeoplecanneverbeefiectiveandlastingwithouta correspondingchangeintheadvancedsocieties,whoarecapable ofmeetingandcontainingthethreatforalongtimetocome.

Inthesesocieties,theprocessofchangeassumesnewforms, calledforbytheprevailingconditionsofcohesionandintegration. Inthemostadvancedsectorsofthecapitalistorbit,theimperative ofliberationappearsasthatofcontestation.Itisfirstofallasign ofweakness:absenceofarevolutionarysituation.Arevolu­

tionaryclassdoesnotcontest,itfightsfortheseizureofpower. Butthecontestationshowsafeaturerarelymanifestinthe historicalrevolutions,namely,thetotalcharacterofitsclaim.The contestinggroupsandindividualsrefusetorecognizetheestablishedcultureinitsentirety—theyrejectparticipationinits politics,intellectualactivities,etc.,theyrefuserecognitionofthe prevalentformsandstandardsofbehaviour,morality,etc.This makesfortheessentialisolationofthesegroupsandtheiressential minoritariancharacter,andfortheirdesperateeffortstolinktheir (miscwiththatofthe‘masses’,withoutwhichnoradicalchangeis imaginable.Italsomakesforthe‘abstract’andoftenbizarre characterofthecontestation:thediflicultytofocusactionon specific,concreteissueswhichcouldinvolvelargerstrataofthe population.

Thetotalandabstractcharacteroftheprotestreflectsthe actualconditionofanintegrationtheconcretenessofwhich extendstoallclassesofthepopulation.TheGreatRefusalaims atcuttingthefatallinkwhichtiestheself—propellingsatisfaction ofneedstothereproductionofthecapitalistsystem.Thislinkis fastenedintheindividualsthemselves;theneedsofarepressive societyhavebecometheirown;socialcompulsionappearsasthe libertyoftheindividual.Consequently,therevolutionaryimperativeassumestheformofanegation:torejecttheneedsandvalues whichincreasethesocialwealthwhilestrengthening‘voluntary servitude’amongtheprivilegedpopulationofthemetropoles,and streamliningenforcedservitudeintheircolonies,intheThird World.TheideathatthelattercanliberatetheFirstWorldis utterlyunrealistic:itmisjudgesthesheerforceofthematerial andtechnicalbaseofadvancedcapitalism.Thisforcecanbe reducedonlyfromwithin.Thesignsaretherethattheprocesshas begun.Itsmanifestationsarestrangelyunorthodox:therevoltof theintellect,ofthesenses,oftheimagination;theweakeningof thesocialfibre;thediscreditingofthevaluesontheoperationof whichthesystemdepends;andthevastreleaseofaggression spreadingmentaldisturbances.

ApréslamortdeDim,lamortdcI’Hamme:theconquestof

outerspace,planetarycompetitionandaggressionarebeing executedbyrobotsinmachines-stillprogrammedanddirected bymen,butbymenwhosegoalsarecircumscribedbytheactual andpotentialpoweroftheirmachines.Andthispowerisinturn projectedandusedinaceordancewiththerequirementsof profitablecompetitiononaglobalscale.Competitionisbecoming theworkofmachines:technical,politicalmachines,andthe mindswhichdirectthemachinesaredealingwithmenasobjects, andthisreificationtransformstheirmindintoamachine.Thus, liberationincludesliberationofthemachine,oftechniqueand sciencefromtheirghastlyuse—liberationfromthemenwho todaydeterminetheiruse.Forafreesocietyisunimaginable withouttheprogressiveautomationofsociallynecessarybutdehumanizinglabour.

Onthebasisofthecapitalistmodeofproduction,dehumanizationisirreversible.Quantitativeprogressinaggressivecom— petitionisthehistoricalimperativedictatedbyanddictatingthe self—preservationandgrowthofthesystem.Quantitativeprogress wouldturnintoqualitativeprogresstothedegreetowhichthe destructivepotentialitselfwouldbedestroyed:useofscienceand technologyforthetotalreconstructionofreality,withpriorityon theabolitionofpovertyandexploitation,andwiththegoalof creatinganenvironment1%lamesuredcl'homme.Thegoalimplies self-determinationinthemodeofproduction.Theobjective conditions(materialandtechnicalresources)arethere,their liberatingutilizationdependsontheemergenceofanewSubject: aconsciousnessandasensibilityunwillingtoreproducethe statusquo—refusaltocooperate.Suchaconsciousnesswould havetoemergeamongthosesocialclasseswhichassumean increasinglyvitalroleintheprocessofproduction,namely,the cadresofthetechnicalandscientificintelligentsia,whointurn wouldactivatetheconsciousnessofthetraditionalworking classes.Schoolsanduniversities,thenon—integratedyouthappear asthecatalystsinthisdevelopment.

Itsunorthodoxcharacter(priorityofthesubjectivefactor,dislocationoftherevolutionarypotentialfromtheoldworking

classestominoritariangroupsoftheintelligentsiaandwhite collarworkers)correspondstothenewanduniquehistorical situation:possibility,imperativeofarevolutioninahighly advancedandeffectivelyfunctioningindustrialsociety,witha well-organizedandconstantlyimprovedmilitaryandpolice apparatus,andalargelysatisfiedpopulation.Inthissituation,the ideaoffreedomappearsinanewlight.

Forthebeneficiariesofcorporate—capitalistprosperity,freedom iswhattheyhaveanyway(especiallycomparedwiththecoexistingsocialistcountries):aratherrichfreedomofchoice, political,cultural,inmarketterms.Thisfreedomisrealand practicablewithinarigidlystructuredsocialsystem,andit depends(orseemstodepend)onthecontinuedfunctioningof corporatemanagementandadministration.Thisadministration itselfis,behindthetechnologicalveil,dependentonthecontinuationofthestruggleforexistence,i.e.alienatedlabourand exploitation.Thus,the‘given’libertiesmilitateagainstfreedom, thatisself-determination.Thelatterseemslessandlessimperative,lessandless‘valuable’andessentialtothehumanexistence: thesupremechoice,whichistheoriginandpreconditionofall other,namely,thechoiceofone’swayoflife,isnotavitalneed. Unlessanduntilitbecomesavitalneed,restructuringthethought andaction,therationalityandsensibilityoftheindividuals,the chainofexploitationwillnothavebeenbroken—nomatterhow ‘satisfying’lifemaybe.Thereisnohistorical‘lawofprogress’ whichcouldenforcesuchabreak:itremainstheultimateimperativeoftheoreticalandpracticalreason,ofmanashisownlawgiver.Attheattainedstageofthedevelopment,thisautonomyhas becomearealpossibilityonanunprecedentedscale.Itsrealizationdemandstheemergenceofaradicalpoliticalconsciousness, capableofshatteringtheequallyunprecedentedrepressive mystifieationoffacts-itdemandsthepoliticalsynthesisof experienceasaconstitutiveact:torecognizethepoliticsof exploitationintheblessingsofdomination.Ibelievethat,inthe militantyouthoftoday,theradicalpoliticalsynthesisofexperienceistakingplace—perhapsthefirststeptowardliberation.

AdmonitiontoPeace:AReplytothe TwelveArticlesofthePeasantsin Swabio(Luther),6m,6m

AllgemeineStaatslehre(Koellreutter), 146n

AnOpenLetterontheHarshBook againstthePeasants(Luther),6211,6411 Anthropology(Kant),80

Aristotle,187—8

AuthorityintheModernState(Laski), 119n

Aatorita'tandFamilieinderdeutschen Soziologiehis1933(Marcuse),144n

Baader,FranzXavervon,121

Bauer,Bruno,28,41

Bergson,Henri,182

Beyerhaus,Gisbert,6611,70

Ronald,LouisG.A.de,111,112—13, 118—20

Burckhardt,Jacob,144m

Burke,Edmund,111,114m,115,119-20, 121

Calvin,Johannes.53.66-73.78

Qmus,Albert,159—60

Capital(Marx),129-34,137,14011,142n

Comte,Auguste,144

Considérant,Victor,125

ConsidérationssurlaFrance(deMaistre), 111,115

ContestoftheFaculties(Kant),90 Contratsocial(Rousseau),112 CritiqueofPureReason(Kant),19

deBeza,Theodore,69 Dejuremagistratuminsubditos(dc Ban),69

deMaistre,JosephMarie,Come,111, 112,113,114,115—20

Descartes,Rene,159,162,175

Dilthey,Wilhelm,199

Droysen,JohannGustav,199

EarlyTheologicalWritings(Hegel),97n EconomicandPhilosophicalManuscripts (Marx).3-43 Engels,Friedrich,48,135—6

Enzyklopo'diederphilosophischenWissenschaften(Hegel),mm,mm,13011, 106

EthileCalvins,Die(Lobstein),6911,7m EtudesurlaSouveraineté(dcMaistre), 117

FamilieimPuritanismus,Die(Levin Schiicking),78n

Feuerbach,Ludwig,12n,15,19—20,21, 22v24'“)2814'

FirstLentSermonatWittenberg,The (Luther),s7n Fourier,Francois,125 FreedomofaChristian,The(Luthu’),56

GeneralEconomicHistory(Weber),7411 Gentz,Friedrichvon,111,119,121 GeorgesSorel(Freund),148n GermanIdeology,The(Marx),27,28, 3m,138—42 Gorres,Josephvon,121

GottandMenschbeiCalvin(H.Engelland),67n Grou'us,Hugo,125 Grundsa‘tzederPhilosophiederZukunfl (Feuerbach),13n

Haller,KarlLudwigvon,114

Handbucha'erPo'dagogik(Deleltat),79n Hayek,FriedrichA.von,204 Hegel,GeorgWilhelminedrich,4,8, 13)15,[9)21-2!37939140-8!95—1109 112—131‘22,1251I441‘47!I671I751 136,183,201,206,211 Hegel:OntologieanddieGrundlegung einerTheorietierGeschichtlichkeit (Marcuse),13a,17n,108n Hegel’sPoliticalWritings,98n,110n

HegelundderStaat(Rosenzweig),roon Heidegger,Martin,162,163,165,167, 171,186

HistorischeMaterialismus,Der(Marx), 3n

HochverursachteSchutzrede(Minus), 64:1

HolyFamily,The(Marx),24n Husserl,Edmund,167

InstitutesoftheChristianReligion (Calvin),6611,67—71passim,74,78n

IntroductiontotheCritiqueofHegel's PhilosophyofRight(Marx),35,44, 63h

JenenserRealphilosophie(Hegel),13n, 108

Km,Immanuel,19,5!.52.55.57.79— 94,95,96-7.100-1.122.217-18

Kant:LehrevonWiderstandsrecht(Haen— sel),83n

Kant'sPoliticalWritings,8011,8m,8211, 34n,89n

Kierkegaard,Sfiren,188—9 Krieck,Ernst,147n

LargeCatechism(Luther),74—5,77

L'avenirsocialistedessyndicats(Sorel), x47

LehrbuchdertheoretisehenPhilosophieauf thomistischerGrundlage(Grimrnich), 62n

LehreCaloinsvornunfreienWillen,Die (Bamikel),67n,7211

Lenin,VladimirIlych,136

Leslettresflancaises,16m

L’EtreetleNéant(Sartre),161,163—82, 133.189

L’existentialtsmeestunhumanism (Sartre),16m,165—6,171,189

Lobstein,Paul,71

LuthersMartin!51)53155)

9mm.74-8,81.34.89.9°.94.us. 141,162

LutheralsPa'a'agog,75n,76n,77n,78n

Machiavelli,Niccolo,199 ManifestooftheCommunistParty (Marx-Engels),14on,14m

Mannheim,Karl,202

MartinLutherontheBondageoftheWill (DeServoArbitrio)(Packerand Johnston),72n

Marx,KarlHeinrich,3—48,63,128—43, 183,185,183—9,202—3,214,215,218

MatérialismeetRevolution(Sartre),16211, 179,182-6

MetaphysicalElementsoftheTheoryof Law(Kant),82

MetaphysicsofMorals(Kant),82

MindandSociety:ATreatiseonGeneral Sociology(Pareto),150-4 MoellervandenBrock,Arthur,119 Miillcr,Adam,111,121 Miinzer,Thomas,64n MythetieSisyphe,Le(Camus),159—60

NationalpolitischeErzt'ehung(Krieck), 147a Nietzsche,FriedrichWilhelm,144n

OnthePrincipleofAuthority(Engels), 135

OnWarAgainsttheTurk(Luther),64n Pareto,Vilfredo,145,150—5

PhenomenologyofMind(Hegel),4,13, 1711,21,37,39,41—8,108-10,162, 164

PhilosophiederWeltgeschichte(Hegel), 101—4

PhilosophiedesGeistes(Hegel),10m PhilosophyofRight(Hegel),95—106 Plato,202-3

PolitischeRomantile(Schmitt),11zn Popper,KarlR_,193—208 PovertyofPhilosophy,The(Marx),134—5 Proudhon,PierreJoseph,125

Rechtsphilosophie(Stahl),121—7 ReflectionsontheRevolutioninFrance (Burke),111,114

ReflectionsonViolence(Sorel),14911155n ReplytotheQuestion:WhatisEnlightenment?(Kant),Bo RestaurationtierStaatsroissenschafl(von Haller),114n,121 Rickert,Heinrich,199 Rich],WilhelmHeinrichvon,126 Rosenzweig,Franz,10011,107n Rousseau,Jan-Jacques,98,112,122

SaintAugustine,67

Sartre,Jean-Paul,160—90

Schlegel,Friedrich,111,121

Schmitt,Carl,145—6

SehriftenzurPolitileandReehtsphilosophie(Hegel),Ioon SeinandZeit(Heidegger),162 SermononGoodWorks(Luther),74,77 SermonontheBan(Luther),an Simmel,Georg,199 Smith,Adam,3m

SoeialBasisoftheGermanReformation, The(Pascal),63n

SoeialTeachingoftheChristianChurches, The(Troeltsch),69n,7Bn sore]!Georges!147—9!154—5

Spengler,Oswald,199 Staat,Bewegung,Vol}:(Schmitt),I46n Stahl,FriedrichJ.,111,121—7 Stirner,Max,27,28,3m,175 Strauss,DavidFriedrich,41 StudienzarStaatsansehauangCalvin: (Beyerhaus),66n,67n,7on SummaTheologiae(ThomasAquinas), 7zn

SystemofMorality(Hegel),108

TableTalk(Luther).77

TemporalAuthority.'ToWhatExtentIt ShouldbeObeyed(Luther),591:,6111 TheorieduPouvoir(Bonald),111 ThesesonFeaerbaeh(Marx),21 ThirdLentSermonatWittenberg,The (Luther).57“ ThomasAquinas,72 Thucydides,199 TotheChristianNobilityoftheGerman NationConcerningtheRefirrmofthe ChristianEstate(Luther),73n Toynbee,ArnoldJ.,199 TreatiseonGoodWorks(Luther),53 6411.72

Troeltsch,Ernst,69,199

Vico,GiovanniBattista,199 Vol/eimWerden(Kriecls),I47n VonderAutorita't(Engels),135n

Weber,Max,74,214 WhatistobeDone?(Lenin),136n WhetherSoldiers,Too,CanbeSaved (Luther).59n Windelband,Wilhelm,199

ZumProblemderDialeletile(Marcuse), 39“