Anything Can Happene Book

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN
Fredy Perlman
Black and Green Press @ 2017
PO Box 402
Salem, MO 65560
ISBN: 978-0-9972017-4-1
Printed in Canada on recycled paper.

Originally published in October 1992 by Phoenix Press,
London.
CONTENTS
Introduction: Kevin Tucker iv

Select Bibliography viii
Anything Can Happen 1
The Purpose of Black & Red 13
I Accuse This Liberal University
of Terror and Violence 23
The Reproduction of Daily Life 36
Revolt in Socialist Yugoslavia 61
Ten Theses on the Proliferation
of the Egocrat 86
Progress and Nuclear Power 93
Anti-Semitism and the Beirut
Pogrom 101
The Continuing Appeal of
Nationalism 120
Introduction
Civilization has a tendency to repeat its own mistakes.
This makes Fredy Perlman’s insights about civilization
increasingly relevant today. This book of his essays, original-
ly written between 1968 and 1984, and published by Phoenix
Press in 1992, is a case in point.
Fredy Perlman (1934-1984) is among the most impas-
sioned and articulate writers that anarchism could have asked
for. While he was aligned with anarchist perspectives, he
opted not to weigh himself down with the label. He famous-
ly stated that “the only –ist name I respond to is ‘cellist.’”
Despite his reluctance to use the word, Fredy has been one
of the most influential writers on anarchist thought, particu-
larly anti-civilization, green anarchist and anarcho-primitivist
strands. His monumental Against His-Story, Against Levia-
than gets my recommendation for one of the most important
books ever written.
The nine essays in this book are linked to Fredy’s earlier
Marxist-leaning critiques, his Situationist-inspired move to-
wards the “ultra-left,” and initiate his critiques of civilization
itself. As Mo of Phoenix Press succinctly described the spec-
trum covered in these essays in the Phoenix edition:
The changes in Fredy’s analyses, from Marxist econom-

ics to an anti-industrial perspective, produced contradic-
tions which the reader will have to resolve because Fredy
died in 1985. It seems Fredy was too busy developing new
ideas to go back and modify his earlier ones.
iv
Introduction: Kevin Tucker
According to Lorraine Perlman’s memoir of Fredy’s life,

Having Little, Being Much (Black & Red, 1989), it was a trip
to Alaska in 1971 that turned his eye directly towards Prog-
ress and industrialism: the core drivers of modernized civili-
zation. The civilizer’s hatred of the environment itself became
a central theme of his work, most evident in the final three
essays of this book.
Yet all of his work is driven by a fierce and fiery passion
to attack the core of political power. Not content to advocate
a party line, these essays refuse to cater to weak liberal agen-
das as they assault the power-hungry aspirations of the left.
Within the radical milieu, Fredy glimpsed the same form and
function of the State. Always critical of the ideologue, there’s
cautiousness and reluctance towards the revolutionaries
throughout that is as insightful as it is correct. These essays
have a progression in thought and critique, but you can see
that the underlying impulse: a consistent and innate refusal of
the power-hungry politicians and their games.
While anarchism has significantly incorporated these
trajectories, the same practices persist. Not just within anar-
chism, nor in the leftist milieu, but in society as a whole. This
is why an essay about socialist Yugoslavia (a nation that no
longer exists nor are its remains socialist) and a 1969 letter
about professors being fired from their University remain rel-
evant. ‘Progress and Nuclear Power’ was written in response
to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant leak in 1979.
Today, the 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear pow-
er plant in Japan continues leaking and intensifying. While I
write this, North Korea and the United States are engaged in
threats of nuclear warfare between Egocrats.
‘Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom’ is an essay I find
necessary to circulate again and again. I don’t think anyone
can consider that situation resolved. With the current glob-
al wave of reactionary populism, ‘The Continuing Appeal of
Nationalism’ takes on a new sense of urgency.
This book takes its name from the title of the first essay. It
is the most Situationist inspired text in terms of content and in
v
Anything Can Happen
terms of when it was written. You can feel an infectious sense

of hope in what might come next.
Hope has itself become a boogeyman amongst anarchists.
To a certain degree, I understand. And I think Fredy would
have as well. Within anarchist circles, hope has mistakenly
been equated with naivety. I think Fredy certainly would have
agreed that it isn’t.
Its hard to shake the idealism that the phrase “anything
can happen” seems to steep in, but when faced with the reality
of a world torn by Egocrats, shaped by the false notions of
community in the guise of nationalism, when acts of repres-
sion and genocide are justified by victimization; “anything”
might not always be seen positively.
And that’s where the realness enters.
We have stepped onto new turf of the world that we cur-
rently live in; but only in terms of scale. Our problems are
old ones with more technologically-driven consequences. As
Fredy traces the repetitive and repressive history of civili-
zation in Against His-Story, Against Leviathan, as he charts
the path of conquest and colonizers in The Strait, he never
forgets that what cannot be destroyed is the undercurrent of
resistance as old as civilization itself. This wild spirit remains
alive: against all odds, against all circumstances. We may not
know how this beast, this globalized civilization, will end. We
may not know what lies ahead or what Leviathan will try to
suffocate. We may presume the worst, but it doesn’t make it
true.
We do know what is happening. We know what has hap-
pened.
And we know we can resist it as others always have. Re-
sistance means remaining untethered to the conventions of
revolutionaries. It means staying clear of organizational rigid-
ities and ideological platforms. If that wild spirit has not died,
then the weaknesses of civilization will be found in the kinks
in its armor. In the mistakes it has made and will continue to
make. This is how we locate the vulnerabilities.
Most crucial among them is that enraged, impassioned
vi
Introduction: Kevin Tucker
piece of each of us that refuses to be tamed. Fredy had a gift

for essay writing. He was articulate in his anger and drive.
This, in itself, is inspiring. If we refuse to domesticate our
passions as wild beings, then maybe hope isn’t such a bad
thing. It might seem implausible, but it is the spark that re-
minds us that we aren’t dead yet. We aren’t crazy.
Perhaps anything can happen.
We, like the earth and all its communities, may be held
captive by civilization. But we can also be very fucking dan-
gerous.
I would like to take a moment to thank Lorraine Perlman for

her steadfast and diligent work on this project. Without her
exemplary effort, it certainly wouldn’t be what it is.
For wildness and anarchy,

Kevin Tucker
Spring 2017
vii
Fredy’s Bibliography:
• The New Freedom: Corporate Capitalism. Self-
published in New York City, 1961 (91 copies).
• Plunder, A play. Self-published in New York City,
1962; Black and Red (Detroit), 1973.
• Roger Gregoire & Fredy Perlman, Worker-Student
Action Committees. France May 1968.
Kalamzoo, Michigan, 1969
• “Essays on Commodity Fetishism”, Telos, Buffalo,
NY, Number 6, Fall 1970.
• The Reproduction of Everyday Life, Black and Red
(Detroit), 1969.
• The Incoherence of the Intellectual: C. Wright Mills’
Struggle to Unite Knowledge and Action, Black
and Red (Detroit), 1970.
• (with Lorraine Perlman) Manual for Revolution-
ary Leaders (attributed to Michael Velli), Black
• Letters of Insurgents (attributed to S. Nachalo & Y.
Vochek), Black and Red (Detroit), 1976.
• “Progress & Nuclear Power: The Destruction of
the Continent and Its Peoples,” Fifth Estate, April
8, 1978.
• “Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom,” Left Bank
Books (Seattle), 1983.
viii
• Against His-story, Against Leviathan! Black and
Red (Detroit), 1983.
• “The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism,” Black
• The Strait (Vol. 1) “Book of Obenabi. His Songs,”
Black and Red (Detroit), 1988.
• The Strait (Vol. 2) “Book of Robert Dupré. His
Tales,” Incomplete and unpublished.
About Fredy:
• Lorraine Perlman, Having Little, Being Much: A
Chronicle of Fredy Perlman’s Fifty Years, Black
ix
Fredy Perlman
August 20, 1934 - July 26, 1985
Anything Can Happen
“Be Realists,
Demand the Impossible!”
This slogan, developed in May by revolutionaries in France,

flies in the face of common sense, especially the “common
sense” of American corporate-military propaganda. What
happened in May also flies in the face of official American
“common sense.” In fact, in terms of American “common
sense,” much of what happens in the world every day is im-
possible. It can’t happen. If it does happen, then the official
“common sense” is nonsense: it is a set of myths and fantasies.
But how can common sense be nonsense? That’s impossible.
To demonstrate that anything is possible, this essay will
place some of the myths alongside some of the events. The
essay will then try to find out why some of the myths are pos-
sible, in other words, it will explore the “scientific basis” of
the myths. The essay, if successful, will thus show that any-
thing is possible: it’s even possible for a population to take
myths for common sense, and it’s possible for mythmakers to
convince themselves of the reality of their myths in the face
of reality itself.
AMERICAN “COMMON SENSE”
* It’s impossible for people to run their own lives; that’s why
they don’t have the power to do so. People are powerless be-
cause they have neither the ability nor the desire to control
and decide about the social and material conditions in which
1
Anything Can Happen
they live.
* People only want power and privileges over each other. It
would be impossible, for example, for university students to
fight against the institution which assures them a privileged
position. Those students who study do so to get high grades,
because with the high grades they can get high-paying jobs,
which means the ability to manage and manipulate other peo-
ple, and the ability to buy more consumer goods than other
people. If learning were not rewarded with high grades, high
pay, power over others and lots of goods, no one would learn;
there’d be no motivation for learning.
* It would be just as impossible for workers to want to run
their factories, to want to decide about their production. All
that workers are interested in is wages: they just want more
wages than others have, so as to buy bigger houses, more cars
and longer trips.
* Even if students, workers, farmers wanted something dif-
ferent, they’re obviously satisfied with what they’re doing,
otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.
* In any case, those who aren’t satisfied can freely express
their dissatisfaction by buying and by voting: they don’t have
to buy the things they don’t like, and they don’t have to vote
for the candidates they don’t like. It’s impossible for them to
change their situation any other way.
* Even if some people tried to change the situation some oth-
er way, it would be impossible for them to get together; they’d
only fight each other, because white workers are racists, black
nationalists are anti-white, feminists are against all men, and
students have their own specific problems.
* Even if they did unite, it would obviously be impossible for
them to destroy the State and the police and military potential
of a powerful industrial society like the United States.
THE EVENTS
Millions of students all over the world--in Tokyo, Turin, Bel-

grade, Berkeley, Berlin, Rome, Rio, Warsaw, New York, Par-
2
Anything Can Happen
is—are fighting for the power to control and decide about the
social and material conditions in which they live. They are not
stopped either by the lack of desire, or by the lack of ability;
they are stopped by cops. Perhaps they’re inspired by other
fighters who held on against cops: the Cubans, the Vietnam-
ese...
Students in Turin and Paris, for example, occupied their
universities and formed general assemblies in which all the
students made all the decisions. In other words, the students
started running their own universities. Not in order to get bet-
ter grades: they did away with tests. Not in order to get high-
er paying jobs or more privileges: they started to discuss the
abolition of privileges and high paying jobs; they started to
discuss putting an end to the society in which they had to sell
themselves. And at that point, sometimes for the first time in
their lives, they started learning.
In Paris young workers, inspired by the example of the
students, occupied an aircraft factory and locked up the direc-
tor. The examples multiplied. Other workers began to occupy
their factories. Despite the fact that all life long they had de-
pended on someone to make their decisions for them, some
workers set up committees to discuss running the strike on
their own terms, letting all workers decide, and not just on
the union’s terms—and some workers set up commissions to
discuss running the factories themselves. An idea which it’s
pointless to think about in normal times, because it’s absurd,
it’s impossible, had suddenly become possible, and it became
interesting, challenging, fascinating. Workers even began to
talk about producing goods merely because people needed
them. These workers knew that it was “false to think that the
population is against free public services, that farmers are in
favor of a commercial circuit stuffed with intermediaries, that
poorly paid people are satisfied, that ‘managers’ are proud of
their privileges.”1 Some electronics workers freely distributed
equipment to demonstrators protecting themselves from the
police; some farmers delivered free food to striking workers;
and some armaments workers talked about distributing weap-
3
Anything Can Happen
ons to all workers, so that the workers could protect them-

selves from the national army and police.
In spite of a lifetime of business propaganda about how
“satisfied” workers are with the cars, houses and other ob-
jects they receive in exchange for their living energy, workers
expressed their “satisfaction” through a general strike which
paralyzed all French industry for over a month. After being
trained for a lifetime to “respect law and order,” workers broke
all the laws by occupying factories which don’t “belong” to
them because, they quickly learned, the cops are there to see
to it that the factories continue to “belong” to capitalist own-
ers. The workers learned that “law and order” is what keeps
them from running their own productive activity, and that
“law and order” is what they’d have to destroy in order to
rule their own society. The cops came out as soon as workers
acted on their dissatisfaction. Perhaps the workers had known
all along about the cops in the background; perhaps that’s why
the workers had seemed so “satisfied.” With a gun pointing at
his back, almost any intelligent person would be “satisfied” to
hold his hands up.
Workers in Paris and elsewhere began to accept the stu-
dents’ invitation to come to the University of Paris auditori-
ums (at the Sorbonne, Censier, Halle-aux-vins, Beaux Arts,
etc.) to talk about abolishing money relations and turning the
factories into social services run by those who make and those
who use the products. Workers began to express themselves.
That’s when the owners and their administrators threatened
civil war, and an enormous police and military machine was
deployed to make the threat real. With this crass display of the
“forces of law and order,” the king stood momentarily naked:
the repressive dictatorship of the capitalist class was visible
to all. Whatever illusions people might have had about their
own “consumer sovereignty” or “voting power,” whatever
fantasies they might have had about transforming capitalist
society by buying or voting, they lost them. They knew that
their “buying power” and “voting power” simply meant ser-
vility and acquiescence in the face of enormous violence. The
4
Anything Can Happen
student revolt and the general strike in France (like the Black
Revolt in the U.S., like the anti-imperialist struggle on three
continents) had merely forced the ever-present violence to
expose itself: this made it possible for people to size up the
enemy.
In the face of the violence of the capitalist state, students,
French workers, foreign workers, peasants, the well paid and
the poorly paid, learned whose interests they had served by
policing each other, by fearing and hating each other. In the
face of the naked violence of the common oppressor, the di-
visions among the oppressed disappeared: students ceased to
fight for privileges over the workers, and joined the workers;
French workers ceased to fight for privileges over the foreign
workers, and joined together with the foreign workers; farm-
ers ceased to fight for a special dispensation, and joined the
struggle of the workers and the students. Together they began
to fight against a single world system that oppresses and di-
vides students from workers, qualified workers from unquali-
fied, French workers from Spanish, black workers from white,
“native” workers from “home” workers, colonized peasants
from the whole “metropolitan” population.
The struggle in France did not destroy the political and
military power of capitalist society. But the struggle did not
show that this was impossible:
—Students at a demonstration in Paris knew they could not
defend themselves from a police charge, but some students
didn’t run from the police; they started building a barricade.
This was what the March 22 Movement called an “exemplary
action”: a large number of students took courage, didn’t run
from the cops, and began building barricades.
—Students knew that they could not, by themselves, destroy
the state and its repressive apparatus, yet they occupied and
started running the universities, and in the streets they returned
the cops’ volley of teargas with a volley of cobblestones. This
too was an exemplary action: workers in a number of facto-
ries took courage, occupied their factories, and were ready to
defend them from their “owners.”
5
Anything Can Happen
—The first workers who occupied their factories in order to

take them over and start running them knew that they could
not destroy the power of the capitalist class unless all workers
took over their factories and defended them by destroying the
state and its repressive power, yet they occupied the facto-
ries. This too was an exemplary action, but these workers did
not succeed in communicating the example to the rest of the
workers: the government, the press, and the unions told the
rest of the population that the occupying workers were mere-
ly having a traditional strike to get higher wages and better
working conditions from the state and the factory owners.
Impossible? All this happened in a two-week period at
the end of May. The examples were extremely contagious. Is
anyone really sure that those who produce weapons, namely
workers, or even that cops and soldiers, who are also workers,
are immune?
“SCIENTIFIC BASIS” OF THE “COMMON SENSE”
A “social scientist” is someone who is paid to defend this so-

ciety’s myths. His defense mechanism, in its simplest formu-
lation, runs approximately as follows: He begins by assuming
that the society of his time and place is the only possible form
of society; he then concludes that some other form of society
is impossible. Unfortunately, the “social scientist” rarely ad-
mits his assumptions; he usually claims that he doesn’t make
any assumptions. And it can’t be said that he’s lying outright:
he usually takes his assumptions so much for granted that he
doesn’t even know he’s making them.
The “social scientist” takes for granted a society in which
there’s a highly developed “division of labor,” which includes
both a separation of tasks and a separation (“specialization”)
of people. The tasks include such socially useful things as
producing food, clothing and houses, and also such socially
useless things as brainwashing, manipulating and killing peo-
ple. To begin with, the “scientist” defines all of these activi-
ties as useful, because his society could not run without them.
6
Anything Can Happen
Next, he assumes that these tasks can only be performed if a

given person is attached to a given task for life, in other words
if the specialized tasks are performed by specialized people.
He does not assume this about everything. For example, eat-
ing and sleeping are necessary activities; society would break
down if these things were not performed. Yet even the “social
scientist” does not think that a handful of people should do all
the eating while the rest don’t eat, or that a handful of people
should do all the sleeping while the rest don’t sleep at all. He
assumes the need for specialization only about those activities
which are specialized in his particular society. In the corpo-
rate-military society, a few people have all the political power,
the rest have none; a handful of people decide what to pro-
duce, and the rest consume it; a handful of people decide what
kinds of houses to build, and the rest live in them; a handful of
people decide what to teach in classrooms, and the rest swal-
low it; a handful of people create and the rest are passive; a
handful of people perform and the rest are spectators. In short,
a handful of people have all the power over a specific activity,
and the rest of the people have no power over it even when
they are directly affected by it. And obviously the people who
have no power over a specific activity do not know what to
do with such power: they won’t even start learning what to do
with it until they have it. From this the “scientist” concludes
that people have neither the ability nor the desire to have such
power, namely to control and decide about the social and ma-
terial conditions in which they live. More straightforwardly,
the argument says: people do not have such power in this so-
ciety, and this society is the only form of society; therefore
it’s impossible for people to have such power. In still simpler
terms: People can’t have such power because they don’t have
it.
Logic is not taught much in American schools, and the
argument looks impressive when it is accompanied by an
enormous statistical apparatus and extremely complicated
geometrical designs. If a critic insists on calling the argument
simplistic and circular, he’s turned off as soon as the “scien-
7
Anything Can Happen
tist” pulls out figures calculated on computers inaccessible to

the public, and he’s turned out as soon as the “scientist” starts
“communicating” in a completely esoteric language which
has all the logical fallacies built-in, but which is comprehen-
sible only to “scientific colleagues.”
Mythological conclusions based on mythological as-
sumptions are “proved” by means of the statistics and the
charts; much of “applied social science” consists of teaching
young people what kind of “data” to gather in order to make
the conclusions come out, and much of “theory” consists of
fitting this data to the pre-established formulas. By means of
numerous techniques, for example, it can be “ proved” that
workers would rather have high paying jobs than enjoyable or
meaningful jobs, that people “like” what they hear on the ra-
dio or see on television, that people are “members” of one or
another Judeo-Christian cult, that almost anyone votes either
for Democrats or for Republicans. Students are taught one set
of methods for gathering the data, a second set for arranging
them, a third set for presenting them, and “theories” for inter-
preting them. The apologetic content of the “data” is covered
up by its statistical sophistication. In a society where eating
depends on getting paid, and thus where doing “meaningful
work” may mean one doesn’t get paid, a worker’s preference
for high paying over meaningful jobs merely means he’d rath-
er eat than not eat. In a society where people do not create
and control what they hear on the radio or see on television,
they have no choice but to “like” what they hear and see, or
else to turn the damn thing off. People who know their friends
would look at them funny if they were atheists prefer to go to
one or another Church, and almost anyone who knows he’s
in a society where he’d lose all his friends as well as his job
if he were a socialist or an anarchist obviously prefers to be a
Democrat or a Republican. Yet such “data” serves as the basis
for the “social scientist’s” conception of people’s possibilities
and impossibilities, and even of their “human nature.”
The interviews, polls, and statistical demonstrations
about people’s religious affiliations, electoral behavior, job
8
Anything Can Happen
preferences, reduce people to monotonous data. In the con-

text of this “science,” people are things, they are objects with
innumerable qualities-and surprisingly enough, each one of
these qualities happens to be served by one or another in-
stitution of the corporate-military society. It just so happens
that people’s “material tastes” are “satisfied” by corporations,
that their “physical urges” are “satisfied” by the military, that
their “spiritual tendencies” are “satisfied” by the cults, and
that their “political preferences” are “satisfied” either by the
Republican or by the Democratic party. In other words ev-
erything about American corporate-militarism fits people just
perfectly.
Everything is tabulated except the fact that a working per-
son serves as a tool, that he sells his living time and creative
ability in exchange for objects, that he doesn’t decide what to
make, nor for whom, nor why.
The “social scientist” claims to be empirical and objec-
tive; he claims to make no value judgments. Yet by reducing
the person to the bundle of tastes, desires and preferences to
which he’s restricted in capitalist society, the “objective sci-
entist” makes the bizarre claim that this bundle is what the
worker is; and he makes the fantastic value judgment that the
worker cannot be other than what he is in capitalist society.
According to the “laws of human behavior” of this “science,”
the solidarity of students with workers, the occupation of
factories by workers, the desire of workers to run their own
production, distribution and coordination, are all impossible.
Why? Because these things are impossible in capitalist soci-
ety, and for these “scientists” who make no value judgments,
existing societies are the only possible societies, and the cor-
porate-military society is the best of all possible societies.
Given the value judgments of these experts (“who make
no value judgments”), everyone in American society must be
satisfied. For these valueless “scientists,” dissatisfaction is a
“value judgment” imported from abroad, for how could any-
one not be satisfied in the best of all possible worlds? A person
must have “foreign based ideas” if he doesn’t recognize this
9
Anything Can Happen
as the best of all possible worlds; he must be unbalanced if

he’s not satisfied with it; he must be dangerous if he means to
act on his dissatisfaction; and he must be removed from his
job, starved if possible, and killed if necessary, for the contin-
ued satisfaction of the expert.
To the American social scientist, “human nature” is what
people do in corporate-military America: a few make deci-
sions and the rest follow orders; some think and others do;
some buy other people’s labor and the rest sell their own labor,
a few invest and the rest are consumers; some are sadists and
others masochists; some have a desire to kill and others to die.
The “scientist” passes all this off as “exchange,” as “reciproc-
ity,” as a “division of labor” in which people are divided along
with tasks. To the “social scientist” this is all so natural that
he thinks he makes no value judgments when he takes it all for
granted. Corporations and the military even give him grants
to show that it’s always been this way: grants to demonstrate
that this “human nature” is lodged in the beginning of history
and in the depths of the unconscious. (American psycholo-
gists—especially “behaviorists”-make the ambiguous “con-
tribution” of demonstrating that animals also have a “human
nature”-the psychologists drive rats mad in a situation similar
to a war which the psychologists themselves helped plan, and
then they show that rats, too, have a desire to kill, that they
have masochist tendencies,...)
Given this conception of “human nature,” the strength of
the corporate-military system does not reside in the potential
violence of its army and police, but in the fact that the corpo-
rate-military system is consistent with human nature.
In terms of what the American “social scientist” takes for
granted, when students and workers in France started to fight
to do away with “reciprocity,” “exchange,” and the division
of labor, they were not fighting against the capitalist police,
but against “human nature.” And since this is obviously im-
possible, the events that took place in May, 1968, did not take
place.
10
Anything Can Happen
“COMMON SENSE” EXPLODES
The question of what is possible cannot be answered in terms

of what is. The fact that “human nature” is hierarchic in a
hierarchic society does not mean that a hierarchic division of
people among different tasks is necessary for social life.
It is not the capitalist institutions which satisfy human
needs. It is the working people of capitalist society who shape
themselves to fit the institutions of capitalist society.
When some people buy labor and others sell it, each fights
to sell himself at the highest price, each fights to convince the
buyer and himself that the next person is worth less.
In such a society, students who prepare to sell themselves
as high-salaried managers and manipulators must tell their
buyers and themselves that, as “professionals,” they’re supe-
rior to non-University manual workers.
In such a society, WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
workers who sell themselves for higher-paying, easier jobs,
frantically tell themselves and their buyers that they’re better,
work harder, and are more deserving than foreigners, Catho-
lics, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Blacks; black “pro-
fessionals” tell themselves that they’re better than black man-
ual workers; all whites tell themselves they’re better than all
blacks; and all Americans tell themselves they’re better than
South American, Asian or African “natives.” Since WASPS
systematically succeed in selling themselves at the highest
price, everyone below tries to make himself as much a WASP
as possible. (WASPS happen to be the traditional ruling class.
If midgets systematically got the highest price, everyone be-
low would try to be a midget.)
To keep its relative privileges, each group tries to keep the
groups below from shaking the structure.
Thus in times of “peace” the system is largely self-po-
liced: the colonized repress the colonized, blacks repress
blacks, whites repress each other, the blacks, and the colo-
nized. Thus the working population represses itself, “law and
order” is maintained, and the ruling class is saved from further
11
Anything Can Happen
outlays on the repressive apparatus.

To the “social scientist” and the professional propagan-
dist, this “division of labor” is as natural as “human nature”
itself. Unity among the different “interest groups” is as incon-
ceivable to the “social scientist” as revolution.
While holding as “scientifically proved” that the different
groups cannot unite in an anti-capitalist struggle, the expert
does all he can to prevent such unity, and his colleagues de-
sign weapons just in case people did unite against the capital-
ist system.
Because sometimes the whole structure cracks.
The same expert who defines the capitalist system as con-
sistent with “human nature,” with people’s tastes, wishes, de-
sires, constructs the arsenal of myths and weapons with which
the system defends itself. But what does the system defend
itself against: human nature? If it has to fight against human
nature to survive, then by the expert’s own language, the sys-
tem is extremely unnatural.
Thus while some experts define the rebellion in France as
impossible because unnatural, their expert colleagues design
the incapacitating gases with which cops can suppress such
impossible rebellions. BECAUSE ANYTHING IS POSSI-
BLE.
1968
1. Mouvement du 22 mars, Ce n’est qu’un debut, Continuons le

combat, Paris: Maspero, 1968.
12
The Purpose of
Black & Red
If you don’t like it, make your own.
What is Black & Red?
Black & Red is not a capitalist activity. It is anti-capitalist in

its organization and its aims.
Black & Red is a subversive action, and in this it is not
Liberal.
Its present field of action is the student milieu, but Black
& Red is not a new intellectual current, a new “cultural trend”
within the Capitalist University.
Black & Red is a new front in the world anti-capitalist
struggle.
It is an organic link between the theory-action of the
world revolutionary movement and the action-theory of the
new revolutionary front.
Its aim is: “To create at long last a situation which goes
beyond the point of no return” (International Situationists).
Black & Red is an anti-capitalist activity
The production of Black & Red is not capitalist production.
It is not the production of a commodity, nor a social rela-

tion between capitalists-owners and workers-producers, and it
is not done for profit. Black & Red has this in common with
13
Anything Can Happen
other media of the “underground press,” but not with Monthly

Review or Ramparts, for example. Monthly Review, Maspero
in France, Feltrinelli in Italy, are capitalist activities. They’re
businesses which publish left-wing books. The underground
presses are struggles. They don’t create profits. Frequently
they don’t even reproduce the variable capital—the wages of
the militants who produce them. As a result, these activities
cannot sustain their producers. The time, the money, the en-
ergy of the militants who create these presses have to be LIB-
ERATED out of capitalism in order to make the presses exist,
in order to create these instruments of struggle.
Not all the social relations within the existing society

are necessarily capitalist relations. There are PRE-capital-
ist relations, for example family relations, where there is no
commodity production, labor is not alienated from worker
to capitalist, and production is not for profit. There are also
NON-capitalist relations, for example, “revolutionary” po-
litical parties, which may exist for 50 years within existing
capitalist society; religions organization; or hippies. These
relations COEXIST with capitalist relations. They are all a
part of capitalist “culture”; they do not destroy the capitalist
relations.
But the SOCIAL RELATIONS CREATED FOR THE

PRODUCTION of Black & Red are not, in principle, inte-
grable within capitalist society. These relations DO NOT CO-
EXIST with capitalist social relations. “Underground presses”
cannot survive within capitalist society; in fact, they do not
even have continuity within capitalist society; thy have to be
re-created from one issue to the next, from one meeting to the
next; they are created only IN ORDER TO DESTROY capi-
talist relations. When people spend working-days engaged in
production, and are not paid, either the activity stops, or capi-
talist society stops. They either make a revolution, or they be-
come transformed into capitalist activities, like Monthly Re-
view, which starts by paying wages, and then, why not make
14
The Purpose of Black & Red
a profit as well, so as to invest, in order to make the operation

grow? Some “underground presses” don’t even pay for their
“constant capital,” for the equipment and material they use
up. They don’t create any of their conditions for reproduction:
they don’t reproduce themselves. They are created by revolu-
tionary energy—they represent a struggle which is the same
as the struggle of the movement itself: revolutionary activi-
ty demands the working-time and leisure-time of militants,
WITHOUT PROVIDING THE MEANS OF LIFE which cap-
italist working-activity provides.
This is why the “underground press” either DESTROYS

capitalist society, or it is destroyed. IT’S EITHER REVOLU-
TION OR DEATH.
Black & Red is subversive, not liberal
Violence is the expression, the manifestation of the existence

of irreconcilable contradictions in the capitalist system (class
struggle, anti-imperialist struggle, struggle against alienation,
i.e., for life). It is the expression of the consciousness of two
antagonistic forces (Exploiter-Exploited; Colonizer-Colo-
nized; World Capitalist System-World Revolutionary Move-
ment), i.e., force A and force non-A, one of which is domi-
nant, the other of which seeks to destroy the first.
The non-radical (we call him a Liberal) is situated in the

dominant force, A, and denies the existence of non-A.
He is an integral part of the dominant system; his moti-

vation is moral. His moral attitude is the product of the cap-
italist ideology of PEACE, an ideology which completely
contradicts IMPERIALIST PRACTICE. Imperialist practice
destroys all the forces which are radically opposed to it. The
Liberal does not question working for the capitalist system
and its consequence: IMPERIALIST VIOLENCE. What
bothers him are only the MORAL consequences of his work
15
Anything Can Happen
within the system.
This is why he wants VIOLENCE to end. But he can’t

stop EITHER the Americans OR the Vietnamese; he can’t
stop either the racists or the blacks. Since he’s “liberal,” since
he agrees with the “aspirations” of the Vietnamese, of the
blacks, he tells THEM to stop the violence. But as soon as
THEY stop, the dominant system wins: America wins, Rac-
ism wins. The victim is not liberated: he’s forced to negotiate
with his oppressor.
The Liberal is an integral part of the dominant system.

That is why his attitude aims to “change” (i.e., to interpret)
the system from the inside, not to destroy (i.e., transform) it.
When he presents himself as a radical, it is to create a new
ideological current, a new group, sometimes even a group in-
spired by Marx’s analysis.
Analysis, even “Marxist” analysis, without revolutionary

practice, means CONVERSION to a new idea. Such analy-
sis makes it possible for the Liberal to tell the revolutionary:
Look at my accomplishments. I’ve created consciousness
(i.e., “culture”). This is the way to change society. You activ-
ists want to go too fast. It’s not yet time for action. If you want
to act, if you want to fight right now, we will be clubbed and
beaten. You are calling for repression. The consciousness (i.e.,
“culture”) we have created will be destroyed.
The “consciousness” which the Liberal creates is consis-

tent with PROFITS. All of his “revolutionary” activities have
one thing in common: THEY ALL COEXIST WITH CAPI-
TALISM. (We are not asking if the Capitalist System is better
or worse with these things). Capitalism can survive with the
type of “Critical Analysis” created by the Liberal.
The Liberal talks about “critical consciousness,” but what
he defends is the Capitalist University, Corporate-Military
Research, Textbooks, Classrooms. These are the Liberal’s
16
VALUES. The revolutionary who says that these are the Lib-
eral’s instruments of oppression and repression, and that only
a violent struggle against these instruments, these values, can
destroy the system, is called an Extremist, a Dangerous Agi-
tator. The Liberal calls him VIOLENT. And while calling him
violent, THE LIBERAL CALLS THE POLICE.
The Liberal knows that the society is sick with contradic-
tions which spread in it like tumors. The Liberal submits to
this sickness. He knows that the tumors have to be removed.
The following analogy by B.R. Rafferty1 shows that ACTION
is the cutting-edge that separates the revolutionary from the
Liberal. The first is the surgeon; the second runs in to prevent
the operation.
“Don’t operate! Shouts the Liberal. What will you put in
the place of the tumor?
The surgeon answers: Nothing!”
It’s the same as the question: What kind of exploitation
will replace capitalist exploitation: What kind of alienation
will replace capitalist alienation?
The Liberal wants the surgeon to JUSTIFY the operation

INSTEAD of carrying it out. The Liberal calls for an “alter-
native tumor,” a restructured capitalist society. This gives the
Liberal a basis for saying: at least we offer something positive,
where as all you do is offer something negative and destruc-
tive. The Liberal makes pictures of the “future society”—pic-
tures of a restructured capitalism, or even pictures of a future
“socialist” or “communist” society. And these pictures coex-
ist with capitalist society; they are completely consistent with
capitalist production relations. The revolutionary does not
make pictures; he does not coexist with capitalist society; his
aim is not to make pictures of society after the revolution, but
to make revolutionary action. The Liberal has no conception
of revolutionary action; for the Liberal, revolutionary action
is destructive; it is just Violence.
For the revolutionary, the problem is not VIOLENCE ver-
17
Anything Can Happen
sus NONVIOLENCE. Violence ALREADY EXISTS. Vio-

lence is the relation between the oppressor and the oppressed.
Nonviolence does not eliminate the relation between oppres-
sor and oppressed. Neutrality does not eliminate violence. For
the oppressed there is no neutrality. In the struggle of the op-
pressed to liberate themselves, one who does not act against
oppression is an oppressor.
The GI against whom the Vietnamese struggles is an op-

pressor, even if this GI is actually a worker who is exploited
and oppressed, like the Vietnamese, by the capitalist system.
It is up to the GI to decide. And GIs are in fact deciding. The
growing number of deserters, the growing consciousness in
the U.S., show that this is the problem which is being posed,
by GIs, by black people, by students.
The only choice is to take part in the struggle to elimi-

nate the relation of oppressor-oppressed, colonizer-colonized.
The only choice is to struggle against the capitalist system and
its manifestations: imperialism for the Vietnamese, racism
for black people, brainwashing for students. THIS IS THE
CHOICE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY. Black & Red makes
this choice: this is what makes it subversive. Black & Red is
part of the struggle of the Vietnamese, of black militants in
the U.S., of French and other revolutionary students. The vio-
lence of the revolutionary is the violence of all the oppressed
against the violence of the dominant class. The violence of the
revolutionary does not aim to transform the oppressed into a
new oppressor, nor to restore the economic and social rela-
tions of exploitation, but to build a society without classes,
without alienation, and thus without violence.
Black & Red is a new revolutionary front
Black & Red is a new front in the world anti-capitalist strug-

gle. Its geographical milieu is Kalamazoo: the high schools
and the universities. Its social milieu is students. Its activity
18
is radical action against the University, against its stunting of

creativity and its brainwashing. Its action is based on analysis
which defines the University as an integral part of a larger
whole: the world capitalist system.
Black & Red is an addition to the anti-capitalist struggle

already being waged on other fronts:
Its action parallels that of European revolutionary work-
ers at Citroen, Renault, Fiat, against the union bureaucracy
and the capitalist owners.
Its action parallels that of Dodge revolutionary workers
struggling against racism and against capitalist exploitation.
Its action parallels that of Bolivian revolutionaries and
peasants struggling against landlords in the Andes—Boliv-
ian revolutionaries who have expressed their understanding
that they are not engaged in a local struggle, but in a struggle
against the entire imperialist system.
“Create One, Two, Three, Many Vietnams”—this is how
Che Guevara expressed the need to struggle on all the fronts.
The fact that the action of Black & Red is situated in a
student milieu is not a self-restriction; it is the definition of a
specific front which is part of a larger struggle.
The May revolutionary movement in France spread from

the University to the factories. The University was trans-
formed into a center of revolutionary coordination and diffu-
sion for workers and students. This role has been played by
worker-occupied factories in Russia in 1917.
American workers are not a social category who will be

“reached,” “organized,” or “led” by the students. They are
situated in what is, potentially, one of the main fronts of the
world anti-capitalist struggle. Up to now, they have been had
by capitalist ideology, and they’ve been used against the op-
pressed. Until now, American workers have been brainwashed
and have collaborated with their exploiters; this has not pre-
vented colonized Algerians and Vietnamese, racially op-
19
Anything Can Happen
pressed blacks, brainwashed students, French workers, Czech

and Yugoslav students and workers, from starting to struggle
closer to the point of no return. When American workers be-
gin their own struggle within their factories, they will join the
revolutionaries who have already begun struggling on other
fronts.
Thus Black & Red is not addressed particularly to stu-

dents, but to all revolutionaries engaged in the same struggle,
to all people who are attempting to build a critique of their
situation and a revolutionary movement within the structure
which oppresses them.
Black & Red is the means of expression, action and anal-

ysis of an active minority. It is the expression of the practice
of a specific group on a specific front. PRACTICE which is
not communicated is not practice but merely isolated action;
COMMUNICATION which is not followed by an extension
of practice to a larger group is merely analysis of an action.
Black & Red is an attempt TO COMMUNICATE PRAC-

TICE. The communication of practice extends over time and
over space. Past practice of the world revolutionary move-
ment is the basis for present action on a given front; present
practice on any single front is a further extension of the prac-
tice of the entire world movement.
Black & Red is in a world context because the capitalist
system is a unified world system, a world market. All oppo-
sition to it is part of the same struggle. Thus Black & Red
is in solidarity with all other revolutionaries fighting on all
fronts, and attempts to bring into the actions of Kalamazoo the
analysis and experience of revolutionary students in Mexico,
Berlin, Yugoslavia, Columbia, the analysis and experience of
workers and students in France and Czechoslovakia.
At the same time, the experience in Kalamazoo which

is based in critical analysis of the entire world movement,
20
is communicated (i.e., extended) to other fronts. This expe-

rience includes a systematic critique of capitalist ideology
carried out in classrooms (modeled on actions of German
SDS), self-critiques of militants engaged in actions, critiques
of pseudo-revolutionary “actions.” The purpose of the cri-
tiques and self-critiques is to push potential revolutionaries to
self-analyses and re-evaluations of the relation of forces, and
to stimulate among potential revolutionaries the ABILITY TO
ANALYZE ACTIONS and to realize that NOT EVERY dan-
gerous action or provocation is a REVOLUTIONARY AC-
TION.
Thus Black & Red does not represent a new current of

thought or a new method of analysis. It is not a new REVIEW,
but the analytic and theoretical element of action, addressed
to people who are not interested in a cultural critique, but who
have potential for action, and for the extension of revolution-
ary practice to a new front.
In this spirit, a formal critique of the contents or method

of Black & Red has no relevance unless it is an action-critique
which bases its analysis on a specific action. To say that A
NEW FRONT is ineffectual implies the capacity to CREATE
ANOTHER FRONT. The interest of Black & Red is not to be
THE front, but A front. The very content of its purpose and
practice is TO BE SURPASSED. Its interest is precisely the
CREATION OF OTHER FRONTS.
Black & Red is not an INSTITUTION which defends its

own existence against the pressure of history and even against
the very revolution it aims for. If a larger revolutionary front
can be created in Kalamazoo, Black & Red will become a
part of it—either as Black & Red, or as a group of revolution-
aries. If a larger revolutionary front is not created, then Black
& Red intends to grow, to engage all revolutionary groups
and individuals within actions and analyses. To participate in
the actions of Black & Red means to modify these actions, to
21
Anything Can Happen
make them more effective, more critical, i.e., to enlarge the

revolutionary front created by Black & Red.
Black & Red claims NO MONOPOLY OF ACTION OR

ANALYSIS. It invites every critique which is a new front: “IF
YOU DON’T LIKE IT, MAKE YOUR OWN!”
1968
1. One of the professors who, last year, was not rehired (i.e., was
fired) by Western Michigan University.
22
I Accuse This Liberal
University of Terror
and Violence
On February 24th, 1969, a radical student was arrested at her
home early in the morning and taken to the Kalamazoo Jail.
She was charged with “assault and battery” for defending
herself from the insistent harassment and insults of a student
who opposed her POLITICS: he insulted her because she had
dared to question a Political Science Professor and had tried
to PROVOKE DISCUSSION among students in a universi-
ty. The Political Science Professor did not answer the ques-
tions she raised; he responded with VIOLENCE: he had her
summoned to a Dean and a Disciplinary Board to suspend
her from school for “disrupting” his class, and he proudly an-
nounced that she would be arrested by the Police FOR VIO-
LENCE against his “good” student. For trying to question his
course, the Political Science Professor is having her thrown
out of school and tried for a crime; once he transforms her into
an “outsider” and a “criminal,” she will no longer be able to
question his course: he can then have the “criminal outsider”
arrested merely for being in the university.
In 1968 two radical professors (B.R. Rafferty and I) were
fired by the Economics Department and the School of General
Studies of this Liberal University. The reasons were not writ-
ten down; verbally we were accused of being “Unobjective,
Dogmatic, Vulgar, Violent, Stalinist, Extremist...” If we had
reacted to the stream of insults and defended ourselves, we
would have been arrested by the City Police for “assault and
23
Anything Can Happen
battery.” (I have recently been informed that I am to be arrest-

ed on the charge of “conspiracy” for fighting back IN WRIT-
INGS.) Within this Liberal University “devoted to stimulating
probing minds and critical intellects,” radical politics is HER-
ESY, heresy is VIOLENCE, and violence is repressed by the
FORCES OF LAW AND ORDER.
These events did not take place in the Middle Ages, in
Nazi Germany, or in Stalin’s Russia. They are taking place
NOW at THIS UNIVERSITY, where the majority of profes-
sors and students are LIBERAL.
The repression of “heresy” is not being carried out by
Reactionaries or “right wing extremists”; it is initiated and
justified by people who consider themselves LIBERAL and
“moderate.”
**
B.R. Rafferty saw through the LIBERAL who is in favor of
free speech, who is in favor of All Points of View being Rep-
resented in the University, who is Willing to Talk to Radicals,
who “understands” Marx, C. Wright Mills, Frantz Fanon, Che
Guevara, and is “sympathetic “ to them. It’s precisely BE-
CAUSE HE EXPOSED THE LIBERAL that Rafferty had to
be destroyed.
The Liberal says he has more “sympathy” for the Extreme
Left than for the Extreme Right. However, as soon as a rad-
ical is hired into HIS department, the Intellectual Liberal no
longer has “sympathy.” The radical in HIS department is not
a “scholar” but a “Vulgar Marxist,” he’s not an “intellectual”
but a “propagandist”; he’s not “objective” but “Dogmatic”;
he’s not a “Theorist” but a “Nineteenth Century Marxist.”
Rafferty’s insight about these terms is that THEY ARE
EXTREMIST TERMS COUCHED IN A “MODERATE”
LANGUAGE: that “Vulgar Marxist” means: “Throw him
out!” When the Liberal Intellectual mildly calls someone a
Vulgar Marxist, or a Dogmatic Leftist Propagandist, he’s not
simply stating his “moderate disagreement” with someone, the
way he does when he says “He’s a convinced Keynesian” or
24
“He’s a stubborn Aristotelian”; he’s making an extremist and

fanatical statement which means: HE’S A VULGAR MARX-
IST AND DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS DEPARTMENT!
HE’S NOT OBJECTIVE AND SHOULDN’T TEACH IN
ANY UNIVERSITY: HE’S A DOGMATIC LEFTIST AND
MUST BE STOPPED FROM EARNING AN INCOME; HE
MUST BE KILLED!
“Vulgar” means DIRTY and COMMON; the “Vulgar
Marxist” or “Vulgar Leftist Propagandist” is someone whose
ideas are not based on “Pure Research” but on DIRTY RE-
ALITY; someone who does not write for the Sophisticated
Audience of Scholarly Journals (for Pure Academics and for
the top bureaucrats of Corporations and the State who pay
for these journals); the “Vulgar Leftist” writes for the DIRTY
PEOPLE IN THE STREET.
“Vulgar Marxist,” and “Unobjective” and “he doesn’t
consider both sides,” mean: IT IS LEGITIMATE TO THROW
HIM OUT! These statements are IDEOLOGICAL WEAP-
ONS WHICH JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF A RADICAL
FROM A UNIVERSITY.
Reactionaries did not fire Rafferty or myself from the Eco-
nomics Department of Western Michigan University; LIBER-
ALS FIRED US (in Liberal jargon, they didn’t “fire” us; they
merely didn’t “rehire” us). AND IT IS NOT REACTIONAR-
IES WHO ARE HARASSING STUDENTS TODAY. Liberal
Professors initiated the slogan campaign and rushed us out be-
fore we had the time or the psychological composure to reply;
Liberal Professors justified our elimination, a year before we
were fired, with the “moderate” accusations of Unobjective,
Dogmatic, Vulgar.
**
The Reactionary, who openly identifies with the project of Big
Business, straightforwardly recognizes the radical as a threat
to his project. He is overt and honest when he says “Those
radicals want to destroy Civilization” (by which he means his
corporate-capitalist society), “and THEREFORE they must
25
Anything Can Happen
be destroyed.” And he means DESTROYED—through vio-

lence: the police must get them, and they must be locked up or
shot or both. The Reactionary knows that when He excludes a
radical from the university, all his “Fellow Reactionaries” are
pledged to do the same.
Unlike the Reactionary, the Liberal does not call for terror
and violence overtly but covertly; he does not call for vio-
lence all at once but in stages. He does not say “Exclude him
from the University” but “Don’t renew his contract.” Unlike
the Reactionary the Liberal maintains a good conscience by
telling himself he has no intention to exclude the radical from
all universities: he merely doesn’t want the radical back in
“his” department.
The Liberal does not admit, even to himself, that he is a
member of a group; he does not like to be called a Liberal;
he does not admit, even to himself, that Liberals run other
departments and other universities, that Liberals run the dom-
inant hierarchies of American society; he does not admit that
HIS POWER COMES FROM THE FACT THAT OTHER
LIBERALS WILL BACK HIM UP. Unlike the Reactionary,
he does not admit that when he fires a radical he expects other
Liberals to do the same. The Liberal’s “liberalism” is an ide-
ology which informs him that he’s an “individual” who exists
in a vacuum, and that his decision does not bind anyone else.
He denies that all Liberals are bound to one Liberal’s deci-
sion. He lies to himself: if it ever happened that a group of
Liberals rehired the radical and fired the Liberal, the Liberal
would shout “We all agree that...” and “Our basic principle
is...” and “How can we tolerate such a blatant denial of our
most sacred...”—in other words, “WE’RE ALL PLEDGED
TO ACT TOGETHER”; “WE’RE MEMBERS OF THE
SAME GROUP”; “WE’RE ALL ENGAGED IN THE SAME
PROJECT”—and the project is the continued functioning of
the corporate-military system. Consequently, if one Liberal
spots a radical, he spots him for all Liberals; he spares them
the trouble of spotting him. The Liberal’s LIE is to tell himself
that THE OTHERS are not bound to exclude the radical “just
26
because “ he excludes him. By his philosophy, the Others, like

himself, are Pure Individuals Who May Hire Him Even If I
Fire Him.
**
The Reactionary does not claim to be “neutral”: he’s overt-
ly pro-Capitalist; he’s an ardent supporter of every American
corporate and military bureaucracy; he’s openly fighting to
maintain the power of the groups who are presently domi-
nant, and he overtly wants to eliminate any real threats to that
power.
The Liberal claims to be “neutral” and “objective”; he
claims that he’s NEITHER on the side of the “establishment”
nor on the “other side”; he claims that he’s not on any side:
he’s not in society but above it.
However, to the Liberal, only the action of the corpo-
rate-military bureaucracy is “legitimate”; the action of the
radical is not. And just like the Reactionary, the Liberal thinks
of the action of radicals AS A THREAT, which means that
the Liberal sees himself ON THE DOMINANT SIDE, the
side that’s threatened. He does not recognize the provocations
of the bureaucracy as provocations; only the actions of rad-
icals are provocations. The Liberal accepts the rules of the
dominant bureaucracy, and he defends those rules. He’s not
“objective.” A challenge of the dominant rules is, for him, a
“provocation.”
The Liberal moves WITHIN THE DOMINANT BU-
REAUCRACY; his success comes from PLEASING THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE ON TOP. The Liberal (whether pro-
fessor or student) climbs WITHIN THE HIERARCHY and
he wants to do so WITH A GOOD CONSCIENCE. The so-
called “radical sympathies” of the Liberal are his means to
maintain a good conscience while selling himself to those in
power. The Liberal’s greatest fear, in fact, is to become “an
outsider”; he wants to be an “insider” who is Good and Moral,
Just and Objective.
The Liberal rejects Imperialism, Patriotism, Racism,
27
Anything Can Happen
and even Capitalism--IN WORDS, but never in actions; and

he knows the line between words and actions. Words make
it possible for him to be a GOOD PERSON; action would
make him an OUTSIDER. That’s why the radical is a threat
to the Liberal; HE FORCES THE LIBERAL TO CHOOSE.
In the face of a radical, the Liberal is forced to choose be-
tween acting on his “principles” (and therefore becoming an
“outsider”), or accepting the dominant bureaucracy. The mere
presence of the radical exposes the “neutrality” of the Liberal:
HE CHOOSES TO ACCEPT THE DOMINANT BUREAU-
CRACY.
The Liberal does not see himself as a dehumanized factor
in a bureaucratic structure: his existence as a human being
and his position in the hierarchy are the same to him. THAT’S
WHY he cannot identify with the radical. For the radical, the
provocations of the bureaucracy reach a LIMIT beyond which
they’re no longer acceptable: they negate his existence as a
human being and he fights to remain alive. But since the Lib-
eral IS a slot in the hierarchy (since he IS an “associate pro-
fessor,” a “director,” etc.), since he accepts himself as a slot
and title in the bureaucracy, he cannot be provoked by the bu-
reaucracy; his humanity cannot be negated by the bureaucracy
BECAUSE HE NEGATES IT HIMSELF. For him there’s also
a limit: this limit is reached when an “outsider” threatens the
bureaucracy.
**
For the Liberal, the LIMIT is reached when a written or un-
written “rule” of the bureaucracy is broken, a LIMIT which is
crossed by any radical as soon as he acts. This Limit is, in fact,
completely arbitrary: the fact of “crossing the limit” is what
enables the Liberal to justify repression: “You can argue, but
you have to present both sides,” “You can give out leaflets in
the hall, but not in the classroom.” The Limit, the Line, is not
an action of the bureaucracy which goes beyond the limit of
human decency; the Line is an action of a radical which chal-
lenges the peaceful and orderly functioning of the dominant
28
system. And when the Liberal draws this line, wherever he

draws it, HE JUSTIFIES THE ELIMINATION OF THE ONE
WHO CROSSED THE LINE. This Limit is a justification of
VIOLENCE.
When the Liberal says: “It’s all right to give out leaf-
lets in the halls but not in the classrooms”; when he finds a
form, a rule, or a fictional rule that has been broken, he jus-
tifies repressing the lawbreaker. What his formula means is
“Sick’im!” It’s like the so-called Southern Moderate, who ex-
plains lynchings to himself but is against them in principle. In
every individual instance there’s some FORMAL reason to
justify the lynching: “Well, in this particular case he did such
and such and went too far...” He always has reasons to accept
every CONCRETE lynching that takes place, while PHIL-
OSOPHICALLY he remains opposed to lynching, which he
says is “horrible and a crime.” The Liberal Professor is against
harassment and persecution of students; he has all kinds of
Civil Libertarian principles about it. He’s against suppressing
anyone’s freedom of speech. But the same Liberal is among
the first to support the expulsion of a radical student; he was
among the first to support the firing of Rafferty and myself
(and many others). His PRINCIPLES are beautiful: they can
all be framed. One can know who the Reactionary is from
what he says; but what the Liberal says gives no clue to who
he is.
**
The Liberal Professor spends his life manipulating students
to fit the requirements of a corporate or state bureaucracy; his
relations with people are manipulative relations. He programs
students. The program he injects into them is “Science” (i.e.
TRUTH). He injects this program into students by means of
MANIPULATION. He assumes that manipulative relations
are the only possible human relations: he stimulates and pun-
ishes students with tests and grades; he blackmails male stu-
dents with the threat of induction into the military, and when
these methods fail, he calls on the police.
29
Anything Can Happen
The Liberal “tolerates” other “opinions.” However,

“opinions” are something less than TRUTH, and the “tolera-
tion of such opinions HAS A LIMIT. An individual professor
may legitimately be “heterodox”; he may legitimately hold
“heretical views”; BUT HE MUST NOT COMMUNICATE
THESE VIEWS TO STUDENTS. Since, for the Liberal, com-
munication can only take place by means of manipulation, the
communication of “heresy” MUST take place by means of
manipulation. However, when “tolerated opinions” are com-
municated to students, the students are not educated (since
only TRUTH can edify); they are MISLED. Consequently, if
students resist their own dehumanization, it is only because
they were MISLED by “outside agitators” and “Vulgar Marx-
ists.” The Liberal does not give students credit for being able
to draw their own conclusion about what he does to them.
Furthermore, if the Liberal cannot see the INSTRUMENTS
with which “heresies” are communicated, if he cannot see
the tests, the grades, the blackmail and the intimidation, he
does not conclude that the communication is not manipula-
tive (something unknown to him); he concludes that THE
INSTRUMENTS FOR SUCH MANIPULATION MUST BE
DEMONIC. Consequently one who rejects the official doc-
trine, one who rejects the Church’s TRUTH, is a Satanic MIS-
LEADER of innocent souls, a Pied Piper who entices innocent
spirits straight to Hell. One who uses DEMONIC instruments
of manipulation is a WITCH. And a WITCH, in the 20th cen-
tury as in earlier centuries, MUST BE DESTROYED.
As soon as the Liberal justifies the use of violence against
a radical, he calls the radical VIOLENT. Another of Rafferty’s
insights is that the Liberal’s accusations of “violence” are
PURE PROJECTIONS OF HIS OWN VIOLENCE. It is pre-
cisely when he’s in the act of excluding the radical by means
of violence that the Liberal shouts “VIOLENCE!”
The radical is excluded quickly, in the dark, under the
cover of bureaucratic pretexts, before he’s able to react. The
Liberal knows about the inertia that characterizes daily life;
he knows that a counter-attack against systematic exclusion
30
cannot be quickly organized. He counts on the radical’s phys-

ical or psychological inability to launch a counter-attack.
However, the Liberal is IN FACT (if not by choice) a hu-
man being, and cannot keep himself from knowing that what
he has done to another human being is humanly unacceptable
and degrading. He knows that one way the radical can reaffirm
his degraded humanity is by taking revenge. (As Frantz Fanon
pointed out in The Wretched of the Earth, the Colonizer fears,
and prepares for, the violence of the Colonized BEFORE THE
COLONIZED EVEN BEGINS TO ACT, precisely because
he knows WHAT HE WOULD DO IF HE WERE IN THE
PLACE OF THE COLONIZED.) That’s why he yells VIO-
LENCE and fears it. The Liberal has dehumanized himself IN
ORDER to dehumanize the other, but he nevertheless knows
how he would react as a human being: whether the slave re-
turns with a gun or not, THAT’S WHAT HE SHOULD DO.
THAT’S WHY the Liberal yells VIOLENCE at someone who
has never held a weapon in his hand. (The Liberals of the
WMU Economics Department yelled VIOLENCE at people
who had not yet taken a stick against anyone.) The accusation
of violence is not an analysis of what the radical DOES; it is
an analysis of what the radical SHOULD DO if he were able
to react in a human way.
The Liberal knows that HE is unable to react as a complete
human being; he knows that HE dehumanizes himself in order
to advance; he knows that HE cannot struggle against the bu-
reaucracy to affirm his own life and his own project. And the
Liberal projects his inability on the radical, AND COUNTS
ON IT. For his own Peace and Quiet, he has to count on the
physical repression OR the psychological breakdown of the
radical.
**
The breakdown of the radical is, in fact, the usual consequence
of repression. When this happens, the Liberal is INDIFFER-
ENT, since he is innocent, and he’s RELIEVED, since the
radical no longer poses a threat
31
Anything Can Happen
What does the student do once thrown out of the univer-

sity? Become a waitress or a bank clerk? Move into a “hippie
commune?” Or break down psychologically? That’s not the
Liberal’s “business.” A sophomore who is totally sickened by
the university frequently seeks “advice” from a Liberal. And
the Liberal blandly “advises” the student that some things can
be done, BUT THE STUDENT CANNOT GO BEYOND A
CERTAIN LINE. If he does, he will be thrown out of the uni-
versity. If the student tries to fight beyond this line, the obsta-
cles are so huge that the student may break down. And it is
precisely the psychological breakdown of this student that the
Liberal counts on. If he didn’t, he’d never throw anyone out.
If he didn’t think these students would be psychologically de-
stroyed and incapacitated even before the police got to them,
he’d be deathly afraid to throw anyone out; he’d know all
these people would be back in “hordes” to push the Liberals
out. He counts on the physical or psychological death of these
students. But he is never RESPONSIBLE for anything that
happens to a student who once sought his advice. If a brilliant
student, who could have learned a great deal even in the cap-
italist university, becomes a waitress for life, the Liberal is
GUILTLESS: nothing he ever did led her to do that, and “not
everyone can be a student in any case.”
He knows that some radicals will, however awkwardly,
try to fight back. And he also knows, from daily TV programs,
what happens to radicals who fight back. He knows that, at
some point, the radical will do the kind of thing which the
Liberal calls VIOLENCE, and at that point will either be
killed or jailed, or ostracized from society. For the Liberal, the
repression of the radical means that violence has been averted,
because for the Liberal there’s only one kind of violence; the
threats, the intimidations, the harassments, the arrests, the tri-
als, the jailings ARE NOT VIOLENCE for the Liberal. Only
the radical’s struggle to maintain his humanity is VIOLENCE
for the Liberal; the radical’s struggle to regain the humanity
which the Liberal deprived him of is VIOLENCE. That’s why,
when he cries VIOLENCE, he’s scared: “My job! My house!
32
My books!”
Once the radical is thrown out, he’s no longer in the Lib-
eral’s jurisdiction: he’s an “outside agitator,” and a “criminal.”
The Outsider no longer “belongs” in the Liberal’s university.
Members of the Columbia SDS Chapter, for example, are now
“outside agitators”; they are “not students” and consequently
“have no right to be on campus.” YET LAST YEAR THEY
WERE STUDENTS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; they
were thrown out by Liberals, and if they return to fight back,
they’re arrested by cops.
Consequently, anyone who objects and who fights back is
by definition an “outsider,” since his objections provide rea-
sons to throw him out, and once he’s out, he has no “right” to
fight back.
**
The Liberal is always INNOCENT; he has nothing to do with
anything; he never acts:
“God forbid! I didn’t send for the Police! I didn’t intend
any VIOLENCE! I just didn’t want an Unobjective Person
in My Department. If he was jailed or shot by the Police,
THAT’S NOT MY CONCERN; I’M COMPLETELY INNO-
CENT! I DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT,
and in any case, that merely shows what kind of person HE
really was.”
The Liberal’s project is to exclude the radical from so-
ciety, but he does not take responsibility for the project; he
realizes his project in stages, but he is only responsible for the
“innocent” first stage. OTHERS DO THE REST. The Liberal
merely initiates the process, and is not responsible for what
the others do.
The Reactionary hits the radical directly; the Liberal does
not do his own hitting. The Liberal merely PROVOKES the
radical until he responds to the provocation, and when he re-
sponds, THE COPS GET THE RADICAL. The Liberal main-
tains his good conscience: HE didn’t act--the radical acted;
HE didn’t repress the radical—the cops did. THE LIBERAL
33
Anything Can Happen
IS ALWAYS INNOCENT; his only desire is peace and quiet.

The Reactionary throws out a radical and then has him
arrested for Loitering or Conspiracy or outside Agitation if
the radical returns to fight; the Reactionary “eggs on” and ha-
rasses until the radical is provoked to hit back, and then has
him arrested for Assault and Battery; the Reactionary tries to
exclude the radical from any sources of income in order to
have him locked up as a thief. To the Reactionary, the radical
is ALREADY A CRIMINAL WHEN HE EXPRESSES HIS
THOUGHTS.
The Liberal knows just as well as the Reactionary that
“The cops’ll get ‘im”; HE COUNTS ON THE COPS TO
PROTECT HIS PEACE AND QUIET; but, as Rafferty re-
peatedly observed, THE LIBERAL DOESN’T WANT TO
SEE THE COPS WHO PROTECT HIM.
The Liberal can be compared to the Medieval Church.
The Church excommunicated a heretic, but did not itself put
the heretic to death. The Civil Authority, the Secular Author-
ity, took charge of the heretic’s body. The Church was inno-
cent; the Civil Authorities and the Executioner were the ones
responsible for physical extermination. The excommunicators
of the Church maintained clean consciences.
Thus also the Liberal: All he does is to excommunicate
the radical, to exclude him “spiritually”; the Civil Authorities
do the rest. At every single step he applies systematic terror
and violence, and at every single step he manages to maintain
his clean conscience.
The Liberal ALREADY KNOWS that when his “Leftist
Colleague” is an unemployed radical he will do something
for which it will be legitimate to throw him in jail, but the
Liberal doesn’t want to be aware that HIS PEACE AND QUI-
ET ARE MAINTAINED THROUGH TERRORISM AND
VIOLENCE. In other words, the Liberal’s weapons are the
same as the reactionary’s; the only difference between them
is that the Liberal doesn’t look, and has a good conscience.
He’s “tolerant,” he “reads radical literature,” he’s the “only
one who talks to radicals,” he’s MORAL in every single way;
34
he goes out of his way to “help radicals”; he’ll do everything

for radicals which will help him keep his good conscience
WHILE HE CONTINUES TO RELY ON TERROR AND VI-
OLENCE.
Liberal professors and students whose situations can only
be maintained through terror and violence, through systemat-
ic psychological and physical murder, advertise “Make Love
Not War.” Liberal students who have ALREADY CHOSEN
to help maintain the dominant project when their time comes,
are busy “accumulating” large “stocks” of good conscience
while they can, while their “new styles of life” do not yet con-
flict with their future “responsibilities.”
Liberals are not “moderate.” That’s their own self-image.
They’re extremists, but unlike reactionaries, THEY’RE EX-
TREMISTS WITH GOOD CONSCIENCES. Their instru-
ments are not “ideas”; their instruments are TERROR and
VIOLENCE. But unlike lynchers, THE LIBERALS TURN
THEIR EYES AWAY to maintain their innocence.
People are EXCLUDED; thousands of people are OUT-
SIDERS; yet the Liberals who forced them out are TOTALLY
GUILTLESS, and have the illusion that they are the ones who
are “sympathetic” to the Radical Students, the Emotionally
What-Have-You Students, the Hippie Students. The Liberal
who is the first to move WHENEVER SOMEONE CROSSES
ONE OF HIS LINES at the same time “contributes generous-
ly” to “Left-wing organizations” and “is against the war in
Vietnam.” He is a supporter of all GOOD THINGS; he is a
GOOD PERSON; he’s the BEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
He is able to accept physical and psychological TERROR and
VIOLENCE WITH A GOOD CONSCIENCE AND CHRIS-
TIAN MORALS.
1969
35
The Reproduction
of Daily Life
The everyday practical activity of tribesmen reproduces, or
perpetuates, a tribe. This reproduction is not merely physical,
but social as well. Through their daily activities the tribesmen
do not merely reproduce a group of human beings; they re-
produce a tribe, namely a particular social form within which
this group of human beings performs specific activities in a
specific manner. The specific activities of the tribesmen are
not the outcome of “natural” characteristics of the men who
perform them, the way the production of honey is an outcome
of the “nature” of a bee. The daily life enacted and perpetuat-
ed by the tribesman is a specific social response to particular
material and historical conditions.
The everyday activity of slaves reproduces slavery.
Through their daily activities, slaves do not merely reproduce
themselves and their masters physically; they also reproduce
the instruments with which the master represses them, and
their own habits of submission to the master’s authority. To
men who live in a slave society, the master-slave relation
seems like a natural and eternal relation. However, men are
not born masters or slaves. Slavery is a specific social form,
and men submit to it only in very particular material and his-
torical conditions.
The practical everyday activity of wage-workers repro-
duces wage labor and capital. Through their daily activities,
“modern” men, like tribesmen and slaves, reproduce the in-
habitants, the social relations and the ideas of their society;
they reproduce the social form of daily life. Like the tribe and
36
The Reproduction of Daily Life
the slave system, the capitalist system is neither the natural

nor the final form of human society; like the earlier social
forms, capitalism is a specific response to material and histor-
ical conditions.
Unlike earlier forms of social activity, everyday life in
capitalist society systematically transforms the material con-
ditions to which capitalism originally responded. Some of the
material limits to human activity come gradually under human
control. At a high level of industrialization, practical activity
creates its own material conditions as well as its social form.
Thus the subject of analysis is not only how practical activity
in capitalist society reproduces capitalist society, but also how
this activity itself eliminates the material conditions to which
capitalism is a response.
Daily Life in Capitalist Society
The social form of people’s regular activities under capital-

ism is a response to a certain material and historical situation.
The material and historical conditions explain the origin of
the capitalist form, but do not explain why this form contin-
ues after the initial situation disappears. A concept of “cultural
lag” is not an explanation of the continuity of a social form
after the disappearance of the initial conditions to which it re-
sponded. This concept is merely a name for the continuity of
the social form. When the concept of “cultural lag” parades as
a name for a “social force” which determines human activity,
it is an obfuscation which presents the outcome of people’s
activities as an external force beyond their control. This is not
only true of a concept like “cultural lag.” Many of the terms
used by Marx to describe people’s activities have been raised
to the status of external and even “natural” forces which de-
termine people’s activity; thus concepts like “class struggle,”
“production relations” and particularly “The Dialectic,” play
the same role in the theories of some “Marxists” that “Orig-
inal Sin,” “Fate” and “The Hand of Destiny” played in the
theories of medieval mystifiers.
37
Anything Can Happen
In the performance of their daily activities, the members

of capitalist society simultaneously carry out two processes:
they reproduce the form of their activities, and they eliminate
the material conditions to which this form of activity initially
responded. But they do not know they carry out these process-
es; their own activities are not transparent to them. They are
under the illusion that their activities are responses to natural
conditions beyond their control and do not see that they are
themselves authors of those conditions. The task of capitalist
ideology is to maintain the veil which keeps people from see-
ing that their own activities reproduce the form of their daily
life; the task of critical theory is to unveil the activities of dai-
ly life, to render them transparent, to make the reproduction
of the social form of capitalist activity visible within people’s
daily activities.
Under capitalism, daily life consists of related activities
which reproduce and expand the capitalist form of social ac-
tivity. The sale of labor-time for a price (a wage), the em-
bodiment of labor-time in commodities (salable goods, both
tangible and intangible), the consumption of tangible and in-
tangible commodities (such as consumer goods and specta-
cles) — these activities which characterize daily life under
capitalism are not manifestations of “human nature,” nor are
they imposed on men by forces beyond their control.
If it is held that man is “by nature” an uninventive tribes-
man and an inventive businessman, a submissive slave and
a proud craftsman an independent hunter and a dependent
wage-worker, then either man’s “nature” is an empty concept,
or man’s “nature” depends on material and historical condi-
tions, and is in fact a response to those conditions.
Alienation of Living Activity
In capitalist society, creative activity takes the form of com-

modity production, namely production of marketable goods,
and the results of human activity take the form of commodi-
ties. Marketability or salability is the universal characteristic
38
of all practical activity and all products. The products of hu-

man activity which are necessary for survival have the form
of salable goods: they are only available in exchange for mon-
ey. And money is only available in exchange for commodities.
If a large number of men accept the legitimacy of these con-
ventions, if they accept the convention that commodities are
a prerequisite for money, and that money is a prerequisite for
survival, then they find themselves locked into a vicious cir-
cle. Since they have no commodities, their only exit from this
circle is to regard themselves, or parts of themselves, as com-
modities. And this is, in fact, the peculiar “solution” which
men impose on themselves in the face of specific material and
historical conditions. They do not exchange their bodies or
parts of their bodies for money. They exchange the creative
content of their lives, their practical daily activity, for money.
As soon as men accept money as an equivalent for life, the
sale of living activity becomes a condition for their physical
and social survival. Life is exchanged for survival. Creation
and production come to mean sold activity. A man’s activity
is “productive,” useful to society, only when it is sold activity.
And the man himself is a productive member of society only
if the activities of his daily life are sold activities. As soon as
people accept the terms of this exchange, daily activity takes
the form of universal prostitution.
The sold creative power, or sold daily activity, takes the
form of labor. Labor is a historically specific form of human
activity. Labor is abstract activity which has only one prop-
erty: it is marketable, it can be sold for a given quantity of
money. Labor is indifferent activity: indifferent to the partic-
ular task performed and indifferent to the particular subject to
which the task is directed. Digging, printing and carving are
different activities, but all three are labor in capitalist society.
Labor is simply “earning money.” Living activity which takes
the form of labor is a means to earn money. Life becomes a
means of survival.
This ironic reversal is not the dramatic climax of an imag-
inative novel; it is a fact of daily life in capitalist society. Sur-
39
Anything Can Happen
vival, namely self-preservation and reproduction, is not the

means to creative practical activity, but precisely the other
way around. Creative activity in the form of labor, namely
sold activity, is a painful necessity for survival; labor is the
means to self-preservation and reproduction.
The sale of living activity brings about another reversal.
Through sale, the labor of an individual becomes the “prop-
erty” of another, it is appropriated by another, it comes un-
der the control of another. In other words, a person’s activity
becomes the activity of another, the activity of its owner; it
becomes alien to the person who performs it. Thus one’s life,
the accomplishments of an individual in the world, the differ-
ence which his life makes in the life of humanity, are not only
transformed into labor, a painful condition for survival; they
are transformed into alien activity, activity performed by the
buyer of that labor. In capitalist society, the architects, the en-
gineers, the laborers, are not builders; the man who buys their
labor is the builder; their projects, calculations and motions
are alien to them; their living activity, their accomplishments,
are his.
Academic sociologists, who take the sale of labor for
granted, understand this alienation of labor as a feeling: the
worker’s activity “appears” alien to the worker, it “seems” to
be controlled by another. However, any worker can explain
to the academic sociologists that the alienation is neither a
feeling nor an idea in the worker’s head, but a real fact about
the worker’s daily life. The sold activity is in fact alien to the
worker; his labor is in fact controlled by its buyer.
In exchange for his sold activity, the worker gets money,
the conventionally accepted means of survival in capitalist so-
ciety. With this money he can buy commodities, things, but he
cannot buy back his activity. This reveals a peculiar “gap” in
money as the “universal equivalent.” A person can sell com-
modities for money, and he can buy the same commodities
with money. He can sell his living activity for money, but he
cannot buy his living activity for money.
The things the worker buys with his wages are first of all
40
consumer goods which enable him to survive, to reproduce

his labor-power so as to be able to continue selling it; and they
are spectacles, objects for passive admiration. He consumes
and admires the products of human activity passively. He does
not exist in the world as an active agent who transforms it,
but as a helpless impotent spectator; he may call this state of
powerless admiration “happiness,” and since labor is painful,
he may desire to be “happy,” namely inactive, all his life (a
condition similar to being born dead). The commodities, the
spectacles, consume him; he uses up living energy in passive
admiration; he is consumed by things. In this sense, the more
he has, the less he is. (An individual can surmount this death-
in-life through marginal creative activity; but the population
cannot, except by abolishing the capitalist form of practical
activity, by abolishing wage- labor and thus dealienating cre-
ative activity.)
The Fetishism of Commodities
By alienating their activity and embodying it in commodi-

ties, in material receptacles of human labor, people reproduce
themselves and create Capital. From the standpoint of capi-
talist ideology, and particularly of academic Economics, this
statement is untrue: commodities are “not the product of labor
alone”; they are produced by the primordial “factors of pro-
duction,” Land, Labor and Capital, the capitalist Holy Trini-
ty, and the main “factor” is obviously the hero of the piece,
Capital.
The purpose of this superficial Trinity is not analysis,
since analysis is not what these Experts are paid for. They are
paid to obfuscate, to mask the social form of practical activi-
ty under capitalism, to veil the fact that producers reproduce
themselves, their exploiters, as well as the instruments with
which they’re exploited. The Trinity formula does not suc-
ceed in convincing. It is obvious that land is no more of a
commodity producer than water, air, or the sun. Furthermore
Capital, which is at once a name for a social relation between
41
Anything Can Happen
workers and capitalists, for the instruments of production

owned by a capitalist, and for the money-equivalent of his in-
struments and “intangibles,” does not produce anything more
than the ejaculations shaped into publishable form by the aca-
demic Economists. Even the instruments of production which
are the capital of one capitalist are primordial “factors of pro-
duction” only if one’s blinders limit his view to an isolated
capitalist firm, since a view of the entire economy reveals
that the capital of one capitalist is the material receptacle of
the labor alienated to another capitalist. However, though the
Trinity formula does not convince, it does accomplish the task
of obfuscation by shifting the subject of the question: instead
of asking why the activity of people under capitalism takes
the form of wage-labor, potential analysts of capitalist daily
life are transformed into academic house-Marxists who ask
whether or not labor is the only “factor of production.”
Thus Economics (and capitalist ideology in general)
treats land, money, and the products of labor, as things which
have the power to produce, to create value, to work for their
owners, to transform the world. This is what Marx called the
fetishism which characterizes people’s everyday conceptions,
and which is raised to the level of dogma by Economics. For
the economist, living people are things (“factors of produc-
tion”), and things live (money “works,” Capital “produces”).
The fetish worshipper attributes the product of his own activ-
ity to his fetish. As a result, he ceases to exert his own power
(the power to transform nature, the power to determine the
form and content of his daily life); he exerts only those “pow-
ers” which he attributes to his fetish (the “power” to buy com-
modities). In other words, the fetish worshipper emasculates
himself and attributes virility to his fetish.
But the fetish is a dead thing, not a living being; it has
no virility. The fetish is no more than a thing for which, and
through which, capitalist relations are maintained. The mys-
terious power of Capital, its “power” to produce, its virility,
does not reside in itself, but in the fact that people alienate
their creative activity, that they sell their labor to capitalists,
42
that they materialize or reify their alienated labor in commod-

ities. In other words, people are bought with the products of
their own activity, yet they see their own activity as the activ-
ity of Capital, and their own products as the products of Cap-
ital. By attributing creative power to Capital and not to their
own activity, they renounce their living activity, their every-
day life, to Capital, which means that people give themselves
daily, to the personification of Capital, the capitalist.
By selling their labor, by alienating their activity, people
daily reproduce the personifications of the dominant forms
of activity under capitalism, they reproduce the wage-laborer
and the capitalist. They do not merely reproduce the individu-
als physically, but socially as well; they reproduce individuals
who are sellers of labor-power, and individuals who are own-
ers of means of production; they reproduce the individuals as
well as the specific activities, the sale as well as the owner-
ship.
Every time people perform an activity they have not
themselves defined and do not control, every time they pay for
goods they produced with money they received in exchange
for their alienated activity, every time they passively admire
the products of their own activity as alien objects procured by
their money, they give new life to Capital and annihilate their
own lives.
The aim of the process is the reproduction of the relation
between the worker and the capitalist. However, this is not the
aim of the individual agents engaged in it. Their activities are
not transparent to them; their eyes are fixed on the fetish that
stands between the act and its result. The individual agents
keep their eyes fixed on things, precisely those things for
which capitalist relations are established. The worker as pro-
ducer aims to exchange his daily labor for money-wages, he
aims precisely for the thing through which his relation to the
capitalist is re-established, the thing through which he repro-
duces himself as a wage-worker and the other as a capitalist.
The worker as consumer exchanges his money for products
of labor, precisely the things which the capitalist has to sell in
43
Anything Can Happen
order to realize his Capital.

The daily transformation of living activity into Capi-
tal is mediated by things, it is not carried out by the things.
The fetish worshipper does not know this; for him labor and
land, instruments and money, entrepreneurs and bankers, are
all “factors” and “agents.” When a hunter wearing an amulet
downs a deer with a stone, he may consider the amulet an
essential “factor” in downing the deer and even in providing
the deer as an object to be downed. If he is a responsible and
well-educated fetish worshipper, he will devote his attention
to his amulet, nourishing it with care and admiration; in order
to improve the material conditions of his life, he will improve
the way he wears his fetish, not the way he throws the stone;
in a bind, he may even send his amulet to “hunt” for him. His
own daily activities are not transparent to him: when he eats
well, he fails to see that it is his own action of throwing the
stone, and not the action of the amulet, that provided his food;
when he starves, he fails to see that it is his own action of
worshipping the amulet instead of hunting, and not the wrath
of his fetish, that causes his starvation.
The fetishism of commodities and money, the mystifi-
cation of one’s daily activities, the religion of everyday life
which attributes living activity to inanimate things, is not a
mental caprice born in men’s imaginations; it has its origin in
the character of social relations under capitalism. Men do in
fact relate to each other through things; the fetish is in fact the
occasion for which they act collectively, and through which
they reproduce their activity. But it is not the fetish that per-
forms the activity. It is not Capital that transforms raw materi-
als, nor Capital that produces goods. If living activity did not
transform the materials, these would remain untransformed,
inert, dead matter. If men were not disposed to continue sell-
ing their living activity, the impotence of Capital would be re-
vealed; Capital would cease to exist; its last remaining poten-
cy would be the power to remind people of a bypassed form
of everyday life characterized by daily universal prostitution.
The worker alienates his life in order to preserve his life.
44
If he did not sell his living activity he could not get a wage
and could not survive. However, it is not the wage that makes
alienation the condition for survival. If men were collectively
not disposed to sell their lives, if they were disposed to take
control over their own activities, universal prostitution would
not be a condition for survival. It is people’s disposition to
continue selling their labor, and not the things for which they
sell it, that makes the alienation of living activity necessary
for the preservation of life.
The living activity sold by the worker is bought by the
capitalist. And it is only this living activity that breathes life
into Capital and makes it “productive.” The capitalist, an
“owner” of raw materials and instruments of production, pres-
ents natural objects and products of other people’s labor as his
own “private property. But it is not the mysterious power of
Capital that creates the capitalist’s “private property”; living
activity is what creates the “property,” and the form of that
activity is what keeps it “private.”
Transformation of Living Activity into Capital
The transformation of living activity into Capital takes place

through things, daily, but is not carried out by things. Things
which are products of human activity seem to be active agents
because activities and contacts are established for and through
things, and because people’s activities are not transparent to
them; they confuse the mediating object with the cause.
In the capitalist process of production, the worker embod-
ies or materializes his alienated living energy in an inert object
by using instruments which are embodiments of other peo-
ple’s activity. (Sophisticated industrial instruments embody
the intellectual and manual activity of countless generations
of inventors, improvers and producers from all corners of the
globe and from varied forms of society.) The instruments in
themselves are inert objects; they are material embodiments
of living activity, but are not themselves alive. The only active
agent in the production process is the living laborer. He uses
45
Anything Can Happen
the products of other people’s labor and infuses them with

life, so to speak, but the life is his own; he is not able to res-
urrect the individuals who stored their living activity in his
instrument. The instrument may enable him to do more during
a given time period, and in this sense it may raise his produc-
tivity. But only the living labor which is able to produce can
be productive.
For example, when an industrial worker runs an electric
lathe, he uses products of the labor of generations of phys-
icists, inventors, electrical engineers, lathe makers. He is
obviously more productive than a craftsman who carves the
same object by hand. But it is in no sense the “Capital” at the
disposal of the industrial worker which is more “productive”
than the “Capital” of the craftsman. If generations of intellec-
tual and manual activity had not been embodied in the electric
lathe, if the industrial worker had to invent the lathe, electric-
ity, and the electric lathe, then it would take him numerous
lifetimes to turn a single object on an electric lathe, and no
amount of Capital could raise his productivity above that of
the craftsman who carves the object by hand.
The notion of the “productivity of capital,” and particular-
ly the detailed measurement of that “productivity,” are inven-
tions of the “science” of Economics, that religion of capitalist
daily life which uses up people’s energy in the worship, ad-
miration and flattery of the central fetish of capitalist society.
Medieval colleagues of these “scientists” performed detailed
measurements of the height and width of angels in Heaven,
without ever asking what angels or Heaven were, and taking
for granted the existence of both.
The result of the worker’s sold activity is a product which
does not belong to him. This product is an embodiment of his
labor, a materialization of a part of his life, a receptacle which
contains his living activity, but it is not his; it is: as alien to
him as his labor. He did not decide to make it, and when it
is made he does not dispose of it. If he wants it, he has to
buy it. What he has made is not simply a product with certain
useful properties; for that he did not need to sell his labor to
46
a capitalist in exchange for a wage; he need only have picked

the necessary materials and the available tools, he need only
have shaped the materials guided by his goals and limited by
his knowledge and ability. (It is obvious that an individual can
only do this marginally; men’s appropriation and use of the
materials and tools available to them can only take place after
the overthrow of the capitalist form of activity.)
What the worker produces under capitalist conditions is a
product with a very specific property, the property of salabili-
ty. What his alienated activity produces is a commodity.
Because capitalist production is commodity production,
the statement that the goal of the process is the satisfaction
of human needs is false; it is a rationalization and an apolo-
gy. The “satisfaction of human needs” is not the goal of the
capitalist or of the worker engaged in production, nor is it a
result of the process. The worker sells his labor in order to
get a wage; the specific content of the labor is indifferent to
him; he does not alienate his labor to a capitalist who does not
give him a wage in exchange for it, no matter how many hu-
man needs this capitalist’s products may satisfy. The capitalist
buys labor and engages it in production in order to emerge
with commodities which can be sold. He is indifferent to the
specific properties of the product, just as he is indifferent to
people’s needs; all that interests him about the product is how
much it will sell for, and all that interests him about people’s
needs is how much they “need” to buy and how they can be
coerced, through propaganda and psychological conditioning,
to “need” more. The capitalist’s goal is to satisfy his need to
reproduce and enlarge Capital, and the result of the process is
the expanded reproduction of wage labor and Capital (which
are not “human needs”).
The commodity produced by the worker is exchanged by
the capitalist for a specific quantity of money; the commodity
is a value which is exchanged for an equivalent value. In other
words, the living and past labor materialized in the product
can exist in two distinct yet equivalent forms, in commodities
and in money, or in what is common to both, value. This does
47
Anything Can Happen
not mean that value is labor. Value is the social form of reified
(materialized) labor in capitalist society.
Under capitalism, social relations are not established di-
rectly; they are established through value. Everyday activity
is not exchanged directly; it is exchanged in the form of value.
Consequently, what happens to living activity under capital-
ism cannot be traced by observing the activity itself, but only
by following the metamorphoses of value.
When the living activity of people takes the form of labor
(alienated activity), it acquires the property of exchangeabili-
ty; it acquires the form of value. In other words, the labor can
be exchanged for an “equivalent” quantity of money (wages).
The deliberate alienation of living activity, which is perceived
as necessary for survival by the members of capitalist society,
itself reproduces the capitalist form within which alienation is
necessary for survival. Because of the fact that living activity
has the form of value, the products of that activity must also
have the form of value: they must be exchangeable for mon-
ey. This is obvious since, if the products of labor did not take
the form of value, but for example the form of useful objects
at the disposal of society, then they would either remain in
the factory or they would be taken freely by the members of
society whenever a need for them arose; in either case, the
money-wages received by the workers would have no val-
ue, and living activity could not be sold for an “equivalent”
quantity of money; living activity could not be alienated. Con-
sequently, as soon as living activity takes the form of value,
the products of that activity take the form of value, and the
reproduction of everyday life takes place through changes or
metamorphoses of value.
The capitalist sells the products of labor on a market; he
exchanges them for an equivalent sum of money; he realizes
a determined value. The specific magnitude of this value on
a particular market is the price of the commodities. For the
academic Economist, Price is St. Peter’s key to the gates of
Heaven. Like Capital itself, Price moves within a wonderful
world which consists entirely of objects; the objects have hu-
48
man relations with each other, and are alive; they transform
each other, communicate with each other; they marry and
have children. And of course it is only through the grace of
these intelligent, powerful and creative objects that people
can be so happy in capitalist society.
In the Economist’s pictorial representations of the work-
ings of heaven, the angels do everything and men do nothing
at all; men simply enjoy what these superior beings do for
them. Not only does Capital produce and money work; other
mysterious beings have similar virtues. Thus Supply, a quan-
tity of things which are sold, and Demand, a quantity of things
which are bought, together determine Price, a quantity of
money; when Supply and Demand marry on a particular point
of the diagram, they give birth to Equilibrium Price, which
corresponds to a universal state of bliss. The activities of ev-
eryday life are played out by things, and people are reduced
to things (“factors of production”) during their “productive”
hours, and to passive spectators of things during their “leisure
time.” The virtue of the Economic Scientist consists of his
ability to attribute the outcome of people’s everyday activities
to things, and of his inability to see the living activity of peo-
ple underneath the antics of the things. For the Economist, the
things through which the activity of people is regulated under
capitalism are themselves the mothers and sons, the causes
and consequences of their own activity.
The magnitude of value, namely the price of a commodi-
ty, the quantity of money for which it exchanges, is not deter-
mined by things, but by the daily activities of people. Supply
and demand, perfect and imperfect competition, are nothing
more than social forms of products and activities in capitalist
society; they have no life of their own. The fact that activi-
ty is alienated, namely that labor-time is sold for a specific
sum of money, that it has a certain value, has several con-
sequences for the magnitude of the value of the products of
that labor. The value of the sold commodities must at least
be equal to the value of the labor-time. This is obvious both
from the standpoint of the individual capitalist firm, and from
49
Anything Can Happen
the standpoint of society as a whole. If the value of the com-

modities sold by the individual capitalist were smaller than
the value of the labor he hired, then his labor expenditures
alone would be larger than his earnings, and he would quickly
go bankrupt. Socially, if the value of the laborers production
were smaller than the value of their consumption, then the
labor force could not even reproduce itself, not to speak of a
class of capitalists. However, if the value of the commodities
were merely equal to the value of the labor- time expended
on them, the commodity producers would merely reproduce
themselves, and their society would not be a capitalist society;
their activity might still consist of commodity production, but
it would not be capitalist commodity production.
For labor to create Capital, the value of the products of la-
bor must be larger than the value of the labor. In other words,
the labor force must produce a surplus product, a quantity of
goods which it does not consume, and this surplus product
must be transformed into surplus value, a form of value which
is not appropriated by workers as wages, but by capitalists as
profit. Furthermore, the value of the products of labor must
be larger still, since living labor is not the only kind of labor
materialized in them. In the production process, workers ex-
pend their own energy, but they also use up the stored labor
of others as instruments, and they shape materials on which
labor was previously expended.
This leads to the strange result that the value of the labor-
er’s products and the value of his wage are different magni-
tudes, namely that the sum of money received by the capitalist
when he sells the commodities produced by his hired laborers
is different from the sum he pays the laborers. This difference
is not explained by the fact that the used-up materials and
tools must be paid for. If the value of the sold commodities
were equal to the value of the living labor and the instruments,
there would still be no room for capitalists. The fact is that the
difference between the two magnitudes must be large enough
to support a class of capitalists — not only the individuals,
but also the specific activity that these individuals engage in,
50
namely the purchase of labor. The difference between the total

value of the products and the value of the labor spent on their
production is surplus value, the seed of Capital.
In order to locate the origin of surplus value, it is nec-
essary to examine why the value of the labor is smaller than
the value of the commodities produced by it. The alienated
activity of the worker transforms materials with the aid of in-
struments, and produces a certain quantity of commodities.
However, when these commodities are sold and the used-up
materials and instruments are paid for, the workers are not
given the remaining value of their products as their wages;
they are given less. In other words, during every working day,
the workers perform a certain quantity of unpaid labor, forced
labor, for which they receive no equivalent.
The performance of this unpaid labor, this forced labor, is
another “condition for survival” in capitalist society. Howev-
er, like alienation, this condition is not imposed by nature, but
by the collective practice of people, by their everyday activi-
ties. Before the existence of unions, an individual worker ac-
cepted whatever forced labor was available, since rejection of
the labor would have meant that other workers would accept
the available terms of exchange, and the individual worker
would receive no wage. Workers competed with each other
for the wages offered by capitalists; if a worker quit because
the wage was unacceptably low, an unemployed worker was
willing to replace him, since for the unemployed a small wage
is higher than no wage at all. This competition among work-
ers was called “free labor” by capitalists, who made great
sacrifices to maintain the freedom of workers, since it was
precisely this freedom that preserved the surplus value of the
capitalist and made it possible for him to accumulate Capital.
It was not any worker’s aim to produce more goods than he
was paid for. His aim was to get a wage which was as large as
possible. However, the existence of workers who got no wage
at all, and whose conception of a large wage was consequent-
ly more modest than that of an employed worker, made it pos-
sible for the capitalist to hire labor at a lower wage. In fact,
51
Anything Can Happen
the existence of unemployed workers made it possible for the

capitalist to pay the lowest wage that workers were willing
to work for. Thus the result of the collective daily activity of
the workers, each striving individually for the largest possible
wage, was to lower the wages of all; the effect of the compe-
tition of each against all was that all got the smallest possible
wage, and the capitalist got the largest possible surplus.
The daily practice of all annuls the goals of each. But the
workers did not know that their situation was a product of
their own daily behavior; their own activities were not trans-
parent to them. To the workers it seemed that low wages were
simply a natural part of life, like illness and death, and that
falling wages were a natural catastrophe, like a flood or a hard
winter. The critiques of socialists and the analyses of Marx, as
well as an increase in industrial development which afforded
more time for reflection, stripped away some of the veils and
made it possible for workers to see through their activities
to some extent. However, in Western Europe and the United
States, workers did not get rid of the capitalist form of daily
life; they formed unions. And in the different material condi-
tions of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, workers (and
peasants) replaced the capitalist class with a state bureaucracy
that purchases alienated labor and accumulates Capital in the
name of Marx.
With unions, daily life is similar to what it was before
unions. In fact, it is almost the same. Daily life continues to
consist of labor, of alienated activity, and of unpaid labor,
or forced labor. The unionized worker no longer settles the
terms of his alienation; union functionaries do this for him.
The terms on which the worker’s activity is alienated are no
longer guided by the individual worker’s need to accept what
is available; they are now guided by the union bureaucrat’s
need to maintain his position as pimp between the sellers of
labor and the buyers.
With or without unions, surplus value is neither a product
of nature nor of Capital; it is created by the daily activities
of people. In the performance of their daily activities, peo-
52
ple are not only disposed to alienate these activities, they are
also disposed to reproduce the conditions which force them
to alienate their activities, to reproduce Capital and thus the
power of Capital to purchase labor. This is not because they
do not know “what the alternative is.” A person who is in-
capacitated by chronic indigestion because he eats too much
grease does not continue eating grease because he does not
know what the alternative is. Either he prefers being incapac-
itated to giving up grease, or else it is not clear to him that his
daily consumption of grease causes his incapacity. And if his
doctor, preacher, teacher and politician tell him, first, that the
grease is what keeps him alive, and secondly that they already
do for him everything he would do if he were well, then it is
not surprising that his activity is not transparent to him and
that he makes no great effort to render it transparent.
The production of surplus value is a condition of survival,
not for the population, but for the capitalist system. Surplus
value is the portion of the value of commodities produced by
labor which is not returned to the laborers. It can be expressed
either in commodities or in money (just as Capital can be ex-
pressed either as a quantity things or of money), but this does
not alter the fact that it is an expression for the materialized
labor which is stored in a given quantity of products. Since
the products can be exchanged for an “equivalent” quantity of
money, the money “stands for,” or represents, the same value
as the products. The money can, in turn, be exchanged for
another quantity of products of “equivalent” value. The en-
semble of these exchanges, which take place simultaneously
during the performance of capitalist daily life, constitutes the
capitalist process of circulation. It is through this process that
the metamorphosis of surplus value into Capital takes place.
The portion of value which does not return to labor,
namely surplus value, allows the capitalist to exist, and it also
allows him to do much more than simply exist. The capitalist
invests a portion of this surplus value; he hires new workers
and buys new means of production; he expands his dominion.
What this means is that the capitalist accumulates new labor,
53
Anything Can Happen
both in the form of the living labor he hires and of the past
labor (paid and unpaid) which is stored in the materials and
machines he buys.
The capitalist class as a whole accumulates the surplus
labor of society, but this process takes place on a social scale
and consequently cannot be seen if one observes only the ac-
tivities of an individual capitalist. It must be remembered that
the products bought by a given capitalist as instruments have
the same characteristics as the products he sells. A first capi-
talist sells instruments to a second capitalist for a given sum
of value, and only a part of this value is returned to workers as
wages; the remaining part is surplus value, with which the first
capitalist buys new instruments and labor. The second capital-
ist buys the instruments for the given value, which means that
he pays for the total quantity of labor rendered to the first cap-
italist, the quantity of labor which was remunerated as well
as the quantity performed free of charge. This means that the
instruments accumulated by the second capitalist contain the
unpaid labor performed for the first. The second capitalist, in
turn, sells his products for a given value, and returns only a
portion of this value to his laborers; he uses the remainder for
new instruments and labor.
If the whole process were squeezed into a single time
period, and if all the capitalists were aggregated into one, it
would be seen that the value with which the capitalist acquires
new instruments and labor is equal to the value of the products
which he did not return to the producers. This accumulated
surplus labor is Capital.
In terms of capitalist society as a whole, the total Capital
is equal to the sum of unpaid labor performed by generations
of human beings whose lives consisted of the daily alienation
of their living activity. In other words Capital, in the face of
which men sell their living days, is the product of the sold
activity of men, and is reproduced and expanded every day a
man sells another working day, every moment he decides to
continue living the capitalist form of daily life.
54
Storage and Accumulation of Human Activity
The transformation of surplus labor into Capital is a specific

historical form of a more general process, the process of in-
dustrialization, the permanent transformation of man’s mate-
rial environment.
Certain essential characteristics of this consequence of
human activity under capitalism can he grasped by means of a
simplified illustration. In an imaginary society, people spend
most of their active time producing food and other necessities;
only part of their time is “surplus time” in the sense that it
is exempted from the production of necessities. This surplus
activity may be devoted to the production of food for priests
and warriors who do not themselves produce; it may be used
to produce goods which are burned for sacred occasions; it
may be used up in the performance of ceremonies or gym-
nastic exercises. In any of these cases, the material conditions
of these people are not likely to change, from one generation
to another, as a result of their daily activities. However, one
generation of people of this imaginary society may store their
surplus time instead of using it up. For example, they may
spend this surplus time winding up springs. The next genera-
tion may unwind the energy stored in the springs to perform
necessary tasks, or may simply use the energy of the springs
to wind new springs. In either case, the stored surplus labor of
the earlier generation will provide the new generation with a
larger quantity of surplus working time. The new generation
may also store this surplus in springs and in other recepta-
cles. In a relatively short period, the labor stored in the springs
will exceed the labor time available to any living generation;
with the expenditure of relatively little energy, the people of
this imaginary society will be able to harness the springs to
most of their necessary tasks, and also to the task of winding
new springs for coming generations. Most of the living hours
which they previously spent producing necessities will now
be available for activities which are not dictated by necessity
but projected by the imagination.
55
Anything Can Happen
At first glance it seems unlikely that people would devote

living hours to the bizarre task of winding springs. It seems
just as unlikely, even if they wound the springs, that they
would store them for future generations, since the unwinding
of the springs might provide, for example, a marvelous spec-
tacle on festive days.
However, if people did not dispose of their own lives, if
their working activity were not their own, if their practical
activity consisted of forced labor, then human activity might
well be harnessed to the task of winding springs, the task of
storing surplus working time in material receptacles. The his-
torical role of capitalism, a role which was performed by peo-
ple who accepted the legitimacy of others to dispose of their
lives, consisted precisely of storing human activity in material
receptacles by means of forced labor.
As soon as people submit to the “power” of money to
buy stored labor as well as living activity, as soon as they
accept the fictional “right” of money-holders to control and
dispose of the stored as well as the living activity of society,
they transform money into Capital and the owners of money
into Capitalists.
This double alienation, the alienation of living activity in
the form of wage labor, and the alienation of the activity of
past generations in the form of stored labor (means of produc-
tion), is not a single act which took place sometime in history.
The relation between workers and capitalists is not a thing
which imposed itself on society at some point in the past, once
and for all. At no time did men sign a contract, or even make
a verbal agreement, in which they gave up the power over
their living activity, and in which they gave up the power over
the living activity of all future generations on all parts of the
globe.
Capital wears the mask of a natural force; it seems as
solid as the earth itself; its movements appear as irreversible
as tides; its crises seem as unavoidable as earthquakes and
floods. Even when it is admitted that the power of Capital is
created by men, this admission may merely be the occasion
56
for the invention of an even more imposing mask, the mask

of a man-made force, a Frankenstein monster, whose power
inspires more awe than that of any natural force.
However, Capital is neither a natural force nor a man-
made monster which was created sometime in the past and
which dominated human life ever since. The power of Capital
does not reside in money, since money is a social convention
which has no more “power” than men are willing to grant it;
when men refuse to sell their labor, money cannot perform
even the simplest tasks, because money does not “work.”
Nor does the power of Capital reside in the material re-
ceptacles in which the labor of past generations is stored,
since the potential energy stored in these receptacles can be
liberated by the activity of living people whether or not the re-
ceptacles are Capital, namely alien property.” Without living
activity, the collection of objects which constitute society’s
Capital would merely be a scattered heap of assorted artifacts
with no life of their own, and the “owners” of Capital would
merely be a scattered assortment of uncommonly uncreative
people (by training) who surround themselves with bits of pa-
per in a vain attempt to resuscitate memories of past grandeur.
The only “power” of Capital resides in the daily activities of
living people; this “power” consists of the disposition of peo-
ple to sell their daily activities in exchange for money, and to
give up control over the products of their own activity and of
the activity of earlier generations.
As soon as a person sells his labor to a capitalist and ac-
cepts only a part of his product as payment for that labor, he
creates conditions for the purchase and exploitation of other
people. No man would willingly give his arm or his child in
exchange for money; yet when a man deliberately and con-
sciously sells his working life in order to acquire the neces-
sities for life, he not only reproduces the conditions which
continue to make the sale of his life a necessity for its preser-
vation; he also creates conditions which make the sale of life
a necessity for other people. Later generations may of course
refuse to sell their working lives for the same reason that he
57
Anything Can Happen
refused to sell his arm; however each failure to refuse alien-

ated and forced labor enlarges the stock of stored labor with
which Capital can buy working lives.
In order to transform surplus labor into Capital, the cap-
italist has to find a way to store it in material receptacles, in
new means of production, and he must hire new laborers to
activate the new means of production. In other words, he must
enlarge his enterprise, or start a new enterprise in a different
branch of production. This presupposes or requires the exis-
tence of materials that can be shaped into new salable com-
modities, the existence of buyers of the new products, and
the existence of people who are poor enough to be willing
to sell their labor. These requirements are themselves creat-
ed by capitalist activity, and capitalists recognize no limits or
obstacles to their activity; the democracy of Capital demands
absolute freedom. Imperialism is not merely the “last stage”
of Capitalism; it is also the first.
Anything which can be transformed into a marketable
good is grist for Capital’s mill, whether it lies on the capital-
ist’s land or on the neighbor’s, whether it lies above ground
or under, floats on the sea or crawls on its floor; whether it is
confined to other continents or other planets. All of humani-
ty’s explorations of nature, from Alchemy to Physics, are mo-
bilized to search for new materials in which to store labor, to
find new objects that someone can be taught to buy.
Buyers for old and new products are created by any and
all available means, and new means are constantly discov-
ered. “Open markets” and “open doors” are established by
force and fraud. If people lack the means to buy the capital-
ists’ products, they are hired by capitalists and are paid for
producing the goods they wish to buy; if local craftsmen al-
ready produce what the capitalists have to sell, the craftsmen
are ruined or bought-out; if laws or traditions ban the use of
certain products, the laws and the traditions are destroyed; if
people lack the objects on which to use the capitalists’ prod-
ucts, they are taught to buy these objects; if people run out of
physical or biological wants, then capitalists “satisfy” their
58
“spiritual wants” and hire psychologists to create them; if

people are so satiated with the products of capitalists that they
can no longer use new objects, they are taught to buy objects
and spectacles which have no use but can simply be observed
and admired.
Poor people are found in pre-agrarian and agrarian so-
cieties on every continent; if they are not poor enough to be
willing to sell their labor when the capitalists arrive, they are
impoverished by the activities of the capitalists themselves.
The lands of hunters gradually become the “private proper-
ty” of “owners” who use state violence to restrict the hunters
to “reservations” which do not contain enough food to keep
them alive. The tools of peasants gradually become available
only from the same merchant who generously lends them the
money with which to buy the tools, until the peasants’ “debts”
are so large that they are forced to sell land which neither
they nor any of their ancestors had ever bought. The buyers
of craftsmen’s products gradually become reduced to the mer-
chants who market the products, until the day comes when a
merchant decides to house “his craftsmen” under the same
roof, and provides them with the instruments which will en-
able all of them to concentrate their activity on the production
of the most profitable items. Independent as well as dependent
hunters, peasants and craftsmen, free men as well as slaves,
are transformed into hired laborers. Those who previously
disposed of their own lives in the face of harsh material con-
ditions cease to dispose of their own lives precisely when they
take up the task of modifying their material conditions; those
who were previously conscious creators of their own meager
existence become unconscious victims of their own activity
even while abolishing the meagerness of their existence. Men
who were much but had little now have much but are little.
The production of new commodities, the “opening” of
new markets, the creation of new workers, are not three sep-
arate activities; they are three aspects of the same activity. A
new labor force is created precisely in order to produce the
new commodities; the wages received by these laborers are
59
Anything Can Happen
themselves the new market; their unpaid labor is the source of

new expansion. Neither natural nor cultural barriers halt the
spread of Capital, the transformation of people’s daily activity
into alienated labor, the transformation of their surplus labor
into the “private property” of capitalists. However, Capital is
not a natural force; it is a set of activities performed by people
every day; it is a form of daily life; its continued existence and
expansion presuppose only one essential condition: the dispo-
sition of people to continue to alienate their working lives and
thus reproduce the capitalist form of daily life.
1969
60
Revolt in
Socialist Yugoslavia
“Heretics are always more dangerous than enemies,” conclud-
ed a Yugoslav philosopher after analyzing the repression of
Marxist intellectuals by the Marxist regime of Poland. (S. Sto-
janovic, in Student, Belgrade, April 9, 1968, p. 7.)
In Yugoslavia, where “workers’ self-management” has
become the official ideology, a new struggle for popular con-
trol has exposed the gap between the official ideology and
the social relations which it claims to describe. The heretics
who exposed this gap have been temporarily isolated; their
struggle has been momentarily suppressed. The ideology of
“self-management” continues to serve as a mask for a com-
mercial-technocratic bureaucracy which has successfully
concentrated the wealth and power created by the Yugoslav
working population. However, even a single and partial re-
moval of the mask spoils its efficacy: the ruling “elite” of Yu-
goslavia has been exposed; its “Marxist” proclamations have
been unveiled as myths which, once unveiled, no longer serve
to justify its rule.
In June 1968, the gap between theory and practice, be-
tween official proclamations and social relations, was exposed
through practice, through social activity: students began to or-
ganize themselves in demonstrations and general assemblies,
and the regime which proclaims self-management reacted to
this rare example of popular self-organization by putting an
end to it through police and press repression.
The nature of the gap between Yugoslav ideology and so-
ciety had been analyzed before June 1968, not by “class ene-
61
Anything Can Happen
mies” of Yugoslavia’s ruling “revolutionary Marxists,” but by

Yugoslav revolutionary Marxists—by heretics. According to
official declarations, in a society where the working class is
already in power there are no strikes, because it is absurd for
workers to strike against themselves. Yet strikes, which were
not reported by the press because they could not take place
in Yugoslavia, have been breaking out for the past eleven
years—and massively (Susret, No. 98, April 18, 1969). Fur-
thermore, “strikes in Yugoslavia represent a symptom of the
attempt to revive the workers’ movement.” In other words, in
a society where workers are said to rule, the workers’ move-
ment is dead. “This may sound paradoxical to some people.
But it is no paradox due to the fact that workers’ self-manage-
ment exists largely ‘on paper’...” (L. Tadic in Student, April 9,
1968, p. 7.)
Against whom do students demonstrate, against whom
do workers strike, in a society where students and workers
already govern themselves? The answer to this question can-
not be found in declarations of the Yugoslav League of Com-
munists, but only in critical analyses of Yugoslav social rela-
tions—analyses which are heretical because they contradict
the official declarations. In capitalist societies, activities are
justified in the name of progress and the national interest. In
Yugoslav society, programs, policies and reforms are justified
in the name of progress and the working class. However, it is
not the workers who initiate the dominant projects, nor do the
projects serve the workers’ interests:
“On the one hand, sections of the working class are
wage-workers who live below the level necessary for exis-
tence. The burden of the economic reform is carried by the
working class, a fact which must be openly admitted. On the
other hand, small groups unscrupulously capitalize themselves
overnight, on the basis of private labor, services, commerce,
and as middlemen. Their capital is not based on their labor,
but on speculation, mediation, transformation of personal la-
bor into property relations, and often on outright corruption.”
(M. Pecujlic in Student, April 30, 1968, p. 2.)
62
Revolt in Socialist Yugoslavia
The paradox can be stated in more general terms: social

relations already known to Marx reappear in a society which
has experienced a socialist revolution led by a Marxist party
in the name of the working class. Workers receive wages in
exchange for their sold labor (even if the wages are called
“personal incomes” and “bonuses”); the wages are an equiva-
lent for the material goods necessary for the workers’ physical
and social survival; the surplus labor, appropriated by state
or enterprise bureaucracies and transformed into capital, re-
turns as an alien force which determines the material and so-
cial conditions of the workers’ existence. According to official
histories, Yugoslavia eliminated exploitation in 1945, when
the Yugoslav League of Communists won state power. Yet
workers whose surplus labor supports a state or commercial
bureaucracy, whose unpaid labor turns against them as a force
which does not seem to result from their own activity but from
some higher power—such workers perform forced labor:
they are exploited. According to official histories, Yugoslavia
eliminated the bureaucracy as a social group over the working
class in 1952, when the system of workers’ self-management
was introduced. But workers who alienate their living activity
in exchange for the means of life do not control themselves;
they are controlled by those to whom they alienate their labor
and its products, even if these people eliminated themselves
in legal documents and proclamations.
In the United States, trusts ceased to exist legally pre-
cisely at the point in history when trusts began to centralize
the enormous productive power of the U. S. working class.
In Yugoslavia, the social stratum which manages the working
class ceased to exist in 1952. But in actual fact, “the disman-
tling of the unified centralized bureaucratic monopoly led to
a net of self-managing institutions in all branches of social
activity (nets of workers’ councils, self-managing bodies,
etc.) From a formal-legal, normative, institutional point of
view, the society is self-managed. But is this also the status
of real relations? Behind the self-managed facade, within the
self-managed bodies, two powerful and opposed tendencies
63
Anything Can Happen
arise from the production relations. Inside of each center of

decision there is a bureaucracy in a metamorphosed, decen-
tralized form. It consists of informal groups who maintain a
monopoly in the management of labor, a monopoly in the dis-
tribution of surplus labor against the workers and their inter-
ests, who appropriate on the basis of their position in the bu-
reaucratic hierarchy and not on the basis of labor, who try to
keep the representatives of ‘their’ organization, of ‘their’ re-
gion, permanently in power so as to ensure their own position
and to maintain the former separation, the unqualified labor
and the irrational production—transferring the burden to the
workers. Among themselves they behave like the represen-
tatives of monopoly ownership... On the other hand, there is
a profoundly socialist, self-governing tendency, a movement
which has already begun to stir...” (Pecujlic in Ibid.)
This profoundly socialist tendency represents a struggle
against the dependence and helplessness which allows work-
ers to be exploited with the products of their own labor; it
represents a struggle for control of all social activities by
those who perform them. Yet what form can this struggle take
in a society which already proclaims self-organization and
self-control as its social, economic and legal system? What
forms of revolutionary struggle can be developed in a con-
text where a communist party already holds state power, and
where this communist party has already proclaimed the end of
bureaucratic rule and raised self-management to the level of
an official ideology? The struggle, clearly, cannot consist of
the expropriation of the capitalist class, since this expropria-
tion has already taken place; nor can the struggle consist of the
taking of state power by a revolutionary Marxist party, since
such a party has already wielded state power for a quarter of a
century. It is of course possible to do the thing over again, and
to convince oneself that the outcome will be better the second
time than the first. But the political imagination is not so poor
that it need limit its perspectives to past failures. It is today
realized, in Yugoslavia as elsewhere, that the expropriation of
the capitalist class and its replacement by “the organization of
64
the working class” (i.e. the Communist Party), that the taking
of national-state power by “the organization of the working
class” and even the official proclamation of various types of
“socialism” by the Communist Party in power, are already
historical realities, and that they have not meant the end of
commodity production, alienated labor, forced labor, nor the
beginning of popular self-organization and self-control.
Consequently, forms of organized struggle which have al-
ready proved themselves efficient instruments for the acceler-
ation of industrialization and for rationalizing social relations
in terms of the model of the Brave New World, cannot be
the forms of organization of a struggle for independent and
critical initiative and control on the part of the entire working
population. The taking of state power by the bureau of a polit-
ical party is nothing more than what the words say, even if this
party calls itself “the organization of the working class,” and
even if it calls its own rule “the Dictatorship of the Proletar-
iat” or “Workers’ Self-Management.” Furthermore, Yugoslav
experience does not even show that the taking of state power
by the “organization of the working class” is a stage on the
way toward workers’ control of social production, or even that
the official proclamation of “workers’ self-management” is a
stage towards its realization. The Yugoslav experiment would
represent such a stage, at least historically, only in case Yugo-
slav workers were the first in the world to initiate a successful
struggle for the de-alienation of power at all levels of social
life. However, Yugoslav workers have not initiated such a
struggle. As in capitalist societies, students have initiated such
a struggle, and Yugoslav students were not among the first.
The conquest of state power by a political party which
uses a Marxist vocabulary in order to manipulate the working
class must be distinguished from another, very different his-
torical task: the overthrow of commodity relations and the es-
tablishment of socialist relations. For over half a century, the
former has been presented in the guise of the latter. The rise
of a “new left” has put an end to this confusion; the revolu-
tionary movement which is experiencing a revival on a world
65
Anything Can Happen
scale is characterized precisely by its refusal to push a party

bureaucracy into state power, and by its opposition to such a
bureaucracy where it is already in power.
Party ideologues argue that the “new left” in capitalist so-
cieties has nothing in common with student revolts in “social-
ist countries.” Such a view, at best, is exaggerated: with respect
to Yugoslavia it can at most be said that the Yugoslav student
movement is not as highly developed as in some capitalist
countries: until June, 1968, Yugoslav students were known
for their political passivity, pro-United States sympathies
and petit-bourgeois life goals. However, despite the wishes
of the ideologues, Yugoslav students have not remained far
behind; the search for new forms of organization adequate
for the tasks of socialist revolution has not remained alien
to Yugoslav students. In May,1968, while a vast struggle to
de-alienate all forms of separate social power was gaining his-
torical experience in France, the topic “Students and Politics”
was discussed at the Belgrade Faculty of Law. The “theme
which set the tone of the discussion” was: “...the possibili-
ty for human engagement in the ‘new left’ movement which,
in the words of Dr. S. Stojanovic, opposes the mythology of
the ‘welfare state’ with its classical bourgeois democracy, and
also the classical left parties—the social-democratic parties
which have succeeded by all possible means in blunting revo-
lutionary goals in developed Western societies, as well as the
communist parties which often discredited the original ideals
for which they fought, frequently losing them altogether in re-
markably bureaucratic deformations.” (“The Topic is Action,”
Student, May 14, 1968, p. 4.)
By May, 1968, Yugoslav students had a great deal in com-
mon with their comrades in capitalist societies. A front page
editorial of the Belgrade student newspaper said, “the tension
of the present social-political situation is made more acute
by the fact that there are no quick and easy solutions to nu-
merous problems. Various forms of tension are visible in the
University, and the lack of perspectives, the lack of solutions
to numerous problems, is at the root of various forms of be-
66
havior. Feeling this, many are asking if the tension might be

transformed into conflict, into a serious political crisis, and
what form this crisis will take. Some think the crisis cannot
be avoided, but can only be blunted, because there is no quick
and efficient way to affect conditions which characterize the
entire social structure, and which are the direct causes of the
entire situation.” (“Signs of Political Crisis, Student, May 21,
1968, p. 1.) The same front page of the student paper carried
the following quotation from Marx, on “the veiled alienation
at the heart of labor”: “...Labor produces wonders for the rich,
but misery for the worker. It produces palaces, but a hovel for
the worker. It produces beauty, but horror for the worker. It
replaces labor with machines, but throws part of the workers
backward into barbarian work, and transforms the other part
into machines. It produces spirit, but for the worker it produc-
es stupidity and cretinism.”
The same month, the editorial of the Belgrade Youth Fed-
eration journal said, “...the revolutionary role of Yugoslav
students, in our opinion, lies in their engagement to deal with
general social problems and contradictions (among which the
problems and contradictions of the social and material situa-
tion of students are included). Special student problems, no
matter how drastic, cannot be solved in isolation, separate
from the general social problems: the material situation of
students cannot be separated from the economic situation of
the society; student self-government cannot be separated from
the social problems of self-government; the situation of the
University from the situation of society...” (Susret, May 15,
1968). The following issue of the same publication contained
a discussion on “the Conditions and the Content of Political
Engagement for Youth Today” which included the following
observation: “University reform is thus not possible without
reform or, why not, revolutionizing of the entire society, be-
cause the university cannot be separated from the wider spec-
trum of social institutions. From this it follows that freedom
of thought and action, namely autonomy for the University, is
only possible if the entire society is transformed, and if thus
67
Anything Can Happen
transformed it makes possible a general climate of freedom

and self-government.” (Susret, June 1, 1968.)
***
In April, 1968, like their comrades in capitalist countries,
Yugoslav students demonstrated their solidarity with the
Vietnamese National Liberation Front and their opposition
to United States militarism. When Rudi Dutschke was shot
in Berlin as a consequence of the Springer Press campaign
against radical West German students, Yugoslav students
demonstrated their solidarity with the German Socialist Stu-
dent Federation (S.D.S.). The Belgrade student newspaper
carried articles by Rudi Dutschke and by the German Marxist
philosopher Ernst Bloch. The experience of the world student
movement was communicated to Yugoslav students. “Student
revolts which have taken place in many countries this year
have shown that youth are able to carry out important proj-
ects in the process of changing a society. It can be said that
these revolts have influenced circles in our University, since
it is obvious that courage and the will to struggle have in-
creased, that the critical consciousness of numerous students
has sharpened (revolution is often the topic of intellectual dis-
cussion).” (Student, April 23, 1968, p. 1.) As for the forms of
organization through which this will to struggle could express
itself, Paris provided an example. “What is completely new
and extremely important in the new revolutionary movement
of the Paris students—but also of German, Italian and U.S.
students—is that the movement was possible only because it
was independent of all existing political organizations. All of
these organizations, including the Communist Party, have be-
come part of the system; they have become integrated into the
rules of the daily parliamentary game; they have hardly been
willing to risk the positions they’ve already reached to throw
themselves into this insanely courageous and at first glance
hopeless operation.” (M. Markovic, Student, May 21, 1968.)
Another key element which contributed to the develop-
ment of the Yugoslav student movement was the experience of
68
Belgrade students with the bureaucracy of the student union.

In April, students at the Philosophy Faculty composed a letter
protesting the repression of Marxist intellectuals in Poland.
“All over the world today, students are at the forefront in the
struggle to create a human society, and thus we are profoundly
surprised by the reactions of the Polish socialist regime. Free
critical thought cannot be suppressed by any kind of power,
not even by that which superficially leans on socialist ideals.
For us, young Marxists, it is incomprehensible that today, in a
socialist country, it is possible to tolerate anti-Semitic attacks
and to use them for the solution of internal problems. We con-
sider it unacceptable that after Polish socialism experienced so
many painful experiences in the past, internal conflicts should
be solved by such undemocratic means and that in their solu-
tion Marxist thought is persecuted. We also consider unscru-
pulous the attempts to separate and create conflict between the
progressive student movement and the working class whose
full emancipation is also the students’ goal...” (Student, April
23, 1968, p. 4.) An assembly of students at the Philosophy
Faculty sent this letter to Poland—and the University Board
of the Yugoslav Student Union opposed the action. Why? The
philosophy students themselves analyzed the function, and the
interests, of their own bureaucracy: “The University Board of
the Yugoslav Student Union was in a situation in which it had
lost its political nerve, it could not react, it felt weak and did
not feel any obligation to do something. Yet when this body
was not asked, when its advice was not heard, action ‘should
not have been taken.’ This is bad tactics and still worse re-
spect for democracy which must come to full expression in
young people, like students. Precisely at the moment when the
University Board had lost its understanding of the essence of
the action, the discussion was channeled to the terrain of for-
malities: ‘Whose opinion should have been sought?’ ‘Whose
permission should have been gotten?’ It wasn’t asked who
would begin an action in this atmosphere of passivity. Is it
not paradoxical that the University Board turns against an ac-
tion which was initiated precisely by its own members and not
69
Anything Can Happen
by any forum, if we keep in mind that the basic principle of

our socialism is SELF-MANAGEMENT, which means deci-
sion-making in the ranks of the members. In other words, our
sin was that we applied our basic right of self-management.
Organization can never be an end in itself, but only a means
for the realization of ends. The greatest value of our action lies
precisely in the fact that it was initiated by the rank and file,
without directives or instructions from above, without crass
institutionalized forms.” (Ibid.)
With these elements—an awareness of the inseparability
of university problems from the social relations of a society
based on alienated labor, an awareness of the experience of the
international “new left,” and an awareness of the difference
between self-organization by the rank and file and bureaucrat-
ic organization—the Belgrade students moved to action. The
incident which set off the actions was minor. On the night of
June 2, 1968, a performance which was to be held outdoors
near the students’ dormitories in New Belgrade, was held in a
small room indoors; students who had come to see the perfor-
mance could not get in. A spontaneous demonstration began,
which soon included thousands of students; the demonstrators
began to walk toward the government buildings. They were
stopped, as in capitalist societies, by the police (who are offi-
cially called a “militia” in the self-managed language of Yu-
goslavia); students were beaten by militia batons; many were
arrested.
The following day, June 3, continuous general assemblies
were held in most of the faculties which compose the Univer-
sity of Belgrade (renamed The Red University Karl Marx),
and also in the streets of New Belgrade. “In their talks stu-
dents emphasized the gross social differentiation of Yugoslav
society, the problem of unemployment, the increase of pri-
vate property and the unearned wealth of one social layer, the
unbearable condition of a large section of the working class
and the need to carry out the principle of distribution accord-
ing to labor consistently. The talks were interrupted by loud
applause, by calls like ‘Students with Workers,’ ‘We’re sons
70
of working people,’ ‘Down with the Socialist Bourgeoisie,’

‘Freedom of the press and freedom to demonstrate!’” (Stu-
dent, special issue, June 4, 1968, p. 1.)
Police repression was followed by press repression. The
Yugoslav (Communist) press did not communicate the stu-
dents’ struggle to the rest of the population. It communicated
a struggle of students for student-problems, a struggle of a
separate group for greater privileges, a struggle which had not
taken place. The front page of the June 4 issue of Student,
which was banned by Belgrade authorities, describes the at-
tempt of the press to present a nascent revolutionary struggle
as a student revolt for special privileges: “The press has once
again succeeded in distorting the events at the University...
According to the press, students are fighting to improve their
own material conditions. Yet everyone who took part in the
meetings and demonstrations knows very well that the stu-
dents were already turned in another direction—toward a
struggle which encompasses the general interests of our soci-
ety, above all a struggle for the interests of the working class.
This is why the announcements sent out by the demonstrators
emphasized above all else the decrease of unjustified social
differences. According to the students, this struggle (against
social inequality) in addition to the struggle for relations of
self-government and reform, is of central importance to the
working class and to Yugoslavia today. The newspapers did
not quote a single speaker who talked about unjustified social
differences... The newspapers also omitted the main slogans
called out during the meetings and demonstrations: For the
Unity of Workers and Students, Students with Workers, and
similar slogans which expressed a single idea and a single
feeling: that the roads and interests of students are inseparable
from those of the working class.” (Student, June 4, 1968, p. 1.)
By June 5, The Yugoslav Student Federation had succeed-
ed in gaining leadership over the growing movement, and in
becoming its spokesman. The student organization proclaimed
a “Political Action Program” which contained the revolution-
ary goals expressed by the students in the assemblies, meet-
71
Anything Can Happen
ings and demonstrations—but the program also contained, as

if by way of an appendix, a “Part II” on “university reform.”
This appendix later played a key role in putting the newly
awakened Yugoslav student movement back to sleep. Part I of
the political action program emphasized social inequality first
of all, unemployment, “democratization of all social and po-
litical organizations, particularly the League of Communists,”
the degeneration of social property into private property,
speculation in housing, commercialization of culture. Yet Part
II, which was probably not even read by radical students who
were satisfied with the relatively accurate expression of their
goals in Part I, expresses a very different, in fact an opposite
orientation. The first “demand” of Part II already presupposes
that none of the goals expressed in Part I will be fulfilled: it
is a demand for the adaptation of the university to the pres-
ent requirements of the Yugoslav social system, namely a de-
mand for technocratic reform which satisfies the requirements
of Yugoslavia’s commercial-technocratic regime: “Immediate
reform of the school system to adapt it to the requirements of
the social and cultural development of our economy and our
self-management relations...” (Student, special issue, June 8,
1968, pp. 1-2.)
This crude reversal, this manipulation of the student re-
volt so as to make it serve the requirements of the dominant
social relations against which the students had revolted, did
not become evident until the following school year. The im-
mediate reactions of the regime were far less subtle: they con-
sisted of repression, isolation, separation. The forms of police
repression included beatings and jailings, a ban on the stu-
dent newspaper which carried the only complete report of the
events, demonstrations and meetings, and on the night of June
6, “two agents of the secret police and a militia officer bru-
tally attacked students distributing the student paper, grabbed
600 copies of the paper, tore them to pieces and burned them.
All this took place in front of a large group of citizens who
had gathered to receive copies of the paper.” (Student, June 8,
1968, p. 3.)
72
In addition to police repression, the dominant interests

succeeded in isolating and separating the students from the
workers, they temporarily succeeded in their “unscrupulous
attempt to separate and create conflict between the progressive
student movement and the working class whose full emanci-
pation is also the students’ goal.” This was done in numerous
ways. The ban on the student press and misreporting by the
official press kept workers ignorant of the students’ goals;
enterprise directors and their circles of experts “explained”
the student struggle to “their” workers, instructed workers to
defend “their” factories from attacks by “violent” students,
and then sent letters to the press, in the name of the “work-
ers’ collective,” congratulating the police for saving Yugoslav
self-management from the violent students. “According to
what is written and said, it turns out that it was the students
who used force on the National Militia, that they blocked mili-
tia stations and surrounded them. Everything which has char-
acterized the student movement from the beginning, in the
city and in the university buildings, the order and self-control,
is described with the old word: violence... This bureaucracy,
which wants to create a conflict between workers and students,
is inside the League of Communists, in the enterprises and in
the state offices, and it is particularly powerful in the press
(the press is an outstandingly hierarchic structure which leans
on self-management only to protect itself from critiques and
from responsibility). Facing the workers’ and students’ move-
ment, the bureaucracy feels that it’s losing the ground from
under its feet, that it’s losing those dark places where it pre-
fers to move—and in fear cries out its meaningless claims....
Our movement urgently needs to tie itself with the working
class. It has to explain its basic principles, and it has to ensure
that these principles are realized, that they become richer and
more complex, that they don’t remain mere slogans. But this
is precisely what the bureaucracy fears, and this is why they
instruct workers to protect the factories from students, this is
why they say that students are destroying the factories. What
a monumental idiocy!” (D. Vukovic in Student, June 8, 1968,
73
Anything Can Happen
p. 1) Thus the self-managed directors of Yugoslav socialism

protected Yugoslav workers from Yugoslav students just as, a
few weeks earlier, the French “workers’ organizations” (the
General Federation of Labor and the French Communist Par-
ty) had protected French workers from socialist revolution.
***
Repression and separation did not put an end to the Yugo-
slav revolutionary movement. General assemblies continued
to take place, students continued to look for forms of organi-
zation which could unite them with workers, and which were
adequate for the task of transforming society. The third step
was to pacify and, if possible, to recuperate the movement so
as to make it serve the needs of the very structure it had fought
against. This step took the form of a major speech by Tito,
printed in the June 11 issue of Student. In a society in which
the vast majority of people consider the “cult of personality”
in China the greatest sin on earth, the vast majority of students
applauded the following words of the man whose picture has
decorated all Yugoslav public institutions, many private hous-
es, and most front pages of daily newspapers for a quarter of a
century: “...Thinking about the demonstrations and what pre-
ceded them, I have reached the conclusion that the revolt of
the young people, of the students, rose spontaneously. How-
ever, as the demonstrations developed and when later they
were transferred from the street to university auditoriums, a
certain infiltration gradually took place on the part of foreign
elements who wanted to use this situation for their own pur-
poses. These include various tendencies and elements, from
the most reactionary to the most extreme, seemingly radical
elements who hold parts of Mao Tse Tung’s theories.” After
this attempt to isolate and separate revolutionary students
by shifting the problem from the content of the ideas to the
source of the ideas (foreign elements with foreign ideas), the
President of the Republic tries to recuperate the good, do-
mestic students who only have local ideas. “However, I’ve
come to the conclusion that the vast majority of students, I
74
can say 90%, are honest youth... The newest developments

at the universities have shown that 90% of the students are
our socialist youth, who do not let themselves be poisoned,
who do not allow the various Djilasites, Rankovicites, Mao
Tse Tungites realize their own goals on the pretext that they’re
concerned about the students... Our youth are good, but we
have to devote more attention to them.” Having told students
how they should not allow themselves to be used, the Presi-
dent of Self-Managed Yugoslavia tells them how they should
allow themselves to be used. “I turn, comrades and workers,
to our students, so that they’ll help us in a constructive ap-
proach and solution of all these problems. May they follow
what we’re doing, that is their right; may they take part in
our daily life, and when anything is not clear, when anything
has to be cleared up, may they come to me. They can send a
delegation.” As for the content of the struggle, its goals, Tito
speaks to kindergarten children and promises them that he
will personally attend to every single one of their complaints.
“...The revolt is partly a result of the fact that the students saw
that I myself have often asked these questions, and even so
they have remained unsolved. This time I promise students
that I will engage myself on all sides to solve them, and in
this students must help me. Furthermore, if I’m not able to
solve these problems then I should no longer be on this place.
I think that every old communist who has the consciousness
of a communist should not insist on staying where he is, but
should give his place to people who are able to solve prob-
lems. And finally I turn to students once again: it’s time to re-
turn to your studies, it’s time for tests, and I wish you success.
It would really be a shame if you wasted still more time.”
(Tito in Student, June 11, 1968, pp. 1-2.)
This speech, which in itself represents a self-exposure, left
open only two courses of action: either a further development
of the movement completely outside of the clearly exposed
political organizations, or else co-optation and temporary si-
lence. The Yugoslav movement was co-opted and temporari-
ly silenced. Six months after the explosion, in December, the
75
Anything Can Happen
Belgrade Student Union officially adopted the political action

program proclaimed in June. This version of the program in-
cluded a Part I, on the social goals of the struggle, a Part II,
on university reform, and a newly added Part III, on steps
to be taken. In Part III it is explained that, “in realizing the
program the method of work has to be kept in mind. 1) The
Student Union is not able to participate directly in the solution
of the general social problems (Part I of the program)... 2) The
Student Union is able to participate directly in the struggle to
reform the University and the system of higher education as
a whole (Part II of the program), and to be the spokesman of
progressive trends in the University.” (Student, December 17,
1969, p. 3.) Thus several events have taken place since June.
The students’ struggle has been institutionalized: it has been
taken over by the “students’ organization.” Secondly, two new
elements have been appended to the original goals of the June
struggle: a program of university reform, and a method for re-
alizing the goals. And, finally, the initial goals of the struggle
are abandoned to the social groups against whom the students
had revolted. What was once an appendix has now become
the only part of the program on which students are to act:
“university reform.” Thus the revolt against the managerial
elite has been cynically turned into its opposite: the university
is to be adapted to serve the needs of the dominant system of
social relations; students are to be trained to serve the mana-
gerial elite more effectively.
While the “students’ organization” initiates the “strug-
gle” for university reform, the students, who had begun to
organize themselves to struggle for very different goals, once
again become passive and politically indifferent. “June was
characterized by a burst of consciousness among the students;
the period after June in many ways has the characteristics of
the period before June, which can be explained by the inad-
equate reaction of society to the June events and to the goals
expressed in June.” (Student, May 13, 1969, P. 4.)
The struggle to overthrow the status quo has been turned
away from its insanity; it has been made realistic; it has been
76
transformed into a struggle to serve the status quo. This strug-

gle, which the students do not engage in because “their or-
ganization” has assumed the task of managing it for them, is
not accompanied by meetings, general assemblies or any oth-
er form of self-organization. This is because the students had
not fought for “university reform” before June or during June,
and they do not become recuperated for this “struggle” after
June. It is in fact mainly the “students’ spokesmen” who have
become recuperated, because what was known before June is
still known after June: “Improvement of the University makes
sense only if it is based on the axiom that transformations of
the university depend on transformations of the society. The
present condition of the University reflects, to a greater or
lesser extent, the condition of the society. In the light of this
fact, it is meaningless to hold that we’ve argued about general
social problems long enough, and that the time has come to
turn our attention to university reform.” (B. Jaksic in Susret,
February 19, 1969.)
The content of “university reform” is defined by the Rec-
tor of the University of Belgrade. In his formulation, published
in Student half a year after the June events, the Rector even
includes “goals” which the students had specifically fought
against, such as separation from the working class for a price,
and the systematic integration of students, not only into the
technocracy, but into the armed forces as well: “The struggle
to improve the material position of the university and of stu-
dents is our constant task... One of the key questions of pres-
ent-day work at the university is the imperative to struggle
against all forms of defeatism and demagogy. Our university,
and particularly our student youth, are and will be the enthu-
siastic and sure defense of our socialist homeland. Systemat-
ic organization in the building of the defensive power of our
country against every aggressor, from whatever side he may
try to attack us, must be the constant, quick and efficient work
of all of us.” (D. Ivanovic in Student, October 15, 1968, p. 4.)
These remarks were preceded by long and very abstract state-
ments to the effect that “self-management is the content of
77
Anything Can Happen
university reform.” The more specific remarks quoted above

make it clear what the Rector understands to be the “content”
of “self-management.”
Since students do not eagerly throw themselves into the
“struggle” for university reform, the task is left to the experts
who are interested in it, the professors and the academic func-
tionaries. “The main topics of conversation of a large number
of teachers and their colleagues are automobiles, weekend
houses and the easy life. These are also the main topics of
conversation of the social elite which is so sharply criticized
in the writings of these academics who do not grasp that they
are an integral and not unimportant part of this elite.” (B.
Jaksic in Susret, February 19, 1969.)
Under the heading of University reform, one of Yugosla-
via’s leading (official) economists advocates a bureaucratic
utopia with elements of magic. The same economist who,
some years ago, had emphasized the arithmetical “balances of
national production” developed by Soviet “social engineers”
for application on human beings by a state bureaucracy, now
advocates “the application of General Systems Theory for the
analysis of concrete social systems.” This General Systems
Theory is the latest scientific discovery of “developed and
progressive social systems”—like the United States. Due to
this fact, “General Systems Theory has become indispensable
for all future experts in fields of social science, and also for
all other experts, whatever domain of social development they
may participate in.” (R. Stojanovic, “On the Need to Study
General Systems Theory at Social Science Faculties,” Stu-
dent, February 25, 1969.) If, through university reform, Gen-
eral Systems Theory can be drilled into the heads of all future
Yugoslav technocrats, presumably Yugoslavia will magically
become a “developed and progressive social system”—name-
ly a commercial, technocratic and military bureaucracy, a
wonderland for human engineering.
***
The students have been separated from the workers; their
78
struggle has been recuperated: it has become an occasion for

academic bureaucrats to serve the commercial-technocratic
elite more effectively. The bureaucrats encourage students to
“self-manage” this “university reform,” to participate in shap-
ing themselves into businessmen, technicians and managers.
Meanwhile, Yugoslav workers produce more than they’ve
ever produced before, and watch the products of their labor
increase the wealth and power of other social groups, groups
which use that power against the workers. According to the
Constitution, the workers govern themselves. However, ac-
cording to a worker interviewed by Student, “That’s only on
paper. When the managers choose their people, workers have
to obey; that’s how it is here.” (Student, March 4, 1969, p.
4.) If a worker wants to initiate a struggle against the con-
tinually increasing social inequality of wealth and power, he
is checked by Yugoslavia’s enormous unemployment: a vast
reserve army of unemployed waits to replace him, because the
only alternative is to leave Yugoslavia. The workers still have
a powerful instrument with which to “govern themselves”; it
is the same instrument workers have in capitalist societies: the
strike. However, according to one analyst, strikes of workers
who are separated from the revolutionary currents of the soci-
ety and separated from the rest of the working class, namely
“economic” strikes, have not increased the power of workers
in Yugoslav society; the effect is nearly the opposite: “What
has changed after eleven years of experience with strikes?
Wherever they broke out, strikes reproduced precisely those
relations which had led to strikes. For example, workers rebel
because they’re shortchanged in the distribution; then some-
one, probably the one who previously shortchanged them,
gives them what he had taken from them; the strike ends and
the workers continue to be hired laborers. And the one who
gave in did so in order to maintain his position as the one
who gives, the one who saves the workers. In other words,
relations of wage-labor, which are in fact the main cause of
the strike as a method for resolving conflicts, continue to be
reproduced. This leads to another question: is it at all possible
79
Anything Can Happen
for the working class to emancipate itself in a full sense with-

in the context of an enterprise, or is that a process which has
to develop on the level of the entire society, a process which
does not tolerate any separation between different enterprises,
branches, republics?” (Susret, April 18, 1969.)
As for the experts who shortchange the working class,
Student carried a long description of various forms of ex-
pertise: “1) Enterprise functionaries (directors, businessmen,
traveling salesmen, etc.) are paid by the managing board, the
workers’ council or other self-managed organs, for breaking
legal statutes or moral norms in ways that are economically
advantageous to the enterprise... 2)... 3) Fictitious or simu-
lated jobs are performed for purposes of tax evasion... 4)... 5)
Funds set aside for social consumption are given out for the
construction of private apartments, weekend houses, or for the
purchase of automobiles...” (Student, February 18, 1969, p.
1.)
The official ideology of Socialist Yugoslavia does not
conflict with the interests of its commercial-technocratic elite;
in fact it provides a justification for those interests. In March,
1969, the Resolution of the Ninth Congress of the Yugoslav
League of Communists referred to critiques by June revolu-
tionaries only to reject them, and to reaffirm the official ide-
ology. The absurd contention according to which commodity
production remains the central social relation in “socialism”
is restated in this document. “The economic laws of commod-
ity production in socialism act as a powerful support to the
development of modern productive forces and rational man-
agement.” This statement is justified by means of the now-fa-
miliar demonology, namely by the argument that the only al-
ternative to commodity production in “socialism” is Stalin:
“Administrative-bureaucratic management of administration
and social reproduction deforms real relations and forms mo-
nopolies, namely bureaucratic subjectivism in the conditions
of management, and unavoidably leads to irrationality and
parasitism in the distribution of the social product...” Thus the
choice is clear: either maintain the status quo, or else return
80
to the system which the same League of Communists had im-

posed on Yugoslav society before 1948. The same type of de-
monology is used to demolish the idea that “to each according
to his work,” the official slogan of Yugoslavia, means what the
words say. Such an interpretation “ignores differences in abil-
ities and contributions. Such a demand leads to the formation
of an all-powerful administrative, bureaucratic force, above
production and above society; a force which institutes arti-
ficial and superficial equalization, and whose power leads to
need, inequality and privilege...” (Student, March 18, 1969.)
The principle “to each according to his work” was historical-
ly developed by the capitalist class in its struggle against the
landed aristocracy, and in present day Yugoslavia this princi-
ple has the same meaning that it had for the bourgeoisie. Thus
the enormous personal income (and bonuses) of a successful
commercial entrepreneur in a Yugoslav import-export firm is
justified with this slogan, since his financial success proves
both his superior ability as well as the value of his contri-
bution to society. In other words, distribution takes place in
terms of the social evaluation of one’s labor, and in a com-
modity economy labor is evaluated on the market. The result
is a system of distribution which can be summarized by the
slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according
to his market success,” a slogan which describes a system of
social relations widely known as capitalist commodity pro-
duction, and not as socialism (which was defined by Marx as
the negation of capitalist commodity production).
The defense of this document was not characterized by
more subtle methods of argument, but rather by the type of
conservative complacency which simply takes the status quo
for granted as the best of all possible worlds. “I can hardly
accept critiques which are not consistent with the spirit of this
material and with the basic ideas which it really contains...
Insistence on a conception which would give rational solu-
tions to all the relations and problems we confront, seems to
me to go beyond the real possibilities of our society... This
is our reality. The different conditions of work in individual
81
Anything Can Happen
enterprises, in individual branches, in individual regions of

the country and elsewhere—we cannot eliminate them...” (V.
Rakic in Student, March 11, 1969, p. 12.)
In another issue of Student, this type of posture was char-
acterized in the following terms: “A subject who judges ev-
erything consistent and radical as an exaggeration identifies
himself with what objectively exists; thus everything seems to
him too idealistic, abstract, Quixotic, unreal, too far-fetched
for our reality, and never for him. Numerous people, partic-
ularly those who could contribute to the transformation of
society, continually lean on reality, on the obstacles which it
presents, not seeing that often it is precisely they, with their
superficial sense for reality, with their so-called real-politik,
who are themselves the obstacles whose victims they claim to
be.” (D. Grlic in Student, April 28, 1969, p. 3.)
“We cannot allow ourselves to forget that democracy
(not to speak of socialism) as well as self-government in an
alienated and ideological form, may become a dangerous in-
strument for promulgating and spreading the illusion that by
‘introducing’ it, namely through a proclamation, a decree on
self-management, we’ve chosen the right to independent con-
trol, which eo ipso negates the need for any kind of struggle.
Against whom, and why should we struggle when we already
govern ourselves; now we are ourselves—and not anyone
above us—guilty for all our shortcomings.” (Ibid.)
The socialist ideology of Yugoslavia has been shown to be
hollow; the ruling elite has been deprived of its justifications.
But as yet the exposure has taken the form of critical analysis,
of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary practice, self-organi-
zation by the base, as yet has little experience. In the mean-
time, those whose struggle for socialism has long ago become
a struggle to keep themselves in power, continue to identify
their own rule with self-government of the working class, they
continue to define the commodity economy whose ideologues
they have become as the world’s most democratic society. In
May 1969, the newly elected president of the Croatian parlia-
ment, long-time member of the Central Committee of the Yu-
82
goslav Communist Party, blandly stated that “the facts about

the most basic indexes of our development show and prove
that the economic development of the Socialist Republic of
Croatia, and of Yugoslavia as a whole, has been harmonious
and progressive.” The president is aware of unemployment
and the forced exile of Yugoslav workers, but the problem is
about to be solved because “Some actions have been initiat-
ed to deal with the concern over our people who are tempo-
rarily employed abroad; these actions must be systematized,
improved, and included as an integral part of our system, our
economy and our polity...” The president is also aware of pro-
found critiques of the present arrangement, and for him these
are “illusions, confusions, desperation, impatience, Quixotic
pretensions which are manifested—regardless of the seeming
contradiction—from leftist revolutionary phrases to chau-
vinistic trends which take the form of philosophy, philology,
movement of the labor force, economic situation of the na-
tion, republic, etc... We must energetically reject attempts to
dramatize and generalize certain facts which, pulled out of
the context of our entire development and our reality, attempt
to use them for defeatist, demoralizing, and at times chau-
vinistic actions. We must systematically and factually inform
our working people of these attempts, we must point out their
elements, their methods, their real intentions, and the meaning
of the actions.” (J. Blazevic, Vjesnik, May 9, 1969, p. 2.)
Official reactions to the birth of the Yugoslav “new left,”
from those of the President of Yugoslavia to those of the Pres-
ident of Croatia, are humorously summarized in a satire pub-
lished on the front page of the May 13 issue of Student. “...
Many of our opponents declare themselves for democracy,
but what they want is some kind of pure or full democracy,
some kind of libertarianism. In actual fact they’re fighting for
their own positions, so as to be able to speak and work accord-
ing to their own will and the way they think right. We reject
all the attempts of these anti-democratic forces; in our society
it must be clear to everyone who is responsible to whom... In
the struggle against these opponents, we’re not going to use
83
Anything Can Happen
undemocratic means unless democratic means do not show

adequate success. An excellent example of the application
of democratic methods of struggle is our confrontation with
bureaucratic forces. We all know that in the recent past, bu-
reaucracy was our greatest social evil. And where is that bu-
reaucracy now? It melted, like snow. Under the pressure of
our self-managing mechanisms and our democratic forces, it
melted all by itself, automatically, and we did not even need to
make any changes whatever in the personnel or the structures
of our national government, which in any case would not have
been consistent with self-management. The opponents attack
our large social differences, and they even call them unjusti-
fied... But the working class, the leading and ruling force of
our society, the carrier of progressive trends and the historical
subject, must not become privileged at the expense of other
social categories; it must be ready to sacrifice in the name of
the further construction of our system. The working class is
aware of this and decisively rejects all demands for a radical
decrease in social differences, since these are in essence de-
mands for equalization; and this, above all else, would lead
to a society of poor people. But our goal is a society in which
everyone will be rich and will get according to his needs...
The problem of unemployment is also constantly attacked by
enemy forces. Opponents of our system argue that we should
not make such a fuss about creating new jobs (as if that was
as easy as opening windows in June), and that trained young
people would accelerate the economic reform... In the current
phase of our development we were not able to create more
jobs, but we created another type of solution—we opened
our frontiers and allowed our workers free employment
abroad. Obviously it would be nice if we all had work here,
at home. Even the Constitution says that. But that cannot be
harmonized with the new phase of our reform. However, the
struggle for reform has entered its final, conclusive stage and
things will improve significantly. In actual fact, our people
don’t have it so bad even now. Earlier they could work only
for one state, now they can work for the entire world. What’s
84
one state to the entire world? This creates mutual understand-

ing and friendship... We were obviously unable to describe all
the enemies of our system, such as various extremists, left-
ists, rightists, anarcho-liberals, radicals, demagogues, teach-
ers, dogmatics, would-be-revolutionaries (who go so far as to
claim that our revolution has fallen into crisis), anti-reformists
and informal groups..., unitarians, folklorists, and many other
elements. All of them represent potential hotbeds of crisis. All
these informal groups and extremists must be energetically
isolated from society, and if possible re-formed so as to pre-
vent their destructive activity.” (V. Teofilovic in Student, May
13, 1969, p. 1.)
The Yugoslav experience adds new elements to the expe-
rience of the world revolutionary movement; the appearance
of these elements has made it clear that socialist revolution
is not a historical fact in Yugoslavia’s past, but a struggle in
the future. This struggle has been initiated, but it has nowhere
been carried out. “For as Babeuf wrote, managers organize a
revolution in order to manage, but an authentic revolution is
only possible from the bottom, as a mass movement. Soci-
ety, all of its spontaneous human activity, rises as a historical
subject and creates the identity of politics and popular will
which is the basis for the elimination of politics as a form of
human alienation.” (M. Vojnovic in Student, April 22, 1969,
p. 1.) Revolution in this sense cannot even be conceived with-
in the confines of a single university, a single factory, a single
nation-state. Furthermore, revolution is not the repetition of
an event which already took place, somewhere, sometime;
it is not the reproduction of past relations, but the creation
of new ones. In the words of another Yugoslav writer, “it is
not only a conflict between production and creation, but in a
larger sense—and here I have in mind the West as well as the
East—between routine and adventure.” (M. Krleza in Politi-
ka, December 29, 1968; quoted in Student, January 7, 1969.)
1969
85
Ten Theses on the
Proliferation of the Egocrat
I
The Egocrat — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il Sung — is not an

accident or an aberration or an irruption of irrationality; he is
a personification of the relations of the existing social order.
II
The Egocrat is initially an individual, like everyone else:

mute and powerless in this society without community or
communication, victimized by the spectacle, “the existing
order’s uninterrupted discourse about itself, its laudatory
monologue, the self-portrait of power in the epoch of its total-
itarian management of the conditions of existence.” (Debord)
Repelled by the spectacle, he longs for “the liberated human
being, a being who is at once a social being and a Gemeinwe-
sen.” (Camatte) If his longing were expressed in practice: at
his workplace, in the street, wherever the spectacle robs him
of his humanity, he would become a rebel.
III
The Egocrat does not express his longing for commu-

nity and communication in practice; he transforms it into a
Thought. Armed with this Thought, he is still mute and pow-
erless, but is no longer like everyone else: he is Conscious,
he possesses the Idea. To confirm his difference, to make sure
86
Ten Theses of the Proliferation of the Egocrat
he’s not deluding himself, he needs to be seen as different by

others — those others who confirm that he is truly a possessor
of the Thought.
IV
The Egocrat finds “community” and “communication,”

not by smashing the elements of the spectacle in his reach, but
by surrounding himself with like-minded individuals, other
Egos, who reflect the Golden Thought to each other and con-
firm each other’s validity as possessors of it. Chosen People.
At this point the Thought, if it is to remain golden, must ev-
ermore remain the same: unsullied and uncompromised; criti-
cism and revision are synonyms of betrayal, “Thus it can only
exist as a polemic with reality. It refutes everything. It can
survive only by freezing, by becoming increasingly totalitar-
ian.” (Camatte) Therefore, in order to continue to reflect and
confirm the Thought, the individual must stop thinking.
The initial goal, the “liberated human being,” is lost to

practice when it is relegated to the Egocrat’s consciousness,
because “consciousness makes itself the goal and reifies it-
self in an organization which comes to incarnate the goal.”
(Camatte) The group of mutual admirers acquires a schedule
and a meeting place; it becomes an institution. The organiza-
tion, which takes the form of a Bolshevik or Nazi cell, a So-
cialist reading club, or an Anarchist affinity group, depending
on local circumstances and individual preferences, “provides
a terrain favorable to informal domination by propagandists
and defenders of their ideology, specialists who are in general
more mediocre the more their intellectual activity consists of
the repetition of certain definitive truths. Ideological respect
for unanimity of decision has on the whole been favorable to
the uncontrolled authority, within the organization itself, of
specialists in freedom” (wrote Debord, describing anarchist
87
Anything Can Happen
organizations). Rejecting the ruling spectacle ideologically,

the organization of specialists in freedom reproduces the rela-
tion of the spectacle in its internal practice.
VI
The organization incarnating the Thought turns on the

world, because “the project of this consciousness is to frame
reality with its concept.” (Camatte) The group becomes mili-
tant. It sets out to extend to society at large the organization’s
internal relations, one variant of which can be summarized
as follows: “Within the party, there must be no one lagging
behind when an order is given by the leadership to ‘march for-
ward,’ no one turning right when the order is ‘left’.” (a revo-
lutionary leader, quoted by M. Velli.) At this point the specific
content of the Thought is as irrelevant to practice as the ge-
ography of the Christian paradise, because the goal is reduced
to a cudgel: it serves as the justification for the group’s re-
pressive practices, and as an instrument of blackmail. (Exam-
ples: “To deviate from socialist ideology in the slightest de-
gree means strengthening bourgeois ideology.” Lenin, quoted
by M. Velli; “When ‘libertarians’ slanderously trash others, I
question their maturity and commitment to revolutionary so-
cial change” an ‘anarchist’ in a letter to The Fifth Estate.)
VII
The militant organization extends itself by means of con-

version and manipulation. Conversion is the favored technique
of early Bolshevism and missionary anarchism: the militant’s
explicit task is to introduce consciousness into the working
class (Lenin), to “reach working people with our ideas” (an
“anarchist” in “The Red Menace,” Toronto). But the militant’s
implicit task, and the practical outcome of his activity, is to af-
fect the practice of the workers, not their thought. The conver-
sion is successful if workers, whatever their ideas, pay dues
to the organization and obey the organization’s calls to action
88
(strikes, demonstrations, etc.). The Egocrat’s implicit aim is to

establish his (and his organization’s) hegemony over a large
number of individuals, to become the leader of a mass of fol-
lowers. This implicit aim becomes cynically explicit when the
militants are Nazis or Stalinists (or an amalgam of the two,
such as the US Labor Party). Conversion gives way to ma-
nipulation, outright lying. In this model, the recruitment of
followers is the explicit aim, and the Idea ceases to be a fixed
star, perfect and immutable; the Idea becomes a mere means
toward the explicit aim; whatever recruits most followers is a
good Idea; the Idea becomes a cynically constructed collage
based on the fears and hatreds of potential followers; its main
promise is the annihilation of scapegoats: “counter-revolu-
tionaries,” “anarchists,” “CIA agents,” “Jews,” etc. The dif-
ference between manipulators and missionaries is theoretical;
in practice, they are contemporaries competing in the same
social field, and they borrow each other’s techniques.
VIII
In order to broadcast the Idea, so as to convert or manip-

ulate, the Egocrat needs instruments, media, and it is precise-
ly such media that the society of the spectacle provides in
profusion. One justification for turning to these media runs
as follows: “The media are currently a monopoly of the rul-
ing classes who divert them for their own benefit. But their
structure remains ‘fundamentally egalitarian,’ and it is up to
revolutionary practice to bring out this potentiality contained
by them but perverted by the capitalist order. In a word, to
liberate them...” (a position paraphrased by Baudrillard.) The
initial rejection of the spectacle, the longing for community
and communication, has been replaced by the longing to exert
power over the very instruments that annihilate community
and communication. Hesitation, or a sudden outburst of cri-
tique, are ruled out by organizational blackmail: “The Lenin-
ists will win unless we ourselves accept the responsibility of
fighting to win...,” (“The Red Menace.” A Stalinist would say,
89
Anything Can Happen
“The Trotskyists will win...,” etc.) From this point on, any-
thing goes; all means are good if they lead to the goal; and at
the absurd outer limit, even sales promotion and advertising,
the activity and language of Capital itself, become justified
revolutionary means: “We concentrate heavily on distribution
and promotion...Our promotional work is wide-ranging and
expensive. It includes advertising widely, promotional mail-
ings, catalogues, display tables across the country, etc. All of
this costs a tremendous amount of money and energy, which
is covered by the money generated from the sale of books.”
(An “anarchist businessman” in a letter to The Fifth Estate.)
Is this anarchist businessman a ludicrous example, because so
ridiculously exaggerated, or is he solidly within the orthodox
tradition of organized militancy? “The big banks are the ‘state
apparatus’ which we need to bring about socialism, and which
we take ready made from capitalism; our task here is merely
to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent appara-
tus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more
comprehensive...” (Lenin, quoted by M. Velli.)
IX
For the Egocrat, the media are mere means; the goal is
hegemony, power, and the power of the secret police. “Invisi-
ble pilots in the center of the popular storm, we must direct it,
not with a visible power, but with the collective dictatorship
of all the allies. A dictatorship without a badge, without title,
without official right, yet all the more powerful because it will
have none of the appearances of power.” (Bakunin, quoted by
Debord) The collective dictatorship of all quickly becomes
the rule of the single Egocrat because, “if all the bureaucrats
taken together decide everything, the cohesion of their own
class can be assured only by the concentration of their terror-
ist power in a single person.” (Debord) With the success of the
Egocrat’s enterprise, the establishment of the “dictator-ship
without official right,” communication is not only absent on a
social scale; every local attempt is deliberately liquidated by
90
the police. This situation is not a “deformation” of the orga-

nization’s initially “pure goals”; it is already prefigured in the
means, the “fundamentally egalitarian” instruments used for
the victory. “What characterizes the mass media is the fact that
they are anti-mediators, intransitives, the fact that they pro-
duce non-communication... Television, by its presence alone,
is social control in the home. It is not necessary to imagine
this control as the regime’s periscope spying on the private
life of everyone, because television is already better than that:
it assures that people no longer talk to each other, that they
are definitively isolated in the face of statements without re-
sponse.” (Baudrillard)
The Egocrat’s project is superfluous. The capitalist media

of production and communication already reduce human be-
ings to mute and powerless spectators, passive victims contin-
ually subjected to the existing order’s “laudatory monologue.”
The anti-totalitarian revolution requires, not another medium,
but the liquidation of all media, “the liquidation of their en-
tire present structure, functional as well as technical, of their
operational form so to speak, which everywhere reflects their
social form. At the limit, obviously, it is the very concept of
medium which disappears and must disappear: the exchanged
word, reciprocal and symbolic exchange, negates the notion
and function of medium, of intermediary... Reciprocity comes
about by way of the destruction of the medium.” (Baudrillard)
1977
References
Jean Baudrillard, Pour une critique de l’economie politique du signe
(Paris, Gallimard, 1972)
Jacques Camatte, The Wandering of Humanity (Detroit, Black &
Red, 1975)
Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (Detroit, Black & Red, 1970;
91
Anything Can Happen
1977)
Claude Lefort, Un Homme en Trop: Reflexions sur “L’Archipel de
Goulag,” Paris, Seuil, l976
Michael Velli, Manual for Revolutionary Leaders (Detroit, Black &
Red, 1972),
92
Progress and Nuclear
Power:
The Destruction of the Continent and Its Peoples
The premeditated poisoning of human beings, of soils and of

other living species can only by the grossest hypocrisy be con-
sidered an “accident.” Only the willfully blind can claim that
this consequence of Technical Progress was “unforeseen.”
The poisoning and removal of this continent’s living in-
habitants for the sake of “higher entities” may have begun in
Eastern Pennsylvania, but not during the past few weeks.
Eleven score years ago, in the region currently being poi-
soned by radiation from Three Mile Island, speculators with
names like Franklin, Morris, Washington and Hale hid their
names behind facades such as the Vandalia Company and the
Ohio Company. These companies had one purpose: to sell
land for a profit. The individuals behind the companies had
one aim: to remove all obstacles which stood in the way of the
free deployment of profit-making, whether the obstacles were
human beings or millennial cultures or forests or animals or
even streams and mountains. Their aim was to civilize this
continent, to introduce to it a cycle of activities never before
practiced here: Working, Saving, Investing, Selling — the cy-
cle of reproducing and enlarging Capital.
The main obstacle to this activity consisted of human be-
ings who had lived on this continent for millennia and who,
without Law or Government or Church, enjoyed the sun, the
streams, the woodlands, the varied species of plant and an-
imal, and each other. These people considered life an end,
not a means to be put at the service of “higher” ends. They
93
Anything Can Happen
did not flock to Civilization like children to a cookie jar, as

the Franklins and Washingtons expected them to do. On the
contrary. They wanted very little of what Civilization had to
give. They wanted some of the weapons, and they wanted
these only to preserve their freedom against further encroach-
ments of Civilization; they preferred death to a life reduced to
Working, Saving, Investing and Selling. In a final desperate
attempt to drive Civilization and its Benefits to the sea and
across it, in an uprising currently remembered as the name of
an automobile, their warriors ousted land grabbers and their
soldiers from Ontario, Michigan, Ohio and western Pennsyl-
vania. For this uncompromising resistance they earned from
the Civilized the title of Savages. This title gave the Civiliz-
ers a license to exterminate without qualm or scruple: “Send
them pox-infested blankets,” ordered one of the commanders
in charge of the extermination.
The recently celebrated Bicentennial of American Inde-
pendence commemorated the day when, ten score years ago,
land grabbers, speculators and their allies determined to accel-
erate the extermination of independence from the region west
of Three Mile Island. The King’s government was too distant
to protect investments adequately, and in any case it was Feu-
dal and didn’t always share the speculators’ aims; it even went
so far as to enforce the boundaries established by treaties with
the Savages. What was needed was an efficient apparatus un-
der the direct control of the land grabbers and devoted exclu-
sively to the prosperity of their enterprises. Informal frontier
police organizations like the Paxton Boys were efficient for
the massacre of the tribal inhabitants of an isolated village
like Conestoga. But such frontier formations were small and
temporary, and they were as dependent on the active consent
of each participant as the tribal warriors themselves; therefore
they were not proper police organizations at all. The specula-
tors allied themselves with idealists and dreamers, and behind
a banner on which was inscribed Freedom, Independence and
Happiness, took the power of government, military and police
into their own hands.
94
Progress and Nuclear Power
One and a half centuries ago, the efficient apparatus for

the progress of Capital was in high gear. Military and police
organizations based on obedience and submission, and not on
anyone’s active consent, were ready to go into action against
people who had resisted that type of regimentation for twenty
thousand years if not longer. Congress passed one of its most
explicit bits of legislation: The Indian Removal Act. Within a
few years, all resistance, all activity which was not the activi-
ty of Capital, was removed from the area stretching westward
from Three Mile Island to the Mississippi, southward from
Michigan to Georgia. The Government, quickly becoming
one of the most powerful in the world, was no longer restrict-
ed to poisoning with pox or to the surprise massacre of villag-
ers; it implemented the Removal with a judicious combination
of Platitudes, Promises and Police. The remaining free tribes
people could not resist this combination without adopting it,
but they could not adopt it without ceasing to be free. They
chose to remain free, and the last free human beings between
Three Mile Island and the Mississippi were Removed.
As settlers moved into the deliberately vacated lands
where the very air they breathed gave them a taste of the re-
cently eliminated freedom, they transformed vast woodlands
into enlarged replicas of the hell they had left behind. The en-
joyment of trails and forests ceased: the forests were burned;
the trails became obstacle courses to be traversed as rapidly
as Capital made possible. Joy ceased to be life’s aim; life it-
self became mere means; its end was profit. The variety of
hundreds of cultural forms was reduced to the uniformity of a
unique routine: work, save, invest, sell, everyday from sunrise
to sunset, and count money after sundown. Every previous ac-
tivity, and scores of new ones, were transformed from sources
of joy to sources of profit. Corn, beans and squash, the “three
sisters” respected and loved by the region’s previous inhab-
itants, became mere commodities for sale at food markets;
their sowers and harvesters no longer grew them to enjoy at
meals, feasts and festivals, but to sell for profit. Leisurely gar-
dening was replaced by the hard work of farming, trails gave
95
Anything Can Happen
way to rails, walking was superseded by the locomotion of

gigantic coal burning furnaces on wheels, canoes were swept
aside by floating cities which stopped for no obstacle as they
filled the air with burning embers and black smoke. The “three
sisters,” along with the rest of their family, were degraded to
mere merchandise, as were the trees that became lumber, the
animals that became meat, and even the journeys, the songs,
the myths and tales of the continent’s new inhabitants.
And new inhabitants there were: at first hundreds, then
thousands, finally millions. When the importation of outright
slaves finally ended, surplus peasants were imported from
the run down estates of post-feudal Europe. Their ancestors
hadn’t known freedom for so many generations that the very
memory of it had been lost. Formerly liveried domestics or
farmhands on the estates of increasingly commercial lords,
the newcomers arrived already trained to want precisely what
Capital had to offer, and the degradation of life imposed by
Capital was freedom to them when compared to their only
frame of reference. Sold plots by land investors, transported
to the plots by railway investors, equipped by farm implement
investors, financed by bank investors, furnished and clothed
by the same interests, often by the very same Houses who had
provided them with everything else at a rate of profit no previ-
ous age would have regarded as “just,” they boastfully wrote
their relatives in the old country that they had become their
own lords, that they were free farmers but in the pits of their
stomachs and in the missed beat of their hearts they felt the
truth: they were slaves of a master who was even more intrac-
table, inhuman and removed than their former lords, a master
whose lethal power, like radioactivity’s, could be felt but not
seen. They had become the liveried domestics of Capital. (As
for those who ended up as “operatives” or “unskilled hands”
in the factories that produced the implements and the rails:
they had little to boast of in their letters; they had breathed
freer air wherever they had started from.)
A century after the uprising associated with the name of
Pontiac, a century filled with desperate resistance by Pontiac’s
96
successors against the further encroachments of Capital, some

of the imported farmers began to fight against their reduction
to servants of railroad, equipment and finance Capital. The
populist farmers burned to arrest and lock up the Rockefellers,
Morgans and Goulds directly responsible for their degrada-
tion, but their revolt was only a faint echo of the earlier revolt
of Ottowas, Chippewas, Delawares and Potawatomies. The
farmers turned against the personalities but continued to share
the culture responsible for their degradation. Consequently
they failed to unite with, or even recognize as their own, the
armed resistance of the plains people, the last to keep the en-
tire continent from being turned into an island of Capital—a
struggle defeated by ancient Assyrian (and modern Soviet
Socialist) methods of mass deportation, concentration camps,
massacres of unarmed prisoners, and unabated brainwashing
by military and missionary goons.
Militant and courageous though many of them were, the
struggling farmers rarely placed enjoyment and life above
work, savings and profit, and their movement was derailed
altogether when radical politicians infiltrated it and equated
the desire for a new life with the desire for a new Leader. The
form of derailment of the Populist movement became the form
of existence of the labor movement during the century that
followed. The politicians who dug the grave of populism were
the forerunners of the infinite assortment of monkish sects,
modeled organizationally on the Jesuit Order but deriving
doctrine and dogma from one or another communist, socialist
or anarchist Book. Ready to leap at an instant’s notice into
any situation where people began to struggle to regain their
own humanity, they squelched one after another potential re-
bellion by dumping their doctrine, their organization and their
leadership on top of people struggling for life. These clowns,
for whom all that was missing was their mugs and speeches
on the front pages of newspapers, finally became capitalists
who took to market the unique commodity they had cornered:
labor.
Shortly before the turn of the present century, with ef-
97
Anything Can Happen
fective resistance permanently removed, with a pseudo-resis-

tance which was in fact an instrument for the final reduction
of human activity to a mere variable of Capital, the efficient
apparatus for the generation of profits lost all external obsta-
cles. It still had internal obstacles: the various fractions of
Capital, the Vanderbilts, Goulds and Morgans, continually
turned their guns against each other and threatened to topple
the whole structure from within. Rockefeller and Morgan pi-
oneered the merger, the combination of the various fractions:
monied investors distributed their monies throughout each
other’s enterprises; directors sat on each other’s boards; and
each and all acquired an interest in the unrestricted march of
every unit of the entire apparatus. With the exception of rare
surviving personal and family empires, the enterprises were
directed by mere hirelings who differed from the rest of the
hands mainly by the size of their emoluments. The task of the
directors was to ride over all obstacles, human and natural,
with only one limitation: the efficient operation of the other
enterprises collectively constituting Capital.
Two score years ago, the researches of physical and
chemical sciences at the disposal of Capital led to the discov-
ery that the gross substances above and below the soil were
not the only substances exploitable for profits. It appeared that
the “liberated” nuclei of certain substances were eminently
exploitable by Capital. The destruction of matter at the atomic
level, first used as the most hideous weapon hitherto wrought
by human beings, became the newest commodity. By this time
the interest payments, freight fees and equipment purchases of
farmers, as well as the long-vanished trees and forest animals,
had ceased to be interesting as sources of significant profits.
Energy companies interlocked with uranium and oil monop-
olies became empires more powerful than any of the states
which served them as trouble-shooters. Within the computers
of these empires, the health and lives of an “acceptable” num-
ber of farm and city dwellers was balanced against an “accept-
able” gain or loss of profits. Potential popular responses to
such calculations were controlled by judicious combinations
98
of platitudes, promises and police.
***
* The poisoning of people in Eastern Pennsylvania with

cancer-inducing radiation by a system that devotes a substan-
tial portion of its activity to “defense” against nuclear assault
from abroad-
* The contamination of food which is to be consumed by
the continent’s remaining inhabitants, and the destruction of
the prospects of farmers who had dutifully devoted their lives
to growing the merchandise interesting to Capital at a stage
which ended half a century ago-
* The transformation into a literal minefield, using un-
precedentedly lethal poisons and explosives, of a continent
once peopled by human beings whose aim in life was to enjoy
the air, sun, trees, animals and each other-
* The prospect of a continent covered with raging infer-
nos, their loudspeakers reciting their recorded messages to a
charred earth: “There is no need to overreact; the situation is
stable; the leaders have everything under control”-
-all this is no accident. It is the present stage of progress of
Technology, alias Capital, called Frankenstein by Mary Woll-
stonecraft Shelley, considered “neutral” by aspiring managers
burning to get their “revolutionary” hands on the controls. For
two hundred years Capital developed by destroying nature,
by removing and destroying human beings. Capital has now
begun a frontal attack on its own domestics; its computers
have begun to calculate the expendability of those who’d been
taught to think themselves its beneficiaries.
If the spirits of the dead could be reborn among the living,
Ottawa and Chippewa and Potawatomi warriors could take up
the struggle where they left it two centuries ago, augmented
by the forces of Sioux, Dakota and Nez Perce, Yana and Me-
doc and the countless tribes whose languages are no longer
spoken. Such a force could round up criminals who would
not otherwise be brought before any tribunal. The numerous
99
Anything Can Happen
agents of Capital could then continue to practice their routine

of work-save-invest-sell, torturing each other with platitudes,
promises and police, inside defused and disconnected power
plants, behind plutonium doors.
1979
100
Anti-Semitism and the
Beirut Pogrom
Escape from death in a gas chamber or a Pogrom, or incar-
ceration in a concentration camp, may give a thoughtful and
capable writer, Solzhenitsyn for example, profound insights
into many of the central elements of contemporary existence,
but such an experience does not, in itself, make Solzhenitsyn
a thinker, a writer, or even a critic of concentration camps;
it does not, in itself, confer any special powers. In another
person the experience might lie dormant as a potentiality, or
remain forever meaningless, or it might contribute to making
the person an ogre. In short, the experience is an indelible part
of the individual’s past but it does not determine his future;
the individual is free to choose his future; he is even free to
choose to abolish his freedom, in which case he chooses in
bad faith and is a Salaud (J.P. Sartre’s precise philosophical
term for a person who makes such a choice).1
My observations are borrowed from Sartre; I’d like to
apply them, not to Solzhenitsyn, but to myself, as a specific
individual, and to the American cheerleaders rooting for the
State of Israel, as a specific choice.
***
I was one of three small children removed by our elders from

a Central European country a month before the Nazis invaded
the country and began rounding up Jews. Only part of my
extended family left; the rest remained and were all rounded
up; of these, all my cousins, aunts, and grandparents died in
101
Anything Can Happen
Nazi concentration camps or gas chambers except two uncles,

whom I’ll mention later.
A month more and I, too, would have been one of those
who actually underwent the rationally-planned scientific ex-
termination of human beings, the central experience of so
many people in an age of highly developed science and pro-
ductive forces, but I wouldn’t have been able to write about it.
I was one of those who escaped. I spent my childhood
among Quechua-speaking people of the Andean highlands,
but I didn’t learn to speak Quechua and I didn’t ask myself
why; I spoke to a Quechua in a language foreign to both of
us, the Conquistador’s language. I wasn’t aware of myself as
a refugee nor of the Quechuas as refugees in their own land; I
knew no more about the terrors — the expropriations, perse-
cutions and pogroms, the annihilation of an ancient culture —
experienced by their ancestors than I knew about the terrors
experienced by mine.
To me the Quechuas were generous hospitable, guileless,
and I thought more of an aunt who respected and liked them
than of a relative who cheated them and was contemptuous of
them and called them dirty and primitive.
My relative’s cheating was my first contact with the dou-
ble standard, the fleecing of outsiders to enrich insiders, the
moral adage that said: It’s all right if it’s We who do it.
My relative’s contempt was my first experience with rac-
ism, which gave this relative an affinity with the Pogromists
she had fled from; her narrow escape from them did not make
her a critic of Pogromists; the experience probably contribut-
ed nothing to her personality, not even her identification with
the Conquistador, since this was shared by Europeans who
did not share my relative’s experience of narrowly escaping
from a concentration camp. Oppressed European peasants had
identified with Conquistadores who carried a more vicious
oppression to non-Europeans already before my relative’s ex-
perience.
My relative did make use of her experience years later,
when she chose to be a rooter for the State of Israel, at which
102
Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom
time she did not renounce her contempt toward the Quechuas;
on the contrary, she then applied her contempt toward peo-
ple in other parts of the world, people she had never met or
been among. But I wasn’t concerned with the character of her
choice at the time; I was more concerned with the chocolates
she brought me.
***
In my teens I was brought to America, which was a synonym

for New York even to people already in America among the
Quechuas; it was a synonym for much else, as I was very
slowly to learn.
Shortly after my arrival in America, the state power of
the Central European country of my origin was seized by a
well-organized gang of egalitarians who thought they could
bring about universal emancipation by occupying State of-
fices and becoming policemen, and the new State of Israel
fought its first successful war and turned an indigenous popu-
lation of Semites into internal refugees like the Quechuas and
exiled refugees like the Central European Jews. I should have
wondered why the Semitic refugees and the European refu-
gees who claimed to be Semitic, two peoples with so much in
common, did not make common cause against common op-
pressors, but I was far too occupied trying to find my way in
America.
From an elementary school friend who was considered
a hooligan by my parents, and also from my parents them-
selves, I slowly learned that America was the place where
anyone would want to be, something like Paradise, but a
Paradise that remained out of reach even after one entered
America. America was a land of clerks and factory workers,
but neither clerical nor factory work were America. My hoo-
ligan friend summarized it all very simply: there were suckers
and hustlers, and you had to be dumb to become a sucker.
My parents were less explicit; they said: Study hard. The im-
plied motivation was: God forbid you should become a clerk
103
Anything Can Happen
or factory worker! Become something other: a professional

or a manager. At that time I didn’t know these other callings
were also America’s, that with every rung reached, Paradise
remained as unreachable as before. I didn’t know that the pro-
fessional’s or even the clerk’s or worker’s satisfaction came,
not from the fullness of his own life, but from the rejection of
his own life, from identification with the great process taking
place outside him, the process of unfettered industrial destruc-
tion. The results of this process could be watched in movies or
newspapers, though not yet on Television, which would soon
bring the process into everyone’s home; the satisfaction was
that of the voyeur, the peeper. At that time I didn’t know that
this process was the most concrete synonym for America.
Once in America, I had no use for my experience of nar-
rowly escaping a Nazi concentration camp; the experience
couldn’t help me climb the ladder toward Paradise and might
even hinder me; my hurried climb might have been slowed
considerably or even stopped altogether if I had tried to em-
pathize with the condition of the labor camp inmate I might
have become, for I would have realized what it was that made
the prospect of factory work so fearsome: it differed from the
other condition in that there were no gas chambers and in that
the factory worker spent only his weekdays inside.
I wasn’t alone in having no use for my Central European
experience. My relatives had no use for it either. During that
decade I met one of my two uncles who had actually lived
through a Nazi concentration camp. Once in America, even
this uncle had no use for his experience; he wanted nothing
more than to forget the Pogrom and everything associated
with it; he wanted only to climb the rungs of America; he
wanted to look and sound and act no differently from other
Americans. My parents had exactly the same attitude. I was
told that my other uncle had survived the camps and gone to
Israel, only to be hit by a car soon after his arrival.
The State of Israel was not interesting to me during that
decade, although I heard talk of it. My relatives spoke with a
certain pride of the existence of a State with Jewish police-
104
men, a Jewish army, Jewish judges and factory managers, in

short a State totally unlike Nazi Germany and just like Ameri-
ca. My relatives, whatever their personal situations, identified
with the Jewish policemen and not with the policed, with the
factory owners and not the Jewish workers, with the Jewish
hustlers and not the suckers, an identification which was un-
derstandable among people who wanted to forget their close
encounter with labor camps. But none of them wanted to go
there; they were already in America.
My relatives gave grudgingly to the Zionist cause and
were baffled — all except my racist relative — by the unqual-
ified enthusiasm of second to nth generation Americans for a
distant State with Jewish policemen and teachers and manag-
ers, since these people were already policemen and teachers
and managers in America. My racist relative understood what
the enthusiasm was based on: racial solidarity. But I wasn’t
aware of this at the time. I was not an over-bright American
high-schooler and I thought racial solidarity was something
confined to Nazis, Afrikaaners and American Southerners.
I was starting to be familiar with the traits of the Nazis
who’d almost captured me: the racism that reduced human
beings to their genealogical connections over five or six gen-
erations, the crusading nationalism that considered the rest of
humanity an obstacle, the Gleichschaltung that cut off the in-
dividuals freedom to choose, the technological efficiency that
made small humans mere fodder for great machines, the bul-
ly militarism that pitted walls of tanks against a cavalry and
exacted a hundred times the losses it sustained, the official
paranoia that pictured the enemy, poorly armed townspeople
and villagers, as a nearly omnipotent conspiracy of cosmic
scope. But I didn’t see that these traits had anything to do with
America or Israel.
***
It was only during my next decade, as an American college

student with a mild interest in history and philosophy, that I
105
Anything Can Happen
began to acquire a smattering of knowledge about Israel and

Zionism, not because I was particularly interested in these
subjects but because they were included in my readings. I was
neither hostile nor friendly; I was indifferent; I still had no use
for my experience as a refugee.
But I didn’t remain indifferent to Israel or Zionism. This
was the decade of Israel’s spectacular capture and trial of the
Good German Eichmann, and of Israel’s spectacular invasion
of large parts of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a six-day Blitz-
krieg, a decade when Israel was news for everyone, not just
for refugees.
I didn’t have any unconventional thoughts about the obe-
dient Eichmann except the thought that he couldn’t be so ex-
ceptional since I had already met people like him in America.
But some of my readings did make me start wondering about
my Zionist relative’s racism.
I learned that people like the ancient Hebrews, Akkadians,
Arabs, Phoenicians and Ethiopians had all come from the land
of Shem (the Arabian Peninsula) and had all spoken the lan-
guage of Shem, which was what made them Shemites or Sem-
ites. I learned that the Jewish religion had originated among
Semites in the ancient Levantine State Judah, the Christian
religion among Semites in the ancient Levantine towns Naz-
areth and Jerusalem, the Mohammedan religion among Sem-
ites in the ancient Arabian towns Mecca and Medina, and that
for the past 1300 years the region called Palestine had been
a sacred place to the Islamic Semites who lived there and in
surrounding regions.
I also learned that the religions of European and Ameri-
can Jews, like the religions of European and American Chris-
tians, had been elaborated, during almost two millennia, by
Europeans and more recently by Americans.
If European and American Jews were Semites in terms of
their religion, then European and American Christians were
also Semites, a notion that was generally considered absurd.
If Jews were Semites in terms of the language of their Sa-
cred Book, then all European and American Christians were
106
Greeks or Italians, a notion almost as patently absurd.

I started to suspect that my Zionist relative’s only connec-
tion to the Zion in the Levant was a genealogical connection
traced, not over six, but over more than sixty generations. But
I had come to consider such racial reckoning a peculiarity of
Nazis, Afrikaaners and American Southerners.
I was uneasy. I thought surely there was more to it than
that; surely those who claimed to descend from the victims of
all that racism were not carriers of a racism ten times more
thorough.
I knew little of the Zionist Movement, but enough to start
being repelled. I knew the Movement had originally had two
wings, one of which, the Socialist one, I could understand be-
cause I was starting to empathize with victims of oppression,
not from insights I gained from my own experience but from
books equally accessible to others; the other wing of Zionism
was incomprehensible to me.
The egalitarian or Left Zionists, as I then understood them,
did not want to be assimilated into the European states that
persecuted them, some because they didn’t think they ever
could be, others because they were repelled by industrializing
Europe and America. The Messiah, their Movement, would
deliver Israel from exile and guide her to Zion, to something
altogether different, to a Paradise without suckers or hustlers.
Some of them, even more metaphorically, hoped the Messiah
would deliver the oppressed from their oppressors, if not ev-
erywhere, then at least in a millennial egalitarian Utopia locat-
ed in a province of the Ottoman Empire, and they were ready
to join with the Islamic residents of Zion against Ottoman, Le-
vantine and British oppressors. They shared this dream with
Christian millenarians who had been trying for more than a
millennium to found Zion in one or another province of Eu-
rope; both had the same roots, but I suspected the left Zionists
had inherited their millenarianism from the Christians.
The egalitarian Zionists were arrogant in thinking the Is-
lamic residents of Zion would embrace European leftists as
liberators, and they were as naive as the egalitarians who had
107
Anything Can Happen
seized state power in the country of my birth, thinking the

millennium would begin as soon as they occupied State of-
fices and became policemen. But as far as I could see, they
weren’t racists.
The other Zionists, the Right, who by the time I reached
college had all but supplanted the Left, at least in America,
were explicit racists arid assimilationists; they wanted a State
dominated by a Race ever so thinly disguised as a religion,
a State that would not be something altogether different, but
exactly the same as America and the other states in the Family
of Nations. I couldn’t understand this, for it seemed to me
that these Zionists, who included statists, industrializers and
technocrats, were not only racists but also Conversos.
Earlier Conversos were Jews in fifteenth century Spain
who, to avoid persecution, discovered that the long-awaited
Jewish Messiah had already arrived, a millennium and a half
earlier, in the person of Jewish prophet Jesse, the Crucified.
Some of these Conversos then joined the Inquisition and per-
secuted Jews who had not made this discovery.
The modern Conversos hadn’t become Catholics; Cathol-
icism was not the dominant creed in the twentieth century;
Science and Technology were.
I thought Jesse had at least affirmed, if only as relics,
some of the traits of the ancient human community, whereas
Science and Technology affirmed nothing human; they de-
stroyed culture as well as nature as well as human community.
It seemed sad that the long-preserved and carefully-guard-
ed specificities of a cultural minority that had refused to be
absorbed were to shatter on the discovery that the techno-
cratic State was the Messiah and the Industrial Process the
long-awaited millennium. This made the whole trajectory
meaningless. The dream of these racist Conversos was repul-
sive to me.
***
It wasn’t until the following decade, when I was over thirty,
108
that my nearness to the Nazi Pogrom began to be meaningful

to me. This transvaluation of my early experience happened
suddenly, and was caused by something like a chance encoun-
ter, an encounter which, also by chance, included an odd ref-
erence to the State of Israel.
This was the decade when America waged its war of ex-
termination against a people and an ancient culture of the Far
East.
It happened that I was visiting my Americanized relatives
at the same time that my Andean aunt was with them for the
first time since their separation. This was the aunt who had
respected the Quechua-speaking people, although not enough
to learn their language, and had stayed among them when the
others left.
The conversation among the relatives turned to pious
reflections about the uncle who had gone to Israel and been
killed by a car after having survived the Nazi concentration
camps.
My Andean aunt couldn’t believe what she heard. She
asked her relatives if they had all gone crazy. The story about
the car accident had been told to the children so often that the
adults had come to believe it.
That man wasn’t killed in an accident, she shouted. He
committed suicide. He had survived the concentration camps
because he had been a technician employed in applying chem-
ical science to the operation of the gas chambers. He had then
made the mistake of emigrating to Israel, where his collabora-
tion had been made public knowledge. He probably couldn’t
face the accusing eyes; maybe he feared retaliation.
My first response to this revelation was revulsion against
a human being who could be so morally degraded as to gas
his own kin and fellow-captives. But the more I thought about
him, the more I had to admit there had at least been a shred of
moral integrity in his final self-destructive act; that act didn’t
make him a moral paradigm, but it contrasted sharply with the
acts of people who lacked even that shred of moral integrity,
people who were returning from the Far East and affirming
109
Anything Can Happen
their deeds, actually boasting of the unnatural atrocities they

had inflicted on their fellow human beings.
And I asked myself who the others really were, the pure
ones who had exposed and judged Eichmann the obedient
German.
I didn’t know anything about the people in Israel and
had never met an Israeli, but I was increasingly aware of the
loud American cheerleaders for the State of Israel, and not the
Left Zionists among them but the others, my racist relative’s
friends. The Leftists had all but vanished in a dark sectarian
Limbo no outsider could penetrate, a Limbo that stank almost
as strongly as the one that held Messiah Lenin’s and Stalin’s
heirs, with sects twisted out of shape by the existence of the
State of Israel, ranging from those who claimed their seizure
of power was all that was needed to turn the State of Israel
into an egalitarian community, to those who claimed the ex-
isting State of Israel was already the egalitarian community.
But the Left Zionists shouted only at each other.
It was the others who made all the din, who shouted at ev-
eryone else. And these were explicit about what they admired
in the State of Israel; they affirmed it, they boasted of it, and it
had nothing to do with the ailing wing’s egalitarianism. What
they admired was:
- the crusading nationalism that considered the humanity

surrounding it as nothing but obstacles to its flowering;
- the industrial potency of the Race that had succeeded in
denaturing the desert and making it bloom;
- the efficiency of the human beings remade into operators
of big tanks and incredibly accurate jets;
- the technological sophistication of the instruments of
death themselves, infinitely superior to that of the Nazis;
- the spectacularly enterprising secret police whose prow-
ess was surely not inferior, for such a small State, to that
of the CIA, KGB or Gestapo;
- the bully militarism that pitted the latest inventions of
life-killing Science against a motley collection of weap-
110
ons, and exacted a hundred or a thousand times the losses

it sustained.
This last boast, which expressed the morality of exacting

hundreds of eyes for an eye and thousands of teeth for a tooth,
seemed particularly repulsive in the mouth of a cheerleader
for a theocratic State where an ethical elite claimed to provide
inspired guidance on moral questions; but this will surprise
only those uninformed about history’s theocracies.
During this decade, the racism, the anti-Semitism, to be
more precise, of these admirers of the State of Israel became
virulent. Zion’s expropriated Semites were no longer consid-
ered human beings; they were Backward Arabs; only those
among them who had been turned into good assimilated Is-
raelis could be called human; the others were dirty Primitives.
And Primitives, in the definition given a few centuries earlier
by Conquistadores, not only had no right to resist humilia-
tion, expropriation and desolation; Primitives had no right to
exist; they only squandered nature’s resources, they didn’t
know what to do with God’s precious gifts! Only God’s cho-
sen knew how to use the Great Father’s gifts, and they knew
exactly what to do with them.
Yet even while dwelling on the backwardness of the ex-
propriated, the cheerleaders became paranoid and pictured the
pathetic resistance of the expropriated as a vast conspiracy of
untold power and nearly cosmic scope.
Sartre’s expression mauvaise foi2 is too weak to character-
ize the posture chosen by these people, but it’s not my concern
to coin another expression.
***
I survived into my forties, thanks partly to the fact that Amer-

ica still hadn’t exterminated itself and the rest of humanity
with the high-powered incinerants and poisons with which it
was mining,3 or rather undermining, its own as well as other
people’s lands.
111
Anything Can Happen
This decade combined what I had earlier thought uncom-

binable; it combined a barrage of revelations about the Holo-
caust, in the form of movies, plays, books and articles, with
the Pogrom, perpetrated on Levantine Semites in Beirut by
the State of Israel.4
The revelations touched the Holocaust in Vietnam only
marginally; maybe two generations have to pass before such
filth is hung out to air. The revelations were almost all about
the Holocaust I had narrowly escaped as a child.
People who don’t understand human freedom might think
the terrible revelations could have only one effect, they could
only turn people against the perpetrators of such atrocities,
they could only make people empathize with the victims,
they could only contribute to a resolve to abolish the very
possibility of a repeat of such dehumanizing persecution and
cold-blooded murder. But, for better or worse, such experi-
ences, whether personally lived or learned from revelations,
are nothing but the field over which human freedom soars like
a bird of prey. The revelations about the forty-year-old Po-
grom have even been turning up as justifications for a pres-
ent-day Pogrom.
Pogrom is a Russian word that used to refer, in past years
that now seem almost benign, to a riot of cudgel-armed men
against poorly armed villagers with different cultural traits; the
more heavily the State was involved in the riot, the more hei-
nous was the Pogrom. The overwhelmingly stronger attackers
projected their own character as bullies onto their weaker vic-
tims, convincing themselves that their victims were rich, pow-
erful, well-armed and allied with the Devil. The attackers also
projected their own violence onto their victims, constructing
stories of the victims’ brutality out of details taken from their
own repertory of deeds. In nineteenth century Russia, a Po-
grom was considered particularly violent if fifty people were
killed.
The statistics underwent a complete metamorphosis in the
twentieth century, when the State became the main rioter. The
statistics of modern German and Russian and Turkish state-
112
run Pogroms are known; the statistics from Vietnam and Bei-
rut are not public yet.
Beirut and its inhabitants had already been made deso-
late by the presence of the violent resistance movement of
the expropriated refugees ousted from Zion; if the casualties
of those clashes were added to the number killed by the State
of Israel’s direct involvement in the riot — but I’ll stop this; I
don’t want to play numbers games.
The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance
and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the
surrounding population with the most gruesome products of
Death-Science — this trick is not new. American Pioneers
were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to
declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and
burn villages with only women and children in them. This is
already modern war, what we know as war against civilian
populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass mur-
der or genocide.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a
Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case
as victims of the Holocaust.
Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his anal-
ysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made
a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous
people of this continent always made themselves appear, even
in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.
The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Con-
spiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defy-
ing belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.
It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption
from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it
gave a license to kill.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but I can’t keep myself
from being angry, because such a posture is the posture of
a Salaud, the posture of one who denies human freedom,
who denies that he chooses himself as killer. The experience,
whether personally lived or learned from revelations, explains
113
Anything Can Happen
and determines nothing; it is nothing but a phony alibi.

Melville analyzed the moral integrity of the Indian-hater.
I’m talking about modern Pogromists, and more narrow-
ly about cheerleaders for Pogroms. I’m talking about people
who haven’t personally killed fifty or five or even one human
being.
I’m talking about America, where the quest is to immerse
oneself in Paradise while avoiding any contact with its dirty
work, where only a minority is still involved in the personal
doing of the dirty work, where the vast majority are full-time
voyeurs, peepers, professors, call them what you will.
Among the voyeurs, I’m concentrating on the voyeurs of
Holocausts and Pogroms. I have to keep referring to what’s
on the screen because that’s what’s being watched. But my
concern is with the watcher, with one who chooses himself a
voyeur, specifically a voyeur of Holocausts, a cheerleader for
death squads.
Mention the words Beirut and Pogrom in the same sen-
tence to such a one, and he’ll vomit all the morality inside
him: he won’t vomit much.
The likeliest response you’ll get is a moronic chuckle and
a cynical laugh.
I’m reminded of my uncle, the one who wasn’t hit by a
car, who at least had the shred of moral integrity to see what
others saw and reject it, and I contrast my uncle with this per-
son who either sees nothing at all, or who cynically affirms
what he sees, cynically accepts himself.
If he’s an intellectual, a professor, he’ll respond with the
exact equivalent of the moronic grin or the cynical laugh but
with words; he’ll bombard you with sophistries, half truths
and outright lies which are perfectly transparent to him even
as he utters them.
This is not an airy, wide-eyed idealist but a gross, down-
to-earth property-oriented materialist with no illusions about
what constitutes expropriation of what he calls Real Estate.
Yet this real estate man will start telling you that the Levantine
Zion is a Jewish Land and he’ll point to a two-thousand year
114
old Title.
He calls Hitler a madman for having claimed the Sude-
tenland was a German land because he totally rejects the rules
that would have made it a German land, international peace
treaties are included in his rules, violent expropriations are
not.
Yet suddenly he pulls out a set of rules which, if he real-
ly accepted them, would pulverize the entire edifice of Real
Property. If he really accepted such rules, he would be selling
plots in Gdansk to Kashubians returning from exile, tracts in
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota to Ojibwas reappropriat-
ing their homeland, estates in Iran, Iraq and much of Turkey to
homeward bound Indian Parsees, and he would even have to
lease parts of Zion itself to Chinese descendants of Nestorian
Christians, and to many others besides.
Such arguments have more affinity with the moronic
chuckle than with the cynical laugh.
The cynical laugh translated into words would say: We
(they always say We) We conquered the Primitives, expropri-
ated them and ousted them; the expropriated are still resisting,
and in the meantime We have acquired two generations who
have no other home but Zion; being Realists, we know we
can end the resistance once and for all by exterminating the
expropriated,
Such cynicism without a shred of moral integrity might
be realistic, but it might also turn out to be what C.W. Mills
called Crackpot Realism, because the resistance might sur-
vive and spread and it might go on as long as the Irish.
There’s yet another response, the response of the cud-
gel-armed Defense League bully who thinks the absence of a
brown shirt makes him unrecognizable.
He clenches his fist or tightens his grip on his club and
shouts: Traitor!
This response is the most ominous, for it claims that We
are a club to which all are welcome, but the membership of
some is mandatory.
In this usage, Traitor does not mean anti-Semite, since it is
115
Anything Can Happen
aimed at people who empathize with the plight of the current

Semites. Traitor does not mean Pogromist, since it is aimed
at people who still empathize with the victims of the Pogrom.
This term is one of the few components of the vocabulary of a
racist through the ages; it means: Traitor to the Race.
And here I reach the single element which the new an-
ti-Semite had not yet shared with the old anti-Semite: Gle-
ichschaltung, the totalitarian ‘synchronization’ of all political
activity and expression. The entire Race must march in step,
to the same drumbeat; all are to obey.
The uniqueness of the condemned Eichmann becomes re-
duced to a difference in holiday ritual.
It seems to me that such goons are not preservers of the
traditions of a persecuted culture. They’re Conversos, but not
to the Catholicism of Fernando y Isabela; they’re Conversos
to the political practice of the Fuehrer.
The long exile is over; the persecuted refugee at long last
returns to Zion, but so badly scarred he’s unrecognizable, he
has completely lost his self; he returns as anti-Semite, as Po-
gromist, as mass murderer; the ages of exile and suffering are
still included in his makeup, but only as self-justifications,
and as a repertory of horrors to impose on Primitives and even
on Earth herself.
***
I think I’ve now shown that the experience of the Holocaust,

whether lived or peeped, does not in itself make an individual
a critic of Pogroms, and also that it does not confer special
powers or give anyone a license to kill or make someone a
mass murderer.
But I haven’t even touched the large question that is raised
by all this: Can I begin to explain why someone chooses him-
self a mass murderer?
I think I can begin to answer. At the risk of plagiarizing
Sartre’s portrait of the old anti-Semite, I can at least try to
point to one or two of the elements in the field of choice of the
116
new anti-Semite.
I could start by noticing that the new anti-Semite is
not really so different from any other TV-watcher, and that
TV-watching is somewhere near the core of the choice (I in-
clude newspapers and movies under the abbreviation for ‘tell-
a-vision’).
What the watcher sees on the screen are some of the ‘in-
teresting’ deeds, sifted and censored, of the monstrous ensem-
ble in which he plays a trivial but daily role. The central but
not often televised activity of this vast ensemble is industrial
and clerical labor, forced labor, or just simply labor, the Arbeit
which macht frei.5
Solzhenitsyn, in his multi-volumed Gulag Archipelago,
gave a profound analysis of what such Arbeit does to a hu-
man individual’s outer and inner life; a comparably profound
analysis has yet to be made of the administration that ‘syn-
chronizes’ the activity, the training institutions that produce
the Eichmanns and Chemists who apply rational means to the
perpetration of the irrational ends of their superiors.
I can’t summarize Solzhenitsyn’s findings; his books have
to be read. In a brief space I can only say that the part of
life spent in Arbeit, the triviality of existence in a commodity
market as seller or customer, worker or client, leaves an in-
dividual without kinship or community or meaning; it dehu-
manizes him, evacuates him; it leaves nothing inside but the
trivia that make up his outside. He no longer has the centrality,
the significance, the self-powers given to all their members
by ancient communities that no longer exist. He doesn’t even
have the phony centrality given by religions which preserved
a memory of the ancient qualities while reconciling people to
worlds where those qualities were absent. Even the religions
have been evacuated, pared down to empty rituals whose
meaning has long been lost.
The gap is always there; it’s like hunger: it hurts. Yet
nothing seems to fill it.
Ah, but there’s something that does fill it or at least seems
to; it may be sawdust and not grated cheese, but it gives the
117
Anything Can Happen
stomach the illusion that it’s been fed; it may be a total ab-
dication of self-powers, a self-annihilation, but it creates
the illusion of self-fulfillment, of reappropriation of the lost
self-powers.
This something is the Told Vision which can be watched
on off hours, and preferably all the time.
By choosing himself a Voyeur, the individual can watch
everything he no longer is.
All the self-powers he no longer has, It has, And It has
even more powers; It has powers no individual ever had; It
has the power to turn deserts into forests and forests into des-
erts; It has the power to annihilate peoples and cultures who
have survived since the beginning of time and to leave no
trace that they ever existed; It even has the power to resusci-
tate the vanished peoples and cultures and endow them with
eternal life in the conditioned air of museums.
In case the reader hasn’t already guessed, It is the tech-
nological ensemble, the industrial process, the Messiah called
Progress. It is America.
The individual deprived of meaning chooses to take the
final leap into meaninglessness by identifying with the very
process that deprives him. He becomes We the exploited
identifying with the exploiter. Henceforth his powers are Our
powers, the powers of the ensemble, the powers of the alli-
ance of workers with their own bosses known as the Devel-
oped Nation. The powerless individual becomes an essential
switch in the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing God, the
central computer; he becomes one with the machine.
His immersion becomes an orgy during the crusades
against those who are still outside the machine: untouched
trees, wolves, Primitives.
During such crusades he becomes one of the last Pioneers;
he joins hands across the centuries with the Conquistadores of
the southern part and the Pioneers of the northern part of this
double continent; he joins hands with Indian-haters and Dis-
coverers and Crusaders; he feels America running in his veins
at last, the America that was already brewing in the cauldrons
118
of European Alchemists long before Colón (the Converso)

reached the Caribs, Raleigh the Algonquians or Cartier the
Iroquoians; he gives the coup de grace to his remaining hu-
manity by identifying with the process exterminating culture,
nature and humanity.
If I went on I would probably come to results already
found by W. Reich in his study of the mass psychology of
Fascism. It galls me that a new Fascism should choose to use
the experience of the victims of the earlier Fascism among its
justifications.
1982
1. The usual English translation is “Bastard.”

2. The usual English translation is “Bad faith.”
3. Mining in the sense of setting explosive mines, making earth le-
thal.
4. Written in mid-August, this statement referred to Israel’s invasion
and not yet to the Pogrom in the strict 19th century sense perpetrated
in September. (Sept 16–18, 1982, to be exact)
5. “Work Liberates”: a slogan posted at the entrance to Nazi slave
labor camps.
119
The Continuing Appeal
of Nationalism
Nationalism was proclaimed dead several times during the
present century:
- the First World War, when the last empires of Europe,
the Austrian and the Turkish, were broken up into self-deter-
mined nations, and no deprived nationalists remained, except
the Zionists;
- after the Bolshevik coup d’etat, when it was said that
the bourgeoisie’s struggles for self-determination were hence-
forth superseded by struggles of workingmen, who had no
country;
- after the military defeat of Fascist Italy and National
Socialist Germany, when the genocidal corollaries of nation-
alism had been exhibited for all to see, when it was thought
that nationalism as creed and as practice was permanently dis-
credited.
Yet forty years after the military defeat of Fascists and
National Socialists, we can see that nationalism did not only
survive but was born again, underwent a revival. Nationalism
has been revived not only by the so-called right, but also and
primarily by the so-called left. After the national socialist war,
nationalism ceased to be confined to conservatives, became
the creed and practice of revolutionaries, and proved itself to
be the only revolutionary creed that actually worked.
Leftist or revolutionary nationalists insist that their na-
tionalism has nothing in common with the nationalism of
fascists and national socialists, that theirs is a nationalism of
the oppressed, that it offers personal as well as cultural liber-
120
The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism
ation. The claims of the revolutionary nationalists have been

broadcast to the world by the two oldest continuing hierarchic
institutions surviving into our times: the Chinese State and,
more recently, the Catholic Church. Currently nationalism is
being touted as a strategy, science and theology of liberation,
as a fulfillment of the Enlightenment’s dictum that knowledge
is power, as a proven answer to the question “What Is to be
Done?”
To challenge these claims, and to see them in a context, I
have to ask what nationalism is — not only the new revolu-
tionary nationalism but also the old conservative one. I cannot
start by defining the term, because nationalism is not a word
with a static definition: it is a term that covers a sequence
of different historical experiences. I’ll start by giving a brief
sketch of some of those experiences.
***
According to a common (and manipulable) misconception,

imperialism is relatively recent, consists of the colonization
of the entire world, and is the last stage of capitalism. This di-
agnosis points to a specific cure: nationalism is offered as the
antidote to imperialism: wars of national liberation are said to
break up the capitalist empire.
This diagnosis serves a purpose, but it does not describe
any event or situation. We come closer to the truth when we
stand this conception on its head and say that imperialism was
the first stage of capitalism, that the world was subsequently
colonized by nation-states, and that nationalism is the domi-
nant, the current, and (hopefully) the last stage of capitalism.
The facts of the case were not discovered yesterday; they are
as familiar as the misconception that denies them.
It has been convenient, for various good reasons, to forget
that, until recent centuries, the dominant powers of Eurasia
were not nation-states but empires. A Celestial Empire ruled
by the Ming dynasty, an Islamic Empire ruled by the Ottoman
dynasty, and a Catholic Empire ruled by the Hapsburg dynas-
121
Anything Can Happen
ty vied with each other for possession of the known world. Of

the three, the Catholics were not the first imperialists but the
last. The Celestial Empire of the Mings ruled over most of
eastern Asia and had dispatched vast commercial fleets over-
seas a century before sea-borne Catholics invaded Mexico.
The celebrants of the Catholic feat forget that, between
1420 and 1430, Chinese imperial bureaucrat Cheng Ho com-
manded naval expeditions of 70,000 men and sailed, not only
to nearby Malaya, Indonesia and Ceylon, but as far from home
ports as the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and Africa. The cel-
ebrants of Catholic conquistadores also belittle the imperial
feats of the Ottomans, who conquered all but the westernmost
provinces of the former Roman Empire, ruled over North Af-
rica, Arabia, the Middle East and half of Europe, controlled
the Mediterranean and hammered on the gates of Vienna. The
imperial Catholics set out westward, beyond the boundaries
of the known world, in order to escape from encirclement.
Nevertheless, it was the imperial Catholics who “discov-
ered America,” and their genocidal destruction and plunder of
their ‘discovery’ changed the balance of forces among Eur-
asia’s empires.
Would imperial Chinese or Turks have been less lethal
had they “discovered America”? All three empires regarded
aliens as less than human and therefore as legitimate prey. The
Chinese considered others barbarians; the Muslims and Cath-
olics considered others unbelievers. The term unbeliever is
not as brutal as the term barbarian, since an unbeliever ceases
to be legitimate prey and becomes a full-fledged human being
by the simple act of converting to the true faith, whereas a
barbarian remains prey until she or he is made over by the
civilizer.
The term unbeliever, and the morality behind it, conflict-
ed with the practice of the Catholic invaders. The contradic-
tion between professions and acts was spotted by a very early
critic, a priest called Las Casas, who noted that the conversion
ceremonies were pretexts for separating and exterminating
the unconverted, and that the converts themselves were not
122
treated as fellow Catholics but as slaves.

The critiques of Las Casas did little more than embarrass
the Catholic Church and Emperor. Laws were passed and in-
vestigators were dispatched, but to little effect, because the
two aims of the Catholic expeditions, conversion and plunder,
were contradictory. Most churchmen reconciled themselves to
saving the gold and damning the souls. The Catholic Emperor
increasingly depended on the plundered wealth to pay for the
imperial household, army, and for the fleets that carried the
plunder.
Plunder continued to take precedence over conversion,
but the Catholics continued to be embarrassed. Their ideol-
ogy was not altogether suited to their practice. The Catholics
made much of their conquests of Aztecs and Incas, whom they
described as empires with institutions similar to those of the
Hapsburg Empire and the religious practices as demonic as
those of the official enemy, the heathen empire of the Ottoman
Turks. But the Catholics did not make much of the wars of
extermination against communities that had neither emperors
nor standing armies. Such feats, although perpetrated regular-
ly, conflicted with the ideology and were less than heroic.
The contradiction between the invaders’ professions and
their acts was not resolved by the imperial Catholics. It was
resolved by harbingers of a new social form, the nation-state.
Two harbingers appeared during the same year, 1561, when
one of the Emperor’s overseas adventurers proclaimed his in-
dependence from the empire, and several of the Emperor’s
bankers and provisioners launched a war of independence.
The overseas adventurer, Lope de Aguirre, failed to mobi-
lize support and was executed.
The Emperor’s bankers and provisioners mobilized the
inhabitants of several imperial provinces and succeeded in
severing the provinces from the empire (provinces which
were later called Holland).
These two events were not yet struggles of national lib-
eration. They were harbingers of things to come. They were
also reminders of things past. In the bygone Roman Empire,
123
Anything Can Happen
Praetorian guards had been engaged to protect the Emperor;

the guards had assumed ever more of the Emperor’s functions
and had eventually wielded the imperial power instead of the
Emperor. In the Arabic Islamic Empire, the Caliph had en-
gaged Turkish bodyguards to protect his person; the Turkish
guards, like the earlier Praetorians, had assumed ever more
of the Caliph’s functions and had eventually taken over the
imperial palace as well as the imperial office.
Lope de Aguirre and the Dutch grandees were not the
Hapsburg monarch’s bodyguards, but the Andean colonial
adventurer and the Dutch commercial and financial houses
did wield important imperial functions. These rebels, like the
earlier Roman and Turkish guards, wanted to free themselves
of the spiritual indignity and material burden of serving the
Emperor; they already wielded the Emperor’s powers; the
Emperor was nothing more to them than a parasite.
Colonial adventurer Aguirre was apparently inept as a
rebel; his time had not yet come.
The Dutch grandees were not inept, and their time had
come. They did not overthrow the empire; they rationalized
it. The Dutch commercial and financial houses already pos-
sessed much of the New World’s wealth; they had received
it as payment for provisioning the Emperor’s fleets, armies
and household. They now set out to plunder colonies in their
own name and for their own benefit, unshackled by a parasit-
ic overlord. And since they were not Catholics but Calvinist
Protestants, they were not embarrassed by any contradiction
between professions and acts. They made no profession of
saving souls. Their Calvinism told them that an inscrutable
God had saved or damned all souls at the beginning of Time
and no Dutch priest could alter God’s plan.
The Dutch were not crusaders; they confined themselves
to unheroic, humorless, and businesslike plunder, calculated
and regularized; the plundering fleets departed and returned
on schedule. The fact that the plundered aliens were unbe-
lievers became less important than the fact that they were not
Dutchmen.
124
West Eurasian forerunners of nationalism coined the term

savages. This term was a synonym for the east Eurasian Ce-
lestial Empire’s term barbarians. Both terms designated hu-
man beings as legitimate prey.
***
During the following two centuries, the invasions, subjuga-

tions and expropriations initiated by the Hapsburgs were imi-
tated by other European royal houses.
Seen through the lenses of nationalist historians, the ini-
tial colonizers as well as their later imitators look like nations:
Spain, Holland, England, France. But seen from a vantage
point in the past, the colonizing powers are Hapsburgs, Tu-
dors, Stuarts, Bourbons, Oranges — namely dynasties iden-
tical to the dynastic families that had been feuding for wealth
and power ever since the fall of the western Roman empire.
The invaders can be seen from both vantage points because a
transition was taking place. The entities were no longer mere
feudal estates, but they were not yet full-fledged nations; they
already possessed some, but not yet all, the attributes of a na-
tion-state. The most notable missing element was the national
army. Tudors and Bourbons already manipulated the English-
ness or Frenchness of their subjects, especially during wars
against another monarch’s subjects. But neither Scots and
Irishmen, nor Corsicans and Provencals, were recruited to
fight and die for “the love of their country.” War was an oner-
ous feudal burden, a corvée; the only patriots were patriots of
Eldorado.
The tenets of what was going to become the nationalist
creed did not appeal to the ruling dynasts, who clung to their
own tried and tested tenets. The new tenets appealed to the
dynast’s higher servants, his money-lenders, spice-vendors,
military suppliers and colony-plunderers. These people, like
Lope de Aguirre and the Dutch grandees, like earlier Ro-
man and Turkish guards, wielded key functions yet remained
servants. Many if not most of them burned to shake off the
125
Anything Can Happen
indignity and the burden, to rid themselves of the parasitic

overlord, to carry on the exploitation of countrymen and the
plunder of colonials in their own name and for their own ben-
efit.
Later known as the bourgeoisie or the middle class, these
people had become rich and powerful since the days of the
first westward-bound fleets. A portion of their wealth had
come from the plundered colonies, as payment for the services
they had sold to the Emperor; this sum of wealth would later
be called a primitive accumulation of capital. Another por-
tion of their wealth had come from the plunder of their own
local countrymen and neighbors by a method later known as
capitalism; the method was not altogether new, but it became
very widespread after the middle classes got their hands on
the New World’s silver and gold.
These middle classes wielded important powers, but they
were not yet experienced in wielding the central political
power. In England they overthrew a monarch and proclaimed
a commonwealth but, fearing that the popular energies they
had mobilized against the upper class could turn against the
middle class, they soon restored another monarch of the same
dynastic house.
Nationalism did not really come into its own until the late
1700s when two explosions, thirteen years apart, reversed the
relative standing of the two upper classes and permanently
changed the political geography of the globe. In 1776, colo-
nial merchants and adventurers reenacted Aguirre’s feat of
proclaiming their independence from the ruling overseas dy-
nast, outdid their predecessor by mobilizing their fellow-set-
tlers, and succeeded in severing themselves from the Hanove-
rian British Empire. And in 1789, enlightened merchants and
scribes outdid their Dutch forerunners by mobilizing, not a
few outlying provinces, but the entire subject population, by
overthrowing and slaying the ruling Bourbon monarch, and
by remaking all feudal bonds into national bonds. These two
events marked the end of an era. Henceforth even the surviv-
ing dynasts hastily or gradually became nationalists, and the
126
remaining royal estates took on ever more of the attributes of

nation-states.
***
The two eighteenth century revolutions were very different,

and they contributed different and even conflicting elements
to the creed and practice of nationalism. I do not intend to an-
alyze these events here, but only to remind the reader of some
of the elements.
Both rebellions successfully broke the bonds of fealty to
a monarchic house, and both ended with the establishment of
capitalist nation-states, but between the first act and the last
they had little in common. The main animators of both revolts
were familiar with the rationalistic doctrines of the Enlight-
enment, but the self-styled Americans confined themselves to
political problems, largely to the problem of establishing a
state machinery that could take up where King George left
off. Many of the French went much further; they posed the
problem of restructuring not only the state but all of society;
they challenged not only the bond of subject to monarch, but
also the bond of slave to master, a bond that remained sacred
to the Americans. Both groups were undoubtedly familiar
with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s observation that human beings
were born free, yet everywhere were bound in chains, but the
French understood the chains more profoundly and made a
greater effort to break them.
As influenced by rationalistic doctrines as Rousseau him-
self had been, French revolutionaries tried to apply social rea-
son to the human environment in the same way that natural
reason, or science, was starting to be applied to the natural en-
vironment. Rousseau had worked at his desk; he had tried to
establish social justice on paper, by entrusting human affairs
to an entity that embodied the general will. The revolution-
aries agitated to establish social justice not only on paper, but
in the midst of mobilized and armed human beings, many of
them enraged, most of them poor.
127
Anything Can Happen
Rousseau’s abstract entity took the concrete form of a

Committee of Public Safety (or Public Health), a police orga-
nization that considered itself the embodiment of the general
will. The virtuous committee members conscientiously ap-
plied the findings of reason to human affairs. They considered
themselves the nation’s surgeons. They carved their personal
obsessions into society by means of the state’s razor blade.
The application of science to the environment took the
form of systematic terror. The instrument of Reason and Jus-
tice was the guillotine.
The Terror decapitated the former rulers and then turned
on the revolutionaries.
Fear stimulated a reaction that swept away the Terror as
well as the Justice. The mobilized energy of bloodthirsty pa-
triots was sent abroad, to impose enlightenment on foreigners
by force, to expand the nation into an empire. The provision-
ing of national armies was far more lucrative than the provi-
sioning of feudal armies ever had been, and former revolu-
tionaries became rich and powerful members of the middle
class, which was now the top class, the ruling class. The terror
as well as the wars bequeathed a fateful legacy to the creed
and practice of later nationalisms.
The legacy of the American revolution was of an alto-
gether different kind. The Americans were less concerned
with justice, more concerned with property.
The settler-invaders on the northern continent’s eastern
shore needed George of Hanover no more urgently then Lope
de Aguirre had needed Philip of Hapsburg. Or rather, the rich
and powerful among the settlers needed King George’s ap-
paratus to protect their wealth, but not to gin it. If they could
organize a repressive apparatus on their own, they would not
need King George at all.
Confident of their ability to launch an apparatus of their
own, the colonial slave-holders, land-speculators, produce-ex-
porters and bankers found the King’s taxes and acts intolera-
ble. The most intolerable of the King’s acts was the act that
temporarily banned unauthorized incursions into the lands of
128
the continent’s original inhabitants; the King’s advisers had

their eyes on the animal furs supplied by indigenous hunters;
the revolutionary land-speculators had theirs on the hunters’
lands.
Unlike Aguirre, the federated colonizers of the north suc-
ceeded in establishing their own independent repressive appa-
ratus, and they did this by stirring up a minimum of cravings
for justice; their aim was to overthrow the King’s power, not
their own. Rather than rely excessively on their less fortu-
nate fellow-settlers or backwoods squatters, not to speak of
their slaves, these revolutionaries relied on mercenaries and
on indispensable aid from the Bourbon monarch who would
be overthrown a few years later by more virtuous revolution-
aries.
The North American colonizers broke the traditional
bonds of fealty and feudal obligation but, unlike the French,
they only gradually replaced the traditional bonds with bonds
of patriotism and nationhood. They were not quite a nation;
their reluctant mobilization of the colonial countryside had
not fused them into one, and the multi-lingual, multi-cultural
and socially divided underlying population resisted such a fu-
sion. The new repressive apparatus was not tried and tested,
and it did not command the undivided loyalty of the underly-
ing population, which was not yet patriotic. Something else
was needed. Slave-masters who had overthrown their king
feared that their slaves could similarly overthrow the masters;
the insurrection in Haiti made this fear less than hypotheti-
cal. And although they no longer feared being pushed into the
sea by the continent’s indigenous inhabitants, the traders and
speculators worried about their ability to thrust further into
the continent’s interior.
The American settler-invaders had recourse to an instru-
ment that was not, like the guillotine, a new invention, but
that was just as lethal. This instrument would later be called
Racism, and it would become embedded in nationalist prac-
tice. Racism, like later products of practical Americans, was a
pragmatic principle; its content was not important; what mat-
129
Anything Can Happen
tered was the fact that it worked.

Human beings were mobilized in terms of their lowest
and most superficial common denominator, and they respond-
ed. People who had abandoned their villages and families,
who were forgetting their languages and losing their cultures,
who were all but depleted of their sociability, were manipu-
lated into considering their skin color a substitute for all they
had lost. They were made proud of something that was neither
a personal feat nor even, like language, a personal acquisition.
They were fused into a nation of white men. (White women
and children existed only as scalped victims, as proofs of the
bestiality of the hunted prey.) The extent of the depletion is re-
vealed by the nonentities the white men shared with each oth-
er: white blood, white thoughts, and membership in a white
race. Debtors, squatters and servants, as white men, had ev-
erything in common with bankers, land speculators and plan-
tation owners, nothing in common with Redskins, Blackskins
or Yellowskins. Fused by such a principle, they could also be
mobilized by it, turned into white mobs; lynch mobs, “Indian
fighters.”
Racism had initially been one among several methods
of mobilizing colonial armies, and although it was exploit-
ed more fully in America than it ever had been before, it did
not supplant the other methods but rather supplemented them.
The victims of the invading pioneers were still described
as unbelievers, as heathen. But the pioneers, like the earlier
Dutch, were largely Protestant Christians, and they regarded
heathenism as something to be punished, not remedied. The
victims also continued to be designated as savages, cannibals
and primitives, but these terms, too, ceased to be diagnoses
of conditions that could be remedied, and tended to become
synonyms of non-white, a condition that could not be reme-
died. Racism was an ideology perfectly suited to a practice of
enslavement and extermination.
The lynch-mob approach, the ganging-up on victims
defined as inferior, appealed to bullies whose humanity was
stunted and who lacked any notion of fair play. But this ap-
130
proach did not appeal to everyone. American businessmen,

part hustlers and part confidence men, always had something
for everyone. For the numerous Saint Georges with some
notion of honor and great thirst for heroism, the enemy was
depicted somewhat differently; for them there were nations
as rich and powerful as their own in the trans-montane wood-
lands and on the shores of the Great Lakes.
The celebrants of the heroic feats of imperial Spaniards
had found empires in central Mexico and on top of the Andes.
The celebrants of nationalist American heroes found nations;
they transformed desperate resistances of an-archic villagers
into international conspiracies masterminded by military ar-
chons such as General Pontiac and General Tecumseh; they
peopled the woodlands with formidable national leaders,
efficient general staffs, and armies of uncountable patriotic
troops; they projected their own repressive structures into the
unknown; they saw an exact copy of themselves, with all the
colors reversed — something like a photographic negative.
The enemy thus became an equal in terms of structure, power
and aims. War against such an enemy was not only fair play;
it was a dire necessity, a matter of life and death. The enemy’s
other attributes — the heathenism, the savagery, the cannibal-
ism — made the tasks of expropriating, enslaving and exter-
minating all the more urgent, made these feats all the more
heroic.
The repertory of the nationalist program was now more
or less complete. This statement might baffle a reader who
cannot yet see any “real nations” in the field. The United
States was still a collection of multilingual, multi-religious
and multi-cultural “ethnicities,” and the French nation had
overflowed its boundaries and turned itself into a Napoleonic
empire. The reader might be trying to apply a definition of
a nation as an organized territory consisting of people who
share a common language, religion and customs, or at least
one of the three. Such a definition, clear, pat and static, is not
a description of the phenomenon but an apology for it, a justi-
fication. The phenomenon was not a static definition but a dy-
131
Anything Can Happen
namic process. The common language, religion and customs,

like the white blood of the American colonizers, were mere
pretexts, instruments for mobilizing armies. The culmination
of the process was not an enshrinement of the commonalities,
but a depletion, a total loss of language, religion and customs;
the inhabitants of a nation spoke the language of capital, wor-
shipped on the altar of the state and confined their customs to
those permitted by the national police.
***
Nationalism is the opposite of imperialism only in the realm

of definitions. In practice, nationalism was a methodology for
conducting the empire of capital.
The continual increase of capital, often referred to as ma-
terial progress, economic development or industrialization,
was the main activity of the middle classes, the so-called
bourgeoisie, because capital was what they owned, it was
their property; the upper classes owned estates.
The discovery of new worlds of wealth had enormously
enriched these middle classes, but had also made them vul-
nerable. The kings and nobles who initially gathered the new
world’s plundered wealth resented losing all but a few trophies
to their middle class merchants. This could not be helped. The
wealth did not arrive in usable forms; the merchants sup-
plied the king with things he could use, in exchange for the
plundered treasures. Even so, monarchs who saw themselves
grow poor while their merchants grew rich were not above
using their armed retainers to plunder the wealthy merchants.
Consequently the middle classes suffered continual injuries
under the old regime — injuries to their property. The king’s
army and police were not reliable protectors of middle class
property, and the powerful merchants, who already operated
the business of the empire, took measures to put an end to the
instability; they took the politics in hand as well. They could
have hired private armies, and they often did. But as soon as
instruments for mobilizing national armies and national police
132
forces appeared on the horizon, the injured businessmen had

recourse to them. The main virtue of a national armed force
is that it guarantees that a patriotic servant will war alongside
his own boss against an enemy boss’s servant.
The stability assured by a national repressive apparatus
gave the owners something like a hothouse in which their cap-
ital could grow, increase, multiply. The term ‘grow’ and its
corollaries come from the capitalists’ own vocabulary. These
people think of a unit of capital as a grain or seed which they
invest in fertile soil. In spring they see a plant grow from each
seed. In summer they harvest so many seeds from each plant
that, after paying for the soil, sunshine and rain, they still have
more seeds than they had initially. The following year they
enlarge their field, and gradually the whole countryside be-
comes improved. In reality, the initial ‘grains’ are money; the
sunshine and rain are the expended energies of laborers; the
plants are factories, workshops and mines, the harvested fruits
are commodities, bits of processed world; and the excess or
additional grains, the profits, are emoluments which the capi-
talist keeps for himself instead of dividing them up among the
workers.
The process as a whole consisted of the processing of nat-
ural substances into saleable items or commodities, and of the
incarceration of wage workers in the processing plants.
The marriage of Capital with Science was responsible for
the great leap forward into what we live in today. Pure scien-
tists discovered the components into which the natural envi-
ronment could be decomposed; investors placed their bets on
the various methods of decomposition; applied scientists or
managers saw to it that the wage workers in their charge car-
ried the project through. Social scientists sought ways to make
the workers less human, more efficient and machine-like.
Thanks to science, capitalists were able to transform much
of the natural environment into a processed world, an artifice,
and to reduce most human beings into efficient tenders of the
artifice.
The process of capitalist production was analyzed and
133
Anything Can Happen
criticized by many philosophers and poets, most notably by

Karl Marx,1 whose critiques animated, and continue to ani-
mate, militant social movements. Marx had a significant blind
spot; most of his disciples, and many militants who were not
his disciples, built their platforms on that blind spot. Marx
was an enthusiastic supporter of the bourgeoisie’s struggle for
liberation from feudal bonds — who was not an enthusiast in
those days? He, who observed that the ruling ideas of an epoch
were the ideas of the ruling class, shared many of the ideas of
the newly empowered middle class. He was an enthusiast of
the Enlightenment, of rationalism, of material progress. It was
Marx who insightfully pointed out that every time a worker
reproduced his labor power, every minute he devoted to his
assigned task, he enlarged the material and social apparatus
that dehumanized him. Yet the same Marx was an enthusiast
for the application of science to production.
Marx made a thorough analysis of the production process
as an exploitation of labor, but he made only cursory and re-
luctant comments about the prerequisite for capitalist produc-
tion, and the initial capital that made the process possible.2
Without the initial capital, there could have been no invest-
ments, no production, no great leap forward. This prerequi-
site was analyzed by the early Soviet Russian marxist Preo-
brazhensky, who borrowed several insights from the Polish
marxist Rosa Luxemburg to formulate his theory of primitive
accumulation.3 By primitive, Preobrazhensky meant the base-
ment of the capitalist edifice, the foundation, the prerequisite.
This prerequisite cannot emerge from the capitalist produc-
tion process itself, if that process is not yet under way. It must,
and does, come from outside the production process. It comes
from the plundered colonies. It comes from the expropriated
and exterminated populations of the colonies. In earlier days,
when there were no overseas colonies, the first capital, the
prerequisite for capitalist production, had been squeezed out
of internal colonies, out of plundered peasants whose lands
were enclosed and crops requisitioned, out of expelled Jews
and Muslims whose possessions were expropriated.
134
The primitive or preliminary accumulation of capital is

not something that happened once, in the distant past, and
never after. It is something that continues to accompany the
capitalist production process, and is an integral part of it. The
process described by Marx is responsible, for the regular and
expected profits; the process described by Preobrazhensky is
responsible for the takeoffs, the windfalls and the great leaps
forward. The regular profits are periodically destroyed by cri-
ses endemic to the system; new injections of preliminary cap-
ital are the only known cure to the crises. Without an ongo-
ing primitive accumulation of capital, the production process
would stop; each crisis would tend to become permanent.
Genocide, the rationally calculated extermination of hu-
man populations designated as legitimate prey, has not been
an aberration in an otherwise peaceful march of progress.
Genocide has been a prerequisite of that progress. This is why
national armed forces were indispensable to the wielders of
capital. These forces did not only protect the owners of capital
from the insurrectionary wrath of their own exploited wage
workers. These forces also captured the holy grail, the mag-
ic lantern, the preliminary capital, by battering the gates of
resisting or unresisting outsiders, by looting, deporting and
murdering.
The footprints of the national armies are the traces of the
march of progress. These patriotic armies were, and still are,
the seventh wonder of the world. In them, the wolf lay along-
side the lamb, the spider alongside the fly. In them, exploited
workers were the chums of exploiters, indebted peasants the
chums of creditors, suckers the chums of hustlers in a com-
panionship stimulated not by love but by hatred — hatred of
potential sources of preliminary capital designated as unbe-
lievers, savages, inferior races.
Human communities as variegated in their ways and be-
liefs as birds are in feathers were invaded, despoiled and at
last exterminated beyond imagination’s grasp. The clothes
and artifacts of the vanished communities were gathered up
as trophies and displayed in museums as additional traces of
135
Anything Can Happen
the march of progress; the extinct beliefs and ways became

the curiosities of yet another of the invaders’ many sciences.
The expropriated fields, forests and animals were garnered as
bonanzas, as preliminary capital, as the precondition for the
production process that was to turn the fields into farms, the
trees into lumber, the animals into hats, the minerals into mu-
nitions, the human survivors into cheap labor. Genocide was,
and still is, the precondition, the cornerstone and ground work
of the military-industrial complexes, of the processed envi-
ronments, of the worlds of offices and parking lots.
***
Nationalism was so perfectly suited to its double task, the do-

mestication of workers and the despoliation of aliens, that it
appealed to everyone — everyone, that is, who wielded or
aspired to wield a portion of capital.
During the nineteenth century, especially during its sec-
ond half, every owner of investable capital discovered that he
had roots among the mobilizable countryfolk who spoke his
mother’s tongue and worshipped his father’s gods. The fervor
of such a nationalist was transparently cynical, since he was
the countryman who no longer had roots among his mother’s
or father’s kin: he found his salvation in his savings, prayed
to his investments and spoke the language of cost account-
ing. But he had learned, from Americans and Frenchmen,
that although he could not mobilize the countryfolk as loyal
servants, clients and customers, he could mobilize them as
loyal fellow-Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants. Languages,
religions and customs became welding materials for the con-
struction of nation-states.
The welding materials were means, not ends. The purpose
of the national entities was not to develop languages, religions
or customs, but to develop national economies, to turn the
countryfolk into workers and soldiers, to turn the motherland
into mines and factories, to turn dynastic estates into capitalist
enterprises. Without the capital, there could be no munitions
136
or supplies, no national army, no nation.

Savings and investments, market research and cost ac-
counting, the obsessions of the rationalistic former middle
classes, became the ruling obsessions. These rationalistic ob-
sessions became not only sovereign but also exclusive. Indi-
viduals who enacted other obsessions, irrational ones, were
put away in madhouses, asylums.
The nations usually were but need no longer have been
monotheistic; the former god or gods had lost their impor-
tance except as welding materials. The nations were mono-
obsessive, and if monotheism served the ruling obsession,
then it too was mobilized.
World War I marked the end of one phase of the nation-
alizing process, the phase that had begun with the American
and French revolutions, the phase that had been announced
much earlier by the declaration of Aguirre and the revolt of
the Dutch grandees. The conflicting claims of old and newly-
constituted nations were in fact the causes of that war. Ger-
many, Italy and Japan, as well as Greece, Serbia and colonial
Latin America, had already taken on most of the attributes of
their nationalistic predecessors, had become national empires,
monarchies and republics, and the more powerful of the new
arrivals aspired to take on the main missing attribute, the colo-
nial empire. During that war, all the mobilizable components
of the two remaining dynastic empires, the Ottoman and the
Hapsburg, constituted themselves into nations. When bour-
geoisies with different languages and religions, such as Turks
and Armenians, claimed the same territory, the weaker were
treated like so-called American Indians; they were extermi-
nated. National Sovereignty and Genocide were — and still
are — corollaries.
Common language and religion appear to be corollaries
of nationhood, but only because of an optical illusion. As
welding materials, languages and religions were used when
they served their purpose, discarded when they did not. Nei-
ther multi-lingual Switzerland nor multi-religious Yugoslavia
were banned from the family of nations. The shapes of noses
137
Anything Can Happen
and the color of hair could also have been used to mobilize
patriots — and later were. The shared heritages, roots and
commonalities had to satisfy only one criterion, the criterion
of American-style pragmatic reason: did they work? What-
ever worked was used. The shared traits were important, not
because of their cultural, historical or philosophical content,
but because they were useful for organizing a police to protect
the national property and for mobilizing an army to plunder
the colonies.
Once a nation was constituted, human beings who lived
on the national territory but did not possess the national traits
could be transformed into internal colonies, namely into
sources of preliminary capital. Without preliminary capital, no
nation could become a great nation, and nations that aspired to
greatness but lacked adequate overseas colonies could resort
to plundering, exterminating and expropriating those of their
countrymen who did not possess the national traits.
***
The establishment of nation-states was greeted with euphoric

enthusiasm by poets as well as peasants who thought their
muses or their gods had at last descended to earth. The main
wet blankets amidst the waving banners and flying confetti
were the former rulers, the colonized, and the disciples of
Karl Marx.
The overthrown and the colonized were unenthusiastic
for obvious reasons.
The disciples of Marx were unenthusiastic because they
had learned from the master that national liberation meant na-
tional exploitation, that the national government was the exec-
utive committee of the national capitalist class, that the nation
had nothing for workingmen but chains. These strategists for
the workingmen, who were not themselves workingmen but
were as bourgeois as the ruling capitalists, proclaimed that the
workingmen had no country and organized themselves into an
International. This International split into three, and each In-
138
ternational moved increasingly into the field of Marx’s blind

spot.
The First International was carried off by Marx’s one-time
Russian translator and then antagonist Bakunin, an inveterate
rebel who had been a fervent nationalist until he’d learned
about exploitation from Marx. Bakunin and his companions,
rebels against all authorities, also rebelled against the author-
ity of Marx; they suspected Marx of trying to turn the Inter-
national into a state as repressive as the feudal and national
combined. Bakunin and his followers were unambiguous in
their rejection of all states, but they were ambiguous about
capitalist enterprise. Even more than Marx, they glorified sci-
ence, celebrated material progress and hailed industrializa-
tion. Being rebels, they considered every fight a good fight,
but the best of all was the fight against the bourgeoisie’s for-
mer enemies, the fight against feudal landlords and the Cath-
olic Church. Thus the Bakuninist International flourished in
places like Spain, where the bourgeoisie had not completed its
struggle for independence but had, instead, allied itself with
feudal barons and the Church for protection from insurgent
workers and peasants. The Bakuninists fought to complete
the bourgeois revolution without and against the bourgeoisie.
They called themselves anarchists and disdained all states, but
did not begin to explain how they would procure the prelimi-
nary or the subsequent industry, progress and science, namely
the capital, without an army and a police. They were never
given a real chance to resolve their contradiction in practice,
and present day Bakuninists have still not resolved it, have
not even become aware that there is a contradiction between
anarchy and industry.
The Second International, less rebellious than the first,
quickly came to terms with capital as well as the state. Solidly
entrenched in Marx’s blind spot, the professors of this organi-
zation did not become enmeshed in any Bakuninist contradic-
tion. It was obvious to them that the exploitation and the plun-
der were necessary conditions for the material progress, and
they realistically reconciled themselves to what could not be
139
Anything Can Happen
helped. All they asked for was a greater share of the benefits
for the workingmen, and offices in the political establishment
for themselves, as the workingmen’s representatives. Like the
good unionists who preceded and followed them, the social-
ist professors were embarrassed by “the colonial question,”
but their embarrassment, like Philip Hapsburg’s, merely gave
them bad consciences. In time, imperial German socialists,
royal Danish socialists and republican French socialists even
ceased to be internationalists.
The Third International did not only come to terms with
capital and the state; it made them its goal. This internation-
al was not formed by rebellious or dissenting intellectuals; it
was created by a state, the Russian state, after the Bolshevik
Party installed itself in that state’s offices. The main activity
of this international was to advertise the feats of the revamped
Russian state, of its ruling party, and of the party’s founder,
a man who called himself Lenin. The feats of that party and
founder were indeed momentous, but the advertisers did their
best to hide what was most momentous about them.
***
The First World War had left two vast empires in a quandary.
The Celestial Empire of China, the oldest continuous state in
the world, and the Empire of the Tsars, a much more recent
operation, hovered shakily between the prospect of turning
themselves into nation-states and the prospect of decompos-
ing into smaller units, like their Ottoman and Hapsburg coun-
terparts had done.
Lenin resolved this quandary for Russia. Is such a thing
possible? Marx had observed that a single individual could not
change circumstances; he could only avail himself of them.
Marx was probably right. Lenin’s feat was not to change cir-
cumstances, but to avail himself of them in an extraordinary
manner. The feat was monumental in its opportunism.
Lenin was a Russian bourgeois who cursed the weakness
and ineptitude of the Russian bourgeoisie.4 An enthusiast for
140
capitalist development, an ardent admirer of American-style

progress, he did not make common cause with those he
cursed, but rather with their enemies, with the anti-capitalist
disciples of Marx. He availed himself of Marx’s blind spot to
transform Marx’s critique of the capitalist production process
into a manual for developing capital, a “how-to-do-it” guide.
Marx’s studies of exploitation and immiseration became food
for the famished, a cornucopia, a virtual horn of plenty. Amer-
ican businessmen had already marketed urine as spring water,
but no American confidence man had yet managed an inver-
sion of such magnitude.
No circumstances were changed. Every step of the inver-
sion was carried out with available circumstances, with tried
and tested methods. Russian countryfolk could not be mobi-
lized in terms of their Russianness or orthodoxy or whiteness,
but they could be, and were, mobilized in terms of their ex-
ploitation, their oppression, their ages of suffering under the
despotism of the Tsars. Oppression and exploitation became
welding materials. The long sufferings under the Tsars were
used in the same way and for the same purpose as the scalp-
ings of white women and children had been used by Ameri-
cans; they were used to organize people into fighting units,
into embryos of the national army and the national police.
The presentation of the dictator and of the Party’s central
committee as a dictatorship of the liberated proletariat seemed
to be something new, but even this was new only in the words
that were used. This was something as old as the Pharaohs
and Lugals of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, who had been
chosen by the god to lead the people, who had embodied the
people in their dialogues with the god. This was a tried and
tested gimmick of rulers. Even if the ancient precedents were
temporarily forgotten, a more recent precedent had been pro-
vided by the French Committee of Public Health, which had
presented itself as the embodiment of the nation’s general
will.
The goal, communism, the overthrow and supersession
of capitalism, also seemed something new, seemed to be a
141
Anything Can Happen
change of circumstances. But only the word was new. The

goal of the Dictator of the Proletariat was still American-style
progress, capitalist development, electrification, rapid mass
transportation, science, the processing of the natural environ-
ment. The goal was the capitalism that the weak and inept
Russian bourgeoisie had failed to develop. With Marx’s Cap-
ital as their light and guide, the dictator and his Party would
develop capitalism in Russia; they would serve as a substitute
bourgeoisie, and they would use the power of the state not
only to police the process, but to launch and manage it as well.
Lenin did not live long enough to demonstrate his virtu-
osity as general manager of Russian capital, but his successor
Stalin amply demonstrated the powers of the founder’s ma-
chine. The first step was the primitive accumulation of capital.
If Marx had not been very clear about this, Preobrazhensky
had been very clear. Preobrazhensky was jailed, but his de-
scription of the tried and tested methods of procuring prelim-
inary capital was applied to vast Russia. The preliminary cap-
ital of English, American, Belgian and other capitalists had
come from plundered overseas colonies. Russia had no over-
seas colonies. This lack was no obstacle. The entire Russian
countryside was transformed into a colony.
The first sources of preliminary capital were Kulaks,
peasants who had something worth plundering. This drive
was so successful that it was applied to the remaining peas-
ants as well, with the rational expectation that small amounts
plundered from many people would yield a substantial hoard.
The peasants were not the only colonials. The former rul-
ing class had already been thoroughly expropriated of all its
wealth and property, but yet other sources of preliminary cap-
ital were found. With the totality of state power concentrated
in their hands, the dictators soon discovered that they could
manufacture sources of primitive accumulation. Successful
entrepreneurs, dissatisfied workers and peasants, militants of
competing organizations, even disillusioned Party Members,
could be designated as counterrevolutionaries, rounded up,
expropriated and shipped off to labor camps. All the deporta-
142
tions, mass executions and expropriations of earlier coloniz-

ers were re-enacted in Russia.
Earlier colonizers, being pioneers, had resorted to tri-
al and error. The Russian dictators did not have to resort to
trial and error. By their time, all the methods of procuring
preliminary capital had been tried and tested, and could be
scientifically applied. Russian capital developed in a totally
controlled environment, a hothouse; every lever, every vari-
able, was controlled by the national police. Functions which
had been left to chance or to other bodies in less controlled
environments fell to the police in the Russian hothouse. The
fact that the colonials were not abroad but within, and there-
fore subject not to conquest but to arrest, further increased the
role and size of the police. In time the omnipotent and omni-
present police became the visible emanation and embodiment
of the proletariat, and communism became a synonym of total
police organization and control.
***
Lenin’s expectations were not, however, fully realized by the

Russian hothouse. The police-as-capitalist worked wonders in
procuring preliminary capital from expropriated counterrevo-
lutionaries, but did not do nearly as well in managing the cap-
italist production process. It may still be too early to tell for
sure, but to date this police bureaucracy had been at least as
inept in this role as the bourgeoisie Lenin had cursed; its abil-
ity to discover ever new sources of preliminary capital seems
to be all that has kept it afloat.
Nor has the appeal of this apparatus been on a level with
Lenin’s expectations. The Leninist police apparatus has not
appealed to businessmen or to established politicians; it has
not recommended itself as a superior method of managing the
production process. It has appealed to a somewhat different
social class, a class I will briefly try to describe, and it has rec-
ommended itself to this class primarily as a method of seizing
national power and secondarily as a method of primitive ac-
143
Anything Can Happen
cumulation of capital.
The heirs of Lenin and Stalin have not been actual Praeto-
rian guards, actual wielders of economic and political power
in the name and for the benefit of a superfluous monarch; they
have been understudy Praetorians, students of economic and
political power who despaired of ever reaching even interme-
diate levels of power. The Leninist model has offered such
people the prospect of leaping over the intermediate levels
directly into the central palace.
The heirs of Lenin were clerks and minor officials, peo-
ple like Mussolini, Mao Zedong and Hitler, people who, like
Lenin himself, cursed their weak and inept bourgeoisies for
having failed to establish their nation’s greatness.
(I do not include the Zionists among the heirs of Lenin be-
cause they belong to an earlier generation. They were Lenin’s
contemporaries who had, perhaps independently, discovered
the power of persecution and suffering as welding materials
for the mobilization of a national army and police. The Zion-
ists made other contributions of their own. Their treatment of
a dispersed religious population as a nation, their imposition
of the capitalist nation-state as that population’s end-all and
be-all, and their reduction of a religious heritage to a racial
heritage, contributed significant elements to the nationalist
methodology, and would have fateful consequences when
they were applied on a population of Jews, not all of them Zi-
onists, by a population welded together as a “German race.”)
Mussolini, Mao Zedong and Hitler cut through the curtain of
slogans and saw Lenin’s and Stalin’s feats for what they were:
successful methods of seizing and maintaining state power.
All three trimmed the methodology down to its essentials. The
first step was to join up with likeminded students of power
and to form the nucleus of the police organization, an outfit
called, after Lenin’s, the Party. The next step was to recruit
the mass base, the available troops and troop suppliers. The
third step was to seize the apparatus of the state, to install the
theoretician in the office of Duce, Chairman or Fuehrer, to
apportion police and managerial functions among the elite or
144
cadre, and to put the mass base to work. The fourth step was
to secure the preliminary capital needed to repair or launch a
military-industrial complex capable of supporting the national
leader and cadre, the police and army, the industrial manag-
ers; without this capital there could be no weapons, no power,
no nation.
The heirs of Lenin and Stalin further trimmed the method-
ology, in their recruiting drives, by minimizing capitalist ex-
ploitation and by concentrating on national oppression. Talk
of exploitation no longer served a purpose, and had in fact
become embarrassing, since it was obvious to all, especially
to wage workers, that successful revolutionaries had not put
an end to wage labor, but had extended its domain.
Being as pragmatic as American businessmen, the new
revolutionaries did not speak of liberation from wage labor,
but of national liberation.5 This type of liberation was not a
dream of romantic utopians; it was precisely what was possi-
ble, and all that was possible, in the existing world, one need-
ed only to avail oneself of already existing circumstances to
make it happen. National liberation consisted of the libera-
tion of the national chairman and the national police from the
chains of powerlessness; the investiture of the chairman and
the establishment of the police were not pipe dreams but com-
ponents of a tried and tested strategy, a science.
Fascist and National Socialist Parties were the first to
prove that the strategy worked, that the Bolshevik Party’s feat
could actually be repeated. The national chairmen and their
staffs installed themselves in power and set out to procure the
preliminary capital needed for national greatness. The Fas-
cists thrust themselves into one of the last uninvaded regions
of Africa and gouged it as earlier industrializers had gouged
their colonial empires. The National Socialists targeted Jews,
an inner population that had been members of a “unified Ger-
many” as long as other Germans, as their first source of prim-
itive accumulation because many of the Jews, like many of
Stalin’s Kulaks, had things worth plundering.
Zionists had already preceded the National Socialists in
145
Anything Can Happen
reducing a religion to a race, and National Socialists could

look back to American pioneers for ways to use the instru-
ment of racism. Hitler’s elite needed only to translate the cor-
pus of American racist research to equip their scientific insti-
tutes with large libraries. The National Socialists dealt with
Jews much the same way as the Americans had earlier dealt
with the indigenous population of North America, except that
the National Socialists applied a later and much more power-
ful technology to the task of deporting, expropriating and ex-
terminating human beings. But in this the later exterminators
were not innovators; they merely availed themselves of the
circumstances within their reach.
The Fascists and National Socialists were joined by Jap-
anese empire-builders who feared that the decomposing Ce-
lestial Empire would become a source of preliminary capital
for Russian or revolutionary Chinese industrializers. Forming
an Axis, the three set out to turn the world’s continents into
sources of primitive accumulation of capital. They were not
bothered by other nations until they started to encroach on
the colonies and homelands of established capitalist powers.
The reduction of already established capitalists to colonized
prey could be practiced internally, where it was always le-
gal since the nation’s rulers make its laws — and had already
been practiced internally by Leninists and Stalinists. But such
a practice would have amounted to a change of circumstances,
and it could not be carried abroad without provoking a world
war. The Axis powers overreached themselves and lost.
After the war, many reasonable people would speak of
the aims of the Axis as irrational and of Hitler as a lunatic. Yet
the same reasonable people would consider men like George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson sane and rational, even
though these men envisioned and began to enact the conquest
of a vast continent, the deportation and extermination of the
continent’s population, at a time when such a project was
much less feasible than the project of the Axis.6 It is true that
the technologies as well as the physical, chemical, biological
and social sciences applied by Washington and Jefferson were
146
quite different from those applied by the National Socialists.

But if knowledge is power, if it was rational for the earlier
pioneers to maim and kill with gunpowder in the age of horse-
drawn carriages, why was it irrational for National Socialists
to maim and kill with high explosives, gas and chemical
agents in the age of rockets, submarines and ‘freeways’?
The Nazis were, if anything, yet more scientifically-ori-
ented than the Americans. In their time, they were a synonym
for scientific efficiency to much of the world. They kept files
on everything, tabulated and cross tabulated their findings,
published their tabulations in scientific journals. Among them,
even racism was not the property of frontier rabble-rousers,
but of well-endowed institutes.
Many reasonable people seem to equate lunacy with fail-
ure. This would not be the first time. Many called Napoleon a
lunatic when he was in prison or in exile, but when Napoleon
re-emerged as the Emperor, the same people spoke of him
with respect, even reverence. Incarceration and exile are not
only regarded as remedies for lunacy, but also as its symp-
toms. Failure is foolishness.
***
Mao Zedong, the third pioneering national socialist (or na-

tional communist; the second word no longer matters, since
it is nothing but a historical relic; the expression “left-wing
fascist” would serve as well, but it conveys even less mean-
ing than the nationalist expressions) succeeded in doing for
the Celestial Empire what Lenin had done for the Empire of
the Tsars. The oldest bureaucratic apparatus in the world did
not decompose into smaller units nor into colonies of other
industrializers; it reemerged, greatly changed, as a People’s
Republic, as a beacon to “oppressed nations.”
The Chairman and his Cadre followed the footsteps of a
long line of predecessors and transformed the Celestial Em-
pire into a vast source of preliminary capital, complete with
purges, persecutions and their consequent great leaps forward.
147
Anything Can Happen
The next stage, the launching of the capitalist production

process, was carried out on the Russian model, namely by the
national police. This did not work in China any better than it
had in Russia. Apparently the entrepreneurial function was to
be entrusted to confidence men or hustlers who are able to take
other people in, and cops do not usually inspire the required
confidence. But this was less important to Maoists than it had
been to Leninists. The capitalist production process remains
important, at least as important as the regularized drives for
primitive accumulation, since without the capital there is no
power, no nation. But the Maoists make few, and ever fewer,
claims for their model as a superior method of industrializa-
tion, and in this they are more modest than the Russians and
less disappointed by the results of their industrial police.
The Maoist model offers itself to security guards and
students the world over as a tried and tested methodology of
power, as a scientific strategy of national liberation. Generally
known as Mao-Zedong-Thought,7 this science offers aspiring
chairmen and cadres the prospect of unprecedented power
over living beings, human activities and even thoughts. The
pope and priests of the Catholic Church, with all their inqui-
sitions and confessions, never had such power, not because
they would have rejected it, but because they lacked the in-
struments made available by modern science and technology.
The liberation of the nation is the last stage in the elimina-
tion of parasites. Capitalism had already earlier cleared nature
of parasites and reduced most of the rest of nature to raw ma-
terials for processing industries. Modern national socialism or
social nationalism holds out the prospect of eliminating par-
asites from human society as well. The human parasites are
usually sources of preliminary capital, but the capital is not
always ‘material’; it can also be cultural or ‘spiritual’. The
ways, myths, poetry and music of the people are liquidated
as a matter of course; some of the music and costumes of the
former “folk culture” subsequently reappear, processed and
packaged, as elements of the national spectacle, as decora-
tions for the national accumulation drives; the ways and myths
148
become raw materials for processing by one or several of the

“human sciences.” Even the useless resentment of workers to-
ward their alienated wage labor is liquidated. When the nation
is liberated, wage labor ceases to be an onerous burden and
becomes a national obligation, to be carried out with joy. The
inmates of a totally liberated nation read Orwell’s 1984 as an
anthropological study, a description of an earlier age.
It is no longer possible to satirize this state of affairs. Ev-
ery satire risks becoming a bible for yet another national liber-
ation front.8 Every satirist risks becoming the founder of a new
religion, a Buddha, Zarathustra, Jesus, Muhammad or Marx.
Every exposure of the ravages of the dominant system, every
critique of the system’s functioning, becomes fodder for the
horses of liberators, welding materials for builders of armies.
Mao-Zedong-Thought in its numerous versions and revisions
is a total science as well as a total theology; it is social physics
as well as cosmic metaphysics. The French Committee of Na-
tional Health claimed to embody the general will of only the
French nation. The revisions of Mao-Zedong-Thought claim
to embody the general will of all the world’s oppressed.
The constant revisions of this Thought are necessary be-
cause its initial formulations were not applicable to all, or in
fact to any, of the world’s colonized populations. None of the
world’s colonized shared the Chinese heritage of having sup-
ported a state apparatus for the past two thousand years. Few
of the world’s oppressed had possessed any of the attributes
of a nation in the recent or distant past. The Thought had to be
adapted to people whose ancestors had lived without national
chairmen, armies or police, without capitalist production pro-
cesses and therefore without the need for preliminary capital.
These revisions were accomplished by enriching the ini-
tial Thought with borrowings from Mussolini, Hitler and the
Zionist State of Israel. Mussolini’s theory of the fulfillment of
the nation in the state was a central tenet. All groups of people,
whether small or large, industrial or non-industrial, concen-
trated or dispersed, were seen as nations, not in terms of their
past, but in terms of their aura, their potentiality, a potential-
149
Anything Can Happen
ity embedded in their national liberation fronts. Hitler’s (and

the Zionists’) treatment of the nation as a racial entity was
another central tenet. The cadres were recruited from among
people depleted of their ancestors’ kinships and customs, and
consequently the liberators were not distinguishable from the
oppressors in terms of language, beliefs, customs or weapons;
the only welding material that held them to each other and to
their mass base was the welding material that had held white
servants to white bosses on the American frontier; the “ra-
cial bond” gave identities to those without identity, kinship to
those who had no kin, community to those who had lost their
community; it was the last bond of the culturally depleted.
***
The revised thought could now be applied to Africans as well

as Navahos, Apaches as well as Palestinians.9 The borrow-
ings from Mussolini, Hitler and the Zionists are judiciously
covered up, because Mussolini and Hitler failed to hold on to
their seized power, and because the successful Zionists have
turned their state into the world’s policeman against all other
national liberation fronts. Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong must
be given even more credit than they deserve.
The revised and universally applicable models work
much the same as the originals, but more smoothly; national
liberation has become an applied science; the apparatus has
been frequently tested; the numerous kinks in the originals
have by now been straightened out. All that is needed to make
the contraption run is a driver, a transmission belt, and fuel.
The driver is of course the theoretician himself, or his
closest disciple. The transmission belt is the general staff, the
organization, also called the Party or the communist party.
This communist party with a small c is exactly what it is pop-
ularly understood to be. It is the nucleus of the police organi-
zation that does the purging and that will itself be purged once
the leader becomes National Leader and needs to re-revise
the invariant Thought while adapting himself to the family of
150
nations, or at least to the family bankers, munitions suppliers

and investors. And the fuel: the oppressed nation, the suffer-
ing masses, the liberated people are and will continue to be
the fuel.
The leader and the general staff are not flown in from
abroad; they are not foreign agitators. They are integral prod-
ucts of the capitalist production process. This production pro-
cess has invariably been accompanied by racism. Racism is
not a necessary component of production, but racism (in some
form) has been a necessary component of the process of prim-
itive accumulation of capital, and it has almost always leaked
into the production process.
Industrialized nations have procured their preliminary
capital by expropriating, deporting, persecuting and segre-
gating, if not always by exterminating, people designated as
legitimate prey. Kinships were broken, environments were
destroyed, cultural orientations and ways were extirpated.
Descendants of survivors of such onslaughts are lucky if
they preserve the merest relics, the most fleeting shadows of
their ancestors’ cultures. Many of the descendants do not re-
tain even shadows; they are totally depleted; they go to work;
they further enlarge the apparatus that destroyed their ances-
tors’ culture. And in the world of work they are relegated to
the margins, to the most unpleasant and least highly paid jobs.
This makes them mad. A supermarket packer, for example,
may know more about the stocks and the ordering than the
manager, may know that racism is the only reason he is not
manager and the manager not a packer. A security guard may
know racism is the only reason he’s not chief of police. It is
among people who have lost all their roots, who dream them-
selves supermarket managers and chiefs of police, that the na-
tional liberation front takes root; this is where the leader and
general staff are formed.
Nationalism continues to appeal to the depleted because
other prospects appear bleaker. The culture of the ancestors
was destroyed; therefore, by pragmatic standard, it failed; the
only ancestors who survived were those who accommodated
151
Anything Can Happen
themselves to the invader’s system, and they survived on the

outskirts of garbage dumps. The varied utopias of poets and
dreamers and the numerous “mythologies of the proletariat”
have also failed; they have not proven themselves in practice;
they have been nothing but hot air, pipe dreams, pies in the
sky; the actual proletariat has been as racist as the bosses and
the police.
The packer and the security guard have lost contact with
the ancient culture; pipe dreams and utopias don’t interest
them, are in fact dismissed with the practical businessman’s
contempt toward poets, drifters and dreamers. Nationalism
offers them something concrete, something that’s been tried
and tested and is known to work. There’s no earthly reason
for the descendants of the persecuted to remain persecuted
when nationalism offers them the prospect of becoming per-
secutors. Near and distant relatives of victims can become a
racist nation-state; they can themselves herd other people into
concentration camps, push other people around at will, perpe-
trate genocidal war against them, procure preliminary capital
by expropriating them. And if “racial relatives” of Hitler’s
victims can do it, so can the near and distant relatives of the
victims of a Washington, Jackson, Reagan or Begin.
Every oppressed population can become a nation, a pho-
tographic negative of the oppressor nation, a place where the
former packer is the supermarket’s manager, where the former
security guard is the chief of police. By applying the correct-
ed strategy, every security guard can follow the precedent of
ancient Rome’s Praetorian guards. The security police of a
foreign mining trust can proclaim itself a republic, liberate
the people, and go on liberating them until they have nothing
left but to pray for liberation to end. Even before the seizure
of power, a gang can call itself a Front and offer heavily taxed
and constantly policed poor people something they still lack:
a tribute-gathering organization and a hit-squad, namely sup-
plementary tax farmers and police, the people’s own. In these
ways, people can be liberated of the traits of their victimized
ancestors; all the relics that still survive from pre-industrial
152
times and non-capitalist cultures can at last be permanently

extirpated.
The idea that an understanding of the genocide, that a
memory of the holocausts, can only lead people to want to
dismantle the system, is erroneous. The continuing appeal of
nationalism suggests that the opposite is truer, namely that an
understanding of genocide has led people to mobilize geno-
cidal armies, that the memory of holocausts has led people to
perpetrate holocausts. The sensitive poets who remembered
the loss, the researchers who documented it, have been like
the pure scientists who discovered the structure of the atom.
Applied scientists used the discovery to split the atom’s nu-
cleus, to produce weapons which can split every atom’s nu-
cleus; Nationalists used the poetry to split and fuse human
populations, to mobilize genocidal armies, to perpetrate new
holocausts.
The pure scientist, poets and researchers consider them-
selves innocent of the devastated countrysides and charred
bodies. Are they innocent?
It seems to me that at least one of Marx’s observations is
true: every minute devoted to the capitalist production pro-
cess, every thought contributed to the industrial system, fur-
ther enlarges a power that is inimical to nature, to culture, to
life. Applied science is not something alien; it is an integral
part of the capitalist production process. Nationalism is not
flown in from abroad. It is a product of the capitalist produc-
tion process, like the chemical agents poisoning the lakes, air,
animals and people, like the nuclear plants radioactivating mi-
cro-environments in preparation for the radioactivation of the
macro-environment.
As a postscript I’d like to answer a question before it
is asked. The question is: “Don’t you think a descendant of
oppressed people is better off as a supermarket manager or
police chief?” My answer is another question: What concen-
tration camp manager, national executioner or torturer is not a
descendant of oppressed people?
153
Anything Can Happen
1984
1. The subtitle of the first volume of Capital is A Critique of Polit-

ical Economy: The Process of Capitalist Production (published by
Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1906; republished by Random House, New
York).
2. In Ibid., pages 784–850: Part VIII: The So-Called Primitive Ac-
cumulation.
3. E. Preobrazhensky, The New Economics (Moscow, 1926; English
translation published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965), a book
which announced the fateful “law of primitive socialist accumula-
tion.”
4. See V.I. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia (Mos-
cow: Progress Publishers, 1964; first published in 1899). I quote
from page 599: “if...we compare the present rapidity of develop-
ment with that which could be achieved with the general level of
technique and culture as it is today, the present rate of development
of capitalism in Russia really must be considered as slow. And it
cannot but be slow, for in no single capitalist country has there been
such an abundant survival of ancient institutions that are incom-
patible with capitalism, retard its development, and immeasurably
worsen the condition of the producers...”
5. Or the liberation of the state: “Our myth is the nation, our myth is
the greatness of the nation”; “It is the state which creates the nation,
conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware
of their moral unity”; “Always the maximum of liberty coincides
with the maximum force of the state”; “Everything for the state;
nothing against the state; nothing outside the state.” From Che cosa
è il fascismo and La dottrina del fascismo, quoted by G.H. Sabine, A
History of Political Theory (New York, 1955), pp. 872–878.
6. “...the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause
the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beast of prey, tho’ they
differ in shape” (G. Washington in 1783). “...if ever we are con-
strained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it
down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond...” (T. Jeffer-
son in 1807). “...the cruel massacres they have committed on the
women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige
us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats
beyond our reach” (T. Jefferson in 1813). Quoted by Richard Drin-
non in Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire
154
Building (New York: New American Library, 1980), pp. 65, 96, 98.
7. Readily available in paper back as Quotations from Chairman
Mao (Peking: Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army,
1966).
8. Black & Red tried to satirize this situation over ten years ago
with the publication of a fake Manual for Revolutionary Leaders, a
“how-to-do-it guide” whose author, Michael Velli, offered to do for
the modern revolutionary prince what Machiavelli had offered the
feudal prince. This phoney “Manual” fused Mao-Zedong-Thought
with the Thought of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and their mod-
ern followers, and offered grizzly recipes for the preparation of
revolutionary organizations and the seizure of total power. Discon-
certingly, at least half of the requests for this “Manual” came from
aspiring national liberators, and it is possible that some of the cur-
rent versions of the nationalist metaphysic contain recipes offered
by Michael Velli.
9. I am not exaggerating. I have before me a book-length pamphlet
titled The Mythology of the White Proletariat: A Short Course for
Understanding Babylon by J. Sakai (Chicago: Morningstar Press,
1983). As an application of Mao-Zedong-Thought to American
history, it is the most sensitive Maoist work I’ve seen. The author
documents and describes, sometimes vividly, the oppression of
America’s enslaved Africans, the deportations and exterminations
of the American continent’s indigenous inhabitants, the racist ex-
ploitation of Chinese, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in
concentration camps. The author mobilizes all these experiences of
unmitigated terror, not to look for ways to supersede the system that
perpetrated them, but to urge the victims to reproduce the same sys-
tem among themselves. Sprinkled with pictures and quotations of
chairmen Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho-chi Minh, this work
makes no attempt to hide or disguise its repressive aims; it urges
Africans as well as Navahos, Apaches as well as Palestinians, to
organize a party, seize state power, and liquidate parasites.
155

Anything Can Happene Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anything Can Happene Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anything Can Happene Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN

Printed in Canada on recycled paper.

Introduction: Kevin Tucker iv

The changes in Fredy’s analyses, from Marxist econom-

According to Lorraine Perlman’s memoir of Fredy’s life,

terms of when it was written. You can feel an infectious sense

piece of each of us that refuses to be tamed. Fredy had a gift

I would like to take a moment to thank Lorraine Perlman for

For wildness and anarchy,

This slogan, developed in May by revolutionaries in France,

AMERICAN “COMMON SENSE”

Millions of students all over the world--in Tokyo, Turin, Bel-

ons to all workers, so that the workers could protect them-

—The first workers who occupied their factories in order to

“SCIENTIFIC BASIS” OF THE “COMMON SENSE”

A “social scientist” is someone who is paid to defend this so-

Next, he assumes that these tasks can only be performed if a

tist” pulls out figures calculated on computers inaccessible to

preferences, reduce people to monotonous data. In the con-

as the best of all possible worlds; he must be unbalanced if

“COMMON SENSE” EXPLODES

The question of what is possible cannot be answered in terms

outlays on the repressive apparatus.

1. Mouvement du 22 mars, Ce n’est qu’un debut, Continuons le

What is Black & Red?

Black & Red is not a capitalist activity. It is anti-capitalist in

Black & Red is an anti-capitalist activity

The production of Black & Red is not capitalist production.

It is not the production of a commodity, nor a social rela-

other media of the “underground press,” but not with Monthly

Not all the social relations within the existing society

But the SOCIAL RELATIONS CREATED FOR THE

a profit as well, so as to invest, in order to make the operation

This is why the “underground press” either DESTROYS

Black & Red is subversive, not liberal

Violence is the expression, the manifestation of the existence

The non-radical (we call him a Liberal) is situated in the

He is an integral part of the dominant system; his moti-

within the system.

This is why he wants VIOLENCE to end. But he can’t

The Liberal is an integral part of the dominant system.

Analysis, even “Marxist” analysis, without revolutionary

The “consciousness” which the Liberal creates is consis-

The Liberal wants the surgeon to JUSTIFY the operation

For the revolutionary, the problem is not VIOLENCE ver-

sus NONVIOLENCE. Violence ALREADY EXISTS. Vio-

The GI against whom the Vietnamese struggles is an op-

The only choice is to take part in the struggle to elimi-

Black & Red is a new revolutionary front

Black & Red is a new front in the world anti-capitalist strug-

is radical action against the University, against its stunting of

Black & Red is an addition to the anti-capitalist struggle

The May revolutionary movement in France spread from

American workers are not a social category who will be

pressed blacks, brainwashed students, French workers, Czech

Thus Black & Red is not addressed particularly to stu-

Black & Red is the means of expression, action and anal-

Black & Red is an attempt TO COMMUNICATE PRAC-

At the same time, the experience in Kalamazoo which

is communicated (i.e., extended) to other fronts. This expe-