PRAXIS REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE EDITION INTERNATIONALE Comite de redaction Branko Bošnjak, Danko Grlić, Milan Kangrga, Veljko Korać, Andrija Krešić, Ivan Kuvačić, Mihailo Marković, Gajo Petrović, Svetozar Stojanović, Rudi Supek, Ljubomir Tadić, Predrag Vranicki, Miladin Životić Redacteurs en chef Veljko Korać et Gajo Petrović Secretaires de redaction Branko Despot et Nebojša Popov Redacteur technique Gvozden Flego Comite de soutien Kostas Axelos (Paris), Alfred J. Ayer (Oxford), Zygmund Baumann (Tel-Aviv), Norman Birnbaum (Amherst), Ernst Bloch (Tubingen), Thomas Bottomore (Brighton), Umberto Cerroni (Roma), Mladeri Caldarović (Zagreb), Robert S. Cohen (Boston), Veljko Cvjetičanin (Zagreb), Božidar Debenjak (Ljubljana), Mihailo Đurić (Beograd), Marvin Farber (Buffalo), Vladimir Filipović (Zagreb), Eugen Fink (Freiburg), Ivan Focht (Sarajevo), Erich Fromm (Mexico City), f Lucien Goldmann (Paris), Zagorka Golubović (Beograd), Andre Gorz (Paris), Jurgen Habermas (Starnberg), Erich Heintel (Wien), Agnes Heller (Budapest), Besim Ibrahimpašić (Sarajevo), Mitko llievski (Skopje), Leszek Kolakowski (Warszawa), Karel Kosik (Praha), Henri Lefebvre (Paris), f Georg Lukacs (Budapest), / Serge Mallet (Paris), Herbert Marcuse (San Diego), Enzo Pad (Milano), Howard L. Parsons (Bridgeport), David Riesman (Cam­ bridge, Mass.), Veljko Rus (Ljubljana), Abdulah Sarčević (Sara­ jevo), Ivan Varga (Budapest), Kurt H. Wolff (Newton, Mass.), Aldo Zanardo (Bologna). Editeurs HRVATSKO FILOZOFSKO DRUŠTVO SAVEZ FILOZOFSKIH DRUŠTAVA JUGOSLAVIJE L’edition internationale est imprimće par lTmprimerie: IBG — Tiskara »Zagreb« — Zagreb, Preradovićeva 21 PD A YIC REVUE philosophique I l \ / \ ^ I ^ EDITION INTERNATIONALE ZAGREB, 4e TRIMESTE 1973. 9*me ANNEE, No 4 MARXISME ET CONSCIENCE SOCIALE Svetozar Stojanović / From Post-revolutionary Dictatorship to Socialist D e m o crac y ......................................................311 Ivan Kuvačić / Middle Class Id e o lo g y ................................. 335 Zagorka Golubović / Why is Functionalism more Desirable in Present-day Yugoslavia than M arxism ...................357 COMPTES RENDUS ET NOTES Veljko Cvjetičanin / Ljubomir Tadić, Tradicija i revolucija (Tradition et revolution)..................................................... 369 Branko Bošnjak / Max Miiller, Erfahrung und Geschichte 375 Neven Sesardić / A. N. Prior, Objects of Thought .... 378 Blaženka Despot / Wolfgang Harich, Zur Kritik der revo- lutionaren Ungeduld .......................................................... 380 Jordan Jelić / Corrado Barberis, Gli operai-contadini 382 APPENDICE Index des auteurs, Praxis, Edition intemationale 1973 . 387 Index des titres et des auteurs, Praxis, Edition internatio- nale 1965—1973................................................................... 389 Forthcoming: PRAXIS, International Edition No. 1—2/1974 SOCIALISM AND THE BOURGEOIS WORLD (Papers reaad at the Xth Session of the Korčula Summer School) Contributions by Ernst Bloch, Rudi Supek, Predrag Vranicki, Veljko Korać, Jurgen Habermas, Gajo Petrović, Lucio Lom- bardo-Radice, Mihailo Marković, Ivan Kuvačić, Srđan Vrcan, Abraham Edel, Svetozar Stojanović, Stefan Morawski, Danko Grlić and others. APPENDIX Gajo Petrović: Three Philosophical Lenins Prema MIŠLJENJU Republičkog sekretarijata za prosvjetu, kulturu i fizičku kulturu broj 4849/1-1972 od 10. 11. 1972., časo­ pis »Praxis« je oslobođen plaćanja poreza na promet proizvoda. MARXISME ET CONSCIENCE SOCIALE j FROM POST-REVOLUTIONARY DICTATORSHIP TO SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY1 YUGOSLAV SOCIALISM AT THE CROSSROADS Svetozar Stojanović Beograd There in only one adequate word to describe the present social situation in Yugoslavia, and that word is crisis. For a long time now, the intellectuals of the Left, and, more recently, the leftist student movement, especially since 1968, have been dramatically drawing attention to the accumulating symptoms of the impending crisis. However, awareness of the crisis has become widespread only since the deterioration of the relationships between the Yu­ goslav nationalities (the most sensitive side of Yugoslav life) caused a kind of social neurosis. It is no longer possible to conceal the true state of affairs by verbal evasions or by well-known intellectual acrobatics, using the notion of the »transitional period.« This notion in itself does not say much, for every period is a transition between two others, one past and one future. The »only« question is what will the period toward which the transition is heading be like. The fatalistic op­ timism of our officials, so clearly exposed by the satirist’s aphorism »The past is constantly changing, but the future is fully certain«, has been discredited long ago. In fact, even some officials speak of the seriousness of the si­ tuation, and even of crisis. However, this is done with an attitude of peculiar objectivism, as if the crisis were a natural catastrophe in which they have taken no part and for which they share no responsibility. Nearly all of them remain »at the head« of the crisis, just as before they were »at the head« of stagnation, and before that, »at the head« of success. It is not difficult to foresee 1 A paper read at the International Korchula Summer School in August 1971. It was published in the Serbo-Croat edition of »Praxis« 3—4/1972. 311 that most of them will simply continue their attacks on radical Marxists who are resolute in exposing the sources of the crisis, rather than seek a genuine solution. 2. Stalinists also speak of the Yugoslav crisis. But in my opinion, the Yugoslav crisis is not the result of destalinization, but, on the contrary, its source lies in the unwillingness to be radical in this break with the past. The Stalinists have no reason to rejoice since their own system is in an even more hopeless predicament. One need not cite past examples to substantiate this point; there are more recent ones, e. g.f Poland (1971), and Czechoslovakia (1968). However, we must be on our guard against theoretical mono­ mania which is quite common in Yugoslavia. It should be empha­ sized that the suspending of destalinization, although essential, is only one (although essential) of several reasons for the crisis and cannot, therefore, provide a complete explanation. I should add that I am deliberately speaking of »destalinization« avoiding as much as possible the official euphemism »destatization«, because this latter term seems to lend itself to ideological mystifications, due to its abstract and non-historical character. Finally, I shall be speaking here only of the political dimension of the crisis; a full discussion would have to take into consideration the economic and moral dimensions as well. Without an adequate historical consciousness it is not possible to develop a sufficiently sharp social consciousness with regard to the present. We are, unfortunately, still far from possessing an adequate knowledge of the history of the Yugoslav Communist Party and the Yugoslav revolution. This is not simply an accident nor the result of sheer intellectual inability. It is instead the case of the dominant interest in the society imposing a limit on histo­ rical knowledge. It is to be hoped, never-the-less, that historians will be resolute enough to undertake a revision of the official picture of the history of the Yugoslav Communist Party and the Yugoslav revolution. The official version obscures the close connection between the Stalinist social organization adopted at the time of the taking over power and the Stalinist dimension of the Yugoslav Communist Party before and during the revolution. It is therefore necessary to investigate immediately the process of »Bolshevization« (the pe­ riod expression for Stalinization) of the Yugoslav Communist Party; sectarianism of the Party; the Party’s attitude towards the leftist intellectuals; the suppression of internal opposition to the Stalinization of the Party; the relationships between the Yugoslav Communists in the USSR, especially at the time of the Stalinist purges; the revolutionary terror during the war and after the victory. Until now, the primary concern of Marxists, both in Yugo­ slavia and throughout the world, has been the struggle with Sta­ lin’s cult. There have been very few serious studies of the charis­ 312 matic leaders and their role in socialist revolutions and in post- -revolutionary developments. Since the need for an investigation of this kind is evident, we may conclude that the lack of it is due to the power of charisma, rather than to intellectual incompetence. Stalin’s cult represented an immense material power and not a few Yugoslav communists, who were torn apart by a painful dilemma between two charismatic giants, were broken by it in 1948 and chose to follow the hierarchic principle, betraying the domestic for the international charisma. It may be said that until now the socialist revolutions have not been able to summon up the strength to treat their leaders only as human, and therefore, as limited beings. They have, in this respect completely failed, since they have in fact allowed their leaders to achieve unrestricted power. As Sartre said: »Human roles always have a reference to the future: to each of us they appear as tasks to be fullifilled, snares to be avoided, power to be exercised, etc.« (»The Question of Method«) Revolutionary leaders should be no exception, since they too, as long as they live, are a potential source of evil as well as good. Nevertheless, even during their lifetime their historical role is given a »definitive«