Notes

Introduction

1. See especially M. George Zaninovich, “The Yugoslav Variation on Marx,” in Wayne S. Vucinich, ed., Contemporary Yugoslavia: Twenty Years of Socialist Experiment (Berkeley, 1969), pp. 285–315; Wolfgang Leonhard, Three Faces of Marxism: The Political Concepts of Soviet Ideology, Maoism, and Humanist Marxism, trans. Ewald Osers (New York, 1974), pp. 258–354; Albert W. Levi, Humanism and Politics: Studies in the Relationship of Power and Value in the Western Tradition (Bloomington, 1969), pp. 439–445; Oskar Gruenwald, “Humanism and Marxism: The Yugoslav Perspective,” (Claremont Graduate School, Ph.D. dissertation, 1971); and Oskar Gruenwald, “Marxist Humanism,” Orbis, vol. XVIII, no. 3 (Fall 1974), pp. 888–916. Also of interest is Howard L. Parson's very brief survey, Humanistic Philosophy in Contemporary Poland and Yugoslavia (New York, 1966).

The Praxis Marxists themselves have published anthologies and individual works in the West, of which the most noteworthy are: Praxis: Yugoslav Essays in the Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. Mihailo Marković and Gajo Petrović (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. XXXVI, forthcoming); Revolutionäre Praxis: Jugoslawischen Marxismus der Gegenwart, ed. Gajo Petrović and trans. Karl Held (Freiburg, 1969); Jugoslawien denkt arders, ed. Rudi Supek and Branko Bošnjak and trans. Eleonore von Steiner (Vienna, 1971); La rivolta di Praxis, ed. and trans. Giovanni Ruggieri (Milan, 1969); Gajo Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century (Garden City, 1967); Svetozar Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality: A Critique of Socialism and its Future, trans. Gerson S. Sher (New York, 1973); Mihailo Marković, From Affluence to Praxis (Ann Arbor, 1974); and Mihailo Marković, The Contemporary Marx: Essays on Humanist Communism (Nottingham, England, 1974). For additional titles, see “Knjige jugoslavenskih filozofa obavljene na stranim jezicima izvan Jugoslavie,” Praxis (Yugoslav Edition—hereafter referred to as Praxis [YE]), no. 6, 1971, pp. 973–975, which contains listings of works by Praxis Marxists published abroad from 1965 to 1970.

2. Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (New York, 1968), p. 100.

3. Leszek Kolakowski, Chretiens sans eghse: La conscience religieuse et le bien confessionel au XV11” siècle, trans. Anna Posner (Paris, 1969), p. 70.

4. The term is suggested by J. P. Nettl's discussion in his essay, “Ideas, Intellectuals, and Structures of Dissent,” in Philip Rieff, ed., On Intellectuals: Theoretical Studies—Case Studies (New York, 1970), pp. 57134.

5. See Robert Maguire, Red Virgin Soil (Princeton, 1968), p. 38 and passim.

6. Ibid., pp. 53–54.

7. Martin Malia, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism (New York, 1961), p. 186.

8. See Woodford L. McClellan, Svetozar Marković and the Origins of Balkan Socialism (Princeton, 1964), pp. 99–123 and passim. On the role of periodicals in Balkan national movements during the nineteenth century, see Albert B. Lord, “Nationalism and the Muses in Balkan Slavic Literature in the Modern Period,” in Charles Jelavich and Barbara Jelavich, eds., The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics Since the Eighteenth Century (Berkeley, 1963), pp. 262–263.

9. See the essays in Mladen Iveković, ed., Hrvatska lijeva inteligencija: 1918–1945 (Zagreb, 1970). See also Miroslav Vaupotic, “Knjizevni časopisi izmedju dva rata,” Razlog, vol. II, no. 9 (1962), pp. 798–809; and Miroslav Vaupotić, “Časopisi hrvatske književnosti (1935–45),” Zadarska revija, vol. XIII, no. 2 (April 1964), pp. 149–155. On the Glasnik and the Serbian Liberals, see McClellan, pp. 29, 42, 79–104; Traian Stoianovich, “The Pattern of Serbian Intellectual Evolution, 1830–1880,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. I, no. 2 (January 1969), pp. 260f; and Traian Stoianovich, “The Social Foundations of Balkan Politics, 1750–1941,” in Jelavich and Jelavich, eds., The Balkans in Transition, pp. 316–317.

10. The most thorough treatment of this important episode is Stanko Lasić's controversial book, Sukob na književnoj Ijevici: 1928–1952 (Zagreb, 1970). For an English-language description of the literary aspects of the conflict, see Branko Lenski, “Yugoslav Literature and Politics,” Survey (Winter 1972), pp. 158–171. See also Gerson S. Sher, “Praxis and Marxist Criticism in Socialist Yugoslavia” (Princeton University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1975), pp. 52–69.

11. “Čemu Praxis?” Praxis [YE], no. I, 1964, p. 3; essay reprinted in Praxis (International Edition: hereafter referred to as “Praxis [IE]”), no. 1, 1965, pp. 3–8, as “A quoi bon Praxis?”

I. The Genealogy of Praxis

1. See Chalmers A. Johnson, Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power: The Emergence of Revolutionary China 1937–1945 (Stanford, 1962), pp. 156–175, where an interesting parallel is drawn between the Yugoslav and Chinese partisan experiences.

2. For accounts of the “Cominform break,” see the following: Vladimir Dedijer, Tito Speaks: His Self Portrait and Struggle with Stalin (London, 1953), pp. 249–381; Vladimir Dedijer, The Battle Stalin Lost: Memoirs of Yugoslavia 1948–1953 (New York, 1971); Fitzroy Maclean, The Heretic: The Life and Times of Josip Broz-Tito (New York, 1957), pp. 301–364; Adam B. Ulam, Titoism and the Cominform (Cambridge, Mass., 1952); Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin (New York, 1962); and George W. Hoffman and Fred Warner Neal, Yugoslavia and the New Communism (New York, 1962), pp. 105–151. Documentation can be found in Robert Bass and Elizabeth Marburg, eds., The Soviet-Yugoslav Controversy, 1948–58: A Documentary Record (New York, 1959); and White Book on the Aggressive Activities by the Governments of the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Albania Towards Yugoslavia (Belgrade, 1951).

3. Hoffman and Neal, p. 140.

4. Dedijer, The Battle Stalin Lost, pp. 152, 203. See also A. Ross Johnson, “The Dynamics of Communist Ideological Change in Yugoslavia: 1945–1953” (Columbia University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1967), pp. 104–154.

5. Milovan Djilas, “Lenjin o odnosima medju socijalističkim državama,” Komunist, no. 3, 1949; cited in Hoffman and Neal, p. 150.

6. In Borba, 12 November 1949; cited in idem.

7. Edvard Kardelj, “O narodnoj demokratiji u Jugoslaviji,” Komunist, no. 4, 1949, pp. 1–65.

8. For the text of the 1958 Program, see The Programme of the League of Yugoslav Communists Adopted by the VII Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists held from 22 to 2 6 April, 1958 in Ljubljana (Belgrade, 1958). For documentation of the controversies in the international communist movement generated by the 1958 Program, see The Second Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute: Full Text of Main Documents, ed. Vaclav L. Benes, Robert F. Byrnes, and Nicolas Spulber (Bloomington, 1959).

9. See, for instance, Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 50.

10. Johnson, pp. 382–383.

11. Svetozar Stojanović writes of the early critique: “While I am rather indebted to this tradition . . . it was precisely its difficulties which above all prompted me to follow the argument to its logical conclusion—to my position on statist society” (Stojanović, p. 40).

12. Djilas, “Lenjin …;”citedin Hoffman and Neal, p. 150.

13. See Edvard Kardelj, in Borba, 30 December 1948; quoted in Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Yugoslavia and the Nonaligned World (Princeton, 1970), p. 10. See also Programme of the LCY (1958), p. 33.

14. While this term was often used interchangeably with “imperialism,” “hegemonism” was reserved for relations between socialist states, while “imperialism” was seen as an attribute of the foreign policy of bourgeois states.

15. Edvard Kardelj, Socialism and War: A Survey of Chinese Criticism of the Policy of Coexistence (New York, 1960), pp. 170–171. See also Edvard Kardelj, After Five Years (New York, 1953), pp. 5, 7–8.

16. Much of what follows is based on Johnson, pp. 155–190.

17. Tito subscribed in large part to this view. See the passage cited in Predrag Vranicki, Historija Marksizma, 2 vols. (Zagreb, 1971), vol. II, pp. 375–376, from J. B. Tito, Četrdeset godina revolucionarne borbe Komunističke partije Jugoslavie: Govori i čianci (Zagreb), vol. I, pp. 34–35.

18. See Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (New York, 1965), pp. 248–252. While Johnson (pp. 180–190, 382–383) insists that Trotsky, Kollontai, and Rakovsky were unknown to the Yugoslav ideologists and political leaders, his claim must be treated with at least a degree of skepticism. It is difficult to believe that the Yugoslavs innocently steered clear of these figures during their painful period of reexamination, especially considering the very close parallels of the critiques of Kardelj and Djilas with that of Trotsky in one of the latter's most famous works.

19. Boris Ziherl, “O društvenom biću i društvenoj svesti u prelaznom periodu,” Komunist (January-March 1952), cited in Johnson, pp. 171—175. See also Boris Ziherl, Dijalektički i istorijski materijalizam (Belgrade, 1951).

20. Milovan Djilas, “The General and the Particular” (originally published in Borba, 20 December 1953), in Milovan Djilas, Anatomy of a Moral, ed. Abraham Rothberg (New York, 1959), p. 89.

21. Milovan Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (New York, 1957), p. 39.

22. See Johnson, pp. 317–352.

23. Vranicki, Vol. II, p. 374.

24. Zagorka Pešić-Golubović, “Kultura kao most izmedju utopije i realnosti,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1972, p. 254.

25. Borba komunista Jugoslavie za socijalističku demokratiju: VI Kongres KPJ (SKJ) (Belgrade, 1952), p. 268.

26. See below, Chapter IV.

27. VI Kongres, p. 267.

28. Programme of the LCY (1958), pp. 69, 243, 239.

29. Hoffman and Neal, p. 184.

30. Rudi Supek, “Materijalni, socijalni i personalni osnovi socijalisticke kulture,” Pogledi, no. 4, 1953, pp. 236ff. This seminal essay is also reprinted in Rudi Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam (Zagreb, 1966), pp. 390–407.

31. Danilo Pejović, “Le socialisme et les intellectuels,” Praxis [IE], no. 2–3, 1965, p. 241.

32. Jean-Paul Sartre, What Is Literature? (New York, 1949), pp. 72, 73, 75.

33. In his Report to the CPY Fifth Congress in 1948 as Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda of the Party's Central Committee, Milovan Djilas did not hesitate to refer to Stalin's Short Course as a “classic of Marxism-Leninism.” In the same Report, Djilas warned those who sought to detract from Soviet Marxism, on the grounds that it was no longer relevant to Yugoslavia in light of the Cominform break, that dialectical materialism remained every bit as relevant as it was before (Milovan Djilas, Izveštaj 0 agitacionopropagandnom radu Centralnog komiteta Komunističke partije Jugoslavije: Referat na V kongresu KPJ [Belgrade, 1948], pp. 7, 31–32). For a useful summary of the nature of Yugoslav philosophy in the early postwar period, see Svetozar Stojanović, “Contemporary Yugoslavian Philosophy,” Ethics, vol. LXXVI, no. 4 (July 1966), pp. 297–301.

34. From a personal discussion with Mihailo Marković, 21 September 1972, Belgrade.

35. Gajo Petrović, “La philosophic yougoslave d'aujourd'hui,” Praxis (IE), no. 2, 1967, p. 317.

36. From a personal discussion with Gajo Petrović, 30 August 1972, Korčula.

37. Mihailo Marković, Revizija filozovskih osnova marksizma u Sovjetskom savezu (Belgrade, 1952); Predrag Vranicki, O problemu općeg, posebnog i pojedinačnog kod klasika marksizma (Zagreb, 1952); Gajo Petrovic, “Filozofìja u SSSR-U od oktabarske revolucije do 1938. god.,” Pogledi, nos. 2 and 3, 1952, pp. 79–86, 149–159; Predrag Vranicki, Misaoni razvitak Karla Marksa (Zagreb, 1953); K. Marks i F. Engels: Rani radavi, ed. Predrag Vranicki (Zagreb, 1953).

38. Marković, Revizija, pp. 42–44 and ff.

39. Speech of M. B. Mitin, in “Diskussiia po knige G. F. Aleksandrova Istoriia zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofa,” Voprosy filosofii, no. 1, 1947, p. 129; as quoted in Marković, Revizija, p. 21.

40. Ibid., p. 44.

41. Petrović, “Filozofìja u SSSR-U,” p.151 and passim. For additional discussions of this debate, see the following: David Joravsky, Soviet Philosophy and Natural Science (New York, 1961); Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism: A Historical and Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York, 1958), pp. 128–174; and Rene Ahlberg, “The Forgotten Philosopher: Abram Deborin,” in Leopold Labedz, ed., Revisionism: Essays on the History of Marxist Ideas (New York, 1962), pp. 126–41.

42. See Rudi Supek, “Znacaj teorije otudjenja za socijalistički humanizam,” Pregled, no. 1, 1953, pp. 51–58; M. Životić, “Marksova teorija otudjenja,” Filozovski pregled, no. 2, 1953, pp. 34–43; and Z. P. [Zagorka Pešić], review of Rani radavi, in Filizofski pregled, no. 4, 1953, pp. 62–63. One skeptical philosopher wrote a kind review of Supek's controversial essay on alienation, but criticized him for “drawing overly general conclusions in outlining the basic determinants of socialist humanism” (I. Stanojčić, review of Supek's “Znacaj,” in Filozovski pregled, no. 2, 1953, pp. 66–67).

43. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 19. The last assertion, one hastens to add, remains to be proven.

44. Taras Kermauner, “Humanizam i inteligencija: O ulozi humanističke inteligencije u Sloveniji,” in Branko Bošnjak and Rudi Supek, eds., Humanizam i socijalizam: Zbornik rodava (Zagreb, 1963), vol. p. 84.

45. The above information is from Rudi Supek, “Policija, birokracija i struktura Staljinizma: Uz knjigu Artura Londona Priznanje,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1969, p. 508m

46. Editorial statement of purpose, Pogledi, no. 1, 1952, pp. 1–2.

47. Rudi Supek, “Zasto kod nas nema borbe misljenja?” Pogledi, no. 11, 1953. pp. 903–911.

48. According to Abraham Rothberg's introduction to Anatomy of a Moral, p. xii. (For further discussion of the Djilas affair, see Hoffman and Neal, pp. 186–196.) It might be noted that one of the dissident philosophers discussed above, Mihailo Marković, was a member of the Nova misao circle. In 1953 he published an article in Nova misao criticizing the traditional Marxist theory of determinism and especially its application to natural science, leading to a heated polemic with a prominent orthodox theorist, Dragiša Ivanović, a physicist by training. See Mihailo Marković, “Teorija verovatnoće i problem determinizma u savremenoj nauci,” Nova misao, no. 6, 1953, pp. 818–835.

49. From a personal conversation with Rudi Supek, 22 November 1974, Zagreb.

50. Rudi Supek, “Kultura i socijalističko samoupravljanje,” Pogledi, no. 3, 1954, p. 267. In this article, in addition to replying to his critics, Supek fully developed the theme of expanding self-management to the previously exempted sphere of culture, a demand that had been implicit in the Pogledi venture from the very beginning.

51. Kermauner, p. 82.

52. Cited in Hoffman and Neal, p. 202.

53. Major works from this period include: Gajo Petrović, Englesha empiristička filozofija (Zagreb, 1955); Gajo Petrović, Filozofski pogledi G. V. Plehanova (Zagreb, 1957); Predrag Vranicki, Filozofske studije i kritike (Belgrade, 1957); Mihailo Marković, Formalizam u savremenoj logici (Belgrade, 1958); Milan Kangrga, Racionlistička filozofija (Zagreb, 1957); Andrija Krešić, Relacioni sudovi i relativnost spoznaje (Sarajevo, 1958); Miladin Životić, O ideologiji (Belgrade, 1958); Branko Bošnjak, Povijest filozofije kao nauka (Zagreb, 1958); Rudi Supek, Psihologija u privredi (Belgrade, 1956); Rudi Supek, Umjetnost i psihologija (Zagreb, 1958).

54. In addition to the work of , the following two works were the most important of this genre in the 1950s: Ilija Kosanović, Dijalecticki materijalizam (Sarajevo, 1956), and Ilija Kosanović, Istorijski materijalizam (Sarajevo, 1957). The content of these books showed little more imagination than their titles, except for the fact that they attempted eclectically to integrate into the body of dogma the authoritatively pronounced Yugoslav state doctrine of many paths to socialism while halfheartedly rehashing the more innocuous aspects of the critique of Soviet bureaucratism.

55. Hoffman and Neal, pp. 184–203.

56. For documentation see The Second Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute, passim.

57. Vjekoslav Mikecin, “Mi i nasi ‘kritičari,’” Naše teme, no. 3, 1958, pp. 341–351.

58. The text of the latter discussion was published in Naše teme, no. 1, 1960, pp. 63–127.

59. The proceedings of the Bled conference are contained in Neki problemi teorije odraza: Referati i diskusija na IV stručnom sastanku udruženja (Belgrade, n.d.). Papers were delivered by Marković, Petrović, Kangrga, Stojanović, Milan Damnjanović, Andrija Stojković, Dragan Jeremić, and Veljko Ribar, while Vuko Pavičević, Dusan Nedeljković, Dragoljub Mičunović, Ljubomir Živković, Branko Bošnjak, Bogdan Šešić, Božidar Debenjak, Ivan Focht, Danko Grlić, and Rudi Supek were present as discussants.

60. While this description may seem overly colorful or even irrelevant, it is neither. Even a dispassionate reading of the conference's proceedings will reveal that the conduct of the discussion was almost as significant as its content. At one point, one “diamat” faithful (Debenjak) was forced by the moderator to apologize for his unprofessional conduct, while one of the foremost and oldest defenders of “diamat” in Yugoslavia (Nedeljković) had no argument to bring against the “innovators” other than that what they said constituted a violation of professional canons, without even once specifying what those canons were or attempting to come to grips with their remarks (Neki problemi teorije odraza, pp. 101–102).

61. This thesis was explicitly affirmed by Stojković, in Neki problemi teorije odraza, pp. 45 and ff.; and by Ribar, ibid., pp. 69–70. It is basic to the theory of reflection in general.

62. See Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (New York, 1968), pp. 603–604; and Andrija Stojković and Vuko Pavičević in Neki problemi teorije odraza, pp. 43ff. and 95, respectively.

63. See Marković, Revmja, p. 21.

64. Neki problemi teorije odraza, p. 114.

65. Rudi Supek, “Čemu, uostalom, sada još i ovaj marksizam?” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 330–331.

66. Even those who tried to modify and retain the theory of reflection had no response to Petrović's argument that a “modified” reflection theory allowing for human creativity can no longer legitimately be called a theory of reflection at all and is simply a confused and eclectic patchwork (see Gajo Petrović, in Neki problemi teorije odraza, pp. 27–32; this seminal essay was later published in English translation in Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 190–198).

67. E.g., Petrović, “La philosophie yougoslave d'aujourd'hui,” p. 319; Supek, “Čemu, uostalom, sada još i ovaj marksizam?”, pp. 328–331.

68. See the report on “L'assemblée et le symposium de l'Association yougoslave de philosophic,” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1965, p. 589.

69. See, for instance, the article by D. I. Chesnokov, “Obostrenie ideinopoliticheskoi borby i sovremenyi filosofskii revizionizm,” Voprosy filosofii, no. 12, 1968, pp. 3–14; reprinted in full in Serbo-Croatian in Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 325–327. Dijalektika commemorated the Bled conference on its tenth anniversary with a series of articles dedicated to a continued defense of the theory of reflection. Of particular note were: Andrija Stojković, “Teorija odraza danas ,”Dijalektika, no. 3, 1970, pp. 5–27, in which he condemned those Yugoslav philosophers who renounced dialectical materialism and the theory of reflection in favor of the theory of praxis, which they held, according to Stojković, to be the only authentic “epistemological” theory; and Bogdan Šešić, “Osnovni teorijski dijalektički modeli,” Dijalektika, no. 3, 1970, pp. 57–69, where Šešić demonstrated that he had not abandoned his quest to accommodate the theory of reflection to a theory of creative human practice. Also see Bogdan Sesie and Andrija Stojković, Dijalektički materijalizam (Belgrade, 1967).

Lest the impression be conveyed that with the Bled conference the Praxis Marxists ceased their polemic with their dogmatist opponents, the reader is referred to two illustrations that even over a decade after Bled the rivalry was still quite lively—indeed, as Praxis fell into increasing disfavor toward the end of its life, the old polemics acquired a new vigor. In 1973 the Praxis Editorial Board attacked Stojković for his vulgar attempts at popularization, which Praxis contended (by quoting extracts from Stojković's recent works) were infused throughout with Serbian nationalistic overtones (see “Mala enciklopedija ‘dijalektičkomaterijalističkog' nacionalizma,” Praxis [YE], no. 5–6, 1973, pp. 759–762). This attack on Stojković was particularly felicitous, since by this time Praxis had become a target of suspicion in some quarters because of its role in opposing the Croatian nationalist movement (see below, Chapter V). Also see Gajo Petrović's polemical reply to Boris Ziherl's equally polemical attack on him in early 1974: “Otvoreno pismo drugu Ziherlu,” Praxis [YE], no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 205–211. Ziherl's article can be found in Borba, 27 January 1974.

70. On Po prostu and the Petöfi Circle, see Ghita Ionescu, The Politics of the European Communist States (New York, 1967), pp. 207–212; and François Fejtö, A History of the People's Democracies: Eastern Europe Since Stalin (New York, 1971), pp. 277–280. On Arguments, see Kostas Axelos, “Des ‘Intellectuels révolutionnaires' à Arguments,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, pp. 415–421; see also George Lichtheim, Marxism in Modem France (New York, 1966), p. 93, i6gn.

71. From an interview with another former member of the Perspektive Editorial Board, Stefan Udović; Korčula, 11 August 1970. Perspektive, it might be noted, was hindered somewhat by the linguistic and cultural isolation of Slovenia from the rest of the country. Still, its fate did not bode well for the “innovators.”

72. Under Yugoslav law, journals were required to submit for approval a statement of purpose to the respective republican government before the start of publication. Such requests for journals which lacked officially recognized sponsorship by established social or professional organizations were more closely scrutinized.

73. The two collections were Humanizam i socijalizam, ed. Branko Bosnjak and Rudi Supek (Zagreb, 1963), 2 vols.; and Čovek danas, ed. Milos Stambolić (Belgrade, 1964). Documents from two of the conferences (Belgrade-Arandjelovac, December 1963; and Novi Sad, June 1964) are contained in Marks i savremenost: Povodom 145-godišnjice rodjenja i 8o-godišnjice smrti Karla Marksa (Belgrade, 1964), vols. I and II. The third conference was held in the autumn of 1964 in Vrnjačka Banja and is discussed briefly below.

74. Marx, Early Writings, p. 53.

75. Ivan Babić, “Časopis kao instrument kulturne akcije: Neke značajke Krležinih časopisa izmedju dva rata,” Naše teme, no. 6, 1963, p. 568.

76. In 1965, R. V. Burks erroneously referred to Stojanović as an “official gloss” on the Party position: see his “Yugoslavia: Has Tito Gone Bourgeois?” East Europe, vol. 14, no. 8 (August 1965), p. 12. The following discussion will presumably help to dispel this misapprehension.

77. For proceedings of this symposium, see Marks i savremenost, vol. II.

78. Svetozar Stojanović, “Socijalistička demokratija i SKJ,” in ibid., pp. 26–37, passim; and Ljubomir Tadic, “Aktuelni problemi teorije komunističke pardje,” in ibid., p. 25.

79. In “Diskusija o politici i političkoj nauci,” in ibid., pp. 135, 137. Gajo Petrović's decimation of Vlahović's critical remarks on the theory of alienation at the same gathering apparently did little to assuage Vlahović: see Veljko Vlahović, “Neka zapažanja u tretiranju otudjenja,” in ibid., pp. 471–479; and “Diskusija o problemima filozofije u socijalizmu,” in ibid., pp. 563–569.

80. Even before the June Novi Sad conference, Stojanović had received admonitions which a friend summarized in the following words: “Leave these vulgar themes alone and mind your own business” (see Vukašin Stambolić's comments in the discussion on politics, in Marks i savremenost, vol. II, p. 144).

81. See the editorial introduction to the section, “Filozofija na VIII Kongresu SKJ,” Praxis (YE), no. 2, 1965, p. 243.

82. Makso Baće, “Jos jednom o filozofiji,” partial text of discussion at the LCY VIII Congress, printed in Praxis (YE), no. 2, 1965, p. 259.

83. Mihailo Marković, “O mesti i ulozi društvenih nauka u našom društvu,” partial text of discussion at the LCY VIII Congress, printed in Praxis (YE) no. 2, 1965, p. 248.

84. See “Statute of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” in Practice and Theory of Socialist Development in Yugoslavia: VIIIth Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (Belgrade, 1965), pp. 259–276.

85. See Aleksandar Ranković, “Current Problems in Relation to the Work and Role of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” in ibid., pp. 132–134; and Veljko Vlahović, “Present-Day Ideological Trends in Our Development and the Tasks in Front of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” in ibid., pp. 177–178.

86. See “Diskusija o politici i političkoj nauci,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. II, p. 220.

87. It is also pertinent to take note of the appearance at the same time of the journal Gledišta in Belgrade under the stewardship of Svetozar Stojanović. Gledišta was from the very beginning more explicitly oriented toward concrete social issues than Praxis. Perhaps for this very reason, however, its contributors tended to issue from more diverse theoretical backgrounds than the Praxis group, and consequently the journal began to lose a distinct sense of direction. In 1967, Stojanović, who had also been collaborating extensively with Praxis, relinquished the editorship of Gledišta.

88. Gajo Petrović, “Deux ans et demi de Praxis,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1967, p. 140.

89. See “Opsta debata o filozofiji,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. I, p. 189.

90. Ljubomir Tadic, Poredak i sloboda (Belgrade, 1967), p. 201.

91. “A quoi bon Praxis?”, p. 3.

92. Ibid., p. 4.

93. Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston, 1960), p. 2.

94. In this respect as in many others, there are some close affinities between the Praxis Marxists and the celebrated Soviet dissident historian, Roy Medvedev. The latter's On Socialist Democracy (trans. Ellen de Kadt [New York, 1975]) presents persuasive arguments on behalf of the development of intraparty democracy and criticism, freedom of press, speech, and association, and even the institutionalization of political opposition. Yet on close reading it is evident that Medvedev advocates these liberties not out of any affection for “bourgeois” democratic forms per se, but on the basis of a conviction that open discussion of all political issues holds the only hope for a reinvigoration and strengthening of the Party itself.

95. From a speech delivered by Mika Tripalo at a City Conference of the Zagreb Branch of the League of Communists of Croatia held on 10 June 1965 as reported in Vjesnik, 11 June 1965: see Miodrag Protić, “Povodom izjave o Praxisu” (text of a newspaper article appearing in Politika, 1 February 1968), Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1968, p. 220.

96. In 1969 Praxis launched its “Pocket Edition,” which was actually a series of books, almost all by individual Praxis authors, published in the guise of a separate edition of the journal. Evidently this step was prompted by the increasing difficulty that many Praxis contributors were encountering in publishing their works through regular publishing houses; the Praxis editors responded by establishing their own extraordinary in-house organ. The following works were released in the Praxis Pocket Edition:

One extraordinary edition of Praxis appeared in early 1971, containing documents related to the student uprisings of 1968 in Yugoslavia: see Jun-Lipanj 1968: Dokumenti, ed. Alija Hodžić et al., (Zagreb, n.d.).

97. Maguire, p. 43.

98. Rudi Supek, comments in “Sastanak redakcijskog savjeta Praxis: Korčula 1969,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1970, p. 231.

99. In 1967 Ivan Kuvačić was added to the Editorial Board, and in 1973 Veljko Cvjetičanin and Žarko Puhovski were also elected.

100. “A quoi bon Praxis?”, p. 5.

101. Ibid., p. 6. In 1969 it was decided to add the most important Belgrade associates of Praxis to the Editorial Board of the International Edition, in the words of the Editorial Board's announcement, for the sake of “a better division of labor.” The new editorial structure of the International Edition was occasioned by a proposal that Filosofija, edited in Belgrade by Tadic and Životić and until 1969 the official journal of the Yugoslav Philosophical Association, publish its own international edition. By agreement with the Praxis editorship, however, Filosofija— which shared in great degree the same orientation and even writers engaged in Praxis—withdrew this proposal and the Praxis International Edition itself was designated the Association's official journal. In view of this compromise with Filosofija, it was decided that the Praxis International Edition should reflect roughly equal roles of the Zagreb and Belgrade components; each group would be responsible for preparing two issues of the International Edition (which was a quarterly journal) a year. Officially, then, the Praxis International Edition now had two cosponsors in the Association and the Croatian Philosophical Society. In the years after 1971 the Association, later renamed the League of Philosophical Societies of Yugoslavia, itself became the scene of attempts to undermine Praxis. See Gajo Petrović, “O medjunarodnom izdanju Praxis (1970–1973),” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1973, pp. 745–757.

102. “Avant-propos,” Praxis (IE), no. 2–3, 1965, p. 155.

103. Major papers and excerpts from discussions of Korčula Summer Schools were published in both editions of Praxis, usually in the first issue of the year following the given session. Themes of the annual sessions were:

1963: Progress and Culture

1964: The Meaning and Perspectives of Socialism

1965: What is History?

1966: (School Cancelled)

1967: Creativity and Reification

1968: Marx and Revolution

1969: Power and Humanity

1970: Hegel and Our Times; Lenin and the New Left

1971: Utopia and Reality

1972: Equality and Freedom

1973: The Bourgeois World and Socialism

Periodically, the Editorial Board of Praxis itself organized discussions on topical questions in Zagreb, in addition to the annual December symposia of the Croatian Philosophical Society.

104. Milan Kangrga, “Program SKJ—Oslobodjenje stvaralačkih snaga socijalizma,” in Humanizam i socijalizam, vol. II, p. 18.

105. Danko Grlić, “Practice and Dogma,”Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1965, p. 54; emphasis in the original.

106. Karl Marx to Arnold Ruge, September 1843, in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York, 1972), p. 8.

II. The Critique of Marxism as Ideology

1. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 43–44.

2. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology (New York, 1947). pp. 40–41

3. Marx, Early Writings, p. 52.

4. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Signs, trans. Richard C. McCleary (Evanston, 1964), p. 7.

5. Jean-Paul Sartre, Search for a Method, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York, 1968), p. xxxiv.

6. Robert C. Tucker explores this aspect of orthodox German Social Democracy in his essay on “The Deradicalization of Marxist Movements” in The Marxian Revolutionary Idea (New York, 1969), especially pp. 188–98.

7. See V. I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (New York, 1929), passim; Rosa Luxemburg, “Organizational Question of Social Democracy,” in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, ed. Mary-Alice Waters (New York, 1970), p. 117.

8. See Romano Giachetti, “Antonio Gramsci: The Subjective Revolution,” in The Unknown Dimension: European Marxism Since Lenin, ed. Dick Howard and Karl E. Klare (New York, 1972), pp. 147–168.

9. Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London, 1971), pp. 40, 69, 70; emphasis in the original.

10. Ibid., pp. 14, 27, 19.

11. Gramsci and Lenin, too, sooner or later recognized the importance of Hegel's influence on Marx. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci called the “philosophy of praxis” a “reform and a development of Hegelianism”; while in his celebrated statement from the Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin asserted that “one cannot fully understand Marx's Capital and especially its first chapter if one does not study and understand the whole of Hegel's ‘Logic.' Accordingly, not a single Marxist has understood Marx for the past half-century!!” See Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York, 1971), p. 404; and V. I. Lenin, Sochineniia (Moscow, 1958), vol. 38, p. 171.

12. See Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. II, p. 108.

13. In his famous Subjekt-Objekt (1949), Bloch even went so far as to claim, in a strongly Hegelian vein, that in a theory of praxis “the subject must possess superiority within the historical-dialectical subject-object relation”; otherwise, he argued, “there would be no measure precisely for externalization, for alienation in objectivity, and there would be no active contradiction of the subjective factor which in this measure could destroy inadequate objectivity in alliance with the contradictions within it” (cited by Dušan Štošić in “Čitajući Blocha,” Praxis [YE], no. 3, 1966, p. 378).

14. The impact of Heidegger in Petrović's work is most clearly evident in his seminal inquiry into the concept of praxis, “Praxis and Being” (in Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 171–189). His concern with analytic philosophy is reflected in his studies of British philosophy (Od Lockea do Ayera and Engleska empiristička filozofija), while his major essay on the theory of reflection (also in Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 190–198) bears a strong imprint of the analytic method, although its argument differs in several respects from both traditional and modern schools of British philosophy. See also Petrović, Filozofski pogledi G. V. Plehanova.

15. Parsons, Humanistic Philosophy in Contemporary Poland and Yugoslavia, p. 8.

16. Milan Prucha, “Marksizam i smjerovi u filozofiji,” Praxis (YE), no. 4, 1967, p. 440.

17. In this connection, one of the most interesting contrasts is to be found in the way in which different Praxis Marxists approach the problem of positive science. Marković, with his proclivities toward the study of logic and the philosophy of science, is inclined to accept, within certain limits, the validity of scientific laws based on empirical generalizations about the existing world, always keeping in mind the inability of positivism to free itself of its own philosophical assumptions and its basically conservative nature. Within these bounds, however, Marković does feel that science can at least inform man of the likely consequences of given actions and offer to him alternative courses of action among which only the human individual or collectivity is able to choose (see “Diskusija o politici i političkoj nauci,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. II, pp. 202–204). Marković has also attempted to demonstrate the possibility of modifying the notion of causal determination by tempering it with probability theory (see his 1953 article, “Teorija verovatnoće”; and Mihailo Marković, “Uslovljavanje, uzročnost i determinizam,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. III, especially p. 415) and the ideas of “uni-determinism” and “multi-determinism” (see Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 24, 101, 153). (For a profoundly informed analysis of similar attempts in the USSR to redefine causality in light of recent scientific advances, see Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union [New York, 1972], pp. 89–91, 98–99, 109–110.)

Kangrga, on the other hand, is generally much more suspicious of positive science as such, stressing what he claims to be this kind of science's exclusive orientation to the world as a given, fixed entity and its consequent inability to perceive conditions of alienation and reification (see, for instance, Milan Kangrga, “Štoje postvarenje?” Praxis [YE], no. 5–6, 1967, p. 591). Other Praxis philosophers are even more adamant on this point, such as Korać, who has drawn a seemingly irreconcilable opposition between humanism in general—and the humanist dialectic in particular—and the idea of analytical reason (see Veljko Korać, “Fenomen zvani ‘Teorijski antihumanizam ,’”Filosofija, no. 1–2, 1968, p. 106). As noted in the text, however, these differences are well overshadowed by the common commitment of all these philosophers to a critical, humanist, antidogmatic, and nonexclusive theory of praxis.

18. Danko Grlić, “Dogme ou philosophic,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1966, p. 199.

19. Levi, p. 439.

20. Gajo Petrović, “The Development and the Essence of Marx's Thought,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 334.

21. This argument can be found, for example, in István Mészáros, Marx's Theory of Alienation (London, 1970), pp. 217–253; Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge, 1969); and Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, 2nd rev. ed. (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 165–176. In Tucker's work, however, the argument is somewhat weakened insofar as he suggests that “the alienated selfrelation . . . transformed . . . into an alienated social relation” (p. 176) represents a perversion of the substance of the philosophy set forth in the 1844 manuscripts.

22. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 32.

23. See Louis Althusser, For Marx (New York, 1969), pp. 49–86. For a Soviet philosopher's discussion of this issue, see L. N. Pazhitnov, U istokov revoliutsionnogo perevorota (Moscow, 1960).

24. Petrović, “Development and Essence,” p. 334.

25. See Milan Kangrga, “Problem otudjenja u Marxovu djelu,” in Humanizam i socijalizam, vol. I, pp. 77–103.

26. Marx, Early Writings, p. 133.

27. Ibid., pp. 127–128, 122–123, 125. In these and subsequent passages from Marx, all emphases are in the original.

28. Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 107–108. In general, the clearest exposition of Marx's concept of praxis of which I am aware is to be found in Avineri, pp. 124ff.

29. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 90ff.; Marx, Early Writings, p. 125.

30. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 78.

31. Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 130–133; Marković, From Affluence to Praxis, p. 64.

32. Adam Schaff, Marxism and the Human Individual (New York, 1970), trans. Olgierd Wojtasiewicz and ed. Robert S. Cohen, pp. 72–73.

33. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 202–203. See also Karl Marx, Grundrisse (New York, 1973), pp. 831–832.

34. See Jurgen Rühle, “The Philosopher of Hope: Ernst Bloch,” in Labedz, ed., Revisionism, pp. 188ff.

35. See Petrović's argument in Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 86f.

36. Karl Marks i Fridrih Engels, Sveta porodica (The Holy Family) (Belgrade, 1964), p. 3; Marx, Early Writings, p. 53.

37. It is tempting in this connection to speak of a theory of “human nature,” and indeed it is possible to find passages where Marx explicitly refers to such a concept with approval. As Vranicki points out (Predrag Vranicki, “Marginalije uz problem humanizma,” Humanizam i socijalizam, vol. I, p. 292), in the 1844 manuscripts Marx speaks of communism as the “real appropriation of human nature through and for man” (Marx, Early Writings, p. 155), while in Volume III of Capital Marx speaks of freedom in communism as the achievement of rational common control over human interchange with nature attained “under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature” (p. 820). In addition there is the famous footnote in Volume I of Capital where Marx complains that in elaborating his notion of utility, Bentham failed to consider its relationship with human nature (p. 609). On the other hand, Kangrga persuasively argues, in the vein of Marx's Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach, against all “essentialist” doctrines of human nature in the Marxian context on the grounds that such doctrines are insensitive to the historical dimension of man's world and his existence (Milan Kangrga, “Smisao Marxove filozofije,” Praxis [YE], no. 3, 1967, pp. 292, 298–299). In the middle ground we find yet a third position occupied by Pešić, who puts forward the thesis that both a “general human nature” and a “historically modified human nature” are present in Marxism (Zagorka Pešić-Golubović, “What is the Meaning of Alienation?” Praxis [IE], no. 3, 1966, p. 358). While Kangrga is perhaps too adamant in his broad assertion that there can be no Marxian philosophical anthropology (Kangrga, “Smisao Marxove filozofije,” p. 299)—a claim seemingly analogous in motivation to the Hebrew prohibition on articulating the name of God, since to define a thing is in a sense to negate it—his rejection of ahistorical schema of human nature is nevertheless well taken. Yet even Kangrga does seem to imply that there is a general structure or mode of human existence—the mode of praxis. It should be noted, moreover, that when Marx speaks of communism as the “appropriation of human nature,” for instance, he may be taken to mean “human nature” in the dynamic sense of “humanized nature,” i.e., nature transformed by man but not yet necessarily recognized or utilized by man as his own.

38. In the following exposition I am conscious of making a potentially misleading distinction between the “man-nature” and “man-man” relationships. With regard to the former pairing, which I see as the possible source of confusion, I should reassert that the category of “nature” can include human nature as well. In this way praxis can be sensibly understood as the changing of both nature and man.

39. A fine discussion of this problem is in Alfred Schmidt, The Concept of Nature in Marx (London, 1971), passim. See also Joseph J. O'Malley, “History and Man's ‘Nature' in Marx,” in Marx's Socialism, ed. Shlomo Avineri (New York, 1973), pp. 90–100.

40. Marx, Capital, vol. I, pp. 7, 9.

41. Ibid., voi. III, p. 820.

42. Gajo Petrović, “Histoire et nature,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1966, pp. 73–74. As Petrović points out, Engels made this argument in rather elaborate form as early as 1843, in his “Outline for a Critique of National Economy”; see Marx and Engels, Werke, vol. I, pp. 514–515.

43. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 207–208; Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 178.

44. Jean Starobinski makes a similar point with respect to Rousseau, in his J.-J. Rousseau: Le transparence et l'obstacle (Paris, 1971), pp. 346ff. and passim. A comparison between the views of Rousseau and Marx on nature and labor is of more than passing interest, since Rousseau seems to have played an important role (if secondary to that of German philosophy) in Marx's intellectual development, and there is much to be learned from a parallel analysis of the two. For such an analysis, see Mészáros, pp. 49–61, 105–107.

45. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 177.

46. Marx, Early Writings, p. 208. For an especially clear and useful summary of this argument, see Petrović, “Histoire et nature,” passim.

47. Marx and Engels, German Ideology (1947), p. 7.

48. The following line of argument is suggested by Marković, Humanizam i dijalektiha, pp. 142–143. See also Tucker, Philosophy and Myth, pp. 129–132.

49. Marx, Early Writings, p. 157.

50. Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 97.

51. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 157–158, 128, 207–208.

52. Predrag Vranicki, “On the Concept of Practice,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1965, p. 42.

53. “A quoi bon Praxis?” p. 4.

54. Kangrga, “Smisao Marxove filozofije,” p. 300.

55. Kangrga, “Problem otudjenja u Marxovu djelu,” p. 94.

56. Kangrga, “Smisao Marxove filozofije,” p. 300 (emphasis inserted); Milan Kangrga, “Praxis et critique,” Praxis (IE), no. 2–3, 1965, p. 369; Kangrga, “Problem otudjenja u Marxovu djelu,” p. 94 (emphases in the original).

57. Kangrga, “Smisao Marxove filozofije,” pp. 299–300.

58. Milan Kangrga, “O utopijskom karakteru povijesnoga; ili, Kako to stoji s utopijom?” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1969, pp. 799–810. See also Milan Kangrga, “Zbilja i utopija,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1972, pp. 9–35. Kangrga hesitates even to draw the line indicated by Bloch between the “utopian” and the “utopistic”—the latter consisting of the abstract fabrication of abstract realities bearing no relation to historical conditions and having no actual referents. To make even this distinction, Kangrga claims, is to violate the very “historical character of the utopian” (ibid., pp. 17, 12); in other words, insofar as man is the history-making being, he creates those very “objective conditions” to the absence of which the critics of the utopistic might appeal.

59. Danko Grlić, “Practice and Dogma,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1965, p. 51.

60. Danko Grlić, “Kreacija i akcija “Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1967, pp. 569, 573–574. Grlić's fascination with Nietzsche is by no means restricted to this piece; indeed he may be said to have a minor obsession with Nietzsche. See his Ko je Niče? (Belgrade, 1969).

61. In “Diskusija,” in Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1967, pp. 578–580.

62. Grlić, “Kreacija i akcija,” p. 566.

63. Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (New York, 1966), p. 10.

64. Grlić, “Practice and Dogma,” p. 52.

65. Miladin Životić, “The Dialectics of Nature and the Authenticity of Dialectics,” Praxis (IE), no. 2, 1967, p. 255; Vranicki, “On the Problem of Practice,” p. 45.

66. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 158–159. On the “concrete universal” as a methodological concept in Marx's thought, see Schaff, pp. 6off.

67. Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam, pp. 95–96.

68. Rudi Supek, “Čovjek bez društvenog mjerila,” in ibid., especially pp. 335ff.; also printed as “L'homme sans mésure sociale,” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1966, pp. 413–420.

69. Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, pp. 96–7.

70. Ibid., p. 96.

71. Marx, Early Writings, p. 158.

72. Quoted from Hegel, “Differences Between the Systems of Fichte and Schelling,” in Rudi Supek, “Actualité de la pensée d'Hégel et de Lénine,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1971, p. 8.

73. See also Gajo Petrović, “Humanizam i revolucija,” Praxis (YE), no. 4, 1970, p. 635; and Andrija Krešić, Političko društvo i političita mitologia: Prilog Irritici “Imita ličnosti” (Belgrade, 1968), p. 168.

74. Marx, Early Writings, p. 202.

75. For such an argument, see the paper presented to the 1964 Korčula Summer School by the Czech philosopher Karel Kosik, “Dijalektika morala i moral dijalektike,” in Smisero i perspektive soajalizma, especially p. 296.

76. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 20.

77. Engels, Anti-Dühring, pp. 149ff., 154.

78. Lukács, p. 246n.

79. For a useful summary of Lukàcs's critique of science, see Andrew Arato, “Lukàcs's Theory of Reification,” Telos, no. 11 (Spring 1972), pp. 34ff.

80. Marković, Humanizam 1 dijalektika, pp. 170, 171.

81. Engels, The Dialectics of Nature, p. 172. Similarly, in Anti-Dühring (pp. 45–6), Engels argues that all science arose as a consequence of human needs.

82. Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 20, g8.

83. With the possible exception of Kangrga, who at the 1960 Bled conference on the theory of reflection decried what he described as Engels' return to an eclectic mixture of eighteenth-century mechanism and classical idealism. Kangrga asserted that “the dialectic is not selfmovement . . . but the self-activity of historical man' (here in substantive agreement with Marković) and furthermore that any materialism that forgets this is no more than an “animal materialism” (Milan Kangrga, “O nekim bitnim pitanjima teorije odraza,” in Neki problemi teorije odraza, pp. 40–41).

84. Životić, “The Dialectics of Nature,” p. 256. .

85. Ibid., pp. 259–60.

86. Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 605; Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 63.

87. “If man derives all his knowledge and emotions from the sensual world and his experiences in it, then the empirical world must be arranged so that he can experience it and appropriate in it that which is truly human, so that he can experience himself as man” (Marx and Engels, Sveta parodica, p. 161).

88. Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. I, p. 178.

89. See Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 7.

90. V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (New York, 1927), especially pp. 94–142; quotations are from pp. 110, 106. In fairness to Engels, it might be pointed out that it is not quite clear whether he really did hold to a strict reflection theory of the type which Lenin ascribed to him. In Anti-Dühring Engels described ideology as “an image which is distorted because it has been torn from its real basis and, like a reflection in a concave mirror, is standing on its head” (p. 107). Even socialism, apparently, was not for Engels an exact image of reality reproduced in the minds of its adherents, but rather the “ideal reflection” of the conflict between the productive forces and the mode of production “in the minds of the class which is directly suffering under it—the working class” (ibid., p. 293; emphasis inserted). In some of Engels' later works, such as “Ludwig Feuerbach” and “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” there may in fact be grounds for maintaining that Engels did embrace a more mechanistic theory of reflection.

91. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p. 363.

92. “Diskusija,” in Neki problemi teorije odraza. Kangrga evidently was referring to Marx's polemic with the hypothetical doubter who insisted upon a satisfactory solution to the riddle of the Prime Mover in order to substantiate the thesis of the independent existence of man. Marx's reply was that the “question is itself a product of abstraction. . . . Ask yourself whether your question does not arise from a point of view to which I cannot reply because it is a perverted one. . . . If you ask a question about the creation of nature and man you abstract from nature and man. You suppose them non-existent and you want me to demonstrate that they exist. I reply: give up your abstraction and at the same time you abandon your question” (Marx, Early Writings, p. 166).

93. See Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 67–76 and passim.

94. Quoted in Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 29. For Petrović's argument that Lenin actually rejected the theory of reflection in his later philosophical work, see ibid., pp. 13, 25–26, 191.

95. Miladin Životić, “Socijalistički humanizam i jugoslovenska filozofija,” Filosofija, no. 1–2, 1968, p. 115.

96. Joseph Stalin, “Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” in Selected Writings (New York, 1942), pp. 407–415.

97. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 64.

98. Gajo Petrović, “Humanizam i revolucija,” Praxis (YE), no. 4, 1970, p. 635; Petrovic,Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 23, 90–114. See Stalin, “Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” pp. 415–416. It might seem strange that the Stalin of the 1930s, who is often described in such vivid terms as a “voluntarist” and a person who constantly made decisions which dangerously overreached the capabilities of the Soviet system (see especially Roy Medvedev, Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism [New York, 1973], pp. 71–109) should have adhered to a philosophical system in which man is inextricably bound to inexorable laws of social development. Životić attempts to explain this anomaly by pointing to the pragmatic and self-justifying nature of the Stalinist dialectic, which applied the category of necessity to itself only a posteriori: “the voluntarism of [charismatic] rule . . . cloaks itself in objectivism: all that happens takes place according to a law of necessity” (Životić, “Socijalistički humanizam i jugoslovenska filozofija,” p. 117). Z. A. Jordan similarly argues that in dialectical materialism, voluntarism in practice and idealism in theory are mutually reinforcing elements (see Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism [New York, 1967], pp. 14ff.). A sociological explanation—that is, just by the time of the appearance of Stalin's “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” Soviet society had entered into its posttransformational stage—is also helpful in accounting for this apparent discrepancy.

99. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 59.

100. Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam, pp. 38–43.

101. This shortcoming was discussed by Mihailo Marković as early as 1951 in his Revizija, pp. 54–60. See also Zagorka Pešić, “Diskusija o problemu negacije negacije,” Filozofski pregled, no. 2, 1953, pp. 24–33; Životić, “The Dialectics of Nature,” pp. 261–2; and Rudi Supek, “Dialectique de la pratique sociale,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1965, p. 60. Gustav A. Wetter in his Dialectical Materialism also notes that the principle of negation of negation fell out of favor in about 1938 and remained in obscurity until Stalin's death. In the late 1950s it seemed to be making an uncertain comeback in certain Soviet philosophical circles (see Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism [New York, 1953], pp. 355–362). In the authoritative Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism written by O. Kuusinen et al. (Moscow, 1961), the negation of negation is only to be found in partially concealed form under the heading, “Dialectical Development from the Lower to the Higher” and not discussed at any length at all (pp. 101–102). It should also be noted that at least in this modern Bible of Soviet philosophy, the fundamental theses of Stalinist “diamat” about the character of matter, nature, and the dialectic are preserved almost in their entirety (see ibid., pp. 22–141).

102. Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, p. 34.

103. See, for instance, Pazhitnov, p. 11; V. M. Ivanova, “Problemmy gumanizma v sovremennoi Yugoslovenkoi filosoficheskoi literature,” Filosofskie nauki, no. 2, 1967, pp. 163–169 (reprinted in full in Serbo-Croatian in Praxis [YE], no. 5–6, 1967, pp. 869–879); Marija I. Petrosjan, “Problemi coveka u sovjetskoj filosofskoj nauci,” Filosofia, no. 1–2, 1967, pp. 220–221; D. I. Chesnokov, “Obostrenie ideinopoliticheskoi borby i sovremennyi filosofski revizionizm,” Voprosy filosofa, no. 12, 1968, pp. 3–14 (reprinted in full in Serbo-Croatian in Praxis [YE], no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 325–337). Chesnokov, one of the great éminences grises of Soviet philosophy, complains of “philosophical revisionism” that in discussing “praxis,” too much attention is devoted to “the internal world of man,” and that “it does not connect man with nature but instead presents him as something self-sufficient, primary, in relation to theoretical activity and the external world. Further. Practice loses its concrete-historical form” (ibid., p. 333). In this way, he claims, philosophical anthropology reverts to “bourgeois individualism” (idem). For comments in the same vein by a Polish “diamat” adherent, see Sewerin Zurawicki, “ ‘Stvaralački' marksizam ili ljevičarski ‘radikalizam’?: Na marginama zagrebačkog časopisa Praxis,” Praxis (YE), no. 1, 1971, p. 151 (this article originally appeared in Studia Filozoficzne, no. 6, 1970, pp. 103–118, as “ ‘Twórczy' marksizm czy lewacki ‘radykalizm’”).

104. Ivanova, p. 873.

105. Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, p. 14.

106. Predrag Vranicki, “Glavni pravci marksističke filozofije u XX stoljeću,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, p. 324.

107. Marx, Early Writings, p. 51.

108. Schaff nicely points up this tension in Marx's thought about philosophy in Marxism and the Human Individual, pp. 116–117.

109. Marx, The German Ideology (1970), p. 118.

110. Marx, Early Writings, p. 44.

111. Marx, German Ideology (1970), p. 118.

112. Marx, Early Writings, p. 200.

113. Ibid., p. 50.

114. Rudi Supek, in the discussion held by the Editorial Board of the Belgrade journal Gledišta, “La philosophic dans la société contemporaine,” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1967, p. 494; Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, p. 13; Gajo Petrović, “Philosophy and Socialism,” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1967, p. 545; emphases in the original.

115. Markovic, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 11, 12.

116. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 164; Gajo Petrović, “Philosophie et revolution: Vingt faisceaux de questions,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 95–96 (emphases in the original).

117. “Socialism,” wrote Marx, “ . . . begins from the theoretical and practical sense perception of man and nature as essential beings” (Early Writings, p. 167). On these grounds it would seem that Petrović would find himself in disagreement with Avineri's thoughts on Marx as a philosopher, for the latter sees Marx's philosophical activity merely as a prelude to praxis—but not as a mode of praxis itself:

“The dialectical crux of the matter is that the abolidon of philosophy presupposes a prior development of a philosophy that will be sophisticated enough to comprehend reality adequately . . . Before Marx could move into praxis he had to perfect philosophy— only in order to transcend it” (Avineri, pp. 136–137).

118. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, pp. 20, 196.

119. Ibid., pp. 2of.

120. See Marx, Early Writings, p. 159. The following argument is made in more elaborate form in Kangrga, “Praxis et critique,” passim.

121. Marx, Early Writings, p. 54.

122. See Marković, Humanizam i dijalektiha, p. 30.

123. Rousseau had said of his theory of natural right: “In this way one is not forced to make man a philosopher before making him a man.” See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Preface to “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” in ed. Roger D. Masters, The First and Second Discourses (New York, 1964), p. 96.

124. Branko Bošnjak, “Smisao filozovske egzistencije (filozofija i autoritet),” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1969, p. 366; Petrović, Marx in the MidTwentieth Century, p. 166.

125. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, pp. 330–331. The role of philosophy as criticism is also emphasized by the French Marxist Henri Lefebvre (The Sociology of Marx [New York, 1968], p. 6) with regard to the transcendence of philosophy:

“The speculative, systematic, abstract aspects of philosophy are rejected. But philosophy does not just vanish as if it had never been. It leaves behind it the spirit of radical criticism, dialectical thought which grasps the ephemeral side of existence, dissolves and destroys it—the power of the negative . . . it opens up the possibility of a full flowering of human potentialities— reconciliation of the real and the rational, of spontaneity and thought, and the appropriation of human and extra-human nature.”

In his treatise on Marxist humanism, Leszek Kofakowski has the same conception of philosophy in mind when he writes that philosophy “is the eternal effort to question all that is obvious, and thus the continual disavowal of existing relations” (Leszek Kohakowski, Toward a Marxist Humanism [New York, 1968], p. 20).

126. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century, p. 166.

127. Miladin Životić, in “La philosophie dans la société contemporaine,” p. 519.

128. “A quoi bon Praxis?” p. 4.

129. Lefebvre, p. 4.

III. The Crisis of Politics: Political Alienation and Stalinism

1. Marković, From Affluence to Praxis, pp. 229–230.

2. Karel Kosĺk, La nostra crisi attuale (Rome, 1969), pp. 33–34; as quoted in Vjekoslav Mikecin's review of the book in Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1969, p. 868.

3. This distinction is suggested in Sheldon Wolin's essay, “The Politics of the Study of Revolution,” Comparative Politics, vol. 5, no. 3 (April 1973). pp. 343–358.

4. Ibid., p. 355.

5. Levi (op. cit., pp. 14–15) speaks in terms of a tension between “power divorced from value” and “power grounded in value,” and observes that “the very form in which ‘politics' is to be defined is itself a ‘humanistic' problem” (p. 15).

6. Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 62, 47.

7. Idem. Here, Marx's critique of Hegel seems to borrow from Rousseau's description of the degeneration of the social contract. See Rousseau, “Second Discourse,” p. 172.

8. Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, p. 64.

9. Marx, Early Writings, p. 58.

10. Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 157–158; see also pp. 163–164. It is of interest that Marx speaks here specifically of a “division of social labour,” rather than of a social division of labor, emphasizing once again the inherently social nature of the productive process.

11. Marx, Capital, vol. I, p. 763; Marx, German Ideology (1947), p. 74.

12. Rudi Supek, Protivurječnosti i nedorečenosti jugoslovenskog samoupravnog socijalizma,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, p. 366; Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam, pp. 68–69.

13. Marx, German Ideology (1947), p. 74.

14. Ljubomir Tadic, Poredak i sloboda (Belgrade, 1967), p. 286.

15. Marx, Critique of Hegel's ‘Philosophy of Right,' p. 32; Marx, Early Writings, pp. 13–14, 24–25.

16. Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, p. 72.

17. Marx, Grundrisse, p. 84.

18. Marx, Early Writings, p. 31.

19. Ibid., p. 30.

20. For a similar argument, see Marković, From Affluence to Praxis, p. 229.

21. Marx, Critique of Hegel's ‘Philosophy of Right,' pp. 119–120.

22. Ljubomir Tadić, “Moc, elite i demokratija,”Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1970, pp. 64–67; see Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (ed. Michael Oakeshott), Chapter X (especially pp. 56–57). For another interesting discussion of the concept of power, this time in connection with Nietzsche, see Gajo Petrović, “Moc, nasilje i humanost,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1970, pp. 45–52.

23. Ljubomir Tadić, “Autoritet i autoritarno mišljenje,” Filosofija, no. 1–2, 1968, pp. 81–82; Tadic, “Moc, elite i demokratija,” p. 66.

24. As in the seminal work of one of the chief spokesmen of modern American political science, Robert Dahl. In his Modem Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, 1970), Dahl states clearly: “Political analysis deals with power, rule, or authority. Economics concerns itself with scarce resources or the production and distribution of goods and services. . . . It has proved intellectually fruitful to distinguish some aspects of life as ‘economic' and other aspects as ‘political’” (hence, Dahl argues, an economic system cannot be described as either “democratic” or “dictatorial”) (p. 7).

25. See Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, pp. 79–85.

26. Tadic, “Moc, elite i demokratija,” pp. 71–72, 74.

27. Ibid., p. 68.

28. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, pp. 244, 234.

29. Ibid., p. 76.

30. Ibid., pp. 261–262. The last phrase is borrowed from Lukàcs's essay on the party in History and Class Consciousness, p. 318.

31. Supek, “Dialectique de la pratique sociale,” p. 70.

32. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 128; Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 86.

33. Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, p. 619; see Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 29m.

34. Andrija Krešić, Dijalektika politike (Sarajevo, ,1968), pp. 113–116.

35. Petrović, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth. Century, pp. 188, 152; Tadic, “Autoritet i autoritarno mišljenje,” p. 92.

36. Ljubomir Tadić, “Odnos filozofije i politike kod Marksa,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. I, p. 396.

37. On the “transitional period,” see especially Petrovic, Marx in the Mid-Twentieth. Century, pp. 154–169.

38. Mihailo Marković, “Nova levica i kulturna revolucija,” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1970, p. 937.

39. Petrović, “Philosophy and Socialism,” p. 554.

40. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 9–12; passage quoted here is from pp. 10–11.

41. For summaries and critiques of these arguments, see especially Azra Šarac, “Diskusije sovjetskih filozofa povodom Ekonomsko-filozovskih rukopisa,” Praxis (YE), no. 3, 1967, pp. 406–420; and Rudi Supek, “Sovjetski filozofi i teorija otudjenja,” Praxis (YE), no. 4, 1967, pp. 516–521. Soviet discussions of the issue include Yu. N. Davydov, Trud i svoboda (Moscow, 1962), pp. 46–55; I. S. Narskii, “Ob istoriko-filosofskom razvitii poniatiia otchuzhdeniia,” Filosofkie nauki, no. 4, 1963, pp. 104–105; and Pazhitnov, p. 48. The same attempt to delimit the concept of alienation to bourgeois society in view of the impossibility of eliminating it from Marx's work was made by the Yugoslav philosopher Dragutin Leković and, in cruder form, by the politician Veljko Vlahović at symposia in 1963 and 1964 where the future Praxis Marxists made their first major public appearances after Bled: see Marks i savremenost, vol. I, p. 56; and ibid., vol. II, pp. 47 1ff.

42. Marx, Early Writings, pp. 153–155.

43. Predrag Vranicki, “Socialism and the Problem of Alienation,” in Erich Fromm, ed., Socialist Humanism (Garden City, 1965), pp. 305–306 (this essay was also printed in Praxis [IE], no. 2–3, 1965, pp. 307–318); Predrag Vranicki, “Moral i historija,” Praxis (YE), no. 6, 1971, p. 923; Mihály Vajda, “Otudjenje i socijalizam: Diskusije Madjarskih marksista,” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1967, p. 829; emphasis in the original. The debate about the applicability of the concept of alienation to noncapitalist societies is by no means confined to theorists from the “socialist” countries of Eastern Europe. Isaac D. Balbus makes an argument similar to that of the Praxis Marxists in a polemical reply to the West German Marxists Haupt and Liebfried, in his “The Negation of Negation: Theory of Capitalism Within an Historical Theory of Social Change,” Politics and Society, vol. 3, no. 1 (Fall 1972), pp. 61–62. See also Ernst Mandel, The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx (New York, 1971), pp. 137ff.

44. Mészáros, pp. 245, 246–248.

45. Krešić, Političko društvo i politička mitologija, p. 168.

46. See Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 78; Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, especially pp. 133–134.

47. Predrag Vranicki, in “Diskusija o politici i političkoj nauci,” in Marks i savrenemost, vol. II, p. 155; and Ljubomir Tadić, in ibid., p. 171.

48. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 78.

49. Ibid., pp. 80–81.

50. Ibid., pp. 178ff., and especially pp. 186–195; Marković, “Socialism and Self-Management,” p. 179. In a later essay, Marković is obviously less sanguine about the elite's ability to set itself aside voluntarily, especially if it happens to be dominated by a strong personality. Here, Marković advocates some rather bold preventive measures: “Analogously to the norms of ancient democracy it should be a matter of revolutionary ethics to remove potential charismatic leaders from the positions of power and influence and to transfer them to other important social functions” (From Affluence to Praxis, p. 204).

51. See Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 41–42; and Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 132. Even Supek, one of the most ardent proponents of self-management among the Praxis Marxists, seems to defend Lenin's reasons for rejecting the demands of the Workers' Opposition—the lack of historical conditions in backward Russia—while adding somewhat lamely that Shliapnikov was, “to be sure,” proved correct by “subsequent development” (Sociologija i socijalizam, pp. 182–187). In more measured terms, Vranicki also endorses Lenin's rationale for rejecting the imminent establishment of workers' councils: see his Historija marksizma, vol. I, p. 391.

52. Krešić does not, however, assign the responsibility for these abuses to Lenin. Indeed, Krešić attaches considerable importance to Lenin's increasing concern with bureaucratism toward the end of his life: Krešić, Politicko društvo i politička mitologija, pp. 13ff.

53. As evidence, Krešić points to the rapid growth of the staff of the chief Party Secretary after the death of Sverdlov: ibid., p. 152.

54. Ibid., pp. 160–161.

55. Ibid., pp. 24, 25.

56. Although not explicitly acknowledged by the Praxis Marxists, the Trotskyist interpretation of Stalinism as a bureaucratic Thermidor is maintained largely intact in their critique of the USSR. See, for instance, Tadić (Poredak i sloboda, pp. 118–119), who describes the advent of Stalinism as a “bureaucratic counterrevolution.”

57. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 172.

58. Besim Ibrahimpašić, “Prilog problematici teorije partije,” Marks i savremenost, vol. II, pp. 98–99.

59. Daniels, p. 241.

60. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 135. On the myth of party monolithism, see also Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 81–88.

61. Tadić, Poredak i sloboda, p. 85; Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. II, pp. 65–69 and ff.; Predrag Vranicki, “Socijalizam i kriza,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 318–319; Krešić, Političko društvo i političita mitologija, pp. 117–120, and in general, pp. 1 14ff.; Krešić, Dijalektika politike, pp. 48–60 and passim. A fascinating critical discussion of Kresić's critique of Stalinism by Pešić, Stojanović, Trivo Indjić, Zdravko Kučinar, and Tadic can be found in “Diskusije o knjizi Andrije Krešića Kritika kulta lićnosti,” Filosofija, no. 3–4, 1969, pp. 219–229.

62. Cited by Najdan Pašić, in “Diskusija povodom saopštenja Miroslava Pečujlića,” in Marks i savremenost, vol. I, pp. 252–253.

63. Miroslav Pecujlić, in ibid., p. 256; Miroslav Pečujlić, Klase i savremeno društvo: Ogledi (Belgrade, 1967), p. 87 (emphasis in the original).

64. Ibid., p. 86.

65. See Marx, Early Writings, p. 131ff.

66. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 291; emphasis in the original.

67. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York, 1963), p. 174.

68. Mihailo Marković, “The Concept of Revolution,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 47–8. See also Krešić, Političko društvo i političità mitologija, p. 69.

69. Djilas, The New Class, p. 35. Even Trotsky, it might be recalled, did not go this far inasmuch as he balked at identifying the social relations of Stalinism as class relations on the grounds of the absence of private ownership and the right of inheritance: see Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (New York, 1965), pp. 248–252.

70. See below, Chapter VI.

71. See Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 33–75. The bulk of this essay first appeared in Praxis, no. 2, 1967, pp. 176–197. Quotations here are from Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 59, 47, 46.

72. Miroslav Pečujlić, “Kritika teorijske misli o strukturi socijalističkog društva,” Socijalizam, no. 11, 1967, p. 1389.

73. Edvard Kardelj, in a speech published in Socijalizam, no. 1–2, 1968, p. 28; as quoted by Slobodan Stanković in RFE Report, “Ideological Discussions in Yugoslavia Continue,” 29 April 1968.

74. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 156–177; also see particularly Rudi Supek, “Les antinomies éthiques de l'existence révolutionnaire,” Praxis (IE), no. 2–3, 1965, pp. 351–363.

75. Svetozar Stojanović, “Od postrevolucionarne diktature ka socijalističkoj demokratiji: Jugoslovenski socijalizam na raskršću,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, p. 396.

76. Nebojša Popov, “Oblici i karakter društvenih sukoba,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 331–333. Also of note in this connection is an article by another young Praxis Marxist, Božidar Jakšić, for which Jakšić received a harsh two-year prison sentence from the conservative authorities in Sarajevo. While Jakšić took a less severe view than Popov of the conduct of the Party during the war, he criticized the lack of Party interest after the war in the peasantry, whose role in the resistance was of crucial importance, and argued that the Brioni Plenum of 1966 (at which Ranković was relieved of his duties) did not affect the basic political and social structure of Yugoslavia, which remains essentially a class society of the classic type. See Božidar Jakšić, “Jugoslovensko društvo izmedju revolucije i stabilizacije,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 413–424. On Jakšić's trial, see “Dokumenti o istrazi i sudjenju protiv Božidara Jakšića,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1973, pp. 255–272.

77. It is biased, it seems to this writer, particularly in its “underestimation” of the Yugoslav revolutionary experience. Considering the strongly hierarchical and institutional nature of the CPY before, during, and after the war—and here Popov is surely right—it is all the more remarkable that the Partisan leaders found the initiative and the foresight to begin building the foundations of the new society during the war (in the form of the institutional infrastructure of the AntiFascist Council of Popular Liberation—AVNOJ) and that after the war they were able to stand the strain of excommunication. That all this did help to consolidate the political position of the Party summit as Popov contends is, however, beyond doubt.

78. See below, Chapter IV.

79. Krešić, Političko društvo i politička mitologija, pp. 164, 90; Markovic, From Affluence to Praxis, pp. 162–163.

80. See Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. II, pp. 61–78; Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam, pp. 26ff.

81. Ljubomir Tadic, “La bureaucratic, organisation réifiée,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1968, pp. 138–140.

82. In Weber's discussion, at any rate, this issue is hardly one-sided: see From Max Weber, pp. 245ff. A “broad constructionist” of Weber might argue that “charisma” applies to political structures as well as to personalities, structures which, in contrast to bureaucratic and patriarchal forms of authority, lack any clear “institutions of daily routine.” While Weber certainly did not underestimate the importance of the personality of the charismatic leader, he also stressed the dependence of the leader himself on his “machine” in the following words:

“The leader and his success are completely dependent on the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives. . . . What he actually attains under the conditions of his work is therefore not in his hands, but is prescribed to him by the following's motives, which, if viewed ethically, are predominantly base” (ibid., p. 125).

In any event, Tadic certainly points up (however indirectly) a problem in Weber's thought about charisma, particularly with respect to the latter's assertion that “charismatic domination is the very opposite of bureaucratic domination” (ibid., p. 247).

83. Stojanović, “Od postrevolucionarne diktature,” pp. 376–377, 377–378, 379. Stanley Hoffman, discussing de Gaulle's style of “crisis leadership,” makes a similar point. “Crisis leadership,” he remarks,

“on the one hand . . . represents the collapse of the norm, both in a substantive sense, for it constitutes a global injection of change in a previously immobile system, and in a general sense, for it corresponds to a collapse of the ‘delicate balance of terror' which exists in routine relations. . . . On the other hand, crisis authority performs a function for the system rather than a change of system. . . . The function it performs is double: crisis leadership is both the agent of social change in the system, and the preserver of the system against the moral threat of either destruction by immobility or a change of system.”

See Stanley Hoffman, “Heroic Leadership: The Case of Modern France,” in Lewis J. Edinger, ed., Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies (New York, 1967), pp. 116–117.

IV. The Critique of Yugoslav Socialism

1. Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, pp. 292, 294.

2. A[leksandra] Kollontai, “Die Arbeiteropposition,” in Arbeiterdemokratie oder Parteidiktatur (Moscow, 1921), pp. 221, 224; as quoted in Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. I, p. 389.

3. See Vranicki, Historija marksizma, vol. I, pp. 391–392.

4. Josip Broz Tito, excerpt from his speech of June 26, 1950, in Henry M. Christman, ed., The Essential Tito (New York, 1970), pp. 84–85.

5. Stojanović, “Od postrevolucionarne diktature,” p. 379; emphasis provided by Stojanović.

6. One of the most informative studies on the structure and development of self-management in Yugoslavia is Albert Meister's Où va l'autogestion yougoslave? (Paris, 1970). See also Jiri Kolaja, Workers' Councils: The Yugoslav Experiment (London, 1965); Adolf Sturmthal, Workers' Councils (Cambridge, Mass., 1964); and Johnson, pp. 252ff. Johnson (p. 256) claims that the original theoretical inspiration for the self-management experiment came from Kardelj's seminal 1949 article in Komunist, no. 4 (“O narodnoj demokratiji u Jugoslaviji”: see above, Chapter I).

7. Meister, p. 41.

8. Ibid., p. 258.

9. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 86.

10. Of particular note in this connection was Rudi Supek's participation in the international symposium in Amsterdam in 1970 dedicated to workers' self-management in Yugoslavia. Papers and ensuing discussions at the symposium are compiled in M. J. Broekmayer, ed., Yugoslav Worker's Self-Management (Dordrecht, 1970). See also Supek's comments occasioned by this symposium, in Rudi Supek, “Jugoslovenski samoupravljanje pred evropskim forumom,”Praxis (YE), no. 3, 1970, pp. 383–396.

11. Josip Broz Tito, “We Shall Defend Our Socialist Community With All Available Means: Concluding Remarks by President Tito at the 21st Session of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 45 (October-December 1971 ), p. 73

12. In this connection W. N. Dunn has rightly observed that the “socialist humanists are the only [ideological] group [in contemporary Yugoslavia] which maintains a commitment to cultural goals of self-management” (W. N. Dunn, “Ideology and Organization in Socialist Yugoslavia: Modernization and the Obsolescence of Praxis,” Newsletter on Comparative Study of Communism, vol. V, no. 4 [August 1972], p. 43).

13. Mihailo Marković, “Socijalizam i samoupravljanje,” in Smisao i perspektive socijalizma, p. 54.

14. Ljubomir Tadic, “De la cohérence d'une défense de la bureaucratic,” Praxis (IE), no. 2, 1967, p. 287.

15. Marković, “Socialism and Self-Management,” pp. 179, 185.

16. Ibid., p. 193.

17. Rus, a close associate of Praxis for many years and a member of its Editorial Council throughout its history, nevertheless remained somewhat aloof from the journal's fundamental ideas, as the following discussion will suggest. In his “Problemi participativne demokratije” (Smisao i perspektive, pp. 204–216), Rus presents a summary of the 1960–64 findings of the Kranj Institute for Labor Organization and the Serbian Republic's Center for Workers' Self-Management in Belgrade on the hierarchical structure of industrial enterprises. Subsequent studies of interest in this connection done by Rus are: “Socijalni procesi i struktura moći u radnoj organizaciji,” Sociologija, no. 4, 1966, pp. 95–112; and “Odgovornost u našim radnim organizacijama,” Sociologija, no. 3, 1969, pp. 441–461. Also see the interesting study by Josip Obradović (not a. Praxis contributor), “Distribucija participacije u procesu donošenja odluka na temama vezanim uz ekonomsko poslovanje poduzeća,” Revija za sociologiju, no. 1, 1972, pp. 15–48.

18. Rus, “Problemi participativne demokratije,” pp. 208–209.

19. Rudi Supek, “Le sort de la communauté productive,” Praxis (IE), no. 2–3, 1965, pp. 285–295.

20. Ibid., pp. 288L; Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, pp. 127–288, passim; Rudi Supek, “Izraz i tehnika: O nekim prividnim dilemama,” Praxis (YE), no. 2, 1966, p. 229; Ivan Kuvačić, Marksizam i funkcionalizam (Belgrade, 1970), pp. 154–161ff. Supek and Kuvačić have pointed out that while Marx viewed the development of technology as an alienating force within the capitalist system of production, he envisioned it as an emancipatory force once freed of the shackles of competition and private property. Indeed Marx wrote the following of automated production:

“Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as a watchman and regulator to the production process itself. . . . No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing as middle link between the object and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, mastering it. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body—it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself” (Marx, Grundrisse, p. 705).

21. Supek, “Le sort de la communauté productive,” p. 293.

22. Veljko Rus, “Self-Management Egalitarianism and Social Differentiation,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1970, p. 253. The studies cited by Rus are: Veljko Rus, “The Status of Staff and Line Management with Respect to Communications, Power and Responsibility,” Moderna organizacija, no. 5, 1968; Veljko Rus, “Comparative Analysis of Communications, Power and Responsibility in Two Industrial Enterprises,” Institut za sociologijo in filozofijo pri Univerzi v Ljubljani, 1g68; Stane Možina and Janez Jerovšek, “Determinants Influencing Effectiveness of Leadership in Industrial Organization,” Institut za sociologijo in filozofijo . . . , 1969. The same adjustment of norms to practice is reported in Veljko Rus, “Moć i struktura moći u jugoslovenskim preduzećima,” Sociologija, no. 2, 1970, pp. 191–207. Rus's conclusions are supported by Obradović (“Distribucije participacije,” passim) who reports results of investigations between 1967 and 1971 showing that the degree of participation on the enterprise level does not have a significant effect on positive attitudes toward work and varies directly only with such secondary factors as satisfaction with income and working conditions. These latter variables, in turn, are apparendy only reflections of the higher status of those who participated more often.

23. Rus, “Self-Management Egalitarianism,” pp. 255–261.

24. The most prominent spokesman against the egalitarian consciousness as inconsistent with industrialization has been the Zagreb sociologist Josip Županov. See his Samoupravljanje i društvena moć (Zagreb, 1969), especially pp. 2671ff.; and his “Industrijalizam i egalitarizam,” Sociologija, no. 1, 1970, pp. 5–45.

25. Rus, “Self-Management Egalitarianism,” pp. 264–265.

26. Supek, “Le sort de la communauté productive,” p. 295. (It is of interest to recall Tadic's remarks about the concept of “public opinion,” which run in a similar vein: see above, Chapter III.) Later, Supek would speak more accurately of “Proudhonist” rather than “Fourierist” deviations in the Yugoslav concept of self-management.

27. Mihailo Marković, “The Personal Integrity in Socialist Society,” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1966, p. 407; Zagorka Pešić-Golubovic, “Ideje socijalizma i socijalistička stvarnost,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, p. 387. On the distinction between democracy and decentralization and its relation to the polemic between Marx and the proponents of Bakunin and Proudhon, see Ljubomir Tadic, “Radnička klasa i država,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 448–452.

28. See especially Meister, pp. 43ff.

29. On the latter point, see Edvard Kardelj, “To Start from the Commune,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 42 (January-March 1971), pp. 48–59.

30. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 119. In the same connection, Milan Mirić (editor of the Zagreb journal Razlog and a Praxis sympathizer) has compared what he calls the Yugoslav system of “distributional self-management” with the subdivision—with grand philanthropic gestures—of a great latifundium to landless peasants in parcels small enough to guarantee the continual and “voluntary poverty” of the peasants themselves. The landlord, on the other hand, “takes a part of the proceeds of the land in order to modernize and strengthen what remains to himself” (Mirić, Rezervati, p. 56; see also Milan Mirić, “Les territoires reservées pour la parole et pour faction,”Praxis [IE], no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 271–272).

31. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 118–125. As Zagorka Pešić points out, however, in actual practice Yugoslav enterprises cannot really be said to enjoy group ownership since, by law, they are not at complete liberty to dispose of their capital resources or of all their income: see Zagorka Pešić-Golubović, “Ideje socijalizma i socijalistička stvarnost,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 379–380. For an interesting general discussion of the juridical status of property in Yugoslavia by a prominent Yugoslav legal theorist, see Jovan Djordjević, “A Contribution to the Theory of Social Property,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 24 (October-December 1966), pp. 73–110.

32. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 125ff.

33. In addition to ibid., p. 120, see especially: Supek, “Protivurječnosti i nedorecenosti,” pp. 351ff.; and Rudi Supek, “Anarholiberalizam i marksizam,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1973, pp. 273–282, where Supek calls attention to the real content of the perversely misused term “anarcho-liberalism” in attacks by eminent Yugoslav political figures— including Tito and Kardelj—on the Praxis Marxists.

34. Supek, “Protivurječnosti i nedorecenosti,” p. 355.

35. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 121; emphasis in the original.

36. Gomulka, writing in Nowe drogi in 1957; as quoted by Karl Reyman and Herman Singer in “The Origins and Significance of East European Revisionism,” in Labedz, ed., Revisionism, p. 220. Perhaps more to the point, Marx once remarked that “the competition among workers is only another form of the competition among capitals” (Grundrisse, p. 65).

37. And, alternatively, with the forces of “anarcho-liberalism.” See Deborah Milenkovitch, Plan and Market in Yugoslav Economic Thought (New Haven, 1971), p. 283.

38. On the general terms of the debate on this important issue, see Milenkovitch, Plan and Market, passim.

39. This problem is discussed at greater length later in this chapter. Reference may be made at this point, however, to Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 215–222.

40. Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 391–396. Marković also set forth his views on this question in a discussion organized by the Editorial Board of the Belgrade journal Gledišta: see “Tehnokratizam— stvarna ili izmisljena opasnost?” Gledista, no. 7–8, 1972, pp. 923–929. On the general question of planning, see also Mihailo Marković, “Uvodna riječ za simpozij ‘Sloboda i planiranje,’” Praxis (YE), no. 1–1, 1968, pp. 47–49.

41. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 131–132, 133, 132; 217.

42. Mihailo Marković, “Economism or the Humanization of Economics,” Pram (IE), no. 3–4, 1969, p. 452. In this passage ć is not conjuring up merely a fictional straw man; in fact, he reasonably accurately summarizes the argument of an influential article in a 1965 issue of Naše teme that sparked a long debate on the question of the market simultaneously with the promulgation of the economic reforms: see Adolf Dragičević, “Radnička klasa i ekonomsko oslobodjenje rada,” Naše teme, no. 4, 1965, pp. 513–535.

43. This concept has been a part of regime ideology since the introduction of self-management itself: see Boris Kidrić, “Teze o ekonomici prelaznog perioda u našoj zemlji,” Komunist, no. 6, 1950, pp. 1–20; cited in Dunn, p. 32n36.

44. See Adolf Dragičević, “Income Distribution According to Work Performed,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 26 (April-June 1967); cited in idem.

45. See Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 201 ff.; and Miladin Životić, “Is Equality a Moral Value of our Society?” Praxis (IE), no. 4, 1966, pp. 395–404.

46. Ibid., p. 398; Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (New York, 1966), p. 9. “Quite apart from the analysis so far given,” remarked Marx, “it was in general incorrect to make a fuss about so-called ‘distribution and put the principal stress on it” (ibid., p. 10).

47. D. D. Milenkovitch, “Which Direction for Yugoslavia's Economy?” Eastern Europe, vol. 18, no. 7 (July 1969), pp. 18–19.

48. Radomir Lukić, “Društveno raslojavanje kao uzrok sukoba u Jugoslaviji,” Sociologija, no. 3, 1971, p. 351; Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 210.

49. Josip Županov, “Neke dileme u vezi sa robno-novčanim odnosima,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1968, p. 166.

50. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, p. 133; Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, pp. 402–403.

51. Rudi Supek, “Robno-novcani odnosi i socijalistička ideologija,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1968, p. 173; see also Miladin Životić, “The End of Ideals or of Ideology,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1969, pp. 409–429.

52. See Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, pp. 408–432, where he pleads for the thorough application of the principle of self-management to the sphere of culture, and especially to that of the distribution of cultural products.

53. Supek, “Robno-novcani odnosi,” pp. 176–177; emphasis in the original.

54. See Supek, “Protivurječnosti i nedorečenosti,” pp. 359–360.

55. Milan Kangrga, “Fenomenologija ideološko-političkog nastupanja jugoslavenske srednje klase,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 432, 430. Emphases in the original.

56. See especially Paul Shoup, “The National Question in Yugoslavia,” Problems of Communism, January-February 1972, pp. 21–22; and Meister, pp. 27–28, 81–82.

57. See Amendment XXII, Ustav Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavie (Belgrade, 1972), pp. 166–170.

58. Supek, “Protivurjecnosti i nedorecenosti,” p. 355; Vranicki, “Socijalizam i kriza,” p. 326.

59. Marx, German Ideology (1947), p. 59.

60. Ivan Kuvačić, “Ideologija srednje klase,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, p. 368.

61. See the discussion published in Kritika, no. 6, 1969, pp. 258–312, entitled “Nas gospodarski trenutak sadasnjosti,” dominated by Sime Djodan and Marko Veselica, two Zagreb academics later singled out as the spiritual ringleaders of the Croatian nationalist movement culminating in the December 1971 Zagreb student demonstrations. On this problem see also Paul Shoup, Communism and the Yugoslav National Question (New York, 1968), pp. 227–260; Jack C. Fisher, Yugoslavia: A Multinational State (San Francisco, 1966), passim; and Schöpflin, “The Ideology of Croatian Nationalism,” passim.

62. Životić, “Is Equality a Moral Value in our Society?” p. 401.

63. Supek, “Protivurjecnosti i nedorecenosti,” pp. 363—364.

64. See Schöpflin, pp. 126—132. What is said here with respect to Croatia only represents the most extreme instance of a general malaise throughout Yugoslavia, one which seems to have been alleviated through the Party upheavals since 1972. Indeed what the Sisak District Court, in its 1971 decision to ban the 3–4/1971 issue of Praxis, found most offensive about Kangrga's article about the “ideological-political advance of the Yugoslav middle class” was the latter's contention that the factual existence of at least six leagues of communists in the country (corresponding to the six republics) demonstrated that Yugoslav advocates of multi-partism need look no further than present political reality. See Kangrga, “Fenomenologija,” p. 44on; and “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku,” reprinted in full in Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, p. 771.

65. Schöpflin, pp. 139, 142–143.

66. Kangrga, “Fenomenologija,” p. 444.

67. See, for instance, Kangrga, “Fenomenologija,” pp. 439E This argument is very widespread in Praxis writings. Kuvačić, in fact, refers to at least one study which suggests that Yugoslav workers—especially the more militant ones—are little concerned with nationalism as a major economic or political issue: See “Fizionomija jednog štrajka,” Pogledi (Split), no. 3, 1970; cited in Ivan Kuvažić, “Još jednom o odnosu sinhronije i dijahronije,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, p. 399nl. See also Danko Grlić, “Marginalije o problemu nacije,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 554–555, for a characteristically strong stream of abuse directed against the attempt to transcend class differences by invoking the concept of the nation.

68. Tadic, “Radnička klasa i drzava,” p. 454.

69. Ante Pavelić, “Govor na Markovu trgu u Zagrebu 21. svibnja 1941”; as quoted in Žarko Puhovski, “Filozofija politike ‘novog stanja,’” Praxis (YE) no. 3–4, 1971, p. 6o8n6.

70. See Schöpflin, p. 139.

71. Marković, Humanizam i dijalektika, p. 396.

72. Rudi Supek, “Entre la conscience bourgeoise et la conscience prolétarienne,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, passim and especially pp. 264–268, 271.

73. Grlić, “Marginalije,” pp. 553–556. See also Branko Bošnjak, “Za jasnoću pojmova,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 513–521, passim. With respect to the loss of personality, Grlić cites Gramsci's dictum that “it is useful to a person who has no personality to declare that he is essential to the national being”: see Danko Grlić, “La patrie des philosophes, c'est la patrie de la liberté,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 328.

74. Grlić, “Marginalije,” p. 558.

75. “It has quickly been forgotten that Serbian and Croatian nationalism have been and remain, in both their Roman Catholic and Byzantine forms, militant ideologies of a despotic type which have lacked political and cultural creativity”: Ljubomir Tadić, “Nationalisme et internationalisme,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 321.

76. Grlić, “Marginalije,” p. 549 and n. Grlić's wrath in this part of his empassioned denunciation of nationalism is directed specifically toward the Zagreb philosopher Hrvoje Lisinski's contribution to Hrvatshi tjednik, no. 2, 1971, entitled, “Povrtak filozofije—obnova tradicije.”

77. Tadic, “Nationalisme et internationalisme,” p. 314; Grlić, “Marginalije,” p. 550; Supek, “Protivurječnosti i nedorecenosti,” p. 371.

78. Namely, Danilo Pejović. See Gajo Petrović's account of the “Annual Meeting of the Croatian Philosophical Society,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1967, especially p. 121; on Pejović, see also below, Chapter V.

79. In its programmatic pronouncement on the possibility of a Yugoslav culture alongside of the various national cultures—a rather unpopular position, particularly in Croatia—the editorship drew special attention to several of its other statements on the national question. They are (all in the International Edition of Praxis): “A quoi bon Praxis?” no. 1, 1965; “Au commencement de l'année nouvelle,” no. 2, 1967; and “Deux ans et demi de Praxis,” no. 1, 1967: see “Nacionalno u kulturi,” Praxis (YE), no. 4, 1967, especially p. 541 n. The latter piece is in turn a reprint of the introduction to an earlier issue of Praxis (YE, no. 3, 1965) on the theme of Yugoslav culture.

80. Stojanović, “Od postrevolucionarne diktature,” p. 384.

81. “Trenutak jugoslovenskog socijalizma,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1971, p. 310.

82. Marković, “Nova levica i kulturna revolucija,” p. 927; Ivan Kuvačić, “Spontanost i organizacija,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1972, p. 140.

83. See Herbert Marcuse, “The Realm of Freedom and the Realm of Necessity: A Reconsideration,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 20–25. Stojanović devotes special consideration to the “events” of May 1968, in Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 68–75.

84. Rudi Supek, “Marx et la révolution,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1969, p. 7.

85. Rudi Supek, “Une défaite qui announce la nouvelle étape du socialisme,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, pp. 492–496.

86. See “Les participants de l'ècole d'été de Korčula à l'opinion publique mondiale,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, pp. 488-go; “Télégramme adressé au camarade Tito par les participants de fècole d'été de Korcula,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 491.

87. See particularly Popov's essay, “Štrajkovi u savremenom jugoslovenskom drustvu,” Sociologija, no. 4, 1969, pp. 605–632; reprinted in Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1970, pp. 403–433, as “Streiks in der gegenwärtigen jugoslawischen Gesellschaft.” Also see his “Oblici i karakter društvenih sukoba,” and his “Sociologija i ideologija,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 411–456.

88. Popov, “Oblici i karakter,” p. 334; Popov, “Strajkovi,” pp. 605–607; and Popov, “Sociologija i ideologija,” p. 417 (here Popov directed his fire specifically at Županov's dismissal of the class nature of social conflict in Yugoslavia). Also see Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 113–114. The problem of “work stoppages” (a euphemism rejected by Popov and Stojanović) was the general topic of a broad-ranging discussion in the volume, Obustave rada (Belgrade, 1967).

89. Kangrga, “Fenomenologija,” pp. 440, 429–430.

90. Marković, “Struktura moći,” p. 823.

91. Popov, “Sociologija i ideologija,” p. 437; Milan Kangrga, in Politiha (18 September 1971), responding to a questionnaire on the administration of justice and politics. For the text of Kangrga's statement, see “Mislenje jednog od urednika Praxisa,” Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, p. 802.

V. The Praxis of Praxis

1. Supek, “Čemu, uostalom, sada još i ovaj marksizam?” p. 328.

2. Ibid., pp. 328–329.

3. From a personal discussion with Rudi Supek, Korčula, 20 August 1972.

4. Rudi Supek, “Discours d'ouverture” (Opening remarks at the 1967 Korčula Summer School), Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1968, p. 5.

5. Marković, “Socialism and Self-Management,” p. 190.

6. Kangrga, “Praxis et critique,” p. 364.

7. On Tripalo's attacks and the press' inattention to Praxis, see Rudi Supek, “Partija i inteligencija,” Praxis (YE), no. 3, 1965, pp. 492–497 (quotation from p. 497). On the polemics with Dabčević-Kučar, see Gajo Petrović, “O nepoštednoj kritici svega postojećeg,” Praxis (YE), no. 4–5, 1965, pp. 752–754. Tripalo and Dabčevic-Kucar, after a brilliant period of ascendance, were later purged from the Party for their role in the Croatian nationalist movement.

8. See especially Edvard Kardelj, Beleške o našoj društvenoj kritici (Belgrade, 1966), originally serialized in the issues of the Zagreb daily Vjesnik of October 9, 12, and 14, 1965, and reprinted as “Notes on Socialist Criticism in Yugoslavia,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 21, 1966, pp. 3–51; and the following essays: Milentije Popović, “Aktuelni društveni smisao Marksovog učenja o proizvodnji i odnosima proizvodnje,” Socijalizam, nos. 5 and 6, 1965, pp. 589–625, 729–753; Jovan Raičević, “Sporovi oko kritike,” Socijalizam, no. 6, 1965, pp. 783–805; and Vojin Hadžistević, “Udruzeni proizvodjači i kritika,” Socijalizam, no. 4, 1965, pp. 554–568.

9. Kardelj, Beleške, p. 7; see also pp. 11–13, 43.

10. Ibid., pp. 63, 36; 98E, 167.

11. Ibid., p. 41. The preceding passage is quoted from Josip Šestak [pseudonym], “Nekoliko općih primedaba povodom pečatovskih revizionistskih pokušaja,” Književne sveske, no. 1, 1940, p. 237.

12. Kardelj, Beleške, pp. 114–115,81–82, 121.

13. Ibid., pp. 110–111.

14. Ibid., pp. 76, 167.

15. Directly prior to this event, the Zagreb City Committee of the Croatian League of Communists held a meeting to discuss the Praxis problem. It was here that Tripalo expressed his fear that Praxis might become “the core of an oppositional group about which all the oppositional and dissatisfied elements of our society are gathering” (see above, Chapter I).

16. “A l'occasion des critiques les plus récentes addressées à Praxis,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 514. See also, for instance, the interviews with various Praxis Marxists published in Telegram: Hrvatski list za pitanje kulture, 8 September 1972, pp. 12–13, under the title, “Filozofi izmedju filozofije i drustva.”

17. Ljubomir Tadic, “L'intelligentsia dans le socialisme,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1969, p. 403.

18. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, pp. 201–202. For similar reflections, see also Rade Bojanović, “Lucifer and the Lord,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1970, pp. 369–380.

19. Brombert, p. 29.

20. Most notably that of President Tito, who is reported to have stated at the Third Plenum of the LCY Central Committee of 25 February 1966, “We must fight against various ideological deviations as for instance, in the periodical Praxis”: see Ionescu, p. 215n20.

21. This and the following information about the finances of Praxis has been extracted from Petrović, “Deux ans et demi de Praxis,” pp. 149–50.

22. In 1968 and 1972, the Editorial Board evidently decided that rather than ceasing publication during periods of great financial stress, they would instead publish symbolic issues of Praxis to dramatize the journal's plight. Praxis (YE) 3/1968 was symbolic in two senses: while only 28 pages long, its main attention was devoted (with the exception of a brief statement about the financial situation of the journal) to the persecution of Marxist philosophers in Poland. Praxis (YE) 5–6/1972 was only somewhat less dramatic, being only 16 pages in length, of which one quarter was devoted to the topic, “Why a Double-Number of 16 Pages?” (“Zasto dvobroj na 16 strana?”Praxis [YE], no. 5–6, 1972, pp. 619–621).

23. See Petrović, “Deux ans et demi de Praxis,” p. 147; and “Zašto dvobroj na 16 strana?” p. 621.

24. “Uz najnovije ‘financijske teškoće' Praxisa,” Praxis (YE), no. 3, 1968, p. 232.

25. See Fejtö, p. 140.

26. Gajo Petrović, “Die jugoslawische Philosophie und die Zeitschrif't Praxis,” in Gajo Petrović, ed., Revolutionäre Praxis: Jugoslawischen Marxismus der Gegenwart (Freiburg, 1969), p. 20. My thanks to Marc Linder for translating this essay from the German.

27. Vjesnik, 26 June 1966.

28. See Mihajlo Mihajlov, A Historic Proposal (New York, 1966); and Fetjö, p. 140.

29. See “Rectification de la rédaction de Praxis,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1967, pp. 135–7 (originally published in Vjesnik, 16 October 1966); “Communiqué de la Société croate de philosophie,” Praxis (IE), no. 1, 1967 (originally published in Vjesnik, g October 1966); and Petrović, “Annual Meeting of the Croatian Philosophical Society,” p. 123 and passim.

30. “Au commencement de l'année nouvelle,” Praxis (IE), no. 2, 1967. P.311.

31. See Praxis (special issue), Jun-Lipanj 1968: Dokumenti, which is the most complete compilation of documents relating to the student revolt to be found anywhere. Nebojša Popov's introduction to the volume, entitled “Prologomena za sociološko istraživanje društvenih sukoba” (pp. xi-xxiii), is also of particular value and insight. Other analyses of the June 1968 student revolt are: Popov, “Oblici i karakter društvenih sukoba,” pp. 335–337; Stojanović, “The June Student Movement,” passim; Ivan Kuvačić, “Još jednom o odnosu sinhronije i dijahronije,” passim; D. Plamenić, “The Belgrade Student Insurrection,” New Left Review, no. 54, 1969, pp. 61–78; Dennison Rusinow, “Anatomy of a Student Revolt,” American University Field Staff Reports (November 1968); and Slobodan Stanković, “Analysis of the Belgrade Student Riots,” RFE Reports: Yugoslavia, 4 June 1968.

32. One of the few concrete achievements of the June student movement was to put an end to discussion of this project, which entailed the introduction of stock certificates within economic enterprises as a means of cementing the workers' interests to the success of the given production unit, as well as the establishment of a limited stock market for foreign investors. See “Smernice o najvažnijim zadacima Saveza komunista u razvijanju sistema drustveno-ekonomskih i političkih odnosa” (Resolution adopted by the Presidency and Executive Council of the LCY Central Committee on 9 june 1968), in Dušan Bilandžić,Borba za samoupravni socijalizam u Jugoslaviji (Zagreb, 1969), pp. 133–137. See also Svetozar Stojanović, “The June Student Movement and Social Revolution in Yugoslavia,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1970, p. 399.

33. “Akciono-politički program,” in Dokumenti, pp. 139–141. Publication of the Action-Political Program was responsible for court proceedings against the Dokumenti, which were undertaken simultaneously with the court action to ban Praxis (YE) 3–4/1971.

34. “Tito Govori: Govor Predsednika Republike i Saveza komunista preko Televizije Beograd 9.VI.1968 god.,” Dokumenti, p. 340.

35. See, for instance, Dokumenti, pp. 195ff. In “Kronika političke bitke” (originally published in Vjesnik u srijedu, 19 June 1968), the already vocal nationalist economics instructor Marko Veselica claimed that Petrović was the “ideological leader and chief strategist of the Zagreb ultraleftist extremist movement,” whose “followers” “sought to incite disturbances and incidents at all costs” (Dokumenti, pp. 197–198). In a reply (originally published in Vjesnik u srijedu, 26 June 1968), Petrović pointed out that in fact on two occasions he and Kangrga were responsible for preventing unruly street demonstrations. In Belgrade, where student activity was much more prolonged and intense than in Zagreb, an important role in channeling protest into nonviolent forms was played by Dragoljub Mićunović, later to be purged from the University's Philosophy Faculty along with other Praxis Marxists in the case of the “Belgrade Eight.”

36. “Déclaration du Comité de rédaction de la revue Praxis” (signed by Gajo Petrović and Rudi Supek), Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1968, p. 466.

37. Reported in Vjesnik, 10 June 1968; article reproduced in Dokumenti, p. 213.

38. By decision of the Belgrade City Conference of the League of Communists of Serbia, 19 July 1968; see Dokumenti, pp. 416–422.

39. Speech of President Tito at the Sixth Congress of the League of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia, printed in Borba, 27 June 1968; reproduced in Dokumenti, pp. 376–79 (above passage is from ibid., p. 379).

40. See, for instance, the speech delivered in Kosovo by Milentije Popović, Chairman of the Federal Skupština, published in Borba ( 1 July 1968) and reprinted in Dokumenti, p. 380.

41. Seejosip Broz-Tito, “Introductory Address by President Tito at the Second Conference of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 46 (January-March 1972), p. 14.

42. In Serbia, where the situation was the most precarious for the Praxis Marxists, the chief resistance of this sort to pressure from above seems to have been offered by Serbian Party President Marko Nikezić, who was ultimately forced to hand in his resignation, under strong pressure from Tito, in late 1972.

43. Tito, Speech of 26 June 1968, Dokumenti, p. 379.

44. See “Odjeci,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1969, p. 640.

45. From personal notes of the author.

46. Of particular note was the acrimonious exchange published in the Belgrade Filosofija in late 1969 and early 1970. See Mihailo Popović, “Filosofska kritika i politika,” Filosofija, no. 3–4, 1969, pp. 105–130; and Muhamed Filipović, “Koncepcije naše filosofije o njenoj ulozi i odnosu u društvu,” Filosofija, no. 3–4, 1969, pp. 131–155. For rejoinders to these essays, see Ljubomir Tadić, “Filosofija i ideologia,” Filosofija, no. 1, 1970, pp. 159–174; Mihailo Marković, “Stvar je, znači, u metodi,” Filosofija, no. 1, 1970, pp. 175–182; Aleksandar Kron, “U ime kritike,” Filosofija, no. 1, 1970, pp. 183–201.

47. “Sastanak redakcijskog savjeta Praxis: Korčula 1969,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1970, p. 244.

48. Ibid., pp. 237, 236, 235, 228, 241, 242.

49. Popov, “Streiks”; Stojanović, “The June Student Movement”; and Stevan Vračar, “Le monopolisme de parti et la puissance politique des groupes,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1970, pp. 381–393.

50. “Trenutak jugoslovenskog socijalizma,” p. 309.

51. “Rjesenje Okružnogjavnog tužioca Sisak,” Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, p. 758. This offense is proclaimed by Article 52, Paragraph 1, Point 2 of the Law on the Press and Other Forms of Information to be grounds for the banning (confiscation) of a publication. The same language was taken over in a 1969 Serbian law passed in the wake of the student unrest, making the expression of “false information or assertions which evoke the hostility or agitation of the citizens” punishable by a 500 dinar fine or thirty days' imprisonment; see “Zakon o prekršajima javnog reda i mira,” Article I, Paragraph 4, in Službeni glasnik SRS, no. 20 (14 May 1969), p. 564; as quoted in Dokumenti, p. 452.

52. See “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku,” Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, pp. 769–775. For discussion of some of the points raised in Kangrga's essay, see above, Chapter IV.

53. “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku,” p. 771; on the successful appeal of the lower court's ruling, see “Žalba redakcije časopisa Praxis” and “Rjesenje Vrhovnog suda Hrvatske,” in Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, pp. 776–789. ….

54. In 1971 it was asserted by the traditionalist ideologue Bogdan Šešić that the leftist movement, represented by Praxis and its student “constituency,” had actually been responsible for the rightist backlash in the form of nationalism (see his polemic with Životić in Student, nos. 12, 13–14, 15, 16–17 in April-May 1971; cited in Popov, “Sociologija i ideologija,” p. 437n42). Stojanović's reply to this line of argument closely parallels his analysis of party inertia in the Hungary of 1956 and the Czechoslovakia of 1968:

“When in a social crisis the exit to the Left is closed off, then there will be with complete certainty a movement to the Right. Therefore the historical responsibility for the breakthrough of the nationalist Right on our political scene falls on those Party circles who in 1968 and thereafter decided to suppress the leftist student wave. . . . This was one of those crossroads in the history of the LCY which might [prove to] be as far-reaching as the suppression of the ‘Workers' Opposition' in the Bolshevik Party” (Stojanović, “Od postrevolucionarne diktature,” p. 397).

55. See Stipe Šuvar, “Tri rječi o trenutku jugoslavenskog socijalizma,”Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, pp. 677–696; passage cited here is from p. 696.

56. See Le Monde, 2 March 1972. My thanks to I. F. Stone for allowing me to consult his back stock of Le Monde.

57. Cited in Nino Košutić, “Budučnost časopisa,” Borba, 2 March 1972. My thanks to Faith Campbell for bringing this article to my attention.

58. Tito, “Introductory Address,” pp. 14–15, 17.

59. Criticizing the extreme decentralization of power foreseen in the new constitutional amendments, Djurić had expressed his concern that internecine feuding among the various nationalities would come to play an ever greater role in the future, facetiously remarking that Serbs might well become concerned about their own national boundaries and about the fate of Serbian minorities in other republics, especially in Croatia. For many, these comments raised images of the interwar period and of the suffering of Serbs at the hands of Croatian ustaši during the Second World War. Although the newspaper Student and the journal Anali pravnog fakulteta, where Djurić's remarks were initially published, were banned, official court opinions quoting those same remarks at length were not: see “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku” (31 July 1972) and “Rjesenje Vrhovnog suda Hrvatske” (15 August 1972), published (in full) in Pram (YE), no. 1–2, 1973, pp. 243–247, 252–253. The direct concern of these court documents was the banning of the 3–4/1972 issue of Praxis containing the protests of the journal's Editorial Board over the Djurić affair.

60. See “Za slobodu akademske diskusije,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 611–613; and “Dokumenti o zabrani Praxisa broj 3–4/1972,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1973, pp. 241–254.

61. “Uvod,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 308–310; passage quoted is from p. 308.

62. See “Rješenje Vrhovnog suda Hrvatske” (15 August 1972), p. 252.

63. In particular, Ivan Kuvačić's “Ideologija srednje klase” (Praxis [YE], no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 351–375), which made specific reference to Kangrga's “Fenomenologija” and boldly expanded on themes set forth in that essay.

64. Le Monde, 17, 18, 20, 27, 31 October and 3 November 1972.

65. A very informative treatment of the plight of the “Belgrade Eight” is to be found in “The Repression at Belgrade University,” submitted to The New York Review of Books (7 February 1974, pp. 32–33) by Noam Chomsky and Robert S. Cohen. See also Sharon Zukin, “The Case of the ‘Belgrade Eight’,” Telos, no. 19 (Spring 1974), pp. 138–141. For an official Yugoslav commentary on the affair, see the 1973 statement issued by the Yugoslav Embassy in Washington, D.C., “On the Ideological and Moral Fitness of Professors and Teaching Staff at Belgrade University,” Telos, no. 18 (Winter 1973–74), pp. 156–158. The subsequent account is based largely on the piece in The New York Review of Books, supplemented and confirmed by personal conversations of the author with several Praxis Marxists.

66. See NIN, 15 October 1972, p. 13.

67. The New York Times, 6 May 1973.

68. Idem.

69. See Politika, 24 December 1972.

70. “The Repression at Belgrade University,” p. 33.

71. The Washington Post, 16 March 1974.

72. Stane Dolane, “Self-Management—Motto of Modern Man,” speech delivered on 17 February 1974 in Kragujevac, in Socialist Thought and Practice, vol. 14, no. 4 (April 1974), pp. 6–7.

73. “Resolution on the Tasks of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in the Socialist Transformation of Education Along SelfManagement Lines,” Socialist Thought and Practice, vol. 14, no. 6–7 (June-July 1974), pp. 262–263.

Another ominous portent offered by the Tenth Congress was the election of the formidable Bosnian conservative, Todo Kurtović, to the post of Secretary for Ideological Work and Publicity of the Executive Committee of the LCY Presidency (Ibid., p. 312). A few months earlier Kurtović, who had just been designated Chairman of the Editorial Board of a revamped Socialist Thought and Practice, had begun to use that international forum of the Yugoslav Government to print some of the most disgraceful attacks against the Praxis Marxists which the international community had had the opportunity to contemplate. The authors of these pieces compensated in feverish polemic for what they lacked in rational discourse. See, in particular, Fuad Muhić, “Exponents of the Destruction of the Proletarian Party: Who Are the Non-Marxists?” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 1, 1974, pp. 75–92; and “The Extreme Left—Actually the Right” (discussion organized by the editorial offices of the Sarajevo daily newspaper, Oslobodjenje), Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 3, 1974, pp. 83–108. In the latter piece, the Bosnian philosopher Fuad Muhić made the stunning logical assertion that “in Yugoslav society there can be no force more left than the LCY; consequently, the appearance of every opposition represents the juncture at which it necessarily turns into the ‘right’” (p. 94). For Kurtović's own published views on the “left” Marxists of Praxis see his “Communists and Current Questions of Struggle for Socialist SelfManagement: The Further Strengthening of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 8, 1974, pp. 3–53, especially pp. 12–17.

74. See Politika, 12 November 1974.

75. See The New York Times, 29 January 1975; The Washington Post, 29 January 1975.

76. SeeVjesnik, 8 October 1972.

77. Edvard Kardelj, “Democracy in Socialism and not Against Socialism,” text of speech delivered on 26 March 1974 in Ljubljana, in Socialist Thought and Practice, vol. 14, no. 5 (May 1974), pp. 15–16; emphasis inserted.

78. Ibid., pp. 9, 11,5, 19, 27. In subsequent months, publications of the sort called for by Kardelj quickly came into being. In mid-1974, the venerable Sarajevo journal Pregled initiated an international series, Survey: Periodical for Social Studies, apparently the regime's answer to the popular International Edition of Praxis. (Significantly, Survey's back cover noted that it is published “in conjunction with” the international series, Socialist Thought and Practice.) In late 1975, Tanjug's English-language bimonthly, Yugoslav Life (no. 10–11, 1975, p. 4) proudly noted the establishment of a new Belgrade journal, Marksistička misao (Marxist Thought), published by the Central Committee of the Serbian League of Communists, which was to be “a response to the need for more engaged, integral and systematic deliberation on and clarification of the evermore complex questions of Marxist theory and self-management practice in the modern Yugoslav society. . . . In cultivating open and unbiased criticism, this new journal hopes further to develop Marxist thought through positive and constructive analyses and papers and thus curb conservative thought in all its aspects, while constantly following creative practice.”

79. See Uncensored Russia: Protest and Dissent in the Soviet Union: The Unofficial Moscow Journal, The Chronicle of Current Events, ed., trans., and with a commentary by Peter Reddaway (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1972).

80. See Zagorka Golubović, “Redakciji lista Komunist,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1973, pp. 547–551; Svetozar Stojanović, “Sadrzina, smisao i smer jednog napada,” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1973, pp. 733–744; Nebojša Popov, “Naučna istina i istina jedne politike,”Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 213–229.

81. Gajo Petrović, “Otvoreno pismo drugu Ziherlu,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 205–211.

82. See, sequentially, the following: Petrović, “O medjunarodnom izdanju Praxis;” Božidar Debenjak, Frane Jerman, Valentin Kalan, and Vojan Rus, “Neistine u izvještaju dr. G. Petrovića,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 243–248; Gajo Petrović, “Prijateljsko pismo Vojanu Rusu,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 249–253; “Obavijest redakcije Praxis,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, p. 254; “Izjava Upravnog odbora Hrvatskog filozofskog društva,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, p. 255.

83. “Izmjene u redakciji Praxis,” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1973, p. 763.

84. One of his most recent monographs, Ova jedina zemlja: Idemo li u katastrofu ili u Treću revoluciju? (Zagreb, 1973), was a first of its kind in Yugoslavia, being devoted in its entirety to the world ecological crisis.

85. See the discussion on the August 1972 meeting of the Praxis Editorial Board in Korčula, below, Chapter VI.

86. See “Izjava redakcije Praxis,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1973, pp. 287–288; and “U povodu nekih najnovijih kritika Praxisa,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1974, pp. 231–241. The latter piece re-presented, after a brief editorial introduction, what had appeared in 1968 in the International Edition as “A l'occasion des critiques les plus récentes addressées à Praxis. “

87. Branko Bošnjak, “Tko suprotstavlja radnike i filozofe?” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1973, pp. 537, 542, 543, 546; emphases in the original.

88. Dobrica Čosić, “Kultura i revolucija,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–5, 1974, pp. 521, 515. 512, 520.

89. The decision was relayed to Praxis by the Croatian Republican Council for Scientific Work. See “Dopis Republičkog savjeta za naučni rad,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–5, 1974, pp. 565–566. Other journals on the same list as Praxis were Zavarivanje (Welding), Psihoterapija (Psychotherapy), Stočarstvo (Cattle-Breeding), Fragmenta Herbologica Jugoslavica, Marketing, Veterinarstvo (Veterinary Science), Acta Facultatis Medicete Fluminensis, and Acta Stomatologica Croatica.

90. New York Times, 22 February 1975; Washington Post, 23 February 1975.

91. Letter addressed “To the Readers and Subscribers of Praxis,” dated 24 March 1975.

92. Grlić, “Marginalije,” pp. 548–549n.

VI. Conclusion: The Intellectual and Social Responsibility

1. See, for instance, Talcott Parsons, “ ‘The Intellectual': A Social Role Category,” in Philip Rieff, ed., On Intellectuals: Theoretical Studies—Case Studies (New York, 1970), pp. 3–26; Edward Shils, “The Intellectuals and the Powers: Some Perspectives for Comparative Analysis,” in Rieff, ed., pp. 27–52; Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (New York, 1960), pp. 332–367; Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (La trahisson des clercs) (New York, 1928).

2. See, for example, the discussion in Netti, “Ideas, Intellectuals, and Structures of Dissent,” passim.

3. Rudi Supek, “Uloga inteligencije i neke pretpostavke reforme univerzieta,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1969, pp. 561f.

4. Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard B. Dobson, “The Intellectual as Critic and Rebel: With Special Reference to the United States and the Soviet Union,” Daedalus (Summer 1972), p. 138.

5. Indeed in official Soviet theory, the “new Soviet intelligentsia” is defined in precisely such occupational terms; it is said to be “a social stratum consisting of people who are occupied professionally with mental labor.” See Leopold Labedz, “The Structure of the Soviet Intelligentsia,” in Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia, p. 64 and pp. 63–79, passim.

6. Fejtö, p. 275.

7. See the discussion in Mihailo Marković, “Samoupravljanje i efikasnost,” Praxis (YE), no. 5–6, 1973, especially pp. 638–639.

8. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 205.

9. Lipset and Dobson, p. 151.

10. Andrei D. Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom (New York, 1968), p. 25.

11. Tadić, “L'intelligentsia dans le socialisme,” p. 403.

12. Životić, “The End of Ideals or of Ideology,” pp. 428–429.

13. Supek, “Uloga inteligencije,” p. 573.

14. See also Mihailo Marković's essay, “Ethics of a Critical Social Science,” in his The Contemporary Marx, pp. 92–109.

15. Popov, “Oblici i karakter društvenih sukoba,” p. 344. “There are no clerks,” Sartre writes, “among the oppressed. Clerks are necessarily the parasites of oppressing classes or races” (Sartre, What Is Literature?, p. 50).

16. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils (New York, n.d. [1936]), p. 8.

17. Rudi Supek, “Actualité de la pensée d'Hégel et de Lénine,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1971, p. 11.

18. This is one reason why Supek applauded so strongly the 1966 Resolution of the French Communist Party recognizing the importance of freedom of creativity for the intellectuals as of significance “not only [for] the strategy of the workers' movement but also [for] die concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (Rudi Supek, “Francuska komunistička partija i intelektualci,” Praxis [YE], no. 4–6, 1966, p. 793; emphasis in the original). See “Rezolucija CK KP Francuske” (13 March 1966), in Praxis (YE), no. 4–6, 1966, pp. 801–809.

19. Sartre, What Is Literature?, p. 52.

20. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (New York, 1966), p. 6.

21. Dunn, p. 40.

22. Danko Grlić, “Osam teza o djelovanju danas,” Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1969, pp. 110–112. For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that not all Praxis Marxists shared this view over the years. At a meeting of the Editorial Board held at the 1972 session of the Korčula Summer School, a heated discussion arose between Grlić and Supek, the latter having come to the conclusion that the articulation of a distinct political program was finally a necessity. Grlić, on the other hand, continued to protest that such a course of action would be suicidal and would violate the very emancipatory consciousness to the cultivation of which Marxists must be dedicated. No resolution to this debate, it is nearly superfluous to say, was reached (from personal notes of the author).

23. From Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 46.

24. See, for instance, Predrag Vranicki, Histonja Marksizma, 1st ed. (Zagreb, 1961), p. 572n.

25. Ljubomir Tadić, “Révolution sociale et pouvoir politique,” Praxis (IE), no. 1–2, 1969, p. 259.

26. Stojanović, Between Ideals and Reality, pp. 90–91.

27. “A l'occasion des critiques les plus récentes,” p. 513. It is worthwhile to read this passage further:

“The party cannot be its own end (as is sometimes believed): it is rather the function and the self-organization of class consciousness and proletarian consciousness, communist and socialist, of which the ultimate perspective is the disappearance of its own class self-organization and of its conscious self-organization in the form of the party. . . . Criticism and self-criticism within the party itself and toward its own activity is the strongest weapon of the proletarian party in the struggle for the self-emancipation of the proletariat.”

28. On this central issue, the Praxis Marxists can usefully be thought of as the Yugoslav analogue, if not forerunner, of dissident communist tendencies in many other one-party states. The most prominent Soviet representative of this tendency is Roy Medvedev (see his On Socialist Democracy), although the Praxis Marxists do not share Medvedev's advocacy of multi-partism as an antidote to orthodox sectarianism.

29. See above, Chapter IV.

30. Marković, From Affluence to Praxis, pp. 227, 198.

31. Marković, “Samoupravljanje i efikasnost,” p. 637.

32. Marković, “Nova levica i kulturna revolucija,” p. 944.

33. In Telegram, 8 September 1972, p. 12.

34. See particularly Supek, Sociologija i socijalizam, pp. 408–432.

35. Rudi Supek, “Materijalni, socijalni i personalni osnovi socijalistćke kulture,” originally published in Pogledi, no. 4, 1953; in Sociologija i socijalizam, p. 406.

36. Supek, “Dialectique de la pratique sociale,” p. 66.

37. Supek, “Čemu, uostalom, sada još i ovaj marksizam,” p. 331.

38. Tadic, Poredak i sloboda, p. 206.

39. Regrettably, I have been unable to devote much specific attention to Praxis thought on this very important question within the confines of this study. In general, the “critique of politics” outlined in chapters III and IV is a living example of the type of “science” which the Praxis Marxists would like to see pursued in the humanistic disciplines. They have also published a number of essays critical of the direction of contemporary social science in Yugoslavia; among the most noteworthy of these are; Zagorka Pešić-Golubović, “Zasto je danas funkcionalizam u nas poželniji od marksizma,” Praxis (YE), no. 3–4, 1972, pp. 339–350; Popov, “Sociologija i ideologija”; Rudi Supek, “Historicitet, sistem i sukobi,” Sociologija, no. 3, 1971, pp. 323–340. Ivan Kuvačić has also written extensively on Western (primarily American) sociology: see his Marksizam i funkcionalizam, passim. See also Božidar Jakšić, “Culture and Development of the Contemporary Yugoslav Society,” Praxis (IE), no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 657–664.

40. Supek, “Dialectique de la pratique sociale,” p. 66.

41. See “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku” and “Rjesenje Vrhovnog suda Hrvatske,” Praxis (YE), no. 5, 1971, pp. 772, 788.

42. “Rjesenje Okružnog suda u Sisku,” p. 772.

43. Prior to 1968, several of the Praxis Marxists even appeared at discussion sessions held in factories; such visits were prohibited after the “June days” of student revolt.

44. This distinction between the immediate goals of Praxis and the long-term goals of its contributors is reflected in the 1964 editorial preface to the first issue; “If our journal ‘appropriates' a right to criticism that is limited by nothing except the nature of the object of criticism, this does not mean that we seek a privileged position for ourselves. We feel that the ‘privilege' of free criticism should be universal” (“Čemu Praxis?” p. 6).

45. On occasion Praxis served as such a forum for thinkers outside of its own ranks. See, for instance, the debate on educational reform in Praxis (YE), no. 4–6, 1966, pp. 597ff.; see also the unusual articles by the Zagreb political scientist Antun Žvan, such as “Samoupravljanje i avangarda” (Praxis [YE], no. 5–6, 1967, pp. 812–823), “Ekstaza i mamurluk revolucije (Praxis [YE], no. 3–4, 1971, pp. 455–465), and “Etatistički paternalizam ili samouprvaljanje” (Praxis [YE], no. 6, 1971, pp. 939–947); see also Stipe Šuvar, “Tri rječi o trenutku jugoslavenkog socijalizma,” op. cit.

46. Vjesnik, 20 May 1966; quoted in Petrović, “Deux ans et demi de Praxis,” p. 142.

47. Danko Grlić, “O romantičnoj fazi razvoja birokracije i o riječima Praxis (YE), no. 1–2, 1967, pp. 121–122; “Sastanak,” p. 237.

48. Kolakowski, Toward a Marxist Humanism, p. 159.

49. See, for instance, Edvard Kardelj, “Principal Causes and Trends of Constitutional Changes,” Socialist Thought and Practice, no. 52 (May 1973), pp. 3–27; no. 53 (June 1973), pp. 179–197; and no. 54 (July 1973). pp. 3–55.

50. Mirić, Rezervati, p. 51.

51. Brombert, pp. 18–19.

52. Marković, From Affluence to Praxis, pp. 206–207.

53. Ibid., p. 212.

54. Tadic, “L'intelligentsia dans le socialisme,” p. 408.