Reviews and Views
Volume One
Nasser Paydar
Jacques Bidet is a member of the editorial board of the journal “Actual Marx” and a former member of the “French Communist Party”. He once called himself a Marxist philosopher!! In recent years, based on certain criticisms of Marx, he has abandoned the aforementioned title and has chosen instead the more appropriate title “a philosopher who researches Marxism”. Jacques Bidet’s points of view and theories are not familiar to the Iranian working class, and his miseducation is not considered a direct threat to fuel the illusion of the Iranian working masses. But firstly, any kind of distortion in socialism and any degree of influence of this distortion in any part of the world labour movement is a problem for the entire socialist movement of the working class. Secondly. Iranian students and followers of Western Marxism will certainly not hesitate to spread the biased ideas of the likes of Jacques Bidet among the supporters of the Iranian labour movement. For all these reasons, we consider it necessary to critically review his criticism of Marx and specifically his theory of socialism. The text we refer to in this regard is the Persian translation of his article with the same title mentioned by “Kourosh Kaviani” included in the book “The International Congress of Marx” published by “Peykar VA Andis he”.
Bidet and the Socialist Triangle
Jacques Bidet begins with the question “What alternative to capitalism?” and the title Socialism. His article essentially seeks to explain the various aspects of his own theory of socialism, but he also insists on presenting these views as an alternative to Marx’s version of socialism and as a product of his critique of Marx’s way of analysing capitalism. First of all, and before examining Jacques Bidet’s critique of Marx and “Marxism,” let us see how he understands socialism.
“If the superstructure causes the articulation between the market and organization and as such includes the concept of wage labour, capitalism, the market, and wage labour can no longer be considered identical. Therefore, socialism is no longer an alternative to wage labour and the market. Rather, it is a question of knowing what the relations of the market, organization, and direct associative cooperation should be in order to be considered legitimate, that is, a relationship of freedom and equality and not class relations.”
Jacques Bidet says in another part of his speech as a summary or complement to this opinion:
“The thesis I defend is therefore twofold. First, what we must think of today under the name of socialism is still and always aimed at the socialization of the means of production, but this socialization can only be achieved under the conditions of an articulation between the market, the program and direct cooperation. Second, a technical combination cannot be satisfied with the sake of efficiency or utility. For it must be a just combination. That is, it must form the basis of a free-equal society that is consistent with the norms of political exigencies, the exigencies of justice in the sense we have given to these words above. This is not the usual meaning, because socialism specifically means the critique of justice.” Jacques Biedet’s definition of socialism, despite all the school twists and turns or the philosophical word games woven around it, is very clear and straightforward. His socialism does not deny the market and the commodity nature of the product of labour or labour power, that is, the buying and selling of labour power, and in a word, the capitalist mode of production!!! In his opinion, neither capitalism is identical with wage labour and the market!!! Nor does socialism have any conflict with wage labour, the market, and commodity relations!!! He claims that the triangle of market, organization, and cooperative cooperation with the same theme of wage labour is the best alternative to the existing form of capitalism!!! The lengths of the sides of this triangle must, of course, be determined in a calculated manner and based on geometric rules and trigonometric calculations. The norms of political exigencies and the requirements of justice, relations of freedom and equality, and not class relations, must be taken into account in these calculations!!! In order to leave no doubt about Jacques Bidet’s deep and blood-soaked loyalty to market relations and wage labour, it is better to carefully investigate all his conditions and stipulations regarding the norms of justice, freedom, and equality at once and then move on to other topics. Bidet defines socialism by including the economic order in a just political order. There is half the truth in Bidet’s words, but it must be borne in mind that half the truth can be the biggest lies. The true element of Bidet’s words is that in the organization of work and socialist civilization, the economic order is distinct aspects of a unity with the political and civil order. If the worker is not to be separated from the product of his labour, he must definitely have a direct and penetrating involvement in determining the fate of labour and the social product of labour. The Marxian narrative of socialism considers this confusion well, but the understanding of this unity and confusion is a bourgeois and non-Marx understanding. He moves from the destiny of the capitalist economic order and then he searches for a kind of just political order that will give birth to socialism in marriage with the productive order of capital!!! His own explanation about these minors and majors is that “justice is an inclusive legal concept that corresponds to the establishment of a political power on the one hand and defines the conditions of legitimate coercion of a real government on the other hand. The just thing is the common possibility of everyone’s life projects in a way that is universally acceptable and also provides the possibility of the real realization of this life, and in this way, the just and efficient defines.” Jacques Bide continues that this modern concept of justice makes its subject the difficult initial determination of everything that can legitimately belong to anyone. Jacques Biede combines these points in a complex philosophical statement that he borrowed mainly from Rousseau and Kant and added to their complexity with all his insistence. To what extent he believes in his words and basically how he sees the application of these concepts in the lives of earthly people is a matter that is related to him and sometimes to his Iranian disciples. But for a communist worker, it is quite clear that the funny philosophical game of “bide” with the concept of justice or the norms of justice, freedom and equality does not add anything new to his previous definition of socialism. Of course, he declares himself that his words are very abstract and philosophical, but he immediately reminds us that one should not ask philosophers for specific solutions.
Blessed is the international proletariat, or at least the French proletariat, which has a thinker like Bidet, and more importantly, blessed are his Iranian supporters who have finally found a way out of the “crisis of the communist movement” and have elevated their petty-bourgeois impurities to bourgeois purity in the company of Western academic Marxists, including Bidet. In any case, Jacques Biedet himself admits to having no specific solution for the working class of the world, and this is why Al-Qaeda should make clear to his supporters the seriousness of his words. But the reality is that this statement of his, like all his other statements, is just a kind of philosophical statement. Bidet has a specific theory about socialism. As we have seen, he considers socialism to be a mixture of the market, organization, and cooperative cooperation. His pursuit of justice and the norms of equality and justice are also legal concepts corresponding to such a specific structure. He points out that he accepts the socialization of ownership of the means of production as a characteristic of socialism and also believes in organization, but he does not consider organization as an alternative to the market, just as he does not consider wage labour as the main theme and characteristic of capitalist production. For all these reasons, his socialism combines the socialization of ownership of the means of production and the concentration and organization of production with the market and, naturally, with wage labour!!! What all existing models of socialism have, Bidet’s socialism has in one place!!! Jacques Bidet, as we said above, extracts the content and scaffolding of his socialism from within a specific critique of Marx’s Capital, a topic that we will examine in detail below. But let’s see for a moment what or which historical and social events led Bidet to the necessity of criticizing Marx and deriving this new theory of socialism?
Western “Marxists” from Benjamin, Cyrus, Coletti, Marcuse and other founders or members of the Frankfurt School to Lukacs, Gramsci, Lefebvre, Althusser, Bethlehem, etc., never went beyond the limits of a democratic, reformist and humanist critique in their criticism of the Soviet camp. Many of them did not fundamentally doubt that the Soviet Union was socialist. What was ugly to them was Stalinism and the lack of democracy or the trampling of political rights and freedoms in Russian society. In the view of these thinkers, it was not the relationship of buying and selling labour power and the capitalist mode of production that created the prevailing political order and the trampling of all human rights in Soviet society, but rather all the suffering and misery that existed stemmed from the domination of a totalitarian system!!! Western “Marxists” found the type of socialization of the means of production and the abolition of private property in the Soviet Union to be in line with the criteria of their socialism. They also considered the organization and centralization of production as an alternative to the market as necessary for socialism. These were the foundations and criteria that had been realized in the camp, but this socialism!!! brought with it a very violent dictatorship.!!! Western “Marxism” distanced itself from the Soviet Union with its humanistic criticism of this dictatorship and lack of rights and limited the scope of its criticisms accordingly. It is not without reason that people like Lukacs, Gramsci, Althusser and Coletti, even if they initially show an attitude of agreement towards political economy and Marxist economic texts, later quickly distance themselves from this field and become more and more immersed in sociology, philosophy and culture. They see in the existence of the Soviet camp, not state monopoly capitalism, their own version of the socialist system!!! With this attitude, they slip away from socialism because it has betrayed democracy. Therefore, another way of salvation must be sought. We must help in the cultural and moral reform and intellectual maturity of people. Revolution and socialist transformation of capitalist economies are not a panacea. Reform, humanitarian activities, cultural struggles, and the creation of new philosophical ideas are everything. To fulfil these missions, it is important to have a school and university teaching chairs, not to be present in the labour movement. Basically, it is the workers who are incapable of understanding philosophy, philosophical enlightenment, and thoughtful cultural and social discussions! It is intellectuals and academics who can be good audiences for these issues. The domination of state monopoly capitalism in the Soviet Union completely destroyed the socialism of the Western “Marxists.” Precisely for the obvious reason that their socialism, with all its splendour, was ultimately nothing more than the replacement of the market and competition by centralized state planning, this displacement had been achieved in Soviet society. In other words, the socialism of the Western “Marxists” had been born, but so horribly malformed that escape from it was considered the only way to restore dignity. Thus, the academic “Marxists” who had initially embraced communism and socialism in the spirit of establishing a society with an economy without anarchy and free competition, while at the same time democratic, now, upon observing those economies but without any freedom or human rights, while remaining faithful to some of Marx’s teachings, decided to transform communism into a vessel for advancing humanist efforts and cultural or moral movements.
The great technological and information revolution, the unprecedented concentration of international capital as a result of this gigantic technical growth, the double and all-sided disruption of the various sectors of world capital, the increasing and increasing interdependence of the interests of the various sectors of the international working class, the severity of the irreversible crisis of the capitalist system in the context of all these great industrial and technological advances, the inevitable intensification of the struggles of all the working masses of the world against the exploitation, oppression and injustice of capitalism in this direction, the collapse of the Soviet camp, the undisputed domination of Western capitalism throughout the world and the end of the life of Russian socialism, in a word, the historically unprecedented aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism and the intolerable narrowing of the spheres of human life in this system, finally forced Western “Marxism” like any other intellectual trend in this world to search for untested horizons and alternatives. Jacques Bidet, as a late twentieth-century revolutionary, is on the path to finding a solution, as some of his fellow thinkers have said, not a specific solution and, of course, not for the working and underprivileged people of the world, but for the mental game and intellectual preoccupation of his students. His socialist triangle of the market, organization, and participatory cooperation, which is at the same time decorated with the “modern concept of justice” and the “norms of equality and freedom,” is the manifestation of this philosophical and academic search.
Bidet’s socialism is supposed to be a democratic Russian socialism. To do this, he must reconcile centralized organization and planning with the market, and both with democracy, and in his new expression, cooperative cooperation. If we were to extract the essence of Bidet’s ideas from the dense shell of his philosophical games, his socialism would be, simply and simply, just democratic capitalism, including equality and freedom!!! This expression may not please some of Bidet’s disciples, but his socialism unfortunately does not express anything else. Cooperative cooperation with the norms of justice and equality are the components by which Bidet, on the one hand, fights against the tyranny and violence of centralized planning, and on the other, brings the market out of chaos and completely dresses it in the garb of rationality!!
“Modern class construction derives as much from commodity mediations as from the organizational mediations of the superstructural situation. Socialism, as such, declares itself within the structure, that is, in the class struggle. Socialism is a class struggle for the abolition of classes. Given the bipolarity of the principle of class formation, socialism struggles with the two-headed serpent, the market and the organizational, which are nevertheless simultaneously the forms of our social reason and social perception. A struggle whose aim is not to destroy them, which is particularly meaningless, but to abolish the class relations they create. If the question is posed immediately in the form of a struggle as much as it is a reasonable and rational arrangement (and this struggle clearly aims at the restoration of such an arrangement), it is because socialism is concerned with justice, not morality. Justice is something that responds to the requirements of law, and this is not achieved unless power is exercised. But what legitimizes the exercise of power is justice, and in this way, it also legitimizes the struggle against any power and any order that is contrary to justice. A declaration that, with its universal provisions, legitimately establishes the monopoly of legitimate coercion and violence, at the same time establishes the requirements of the struggle against unjust power and order, and this is not a moral but a political foundation of justice.
Bidet’s triangular socialism is a container for the confrontation of the market and organization. In this socialism, labour power is still a commodity without any shortage or deficiency. The means of production and exchange are entirely capital, although in his opinion they belong to the sphere of social ownership and not private ownership!!! Probably, just as the means of production and exchange in the Soviet Union and other parts of the camp belonged to the social ownership of citizens!!! The market side of Biede’s triangle guarantees the issue of labour power and the product of labour being commodities, the market does not imply any other meaning in any narrative. The market is a place where goods are exchanged with each other and its existence is evidence of the product of labour being a commodity and in the contemporary world, labour power being a commodity. Capitalist production is characterized as a higher stage of the development of commodity production by the commodification of labour power or the relationship of buying and selling labour power. Talking about the existence or survival of the market in the post-capitalist era!!! With any kind of wordplay that accompanies it, it ultimately means the market of buying and selling both labour power and the product of labour. Jacques Bidet does not hesitate in this matter. His socialism absolutely does not depart from the denial of the relationship of buying and selling labour power and the product of labour being a commodity. The other side of Bidet’s socialist triangle is the side of centralized economic organization and planning. Bidet thus far reconciles East and West, that is, Western and Eastern capitalism. He puts the organization of the camp and the market of the West in the same bowl, in other words, he borrows democracy from the West and social ownership of the means of production!!! from the East and establishes them as the two main pillars of his socialism, but Bidet’s problem still remains in its power. Both Western democracy is a hell for the working and subordinate masses, and social ownership!!! of the camp type has brought nothing but injustice to the workers. The mixing of hells does not open any door to heaven for the working class, even if we leave out the workers and the oppressed and the poor – something that is very natural for the likes of Bide – the unity of the market and central planning do not add any innovative colour to Bidet’s philosophy. At least for this last one, he must seek a solution. Cooperative cooperation or the third side of Bidet’s socialist triangle is apparently a colour for the intellectual and philosophical decoration of this theory.
The market and the organization of the Soviet camp type, or the basic foundations of Bidet’s socialism, are in fact nothing more than the state ownership of social capital, the relationship of buying and selling labour power, and the exchange of labour products based on socially necessary labour time. This means the same completely anti-human existing production and social order that is the origin and foundation of all forms of oppression, injustice, poverty, misery, homelessness, and the misery of humanity. So far, Bidet has not invented anything new to say. Although he is exempted from proposing any specific solution for the people of the world because of his being a philosopher!!! But out of respect for his philosophical post, he must be innovative, inventive, and opinionated. Therefore, he must make cooperative cooperation the third side of the socialist triangle, a guarantee of the acceptability of his theory. He says that there is no talk of the abolition of the market and organization (state ownership instead of individual ownership). These are eternal, but both must be the object of struggle. The apparently determined economic and social partnership is the result of this struggle. We must fight against centralized state planning on the one hand and the monopoly of individual capitals in the market on the other. We must establish a kind of balance between the market and planning. We must be neither Eastern nor Western. The balance between Western capitalism and the new European Russian socialism is what makes the market of Bidet’s philosophy so flourish.
The socialist movement means the struggle against the monopoly of the state on the one hand and individual capitals on the other, this is a very modern and postmodern philosophical narrative that Bidet presents to the international working class. The task of everything for the world proletariat is clear. Socialism means accepting the eternity of capitalism and allowing criticism of the power-seeking of the state and individual capitalists!!! The class struggle for socialism means the struggle to establish a balance between the role of the state and individual capitalists. Bideh, of course, for the philosophical proof of these unprecedented rights!!! And perhaps also the strange and strange rights of labour!!! The right that he puts more than enough substance and defends. In the role of a prominent philosopher defending the proletariat, he declares that “a declaration that, with its universal content, legitimately establishes the monopoly of coercion and violence, simultaneously establishes the requirements of the struggle against unjust power and order, and this is not a moral but a political building of justice.”!!! Truly, one should call all this great boldness “communist” creation.”!!
Bidet and the Critique of Marx’s Socialism
The problem is not only that Bidet, under the name of socialism, has prescribed a certain type of capitalism for the workers. The problem is also that he begins to criticize Marx and “Marxism” in order to prove his new theory. The triangular socialism of the market, organization, and cooperative cooperation is fundamentally at odds with Marx’s version of socialism and his analysis of the capitalist mode of production. Bidet must take a position on this. Someone may ask why? What is the need for this? It would be good to answer this question implicitly. In the past, many quasi-communist or even anti-communist tendencies very easily labelled their expectations and ideas as communism and attached them to Marx with a thousand distortions. This work was very relevant in a certain period of history, because communism was accepted as the only powerful and proud banner of the struggle against capitalism among the working and lower classes and even among the intellectuals of the lower bourgeoisie of the world, and resorting to it also meant bread and water for some academic thinkers. This issue has completely changed in today’s world conditions. The camp caused great damage to the reputation of communism with its birth and existence, and with its collapse it made this damage much deeper. Today, communism does not solve the problem of work and business. On the contrary, it is Marx’s criticism that can be a boon to the academic intellectual and his like. Jacques Bidet also understands this well with the help of his profound philosophical insight. He bases his socialist triangle theory on Marx’s criticism, and in this regard, he tries, first of all, to present Marx’s theory of socialism as exactly what was experienced in the Soviet camp!!!
“In a pivotal text on Capital that defines these two modes of division of labour, Volume I, Chapter 14, Section 4, the French edition clearly sees the transition from the capitalist to the socialist order as a transition from a commodity order based on the permanent establishment of a posteriori equilibrium to one based on a priori planning. Planning that can be observed in a large institution. The difference is that instead of operating in a context of domination and private interests, this organization will be carried out in a democratic framework, which is the result of the disappearance of the bourgeois class and commodity fetishism.”
Jacques Bidet’s socialism is based on the market. Therefore, as a “philosopher critical of Marx’s works,” he must clarify his task with Marx. To do this, he must prove that: Marx examined the transition from capitalism to socialism in the transition from the commodity system to planning, and that this theory has shown itself to be false in light of the achievements and experience of the world labour movement. In this regard, Bidet cites two completely irrelevant points from Capital and then an equally irrelevant paragraph from the Grundrisse to prove his point. We will discuss each of these completely irrelevant points and conclusions of Bidet a little later, but before that, it is necessary to examine Bidet’s methodology and research style a little.
To understand Marx’s socialism, one must first of all refer to his analysis of capitalism, his attitude towards the capitalist mode of production, and his understanding of the anatomy of civil society. It is not the fragments of Marx’s statements here and there that should be the basis for recognizing his understanding of the socialist order. However, none of these scattered fragments of his words can help to justify his false and self-indulgent conclusions. If Marx’s socialism is his horizon of departure from the capitalist system, one must see where and on what specific theme these two essentially different social orders draw a boundary and are separated. The capitalist mode of production in Marx’s analysis is distinguished from the previous commodity economy by the relation of purchase and sale of labour power, just as commodity production as a whole is distinguished from the household economy and self-consumption by the commodification of the product of the labour of the producers or the exchange of products based on the socially necessary labour inherent in them. In other words, what fundamentally distinguishes commodity production is the “law of value” and what characterizes capitalist production is the relation of production of surplus value or the relation of purchase and sale of labour power. Marx’s socialism is defined first of all and before any discussion of its relation to the program or anything else, by the abolition of the law of value and the abolition of wage labour, in other words, by the actual abolition of the relation of purchase and sale of labour power. In the view of Marx and real communists, not “communists” like Bidet!!! Neither the existence or non-existence of capitalism can be explained by categories such as competition and the market and the nature of exchange, nor can socialism be defined by the form of planning and its centralization or non-centralization. Marx’s emphasis on the fact that “the anatomy of civil society must be sought in political economy” is at the same time an emphasis on the indubitability of this clear ruling that in order to analyse capitalist society, one must begin with the capitalist mode of production, and socialism must necessarily be sought in a system based on the abolition of the law of value and wage labour or in relations disconnected from the relationship of buying and selling labour power. The importance of the role of the mode of production or the theme of production relations in the analysis of civil society for Marx is to the extent that he examines the characteristics and natural functions of different forms of production within a society entirely based on the nature of the dominant mode of production.
“In all forms of society, a specific type of production prevails over other forms, and the relationships of that specific type also affect other production relationships. So, we arrive at a general background in which all colours float and take inspiration from it. In other words, each atmosphere determines the specific weight of all special beings in which they have materialized.” (Grundrisse)
The existence or non-existence or how of planning plays no essential role in Marx’s theory of the analysis of capitalism or socialism. Planning is a completely subordinate category to both capitalist production and socialism. It’s how, content and nature must be determined by something else, namely the dominant mode of production. This is essentially the essence of Marx’s methodology and the real theme of all his teachings on society, classes and class struggle. He argues very explicitly about this methodology in the introduction to the Grundrisse. There he shows that production, exchange, consumption and distribution are all consequences of a unity, but it is the mode of production that determines the character and content of the other components of this unity. The entire book Capital, from the first to the third volumes, deals with the anatomy of the capitalist system using exactly the same method. The circulation and circulation of social capital, competition, concentration, the rate of profit, how the general rate of profit is formed, the downward tendency of the rate of profit, how this tendency becomes actual, the crisis and all other categories of capitalism can all be understood with reference to the general concept of capital, that is, capital as a representative of a mode of production or a relation of production of surplus value. Capital is on this basis the best and most eloquent guide to understanding Marx’s theory of socialism. If capitalism is characterized by the law of value and the relation of production of surplus value or the relation of purchase and sale of labour power, then the essence of socialism consists in the abolition of wage labour and the complete separation from the relation of purchase and sale of labour power. Understanding this is not at all difficult. Why Jacques Biedet insists on evading understanding this obvious and self-evident fact is a matter that is clear to us. But it would be better if he himself answered this question.
Therefore, as far as Bidet’s research method is concerned, he has deliberately or unintentionally refrained from using a strictly scientific method. He has neither understood Marx’s method of analysis nor has he resorted to a scientific method to understand his analytical method. By plunging into this delusion, Bidet has tried to present camp socialism as the real embodiment of Marx’s socialism!!! and to pretend that the socialist horizon that Marx ultimately considered was nothing other than state monopoly capitalism itself. Bidet raises a storm of wordplay in order to perhaps extinguish the glow of communism and Marxist socialism in the horizon of the general struggle of the international proletariat against capitalism. He wants to say that Marx and Engels did not intend anything other than camp socialism for socialism, and since the corruption and ruin of this form of socialism has been revealed to all the working and subordinate people of the world, then socialism and what Marx proposed were ultimately nothing more than a mirage. In addition to putting forward this kind of sophistry, he also seeks another dirty intention. Like many Western “Marxists,” both committed and uncommitted, he neither recognizes the working class as the powerful army of socialism nor does he consider the movement of this class to be the only platform for the battle of communism against capitalism. He considers history to be the history of ideas and the product of the heroism of thinkers, and on this basis, he believes that by chanting four takbirs over Marx’s socialism, he has wrapped up an era of philosophy and begun a new era with the leadership of his own kind!!!
In any case, as far as Bidet’s method of work in his critique of Marx is concerned, we are faced with an essentially unscientific and anti-communist method. With this description, we turn to his specific conclusions and interpretations of Marx’s statements. Let us see what he does in this regard? The first point cited by Bidet in Capital is Marx’s discussion of the division of labour in manufacture and within society. There, while explaining the characteristics of these two divisions of labour, Marx first examines the similarities and then the differences between them, and finally, quite implicitly and very briefly, makes a comparison between the capitalist division of labour and the division of labour based on communal production. His argument begins with the following: The division of labour in manufacture is dependent on a certain development of the division of labour within society, but in turn affects and multiplies the social division of labour. In this regard, the number of products is constantly increasing. The branches of industry become more and more separated. And thus, the continuous development of the division of labour in manufacturing into the division of labour within society practically leads to the fragmentation of human beings. He then examines the differences between these two types of division of labour. The division of labour in manufacturing is accompanied by the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a single capitalist, the continuity of the individual works is realized by the sale of different labour powers to a single capitalist, the division of labour is carried out before the experiment and according to the plan, human beings form the links of a collective mechanism belonging to a single capitalist, while in the social division of labour each of these issues is realized in a different way. For example, the medium of the division of labour is the sale of products related to different fields, the law of value of commodities is what determines how much of the total available labour of society is spent on the production of each type of commodity. The division of labour is realized after the experiment and on the basis of fluctuations in market prices. Competition and the pressure of mutual interests are the only weapons that regulate the relations between independent producers, and…
After examining the mutual effects and comparing the characteristics of these two types of division of labour, Marx adds:
“If in the capitalist mode of production, unbridled social division of labour and tyranny in the division of labour in manufacturing are concomitant, then, unlike previous forms of society in which the separation of occupations from each other developed naturally, then crystallized, and finally legally established, they present a picture in which, on the one hand, the organization of the social division of labour is planned and based on command. While, on the other hand, the division of labour within the workshop is completely excluded or has developed on an insignificant scale, rarely or accidentally.”
Marx gives the example of the small and very old Indian hamlets and explains that each of these hamlets was a complete unit of production, the majority of the products being produced to meet the needs of the members and not as commodities. Accordingly, production was independent of the division of labour, which was carried out by the exchange of commodities throughout Indian society as a whole.
Jacques Bidet concludes from this comparison of Marx that he summarizes socialism in planning and in other words, he considers centralized planning as an alternative to commodity and capitalist economies!!! This is the most meaningless interpretation that can be made of Marx’s statements. The summary of Marx’s analysis is that the capitalist division of labour necessarily expresses a concrete level of the development of capitalist production and is a function of the self-expansion requirements of this mode of production, and since in the capitalist system profit is the only goal of production, the entire capitalist division of labour is also necessarily an inseparable part of the process of profit production and based on the requirements of surplus value production. A very obvious and fundamental aspect of Marx’s analysis is the emphasis on the internal connection between the division of labour within the manufacturer and within society on the one hand and the examination of both of these as organic consequences of the process of surplus value production on the other. The division of labour in manufacturing is accompanied by the concentration of capital in the hands of a single capitalist. In other words, the mass of wageworkers, on the basis of the planned division of labour of capital, jointly produce a single product. Within society, the situation is different. Here, competition between the dispersed components of social capital determines how capital will be distributed in different spheres? Or what commodities will be produced and what commodities will not be produced? And finally, what form the division of labour will take? In the first, that is, in manufacturing, production and division of labour are organized and planned, while in the second, both are unplanned. But the centralized planning of production in the factory and the anarchy and chaos prevailing in the capitalist market are simply different aspects of the expression of a single process, namely the process of production of surplus value or the real theme of the capitalist mode of production. Marx speaks of the process of the division of labour in the factory becoming the division of labour within society and the process of the domination of the former over the latter and the ever widening and deeper fragmentation of human beings in this regard. If we put this point alongside Marx’s profound analysis of the process of centralization and the nature of the ceaseless centralization of capital on a social and global scale, we will find it clear that Marx considers the achievement of centralized planning to be a powerful and sustainable tendency of the capitalist system, and this is exactly the opposite of what Jacques Bidet mistakenly deduces from Marx’s statements. Marx emphasizes that competition and the process of forming the general rate of profit, that is, the mechanism of distributing the total surplus value among the different sectors of capital or capitals dispersed within a productive territory, are themselves an effective lever for the concentration of capital and the orientation of the capitalist mode of production towards organized and centralized planning. Just as he analyses the tendency of the rate of profit or the occurrence of capitalist crises as a very powerful lever for intensifying the process of concentration in the process of self-expansion of the social capital of each country and, consequently, of the whole of international capital. This means that Marx considers the tendency towards centralization and, naturally, central planning both as a natural course of the movement of capital and at the same time as a kind of forced reaction of capital to the crisis. Just as he considers central planning as a powerful factor in changing the division of labour within society, changing the scope of competition between the dispersed components of social and world capital, and the like. A very important point in Marx’s analysis is the attention to the effects and results of the process of centralization on the limitation of the scope of competition in the process of self-expansion of capital, and this, in turn, is exactly the opposite of all the interpretations that Jacques Bidet has made of Marx’s words. The clearest and most undoubted conclusion that can be drawn from all these discussions is that the category of planning in Marx’s analysis has nothing to do with the demarcation between socialism and capitalism, absolutely nothing to do with it. Planning exists in both the capitalist mode of production and socialism, while it is not an essential characteristic of either system. In the article cited by Bide, after fully clarifying the connection between the manufacturing and social division of labour within the capitalist system with the theme of capitalist production, Marx goes on to examine forms of the social division of labour that are not based on the process of profit production and the commodity nature of the product of labour or labour power, but on the contrary, on a type of labour organization and conscious decision-making by individuals to produce their livelihood and social needs. It is very interesting that Marx makes no reference to the future socialist society in this regard. He cites the former colonies of Indian society as an example. What distinguishes these two forms of division of labour or, more generally, these two types of society in Marx’s explanation are that labour power is a commodity in capitalist society and that it is not a commodity, or mainly not a commodity, in the former colonies of India. Jacques Bidet understands nothing of Marx’s words. Of all Marx’s discussions about comparing these societies with capitalist society, he bases his argument only on the nature of social planning in societies and concludes that socialism, in Marx’s view, is the alternative to centralized planning as opposed to the unplanned production of capitalism!!! He completely closes his eyes to the clear fact that Marx proceeds from the nature of the mode of production and whether or not labour power is a commodity, not from the existence or absence of planning.
Another point that Bidet has chosen as the basis for his inference from Marx’s analysis is a paragraph from the famous article “Commodity Fetishism.” There, after examining the fetishist nature of commodities and clearly explaining the point that in a commodity economy the social nature of human labour is reflected in the material qualities of the products of labour and the intrinsic social properties of these objects themselves, Marx adds:
“To change the subject, let us consider a group of people who work with the means of production in common and who, consciously and consciously, consume their individual and numerous labour forces as a single social labour force. What was said about Robinson Crusoe’s work is repeated here, but not as an individual but as a social one. All of Robinson’s products were exclusively personal and consequently were objects of immediate use to him, but the collective product of the association is a social product. A part of this product is reused as a means of production and remains social. But the other part is consumed by the members of the association as means of subsistence and must therefore be distributed among them. The mode of distribution will vary according to the particular type of social system of production and the degree of historical development of the producers. For the sake of balancing commodity production, we shall assume that the share of each producer in the means of subsistence is determined according to the time of his labour. Labor time therefore performs two functions. On the one hand, the division with its social plan establishes a precise proportion between the different tasks of labour and the types of needs. On the other hand, it is also used to measure the individual share of each producer in the common labour and therefore to determine the share of the common product that is individually consumable. Here the social relations of individuals to the labour they have performed, as well as their relation to the products of labour, remain very simple and transparent, both in production and in distribution.”
Jacques Bidet, after referring to the above and linking it to Marx’s previous discussion of the division of labour, says:
“It is well known that the program (from Marx’s point of view) is not intended to regulate the market (what a pity!!!) but rather to stand as a radical alternative to it. The same perspective and with the same phraseology have already been developed in similar paragraphs of the Grundrisse. This perspective is based on the fact that the participation of a particular individual in public work requires an intermediary and that only two types of mediation are possible, understood as posterior and anterior. In the first case, where the basis of mediation is the independent production of individuals, the mediation is carried out through the exchange of commodities, exchange value and money, which in fact express a single and definite relationship. But in the second case, the mediator is in itself a presupposition, and the presupposition is collective production, and the collective character of the basis of production.”
Jacques Bidet is creating a storm in distorting Marx’s words. A storm that aims to extinguish the bright flames of Marx’s teachings. Marx very well points out the role of the program and planning in socialism, this is obvious and cannot be otherwise, but he does not deny centralized planning in capitalism at all. So, on what basis does he distinguish these two essentially contradictory economic and social systems? In the same cited article, how does he explain socialism or socialist planning and what characteristics does he list for the socialist organization of work? The answer is quite clear.
“Individuals work with the means of production in common.
They consciously and consciously use their individual and numerous forces as a single collective force.
The product of their collective labour is a social product.
A part of the product of their labour is spent on the reproduction of the means of production.
Another part of this product is consumed by the members of the association as the means of subsistence.
The mode of distribution will vary according to the specific type of social system of production and the degree of historical development of the producers.”
Jacques Bidet opens his eyes to the aspect of planning with all his might, but he absolutely does not see the disappearance of wage labour and the disappearance of the law of value and any kind of class exploitation in this planning. In his view, planning is planning anyway, and it is this mere planning that characterizes Marxist socialism!!! Bidet is not even once and in a single case willing to examine Marx’s socialist model from the angle of the commodity or non-commodity of labour power, the survival or non-existence of the law of value, the disappearance or non-existence of the surplus value production relationship, the survival or decline of the state, the fate of social classes and the specificity of the organization of labour. He is a democratic critic of camp socialism. He considers the only important flaw of the Russian model of socialism to be its undemocratic nature and the centralization of political power or economic planning in that society. He sees no specific internal relationship between the centralized economic planning and the state machine dominant in the camp and the capitalist mode of production of these societies. For him, the critique of the Soviet camp means the critique of centralized state planning, and whether this planning reflects which economic and social order or which political, civil and legal superstructure of production it represents makes no difference to Bidet. The concept of planning in Marx’s socialist model corresponds to the conscious and deliberate use of the individual and numerous forces of citizens as a single collective force by the mass of citizens themselves, or more precisely, by individual citizens. In such a way that the product of their collective labour is a social product. They themselves collectively decide on the distribution of the product of their labour and what part of it will be spent on the reproduction of the means of production and what part will be consumed as the means of subsistence. Moreover, the manner of distribution will vary according to the specific type of social system of production and the degree of historical development of the producers. In this model, contrary to Bidet’s view, no bureaucratic or state institution above the citizens takes on the task of centralized economic or social planning. What Bide fundamentally fails to take into account is that not every centralized planning requires the concentration of planning in a state institution. If millions of citizens of a society, from within their work, life, and struggle councils, make decisions with wisdom and awareness about the details of their lives. If all of them, individually, directly, effectively, and freely express their opinions on the type of production, the amount of production, the needs of life and welfare, the way in which the product of labour is distributed between education and treatment, housing, clothing, welfare, and the reproduction of the tools of labour, etc.
If all of them were decision-makers in all these matters, if each one discussed and decided on the method of using the available resources and facilities, if all of these decision-making were transformed into a kind of centralized and nationwide planning through the dispatched officials of the councils of labour, life, and communes at the general congress of councils, yes, if the planning work were centralized in such a process, then we would not be faced with any specific government institution for centralized planning. Centralization here precisely means the centralization of the decisions of the members of society regarding their livelihood, welfare, and social needs on the one hand, and the type and amount of work and how to distribute the product of their work by them on the other. In such a situation, the involvement of each citizen in the planning of all economic and social affairs would be guaranteed in the best possible way. The definition of work, whether or not to produce, how much to produce, what portion is spent on reproducing the tools of labour and social development, what share is allocated to providing their means of living, food, clothing, housing, education, medical care, and social welfare, are all determined by individual citizens organized in councils and coordinated by their representatives to the National Congress of Councils. In this type of work organization, no power is concentrated anywhere. The delegates of the councils can be dismissed at any time and at any moment by the majority of the basic councils, and the basic councils can be formed at any time and are ready to make decisions. In this socialist model, politics, planning, and the management of social affairs are as much a direct and obligatory task for the masses of citizens as it is their duty to produce and carry out some kind of service or welfare activity. Basically, policymaking and planning are part of the daily working time of each citizen. Such is Marx’s socialist model. Jacques Bidet is completely unable to understand this model. He sees planning but does not understand the difference between capitalist and socialist planning. He observes the concentration of power and state planning of the economy in the camp but does not understand its internal relationship with the capitalist mode of production. He hears Marx talk about planning, but he does not understand what he means or the socialist content of his model.
The next point cited by Jacques Bidet is a short phrase from Marx’s Grund Risse in the section related to the study of working time as a general equivalent.
“The factor of direct participation of labour (i.e., the labour of each person) in the general chain of production is the collective character of labour, which also determines the distribution of products. It is this collective character of production that gives the product of production a general and collective character. Therefore, the exchange that takes place at the beginning of production does not concern values. It concerns specific activities and collective needs and goals, which completely require the participation of the individual in the collective world of products. Whereas in the system of exchange values, it is exchange that gives labour a general character. In the collective system, the universality of labour precedes exchange, that is, the exchange of products is in no way a mediator of the individual’s participation in general production. Mediation is, of course, necessary; in the first case, the basis of the mediation of the independent production of individuals is the later, with the help of complex relations, which changes and accepts other wishes. Mediation through the exchange of goods, the value of money, and many other categories, which in fact express the relationship is single and definite. In the second case, however, the presupposition is the mediating factor itself, and the presupposition is collective production, because the community is the basis of production.”
Jacques Bidet says that from Marx’s point of view, there are no more than two types of mediation. Post-mediation and pre-mediation, and it is the latter that determines the point of departure for Marx’s analysis of socialism. The concept of post-mediation and pre-mediation in this part of Marx’s analysis refers to the separation or expression of the distinctions between the two modes of production. He starts from the collective nature of labour. That individuals enter the general chain of production by virtue of the work they do. From here on, it is the form and mode of production that determine the collective nature of labour, in other words, the relations between humans and the fate of the product of their labour. The goal of production in a commodity economy is to create exchange values, and in a capitalist system in particular, to produce surplus value. So here, it is simply exchange and the acquisition of profit through exchange that gives labour a collective nature. In socialism, on the contrary, it is only collective needs and goals that determine the collective nature of production. Humans enter the process of collective production of labour in order to produce the necessities of life and achieve their collective goals, not in order to exchange the products of their labour with each other or to have their labour power bought and sold. In socialism, the universality of labour is based on the involvement of the free, penetrating, and conscious will of all in defining labour and determining the fate of the social product of labour. Being prior only implies such a meaning. The posteriority of mediation in commodity production does not in any way negate the planned nature and programmatic nature of capitalist production. Here too, under the pressure of his completely camp-tainted mentality, he is unable to understand the content and substance of socialist planning and its contradiction with capitalist planning. Marx refers to two types of mediation. That is, the collective nature of labour can be separated into two types of profoundly opposed modes of production. The mediating factor in capitalism is the exchange of values and the production of surplus value. But in socialism, it is the realization of common social goals and the production of common needs for livelihood and civil life that gives human labour a collective character. Being prior in Marx’s discussion is not synonymous with accepting a kind of centralized planning outside the free and conscious will of the members of society. Jacques Biedet studies capital through the lens of Russian socialism. He attributes the Russian model of socialism to Marx with his extreme misunderstanding and then, while his criticism of the camp does not go beyond a vulgar utopian democratization, he claims the need to revise Marx’s socialism!!! Production is collective in both capitalism and socialism. It is both in capitalism combined with planning and in socialism. What places the latter in fundamentally contradictory conditions with the former is that the aim of production and planning in the former is profit and in the latter the satisfaction of the biological, social and welfare needs of the producers. The concept of prior and posterior in Marx’s speech is merely a reference to this fundamental distinction and not to planning itself or anything else. In the case of capitalism, he refers to the posteriority of mediation and in relation to the collective system, to the anteriority of this mediation. It is even easier for anyone who does not have a sand in his shoe to understand the problem than 2 + 2. In a commodity economy in general, the exchange of the product of labour, and in capitalist production in particular, the buying and selling of labour power, that is, again, the exchange of commodities, determines the material infrastructure of society and the nature of production. Mediation in the capitalist mode of production is based on this, that is, any type of program and planning, regardless of its degree of concentration and organization or, for example, dispersed and decentralized, is in any case directed at the production of profit, which is to be realized in the course of exchange. To be more precise, the profit or surplus value that is created in the process of production or, in fact, the consumption of labour power as a commodity, is necessarily in the course of exchange, which becomes the profit of the capitalist. In socialism, there is no talk of production for the market and profit. Labor power or the product of labour is absolutely not to be traded anywhere. What binds men together and gives their production a collective character is the free, conscious, creative, and direct cooperation of each of them in determining the collective needs and goals of production. Here the mediating factor is precisely the antecedent, and this antecedent is exactly 180 degrees opposite to what Bidet infers, which merely refers to the direct and pervasive participation of the members of society in defining labour, determining the fate of the product of labour, and the ups and downs of all the economic and social affairs of the producers.
The three things we have quoted from Marx in the course of this discussion are all the points that Bide has relied on to attribute Russian socialism to Marx. He has gone to any lengths to discredit Marx’s teachings. By resorting to all sorts of distortions and slanderous interpretations of the points mentioned, he has struggled to trace the roots of camp socialism back to Capital and Marx’s analysis without any alteration.
“Marx’s mistake is to explain the relationship between these two modes of coordination by means of the historicist paradigm of the embryo and the growth of an embryo. He assumes that the relationship of organized coordination exists in the form of an embryo in capitalism, and more precisely in the institution that constitutes the atomic element of the market. After him, and in accordance with his approach, it was thought that this institution should develop in such a way that it becomes concentrated in the hands of a few poles, and this is the corridor of socialism. There is only a short step left until conscious and planned organization can replace the market and social ownership replaces private ownership.”
As we have already mentioned, Marx correctly considers the process of concentration to be part of the nature of capitalist production. Contrary to the opinion of some economists who claim that Marx is indifferent to the monopolization of capitalism and the development of capitalism into imperialism!!! He has clearly explained the process of concentration of capital and the culmination of this process in the emergence of the imperialist system. There is no point in this. Bidet’s great slander and lie is that he considers the process of concentration and monopolization of capitalism in Marx’s analysis as the basis for his explanation of the model of socialism and concludes that he considered state monopoly capitalism to be socialism or the threshold of socialism!!! We have spoken sufficiently about the baselessness of all this material. Therefore, we will leave this discussion and move on to another part of Bidet’s views.
Jacques Bidet and the Superstructural Triangle
Bidet’s criticism of Marx is essentially aimed at attacking Marx’s understanding of socialism. But to achieve this goal, he begins by criticizing Marx’s analysis of capitalism. Jacques Biedet first expresses his deep regret for Marx’s method of analysis!! He deeply regrets that Marx considered the market and capitalism to be identical and thereby ruled out the possibility of establishing socialism with the market (what a great misfortune!!!)
“The market and organization, according to the hypothesis that I at least defend, are in fact contemporary forms that are related to each other. They are both alternative and interconnected. In such a way that a reasonable society presupposes a rational articulation of both. It was on this issue that socialist theory encountered an obstacle both in theory and in practice and still remains behind this obstacle.” Market Socialism Jacques Biedet needs to criticize Marx’s analysis of the relationship between capitalist production and the market. In other words, he must show that, contrary to Marx, the market and capitalism are not identical phenomena, in order to prove on this basis that the market will not only continue to exist under socialism but will even be one of its three essential pillars. He himself says:
“If we want to put forward another thesis, that is, a view based on a socialism with a market, while maintaining Marx’s principles, we must resume his analysis at the same level as the position of this issue, that is, the articulation between the market and capitalism.”
It is to achieve this goal, that is, to justify market socialism, that Jacques Bidet criticizes Marx’s analysis of capitalism. He focuses his discussion on the relationship between the market and capitalism. He begins by saying that although Marx begins the book Capital with the market and therefore considers the market to be prior to capitalism, he insists on the identity and inseparability of capitalism from the market, and this is one of his important mistakes!!! Bidet then proceeds to explain his views and presents these views under the title of the “superstructural triangle” as an alternative to Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production. Bidet’s thesis of the superstructural triangle contains the following points in its general outline:
* “The superstructure of capitalism is not the market, as Marx thought. Rather, it is a more complex and dialectical form. It is a triangle consisting of the market, the program, and discursive, associative immediate cooperation.”
* The market alone does not constitute the superstructure. When we consider the concept of the free market assumed in the first part of Book I of Capital, we must also consider the concept of the free program as an expression of a general will.
* Modern class relations are formed in the process of turning the concept of contract, that is, the relationship of freedom-equality, into its opposite. The modern institution is based on the fact that we are free-equal. That is, relations between us can only be governed in a form of agreement in a collective space. This discourse or this arena of immediate contract cannot legitimize our relations on a social scale unless it expands itself in the forms of contract between individuals that constitute the market or contract of the centre that creates organization.
* The market, as Marx has shown, opens the way for capitalist class relations, and organization for statist class relations.
“It is only in modern class relations and in class struggle within class structures that the superstructure and position of freedom and equality are established.”
It is deeply significant that Biede’s superstructural triangle in his analysis of the capitalist mode of production is precisely the same as his so-called socialist triangle. Jacques Biede does not make a fundamental and infrastructural distinction between capitalism and socialism. What makes Biede’s capitalism his socialist model is not a change in the mode of production and social relations. It is simply the reform of capitalism through class struggle and its embellishment with norms of justice?! Before examining Biede’s views in detail, it is necessary to first turn to the main issue at stake, namely Marx’s analysis of the relationship between the market and the capitalist mode of production. Marx begins the first volume of Capital with the category of the commodity. The definition of a commodity, the dual nature of a commodity, the use and exchange value of a commodity, the expression of values, the market and money, and the circulation of commodities form the content of the first part of the first book. Up to this point, Marx has been explaining the characteristics of the mode of commodity production in general. Contrary to what Bede says, he does not start with the market, but with the commodity and the process of the product of labour becoming a commodity as the theme of the commodity economy. The market is the necessary and consequential result of the exchange of commodities on the basis of the concentrated human labour inherent in them. From now on, that is, in the second part of Capital, Marx examines how money is transformed into capital, the general formula of capital, the contradiction of the general formula, and finally the relation of buying and selling labour power, that is, the basic characteristic of capitalist production. At the same time, and as Bidet claims, Marx considers capital and the market to be identical categories. On various occasions, he emphasizes the essential role of capitalist production in reconciling all categories of the commodity economy and all previous forms of production with the requirements of self-expansion and capital appreciation.
It is very obvious that the emergence of the market in Marx’s study precedes the relationship of buying and selling labour power. Basically, it is in the market of exchange of goods that two completely different commodities, namely capital in the form of money and labour power in the form of commodities, are confronted. The prehistory of capital, i.e. the stage of primitive accumulation, is itself the product of a certain phase of the development of the commodity economy. Without the widespread commodification of the product of labour, the emergence of money and the market and commercial capital, there could be no talk of the relationship of buying and selling labour power, the emergence of industrial capital and the development of the capitalist mode of production. The precedence of the market over the capitalist system is obvious, but the question is about the fate of the market and all categories of the commodity economy or even all previous forms of production in the conditions of the development of the capitalist mode of production. Marx explains this relationship in various ways, for example:
“In the forms under the rule of capital, the social element is dominated by the elements created in the course of history. Land rent without capital is meaningless. While capital can be understood without resorting to land rent. Capital is the all-pervading economic force of bourgeois society. Capital is both the starting point and the end point and must be studied before land ownership, and only after studying both separately can their mutual relations be studied.”
To imagine a market without the relation of capital and the purchase and sale of labour power naturally means pushing history back to the era of the pre-capitalist commodity economy. If the world’s nationalist left once sought its own independent and national capitalist utopia in separating the imperialist conditions of capitalist production from the capitalist mode of production, Jacques Bidet now bases his market socialism on separating the market from capitalism!!! He believes that the market and capitalism are not identical, contrary to Marx’s analysis. The emergence of the market preceded the emergence of industrial capital and the capitalist mode of production. For this reason, the market can exist while capitalism has given way to socialism!!
The emergence of the market was the inevitable result of the commodification of the product of labour. With the beginning of the capitalist mode of production, the market inevitably becomes the arena of buying and selling labour power and the field of circulation and circulation of social capital. This means that the market is completely dominated by the relationship of buying and selling labour power. Both the entire social product or the goods offered to the market are a certain link in the cycle of social capital, and commercial capital or other forms of capital circulating in the market are in any case a continuous part of industrial capital. With the dominance of the capitalist mode of production, the idea of the market as something separable or non-identical with capitalism is simply a romanticist idealization.
Jacques Bidet denies this identity and, as we have seen, resorts to the most intricate and complex word games of philosophical or economic thought to prove this theory. He rejects Marx’s view that the wage relation is characteristic of the capitalist mode of production. In his view, free wage labour is a phenomenon of the superstructure, that is, of the pre-capitalist commodity economy. Because it is there that contractually and freedom of contract also guarantee the principle of the freedom of labour power!! He then says that the exchange of goods is in fact the exchange of labour and, accordingly, the purchase and sale of labour hidden in them. Jacques Bidet concludes from these minor and major points that, after all, wage labour is not the real characteristic of capitalist production. In other words, capitalism should not be explained by the purchase and sale of labour power. Rather, it should be analysed in a triangle of the market, organisation and participatory dialogue. According to Bide, the free market in a commodity economy should be understood together with free planning as a manifestation of the general will. This free planning naturally requires dialogue between the contracting parties. In this sense, the capitalist system does not rely on wage labour but on the market, planning, and intellectual participation of citizens. The problems of capitalism in Bidet’s analysis are that these contracts turn into their own opposites in the course of confrontation between social classes. If we want to translate Bidet’s words into the language of earthly humans, we must honestly and openly say that the capitalist system is not inherently exploitative or the cause of various forms of injustice, social stigma, corruption, and black life. It is only the inability of the damned owners of capital to free democratic planning or participatory dialogue that pollutes the pure and humane theme of capitalist production with exploitation and oppression!!! In other words, every flaw is a defect and deficiency of democracy, and if not capitalism, nothing is so bad!!!
Perhaps now, following the last part of the discussion, it has become clearer than ever why Bidet bases his socialism on the very same superstructural triangle with which he explains capitalism. Why does he insist on denying the identity of capital and the market? Most importantly and fundamentally, why does he try with all possible malice to make Marx’s analysis of the explanation of capitalism based on wage labour appear inadequate and false!!! Market socialism, or in fact, the perpetuation of the capitalist system with some democratic manipulations, is the entire sinister goal that our French avowed Eurocommunist philosopher is trying to achieve.
April 2006