Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
There is much discussion today of the nature and causes of the crisis racking the advanced
capitalist countries. How should we define its structural characteristics and draw up an
initial balance sheet?
In general we can say that the economic crisis has got steadily worse. By now
everyone knows that we are not dealing with a short recession, and that unem-
ployment will be a problem well into the 1980s. This is an obvious fact. What
we should explore is the impact of the slump on the consciousness of the
working class. In Germany the crisis is having a disciplinary effect. That is,
within the frameworkor more accurately on the basis oflegally guaranteed
social security, it has proved possible to nip protest movements in the bud.
Although not entirely unexpected, this process demands some explanation. The
constraining pressure of the crisis has not only prevented any electoral turbu-
lence, it has evoked deep conservative sentiments amongst the population,
which have found a cultural echo amongst intellectuals and in the rhetoric of
73
political parties. This neo-conservative current, which first emerged in
the early 1970s, has been enormously strengthened in the new economic
environment.
In 1973 you gave a talk at the Goethe Institute in Rome whose title was Was
Heisst Heute Krise? Five years later, how would you reply to the same
question: what is the meaning of crisis today?
I would say that in the last few years it has become clear that the origins
of the crisis still lie in the economic system of capitalism, but that the
Welfare State no longer allows the crisis to explode in an immediately
economic form. Instead, when there is a recession and large-scale
unemployment, the symptoms of the crisis are displaced into strains
within the cultural and social order. Recent years have rather confirmed
me in the conviction that today the onset of an economic crisis does
not generally lead to a political response, either by organized workers
or trade unionsor in our own case in Germany, by the Social
Democratic Partyof a rationally calibrated type. Instead, reactions to
the crisis take the very mediated form of an overloading of the mechan-
isms of social and cultural integration. The result is a much bigger
ideological discharge than in periods of capitalist development
characterized by high employment. The direction of this discharge is
two-fold. On one hand the work ethic is incredibly re-inforced: there
is a rehabilitation of competitive behaviour, pursuit of gain, and
exaltation of virtues conducive to a high mobility of labour. For it is
necessary to induce people to accept work they would not otherwise
perform of their own free will, or for which they have not had the
necessary preparation. The accent is thus placed on an acquisitive ethic
and instrumental virtues. This orientation penetrates deeply into the
first years of schooling, to the point of dominating the whole educa-
tional system.
The other direction taken by this ideological discharge is a revitaliza-
tion of traditional virtues and values: in the first instance those of an
anti- or a-political private life, whose literary reflection is a new
subjectivism, and a revival (in its own way a pleasing one) of poems and
novels in lieu of critical or analytic works on the present historical
epoch, or sociological and political treatises. The result is an essentially
rhetorical response to the bureaucratization and other negative con-
sequences of capitalist growth. But I think that we have to take seriously
that aspect of the propaganda of the Right which deals with real needs
and offers a conservative solution to real problems. For in the criticisms
of bureaucratism, as in the revaluation of traditional ways of life, in the
spontaneous reactions not only against the destruction of the environ-
ment but against the dangers of atomic energy, and even in the resist-
ance to administratively imposed educational reforms, there is a basic
problem at stake which was a very important one for both Marx and
Weber. In the course of capitalist development and of a politically
uncontrolled process of accumulation, the partial administrative and
economic rationality that is functional to such an economic system
gradually penetrates and restructures ever broader spheres of life,
which should on their own be evolving completely different forms of
rationalitythat is, practical and moral agencies, democratic and
74
participatory processes of forming a collective will. In other words,
there is thus actually a greater need today for types of relations within
which more subjectivity and more sentiment can find expression, in
which affective conduct is taken more into account.
To conclude, one could say that the increased ideological discharge
that I have been discussing operates to diffuse conservative interpreta-
tions of problems which are properly speaking secondary dysfunctional
effects of politically uncontrolled capitalist growth.
Should one include under this heading the outbreaks of apparently non-political
protest, which seem typical of many Western countries today?
These represent the new element in what I call the potentials for
protest. The novelty of the situation in West Germanyit is probably
different in Italyis that the type of protest which dominated the
national scene at the end of the sixties and the beginning of the
seventies, emerging from the universities and spreading to strata of
young workers and apprentices, has died down. This must also be
numbered amongst the disciplinary effects of the crisis. In its place we
have on the one hand the emergence of forms of revolt taking the
direction of terrorism, and on the other hand less dramatic but emotion-
ally powerful currents of neo-populist protest. The latter are a reflection
of the inability of the traditional parties and trade union bureaucracies
to canalize or specify key themes and conflicts adequately. I see in these
protests the sign of a dissatisfaction which leads to an estrangement
from parties as such. We have other indications of this: for example,
public opinion polls now show that at any rate a significant percentage
of the population is discontented, not merely with this or that party,
this or that policy, but with the party system as such. This is the first
time that this has happened in the Bundesrepublik since the war. Of
course in other countries, this potential for protest has been canalized
in petty-bourgeois directions: we need only think of Poujadism in
France or the emergence of parties against taxes in Denmark. But in
West Germany no canalization of this kind has so far occurred; we are
still at the first stage of attempts to form parties on such economic
issues. However, I am convinced that as soon as these currents organize
themselves into parties, it will become clear that their real potential for
protest cannot be encapsulated in this form. By nature they cannot let
themselves be institutionally interpreted by parties and routed through
parliaments, without the base of these movements feeling itself cheated.
I would rather speak of tendencies towards such a crisis. We can all see
the difficulties of attempts to solve the tendencies to economic crisis by
administrative means. But these have not in practice had major
delegitimizing effects so far. At least in West Germany, the manage-
ment of economic policy has been staged for the public in a very
effective way. The immediate results of this staging have been on the
one hand the processes of intimidation and discipline that I have men-
tioned and on the other hand a possibly re-inforced cynicism towards
the way the system redistributes its costs. Hence the incipient estrange-
ment from the political system, whose indicators I have already touched
on. However, we certainly cannot speak of a real crisis of legitimation:
people continue to vote, and in their vast majority vote for the tradi-
tional parties. Whereas, setting aside the phenomenon of terrorism and
its stabilizing effect on conservative reaction, a real crisis of legitimation
would signify a collapse of the traditional party system and the forma-
tion of a new party whose aims would at least transcend the existent
economic system. This will not happen so long as the neo-populist
currents do not grow to a point where they acquire a much greater
strength and pose a real challenge to the established order; or
alternativelyso long as the government parties do not introduce
economic policies that are an outright challenge to the trade unions.
Speaking of the crisis of legitimation, you have argued that the extension of
citizens possibilities for democratic action would help to prevent a putative
disintegration of contemporary society. But is a democratic response to the crisis
of a complex society really possible? Might not this complexity impose a society
dominated by specialists, in which decisions are made apart from its citizens?
Can the ungovernability of Western democracies today favour a real democrati-
80
zationlet us call it a socialization of politicsor is a victory of technocrats
and experts inevitable, a victory of complexity over demorcray?
81
The crisis of the 1930s was overcome by the emergence of governments and
administrations with greatly increased powers over democratic political bodies of
opinion formation. This happened both in the East and the Westin the latter
in many different forms, ranging from the New Deal to Nazism and Fascism.
Can we emerge from the present crisis in the opposite direction, by a growth of
democracy? Eurocommunism represents at once a critical reflection on the historical
errors of the workers movement which produced Stalinism, and a search for a
democratic road to socialismthat is, for the form of a transition understood
not as a sudden and absolute rupture but as a gradual process which will guarantee
greater popular participation and a more democratic structure of power.
We must start from the fact that social systems as complex as highly
developed capitalist societies would founder in chaos under any
attempt to transform their fundamental structures overnight. In this
reason you are absolutely right. I can only imagine a revolution as a
long-term process which makes possible: (a) an experimental trans-
formation, guided at every step by its successes and failures, of central
decision-making structures; (b) simultaneously, if not indeed as an
actual premise of this change, an acclimatization to new democratic
forms of life, through a gradual enlargement of democratic, participa-
tory and discursive action. Such a path would, above all, prevent that
mobilization of affective forces in a crisis which has always been a
weapon of fascism. In fact, it is precisely in the throes of a transforma-
tion of complex societies that there is a particular danger of the emer-
gence of parties appealing to fear, insecurity, and the latent disposition
to prejudice hidden in all of us. In such circumstances the slogans of
a fascist, or at any rate authoritarian-administrative, alternative gain
assent and support. Hence the need to respect these two minimum
conditions if we are to accomplish a prudent and long-term process of
transformation. The task is a very difficult one, for which an extra-
ordinarily intelligent party is necessary.
A flexible and non-bureaucratic one too.
Such a party must expose itself to the process of democratization,
accepting all the possible consequences: in other words the risk of
harming and even losing its capacity for bureaucratic action. These are,
of course, empirical processes, in which the role of theory can at most
be to set out the alternatives before us.
Can it not also indicate possible solutions, by studying the relations between
knowledge and power? This would seem to be the explanation for the interest in
Foucaults micro-physics of power in Italy and elsewhere today.
But has he not also developed an important argument, to the effect that traditional
Marxism has paid too little attention to the forms of power in daily life,
assuming that power and state coincideeven though Engels in his own way was
concerned with the family?
83
I consider the so-called New Philosophers to be a generational salon
phenomenon. The least one could expect is that they realize criticisms
of Stalinism did not begin with them.
Can we conclude with your views on a question which has remained suspended
throughout our discussion, yet which presses most urgently on us todaythe
phenomenon of terrorism? A precipitate of all the elements of the structural,
spiritual and institutional crisis that we have discussed, in some respects it also
lends the problem of intellectuals and of new generations a frighteningly new cast.
84