Interventions

International Journal of Postcolonial Studies

ISSN: 1369-801X (Print) 1469-929X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riij20

1968 In Yugoslavia

Josip Rastko Močnik

To cite this article: Josip Rastko Močnik (2020): 1968 In Yugoslavia, Interventions, DOI:
10.1080/1369801X.2020.1762694

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2020.1762694

Published online: 21 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riij20
 1968 IN YUGOSLAVIA

Josip Rastko Močnik

Faculty of Media and Communication, Singidunum University, Belgrade,
Serbia

..................This essay presents Yugoslav 1968 as a student revolt. Focusing on the

developments in Slovenia, the Socialist Federacy’s northernmost republic, it
Yugoslavia
shows the uneven development of the student movement in various
socialism university centres, while describing its ideological horizon and theoretical
background. The essay contends that the economic reform of 1965
post-capitalism
strengthened the capitalist processes in Yugoslavia to the extent that later
student reforms were unable to contain them. The student movement was able to
movement diagnose the critical contradictions (bureaucratic domination and the
capitalist subversion of socialist processes), but failed to mobilize a mass
restoration of
capitalism socialist movement. While post-1968 theory developed a stronger
conceptual apparatus, it remained trapped in the ideological struggle
1968 against the domination of political bureaucracy, and consequently failed to
................. confront the restoration of capitalism. This is the main reason, the essay
argues, why a Yugoslav theory that was able to hegemonize the global
theoretical discourse of the 1990s (as the “Ljubljana Lacanian School”)
was unable to theorize and intervene in the dissolution that the same
decade brought to Yugoslavia itself.

.......................................................................................................
interventions, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2020.1762694
Josip Rastko Močnik josip.mocnik@guest.arnes.si
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 2

Interpretations of what happened in 1968 vary vastly. Was it the largest

1 “The general strike industrial strike in history?1 Was it the first uprising of the cognitariat?2
of May–June 1968 is Was it a world revolution?3 In Yugoslavia it was a student revolt centred at
the largest general
strike in the history of the two largest universities, in Belgrade and Zagreb, and conducted on the
class struggle in ideological background provided by Praxis, a philosophical circle inspired
France … The by the young Marx whose summer schools, ran between 1964 and 1974 on
country is paralyzed
the Yugoslav island Korčula, hosted many of the key figures of postwar
for nearly two weeks
starting 20 May western Marxism (Lešaja 2014). The uprising occurred in the third year
1968. There are after the Yugoslav economic reform, when the destructive effects of so-
between seven and called market socialism had already fully developed.4 In Ljubljana, the only
nine million strikers,
more than half of the university centre in Slovenia at the time, the student movement had started
fifteen million in the academic year 1963/64, developing a logic that differed from other uni-
employees of the time: versity centres (Baškovič et al. 1982).
150 million days of
strike according to the
statistics. More than

The student movement: a historical overview

four million workers
are on strike for three In fall 1963, student organizations at the Faculty of Economy and the Faculty of
weeks, and more than Law in Ljubljana started to organize round-table discussions, first on the ques-
two million for a
tion of the social role of intellectuals, and then on more current political issues.
month” (Le Moal
2011). Dissident intellectuals, some of whom had been excluded from the university in
2 “At that moment 1957 and were running the journal Perspektive in 1963, defined the intellectual
the struggle for the horizon and the atmosphere at these debates. With their intellectual superiority
liberation of the sage
from the warrior
and rhetorical brilliance, they held the floor and dominated over less critical and
began, and it more “official” participants. Panel-speakers were recruited as representatives of
culminated in 1968. cultural journals – a sign of the political relevance of these media at that time,
1968 represented first
and an indirect indication of the existence of a public sphere that had spon-
of all the sage’s
refusal to lend her taneously developed since the late 1950s (Centrih 2009).
knowledge to the These “tribunes”, as the round tables were called initially, spontaneously
warrior and the changed their nature and became “student assemblies”. The assemblies
decision to place the
sage at the service of claimed the right to be recognized as the fora of the student organization.
society” (Berardi They started to adopt “positions”, and quite successfully introduced their
2009, 58). platforms into the everyday policies of the Student Union in Ljubljana. In
3 “There have only
been two world
spring 1964 this development crystallized around the question of agrarian
revolutions. One policies. After a heated “assembly” at the Faculty of Biotechnics, where the
took place in 1848. minister of agriculture participated and was publicly challenged, and after
The second took
the premiere of a theatrical piece engagée about a workers’ strike at a collec-
place in 1968. Both
were historic failures. tive farm had violently been interrupted, the conflict became tense. On one
Both transformed the side there were the student masses, relying on the newly invented organiz-
world” (Arrighi, ational form of student assemblies, and intellectually supported by the Per-
Hopkins, and
spektive group. On the other side was political bureaucracy, represented by
the government and various bodies of the League of Communists. The official
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................3

Wallerstein 1989, Student Union was caught in between. In May 1964 the journal Perspektive
97).
was banned (more precisely, the council of the publisher – the highest body
4 Before the reform,
in the period 1954– of “social management” – decided to stop publishing the journal). Protest
1965, the “social gatherings were held at the Faculty of Arts and other faculties of the University
product” (a Yugoslav of Ljubljana. The student weekly Tribuna adopted a radical position. Some
statistical category
that corresponded to
students were called in for “informational interviews” by the State Security
approximately 95 per Service. However, the escalation was tacitly stopped, presumably by the
cent of the BDP) in leaders of the League of Communists of Slovenia. The outcome was that Per-
the public sector grew
spektive remained banned; their older contributors proclaimed a “cultural
by 9.6 per cent; after
the reform, in the silence”, ceased to publish in Slovenia, and instead intensified their partici-
period 1966–1970, pation in the journals and cultural events in other federal republics.
the growth was 6 per Younger contributors to Perspektive joined Tribuna, which became one of
cent; the growth of
the social product in the central intellectual focuses in Slovenia. Tribuna adopted “assemblies of
industry from 1954 contributors and readers” as its “highest consultative organ”; this arrange-
to 1965 was 12.2 per ment enhanced its independence, as, officially, it was an organ of the Union
cent; from 1966 to
1970 it was 5.4 per
of Students of Yugoslavia. After much internal struggle, the Ljubljana
cent. The growth of Student Union adopted “assemblies of students” as consultative organs
exports (same with a “morally” binding power.
periods): before 12.7
This was followed by an intense period of political life and intellectual and
per cent; after 5.9 per
cent. The growth of cultural productivity. Confrontations, conflicts, and struggles were a daily
imports: before 8.7 affair.5 The governmental team responsible for the 1964 confrontation was
per cent; after 14.3 tacitly removed over a longer period, starting with the minister of agriculture
per cent. Inflation:
before 6.3 per cent; resigning in the fall. Political bureaucracy’s pro-market “techno-liberal”
after 10.1 per cent. faction (as their opponents called them) started its way to power.
5 During the In 1965 the already dominant techno-liberals launched the economic
academic year 1964/
65 alone, four editors
reform that introduced “market socialism” in Yugoslavia.6 While general
and ten members of economic and political trends in Yugoslavia increasingly favoured capitalist
the editorial board of processes, the student movement accentuated its leftist orientation.
Tribuna were
In spring 1966, at the general assembly of the Union of Students of Yugo-
removed from their
positions by the slavia, representatives of the Ljubljana Student Union tried to introduce
Student Union, but student assemblies (practiced in Ljubljana since 1964 as a form of direct
this in no way democracy) as a statutory organ of the student organization. The outcome
affected the general
course of the student was an unclear compromise, leaving to the individual student organizations
weekly. Under the decision whether or not to introduce student assemblies as statutory
pressure, its policies organs. This at least formalized the situation in Ljubljana.
become more radical
and intellectually
In April 1968 Tribuna published its own draft of the “new statutes of the
grounded. But Union of Students of Yugoslavia”. In May the proposal led to a sharp con-
transformative frontation at the Union’s conference. An even sharper controversy arose
processes reached the
over the proposal that the Union should declare its solidarity with Polish stu-
academic
establishment as well: dents and other demonstrators in Poland (the Ljubljana Student Union had
at the beginning of done that a month before).7 The Belgrade Student Union joined Ljubljana
1966 the School of in opposing the Federal Student Council and its unwillingness to support
Political Science
Polish demonstrators.
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 4

founded by the In June, amidst and after violent confrontations with police, a group of stu-
Central Committee
dents occupied several departments at the University of Belgrade, and founded
started a new journal,
Teorija in praksa, the “Red University of Karl Marx”. Through mechanisms of direct democ-
that developed into a racy the students formulated their political platform, denouncing social
theoretically and inequalities, unemployment, the bureaucratization of society, and the lack
politically
mainstream tribune of democracy at the university (Popov 1990).
of professional Unhampered by summer holidays, these processes continued in the fall. The
debates about urgent Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia happened in between, and softened
issues.
the confrontation in Yugoslavia. The Ljubljana Student Union transformed
6 Market socialism
was introduced as itself into the Community of Students, and a radicalized version of the statutes
part of a larger top- was drafted in the spring.8 The transformation was strongly influenced by the
down political “action committees” that spontaneously arose at the bottom level of the
transformation. In
summer 1966 the student organization.9 For a while it seemed that the Ljubljana students
State Security Service were going to step out of the Union of Students of Yugoslavia, but they
was purged, and the decided to mobilize Yugoslav student masses and to stay in the Federal
prewar communist
and partisan
Union while retaining their autonomy. They initiated a political confrontation
commander with the Union of Youth of Slovenia, starting a long and uneasy cohabitation
Aleksandar Ranković that ended only in 1973 by the incorporation of the Union of Students of
was removed from
Yugoslavia into the Union of Socialist Youth. This forced merger, which fol-
political life. In
Slovenia the purge lowed the occupation of the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts in spring 1973, was at
did not reach far, the time felt as a defeat.10 However, the unification of the two organizations
since the chairman of led to the so-called long march through the institutions, which transformed
the investigating
commission was the Union of Socialist Youth and qualified it, at least in Slovenia, to become
implicated in a the official sponsor of the political and cultural “alternative” of the 1980s.11
corruption affair. In
1967 the Executive
Council (that is, the
government) of
Ideological horizons
Slovenia was,
probably for the first Several studies suggest that the introduction of market socialism in 1965 was
time in a socialist the first challenge to the future of Yugoslav socialism (Samary 1988; Kržan
country, overturned 2017; Vratuša Žunjić 2017). During the next decade, inadequate responses
by a vote of no-
confidence in the to market-oriented reforms and the ensuing processes of capitalist restoration
parliament. This deepened internal contradictions. Most importantly, objective contradictions
occurred and political conflicts incapacitated the country to confront the debt crisis of
unexpectedly after a
debate about the
the early 1980s, and later to resist the onslaught of the International Monet-
health care system. ary Fund, the World Bank, and other institutions of global capital.
7 In March 1968 The students were aware of the detrimental effects of market socialism (e.g.
manifestations in
Močnik 1965), but joined the dominating ideology that presented these effects
favor of freedom of
expression and as mere temporary difficulties that were bound to be rectified in the long run
against ideologically thanks to the country’s general socialist orientation. In fall 1967 Tribuna dis-
based state repression cussed what was then perceived as a paradox: with the introduction of the
occurred at the
market coordination of economic activities, unemployment increased and
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................5

University of Warsaw gross domestic product decreased (Anon. 1967). As the instruments of central
and among wider
planning had been abolished, there were no mechanisms to compensate for
circles of Polish
intellectuals. They the macroeconomic effects of the microeconomic market rationale. In particu-
were violently lar, with the economic reform, restrictive regulations on the students’ status
repressed. and related rights were introduced, pressing the students to shorten the time
8 The concept was to
bring the
span of their studies, while opportunities for employment seemed to be
organization “closer decreasing.
to the base”; the The students practiced their politics within the horizon of an egalitarian
membership was to
ideology, expressed in class terminology. The ideological background,
become optional
(rather than which the students shared with political bureaucracy, posed a dilemma
automatic), and the to the student movement: on one side, the movement could pursue a
procedures were to rational dialogue and, as a consequence, embrace a “trade-unionist” pos-
favor the “initiative
from beneath” (see ition; on the other, it could insist on a radical platform and risk a sharper
Pivec 2010). conflict with an uncertain outcome. In 1968 the Ljubljana Student Union
9 In 1968 the tended toward the first option – which meant that its tactical success at
Ljubljana student
organization
pushing individual issues was neutralized by a strategic loss of the organ-
conducted a ization’s general profile and by the weakening of the support of their
socioeconomic study membership. However, the general situation in Slovenia favoured soft
on the stipend system
and pragmatic political options. Slovenian techno-liberals were of an
in Slovenia, assessing
that the system had enlightened kind and had a clean revolutionary record; on the other
left out young people side, since the academic year 1963/64, the Student Union was the heir
with a poor of continued political struggles that played an important role in disman-
background.
Consequently, the tling the local variant of Stalinism. In retrospect, the paradox of the
student organization time clearly arises: students, whose movement may have been the last
started a political massive defense of Yugoslav socialism, shared not only the general ideo-
campaign that
resulted in important
logical background but also the concrete anti-Stalinist stance with the
ameliorations of the techno-liberals, whose practices may have dealt the decisive blow to social-
stipend system. At the ist processes in Yugoslavia.
same time, it initiated
In general, the left critique of the late 1960s – developed by the students
independent student
radio that started and their organization, to a certain degree by critical professionals (mostly
broadcasting in 1969: economists and social scientists), but certainly not by the “cultural intelli-
Radio Študent was to gentsia” (who, however, had marked the previous period, namely the
become the central
forum of intellectual, mid-1950s and the early 1960s [Kreft 1998; Centrih 2009]) – articulated
cultural, and political a leftist political agenda quite adequately.12 They were those set by the
creativity of the student movement. They fought against the political monopoly of the
“alternative”, with
an enormous impact
party state bureaucracy. They denounced the effects of capitalist processes:
on Slovenian media the incipient class formation (“social differentiation” in the jargon of the
practices in general time; “red bourgeoisie” in the leftist discourse) and its social promoters
(Bakše and Leskovar
(“technocracy”, that is, the high management in enterprises, especially in
1989).
10 Especially as it the large ones; bureaucracies of national ideological apparatuses, that is,
came after an attempt “cultural” bureaucracies).13 However, it does not seem that the left con-
to form an sidered to any serious degree the eventuality of the restoration of
independent
capitalism.14
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 6

The two main conceptual weaknesses of the Yugoslav left

Yugoslav Student
Union that was There seem to have been two main causes for this naiveté: most of the left,
crushed by the firstly, reasoned about capitalism in terms of simple commodity production,15
conviction of its main and, secondly, believed that the achievements of socialist revolution were irre-
protagonists. Since
the attempt was made
versible. The first limitation was the consequence of the epistemic hegemony
in Ljubljana, its of Praxis Marxism in Yugoslav leftist circles and social sciences. This kind of
protagonists were Marxism focused on the young Marx and adopted his radical humanism. It
tried there, and the
was preoccupied with the ideology of alienation, and thought to have
sentence was
relatively mild and found its theoretical support in the commodity fetishism paragraphs of the
was suspended. first chapter of Capital, which they read in an equally anthropocentric
11 González Villa manner. As a result, they failed to follow Marx’s further theoretical elabor-
(2019) claims the
“sponsoring” of the ation and its conceptualization of the “transformed” or “transmuted
alternative of the forms” (verwandelte Formen) as “the concrete forms which grow out of the
1980s by the League process of capital’s movement considered as a whole” (Marx 1981, 117).16
of Socialist Youth of
Slovenia tacitly
Consequently, they could not fully appreciate the effects of the economic
transferred the reform of 1965 and its introduction of capital as a production factor, of the
originally leftist and capital market as the mechanism of capital allocation, and of interest as the
anarchist alternative
transformed form of the appropriation of surplus value.
(the independent rock
subculture, the new The student movement and critical theorists failed to realize the importance
social movements, the of the antagonistic contradiction between the socialist and the capitalist
alternative media) logics. As such, they believed that socialist transformation was irreversible.
upon the liberal
platform of the pro- The trust that the achievements of socialist revolution were irreversible
capitalist faction of derived from another source as well. On this point, the critical left remained
political bureaucracy. within the horizon of dogmatic Marxism and its presentation of capitalism as
12 Besides leftist
a “homoficient”, that is, as essentially producing the same results in any social
student movements,
Marxist critical context that it integrates in its global expansion.17 Yugoslav critical left
theory, and, later in thought about socialism in terms of homoficiency, in stark contradiction
the 1980s, the with the political stance of “many ways to socialism”, which it shared with
alternative political
and cultural Titoist ideology. The vision of history where capitalism is homoficient (and
movements, there socialism operates in an analogous way) supported the then popular
existed in Yugoslavia, notions of catching up, underdevelopment, etc.18
as in other post-
capitalist countries,
ideological positions
that regarded
Theoretical fallacies – political errors
socialism as an
aberration and a The epistemic fallacy of this linear notion of history is the ideological rep-
pathological
resentation of society as an organic whole whose elements come together in
digression of history.
In the 1960s and a way that can be reduced to a singular principle. In terms of historical mate-
1970s these rialism, the commanding principle is the dominant mode of production. From
ideologies were this perspective, both capitalism and socialism are homoficient modes of pro-
politically irrelevant
duction because they organize homogeneous social formations. This ideology
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................7

and theoretically understands social formations as “expressive totalities” (every element

unproductive; in the
reflects, and thereby expresses, the whole in its totality), and historical time
late 1980s and
afterwards, they as “homogeneous-continuous/self-contemporaneous”. These are Althusser’s
acceded to critical terms (2015, 192); for Althusser and his students, this is basically a
ideological hegemony Hegelian conception of history: consecutive historical formations develop in
and became
politically decisive, a unilineal succession, each driven by a unique and central contradiction,
while remaining the sublation or Aufhebung of which provides for the next phase in historical
theoretically progress. Published in 1965, Althusser and his students’ reading of Capital
unproductive.
was soon adopted by some of those students in Ljubljana who went on to
13 After the October
Revolution, develop what is today canonized as the Ljubljana school of Lacanian
revolutionaries theory; those students were not successful in countering the homoficiency pos-
founded new types of ition, however (nor were they able to challenge the humanism of Praxis
institutions that were
called “popular” or Marxism, the first of the two sources of irreversibility mentioned above).
“proletarian In this particular ideological narrative, there exists one main contradiction
universities”, that commands a social formation; and since its self-resolution is said to lead
“socialist” or
“communist
quasi-automatically to the next, higher historical stage, the problem of histori-
academies”, etc. cal practice is a problem of the so-called adequate understanding of this
Yugoslavs, on the simple mechanism. The adequate understanding then guides the so-called
other hand, instituted
correct practice, while any opposition can only come from so-called false
national universities
and national interpretations of the principal contradiction of the historical situation. In
academies after their this quasi-Enlightenment vision of history, class struggle becomes a purely
socialist revolutions. ideological affair, a matter of consciousness, and those who are progressive
After the split with
the Informbureau simply have to illuminate those who are still trapped in the obscurantist past.
and Soviet-led state This ideological bias is characteristic of the political practices of the Yugo-
socialism, academic slav Praxis-inspired left: these leftist groups were mainly concerned with the
modernism prevailed
in visual arts,
task of illumination, which at times was directly pedagogical, as their main
existentialism in proponents were students, university professors, social science researchers,
literature and film, and other ideological specialists. Their devotion to these professional tasks
and nationalism in
exhausted their ambitions in political activism. In turn, the academic sphere
educational
apparatuses: profited from these limitations, as the state of the art in Yugoslav social
bourgeois ideologies science was at a world level in those years. However, it was rather pretentious
invaded national to assume that socially committed teaching and research, vibrant professional
cultures even before
market socialism was journals, and international summer schools add up to radical political action.
implemented in 1965. In retrospect, it is all rather reminiscent of the philosopher’s traditional occu-
Progressive practices pation of counselling the tyrant (for which see Kojève 2000).
of Yugoslav mass
culture developed
In this case, the tyrant was the post-revolutionary political bureaucracy.19
from beneath, as it Reducing, in their intellectualist bias, class struggle to ideological conflict, lef-
were, only during the tists assumed that socialist bureaucracy reproduced its domination by a so-
late 1970s and
called extra-economic constraint, using ideological mechanisms. This hypoth-
throughout the 1980s
within rock youth esis imposed itself blindly, as it were, on its proponents as the result of ideo-
culture. logical mechanisms operating beyond their conscious grasp; but it was also
correct.
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 8

14 Exceptions At this point, where Yugoslav leftists hit the truth involuntarily (but not
included Jakšić
accidentally, as it was in the programme of their ideology), they made their
(1971) and Kangrga
(1971). But Yugoslav crucial mistake. They misread the contradiction between shaky bureaucratic
leftists were not alone domination and socialist processes (self-management, etc.) as the principal
in underestimating social contradiction. This contradiction, however, was neither principal nor
the potential of
capitalist processes situated where the leftist intelligentsia located it. The contradiction produced
within post-capitalist and maintained by the reproduction of bureaucracy was immanent to the
formations. bureaucratic practices themselves. The bureaucrats repeatedly resorted to
Consider, for
example, this
ideological campaigns to be able to reproduce the bureaucratic apparatus
argument by Mandel and its domination: these campaigns, however, were never intended to
(1974, 15–16): reach the masses, as a massive political mobilization would sooner or later dis-
solve bureaucratic domination. Paradoxically, the bureaucrats were success-
[A] social counter-
ful in reproducing their domination as long as their political campaigns
revolution would
be unavoidable in were unsuccessful with the masses. This was a vicious circle, but it nonetheless
order to re-estab- helped reproduce the precarious domination of political bureaucracy, and it
lish a capitalist even managed to integrate elements of the leftist ideological critique when,
mode of pro-
duction and bour- for example, it practiced a ritualized critique of bureaucracy within the official
geois class rule in party discourse.
the USSR and the During the period leading to 1968, the Yugoslav critical left remained
Eastern bloc
countries … The
caught within the contradiction between bureaucracy and self-management,
preconditions for which, however, had become secondary and confined to the ideological
the restoration of sphere under the pressure of the primary contradiction between socialist
capitalism would
and capitalist processes.
be on the one
hand a new capital-
ist class forming
… , and on the

After 1968
other hand the
destruction of the In the aftermath of 1968 an urgent need to theorize its failures and its poten-
resistance of the
working class to
tial breakthroughs led to a radical rupture with the ideological naivetés of the
such a restoration. critique of alienation. Praxis Marxism proved severely insufficient, if not out-
15 Branko Horvat, a right ideological. The Frankfurt School and its progeny were historically
leading intellectual perused. At the time, the philosophical conjuncture in Yugoslavia was
and political figure,
saw only two real marked by a depressive presence of Heideggerianism, understood as anti-
dangers that what he humanism and anti-activism. The irruption of Derrida upon the scene made
saw as a market it possible to confront Heidegger without paralyzing effects, and to restore rel-
economy may
produce in a socialist
evance to the dusted book-shelves of phenomenology. Derrida’s intervention
setting: it disfavors also made sense of structuralism and offered a reading that was not inviting to
underdeveloped sterile scientism. While Althusser entered more discretely, his presence had not
regions; it generates
ceased to grow: besides the relief of theoretical anti-humanism, it was his affir-
processes of
monopolization and mation of historical materialism against Marxisms that changed the scene.
practices of rent- Finally, Jacques Lacan defined the horizon for the next couple of decades.
seeking. For Horvat, In various ways, theory after 1968 was involved in a critical analysis of
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................9

state intervention was contemporary political and social developments, and offered a general back-
able successfully to
ground to political struggles. This induced it to focus on theorizing ideology,
fight both detrimental
aspects. as it shared the then popular hypothesis that the relations of domination and
16 With the concept exploitation of the time relied on an extra-economic constraint. A theory that
of converted or would combine Althusser’s intuitions about ideology with a Lacanian return
transformed forms,
Marx theorizes the
to Freud seemed to be on the agenda of the day.
specific relations However, although breaking with the philosophical humanism of the
between elements of Praxis school, and trying to conceptualize the contradictions of Yugoslav
production (value,
post-capitalist social formation, post-1968 theory remained trapped in the
surplus value, value
of labour-power) and idealism of an exclusively ideological analysis. By 1989, the version of this
elements of theory known as the Ljubljana Lacanian School reached a global audience
circulation (price, – and Yugoslav socialism was about to end in bloodshed.
profit, wage):
elements of
circulation are
“converted forms”

A conceptual apparatus for the analysis of post-capitalist formations

of the elements of
production. In the To grasp the practical limitations of post-1968 theory, we should first sketch a
early 1970s
general profile of the social formation within which it operated.
Mamardashvili
isolated Marx’s Marx, the main theoretical source for the self-understanding of that social
concept of the formation as well as of post-1968 theory, offered a first, abstract presentation
converted form as a of the concept of social formation in the “Introduction” to Grundrisse. Its key
philosophical
category (2011, 243– component is the mechanism of structural causation. As later developed by
262). Althusser and his students, the idea of structural causation distinguishes
17 The between different social instances that are hierarchically ordered by causal
“homoficiency”
thesis is most notably
relations and capable of retroactive impact. Concretely, a certain type of pro-
presented in the duction over-determines the reproduction of a given society.20 This pro-
Communist duction-determinant designates a social instance that operates as the
Manifesto and in
structural dominant.21 The structural dominant secures the reproduction of
Marx’s two pieces on
British rule in India. the social formation as a whole: it negotiates the contradictions arising
Ahmad, while among the various modes of production operating within the social for-
defending Marx’s mation, as well as their own internal contradictions.
two texts against
Edward Said’s The distinction between the determinant and the dominant in a social for-
critique, points out mation suggests that we should distinguish between contradictions emerging
that they belong to an within the dominant instance and those operating within the determinant
early period before
the transitional
instance. The concept of contradiction practiced here is inspired by Maurice
Grundrisse and the Godelier’s (1967) distinction between the internal contradiction of a structure
radically new and the basic contradiction of a mode of production. The internal contradic-
theoretical
tion is immanent to a given structure and emerges together with it: for
standpoint of Capital
(1992, 221–242). example, the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist
18 Even in his class is specific to the capitalist mode of production. On the other hand, the
masterwork, Marx is basic contradiction appears only at a certain stage of the historical develop-
not immune to this
ment of a mode of production, and determines the limits of the possibility
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 10

sort of reasoning: of its existence. Unlike the internal contradiction, it is not the contradiction
“The country that is
within a structure, but the contradiction between structures; for example, in
more developed
industrially only the capitalist mode, it is the contradiction between productive forces and
shows, to the less relations of production, as the former are progressively socialized whereas
developed, the image the latter remain determined by the private ownership of the means of
of its own future”
(1976, 91) production.
19 In Kržan’s (2016) Of the contradictions that pertain to the Yugoslav ‘68, only the contradic-
theory of political tion between socialist processes and capitalist processes can be viewed as the
bureaucracies in post-
basic contradiction in Godelier’s sense. The other contradictions are internal;
capitalism, the
bureaucratization of they do, however, differ from each other by the structural locus of their effi-
juridico-political cacy: some operate on the level of the dominant, the others on the level of
apparatuses is a the determinant. In Godelier’s conceptual apparatus, the internal contradic-
spontaneous process
pertaining to the tion is constructive of the structure, whereas the basic contradiction destroys
institutional logic. In it. In our problematics, the collusion of a dominant internal contradiction
all pre-socialist states with the determinant internal contradiction produces a basic contradiction
there exists a ruling
class which more or
and transforms or abolishes the structure. (To simplify this treatment,
less successfully Mao’s schematic elaboration of the category of contradiction will be intro-
controls the state as duced below.) My conceptual scheme situates the problem of the transition
the instrument of its
from one social formation to another well within the structure of the social
class domination. In
post-capitalist (that formation, and does not theoretically overburden the notion of the
is, historical socialist) development of productive forces. In other words, I do not believe the
states, however, the project of socialism should be suspended until a utopian stage of development
bourgeois ruling class
has been destroyed, of the productive forces is achieved. Quite the opposite: it now seems that
and the working socialism is a prerequisite to the décroissance, degrowth, needed to save the
classes are excluded planet.
from the
management of state
But was there a determinant mode of production in the post-capitalist social
apparatuses. Instead, formation? Was it the socialist mode of production? There certainly was no
party-state capitalist mode of production: the abolition of private property over the
bureaucracy
means of production (or, from another perspective, the abolition of the com-
represents the
working masses and modity-status of land, labour power, and money)22 was performed by the
manages the state revolutionary state. Having abolished the market of production factors, this
apparatuses in their revolutionary politico-juridical apparatus assumed the coordination of econ-
name, with the
potentially omic activities by plan. In social terms, this meant that the leading groups of
catastrophic result of political bureaucracy would design the plan and take the most important
unhampered socioeconomic decisions. The specifically socialist post-revolutionary
bureaucratization.
20 “In all forms of
process was evolving under the political structural dominant. And the con-
society there is one crete historical realization of the political structural dominant was the domi-
specific kind of nation of political bureaucracy.
production which
We are stumbling upon a paradox here: the specifically socialist process in
predominates over
the rest, whose the post-revolutionary society – the political structural dominant that deter-
relations thus assign mined post-revolutionary social processes, starting with economic planning
rank and influence to – was monopolized by political bureaucracy as an anti-socialist social
the others. It is a
agent. This was certainly the structural warrant that gave political
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................
11

general illumination bureaucracy the justification to present itself as the representative of the
which bathes all the
working class in general (and to repress any manifestation of the working
other colours and
modifies their class in particular). However, bureaucratic domination was also the main
particularity. It is a obstacle to the introduction of a specifically socialist mode of production.
particular ether The structurally obstructive character of bureaucracy originated in the fact
which determines the
specific gravity of that the mechanisms of the reproduction of bureaucratic domination did not
every being which has coincide with the mechanisms of the reproduction of socialist processes. Even
materialized within worse, those mechanisms were not congruent with the reproduction of any
it” (Marx 1973, 106–
107).
mode of production in general. Consequently, the bureaucracy that
21 “One thing is emerged after socialist revolution was not a class; it was only a dominating
clear: the Middle social group.23
Ages could not live on In Marx’s theory of class domination, the reproduction of the ruling class as
Catholicism, nor
could the ancient a class coincides with the reproduction of the relations of production of the
world on politics. On dominant mode of production.24 As Marx showed in Capital III (1981,
the contrary, it is the 254–301), endeavours of individual capitalists and their managers to
manner in which they
gained their
maximize profits end up forming the general profit rate, the “material exist-
livelihood which ence” of the class composition of the capitalist class. Individual motives and
explains why in one intentions of the bearer of the capital social relation are informed by the
case politics, in the
laws of the valorization of value, acting upon them as an external “coercive
other case
Catholicism, played force”.25
the chief part” (Marx Duménil and Lévi (2018) argue party-state bureaucracy in historical
1976, 176 n.25). Or socialisms was a faction of the managerial class, the other faction having
in Althusser’s more
complex formulation: been top management in individual production-units. They justify their pos-
“Overdetermination ition by referencing Darko Suvin. Suvin (2012) reasons in this way: if there
designates the existed an exploited class (working masses) and if class is a relational
following essential
quality of
concept, then there must have been an exploiting class, and that was
contradiction: the bureaucracy. Suvin does not take into account the dimension of reproduc-
reflection in tion: reproduction mechanisms of managers as a social group were different
contradiction itself of
from those of political bureaucracy. In Yugoslav market socialism the man-
its conditions of
existence, that is, of agerial group’s reproduction mechanisms were the same as the mechanisms
its situation in the of reproduction of capitalist processes within the Yugoslav post-capitalist
structure in social formation; political bureaucracy’s reproduction mechanisms, on the
dominance of the
complex whole” other hand, were historically specific and generally the same in Yugoslavia
(1969, 209). as in other post-capitalist formations. The most drastic features of bureau-
22 In Smith (1999, cratic domination (struggles among political factions, purges, the draconian
150–156), land,
labour power, and
treatment of presumed political opponents, ideological paranoia and a
money are, of course, latent chronic conflict with bureaucracies in ideological apparatuses, the
the factors of so-called cult of personality, etc.) can be explained only if considered as
production; in
specific reproduction mechanisms of a particular and historically new dom-
Polanyi (2001, 71–
80), they are fictitious inating group.
commodities. As political bureaucracy was hence not a ruling class in a Marxian sense,
two questions arise. How was bureaucracy able to maintain its dominating
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 12

23 “The fact that the position at all? What were the general effects of bureaucratic domination on
consistent defence of
the society as a whole?
the private interests
of the bureaucrats
collides with the
immanent logic of the

Mechanisms of bureaucratic rule and their effects

socialized planned
economy, instead of Bureaucracy reproduced its domination by maintaining the political sphere
being congruent with
it, is the clearest proof
(which was necessarily the dominating instance during the revolutionary
that the bureaucracy destruction of pre-revolutionary social relations) as a separate and relatively
is not a new ruling autonomous social sphere in the bourgeois (that is, pre-revolutionary)
class” (Mandel 1974,
sense. A separate and relatively autonomous political sphere reproduced the
17).
24 “In every class bureaucratic political monopoly. Hence, incessant political campaigns, fre-
society there is a quent reorganizations, and occasional purges that typically never mobilized
congruence between the masses: their function was internal, as they strengthened bureaucratic hier-
the private interests
of the ruling class and
archies, revitalizing the bureaucracy’s operations and renewing its separation
the immanent logic of from the masses.
the given mode of Bureaucratic monopolization-separation of the political sphere generated a
production” (Mandel
mechanistic and linearist ideology.26 One of its effects was the developmental-
1974, 17–18).
25 “Under free ist view of historical transformation. In the early 1930s, when Stalin’s clique
competition, the imposed forced collectivization, this decision entailed two presuppositions:
immanent laws of that the development of agriculture should be calqued upon that of industry
capitalist production
confront the (the historically “more developed” mode of production); and that the
individual capitalist model of industrial development should be the really existing capitalist indus-
as a coercive force try (the historically “most advanced” mode of capitalist industrial pro-
external to him”
(Marx 1976, 381). It
duction). In the developmentalist view, technology is perceived as the
sounds better in carrier of progress, while remaining “neutral” as to the immediate social
German: “Die freie relations that it introduces. The larger social effect of Stalin’s collectivization
Konkurrenz macht
was twofold: it destroyed the peasant–worker alliance and thus deprived
die immanenten
Gesetze der Soviet society of its revolutionary foundation (Amin 2015); it destroyed the
kapitalistischen revolutionary class composition of industrial proletariat and reduced it to
Produktion dem the technical composition of a “Fordist” labour power. By destroying the
einzelnen
Kapitalisten revolutionary peasant–worker alliance and the revolutionary potential of
gegenüber als industrial proletariat, Stalinist politics achieved the subordination of the
äußerliches working masses and opened social space for bureaucratic domination. It
Zwangsgesetz
geltend” (Marx
also created a completely new historical situation: a bureaucratic rule in the
1968, 286). absence of the ruling class27 that this bureaucracy was pretending to rep-
26 This Lukácsian resent. (Before Stalin’s collectivization, there always existed ruling classes
proposition needs that controlled and directed their state bureaucracies. In this sense, past
further
argumentation: bureaucracies were specialized groups that exercised certain tasks of class
linearism proceeded rule.)
from the vanguardist This politics in itself did not suffice to secure post-revolutionary bureau-
self-justification of
cracy’s domination: intensive ideological operations and occasional violent
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................
13

political bureaucracy: repression were necessary components of the post-revolutionary bureaucratic

they affirmed
domination throughout its existence. However, repression and ideological
themselves to be the
vanguard of the operations sufficed to achieve the general apathy and passivity needed to
proletariat; maintain the separation of the “autonomous” political sphere (on the bour-
mechanicism geois model) and the bureaucratic monopoly within it. After the mid-1960s
originated in the
bureaucracy’s self- and the economic reforms in the socialist bloc, consumerism provided
isolation into the another foundation for the reproduction of bureaucratic domination. “Inte-
political sphere: they gration through consumption” (as it was called, with a reference to the pre-
observed economic
processes from the
sumed “Fordist class compromise” in the core countries of the capitalist
outside. system) introduced capitalist processes into post-revolutionary (that is, post-
27 Kržan (2016) capitalist) social formations.28
proposed the concept
of post-capitalist
bureaucracy as a
bureaucracy without
a ruling class.
Post-capitalist formations

28 “This commodity
In retrospect, it seems that the post-revolutionary societies with a socialist
form of consumer
goods reacts in its project were social formations without a stabilized mode of production that
turn both would secure their structural coherence and historical reproduction, as they
economically and were held together by a political structural dominant instead. The political
socially on the
production relations. force positioned on the locus of the structural dominant was, by the logic
The economic order of its reproduction, opposed to the ideologically declared general sociopoliti-
of the society cal project. In the absence of a determining mode of production, contradictory
transitional between
capitalism and
and at times antagonistic processes competed for the role of the determining
socialism is therefore social instance. Post-revolutionary societies were neither capitalist nor social-
governed by the ist formations. It would consequently be suitable to approach them prudently
conflict of two
as post-capitalist social formations.29
antagonistic
economic logics: the
logic of the plan and

The post-1968 leftist analysis and its shortcomings

the logic of the
market (distribution Post-1968 theory started to develop its problematics by noticing that the
of the economic ideology of the dominants (that is, political bureaucrats) differed from the
resources according
to priorities
dominant ideology (of self-management socialism). The ideology of the domi-
consciously set by the nants was a rigid institutionalism fetishizing hierarchy and discipline (“demo-
society, or cratic centralism”), reinforced by confidential intimations about internal–
distribution of these
external threats to the system, a conglomerate generally identified at that
resources according
to objective market time as “Stalinism”. The apprehension of the difference between the ideology
laws which hold sway of the dominants and the dominant ideology contradicted the locus classicus
behind the backs of of The German Ideology.30 As such, it deserved special attention in light of
Mao’s suggestion:
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 14

the producers)” Every difference in men’s concepts should be regarded as reflecting an objective con-
(Mandel 1974, 9). tradiction. Objective contradictions are reflected in subjective thinking, and this
29 The concept of
post-capitalist process constitutes the contradictory movement of concepts, pushes forward the
societies has been development of thought, and ceaselessly solves problems in man’s thinking. (Mao
developed by Samary Tse-tung 1965, 317)
(2017, 2018).
30 “The ideas of the
ruling class are in If the ideological contradiction was a reflection of an objective contradiction,
every epoch the ruling then the objective contradiction that was refracted in the perceived ideological
ideas, i.e. the class incongruence was the contradiction between the reproduction of the dominat-
which is the ruling
material force of ing group and the reproduction of socialist processes. In its own way, post-
society is at the same 1968 theory came to the right conclusion when it claimed political bureauc-
time its ruling racy was an anti-socialist dominating group (albeit not a class), as this
intellectual force”
(Marx and Engels
group’s reproduction mechanisms contradicted socialist processes. A political
1976, 59). conclusion followed immediately: the development of socialist self-manage-
ment and socialist society entailed the struggle against bureaucracy.
Yugoslav empirical sociological research showed that self-managed
working collectives, producing for the market, spontaneously acted in accord-
ance with profit maximization. There was then a second contradiction
between self-management in working collectives and profit maximization in
economy; speaking in general terms, this contradiction opposed socialist pro-
cesses to capitalist processes.
The problem field was further complicated by a third set of contradictions
produced by the nationalist character of national cultural institutions (for
which see Kreft 1998; Centrih 2009). Ideological state apparatuses of the social-
ist state were bourgeois by their institutional design, their practices, ideologies,
and practical effects. That was in itself a flagrant contradiction and a practical
problem that continuously caused conflicts with avant-garde artistic preoccupa-
tions and alternative cultural practices. The national bourgeois character of
ideological apparatuses engendered at least two kinds of contradictions:
those between the bureaucracy in ideological apparatuses (“cultural bureauc-
racy”) and the social management in cultural institutions; and those between
bourgeois cultural practices and avant-garde practices – these contradictions
posed a further question as to the nature of artistic avant-gardes: were they
bourgeois and, if so, was their contradiction with the dominant cultural ideol-
ogy an internal contradiction within bourgeois ideology?
However, one conclusion seemed to be certain: the reproduction of ideo-
logical bureaucracy was in contradiction with the reproduction of socialist
social relations.
Hence, post-1968 theory deployed the problem field in the following way:
firstly, the reproduction of political bureaucracy and the reproduction of ideologi-
cal (cultural) bureaucracy contradicted the reproduction and development of
socialist processes; secondly, there was a contradiction between bourgeois ideo-
logical practices in the state ideological apparatuses, on one side, and, on the
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................
15

other, the avant-garde practices (of unclear class character) and anti-bourgeois
alternative ideological, theoretical, and mass cultural practices; thirdly, there
was an overall contradiction between capitalist processes and socialist processes.
The main problems were perceived in light of two principles of Mao’s mate-
rialist dialectics. The first one reads as follows: “If in any process there are a
number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction
playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and
subordinate position” (Mao Tse-tung 1965, 332). And the second principle
is: “Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other sec-
ondary … Antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of
opposites” (333, 343). The problems to be elaborated were then which is
the principal contradiction, which are the principal aspects, and are there
any antagonisms.
Post-1968 theory estimated that the principal aspects were the socialist terms
in contradictions. Accordingly, the theory concluded that the principal contra-
diction was the contradiction between socialist processes and political bureauc-
racy. Bourgeois ideological apparatuses and their practices were seen as a direct
effect of the bureaucratic rule. Capitalist processes, on their side, were an indir-
ect effect of the bureaucratic rule (which limited self-management to individual
workers’ collectives and restrained other socialist practices). And antagonisms
between socialist and capitalist processes seemed curtailed by the general social-
ist project and the general sociopolitical consensus around it.
It followed that the primary political task was the struggle against political
bureaucracy; and as the mechanisms of the reproduction of bureaucratic dom-
ination were predominantly ideological, this struggle was to be waged with
ideological means.
Symptomatically, this theory neglected the top managerial groups (that is,
supporters of the capitalist processes) and their influence on political bureauc-
racy. Equally underestimated was the political power of the liberal faction in
ideological apparatuses, especially the liberal mandarin establishment in the
economic and social sciences with their more or less explicit support of capi-
talist processes.
With its competence in ideological analysis, its willingness to engage in ideo-
logical struggles, and its skill in intervening into the general public sphere,
post-1968 theory productively participated in the cultural revolution that the
culturally expropriated masses of Yugoslav youth launched in the late 1970s
and expanded in the 1980s (Malečkar and Mastnak 1985). In mid-1980s Slove-
nia, theory may have even contributed to the short dominance of the alternative
practices in cultural politics. If, in 1968, socialist cultural revolution was on the
agenda but never realized, in the 1980s it was initiated but swiftly removed from
the agenda by the joint forces of political and ideological bureaucracies.
This double offensive caught post-1968 theory politically unprepared and
conceptually unequipped. It proved powerless when, during the 1980s, the
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 16

capitalist terms in the contradictions amalgamated and became their principal

aspects, antagonistically contradicting the now subordinated socialist aspects.
It was only a question of time before the joint forces of reaction – political
bureaucracy, managerial technocracy, cultural bureaucracy with the
support of schools, media, churches, and other ideological apparatuses –
would perform a top-down counter-revolutionary coup and, in fire and
blood, destroy the socialist federation.

The piedmontese function of the new bourgeois juridico-political apparatuses

To the intensification of contradictions caused by market socialism, Yugoslav

political bureaucracy first responded by what Evgeny B. Pashukanis might call
legal fetishism, attempting to replace market relations with contractual
relations among self-managed subjects. The contractual system only trans-
lated market-generated inequalities and monopolies into the idiom of self-
managed agreements, and was consequently unable to prevent the hierarchi-
cal fragmentation of Yugoslav economic space along the South–North divide
and the political dissolution into the fiefs of national political and ideological
bureaucracies. In particular, the contractual system could not support any
federal planning of economy and of social development.
31 Within the frame Under the pressure of the institutions of global capital,31 which requested the
of the politically
overblown debt
restoration of capitalism, national political bureaucracies, supported by manage-
crisis. Yugoslavia was rial “technocracy”, resorted to the apparatus they had been controlling from the
regular in paying its very beginning of Yugoslav socialism: the state. The restoration coalition actu-
debt; Marković’s
ally consisted of the dominating groups that had composed themselves over the
government stopped
inflation, etc. past decades: political bureaucracy, managerial technocracy, and bureaucracies
32 Vratuša Žunjić of ideological apparatuses (that is, “cultural” bureaucracy).32
(2017) sees the But this restoration coalition was unable to compose itself directly into a new
(political)
bureaucracy and the
ruling class. The decisive agent that secured the primary condition of restoration
technocracy as the – the liquidation of social property – was political bureaucracy, since it controlled
main factions of the the state apparatus. With the constitutional amendments of 1988, political
restoration coalition.
bureaucracies, by then already fragmented along the lines of federal republics, per-
In her view,
components of the formed one last common act to rearticulate the Yugoslav constitutional system
restoration coalition into a conglomerate of bourgeois national juridico-political apparatuses,33 and
had been composing let them serve the Gramscian function of Piedmont.34 In the absence of national
themselves already
during the post- bourgeoisies, former socialist republics, rearticulated into bourgeois juridico-pol-
capitalist Yugoslav itical apparatuses by national bureaucracies, carried out the restoration of capital-
period to attack ism by state constraint.35 The bourgeois states’ first act in this direction was the
social property, the
basis of Yugoslav abolishment of social ownership, its transposition into state property – soon sur-
socialism. rendered in turn to denationalization and privatization.
Militant nationalism, whose fabrication national political bureaucracies
entrusted to ideological bureaucracies, was the mobilizing ideology of and
1 9 6 8 I N Y U G O S L AV I A
J o s i p R a s t k o M o č n i k
............................
17

the political support for the decisive operation of capitalist restoration – the
establishment of bourgeois juridico-political apparatuses. Again, the Yugo-
slav left responded inadequately. The leftists treated the new nationalisms
as purely ideological phenomena, as a kind of mental deviation, and not as
the interpellation mechanism of the material existence of ideology in the bour-
geois juridico-political apparatuses in the process of destroying socialism and
instituting peripheral capitalism. To the end, post-’68 theory remained a
theory of political ideologies in a world of commodity fetishism.

References

Ahmad, Aijaz. 1992. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Lit- Centrih, Lev. 2009. “The Journal Perspektive and
eratures. London: Verso. Socialist Self-Management in Slovenia: In Search of
Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. Translated by Ben a New Anti-Stalinist Society.” International Newslet-
Brewster. London: Allen Lane. ter of Communist Studies Online 22: 69–91.
Althusser, Louis. 2015. “The Object of Capital.” In Duménil, Gérard, and Dominique Lévi. 2018. Manage-
Reading Capital: The Complete Edition, edited by rial Capitalism: Ownership, Management and the
Louis Althusser et al., translated by Ben Brewster Coming New Mode of Production. London: Pluto.
and David Fernbach, 164–265. London: Verso. Godelier, Maurice. 1967. “System, Structure and Con-
Amin, Samir. 2015. “Contemporary Imperialism.” tradiction in Capital.” Translated by Ben Brewster.
Monthly Review 67 (3). https://monthlyreview.org/ Socialist Register 4: 91–119.
2015/07/01/contemporary-imperialism/ (18 May González Villa, Carlos. 2019. Un nuevo Estado para un
2020) nuevo orden mundial: La independencia de Eslove-
Anon. 1967. “Ob vprašanju stabilizacije gospo- nia. Granada: Comares.
darstva.” Tribuna 18 (1): 2. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison
Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Notebooks. Translated and edited by Quintin
Wallerstein. 1989. Antisystemic Movements. Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: Inter-
London: Verso. national Publishers.
Bakše, Ingrid, and Bojana Leskovar. 1989. Kompendij Jakšić, Božidar. 1971. “Yugoslav Society between
za bivše in bodoče politike ali Popotovanje od Revolution and Stabilization.” Praxis 8 (3–4): 439–
Krškega do Portoroža. Ljubljana: RK ZSMS. 450.
Baškovič, Ciril, Pavel Gantar, Marjan Pungartnik, and Kangrga, Milan. 1971. “Phänomenologie des ideolo-
Pavel Zgaga. 1982. Študentsko gibanje: 1968–’72. gisch-politischen Auftretens der jugoslawischen Mit-
Ljubljana: RK ZSMS. telklasse.” Praxis 8 (3–4): 451–474.
Berardi (Bifo), Franco. 2009. Precarious Rhapsody: Kojève, Alexandre. 2000. “Tyranny and Wisdom.” In
Semiocapitalism and the Pathologies of Post-Alpha On Tyranny, by Leo Strauss, edited by Victor
Generation. London: Minor Compositions.

33 The official ideology of the particular case of Slovenia, see suggest that all post-Yugoslav
counter-revolution was that of the González Villa (2019). bourgeois juridico-political
bourgeois nation-state, with slogans constructions performed a
like “Self-determination of Nations” 34 “The function of Piedmont in the Piedmontese function, as, at that
and “National Sovereignty”. As an Italian Risorgimento is that of a historical moment, there was no
ideology, it worked well; as a political ‘ruling class’ … Piedmont had a national bourgeoisie to lead the anti-
programme, it was anachronistic and function which can, from certain socialist counter-revolution.
irrealist. For this reason, I refer to aspects, be compared to that of a
these constructions with the more party, i.e. of the leading personnel of a 35 Political bureaucracies, fragmented
general concept of juridico-political social group … : with the additional as they were, united themselves for
apparatuses. For a perspicacious feature that it was in fact a State, with their swan song – the final blow
analysis of the initial stages in the an army, a diplomatic service, etc”. against Yugoslav socialism (Vratuša
(Gramsci 1971, 104–105). I would Žunjić 2017).
............................
in ter v enti ons – 0 :0 18

Gourevitch, and Michael S. Roth, 135–176. by Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels, 11–802.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berlin: Dietz.
Kreft, Lev. 1998. Zjeban od Absolutnega: perspekti- Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse. Translated by Martin
vovci in perspektivaši. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in pub- Nicolaus. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
licistično središče. Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital, vol. 1. Translated by Ben
Kržan, Marko. 2016. “Teorija prehoda med družbe- Fowkes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
nimi formacijami.” In Prehod v socializem, edited Marx, Karl. 1981. Capital, vol. 3. Translated by David
by Ernest Mandel, translated by Sašo Furlan, Fernbach. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Alenka Mercina, and Zoja Skušek, 131–164. Ljubl- Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1976.
jana: Založba /*cf. “The German Ideology.” In Collected Works,
Kržan, Marko. 2017. “Jugoslovansko samoupravljanje vol. 5, edited by Karl Marx, and Friedrich
in prihodnost socializma.” In Komunizem v gibanju, Engels, 19–539. New York: International
edited by Catherine Samary, translated by Maja Publishers.
Breznik and Rastko Močnik, 213–242. Ljubljana: Močnik, Rastko. 1965. “Buržoaziranje socializma.”
Založba /*cf. Tribuna 16 (6): 7.
Le Moal, Patrick. 2011. “Mai-juin 1968, une grève gén- Pivec, Franci. 2010. “Osamosvajanje študentske skup-
érale sans precedent … qui n’ouvre pas une crise nosti.” In Slovenija – Jugoslavija, krize in reforme
révolutionnaire.” Tout est à nous! 24. https:// 1968/1988, edited by Zdenko Č epič, 295–304.
npa2009.org/content/mai-juin-1968-une-gr%C3% Ljubljana: INZ.
A8ve-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-sans-pr%C3% Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation.
A9c%C3%A9dent%E2%80%A6%E2%80% Boston: Beacon Press.
A8qui-n%E2%80%99ouvre-pas-une-crise-r%C3% Popov, Nebojša. 1990. Društveni sukobi: izazov socio-
A9volutionnaire (18 May 2020). logiji. Belgrade: Centar za filozofiju i društvenu
Lešaja, Ante. 2014. Praksis orijentacija, časopis Praxis i teoriju.
Korčulanska ljetna škola / Praxis Orientation, Journal Samary, Catherine. 1988. Le Marché contre l’autoges-
Praxis and the Korčula Summer School. Translated by tion: l’expérience yougoslave. Paris: Publisud. Mon-
Emin Eminagić. Belgrade: Rosa Luxemburg. treuil: La Brêche.
Malečkar, Nela, and Tomaž Mastnak, eds. 1985. Punk Samary, Catherine. 2017. “Octobre 1917–2017. Le
pod Slovenci. Ljubljana: RK ZSMS. communisme en mouvement (2e partie).” Contre-
Mamardashvili, Merab K. 2011. Formy i soderzhanie temps, June 10.
myshleniya. Saint Petersburg: Azbuka. Samary, Catherine. 2018. D’un communisme décolo-
Mandel, Ernest. 1974. “Ten Theses on the Social and nial à la démocratie des communs, Bellecombe-en-
Economic Laws Governing the Society Transitional Bauges, Editions du croquant.
Between Capitalism and Socialism.” Translated by Smith, Adam. 1999. The Wealth of Nations, vol. 1.
Iain L. Fraser. Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory Harmondsworth: Penguin.
3 (1): 5–21. Suvin, Darko. 2012. “On Class Relationships in Yugo-
Mao Tse-tung. 1965. “On Contradiction.” In Selected slavia 1945–1974, with a Hypothesis about the
Works, vol. 1, edited by Mao Tse-tung, 311–347. Ruling Class.” Debatte 20 (1): 37–71.
Oxford: Pergamon Press. Vratuša Žunjić, Vera. 2017. “Restauracija
Marx, Karl. 1968. “Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen kapitalizma u Srbiji 1989–1999. godine.” Princip
Ökonomie. Erster Band.” In Werke, vol. 23, edited Info, June 19.