Chapter 7: Exhortation to rescue capitalism from its irrationalities and to save it

Submitted by Steven. on June 17, 2013


They find me difficult?
I know it well:
I obligate
them to think

Alfieri, Epigrams

He who considers the world in accordance with reason is himself
considered in accordance with it. We must act in accordance with the
times, and they have changed. To want to go against them is an
undertaking whose success is as impossible as its failure is quite
assured. The proximity of the fateful moment, if it is eventually
perceived as such by us all,
can paradoxically be our last chance
for salvation and perhaps one day we can say, in our turn, what the
Prince de Condé said during the religious wars:[2] “We would perish if
we were not so close to perishing” [French in original]. On the
condition that we know how to exploit for our exclusive advantages
all the occasions that are presented to us, none of the evil will
harm us, despite the undeniable precariousness of our current situation.
In the words of the “Exhortation to Retake Italy”[3]: “At present, to
know the virtue of an Italian spirit, it has been necessary that Italy
reduce herself to the conditions in which she is at present (…) without
chief, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn, overrun, and having borne
every sort of ruin.”

We will say to those who would accuse us of speaking too much or too
quickly of our ruin and its non-hypothetical proximity that such is the
primary task of those who truly want to avoid it, because one does not
always find oneself in the position to avoid such disasters. And,
moreover, what else is there to speak about today?

The intelligent conservative can express the principle of his actions
in a single phrase: everything that does not merit being destroyed
merits being saved
– and this immediately and everywhere in the
world. But that which does not merit beings saved, that is to say, that
which is in contradiction with our own salvation or, more simply,
anything that is an inconvenience or an embarrassment, must be abandoned
and destroyed without beating around the bush or superfluous scruples.
Unburdening oneself of the dead weight of the past is necessary to make
the task of cleaning up the present less difficult.

Today, the principal irrationality of capitalism is that,
although it is under dangerous attack, it does not do everything
necessary to defend itself. But we will admit that there are others. We
must correct them as well, if we can. In those areas in which our
management has been unreasonable, it must be changed, because, ever
since the origin of the bourgeoisie, all of our power has been
intimately linked to rational management, and it cannot last
without it. There is nothing new about the appropriateness of making
profound reforms. We have given birth to them in every epoch. That is
our strength: we are the first society in history that has known how to
correct itself continuously. We call “unreasonable” everything that is
not a real necessity for our possession of society and that produces
results that are objectively in contradiction with those necessities,
that is to say, results that we ourselves can measure and are felt by
everyone. We will mention the necessary reforms below.

For the moment, we must repeat that, in the midst of the current
dangers, we must (as the French say) make every piece of wood into an
[French in original], starting with the most accessible and
malleable pieces. Thus, we must employ our own Communists – rather than
sell the entire country to the Arabs, as some of our insane politicians
have seriously proposed – with the sole goal of making the most of this
experiment with a government in which the Communists participate. But
this experiment will cost us nothing, while the logic of the other
proposal would inevitably lead to our complete dispossession. How is it
possible to compare, even for a moment, two obviously unequal solutions?
What is inconceivable on the plane of logic properly speaking obeys a
particular logic that is hidden but easily discernible. Should we be
able to save ourselves, three-quarters of our political personnel must
be discharged. Should we fail to save ourselves, these same people will
remain in place and, in a few years, they will squander or embezzle a
large part of our capital, which they will eventually expropriate from
us and without even assuring the power of the new property owners. In
the aftermath of this grotesque prospect – which in fact supposes that
the productive forces and the properties of Europe would in large part
belong to a few Arab potentates, who would control the defective
international monetary system because they would provisionally control
the principal source of energy upon which the industrialized countries
are dependent – would not the workers, from whom we already have so much
trouble, expropriate these new foreign, archaic and perfectly
incompetent masters with an even greater facility than they would have
with us? Transporting the property-owning class of our country to exotic
and backwards locations means selling our birthright for a plate of
lentils. But could such upstarts [French in original] hope to
control our country? With their own troops or with the help of ours?
With our political skill or theirs? Our troops are no longer reliable,
and theirs are worth nothing. Our skill is worn out. As for theirs:
simply posing the question is to answer it [in the negative].

Thus, we will not be surprised if those responsible for such a
strategy, especially in Italy, have no other policy than the complete
liquidation of our national patrimony and its clandestine export
to their Swiss bank accounts. While the high functionaries of our
government ministries and economic organizations will charge very dearly
– in bad money, alas! – to depart from careers that have already
departed from them, the hospital in Padua has announced that it will
sell to the highest bidder a Mantegna[4] that belongs to it. All of
those who are responsible for the management of Italian society, seeing
that society march so quickly to its forfeiture, dream of selling what
he or she holds. And, in the final analysis, what they hold is Italy
itself, its monuments and its soil. And they want to sell it all because
soon our productive forces, with such bad workers and such bad managers,
will not be worth much on the market. We must counter those who plan to
offer Italian society up to a “Public Takeover Bid.”

We would like to return for a moment to one of our preceding statements,
according to which we must (without scruples) remove all the
impediments to the surmounting of the crisis in which our State
is in. For example, a year ago, President Leone,[5] who is not
completely unappreciative of our arguments, made an allusion (with
perhaps too much circumspection and, thus, without any success) to the
necessity of a constitutional reform that certain Communists now believe
to be urgent. Today, we must propose a reform that is both radical and
favorable to the restructuring of the Republic in conformity with the
highest-priority necessities for the survival of our world and that, of
course, would not be prejudicial to the continuation of democracy, as we
said was important to us in the first chapter of this Report.

With the commitment of the Communist Party, as much in the
elaboration as in the application of the new constitution, we are
persuaded that there is a real possibility of surmounting this great
crisis. The new Magna Carta must maintain democracy, yes, but in
a disabused way, thus contrary to what has happened in the first 30
years of our Republic. Maintaining democracy means maintaining the rule
of the vote, which is the basis of all the free, modern republics. We
know that this rule is the inverse of the one that presided over
primitive democracy. Among the ancient Greeks, the rule was to count the
votes of those who were ready to fight openly for one camp or the other,
and Plato (and subsequent history) showed how this primitive democracy
led to disorder and despotism. In its modern meaning, “democracy” must,
on the contrary, be understood to be the manner of making the people vote on
all the questions for which they are not disposed to fight. This aspect
must be accentuated, and we must summon the citizens to vote, as in the
past, but on a much greater variety of subjects that are not detrimental
to the smooth functioning of society, and the citizens must continue to
choose between diverse candidates. But these candidates, no matter what
side they come from, must have already been selected in their turn, and
with a qualitative rigor unknown in our times, by a veritable
elite [French in original] in the spheres of political power, the
economy and culture.

And this economy itself – this modern technology that we make use of,
and whose power is virtually unlimited – requires that we make a better
and more intelligent use of it. That is to say, we must no longer
allow ourselves to dominate through this power, which incessantly tends
to become autonomous by escaping from our hands, which in the recent
past have manipulated it, above all, according to democratic and
demagogical fictions upon which (during the epoch of “the abundance of
well-being” and market abundance) we built a giant with clay feet. But
since that epoch is over, we must now cease to make the people consume
images that are too beautiful and too wild, and must instead give
ourselves the means to make them consume images of a reality that is
less harsh than the current one: less pollution; fewer automobiles;
better bread, meat and houses; and so forth. In sum, the reform of our
economy from the ground up and its reconstruction on more solid
bases must establish a new economy, one that is capable of being
both authentically liberal and severely controlled by the State –
certainly not this particular State, because it must be
rigorously lead by an elite [French in original] that is really
worthy of the name. We will return to this subject below.

Today, it is important for us to consider that we must not only
maintain a dominant class, but the best possible dominant class.
Our government ministers must strive to rule through merit and talent,
because we know that those who start out aiming to be satisfied with a
secondary position will never attain it: they will never attain anything
at all. If today this minimum requirement seems too utopian or too
ambitious, it is so with respect to the pitiful panorama of our current
crop of politicians. But such a requirement, which the current situation
makes obligatory, is not in fact disproportionate to the reality that we
must eventually confront and to the long-term tasks that the good
administration of our society requires.

What is convenient to a prince that he might be esteemed?[6]
Which men are able to save our society? This is what we must ask when we
are choosing our governmental ministers; this is what is especially
neglected when we privilege a hundred laughable “titles of merit,” such
as the fact that the Honorable [Aldo] Moro is more or less the enemy of
Cefis,[7] or that someone else’s wife is the intimate friend of General
Miceli’s wife. “Stranger,” Plato says, “the moment has come to be
serious,”[8] and we know the interest that this philosopher had in the
political problems of our peninsula.

Well! We will say, and we will try to prove, that today in Italy the
men we need exist, and we must make use of them as soon as
possible, by bringing them out of the limbo to which a herd of Christian
Democratic notables, disguised as wolves, flatter themselves with having
condemned these men forever, so that these same Christian Democrats can
have the pleasure of satisfying their own raging hunger for ministerial
posts and clients in complete freedom. Moreover, a few traits would
suffice to define these men, because merit accounts for so little in our
Republic, and a few well-chosen ministers would suffice to make any
State function as it should. It is true that in France under Louis XIII,
a single one sufficed. But it is also quite obvious that if we want to
continue to coat the various pâtés of our governments in Italian-style
sauce – by assigning a ministerial post to a man of Bruno Visenti’s
talents,[9] and another one to someone like Gioia, of whom it is well
to say nothing,
[10] – we will compromise to the very roots any
possibility of action by men of value, and we will once again prove
right Mussolini’s justifying formula, according to which “governing
Italy is not a difficult business; it is a useless one.”[11]
Fortunately, the future of capitalism is not tied to the future of
Christian Democracy, no more than it was to the future of fascism, but
let us recall that a half-century of stupidity in power is a hardly
enviable world record, and especially if no one tries to contest it.
Because today few and far between are the men of talent who will take
the risk of compromising themselves in the midst of the administrative
corruption of a State that appears to be, in the words of Dante, “the
sad sack that covers with shit everything that it swallows.”[12]

To save ourselves from the threat of subversion, which will probably
persist in the years to come, even if the Communists in government are
able to master it better than we are at the moment, our first operation
must not be an obstinate and obtuse defense of current Italy and its
incapable leaders. On the contrary, our first operation should resemble
a scorched-earth policy, which will permit us to unburden
ourselves of these men and the frilly trimmings with which we cover our
poor Republic. And, simultaneous with this radical housecleaning, we
must reconstruct around ourselves a society provided with all the
qualities that would render it worthy of being defended in the eyes of
many people. And who knows if, at that moment, the workers themselves
will not cease to attack us so violently, even if they must always
remain irreducibly hostile to private property at the bottom of their
hearts? But without venturing into utopian philosophical theories about
the future of the world in a time when, personally, we will no longer be
around, it is fitting to consider, while we are still here, all that
would be necessary to have our world die out. In the final
analysis, who are our real enemies?

We will say that, today, we must confront several hostile
realities, only one of which is historically immanent to our mode of
domination and production: the proletariat, which has a natural and
perpetual tendency to revolt. The ancient Romans summarized this fact in
the adage we have as many enemies as there are slaves [Latin in
original]. Once we have taken action upon this incontestable and
constant fact, it will be important to see if the other realities that
are hostile to us have the same immutability and constancy. Even more
precisely, we would like to say that it will be fitting to see if these
other realities are as necessary and useful as the proletariat.
Because we should not forget for an instant that the workers, at least
when they work and do not revolt, are the most useful reality in the
world and merit our respect, for in a certain way they (under our
well-informed direction) produce our wealth, i.e., our power. Well! We
would contest the idea that the other realities that currently contest
our power are in fact necessary and unavoidable. And we propose to
examine at least two of them here: the bad morals and incompetence of
which our political class have given ample proof, on the one hand, and
economic anarchy, on the other. These two phenomena are deleterious, but
both can be opportunely eliminated, because they depend on our will.

For those who regard what we define as the insufficiency – that is
only a euphemism – of our governing strata as a whole, and setting aside
all due exceptions, we can affirm that we must no longer have scruples
about letting it sink like a stone in the great sea [Latin in
original] of its errors and scandals, because we already have shown it
more gratitude than it deserves for the services that we admit that it
has rendered us in the already-distant past, and for too long we have
accorded it patience at costs that we did not believe that we were
capable of sustaining. Because patience, among all the human virtues,
is, according to us, the only one that ceases to be a virtue when one
practices it excessively. We leave to the Pope, who is less pressed than
we are by the contingent necessities of mundane life in this century,
the occasion to make an act of charity by rescuing and clearing the
consciences of these orphans of power. Apart from the
satisfaction that we must finally provide to public opinion, which is
legitimately tired of seeing incompetence in power being rewarded, we
can spare ourselves the future burden of having to defend the men who,
instead of conducting a policy of intelligent conservatism, as we have
required of them, have instead preferred a policy of obtuse reaction
that always squanders everything that passes through their hands. These
are men supported by our capital, which they have declared that they
want to defend so as to mock the voters, and now they support themselves
upon the voters so as to mock us. Finally, these are men who (to once
again express ourselves by quoting Machiavelli), “while you use them,
you lose the power to do so.”[13]

Moreover, even in the Christian Democratic Party there are
intelligent men, and here we do not simply allude to people like
Andreotti and Donat-Cattin. But in [good] conscience, how can we say
that the intelligence of these politicians can bring forth fruit when
Fanfani asks them to make use of it with the sole aim of defending the
indefensible and the useless, meanwhile systematically neglecting to
save the essential? The survival of a political world of this type is
already in itself one of the hostile realities that we must cease
to keep alive. We must rid ourselves of it, “and the combat
[thereafter] will be short.

As for what we have called “economic anarchy,” we will say that, from
now on, we must authoritatively limit the tendency to accumulate
excessive profits in certain basic sectors where the level of
development reached by modern techniques – especially chemical ones –
permit everything, but where the results assault the population in its
everyday existence and tends to deprive it even more of the little that
we must absolutely let it have. For example, we completely disapprove of
the industrialists who take the risk of uninterruptedly provoking the
people, who are made to consume petroleum-based products, chemically
treated wines and inedible food with the sole aim of increasing their
sector-based profits, insolently neglecting the more general and
superior interests of our class [as a whole].

We repeat that nothing more provokes the democratic citizen than the
impression that we give him when, with impunity and systematically, we
take him for a ride. Even when this citizen is disinterested in
politics, he is not insensible to the quality of what he eats or the air
that he breathes. On the contrary, we must preoccupy ourselves with
maintaining the best possible qualitative levels of life, primarily for
the dominant class and secondarily for the dominated classes. Moreover,
in 1969, an industrialist like Henry Ford said (and we would like to
quote his own words), “the terms of the contract between industry and
society have changed (…) We are called upon to contribute to the quality
of life much more than the quantity of goods.”[15] Playing the hypocrite
does not bring back anything [good] or, at least must no longer
do so. We are hardly brought to record the assets that Cefis vaunts in
the balance sheets of Montedison with the satisfaction that is reserved
for the poor money-saver who is a small stockholder, especially when
these assets have been more or less acquired by the means that Scalfari
has recently revealed to the public in his book The Master
[16] and while these very profits, in truth, represent a
formidable incitement to social revolt.

And since we have cited Eugenio Scalfari, a man whose courage and
intelligence we value, we will seize this occasion to express our
opinion on what he has excellently defined as the “State

(Precisely one of the reasons that led us to choose for this
Report the old form of expression of the pamphlet, instead of a more systematic text, is that we need not reject the pleasure of talking about
this and that, as one does in conversation, which allows us to touch
upon everything without ever have the pretention of being exhaustive
and, at the same, allows us to avoid getting bogged down in the marshes
of sophisticated “demonstrations” of which our politicians are fond when
they try to pass off their elastic “truths.” To say the truth,
few words suffice: the truth is the indicator of both itself and the
[Latin in original]. And because this fashion of writing is rapid, it appears
useful to us, at a moment when so many other commitments that cannot be
put off impose on us the necessity of not wasting time.)

This “State bourgeoisie,” which combines the faults of the
parasitical and decadent bourgeoisie and those of the bureaucratic class
that holds power in the socialist countries, is one of the several
products of the “Italian style” of management of power, and it is a
highly noxious residue of the parceling out of this power. Cefis, the
President of Montedison, is the model that inspired Scalfari’s
description. But, in reality, this “State bourgeoisie” exceeds this
model; it is nested almost everywhere in the nationalized industries and
those that involve governmental participation, as well as in the forest
of the 60,000 public “organizations” in existence today, and thus it
possesses a proper power that is autonomous with respect to the large,
traditional bourgeoisie, and it has founded on this power what Alberto
Ronchey has pertinently called “Christian-Democratic State capitalism.”
The members of such a “master race” are, in reality, individuals who
have no original personal patrimony nor any culture – we do not even
want to say deprived of a culture that is worthy of a ruling class, but
deprived of one that is comparable, even from a distance, to the culture
of an austere petit-bourgeois (a teacher, for example) in the past. Of
course, today, only a relatively limited number of these individuals
hold real power, and the largest number of them can only do harm
with their limited talents. But this does not change the fact that this
phenomenon is growing and thus merits our attention.

Over the course of its history, capitalism has continuously modified
the composition of the social classes and has done so to such an extent
that it has transformed society. It has weakened or recomposed,
eliminated or even created the classes that have had subordinate but
necessary functions in the production, distribution and consumption of
commodities. Only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have remained the
historical classes that have – in a conflict that has essentially
remained the same for the last century – continued to play out the
destiny of the world. But the circumstances, scenarios, walk-on
performers and even the spirits of the principal protagonists have
changed with the times.

Thus, this phenomenon is not particular to Italian society. The
expansion of the last 30 years, which is unprecedented in the history of
the global economy, has involved the necessity of creating a class of
managers [English in original], that is to say, technicians
capable of directing the industrial production and circulation of
commodities. The managers [English in original], as one has
called them since their modern popularization, these
executives[18] have necessarily been recruited from outside of
our class, which can no longer assume the totality of managerial tasks
on its own. Despite a gilded legend, which they are the only ones to
believe, these executives are nothing other than a metamorphosis of the
urban petit-bourgeoisie, previously constituted in the main by
independent producers of the artisan type, who today have become
no more or less so than the workers [properly speaking],
and this despite the fact that sometimes these executives hope to
resemble members of the liberal professions. Given this “resemblance,”
which they have obtained on the cheap, these executives have in a
certain way become the object of the promotional reveries of many strata
of poor employees, but, in reality, they have nothing that could define
them as rich. They are only paid enough to consume a little more than
the others, but the commodities they consume are always the same ones
consumed by everyone else.

Unlike the bourgeois, the worker, the serf and the feudal landowner,
the executive never feels at home. Always uncertain and always
disappointed, he continually aspires to be more than he is or will ever
be. He pretends and, at the same time, he doubts. He is the man of
uneasiness, so little sure of himself and his destiny – not without
reason – that he must continually hide the reality of his existence. He
is dependent in an absolute manner, and much more so than the worker,
because he follows all the fashions, including ideological fashions. It
is for him that our “avant-garde” writers and authors make the repugnant
best-sellers [English in original] that turn bookstores into
supermarkets. We refuse to set foot into such places. (Fortunately there
are still several good stores devoted to old books, and these are our
consolation.) It is for the executives that, today, one changes the
physiognomy and functions of our towns, which used to be the most
beautiful and oldest in the world, and it is for them that, in the
once-excellent restaurants, they program the repugnant and falsified
cuisine that the executives always appreciate in loud voices so that the
people at the other tables can hear that they have learned their good
pronunciations from the announcements on the [multi-lingual] loudspeakers at
airports. “Oh, Plebe! Created worse than all the rest.”[20]

Politically, this new class perpetually oscillates, because it
successively wants to attain contradictory things. Thus there is not a
single political party that does not compete with the others for the executive's
vote and, at different times, each one gets it from him.

Like the members of the old petit-bourgeoisie, the executives of
today are very diverse, but the strata of upper-level executives, who
are the model and illusory goal for all the others, is already tied in a
thousand ways to the bourgeoisie [properly speaking] and it integrates
new members into itself much more often than it provides them for
itself. There, in a few words, is the portrait of those in whom our
bourgeoisie has entrusted a growing portion of its own functions. Thus
there cannot be too much reason to be surprised if these functions have
been assumed in the [bad] manner in which they have.

In fact, a progressively growing part of our own class has become
parasitical, either through discouragement or inaptitude, and, when this
part is not ruined financially, it is at least significantly
impoverished, as we might have expected. Well! We will not only say that
this part of the bourgeoisie must no longer be defended; we will also
say that it must be eliminated. Either it will be reintegrated,
with dignity and all the intelligence that the current situation
requires, into a society whose very tissue we must remake, or, in the
opposite case, the Communist ministers who strike that part of the
bourgeoisie with a Draconian fiscal reform (one finally worthy of the
name “reform”) will have our full support. And those comfortable,
inactive bourgeois should not believe for a moment that a Communist
minister would be necessary to make such a reform, because this measure
derives less from the “historic compromise” than their own behavior,
which is lacking all combativeness. The people say that necessity
sharpens intelligence, and the moment has come in which creativity and
the fantastic spirit of enterprise, proof of which the bourgeoisie gave
in previous times, today encounters all the conditions for being
deployed anew. There are only two possibilities: either the bourgeoisie
in Italy and elsewhere proves its intelligence and its will to live, or
it will perish, having collaborated too much with its own enemies and
thus accelerated and rendered unavoidable its end – because it had
wanted to identify its survival as the hegemonic class with the survival
of its failings. In that case, its condemnation has already been

For such shortcomings, and not for any other fault, we are
lost, and are condemned to live here with desire, but no

At the beginning of this final chapter, we alluded to the possibility
of making reforms. This is not the place to treat in a profound manner
such questions, which we have already envisioned elsewhere, in an
unsigned document, very confidentially distributed, entitled The
Republic of the Italians
in homage to a celebrated text by the
pseudo-Xenophon.[21] We do not believe we lack modesty when we recall
that this document encountered the heartwarming approval of the people
who occupy the highest positions of power, because it honors these
people that they promptly understood its necessity. Thus we will limit
ourselves here to sketching out a few methodological bases for these

Obviously the difficulty here resides in the necessity of defining
what in fact is vital for our economic and social order, that is to say,
the necessity of making a severe distinction between those vital things
and the appearances that are all too easily accepted by people affected
by illusions, readiness and routines. Like everyone else, we recognize
that current practices cannot continue, but we do so in a lucid and
combative perspective, and not in the imbecilic despondency that
currents reigns among all the authors of the errors of the past, who are
not even able to discover that they are simply a question of crude
errors, with the result that they have the impression that they have
been refuted by a thunderbolt from out of the blue, i.e., in a totally
unforeseeable manner. In fact, we must correct the irrationalities of
our power and, for those who can view our history with disabused eyes,
this is nothing new.

Wild capitalism is to be condemned. From the moment that one can sell
anything, it is uncivil to only (and with the highest priority) produce
what is immediately the most profitable when doing so is detrimental to
every conceivable future. All of the excesses of competition must be
eliminated by the very power of production, and without delay, because,
quite literally, there is nowhere to live with this form of
production, which destroys its own basis and its own conditions for the
future. At a time when the productive process threatens itself because
we have believed too much in the value of its automatism (which
has been helped but never really corrected by political power), all of
the social justifications for this form of production have
universally ceased to be accepted. We no longer believe – no one any
longer believes – that the progress of production is capable of
reducing work. We no longer believe – few people still believe –
that this form of production is capable of distributing genuine
in increasing quantities and qualities. Thus, conclusions must
be drawn. As soon as possible, the true holders of social authority – in
the sectors of property, culture, the State and the unions – must
secretly, and then publicly, get together to put together a long-term
plan for the rationalization of society. Capitalism must proclaim
and fully realize the rationality that it has carried since its origin,
but has only been accomplished partially and poorly. If we can
accomplish such urgent and necessary work here in Italy – precisely
because our country can draw the strength of salvation from the excesses
of the danger – the “Italian model” of capitalism can be adopted by all
of Europe and can subsequently open up a new road to the entire

From the perspective of a qualitative society, we must, above all,
very consciously and clearly distinguish two sectors of
consumption. One sector should supply authentic quality, with all of its
real consequences; the other (that of current consumption) should be
cleaned up as much as possible. For a long time, we have feigned to
believe that the abundance of industrial production would, little by
little, elevate everyone to the conditions of life enjoyed by the
elite [French in original]. This argument has so completely lost
its very slight appearance of seriousness that, today, it has become
degraded to the point of being nothing more than the ephemeral basis for
the reasoning and incitements of advertising. Henceforth we must know
that the abundance of fabricated objects demands (with ever-greater
urgency) the setting up of a [true] elite, one that precisely shelters
itself from such abundance and keeps for itself the little that is
really precious. Without this, there will soon be nowhere on Earth where
anything truly precious exists. The mechanically egalitarian tendencies
of modern industry, which wants to fabricate everything for everyone,
and that disfigures and breaks everything that exists so as to
distribute its most recent commodities, has spoiled almost all our space
and a large part of our time by crowding them both with mediocre goods.
Cars and “second homes” are everywhere. If words remain rich, the things
they refer to are not, and the landscape is degraded for everyone. The
law that dominates here is, of course, that everything that we
distribute to the poor can never be anything other than poverty: cars
that cannot circulate because there are too many of them; salaries paid
in inflated money; meat from livestock fattened up in several weeks by
chemical feed, etc.

What would a true elite [French in original] love? Let each
reader ask himself this in all sincerity. We love the company of people
of good taste and culture, art, the quality of well-chosen food and
wine, the calm of our parks and the beautiful architecture of our
ancient residences, our rich libraries, and the handling of great human
affairs or merely contemplating them from behind the scenes. Who could
be convinced that he could have all that, have it be available to
everyone else, or only to the [top] 10 percent of our quite excessively
large population, buy it on the market and have it made by our current
industries, which produce nothing but cheap junk? And would anyone even
dare to suggest that such things could be appreciated and enjoyed by
just anyone, even by some guy we have made a government minister but who
still feels the sweat of his poor childhood and his feverish arriviste

Thus we must rethink the entirety of production and consumption, and
reeducate ourselves in class consciousness by reminding ourselves
that our class has the historical merit of discovering the existence of
socio-economic classes, and that it was the bourgeoisie – not Marxism –
that announced the class struggle and founded upon that struggle its
possession of society. Our social elite [French in original] is
not closed, as were the “states” of the Ancien Régime. People have easily gained access to it, over the course of
several generations, when our educational system has been realistic and
tailor-made for the job, and when we offered to the most suitable
individuals the opportunity to enjoy the real advantages that justify
the greatest efforts. Likewise, we must remain in a position to offer to
the subordinate classes (the craftsmen, the governmental and
political/labor union functionaries, etc.) lesser but still satisfying
and authentic advantages. Thus, the inclination to valorously elevate
oneself on the social ladder so as to attain a qualitatively rich form
of existence will be reinforced, because such a goal must appear in all
of its beautiful reality and to the precise extent that we can once
again begin to enjoy it peacefully. Today, such a reality is out of
reach because we have spread false luxury and false comfort so
excessively (and without thinking about the consequences) that the
entire population is quite unsatisfied by them both.

Miserliness could make the trivial objection that the delimitation of
the consumption of things of quality, which would recreate a barrier
of money
against polluted consumption by the lower classes, would
also cause unfortunate obligations among the dominant class to spend
more money on its everyday purchases. We would respond that the rich
must pay for their luxury; otherwise, in a short period of time, they
will not have any luxuries at all. The bourgeoisie, especially in Italy,
must understand that it is no longer possible for the rich to get
everything on the cheap, just as they must also pay their taxes. On the
other hand, we must work to improve the consumption by the people by
correcting as much as possible everything harmful to physical or mental
health that is currently inflicted on them, and everyone knows that
there are a lot of these harmful agents, ranging from our means of
transportation to our food, not to mention our mind-numbing distractions
and leisure activities. At present, the people are so worn out by
the abundance of artificial and disappointing consumption that they
would accept (with relief) consumption that was measured and reassuring,
and that pretty much satisfied their authentic needs. It would be
sufficient for us – to the extent that we make these corrections – to
reveal the reality, especially from the medical point of view, of what
has become of bread, wine and the air: in short, all of the people’s
simple pleasures. If the people are justly frightened, we will be
praised for having stopped them for sliding any further down the fatal
slope of current reality. We must no longer create pollution, except
when industry really cannot avoid doing so, and then we should
only pollute industrial zones that have been set aside and peopled on
the basis of fundamental criteria, and not all over the country,
thoughtlessly and casually,[22] as is done now.

On its own, the question of education is so serious that it would
almost suffice to make everyone understand that we must urgently
reconstruct a qualitative society, as much in our own well-understood
interests as in those of the entire population. When we see the quantity
of graduates from what we ironically call our universities, who are not
only bereft of real culture but usefulness as well, who cannot even find
jobs as workers because employers routinely refuse to hire such people,
and who thus inevitably become malcontents and perhaps even rebels, we
consider that they are the products of an incompetence that feels no
embarrassment in squandering the State’s resources, not without result,
but, rather, with the result that we are exposed to dangers, and this
clashes not only with the most elemental sense of honesty, but with
basic logic, too. The Italians – who invented the university and the
bank, who during the Renaissance devised the first and best scientific
theory of domination – are now the first ones, and more than any other
people, to suffer the crisis of everything in which they have excelled.
We can still be the world’s leaders, that is, if we can show the world
the road that will lead us out of and beyond this crisis.

If we offer each person a relatively satisfying place, but especially
if we can assure ourselves, without shilly-shallying, the collaboration
of what we might call the elites of control [les élites de
], we will not have difficulty resisting all subversion
with a minimum of intelligently selective repression. Because it is
certainly not the so-called “Red Brigades” that put our power in danger,
and if today the four fanatics who compose them seem to be a danger to
the State, and easily escape from its prisons, this is not because the
“Red Brigades” are a small but very powerful group, but quite simply
because the State has faded to such an extent that anyone can make it
seem laughable. When we speak of selective repression, we are talking
about defending ourselves against something other than them.

Censorship – and here we confess that we must keep our Communist
allies on a short lease – is not in keeping with the very spirit of
capitalism. Censorship can only be envisioned in our laws and used in
practice as a completely exceptional recourse, at least when it comes to
books. We must neither overestimate their danger nor allow ourselves to
forget about them. For example, in the last ten years, and taking into
account all of the democratic countries, it seems to us that an
intelligent censorship would only have had to ban three or four books in
total. But it would have been necessary to make these books disappear
absolutely, by every possible means. We ourselves have not neglected to
read them, but we did so while keeping them away from everyone else, as
the library at the Vatican does with erotic books. When books of
political critique only concern topical details or local incidents, they
are out of date even before there has been enough time for them to
attract a large number of readers. We have only to pay attention to the
very rare books that are able to attract followers over long periods of
time and eventually weaken our power. We must assuredly educate
ourselves about them. Nevertheless, it should not be a matter of
criticizing the authors of such books, but annihilating them. Indeed, we
know, but often forget, that the pens of such authors always end up
making people take up arms, when the opposite does not take place or
until the opposite takes place. We no longer remember who said it the
first time, but there exists a significant simultaneity between the
inventions of printing and gunpowder. In sum, we must treat the authors
of certain books as disturbers of the public peace, as harmful to our
civilization, which they do not want to reform, but to destroy. On all
the crucial points, we must scrupulously guard against all
sentimentality and all pretentions to excessive justifications for our
censorship. Otherwise we risk corrupting our own lucidity. We do not
manage Paradise, but this world.

As terrible as it is at the moment we are writing, the situation in
Italy, the danger and discomfort of which no one can accuse us of
exaggerating to the point that we have derived all that assaults us as
the universal class from the particular misfortunes of this servile
Italy, place of grief, ship without a pilot in a great tempest.
[24] On
the contrary, if we are worried about what has happened and what could
still happen in Italy, this is precisely because we know that the crisis
is global. Given that capitalist unification is so advanced on the
planetary scale, it is global capitalism that we risk driving into the
abyss. Italy is no longer what it was for a long time: a backwards
province, separated from the modern nations. From this situation came
both its misfortune and its peace and quiet. Class power is threatened
in Russia as it is in America, but Europe – weak in every aspect – is at
the center of the tempest. And all the historical misfortunes of Europe
have in common the fact that, at the center of them all, one finds the
French. Everything permits us to think that, without them, capitalism
would have known a superior development from the qualitative point of
view. The attack by Charles VIII broke the Italian commercial republics
and, three centuries later, Bonaparte did the same thing to Venice. The
[French] Revolution of 1789 gave free rein to the unlimited programs of
the riff-raff, while the bourgeois revolutions in England in the 17th
century appeared to found the city politics that were propitious to the
harmonious development of modern capitalism. Finally, even more
recently, while the ideology of commodity abundance appeared capable of
calming the discontents of the working classes – although it is true
that well-informed observers always doubted the stability of such an
equilibrium – it was again the French who, in 1968, dealt that ideology
its death blow.

What we confront today is a universal problem and, at the same time,
a very old one. Last year, Giovanni Agnelli said that the workers no
longer want to work because they have been demoralized by the modern
living conditions that we have constructed for them. Whatever subtlety
we might recognize in this [quite] original observation, we must say
that Agnelli – by privileging too much the examination of circumstances
that are the most characteristic of the current period – did not go to
the heart of the matter this time. The workers do not want to work every
time that they glimpse the slightest opportunity of doing so, and they
glimpse opportunities of this type every time that economic and
political domination is weakened by objective difficulties or by
difficulties that follow from our blunders. If we get to the heart of
the matter, to never work again was the goal of the Ciompi as
well as the Communards.[24] Every past society in every era has, in its
way, confronted this problem and managed to dominate it, while at
present we are the ones who are in the process of being dominated by
this problem.

Those of our readers who have recognized us know quite well that at
no time in our life have we consented to make a pact with fascism, and
that we will not make one with any form of totalitarian bureaucratic
management, and for the very same reasons. The bourgeoisie must want to
remain the historical class par excellence. Irrefutable on this point,
Karl Marx himself demonstrated very well the error that the bourgeoisie
commits when it places its political power in the hands of
“Bonapartism.”[25] Thus, we are turned towards the future, but not any
old future.

To speak the language of our “executants,” what will we our “model”?
While the most cultivated of our adversaries find the rough outline of
their model in Pericles’ Athens or pre-Medici Florence – models that
they must confess are quite insufficient, but nevertheless worthy of
their real project, because they display to the most caricatural degree
the incessant violence and disorder that are its very essence – we, on
the contrary, designate the Republic of Venice as our model of a
qualitative society (a model that, in its time, was sufficient and even
perfect). Venice had the best ruling class in history: no one resisted
it, nor purported to demand an accounting from it. For centuries, there
were no demagogic lies, no troubles (or hardly any) and very little
blood was spilled. Venice was terrorism tempered with happiness,
the happiness of each person in his proper place. And we do not
forget that the Venetian oligarchy, which relied upon the armed workers
from Arsenal during certain moments of crisis, had already discovered
the truth that an elite [French in original] selected from among
the workers always plays the game of society’s owners marvelously

To finish up, we will say that, rereading these pages, we have not
discovered what pertinent objection a rigorous mind could make to them,
and we are persuaded that their truth will generally impose

[1] Cf. Machiavelli, Chapter XXVI, The Prince.

[2] Louis de Bourdon (1530-1569). The French religious wars lasted
from 1562 to 1629.

[3] Machiavelli, Chapter XXVI, The Prince. Latin in original.

[4] Italian painter (1431-1503).

[5] Giovanni Leone (1908-2001), a right-wing member of the Christian
Democratic Party, was the President of Italy from December 1971 to June

[6] Machiavelli, Chapter XXI, The Prince. Latin in original.
(In the translation provided by Guy Debord, this phrase is rendered as
“How should the prince govern to acquire esteem?”)

[7] Eugenio Cefis, the chairman of ENI (petrochemicals) and
Montedison (chemicals), both State-owned enterprises.

[8] The Republic.

[9] Bruno Visenti (1914-1995) was an industrialist who became the
Minister of Finance in 1974.

[10] Dante, Inferno, IV, 104.

[11] In point of fact, Mussolini never said this.

[12] Inferno, XXVII, 26-27.

[13] Machiavelli, Chapter XVI, The Prince.

[14] Petrarch, quoted at the very end of The Prince: “Virtue
against furor / will take up arms; and the fighting will be short; / for
the ancient valor / in Italian hearts is not yet dead.”

[15] Henry Ford, speech to the Harvard Business School, 1969.

[16] Razza Padrona: Storia della Borghesia di Stato

[17] Spinoza, Ethics, I, proposition 36.

[18] See Thesis 36, “The Situationist International and Its Times,”
The Real Split in the International (1972).

[19] Dante, Inferno, XXXII, 13. Sometimes translated as “O you
who are the lowest dregs of all.”

[20] Dante, Inferno, IV, 40-43.

[21] Pseudo-Xenophon did in fact write a text called The
Constitution of the Athenians,
but it was hostile to its announced
subject. As for Censor’s The Republic of the Italians, it appears
that it never existed.

[22] a bischero sciolto, an old Florentine expression.

[23] Dante Purgatory, VI, 75-77.

[24] The Ciompi (wool carders) of Florence revolted and set up
a short-lived government in 1378. The Communards were partisans of the
Paris Commune (1871).

[25] Cf. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852).

[26] Cf. Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, the concluding
paragraph of which includes this line: “I can think of no one Objection,
that will possibly be raised against this Proposal.”