Capital & Class

http://cnc.sagepub.com/

Which Socialism?: Marxism, Socialism and Democracy

Capital & Class 1989 13: 156
DOI: 10.1177/030981688903700112
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/13/1/156.2.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Conference of Socialist Economists

Additional services and information for Capital & Class can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1989

What is This?

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013

Capital & Class

156

clarions offered are, however, thinner on the

ground and perhaps local authority officers
would want more in the way of practical
guidelines for addressing specific issues .
Nevertheless the pack is a very welcome and
original contribution to the development of
equal opportunities policy in the office,
which local authorities, whatever their
political complexion, would do well to take
on board .

Norberto Bobbio
Future of Democracy
Translated by Griffin
Polity 1987 25, 0745603084
Norberto Bobbio
Which Socialism? : Marxism, Socialism
and Democracy
edited by R . Belamy
Translated by Griffin
Polity 1988 8 .50 Pb 0745601286
Reviewed by Toni Negri
Polity Press presents to its Anglo-Saxon
readers two collections of studies by
Norberto
Bobbio :
Which
socialism?,
comprising essays written between 1968
and 1978, concerning the decade which
followed from the Italian '68', and The
Future of Democracy, which deals with the

period following 1978 . One is not particularly struck by the fact that different
periods are being considered, however, and
for many years in fact Bobbio has insistently
re-stated his theoretical positions with little
sensibility to the shortcomings that result
from this stasis, given the singularly vital
dynamic changes which characterise the
historical periods examined . What, then, is
the fundamental theoretical-political thesis
which runs throughout these studies? It can
be stated in the following terms : only
pluralist and representative democracy is a
'correct form' of state, and only on this basis
can be constructed 'more' socialist relations,
or in Bobbio's terms, 'more harmonious and
participatory relations .' Consequently there
exists a logical continuity between democracy and socialism - but not conversely .
Without distorting the meaning of this
proposition, one can conclude that while for
Bobbio democracy is a constitutional form
of state (among other possible alternatives),
socialism is not - not to mention communism . Socialist and communist are only
adjectives to be added to democracy .
In terms of the polemical arsenal of the
philosopher, it is apparent how important
such a definitional refutation is . For Bobbio,
by this line of reasoning both socialism and
communism fall . There does not exist, nor
can there exist a juridical theory of socialism ;
only democracy can be defined . Better still :
only democracy can be defined conceptually
as an ideal paradigm, while socialism can
only be described as a practice - and what a
rude practice at that! In the first of the two
volumes, during a period in which the class
struggle was particularly acute in Italy,
Bobbio does not hesitate to continually
argue that socialism is essentially a nondemocratic practice . Then, in the second of
the volumes considered, during the 1980s
when the class struggle was less intense, the
discussion is a bit more prudent . Socialism
is now granted permission to serve as a

Book reviews

qualifying adjective for democracy, as a

prize for workers incorporated into the state
as citizens, as the realisation of an innocuous
fable about 'more participation' and 'more
solidarity' . Bobbio adds that in any case,
however one understands socialism, it
cannot be discussed other than in terms of
disillusionment, while democracy, however
compromised, can be discussed in terms of
the real, in a Hegelian sense . In sum, the
epistemological status of socialism and
democracy are radically different, and
democracy has more ontological dignity
than socialism . The two books are completely
dedicated to demonstrating this to be the
case .
For those familiar with Bobbio's activity
both as a politician and a philospher of law,
the message of the two books is absolutely
clear and predictable . In fact, in contrast to
what Richard Bellamy argues in the English
preface of these writings by Bobbio, the
Turin professor has never been a democratic
socialist, nor a social democrat - he is
simply a neo-Kantian philospher with a
faith in liberalism . What does this definition
signify? It signifies that Bobbio is, from the
perspective of juridical theory, a formalist
who (in the tradition of the neo-Kantian
school of Marburg like Hans Kelsen, of
whose teachings Bobbio has been one of the
most faithful interpreters) considers rights a
formal scheme for the guarantee of liberty .
From the perspective of political theory,
Bobbio is an individualist who considers
liberty a completely inalienable attribute of
the citizen which, in opposition to society as
an abstract sphere, acquires meaning only if
understood in terms of standards of individual
validity . Finally, from an ethical and
epistemological standpoint, he is a pessimist
who considers science an instrument to
guarantee the efficiency of a 'realistic government', in the belief that 'to be governed' is
probably the only possible and attainable
goal for political society . In his introductions

Bellamy insists on the specificity of the 157

situation in Turin after World War I and
the liveliness of the cultural and political
debates taking place there . He reminds us
who Bobbio's masters were : Gioele Solair,
Luigi Einaudi and Gaetano Mosca . He
reminds us of the great political and democratic figures who were students in Turin at
that time, as Bobbio himself would be later
the Rosselli brothers whom, though liberals .
Mussolini had murdered in Paris ; Gramsci .
who died from his imprisonment in a fascist
jail and condemnation by Stalin ; and Gobetti
killed by the blows of the fascists and the
betrayal of his liberal comrades . What he
forgets to add, however, is that between the
masters of political science and the students
of politics there existed a larger difference
than that which the common anti-fascist
position could conceal, i .e ., the difference
between the juridical liberalism and political
cynicism of the former and the active
participation in the class struggle of the
latter . If Solari was moved by the political
philosophy of Kant, the Rosselli brothers
declared that only the class struggle could
give new life to the term liberty . If Einaudi
accused fascism of denigrating individual
rights, Gramsci discovered in the social
hegemony of the working class the only
remaining source of economic and political
productivity in society . If Mosca constructed
a cynical and aristocratic theory of political
elites, Gobetti rejected any such 'realism'
and identified in class consciousness and
cooperative worker production the only
possible foundation of a democratic society .
Bobbio has much more in common with his
philosophical masters than he has with their
students . In his scientific career, Bobbio
moved from the phenomenological formalism
of Max Scheler and his juridical followers to
existential individualism . He thus became
the Italian proponent of the various brands
of English empiricism, concluding with
functionalism and the pessimistic defence of

Capital & Class

158

Call for Papers

The Review of Radical Political Economics invites
submissions of articles and book reviews for a special issue
on Women and Development . The special issue will focus on
the relationship between capital accumulation, women's
work in the labor market and the household, state policy, and
ideology. The changing position of Third World women, both
in the developing and the advanced capitalist countries is of
particular interest. We strongly encourage submissions that
develop a strong theoretical analysis of the interconnections
between class, race, ethnicity and gender . The deadline for
submissions has been extended to September 1989 .

Book reviews

democracy. It is true that his long professorial

the possibility of direct democracy, thus in

voyage has been marked by a continuous

juridical philosophy he opposes positivistic

dialogue with the leaders of Italian com-

'realism' (that which in the countries in the

munism, from Togliatti and Amendola to

Napoleonic tradition we call 'institution-

Foa and Occhetto . But it must be noted that

alism') and the most rigid normativism to

this exaggeration of Bobbio's commitment

the jurisprudence of open systems . For

to democracy derives more from the mediocre

defence of communism on the part of his

Bobbio, on the terrain of law, the 'lesser

interlocutors than to the capacity of Bobbio

philosophy is realistically directed) is not

to transcend the limits of liberalism . Thus

the democratic state but the state

what can this neo-Kantian professor of

insofar as it is the source of all rights . There

liberty teach us? Nothing but that history of

is no dynamic interpretation or analogical

socialist and communist political thought

method which can free us of the rigidity of

already taught by the neo-Kantians, in

which the real movements of the class

form . No, only formalism can assure us that

rights will be protected . The relation of

struggle are subjected to the regulative

force, once established and institutionalised

criticism of bourgeois reason, in an effort to

as law, must be repsected in its formal

emphasize the progressive element, in a

bourgeois and rational sense, in opposition

validity . Every innovation is transgression .

Here Bobbio is without doubt a counter-

to the particular worker and proletarian

revolutionary, though not necessarily a

element. The particularity of working class

interests are relegated under the universality

reactionary - since the two concepts do not

overlap at all - but rather someone with a

of bourgeois right when possible, or else the

fetish for legality and a horror of all change .

interests of the working class are simply

To say that Bobbio's position with regard to

rejected . Bobbio is first and foremost a

priest of the constitutive values of the

legal philosophy is 'anti-communist' does

not go far enough . Other well-known anti-

bourgeois state, and all of his political

communists such as Arendt and Habermas

science and his life have been carefully

have worked toward a more optimistic

dedicated to this task, with neo-Kantian

precision and formalistic objectivity . One

political and communicative project without

need only observe that Bobbio has always

By contrast, Bobbio is so steeped in it, that

lived in Turin, and yet in the entire corpus

when he ventures out of his own sphere of

of his writings there is not a single mention

interests he winds up 'flirting' with the

of the Turin working class, despite its role

as a protagonist in recent Italian history .

blatant functionalism of Niklas Luhmann .

But it is really on the terrain of the

philosophy of law properly speaking that the
true nature of Bobbio's thought reveals itself
for what it is - a vigorously normative

evil' (towards whose defence all of his

tout court,

showing any sympathy for legal positivism .

Let's return to the charge that Bobbio is a

counterrevolutionary,

which

is

neither

exaggerated or unjust . On the contrary,

scientific conservatism is the direct result of
the entire evolution of his thinking . Without

philosophy . Just as in juridical epistemology

doubt, in the university courses (in which he

he from time to time opposes formalism to

excelled) Bobbio consistently developed, as

historicism, the dialectic, and the crisis of

he does in the volumes in question, a

the system, and just, as we will see in a

defence of the 'rule of law' against the 'rule

moment, in political theory he opposes

representative democracy not only to direct

of men' . He thus appears to be in the great

tradition of republicanism of the Spinoza or

democracy but to any suggestion involving

Harrington type . But this is not the case

159

Capital & Class

160 with Bobbio, in whose writings republicanism loses all of its freshness and the law is
exempt from any possibility of popular
renewal . The 'rule of law' over the 'rule of
men' signifies that the foundations of legal
stability will not accommodate the needs
and actions of the masses . Yet legality is
transformed not by dint of the power of the
state, but as an expression of popular
sovereignty . In the history of contemporary
public law two schools are in direct conflict .
The first, of German origin, has always
considered the state as the substance of the
law . The other, of atlantic origin, has
established a dialectical relation between
legality and popular sovereignty . In the
books we are reviewing Bobbio reveals
himself to be, in continuity with what he
has always been in the long years of his
teaching, a proponent of German public
law . It is paradoxical, though only to a
certain point, that one can say this of a man
who, more than anyone else, has attempted
to bring Italian philosophical and legal
culture to the atlantic school .
If all of what we have said so far is true, it
follows that Bobbio's legal and political
thought borders on being (or perhaps is
without a doubt) yet another variety of the
`reason of state' theories : a theory of the state
that is not menacing, that has shed all its
Germanic resonance, yet which re-asserts
itself as an actualised reason of state and as a
theory of token democracy . In order to save
the state and maintain a minimum of
democracy, Bobbio tells us that 'we must,
given the lack of plausible alternatives,
defend the rules of the game : formal democracy, despite its contradictions and shortcomings, that is to say its guarantee of the
right of freedom, periodic elections by
universal suffrage, majority rule, or however
it is to be understood amongst the parties
concerned . All other promises about popular
sovereignty, equality, transparence of power,
equity, etc, were and are simply excessive

and vain promises which could not be

maintained . . . In other words, let's keep
this democracy as it is, as a lesser evil . Thus
we can do no more than make an appeal to
certain values, such as the ideals of tolerance
and fraternity, that fraternity which unites
all men in a common destiny, all the more
ominously so today given the threat of
nuclear weapons .' Evidently, we can avail
ourselves of the ecological argument against
nuclear weapons and their catastrophic effects
to stress the profound consensus concerning
the 'contractum subjectionis' .
Finally and definitely from a logical
perspective, Bobbio theorises his fundamental
argument in relation to the opposition
between direct democracy and representative
democracy . The former is the real 'bete
noire' of our author . Bobbio warns us in fact
that direct democracy encourages a conception
of the state that implies a project of practical
construction on the part of the political
subjects of the state, and this has more to do
with a 'form' of the state than with a
'method' for the choice of representation .
With extreme pedantry Bobbio seeks to
demonstrate that direct democracy is not
only a utopia incapable of realisation (especially in societies as complex as ours), but
is in fact a dangerous machine for the
construction of totalitarianism - or in the
best of cases, a scheme for plebiscitary
consensus . What can one say? The 'critic'
does not stop here . Not only is the direct
democracy of Rousseau and the Jacobins
subjected to the most ruthless criticism - he
must go further still . Both consensus and
participation reveal themselves to be highly
problematic determinations in democracy .
They comprise his so-called 'broken
promises', broken because they were incapable
of being kept in the first place . What is to
be done, then? Even in this case we must
satisfy ourselves with what is possible and
realistic . Thus the principle of frustration
dominates the science of constitutional and

Book reviews

public law . Further, political representation,

in the form of delegation, more than an
unshakeable foundation of democracy, is
part of the 'social division of labour' which
constitutes the fabric of liberty in our
contemporary societies . As is evident,
without hypocritical distortions, this socalled 'pluralism' (laws : division of labour) is
wedded to this so-called 'representation' (the
transformation of the contract of union into
that of subjection), thus generating the 'free
world' . However, Bobbio asks, would we
prefer socialism like the Russians have? I
confess a certain discomfort before the
finesse of such derivations .
Is it, however, legitimate to ask what
remains of representative democracy once
the critique of direct democracy has been
taken to such extremes? Following both
Bobbio's writings and what he says, one
remains struck by the fact that his 'realism'
(more appropriately called 'soft Machiavellianism') leads inexorably from defeat to
defeat . What we have is a continual growth
of a species of political and intellectual
masochism, with which he guides us through
his critique, which by now has become
'critical criticism' . His argument constantly
turns on the same theme, democracy,
fetishising it and revealing the ideological
inconsistency of the concept itself . But in
the face of this nihilism he does not affirm
the necessity of life and the revendication of
subjectivity against the eternal reflux of
useless events, which would be the ultimate
conscious act of revolt of the free and
conscious man, but rather the virtues of
obedience .
Thus how strange it is that Bobbio insists
on connecting the names of other democratic
authors to his obstinate and empty reiteration
of desperate faith in democracy! Why on
earth does he do this? Let's look at Bobbio's
writings on Gramsci . Leaving out the
polemics of another time period, it seems to
me that Gramsci emerges in an optimal
C&C 37-K

critical perspective as the author of a 161

vigorous synthesis of democratic radicalism
and Leninist volontarism . Why then does an
historian of Bobbio's intelligence fail to
understand that direct democracy, even in
the form conceived by Gramsci in the
desperate solitude that afflicted him (and the
entire working class under fascism), is worth
more than all of the 'realism' that the state
can conceive of and Bobbin can ideologically
justify? That direct democracy, in the form
conceived by Gramsci as the social productivity of the exploited classes, is the
true, perhaps only force that moves and
propels the historical process? And finally
that fascism was not destroyed by liberalism,
by the virtuous unity of pluralism and
representative government, but by the desire
of the masses for direct democracy? In
contrast to Bobbio, I believe that in working
for direct democracy we will succeed in
responding to the needs of our time : to
destroy the capitalist state and build communist democracy, and perhaps in that way
even save formal democracy .

*
Translated from Italian into English by D.
Schecter .