Matière et Révolution

The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

Robert Paris — 2026-06-18T04:06:00Z

The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

In 399 BC, more than 2400 years ago, Socrates died from poison, condemned to death by Athenian justice, and his trial still generates much discussion, as it did in Greek society…
The assassination of the philosopher Socrates is one of the first crimes of the nascent Greek state in Athens... and all the more striking because it was committed by the "Greek democracy" ! But who was this thinker of ancient Greece that the ruling classes preferred to get rid of him ? Those who considered themselves his disciples will answer that question.
The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

Xenophon : I believe everyone has now found a place to settle or sit. Since I am the one who initiated our meeting, I will take the liberty of speaking at length in introducing our assembly. First, I wish to warmly thank Critias of Megara, whose father, a sculptor, has kindly agreed to host our gathering here in his shop, a year after the death of our teacher, Socrates. Let us hope that the sculptures surrounding us, like so many figures of stone and marble, inspire noble thoughts ! And let us remember that our teacher, Socrates, himself excelled in the field of sculpture, and that his "Three Graces," in front of the Acropolis, provided a fine example of his art, even though he later changed his profession entirely.

And, of course, I also pay tribute to our hosts : Euclid of Megara and his friends Eubulides of Miletus, Ichtyas of Megara, and Thrasymachus of Corinth, who tirelessly spread the philosophy of Socrates and thanks to whom we are all safe and well in Megara. We thank them for this. Everyone remembers that Euclid is known for having continued to attend Socrates' university despite the Peloponnesian War, traveling from Megara to Athens disguised as a woman, even though one of the causes of this war was the decree forbidding the inhabitants of Megara from entering Athens... He thus risked his life so as not to miss Socrates' teachings.

Here, we have all, at one time or another, attended his school in the street, or his open-air academy, as you prefer to call it. I will make brief introductions, since some of us have never met before, and sometimes our only commonality is having been students of Socrates, at different times and under different circumstances. Philosophy is well represented here, but so are the arts, including the art of theater, the art of science, the art of mathematics, and also the art of politics and the art of war, the art of the lawyer as well as that of the sculptor, and our friends come from many Greek cities. Thank you all for being here, thus demonstrating that the trial of Socrates in no way diminished the validity of his ideas or the credibility of his person, and that his death did not cause him to be forgotten.

To my right, three friends from Athens whom I need not introduce : Plato, Hermogenes and Alcibiades. On my left, Apollodorus of Phalerum, Phaedo of Elis, Cebes of Thebes, Simmias of Thebes, Crito of Athens and his sons Critobulus, Epigenes and Ctesippus, Antisthenes whom we all consider a citizen of Athens, even though the city still refuses him full citizenship, Lysanias of Sphettos, Echecrates of Tarentum, Hermocrates of Syracuse, Terpsion of Megara, Ctesippus of Paeaneus, Menexenus of Athens, Aristippus of Cyrene, Aristodemus of Athens, Coriscus of Scepsis, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Clombrotus of Aegina, Charmides of Athens, Lysias of Athens, now adopted by Megara, Theaetetus of Athens, one of our great mathematicians, and finally Spintharus of Tarentum, our music teacher. Paris of Troy will be responsible for memorizing our debates.

As you all know, we are but a small fraction of those who have embraced Socrates' philosophy, and if all of Socrates' students were to be here, the city of Megara itself would struggle to accommodate them all ! Many of our friends are absent for various reasons, including the wars ravaging our region. Some of Socrates' greatest disciples are no longer with us, such as Euripides of Salamis, whose plays moved us so deeply and who passed away eight years ago. Among his merits, let us remember that he alone dared to tell Athens that its myths were lies and that its supposedly heroic era was nothing but mud and blood, particularly in the war against the Trojans. Far from seeking to liberate Greek women abducted by the Trojans, he showed in his play that the war's primary aim was to enslave Trojan women and their children. Euripides always showed his plays to Socrates. And this is because they were in complete agreement on political and social goals, even though Socrates, unlike Euripides, did not believe that society could be transformed by theater alone. We also mourn Chaerephon of Athens, Socrates' childhood friend, whose brother, Chaerecrates, is with us, and whom Socrates loved most of all his disciples, and with whom he enjoyed exploring his ideas. Chaerephon died a few years before his master. As we all know, Chaerephon's impassioned temperament made him the most passionate defender of Socrates' theories. It is remembered that he was the one who consulted the Pythia of Delphi for her opinion on Socrates, and that opinion declared that "Socrates is the wisest man in Athens." And Prodicus of Ceos, whose teachings Socrates had followed, has also just passed away. In fact, it is Socrates' dearest friends who have died with him.

We are still reeling from the shock of the trial that befell our master Socrates, condemning him to death, and, a year later, we remain concerned about the significance of this condemnation and its potential consequences. Indeed, this is why many of his disciples in Athens have sought refuge here in Megara, fearing further persecution of Socrates' friends.

Some of us were with Socrates in his final moments. Others, myself included, were not present at the trial or with him before his death, except in spirit. Each of us has been able to gather a fragment of these painful events, which we wished to discuss, and, beyond a brief moment of reflection, we can exchange these few pieces of information and opinions. I hardly need to say it, and we will all agree on this, Socrates was the best among us : neither bribed nor deceived by hypocritical praise, nor weakened by gifts. It is scarcely believable that he could have been condemned based on reproaches concerning his person and his conduct. We are certainly divided on the interpretation of this decision by Athens and its consequences for Greece. But I must say that I do not understand at all what persuaded the Athenians to condemn him, and I understand even less what led Socrates to refuse to defend himself, and, faced with the iniquity of the judgment, it is even more incomprehensible to me that Socrates refused to flee as some of you had suggested.

Personally, I left Athens long before that to join the army of Cyrus the Younger, because the demagogic political regime that reigned in my city no longer suited me. But I wonder if I didn't only witness the beginning of a profound and harmful change. We will surely have the opportunity to discuss this. I would simply like to say by way of introduction that, while many of us, like myself and Alcibiades, owe our lives to Socrates, who saved us in the war, we all owe him true life—the life of ideas, the life of philosophy, into which he so happily introduced us…

To begin our meeting, I would like someone to explain to me what could have led the citizens of Athens to attack Socrates in this way. I was absent, and it seems to me that I no longer understand our city.

Hermogenes : Since you ask, Xenophon, I will briefly recall the circumstances : Athens had just been militarily defeated by Sparta, and a tyrannical regime subservient to the victor had been imposed upon it. It was morally humiliated, economically devastated, and politically violated—ravaged in every sense of the word. With the end of the Peloponnesian War came the end of the proud city's illusions of glory : its army defeated, its fleet dissolved, its walls demolished, its fields destroyed, its olive oil production wiped out, and its agricultural output so low that it could not even feed the city. The economy, particularly with the Laurium mines idle due to the escape of more than 20,000 slaves, was in a catastrophic state, and the coffers of the proud city were empty. Merchants had fled Piraeus, the population was decimated by the plague, the citizens' bodies were broken by war… Morale was at rock bottom, and so were the prospects. To overcome this, the city's leaders needed a culprit, a scapegoat, represented by Socrates. In his play, "The Clouds," Aristophanes had already laid the groundwork by demonizing Socrates and his companions in harsh terms in the eyes of the citizens : "Ugh ! Scoundrels, yes, I know. You mean those charlatans, those sallow-faced individuals, those barefoot vagrants, among whom is that evil genius Socrates…" By portraying Socrates as a figure falsely associated with the Sophists, Aristophanes had prepared the accusations of atheism and corrupting the youth that formed the basis of the trial. After hearing the accusations levelled against Socrates, he defended himself, as was his custom. He refused to let Lysias write his speech. The results speak for themselves : 280 judges condemned him and 221 acquitted him. It was therefore up to Socrates to propose a punishment, but since he was, in his own eyes, guilty of nothing, he proposed that he be fed at the Prytaneum, like the heroes and victors of the city. The judges, thinking that Socrates was mocking them, condemned him to death. Socrates proclaimed to the judges that his death would not end the suffering of Athens and that others would take his place. To condemn Socrates was, above all, to condemn defeat, not to find a solution to Athens' predicament, and it would not prevent people from philosophizing after him. This is a summary, which I hope is accurate, of the recent events that made Socrates a scapegoat, and others will certainly add to my account.

Apollodorus : It is scarcely believable that, on the word of three liars and fools—the accusing poet Meletus and two of his friends, the orator Lycon and the politician Anytus, three proven incompetents—our Socrates, known to all, could have been condemned to death for mere remarks that might have caused offense. The statements of these three false witnesses, whose accusations were clearly driven by hatred and jealousy, were confused, sometimes contradictory, and obviously unreliable. They appeared so clearly as pure and simple denigration that the court should have condemned the accuser and his witnesses for slanderous denunciation, with the intent to harm others. It is an incredible miscarriage of justice ! I feel utterly lost at the thought that we were unable to save his life...

Phaedo : To accuse Socrates, they used people who had grievances not against Socrates himself, but against Socrates' former friends, like Critias. For example, take Anytus. Remember that his former friend was Theramenes. Theramenes had participated, alongside Critias, in the government of the Thirty Tyrants, before being eliminated by Critias. Anytus resented Socrates because Critias was a former student of Socrates. But Socrates had nothing to do with the government of the Thirty Tyrants and did not support tyranny, even refusing to obey its orders at the risk of his life. Socrates had never considered that his group participate in this government of the Thirty Tyrants. He had even dissuaded Plato, who had briefly been involved. It was Theramenes himself who was close to Critias, much closer than Socrates ! That is the whole basis of Anytus's hatred ! Other accusers were jealous of Socrates' abilities and resented his harsh remarks about them, as was the case with Meletus. But in Aristophanes' case, it is clearly a matter of social and political hatred. In "The Birds," he mocks Socrates' admirers, accusing them of admiring Sparta above all else. In "The Assemblywomen," which Aristophanes was preparing, it is the Socrates who favored women's freedom who is accused of fomenting revolutionary unrest in which women would seize power. And in "The Clouds," it is the youth whom Socrates is accused of corrupting and turning against their parents, destroying the family, the official foundation of the state. He is portrayed there as an atheist sophist, which in Athens was a very serious accusation.

Xenophon : Socrates had publicly reproached Anytus for wanting his son to succeed him in government and for having educated him with that goal in mind. It was therefore out of personal resentment that Anytus accused Socrates of corrupting the youth. This wealthy Athenian, enriched by his tannery, belonged to the democratic party that had succeeded the tyranny and of which he was one of the leaders. This party resented Socrates' influence on the children of its members, such as Plato, and his relentless criticism of the "democrats'" demagoguery. Along with Thrasybulus, Anytus actively participated in the downfall of the oligarchic government of the Thirty Tyrants, leading the breakthrough at Piraeus. He also proved to be a fierce opponent of the Sophists. These are all reasons that must have led him to fight Socrates, unjustly presented by Aristophanes as one of the leading Sophists of Athens.

– Aristodemus : What the Athenian authorities orchestrated was not a simple trial : it was a veritable public execution of the political figure that Socrates represented. Let us recall Socrates' reply to Euthyphro, who asked him if he was going to his trial : "Not a trial, Euthyphro : the Athenians call it a matter of state." It was the state that Socrates was dealing with. A state that was still under construction and barely in its infancy. The jealousy of certain disreputable individuals, who were his accusers, served as a cover for an act perpetrated by the Athenian authorities. The manner in which he was tried in public demonstrates this. It was not a conventional trial by an ordinary court. Such an apparatus would not have been deployed, nor such expenses incurred, for a minor matter. Who were these judges ? Ordinary volunteer citizens, at least thirty years old. They were paid three obols per day of hearings, equivalent to half a day's wages for a laborer. This meager sum could only be affordable for elderly citizens, for whom it amounted to a retirement pension, or for unemployed or unfit young men. The cost to the Athenian administration was nonetheless considerable : this trial was equivalent to paying a day's wages to two hundred and fifty workers. The trial of Socrates, a matter of great importance, claimed to concern the entire city : it was a veritable affair of state. The judges, moreover, swore a formal oath to "vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the Athenian people." This evident gravity did not prevent the proceedings from being conducted at breakneck speed : all the debates had to be concluded within a single day (Socrates himself regretted this haste on numerous occasions). Ten thousand citizens attended the trial, and five hundred and one citizens served on the jury. The aim was to permanently discredit Socrates in the eyes of the people, to make it seem as if the entire population of Athens had executed him. In fact, the death of Socrates was indeed a crime against the state !

Hermogenes : The accusation was indeed, first and foremost, political. The accuser cited two pieces of evidence that the young men trained by Socrates were depraved : Critias and Alcibiades. The former was in no way a disciple of Socrates, even though he had received some instruction from him. When Critias came to power during the tyranny of the Thirty, Critias and Charicles, who led the thirty tyrants, heard of Socrates' scathing criticisms of their government. Socrates told anyone who would listen the fable of the two shepherds who claimed to be the best, but whose flock, under their leadership, had become smaller and thinner. He openly declared that those in positions of power who behaved similarly should be called bad shepherds. Hearing of Socrates' criticisms, the two tyrants summoned him one day and forbade him from lecturing young people. At the risk of his life, Socrates responded in his usual insolent manner with questions. "Wanting to fully understand this prohibition so that I can better apply it," he said, "may I ask you about its meaning ?" Upon their affirmative response, he asked what kind of questions he should not answer. For example, if a young man asked him for the address of Critias or Charicles, should he refuse to answer ? Then he asked, if he bought something from a teenager, did he have the right to ask the price ? After that, he inquired at what age he should consider someone too young to speak to him. Charicles replied that he should not only leave the city's youth alone, but also the carpenters, blacksmiths, and other manual laborers, about whom Socrates spoke too much, according to the tyrant. He also added the cowherds to show Socrates that he was aware of his criticism of the two shepherds, Charicles and Critias. And so on… What this shows, first and foremost, is that the ruling classes knew of Socrates' combativeness and political courage, and that they feared him. Whether tyrants or so-called democrats, all believed that Socrates' outspokenness could do them great harm, revealing their hidden agendas and political manipulations. Attributing Critias' crimes to Socrates was a tremendous slander. Even Alcibiades' excesses cannot be held against Socrates, since the latter in no way supported Alcibiades' policies when he came to power. However, the prosecution thus reminded the court that Socrates was a political figure who could destabilize the regime, and it succeeded in its aim, because this, in fact, was true.

As for Alcibiades, I can say this all the more easily since he is here with us today ; everyone knows he was no longer the same man when he tried his hand at power. But everyone remembers the twenty-year-old who dared to address Pericles in the manner of Socrates, back when Pericles was not only his tutor but also the first citizen of Athens : “ Tell me, Pericles, is it called law what has been decreed by the legislator if it goes against the deliberations of the assembly ? Is it called law what a small committee of wealthy citizens has decided, discreetly in private, to the detriment of the majority of citizens ? Is it law what a tyrant imposes against the will of the entire people ?” And Pericles confirmed that all of these were laws that had to be obeyed. And, Alcibiades boldly asked, conversely, if the people are powerful and impose their will on the wealthiest, can what they decree be considered laws ? Pericles replied that no, that was an act of violence against the established order ! And against whom, you think, Pericles railed ? Against Socrates, of course, since it was to Socrates that Pericles owed Alcibiades's unreasonable reasoning… But it certainly wasn't Socrates's fault if, intoxicated by his successes, his popularity, and perhaps by wine, our friend Alcibiades committed excesses and intoxicated the youth with his warlike enthusiasm. Alcibiades had, for a time, chosen to accept becoming a man of Athenian power, believing that in this way he would also have the power to reform society. He can attest that Socrates had warned him, saying : “Alcibiades, by becoming head of state and commander of the army, you will not have more freedom to act in the interest of the citizens, but on the contrary, you will be the least free man of all the citizens of the city. You will not be the one who holds the power, but you will be the hostage of power. You will be the most chained man in Athens, and at your slightest move, they will get rid of you.” And Alcibiades only proved Socrates perfectly right. The authorities took advantage of the enthusiasm Alcibiades had generated and then wasted no time in discrediting him and bringing him down. He hadn't even had time to take his post at the head of the Athenian armies before he was accused and dragged into court. Political power may appear to pass into the hands of the most skillful politician, but this is merely an illusion : real power remains, in fact, in the hands of the wealthiest citizens, the ruling class. Politicians come and go, but the powerful families remain.

– Phaedo : Aeschylus was all the more celebrated at the Great Dionysia for his "Oresteia" because he praised the "democratic" system during the reign of Pericles. The entire cleverly established electoral system was deified, while tyranny (which, ironically, relied much more heavily on the people) was denounced ! The theater praised the system all the more because it had fostered its art by demanding massive citizen participation and compensating them for their involvement in the plays... Art had thus been completely instrumentalized by the powers that be. This was one of the traps that Socrates had exposed through his critique.

Apollodorus : I still remember the words of Simmias and Cebes, shortly before Socrates' death, weeping : "We no longer have our enchanting master" ... Just imagine : Socrates is gone forever. Phaedo, you told me you considered him your spiritual father, and I wonder if I didn't consider him my father, period, so eager was I to consult him on every matter. A man who wished no harm to anyone, who was content with the weapon of criticism in his struggle, who refused the use of weapons and armies, who possessed no wealth to corrupt anyone, was deliberately eliminated by an armed, wealthy, developed, powerful society that feared him and hated him simply because he criticized them too freely ! It's enough to make you lose all faith in justice, and all respect for citizens !

Eubulides : How can we understand why Socrates was targeted, he who always refused to take advantage of the power offered to him a thousand times, as well as the esteem and comfort it afforded him ? I wasn't present for the latest developments in Athens, but in my opinion, Socrates was indeed chosen as a scapegoat for Athens' difficulties and failures. Athens' crisis is the cause. It is struggling to recover from having fallen from its pedestal and, in just a few years, from having been lauded for unexpected victories, then thrown into the mud following even more unexpected defeats. To have been beaten by Sparta after having defeated Persia is a bit like winning against a lion only to be defeated by a flea ! A defeat as crushing as it was unexpected.

And for far too many years, Athens was led to glorify its superiority, to expect great riches from it, and to consider its well-being as a right. This demagoguery began with Pericles. He persuaded the Athenians that they were destined to dominate and to enrich themselves from this elevated position. It was also Pericles who founded social populism, which allowed the rich to no longer fear the wrath of the poor, the latter being occupied with numerous spectacles, invited to watch plays without paying, and above all, invited to participate in a caricature of popular power, performed as a play, or as a chorus. It was he who lowered the property requirements for archons, paid generous allowances to all citizens serving as jurors in the Heliaia, and instilled Athenian pride to an extreme degree by limiting Athenian citizenship to those with Athenian lineage from both sides of their family, instead of just through their father as before. This demagoguery was in no way accompanied by a reduction in social inequalities ; quite the contrary, it served to mask the major interests of his policy of conquest. The Peloponnesian War impoverished the population, largely due to Pericles' disastrous tactics. Trapped within the Long Walls, he allowed the Attic landscape to be devastated. Fields lay fallow, land speculation ran rampant, exacerbating the concentration of property ownership and the impoverishment of the people.

The "great" century of Pericles is over, well and truly over. Great is the uncertainty of the future. Athens has been evacuated, destroyed, rebuilt, and is once again threatened with occupation and destruction. And, almost worse than the destruction itself, there is the shame of defeat and the fear of what tomorrow will bring, now that wealth no longer accumulates on its own in Piraeus. Plague has followed the wars and civil wars. The suffering has been immense, and the threat stirs even more extreme emotions. Violence has spread to the heart of the city. In these wars, Athens allowed itself to fall under the control of military and political leaders who justified numerous atrocities against other Greek city-states, and the people's level of awareness has been lowered as a result. Killing has become commonplace in relations with other cities as well as between citizens. Human life no longer has the same value, in Athens as elsewhere. Each clan that comes to power is determined to physically eliminate the opposing clan. And the fight against Sparta completed the destruction of Athens.

– Phaedo : Athens' greatness stemmed from the weakening of Sparta, until then the strongest warrior city in Greece. Sparta's loss of preeminence was not solely due to wars, but primarily to revolutions. The Lacedaemonian island experienced a catastrophic earthquake. Following the Persian Wars, which had already contributed to discrediting the ruling classes in the eyes of the people, this provided an opportunity for an uprising against the government. The helots and the common people seized the opportunity to revolt. It was because Sparta was weakened that Athens enjoyed its golden age during the thirty years that followed. This is what Pericles benefited from. An aristocrat, he pursued a policy aimed at presenting himself as a leader of the people, who wanted to grant equal political rights to all citizens. The prosperity that was linked to the policy of grandeur (development of the fleet, colonization, large-scale trade and conquests) stabilized Athenian society, but it also made it even more unequal and unjust.

Athens, having become the strongest of the Greek city-states, sought to dominate Sparta instead of uniting as equals. And so, Athens was defeated by Sparta ! Even when internal and external peace was momentarily stabilized, the city remained scarred by the political and social crises of the years following the annihilation of its fleet in the port of Syracuse and its army on the Assinaros River, then a war that alienated all of Greece (the Decelian War), then, two years later, the triumph of the oligarchy, the restoration of democracy, military victories immediately followed by the execution of the victorious generals and then crushing defeats, the destruction of the Long Walls, the dissolution of the Maritime League, then the Thirty Tyrants, and once again democracy... This democracy is one where the masses are paid to attend meetings and spectacles that both resemble theatrical performances. The people are being whipped into a frenzy, pulled in every direction, but are they truly the ones making the decisions ? And, time and again, politicians have been appealing to the people without them knowing their true objectives. The people of Athens have suffered without understanding why. They are afraid without knowing where the next blow will come from. They distrust everything and everyone. Hence the ease with which a wounded public can be manipulated.

And Athens is all the more afraid now that it knows it is no longer protected by its walls, its fleet, its army. It is at the mercy of the four winds. And they are blowing from all sides : on one side the Gauls, on another the Persians, on a third the Etruscans or the Carthaginians. Xerxes and Darius have only launched the first assault from the East against Greece. A great migration from the banks of the Volga, reaching as far as India and Andalusia, cannot leave us unscathed. Coming from Central and Western Europe, the Keltoi (elsewhere called "Celts") are moving ever further south, toward our regions, at the head of groups of warriors. Isocrates is right : without the free union of the city-states, there is no future for Greece. Now, the power in Athens fears this union more than anything : it wants domination over the Greek city-states, it wants its revenge against Sparta. Today, it bows before Sparta only to raise its head again tomorrow and punish its enemies harshly... Of course, the situation of division was ludicrous : each city-state had its own gods, institutions, form of government, currency, justice system, calendar, and even its own year... A central power was necessary. But Athens doesn't convince the Greek city-states ; it imposes... that the collected money benefit only itself, that all trials take place in Athens, that the cities that wish to remain free be violently crushed... Under these conditions, Athens hates nothing more than a Socrates who exposes its weaknesses, its lies, its deceptions of the people, who unmasks its war aims as much as the hypocrisy of its politicians and the greed of its speculators...

Eubulides : Despite the end of the power crisis and the amnesty, Athens remained wounded in its very being and its pride : it no longer had a fleet, no shipyards, no money. The ruling classes needed to find scapegoats for this catastrophic and hopeless situation. To this end, Socrates represented the ideal culprit. While the pride of being Athenian was taken to extremes by demagogic politicians, Socrates declared that he was neither Athenian nor Greek, but a citizen of the world. Socrates then criticized Athens' military efforts, including those of the so-called glorious era, such as the years of Pericles. He denounced wars of conquest and only justified wars of defense. He saw no glory in killing other men in war.

We can downplay the risks posed by the harsh criticisms of Socrates and a small group of his followers, but it is the circumstances that make Socrates' debates appear as so many threats of destabilization. The people's weariness with the ruling classes could explode at any moment and find, in the group founded by Socrates, a revolutionary direction. In my opinion, the trial of Socrates was a product of Athens' defeat at the hands of Lysander. It was necessary to blame the free citizens for a defeat they themselves had predicted and fought against. The elimination of Socrates certainly did not solve a single one of the city's real problems. By condemning Socrates, Athens condemned itself to continue its bloody internal squabbles within Greece, a path that inevitably leads to weakening, defeat, and decline. This trend must be reversed, and it is up to us, here present, to undertake this task. That is why I consider Xenophon's initiative to be a good one and promising for the future. Another path is possible for Athens and for Greece, which will not achieve success without granting autonomy to the various city-states.

Let us not forget that we possess a multitude of talents, from strategist to sculptor, and from historian to lawyer. And I'm not even mentioning philosophers and historians. Among us, for example, are great generals, known for having established military strategies that will remain in the annals of war : Xenophon and Alcibiades, who were Athenian strategists, and Hermocrates, a great strategist from Syracuse. If we, the disciples of Socrates, manage to defend a common vision of the future of Greece and human society, this could have considerable consequences for the future. That is the whole point of this assembly.

Charmides : For my part, I am not pleased to have received this invitation to such a clandestine meeting. It may remind the Athenians that I am still a target, and it may seem all the more suspicious to the Athenian authorities given that former Athenian military leaders, now serving in foreign or hostile armies, are participating : Xenophon with Cyrus the Younger of Persia and, above all, Alcibiades with Sparta. Like me, the latter faked his death in Athens to avoid being pursued by his enemies. If information leaks from our meeting, not only will his life be threatened, but ours as well. His betrayal, in the midst of the war between Athens and Sparta, cannot be dismissed as mere self-defense, nor as a way to escape trial, even if he was indeed threatened with condemnation in Athens in the trial brought against him. Everyone in Athens remembers the incident with the statues of Hermes whose noses were broken off in the heart of the city. Whether this was a violent act attributable to Alcibiades and his group, or a provocation intended to harm him, I don't know. I don't want to put Alcibiades on trial, nor do I want to reproach Xenophon. The latter entered Cyrus's war effort a year before Socrates' death. Currently, all of Greece is talking about his exploits at the head of the Greek soldiers, the famous "Ten Thousand" whom he saved from disaster by organizing the longest retreat of all time. But the wars to which you invite your Greek warriors, my dear Xenophon, do nothing to advance the Greek cause, and your soldiers, however impressive their bravery and you your leadership, are merely diverted from our forces. As for Alcibiades, he is merely continuing to divide the Greeks, who were already divided enough without him. And I consider it extremely unwise to convene such a meeting, attended by Greek citizens with alliances other than Athens, at the very moment when Athens is suffering from an acute crisis of espionage… It is, at best, to recklessly endanger all his friends, and, at worst, to have decided to implicate us all in a genuine political conspiracy against Athens ! I wish to state that, whatever political agenda is presented to this assembly, I will not participate. Quite content to simply enjoy life and to be able to philosophize peacefully in my garden, I have had enough of politics and will henceforth adhere to the attitude of our master Socrates, which consisted of keeping oneself apart from the band of madmen enamored of the political platform, honors, and responsibilities.

Alcibiades : Xenophon, for my part, I thank you. You were kind enough to send us messages, bringing us together to talk about Socrates—all of us who were his students, his disciples, his friends. However, I find it very surprising that the crime Athens has just committed hasn't opened your eyes, neither you, Xenophon, who are still wondering about the causes of this crime, which you consider unexpected, nor you, Charmides, who fears only one thing : that the Athenians will think you a traitor for having been there, at a tribute to Socrates, alongside Xenophon and Alcibiades ! If I understand you correctly, I should fear for my life for having participated in this gathering and also fear implicating all our friends with me, but I believe they are old enough to have come knowingly ! For my part, I did indeed decide to let myself be presumed dead in Athens, given the number of people who wanted to get rid of me. It's clear that the Athens of today bears no resemblance to the one for which Socrates fought as a soldier, the one for which both he and I found ourselves at the head of the Council of Five Hundred in Athens, and which led us to command its armies. It is no longer the city that consciously placed its most revolutionary citizens at its head. It is no longer the city that wanted to liberate Greece and protect it from dangerous warlike neighbors, but the one that wants to dominate it by crushing Sparta and any rival Greek power. Socrates did not condone this, and that is why he was condemned to hemlock… To conceal this fact is to condone Athens' crime against the greatest of Athenians !

As for the accusations that Charmides levels against me, which are certainly widely circulated in Athens, I would like to remind everyone that, while Sparta and Athens are implacable enemies today, this has not always been the case. Indeed, it was their alliance that consistently led to great successes, for both cities and for all of Greece. It was at the head of the armies of Athens and Sparta, united with the other Greek cities, that Themistocles emerged victorious over the Persian armies at Salamis. Everyone wants to remember this, but also remember that later, due to Athens' refusal to accept the freedom of Greek cities, the rift led Themistocles, once acclaimed in Athens, to join the court of the Persian king... It was again Athens' political choices that led Xenophon to join Cyrus' army and lead his ten thousand Greek soldiers who followed him in a retreat that would become famous in history, particularly because of the three thousand kilometers they marched across Asia Minor... Why didn't Xenophon manage to be placed in command of Athens' troops ? Because in Athens, competence wasn't the priority, nor was the professionalism of the strategists ; it was the loud-mouthed politicians who led the armies. Of course, that's how I managed it myself, but that's because there was no other way to gain recognition...

Crito : You'll excuse me for briefly interrupting your discussion, but I wouldn't want our meeting, barely begun, to descend into quarrels unrelated to the subject that brings us together : the death of Socrates and the legacy of his ideas that now rests on our shoulders. First, I want to say that our emotion and our condemnation of the act that has just been committed against Socrates do not constitute a unilateral and sweeping accusation against Athens. It wasn't the entire citizenry, nor the whole government, that condemned Socrates, but only a court. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that Socrates did nothing to defend himself and even willingly contributed to his own indictment through his actions. I say this because he wanted his friends to know it. He didn't want to fight in this trial or defend himself. He declared that his whole life was his defense and that he didn't need to justify himself. He told me several times to share this with you. Socrates refused my offer to advance the thirty minae he would have been willing to pay as a fine. To Apollodorus, who complained that the judgment was unjust, he replied, "Would you have preferred that I be justly condemned ? Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me." Indeed, he explained that the arguments of his slanderers, Anytus and Meletus, were so base and mendacious that they could not, after his death, damage his philosophy, or even tarnish it. At the trial, he may have appeared provocative, declaring that the only punishment he considered just would be for the court to grant him a lifetime annuity ! He refused to flee, as we suggested and using the means we had made available to him. Cebes, Simmias, and many others can attest to this. They can recount it better than I. Socrates rejected the plea written for him by Lysias, the most famous speechwriter of our time—and I say this without meaning to offend you, Lysias. Even though much of it is incomprehensible to me, I wish to share these facts with you, as he himself requested. He wanted you to know this so that you might reflect on the meaning of his final actions. I understand that Socrates possessed a personal courage that surpasses my own, but I cannot understand why he did not try to fight against the death that threatened his own life.

Apollodorus : By the dog ! I cannot allow it to be said, even by a friend as close as you, Crito, that Socrates participated in the causes of his own death. It shocks and revolts me ! Those who caused his death are murderers, and Socrates had nothing to do with it ! I know, Crito, that you helped Socrates many times during his lifetime and that your grief at his death is as great as mine. I know that after his death, all your efforts are aimed at preserving the thought of our master in writing, and you deserve our gratitude for that. However, this does not mean that your statements are accurate and reflect Socrates' point of view. Do not forget that even the act of putting Socrates' point of view into writing was always condemned by Socrates himself. He did not recognize himself in any of the texts that claimed to report his words. And, above all, he did not consider it wise to disseminate his ideas in writing in modern Athens. For me, what I would most like is for the participants of this meeting to tell us what Socrates taught them and what memory they have of it.

Menexenus : I wish to recount the last days of Socrates, which we shared with him in his prison, where he waited ten days after his death sentence. Every day, about ten of us friends were with him, discussing philosophy from morning till night. He knew that poison awaited him, that the hemlock would gradually penetrate his body, first paralyzing his limbs, then his heart. We were all completely devastated, drained by the thought of this dreadful end. As for him, he skipped about and chatted, as spry as a young man. He imparted his philosophical lessons to us, chatting as usual. But this time, the main lesson was right there before us : it was Socrates himself. At the peak of his mental and moral form, he demonstrated unparalleled boldness and intellectual audacity. I wish to recount this lesson in courage, not only for the participants in this gathering, but for the world, for posterity. No one should be unaware that there was a man like Socrates, of whom humanity has every reason to be proud. One might say : here is a man who talked a lot, but what great things did he accomplish ? A great book ? A great ship ? A great conquest ? A great battle ? A great empire ? Well, Socrates did none of these things ! He showed us that, despite the modesty of his person, his actions, and his words, human greatness is a conquest that deserves the noblest battles, and that it does not consist of crushing others.

Alcibiades : Socrates, you were our flute charmer. You never learned the flute, but your own flute, your words, charmed everyone—men, women, children—without them even realizing it. And then, they couldn't do without the sound of your flute, which you knew how to play with no other instrument than your magnanimity. Marsyas, on the other hand, used instruments when he charmed people with the power of his breath, and that's what we still do today when we play his melodies on the flute. Indeed, what Olympus played, I say, was from Marsyas, who was his teacher. And his melodies, whether played by a skilled artist or a poor flute player, are the only ones capable of deeply touching us and revealing those who need the gods and initiation, for these melodies are divine. You differ from him in only one respect : you need no instruments, and simple words suffice to produce the same effects. One thing is certain : when we hear another speaker, however gifted, deliver other speeches, it hardly interests anyone. But when it is you we hear, or when another reports your words, however mediocre he may be himself, and a man, or a woman, or a young man hears it, we are struck to the heart, a turmoil seizes us.

– Plato : I would like to say it in a few words : he was the wisest and most just of all men. Socrates, the son of Apollo, was chosen by God to bring his word to our ears ; the bees of Hymettus deposited their honey on his lips ; a young swan, flown from the altar of Eros, announced the coming of the philosopher ; speech was given to him to charm men and gods... We can never replace him, and we will never know, with each new question that comes to mind, what Socrates, who claimed to know nothing, would have said !

Socrates' interventions at his trial astonish and even seem provocative to some, but this overlooks what Socrates declared in the opening line of his second speech : "The judgment you have just pronounced, Athenians, has moved me little, and for many reasons ; besides, I expected what happened." Under these circumstances, Socrates had no reason not to consider the defense of his beliefs as essential, not his personal defense. This does not mean that he did not value his life, but that he was determined to remain steadfast in his beliefs to the very end, knowing that since a trial had been initiated with the Athenian authorities as its organizer, he would not be declared innocent. He certainly had no reason to accept that he had committed a wrong and deserved some form of punishment.

– Hermogenes : When I saw him discoursing on all sorts of subjects shortly before his trial, I said to him : "But shouldn't you, Socrates, also think about what you will say in your defense ?" and Socrates replied at first : "Don't you see that I have spent my whole life preparing my defense ?"

"How ?" I had asked.

"By living without ever committing any injustice, which is, in my opinion, the best way to prepare one's defense."

I said to him again : "Don't you think that the Athenian courts, seduced by eloquent speeches, often put innocent people to death and often acquitted guilty people whose speeches had moved or charmed them ?"

Socrates replied : "Yes, indeed ! By Zeus, and this is the second time I have tried to prepare my defense, but the voice of my daimon has opposed it."

"That's surprising ," I told him.

“Do you find it surprising that God himself judges it better for me to end my life now ? Don't you know that I won't concede to anyone that they have lived better than I have until this day ? For I know, and this is my greatest satisfaction, that I have always led a pious and righteous life, so much so that, holding myself in high esteem, I have always seen those who associated with me share the same sentiment. If, on the contrary, my life is prolonged, I am certain to see infallibly all the ills of old age arrive : my vision will be less clear, my hearing less well, my learning more difficult, and my forgetting of what I have learned more quickly. Now, if I feel myself declining and am dissatisfied with myself, how,” he continued, “could I still take pleasure in living ?” Perhaps, he added, it is also God who, in his goodness, grants me to end my days not only at the most opportune age, but also by the easiest path. For if I am condemned today, it is evident that I will be given to die the way that those who have dealt with this matter have judged the easiest, the least distressing for friends, the most likely to make the dying man mourned. Indeed, when one leaves no unpleasant or painful image in the minds of those present, and dies with a healthy body and a soul capable of showing tenderness, how could one not be missed ? It is therefore with good reason, he continued, that the gods opposed the preparation of my defense, when we thought we should seek at all costs the means to escape condemnation. If I had succeeded, it is clear that instead of ending my life today, I would have prepared for myself a death darkened by the sufferings of illness or old age, assailed by every evil at once and devoid of all pleasures. No, by Zeus, Hermogenes, he continued, if I must offend the jury by declaring all the advantages I believe I have obtained from gods and men, as well as my opinion of myself, I would rather die than basely beg for the favor of living longer and thus gain an existence far worse than death.

– Xenophon : Socrates was of a fairly advanced age and had very little time left to live ; he lost only the most painful part of life, that in which intelligence weakens in all men ; by renouncing it, he showed all the rigor of his soul ; he covered himself with glory by the uncommon truth, freedom and justice of his defense, as much as by the gentleness and courage with which he received the sentence of his death.

– Hermogenes : I tried to explain to Socrates the necessity of defending myself according to the customs of the court. He replied : "Well, Hermogenes, I have tried to devise a defense to present to my judges, but my intellect has prevented it. What can you do, if the gods deem it best for me to leave this life now ? If I die unjustly, it will be a shame for those who have unjustly caused my death. I am convinced that men will bear witness that I have never wronged anyone."

– Ichtyas : Socrates did perfectly well not to stoop to admitting faults, begging for mercy, or swearing that he would cease discussing his ideas with people, because, as he himself explained, it would have changed nothing in substance : "If I am condemned, it is not for lack of a speech in which Socrates laments, groans, and does and says a host of things that I consider unworthy of me, things that you are accustomed to hearing from other defendants. I would much rather die after having defended myself as I have than live by such baseness."

– Aristodemus : Many of us are astonished that Socrates maintained the same attitude, the same remarks, the same caustic wit at his trial, even though his life was at stake, as he had in his debates. This proves that we have completely misunderstood Socrates. It is to claim that for Socrates, it was simply a matter of pushing his interlocutors to their limits, forcing them to reveal their ideas to him and to the others present. In fact, it was something else entirely. Irony is a way of fighting to the bitter end against the ideology imposed by the ruling class, of demolishing it stone by stone. And, on the day of his trial, when the ruling class had engaged in open combat against him, we are supposed to expect this fighter to lay down his arms !

– Ctesippus : His defense at the trial was, however, clear :

“Anytos told you that you absolutely had to condemn me to death, because if I escaped, your sons would practice the teachings of Socrates and become completely corrupt ; even if you were to tell me : ‘Socrates, we will not listen to Anytos, and we will acquit you, but on one condition, that you will no longer spend your time examining people and philosophizing ; and if you are caught doing so, you will die' and if you were to acquit me on this condition, I would answer you : ‘Athenians, I am grateful to you and I love you, but, (…) as long as I have a breath of life, as long as I am capable of it, do not expect me to cease philosophizing, exhorting you and teaching you. To each one I meet, I will say what I am accustomed to saying : “How is it that you, excellent man, who are an Athenian and a citizen of the greatest city in the world and the most renowned for its wisdom and power, are not ashamed to devote all your efforts to amassing as much money as possible and to seeking reputation and honors, while your reason, your conscience, your search for truth, all that deserves to be constantly perfected, you deign not to take any care, any concern for ?” (…) Be assured that, if you put me to death, without regard for the man I claim to be, it is not me you will harm most, but yourselves. (…) But perhaps it seemed strange to you that I go about the streets, giving advice privately and meddling in the affairs of others, and yet dare not appear in public at official assemblies to offer advice to the republic. (…) No one lives very long if they publicly oppose you or openly try to prevent many injustices and illegalities from being committed in the state. If you truly want to fight for justice and if you want to live for a while, you must do so discreetly and without making a public spectacle of yourself. (…) I am not a man to speak for money and to remain silent if I am not given any. (…) The arguments I can offer in my defense are limited to these. But perhaps there will be someone among you who will be indignant, remembering that the accused must pray and beg the judges with tears, trying to soften them up as much as possible with his children and friends, while I naturally want to do none of that, even though I may believe myself to be in the face of the greatest danger. (...) For my honor, for yours, and for that of the entire city, it does not seem proper to me to resort to any of these means. (...) You know, Athenians, that I have never held any magistracy, and that I have only been a senator. The Antiochid tribe, to which I belong, was just then in charge of the Prytaneum, when, against all the laws,You persisted in simultaneously prosecuting the ten generals who had neglected to bury the bodies of those who were about to perish in the naval battle of Arginusae ; an injustice you acknowledged and subsequently repented of. On this occasion, I was the only one of the prytaneis who dared to oppose the violation of the laws and vote against you. Despite the orators who were preparing to denounce me, despite your threats and cries, I preferred to run this risk with the law and justice than to consent with you to such a great iniquity, for fear of chains or death. This event took place while the democratic government still existed. When the oligarchy came to power, the Thirty summoned me, the fifth member of the council, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. For they gave similar orders to many people, to compromise as many as possible ; and so I proved, not in words, but by deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible then, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis, taking Leon with them, and I retired to my house ; and there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience, had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest to. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.The Thirty summoned me, the fifth, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. They gave similar orders to many people, hoping to compromise as many as possible. And so I proved, not with words, but with deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible at that time, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis and brought Leo, while I retired to my home. And there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.The Thirty summoned me, the fifth, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. They gave similar orders to many people, hoping to compromise as many as possible. And so I proved, not with words, but with deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible at that time, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis and brought Leo, while I retired to my home. And there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.Never yielding to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one this pleasure.Never yielding to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one this pleasure.That's extremely clear !

Socrates had no choice : either denigrate himself or be eliminated by Athens. The source of Socrates' misfortunes is not to be found in his own attitude, but in the crisis in Athens...

Aeschines : I agree, and one cannot understand Socrates' condemnation without going to the root of Athens' extremely painful defeat. Sparta's victory was devastating for Athens politically, socially, and morally. By the peace treaty, Athens was spared and retained its walls, except for the Long Walls and the fortifications of Piraeus. What saved these walls was not Athens' strength, but rather the fact that Sparta was now more wary of Thebes and Corinth, cities that had wanted to raze Athens and, at the very least, its walls. The remaining ships were surrendered, except for twelve, and the exiles were allowed to return. Athens, placed under Spartan domination, became an ally of Sparta. Lysander imposed the oligarchic Council of Thirty (Critias, Theramenes, etc.) there. They themselves appointed the 500 members of the Council as well as the magistrates and surrounded themselves with a guard of 300 whip-bearers, later supplemented by a Spartan garrison. The Thirty began by massacring the sycophants and demagogues. Then, partly for financial reasons, they targeted the metics and wealthy citizens (1,500 people were massacred). A civic body of 3,000 citizens, the only ones authorized to remain in Athens and enjoy legal protections, was created. Theramenes, who had negotiated Athens' surrender, opposed Critias. Considered too moderate, he drank hemlock. Lysias and his brother Polemarchus were arrested by the Thirty. Polemarchus was put to death, but Lysias escaped. The 20,000 slaves in the Laurium mines revolted and deserted. Athens has lost its sources of income, its maritime superiority, and its self-confidence.

Sparta's victory did not bring an end to the conflicts in Greece, nor did it usher in a new period of unification and prosperity under Spartan rule. After the Peloponnesian War, while Athens enjoyed relative stability, many Greek city-states were torn apart by internal strife between wealthy citizens, supporters of the oligarchy, and the poor, who demanded debt relief and land redistribution. Poverty and civil wars led to a surge in the number of Greek mercenaries. These men, easily recruited by anyone with money or, failing that, organized into roving bands that lived by plunder, constituted a significant source of political instability.

The satrap Tissaphernes demanded the submission of the Ionian cities and laid siege to Kyme. The Greeks of Asia Minor appealed to Sparta, which sent the harmost Thibron at the head of 5,000 men, reinforced by 5,000 survivors from the retreat of the Ten Thousand commanded by Xenophon. Sparta sent an ultimatum to the Eleans ordering them to grant autonomy to their perioico cities. Faced with the Eleans' refusal, King Agis II led two campaigns a year ago, which forced Elis to submit.

In Athens, Thrasybulus, at the head of the rebellious democrats entrenched in the fortress of Phyle, seized Piraeus. Critias was killed at the Battle of Munichia, where the democrats were victorious. The Thirty were forced to retreat to Eleusis, whose population they had previously massacred. The Ten, to whom they had left power in Athens, appealed in vain to Sparta. King Pausanias I of Sparta intervened and, disagreeing with Lysander, urged the Athenians toward reconciliation. Democracy was restored, and the moderates took power. An amnesty law was passed, and Athenians who wished to do so could emigrate to Eleusis (August-September). The legislative procedure was modified to prevent the return of the oligarchy. Thrasybulus attempted to grant citizenship to the metics who had fought against the Thirty. Archinos brought an action against him for illegality and won his case.
It was in this unhealthy political climate that Athens found itself for ten years and, if it has just ended in catastrophe, with the condemnation and elimination of Socrates, the evil has developed for at least eight years, where the powers have constantly overstepped the bounds, discredited themselves, fallen, and been replaced by other even more dictatorial powers, resting on an even smaller fraction of the population.

– Phaedo : The people of Athens were not only victims of their Persian or Spartan neighbors. They were far more victimized by their own internal wars. Political passions had deplorable results : hatred of all against all. Each faction, upon seizing power, was unable to stop the cycle of violence and revenge. Critias was the last in a long line of leaders who made the elimination of opponents a method of governance, even going so far as to eliminate the most moderate members of their own power. He was eventually overthrown, notably by Anytus, one of Socrates' accusers. Socrates restored a kind of democracy, but he too sought revenge. Critias was killed in the fighting. Charmides fled and feigned death for over a year to extinguish the threat of assassination. Alcibiades faked his death, claiming he was assassinated by the Persians in Phrygia, to protect himself from the vengeance of certain Athenian citizens. This is why he doesn't want his presence here to be known, because once he is found alive, he won't be alive for long. I therefore appeal to the discretion of each of us, which is, of course, in everyone's best interest, because such a gathering would quickly be interpreted as a conspiracy in the current climate of political madness in Athens. The fact that Chaerephon and Thucydides have been eliminated is a testament to this. Plato himself has had to leave the city and is trying to present a version of the master's theses that reconciles the city with him. Xenophon still enjoys a place in Athens thanks to the aura he gained throughout Greece from his fight at the head of the "Ten Thousand" soldiers who fought in Persia. He was all the more glorified because he then brought back the five thousand survivors to protect the Ionian cities against the attack of the satrap Tissaphernes who had laid siege to Kyme.

– Epigenes : It seems to me that Cleon is primarily responsible for Athens' choices that led it to refuse peace with Sparta when it was offered. The capture of Sphacteria and the surrender of the Lacedaemonians had caused a veritable earthquake in the Greek world. Sparta's land military superiority was so severely challenged that the proud city once again proposed a "white peace" to Athens. Athens refused again under Cleon's influence. He is highly symbolic of a new class of politicians from the lower classes who use their popularity as tribunes to manipulate public sentiment in ways contrary to the common good.

Aristodemus : Cleon manipulated the people of Athens with his demagogic methods. This does not mean that the people were incapable of regaining their composure and turning against their leader. The most famous example is the suppression of the revolt in the city of Mytilene, which was in rebellion against Athens. A single courageous man, Diodotus, managed, the day after the decision to suppress the city by destroying it and killing its inhabitants, to sway public opinion in the assembly of citizens by declaring : “Let us refrain from severely punishing people who revolt ; let us ensure that they do not have the desire to rebel. Let us punish only those responsible for the crime committed.” The people followed him, reversing their vote of the previous day and thus saving the people of Mytilene…

– Plato : I believe that Athens did indeed experience a decline linked to the behavior of its leaders. To recall the criticisms Socrates leveled against Pericles, remember Socrates' dialogue with Callicles :

Socrates : Now, try to remember, and, regarding the illustrious men you mentioned a little while ago, tell me if you still think they were good citizens ? (…) So when Pericles began to speak to the people, the Athenians were in a worse state than when he addressed them for the last time.

Callicles : Perhaps.

Socrates : (…) Do we say that the Athenians, under the influence of Pericles, improved, or, on the contrary, that they were corrupted by him ?

Callicles : You must have heard that in the Spartan party, among the men with torn ears, Socrates !

Socrates : In that case, here is something I have not heard about, but which I know perfectly well, and so do you. At the beginning, Pericles had a good reputation among the Athenians (…) On the other hand, at the end of Pericles' life, when the citizens of Athens had become, thanks to him, good men, they voted against him for theft and practically condemned him to death, because they obviously thought he was a scoundrel.

Callicles : So what ? Is that a reason to say that Pericles was bad ?

Socrates : You agree that, among our contemporaries, there is not a single one who has had a good policy, but despite all that you choose those we have just been talking about.

This dialogue clearly shows that Socrates reproached Pericles for having corrupted the Athenians by giving them mythical goals of enrichment. The role of the political leader is clearly established here by Socrates : governing involves educating the people, and I believe that if this meeting has a purpose, it is precisely to understand how to train this class of philosophical leaders capable of educating the people in justice, virtue, and the scientific management of the city. Philosophy must be placed at the center of the city, and the city must be the center of the state.

Euclid : Your conception, Plato, proposes only states founded around a small city-state, self-sufficient and thriving. In my opinion, this in no way meets the needs of a city like Athens. You idealize the qualities of a small city-state founded on enlightened leaders, but history has decided otherwise. And, first of all, it's far too short-sighted : Athens, drunk with the thrill of conquest, wasn't born with Pericles. It was long before that the Greeks were intoxicated by their victories and that Hellas (which some call Greece) experienced considerable expansion, stretching from the northern, southern, and western coasts of the Black Sea, through Asia Minor, Greece itself—including the Aegean islands—to Sicily and southern Italy, then along the shores of the Mediterranean, reaching Cyrene in Libya, Marseille, and some coastal sites in Spain. This initial colonization had the sole purpose of acquiring land. Things would be very different in the time of Pericles, when the Greeks focused solely on large-scale trade.

It is naive to believe that, in a past as glorious as it was honest, Greece would have united only for self-defense. The Trojan War had far more objectives than saving Menelaus's marital honor. It was about seizing the Dardanelles Strait—a crucial maritime passage for international trade, which we call the Hellespont—and also the treasures of the city of Troy, taking advantage of the internal turmoil weakening the city and Trojan power. Allowing Troy to flourish meant preparing for years in which this society would become a conqueror throughout the region. The question of colonial, commercial, maritime, and military conquest predates Pericles. Of course, one can accuse Pericles and his successors of cultivating the Athenians' dreams of grandeur, only to deceive them about their true aims, which had nothing to do with the well-being of the citizens. However, we must not forget what led Athens to this policy of conquering the seas, and then foreign territories and riches. It is not solely any one politician who is to blame, whether his name was Pericles or Cleon, or even Alcibiades. What would Athens be without this policy of conquest ?

The truth is that the inhabitants of Athens, reduced to relying on the income from the surrounding countryside, would quickly starve to death. The meager wheat fields of Cephisus and Eleusis, Marathon and Mesogeia, would not suffice to feed 400,000 Athenians, whether citizens, metics, or slaves. Athens must constantly import. It needs grain from Euboea, Egypt, the shores of the Black Sea, and Italy. Where would it find the wood and iron for its ships ? And to pay for its buildings, its palaces and statues, its standard of living, could it be content with exporting its olive groves and its wine, a wine that was far from competing with those of Thrace, Chios, and Samos ! If Athens did not exploit the silver mines of Laurium, it would even be condemned to charity... It is not enough to glorify the ancient Athens of the farmers. For its growth, Athens, like all of Greece, needed to venture onto the seas. It was inevitable that this growth would clash with Persia, itself embarked on a quest for world domination. Buying and selling, international trade, and wars were the price to pay. Otherwise, one had to accept returning to domination, becoming a victim of the wars of powerful neighbors, and groaning as a slave to other powers. It is true that Socrates cultivated modesty and simplicity, asking everyone if they lived such a life because it was essential for them. He was shocked by the increase in inequality that had followed the successes of Athens and Greece. Instead of fewer poor people, there were more. Instead of fewer slaves, their numbers grew astonishingly. And some Greek citizens became owners of an unbelievable number of slaves, to the point that the status of domestic slaves was completely transformed. Instead of Athens' domination over all of Greece becoming less and less oppressive, it became increasingly heavy and violent. To such an extent that Athenian policy became unpopular not only in Sparta and its allied cities, not only throughout Greece, but in Athens itself. This was the basis of Socrates' political and social challenge, and this was also his downfall. For Athens faced a dilemma : to be a great international trading power or to perish.

– Phaedo Athens had good reason to fear a revolutionary leader like Socrates, especially given the discrediting of the ruling classes. Various city-states had recently experienced numerous revolutionary situations, and Athens was apprehensive about the consequences of a revolution in such a large and wealthy city—one with a large impoverished population and glaring inequalities. Indeed, the more numerous the city-states became, the more difficult it was to govern them stably and sustainably. The reasons for revolutions and the collapse of local powers are manifold. At the root of it lies a social imbalance : too great a disparity between the richest and poorest classes, and too few middle classes. Then there is the system of political domination : when the inhabitants are not only unequal in wealth but also suffer inequality in all aspects of life, including justice and politics. Society can then remain stagnant for several years, and when it does stir, it is suddenly and violently, because the causes of discontent could only accumulate until they became explosive. If, in addition, a fraction of free citizens have no access to decision-making, if slaves have no chance of ever being freed, if foreigners have no possibility of becoming citizens, then certainly the ruling classes profit at the expense of most citizens and inhabitants, but this power is fragile, and the rupture can be violent and profound. The break can destroy political power and can even attack social power, impose the redistribution of wealth, and permanently disrupt the mode of production. The changes resulting from revolutions may be purely political, but they can also be social, for example, by displacing large landowners in favor of merchants. There is also the risk that the most oppressed will take advantage of the situation to challenge the system of exploitation. Slaves can free themselves. Foreigners and other foreigners can overthrow the government. The changes brought about by revolutions can be primarily political, as in Sparta, with Lysander abolishing the monarchy, or King Pausanias suppressing the ephorate, or, in Epidamnus, the establishment of a council to give a voice to the phylarchs. The result of the revolt can also be anarchy, which ultimately devastates the inhabitants to the point that they subsequently allow a tyranny to be imposed upon them, as in Syracuse, Thebes, and Rhodes. In Megara, it ended with the victory of the oligarchic party. Initially, there were uprisings and seditions against the injustices committed by the regime and the ruling classes. This sometimes also occurs following military defeats that have discredited them.As in Tarentum, following a defeat against the Iapyges, many prominent citizens perished. The ruling classes were then forced to concede to a democracy. Similarly, in Argos, after the Laconian Cleomenes had many citizens killed, the regime had to grant citizenship to many perioeci. In Athens, the ruling classes were worried about popular movements. They knew, for example, that the inhabitants of Piraeus were more radical, more hostile to the oligarchy and the dictatorship, than those of the city of Athens. Sometimes, revolutions arise from seemingly minor events that act as a trigger. This happened in Syracuse following a quarrel between two young people from the ruling class, who had a falling out over love. This sparked a power struggle among members of the government that had significant consequences, leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the origin of the unrest was a dispute over a marriage. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was put to death by her parents. This resulted in enormous disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life took advantage of the situation to challenge their position or to change the regime. Wars played an even greater role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of sailors increased, and they worked in favor of democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council worked against them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been the architects of victory in the war against the Athenians, imposed a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained influence following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular regime.These conflicts sparked a power struggle among members of the government, with significant consequences leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the unrest stemmed from a marriage dispute. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was executed by her parents, resulting in widespread disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life seized the opportunity to challenge their positions or to change the regime. Wars, in particular, played a significant role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of the sailors increased, and they supported democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council opposed them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been instrumental in the victory against the Athenians, established a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained power following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular government.These conflicts sparked a power struggle among members of the government, with significant consequences leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the unrest stemmed from a marriage dispute. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was executed by her parents, resulting in widespread disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life seized the opportunity to challenge their positions or to change the regime. Wars, in particular, played a significant role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of the sailors increased, and they supported democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council opposed them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been instrumental in the victory against the Athenians, established a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained power following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular government.

But most revolutions in Greek city-states occurred to overthrow a dictator. In Chalcis, the people overthrew the tyrant Phoxos. In Ambracia, the people drove out the tyrant Periander. And so on… A very large number of city-states experienced revolutions against tyrants. Most were more or less successful, and in any case, they forced changes in the mode of political leadership and even a redistribution of roles. Oligarchies, where the number of those who benefited from power was too small, were particularly destabilized, as happened in Marseille, Istros, Heraclea, Cnidus, Erythrae, and many other cities. Athens experienced this type of situation under the dictatorship of the Thirty and under the Four Hundred. In other situations that provoked sedition against an oligarchy, we must note errors by the ruling classes in the administration of justice, which stirred popular unrest. This is what happened in Thebes and Heraclea after accusations of adultery. In each case, the dictator, Archias, and Evenion were even publicly pilloried ! In Cnidus and Chios, members of the government prevented sedition by overthrowing the oligarchy in time to stop the revolution from developing. The excesses of tyrants were often the trigger, as in the revolt against the Pisistratids, launched after the tyrant slandered Harmodius, or the plot against Periander, tyrant of Ambracia, which originated from an insult he hurled at his favorite. Many seditions against the dictator stemmed from sexual assault : the revolt against Philip led by Pausanias, the revolt of Derdas against Amyntas the Younger, and the revolt of Crataeus against Archelaus are examples of this. Hatred, contempt, and atrocities are the triggering factors. But revolution always presupposes that a class of inhabitants is revolted by its fate, as in Sparta with the Helots, and also with the Parthenians, Spartan citizens excluded from power. The aims of revolutions were social and political : in Lacedaemon, those burdened by the war demanded a redistribution of the lands of the island of Sparta.

War has another effect on revolutions in that it teaches people how to use weapons, sometimes forcing them to arm more inhabitants than just the soldiers, and even more than the citizens or free men alone. It compels dictatorial regimes to loosen their grip, creates a new mixing of classes, causes greater poverty, eliminates the economic and social opportunities of peacetime, and discredits the ruling classes due to defeats. The sacrifices made during war justify political and social changes, which in turn give rise to new demands, sometimes turning violent. The fear of repression has diminished because people have risked their lives so easily during wartime. Tyrannies and monarchies have experienced numerous revolutions, but so have democracies, because inequalities and injustices are by no means eliminated within them. The current crisis in Athens is a stark demonstration of this.

Apollodorus : All these analyses and explanations of the misfortunes that befall us are well-intentioned and helpful, but they won't prevent me from thinking that our suffering stems from humanity, from its vices, its violence, its unreasonable ambitions, its greed, its corruption, its weaknesses. Power has become what it is today because of the lust for power. Isn't simply pointing out that Socrates didn't suffer from this affliction an admission that it is widespread among humankind ? Similarly, can we not acknowledge the taste for luxury, avarice, or the madness of accumulating wealth ? If people were educated from childhood to appreciate what is good, these things would happen much less frequently. If the State played its role as guarantor of freedoms, of the virtue of citizens in positions of power, and of respect for the rights of all, abuses might exist, but they would be swiftly condemned and combated, whereas today they are encouraged. If the ruling classes agreed to limit their pursuit of wealth, the class struggle would never reach the extremes of revolutions and counter-revolutions…

Aeschines : You're not entirely right, nor entirely wrong, Apollodorus. Society rests on individuals, on their aspirations, their strengths, and their weaknesses. However, the mode of production, the relationships between large groups of people, the classes, the system, and political and social history do not depend primarily on individuals and their qualities. If the system needs a particular flaw, it will find and cultivate it. But the same will be true for the opposite quality or flaw. Society is not primarily determined by individual qualities or flaws. It is the large classes, founded on economic criteria, that are decisive. By building "Athenian democracy," Cleisthenes had broken the ancient tribal organization, but this only reinforced the weight of social differences !

Did Socrates want to highlight the class struggle ? Let me simply quote him : "How can anyone claim that there are no social classes with opposing interests among the free men of Athens, when some barely have enough to eat and others possess enough to be among those who perform the liturgies, that is to say, they own at least three or four talents. It takes an average Athenian more than ten years to earn one talent ! As for a mine concessionaire, he can own around one hundred and sixty talents !!!"

The political crises that Greece has experienced may seem to stem from this or that head of state, this or that political regime, this or that war, but in fact, they are crises linked to the system of domination having reached its limits. They are the product of class struggles. Of course, the wars were devastating, but above all, they revealed the internal weaknesses of these societies. The political crises led us from revolts to tyrannies, by way of supposedly democratic disorder. But the underlying cause is social and economic destabilization. And first, there was the loss of economic and social importance of the old ruling class, the destabilization of the landed aristocracy through the large-scale development of crafts and commerce, and then the development of money, international trade, and speculation. Money circulates rapidly, and new fortunes appear in a short time. From then on, land ownership was no longer the sole or primary source of wealth, certainly not the fastest. New economic conditions brought about new classes that claimed to lead society, and the classes that lived solely by their labor seized the opportunity to insert themselves into the debate. Everywhere, revolt was brewing. Small farmers were ruined by imported agricultural products. They were forced into debt and fell under a new form of dependence on the wealthy. In Athens, for example, independent hectemorian peasants had to hand over one-sixth of their harvest to their lords. The poor peasants thus opposed the large landowners, the wealthy eupatrids, and demanded land redistribution and the abolition of debts. The reformers' only aim was to deceive the exasperated working classes. Everywhere, reformers emerged : Zaleucus in Locri, Charondas in Catania, Pythagoras in Croton, and, of course, Draco and then Solon in Athens. They did not, of course, abolish class struggle, but they regulated and tempered it to prevent revolution from spreading beyond the city-states. Subsequently, the crisis led to the establishment of popular tyrannies, which diverted discontent against the ruling classes toward the domination of a strongman who sometimes managed to capture popular sympathy. This was the case with Pisitratus in Athens, Polycrates in Samos, Thrasybulus in Miletus, and Phalaris in Agrigento. Their dictatorships aimed to silence the quarrels within the ruling classes in order to better appease the common people. But tyranny was only a temporary remedy to the crisis, and the aristocratic regimes emerged even weaker and more discredited. And it was Cleisthenes who developed a solution to deceive the people while maintaining the domination of these same ruling classes. He invented Athenian democracy ! He himself was an aristocrat.A worthy scion of the illustrious and powerful Alcmaeonid family, he established what he called isonomia, or equality before the law, the aim of which was to ensure social and political stability. He instituted the council of 500 prytaneis, the circulation of power among the prytaneis, and the selection of the prytaneis by lot. While ostensibly giving a voice to the people, he actually provided a legislative foundation for an institution entirely detached from the population : the State. The individuals who hold state office change, but the State's continuity endures. What did Socrates think of democracy ? He made no secret of it and declared it openly :"The government was once the same as it is now, an aristocracy ; such is the political form under which we still live, and have almost always lived. Some call it a democracy, others something else, according to their taste ; but it is truly an aristocracy, with the consent of the people. We have never ceased to have kings, sometimes by right of succession, sometimes by right of vote."

Antisthenes : Changing the political regime is an illusion as long as people live to accumulate wealth, that's what Socrates said. He went much further than many "critics" of the system, who are afraid to confront the illusions of the people, unwilling to alienate the average citizen, when they aren't actually trying to flatter them with their words. It is the people who have been corrupted, not just the ruling classes, even if the latter are the direct architects of this corruption. Having considered that Socrates wanted to eliminate those who surpass others in wealth, a number of the wealthy and powerful decided that it was necessary to eliminate those who surpass others in social and political intelligence, namely individuals like Socrates himself. Socrates was perfectly aware that his social and political stances could make him a target of the ruling classes' hatred, he who openly declared to someone as corrupt and connected to power as Callicles : "Am I aware that I may risk being condemned for my ideas ?" I would be truly mad, Callicles, if I thought that, in our city, one could, depending on the circumstances, be safe from such a fate ! (...) Of course, if I were condemned to death, it wouldn't be strange at all ! And do you want me to tell you why I have this impression ? (...) I think I am one of the few Athenians, if not the only one, who is interested in what the art of politics truly is.

It infuriates me to hear people say that Socrates was an innocent, a bland, harmless, and insignificant philosopher, that he wasn't an atheist, a sophist, a revolutionary, aggressive towards the ruling classes, or dangerous. Isn't that a way of saying that if he were a sophist, we would have been right to ban him, condemn him, kill him ? And if he were an atheist philosopher, an anti-slavery advocate, and hostile to the ruling classes, then he deserved to die ? Well, stop crying : he deserved the hatred of the ruling classes ! And that doesn't stop us from mourning him, nor from hoping that his ideas will triumph over those same ruling classes…

Of course, many believed that Athenian democracy was more than just a cover for an oligarchy, but this was not the case with Socrates. He never belonged to the category of politicians who present themselves as good shepherds of the people, whom they consider their flock. These politicians tell us a pretty tale in which all it would take is to gather the hares and the lions in the same democratic assembly. This way, the lions could be convinced that they are in the minority and that the majority supports equality between hares and lions. The hares would not become lions, nor vice versa : they would simply be equal in rights. After a brief moment of astonishment, the real lions would roar and pounce on their prey, reminding the democratic hares who eats and who is eaten. The hares will never succeed in convincing the lions, but there will always be a few chatterers among the hares who claim that something can still be done to democratically persuade the lions ! Since Socrates never gave any quarter to democratic illusions, the ruling classes have always harbored hatred for our philosopher. He told the wealthy, who gorge themselves : "One must eat to live, not live to eat." He didn't even defend any knowledge other than the official Athenian knowledge. We, by calling ourselves disciples of Socrates, are not obligated to defend any kind of established knowledge, since he himself said he knew nothing, thus denouncing all the supposed holders of eternal truths.

Aeschines : Socrates didn't say he knew nothing, but declared : "I don't know the extent of my ignorance. People think they know what they don't know," which is very different. This means that my knowledge doesn't allow me to determine the limit of my ignorance, because the boundary between the domain of my ignorance and that of my knowledge is unknown to me. Many see this as a statement that humankind is very ignorant. But Socrates also says the exact opposite : sometimes people know things they don't know or can't understand, and these must certainly be sought deep within oneself. Socrates therefore affirms that we are ignorant of both the extent of our ignorance and the extent of our knowledge...

Was Antisthenes, or Socrates, a sophist ? Socrates is not a sophist because he engages in dialogue. He practices exchange with his interlocutor, even the least competent. He does not aim to dominate, direct, or convince them. He does not seek to dazzle or overwhelm them, but to explore with them. What do the sophists do ? Conversely, they compose speeches designed to dazzle with the strength of their argumentation and the beauty of their style. They move us and, in doing so, persuade us.
Socrates does not engage in discourse ; he questions. He rarely makes assertions. He proceeds with short answers and does not aim for ingenuity but for rational rigor. He rejects stylistic flourishes.

– Terpsion : Socrates' "I know nothing" doesn't mean I cultivate ignorance, but rather that I know nothing other than what my questions reveal to me. Each of us remembers hearing him repeat that progress is only possible through questioning others and ourselves. Understanding the world advances only through successive inquiries. And each inquiry involves me personally. I cannot be satisfied with the answers of others. Even in highly advanced scientific fields, I only progress by questioning myself, based on what others have put forward or on my own observations of the world. Seeking answers within my own mind is truly the work of an explorer in uncharted territory. For our master, Socrates, there were several conditions for beginning to philosophize. It was necessary to forget what we thought we knew definitively, that is to say, to be ready for a general questioning, to make ourselves capable of marveling at everything, that is to say, to love observing, not to seek our immediate interest, but to want to reach the truth whatever the result, not to bow down to men who claim to possess knowledge, nor to those who hold power or money.

– Aeschines : For Socrates, knowledge as an accumulation of facts is worthless, or at least, it doesn't replace personal reflection. Each person has their own questions. The answer can be very different from one person to another, from one society to another, from one class to another. Socrates didn't believe there was only one concept of the good. He simply observed that people were able to communicate through language because they shared something through words. And it was this something he sought, because it seemed to him to represent deeper truths than immediate images. A definitive morality for everyone is not in Socrates' mind, contrary to your view, Plato. Defining it and then imposing it on everyone was even further from his conception. Personal morality must be developed by each individual, but this, according to Socrates, is not enough to resolve the question of the goals of society as a whole. Society doesn't exist once and for all, nor is it as people wish it to be. Plato, you try to bridge this vast gap between individuals and society by using states that correspond to small city-states, but the leap from individuals to society is nonetheless significant. Society is not the sum of its parts, and it's not enough for each individual to strive for virtuous morality for society to be organized in the same way. Socrates didn't shy away from considering the question in broad, social, and political terms, but he didn't do so entirely publicly, and certainly not in writing.

Socrates once had the opportunity to play a public political role. Under threat of death, Athens rallied in a final surge of resolve, promising, at Socrates' initiative, citizenship to metics and slaves to build a fleet that defeated Callicratidas at the Battle of Arginusae. This success, however, was marred by the execution of the victorious generals (including Pericles the Younger and Thrasyles). Athens, in a fit of anger under pressure from demagogues, thus eliminated its own best generals. It was in condemnation of these decisions that Socrates withdrew permanently from public political life.

Socrates' refusal to participate in public life and commit his thoughts to writing was not primarily philosophical, but political. He was not silent, but he did not disseminate his philosophical teachings in writing for political reasons. This was neither a fear nor a rejection of politics on his part. He had his own goals and, consequently, his own political method. This was not discretion in general, since he had distinguished himself by his opposition to power and his refusal to participate in it, his rejection of money, and his refusal to endorse all the unjust acts to which the various powers had invited him. For example, he publicly stood up to a frenzied Assembly during the trial of the generals of Arginusae. He refused to obey the Thirty Tyrants who had ordered him to arrest Leon of Salamis, an innocent man they wanted to condemn to death. He also refused to endorse the false democracy that succeeded tyranny. He even refused to play the conventional game of trial, the charade of pleading guilty, expressing regret, and offering fines, which would have allowed him to avoid a death sentence. And he also refused to flee, a perfectly possible and morally defensible escape from an unjust and fabricated conviction. He was sentenced to death at seventy for having led the children of the ruling classes astray from the dominant ideology and, in particular, from religion. This was not a miscarriage of justice, nor a political error on the part of Athens, nor an act of personal vengeance. It was simply the end of a failed revolutionary attempt. What it concealed, more profoundly, was the accusation of having tried to turn the children of the ruling class away from an ideology of class abolition : communism. Socrates calls into question many things : patriotism, religion, machismo, contempt and oppression of women, exploitation of children, contempt for the poor and poverty, corruption of the rich and worship of wealth, a social foundation based on individual interest versus that of the community, etc. Socrates said : "The city where those who should hold power are least desirous of power is necessarily the best and most peacefully governed."

Hermogenes : My friends, let us not forget that Socrates was not defending himself, but his search for truth and goodness. If he deemed his death necessary for this search, it was because of the shock it would cause among the Athenian and Greek citizens. And I think that even this meeting, impossible between us yesterday, is perfect proof of that. His death did more for his philosophy than his life. From now on, his work, even unwritten, is immortal. And believe me, if I say this, I feel no less hatred than you for those who condemned him. But I am trying to understand what he meant when he told us that his death would be understood by those who had understood his life. Well, he tried to ensure that his death would be a foundation for his philosophy. Everyone here knows that he never acted in his own self-interest. This means that his bravery in battle, proven time and again (from Potidaea to Samos and from Delium to Amphipolis), was not aimed at glory, that his political wisdom was not aimed at power, that his sharp criticism of those in high positions was not aimed at placing himself in those positions, and therefore aimed at something higher, an ideal worth seeking. Socrates himself invites us to this search… He does not provide an answer. He encourages us to question. Socrates once said : “I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of human excellence is to question oneself and to question others.”

– Plato : Thank you, Hermogenes, for putting the debate back into perspective and for restoring the philosophical dimension to Socrates' struggle. However, all this doesn't change one fact : the condemnation of Socrates condemns any society capable of such acts. It shows that the Athenian city-state ceased to be governed by reason from the day it was governed by the demagoguery of politicians. These evils will only cease when the city is governed by philosophy or when the people, by some miracle, become philosophers themselves. In the meantime, the lion's share is given to the biggest liar, the biggest braggart, the one who utters the most beautiful false promises, who flatters the people behind their backs. Nothing seems to stop this slide toward the basest instincts, the most avaricious ambitions, and if nothing is done, Athens has hitched itself to a chariot that will one day tip into the ditch. Most states are like ships steered by a half-blind captain. The crew knows the captain isn't taking them to port, but if they mutiny, they won't fare any better because they don't know how to navigate and aren't even aware that such a science exists. This science is philosophy. And Socrates' initial aim was to educate young people in philosophy. He established a school around himself and thus developed his teachings. What I will always remember about Socrates is that philosophy is the art of all arts, without which none is capable of understanding itself or others.

I would like to remind you that Socrates wanted to build a work : his vision of philosophy founded on entirely new concepts. I will briefly recall its foundations. There is no identity between the visible world and the intelligible world. The goal of rationality cannot be to translate all of reality but only to approach it as closely as possible and to generalize its lessons. Only the dialectic of opposites, used scientifically, in a way that corresponds to the contradictory nature of things, can perceive their essence. The common mode of perceiving the world, which is non-contradictory, cannot access the truth of nature, of humankind, and of society. For most people, as for most thinkers, there are things and principles that oppose each other, but they are external to one another. For them, one society can fight another, one person can struggle against another, one principle can oppose another.

What distinguishes Socrates' dialectical viewpoint is that the opposition is primarily internal. This seems absurd to many, who reply that a thing cannot be both one way and, at the same time, its opposite. And yet, I repeat, for Socrates, opposites are opposed within every structure, every constitution, every object, every society, and every individual. Does the benevolent person always do good, and is always doing good always benevolent ? Is the pious person always just, and the just person always pious ? Does the courageous person always possess courage ? Is virtue always found in love, and love in virtue ? To ask these questions is already to answer them. Knowledge lies in the act of ignorance. The pursuit of Good lies in recognizing the attraction of Evil. Love lies in recognizing Hatred. Attraction is made of repulsion. This is the contradictory meaning of Socrates' formula, "No one is wicked willingly" : we do harm while thinking we are doing good, or at least doing ourselves good. And, in doing harm, we also harm ourselves. A double contradiction, then. And, at the same time, Socrates emphasized that, without knowledge, there is no wrongdoing. By not knowing how to distinguish Good from Evil, the one who does evil remains ignorant of it.

Let's examine this in science. There is a contradiction between the unity and plurality of structure, between its stability and instability, between its mobility and immobility, between its energy and lack of energy, between its opposing goals and principles. Let's take the example of mobility and immobility. How could something be both at the same time ? Simply consider an object, for example, a sphere, which is only globally stable because it rotates. Rotation means that it moves. But, precisely because of this rotational movement, the sphere is immobile. It is therefore mobile in order to be immobile, and vice versa. Similarly, it can be both stable and unstable. For example, water flows smoothly and steadily through a pipe. If we observe it closely, we notice eddies forming within it which, on a small scale, are incredibly agitated, characterized by constant instability. Instability is inseparable from overall stability. Opposites are everywhere intertwined and interdependent in nature. The individual is subject to the same internal contradictions. He is simultaneously calm and violent, gentle and impetuous, timid and extroverted, selfless and selfish, and so on. Constantly, the individual is torn between opposing feelings and sensations. Let's take sensations, for example. Sometimes our body needs water. This doesn't necessarily mean we know it. A person can desire water and, at the same time, not desire it. They can simultaneously love and dislike, desire to be loved and not desire to be loved. They can, at the same time, feel like getting angry and not want to get angry, and so on. Their passion pulls them in one direction, and their reason in another. In society, people behave similarly. Individuals simultaneously desire the success of the state and, conversely, its failure. They thank him, but at the same time, they hate him. They want to obey him, yet this doesn't prevent them from wanting to disobey him. As with objects, as with individuals, these contradictions within society and the state are inevitable. We cannot wish to eliminate contradictions because they are inherent in the very nature of things. Seeking the essence of things is not about eliminating contradiction but about finding the natural harmony between dialectical opposites. Similarly, in society, scientific politics, the politics of rulers trained in philosophy, must consist of seeking harmony between opposites : between rich and poor, rulers and ruled, competent and incompetent in each field. We must find the way in which these opposing forces can be reconciled, the way that corresponds to their nature. Eliminating opposites is an illusion. It is seeking the exacerbation of opposites and moving toward the destruction of the entire social structure instead of improving it. Nature never proceeds in this way.We must find a mode of organization through which opposing forces can simultaneously express themselves without destroying one another ; that is, without allowing each other a place corresponding to their respective natural needs, and without striving for everyone to have the same needs and the same roles. If each opposing force acts at its own level, the forces complement and reinforce one another. If they constantly and violently confront each other, they destabilize the entire structure and continue to clash until its total destruction. Since nature finds a way to accommodate opposites, the goal of the State must be to seek natural harmony in social relations. For the State, what is good and just is that everyone has their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third the soldier, and a fourth the leader of the State. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not merely their own selfish and individual interests. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the necessary quality and ability lies in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must acknowledge that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectic. That is why the men who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who lead must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.The point is that everyone should have their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third a soldier, and a fourth the head of state. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not just their own selfish and individual interest. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the quality and capacity lie in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must admit that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectics. This is why those who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who govern must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.The point is that everyone should have their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third a soldier, and a fourth the head of state. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not just their own selfish and individual interest. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the quality and capacity lie in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must admit that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectics. This is why those who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who govern must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.And those who lead must still be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.And those who lead must still be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.

Phaedo : No, Plato, our master didn't say that study is the key to good and evil. Socrates said to Euthydemus : "First, I consider health a good and sickness an evil ; and then, if I consider the cause of these two states, I believe that drinks, food, and activities are all good things when they bring about health, and evil things when they bring about sickness. Consequently, health and sickness will in themselves be good things when they bring about good, and evil things when they cause harm." Euthydemus, still not convinced, replied : "But how could health cause harm ?" And Socrates replied : "Well, by Jupiter, those who are robust take part in a bad expedition, and they perish, while those who are weak remain and are alive ! Good athletes will participate in increasingly difficult competitions that will eventually make them sick. Their good health will turn out to be an evil." Euthydemus insisted : “ But is knowledge good and ignorance evil ? Is wealth good and poverty evil ? Is happiness good and unhappiness evil ?” One is so rich that he ends up ruined. Another is so poor that he invents a way out and becomes very rich. One has such extensive knowledge that he ends up disturbing the powerful and is eliminated. Another is so ignorant that, arrested during a riot, he is released because he is deemed harmless. And what did Socrates do ? He gave numerous examples, according to which good transforms into evil and evil into good. He was therefore very far from wanting to disseminate a philosophy of the diametrical opposition of Good and Evil ! Rather, it was the permanent and dynamic internal contradiction that Socrates studied. Thus, a man who wanted to govern for the good of the people became a politician and governed violently.

Once again, no, Plato, the group around Socrates was not simply a school, an academy, a university of abstract philosophy detached from political and social reality, as you present it in your work "The Ion," where you attribute to Socrates this idea of the superiority of philosophy over the arts. In the case of Socrates' inner circle, it was a clandestine revolutionary political group preparing, if circumstances allowed, to act to transform the government of the city in the general interest of the popular classes. Of course, educating young people from the wealthy classes about ending oppression by those same ruling classes was something the latter had every reason to consider "corrupting the youth." Socrates is not the unfortunate philosopher, too wise for his time, that some disciples, themselves hardly revolutionary, would have us believe. Why would anyone want to transform Socrates, who had participated in many social, military and political struggles, into a kind of sage withdrawn from everything and preaching only virtue ?

Why forget the Socrates who freed slaves and gave citizenship to foreigners as soon as he had the power to do so, during a war in Athens ?

The city of Athens had only about 40,000 citizens out of a total population of 300,000 to 400,000. Socrates always spoke of humankind, not just citizens, including foreigners and slaves. He explained that one of the worst forms of behavior was to deprive a person of their freedom by reducing them to a state of slavery : “What is the justification for enslaving a man ? Is it vice ? Is it ignorance ? Is it his country of origin ? Is it circumstances ? Is it a country's defeat in war ? No, nothing justifies putting a man into slavery !” he said to Alcibiades and Polus. “What act is more heinous than reducing a man to slavery ? It is the worst of injustices,” he said to Euthydemus. And he would discuss this further : “Do you know of any people who are called servile ?” “No doubt,” replied Euthydemus. “Is it because of their education or their ignorance ?” “But are they called that because they don't know how to work metals ?” “No, certainly not.” “Or because they don't know how to work metals ?” “No, certainly not.” “Or because they don't know how to build ?” “No, not that either.” “Or because they don't know how to make shoes ?” “For none of these reasons, and quite the opposite ; for most of those who practice these trades are servile beings.” Everyone remembers that Euthydemus left convinced that he was no better than a slave…

Why forget Socrates who, seeing a master who had harshly punished his servant, said to him : "I wonder who deserves to be punished more, you or your servant !"

Socrates always spoke of humanity, not just citizens, including foreigners and slaves among them. He also fought for women's freedom. To take just one example of the Athenian mentality on this point, let us recall Sophocles, who wrote in his play "Ajax" : "For a woman, her adornment is her silence."

Socrates frequently cited examples of peoples among whom women had practiced the art of war with great success : the Amazons of ancient Greece, the women of certain regions of Mali, and, above all, the Scythian warriors. And he showed that these societies were in no way inferior to our own.

Why not recall that Socrates repeatedly claimed that all his philosophy teachers had been women ? One of his teachers was Pericles' wife herself ! And he proclaimed this to Athenians who were in no way inclined to listen to him on this subject !

While he defended philosophical and political views very different from those of most Athenians, why pretend that he simply questioned people so that they could rediscover their own identity ? To transform Socrates into a poor innocent who only dreams and discusses abstractly is to betray him.

– Aeschines : What was Socrates' principal science ? He answered, "The art of organizing a society where all men are happy."

"Suppose there were a man who knew all the sciences ; which would be dearest to his heart ? Was it the science of dice, of arithmetic, of health ? Wouldn't such a man's primary goal be for all people to live happily ? Wouldn't such a goal for the city be as much the object of a science as any other ? Doesn't every type of activity require a particular science and people dedicated to that profession ? Wouldn't such an activity—making people happy—require, as much as any other, even more than any other, a particular science and people who practice it professionally ? Wouldn't they have to learn their trade first, in order to practice it professionally once they had decided to dedicate their activity to it ? Wouldn't this man, knowledgeable in all the sciences, choose to particularly love this one since it aims at the happiness of all ? But, at the same time as a science, wouldn't the happiness of humankind also be..." An art ?

My friends, I fear that by merely reproaching the Athenians for having been afraid of Socrates, by accusing them, as Plato has just done, of lacking philosophy, we are minimizing the revolution he proposed. In my opinion, the one who best understood Socrates was his worst enemy : Aristophanes. By positioning himself diametrically opposed to Socrates, he is the one who best defines our master's philosophy. The author of "Clouds," the play that undoubtedly contributed most to Socrates' condemnation, declared himself opposed to all of Socrates' ideas : to the collective ownership of the means of production, to the freedom of women, to the liberation of slaves, and to a political regime that, behind a false democracy, was not that of large landowners and masters of an ever-increasing number of slaves. Even though Socrates was careful not to state such objectives publicly and directly, and was careful not to put his goals in writing, we who participated in his clandestine meetings know what the situation was.

He who proclaimed, "I am no one's master," did not simply mean that he abhorred having a parade of disciples following him like sheep. He was thinking not only of master and disciple, but rather of master and slave ! This meant that slavery horrified him. While the means many of our citizens have found to live without working is to be supported by investing in slaves who work in the mines and fields, Socrates always refused this means of subsistence. Similarly, he refused, like his fellow citizens, to offer his feet to slaves to be washed with perfumed water while he lay in bed. Let us remember that his greatest victory for Athens was achieved by offering foreigners, non-citizens of Athens, and slaves the opportunity to participate in battle as free citizens. This is how we were able to defeat Callicratidas at the Battle of Arginusae. Socrates always rejected owning slaves to meet his needs. Charmides can confirm this : he repeatedly tried to offer Socrates slaves to help him materially, without success. Socrates also publicly denounced the searches for runaway slaves launched by Athenian citizens. Beyond the question of slavery itself, Socrates challenged the entire prevailing economic and social system : the accumulation of wealth at one extreme and misery at the other, the growth of social dictatorship under the guise of political democracy, the increasing oppression of formerly free and independent cities, the growing role of plundering the riches of ever-expanding territories while wealth acquired through labor diminished, and the rising corruption and associated vices becoming the new virtue of Athens.

Socrates freed a great number of slaves. Phaedo of Elis knew something about this, having been kidnapped by pirates and sold into slavery, only to be freed by Socrates himself through an Athenian landowner. He didn't just undertake individual liberations ; he took advantage of an exceptional threat to the city to free all the slaves who agreed to take up arms alongside the citizens, granting them liberty and citizenship !

No, my friends, Socrates did not die by chance, nor by mistake, due to the blind and mad hatred of his accusers, nor through a sudden blindness on the part of his judges. It was his project for a political and social system that the ruling class condemned in him. This project defended the collective ownership of property, the building of a society aimed at the well-being of all. Socrates' constant questioning, for which he was criticized, is not that of the Sophists. It is that of a man capable of publicly dismantling a politician, a financier, a large landowner, or a demagogue. I believe above all that the ruling class of Athens resented this political project, which directly targeted them. Behind Socrates' free and open university, there was, as we all know here, the attempt to win over some of the children of the ruling classes to his project. This clandestine circle that Socrates was building was a direct threat to the oppressors. It meant that a potential direction for a popular revolution existed, should it erupt. From the moment he was publicly denounced, it was clear the blow would be struck. And if Socrates didn't defend himself at his trial, it was because his defense could only have been a direct attack, a condemnation of Athens and its social system, which would have directly condemned us all...

– Plato : I would especially like…

Cebes : Plato, excuse me for interrupting, but I fear my point will be outdated by the time you speak, and yet I wish to express it. It's true that one of Socrates' remarkable battles against the spirit of his time, against the vast majority of Athenians in particular, was for the liberation of women. He constantly proclaimed that only women had been his teachers in philosophy. He asserted that the liberation of man is impossible without that of woman. Aristophanes, in fact, is preparing a play on this theme called "The Assemblywomen," in which the playwright ridicules the claim of women to govern and Socrates' claim to defend women's freedom. He falsely equated this freedom with the community of women and children. He claimed that women in power could only do whatever they wanted.

While we all know that ancient hollow clay statues of women are found throughout Greece, revealing that women were not always dominated, scorned, and relegated to the realm of domestic virtues, things have certainly changed. Women are now under the absolute control of their husbands, confined to the home with domestic slaves, stripped of the management of their own property, and deprived of all political rights. They are forbidden from appearing in the theater or participating in the grand evening meal. This contempt for women does not mean that men are driven to turn away from them to have children. On the contrary, in Athens, as in most city-states, marriage is an obligation. Unmarried men are prosecuted. The father's authority over his children is limitless. They are even more dependent than the woman. Private property has taken over all human relationships. In a society driven by the lure of profit and wealth, the family has become just another commodity. Socrates, who fought against this society, always believed that personal life would have benefited from the collective disposal of goods.

– Plato It is perfectly true that Socrates fought for equality between men and women, and this was one of the themes he frequently developed. I, too, believe that the differences between men and women have been artificially introduced into society, whereas all possible differences exist between individuals of both sexes, but not between men and women, apart from the capacity to bear children. All professions can be performed identically by both sexes. It is simply a matter of personal ability and training. This is evident in practical, artisanal, or commercial tasks, as well as in political or intellectual ones. There are men incapable of becoming weavers, sailors, or philosophers, and women who are perfectly capable of doing so. When they have the ability and training, women can perfectly well lead men in such activities. Even war, the defense of society, and its leadership at the highest levels of government are not activities closed to women. We all know of examples of women who, more or less discreetly, played a role in Athenian politics. A well-known example is that of Pericles' wife. She led a discussion group, one of whose most assiduous participants was none other than… Socrates ! Since the principle of the state is to place men in positions based on their competence, it is obvious that women should also be placed there, provided they possess the necessary skills. And it will be observed that they can be, like soldiers, guardians as effective as men in ensuring the city's security. They can practice the same physical exercises in preparation for war. They can be as courageous and virtuous as male guardians. Since virtue, courage, and selflessness are the qualities required of male soldiers, women can also be chosen to become guardians of the city's security, selected according to precisely the same criteria. And, again, as long as a woman possesses the necessary qualities and competence, other men will obey her. As long as they have studied to become strategists, they will be followed by their troops just like men. As for the government, it too can be led by women, for it has been proven that women are capable of being philosophers as well as men. As long as philosophy is the criterion for choosing those who govern the city, then women philosophers will have their rightful place. Many women philosophers participate in my universities, and, even if they are forced to conceal their femininity under a wig to avoid directly confronting the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of some men, their participation in the debates is far from inferior to that of men.Warrior women can very well be the wives of warrior men, and they can, along with the men, collectively care for their children. Like Socrates, I believe that men and women can grant each other considerable freedom in sexual relations, provided there is no mutual harm and no incest or sexual relations between close relatives. Private property has been made the model for personal and family relationships, and as a result, women have become the private property of each man, as have children. The need for inheritance was the reason for this, and with it, the need to recognize the children's origins—that of paternity, which is obviously much more difficult to establish than maternity. The freedom of men and women to choose or separate has thus been alienated, even though it could very well have been recognized, since it in no way harms the stability of the state or the general welfare ; quite the contrary. This is clearly seen in the numerous clashes between families that arise from disputes related to marriages and inheritances.

Critobulus : I don't understand what you mean. It seems to me that this is a law of nature. Women are not identical to men, and it's no coincidence that they specialize in activities like weaving, cooking, and domestic tasks. It has always been this way, and women have never been seen philosophizing, waging war, or governing. I personally never discussed these matters with Socrates, but then again, he didn't invite his wife to his debates...

– Plato : First of all, I would like to tell you to be wary of all reasoning that begins with "this has always been," "that is immutable in nature," or "such and such has never changed." How long have we known what the world is like ? How many regions of the world and how many years before us are totally or partially unknown ? Furthermore, if you look around you, you can see that every day the river flows through the same place. And the ancients can confirm that they knew the same thing : this was indeed the riverbed in their time. So what ? Would you conclude from this that it has been the same for all eternity ? You would certainly be mistaken. To be sure of this, you only need to take a walk in the surrounding area to notice that an ancient riverbed, now silted up, exists a little further on. But it is undoubtedly too old for any evidence from that time to be found. None of us saw the separation between the shores of the Hellespont, but when we examine the similarity of the two shores, we find it likely that they were once joined by a land bridge. The same is true of the relationship between men and women. Today, women's participation on an equal footing with men is frowned upon, in Athens as in most neighboring cities and states. But you will notice that this is not the case everywhere. There are some societies that give women an important place, allow them to participate in political leadership and even in the armies, and make them deities and political leaders. As for the past, it is not certain that even in Greece, women were ever more important than they are today. And the future is also uncertain. Instead of arguing that "everything has always been this way," let us consider what might be in the best interest of the city in the future and examine the arguments that would have us believe that women have no place in higher activities. That's how to solve the problem.

– Critobulus : By Zeus, Plato, you're raving ! You're taking liberties with other people's wives and children ! Anyone can sleep with another man's wife, and you tell us that this will be the foundation of a stable and secure society... How can you utter such nonsense while you're still sober and speaking seriously ? Such scandalous remarks don't commit you to much, you who have never been married to a woman and have no children. How can you claim to understand the feelings and goals of husbands and wives ? Do you think that a wife doesn't care that her husband sleeps around, and that the husband, for his part, doesn't have good reasons for wanting his wife to remain reserved for him ?

Plato : My dear friend, I fully understand your anger, and I hope that, far from being offended by my proposals, you will examine them with the seriousness that Socrates demanded when analyzing a point of view, however far removed it may be from our own. Social customs appear all the more natural and immutable when they are firmly rooted in seemingly personal goals. But, while I have no experience of marriage, I would like to offer you a few arguments to convince you that my point is not as illogical as it seems.

First, I would point out that, if we know anything about past societies, women have not always been as dominated as they are today. This is evident in certain societies that resemble ancient Greek society, such as among the Scythians or the Malians. Women there can play a political role that would surprise us and also enjoy a degree of personal freedom that is very unusual in our society today. This shows us that the current inferior position of women is neither as natural nor as eternal as it might initially seem.

Next, I would like you to reflect on and critically examine our habit of saying, for everything, this is "mine," this is "yours." "My" wife and "my children" are part of this. We began by saying this about everyday objects, then we moved on to much greater riches : land, livestock, crops, houses, then mines, ships, markets, and finally we arrived at the realm of human relationships. We have started using these terms of physical possession of objects for human beings who are not even slaves ! Yet, women and children are not objects. How can a man consider himself free if he unites with a woman he considers a slave or an object belonging to him ? How can a child be properly educated if he is not treated as a free being ? How can he then be capable of consciously choosing his own future and that of his city if he has been subjected for many years to a life without rights ? If, as Socrates argued, all women and men had the free right to sexual relations and, consequently, to have children, then we would have a state that was a true family. We would no longer experience fratricidal wars like the ones we have just witnessed. Indeed, no one could violently attack another without thinking : perhaps this is a brother, a father, a child. This is how such a way of relating to men and women would form the basis of collective harmony and prevent violent disputes between citizens.

– Cebes : Socrates never deviated from his path, which consisted of believing that self-interest—the well-being of each individual—cannot be opposed to the general, social interest. This meant that there was no need to chase after wealth, to accumulate it, nor any personal need to amass power. He was not going to change course in the face of difficulties. He did not change in the face of dictatorship. He did not change in the face of the success of his friends, who offered him the opportunity to share in it. He did not change when Athens turned against him. He had never sought personal happiness that conflicted with that of all humankind. At his trial, Socrates confirmed his views, declaring : “What treatment, what fine have I deserved for believing that I should renounce a tranquil life, neglect what most people hold dear : wealth, private interests, military commands, success in public discourse, magistracies, coalitions, political factions ?” For having preferred to render to each of you individually what I declare to be the greatest of services, by trying to persuade him to be less concerned with what belongs to him than with himself. (…) What have I deserved, I ask, for having conducted myself thus ? Good treatment, Athenians, if we wish to be fair ; and undoubtedly, good treatment that is appropriate to me… If, therefore, you wish to treat me justly and according to my merit, this is what I propose : that I be fed at the Prytaneum !”

Everyone will certainly recognize the irony, but above all, it reflects a genuine sentiment in Socrates, who always considered himself at the service of the interests of the people as a whole, while expecting no recognition in return, other than the satisfaction of having remained steadfast in his principles. Socrates knew that people are fickle and only become revolutionary in exceptional circumstances. It was for this type of situation that he had built his entire life. The people could be turned against him. He was not surprised by this. But it was still on these people that Socrates relied to change society, which is quite different from Plato's view, who places the philosopher above the common man.

– Plato : It's not a question of despising the common man, but we mustn't delude ourselves either : he can't truly govern himself. We simply need to recognize that knowledge isn't available to everyone, nor is competence. Now, governing people, like managing armies or fostering economic development, requires competence. As for ordinary people, they don't always want to listen to those who claim to liberate them. I intend to recount this in a philosophical tale called "The Allegory of the Cave." Men are imprisoned there, bound more by intellectual and moral ties than by chains. A hero manages to find them and wants to free them, but they revolt against the unfortunate revolutionary. Such was the story of Socrates. Those he wanted to defend rebelled against him and his acerbic remarks, because such negative predictions about the choices of their society frightened them.

Phaedo : That, at least, was not Socrates' point of view. When asked to reflect on the ideal society, he always ended up talking about masons, sculptors, fishermen, farmers, and so on—all the men whose labor enriches the city. But he didn't even mention soldiers, politicians, speculators, administrators, or statesmen. He didn't mention slaves or slavery. This meant that, for him, those who made up the ideal city were the men who work and live by their labor. He denounced the deceitfulness of politicians, who convince the people that all they have to do is entrust them with power to be happy. He mocked the ignorance of politicians about politics as much as he did the ignorance of the military about the army. Because what he wanted above all was to give the popular classes a taste for governing themselves instead of piously bowing down to the so-called superior strata of society.

Plato : When it comes to discussing and deciding on the government of the city, everyone can give their opinion : carpenter, blacksmith, shoemaker, merchant, rich and poor alike, and no one criticizes them for offering advice, even if they haven't studied anywhere. This doesn't mean that everyone doesn't need specific skills to practice their trade. The carpenter in his. The blacksmith in his. The shoemaker in his. And there is also a profession of politician. For this activity requires skills and training. Everyone can give their opinion to the boatman, the fisherman, or the craftsman, but that doesn't make them a professional in the field. Well then, let's try to recruit and train dedicated and competent politicians.

Xenophon : The greatest deceit, according to Socrates, is to pretend to be capable of governing the state when one is not. He constantly seeks the qualities necessary for someone who claims to be preparing to become a leader of the state. Socrates replies that such a person must not desire power for its own sake, for honors, to accumulate wealth, or for the pleasure of commanding. This type of argument, characteristic of Socrates, does not tell us whether he wished individuals to have power or not. He is simply discussing the qualities that those who aspire to it should possess. However, Socrates says that one must seek the middle path between the situation of a slave and that of a slave owner, between that of the oppressed and that of the oppressor. The position of tyrant, wealthy slave owner, hoarder, or successful politician seemed in no way enviable to him. Everyone claims that the man of power is the richest and happiest man, since he does as he pleases without anyone being able to stop him. For Socrates, these people, far from being free, are the most dependent ; far from being merely possessors, they are themselves possessed by negative and devouring passions that prevent them from seeking happiness in the simple pleasures of life : friendship, love, beauty, virtue, reflection, and reading. From this can arise a misinterpretation of Socrates' discourse, which can be taken as a general attack against the rich and against all statesmen. I recall, for example, Socrates' conversation with Crito, who was protesting against all the bureaucratic hurdles of the state. And Socrates uses the example of the sheepdog that wards off dangers lurking around the flocks. He deduces from this that certain men can be chosen to protect citizens who cannot defend themselves with weapons. Certainly, he discourages young men who already see themselves as heads of state without having the necessary abilities and without wanting to undertake the required studies : "Young man," he said, "it would be shameful to aspire to one day command the armies of the republic without learning the art of command." But, conversely, he could encourage a young man whose abilities he recognized but who underestimated himself. Generally speaking, he ridiculed not the act of governing a city or leading an army, but the act of not learning anything for it.“Don't you see that we wouldn't accept an ignorant person to lead the lute players, nor to direct the dancers, the athletes, or the masons, and yet we accept to lead the city and command the armies people who are incapable of saying what the state of Athens' production is, what its economic or military strengths are, and who launch wars without even knowing if the city has the balance of power to ensure victory !”

– Plato : If we were to open the doors of philosophy to the masses, enlightening each person individually, I greatly fear that centuries of instruction by thousands of eminent philosophers would not suffice. Such a statement should not be taken as contempt for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Not only are they entirely unprepared for philosophical training, but it can only seem completely irrelevant to their immediate objectives. Just as one does not ask someone taking a short voyage to a neighboring island to learn how to steer the ship, why should one ask every citizen to understand the general philosophy of science and that of governing society ? Does the craftsman need to be intimately familiar with his own trade, or does he study the craftsman's trade in general ? Should the peasant study the art of the weaver, under the pretext that his thread will later be transformed into cloth ? He who is empowered to lead the whole of society must, through his actions, be prepared to ask himself the general questions common to all of society and its functioning. Neither the craftsman, nor the peasant, nor the merchant, nor the sailor, nor the fisherman has the habit, the training, or the preoccupation for this. It is among the guardians, those charged with the tasks of security and administration of the city, that one must look for the most philosophical minds, the citizens most concerned with the common good, and the men who have best equipped themselves to study the subject in question : the general science of all sciences, philosophy. Is it true that Socrates wished for the people to govern themselves directly, as some here seem to believe ? Have you not mentioned that Socrates reread the plays of Euripides and that they agreed on their political meaning ? Well, didn't Euripides declare in his play "The Suppliants," "Besides, how could the masses, incapable of sound reasoning, possibly lead the city down the right path ?" And didn't the same author say in his play "Orestes," "The crowd is a formidable thing when its leaders are wicked. But when it finds good ones, its decisions are always sound." In our republic, there is a genuine crisis of values, the very crisis that Socrates' ideas sought to address : a crisis of the family, a crisis of civic defense, a crisis of corruption, and a decline in order. It is essential that leaders of the republic not be afraid to confront this crisis, and they cannot do so by cultivating a false vision of the people. The people have a tendency to succumb to empty rhetoric, to lying sophists, and to flatterers of all kinds. To avoid descending into demagoguery, democracy must be tempered by the recognized competence of its leaders.

– Phaedo : You seem to have completely forgotten that Euripides' plays were so revolutionary that their author had to flee the city where his life was in danger for having denounced, through a great many plays, all the Athenian myths of glory and war. Remember how many of his plays featured heroes who were none other than the Trojan victims of the Greek massacres... And he didn't hesitate to say that the army commanders of this war, so glorified by Homer, hadn't gotten their hands dirty while the ordinary soldiers, drawn from the common people, had died...

Aeschines : For Socrates, unlike you, Plato, the common man—whether tanner, cloth merchant, farmer, or tailor—was the first among citizens. We all heard him say so. He never considered that his philosophy should be addressed to the elite, neither elite by birth, nor by wealth, nor by intellectual capacity, nor by education. Some of us learned everything by following Socrates' advice. The first piece of advice was to learn everything. For example, I, who was a student of Socrates, went from gymnast to prompter in the theater, actor, professor of literature, clerk, orator, lawyer, soldier, and philosopher. But, while Socrates favored study, learning each trade through its specific knowledge, he did not admit any superiority to the possessor of that knowledge, to the professional, whether mason, farmer, philosopher, mathematician, or politician. Socrates spoke with us as he would with the average person and looked down on no one. He did not believe that societal change should be the work of a group of men outside of society. And this was for a fundamental reason : the society he envisioned had to, first and foremost, satisfy all people and therefore be built by them, not just for them. This did indeed presuppose a community of goods, a point for which his opponents, such as Aristophanes, frequently criticized him.

– Plato : You claim that Socrates only had the working classes, artisans for example, in mind in his politics. But if a portion of Athenian citizens were not kept in a state of relative leisure with regard to productive and manual labor, they would not be able, as a good portion of Athenian citizens do today, to spend a good part of their day reading, discussing, going to the theater or writing plays, studying, and philosophizing. They would not be able to raise the level of their art and thought to the necessary height and develop the city's capacities in terms of thought, art, science, and politics. If Euripides had to earn his living by fishing, farming, or sailing, he would not have produced his plays, and Athens would only be worse off. But, conversely, it is pointless to ask the fisherman, the farmer, or the shoemaker to write tragedies. Never, for example, did the people of artisans rise above an interest in their own art to general thoughts and concepts, in terms of culture or politics.

Why choose philosophers committed to the scientific spirit to govern the city ? Because we know that these kinds of people are devoted only to truth and not to success, wealth, honors, or fortune ; that they will never cease to reflect and will not be satisfied with a received idea, but will go to the very end to understand the essence of things. If they are dedicated to the happiness of the city, they will therefore act in the same way, never being bound by their personal interests, just as they are when it comes to their science.

– Aeschines : When describing the new society to be built, Socrates spoke of four professions he considered absolutely essential, which he named : weaver, farmer, shoemaker, and mason. Then, after reflection, he added four other equally essential professions : blacksmith, livestock breeder, wholesaler, and retailer. He admitted that a portion of the population might temporarily become soldiers, but only in the event of an external attack. He never mentioned the ruling classes, nor the perioikoi, nor slaves, nor professions of power or state administration… He did not mention magistrates and other public officials, politicians, leaders of all kinds, or the wealthy classes, thus implying that they were not among the essential people of the city. This is how Socrates envisioned society…

– Plato : Of course, the carpenter must practice his craft and the fisherman his. They have their role and are indispensable in their own way. But they cannot simultaneously learn and practice the function of governing. Yet the city must be governed according to the rules of the art. The art of legislation and government can only be practiced by a small number of men. Indeed, the majority cannot acquire the knowledge to govern. Men are not capable of governing themselves because they cannot enact good laws. However, this does not mean dismissing the interests of the entire city. On the contrary, if the government is in the hands of the small number of men who possess the knowledge of governing and wish to use it for the common good, they can conduct policy for the benefit of the whole city. And these men will have the wisdom to guide the entire population toward the policies they will define as they go along. The legislator must be free from any obstacle in the exercise of their art. They must be entirely independent. The physician is obliged to leave their patients and write down their prescriptions. Before their return, their prescriptions may no longer be suitable for their patients. The physician will then be obliged to modify them. The same applies to the legislator when the prevailing circumstances have changed. In any case, an election cannot suffice to define who the competent physicians are, nor, likewise, who the competent legislators and strategists are. Socrates maintained that each field of knowledge requires specific qualities and training. Why should it be any different for the governance of the state, which everyone recognizes as a distinct art ? We have suffered enough from having placed at the head of the state men who possessed neither the skills nor the personal qualities required for these high offices. And the child of a mason is best placed to learn the mason's trade, the child of a farmer the farmer's profession. The child of a political leader will also be best placed to learn this profession. When we stop choosing these statesmen based on their competence, we fall into all the pitfalls we have just witnessed, namely corruption, tyranny, arbitrariness, and violence.

– Phaedo : Let us recall the words of the Athenians to the Melians who refused to submit : “Justice does not enter into men's reasoning when settling a dispute unless the forces on both sides are equal ; but those who are stronger do what is in their power, and the weak yield.” The relations between social classes are like the relations between city-states : it is a question of power dynamics, not just justice. The upheavals in Greece are not a struggle between vice and virtue, between honest and corrupt men, between dictators and democrats, between good and evil. To see it that way is merely to look at the surface of things or to believe the justifications that men give themselves. No ! The struggles that took place among the Greeks, as with neighboring peoples, between city-states as well as within the city-state itself, were class struggles : the struggle between herders and farmers—between warrior herders, patriarchal nomads and conquerors, and sedentary, matriarchal, and peaceful farmers ; the struggle between aristocrats, large landowners, and poor peasants ; the struggle between large slave owners and their oppressed ; and finally, the struggle between merchants and aristocrats. Even the struggle between Athens and Sparta was a product of the competition between these two city-states for the leadership of Greece, but also of the antagonism between Sparta, controlled by landowners, and Athens, controlled by merchants and traders working for the global market.

A merchant class did indeed develop three hundred years ago with the emergence of large-scale trade and Greek currency, inevitably creating tensions between the cities. Athenian democracy did not arise from an awareness of the people's interests, but rather from a social and political crisis. The aristocracy had accumulated widespread hostility, but the crisis had deeper roots. The old society of farmers and landowners had changed, while the system of domination remained the same. This was reflected in the constant warfare between the city-states. Ultimately, it gave great importance to the foot soldier, the hoplite. However, the recruitment of this infantry was based on wealthy peasants. These peasants, who lacked decision-making power within the city-state, saw no reason to risk their lives to defend it. The social foundations had been completely transformed : colonization had fostered large-scale trade and crafts. These activities became major sources of wealth, which could be expressed in monetary terms with the development of currency. For example, the city of Corinth became famous for its ceramics, exported throughout the Mediterranean. Entrepreneurship, investment, and speculation became possible. The change was not only economic, but also social and political. New wealthy classes emerged. Social inequalities widened between impoverished small farmers and wealthy merchants and financiers.

Solon was far from being a liberator. Let's not forget that it was under Solon that the slave trade became institutionalized in Athens and Greece. Until then, it only involved a few servants of the palace or the family. It was a personal relationship, and slaves were an integral part of the family. They were not objects to be sold on a large market. What Chios inaugurated—the sale of human beings as merchandise—was thus organized and then massively developed, starting with Solon. Athenian democracy therefore has the same origins and the same foundations as the most ferocious oppression…

The emergence of democracy was part of the reforms initiated by Draco and Solon to prevent these inequalities from sparking a social revolution. The old ruling classes, without political intervention, were unable to secure sufficient support from the excluded : slaves, foreigners, indebted peasants, and the urban poor. Despite these reforms, class struggle continued inexorably. The aristocratic classes, who governed the cities, found themselves threatened by this new merchant bourgeoisie eager to enter politics, influence societal decisions, and manipulate them to their advantage. This same aristocratic class had to fight to avoid being overthrown by populist tyrants. Crafts and trade (primarily maritime) developed somewhat later in the cities. However, the Greeks, henceforth harboring a great aversion to paid work, and especially manual labor, considered politics the only activity truly worthy of a citizen, the rest being left as far as possible to slaves or non-citizen foreigners. But this disdain for artisanal and commercial activities was by no means the case with Socrates, who neglected none of the manual arts, himself the son of a sculptor and a housekeeper… All trades seemed worth learning to him, and he never claimed that a sculptor's son should become a sculptor… Plato's view that a potter's child should be a potter, a warrior's child should become a warrior, a political leader's child should become a political leader, etc., is entirely his own and should not at all be considered a Socratic legacy. For Plato, who here makes a fine declaration of social conservatism, everything would be perfect in the best of all possible worlds if everyone accepted their place : the potter not to become a weaver, the weaver not to meddle in politics, and the slave to understand that this is his place. Never, ever did Socrates utter such nonsense ! On the contrary, he declared that he knew only men and not slaves, human beings and not potters, nor even warriors… He envisioned a classless society founded on the collective ownership of goods.

Who remembers what Socrates' profession was ? No one ! Posterity will remember him as a professional philosopher, even though no one ever paid him for it. For what allowed a citizen to become a hoplite was being able to pay for his own protective tunic. His true occupation during his adult life was also unpaid, and Socrates is truly the only soldier who didn't boast about it, to the point that most people don't even remember that he was a hoplite until the age of fifty, that he participated in numerous wars, always careful to respect his adage of not going to war for anything other than defending the people, not for glory, not for honors, not for fortune, even when these presented themselves to him. In such cases, he let his neighbors benefit, like Alcibiades once did, and many others… Socrates always showed that he did not despise manual labor, nor the exploited, nor even slaves, whom he considered equal to free men. This made him an inevitable enemy of all established powers, whatever their political form.

Phaedo : Socrates has sometimes been portrayed as a glorious soldier in the Athenian armies ! Socrates actually said : “It is said that I passed my interventions in the wars with honor, but where is the glory in that ? If I acquitted myself well, it was not due to a warlike temperament, quite the contrary. When I was nearly cited in the army's orders for saving many Athenians, it was only because I did not panic in defeat. When the entire army went into disarray and the fleeing soldiers were massacred, I remained motionless, attentive to what would happen next.” But it is true that the development of a hoplite army had revolutionized the attitude of the inhabitants, who demanded the right to decide for a society for which they shed their blood, unlike the time when only the nobles bore arms.

– Epigene What truly revolutionized Greece was neither the mindset of its inhabitants, nor the climate, nor democracy, nor tyranny, nor the rich classes, nor the poor classes, nor Persia, nor Athens, nor Sparta, nor Thebes, nor Corinth, nor Pericles, nor Solon, nor Draco. It was the invention of money and widespread monetary exchange. It was a veritable volcanic eruption that annihilated the old Greek society ! Of ancient Greece, only ashes remain, only appearances. We can no longer even understand this old society, so unlike the one we know. The old world has completely disappeared. Even the ancient mentality has been razed to its foundations. Not a single stone of the old edifice remains standing. The work of destruction and dissolution was brutal, radical, and inexorable. The peasants, both small and medium-sized, were ruined before being partially reintegrated into the new world. The place and role of the large landowners were completely overturned, their resistance easily overcome. Everything changed : economic activities, social relations, the goals of society, ideology, and power. Attempts to slow the transformation were futile. The center of gravity of economic and social activity shifted abruptly, without giving society time to find solutions, stages, or compromises. This is why Greece experienced such acute social and political crises. This is not fundamentally linked to the morality of the leaders, their competence, or their choices. Even the most capable were deeply shaken by the earthquake of a monetary economy entering a world without money. Money destroyed person-to-person relationships, respect for old customs, tribal ways of functioning, and the weight of family ties, replacing all of this with the accumulation of money, including through speculation, a completely new and previously unimaginable concept. Corruption became indispensable to these new relationships. Exchanges of trust between individuals took on an anonymous character even before transforming into large-scale international trade. In this new society, man is merely a means, and money an end. Money transformed human relationships into anonymous relationships with a virtual, distant, and intangible entity : the global market. The value of work and human relationships were brutally devalued. Suddenly, it became possible to amass a fortune without producing a single tangible good, simply through speculation. Work ceased to be the foundation of wealth. The entire edifice upon which ancient Greece was based was dissolved by money relations...This is how private appropriation transformed into the appropriation of money.That is why the fight for a just and humane world requires overturning this social order.

Xenophon : Personally, I don't see Greece as a society headed straight for ruin, one that could only be saved by establishing a community of property. My dear Phaedo, I would like to remind you that the revolution from which we all emerged was that of the Greek cities against the Persian occupiers, not the communist revolution. It was this struggle that forced them to unite, and unfortunately, as soon as this struggle is no longer an immediate necessity, the cities violently divide once again. The collective spirit that should animate them, far from being class struggle, must be the understanding of all citizens for the sake of social harmony, and this is what the political leadership of the city should aim for : not only social calm, but the happiness of each individual in their rightful place, and not the demand by everyone to access positions for which they are in no way prepared. This is the demagoguery that the so-called democracy has developed, to the great detriment of Athens.

– Plato : I fear that this somewhat narrow political dimension, which you defend so vehemently, Phaedo, presents Socrates as another Zeno, fighting dictatorships and false democracies, without giving Socrates his full philosophical dimension. You reduce him to the man of a few revolutions—the revolution of women, of the landless and slaves, or of the disenfranchised, of foreigners and slaves—but you forget that Socrates called for another revolution, a more internal one, which I would venture to call the conquest of self. When he debated with a banker, a financier, a democrat, or a dictator, Socrates always spoke to the man, assuming that he had before him another self, aiming, like all men, for moral as well as physical well-being, and he always demonstrated that behind the mystification of power and money, man remained fragile, hesitant, and open to question. It was because he looked first and foremost at the human dimension that he considered himself outside of Athenian or even Greek patriotism, but as a citizen of the world.

Euclid : You're really going off on a tangent, Plato ! To hear you talk, one would think Zeno was nothing but a coup plotter, a brainless revolutionary whose only aim was to overthrow a dictator and who was merely a disciple of Parmenides, without defending any original philosophical vision. Certainly, Zeno was a revolutionary to the very end, refusing at the risk of his life to denounce his comrades when he was arrested by the dictator he intended to overthrow, but he was also a master of philosophy. With his 80 paradoxes, he constructed a veritable body of reasoning, all of which hold up and are far from being gratuitous sophisms. They are binding clauses that anyone who claims to produce a system for explaining reality must consult. They prepare the way for the philosophy of science of the future, when we have greater knowledge about how the world works. The average person might find ridiculous the idea that Achilles cannot overtake a tortoise, but the rational person understands that this proof by contradiction aims to demonstrate a crucial point about time and space : they cannot be divided infinitely into any size. And this is a fundamental point for anyone who considers displacement, speed, motion, matter, or light.

I will take just one example from Zeno's reasoning. Has anyone ever seen a ball bounce indefinitely ? No, of course not. If we observe, for example, that the ball rebounds by half its height with each bounce, we might think that it will then bounce by half of that half, then by another half of that, and so on indefinitely. Yet this process stops. The same is true of a stone skipping across water. If the stone, slowed by the water's resistance, jumps each time by half the distance of the previous jump, we might think it could continue indefinitely. And we all know that this is not the case. The movement stops at a certain point, after a small number of skips. The same is true for the swings of a seesaw, which slows its course by half each time. It is therefore impossible to divide by two infinitely. So, if we consider a time interval and imagine that within this interval there are two halves, and then divide each half in two, we might think we could conceive of infinitely smaller time intervals through this dichotomy. However, thanks to Zeno's reasoning, we see that this type of continuity of quantities, which would follow one another at intervals as small as we like, is not physically possible. If these infinitely small intervals existed, Zeno demonstrates that there would be no movement. This doesn't mean he believes that movement doesn't exist, but that the conception of matter and the void is flawed. And this is where he agrees with Parmenides, who argues that the void cannot be non-being. If the void exists, says Parmenides, then it is a "being." Democritus's reasoning that matter moves from a place occupied by matter to an unoccupied place is invalid. This is where Zeno's paradoxes led. For once, Plato, I think there's a philosopher you haven't understood and whom you're criticizing without foundation !

This is precisely what Parmenides, in agreement with Zeno, observed in his dialogue with Socrates : “To suppose that one passes from rest to motion in an instant poses more problems than it solves. The instant seems to signify something like the starting point of a change in both directions, toward the past and toward the future. At the same time, the instant lies between immobility and motion, and it is simultaneously a transition from one to the other and from the other to the one. But at this instant, it is neither past nor future, neither rest nor motion. One might think that the instant is a constituent element of time, but this is not the case, for the instant has no duration, and one could pile up as many as one likes, it would still not amount to any duration. To suppose the instant as the origin of something, of some event, does not solve the problem any better, for it is to pass from nothing to something from nothing.” Therefore, we cannot separate moments, nor separate movement and rest, each on its own. They are all one.

Zeno's paradoxes ruled out many philosophies of matter that would be erroneous. Socrates recognized the merits of Zeno and Parmenides, with whom he had conversed, and he shared many of their views. Zeno was a student of the philosopher Parmenides, whom he accompanied to Athens 51 years earlier. There, they met Socrates. It was a mutual shock, despite Socrates' youth. Socrates had two striking characteristics : no fear of the prevailing ideology and no connection to the rigid conception of philosophy. He championed the dynamism of contradictions. Where some found opposing forces destructive, he considered them constructive. Back in Elea, Zeno began to engage in politics to change the established order and was arrested for participating in a plot against the tyrant Nearchus. He was tortured to death as a conspirator. At his death, Socrates was struck by Zeno's courage in the face of death. He told us that he thought about Zeno for a long time before drinking the hemlock...

– Terpsion : Indeed, after discussing with Socrates, Zeno developed his concept in the dialectical sense, according to which opposing elements are not separate, isolated, and independent. On the contrary, they are interdependent and inseparable, existing together within the same object. To demonstrate this, Zeno uses the example of a stationary object that begins to move. At that moment, it can be said to be both stationary and in motion. Similarly, in the case of a child being born, or any situation or event that is unfolding, two opposites occur simultaneously. Mobility and movement, unity and plurality, heat and cold, life and death are not to be separated but coupled in each particular situation. They oppose each other, but this opposition is inherent in each situation. Another law of dialectic discovered by Zeno is that of thresholds. A pile of sand differs from a sum of grains of sand. It is a qualitative leap. Zeno's dialectic, on the other hand, studies the links between movement and change : movement at one level presupposes change at another. Such was Zeno's dialectic.

– Crito : I would like us to return to the philosophy of Socrates, which we, his disciples, must be keen to make known, since our master did not, of himself, put his own thought into writing.

– Plato : I would like to emphasize a particular point of general philosophical science that Socrates uniquely discovered. I am reporting his words as accurately as possible, despite the complexity of the subject. Socrates observed that there is a class of intelligible things, a group that does not entirely encompass the class of visible (or perceptible) things. The human mind has knowledge of both what is visible (or sensible, which I would call shadows) and what is comprehensible (or ideas that are called rational because reason manages to include them in its analysis). But this does not mean that humans can superimpose these two kinds of means of knowing, understanding, and perceiving. There is always a discontinuity between them. Despite the greatest efforts of reflection, one cannot superimpose things that are, by their very nature, different and truly separate from one another. The rational understanding cannot encompass everything, nor can vision see everything. Socrates emphasized that we do not have direct contact with reality, contrary to what most people commonly believe. We are like people in a cave who only have an indirect perception of reality. We do not have direct daylight, but only a ray of light that penetrates through a narrow slit. Our images of objects are merely projections onto the cave floor. Accustomed to their dimness, these people would see nothing if they stepped out into the light. Our perceptions will therefore never see anything but shadows. The shadow of things certainly has a relationship with reality, but it is not a relationship of identity. All optical illusions are involved. Shadows contain altered dimensions that can, for example, be larger or smaller than the real object. The subjectivity and emotions of the observer also play a role. His entire previous worldview, the customs and teachings he has received about how things work, are all influenced by this and can significantly distort his perception and create illusions. The universe is therefore not equivalent to his shadow. Is it, however, identical to the one about which we reason ? Not at all. A person who reasons scientifically can claim the advantage of objectivity, remaining unaffected by emotions and feelings, thanks to their ability to perceive a situation from the outside, not content with what is seen, but even reasoning about what cannot be seen. Science can reason about a past we do not experience, about universes that astronomy cannot grasp, about scales that are not those of humankind.

Reasoning may require the rediscovery of concepts that will never be observed, visible, or perceptible. These concepts are essential for reasoning or calculation, for arithmetic or geometric mathematization. Socrates was the first to assert that if humankind can communicate about the world, it is thanks to these abstract images. The fact that these concepts are not visible does not make them false, but simply means that there exists a world of ideas with a validity different from that of the visible or perceptible world. It is possible that discoveries made through reasoning will go far beyond anything that knowledge will ever allow us to see. And there will constantly be a back-and-forth between experiences and knowledge. New knowledge will compel us to new experiences, and vice versa. Such is the path of the progress of knowledge, and it is endless. The correspondence between the two worlds (sensible and intelligible) is impossible. Visible reality will never fully mimic the real world. Only the world of ideas can be entirely rational, but not the world of visible objects. This was the philosophy Socrates taught me. And it led me to consider mathematics as the very heart of thought, and geometry in particular. It is the science of sciences, the most general science. On the other hand, the Pythagoreans who want to do mathematics without philosophy, especially without dialectic, are mistaken. They cannot perceive the contradictions of reality. They remain trapped in an abstract world of numbers, which they believe to be the only reality, which is wrong.

Rational analysis may require that humankind rediscover the concepts that represent the world and that are not readily apparent to the senses. These concepts are essential for reasoning, calculation, and even the geometric form that emerges from reflection. But the perfection that results from calculations and geometry is not the same as that of sensory perception. In fact, while we must be wary of the world of shadows, which can offer an illusory vision, and while the world of ideas is indeed that of science, we should not expect the world of ideas to lead us exactly back to the visible world. For example, numbers are human concepts and were a fundamental discovery. However, we must not conclude from this that numbers arise directly from sensory reality. We might believe that the numbers one, two, or three are part of our everyday visible reality, but this is incorrect. One plus one equals two is a statement repeatedly verified when we say that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep. But this would only be exactly true in the everyday world if two sheep were exactly identical, which is of course impossible.

Shadows can give us some information about objects, and reasoning or calculation can provide other information, but the two worlds—that of perception and that of reflection—will remain two worlds that can never become identical, which makes the search endless. Only the world of ideas can attain the purity, the accuracy, the precision that are the goals of science. The observation of objects will never, and cannot, achieve this purity.

The two worlds will continue to clash for the greater advancement of knowledge, without their struggle ever coming to an end.

Euclid : Plato, you consider geometry the foundation of the world. The straight line, a set of points ; the triangle, the basis of the entire world order, forming the basis of both the dodecahedron and the icosahedron, all the elements used to construct the earth, the sky, and the sea. And everything is founded on the smallest element, the geometric point, which, like everything else, is an idealization. I understand that these mathematical concepts are pure, even beautiful, but I don't approve of considering them the foundation of the world. A point without dimension is nonexistent. A straight line without thickness is imperceptible, invisible. The triangle, made up of four segments, has no more weight, force, or presence than the others. For someone who claims to follow Socratic dialectic, you seem to me much more like an adherent of Pythagorean philosophy, replacing number with the triangle. For Socrates, everything contains its opposite within itself, and this is what makes the world dynamic, always changing. Can you tell me what the opposite is that a point, a line, or a triangle contains, since they are always identical to themselves and immutable ?

Plato, you portray Socrates as a philosopher who only reasons about abstractions, which is far removed from the Socrates I knew. Even when you talk about Socrates philosophizing about human life, you present him as only aiming to discuss with each person the right way to behave in life, about morality, about virtue. As if Socrates claimed to know this right morality, this right virtue, this best way to conduct oneself. What a mistake !

Socrates the philosopher, yes, but Socrates the revolutionary, even more so ! The reason he doesn't preach revolution is because he has experienced it. He knows it's like a natural phenomenon, an event that isn't driven by individual desires, that can't be provoked, that doesn't need to be wished for, like rain or a storm. He doesn't aim merely to philosophize. He aims for societal change, for revolution. But rather than speaking of the means, revolution, he speaks of the end, the future society. He speaks of humanity's profound goals, of happiness. And to change the world, he seeks the means to understand it ; he trains seekers of truth. Only truth is revolutionary. This means he is far removed from the political calculations of the city, in which he has no interest. He is far removed from immediate interests. He doesn't rely on the publicity that political activity provides. He isn't afraid of being isolated. Defending ideas requires detachment from immediate and petty calculations. Socrates establishes a think tank. Its object : the universe. Everything can be discussed. There are no taboos. Everything leads to philosophy. One must learn. Reasoning is not immediate, but is the object of learning. Revolutionaries in too much of a hurry want immediate results and fuss so that their ideas will have an immediate effect. As a result, they make calculations that constantly distance them from the ideas that initially guided them. Changing the world requires understanding how it works, and this is far from obvious. The philosophy this requires does not stem from immediate experience and is often even in complete disagreement with the illusions of appearances. Consequently, he reiterates, one must never cease learning to think. Those who want action at all costs and quick successes will necessarily distance themselves from him, like Xenophon, Charmides, or Alcibiades. Those who wanted a philosophy acceptable to Athens would break with him, like Plato. Those who wanted to reject anyone who wasn't immediately revolutionary would also distance themselves from him, like Antisthenes. Socrates doesn't reproach people. They are as they are. He doesn't moralize to them. He doesn't urge them to be different. He simply allows them to observe their aspirations and how much they diverge from what drives them every day. He imposes neither his goals, nor his ideas, nor his objectives, nor his knowledge of the world. He debates with them because he believes that the seeker of ideas must discuss in order to progress. Socrates knows that our brain has its own little unconscious daimon. At some point during the night, in a dream, or in meditation, this daimon will give you the unexpected little impulse that will overturn what your conscious rational thought tells you, provided you have constantly unraveled and re-unraveled your philosophical preoccupations during the day.

Those who followed Socrates felt more intelligent, but not because he taught them knowledge. That wasn't his method. This method, as we have all seen here, elevated us. It never told us : you know nothing, you are nothing, you are wrong, you understand nothing, you should do this, you should be like that. Socrates invited us to walk together along the path of reasoning, refusing only to stray from it through all the detours to which society is accustomed : politeness, social hypocrisy, reverence for established values, ignorance, or submissive deference to knowledge. This didn't prevent any of us from following our own path and, consequently, from later turning away from him. This doesn't mean that his attitude toward ideas and life didn't profoundly affect us all…

With Socrates, you don't learn something, you don't study a field of knowledge. You learn that you are both far better and far worse than you knew. You discover that you are more ignorant and more knowledgeable than you thought. It's not Socrates who tells you who you are ; it's you who, unintentionally, reveals it to you. But that's not the main point. For Socrates, it's only a necessary step. The individual isn't everything. Social life matters to Socrates. He doesn't deny the existence of social classes and their importance. He doesn't deny the existence of political institutions and social ideologies in the mind of an individual. He discusses publicly with people from all walks of life, and many don't understand him. They see him talking with the poor and oppressed and think he wants to incite them to revolt. They see him debating with the rich and powerful and imagine he wants to convert them to some dogma, some kind of social reform. Complete misunderstanding. Socrates is outraged by the state of society, by poverty, by oppression, by war, by political and social tyranny, but he doesn't make his revolt a rallying cry. He believes that to transform the world, one must first understand it, which means understanding all classes of society. And understanding means self-discovery. The rich don't understand themselves any more spontaneously than the poor, that is, without the process of philosophical inquiry. Power is right in front of us, but its nature is well hidden from everyone's eyes. The dominant ideology also hides behind individual thoughts. Socrates' method aims to overcome these barriers. This mode of discussion is not common and will always surprise people, and many haven't understood it. They see a debate only as an exchange between shared or opposing opinions, between people who already know what they think. Socrates doesn't see it that way. He prefers to think he doesn't know and seeks to lead his interlocutors into a search for something no one knows in advance. In particular, Socrates doesn't know where this discussion will lead him. He follows a methodical path whose end he doesn't know. Because he believes that truth is always to be discovered, rethought, and reconstructed. We think we know many things. And many would find it difficult to live if they constantly had to question everything. But these things we think we know are often precisely what prevents us from thinking, especially since they are so difficult to let go of. They are ideological, social, or customary preconceptions, errors of knowledge, or false philosophies. They are sometimes false assumptions, whether sensory, logical, or conceptual. These are the enemies Socrates must fight. He believes that the world cannot be directly understood and that, to grasp it,We need to build structures of thought that did not exist before. This construction requires patience and reasoning.

This, for Socrates, is the purpose of the debate. There is no master and student, no teacher and student, no citizen and philosopher, but two or more men exploring together an unknown territory, even if one believes oneself to know it. This, Plato, is where the difference between you and your master Socrates begins. For you, the method consists of seeking an absolute, eternal truth, independent of humankind, unchanging and unalterable, which is not within the realm of the perceptible world. For Socrates, the process is human, fallible, never finished, not leading to a ready-made truth, not to an absolute, eternal truth. For you, concepts are objective, existing independently of humankind. For Socrates, we produce the concept. It is a free human creation that aims to encompass reality in ideas used to record facts, to communicate them among us, and to explain the world to us. The concept is therefore a product of human intelligence, for Socrates. It is dynamic. It has a history. It changes according to the times and can change according to the people involved, according to the circumstances. For Socrates, concepts are not situated outside of human life, nor outside of the material world, but rather in the connection between humanity and the world. The production of concepts is an ongoing activity of humankind, whereas, for you, it is established once and for all by God. We humans have produced our tools, invented agriculture, irrigation, and navigation, and have also invented languages, mathematics, and logic.

Approaching the fundamental notion of concept gradually, through definition and word, Socrates asked : "Every object we name has multiple, all different forms, whether it be a rug, an armchair, a tree, or a man. If I were to say to you : 'Now, Meno, here is what I would like to know from you : what name do you give to this thing by which all these forms come together and are all identical ?'" And, in this way, Socrates believed that one could access the formation of the concept, a free human creation enabling people to understand and communicate.

"By thinking, we transform the world," Socrates asserted. For you, Plato, we can only access shadows, the perpetual distortion of a reality that lies outside of us. Of course, some of us think it sufficient to claim you're lying when you invoke Socrates. But, as I believe I've sufficiently demonstrated through my paradoxes, all purely logical statements fall prey to constant, looping contradictions. The same applies to the claim that Socrates accused Plato, saying, "Plato, when you say 'Socrates is right,' you're lying." I would therefore refrain from using this type of formal accusation, but would simply tell you, Plato, that you are mistaken if you believe you are defending our master's views.

Antisthenes : If I shout "By the dog !", Plato, you haven't seen a real dog, not even in your mind. You haven't smelled it, felt the fear, seen the rage. You've only recalled memories, but you haven't yet seen the drooling mastiff before you, the one I'd like to see threatening you, even biting you, so that you'll stop denying its existence, beyond the concept. Because the concept doesn't bite ! There's a great distance between Plato and Socrates. Socrates observes that people manage to create concepts, the objects of reason, from things, the objects of material life that produce a sensory effect. It is concepts that allow people to retrieve the object in their minds from the word and, consequently, to exchange the idea with other people. For Plato, it is these "intelligible forms," as he calls them, that breathe reality into things ! In short, to put it somewhat simplistically, it would be the spirit of the tree that creates the tree ! While Socrates proposes applying the same philosophy to things as to ideas, Plato proposes absolute idealism : only ideas exist, and all lead to the absolute idea. But, if my dog bites Plato, he will see that the reality of the dog is no less than the idea of a dog biting ! The philosophy common, according to Socrates, to ideas and things, is the dialectic of contradictions, according to which the same object contains its own contradiction, and its generalization in the form of an idea must show how the interpenetration of opposites produces the element. This idealism of Plato seems to me the culmination of the conception held by many Athenians, according to whom only ideas matter and not material reality. These same people were averse to manual labor, leaving it to the slaves. Thus, Plato, who despises the sophists, seems to me to share their theoretical disdain for reality… Unlike Plato, I fear I will never be bitten by the idea of a dog…

– Plato You believe that reality is closer to the sensory world than to human thought. Appearances may seem to support your view. However, I would like to ask you : without abstract concepts, are you capable of drawing lessons from sensory experience ? For instance, Antisthenes, who is so proud of having seen a dog in the flesh and who speaks of it here, even though there is no dog in this room, has done more to contradict his own thesis than any of my speeches ! Let us examine his argument. He speaks of a dog. What is "a" and what is "dog" ? For my part, I have no sensory experience of "a" ! I have never seen one, I have never touched one, I have never smelled one, I have never heard one ! The same goes for "dog." I look everywhere. I see Antisthenes, but I see no dog ! How can he speak of things that do not exist without resorting to concepts ? Wouldn't he be a follower of the abstract concepts conceived by our master, Socrates ? Are there any sensory experiences in which one doesn't have to rely on memory ? Yesterday, I saw that dog. Today, I see the same dog. It's Euthydemus's dog, the one he was with the day before yesterday. How can I be so sure ? I'm no longer the day before yesterday. I receive no sensory impressions from such a distant time. I no longer see the scene. It's an abstraction for me to recall it ! There's no way to compare two situations without resorting to abstract concepts. Sensory certainty itself is only possible through the use of concepts. Take the sense of smell, for example. I say that I smelled the roast before entering the room. What roast ? I don't see it. What is a roast ? I haven't touched it. I don't know what it is. Et cetera, et cetera… Giving primacy to the senses over reasoning is a fundamental error. We are beings whose defining characteristic is not necessarily a superior sense. The dog smells better than we do. The eagle sees better than we do. The monkey touches better than we do. However, none of them seems capable of complex reasoning, such as meeting in Megara and discussing the meaning of Socrates' philosophy… If God gave us this special sense of reasoning, it was certainly not for nothing, nor to assign it a role inferior to the simple act of seeing, smelling, and touching… Of course, one might believe that a dog, a cat, and a human are the foundations of the concept of "one," which would not exist without the sensory experience of a thing in multiple forms. This is a profound error. The monkey sees an apple, a tree, and a human. Yet, it probably did not invent mathematics. "One" is a concept and not simply a grouping or intersection of sensory experiences. Some of you thought you were undermining geometry by asserting that a point is already purely abstract since it has neither length, nor width, nor area, nor weight, nor volume. However,They say that there is no object our senses can perceive with such absolute precision. They conclude that the point does not exist and that the senses are right. But their reasoning itself backfires. Where does an idea like the point come from, an idea that is not derived from our experience, since they themselves emphasize that this idea is not a generalization of experience ? We have no experience of an object without any kind of dimension. Well then, the world of ideas truly exists, and it does not overlap with the sensible world. We can think of things we do not see. We constantly talk about things and ideas we will probably never see. When one of us says Pericles, we know we won't see him again. When the Persians are mentioned, everyone jumps, and yet they are not there, at the door. Ideas, therefore, have a terrifying effect, my dear Antisthenes, as potent as the rabid, drooling dog you would have me encounter face to face… We do not see Socrates, and yet we are here exclusively because of him, for him, with him… Socrates has become far more than his real self, with his old cloak and his words. He has become a principle. And if we are here, it is because this principle is just as strong, Socrates dead, and perhaps even stronger. Socrates was indeed an idea and not merely a being of flesh and blood !

Eubulides : Plato, you chose mathematics as the key subject of reflection because you chose idealization as the ultimate goal of all scientific study, and also as the moral goal of humankind. However, we know full well, in our daily lives, that matter, humankind, and society are not rigorous in the same way that mathematics is. All people can agree on a mathematical statement, regardless of their social, ethnic, or regional origin, regardless of their culture, regardless of the era. They can predict in advance the result of the same calculation or the same type of drawing, performed by someone else. On the other hand, we cannot predict in advance what will happen when we break a vase, when we visit a neighbor, or when we go to war. Of course, we ask the Oracle of Delphi what we should do. But the Pythia only answers yes or no, and we are left to interpret the explanatory sentences that accompany this answer, which are far from clear. The error can then stem from a misinterpretation. This shows that human life is not as rigorous as mathematics. Praying to the gods is not enough either, since different gods can be in conflict with each other and may diverge in their positions on human affairs.

Unlike you, Socrates never considered idealization (number, figure, abstract notion) to be superior to reality. He certainly developed the notion of the concept as a communicable generalization essential to the functioning of the human mind, but this does not imply that the abstract is placed outside or above the real. The concepts he spoke of most often were those of goodness, beauty, the notion of society, of the human being, of thought, and of science—all notions that lack mathematical definitions. People can agree on the concept of number as well as on that of happiness, but this will not make them identical in reality. For example, everyone recognizes that, mathematically, one plus one equals two. But reality does not allow us to assert that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep. Such an equality would presuppose that the two sheep are identical, which is impossible. One can mathematically be equal to one, but one man is not equal to another man, one sheep is not equal to another sheep, and no object is identical to another. Conceptual identity exists and has meaning, but not identity between two things. This does not invalidate the mathematical approach, unless it claims to perfectly describe the real world.

– Plato : If the perfection of the concept, of the rational, of the abstract, of the geometric figure, of number, of virtue, or of wisdom were merely arbitrary inventions, without real meaning, how could we have them in our consciousness ? How could two very different people exchange opinions based on these concepts and accept statements based on them, regardless of their origin, their beliefs, their culture, or their era ? How is it that we manage to base arguments that have not been contradicted on such foundations, if these foundations had no real basis ? Conversely, why deny that imperfection is an approximation of perfection, that the approximate is an attempt to approach precision, that measurement leads toward the exact result ? Certainly, the circle we draw is never perfectly circular. All mathematicians know this. On the other hand, it is the circle conceived as perfectly circular, whose points are always the same distance from the center, that forms the basis of even the most approximate drawing. The ideal is not merely a vague aspiration corresponding to nothing real : it is a standard of reality. All circles drawn by imperfect geometers with imperfect tools on imperfect surfaces share the common goal of aiming for the perfect standard of the circle. The same is true of Goodness, Justice, the State, and Man. "No one has ever encountered the concept of 'man' in the street," Antisthenes quips, and on this point, one can easily agree with him. Yet when we speak of man, everyone understands who we are talking about without even seeing him. Except, perhaps, Antisthenes, who thinks we are talking about a dog !

Aeschines : Your vision, Plato, is certainly interesting, very intelligent even. Your idealism is logically pushed to its extreme, and it bears very important fruit. You can be proud of its origin. So why, in your writings, do you attribute it to Socrates ? It is by no means a concept you owe to Socrates, for he, far from believing in the existence of two worlds, one of shadows or the visible and the other of ideas or concepts, believed in a single world encompassing man and nature, thought and the universe. It seems, moreover, as your allegory of the cave confirms, that this reflects your conception of the separation between rulers and ruled—which is no more Socrates'—since you attribute to the multitude only the capacity to be interested in the world of sensations or shadows, the world of the rational, that of concepts, reasoning, and calculations, being reserved for an elite…

The philosophy, or love of wisdom, that Socrates professes is not opposed to an interest in human thought, and especially not to an interest in human life and social life. Socrates' "I know nothing" meant that, in awe of the richness of the world and society, humankind is constantly learning. And, for Socrates, even the least learned person is a philosopher, whereas, according to you, philosophers are an elite, the tiny minority capable of reaching the essence. The defining characteristic of humankind, of every human being, according to Socrates, is to be perpetually a human apprentice. Socrates seeks no definitive knowledge, nor any definitive morality. Plato, you seek the exact opposite : for you, the existence of authentic knowledge requires that the non-illusory world be unchanging. For you, essence lies purely in the world of ideas, in an absolute concept, whereas the real basis, for Socrates, is in actual life, in physical, human, and social reality. For Socrates, dialectic is the contradictory law of real change. Socrates, unlike you, did not scorn the materialist thought of Anaxagoras, nor the physical thought of Democritus and Anaximander, but even studied them thoroughly. He also did not reject Zeno's thought, while suggesting that he make greater use of the notion of contradiction. On the contrary, your conception of definition opposes Socrates' idea that the concept contains its own contradiction. You are certainly the most intelligent among us, but surely also our master's greatest disappointment. Wasn't it for you, Plato, that Socrates said : "What would be beautiful in the intelligence of a man whom the riches of the world do not marvel at ?"

Your absence during Socrates' final moments speaks volumes about the cooling of your relationship and the divergence of your viewpoints. You defend the idea of the Good, which you claim to have inherited from Socrates, but for him, it is not a definitive, moral concept. For you, dialectic is the science of immutable truth, whereas for Socrates, it is the science of confrontation, contradiction, and change—diametrically opposed. Man is at the center of Socrates' philosophy. The metaphysical being, the founder of the world, is at the center of yours. For Socrates, man is imperfection, the concrete, ongoing struggle. For you, the Idea is abstract perfection. Admit it, the character "Socrates" in your dialogues should really be called Plato ! I assure you, we would read your dialogues with far more interest and far less embarrassment...

Eubulides : Plato, you are a proponent of dianoia, or the discursive method of intellectual understanding, and not of Socrates' dialectic of contradictions, which encompasses the contradictions of being and those of thought. You developed the theory of form, or eido, and not Socrates' theory of the concept. You defend the search for the arche, the ultimate fundamental principle of the universe, and not Socrates' scientific method. You defend the existence of immutable and eternal fundamental truths, or anamnesis, whereas our master sought only truths on our human scale, that is to say, fragile, personal, and uncertain, and was more concerned with the questions than with the answers. And it is not the political vision that brings you closer to Socrates, far from it. Plato, you distrust democracy by considering that political competence is not a competence of the people. You criticize the democratic system for allowing the ignorant to believe they know, simply because their opinion is sought. Not only do you think the masses don't know what justice is, but you believe they cannot possibly know. Socrates believed that every person, regardless of their social or educational background, is searching for what is good, in order to act accordingly. Plato, my dear friend, you are certainly the most capable philosopher among us, but you are by no means a defender of Socrates' thought, even though you constantly invoke his character in your dialogues to defend your own views.

Phaedo : You are right, Plato, to attribute to Socrates the true discovery of the concept, the means by which humankind communicates about the world using abstractions, images, and generalizations. But what you consider to be the very image of the concept—mathematical notions—are very far from it. Indeed, for Socrates, the concept must contain within itself its own contradiction, just as every object and every situation derives its dynamism from its internal dialectic, from the internal struggle between its opposites. Humankind, for example, is neither good nor bad, but constantly torn between opposing tendencies. It is the site of a perpetual struggle. Society is not stable, but itself constantly pulled between opposing forces. Nature also presents incessant struggles, both within itself and within each of its parts. The concept must not only take into account this dialectical character of the notion one wishes to render abstract, but its definition must even be the clearest possible expression of this struggle. Those who have engaged most deeply in discussions with Socrates will all have observed that, far from reaching a conclusion, the debate, starting from one alternative, led to a new alternative. Such is Socrates' dialectic. For him, the one is inconceivable without containing within it the plurality. And the plurality has no other purpose than to lead to unity. Now, the "one" of mathematics is equal to itself and not to a plurality. This is not a dialectical notion. The concept of number is too fixed to be an element of a dynamic conception.

The thought that Socrates defended was not mathematical thought, but dialectical thought, in which everything contains its own opposite. Every person, for example, simultaneously desires a thing and its opposite. It is common for what attracts them to also repel them. Socrates rightly pointed out that a just person commits injustices, that good also contains elements of evil, that a concept must contain its opposite, explaining how the two are intertwined while simultaneously conflicting. Every society, like every living being or every part of the material universe, is founded on contradictions. He was thus very far removed from mathematical thought, in which a notion is not contradictory : two parallel lines are not simultaneously intersecting ; two numbers are not simultaneously equal and different ; a figure is not simultaneously triangular and rectangular, and so on. Only contradiction allows us to conceive of the dynamics of the world, whereas number, point, and line have a fixed character. Rain and sunshine are opposing forces, yet they are united within the cloud, a structure produced by both. The same colors can destroy each other in a painting (producing black) or complement each other in rays of light to produce white light. The concept must account for the contradictions of reality. The image of a world without contradiction would be a world without change or movement. One of the merits of Zeno's paradoxes was to show that movement opposes any logic of exclusive yes/no, without internal contradiction. If one can say that an object is completely motionless and another is completely in motion, then movement does not exist because one cannot pass, even in infinite time, from non-movement to movement !

Plato, you aim to remove the contradictions that exist within Athenian or Greek society, whereas Socrates did not seek to erase them, nor to hide them, nor even to diminish them, but, on the contrary, to bring them to consciousness. The evolution of Greek society is the product of its contradictions, and its crisis stems from the phase in which these contradictions are exacerbated to the point of becoming explosive. This is what makes Socrates' philosophy revolutionary and yours, Plato, conservative. Some of you claim that Socrates did not want to engage in the quarrels of the philosophy of science, which he considered pointless. This is not accurate. He had indeed been forced to renounce them publicly, but continued to reflect on them privately. And, above all, he believed that the philosophical debate was fundamentally the same whether it concerned the personal goals of the individual, the social goals of the City, or the world of the conservation and change of matter. The advantage, according to Socrates, of using the theme of everyday life was that everyone would have their own opinion on the matter, allowing for an equal debate between the average person, the scholar, and the member of the ruling class. Each would believe they possessed their own answer and could thus contribute meaningfully to the discussion. And, once again, Socrates did not want to impose his lessons, but rather to allow everyone to fully develop their own thoughts.

– Aeschines : Aristophanes knew that Socrates continued to study nature, and in his play, he mocked the philosopher who falls into a well while trying to gaze at the stars. This was a way of denouncing him for always wanting to give a philosophical interpretation to nature. This would, in fact, be one of the charges at his trial. As a young man, Socrates had been forced to leave and officially renounce his teacher Anaxagoras, who had been condemned for atheism by Athens. He had decided, therefore, to opt for the study of the philosophy of social life rather than that of nature, which had just been rejected by the city. For him, this was simply a way of continuing to philosophize in the same direction, since he did not separate social life from nature. But he did not want the same thing to happen to his disciples : for them to be forced to renounce him.

Xenophon : It is true that Socrates had studied mathematical and physical theories with several masters in these fields, but he believed that it was impossible to decide between the various theories of his time, whether that of Parmenides (the unity of being), Leucippus (infinite multiplicity), Heraclitus of Ephesus (the perpetual motion of bodies, or everything is born and everything dies), or Zeno of Elea (absolute inertia). For some, everything changes. For others, change is an illusion. For some, matter is one. For others, it is plural. For some, all truth lies in the stars. For still others, it lies in the study of matter on Earth. For some, everything is water, earth, and fire. For others, everything is made up of triangles. For still others, everything is number. Deciding between these opposing theses is a daunting task, given the current state of our knowledge. Engaging in the debate is endless and ultimately futile. Of course, Socrates developed philosophical concepts about the world, but he did not claim that one should derive rules of conduct from observing the heavens. For that, he relied on social norms, the virtue of citizens, and divine providence expressed through oracles and offerings. If someone wished to rise above human understanding, he advised them to practice divination, to seek to know the will of the gods through the signs they send us. It was his adversaries who, in order to discredit and eliminate him, tried to spread the rumor that he claimed to understand the celestial bodies, the stars, the universe, lightning, and thunder in his philosophical studies, attacking the Athenian belief that these things carry messages from the gods to guide our actions. By Jupiter, I can attest that these accusations are false !

Eubulides : I don't think Socrates ever relied more on oracles and offerings than on the pursuit of truth through science. He certainly believed that a debate could more easily be established on happiness, virtue, and the proper way to educate citizens than on matter and motion. And above all, he thought that the same philosophy applies to all questions, because there is only one world. When he wanted to develop the philosophical conceptions of those with whom he debated, he simply had to take each person's favorite topic as his theme. With the stonemasons, he spoke of masonry. With the military, of the art of war. And so on… But if we look beyond appearances, Socrates was always pursuing the same debate. His thesis is that we need a philosophy to understand the world, regardless of our profession, social standing, or origins. And it was on man that he relied, not on the gods, on conscience and not on belief.

Socrates is a believer in knowledge. However, knowledge is opposed to the gods, as illustrated by the myth of Prometheus, who stole the treasure of knowledge and paid dearly for it with endless suffering. Prometheus replied to Hermes, the servant of the gods, “I hate all the gods ; they are indebted to me, and by them I suffer unjust treatment. (…) Know this clearly, I would not exchange my misery for servitude like yours. I believe I would rather be enslaved to this rock than be a faithful messenger of Zeus, father of the gods !” Socrates' “Man is the measure of all things” stands in opposition to a discourse of the type “God is the measure of all things” or “morality is the measure of all things.” Knowledge, according to Socrates, is a human endeavor, that is to say, a search by man for his own existence and not for an ideal universe, and therefore not a quest for God.

Socrates ' "Know thyself" meant that man should seek his truths within himself and not in divine mythologies, miracles, oracles, sacrifices… We note that he only ever quoted the first part of what was inscribed on the pediment of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (a god whose name he rarely spoke), which read : "Know thyself, leave the world to the gods." For Socrates, man becomes the measure of all things. Socrates explained to Xenophon that "men are never happier than when they know themselves." This is a very different approach from seeking to know God and deriving a way of life from that knowledge…

Moments before his death, in his prison, Socrates discoursed on beliefs about death : “When the dead arrive at the place to which their respective daemons lead them, they are first judged, both those who led honest and pious lives and those who lived badly. Those who are recognized as having maintained a middle ground in their conduct go to the Acheron, embark in boats that await them, and carry them to the Acherusias swamp. There they dwell and purify themselves ; if they have committed injustices, they bear the punishment and are absolved ; if they have done good deeds, they receive the reward, each according to their merit.” Those deemed incurable due to the enormity of their crimes, who have committed numerous and grave sacrileges, many homicides against justice and the law, or any other crime of the same kind, are destined to be cast into Tartarus, from which they never emerge. Those recognized as having committed expiable, though great, sins—for example, those who, in a fit of anger, have committed acts of violence against their father or mother and have spent the rest of their lives in repentance, or who have committed murder under similar circumstances—must necessarily be cast into Tartarus ; but when, after falling in, they have spent a year there, the current casts them back out : the murderers into Cocytus, those who have laid hands on their father or mother into Pyriphlegethon. When the current carried them to the edge of the Acherusias swamp, they called out loudly, some to those they had killed, others to those they had violated, then they begged and implored them to let them into the swamp and receive them. If they were persuaded, they entered and saw the end of their suffering ; if not, they were again carried off to Tartarus, and from there into the rivers, and their punishment continued until they had persuaded those they had wronged ; for such was the penalty imposed upon them by the judges. Finally, those who distinguished themselves by the holiness of their lives and were recognized as such were exempted from these subterranean dwellings and freed from this imprisonment ; they ascended to a pure abode and dwelt on the earth. And among these very people, those who have been completely purified by philosophy live in the future without bodies and in dwellings even more beautiful than the others. But it is not easy to describe them, and the time remaining to me at this moment would not suffice.”
And he concluded : “To maintain that these things are as I have described them is not fitting for a sensible man.”

So, even at the very gates of death, Socrates did not waver : he believed neither in hells nor in paradises, those images that men themselves produced to rest from the fear of death.

The Greek gods succeeded one another without supplanting each other, just as ancient forms of social domination overlapped without eliminating one another. Consequently, theology transformed into a history of the gods. In the beginning, there was Chaos, then Gaia and Eros. Next came Cronus, Zeus, and Rhea. The hierarchy of the gods emerged alongside that of societies. Human kingship produced god-kings. Agricultural societies gave rise to goddesses. Warrior societies produced heroes, half-divine beings. Centralized society chose to centralize the gods. The twelve greatest gods then reigned over Olympus, ruling a multitude of other gods and heroes. And now, with modern Greece, thinkers like Plato offer us a new perspective with a single god. But Socrates did not reason in this way. He believed that man should question himself about his own actions and not just question the gods, because the latter are only a reflection of human behavior…

In his speech to the tribunal, Socrates only mentions a deity once, when he refers to Achilles' mother, Thetis, as a goddess. He never mentions Apollo, Zeus, or any of the other Athenian gods. Socrates mocks Meletus for mistaking him for Anaxagoras and claims that Meletus asserts the Sun is a stone and the Moon is made of earth, instead of being gods as most people believe. But he doesn't explicitly state that he believes the Sun and Moon are gods. As for Socrates' religion, it is based on trust in each individual's moral compass and their ability to find their own path in life. It has nothing to do with sacrifices, the need to make the gods speak during these rites by examining entrails, or other beliefs common to the Athenians.

Xenophon : By Zeus ! It was wrongly accused before the Athenians of despising the gods of Athens and introducing new ones. You will notice that, even at his trial, Socrates was not accused of not believing in the gods in general. I am astonished that the Athenians could have believed that Socrates held guilty opinions about the gods, he who had said and done nothing impious, he who always respected in his actions the virtue he defended in his words. Socrates had observed and personally experienced the various manifestations of spirits in the lives of men : dreams, contemplative states, visions, the prophecies of the Pythia, inner voice, premonition, trance, hallucination, hypnosis, and so on. He in no way sought to deny their importance in human life and, on the contrary, wanted to discuss further how men and women lived in harmony with their inner voices. Launching these kinds of pointless debates will do nothing to improve the lot of the Athenians, the Greeks, or humanity in general. Our problems are too serious and too urgent to resolve to get bogged down in such discord. The way we govern and defend the city must remain central to our concerns, as must the way we want citizens, from the humblest to the most powerful, to behave in their personal and collective lives.

– Aeschines : There's no point in hiding the gravity of Socrates' positions from us. Socrates' enemies were well aware that they went far beyond a few reproaches concerning the gods of Athens. They were much more explicit on the political front. And, on this subject, they weren't just hearsay. Socrates was indeed fighting the policies of the ruling class. Admittedly, he fought them primarily with words, but this ruling class and its politicians believed that, given Athens' critical situation, these criticisms were dangerous for them. When Socrates had suggested before the tribunal that he was merely advocating virtue, the response had been violent :

“But, by Jupiter,” the accuser exploded in anger, “he was inciting contempt for established laws, since he was asserting that it was madness to rely on the choice of a black or white bean, on drawing lots, to choose the magistrates of a republic, while no one would want to trust chance to choose a ship's pilot, an architect, or a flute player, even though the mistakes these men might make would be far less harmful to society than the mistakes of those who govern the State. Such speeches inspire young people with contempt for the constitution and drive them to violence.”

– Hermogenes : I had the opportunity to discuss the gods with Socrates. I explained to him that, in my opinion, the gods, being omniscient as well as omnipotent, are so close to me that, thanks to their care, they never lose sight of me, neither night nor day, wherever I go, whatever I am about to do. Moreover, since they foresee the consequences of every action, they tell me, by sending me messengers of words, dreams, and birds, what I should do and what I should not do ; for my part, when I obey them, I never regret it ; but there has already happened that I did not believe them and I was punished for it. When I explained this to Socrates, he replied : "Well, there's nothing incredible about that ; However, for my part, what I would enjoy learning is how you honor them to make such friends of them.”
This is how Socrates argued : he wasn't debating belief directly, but rather the lives of men, including whether those men believed in gods. This may sometimes have given some people the impression that Socrates had said he believed in the gods or that he didn't. It's very difficult to answer this question. In fact, Socrates had chosen to steer the discussion toward something else : how men construct their thoughts and how they choose their way of life.

– Plato : How can we question the gods ? On what basis can we answer this question ? I propose we reflect on what comes to mind and how it comes to us. Let's take mathematics, for example. Everyone recognizes that humans can conceive of mathematics, and this domain is characterized by a perfection quite unusual in human life. This is proof that there is a truth that transcends the world we know. As the circle, the triangle, and the hexagon show, we can conceive of perfection, and we know that the one who conceived air, fire, and water certainly possessed this capacity to conceive of perfection. The world around us was conceived, and certainly it was conceived by a single builder, from simple elements like the circle, the triangle, and the hexagon. Despite the diversity of appearances, the existence of the world suggests to us that its construction was the work of a single mind capable of building the world as a whole. Of course, this world is difficult for us to understand because we cannot directly access the elements of its structure. Like the men in the cave, we perceive only shadows, projections onto the imperfect back wall of the cave. However, the few elements of perfection that, despite our limited capacity, we manage to grasp—for example, in mathematics—show us that the perfection of order is best suited to understanding this world whose appearance is disorder.

– Aeschines It is understandable that such opposing opinions exist regarding Socrates' views on the gods. Indeed, some make a mistake in taking Socrates' methods of discussion for positive assertions. I myself attended, along with Xenophon, a conversation between Socrates and Aristodemus. Xenophon is convinced that Socrates defended the existence of the gods and their providence. I believe the opposite. Socrates debated according to the knowledge and convictions of his interlocutors, defending the gods with an atheist and opposing them with a believer, just as he defended politics with a participant who detested politics and opposed it with a politician. At the same time, he discussed within the framework of his interlocutor's thinking and not with the aim of defending opposing objectives. Let us not forget that Socrates believed that internal contradiction (and not external contradiction) is the driving force of everything, illuminating all things. This is why he explains why believers make offerings when he discusses them with Aristodemus, who ridicules them. He is not trying to defend the gods, but to understand humanity. He sees these offerings not as ridiculous behaviors, but as fundamental human attitudes that should be studied and understood, rather than simply ridiculed by non-believers. Furthermore, he believes that Aristodemus will learn more about his atheism by delving into the reasons of believers than by laughing at them. He thus asks Aristodemus to find atheistic explanations for the questions that, in the eyes of believers, legitimize the existence of the gods : why does man possess the capacities that distinguish him from animals, how was the world made, how is it that we have organs that function effectively if they were not made by gods, where does life and death come from, where does intelligence come from, if all this was not produced by the will of the gods ? In this sense, Socrates plays devil's advocate, and this is one of the points that often irritated his interlocutors, who didn't see at all where he was going with this. It is up to the atheist to demonstrate that he is capable, without invoking the gods, of explaining the differences between humans and animals, the development of human intelligence, the reasons for human behavior, both individual and social, and so on. On the other hand, Socrates discusses much more the practice of religion, how it influences people's beliefs and actions, than its validity in itself, because he is primarily interested in how people live. And death is part of life. Consequently, he discusses what believers should do : for example, should they make large offerings, or only those that correspond to their financial means ? He explains that, for the believer,The gods should not be more moved by a lavish gift than by one proportionate to the giver's means, especially if that giver is poor. It's clear that his concern is much more than simply ensuring that people don't ruin themselves over the dead. Furthermore, he explains that once the soul has departed, the dead person should be buried promptly. He agrees that one can cherish fond memories of the deceased, but he believes that the lives of those who remain should not be sacrificed for this purpose. This means he considers a person to be definitively gone when they die, and that it is pointless to try to preserve their body at all costs. This rather contradicts the beliefs of those who believe in immortality. Generally speaking, Socrates advised treating the living well, rather than the dead.

When Socrates discussed the gods, he was actually discussing the way men live. For example, we didn't hear Socrates take an oath "by Jupiter" or "by Apollo," but rather "by Juno," which implied that he was appealing to the female gods to distinguish himself from all those who constantly invoked the male gods. Again, does he believe more in the female gods, or does he simply want to signal his opposition to the subjugation of women ?

Let us not forget that Socrates discussed with each of his interlocutors based on that person's own goals in life and their own conceptions of existence. His starting point was always each individual's personal answer to the question : "What is the purpose of life ?" This meant that he spoke about art with the artist, politics with the politician, war with the soldier, discourse with the orator, dreams with the dreamer, and belief with the believer. This does not mean that he himself was a dreamer or a believer. Rather, he wished to lead each person to a deeper understanding of the meaning of their goals in life. He believed that humans should act as consciously as possible. This is very different from wanting to follow the gods. Following one's own conscience (one's daimon) is not about adhering to an externally imposed morality. It is up to each individual to question for themselves what is good, and beliefs affirm knowledge collectively for all. Socrates believed that what matters to a person is how they lived, while the believer thinks that what counts is what happens at death and after. Each person must find their own path, whereas religious people believe that doctrine should dictate everyone's actions. Making each individual the judge of their own actions and thoughts is the opposite of appealing to gods or a god to judge them.

– Critobulus : Socrates asserted that "Man is the only animal that believes in gods," but did this signify, for him, human superiority or human strangeness ? Did it mean that humans had invented the gods, or that the idea of the existence of gods had simply taken hold of them ? It's not clear. Was it an expression of greater respect for humanity, in its capacity to know the gods, or, on the contrary, a greater ridicule of the human species which, in its great presumption, went so far as to invent them ? I have the impression that Socrates was more likely to laugh at humanity's presumption in creating gods than to endorse it.

– Plato : Of course, citizens have no reason, in the current situation, to respect the gods, given the ridiculous way in which they have been portrayed by poets, particularly Hesiod and Homer. How can you possibly have any regard for gods who are weak, greedy, lying, vicious, jealous, cruel, capable of committing murder and other misdeeds, just like humans ? Such gods, who violently oppose each other, do not act wisely, and offer nothing positive for the moral development of the citizen, for the education of younger generations, for social cohesion, or for the stability of the state. On the contrary, the state must ensure that the image of God is one of perfection, immutability, continuity, truth, and security. Every person must be able to find a reference point in this, regardless of their origin, social standing, or personal history. It is the greatest crime of the poets to have presented the gods with all the flaws of mortals. How could they possibly inspire any respect ? This description by the poets of ancient Greek society leads us to believe that the vices and flaws of the modern world have always existed, that the ideal does not exist, and that only individual interests prevail and always will. How can you expect children to be educated to build an ideal society, to be capable of governing the city in the general interest instead of seeking immediate gains and illusory success ? Depravity, corruption, and moral laxity can only result. God should serve to remind us what good is. Our gods do not play this role at all. They are constantly at war, whereas social peace should be their primary virtue, the example they set for citizens… As for Socrates, far from neglecting individual morality, goodness, virtue, justice, and righteousness, he constantly sought them, striving to reach this ideal that we rightly call God.

– Phaedo The very foundation of belief in the gods is that peoples do not build themselves, but are built by kings, by heroes, by beings who surpass them. Needless to say, Socrates fought against such a conception. It is people who make their own history, even if they don't do it haphazardly and don't act in the way they generally believe. What Socrates criticized in the myths disseminated by Homer and Hesiod is not what you criticize them for, Socrates. You regret that these poets did not disseminate stories that legitimize the State, the institutions, the dominant ideology. Socrates criticizes them for having invented a false heroism, masking the true aims of the ruling classes of ancient Greece, the objectives of their wars, their alliances and betrayals. And above all, he criticizes them for making people believe that the State built them. That's false ! Greece was born, and gave birth to its crafts, industry, commerce, and fleet, in a society that did not know the concept of a state, even when it had elected kings. The development of the Hellenic world was not the product of the domination of states like Sparta or Athens. No, it was peoples, seeking protection against warlike invasions, who colonized the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The conquest of the vast trade routes of a powerful state was by no means the goal of these Greeks who spread the world of the Hellenes ! Being dominated by a powerful state is not an objective for the common people. Consequently, people are not compelled to believe in gods who decide their fate for them. The central idea of religions and superstitions is the belief that humans have no choice : their lives are supposedly already decided elsewhere, beyond their control, in the material universe they know. Our friend Hippocrates of Kos, also a great disciple of Socrates, was a physician renowned far beyond his region for demonstrating that illnesses could be explained by natural forces without resorting to beliefs, gods, demons, or various forms of sorcery. He thus showed that epilepsy was an illness like any other and not an expression of demonic possession. He developed a medical method for examining patients, based on studying their past, the events that occurred at the time the illness began, examining the symptoms, and so on. The central figure in all religions is a destiny that is imposed upon humankind. Whether called Apollo, Zeus, or by other names, a god is not dependent on human intervention. To believe in such a god is therefore to believe that the essence of human destinies is decided elsewhere than where humans themselves can intervene. Beyond religions, Socrates primarily fought against the idea that man cannot intervene in his own destiny.

– Metrodorus : I believe that Socrates defended a philosophy of nature, in which there is no need for gods external to the world. Human beings do not exist in a world separate from that of matter, animals, plants, and even things, from the earth to the stars. It is humans who have given life to the gods they have invented, and Socrates never participated in the charades of false gods. He always believed that people should first reason using their own capacity for judgment, rather than asking priests to judge for them. He allowed friends to consult the Pythia, relying first on the way the question was posed and then on the way the answer was interpreted, so that the rational mind of humankind would take charge of responding correctly to the situation.

Xenophon : You're mistaken. It was the domination imposed by Athens on the rest of Greece that Socrates fought against, including ideological and religious domination. Consequently, he didn't align himself with the Olympian gods, but for political reasons, not religious ones, because he would have been an atheist. Even when accusing him, Athens didn't claim to see Socrates as an enemy of the gods and religion in general, but as an enemy of the state religion specific to the city, which Athens aimed to impose on all of Greece. At his trial, everyone could see that, accused of not believing in the Athenian gods, the name of Apollo didn't even cross his lips ! Let's not forget that his friend Euripides called Apollo, one of the principal gods of Athens, a "wicked man," and didn't hesitate to insult Aphrodite and Artemis. And Euripides thus reflected Socrates' point of view, since they discussed each play together in detail before it was performed. Let us not forget that his other friend, Alcibiades, present here, had been accused, on the eve of his departure at the head of the Athenian fleet—certainly wrongly, but this matters little to the slanderers—of having mutilated the faces of the statues of Hermes in Athens. The fact that the Pythia of Delos had chosen Socrates as the best of the Athenians further reinforced the risk he represented as a figure beyond the spiritual boundaries of the city. The city of Delphi was opposed to Athenian domination, whether political or ideological. No one in Greece dared openly oppose the Pythia of Delphi, but Athens was far from pleased that Socrates, publicly supported by Delphi and considered by them "the wisest man in the city," was becoming an obstacle to the establishment of gods specific to Athens and who sought to impose themselves on all of Greece. Alcibiades was not the only one of Socrates' disciples who was used against him.

It is true that the accusation played on two fronts and could sometimes seem to condemn Socrates for atheism. Critias of Athens was thus one of the grounds for Socrates' accusation, and this political enemy was also marked by religious convictions. Had he not been a disciple of Socrates before participating in the regime established in Athens under Spartan leadership after the Athenian defeat ? Yet Critias had displayed, in his plays, a provocative atheism. He too had been labeled a sophist, hostile to the gods of Athens, and therefore a critic serving to undermine Athens' confidence in its own strength. Finally, in Aristophanes' theatrical accusation in his famous play "The Clouds," there was an accusation of atheism. Diagoras of Melos having been accused of atheism, Aristophanes cleverly referred to our master as "Socrates of Melos." But these accusations of atheism are unfounded : Socrates was never an atheist and never participated in debates about the gods, abstract disputes he considered pointless. He did not discuss these subjects, believing it useless to debate rationally what belongs not to the realm of reason, but to the realm of emotion. Aside from the slanderers who sought to discredit him, one cannot attribute to Socrates any general rejection of all the gods, for he did not develop such a viewpoint, while also refusing to grant Athens any recognition of its own gods.

– Aristodemus : A plague on the gods and the religious ! That's what every follower of Socrates should be able to proclaim, and I'm astonished to hear a completely different discourse here. Socrates was condemned for condemning the gods, and you continue to defend these gods in whose name our master was killed. I can only call that treason and deceit. People are led by the nose in the name of the gods. They are driven to destroy one another, to wage war. The gods serve only to push people into submission to dictatorships, into submission to exploitation, to slavery. They do nothing to humanize the world but to make it more barbaric. And we are still asked to make sacrifices and offerings to the gods so that society continues to become harsher for the oppressed and gentler for the oppressors ! Go ahead ! Bow down before Zeus, Apollo, or even Hera, if that amuses you ! The gods will never save you from anything, least of all your cowardice ! Bow down like this before a so-called destiny imposed upon you, a destiny that serves only the ruling classes ! But don't say that Socrates taught you to act this way, because by saying so, you are lying ! He never knelt before the ruling class, even at the cost of his life. Don't tarnish his memory by spreading lies about his thought ! For by acting this way, you are killing him far more than the powers that be and the Athenian ruling classes ever could. They took advantage of a moment of confusion among the Athenian people, but they know that public opinion will turn in Socrates' favor. But you, the so-called disciples, are preparing the way forward by ensuring that the people no longer find any meaning in the way Socrates aspired to transform society. To the fire with the exploiters, the oppressors and their defenders : the rulers, the political powers, the religious institutions, the ideologies of submission ! As for the arguments about Euripides only attacking the gods of Athenian Olympus, let us remember that Euripides, and with him Socrates, wrote that "Since the gods do ugly things, commit base actions, they are not gods !"

Simmias : For me, Socrates consulted his personal daemon, but this "daemon" wasn't a god. He knew that by reflecting, pondering, and dreaming, answers would come to him—answers he didn't initially know. He trusted, or felt compelled to believe, the ideas suggested by his inner soul. This isn't the same as believing in the gods. It was more like a personal daemon speaking to Socrates as if nature were conversing with him... Through meditation, he detected another voice dictating answers different from those of his own conscience, but he considered it a daemon of his own. Meditation, dreaming, or reflection didn't mean prayer, offerings to the gods, gifts to priests, or recourse to soothsayers. To Euthydemus, who said to him, "It seems, Socrates, that the gods treat people with even more kindness than other men, if it is true that, without being questioned by you, they tell you in advance what you should do and what you should avoid," he replied, "You too will recognize that you can know this in advance, but on one condition : do not wait for the gods to reveal themselves to you. Simply observe what is happening around you and wait for answers yourself. If the gods exist, these answers can only be those they have suggested to you." Note that Euthydemus knew that Socrates did not question the gods, and therefore expected nothing from offerings, sacrifices, oracles, preachers, predictions, or other forms of sorcery...

On the other hand, Socrates seemed religious to some because he meditated a great deal. But it was a way of concentrating, of letting his mind weigh and re-weigh his thoughts and dialogues. Socrates often reminded us that the leisure of doing nothing is the most precious possession. It seemed strange to us that he would defend idleness, inaction, and passivity in this way. We didn't understand this idea, which he nevertheless considered fundamental. For Socrates, it meant that far from the superficial, one could cultivate the essential : inner thought. Leisure is the time to dream, to contemplate, to imagine, to let our minds invent, guess, wander, and explore unknown worlds. We rarely get to be alone with ourselves, and we then realize that the most important dialogue takes place, the one within. He explained that if our dreams seem so extraordinary to us, it's because most of us never allow ourselves to simply think outside of the night. To engage in such quiet contemplation throughout the day, he said, all you need to do is take the time. It's incredible, then, the sheer number of ideas, images, intuitions, and thoughts—each more extraordinary than the last—that appear in our minds, thoughts we've never conceived before, and which seem to be whispered from an inner spirit. By constantly bustling about all day, we stifle this spirit, we don't allow it to express itself, and it only explodes when we're asleep and can no longer silence it. Yet, it's an incredible richness we forgo by refusing to spend time meditating, contemplating, dreaming, and thinking… All you need to do, he said, is stop by the sea, forget that you have a thousand things to do, settle down under a pine tree and contemplate its trunk against the blue of the sea, gently feel the breeze, and let your thoughts wander to the sound of the waves. This, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental secrets of Socrates' personal philosophy. Those who have seen in Socrates only a figure always ready to engage in dialogue, to argue, to criticize, to reason, to debate, miss the point of his philosophy. He spent hours concentrating on himself, dreaming, playing the lyre, doing nothing. "That is the most important activity of my day," he would say. This was not the contemplative attitude of a religious person isolating themselves from the world. It was the attitude of a philosopher who seeks his inner truth and considers it a long exploration, both alone and with others.

Antisthenes : You're right, Simmias, and Socrates even declared : "It's something that began in my childhood, a certain voice that, when it makes itself heard, dissuades me from what I was about to do, without ever pushing me to act. That's what prevents me from getting involved in politics." His conscience dictated that he denounce the ruling classes without playing the political game of democracy. Which god would Socrates have worshipped ? Would he have gone to Delphi many times since the Pythia honored him ? Not at all ! Would he have declared that he made sacrifices to one god or another ? Not at all ! He simply considered it pointless to debate such questions directly with believers. What has no rational basis doesn't need to be contradicted rationally. The gods, therefore, don't deserve to be debated, since those who believe in them base their beliefs on no rational argument.

– Aeschines : Socrates' daimon is his inner voice, the one he consults when he meditates, dreams, or speaks to himself. It is both his conscious and unconscious mind. Socrates invented a version of the unconscious that has nothing to do with a deity. He observes that when we reflect, if we find philosophical, scientific, or mathematical reasoning, it is because these reflections were already potentially present within us, without our being aware of it. He wonders how it is that our brain was already prepared for this type of reasoning. He answers that we are simply rediscovering things we already knew how to do, things that existed within us virtually. This has nothing to do with religion or even with any abstract ethical morality. It is a reflection on how the mind comes to humankind. Socrates sometimes felt his unconscious pushing him in a strange direction without his conscious knowledge of why, and he would then trust this kind of instinct. That was where this daimon resided...

As for the gods that were beginning to be institutionalized by the ruling classes, Socrates was as far removed from them as he was from all the goals of the exploiters who manipulate the people with a pseudo-democracy as they manipulate them with ceremonies and sacrifices, in order to better strike them ideologically and better chain them.

Xenophon : I don't share your views. I don't think Socrates was godless, nor that he sought at all costs to provoke the wrath of the ruling classes, but he was, in his own way, engaged in politics. He didn't approve of the decisions of the politicians of his time, which is quite different. He had particularly suffered to see men who had fought for Athens unjustly dragged into trials and condemned. He certainly rejected the choices of a leader like Pericles, who had managed to capture Athenian popularity through a policy of reckless expansionism in both war and trade. I observed with him how many democracies have been overthrown by men who preferred any other form of government, how many monarchies and oligarchies have been destroyed by popular factions, how many ambitious individuals have been stripped of the sovereign power they had just usurped, and how much we admire the good fortune and skill of those who have managed to maintain their hold on power, even for a short time. This does not make him a revolutionary, nor an enemy of the gods or the social system. It is his enemies who accuse him of this, and I was unaware that his friends could spread such rumors.

Thus, Aristophanes, in his play "The Clouds," attributed to him the following false statement : "By what gods do you swear ? First of all, gods are not common currency among us." But this wasn't reported exactly. For me, not only was he not godless, but he was possessed by spirits. He often said that he listened to words in his head and that a voice told him what to do. He was oriented differently from the Athenians and seemed to place his faith in a single god, but he didn't readily express it, considering debates on such opinions pointless. As for his choice not to truly defend himself at his trial, it seems to me dictated by the fear of growing old and suffering from a thousand ailments due to advanced age.

Antisthenes : By the dog ! It's as if we didn't know the same Socrates ! You portray him as a very wise figure when he constantly challenged the powerful and the self-righteous, including his friends, every single day. So much so that I think, a year after his death, you miss him so much that your critical thinking has already become quite dulled. You'd think, for example, that Socrates was the representative of the Greek gods against the Athenian gods. Complete misinterpretation, my friends, because Socrates told anyone who would listen that the only god is to be found in all of humanity and the only morality in the happiness of all people. As for beliefs in malevolent and benevolent beings, magical protections and other demonic lies, he distances himself from them, stating that those who consider themselves capable of playing such a role are a little too self-assured : "Superstition follows pride, and obeys it as its father."

As for each individual, they must seek their god within their own conscience, their "daimon," as Socrates called it. It is up to each individual to listen to it when it tells them what to do with their life. But he did not claim to have solved social problems through moral rules, which could only be resolved through the struggle between oppressors and oppressed. In fact, treating members of the ruling classes as individuals in his public debates with members of the ruling classes was simply a critical technique used by Socrates to show the public that the motives of those in power did not correspond to human criteria ! Socrates is a visceral enemy of all forms of power, including so-called democracy, an enemy of all orders, including the moral or religious order. He does not establish virtue as a new order, but addresses people as needing to find within themselves, and not in an external law, the source of their own conduct and personal thought. To portray him as the master of a mere school of philosophy or the leader of a revolutionary circle is equally wrong ! That's how I understand his "I am no one's master" ... He also said : "If you want to follow me, don't worry about where Socrates is, just seek the truth..." As for his communism, in my opinion, it boils down to the ability of every person to live with few possessions and not constantly strive for more. Consequently, we avoid glaring inequalities, the perpetual pursuit of luxury, surplus, and competition, and the excesses of exploitation and wars of conquest. That's my Socrates. He was the one who wasn't afraid to appear in public as a person of few possessions and who refused to become rich. Socrates refused the money that many citizens offered him, including very wealthy men like Archelaus of Macedon, Scopas of Cranon, and Eurylochus of Larissa. Goodness is internal, said Socrates, and he practiced his own philosophy to the point of making the richest citizens ridiculous in the eyes of the majority, without fear of the consequences...

Aeschines : Antisthenes, you exhort the ruling classes to renounce their money, to live as beggars, to wallow in the mud, and thus claim to either convince them or ridicule them. Instead of living in the comfort of perfumed baths, you offer them mud baths and, as a place to relax, a floor soiled by dogs ! What good do you expect this to do for society as a whole, except for a few young people who amuse themselves by following you to laugh at your antics ? Your model of humanity is Heracles, the one detached from everything, and you attribute this attitude to Socrates. But in doing so, you misunderstand him : Socrates certainly refused power, honors, wealth, and pomp, but he was not disengaged or detached from the common people. He did not despise them for wanting to live cleanly and properly. You declare that a cloak is enough to live on, and a meager meal as well, and that this is the means of not depending on society. Socrates was proud of his old cloak and his poor, independent life. But he derived no superiority or glory from it. That would have implied that all those who do not live as beggars are at the mercy of the ruling classes, and that was not at all his point of view. As for poverty, whether chosen or not, it is not necessarily synonymous with virtue and wisdom. It can also signify selfishness, passivity, and misanthropy. Glorifying the way of life of animals is not enough to convince us that we are simply animals. As for you, Aristippus, for you pleasure is the supreme good, the ultimate goal of human life, and this supreme good is a gentle movement accompanied by sensation. Pleasure is a gentle movement, while pain is a harsh one. The goal of life is the pleasures of the senses, those of the soul being secondary. But can you claim that Socrates advocated this type of objective, he who asserted that happiness is internal much more than based on the satisfaction of pleasures and sensations ?

Lysias : Antisthenes, your interpretation of Socrates is certainly as insolent as his character, but you may be making a misinterpretation. Insolence was not an end in itself for Socrates, and even provoking the ruling classes was by no means enough for him. You are right, in my opinion, when you say that Socrates was godless. Socrates asserted that only virtue can lead to happiness. Far from making it a religious morality, he relied on debate among people to establish virtue within the community. In short, Socrates believed that salvation could be found not through the gods, but through reason alone. His "daimon" was nothing other than personal conscience. He did not waver in affirming this opinion, even under the worst threats. Never, at his trial, even when his life depended on it, did Socrates directly affirm his belief in the city's deities : Athena, Zeus, Apollo, and so on. Yet, this was the main ideological accusation against him. The domination of the Olympian gods appeared fundamental in Athens, and not only for ideological reasons, but primarily for political ones. To dominate the gods of Greece was already to dominate Greece itself. However, where I disagree with you is that you don't attribute any political purpose to Socrates' activities, because you were probably unaware of the secret plans of his revolutionary circle. But Socrates was a political figure in Athens throughout his life. He couldn't imagine taking to the roads to seek refuge in another city, because that would have meant placing himself under the protection of another Greek city with the same social constraints, thus forcing him to compromise his principles to adapt to the power of some oligarch or tyrant, or even to politicians as demagogic as those in Athens. It was in this sense that he preferred death to exile, to preserve his political legacy and pass it on intact to future generations. But I do mean political legacy, which in no way diminishes his philosophy, his art, or his conception of humankind and its role on Earth... As for his trial, Socrates could very well have won, as I won mine against my brother Eratosthenes' murderer, but he would have thus lost the battle of ideas he was waging against Athens. By spilling his blood upon his enemies, he began to provoke a reaction against them among the Athenian people, which certainly did not reverse the ruling classes or the course of events, but it left an indelible mark on history. Greece will forever remain associated with the philosophy of Socrates.

– Ichtyas : I completely agree with you on this point, Lysias. Everything about Socrates is political, whether it be his philosophy, his morals, his goals, or his perspectives, and I would like to remind you of his words to Glaucon :"Let us first consider the State. (...) What constitution is meant by oligarchy ? It is the form of government founded on property qualifications, where the rich rule and the poor have no share in authority. (...) This hoarding of gold, where everyone piles up, is what destroys this kind of government. First, they discover reasons for spending, and to satisfy them, they bend the laws and no longer obey them, neither they nor their wives. (...) Necessarily, such a State is not one, but two : that of the poor and that of the rich, who inhabit the same land and constantly conspire against one another. (...) It is certain that, if no obstacle is placed in their way, some will be excessively rich and others destitute. (...) It is evident that wherever you see beggars in a State, the same place harbors thieves, pickpockets, sacrilegious people, and evildoers." of every kind. (...) Now, just as a small, weak body needs only a slight external shock to fall ill, and sometimes even disturbances erupt without any external cause, so too a state, in a similar situation, becomes prey to disease and internal warfare at the slightest opportunity. (...) Is it not the same in a democracy founded on money ? Was it not excessive wealth that served to establish the oligarchy ? (...) Well, it is the same pursuit of money, the same insatiable desire, that causes the downfall of the democracy founded on the same insatiable desire for the accumulation of goods. (...) The same disease that, born in the oligarchy, caused its ruin, also arises in democracy, develops there with greater force and virulence, and reduces the democratic state to slavery. (...) Let us mentally divide the democratic state into the three classes of which it is composed. The first is the same a breed that has developed at the head of the oligarchy. (...) Then there is another class that always distinguishes itself from the multitude. This is the class that seeks money. (...) The third class is the people, that is to say, all manual laborers and private individuals uninvolved in public affairs who have only a small amount of wealth. In a democracy, this would be the most numerous and therefore the most powerful class if it were assembled. But it is hardly inclined to assemble. (...) The people are accustomed to choosing a favorite whom they place at their head and whose power they nurture and increase. (...) And the protector of the people begins to transform into a tyrant. (...) This is the moment for all the ambitious who have reached this point to resort to the famous request of the tyrant, to ask the people for bodyguards, so that the "defender of the people" may remain to serve them. And the people give them to him ; for all their fears are for the defender of the people. He does nothing in his own defense : he is too self-assured. (...) In the early days,He greets everyone he meets with nothing but smiles and greetings, denies being a tyrant, makes numerous promises both privately and publicly, forgives debts and distributes land to the people and his favorites, and feigns benevolence and gentleness toward everyone. (...) But, once he has dealt with his external enemies, (...) he constantly instigates wars so that the people will need a leader. He also arranges for the citizens to be impoverished by taxes, thus forcing them to focus on their daily needs and less likely to conspire against him. And if he suspects that some of them are too independent-minded to submit to his rule, war provides him with a pretext to destroy them by handing them over to the enemy. For all these reasons, a tyrant is always compelled to foment wars. (...) Thus, in reality, whatever some people may think, the true tyrant is a true slave, of extreme baseness and servility, reduced as he is to flattering the most wicked men, powerless to satisfy his own desires in the slightest (...) He spends his life in continual fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these evils, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? By Jove ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe that there is one like it anywhere in the world.' (...) It matters not whether this State has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized, it is on this one and this one alone that it will base itself and whose laws it will follow."He spends his life in constant fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these ills, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one and this one alone that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'He spends his life in constant fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these ills, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one and this one alone that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'

It seems to me that, after such statements, we can hardly claim that Socrates was condemned by Athens simply for engaging in philosophy in a somewhat unconventional manner. No, it was indeed Socrates' revolutionary politics, inseparable from his revolutionary philosophy, that was condemned.

Socrates never supported any kind of state. Liars have spread the rumor that he favored the Cretan and Spartan states, their methods, or their goals. This is absolutely false. For Socrates, the state was created not to liberate the people and enable them to accomplish their tasks collectively, but, on the contrary, to oppress them in the name of a supposed common interest of the rich and the poor. The state represented the primary means of stripping the people of all power and a tool for suppressing social revolutions.

– Plato : No, by Zeus ! The State is not, by nature, hostile to civil society. If it becomes so, it is through the accumulation of errors, vices, unfavorable circumstances, and above all, through the incompetence, ignorance, and greed of those who govern it. What should the State be ? It should correspond to the goals for which it was established. What are they ? To ensure the security and well-being (housing, clothing, and food) of all its inhabitants. Doesn't the State arise from the fact that the individual cannot be self-sufficient in ensuring their subsistence and security ? The State must ensure the stability of relations between social classes. It is not responsible for abolishing these classes, but for ensuring their harmony. This harmony stems from the fact that everyone sees their property protected and their future secured, according to the place reserved for them in society. All people must feel protected within it, regardless of their class, rank, or profession. Like an individual, a state only develops harmoniously if it moderates its passions, limits them, frames them, establishes rules of conduct, and respects them. The democratic state believed it had found a remedy for the ills afflicting societies by constantly changing its medicine. One had no effect on the ailment, so another was tried, then ten or a hundred more. The remedy is changed almost daily. This does not mean that the cause of the illness has been treated, an illness on which no thought has been given even a moment. Let us remember those mutinous sailors who wanted to take turns at the helm, but none of whom wanted to reflect on the art of steering a ship…

The role of the State is to ensure that even the poor are happy to live in this city, and this must be achieved by establishing, outside of society, a special class of men who are the guardians of order and security. These guardians must be specifically recruited and trained. One of the objectives of this training and the organizational structure of the guardians must be to ensure that they do not seek to use their force for anything other than the public good, nor to profit from their weapons to enrich themselves, nor to dominate citizens, nor to repress them unjustly. The Republic is the foundation of our society ; let us not undermine it with our criticisms. Let us instead try to propose a fairer functioning of the State and even define what the ideal functioning would be, remembering that what is decisive is the general criterion and not just the vagaries of history. Without the State, we must recognize that the two classes, rich and poor, can only tear each other apart without any benefit to either side, with the sole result being the general weakening or the implosion of society. Justice is not the abolition of classes, but their mutual satisfaction on freely agreed terms. For this to happen, the State must be the same for all. The guardians must be properly organized to avoid all the abuses we have witnessed. These warriors will be sober and courageous. Once they have a house, land, money, and a wife, the guardians will become wise and will not be a nuisance to the city. And above all, the future of this State will depend on the fact that, among the guardians, statesmen are selected, trained, and organized for this very specific purpose, which requires personal qualities and skills that cannot be expected of the average citizen. The governance of society must be scientific. It must be the work of citizens who have mastered the dialectic of science and are committed to the common good. They must not be driven by a thirst for power or money, but by a passion for politics, for governing the city, just as scientists are driven by the rational study of the world. They must consider their role an art. Some of you seem to think that Socrates wanted the destruction of armies and the state, that he was against all forms of government. The lesson we must, in my opinion, draw from these experiences is the necessity of choosing the men and women who will lead the city from among the most philosophical minds. For philosophy is the knowledge of all knowledge, the science of all sciences.

Antisthenes : If you believe you, Socrates defended the government ! By Jove ! I can swear the opposite is true ! Didn't Socrates say to Aristippus : "I consider him truly insane who, not content with providing with great difficulty for his own needs, wants to personally place himself at the head of the state, only to find himself one day brought to trial as guilty if he doesn't satisfy all the whims of the people—isn't that the height of madness ?" I hear talk here of order, authority, respect for power, social stability. Socrates didn't speak like that. He constantly cultivated in young people the sharp criticism of the regime, even when the young people he was teaching belonged to the ruling class themselves !

Xenophon : Young people owe respect to their parents. Certainly, if Socrates had said anything suggesting that one should reject all parental authority, no longer follow their advice, no longer love them, he would have been wrong. The family is a pillar of social order and must remain so. I too dreamed of the ideal city and even entertained the idea that, with the Thousand, we could build such a city in Asia. We wondered then how we would construct such an ideal world. Reality overtook us, and our dream remained just that. Authority is not a principle to be denigrated when one wants to build a just order. If everyone does only what comes to mind, how can you expect a society to function ? Of course, I have more experience with the military, since I participated in it from my childhood. In that domain, everyone recognizes the necessity of obeying authority. However, this certainly doesn't resolve the question : on what can this authority be based ? Parental authority must rest on their benevolence towards their children, on their ability to defend what is right, when these children are not yet old enough to distinguish between good and evil. People are not always capable of making this distinction. The role of enlightened leaders is to patiently show them the way. It is necessary to earn their trust and not use it to deceive them. This is not so different from the case of an army commander. He must constantly address his soldiers, cultivate their trust by explaining what will happen and why they are fighting. It is not enough to devise a strategy ; one must command men. And one must have the capacity to sometimes transcend the prevailing spirit of the times. For example, in a society that places foreigners below it, one must be able to bluntly offer them the opportunity to participate at the highest level in the armed forces. Let us not forget that this is how Sparta recovered. The Spartan cavalry only began to distinguish itself from the day it agreed to integrate the metics en masse ! The authority of a leader also lies in this ability to go against public opinion, leading it in a direction it did not intend to go. This is the opposite of the methods of demagogues, the effects of which we have so suffered in recent years in Athens, and which Socrates condemned. Let us not forget that Socrates was a hoplite. He was a soldier longer than any other profession. And, in the army, he first learned to obey rather than to command. He said that freedom is obedience to laws, those of nature as well as those of society or of man. And nature, like society, seemed to him harder to obey than the worst army commander !

Eubulides : Plato, you speak of the government of philosophers as a central idea of Socrates, but you surely remember that Socrates said, "Philosophers have neither eyes nor ears for laws and decrees, whether proclaimed or written. Whether some good or bad befalls the state, the philosopher knows no more about it than he knows the number of drops of water in the sea." If Socrates believed that a state led by virtuous and philosophical individuals was the key to the future, why would he have refused to participate in it and discouraged all his friends from applying for its leadership ? Many of us, including Alcibiades, Charmides, Hermogenes, and Xenophon, asked him this question, and his answer was always the same : Do you think the social system depends on one person or two ?

– Plato : I think that's a misinterpretation. Socrates himself served honorably in the army and participated in a government. I, too, participated in a government for a few months. Of course, both of these experiences demonstrated the limitations of exercising power in a state that falls far short of the ideal I described. Others among us have also had such experiences of participation in power, even at the highest levels of government. This doesn't mean they could change the state and society as they pleased. Entering political action blindly, without developing a philosophy, without clear objectives, without studying the political function of government, is a source of serious disillusionment, which can then lead to exaggerated criticism of any state and any form of government. Socrates didn't condemn Alcibiades for participating in power, but because he had the pride to believe that Alcibiades was manipulating the ruling classes, when in fact it was the other way around. The lesson we must, in my opinion, draw from these experiences is the need to put an end to the demagoguery that claims the people know who is most competent, and to choose the men and women who will lead the city from among the most philosophical minds. For philosophy is the knowledge of all knowledge, the science of all sciences.

– Phaedo : Plato, your morality of ethical virtue may be very valid, but it is far removed from the philosophy I heard Socrates defend. Socrates sought the economic, political, social, and human conditions of a society aiming for the happiness of all. He did not expect this from a morality imposed from above by any power whatsoever. He sought the revolutionary form of government of the people, not the stability of a state above the people.

– Theaetetus : I would tend to agree with Plato. Politician, certainly, Socrates was, but not in the sense of demagogues who seek only popularity, nor in the sense of politicians from the ruling classes who don't have the people's best interests at heart. Certainly, he didn't believe he could act in the people's best interests' stead. But that's not all : from those who were to govern, Socrates expected not only the will to do good, nor virtue, but also professional competence. The mason has a profession and a skill. So do the actor, the musician, and the political leader. Didn't he say that the trireme needs a captain who is also a navigator, that the army needs a strategist, that the chorus needs a leader, just like the government ? Especially the revolutionary who must conceive of something new. Politics is a science, he said, and science is not self-evident. "Science and philosophy are inseparable. A science that is not founded on philosophy is worthless." , he said, and therefore, it is not enough to observe in order to understand, one must philosophize.

Let us remember that his last words, before his death, recalled his fundamental philosophy :
“Now, do not limit your inquiry to men, if you wish to discover the truth more easily ; extend it to all animals and plants, in short, to everything that has birth, and let us see, in considering all this, whether it is true that nothing can be born except from its opposite, when it has an opposite. Let us therefore examine whether it is a necessity that everything that has an opposite is born from nothing other than its opposite.” Socrates always told us :

"How do you discover truths ? In your observations, notice contradictions. Rub them together like two pieces of wood to obtain light. Knowledge springs from contradictions."

"Being and non-being are present everywhere, at all levels. Becoming and movement are always simultaneously being and non-being."

The establishment of democracy by the ruling classes was, in his view, the most striking example of contradiction. At the very moment when the ruling classes were ostensibly granting democracy to the people, they were at the very moment when they most feared the people seizing power. This is what I wanted to emphasize, because it seems to me that what Socrates criticized in this false democracy was its pretense of giving the people a voice, without seeking how they could knowingly decide what their true interests were—that is, on the basis of what ideas they could emancipate themselves.

– Echecrates : The accusation included, among other things, the charge of "recklessly working to scrutinize things that are under the earth as well as those that are in the heavens." It is unnecessary to constantly claim that Socrates did nothing, to pretend that he did not fight against religion, that he did not seek to understand the world, nor to transform it. Especially since this is not true. Yes, Socrates sought to understand the world. Yes, he wanted to transform it. Yes, Athens did not condemn him unjustly. It condemned him through a reactionary development, rejecting all progress of ideas. We have already explained at length the circumstances under which Athens experienced this reactionary phase. Let us not try to suggest that it was a case of astonishing blindness. Socrates sought to found a revolutionary group that remained hidden from the Athenian authorities. Of course, it seems necessary to me that there exist a clandestine group of men determined to fight for the freedom of all. Pythagoras, like Zeno or Socrates, based his work on the formation of a group of men organized separately and specially trained. And the goal of this work, his philosophy, is the aspiration of humankind, the search for harmony.

Aristippus : The goal of humankind, as Socrates always emphasized, is happiness and virtue. Fighting for a future society, as I hear it expressed here, never seemed to me to be his aim. Socrates' death, in this sense, is not the opposite of his life : a refusal to go against the meaning of his existence, whatever the final cost, even if it is death. As you say, Theaetetus, Socrates considered existence itself contradictory, that death is in life and life in death. For something new to be born in Athens, it may have seemed necessary to him to die. It is not a sacrifice, but a new birth. It is a dialectical movement, in which internal contradiction is the very principle of transformation.

– Plato : Socrates' dialectic has always been, first and foremost, a means of allowing people to delve into the depths of their own thoughts and discover their innermost philosophy. Contradiction is the role of the one who questions, who probes, or who allows the subject to go as far as possible into thoughts buried within them, thoughts they have always refused to examine. Presenting Socrates' thought as a closed thesis seems wrong to me. The contradictions Socrates speaks of are those of someone being questioned, seeking to escape a web of questions that allows them to arrive at their own truth. As for the social and political system for the city, it is true that Socrates defended one, but I believe it has been caricatured here, and that it is rather the thesis of his opponents that has been presented to us, and it served primarily to discredit him. It was a mendacious version aimed at ridiculing him in order to better destroy him in the eyes of the general public. He reportedly wanted, for example, a community of women, or the abolition of Athens' role. He simply refused to allow women to be disregarded and emphasized that all his mentors and teachers had been women. He criticized the fortification of Athens and the construction of its arsenal as tools of Pericles' warlike and conquering policies, but this did not extend to waging war against the political or social role of the city. For my part, I have never seen in Socrates' discourse an abstract and general rejection of slavery. For him, community did not mean the sharing of great wealth, but rather a city governed in service to all. Even though I might be accused of looking out for my own interests as the son of a prominent family, I don't believe that Socrates' philosophical goal was communism... I sensed that some of Socrates' disciples here would be quick to denounce my interpretation of Socrates' ideas, claiming that Plato is no longer the same and no longer follows our master Socrates. I assure them : I will continue to disseminate Socrates' ideas as I have understood them.

– Phaedo : Treason, indeed. How else can one understand that, during his lifetime, against his wishes, you disseminated in his name theses that he denounced as false ? How else can one understand your absence at the trial and, again, your absence during the final moments of our master awaiting death in his prison, Plato, you who were his best student, certainly the most brilliant ? How can one understand your acting as if Socrates were a gentle, self-serving orator ? Who can believe that you didn't know Socrates had a communist and revolutionary project ? How can one understand your acting as if you had never participated in his clandestine revolutionary circle ? I remind you that after hearing a reading of Plato's "Lysis," Socrates exclaimed : "How this young man puts words in my mouth !"

– Plato : Before spreading a false rumor, remember what Socrates said when someone came to him one day and said :

– Listen Socrates, I have to tell you how your friend behaved.

"Stop !" interrupted the wise man. "Have you passed what you have to tell me through the three sieves ?"

"Three sieves ?" said the other, filled with astonishment.

– Yes, my good friend : three sieves. Let's examine whether what you have to tell me can pass through the three sieves. The first is the sieve of truth. Have you checked if everything you want to tell me is true ?

– No, I heard him tell the story and...

– Good, good. But surely, you've put it through the second sieve. That's the sieve of goodness. Is what you want to tell me, if it's not entirely true, at least something good ?

Hesitantly, the other replied :

– No, it's not a good thing, quite the opposite...

"Hmm," said the philosopher, "let's try using the third sieve, and see if it's useful to tell me what you want to tell me..."

Useful ? Not exactly...

"Well !" said Socrates, smiling, "if what you have to tell me is neither true, nor good, nor useful, I prefer not to know it, and as for you, I advise you to forget it..."

Such were Socrates' words on the claims spread against this person or that. Furthermore, I am certainly not a defender of the Athenian ruling classes, whose choices, dictated by the interests of a minority instead of the greater good, I have consistently condemned, like Socrates. As for the method of defense Socrates has chosen, which surprises you so much, it is, in my opinion, a continuation of Socrates' method, which he will not abandon simply because his life is at stake. He argues at the trial as he would have argued in the street or in a shop. You cannot change Socrates, not even by threatening him with death ; that is what he wants to tell us.

The proof was provided. In my youth, I felt the same as many others in that situation ; I imagined that as soon as I became master of myself, I would go straight to attending to the common affairs of the city. And that is how chance led me to find myself involved in the affairs of the city. The regime of that time being subjected to the violent criticism of the majority, a revolution occurred... (six asses before the condemnation of Socrates)... and fifty-one men took the lead in the revolution, eleven in the city, ten in the Pyreus—each of these two groups being in charge of the agora and everything concerning the city—while thirty of them had seized full powers. Among these, it so happened that some were relatives and acquaintances of mine... and so they immediately summoned me to their side, as if for matters that suited me. And for my part, I felt no surprise at all because of my youth ; I imagined, in fact, that they would then administer the city in such a way as to lead it from a somewhat unjust way of life to a just one, so I paid all my attention to how they would act. And look, I see these men making the previous regime resemble a golden age in a short time ! And among others, my friend, Socrates, who was older than me and whom I would not be ashamed to say was the most just of those of that time, they sent with some others to find one of our fellow citizens, to bring him by force with a view to putting him to death, so that he would thus take part in their activities, whether he wanted to or not ; But he did not obey, taking the risk of suffering everything rather than becoming complicit in their sacrilegious works... Whatever my social origins and the choices of my family, my choices have been clear and do not fear slander.

Menexenus : I, too, come from a relatively well-to-do family. I have little experience, as I am still too young to judge such profound questions. It seems to me, however, that one cannot simply dismiss Plato's theses on the pretext that he was born into a wealthy family. Plato, who might be mistaken for the son of a rich and powerful family, never wanted this lineage. To assert this break, he, who should have been named Aristocles like his grandfather, called himself Plato. He did not participate in political power when his family did, nor in the political party they favored. He even denounced them. He did not choose his family's side, that of the rich, but denounced the excesses of oligarchy, where the rich dominate the poor, as well as those of democracy, where the poor believe they dominate the rich because they elect politicians.

– Metrodorus : I don't actually believe that Plato's substantial intellectual heritage was enough to determine the ideas he would defend in the future. This doesn't mean he was right in his interpretation of Socrates' theses. I would rather support Theaetetus's point of view : Socrates didn't just say that one must know oneself, but he set as humankind's objective the knowledge of the world. He had begun by studying the physical sciences and taught, rather than the way of life, given our fellow citizens' lack of interest in the sciences. He studied everything that could be studied, from the lyre to the art of war ! But the arts, the sciences, knowledge, are not enough to decide, in place of humankind, what is good. One can be a great strategist, perfectly skilled in commanding troops or a group of triremes, without being able to rise to the level necessary to direct the military policy of the city, which means, for example, being able to transcend the fratricidal struggles between Sparta and Athens. Socrates fought against these pointless and bloody wars throughout his life, and that is what he ultimately paid for...

– Xenophon : I think that Socrates never supported Athenian attempts to dominate the free Greek cities, but, unlike Alcibiades, he never chose to side with Sparta, having no illusions about the Spartan regime while not idealizing the so-called Athenian democracy.

Alcibiades : I may be criticized for leaving Athens while in command of the armies, but everyone knows that it was Athens that abandoned me, threatening to condemn me on false pretenses. I am not the first general, far from it, to have suffered this sad fate. It is almost the general case. Another example illustrates the difficulty of being a general in Athens. It is that of the Athenian historian Thucydides, who died three years ago in obscure circumstances, probably assassinated, before finishing his "History of the Peloponnesian War." Twenty-five years ago, he had been elected general and commanded a squadron of seven ships, but, having failed to prevent Sparta from capturing Aphipolis, he was accused of treason, which forced him into exile from Athens for twenty years. During his exile, Thucydides traveled throughout Greece and gathered numerous accounts from combatants on both sides (Spartans and Athenians), but he was an embarrassment to the extremists in the war between Athens and Sparta. He was eventually eliminated. Athens distrusted Athenian strategists, whether victorious or defeated. They could use their renown to gain popular support. Ten years earlier, the Greek admiral Conon had entered the service of the Persians after going into exile with several of his men. He had deemed it unwise to return to Athens after the disaster at Aegospotami. We also remember the death sentences handed down to the admirals, despite their victory, after the naval Battle of Arginusae. This is what the Athenian custom of attributing any military defeat to treason led to.

Athens armed itself to dominate the Greek cities, but today it is Sparta that fights against the common enemy, the dangerous Persian neighbor ! It was Cleisthenes, not Pericles, who established the democratic regime in Athens, taking advantage of his participation in the Persian Wars to build a true commercial, political, and military empire. But at the time, the Delian League, which unified the struggle of the city-states, was not under Athenian control. For example, the funds collected in the various cities were not centralized in Athens, but in Delos. The war chest, which was to amount to 3,000 talents, far from serving only the military defense of the cities, was to be centralized by Athens and used to pay the city's officials, finance the major construction projects on the Acropolis, and appease the poor citizens by distributing crumbs here and there, entertaining the common people with theater, choruses, actors, baths, gymnasiums, and popular assemblies—all paid for by the war chest. Increasingly, discontent rose in the Greek cities, which did not understand why they should agree to pay in order to be treated as subjects under the pretext of unifying Greece. The glorious past had not taught us this. Even before Troy, where armies from all the cities were gathered, they did not obey a single, dominant authority. Nor at Salamis and Marathon. The greatest victories had not resulted from unification under the aegis of the most powerful. None of these wars had required the alienation of the freedom and independence of the Greek city-states. The citizens of the cities allied with Athens questioned why they had to pay tribute to Athens, why they had to submit to the justice of Athenian magistrates, and why their money should be used to build Athens instead of for the common defense. The cities that resisted this domination were ruthlessly crushed. Athens thus acquired an importance disproportionate to its size, its true political, military, and economic significance. Is so much money and so many monuments necessary for such a small area ? Argolis is eight to ten miles long and four to five miles wide ; Laconia roughly the same ; Achaea is a narrow strip of land on the side of a mountain range that slopes down to the sea. Is this the size of the capital of a world empire ? It's no wonder that revolt eventually simmered among the members of the Delian League, which had become nothing more than a smokescreen for Athenian ambitions for domination. It's no wonder that force was necessary, with increasingly violent repressions culminating in the systematic massacre of entire inhabitants, for Athens to regain its position of power among the city-states !Was Athens the only city capable of fighting in defense of the Greek city-states ? Let us not forget the inscription at Thermopylae : "Passerby, go tell the Lacedaemonians that if we rest here, it is because we obeyed their laws !" This meant that, although the Greek armies had defeated the Great King, the Persian Xerxes, and were led by the Athenian Leonidas, these armies were primarily composed of 4,000 Spartan warriors, who secured victory against three thousand Persian soldiers ! The same was true at Salamis. Themistocles the Athenian was the chief strategist, but the bulk of the soldiers were Spartan. Athens' true superiority was neither strategic, nor economic, nor political, nor artistic, nor cultural, nor intellectual. It was on its maritime superiority that Athens based its claim to domination over the city-states. Three hundred Athenian triremes held sway over the ships of Sparta, Corinth, and even larger fleets like that of the Persians. It was upon its fleet that Athens sought to build its maritime empire. Hence the long-established strategy of taking refuge on its ships in the event of an attack. Hence the construction of a fortified port. Hence also the construction of major shipyards for building war triremes. This brought Athens years of glory, wealth, and prosperity, but the rot had set in : Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say this loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say so loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say so loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…

– Charmides : Sparta won its war against Athens primarily by allying with Persia. And I think that if it won, it wasn't because of having more competent strategists or braver soldiers. That's the difference between the two societies, Athenian and Lacedaemonian. Indeed, Athens has long since ceased to be a society of soldier-farmers, whereas Sparta has remained so. As a result, in Sparta, fighting is a duty. In Athens, deciding, discussing, and giving one's opinion are genuine needs of the citizen. Military obedience certainly suffers as a result. People prefer to elect strategists rather than obey a general. That's what ruined Athens. Alcibiades, you should know this, since that's how you gained your position as commander of the armies, and that's also how you lost it.

– Lysanias To the misfortunes of Greece's internal and external wars was added the plague that struck the entire region thirty years ago, eliminating a large portion of the population, causing panic, and sowing new and disturbing behaviors among the living. The epidemic broke out suddenly in Athens, claiming its first victims in Piraeus. At the time, the false legend circulated that Sparta had poisoned the wells of Athens ! The city's inhabitants were then severely affected. The disease manifested with acute symptoms followed by vomiting, and death occurred within 7 to 9 days. Social life itself was utterly disrupted by the epidemic. Life no longer held the same value. Ethics were altered. People sought quick and easy profits and pleasures. Rich and poor were exchanged at great speed. No one was held back from their sometimes criminal endeavors by fear of the gods and the law. The epidemic lasted four years. It left nothing in place, least of all mentalities. The plague seemed a prophetic warning against Athens. Disorder reigned in the city. Settling of scores multiplied. Everywhere there were purgers, everywhere informers and alleged spies, everywhere henchmen. Accusations of threatening order were hurled far and wide, and the accused were quickly eliminated. What the internal wars of the city-states had begun—the normalization of death—the disorder caused by the epidemic completed. Violent force was now the only thing that mattered. The new leader of Athens, Cleon, who came to power after Pericles' death from the plague, was characterized by his implacable style : a single punishment for his enemies and all those who stood in his way—summary execution. Let us remember the inhabitants of Mytilene, in revolt, who were put to the sword to the last man. Cleon proclaimed to anyone who would listen that the only good enemy is a dead enemy ! It was then that Athens doubled the tribute demanded from the allied Greek cities. Athens then believed its fleet invincible. This was Alcibiades' moment of glory, but it would last only a moment and would be close to his downfall. Everyone wanted to forget Alcibiades' escapades as long as he offered Athens victories… in words. The formidable squadron had captivated all the young people, ready to embark on this new war to conquer success, honor, and fortune. So much so that Athens, with the squadron barely ready to depart, believed it possible to get rid of Alcibiades with a serious accusation. It was a cabal of the kind whose secrets Athenian politics held. But these maneuvers, crucial for the struggle for power in Athens, could not deceive a true enemy. And the heroic Athenian fleet was defeated at Syracuse ! Defeated, Athens began to doubt everything and everyone. It was necessary to vent the people's anger on false scapegoats : the soothsayers and astrologers.Those who had advised the expedition and predicted victory were the first to lose their lives. But, with Athens defeated, Sparta allied itself with Persia under the leadership of Alcibiades, the same man who tells us here that Sparta was the only one to dare confront the Persians ! Is it any wonder, then, that the Athenian people, deceived, turned against Alcibiades' friends, beginning with his teacher, Socrates ? Of course, I agree with all those who are scandalized by the accusation that Socrates is being held accountable for the actions of others, even if they were his former students. Do we accuse parents for the actions of their children, once they have grown up ? Athens thus chose a pretext to eliminate Socrates, an inconvenient accuser, thereby showing all those who might have wanted to play the accuser that one can very quickly become the accused !

Xenophon : Athens is not solely responsible for its decline and fall. Lately, many civilizations around the world have experienced meteoric and brief periods of growth. They live only a very short time, having burned through their energy at breakneck speed, whereas the ancient cities grew in wealth and glory very slowly, but endured for a long time. Persia, too, is experiencing such a tragedy and is heading towards the same end. Our empires are like shooting stars that suddenly emit a dazzling light and then fade into darkness. The empires that have fallen one after another, such as the Hittites, the Cretans, or Persia, are striking examples of this. Brilliance has given way to darkness… The power of Carthage, which today dominates the Mediterranean, will fall like the others.

– Alcibiades : It seems to me that the differences between Sparta and Athens stemmed primarily from their distinct social histories. While Sparta was founded on "equals" and the clerus, which guaranteed the free use of a plot of land, Athens was founded on profound inequalities between rich, middle, and poor citizens. The more successful the city became, the richer the rich became, and the poor depended on the wages and allowances paid by the city. The Spartan military city was founded on these warrior-equals. It was Solon who enabled Athens to escape the risks of revolution without fundamentally attacking the interests of the ruling classes. He gave the people the opportunity to choose between different candidates for the city's magistrates, but he wisely ensured that all magistracy positions were reserved for the notables and the wealthy : the pentacosiomedimmi, the zeugites, and the equestrians, with laborers having no say in the matter. But in Sparta, as in Athens, there were not only citizens. The Spartan helot revolt, more than sixty years earlier, played a fundamental role. Let us not forget that Athens benefited from Sparta's weakened state. By offering its assistance in suppressing the revolt, Athens was able to exert its influence over the Lacedaemonian city. And the Athenian city benefited, during this period, from not experiencing a slave revolt. But Athens, which thus experienced its hours of wealth and glory, was ruined by wars and called its political system into question. The wealthy regained power and abolished democracy. From this arose a series of misfortunes and internal conflicts within Athens. External weakness has always stemmed from internal weakness. Sparta was able to exploit this weakening, as well as that of the Persians. But Sparta, the victor, did not subject the Greek city-states to its domination. When the Spartans captured Naupactus (belonging to Athens), they granted it its freedom. It's important to remember that Sparta, having defeated Athens, did not raze the vanquished city, as Thebes and Corinth had demanded. They merely destroyed the fortifications and seized the fleet. But the defeat was a bitter pill to swallow for the Athenians, and they developed a deep-seated hatred that required finding scapegoats. Ostracism became a common tactic in Athens against anyone who didn't openly display their hatred for the Lacedaemonian city. Hence the wave of espionage and the search for traitors, the backlash against the Sophists and all those who could be accused of defeatism. Socrates was one of its victims.

– Thrasymachus The capture of Athens by Lysander six years ago, a defeat from which the city is still struggling to recover, was not a bolt from the blue. As the historian Thucydides rightly observed, there is a reason in history, and if men and societies fall victim to the consequences of their choices, it is not by chance. The Athenians deluded themselves for far too long. At the beginning of the struggle against Persia, the adversary was so formidable, the threat so grave, the foreseeable consequences so deadly, that the Greek city-states united, contributing, without much hesitation, their contingent of men and ships against the Great King Cyrus. Having agreed to place themselves under a common military command 81 years ago, the result was the liberation of all of Greece from Persian domination. That tiny, divided Greece could bring down the monstrous Persian army was a thunderbolt for the world. The entire Persian empire trembled at its foundations. But even if the struggle was waged in the name of the Delian League, and even if it boasted many Athenian strategists like Themistocles, victorious at Salamis, or Cimon, son of Miltiades, whose victory at Mycale heralded the liberation of the Greeks from the Ionian coast, Athens, having achieved victory, saw no reason to remain a mere participant in the Delian League when it possessed the most developed economy, a major city-state, one of the most capable shipbuilding arsenals, and the best strategists. The impoverished city-states, under pressure, agreed to pay their contributions to Athens rather than maintain a defensive fleet that exceeded their means. Consequently, Athens began to consider itself the head of Greek military command, and also began to manage the funds itself and act as master over the confederate cities. The Treasury was removed from the sanctuary of Apollo on Delos and brought to Athens. Contributions were increased. Cities that began to revolt against Athenian domination, such as Naxos and Thasos, then Potidaea, Corinth, and Melos, were violently subdued. This is what also happened during the reign of Pericles : the gradual crushing of the liberties of the Greek cities. Certainly, this was also a time of great construction, enrichment, and glory for the city, but it was during this period of splendor that the irreversible and fatal turning point for our city occurred. The small towns were held in check by their poverty. The large cities were held in check by military force. The patriotic fervor that reigned in Athens was based on the accumulation of wealth piled up on the docks of Piraeus. If the Athenian came to see his domination of the world as natural, the material basis of this enthusiasm stemmed from the marvelous goods arriving from Sicily, Italy, Cyprus, Egypt, Lydia,from Pontus, the Peloponnese, and a thousand other places on earth. I will even quote our friend Xenophon, who stated at that time in his famous work entitled "The Revenues of Attica" :"I would not consider unreasonable the opinion of those who place this city at the center of Greece and even of the entire universe." And I must admit that many of us suffered from the same optical illusion.

Athens' domination over the city-states became increasingly oppressive. They were forbidden to mint their own coins and were forced to accept Athenian currency. The justice systems of these now-dependent city-states were also administered by Athens. All power, along with the bulk of wealth and weapons, were ultimately centralized there. And it was in this context that the existence of Sparta, capable of military defense and political independence, could only cast a shadow over Athens. An endless war then began between the two city-states and the cities that had pledged allegiance to them. While the defensive wars against the Persians and Carthaginians had been popular, this fratricidal conflict eventually wearyed the citizens. And it ended, as we all know, with Athens' defeat and humiliation. A dictatorial regime was then imposed on the city, which lost the means of its defense and its weaponry.

Far from acknowledging their responsibility for these shameful failures, the ruling classes mobilized their political representatives to convince the people that the fundamental choices had always been sound, and that there had been an internal betrayal by critical citizens who had demoralized public opinion with their undermining rhetoric. The witch hunt then began. Socrates was one of its Athenian victims. But the Greek cities had many other victims before him. The island of Melos, for example, where all the adult males were executed and the women and children were dragged into slavery, bears cruel witness to this. In Corcyra (which some call Corfu), the massacres between citizens, for or against Athens, reached unprecedented levels of violence. The true victor of the wars between Sparta and Athens could have been Persia, but it was itself afflicted by a serious internal crisis that rendered it incapable of taking advantage of the situation.

The only victor was death. The plague won, carrying off a large part of the population. To rebuild Athens, Alcibiades had indeed tried to revive patriotic enthusiasm, particularly among the youth, but this was based on illusions : believing that Athens, by mobilizing, would rebuild the alliance of Greek and Italian cities around itself was a pipe dream. Athens had long since ceased to be seen as a defender of liberty, and could no longer be so. This, my friends, is how Athenian policies led the city into the impasse it finds itself in today. This is why Socrates' criticisms of these policies could no longer be tolerated by those who govern us and bear the responsibility for this failure. By portraying Socrates as one of those responsible for Athens' decline, the people, momentarily blinded, were led to turn against him. He was handed over to the wrath of the people by the Heliast tribunal, which had been formed by the People's Assembly. Once again, democracy proved to be nothing more than a manipulation of the people against their own interests.

– Phaedo : The great political formula of Athens, far from the democracy it claimed to be, was the State. It was the least democratic of tools. Officially, the people's assembly was sovereign. It represented the 40,000 citizens—excluding women—less than one-twelfth of the population, since foreigners and slaves were excluded. But, in reality, the development of the State deprived the vast majority of citizens, and especially the poorest among them, of any real power, as they served only as pawns in political maneuvering. The establishment of this governing body, with its armed forces, justice system, and magistrates, was officially intended to allow all citizens to govern, but in fact, only members of the ruling families could hold the principal offices. While Pericles was thus democratically elected for successive terms, the prestigious constructions of Athens poorly concealed the misery of the majority of Athenians, forced to live in smoky huts of wood or sun-dried mud brick in the countryside or to crowd into miserable quarters of cities.

In the heroic age, the four Athenian tribes of Attica were still established in distinct territories ; even the twelve phratries that comprised them seem to have still had separate residences in the twelve cities of Cecrops. The organization was that of the heroic age : assembly of the people, council of the people, and basileus. In peaceful times, each phratry and each tribe administered its own affairs, without recourse to the council of the people or the basileus of Athens.

The reform of Athens was carried out by ruling classes who wanted to establish their independence from the then-dominant kings of Crete. You are all familiar with the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur, which served as the historical justification for Athens' claim to unite all of Attica under its control. Crete then dominated Athens, which was forced to provide the Cretan monster, the Minotaur, with seven young men and seven young women to be devoured. Theseus, the son of the king of Athens, asked his father to be included on the list of those to be sacrificed by Athens to Crete. He killed the Minotaur, thus symbolizing the Athenian revolt against ancient Cretan domination. Such is the myth of Theseus, which casts the Athenian heroes in a heroic light in the overthrow of the Cretan tyrants. In reality, they were overthrown by the Cretans, who revolted following the earthquake that destroyed most of the temples and palaces, showing the oppressed that the gods no longer protected their oppressors. Athens took advantage of this to gain its independence.

The constitution attributed to Theseus was established. The change consisted mainly in the fact that a central administration was established in Athens, that is to say, some of the affairs which until then had been administered autonomously by the tribes were declared common affairs and transmitted to the Common Council which sat in Athens.

The office of basileus fell into disuse ; archons, chosen from among the nobility, were placed at the head of the state. The domination of the nobility grew until it became intolerable two hundred years ago. And the principal means of oppressing common liberty was... money and usury. The principal seat of the nobility was in and around Athens, where maritime trade, along with piracy, still practiced occasionally and in addition, enriched them and concentrated financial wealth in their hands. From there, the developing monetary economy penetrated like a dissolving acid into the traditional way of life of rural communities, based on a natural economy. The organization of the gens is utterly incompatible with a monetary economy ; the ruin of the small farmers of Attica coincided with the loosening of the old bonds of the gens that surrounded and protected them. The debt and the mortgage (for the Athenians had even invented the mortgage) respected neither clan nor phratry. And the old system of the gens knew neither money, nor advance, nor debt. This is why the ever-growing and expanding financial domination of the nobility also developed a new customary law to protect the creditor against the debtor, to consecrate the exploitation of the small peasant by the possessor of money. All the fields of Attica bristled with mortgage stelae, on which it was inscribed that this land was pledged to so-and-so, for the sum of so-and-so. The fields that were not thus marked had for the most part already been sold for non-payment of mortgages or interest, and had passed into the ownership of the usurer nobleman ; the peasant had to consider himself lucky if he was allowed to remain there as a tenant farmer and live on one-sixth of the produce of his labor, while he had to pay five-sixths as rent to his new master. There's more : if the proceeds from the sale of the land weren't enough to cover the debt, or if that debt had been incurred without collateral, the debtor had to sell his children into slavery abroad to repay the creditor. The sale of children by their father—this was the first manifestation of paternal rights and monogamy !

But the Athenians were to learn how quickly, once exchange between individuals arose and products were transformed into commodities, the product established its dominance over the producer. With commodity production came the cultivation of the land by individuals for their own benefit, and soon, simultaneously, individual land ownership. Money also arrived, a universal commodity against which all others could be exchanged ; but, in inventing money, people did not realize that they were creating yet another new social force, the one universal force before which all of society would have to bow. And it was this new force, which sprang up suddenly, unbeknownst to and without the will of its creators, that, in all the brutality of its infancy, made the Athenians feel its dominion.

And then, the young state primarily needed its own force, which for the seafaring Athenians could initially only be a naval force aimed at small, isolated wars and the protection of merchant ships. At an undetermined time, but before Solon, the naucraries were established, small territorial districts of twelve per tribe ; each naucrary was required to provide, arm, and equip a warship and also supply two cavalrymen. This institution challenged the clan-based organization in two ways. First, because it created a public force, which was no longer simply synonymous with the armed population as a whole ; and second, because it divided the people for the first time for public purposes, not according to kinship groups, but according to local coexistence.

Solon boasts in his poems of having removed the mortgage markers from indebted fields and of having repatriated people who, because they had fallen into debt, had been sold abroad as slaves or had sought refuge there. This was only possible through an open violation of property rights. And in fact, from the first to the last, all so-called political revolutions have been made for the protection of property... of a certain kind, and accomplished by the confiscation, in other words, by the theft... of another kind of property. So true is it that for two thousand five hundred years private property could only be maintained by violating property rights.

But the aim was to prevent a return to such subjugation of free Athenians. This was achieved initially through general measures, such as prohibiting loan contracts secured against the person of the debtor. Furthermore, a maximum limit was set on the amount of land an individual could own, in order to at least somewhat curb the nobility's voracious appetite for peasant land. Then came changes to the constitution.

These are the most essential points for us. The Council was expanded to four hundred members, one hundred from each tribe. Here, then, the tribe still remained the foundation. But this was also the only aspect under which the old organization was incorporated into the new body of the state. For Solon, moreover, divided the citizens into four classes, according to their land ownership and its yield ; 500, 300, and 150 medimni of grain were the minimum yields for the first three classes ; anyone who owned less land, or none at all, fell into the fourth class. All offices could only be held by members of the three upper classes, and the highest offices were held only by members of the first class ; the fourth class had only the right to speak and vote in the assembly of the people. But it was there that all the officials were chosen, there that they had to render their accounts, there that all the laws were made, and the fourth class formed the majority. Aristocratic privileges were partly reaffirmed in the form of privileges of wealth, but the people retained decisive power. Furthermore, the four classes formed the basis of a new military organization. The first two classes provided the cavalry, the third was to serve in the heavy infantry, the fourth served in the light infantry (not wearing armor) or in the navy, and presumably received a salary.

The rapid growth of wealth, commerce, and industry demonstrates how the state, now fully developed in its essential features, responded to the new social condition of the Athenians. The class antagonism upon which social and political institutions rested was no longer between nobles and commoners, but between slaves and freemen, between metics and citizens. At its height, Athens had approximately 90,000 free citizens, including women and children, plus 365,000 slaves of both sexes and 45,000 metics—foreigners and freedmen. For every free citizen, there were therefore at least 18 slaves and more than two metics. The large number of slaves stemmed from the fact that many of them worked together, under the supervision of overseers, in factories and large workshops. But with the development of trade and industry came the accumulation and concentration of wealth in a small number of hands, the impoverishment of the mass of free citizens, who were left with no choice but to compete with the work of slaves by their own manual labor, which was considered dishonorable, vile, and moreover promised little success.

Eubulides : This is how the state developed, because the old institutions of the clan organization were either transformed or suppressed by the introduction of new bodies, and finally completely replaced by true state authorities. Meanwhile, the true "people in arms," protecting themselves within their clans, phratries, and tribes, was replaced by an armed "public force" at the service of these state authorities, and therefore usable even against the people. In the heroic age, the four Athenian tribes of Attica were still established in distinct territories ; even the twelve phratries that comprised them seem to have still had separate residences in the twelve cities of Cecrops. The organization was that of the heroic age : assembly of the people, council of the people, basileus. As far back as recorded history goes, land was already divided and had passed into private ownership, as is consistent with the relatively developed commodity production towards the end of the later stage of barbarism, and the corresponding trade in goods. Besides grain, wine and oil were produced ; maritime trade on the Aegean Sea was increasingly slipping from Phoenician control and falling, to a large extent, into Attic hands. Due to the buying and selling of land, and the progressive division of labor between agriculture and crafts, commerce and navigation, members of the gentes, phratries, and tribes soon had to mingle, and the district of the phratry and tribe received inhabitants who, although compatriots, did not belong to these groups and were therefore strangers in their own territory. For in peaceful times, each phratry and each tribe administered its own affairs, without recourse to the People's Council or the Athenian emperor. But anyone living within the territory of the phratry or tribe without belonging to it could not, of course, participate in this administration.
The established order of the tribal organizations was so disrupted that, even in heroic times, a remedy had to be found. The constitution attributed to Theseus was instituted. The change consisted primarily of the establishment of a central administration in Athens ; that is to say, some of the affairs previously administered autonomously by the tribes were declared common affairs and transferred to the Common Council, which sat in Athens. In doing so, the Athenians went a step further than any of the indigenous peoples of America had ever gone : instead of a simple confederation of juxtaposed tribes, they were united into a single people. Thus was born an Athenian national law, a general law that was above the legal customs of the tribes and clans ; the Athenian citizen, as such, obtained specific rights and new legal protection, even in a territory where he was not a member of the tribe. But, at the same time, the first step had been taken toward the center of the clan organization ; for it was the first step toward the subsequent admission of citizens from outside the tribes throughout Attica, who were and remained entirely outside the Athenian clan organization. A second institution attributed to Theseus was the division of the entire population, without regard to clan, phratry, or tribe, into three classes : the eupatrids or nobles, the geomores or farmers, and the demiurges or artisans, and the granting to the nobility of the exclusive right to public office. This division shows that the custom of entrusting clan offices to certain families had already transformed into a largely uncontested right of these families to these positions ; that these families, powerful elsewhere due to their wealth, were beginning to group themselves outside their clans into a distinct, privileged class, and that the nascent state enshrined this claim. It further demonstrates that the division of labor between farmers and artisans was already pronounced enough to rival the former classification by clans and tribes for preeminence in social importance. Finally, it proclaims the irreconcilable antagonism between clan society and the State ; the first attempt to form the State consists of dismantling the clans, dividing the members of each into privileged and disadvantaged, and the latter, in turn, into two classes of workers, thus setting them against one another.
The clan-based organization is utterly incompatible with a monetary economy ; the ruin of the small farmers of Attica coincided with the loosening of the old clan-based ties that surrounded and protected them. Loans and mortgages (for the Athenians had even invented the mortgage) respected neither clan nor phratry. And the old clan-based organization knew neither money, nor advances, nor debts. This is why the ever-flourishing and widespread financial domination of the nobility also developed a new customary law to protect the creditor against the debtor, to consecrate the exploitation of the small farmer by the possessor of money. All the fields of Attica bristled with mortgage stelae, on which it was inscribed that this land was pledged to so-and-so, for the sum of so-and-so. The fields that were not thus marked had for the most part already been sold for non-payment of mortgages or interest, and had passed into the possession of the usurer nobleman ; The peasant was to consider himself fortunate if he was allowed to remain as a tenant farmer and live on one-sixth of the produce of his labor, while he had to pay five-sixths as rent to his new master. Furthermore, if the proceeds from the sale of the land were insufficient to cover the debt, or if this debt had been incurred without collateral, the debtor had to sell his children into slavery abroad to repay the creditor. The sale of children by their father—such was the first fruit of paternal right and monogamy ! And if the vampire was not yet sated, he could sell his debtor himself into slavery. Such was the sweet dawn of civilization among the Athenian people.
But the Athenians were to learn how quickly, once exchange between individuals had begun and through the transformation of products into commodities, the product established its dominance over the producer. With commodity production came the cultivation of the land by individuals for their own benefit, and soon, simultaneously, individual land ownership. Money also arrived, a universal commodity against which all others could be exchanged ; but, in inventing money, people did not realize that they were creating yet another new social force, the single universal force before which all of society would have to bow. And it was this new force, which sprang up suddenly, unbeknownst to and without the will of its own creators, that, in all the brutality of its youth, made the Athenians feel its dominion.

– Xenophon : If Athens developed the state, it claimed it was to defend itself against external attacks, but it was even more so to defend itself against social revolutions. As I wrote in "Cyropaedia," there were many revolutions against all kinds of political regimes :

"I was observing one day how many democracies have been overthrown by men who preferred any other form of government, how many monarchies and oligarchies have been destroyed by popular factions, how many ambitious men have been stripped of the sovereign power they had just usurped, and how much one admires the happiness and skill of those who have managed to maintain themselves in power, even for a short time. "
The social revolution that pitted rich against poor in Greece for 50 years, two hundred years ago, and Athens experienced the citizens' revolution for over a year, 110 years ago.

Throughout all these upheavals, Greece experienced successive periods of monarchy, communal rule, aristocracy, oligarchy, monopolization of power by large landowners and slave owners, and tyranny, which was followed by popular revolutions in every city. Solon managed to channel these revolutions. He declared : “I gave the people as much as they needed, but no more. For those who had the strength and commanded respect through their wealth, I also ensured that they would not suffer anything undignified.” Far from giving power to the demos, Solon prevented the revolutionary struggles—admittedly discontinuous, irregular, and episodic depending on the city, but extremely fierce at critical moments—from ultimately overthrowing the ruling classes completely. Tyranny arose in Argos, then Corinth, Sycyone, and even here in Megara, then Athens, Samos, Naxos, and Miletus, only because the hereditary aristocracies were incapable of containing or resolving the growing social conflicts that mobilized an increasing urban population and an indebted and impoverished peasantry. To these social factors were added other revolutionary political causes, such as the struggles between city-states, between Argos and Sparta, or between Athens and Megara. Tyranny took advantage of the need to resist powerful neighbors, not only neighboring city-states but especially Lydia, Persia, and Carthage. The great weakness of tyranny was that it depended on the abilities of a single man. As soon as power overstepped acceptable boundaries, anger would build and then explode at the slightest provocation : a deterioration of the climate, a drought, a violent storm, or an earthquake would signal that the gods no longer protected the regime and would be the signal for revolt. All tyrannies, one after another, fell in this way, just as monarchies had before them. Democracy has proven far more stable : those at the head may fall, but the regime as a whole remains in power despite social movements and revolutions. This was the system chosen by Athens.

As for Sparta, it favored the old system of shared poverty, akin to a community of property among citizens, peasants, and soldiers. These two systems, which proved relatively stable, were bound to grow in strength and eventually clash. The Spartan system was that of an armed people, where the state supported the ruling classes. The population consisted of Spartans, Perioeci, and Helots—that is, citizens, foreigners, and slaves. In fact, the Helot occupied an intermediate position between a free man and a slave. It was a servile condition. He was not part of the citizenry and had no political rights. The state monitored the Helots, defining their duties, obligations, and also their rights in relation to landowners.

This is how the helots were enslaved. The Achaeans fought their last battle against the Spartan king Alcamenes, and this city provided the first serfs of the state ; the name helots later became the common name for all those subjected to the same servitude, even the Dorians of Messenia. The helot class was an integral part of the social system in the so-called Constitution of Lycurgus, which represents the oldest institutions of Sparta. They worked, under the conditions we will see, the allotments distributed to the Spartans in the region that essentially comprised the Eurotas valley. The Messenian Wars led to the formation of a second group of helots. The first war deprived the Messenians of their political independence ; They mostly became perioikoi, had to swear never to revolt, and to take part, in mourning attire, with their wives and children, in the funerals of the kings of Sparta and the principal Spartan magistrates ; they retained possession of their lands, in exchange for the payment of a tribute equal to half the harvests ; perhaps a part of Messenia was reserved for the Spartans, in particular the lands whose owners had fled in various directions, to Argos, Sicyon, Eleusis, and Arcadia. The Third Messenian War was provoked by the uprising of the helots of Laconia, after the earthquake of about sixty years ago ; the Messenians, refugees on Mount Ithomius, resisted for ten years and obtained, by a capitulation, the right to withdraw freely with their wives and children, swearing never to return to the Peloponnese ; But the helots, leaders of the sedition, were executed, the others transformed into veritable slaves.
The division of social activities was as follows : the Spartans were content to wage war, while production was entirely ensured by the Perioeci and the Helots. Revolts among the Spartan Helots were constantly simmering beneath the surface and sometimes erupted with the full force of a conflagration. Revolutions were frequent in Sparta, and in particular, following Sparta's conquest of Messenia, Spartan citizens who had not participated in the war were sidelined by the warriors and, consequently, joined forces with the Helots to revolt. Then Messenia itself revolted against Spartan rule, and, due in particular to a very strong sense of discontent among the Spartans themselves, Sparta had great difficulty suppressing the uprising. When the Helots of Messenia revolted, it was not a new phenomenon. At the end of the century, the Penestae of Thessaly rose up. The Messenian revolt led to the Second Helot War, which this time ended with the complete subjugation of the vanquished. The Messenians lost their lands and were assimilated into the Lacenion Helots ; only a few coastal towns retained their status as perioikoi cities. The Messenians would henceforth constitute the vast majority of the Helots. A little less than a hundred years later, the entire political and social equilibrium of the principal archaic city, Sparta, was destroyed. Externally, too, Sparta was forced to maintain order in the Peloponnese, as any revolt in the islands risked joining forces with the Helots to overthrow the Spartan regime. Conversely, the growth of Athens, far exceeding the wealth and population of Sparta, could not support the continued existence of an independent city like Sparta. The foundations for endless internal wars were well established… It was inevitable that the Peloponnesian League, initially called “the Spartans and their allies,” would become the League of Athens and its allies, and then the Athenian Empire.
Unlike Sparta, all free men in Athens were always citizens. There were no Perioeci or Helots. All inhabitants were citizens, and all slaves came from outside the city. This did not prevent class struggles from existing in Athens. The aristocratic Eupatrid families were repeatedly threatened in their power and wealth by revolutions of the lower classes. Solon was an Eupatrid who understood that the development of revolutionary struggles would be catastrophic for the ruling classes if exploitation were not regulated and limited, and if rights were not granted to the lower classes, the plebeians. The aim of the successive reforms of Draco and especially Solon was to divert the anger of the poorest and diminish its power in order to stabilize society. But Solon never went so far as to seize land from the wealthy to distribute it to the destitute ! His reform was as much political as it was social. He established four classes based on land income, from which magistrates would be appointed. However, the lower classes were only eligible for the lowest magistracies. The people were involved in political leadership, but in a measured and carefully calculated way, based on social criteria. The poor were thus recognized as part of the demos, but only minimally.

However, it was a tyranny, that of the Pisistratids, and not democracy, that fostered in Athens the popular taste for gathering, for culture, for meeting in the heart of Athens, for celebrating festivals, and for practicing religions. They were the ones who built a great temple dedicated to Athena on the Acropolis (destroyed by the Persians, it would later be replaced by the Parthenon), and began another temple dedicated to Olympian Zeus. They developed the great popular cults, the tragic choruses, the competitions, the festivals, and, for the Dionysia, they called upon poets and musicians. When they were overthrown after two years of civil war, Cleisthenes reshaped the constitution, establishing the structures of Athenian democracy as we know them, drawing upon the patriotic sentiments that had already developed. At the time, religiously speaking, no sanctuary, not even on the Acropolis, could rival Delphi in importance. Through the Pythia, Apollo answered the questions of Greek citizens who came to him. The outcome of wars, civil wars, revolutions, and other everyday problems depended on the interpretations of the women who answered for Apollo, as the god's message was not explicitly stated. But the very importance of Delphi eventually became a problem for Athens, and if the Delphic Pythia declared herself in favor of Socrates or an alliance between Athens and Sparta, rather than Athenian domination, it is no wonder that the leaders of Athens preferred to have local gods under their control, gods who would deliver a message much more aligned with their interests.

Aeschines : Plato and Xenophon, allow me to address you both, since, after Socrates' death, you are the most renowned of the Athenian thinkers, you who followed our master for many years. Plato, I must acknowledge that you have always clearly and courageously defended the ideas you developed through philosophical training with the best teachers, and yet I deny you the right to speak in Socrates' name, particularly on the theses you have just developed concerning the State, which do not seem to me to be those I heard from his own lips. You should write in your dialogues : "This is what Plato thinks," and not "This is what Socrates said !" I will give you just one example, the one where Socrates said to Thrasymachus : "The State is an army, a band of brigands, thieves, or any other gang of criminals somehow associated for some evil deed."

That's a definition that has the merit of being clear ! And when Socrates says "the State," he's not talking about one country or another, nor one era or another. This vindicates those who claimed that Socrates supported the Spartan and Cretan states. On the other hand, when he speaks of his ideal society, it's no longer about the State. It's about the direct power of the people. Those he considers indispensable are artisans, fishermen, farmers, sailors, and merchants, but not the military, politicians, judges, administrators—the entire apparatus of the State. Plato, can you tell us if you differ from Xenophon's point of view ? And you, Xenophon, what do you think of what Plato has just said ? This is important for all of us, because you two are rightly considered the most illustrious of our master's disciples, those who have known and followed him for a long time, and the most brilliant thinkers of Greece. In order for us to see what future our group of followers of Socratic thought has, it is important for us to know if the most eminent among us agree on our goals. What would be the point of bringing together the most competent men from multiple fundamental fields if they have completely divergent objectives ?

Xenophon : Thank you for addressing me in this way, Aeschines. And I believe I have shown many times that I am not averse to developing my points of view. Everyone can form their own opinion, especially since, unlike Socrates, I have chosen to commit my analyses and reports on past history to writing. But why don't you ask me about your own point of view ? One is never so eager to hear the views of those close to us as one is to hear one's own opinions, and that is the most enriching. Isn't it ? Disagreements between us are possible even if we all claim to follow Socrates, and in convening this meeting in homage to Socrates, I certainly didn't intend for it to be an assembly based on the unanimity of the participants. I approve of you, Aeschines, placing the question of the State at the forefront, for what is decisive in the situation of a people is the way in which the State is governed. The state, you say, is not the savior of the people and cannot do much in their place. You are not wrong. However, it is important not to leave it in the hands of demagogues, the corrupt, and the vicious. You will agree. It is important to train those who will be entrusted with high office. For my part, I have never hidden the fact that I do not condemn the social order of Athens, but only its political and military leadership. I do not advocate changing the place of foreigners, slaves, or women in our society. The gods have adapted the nature of women to domestic work and care. Women must stay at home to raise children and manage the household. Residents have paid to live in the city, and this allows them to run shops and workshops. They must not divert their time with activities that would interfere with this trade. For example, they must not go to war or vote with the citizens. We cannot abolish the social order, because everyone is essential to everyone else. Without servile labor, there is no well-being and no democracy. That is my point of view.

Plato : Aeschines, I would first like to remind you that, in my opinion, the education of statesmen is the crucial point of any philosophy of governing society. I have thoroughly studied how the leaders of our societies, as well as those of neighboring societies, were educated, and it seems to me that Cyrus the Younger, the ruler of Persia, received a very limited education. If we are to influence kings, shouldn't those kings be philosophers ? Persia in recent years has not seemed to me to be governed by wisdom and philosophy any more than Athens at its worst… Let that suffice for my answer !

In my opinion, Socrates was not a victim of defeats or of the political and social crisis, but rather of the hatred his method of intellectual midwifery provoked among those who benefited from the system. His dialectic of questioning was wrongly perceived as denunciation or malicious mockery. Yet, Socrates was right : humankind needs this external questioning to discover itself, to recognize its deeply buried and hidden desires and feelings. Socrates' maieutic method earned him many enemies who eventually united against him. Nevertheless, even during his trial, Socrates remained committed to his method of discourse, based on questioning. And what saddens me today is not that some are for Sparta or against Athens, but that Socrates' method is so blatantly disregarded that no one even thinks to question the other… Socrates preserved his identity despite all the pressures, applying his own maxims to himself to the very end. We must not forget that Socrates always recalled the inscription on the Temple of Delphi : "Know thyself."

– Ichtyas : To reduce Socrates' aims to maieutics, the method of "midwifery" of souls, that accuses you far more, Plato, than all your possessions and all your income as a wealthy heir. Socrates had, in a sense, withdrawn from public life. He didn't run for office. He didn't participate in the farcical "democracy." He exposed it. But he pursued his own politics. Plato, you know this well, because even if today you would like to erase him with your writings, you participated in Socrates' clandestine political meetings and were even one of their most fervent and active organizers ! I see that Socrates' death was enough for us to completely free ourselves from his influence !

– Crito : There are already four Socratic schools of philosophy, and there's likely to be as many versions of who Socrates was and what he wanted as there are disciples of Socrates. Since our master never wanted to write down or have his words transcribed, it will be easy for anyone in a few years to attribute any words to him.

Eubulides : It's not so simple to invent what Socrates said. You can't make him out to be some kind of tranquil sage, because the Athenian authorities have just shown us that this philosopher was considered dangerous by those same authorities ! Certainly, Athens, and especially its ruling class, distrusted Socrates and his acerbic remarks. They don't like harbingers of doom. But that's not all. A power structure cannot tolerate someone with political influence refusing to participate in the political institutions of society, regardless of who the leaders are or the political regime, whether dictatorship or democracy. If you discover that this politician is discreetly maintaining a group of young people, you suspect it's not within the framework of the institutions. As soon as the social and political crisis worsens, the ruling classes no longer want this group. By getting rid of Socrates, they dissolved, in Athens, the group of young people close to Socrates. The leaders of Athens realized that Socrates' group, without its master, was nothing. Those who remained revolutionary had to leave the city.

This is where the Athenian power structure made its political gamble. There is no mortal danger to the ruling classes as long as there are revolutionaries without a revolutionary opportunity, or revolutions without revolutionaries. However, it is crucial for them to get rid of revolutionaries as quickly as potentially revolutionary crises loom. Consequently, it is certain that the Athenian ruling classes would have disposed of a discredited Socrates one way or another had his trial not yielded the expected result, even if it meant having him assassinated in a secluded street. The Athenian leaders knew that a segment of the citizens was seeking scapegoats for the military, political, and social catastrophe. By offering them the chance to accuse a philosophy teacher, they were appealing to the most easily manipulated citizens, particularly the poor youth, to indulge their resentment, jealousy, and hatred. They knew how a tribunal of suitably selected and incited Athenian citizens would react.

Charmides : I have listened carefully to your arguments, and I am sure I will anger you all with my intervention. However, I must say this : Socrates, you are the one who first put us in the state we are in. Our failure is your failure. Our catastrophes are also yours. And I will explain why. Socrates, you were a victim, and we are victims, first and foremost of your own method. Did you not cultivate the idea that one could educate the children of the ruling class in a revolutionary way in order to transform the politics of Athens and, consequently, of all of Greece ? Was this not an illusion ? You were able to see that, despite all the intelligence you instilled in Plato, he could not escape the constraints imposed by his class. Socrates, you fostered the dynamism of an Alcibiades whom you helped in countless ways to gain popularity, including helping him attain military honors that you deserved and he did not. You helped him in this way, but you also encouraged him to believe in himself, which produced the Alcibiades we knew, drunk on his own popularity. Socrates, you cultivated illusions about intellectual superiority and the ability to objectively analyze situations, to the point that some saw it as a superior means to social or political struggle. Some may have believed, through your influence, that philosophical ideas avoided such struggles. Yet, it is violence that engenders new societies, not your dialogues, however interesting they may be. Therefore, I believe, Socrates, if you can hear us, that your teachings in no way protected us from the misfortunes that were to befall us.

Aeschines : I believe our debate has had at least one merit : clarifying the differences between us, and they are now crystal clear. The divergent viewpoints of our friends highlight how far each of us has drifted apart by following our own path. And I think Socrates was the first to realize what was becoming of his disciples. They themselves risked pushing him to compromise with power, to back down in the face of the Athenian ruling class, whether out of calculation, fear, political realism, or opportunism. Yes, under these circumstances, Socrates chose to leave. The reasons for this choice have nothing to do with his advanced age or his state of health. To present Socrates as an old man fearful of old age is to misunderstand him ! As his end approached, didn't Socrates declare : "It would be shameful for a man of my age to worry about the approach of death" ? This doesn't mean he didn't fear death, but neither did it mean he feared old age… The fear of personal hardship and material suffering never guided him, he who had faced death in war so many times. For me, what explains his apparent reluctance to defend himself before his judges is, paradoxically, that he maintains his fight against society. In his statements, he doesn't back down on anything, doesn't renounce any idea, doesn't deny anything, doesn't admit any wrongdoing, and maintains his political project intact. On the other hand, he thus acknowledges that his political project—that of rebuilding the city by constructing, around himself, a circle of conscious and responsible citizens capable of leading it—has encountered unfavorable circumstances and reached its limits. But his ideas, his philosophy, his conceptions—that is his true work, and he defends it by accepting death. It was dying with dignity, as he had lived. His ideas were aimed at achieving immortality !

And the very cause of Socrates' political failure lies right here among us. Let's look at ourselves, my friends. We are the ones who killed Socrates. During his lifetime, didn't Socrates successively distinguish himself from each of us ? Didn't he say to Alcibiades, "Your advantages have inspired you with such pride that you despise all men as inferior to you" ? Didn't he say, regarding Plato, "By Heracles, what falsehoods this young man speaks about me !" ? Didn't Plato reply to Socrates, "I'm afraid I'm not what you would like me to be, but rather, according to Homer, the mediocre man who comes to the table of the wise man uninvited" ? Did he not say to those who, like Alcibiades or Charmides, desired to seize power, claiming to do good : "The city where those who should hold power are least desirous of power is necessarily the one that is best and most peacefully governed" ? I recall Socrates' words before the tribunal : "Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers would have us believe were my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my duties, I have refused no one this pleasure."

Unlike Socrates, and like each of you, I fear tyrants and I, too, dare not stand firm against them. Who among us has stood firm against dictatorship ? Who has never been tempted by power, honors, flattery, money, or luxury ? None !
Who among us, then, can truly call themselves a disciple of Socrates ? Which one could claim to be the continuator of his entire struggle ? Is it Charmides, today the most vindictive against us, but who, yesterday, proved himself a perfect member of a dictatorship when it came to wielding power in Athens ? Is it Xenophon, who insisted on pursuing his military adventures in other territories, even when his battles were far from being guided by the defense of any ideal or the general interest of the peoples whom Socrates championed ? Was it Plato who, during his lifetime, began selling Socrates' philosophy to the general public in as unrevolutionary a form as possible, to the point that Socrates had to publicly distance himself from it ? Was it Alcibiades who achieved great success first in Athens, becoming head of state and general, and then chose to go to Sparta, to the opposing army ? Was it Antisthenes, certainly radical and rigorous in his ideals, but who despised humanity ? Is it those among us who want to limit revolution to a few changes in the city's government ? Is it those who are more radical but unwilling to sacrifice anything of their own way of life ? Who dared to publicly advocate for the abolition of slavery, the very foundation of our societies ? Who openly campaigned for the liberation of women, the most suffering half of humanity ? Who wants to free children, who are considered the property of their fathers within the home, which has become their prison ? None ! In any case, none of us dares to publicly declare that they must be freed from their chains ! Yes, my friends, the tribunal that condemned Socrates was us : it was that of his disciples ! But in doing so, we have only condemned ourselves to impotence. As for Socrates, yes, he was a revolutionary. The Athenian state, in the process of building its dictatorship on Greece, did him the greatest honor by condemning him to death, which shows that it understood very well that ideas are a revolutionary force.

Yes, Socrates was a philosopher. But what kind of philosopher ? He himself said :

“It must be said, first of all, that from their youth, philosophers do not know which way leads to the agora, nor where the court, the council chamber, or any other public meeting place is located. They have neither eyes nor ears for the laws and decrees proclaimed or written. (…) Has any good or bad fortune befallen the State, (…) the philosopher has no more knowledge of it than of the number of drops of water in the sea. He doesn't even know that he is ignorant of all this (…) it is because only his body is present and dwells in the city, while his thought, regarding all this with disdain as petty and worthless things, roams everywhere (…) scrutinizing nature in every way (…) So, my friend, as I said at the beginning, this is what our philosopher is like in the private and public relationships he has with his fellow men. When he is forced to argue in a court or somewhere else (…) his terrible clumsiness makes him appear a fool.” In the heat of insults, he can't muster a single insult of his own against anyone. (...) When people praise and boast, he laughs, but genuinely, and is taken for a fool. He hears a tyrant or a king being praised, and imagines he's hearing the extolling of some shepherd, swineherd, shepherd, or cowherd who gets a lot of milk from his flock. (...) He hears a man who owns a very large tract of land described as prodigiously rich, and he finds it insignificant, accustomed as he is to considering the whole world his own. As for those who sing the praises of nobility and say that a man is well-born because he can prove he has seven wealthy ancestors, he believes that this praise comes from people with narrow and short-sighted views because, lacking education, they can never fix their gaze upon the whole of humankind, nor realize that each of us has countless myriads of forebears and ancestors, among them rich and poor, kings and slaves, barbarians and Greeks who have succeeded one another by the thousands in every family. That someone should boast of a line of twenty-five ancestors and trace their origins back to Heracles, son of Amphitryon, he sees in this only a strange pettiness of mind. (...) In all these circumstances, the common people mock the philosopher, who sometimes appears to them disdainful, sometimes ignorant of what is right at their feet, and perplexed about everything.

A curious description of what a philosopher should be ! It shows that the philosopher expects nothing from the State. That his object of study is rather the world, civil society, the society of people who work and live by their labor. Not that of politicians or the ruling classes. Philosophically, too, Socrates was revolutionary since he proposed to understand the world through its scientific study, whether it be the material world or human society.

The accusations at Socrates' trial were, admittedly, purely slanderous. Socrates was not leading the youth astray, nor was he corrupting them. He was merely trying to win them over to the revolutionary ideal. Aristophanes sought to ridicule this ideal and drag it through the mud, but he started from Socrates' true ideas in order to better refute them. He satirized them, ridiculing Socrates measuring the height of a flea's jump with Chaerephon, but he knew perfectly well what Socrates was trying to demonstrate : that the scientific study of reality leads to an understanding of the leaps, the discontinuities of reality, highlighted by Zeno of Elea. He knew that Socrates' dialectic was not one of discourse, but one encompassing nature, humanity, and society. Consequently, the established order could be brutally transformed into its opposite, for it contained within itself explosive contradictions. And the goal of men and women aware of human needs had to be to move from this exploitative society to one where the communal ownership of the means of production would lead human beings to work only to satisfy their true needs, for the well-being of all and not just a minority. This meant the liberation of slaves, the equality of all people, whether local or foreign, man or woman, former slaves or former citizens, adult or child. Yes, this ideal could frighten the ruling classes ! As Socrates said : "We believe we shape the happy city, not by taking a small number of its inhabitants aside to make them happy, but by considering it as a whole."

What should we call Socrates' ideal ? Neither virtue, nor good behavior, nor self-knowledge, nor good discourse, much to the chagrin of those who call themselves his disciples ! No ! It is communism....

Let us recall what Socrates declared to Glaucon :

"Let us first consider the State. (...) What constitution is meant by oligarchy ? It is the form of government founded on property ownership, where the rich rule and the poor have no share in authority. (...) This hoarding of gold, where everyone piles up, is what destroys this kind of government. First, they discover reasons for spending, and to satisfy them, they bend the laws and no longer obey them, neither they nor their wives. (...) Necessarily, such a State is not one, but two : that of the poor and that of the rich, who inhabit the same land and constantly conspire against one another. (...) Some will be excessively rich and others destitute. (...) It is evident that wherever you see beggars in a State, the same place harbors thieves, pickpockets, sacrilegious people, and evildoers of every kind. (...) Now, as it suffices for a A small, weak body, susceptible to illness from the slightest external shock, sometimes even to unforeseen disturbances, so too does a state, in a similar situation, become prey to disease and internal strife at the slightest opportunity. (...) Is it not the same in a democracy founded on money ? Was it not excessive wealth that served to establish the oligarchy ? (...) Well, it is the same pursuit of money, the same insatiable desire, that causes the downfall of the democracy founded on the same insatiable desire for the accumulation of goods. (...) The same disease that, born in the oligarchy, caused its ruin, also arises in democracy, develops there with greater force and virulence, and reduces the democratic state to slavery. (...) Let us mentally divide the democratic state into the three classes of which it is composed. The first is the same breed that developed at the head of The oligarchy. (...) Then there is another class that always distinguishes itself from the multitude. This is the class that seeks money. (...) The third class is the people, that is to say, all manual laborers and private individuals uninvolved in public affairs who possess only a small amount of wealth. In a democracy, this would be the most numerous and therefore the most powerful class if it were assembled. But it is hardly inclined to assemble. (...) The people are accustomed to choosing a favorite whom they place at their head and whose power they nurture and increase. (...) And the protector of the people begins to transform into a tyrant. (...) This is the moment for all the ambitious who have reached this point to resort to the famous request of the tyrant, to ask the people for bodyguards, so that the "defender of the people" may remain to serve them. And the people give them to him ; for all their fears are for the defender of the people. For their own defense, they do nothing Nothing : he's too self-assured. (...) In the first few days, he only smiles and greets everyone he meets, denying that he's a tyrant,He multiplies promises, both privately and publicly, he forgives debts and distributes land to the people and his favorites, and affects benevolence and gentleness toward everyone. (...) But, when he has finished with his external enemies, (...) he constantly stirs up wars so that the people will need a leader. And also, he arranges for the citizens to be impoverished by taxes and thus forced to attend to their daily needs and conspire less against him. And if he suspects that some of them are too independent-minded to submit to his rule, war gives him a pretext to destroy them by delivering them into the hands of the enemy. For all these reasons, a tyrant is always compelled to foment wars. (...) Thus, in reality, whatever some people may think, the true tyrant is a true slave, of extreme baseness and servility, reduced as he is to flattering the most wicked men, powerless to satisfy his own desires in the slightest (...) He spends his life in continual fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these evils, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? By Jove ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe that there is one like it anywhere in the world.' (...) It matters not whether this State has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized, it is on this one and this one alone that it will base itself and whose laws it will follow."He is a victim of those things that power only exacerbates—I mean envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, the wise man will refuse to take part in public affairs if he harbors such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively so. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has already been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one, and this one alone, that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'He is a victim of those things that power only exacerbates—I mean envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, the wise man will refuse to take part in public affairs if he harbors such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively so. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has already been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one, and this one alone, that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'

It seems to me that, after such statements, we can hardly claim that Socrates was condemned by Athens simply because he practiced philosophy too freely. No, it was indeed Socrates' revolutionary politics, inseparable from his revolutionary philosophy, that was condemned.

His last words before his death were :

“Now, if you wish to discover the truth more easily, do not limit your inquiry to humankind ; extend it to all animals and plants, in short, to everything that comes into being, and let us see, in considering all this, whether it is true that nothing can come into being except from its opposite, when it has an opposite. (…) Let us see, then, whether it is a necessity that everything that has an opposite comes into being from nothing other than its opposite. (…) Another question : is there not, between all these pairs of opposites, a double birth, one that draws one of the two opposites from the other, and the other that draws the latter from the first ? (…) Is it not the same with what we call decomposition and combination, cooling and heating, and so on with everything ?” And if sometimes words fail us to describe it, in fact at least, it is always a necessity that it be so, that opposites are born from one another and that there is generation from one to the other. (…) Don't you admit that the opposite of life is death ? (…) And that they are born from one another ? (…) If, in fact, births were not balanced from one opposite to the other, and turned, so to speak, in a circle, if, on the contrary, they occurred in a straight line and only from one opposite to the one facing it, if they did not return to the other and did not take the opposite direction, you realize that in the end all things would have the same form and would fall into the same state and that generation would cease. (…) If, for example, drowsiness existed on its own, without the awakening that comes from sleep to balance it, you realize (…) that everyone would be asleep. (…) Where does the idea of equality come from ? (…) We say that there is something equal ; I don't mean one piece of wood equal to another piece of wood, nor one stone equal to another, nor anything of the sort, but something else that is beyond all these, equality itself. (…) We must therefore have been aware of equality before the time when, seeing equal things for the first time, we said to ourselves : “All these things tend toward equality, but are only imperfectly so.” (…) Equality must therefore have existed before we were born in order for it to appear to us afterward as a memory. (…) Does it also seem to you that all men can account for these realities we were discussing earlier ? (…) Don't you believe that all men are aware of these realities ? (…) Bring me the poison.

Until then, almost all of us had managed to hold back our tears ; but when we saw him drink, and once he had drunk, we were no longer in control. "What are you doing, my strange friends ?" he cried. "Be calm and steadfast."

Such was Socrates. Future generations will not forget him. He died so that his ideal might live on ! He now belongs to all humanity and he is eternal...

– Menexemus : Socrates practiced politics discreetly—that was his expression—in order to fight the system while protecting himself and avoiding too much attention. He didn't believe that the system could be reformed from within. When one is truly against oppression, dictatorship, slavery, exploitation, and the domination of foreigners, serfs, women, and children, one must wage one's battle without seeking to enter the institutions, however "democratic" they may be toward free men. He was able, discreetly, to assemble a small team of revolutionaries who reasoned and educated themselves together, in anticipation of times when the world would turn… At his trial, Socrates even allowed himself to explain this. I quote him : “Perhaps it seemed strange to you that I went about the streets, giving advice privately and meddling in the affairs of others, yet dared not appear in public assemblies to advise the republic. No one lives very long if they publicly oppose you or openly try to prevent many injustices and illegalities from being committed in the state. If you truly want to fight for justice and live for a while, you must do so discreetly and without making a public spectacle of yourself.” In fighting against injustice, one must organize discreetly, Socrates reminds us, and protect oneself from the ruling classes. The moment he was exposed, Socrates knew that the ruling classes would not let him live, understanding how dangerous such a man, with his courage and competence, could be to them. Of course, everyone can believe that Socrates' life depended on the outcome of the trial. But, since he had been singled out for public condemnation and in the poisonous atmosphere of the city, had he escaped, he would have been found dead in the streets. Socrates undoubtedly preferred that the murder be clearly attributed to Athens, rather than being eliminated anonymously, as had happened to Chaerephon, Thuicides, and many others during the same period. It was a way of forcing the city to take responsibility for its actions and, thus, to definitively mark history by giving full force to his ideas.

For whom would he have lived any longer ? For his disciples ? No ! He expected nothing but setbacks from them. That is why we must not be mistaken : Socrates left because he no longer counted on us. Who killed Socrates ? We did ! His disciples did ! Weakness ! Self-interest ! Cowardice ! "Protect me from my friends ; I can take care of my enemies" is a well-known proverb. Seeing that, one after another, his friends were either disappearing or becoming just like everyone else—men living for self-interest, without principles, without a worldview, without courage—Socrates understood what the future held for him and how much he would have lost by continuing his academy. Some would use philosophy for personal success, to create fame, or even to seize power. What awaited his "school" was disappointment, betrayals both small and large, and all sorts of abuses. He preferred to leave with his head held high…

Socrates' plea at his trial is a perfect demonstration of this. It didn't just shock his judges and the public ; it startled all of us who were there. We must admit it, even if we claimed to know and understand Socrates. This very astonishment speaks volumes about our distance from the master's personal philosophy. Socrates' entire personal stance, in his life as in his trial, was focused on a single fundamental point, decisive for all others : never to back down on any of his personal convictions, whatever the cost. And this meant : don't concern yourself with public opinion, form your own and then defend it against all odds ; don't change anything you think under the pretext of pleasing the majority ; no self-censorship, no allegiance to the powerful, but also no flattery of the oppressed and the common people. Finally, never give in to friends and family, for it is they (not enemies, not adversaries) who have the power to make us back down from our convictions, claiming that life is more important than ideas. Who did Socrates encounter in his struggle to remain steadfast ? The pressure of all his friends and family : we told him he could make amends, that there was nothing scandalous about pleading guilty, about backtracking on a few statements. All this to save his life, to stay with his loved ones, to live with his children, his family, his friends. Enjoying life seemed so much more important to us then than asserting that the gods were this way or that way, that philosophy should be this way or that way. And we, his friends—and it's true that only our love for him sustained us—we almost contributed to his true destruction by discrediting the very foundation of his life ! Socrates had risked his life countless times on the battlefield, not for honor, nor for glory, nor out of a love of war, but to protect friends, family, loved ones, and his people. And for this, for his ideal, he had not feared death. He had saved his friends at the peril of his own life. And now, his very friends were telling him that he shouldn't risk his life for his ideal, because we needed him to stay with us ! What could be more criminal ! And then we offered him another way to betray his principles, by fleeing from prison… That's how we demonstrated that friends are far more dangerous than enemies. It wasn't the accusers or the Athenian court that could kill Socrates' philosophy. Even today, the only ones capable of killing his philosophy are not Aristophanes or Anytus, or any other enemy of Socrates. It is we who are capable of destroying what Socrates was by giving him a false image, the one that suits us, the one that is bearable for us.

Like you, I am a poor revolutionary and a bad philosopher. Like you, all I can do is lament the death of Socrates, and it is myself I pity in this instance. And that means regretting that Athens is not as my illusions had envisioned the city. Socrates never thought that way. Socrates loved reality too much, finding it too fascinating, to distort it in his own eyes. In his final moments, seeing my sadness, he took me aside and whispered in my ear : “Dying is nothing. What is hard is leaving with the thought : I had wonders right beside me and I didn't even look at them.”

Apollodorus : I have only just understood, and it is to my misfortune. I have lost Socrates a second time ! I have only just opened my mind to what truly happened : it was Socrates who condemned Athens far more than Athens condemned Socrates. It was he who deliberately determined the outcome of the trial by definitively shedding his blood upon the city, which will forever be marked for having murdered the philosopher. But it is Socrates who has thus triumphed. On the other hand, we too are condemned, we his so-called disciples, for Socrates has thus turned away from us. I thought I had wept my heart out at his death, but it was not enough. That Socrates turned away from us is a new suffering. A tiny bit of knowledge has just penetrated me, and already I feel I am suffering too much ! I understand now why Socrates said that we know nothing. Knowledge attracts us like light attracts a moth, but we burn our wings in the process. For many, knowledge means power and the ability to act, but in reality, knowledge is a heavy burden and requires great courage. Have we had enough of that, my friends, to claim to carry on Socrates' legacy, I ask you... In any case, I have just witnessed a new trial : our own. And the conclusion, for me, is clear : we are condemned !

Plato : I understand your discouragement, Apollodorus. Socrates always said, "My questions are dearer to me than all the answers." For him, there is no knowledge without perpetual questioning. But being able to live in a state of constant questioning and challenging all established knowledge—that is the courage Socrates demanded. Where some saw denigration or irony, where others imagined a method of questioning, a dialectic of speech, there was in fact a profound and constant need to question one's vision of reality by asking others how they saw it. This was as much a necessity for understanding the thoughts of others as it was for discovering one's own thoughts and for discovering the world. Socrates' happiness lay in the joy of knowledge. Not the joy of possessing a great deal of knowledge, but the joy of always seeking to understand, of constantly deepening our vision of the world. And the joy of sharing this experience with others. He never tired of admiring the world and discussing it with us ! And for him, there were no those who possessed great knowledge on one side and those who did not on the other. For you too, Apollodorus, joy can continue to come from there : discovering, knowing, and sharing.

Eubulides : Socrates had nothing to regret, for he died for his ideals, just as he had lived. He harbored no illusions about the ruling classes and knew that, having revealed his plans, they would no longer allow him to live in peace. As for us, my friends, what Socrates demonstrates is that life can be founded on choices and that building a life is the finest work a person can accomplish. This work lies before each of us and depends on our will.

Phaedo : Don't be distressed, Apollodorus. Socrates died satisfied with the trick he played on his adversaries, and he had no regrets. And first of all, I want to tell you that it was the politicians, the profiteers, and the ruling classes of Athens who were smeared, not the Athenian people. And certainly not Socrates. The people were momentarily deceived, but they weren't the ones who orchestrated the maneuver to discredit Socrates. It was even orchestrated against the people, whose anger and revolts were feared. There's no reason for regret. What struck me was that Socrates departed content. Content, first of all, with the life he had led and the way he had lived it to the very end. For Socrates lived well. According to the principles he intended to uphold. He was poor, but he didn't care, and laughed at those who pretended to give him gifts, inviting him to courtly meals, for example. He looked at luxurious clothes and food and asked : is this really necessary ? He told off those who wanted to offer him slaves to live off the exploitation of other men. He said to Theodore : "The philosopher, when he hears someone speak of a man who owns ten thousand plethra of land as being prodigiously rich, finds it to be very little, he who is accustomed to thinking about the whole world..."Everything interested him except material gain or honors. He was constantly learning from everything and everyone. He was full of questions, because he believed that the most thoughtful person is always learning. He had already lived several lives. He was initially a brilliant sculptor like his father, having sculpted the statue of the Three Clothed Graces that adorns the entrance to the Acropolis. An infantryman in the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, he distinguished himself at the battles of Potidaea, Delos, and Amphipolis, managing to survive many deadly wars while saving several of his comrades. He pursued multiple activities simultaneously. Certainly, he engaged in politics and philosophy. But he also worked at the Euripides Theatre. He sculpted, and beautifully so ! He played the harp. He held every position, from soldier to strategist, from citizen to prime minister, from student to university professor. But his council was that of the revolution, his university, that of the street, his citizens were all people, not just Greeks, not just Athenians. And not just citizens or free men. Not just men, but women too. He did all this without ever abandoning his ideals, without compromising with his adversaries, without yielding to dictatorship or the pressures of democracy. He kept his ideal intact, in the worst of times as well as in times of calm. He yielded neither to misery nor to good fortune, nor to panic or popular fads, nor to the plague, nor to military occupations. He listened neither to the sirens of power nor to those of resentment. Everyone told him a thousand times that he could achieve greater personal success, or success for his ideals, by compromising himself in countless ways, and he simply smiled kindly at them. He questioned them about how to succeed and the goals of that success. And his questions all came back to this one : what is the purpose of life ? Happiness ! Are we happier because we are rich ? Isn't the greatest wealth internal ? How can we make the city happy ? By making people happy ! He didn't oppose collective happiness and individual well-being.

After such a life, Socrates was not afraid of death. This astonishes us, but let us acknowledge that his entire life astonishes us, and that none of us has ever felt capable of living the same life. Of course, we have lost Socrates, but he has not lost his battle. During his trial, he held his head high to the very end. He forced his adversaries either to recant their testimony or to go so far as to kill him. He was not one to beg for leniency by admitting to false accusations. He remained steadfast and upright, applying the principles of his life until his death.

Apollodorus, you raise some excellent questions, and I certainly don't presume to answer them or take them away from you. I wouldn't want to pretend you're simply ignorant and that we have definitive answers. Socrates himself would never have done that. We've simply done as you did and asked ourselves these questions. Your questions are fundamental issues. It's highly likely that generations later, if humanity still exists, others will come and ask them. The important thing is to ask such questions and to delve deeply into this inquiry, courageously and without preconceptions. You'll see that if we do this, we become rich. Not rich in a sum of knowledge, but rich in reflections, personal thoughts, a taste for observing the world, for the philosophical reflection it inspires, for the beauty of nature and for thinking about it. This is not a way for me to dodge your questions, as I will not hide the fact that I tried to answer them.

Even for you, Apollodorus, do not be sad. Socrates has not left you, since his ideas and his memory continue to trouble you. Even the fact that you are not cut out to become a philosopher, or a revolutionary on Socrates' level, nor capable of succeeding him, should not surprise you. You only claimed to have been a faithful friend, and many of us did not aim higher. It was already risky to be Socrates' friend and to accompany him. As for becoming his epigones, that would be tiresome and disappointing. You must be yourself and face reality. As you die, remember his last words. He did not tell us : be wise, nor be virtuous, nor be good revolutionaries, nor be good philosophers, nor be good disciples, nor even spread my ideas well. None of that. He told us : "My friends, be courageous . " In my view, this means : don't be afraid to go wherever your ideas lead you and then defend them to the very end, whatever the cost. Unwittingly, we, his disciples, have just put ourselves on trial ! So, now that our assembly is drawing to a close and nothing but a tribute to his memory is certain to come of it, I propose a libation. Not in honor of Socrates : that would be entirely unbecoming to our departed friend. Nor to the success of his disciples. But let us drink instead to the future humanity, freed from its chains ! I am sure that Socrates would have joined in such a toast in honor of his daimon !

So ! Let us drink together to humanity freed from its chains !

And they all drink, their laughter mingling with tears and sadness…

By Zeus, you will excuse the imprecision of Rovertos Paris's note-taking.

Disclaimer : Rovertos Paris, the rapporteur of this conference, wishes to disclaim all responsibility for the statements made by the supposed disciples of Socrates who participated and cannot guarantee that they were uttered verbatim, given the difficulty of taking notes and then transcribing them accurately. Considering the complexity of the issues addressed—historical, political, social, and philosophical—and given the rapporteur's limitations in understanding and knowledge, the debates of the Megara conference, as reported here, are presented with all due reservations. Anyone who finds that any of the interventions, as reported, are false, based on misinterpretations, nonsense, or have been borrowed from other authors and thinkers, should only address their complaints to the disciples themselves, by communicating them to Paris, who will forward them. Paris claims no ownership of the statements made at the conference, nor any exclusive right to their dissemination.

Socrates, dialectician and communist

What did Socrates mean by his famous "know thyself" ?

Socrates is condemned by us every day.

Ancient Greece : The philosophy of Zeno of Elea and Socrates

Rejoignons les manifestations contre les juges et ministres qui répondent "Affaire classée" aux enfants et femmes maltraités !

Alex, Waraa — 2026-06-17T22:53:00Z

Rejoignons les manifestations contre les juges et ministres qui répondent "Affaire classée" aux enfants et femmes maltraités !

Lyhanna : un meurtre qui comme d'autres, était évitable

Il y eut les Gilets Jaunes, il y eut l'appel du 10 septembre 2025 le meurtre de la collégienne Lyhanna a donné lieu à un mouvement qui est une réponse collective similaire du "peuple", une colère qui prend la forme de manifestations. Ces manifestations programmées les lundis devant les tribunaux, dénoncent les juges, procureurs, officiers de police ou de gendarmerie, ceux qui comme des députés sont surpayés, et ne font pas ce pour quoi ils sont payés ! C'est la vérité de l'Etat bourgeois mise à nu :

De nombreuses associations féministes et enfantistes, parmi lesquelles NousToutes, la Fondation des femmes, Face à l'inceste, le Collectif Féministe contre le viol, avaient appelé à des rassemblements en début de soirée devant les tribunaux de plus de 160 villes de France. (...) Le plus gros rassemblement a eu lieu place Vendôme, devant le ministère de la justice, malgré son interdiction, rejoint par les actrices Anna Mouglalis et Judith Godrèche, la fille de Richard Berry Coline Berry, ou encore le militant Arnaud Gallais. Plusieurs centaines de manifestants – des femmes pour la plupart –, dont beaucoup « en colère », étaient rassemblés aux cris de « Darmanin démission » et « Justice pour les enfants » sous les fenêtres de la chancellerie, protégée par plusieurs dizaines de membres des forces de l'ordre.

Le Monde (8 juin)

Se rassembler sans demander la permission comme le faisaient les Gilets jaunes sur les ronds-points ; et crier « Darmanin démission » !, un slogan juste de ces rassemblements des lundis, c'est un embryon de mouvement révolutionnaire. La corruption des organisations politiques et syndicales parlant au nom des travailleurs (LO, NPA-R, PC, LFI, PS, CGT, Sud, est révélée par le fait que 1) ces organisations n'appellent pas à ces rassemblement 2) ces organisations défendent l'appareil d'Etat coupable (juges, armée, ASE).

« Quand l'échec est permanent, ce n'est plus un accident » est une manière d'évoquer ce que les marxistes appellent l'appareil d'Etat.

Car les tribunaux, ce sont l'appareil d'Etat. Que des fractions de la population dénoncent, affrontent, pour l'instant par la seule arme des mots, un morceau de cet appareil d'Etat, c'est un embryon de révolution prolétarienne. Même si le prolétariat ne joue pas un rôle primordial. Car la seule perspective d'avenir, c'est la destruction de l'Etat bourgeois par le prolétariat. Etre marxiste c'est, c'est être aux côtés de ces manifestants et affirmer la nécessité de la destruction cet appareil d'Etat, dont font partie les juges corrompus.

Epstein, J. Lang, Betharam l'ASE : l'appareil d'Etat français proxénète des mineurs

Le fait que l'appareil d'Etat français soit un organe criminel acteur des violences sexuelles contre la jeunesse est devenu en quelques mois de notoriété publique. Epstein avait choisi la France comme plaque tournante européenne de ses trafics, il avait bien des raisons de le faire.

Aucune mise en examen dans l'affaire Epstein, ou dans l'affaire Jack-Caroline Lang ses complices social-démocrates. Que l'ASE soit un fournisseur de chair fraîche pour les amateurs de prostitution d'enfants a été mis à jour par des associations. Comment Epstein avait-il la permission de transporter à partir de la France des mineures dans son avion Lolita Express ? Sans doute en passant par les aéroports de l'armée française, c'est à dire avec la complicité de la colonne vertébrale de l'Etat français, son armée, son gouvernement, son Président.

Patrick Bruel : le droit de cuissage des patrons

Partrick Bruel est un patron du secteur de la culture, à travers sa société de production "14 Productions". C'est sur leur lieu de travail que des travailleuses se plaignent d'avoir été agressées par ce patron, protégé par ses amis les patrons de TF1, à travers les prestations des "Enfoirés".

Lyhanna la victime qui n'aurait pas dû mourir était élève du collège Jean-Rostand de Mont-de-Marsan, chef-lieu du département des Landes (40), en région Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Culture et Enseignement, ce sont les secteurs d'activité couverts par la fédération FERC de la CGT, dont Sophie Binet est issue. N. Arthaud, prote-parole de LO, travaille dans le secteur de l'enseignement. Ni S. Binet, ni N. Arthaud n'ont appelé à une quelconque grève politique dans l'Enseignement et la Culture, pour dénoncer les violences sexuelles sont victimes les adolescentes et les jeunes travailleuses dans ces deux secteurs ! Au lieu de la convergence des luttes, c'est l'absence de luttes qu'elles prônent, la passivité, le respect de « l' Etat », qu'il faut admonester amicalement pour qu'il fasse mieux son travail.

Adressons-nous aux collégien(ne)s, enseignants et salariés du secteur de la culture :

Syndiquez vous : ces crimes ont lieu sur des lieux de travail, défendez vous comme partie prenante du mouvement ouvrier !

Vos syndicats locaux, dans le secteur public, sont des "jaunes" ? Formez des comités de défense de collégiennes et de femmes, ouverts aux femmes autant qu'aux hommes.

Le tribunal d'Auch, en AG, dénonce la "vindicte populaire"

Les personnels du Tribunal d'Auch font bloc et dénoncent les "gueux" :

Les personnels du tribunal d'Auch (Gers) ont adopté une motion mettant en cause « un discours politique décomplexé » émanant de « personnalités politiques placées au plus haut niveau de responsabilité », conduisant à la « vindicte populaire », après l'affaire Lyhanna. Jérôme Barella, le principal suspect du meurtre de la collégienne de 11 ans, avait fait l'objet, avant les faits, de plusieurs signalements et plaintes liés à des violences sexuelles sur mineurs sans jamais avoir été inquiété avant la disparition de Lyhanna. (...)
« Cette défiance publique envers la magistrature a déjà des conséquences : insultes, menaces de mort reçues par madame la procureure de la République [Clémence Meyer], discours de certains justiciables en audience », précisent les signataires dans cette motion votée le 8 juin lors d'une assemblée générale réunissant l'ensemble des magistrats, fonctionnaires et contractuels du tribunal d'Auch. (...)
Les personnels du tribunal d'Auch affirment aussi leur « plein et entier soutien à madame la procureure de la République et plus largement au parquet d'Auch, qui reste indéfectiblement engagé à la défense des valeurs qui fondent notre République et permettent le vivre ensemble ».

(...) En propos liminaires de ce document, les signataires ont souhaité « adresser leurs pensées à la famille et aux proches de Lyhanna, et s'associe[r] à leur douleur ».

le Monde (10 juin)

La procureure Clémence Meyer joue les Marie-Antoinette locales : les "menaces de mort reçues par madame" ne sont rien, comparées aux coups mortels reçus par Lyhanna.

Ces "travailleurs" du tribunal d'Auch, petits et gros salaires réunis, incarnent cette aristocratie ouvrière incrustée dans l'Etat. Aucun dysfonctionnement, au contraire ces travailleurs se vantent d'être les garants de "l'ordre moral de gauche" ! Pourquoi en 1789, les juges et la police de l'Ancien régime ont disparu instantanément, remplacés par les sans-culottes ? Leur auto-satisfaction insultante pour "Les Misérables" était à la hauteur de celle tribunal d'Auch.

La gauche politique et syndicale accusent le "patriarcat", l' "extrême-droite", voulant masquer leur complicité et casser ce mouvement des lundis

Les partis politiques, de droite et de gauche, sont un agent actif dans cette pourriture qui règne au coeur de l'appareil d'Etat. Le meurtre de Robert Boulin a été orchestré par la droite, s'appuyant sur des juges, des policiers et de maffieux agissant de concert. Elizabeth Guigou qui fait partie du Conseil de la magistrature sensée surveiller les juges, était l'amie au PS de DSK et J. Lang, deux des pires prédateurs politiques sexuels français, jamais condamnés en France. Les magistrats ne sont pas gênés d'avoir une telle tutelle !

Le "mouvement des lundis" existe déjà depuis 7 juin :

Les associations féministes et de défense des enfants appellent à se rassembler tous les lundis soir devant les tribunaux en France et devant le ministère de la Justice à Paris pour réclamer une loi intégrale contre les violences.

Cette coalition, qui regroupe quelque 150 associations et syndicats, organise également une grande manifestation le 4 juillet : « l'idée, c'est de faire une marche populaire et rassembleuse, à laquelle tout le monde peut participer », a précisé jeudi à l'AFP Anne-Cécile Mailfert, présidente de la Fondation des femmes.

Oui, ce sont des individus isolés, regroupés dans des associations, qui comme pour Betharam sont le fer de lance de tels mouvements. Mais des "personnalités" comme Anne-Cécile Mailfert représentent dans ce mouvement l'équivalent de S. Binet dans le mouvement du 10 septembre : de faux amis, chargés par les institutions de casser ces mouvements en y paradant.

Anne-Cécile Mailfert, c'est la gauche "néo-féministe" wokiste, qui distille son pseudo-féminisme sur France -Inter, grâce à Stéphane Sitbon, son petit ami qui est également directeur des antennes et des programmes de France Télévisions.

Manifestants des lundis, les pseudo-féministes de l'espèce d'Anne-Cécile Mailfert, ce sont les amis politiques de DSK et Jack Lang qui viennent prétendument défendre les femmes et les enfants ! Elles ont trouvé le gène du crime, c'est le chromosome Y, l'homme et la "masculinité". Ou encore le "patriarcat", système social condamnable, mais dont on ne voit pas trop le rôle dans cet épisode.

L'extrême-gauche n'appelle pas aux manifestations

L'extrême-gauche électorale est perturbée par cet épisode comme elle le fut par les Gilets jaunes. Elle use en ce moment ses militants à aller quémander les signatures pour les élections présidentielles. De plus les organisations syndicales défendent l'Etat, qui finance les confédérations syndicales où ces organisations veulent conquérir des positions. L'extrême-gauche suit. Jouant un rôle de démoralisateur, ces organisations "révolutionnaires" décrètent qu'il est impossible de rien fait, attendons que "les mentalités" évoluent :

La raison d'être de l'État, des gouvernements capitalistes, de la police et de la justice, c'est la défense de l'ordre social et de la propriété des plus riches. Jamais la protection des plus vulnérables ne sera leur priorité.

NPA le 8 juin

Ainsi, l'Etat n'est pas coupable, simplement il ne "remplit pas bien sa mission" qui est serait la protections des plus vulnérables. C'est exactement la même analyse que servent ce genre d'organisations à propos des directions syndicales : elles " ne font pas" certaines choses. Mais que l'Etat et les directions syndicales soient un ennemi à abattre, aujourd'hui, ces organisations ne le disent pas. Il faut attendre "la révolution".

N. Arthaud pour LO, spécule sur "l'ordre social"

On ne combattra pas les comportements asociaux, individualistes et violents sans changer en profondeur la société.

Le bourreau de Lyhanna est le père d'une de ses amies. Et combien de femmes, de filles et de garçons sont victimes de membres de leur famille ou de leur entourage ? Ces crimes, tristement courants, ne viennent pas de nulle part. La frustration, le sexisme, les rapports de domination qui imprègnent la société, ont des effets dramatiques sur les relations entre hommes et femmes, entre adultes et enfants. Ce sont ces racines qu'il faut arracher. Cela ne peut se faire qu'en menant un combat de fond contre l'ordre social.

Lutte Ouvrière 8 juin

Or ce qui est mis en question par les manifestants, ce n'est pas le profil de l'assassin présumé J. Barella, ce sont ceux qui l'ont couvert.
Les juges et procureurs, les gendarmes qui prennent des décisions, LO ne les nomme pas, dissout leur responsabilité derrière « les relations entre hommes et femmes, entre adultes et enfants ».

Dans leur éditoriaux du 8 juin LO et le NPA-R, ont un point commun : ils n'appellent à aucune grève, aucune manifestation des lundis. L'extrême-gauche électoral boycotte le "mouvement des lundis", comme elle boycotta les Gilets jaunes.

Or la place des révolutionnaires est, indiscutablement, dans ces manifestations du lundi !

The permanent revolution and the end of women's oppression

Karob, Robert Paris — 2026-06-17T03:48:00Z

To the women who are fed up…

…fed up with being treated like sexual submissives

…fed up with a society where they always have to put themselves below

…fed up with a society where women are pointed at and objectified

…fed up with risking violence from men, including their spouses

…fed up with being threatened by wars and civil wars, by fascism and dictatorships, by the abuses of armies

…fed up with being told that their children will have to be sacrificed in the next wars and that they will have to be… satisfied or at least submissive once again
…fed up with their children suffering from diseases linked to capitalism and its stage of collapse (death in childbirth, death from respiratory diseases, cancers due to the agri-food industry, pesticides and fertilizers, due to the chemical, nuclear, metallurgical industries, etc.)

…fed up with this political and social world where women are even more enslaved than the exploited, because they are doubly oppressed and exploited

And to the men who are tired of playing such a role or being considered as such and who do not want to support patriarchal capitalism !

Two days before a women's demonstration on November 22nd, four femicides took place in France on Thursday, November 20th alone, in four very different locations, affecting women of all ages and backgrounds. All were killed by their partner or ex-partner.

Four in a single day in France demonstrates that the wave of violence against women is swelling in this otherwise democratic and wealthy country, as it is throughout the world. And far more than statistics suggest, women are frequently threatened with death, assaulted, raped, and abused, and young women are victims of crimes. Much of this violence occurs within the family and is not even due to external factors, despite the often-heard propaganda falsely attributing this violence to immigration !

According to UN figures, a woman or girl is killed every 10 minutes by her intimate partner or another family member.

Indeed, 85,000 women and girls were intentionally killed worldwide in 2023, and 60% of these crimes, or 51,000, were committed by an intimate partner or another family member. Every day, 140 women or girls die at the hands of their partner or a close relative.

There are of course other types of violence, particularly those near places of war, where women are considered spoils of war and violence against them is a way of punishing the population of the opposing camp.

There are also kidnappings carried out by armies at war, whether official armies like in Sudan or terrorist armies like in Nigeria.

It is no coincidence that at the same time we are told that we have to get used to it : we must accept dying… in war.

Because this is also a war that is currently being waged against women.

It's important to remember that women are far more anti-militarist and anti-repression than men, both young and old. Therefore, they must be terrorized to silence them and force them to remain silent for fear of the violence society might inflict upon them.

It is also about creating, through the rise in violence by men against women, a climate of war where young men are proud to participate in a slaughter, as Chief of Staff Mandon so eloquently and with well-chosen words expressed before the deputies and then before the mayors (not the mothers !)…

The more the slide towards widespread war becomes official, the more people know that society is about to descend into the worst kind of violence, and the more crucial the search for scapegoats becomes for the ruling classes who don't want to be blamed for this carnage. Of course, the opposing side is blamed : Russia and China, naturally, but also Iran and North Korea. But then there are immigrants, undocumented immigrants, the unemployed, the Yellow Vest-type rebels, the so-called conspiracy theorists, and the "let's block everything" crowd. And to all these scapegoats, women are inevitably added. They are accused of not understanding the benefits of militaristic nationalism, the necessities of the pursuit of profit even at the expense of the family, the needs of the warrior man and his precious rest…

It is remarkable that at the same time as society is officially fighting against violence and discrimination against women, these are multiplying without the dominant society doing anything to stop them.

To all those women (and men) who are fed up, we say : BREAK WITH THE CAPITALISTS, THEIR SYSTEM, THEIR STATES, THEIR SOCIETY, THEIR INSTITUTIONS, AND JOIN THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT TO OVERTHINK THE INFERNAL COUPLE OF PATRIARCHY-CAPITALISM
The permanent revolution and the end of women's oppression

The "permanent revolution" is a political orientation developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. It has nothing in common with the organization in France, which adopted this name without even supporting any of the policies it espouses.

What, then, is this “strategy of permanent revolution” ? Permanent revolution is opposed to reformism, and even to gradual, step-by-step revolution, to supposedly realistic objectives, to the real or imagined prejudices of the proletariat, to the fear of radicalism, to the opposition between the immediate reformist program and the long-term communist program. It aims to transform into revolutionary weapons, to be turned against the system with the maximum force and determination, all the abuses, suffering, and oppression inflicted upon the people by the old reactionary society. To this end, the revolutionary proletariat must become the voice of all those who suffer these evils, their most radical defender, the only one that wishes, without the slightest hesitation, to put a definitive and irreversible end to these ills and their root causes inherent in the system itself.

And, used in this way, the oppression of women is an incredible potential bombshell that the proletariat can send in the face of the capitalist world and imperialist domination over the world.

With the "permanent revolution", the aim is to direct the social revolution of the proletariat in such a way that it is not satisfied with only one of its stages, one of its objectives, one of its demands, but combines them all, links them indissolubly, so that they reinforce each other, destroy the old social and political order from top to bottom, and serve to build the new order, to build socialism and communism.

Regarding the oppression of women, this is not about praising bourgeois and petty-bourgeois feminists, nor about subjugating workers' social movements to such leaders, of course. More generally, it is not a question of the proletariat subservienting itself to bourgeois or petty-bourgeois aspirations for changing an order that has become unbearable for everyone, but, on the contrary, of the proletariat taking the lead in all struggles and using them as weapons to completely overthrow the old economic and social order.

The goal of permanent revolution is not simply to reduce inequalities, nor even to advocate for equality (equality between capitalists and the exploited—what does that even mean ?), nor merely to narrow the immense chasm between rich and poor, to obtain a little more democracy, a little more respect from those in power, a little more peace, a little less war, a little more wealth distributed to the entire population and a little less to the wealthiest, to eliminate the most blatant and barbaric dictatorships, and other such illusory and supposedly progressive objectives. These objectives are all the more illusory because we have reached the stage of capitalist collapse where reform is more illusory than ever, even counter-reforms are no longer sufficient, and the capitalist elite needs an ultra-radical and violent counter-revolution !

No, the social revolution must be permanent, that is to say, it must not stop in the face of any obstacle, must not be satisfied with any half-measures, but must always go further, moving from the demolition of the old medieval and feudal order which still exists everywhere, particularly through religions, states, monarchies and even bourgeois republics, to the complete elimination of military dictatorships by completely disarming the old ruling classes and of course the capitalist bourgeoisie, by eliminating all of its armed forces, by liberating oppressed nationalities, oppressed ethnic groups, oppressed religions, oppressed women, oppressed youth, the impoverished middle classes, etc.

We have shown on this website, Matter and Revolution, that women were once masters of their own destiny and not only were not dominated but played a leading role in society. This is what has been called matriarchy, which is not the opposite of patriarchy in that it does not imply the oppression of men. This refers to the phase of humanity known as primitive communism, which existed throughout the world until the Neolithic period and sometimes even until the Bronze Age—that is, before the great development of agriculture, sedentary lifestyles, and the emergence of social classes and the state, but also before the exploitation of man by man. In other words, until the establishment of patriarchy across almost the entire planet.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8499

But for us, defending the thesis of an ancient matriarchy is not simply about rehabilitating the past of women in early societies. Certainly, this ideological position must be won, but it is for a current purpose, not just a scientific one (prehistoric and historical). Defending the idea of a matriarchy that dominated the world from the era of primitive communism to the Neolithic or Bronze Age is not merely correcting a scientific error ; it is also a flag pointing toward the future. This matriarchy meant that women long held somewhat greater power than men, even if it was not state-based power, founded on laws, repressive measures, or the oppression or exploitation of men (males, in short), as patriarchy is founded on the exploitation and oppression of women with the help of the state and for the greater profit of the exploiting class. Under matriarchy, the exploitation of man by man did not yet exist or was barely embryonic due to the limited labor capacity of each human being. The division of labor among human beings was not yet established.

And patriarchy has since dominated almost everywhere to this day, except where social revolution has triumphed, such as in the Paris Commune of 1871, the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the Spanish Revolution of 1936. History has long since demonstrated the link between social revolution and the liberation of women.

How the permanent revolution intends to work towards the liberation of women, and how it plans to use this objective to significantly strengthen the revolution, is the question that must now be explored. The oppression of women is an ancient remnant of the old pre-capitalist systems of oppression that capitalism has adopted and fully exploited for its own benefit. Even when capitalist society was at its peak, it never relinquished this horror. Now that the capitalist system is in its death throes, it feels an even greater need to exacerbate the oppression of women in order to maintain its power over the world.

The best definition of permanent revolution is to say that it is about transforming all forms of oppression and exploitation of the old, rotten society into weapons of the proletariat to definitively overthrow capitalism and imperialism as well as all more ancient forms of oppression such as religious oppression or the patriarchal oppression of women.

Capitalism has chosen patriarchy as a means of domination to ensure the stability of its society of exploitation of proletarian labor. Well, in order to liberate themselves, the latter, who are the main revolutionary force of the old society, must have no fear or reluctance to transform women's aspirations for liberation into weapons of struggle, they must even take the lead in this struggle, they must place this fight at the forefront of their battle banner, they must not even wait for the hour of revolution to proclaim this objective in factories and neighborhoods, to carry it into the unions as well as the committees of the working people, to denounce all the parties and unions that are reluctant to do so or that only pretend to support women's rights and claim that capitalism and its states are working towards gender equality.

We have already shown in articles on the Matière et Révolution website that capitalism is constantly worsening the situation of women around the world :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2545

We have shown that the liberation of women has never come and will never come from the institutions of the bourgeoisie :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2931

We have shown that decaying, abiding capitalism, more antisocial and bloody than ever, is even more incompatible with women's freedom :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7743

We have shown that capitalism and patriarchy reinforce each other and that, in order to end capitalism, we must also end patriarchy :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4397

We have shown that patriarchy is an instrument of war waged by big capital against women and against people :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5352

We have shown that oppressed women and exploited workers can fight together for the overthrow of capitalism :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6903

It remains for us to show how to transform the social horror of the oppression of women into a real bomb that the revolutionary proletariat and rebellious women can throw directly into the mouth of the system of exploitation and oppression that has long dominated the world.

We repeat, the policy of permanent revolution consists of turning the weapons of the capitalist system against itself. The oppression of women must, in the revolutionary strategy of the proletariat, be a weapon aimed directly and violently against the entire system.

And it is first and foremost the objective of the socialist and proletarian revolution that must be clearly established and declared, namely, a return to… matriarchy ! We will be told : “But that would be oppressing men (in the masculine sense) !” Not at all. The old matriarchy was not a system of oppression and exploitation. It did not serve to support a society of oppression and exploitation, since such a society did not yet exist. Primitive communism knew neither private property nor the exploitation of man. And since socialism seeks to challenge these two foundations of the backwardness of current human societies, it is logical to consider returning to the relations between men and women that existed then. This can only frighten the timid and amuse only fools. These people will tell you : “Proletarian men are incapable of it ; there are no more misogynistic men !” "This is where we see how much reformists and opportunists despise the capabilities of the proletariat, as soon as it decides to break in a revolutionary way with the old mess of the world.

It is by affirming this radical objective, the most radical one that exists in this matter, that the proletariat can take the lead in the struggle for women's liberation. And they will not only destroy the patriarchy. They will also affirm that other mortal enemies of women must be definitively eliminated : the standing army of the bourgeoisie, the cause of wars in which women and children are the first victims ; the false, macho, and misogynistic domination that makes women victims of permanent and deadly sexist violence ; and sexual and pedophilic exploitation by completely liberating women and giving them real power.

And we have shown on our website, Matter and Revolution, that the old matriarchy was a system where women held slightly more power than men. But, as the skeptics and moderates will say, "all you have to do is demand equality between men and women." It's clear that these people are primarily afraid of going too far, of being too radical, of having too much trouble convincing others, but they aren't afraid of weakening the proletarian camp in the death war being prepared against capitalism and imperialism. No super-powerful weapon will be superfluous in this fierce struggle that is brewing ! "We'll cut ourselves off from the masses who haven't reached that point yet" is the leitmotif of these people, including those who call themselves revolutionaries, as soon as anyone suggests going to the root of the problem to cut it off radically. They keep saying that "it's going to hurt too much, it's going to be too difficult," like passengers going into space who don't want the rocket's thrust to be too strong so as not to inconvenience the passengers, and who, on the other hand, are not afraid that the rocket will fall back down…

These are the same pseudo-radicals, whether they call themselves far-left or not, who refuse to promote the dictatorship of workers' councils—in short, the soviets ! That would scare away moderate workers (or rather, the working-class elite within the union apparatus) ! They also refuse to advocate for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus : army/police/prisons/gendarmerie/special forces ! Nor do they want to promote the arming of the proletariat… But they also refuse to establish a link between the proletariat and all the oppressed, all the exploited, all the victims of the system (petty bourgeoisie, the poor, women, young people, the unemployed, the homeless, fishermen, farmers, undocumented immigrants, etc.). Here again, the aim is not to alarm the union apparatus that shelters these so-called radicals !

So, you think, proclaiming from the rooftops that we're going back to matriarchy is way too much, even if these people occasionally write that they want to one day put an end to capitalism and therefore build socialism and communism. But that's a long way off… one day…

But matriarchy, even if it's not the direct oppression of men by women, nor their exploitation, is still the primacy of women, their power first. It's unequal, some say. They want "equality."

But then, for our budding radicals, workers' power means more power for the workers than for… others ! That's unequal, isn't it ? In fact, they just want a little more democracy, these famous "radicals".

As Karl Marx said, to be truly radical is to attack evil at its root ! That is why he said he was not only for revolution but for permanent revolution, the kind that never stops digging, deepening, getting to the heart of things, attacking the very core of evil, of the old society and uprooting it completely.

This is what we are going to do with the patriarchy. And this also means uprooting the capitalist army. Uprooting, too, the religions that blame women (in all the Gardens of Eden), that trap women (and men) in an anti-feminine ideological snare. Uprooting bourgeois education, both formal and informal. Uprooting the misogyny and machismo of the media, science, philosophy, art, and so on.

Some radicals are content to see women at the forefront of the uprisings, whether it be the one that began in 2010-2011 in North Africa, the Arab world, and then worldwide, including the beginning of the Yellow Vest movement. But they fail to draw the truly radical conclusions that are necessary. Women will be at the head of the struggle because they suffer a double oppression, both as the exploited and as women. Therefore, they must also have primacy in the society that will be built.

But no, our critics will say, they will have equality. Well, my critics, you will understand that to straighten a stick, you have to bend it in the other direction. That's what happens with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it's even necessary to take away democratic rights from the former exploiters, the former political or military leaders. You don't go directly from the crooked to the right. You have to, as Hegel would say, go through the negation of the negation to arrive at the affirmation ! Patriarchy negated matriarchy. Matriarchy must negate patriarchy ! And it is the negation of the negation that will liberate both women and men.

Yes, men need to free themselves from their false superiority, from their false needs : to despise, to dominate, to hit, to subdue, to decide alone, to believe themselves superior, to satisfy their sexual and psychological needs at the expense of the other sex, to be attracted to forbidden and forced relationships, all kinds of false needs that the capitalist and patriarchal system, using all modern media and technologies, has implanted in their heads.

The radicalism of these false radicals is limited to a few changes in vocabulary, allowing women to access (verbally) professions that linguistics attributes only to (masculine) men.

This so-called feminist linguistics does not change the reality of women's lives.

And especially not in a phase of society where the ruling class is working to generalize war, fascism, dictatorship, crush revolts, oppress, impoverish, terrorize more than ever, all things of which women are the first victims.

No, bourgeois and petit-bourgeois feminism, which is too timid to even seriously criticize the dominant system and recognize that it is dying, is not enough. It will require a new system, and it won't be established with just… words !

Fundamentally, it will be necessary to destroy the capitalist state (including that of the so-called democracies) and imperialism, and for this, women absolutely need to unite with revolutionary proletarians, and the reverse is also true.

The so-called democracies didn't lift a finger when the revolts around the world were crushed, with women being the first to be targeted. Oh no ! They lifted a finger to support dictatorships. Including in the Arab world. Including in Saudi Arabia. Including in Afghanistan. Including in Iran. Including in Algeria. In the Yellow Vest movement, as in the one in the US, the forces of repression of "democracy" struck first… women !

So, you who fight capitalism, you still don't want to put women first in the future society ?

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort...

Robert Paris — 2026-06-16T22:33:00Z

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

Il faut déjà remarquer que ce ne sont pas les ministères de la Santé, de l'Industrie, de la Justice, de la Police ni des services sanitaires de l'administration française qui ont relevé l'activité criminelle des industriels de la région de Lyon mais l'ONU !

Document 1

Document 2

Le couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

L'industrie capitaliste chimique se défend mais ni pour défendre les emplois ni pour défendre la population…

La population se défend

Les « accidents » se multiplient et révèlent une dangerosité accrue…

La chimie de la région de Lyon pollue mortellement et sciemment…

Un des résultats est l'empoisonnement aux PFAS. L'Etat est au courant et…ne fait rien…

Les cancers et autres maladies se multiplient dans la vallée et la région de Lyon. Le risque catastrophique est sans cesse évité de justesse… IL FAUT ARRETER LA MACHINE A TUER !!!

La vraie lutte écologique est une lutte contre les capitalistes, une lutte de classes !

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

Robert Paris — 2026-06-16T09:17:03Z

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

“We are adversaries of the existing order ; we are its enemies through and through. We do not respect the flag of the United States. It is a symbol of oppression… It flies over the worst places and carries no message for us. We do not believe in a hierarchy of wages. We propose to abolish the entire wage system and give every man a chance. We do not believe in God. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the biggest plasphemy in the world because it preaches submission to the current order, promising a better life… in the future.”

IWW, San Diego Union Meeting, April 25, 1912

“We are opposed to the existing order ; we are against it from bottom up. We do not respect the laws or flag of the United States. It is a symbol of oppression ; . . . It floats over the vilest places and has no message for us. We do not believe in the system of wages. We propose to overthrow the whole system and give every man a chance. We do not believe in a God. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been the greatest curse in the world because it preaches submission to the present order, promising something better in a future life.”

IWW, San Diego Union, April 25, 1912

During the period of rapid industrial development and concentration, the American labor movement also experienced significant growth in the 1870s and 1880s, taking on unique forms. For example, the Knights of Labor, a producers' fraternity—initially secretive for security reasons—reached 700,000 members by the mid-1880s. Open to women and Black people, it advocated for the eight-hour workday, the nationalization of railroads, the abolition of monopolies, and the formation of cooperative enterprises. It brought together skilled and unskilled workers, union members and non-union members alike, as well as artisans and small business owners. Consequently, its leadership rejected class conflict, and after a series of deadly clashes, its influence declined, challenged by the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This organization, led by Samuel Gompers, brought together trade unions, without seeking to unify their actions or to open itself up to unskilled workers and the unemployed, and openly advocated negotiation, compromise and reform.

In various sectors of the American economy, particularly in railroads and mining in the western United States, workers rejected the methods of the AFL and organized themselves based on their industry. From this regrouping emerged the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905, a labor federation founded on industry-based organization. The IWW—later nicknamed the Wobblies—adopted revolutionary syndicalist principles, comparable to those of the Charter of Amiens, and methods of direct action—strikes or sabotage if necessary—rather than negotiation between union leaders and employers. For more than ten years, they spearheaded numerous struggles across the United States.

Committed internationalists, they opposed US participation in World War I and faced deadly repression. Although they still exist, the IWW has since been unable to mobilize a significant number of workers, but their principles—one union for all workers—and the forms they took in their actions have continued to influence social struggles in the United States.

The First World War also served to crush the revolutionary workers' movement in the USA !

In 1912, the IWW, a revolutionary syndicalist organization advocating class struggle, had some 50,000 members, primarily concentrated in the Northwest, among dockworkers, farm laborers in the Midwestern states, and textile and mining regions. The IWW was involved in over 150 strikes, including the Lawrence Textile Strike (1912), the Paterson Silk Strike (1913), and the Mesabi Range Strike (1916). They were also involved in what is known as the Wheatland Hop Riot on August 3, 1913.

Between 1915 and 1917, the IWW's Farm Workers Organization (AWO) brought together hundreds of thousands of seasonal farmworkers throughout the Midwest and Western United States, registering and unionizing them, often in the fields, on the railroads, and in hobo camps.10 During this period, IWW workers were practically indistinguishable from hobos. Since itinerant workers could scarcely afford other means of transportation to reach their next job, covered freight cars, which hobos called "side-door coaches," were frequently plastered with IWW posters. An IWW membership card was considered sufficient for rail travel. Workers often obtained better working conditions through direct action at the workplace, staging sit-down strikes that consciously and collectively slowed down their work. The working conditions of seasonal farm workers saw a huge improvement thanks to Wobbly's unionism.

Building on the success of the AWO, the Lumber Workers Industrial Union (LWIU) used similar methods to organize loggers and other forestry workers in both the Deep South and along the Pacific coast of the Pacific Northwest in the United States and Canada between 1917 and 1924. The IWW lumbermen's strike of 1917 led to the eight-hour workday and greatly improved working conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Although mid-century historians credited the U.S. government and "visionary lumber magnates" for these concessions, it was an IWW strike that secured them.

Beginning in 1913, the Marine Transport Workers Industrial Union (MWW) proved itself a force to be reckoned with. It competed with the unions of the American Federation of Labor for dominance in the industry. Given its commitment to international solidarity, its efforts and successes in this area were not surprising. Local 8, a branch of the union, was led by Ben Fletcher ; he had recruited primarily African American longshoremen from the docks of Philadelphia and Baltimore. Other leaders included the Swiss immigrant Waler Nef, Jack Walsh, E.F. Doree, and the Spanish seaman Manuel Rey. The IWW was also present on the docks of Boston, New York, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Eureka, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver, as well as in ports in the West Indies, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and other nations.

The IWW often struggled to maintain its gains, even where, as in Lawrence, it had won its strikes. In 1912, the IWW rejected collective bargaining agreements and advocated a permanent struggle on the shop floor against the employer. However, sustaining this revolutionary momentum against employers proved difficult. In Lawrence, the IWW lost almost all its members in the years following the strike, as employers gradually undermined the resistance of their employees and eliminated most of the union's most ardent supporters.

Clarice Stasz, Jack London's biographer, notes that he "saw the Wobblies as a beneficial contribution to the socialist cause, although he wasn't radical enough to call for sabotage, for example." She mentions a personal meeting between London and Big Bill Haywood in 1912.

The effectiveness of the IWW's nonviolent tactics provoked a violent reaction from the government, business circles, and groups of "citizens." In 1914, Joe Hill (Joel Hägglund) was accused of murder and, despite only circumstantial evidence, was executed by the state of Utah in 1915. On November 5, 1916, in Everett, a group of businessmen, appointed as sheriffs and led by Sheriff Donald McRae, attacked union members on the ocean liner Verona, killing at least five (six others were never found and likely disappeared in Puget Sound). Two members of the gang were killed, and although the exact circumstances remain unknown, it is believed that the two deputies were hit by friendly fire.

Many IWW members opposed US participation in the First World War. The organization passed a resolution against the war at its November 1916 convention. This echoes the view expressed at the IWW's founding convention that war is a struggle among capitalists, in which the rich get richer, and where the poor often die at the hands of other workers.

The IWW's daily newspaper, the Industrial Worker, wrote just before the United States entered the war : "Capitalists of America, we will fight against you, not for you ! There is no force in the world that can force the working class to fight if it does not want to." Yet, when the declaration of war was passed by the U.S. Congress in April 1917, Bill Haywood, general secretary and treasurer of the IWW, became firmly convinced that the organization should adopt a low profile to avoid the perceived threats to its existence. It ceased all anti-war activity, such as printing anti-war posters and documents. Anti-war propaganda was no longer part of the union's official policy. After much debate in the IWW General Executive, with Haywood advocating a low profile while Frank Little supported continued agitation, Ralph Chaplin found a compromise. The resulting declaration denounced the war, but IWW members were encouraged to express their opposition through legal conscription procedures. They were advised to register, indicating their request for exemption by writing "IWW, opposed to the war."

Although the IWW moderated its verbal opposition, the mainstream press and the American government succeeded in turning public opinion against it. Frank Little, the IWW's most virulent opponent of the war, was lynched in Butte, Montana, in August 1917, just four months after the declaration of war.

The government seized the opportunity presented by the First World War to break up the IWW. In September 1917, agents from the Department of Justice conducted simultaneous raids on 48 IWW meeting places across the country. Also in 1917, 165 union leaders were arrested for conspiracy to obstruct conscription, encourage desertion, and intimidate others in labor disputes, under the Espionage Act ; 101 were tried before Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis in 1918. All were convicted—even those who had not been union members for years—and received prison sentences of up to 20 years. Sentenced to prison but released on bail, Haywood fled to the Soviet Union, where he remained until his death.

In his book "The Land That Time Forgot," published in 1918, Edgar Rice Burroughs portrayed a member of the IWW as a particularly despicable traitor and scoundrel. This wave of denigration led to vigilante groups attacking the IWW in many places. In Centralia on November 11, 1919, Wesley Everest, a union member and veteran, was handed over to a mob by jail guards. He first had his teeth broken with a rifle butt, then was castrated and lynched three times in three different locations, and finally his body was riddled with bullets before being buried in an unmarked grave. The official coroner's report attributed the death to "suicide."

After the war, repression continued. IWW members were prosecuted for violating various federal and state laws, and the Palmer Raids of 1920 targeted foreign-born members of the organization. By the mid-1920s, membership had already declined due to government repression, a decline that increased substantially during the 1924 schism, caused by internal disputes when the union split between "Westerners" and "Easterners" over a number of issues, such as the role of the general administration (often simplistically portrayed as a struggle between "centralizers" and "decentralizers") and attempts by the Communist Party to control the organization through infiltration.

https://iwwjoehill-net.translate.goog/Troubadour-de-la-revolte.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

https://bataillesocialiste-wordpress-com.translate.goog/2014/04/24/une-page-dhistoire-les-i-w-w-americains/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

https://www-marxists-org.translate.goog/history/usa/unions/iww/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

The revolutionary syndicalist movement of the IWW, as reported by Daniel Guérin in "The Labor Movement in the United States (1867-1967)

On June 27, 1905, two hundred activists met in Chicago to form what they decided to call "The Industrial Workers of the World"

They claimed to be creating a new central trade union in opposition to the old AFL—which they punningly called the "Separation of Labor" (instead of Federation of Labor). They vehemently denounced the trade unionism of the trades, the business world, and class collaboration, contrasting it with a vision of industrial unionism based on worker solidarity and class struggle. They aimed to organize those whom the AFL had neglected : the unskilled workers, whose numbers were constantly increasing due to the development of machinery and whom they rightly considered the "granite foundation of the working class."

The founders of the IWW dominated Gompers by a hundred cubits. The manifesto launched by the activists who had taken the initiative to convene the founding congress, Haywood's interventions at this assembly, the speeches given by Debs in a series of propaganda meetings in favor of the new organization, the pamphlet in which Daniel De Leon commented on the IWW program, all these texts still shine today with a brilliance that time has not tarnished.

Gomperism, however, materially survived the indictment leveled against it. It survived, for a time, and only by making concessions, willingly or unwillingly, to the ideas of its adversary. But its historical condemnation dates from 1905.

“The division of trades,” declared the Manifesto of 1905, “prevents the development of class consciousness among workers, engenders the idea of a harmony of interests between the exploiting employer and the wage slave (…). The universal economic evils afflicting the working class can be eradicated only by a universal workers' movement. Such a movement of the working class is impossible as long as separate trade and wage agreements favor the employer against other trades in the same industry, and as long as energies are wasted in sterile jurisdictional struggles that serve only to increase the personal power of the union leaders. A movement fulfilling these conditions must consist of a single great industrial union encompassing the whole of industry (…). It must be based on the class struggle, and its general administration must be conducted in harmony with the recognition of the irrepressible conflict between the capitalist class and the working class.”

But while the founders of the IWW were armed with a powerful idea, the means at their disposal to put it into practice were inadequate. The founding congress was composed mainly of individuals representing only themselves or only a small portion of the organizations to which they belonged and which had not delegated them.

The only mass organization to join the IWW was the Western Federation of Miners, with its 27,000 members, and its satellite, the American Labor Union, with 16,500 members. But very quickly, as early as 1906, the Western miners decided to regain their independence. They were disheartened by the factional disputes that had erupted early on within the IWW. The organization, instead of becoming the new labor federation they envisioned, was becoming a battleground where rival sects and individuals clashed. In this environment where they constituted the only mass organization, they felt out of place and left.

Furthermore, the Western Federation was beginning a transformation that would ultimately lead it back to the AFL and diminish its activism… This departure was a severe blow to the IWW. The Western Federation was their backbone, as well as their main source of funding.

The initial weakness of the IWW was that, at first, they failed to attract any mass unions other than the Western Federation of Miners. The absence, in particular, of the Federation of Coal Miners was an irreparable handicap. The founders of the new unionism were right in believing that the AFL was not capable of reforming itself and that the initiative had to come from outside. But perhaps the IWW underestimated the possibilities for reform from within. For example, the creation, in 1898, of a Teamsters (truckers) federation within the AFL had instilled a new spirit into the old organization. The Teamsters possessed a sense of worker solidarity that the old craft unions rarely demonstrated.

After the departure of the Western Federation of Miners, which was finalized in 1907, one might have thought that what remained of the IWW would quickly disintegrate amidst sectarian squabbles. In 1908, a split divided the IWW in two : Daniel De Leon and his followers created an authoritarian branch of the IWW, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, while William Haywood (who, in the meantime, had relinquished his leadership of the Western Federation of Miners) took the helm of a group known as the Chicago branch. On one side were the "political" and "doctrinaire" factions ; on the other, the "anarcho-syndicalists" and "wobblies," proponents of "direct action" alone. (Wobbly literally means : rolling or swaying irregularly from side to side. It seems the nickname was invented by the bourgeois press to ridicule the IWW, who, on the contrary, took pride in it.)

And yet, it was only after these successive splits that the IWW, under Haywood's leadership, truly entered the social struggles in the United States. It was no longer, as in the original model, a vast union federation intended to defeat the AFL, but an active minority, a kind of mobile force ready to move immediately to any point on the battlefield and take the lead in the struggles undertaken by the workers. Thus, while the IWW did not accomplish the grand mission it had originally intended to undertake, it nevertheless rendered an important service to the American working class. Faced with the shortcomings of Gomperism, it was the only organization to intervene in the labor struggles of the unskilled.

Initially, the IWW had taken the easy route : they paid little attention to the unorganized and turned their attention to disaffected union members, attempting to detach a number of trade union branches from the AFL. In the more advanced centers of the East, such as New York and Chicago, they achieved some results. In Shenectady, New York, a General Electric stronghold and AFL bastion, they managed to launch a sit-down strike at the end of 1906, one of the first of its kind in the United States. But these attempts didn't get them very far. Therefore, they decided to leave the trade federations alone and devote their efforts to organizing unskilled workers. They turned, in particular, to migrant farmworkers and lumberjacks in the West, predisposed by their isolation and instability to a libertarian revolt : recourse to direct economic action, contempt for all political activity, and an inability to form any permanent organization. These wanderers, known in America as hobos, joined the IWW en masse and helped secure the victory of Haywood's anarcho-syndicalist faction over the authoritarian faction represented by Daniel De Leon. At the 1908 convention, the "Western Brigade" alone constituted half of the delegates.

To meet the needs of migrant workers and take into account their specific circumstances, the IWW devised a new tactic : free speech fights. Using public squares was the only way to spread propaganda and recruit among dispersed and isolated workers who periodically gathered in towns around employment offices, searching for new jobs. Street speakers were thrown in jail ; others immediately replaced them. Mobile squads of IWW members rushed in from outside and were arrested in turn. These free speech fights shook the entire West between 1909 and 1911.

In 1910, the IWW attacked the organization of loggers in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. These loggers were neither immigrants nor migrants, but old-school Americans, primitive and violent. Suddenly transformed into wage laborers and harshly exploited, they were receptive to the IWW's arguments. The strike they launched was one of the most violent in the annals of the American labor movement. But it failed, and the union that the IWW had helped organize was crushed.

In 1912, the IWW turned eastward and set its sights on the textile workers. The 25,000 unorganized workers at the American Woolen Company in Lawrence, Massachusetts, went on strike to protest starvation wages. They were mostly recent immigrants from 28 different nationalities, with Italians predominating. One of the IWW leaders, Joseph Ettor, took charge of the strike and led it with a firm hand.

The small town was placed under siege and Ettor arrested. Haywood replaced him. A procession of 10,000 to 15,000 strikers gave him a triumphant welcome. He implemented bold innovations. Assisted by a valuable activist, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, he organized European-style solidarity, directing the strikers' children to the homes of friends and sympathizers in other towns. He involved women in the struggle, and they fought like lions. He established continuous pickets around the factories, composed of thousands of workers. He successfully drew public attention to the strikers' cause. He secured support from the press. A committee of inquiry was formed in Washington, and a delegation of sixteen children, boys and girls under the age of sixteen, traveled to the nation's capital to describe the terrible living conditions in Lawrence. One of these children called Samuel Gompers, who had come to testify against the strike, a liar.

The employers eventually gave in. Upon hearing of their victory, the workers (a very rare occurrence in the United States) sang the Internationale in all languages. The impact of this event was immense and extended far beyond Lawrence. As a result, 25,000 workers obtained a wage increase.

Another strike broke out in early 1913 in the silk industry in Paterson, New Jersey. It spread into a general solidarity strike. Haywood took the lead in the movement. A procession of 35,000 workers of all nationalities marched to a meeting to hear him speak. He was arrested ; when the AFL organized its own meeting, the workers boycotted it in protest against the refusal to allow the IWW leaders to speak.

Haywood, a master of publicity, brought 1,200 strikers to New York, where they marched through the streets. A large rally was held in Madison Square Garden, illuminated by a gigantic transparent screen bearing the three letters "IWW" in red. The strikers themselves described their living conditions in Paterson, sang songs they had composed, and performed a play recounting the events of their struggle. The press ran extensive reports. Haywood, ever innovative, organized meetings for the strikers' children, helped them form a strike committee, and fostered their class consciousness by telling them the fascinating story of a city of children, without adults, police, prisons, banks, or bosses. Despite all these efforts, the struggle ended in failure.

The textile workers' uprising made a powerful impression on the workers in mass-production industries, whose organization had been completely neglected by the AFL. In 1913, in Akron, Ohio, the rubber capital, the unorganized workers of the large tire factories spontaneously rose up. The IWW took the lead in the movement. Soon, 20,000 rubber workers were on strike. The indefatigable Haywood rushed to the scene. Aided by James P. Cannon, the future Trotskyist leader, he organized mass pickets, as he had in Lawrence. Here, the AFL's union of unions supported the movement and considered calling a general strike. But ultimately, the movement failed. One of the causes of this defeat was the hostile attitude of William Green of the Miners' Federation, Gompers' future successor as head of the AFL. Then a senator from Ohio and chairman of a legislative inquiry committee, he denounced the IWW leaders, calling them "outside agitators".

Similarly, in Detroit, Michigan, another stronghold of the new big industry, the Wobblies launched a strike at the Studebaker plant during the summer of 1913. Eight thousand workers, all unorganized, walked off the job for a week. They displayed remarkable cohesion, but the movement missed its mark. Almost simultaneously, the IWW organizers focused their efforts on the Ford plants, flooding them with newspapers and leaflets, while orators addressed the workers at the factory gates. Rumors spread that the Wobblies were planning a strike at Ford for the summer of 1914. It was then that Ford, feeling threatened, launched its "high wages" policy.

Three years later, in 1916, the miners of Minnesota's Mesaba Iron Range, who extracted the raw material needed for the steel mills of Pittsburgh and Chicago, revolted in turn. These recent immigrants, mostly of Finnish origin, were looking for leadership. The IWW answered their call. Joseph Ettor and Elisabeth Gurley Flynn went to the site. The strike became general and encompassed 16,000 miners. Finally, U.S. Steel granted a 10% wage increase, an eight-hour workday, and improved working conditions.

However, after 1914, the IWW again directed the bulk of its efforts westward. Despite their successes in the East, they had failed to establish a permanent organization there, and the prevailing economic crisis diminished the militancy of unskilled workers in the industrial regions of the Atlantic coast. In 1915–1916, they undertook to organize farmworkers, particularly in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. They succeeded in unionizing 18,000 migrant workers. Then they turned their attention to the loggers of the Northwest and the copper miners of Arizona.

In 1917, the IWW reached its peak, at least in terms of membership. In one year, they had grown from 40,000 to 100,000. But the United States' entry into the war unleashed a fierce crackdown against them. All the combined forces of capitalism, the government, and veterans were employed to crush them. Samuel Gompers, happy to finally be rid of a troublesome rival, gave President Wilson free rein. Thousands of Wobblies were arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. The movement was effectively decapitated. It never recovered.
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

Daniel DeLeon

The Daily People

June 27, 1905

(Note : This article refers to the 1905 industrial unionists' convention which established the Industrial Workers of the World. — Also, the phrase “the Krag-Jorgensen policy of settling the Labor question” refers to the use of military force to suppress the workers. The Krag-Jorgensen was a rifle that was used by the US Army and National Guard. ”ML)

Frederick Engels, next to Karl Marx the greatest Socialist philosopher, reiterates in his great work, “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,” the old Greek philosophy first clearly enunciated by Heraclitus, who said, “Everything is and yet is not, for everything flows, is in constant motion, is in constant process of formation and dissolution.” In other words, life is not a fixed but an ever changing and growing phenomenon. In no phase of life is this philosophy so applicable in its general characteristics as in the economic and social spheres of man. There integration and disintegration are constant and incessant.
Today, a large portion of the working class of this country is turning its gaze in the direction of Chicago. In the Great Lakes city of the West there opens today a convention of workingmen, which, judging from the manifesto calling it, is destined to mark an important change in the history of labor in this country. This convention promises to launch an economic organization of the working class on the lines of the conflicting interests of capital and labor, in direct contradistinction to the prevailing organization, that is based on the principle of the mutual interests of capital and labor. Such an organization necessarily demands integration and disintegration. It necessarily ignores those who regard the present form of trade unionism as fixed and stable, and proceeds to build up in conformity with sound principles, philosophical as well as economic.

That such promises as those of the Chicago manifesto have been held out before and have ended in comparative failure—that the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and the American Labor Union, for instance, have attempted the same thing with a measure of success less than that confidently expected—is no valid reason for discrediting such promises, or not aiding in the work that would fulfill them - integration and disintegration are processes that must often be accompanied by failure and experimentation in order to be finally successful. The fact that the efforts to launch a classconscious organization of labor are achieving a certain cumulative force, despite their comparative failures, argues well for their final triumph.

Another fact, worthy of consideration, is the more favorable condition of affairs in which the new organization will be launched.

First, it is backed by a large number of weekly and monthly papers, free from the throttling influences of capitalist trade unionism that never supported such a movement before. Headed by the DAILY and WEEKLY PEOPLE, and the Swedish, Jewish, German, Hungarian and Italian organs of the Socialist Labor Party, it has a press that wields a wide influence and can do much constructive as well as destructive, much defensive as well as offensive, work in its behalf. Again, the growth of Socialist sentiment and revolutionary Socialism are factors that cannot be ignored. They possess a power for good in combating the fallacious and treacherous workings of capitalist unionism, that was not so conspicuously present in the past attempts of the kind promised by the Chicago manifesto. With them present, capitalist reasoning and calumny no longer possess the field undisturbed, but are confronted by opponents whose increasing strength threatens them with overwhelming disaster.

Finally, the new movement has the existing disgust against the treachery and futility of Gompersism, combined with its disintegrating tendencies, to help it. The working class look from Frisco to Fall River. They note mutual scabbery, snatchry and defeat everywhere. They note the National Civic Federation and its malignant influence in their affairs, as exemplified in the subway strike. They are, accordingly, alive to Gompersism's impotency and treachery. Moreover, and above all, they note the organic changes in the system of capitalism itself, and the corresponding fallacy of the Gompers unionism. Hence, they are leaving the latter and are turning toward classconscious unionism, with all that implies. When were the promises of such unionism ever more favorable and worthy of support ? Never before in the history of the American labor movement.

It is to be hoped that the Chicago convention is alive to these facts, and will improve upon them. A step backward from the manifesto would be deplorable, while conditions justify many steps forward. The mere declaration of Industrial Unionism will not suffice without the determination to make classconsciousness the essence of the new movement.

Some sapient “Socialists” proclaim the International Typographical Union an Industrial Union, because it includes in its ranks many branches of the printing industry. The fact that these are the better paid branches, who use the inferior branches to raise their own salaries exclusively, a was done in the Brooklyn Eagle strike, doesn't affect the thinking apparatus of these wiseacres any. Nor does the International Typographical Union's endorsement of the Krag-Jorgensen policy of settling the Labor question, have the slightest impression upon their “wisdom.” They, now as always, are pleased with the form, for the essence is beyond them. Save us from such “industrial unionism.” It is the old poisonous adulteration with a new label !

If the Chicago convention measures up to its duty and answers labor's prayer for relief, it will progress as it deserves. Otherwise retrogression will be its lot, while integration and disintegration will continue in the world of labor as of yore.
Max Eastman 1921

Bill Haywood, Communist

The title of this article will be interesting news to those who have always loved the IWW, and felt that it is the only real contribution America has made to political history since 1789. We have been a little saddened of late years to see the rigidity and lethargy of age creeping over the IWW It seems as though all organizations which do not achieve within ten or fifteen years the purpose for which they are formed begin to be more interested in themselves than they are in their purpose. That instinctive gregarious loyalty which made them possible in the beginning makes them stiff and complacent and useless in the end. Have a split and start a new organization every ten years, might almost be a universal rule — a 22nd point — for the guidance of revolutionary movements. And it seemed as though even the IWW were not going to escape the application of this rule.
But something is happening. The long arm of the Moscow engineers is active in Chicago. Tired, discouraged, jail-worn and work-worn editors and organizers are talking about a new subject with a new enthusiasm — an enthusiasm that Bill Haywood describes as “quiet and warm.” The subject they are talking about is an endorsement of the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions, affiliation with it, and the resolute fulfillment of its purposes in this country.
“I would like to see a unanimous vote for affiliation on the part of the IWW,” Bill Haywood said to me. “I only want to live to see the dream of the Red Labor International come true. That's all I want. That's the IWW”

He had in his pocket a leaflet written by an English delegate to the Council, JT Murphy. In that he showed me a footnote stating that the delegates had voted to draft an appeal to the IWW, and to other organizations of syndicalist tendency which had not yet declared for affiliation.

“That got me,” he said. “To think of the workers of several nations, including one nation of a hundred and eighty million, causing the draft of an appeal to the IWW ! That shows what has happened to the world. I don't have to wait for their appeal. I've read their plans and their instructions, and I know this is something at last that we can work with. They are carrying out the original aims and purposes of the IWW, and you can say for me that I think every genuine labor union in the United States ought to affiliate with the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions with its central bureau at Moscow.”
I asked him whether he though the IWW would affiliate with it at their convention in May, and he said, “I have not heard a word in opposition.”

Bill Haywood is not the IWW, of course, and he is not at present in a position to speak for its executive policies. But he represents, more than any other one man could, the memory and momentum of it. He was the chairman of the first conference that considered his training, and the chairman of the first convention when it was called. He has never been absent from his counsels except when he was in jail. And even when the executive work was in other hands, he always stood out in the public storm as the head of the IWW. He has stood out in the storm with something of the impassive grandeur of a monument. Slow-moving, but powerfully self-possessed and intelligent, Bill Haywood occupies a position of real influence in America among those who are not foolish enough to believe the newspapers. And I imagine that this present change, or development, of his judgment about the tactics of the revolution, is an indication, not only that the IWW is going to swing again into its place in advance of the front line, but that American industrial unionists in general are going to accept the larger political philosophy of Communism.

Bill Haywood is no more friendly to the idea of political campaigning, or what is called “parliamentary action,” than he ever was — not a bit. But he fully accepts the necessity of a genuinely revolutionary party forming the vanguard of the movement of the revolution.

“I feel as if I'd always been there,” he said to me. “You remember that I used to say that all we needed were fifty thousand real IWWs, and then about a million members to back them up ? Well, isn't that a similar idea ? At least I always realized that the essential thing was to have an organization of those who know. Don't call them leaders. I call them engineers.”

I did remember Bill Haywood's remark about the fifty thousand IWWs. I remember what a wild idea it seemed to me at the time. But I also remembered that in those days his fifty thousand engineers were to be pure industrial unionists, and he seemed to conceive the whole movement then as essentially a fight for the shops. I asked him what had produced the change.

“It is simply because they have done wonderful things over there that we have been dreaming about doing over here,” he said. “It is the fact, the example, that has caused any change in me that may seem contradictory. And even now I would hesitate to confirm such a movement if everything that emanated from Moscow did not show that they want to put the workers in control, and eventually eliminate the state.”

Here Bill Haywood delivered a short eulogy of the Bolshevik revolution, and what he said would astonish a great many people who know him only as the terrible bad Man of America with one eye and a great big Black hat.

“Max,” he said, clenching one of his exceedingly small hands in a gesture firm but not very ferocious, “to say nothing of the expropriation of industry, the thing of greatest importance, they've already accomplished three other things over there, any one of which would justify such a revolution there, or here, or anywhere else. Shall I tell you what they are ?

“The first is the education of the children. I Russia every child gets food and clothing and books and amusement and a real education. And, by God, for that one thing alone I'd favor a revolution in this country !

“And the second is the relief that has been given to women in motherhood. In this country we do it for thoroughbred horses and pedigreed cattle. In Russia every woman is supported for eight weeks after confinement. That is the work of Alexandra Kollontay — a good friend of mine — and that again is enough all by itself to justify a revolution.

“The third thing is the transfer of land to the peasants. The peasants have control of the land, and of course that is a more fundamental thing.”

I asked him for the reason why American labor is so much behind the labor movements of Europe in following the lead of the Russians, and he said, “The principal reason is the AF of L.”

“Do you think it is possible for the revolutionists to capture the AF of L.?” I asked.

“Some parts of it,” he answered. “Only I would not say capture them, I would say educate them.”

I asked him what parts he referred to, and he said after a moment of hesitation :

“The United Mine workers. That is already an industrial union, and it is the body of the AF of L. the craft unions are its arms and tentacles. The craft unions are what enable the AF of L. to strangle any germs of life or inspiration that may come to American labor.

“To the general way of thinking it is the official bureaucracy that is responsible for this. It isn't. It is the craft unions with their high initiation fees, and their policies of excluding the unskilled workers, and even excluding skilled workers who have not served a long conventional apprenticeship. A further thing that outsiders do not understand about these unions is that they are absolutely controlled by the Lodges — Masons, Moose. Knights of Columbus and so forth — working through organized groups within them. It is these Lodges that elect their officials and direct their policies, and it is from these groups within them rather than from the unions themselves that the workers receive what benefits they do receive.

“But if you say that the United Mine Workers are the body of the AF of L.,” I said, “and that it is possible to bring the United Mine Workers to a revolutionary attitude, isn't that practically saying that it is possible for the revolutionists to capture the AF of L.”

Bill Haywood's answer to this question was immediate and brief. “if the United Mine Workers do anything,” he said, “then the AF of L. is no more.”

“Do you mean,” I asked, “that the organization would transform itself into something entirely new, or that the United Mine Workers would withdraw and leave nothing ?”

He smiled at my word, transformation. “I don't know what kind of a bug it would germinate into. It certainly wouldn't be a butterfly that would come out of that chrysalis.”

“No,” he continued, “you don't realize what the AF of L. is. The AF of L. is nothing but an executive Board, receiving a small per capita tax from a large membership — a tax sufficient to maintain their office, and pay their salaries, and keep up a lobby at Washington — an executive Board that in thirty-nine years of its existence has never done a single thing fro the American working-class.

“That is what the AF of L. is. And if the unions that form the body of that membership acquire a revolutionary understanding the AF of L. will cease to exist. That is the only answer there is to this question.”
“Do you believe,” I asked, “that in such a case the United Mine Workers would associate themselves with the IWW ?”

“Perhaps not,” he said. “If the United Mine Workers become revolutionary and don't want to become part of the IWW, the IWW can become a part of them, or whatever they form.”

It was that statement — which like practically all the statements in the interview, is quoted verbatim — that made me feel most vividly the magnanimous practicalness of mature communism in Bill Haywood's attitude.

“The IWW reached out and grabbed an armful,” he said. “It tried to grab the whole world, and a part of the world has jumped ahead of it.”

Read in English upon the IWW

1917
The Communist International to the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)

January 1920

Comrades and fellow workers,

The Executive Committee of the Communist International, meeting in Moscow, at the heart of the Russian Revolution, hails the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as the revolutionary proletariat of America.
Capitalism, ruined by the world war, no longer able to contain the immense forces it has created, is in decline.
The hour of the working class has struck. The social revolution has begun, and its first vanguard battle has been fought in Russia.
History has not asked us whether we wanted it or not, whether we were ready or not. The opportunity is before us. Let us seize it, and the world will belong to the workers ; let it pass, and entire generations will perish before it arises again.
It is no longer time to speak of "building the new society within the framework of the old." The old society is breaking free from its shell. It is up to the workers to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, which alone can build the new society.

An article published by your official organ, One Big Union Monthly, asked : "Why must we follow the Bolsheviks ?" The author believed that the Bolshevik revolution had "given the Russian people only the right to vote."

This is, of course, false. The Bolshevik Revolution dispossessed the capitalists of factories, mills, mines, land, and financial institutions, and transferred everything to the working class.
We understand and share your disgust with the principles and tactics of the "yellow" politicians who have discredited the very term "socialism" worldwide. Our goal is the same as yours : a community without a state, without a government, without classes, in which the workers will manage production and distribution for the benefit of all.

We send you this message, fellow workers of the International Workingmen's Association (IWW), as a token of our appreciation for the heroic part you have been playing for so long in the class struggle that you have brought about in your country, and to make you well acquainted with our communist principles and our program.

We invite you, revolutionaries, to rally to the Communist International, born at the dawn of the universal social revolution.

We invite you to take the place to which your courage and revolutionary experience entitle you, in the front rank of the proletarian Red Army fighting under the banner of communism.

Communism and the IWW

The American capitalist class is revealing its true colors.
The rising cost of living, the ever-increasing unemployment, the ruthless suppression of all efforts by workers to improve their condition, the deportation and imprisonment of "Bolsheviks," the laws against strikes, against "criminal unionism," against the "red flag," against all propaganda in favor of the "violent overthrow of the government and attacks on property"—all these laws and measures can have only one meaning in the eyes of the conscious worker.
Industrial slavery is as old as capitalism ; and workers have known other forms of slavery before it.
But now the capitalists of the world—Americans as well as French, Italians, English, Germans, etc.—are intent on reducing workers definitively to absolute and inescapable servitude.

There is no alternative : either this servitude, or the dictatorship of the working class. And the workers must choose now.
Capitalism is making desperate efforts to rebuild its crumbling edifice. The workers must, through a coup, seize the state and rebuild society according to their interests.

The new slavery

Before the Civil War, Black slaves in the Southern states were bound to the land. Northern industrial capitalists, who needed a floating workforce to supply their factories, proclaimed slavery an offense against humanity and abolished it by force. Now, industrial capitalists are trying to bind workers to their factories.
During the war, and in every country, workers practically lost their right to strike and even their right to stop work. Remember the laws that prevailed in your own country : work or fight !

And since the war ended, what have we seen ? The cost of living has risen steadily, while capitalists have striven to reduce wages. And when workers are driven to strike by hunger, all the forces of the state are mobilized against them to force them back to work. When railroad workers stopped work in California, they were threatened with the deployment of federal troops. When the Railroad Engineers' Union demanded a wage increase or the nationalization of the railroads, the President of the United States threatened it with the full force of armed repression. When American miners left their pits, thousands of soldiers occupied the mines, and the Federal Court adopted the most cynical measures against the strike, forbidding leaders from ordering a work stoppage and prohibiting the payment of relief to strikers. The United States Attorney General finally declared officially that the government would not tolerate strikes in industries "necessary to the community."
Judge Garry, who headed the steel trust, could refuse the President's request to negotiate with a workers' committee. But when the steelworkers went on strike, demanding a living wage and the basic right to unionize, they were branded Bolsheviks and shot in the ensuing riots by Pennsylvania Cossacks.

And you, IWW comrades, you who keep the bitter memories of Everett, Tulsa, Wheatland, Centralia, where your comrades were massacred ; you whose thousands of brothers are in jails, you who nevertheless perform the hardest labor in the fields, in the docks, in the forests, you must clearly distinguish the process by which capitalists attempt, using their tried and tested weapon, the State, to institute a society of slaves.

The capitalists' cry, "Produce more ! Produce even more !" resounds from all sides. In other words, workers must provide more labor for less pay, so that their sweat and blood, now monetized, can serve to pay off the war debts of the devastated capitalist world.

For this to happen, workers must be deprived of the right to leave their jobs ; they must be prevented from organizing to extract concessions from employers or to benefit from competition among them. The workers' movement must be stopped and crushed at all costs.

To save the old system of exploitation, capitalists must unite and chain the worker to the machine.

The social revolution

Will the capitalists succeed ?

They will succeed unless the workers declare war on the entire capitalist system, overthrow capitalist governments and replace them with a working-class government which must destroy capitalist private property and institute common ownership of all wealth.

This is what the Russian workers did, and it is the only way for workers in other countries to free themselves from industrial servitude and to organize the world so that the worker benefits fully from the product of their labor and no one can exploit the labor of another.
But if the workers in other countries do not rise up against their own capitalists, the Russian revolution cannot survive. Capitalists throughout the world, understanding the danger posed by the example of Soviet Russia, have joined forces to destroy it. The Allies, momentarily forgetting their hatred of Germany, have invited German capitalists to join them in the common interest.
And the workers in other countries are beginning to understand. In Italy, Germany, France, and England, the tide of revolution is rising. In America, even the most conservative members of the American Federation of Labor are realizing that strikes for wage increases and better living conditions are, in reality, meaningless, as the cost of living continues to rise. They proposed all sorts of remedies to this situation, reforms of the "Plumb Plan", nationalization of the mines, etc. They founded a so-called Labor Party which aimed to achieve municipal or government ownership of industry, a more democratic electoral mechanism, etc.

But even if these reforms were implemented, they wouldn't solve the problem. As long as the capitalist system exists, people will profit from the labor of others. All the reforms of the current system only deceive the worker into believing they are being robbed a little less than before.

The social revolution has begun, and its first battle is raging in Russia. It leaves the workers no time to experiment with reforms. The capitalists have already destroyed the Hungarian Soviet Republic. If they succeed in suppressing and breaking the workers' movement in other countries, industrial slavery will be established.

Before it is too late, conscious workers must prepare to repel the assault of capitalism, and in turn take the offensive to defeat it and eradicate it from the world.

The Capitalist State

The war and its consequences revealed with striking clarity the real functions of the capitalist state — its laws, its courts, its police, its armies, its bureaucracy.

The state serves to defend and consolidate capitalist power and to oppress workers. This is especially true in the United States, whose constitution was designed by merchants, speculators, and landowners to protect their class interests against the majority of the people.

As for the present, the United States government is obviously just a weapon of the capitalists against the workers.

The IWW must understand this better than anyone, having been rageously persecuted by the government, having seen their leaders imprisoned, their newspapers suppressed, their members deported or imprisoned on fabricated charges, their bail denied, their prisoners tortured, held incommunicado, their premises closed, their propaganda reduced in some states to becoming clandestine.

The workers see this. The people elect governors, mayors, judges, sheriffs ; but in times of strike, the governor summons the militia to defend the foxes ; the mayor orders the police to beat and arrest the militants in the streets ; the judge charges them with "disturbing the peace," labels them "rioters," and imprisons them ; and the sheriff pays thugs he sends out as strikebreakers...

The whole of capitalist society presents a united front to the workers.

The priest told him to resign himself ; the press cursed him and called him a "Bolshevik" ; the police arrested him ; the court condemned him ; the sheriff seized him for debts, and the poorhouse took in his wife and children.

To destroy capitalism, the proletariat must first wrest political power from the capitalists. They must not merely seize it ; they must abolish the old capitalist system entirely.

For the experience of revolutions has shown that workers cannot seize the state and use it—as the yellow socialists claim. The capitalist state is built to serve capitalism ; it can do nothing else.

In place of the capitalist state, the workers must build their own state, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat

Many members of the IWW refuse to agree. They are opposed to "any state, in general." They propose to overthrow the capitalist state and immediately establish Industrial Commonwealth.
The Communists are also enemies of the state. They too want to abolish it and replace the government of men with the administration of things.

Unfortunately, this cannot be done immediately. The destruction of the capitalist state does not mean that capitalism disappears automatically and instantly. Capitalists have other weapons that must be wrested from them ; they are still defended by legions of good employees, administrators, managers, and shrewd businessmen who will sabotage industry—and who must be persuaded or forced to serve the working class ; they have officers who can betray the revolution, priests who can stir up old superstitions against it, professors and orators who can distort it in the eyes of the ignorant, scoundrels who can be paid to discredit it, newspapers that can deceive the people with constant lies, yellow socialists, and so-called laborers who prefer capitalist democracy to revolution. Their efforts must be severely repressed.

To tear down the edifice of the capitalist state, to break the resistance of the capitalist class and disarm it, to confiscate its property and transfer it to the community of workers—these tasks require a government, a state, the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of which the proletarians can, with an iron hand, break the enemy class.

This is what is currently happening in Russia.

But the dictatorship of the proletariat is only temporary. We communists also want the abolition of the state. The state can only last as long as the class war continues. The function of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to abolish the capitalist class as a class ; in fact, to eliminate all class distinctions. Once this goal is achieved, the dictatorship of the proletariat will automatically disappear, giving way to an industrial administration, likely analogous to the General Executive Bureau of the IWW.

In a recent article, Mary Marcy writes that without theoretically recognizing the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the IWW will be forced to admit it in fact in times of revolution, in order to defeat the counter-revolution.

That is true. But if the IWW refuses to recognize in advance the necessity of the workers' state, confusion and weakness are likely to prevail in its ranks at times when firmness and speed of action will be imperatively required.

The Workers' State

What form will the Workers' State take ?

We have before us the example of the Russian Soviet Republic, whose structure, too often distorted abroad by contradictory information, it may be useful to point out here.

The unit of government is the local Soviet or Council of Workers', Red Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies.

In the cities, the Soviet is elected as follows : each factory elects one delegate for a certain number of workers, and each local trade union elects a certain number of others. These delegates are elected from lists of political parties or individually, at the workers' discretion.

The deputies of the Red Army are elected by their units.

In the countryside, each village has its Soviet, which sends delegates to the Soviets in the towns. These towns, in turn, elect the District Soviet. These, in turn, form the Provincial Soviet.
Anyone who exploits the labor of others is ineligible to vote.

Every six months, the Soviets of cities and provinces elect delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the supreme authority in the country. The Congress decides on the main political measures for a six-month period and chooses the two hundred members of the Central Executive Committee, responsible for implementing the measures enacted by the Congress. The Congress also elects a Cabinet—the People's Commissars.

The mandates of these officials are revocable at any time by the Central Executive Committee. Members of the Soviets can likewise be recalled by their constituents.

These Soviets are not only legislative bodies but also executive bodies. Unlike the American Congress, they do not simply draft laws that the President is then responsible for promulgating and implementing ; and there is no supreme court tasked with deciding whether the adopted measure is "constitutional" or not.

In the intervals between meetings of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, supreme power in Russia rests with the Central Executive Committee. This committee meets at least every two months, and in the interim, the management of affairs is handed over to the Council of People's Commissars, while the members of the Central Executive Committee work in their respective regions.

Organization of product production and distribution

In Russia, workers are organized into trade unions, with all workers in an industry belonging to their union. For example, carpenters and painters working in a metalworking factory belong to the Metalworkers' Union. Each factory has its own local union, and its Shop Committee, elected by the workers, acts as an executive committee.
The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Federation of Trade Unions is elected by the annual Trade Union Congress. A special committee elected by this same congress establishes the wage scale.

With few exceptions, most large Russian factories have been nationalized and are currently owned by the workers. The task of the trade unions is therefore no longer to fight capitalism but rather to manage industry.

The Labor Commissariat of the Soviet government works in full agreement with the trade unions. Moreover, it is only elected by the Congress of Soviets with the approval of the trade unions.

An elected Supreme Council of the People's Economy is responsible for directing the country's economic life. It is divided into sections, such as those for metals, the chemical industry, etc., each headed by technicians and workers appointed by the Supreme Council with the approval of the Trade Unions.

Production in each factory is directed by a committee of three members : a representative of the Factory Committee, a representative of the Central Executive Committee of the Trade Unions and a representative of the Higher Council of the People's Economy.

Democratic centralization

The trade unions thus form a branch of government, and this government is the most highly centralized in existence.
It is also the most democratic government in history, for all organs of government are in constant contact with the working masses and under their direct influence. Furthermore, local soviets throughout Russia enjoy complete autonomy, enabling them to manage local affairs as they see fit, provided they conform to the national policy of the Congress of Soviets. Moreover, the Soviet government, representing only the workers, cannot help but act in their interests.

Many members of the IWW oppose centralization because they do not accept that it can be democratic. But where large masses are involved, recording individual wills is no longer possible ; only the will of the majority can be recorded, and Soviet Russia is administered in the common interest of the working class.

The private property of the capitalist class, in order to become the social property of the workers, cannot be handed over to individuals or groups of individuals ; it must become the property of the entire community and a centralized authority is necessary to accomplish this transformation.

Industries that supply the needs of the entire population concern not only the workers they employ but the whole community and must be managed for the benefit of all. Modern industry is, moreover, so complex, its branches so interdependent, that in order to achieve the highest possible output with maximum efficiency, it must be subjected, according to a comprehensive plan, to a single management.

The revolution must be defended against the formidable assaults of the combined forces of global capitalism. Large armies must be raised, trained, equipped, and led. This means centralization. For two years, Soviet Russia alone withstood the repeated attacks of the capitalist world. Would it have been possible to form a Red Army of more than two million men without a central authority ?

The capitalist class has a highly centralized organization that allows it to throw all its forces against the divided and dispersed groups of the working class. The class struggle is a war. To overthrow capitalism, the workers must form an army with a general staff—but a general staff elected and controlled by the workers.

In times of strike, every worker knows that a strike committee is necessary—a centralized body charged with directing the action and whose orders must be obeyed—elected and controlled by the working masses. Soviet Russia is on strike, facing the entire capitalist world. The revolution is a general strike against the capitalist system. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the strike committee of the social revolution.

The proletarian revolutions currently underway in America and other countries will likely give rise to new forms of organization. The Bolsheviks do not claim to have had the last word on social revolution. But the experience of two years of workers' government in Russia is naturally of the utmost importance and must be closely studied by workers in other countries.

Policy

The word "politics" affects many IWW members like the sight of a red flag affects a bull—or a capitalist. For them, "politics" means "politician" and usually conjures up the image of the yellow socialist vying for their votes in the hope of securing a comfortable seat where he can conveniently forget the very existence of the workers.

Our "anti-political" working-class comrades are opposed to the communists, who, in their view, constitute a political party and who, indeed, sometimes participate in political struggles.
This is using the word "political" in far too narrow a sense. One of the principles upon which the IWW association was founded is expressed in these words of Karl Marx : "All class struggle is a political struggle." This means that every struggle of the workers against the capitalists is a struggle for political power—for the power of the state.

And it is in this sense that communists use the word "politics".

The yellow socialists imagine they can gradually conquer political power by using the very mechanism of the capitalist state to obtain reforms, and when they have obtained a majority in Congress, in legislative assemblies, when they have elected the president, the mayor and the sheriff, they believe they can use the legislative apparatus of the bourgeois state to peacefully abolish capitalism and likewise institute the community of labor.

This leads them to preach various reforms of the capitalist system, to open their ranks to small capitalists, to political adventurers of all kinds, and ultimately to conclude deals and make various concessions.

The IWW do not admit it any more than the communists.

As communists, we do not believe that governmental power can be seized through the mechanisms of the capitalist state. Since the state is the specific weapon of the capitalist class, its mechanisms are naturally designed to defend and strengthen the power of capitalism. Capitalist control of all institutions that shape public opinion—press, schools, churches, and public platforms—and capitalist control of the workers' political attitudes through control of their means of subsistence, make it extremely unlikely that workers will ever be able to "legally" elect, under a democratic capitalist system, a government dedicated to their interests.
And, at present, while the capitalist class of the entire world pursues with desperate ferocity its campaign of repression against the organizations of the conscious proletariat worldwide, this hypothesis is simply inadmissible.

But even if it were possible for workers to conquer the capitalist state through political means, the latter could not serve to establish the industrial community. The real source of capitalist power lies in capitalist ownership and control of the means of production. The capitalist state exists only to extend and defend this ownership and control. It cannot, therefore, serve to abolish them.

So far, the IWW and the communists agree. The capitalist state must be attacked by direct action. This action, in the correct sense of the term, is also political, because it has a political aim—the conquest of governmental power.

The IWW (International Workers' Party) proposes to achieve this goal through a general strike. The communists go further. History clearly indicates that the general strike is insufficient. Capitalists have weapons, and the experience of the White Guards in Russia, Finland, and Germany proves that they have sufficient experience and training to use their weapons against the workers. Furthermore, they have food stocks that allow them to hold out longer than the workers, who are constantly under pressure from want.
The communists, too, rely on the general strike, but they believe it must transform into an armed insurrection. The general strike and insurrection are forms of political action.

Revolutionary Parliamentarism

If this is the case, if communists do not believe they can seize control of the state through the ballot box, why do communist parties participate in elections and present candidates ?
The question of whether or not communists will participate in elections is secondary. Some communist organizations participate ; others do not. But the former do so only for propaganda purposes. Political campaigns give revolutionaries the opportunity to speak to the working class, to show them the class character of the state and what the workers' true interests are. They allow them to highlight the futility of reforms, to demonstrate the real interests that dominate capitalist and yellow socialist political parties, and to emphasize why the entire capitalist system must be overthrown.

The task of communists elected to Congress or legislative assemblies is to conduct propaganda ; to constantly expose the true nature of the capitalist state, to oppose the actions of the capitalist government and reveal their class character ; to demonstrate the futility of capitalist reforms and measures. Within the legislative assemblies, from the highest platforms of the nation, communists can denounce capitalist brutality and call workers to revolt.

Karl Liebknecht demonstrated what a communist could achieve in Parliament. His speeches in the Reichstag resonated throughout the world.
Others in Russia, Sweden (Höglund), and other countries did the same.

The most common objection to sending activists to capitalist legislative assemblies is that, regardless of their revolutionary value, they will invariably be corrupted by their entourage and led to betray the workers.
This belief is the product of long experience, gained primarily with socialist politicians and smooth talkers. But we, as communists, maintain that a truly revolutionary party will elect only genuine revolutionaries and will know how to keep them under its control.

Many IWW members are staunch opponents of using legislative assemblies or any other government institutions for propaganda purposes. However, the IWW organization has often not disdained such means. During the Lawrence strike of 1912, the IWW even used socialist Senator Victor Berger, who brought the demands of the strikers and IWW members before the House of Representatives. William D. Haywood, Vincent St. John, and many other IWW leaders readily testified before the U.S. government's Industrial Commission, taking advantage of this opportunity to disseminate their organization's ideas. But the most striking example of the use of the state's political machinery for propaganda purposes came in 1918 when the Chicago Federal Court, where one hundred IWW leaders were on trial, became a veritable workers' propaganda rally for three months.

These are examples of how the political mechanisms of the capitalist state can be used for propaganda purposes among the masses. These methods must be employed according to the circumstances—as must parliamentary action. The use of any weapon should not be condemned outright.

The specific task of the IWW is to prepare the workers to seize control of industry and to lead it. The special function of the communist political party is to prepare the workers for the conquest of political power and the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Every worker must be a member of both the revolutionary trade union in their industry and the political party that fights for communism.

The social revolution and the future society

The goal of the IWW is to "build a new society within the old." This means : to organize the workers so completely that the capitalist system will eventually break down and give way to the already fully developed Industrial Community.

Such an undertaking requires the organization and discipline of the majority of workers. Before the war, it seemed possible to accomplish this task, although despite their fourteen years of activity, the IWW was only able to organize a tiny fraction of American workers.

At present, this design is merely utopian. Capitalism is in decline, revolution is at our doorstep, and history will not wait for the majority of workers to be organized—100%—according to the plan of the IWW or any other organization. We no longer have the prospect of a long, normal industrial development, which alone would have allowed the realization of such a design. The war has plunged the peoples of the world into a vast cataclysm, and they must think of immediate action, not of developing elaborate plans whose fulfillment would require years.

The new society will not be built, as we once thought, within the old one. We cannot wait for that. The social revolution is here. When the workers have overthrown capitalism, when they have crushed all attempts to re-establish it, they will be able to freely build the new society within their Soviet state.

In the face of social revolution, what is the immediate and major task of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) ?
As the most important revolutionary syndicalist organization in America, it is incumbent upon them to take the initiative in providing a single basis for the unification of all unions of a distinctly revolutionary character, of all workers who accept the principle of class struggle. These include the One Big Union, the WIIU, and certain dissident unions of the American Federation of Labor.

This is not the time for petty squabbles over names or minor organizational matters. The essential task is to unite all workers capable of mass revolutionary action in times of crisis.

As revolutionaries, they cannot refuse the invitations of the American communists eager to conclude an agreement with them for joint revolutionary action. The political party and the economic organization must march in step toward the common goal—toward the abolition of capitalism through the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Soviets, toward the disappearance of classes and the state.
The Communist International extends a fraternal hand to the IWW.

The President of the Executive Committee of the Communist International,

G. ZINOVIEV.

January 1920.

Le BAC de Philosophie en France, c'est Nietzsche !

Robert Paris — 2026-06-15T22:51:00Z

Le texte de Nietzsche au programme du BAC de Philo en France

Expliquer le texte suivant :

« Les méthodes scientifiques sont une conquête de la recherche pour le moins aussi considérable que n'importe quel autre résultat : c'est en effet sur la compréhension de la méthode que repose l'esprit scientifique, et tous les résultats des sciences ne pourraient, si ces méthodes venaient à se perdre, empêcher un nouveau triomphe de la superstition et de l'absurdité. Les gens cultivés ont beau apprendre autant qu'ils veulent des résultats de la science, on s'aperçoit toujours à leur conversation, et particulièrement aux hypothèses qu'ils y proposent, que l'esprit scientifique leur fait défaut. Ils n'ont pas cette défiance instinctive contre les écarts de la pensée, qui, à la suite d'un long exercice, a pris racine dans l'esprit de tout homme de science. Il leur suffit de trouver sur un sujet une hypothèse quelconque, ils sont alors tout feu tout flamme pour elle et croient qu'ainsi tout est dit. Avoir une opinion signifie par là même chez eux : en devenir aussitôt fanatique et finalement la prendre à cœur comme une conviction. Ils s'échauffent, à propos d'une chose inexpliquée, pour la première idée qui leur passe en tête et qui ressemble à une explication. D'où résultent continuellement, notamment dans le domaine de la politique, les plus fâcheuses conséquences. C'est pourquoi chacun devrait de nos jours avoir appris à connaître au moins une science à fond ; alors il saura toujours ce que c'est qu'une méthode et combien est nécessaire la plus extrême prudence. »

Friedrich NIETZSCHE, Humain, trop humain (1878)

Certes, un tel texte peut sembler très raisonnable et intelligent. Mais le propos de Nietzsche ne s'en tient pas là…

Citons quelques extraits significatifs…

Tout d'abord donnons la suite de l'extrait de Nietzsche du BAC que l'on n'a pas donné aux candidats…

« C'est particulièrement aux femmes qu'il faut donner ce conseil ; car elles sont maintenant incurablement victimes de toutes les hypothèses, surtout si celles-ci donnent l'impression de l'ingénieux, du séduisant, du vivifiant, du fortifiant. Plus on observe avec exactitude, plus on s'aperçoit que la grande majorité des gens cultivés demande encore au penseur des convictions et rien que des convictions, et qu'une petite minorité seulement veut une certitude. Ceux-là désirent être fortement entraînés, pour acquérir eux-mêmes par là un surcroît de force ; ceux-ci, le petit nombre, ont cet intérêt pour les choses mêmes qui fait abstraction des avantages personnels, même dudit surcroît de force. C'est sur la première classe, de beaucoup prédominante, que l'on compte partout où le penseur se prend et se donne pour un génie, partant se considère intérieurement comme un être supérieur, qui a droit à l'autorité. En tant que le génie de toute espèce entretient le feu des convictions et éveille de la défiance envers l'idée prudente et modeste de la science, il est un ennemi de la vérité, quand même il se croirait au plus haut point parmi ses amants.

Il y a, il est vrai, une toute autre espèce de génie, celui de la justice ; et je ne puis absolument me résoudre à l'estimer inférieur à quelque génie que ce soit, philosophique, politique ou artistique. Il consiste à se détourner, avec une cordiale répugnance, de tout ce qui aveugle et égare le jugement sur les choses ; il est par conséquent un ennemi des convictions, car il veut donner à chaque objet, vif ou mort, réel ou imaginaire, ce qui lui revient — et pour cela il lui faut en avoir une connaissance nette ; il met donc chaque objet dans le meilleur jour et en fait le tour avec des yeux attentifs. Finalement, il donne même à son ennemie, la myope « conviction » (comme l'appellent les hommes : — chez les femmes, elle se nomme « foi ») ce qui revient à la conviction — pour l'amour de la vérité. »

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Humain,_trop_humain/IX

Le mépris de Nietzsche contre les femmes n'a pas été cité par les examinateurs du BAC. Tiens, tiens…

Vous admirez Nietzsche ? Pourtant, c'est un des sommets « intellectuels » du mépris et de la haine des femmes !!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5438

Donnons quelques citations de l'ouvrage qui a été choisi pour le BAC : "Humain, trop humain" :

Civilisation et caste. — Une civilisation supérieure ne peut naître que là où il y a deux castes distinctes de la société ; celle des travailleurs et celle des oisifs, capables d'un loisir véritable ; ou en termes plus forts, la caste du travail forcé et la caste du travail libre. Le point de vue de la division du bonheur n'est pas essentiel, quand il s'agit de la production d'une civilisation supérieure ; mais en tout cas la caste des oisifs est la plus capable de souffrances, la plus souffrante, son contentement de l'existence est moindre, son devoir plus grand. Que s'il se produit un échange entre les deux castes, de sorte que les familles les plus basses, les moins intelligentes, tombent de la caste supérieure dans l'inférieure et qu'au rebours les hommes les plus libres de celle-ci réclament l'accès à la caste supérieure : un état se trouve atteint au-dessus duquel on ne voit plus que la mer ouverte des vœux illimités. — Ainsi nous parle la voix expirante des temps antiques ; mais où y a-t-il maintenant des oreilles pour l'entendre ?

Par le sang. — Ce que les hommes et les femmes ont par le sang d'avantage sur les autres et ce qui leur donne un droit indiscutable à une estime plus haute, ce sont deux arts que l'hérédité a de plus en plus accrus : l'art de savoir commander, et l'art de l'obéissance fière. — Or il se produit, partout où le commandement constitue une besogne journalière (comme dans le monde du grand négoce et de la grande industrie) quelque chose de pareil à ces races « par le sang », mais il leur manque la noble attitude dans l'obéissance, qui chez celles-là est un legs des conditions féodales et qui dans notre climat de civilisation ne doit plus s'accroître.

Guerre. — Au désavantage de la guerre on peut dire : elle rend le vainqueur brute, le vaincu méchant. En faveur de la guerre : elle introduit la barbarie dans les deux conséquences susdites, et par là ramène à la nature : elle est pour la civilisation un sommeil ou un hivernage, l'homme en sort plus fort pour le bien et pour le mal.

Propriété et justice. — Quand les socialistes prouvent que le partage de la propriété dans l'humanité actuelle est la conséquence d'innombrables injustices et violences, et qu'ils déclinent in summa toute obligation envers une chose dont le fondement est si injuste : ils ne considèrent qu'un fait isolé. Tout le passé de l'ancienne civilisation est fondé sur la violence, l'esclavage, la tromperie, l'erreur ; mais nous ne pouvons pas nous-mêmes, héritiers que nous sommes de toutes ces circonstances, et concrétions de tout ce passé, l'anéantir par décret, et nous n'avons pas le droit d'en supprimer un seul morceau. Les sentiments d'injustice sont également dans les âmes des non-possédants, ils ne sont pas meilleurs que les possédants et n'ont pas un privilège moral, car ils ont eu quelque part des ancêtres possédants. Ce n'est pas de nouveaux partages par la violence, mais de transformations graduelles des idées qu'on a besoin ; il faut que chez tous la justice devienne plus forte, l'instinct de violence plus faible.

Les esprits dangereux parmi les révolutionnaires. — Qu'on distingue ceux qui rêvent un bouleversement de la société en gens qui veulent atteindre quelque chose pour eux-mêmes et en gens qui le veulent pour leurs enfants et petits-enfants. Les derniers sont les plus dangereux ; car ils ont la foi et la bonne conscience du désintéressement. Les autres peuvent être assouvis : pour cela la société dominante a toujours assez de ressources et d'habileté. Le péril commence aussitôt que le but devient impersonnel ; les révolutionnaires par intérêt impersonnel peuvent considérer tous les défenseurs de l'état de choses existant comme égoïstes et par là se sentir supérieurs à eux.

Importance politique de la paternité. — Quand l'homme n'a pas de fils, il n'a pas un droit intégral à délibérer sur les besoins d'un État particulier. Il faut qu'on y ait, comme les autres, hasardé ce qu'on a de plus cher : cela seul attache solidement à l'État ; il faut que l'on considère le bonheur de sa postérité, partant qu'on ait avant tout une postérité, pour prendre à toutes les institutions et à leur changement une part équitable et naturelle. Le développement de la morale supérieure dépend de ce que chacun ait des fils ; cela l'affranchit de l'égoïsme, ou plus justement, cela étend son égoïsme dans la durée et fait qu'il poursuit avec zèle des fins qui vont au delà de son existence individuelle.

Fierté des aïeux. — On peut à juste titre être fier d'une lignée ininterrompue d'aïeux bons de père en fils, — mais non pas de la lignée même ; car chacun en a tout autant. La descendance d'aïeux bons fait la vraie noblesse de naissance ; une seule solution de continuité dans cette chaîne, un seul ancêtre méchant, supprime cette noblesse. On doit demander à quiconque parle de sa noblesse : N'as-tu parmi tes ancêtres aucun homme violent, avide, extravagant, méchant, cruel ? S'il peut en toute science et conscience répondre : Non, qu'on recherche son amitié.

Esclaves et ouvriers. — Le fait que nous attachons plus de prix à une satisfaction de vanité qu'à tout autre avantage (sécurité, abri, plaisirs de toute espèce) se montre à un degré ridicule en ceci, que chacun (abstraction faite de raisons politiques) souhaite l'abolition de l'esclavage et repousse avec horreur l'idée de mettre des hommes dans cet état : cependant que chacun doit se dire que les esclaves ont à tous égards une existence plus sûre et plus heureuse que l'ouvrier moderne, que le travail servile est peu de chose par rapport au travail de l'ouvrier. On proteste au nom de la « dignité humaine » : mais c'est-à-dire, pour parler simplement, cette brave vanité, qui regarde comme le sort le plus dur de n'être pas sur un pied d'égalité, d'être publiquement compté pour inférieur. — Le cynique pense autrement à ce sujet, parce qu'il méprise l'honneur ; — et c'est ainsi que Diogène fut un temps esclave et précepteur domestique.

Mon utopie. — Dans un meilleur ordre de société, le travail pénible et la peine de la vie seront attribués à celui qui en souffrira le moins, partant au plus stupide, et ainsi de suite par degrés jusqu'à celui qui est le plus accessible aux espèces les plus raffinées de la souffrance et qui, par conséquent, même dans l'allégement le plus grand de la vie, souffre encore.

Illusion dans la théorie de la révolution. — Il y a des rêveurs politiques et sociaux qui dépensent du feu et de l'éloquence à réclamer un bouleversement de tous les ordres, dans la croyance qu'aussitôt le plus superbe temple d'une belle humanité s'élèverait, pour ainsi dire, de lui-même. Dans ces rêves dangereux persiste un écho de la superstition de Rousseau, qui croit à une bonté de l'humaine nature merveilleuse, originelle, mais pour ainsi dire enterrée et met au compte des institutions de civilisation, dans la société, l'État, l'éducation, toute la responsabilité de cet enterrement. Malheureusement on sait par des expériences historiques que tout bouleversement de ce genre ressuscite à nouveau les énergies les plus sauvages, caractères les plus effroyables et les plus effrénés des âges reculés : que par conséquent un bouleversement peut, bien être une source de force dans une humanité devenue inerte, mais jamais ordonnateur, architecte, artiste, perfecteur de la nature humaine. — Ce n'est pas la nature de Voltaire, avec sa modération, son penchant à arranger, à purifier, à modifier, mais les folies et les demi-mensonges passionnés de Rousseau qui ont éveillé l'esprit optimiste de la Révolution, contre lequel je m'écrie : « Écrasez l'infâme ! » Par lui l'esprit de lumières et d'évolution progressive a été banni pour longtemps : — voyons — chacun à part soi, — s'il est possible de le rappeler !

Résurrection de l'esprit. — Dans la maladie politique, un peuple se rajeunit d'ordinaire lui-même et retrouve son esprit qu'il perdait peu à peu dans la recherche et la conquête du pouvoir. La civilisation n'est redevable à rien plus qu'aux temps politiquement faibles.

Temps heureux. — Un siècle heureux est absolument impossible par la raison que les hommes ne veulent que le souhaiter, mais ne veulent pas l'avoir, et tout individu, lorsque lui viennent d'heureux jours, apprend formellement à demander au ciel le trouble et la misère. Le destin des hommes est disposé pour d'heureux moments — toute vie en a de tels — mais non pour des époques heureuses. Néanmoins, ces époques restent comme l'« au-delà des monts » dans l'imagination des hommes, comme un legs des ancêtres ; car on a sans doute, depuis des temps reculés, emprunté cette conception du siècle heureux à cet état où l'homme, après la tension violente de la chasse et de la guerre, s'abandonne au repos, étend ses membres, et entend bruire autour de lui les ailes du sommeil. C'est par un raisonnement faux que l'homme, conformément à cette vieille habitude, s'imagine que, maintenant encore, après des périodes entières de détresse et de peine, il peut goûter, à un degré et dans un temps proportionnels, cet état de bonheur.

Le socialisme au point de vue de ses moyens d'action. — Le socialisme est le fantastique frère cadet du despotisme presque défunt, dont il veut recueillir l'héritage ; ses efforts sont donc, au sens le plus profond, réactionnaires. Car il désire une plénitude de puissance de l'État telle que le despotisme seul l'a jamais eue, même il dépasse tout ce que montre le passé, parce qu'il travaille à l'anéantissement formel de l'individu : c'est que celui-ci lui apparaît comme un luxe injustifiable de la nature, qui doit être par lui corrigé en un organe utile de la communauté. Par suite de cette parenté, il se montre toujours dans le voisinage de tous les déploiements excessifs de puissance, comme le vieux socialiste type Platon à la cour du tyran de Sicile ; il souhaite (il exige à l'occasion) le despotisme césarien de ce siècle, parce que, comme j'ai dit, il voudrait en être l'héritier. Mais cet héritage même ne suffirait pas à ses fins, il lui faut l'asservissement complet de tous les citoyens à l'État absolu, tel qu'il n'en a jamais existé de pareil ; et comme il n'a plus le moindre droit de compter sur la vieille piété religieuse envers l'État, qu'au contraire il doit, bon gré mal gré, travailler constamment à sa suppression — puisqu'en effet il travaille à la suppression de tous les États existants, — il ne peut avoir d'espoir d'une existence future que pour de courtes périodes, çà et là, grâce au plus extrême terrorisme. C'est pourquoi il se prépare silencieusement à la domination par la terreur et enfonce aux masses à demi cultivées, comme un clou dans la tête, le mot de « Justice », afin de leur enlever toute intelligence (après que cette intelligence a déjà bien souffert de la demi-culture) et de leur procurer, pour le vilain jeu qu'elles auront à jouer, une bonne conscience. — Le socialisme peut servir à enseigner de façon brutale et frappante le danger de toutes les accumulations de puissance dans l'État, et en ce sens insinuer une méfiance contre l'État même. Quand sa rude voix se mêlera au cri de guerre : « Le plus d'État possible », ce cri en déviendra d'abord. plus bruyant que jamais : mais bientôt éclatera avec non moins de force le cri opposé : « Le moins d'État possible. »

L'homme européen et la destruction des nations. — Le commerce et l'industrie, l'échange des livres et des lettres, la communauté de toute la haute culture, le rapide changement de lieu et de pays, la vie nomade qui est actuellement celle de tous les gens qui ne possèdent pas de la terre, — toutes ces conditions entraînent nécessairement un affaiblissement et enfin une destruction des nations, au moins des nations européennes : si bien qu'il doit naître d'elles, par suite de croisements continuels, une race mêlée, celle des hommes européens. À cette fin s'oppose actuellement, sciemment ou non, l'exclusivisme des nations par la production des inimitiés nationales, mais la marche de ce mélange n'en avance pas moins lentement, malgré tous les courants contraires momentanés : ce nationalisme artificiel est au reste aussi dangereux que l'a été le catholicisme artificiel, car il est par essence un état de contrainte, un état de siège forcé, imposé par un petit nombre au grand nombre, et a besoin de ruse, de mensonge et de violence pour se maintenir en crédit. Ce n'est pas l'intérêt du grand nombre (des peuples), comme on aime à le dire, mais avant tout l'intérêt de certaines dynasties princières, puis celui de certaines classes du commerce et de la société, qui mène à ce nationalisme ; une fois qu'on a reconnu ce fait, on ne doit pas craindre de se donner seulement pour bon Européen et de travailler par le fait à la fusion des nations ; à quoi les Allemands peuvent contribuer par leur vieille qualité éprouvée, d'être interprètes et intermédiaires des peuples. — En passant : tout le problème des Juifs n'existe que dans les limites des États nationaux, en ce sens que là, leur activité et leur intelligence supérieure, le capital d'esprit et de volonté qu'ils ont longuement amassé de génération en génération à l'école du malheur, doit arriver à prédominer généralement dans une mesure qui éveille l'envie et la haine, si bien que dans presque toutes les nations d'à présent — et cela d'autant plus qu'elles se donnent plus des airs de nationalisme — se propage cette impertinence de la presse qui consiste à mener les Juifs à l'abattoir comme les boucs émissaires de tous les maux possibles publics et privés. Dès qu'il n'est plus question de conserver ou d'établir des nations, mais de produire et d'élever une race mêlée d'Européens aussi forte que possible, le Juif est un ingrédient aussi utile et aussi désirable qu'aucun autre reste national. Toute nation, tout homme a des traits déplaisants, même dangereux : c'est barbarie de vouloir que le Juif fasse une exception. Il se peut même que ces traits présentent chez lui un degré particulier de danger et d'horreur ; et peut-être le jeune boursicotier juif est-il en somme l'invention la plus répugnante de la race humaine. Malgré tout, je voudrais, savoir combien, dans une récapitulation totale, on doit pardonner à un peuple qui, non sans notre faute à tous, a parmi tous les peuples eu l'histoire la plus pénible, et à qui l'on doit l'homme le plus digne d'amour (le Christ), le sage le plus intègre (Spinoza), le livre le plus puissant et la loi morale la plus influente du monde. En outre : aux temps les plus sombres du moyen-âge, quand le rideau des nuages asiatiques pesait lourdement sur l'Europe, ce furent des libres-penseurs, des savants, des médecins juifs qui maintinrent le drapeau des lumières et de l'indépendance d'esprit sous la contrainte personnelle la plus dure, et qui défendirent l'Europe contre l'Asie ; c'est à leurs efforts que nous devons en grande partie qu'une explication du monde plus naturelle, plus raisonnable, et en tout cas affranchie du mythe, ait enfin pu ressaisir là victoire, et que la chaîne de la civilisation, qui nous rattache maintenant aux lumières de l'antiquité gréco-romaine, soit restée ininterrompue. Si le christianisme a tout fait pour orientaliser l'Occident, c'est le judaïsme qui a surtout contribué à l'occidentaliser de nouveau : ce qui revient à dire en un certain sens, à rendre la mission et l'histoire de l'Europe une continuation de l'histoire grecque.

La guerre indispensable. — C'est une vaine idée d'utopistes et de belles âmes que d'attendre beaucoup encore (ou même : beaucoup seulement alors) de l'humanité, quand elle aura désappris de faire la guerre. En attendant, nous ne connaissons pas d'autre moyen qui puisse rendre aux peuples fatigués cette rude énergie du champ de bataille, cette profonde haine impersonnelle, ce sang-froid dans le meurtre uni à une bonne conscience, cette ardeur commune organisatrice dans l'anéantissement de l'ennemi, cette fière indifférence aux grandes pertes, à sa propre vie et à celle des gens qu'on aime, cet ébranlement sourd des âmes comparable aux tremblements de terre, avec autant de force et de sûreté que ne fait n'importe quelle grande guerre ; les ruisseaux et les torrents qui se font jour alors, roulant il est vrai dans leur cours des pierres et des fanges de toute sorte et ruinant les prés des cultures un peu délicates, remettent ensuite en mouvement, dans des circonstances favorables, les rouages des ateliers de l'esprit, qui se reprennent à tourner avec une force nouvelle. La civilisation ne peut absolument pas se passer des passions, des vices et des méchancetés. — Lorsque les Romains parvenus à l'Empire furent un peu las des guerres, ils essayèrent de retirer de nouvelles forces des battues à la bête fauve, des combats de gladiateurs et des persécutions contre les chrétiens. Les Anglais d'aujourd'hui, qui semblent en somme avoir aussi renoncé à la guerre, prennent un autre moyen de recréer ces forces qui décroissent : ces périlleux voyages de découvertes, ces traversées, ces ascensions, entrepris, à ce qu'on dit, pour des buts scientifiques, en réalité pour rapporter chez eux des aventures, des dangers de toute nature, un supplément de force. On inventera sous diverses formes de pareils substituts de la guerre, mais peut-être feront-ils voir de plus en plus qu'une humanité d'une culture aussi élevée et par là même aussi fatiguée que l'est aujourd'hui l'Europe, a besoin non seulement des guerres, mais des plus terribles — partant de retours momentanés à la barbarie — pour ne pas dépenser en moyens de civilisation sa civilisation et son existence mêmes.

La richesse, origine d'une noblesse de race. — La richesse produit nécessairement une aristocratie de race, car elle met en état de choisir les femmes les plus belles, de payer les meilleurs maîtres, elle procure à l'homme la propreté, le temps d'exercer son corps et surtout la possibilité d'éviter le travail corporel abrutissant. En ce sens, elle crée toutes les conditions nécessaires pour faire qu'en quelques générations les hommes se comportent, et même se conduisent noblement et vertueusement : la liberté plus grande de conscience, l'absence des mesquineries misérables, de l'abaissement devant ceux qui procurent le pain, de l'épargne sou à sou. — Précisément ces avantages négatifs sont la plus riche dot de bonheur pour un jeune homme ; un homme très pauvre se ruine d'ordinaire par sa noblesse de pensée, il ne professe pas et n'acquiert rien, sa race n'est pas viable. — Mais il faut là-dessus considérer que la richesse exerce presque les mêmes effets, qu'un homme puisse dépenser trois cents écus ou trente mille par an : il n'y a dès lors plus de progression réelle des circonstances favorables. Seulement, avoir moins, mendier dans son enfance et s'humilier, c'est chose terrible : quoique pour des gens qui cherchent le bonheur dans l'éclat des cours, dans la subordination aux hommes puissants et influents ou qui veulent devenir des princes de l'Église, cela puisse être le bon point de départ. — (On y apprend à se courber pour pénétrer dans les sentiers souterrains de la faveur).

Relation avec le Moi supérieur. — Tout homme a son bon jour, où il trouve son Moi supérieur ; et la véritable humanité veut qu'on n'apprécie chacun que d'après cet état et non d'après les jours ouvrables de dépendance et de servilité. On doit, par exemple, juger et honorer un peintre d'après la vision la plus haute qu'il a été capable d'avoir et de rendre. Mais les hommes eux-mêmes ont des relations très diverses avec ce Moi supérieur et sont souvent leurs propres comédiens, en ce sens qu'ils recommencent toujours à imiter dans la suite ce qu'ils sont dans ces moments. Beaucoup vivent dans la frayeur et l'humilité devant leur idéal et voudraient le renier : ils ont peur de leur Moi supérieur, parce que, quand il parle, il parle arrogamment. En outre il jouit de la liberté mystérieuse de venir et de partir comme il veut ; c'est pourquoi on l'appelle souvent un don des dieux, tandis qu'en réalité c'est tout le reste qui est un don des dieux (du hasard) : mais lui est de l'homme même. »

Fin des citations de "Humain, trop humain".

Source : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Humain,_trop_humain/VIII

D'où il découle non une pensée scientifique mais une pensée ultra-réactionnaire, raciste, élitiste, violente, anti-humaniste, anti-sociale et anti-socialiste, contre-révolutionnaire. Comme les etxes suivants le démontrent !

Nietzsche critique, on l'a compris, l'idée que les idées libertaires, révolutionnaires, républicaines, socialistes, voire anarchistes affaiblissent l'Homme et que pour y remédier, il faut qu'une élite résiste et s'extirpe des codes établis sous cette influence néfaste, se débarrasse de toute morale et ne craigne pas de faire table rase des sentiments « trop humains ». Ne regardez pas du côté d'Hitler…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1100

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5599

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1261

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3586

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5438

Capitalism is incompatible with women's freedom…

Robert Paris, Tiekoura Levi Hamed — 2026-06-15T13:44:00Z

Decaying, subsidized capitalism, more antisocial and bloody than ever, is even more incompatible with women's freedom…

With the new period of systemic collapse, social and political crisis, and war, women, more than ever victims of oppression, repression, and discrimination, are being called upon to lead revolutions.

Capitalism has never been compatible with women's freedom, and it is less so than ever as it collapses…

https://fr.internationalism.org/content/11329/avortement-constitution-femmes-ne-seront-jamais-libres-sous-joug-du-capitalisme

Violence against women is not decreasing : it is increasing !!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5414

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/violences-faites-aux-femmes/grand-entretien-pourquoi-la-france-ne-parvient-elle-pas-a-faire-baisser-le-nombre-de-feminicides_5696255.html

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/les-violences-faites-aux-femmes-ne-diminuent-pas-1448447115

https://actu.fr/societe/violences-conjugales-pourquoi-le-nombre-de-feminicides-ne-baisse-pas_57849200.html

https://www.vivamagazine.fr/les-violences-faites-aux-femmes-ne-baissent-pas/

The oppression of women is not something that happened in the past or elsewhere : it is happening now and here at home !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1594

Women, more than ever victims in rich countries as well as in poor countries…

https://www.terrafemina.com/article/harcelement-de-rue-3-millions-de-femmes-le-subissent-chaque-annee-en-france_a338062/1

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2537

http://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2509

Where women are particularly attacked, raped, harassed : Mexico, India, South Africa, but also USA, England, Sweden, France....

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2584

A comforting lie circulates in Western bourgeois "democracy" : that women are increasingly free, recognized, protected, and equal to men. The opposite is true !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2222

Crimes against humanity… specifically against women, are not a thing of the past !!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4397

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2019/06/22/faut-j22.html

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2021/11/16/zvpq-n16.html

https://www.ohchr.org/fr/stories/2023/07/were-here-tell-it-mexican-women-break-silence-over-femicides

https://www.lavie.fr/actualite/geopolitique/au-mexique-les-assassinats-de-femmes-se-multiplient-dans-limpunite-78330.php

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meurtres_et_disparitions_de_femmes_autochtones_aux_%C3%89tats-Unis

Long live the revolt against rape and harassment of women !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2583

Enough with the oppression of women !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4185

The capitalist world's new offensive against women

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3363

Women's liberation has never come and will never come from bourgeois institutions.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2931

Women are more oppressed as a result of the collapse of the system…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2545

During the pandemic and economic collapse, violence against women and children has increased.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6100

Patriarchy and capitalism reinforce the oppression of women…

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/cadtm/blog/280516/le-patriarcat-et-le-capitalisme-renforcent-l-oppression-des-femmes

More than ever, patriarchy is the instrument of war of big capital against women and against the people…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5352

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3785

Women are victims of all religions, not just Islam…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article167

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1038

http://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1037

All religions and all bourgeois states are united against women !!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4409

Women, victims of all police forces in the world…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5507

Women, the most radical and the most rebellious…

https://euradio.fr/emission/KYQz-la-cause-des-femmes-en-europe-jade-champetier/PQ65-feminisme-et-cause-des-femmes-un-mouvement-radical

Women in revolt... around the world

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1970

When women rise up, they are at the forefront of the exploited and oppressed.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5350

Women at the forefront of revolutions…

https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/pourquoi-les-femmes-sont-de-plus-en-plus-progressistes-et-les-hommes-conservateurs-25-04-2024-2558635_23.php

https://observers.france24.com/fr/moyen-orient/20230906-notre-r%C3%A9volution-est-civile-les-femmes-de-soue%C3%AFda-en-premi%C3%A8re-ligne-contre-le-r%C3%A9gime-syrien

https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/040519/revolution-au-soudan-les-femmes-sont-en-premiere-ligne-comme-toujours

https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2023/01/10/les-iraniennes-sont-devenues-le-visage-de-la-lutte-feministe-mondiale-conversation-avec-des-femmes-en-lutte/

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2020/02/27/les-femmes-ont-construit-une-presence-dans-les-aspirations-revolutionnaires-du-monde-arabe_6030977_3232.html

https://www.challenges.fr/france/les-femmes-sont-au-coeur-du-mouvement-des-gilets-jaunes_631423

https://www.matierevolution.org/spip.php?article6441

Women workers and workers' wives in struggle all over the world

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve696

Domestic workers are fed up with being treated as domestic slaves and sex slaves

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve520

Women are doubly exploited…

https://www.marxiste.org/theorie/oppressions/2366-femme-et-salariee-doublement-exploitee

The working woman is not more free

https://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1491840909-le-travail-libere-femme-idee-de-riches

Building socialism involves emancipating women and protecting mothers

https://www.marxists.org/francais/trotsky/oeuvres/1925/12/lt19251200.htm

When women get involved, it's a social revolution…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article254

The fight against the oppression of women is inseparable from social revolution

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article256

Oppressed women and exploited workers, together for the overthrow of capitalism !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6903

In Iran, as in France and elsewhere, the liberation of women and the liberation of the exploited are inseparable.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6985

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6946

Feminism and class struggles

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jean-marc-b/blog/290521/l-histoire-oubliee-du-courant-feministe-luttes-de-classe-en-france

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7405

The escalating world war is also a war against women and children...

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7467

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7694

Workers, women and youth of the world, let us not accept being cannon fodder in the next global slaughter of an exploitative system on its last legs !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7636

Decaying, subsidized capitalism, more antisocial and bloody than ever, is even more incompatible with women's freedom…

To liberate themselves, women have no choice but to overthrow the system of exploitation and unite with the proletariat to achieve this…

Home > 11- Book Eleven : WOMEN - AGAINST OPPRESSION > The liberation of women has never come and will never come from (…)
Women's liberation has never come and will never come from bourgeois institutions.

Sunday, October 20, 2013 , by Robert Paris

Trotsky wrote : "Without a doubt, sexual oppression is an important means of enslaving man. As long as there is oppression, there can be no true freedom. The family, as a bourgeois institution, is completely obsolete. We must talk more about this instrument..."

Lenin replied : "...And not only the family. All prohibitions on sexuality must be abolished... We can learn from the suffragettes : even the prohibition of homosexual love must be abolished."

cited by W. Reich in his work "The Sexual Revolution"

For a number of women's rights activists, it is the State that must decide in favor of women's rights, through legislation adopted by parliamentary chambers that enact laws which the State apparatus should then enforce. History has not shown this type of process. It is women themselves who have asserted their rights, not the legislature that has finally understood that women are within their rights. Neither since the "rule of law" of the French Republic nor before have legislators ever independently recognized the validity of women's demands. When the State decides to issue a law supposedly in favor of these rights, it always signifies social setbacks elsewhere, or hypocrisy in the law itself, its implementing decrees, and the way the State apparatus applies it. The State is the antithesis of freedom, and this is not only true with regard to women. The state can exploit the women's issue to pit men against women and thus divert attention from the social question. Or it can feign support for women, again to divide and further exacerbate tensions. It depends on the political and social circumstances.

While we may occasionally observe a small concession from the State towards women, we notice, after a certain time, that it has served to pave the way for other attacks, either from women or from the other side. And the State's policy is necessarily to ensnare women and men within the social and political system, thus trapping them.

It is important to first recognize that even the most modern capitalist bourgeois society cannot do without the divisions between men and women and the oppression of women, even if it hypocritically claims the opposite. Western societies certainly practice a feminine form of hypocrisy, but women gain nothing from it. The same politicians who pass laws on gender equality are still essentially "men" politicians. Yet, it is common practice to claim that attacks on women's rights only come from poor, non-Western countries, preferably Muslim ones, according to the propaganda disseminated to us daily.

The reality is very different : Western societies, far from liberating women, actually oppress, despise, and exploit them in a particular way. Women in wealthy Western countries are subjected to a truly violent form of racism, beginning with propaganda claiming that "all women are whores," that those who are raped brought it on themselves, and that women are simply manipulating and subversive.

It is already remarkable that this country, which claims to be the birthplace of the great French Revolution, is incapable of acknowledging the role of women in the revolutionary action that brought an end to feudalism, the monarchy, religious oppression, and medieval backwardness. Virtually no one in France can name a single female politician who played a major role in the French Revolution, and yet how many great names there were among the revolutionary women of that era !

However, the legislators who emerged from the French Revolution never had the slightest intention of relying on this revolutionary role of women to grant them, by law, the slightest political right to speak ; quite the contrary !

The civil and political laws of the Republic were clearly legislation in favour of property owners, the only ones with the right to vote and stand for election, and the only property owners that the republic recognized were men….

The French Revolution, which proclaimed the "rights of the citizen," did not in any way recognize the rights of women, since they were in fact the property of their husbands, in order to ensure that the inheritance remained within the descendants…

Bourgeois marriage made women into mere property, the producers of offspring, and servants of men. Confined to the role of eternal second, they had neither the right to practice important professions such as doctor, surgeon, or professor, nor the right to own and run businesses, nor the right to speak out in politics or to intervene in laws and the State.

The triumphant bourgeois society had perfectly seen the revolutionary character of women and, precisely because their rights had been won, the bourgeoisie no longer wanted to experience social revolutions….

If, during the revolution, bourgeois revolutionaries were already fighting tooth and nail to silence revolutionary women, afterwards it was the great era of the institutionalization of the oppression of women…

Even during the Middle Ages, the rise of the bourgeoisie coincided with a decline in freedoms, particularly women's rights. The bourgeoisie added its own exploitation and oppression to all those imposed by feudal law and oppressive lords. It was with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the end of the Middle Ages that a major campaign against free women, labeled witches, was launched. See "the witch hunts."

Even this campaign against free women, branded as whores and witches, exploited women's feelings, their fear that other women would seduce their husbands, steal from them, or cast spells on them. The state and institutions of the time, particularly religious ones, organized deception and murder and gave them a legal framework… These crimes were committed in the name of defending the very interests of women and couples…

The past has seen many ways of enslaving and deceiving women. There was the cult of Mary which, under the pretext of highlighting the role of the woman who gives birth and protects her, placing her at the very top of social and religious recognition, transformed women into mere procreators. The purity of the "virgin" who had produced a child without sleeping with a man (!!!) was used to denounce women's sexual freedom and their right to make love for pleasure. The laws of bourgeois marriage, under the pretext of ensuring the future of children, decreed that the woman was a minor, incapable of managing the household affairs on her own, while the man was destined to do so…

The result : for decades, it would be difficult to name a single woman who had contributed as a writer, professor, doctor, surgeon, artist, or who had advanced any field whatsoever. Delivering babies—the midwife—or cleaning the sick—the nurse or the nursing assistant—these were the very few areas in which women could work. Even apothecaries and dentists had to be men. This means that at least half of all talent, discoveries, progress, and arts were systematically destroyed. Since the male segment of society was primarily concerned with warfare, hunting, and feudal oppression, it is far more than half of human thought and creation that was destroyed while women's aspirations for freedom were systematically silenced.

Let us remember that a woman who refused the marriage that was being imposed upon her could be locked up in convent-prisons.

For centuries, under the domination of Western feudalism and then the bourgeoisie, female talents were crushed, discredited, stifled, thrown in the trash, and condemned to disrepute and opprobrium…

The little that has come to light shows us that these talents did indeed exist despite the great efforts to convince women that this was not their role.

The violence of the remarks made by male "good minds" towards women is sometimes surprising when one quotes numerous French authors, for example.

This ignores the fact that the role of these authors, in disseminating the dominant ideology, was to discredit women…

The dominant bourgeoisie, far from removing these behaviors from the Middle Ages, has confined women to a secondary role, not to say worse.

His democratic discourse stopped at the boundaries of gender. One only has to look at how long it took Western bourgeoisies to grant women the right to vote.

It is also important to understand that this was not done at all out of democratic concern or because of an awareness of injustices, but to make the acceptance of the unjust social order more palatable after a particularly atrocious world war in which women were the main heads of the household while the men were at war….

To create the illusion of openness at the end of World War II, bourgeois society needed to include women in elections. The initial aim was to make people believe that democratic elections would henceforth be the true means of expressing popular aspirations—a blatant lie and a blatant deception. And we have seen that women's suffrage, far from addressing women's rights, only served to solidify the existing power structure, including the prevailing machismo, both politically and socially.

Just as, in theory, a proletarian's vote was supposed to be equal to a capitalist's vote in Western bourgeois democratic society, women's suffrage was presented as equal to men's. Well, this changed nothing in the real lives of women in any concrete way, any more than it changed the lives of the proletariat ! Women may have voted, but it did nothing to diminish their devaluation, their inferior status, the degradation of their image, the contempt and violence they endure, or even their political inferiority. For example, the image in the vocabulary

Class domination requires, more than ever, diversions such as racism against women, against foreigners, against young people, against other religions, etc. Regarding male/female relations, bourgeois society continues to offer men the possibility of having an exploited woman at home, the right to oppress others as well, even if they are proletarians. There is always someone more exploited than the exploited, more oppressed than the oppressed, more foreign than the foreigner : his wife.

The bourgeoisie, conceiving of everything through the lens of private property, also conceived of male/female relations through this lens. It is no coincidence that marriage plays such a significant role in bourgeois thought and that joint or separate property ownership is central to marriage, with its various types of "marriage contracts" : marriage is a bourgeois contract…

The other remarkable point is the importance the bourgeoisie attaches to the defender of its general interests : the bourgeois state. Here again, there is no marriage without state intervention. One can conceive, in the bourgeois sense, of a marriage without religion, but no marriage between two individuals without state intervention. What makes the relationship between two people recognized is the act of appearing before the mayor and being registered by the state… In short, no private aspect whatsoever, even though bourgeois society prides itself on being the epitome of individual liberty !

Marriage is therefore a commercial transaction between two individuals, which also involves their shared assets, from the property they may acquire to the children they may have. Everything is conceived within the framework of private property… Everything is marked by the idea of future inheritances, potential disputes between co-owners, etc.

Individuals who believe themselves to be free and independent of any predetermination are caught up in these bourgeois criteria without even realizing it. Even if many people no longer marry, they don't necessarily see or aren't shocked by the fact that marriage is conceived primarily as a business relationship.

This is the whole strength of bourgeois democracy : to make modern slaves, the proletariat, believe that they are free and act only in their own interest when they are led to act only in the interest of capitalist society.

This is striking in the context of labor relations, since it is the exploited worker who is forced to chase after their exploitation. But it is equally striking in the context of male/female relationships, which are just as determined by the interests of the exploiters, even if those involved are unaware of it.

Women themselves are often led to view marriage as a safer and more lasting alliance, more secure if there are children, to the point that couples who have not been married for many years sometimes get married when they have children born.

However, it is obvious that marriage in no way guarantees a relationship or the future of the children. On the other hand, the bourgeois order attaches great importance to the number of couples who "go through the mayor," in fact, who are recognized by the bourgeois state…

And this marriage certainly wasn't arranged for the woman's security. Just look at how, for many years, the woman within the couple didn't have access to the bank account, while it was the husbands who most often squandered the family's money !

The hypocrisy of bourgeois society is to pretend that everything is done for the good of the individual and his personal success when everything is done to make him chained to the social order, including making the wife put pressure on the husband so that he does not demand too much at work and does not get involved in politics "so as not to take risks for the children".

Hypocrisy has only grown in recent years with a dominant discourse that calls for equality between men and women as much as it calls for "sustainable development," and with just as much bad faith…

Women who are raped or beaten (including by their husbands) are no better received at police stations, nor are they better protected or treated. Maternity wards are far from being shielded from austerity measures. Abortion clinics are severely understaffed and under-resourced. Those who exert moral and physical pressure against the right to abortion and contraception are not challenged by the bourgeois state, its police, or its justice system. Social inequalities, of course, persist. Not to mention the education system, which discriminates between men and women from a young age.

The bourgeoisie and its supposedly democratic state have not liberated women, neither in the West nor elsewhere, nor in a Christian, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, or Muslim world…

Westerners who claim to be outraged by the plight of women in poor countries are equally hypocritical. Were they outraged when these countries were part of Western colonial empires ? Why didn't they then use colonial domination to fight colonial oppression ? Have we ever heard of a Western colonizer fighting harems, female genital mutilation, the sale of women and children, the abduction of women, the repudiation of women, and other rotten "traditions" when these regions were under colonial rule ? Certainly not !

And today, have we heard of a Western state condemning these practices when the dictatorial regime imposing them is a friend of Western governments, as is the case with Saudi Arabia ? Never !

Have we heard that France has used its recent popularity in Mali, its military occupation, or its close ties to the new government to combat female genital mutilation in Mali ? Certainly not ! And everyone knows that French imperialism only denounced the plight of Malian women under the military occupation by Islamist armed groups in the north to justify its military intervention.

Could French imperialism be concerned about the fate of women and, at the same time, exploit the region for its uranium, seriously contaminating nearby villages, men, women and children, as a result of this exploitation, as recalled by a recent demonstration against the French nuclear trust Areva ?

In Western countries, there is a false impression that all authorities—government, justice system, police, administration, parliaments, city halls, etc.—are fully mobilized to protect women. But violence against women is by no means declining in the West ; quite the opposite. Prostitution, far from decreasing, is on the rise, utilizing all the latest technologies, such as the internet.

Of course, everyone remembers that the bourgeois state accepted the right to abortion and contraception. Simone Veil (a right-wing political leader and minister at the time, not to be confused with the revolutionary mystic Simone Weil) is constantly glorified for this. But abortion (which led to the guillotine not so long ago in France) would never have been legalized if women and men hadn't had the courage to give their names and declare, "I have performed abortions !"

Where is the concern for the fate of women when families of undocumented immigrants, Roma, and other immigrants are deported ? Where is the concern for the fate of women when bourgeois states around the world reduce their aid to poor countries, particularly cutting aid to women and children ? Where is the concern for the fate of women in the numerous wars waged by Western countries ? For example, in Afghanistan, where these countries claimed to be intervening militarily to defend women against the Taliban, and where they are now preparing to bring the Taliban back to power after massacring civilians, destroying, and bombing under the pretext of liberation… Where is the concern for the fate of women when Western countries support the dictatorships of the oil principalities against the Arab Spring ? And so on…

Nowhere in the world have bourgeois states mobilized for women, even when they suffer horrific atrocities. No action was taken by the Mexican authorities to protect the murdered women of Juarez. No action was taken by the Indian state in the face of the increasing number of rapes. See India and Women

On the contrary, with the crisis of bourgeois domination over the world following the economic collapse of 2007-2008, the ruling classes are considering all means of increasing violent opposition, even civil wars, between segments of the poor population, and the contempt for women is one of the ways to promote fascism… See : The oppression of women is worsening worldwide, in connection with the capitalist collapse that began in 2007

The more capitalist domination of the world appears threatened to the ruling classes, the more they will reactivate hatred, contempt, and violence against women.

Terrorizing women is a key way to prevent social anger from turning into social revolution. Just look at how the Algerian ruling classes extricated themselves from the revolutionary wave that began in 1988 by supporting the development of a fundamentalist movement violently hostile to women, before turning the country into a bloodbath, ostensibly to fight these same Islamists, but in reality to preserve the bourgeois military dictatorship.

The ruling classes have very good reason to fear women particularly in this situation of destabilization of capitalist society. Every era of social revolution has seen women at the forefront of the revolution : from the French Revolution to the Paris Commune and the October Revolution, not to mention the Spanish Revolution…

The future of the world depends on the common struggle of women, young people, and the working class…

Qu'est-ce que l'Internationale Communiste de Lénine et Trotsky en 1920 ?

Robert Paris — 2026-06-14T22:20:00Z

Trotsky :

7 août 1920

Camarades,

Le 2e Congrès de l'Internationale Communiste se rassemble dix-huit mois après le 1er Congrès. Ce laps de temps n'est pas énorme, mais la valeur historique de l'expérience que nous avons faite pendant cette courte période est plus considérable que celle de tout ce que nous avons fait auparavant.

Pour nous, ce 2e Congrès n'est pas une simple revue des peuples. Il ne s'agit pas de nous compter entre camarades. Non. Nous devons nous arrêter un instant sur le chemin qui mène vers les hauteurs, à travers bien des obstacles et des précipices ; nous devons jeter un regard en arrière afin de mesurer la route parcourue. Sans cesser pour cela de surveiller l'ennemi, nous planterons les jalons de la prochaine étape et, sans perdre une minute, nous reprendrons notre marche en avant.

Ainsi donc, nous allons embrasser du regard ce qui s'est passé durant ces dix-huit mois qui séparent le 1er. Congrès du second, et nous nous demanderons, en scrutant soigneusement notre conscience révolutionnaire, si nous avons le droit de dire que la route que nous nous étions tracée lors du 1er. Congrès de la Commune mondiale était la bonne route. Nous nous demanderons si nous avons remporté des succès, à quoi il faut les attribuer. Et si le prolétariat mondial a parfois subi des défaites et battu en retraite, n'est-ce pas parce qu'il n'est pas entré tout entier dans la voie que lui avait indiquée l'Internationale Communiste ?

Les dix-huit mois qui viennent de s'écouler ont souligné d'un trait sanglant toute une époque, qui fait date dans l'histoire de l'humanité. Cette époque a eu ses lois, ses méthodes, son égalité, ses relations mondiales, ses luttes, ses mensonges, le mensonge démocratique de la science officielle, le mensonge de l'Eglise. La guerre mondiale a fait le bilan de tout cela. Et les classes bourgeoises qui poussaient les peuples à entrer dans cette mêlée mondiale, leur promettaient en même temps on ne sait quel Nouveau Testament, quel nouvel ordre des choses, quel nouveau régime.

Or, quel aspect présentent l'Europe et le monde entier, après qu'ils sont sortis de cet immense carnage et de cette fabrique de traités qu'on avait installée à Versailles ? L'ordre bourgeois ne sait sur quoi s'appuyer. Tout s'est mis en mouvement, toutes les assises sont ébranlées, tous les programmes des gouvernements bourgeois ont été jetés au panier ; les alliances internationales se sont disloquées et la bourgeoisie tremblante, au seuil de l'avenir, cherche une issue à une situation désespérée, créée par des siècles et des siècles de pillage et de violence. Mais il n'y a point d'issue.

L'Angleterre, la France, les Etats-Unis, ont promis de donner aux peuples une alliance mondiale, une Ligue des Nations, qui devait mettre fin aux guerres impérialistes, aux discordes internationales. La voici devant nous, cette Ligue des Nations. A peine était-elle sortie des chancelleries que son auteur, son inventeur, le président Wilson, la reniait.

Camarades , il n'y a pas plus de dix à douze mois que presque tous les chefs de la 2e Internationale, qui rassemble en ce moment ses lamentables débris au Congrès de Genève, saluaient Wilson comme un nouveau messie, du haut de sa montagne, apportant à l'Europe ensanglantée ses commandements, non pas les dix commandements des tables de Moïse, mais quatorze, les quatorze fameux articles de Wilson, qui devaient établir à tout jamais la paix entre les peuples. Tandis que Kautsky, Longuet et les autres représentants de la 2e. Internationale saluaient Wilson et invitaient les ouvriers à le soutenir, notre Internationale, il y a de cela dix-huit mois, à Moscou, déclarait que la démarche de Wilson était une tentative faite par les ploutocrates de New-York et de Chicago pour assujettir l'Europe et le monde entier ; notre Internationale disait que cette Ligue des Nations ne serait d'une compagnie mondiale dont le capital social serait fourni par les Etats-Unis. Le capital américain est accoutumé à étendre ses domaines par le système de la fédération, en faisant entrer dans la sphère de son exploitation de nouveaux millions d'hommes. Le capital américain a fait une tentative pour jeter le filet sur l'Europe, l'Asie et sur le monde entier.

Mais lorsque Wilson est arrivé en Europe, du fond de sa grande province américaine, il y a vu, en se heurtant aux problèmes de la mondiale, que les rênes du gouvernement étaient en ce moment entre les mains de l'Angleterre, qui dispose de la flotte la plus forte, du câble le plus long. C'est l'Angleterre qui s'entend le mieux, par expérience, aux violences et aux pillages. Et ce brave provincial de Wilson, avec ses poches pleines de dollars très bien côtés, s'imaginant que ses quatorze paragraphes allaient devenir l'évangile du monde, se trouva nez à nez avec la flotte anglaise. Que dis-je ? Avec la Russie soviétique et le communisme.

Alors, l'apôtre américain s'en retourna tout chagrin vers sa Maison Blanche à Washington, il remonta la pente de son Sinaï. Mais, camarades, ne croyez pas qu'il ait renoncé ainsi à sa politique de domination mondiale. Le capital américain ne saurait suivre un autre chemin. Tant que ce capital n'a fait que s'accumuler, s'étendre et s'émanciper, il a mis en avant sa théorie, connue sous le nom de doctrine de Monroe : « l'Amérique aux Américains ». Cela signifie que personne n'a le droit de se mêler de ce qui se passe sur le continent américain, où le capital américain reste seul maître de gouverner, d'exploiter et de brigander. Mais ce capital se sent maintenant à l'étroit dans les limites de l'Amérique, de l'Amérique du Nord et de l'Amérique du Sud qu'il a transformées en colonies.

Pendant la guerre, la lourde industrie américaine s'est dressée comme une colonne géante jusqu'aux cieux, et le capital américain a rejeté bien loin de lui la devise, l'Amérique aux Américains. Ou plutôt, nous dirons qu'il a modifié cette devise et qu'il a dit : non seulement l'Amérique aux Américains, mais le monde entier. C'est alors qu'il a envoyé l'apôtre Wilson avec son Nouveau Testament. Nous savons que Wilson n'a pas fait la commission. Mais la commission est toujours à faire, et l'oligarchie américaine est en train de faire ses comptes : notre flotte, se dit-elle, est plus faible que celle de la Grande-Bretagne de tant de tonnes, de tant de bouches de canons de tel ou tel calibre. Et le Département de la Marine américaine établit un nouveau programme, un programme qui doit, avant 1925, et quelques-uns disent encore plus tôt, en trois ans, rendre la flotte américaine incomparablement plus forte que celle de l'Angleterre.

Que signifie tout cela, sinon que toute force de l'Angleterre est dans sa flotte, qui lui permet de veiller sur toutes les routes océaniques, et d'exercer à son aise son métier de pirate mondial. Le programme naval de l'Angleterre se ramène à ceci : que sa flotte doit toujours être plus forte que celle des deux puissances navales qui viennent immédiatement après elle.

Maintenant, l'Amérique qui fait briller son dollar tout neuf, dont le cours est très élevé au firmament de la Bourse, déclare : dans trois ans, ma flotte sera plus forte que celle de l'Angleterre. Cela signifie qu'il s'agit " d'être ou de ne pas être " pour l'impérialisme britannique . Cela veut dire que l'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis marchent à toute vapeur vers un nouveau conflit qui ensanglantera la terre entière ; car, dans le monde de l'impérialisme , il ne peut y avoir deux pouvoirs, et l'hégémonie doit appartenir en fin de compte soit à l'Angleterre, soit à l'Amérique, si, toutefois, le prolétariat mondial n'arrive pas le premier à la leur enlever.

Ainsi donc, après quatre ans d'une épouvantable guerre qui a causé la débâcle des grandes puissances de l'Europe centrale, qui a dévasté l'Europe et ruiné le monde entier, nous voyons que sur les os des morts se prépare une nouvelle lutte encore plus gigantesque. La France, la principale ennemie de la Russie soviétiste, l'ennemie acharnée, infernale du prolétariat mondial, croit à présent avoir remporté la victoire ; ou plutôt , ce sont les nigauds, les petit-bourgeois, les boutiquiers, les social-patriotes et, en partie, les ouvriers dupés, qui s'imaginent que la France a vaincu. Erreur, profonde erreur. Bien longtemps avant la défaite de l'impérialisme germanique, l'Autriche-Hongrie était battue. Le militarisme allemand la soutenait encore, de même que l'Entente entretenait l'impérialisme allemand. Maintenant, la France, elle aussi, est un des pays du monde les plus épuisés et ruinés, bien qu'elle ait gardé son indépendance.

Certes, la France peut commettre des actes de piraterie dans la mer Noire, mais elle ne peut le faire que tant que l'Angleterre n'y trouvera rien à redire. La France peut dicter ses lois à la petite Belgique, dont elle a fait une de ses provinces ; elle peut fixer l'effectif de l'armée belge, et s'immiscer dans les affaires financières de ce petit pays ; mais la France n'est elle-même qu'une grande Belgique à côté de l'Angleterre. La France est incapable de se défendre, économiquement et militairement, sans l'assistance de l'Angleterre et de l'Amérique ; et cependant, la France, dans sa sottise de petite-bourgeoisie, poursuit jusqu'à présent son rêve de domination, et s'imagine qu'elle pourra jouer un rôle d'arbitre dans la querelle qui s'engage entre les Etats-Unis et l'Angleterre. Mais les Etats-Unis n'ont pas même voulu faire partie de la ligue des Nations, à côté de la France et de l'Angleterre. Et la France est presque obligée de se mettre à genoux pour demander l'aumône, pour obtenir qu'on lui garantisse son indépendance.

Que dirons-nous des petites nations ? On leur a promis la liberté, l'indépendance, et cependant, partout, l'Angleterre étend sur elles sa lourde patte, sur la Finlande, sur l'Esthonie Blanche, sur la Lettonie Blanche. Que reste-t-il de l'indépendance de la Suède et de la Norvège ? Qu'est-ce que la mer Baltique ? Un golfe où l'Angleterre fait de petites promenades. La mer du Nord ? Une possession de l'Angleterre. L'Océan Indien ? Entouré de toute une chaîne de nations soumises à l'Angleterre, parmi lesquelles l'Egypte, la Perse, l'Afghanistan, le Bélouchistan, l'Inde, l'Océan Indien n'est plus qu'une mer intérieure appartenant aux Anglais. L'Autriche-Hongrie déchirée, l'ancienne Russie du tsar découpée en petits Etats qui ne peuvent subsister et dont l'Entente, la Ligue des Nations, c'est-à-dire la Grande-Bretagne, prolongent encore l'agonie, l'Autriche crucifiée, la Hongrie (qui, après avoir accompli une tentative héroïque pour tirer du chaos l'Europe centrale, pour entrer dans la large voie de la fédération soviétiste, c'est-à-dire d'une alliance fraternelle des républiques ouvrières sur le terrain économique, militaire et culturel) écrasée et refoulée, voilà ce que l'on fait des petits Etats.

Nous voyons encore la Bohême et cette malheureuse Pologne, qui a fait alliance avec les social-patriotes, et dont l'affranchissement avait été inscrit à la première page du programme de la 1re. Internationale. La Pologne, telle que nous la voyons, a été créée par l'impérialisme à bout de forces, pour servir à ses fins honteuses, pour être tout entière à son service. Cette république démocratique, pour laquelle ont combattu des générations entières de révolutionnaires et de patriotes polonais, qui, fuyait le tsarisme, les uns après les autres, se rendaient en Occident pour combattre et mourir sur toutes les barricades de la révolution, cette Pologne démocratique n'est plus maintenant que l'instrument malpropre et sanglant du capital français. Mais, camarades, si la 1er. Internationale a inscrit dans les premières pages de son programme l'émancipation de la Pologne et la lutte contre le tsarisme, la Russie d'aujourd'hui, délivrée du tsarisme, accomplit la grande mission qui consiste à rendre la Pologne, crucifiée et violentée, à l'ouvrier polonais, au paysan polonais. (Applaudissements).

On nous parle, du haut de toutes les tribunes parlementaires, de la renaissance économique de l'Europe. Il n'y a pas de mensonge plus impudent que ce mensonge. Il n'y a pas de renaissance en Europe depuis ces derniers dix-huit mois. Depuis notre 1er. Congrès, l'Europe est devenue incomparablement plus pauvre et sa situation est bien plus désespérée qu'elle ne l'était avant cette date ; il en est de même du monde entier. Pensez-vous qu'il puisse y avoir une renaissance en Europe sans nos matières premières, sans les céréales de la Russie ? Est-ce qu'il peut y avoir une renaissance de l'Europe sans les ressources de la technique allemande, sans la classe ouvrière allemande ? Non. Et c'est pourquoi les représentants des ouvriers de tous les pays, que vous voyez ici présents, lorsqu'ils s'en retourneront chez eux, diront : Ouvriers européens, ouvriers du monde entier, d'après le peu que nous avons vu, nous pouvons témoigner devant vous, que si l'impérialisme laisse en paix la République soviétiste, si nous lui venons en aide par nos ressources techniques, ne serait-ce que dans une faible mesure, il arrivera ceci, que dans deux ou trois ans, tout au plus dans cinq ans, la Russie soviétiste, précisément parce qu'elle est un état soviétique, fondé sur le communisme, donnera à la classe ouvrière européenne cinq fois plus de blé et de matière premières que n'en donnait l'ancienne Russie du tsar et de la bourgeoisie. (Applaudissements).

Une fois la victoire remportée, le capital anglo-français a cru voir s'ouvrir devant lui un immense champ colonial. Le tsarisme avait été le grand rival de l'Angleterre en Asie ; l'Allemagne était une rivale encore beaucoup plus dangereuse pour l'Angleterre sur la marché mondial. Le tsarisme n'existe plus, l'Allemagne a été défaite, martyrisée ; l'Autriche-Hongrie a encore beaucoup plus souffert. On pourrait croire que les colonies commencent dans le voisinage immédiat des Alliés vainqueurs ; dans l'Est, c'est le peuple allemand soumis à la France ; plus loin, c'est la Russie soviétiste. Et renverser la Russie soviétiste, enlever les matières premières et les blés de la Russie, contraindre les ouvriers allemands, réduits en esclavage, à mettre en œuvre nos matières premières, au bénéfice du capital anglo-français, - tel était le programme éblouissant de la Ligue des Nations à son début. Et elle tâcha de réaliser ce programme, elle fit tout ses efforts pour renverser la République soviétiste, pour se rendre maîtresse de nos steppes, de nos mers, de nos forêts, de nos richesses souterraines. Elle tenta d'exploiter le charbon allemand et les ouvriers allemands pour travailler ces matières premières. Dix-huit mois d'une lutte acharnée se sont écoulés, et nous pouvons dire avec un orgueil légitime à nos frères d'Occident : votre bourgeoisie ne nous a pas mis en terre, nous sommes toujours debout, nous vous faisons accueil à Moscou. Et s'il en a été ainsi, ce n'est pas seulement grâce aux puissants efforts de la classe ouvrière russe et de l'armée qu'elle a créée. Nous savons quels ont été nos efforts, nos sacrifices, et les envoyés de la classe ouvrière mondiale en savent maintenant quelque chose. Mais nous devons dire que nous avons tenu bon principalement parce que nous sentions, nous savions, que le secours allait venir de l'Europe, de l'Amérique, de toutes les parties du monde. Chaque grève du prolétariat écossais dans la Clyde, chaque mouvement dans les villes et les bourgs d'Irlande, où l'on voit flotter non seulement le drapeau vert du nationalisme irlandais, mais aussi le drapeau rouge de la lutte prolétarienne, chaque grève, chaque protesta tion, chaque insurrection dans une quelconque des villes de l'Europe, de l'Amérique et de l'Asie, le puissant mouvement des esclaves de l'Angleterre dans l'Inde, le développement de la conscience révolutionnaire, l'idée d'une fédération soviétiste mondiale qui devient la devise de tous, - voilà ce qui nous a donné la conviction d'être dans la bonne voie ; voilà ce qui nous a permis, aux heures les plus difficiles, les plus sombres, lorsque nous étions cernés, lorsqu'il nous semblait qu'on allait nous prendre à la gorge et nous étrangler, voilà ce qui nous a permis de nous redresser et de dire : nous ne sommes pas seuls, nous sommes avec le prolétariat de l'Europe, de l'Asie, et du monde entier, nous ne nous rendrons pas, nous tiendrons bon. Et nous avons tenu bon. (Applaudissements).

Sans la Russie et sans l'Allemagne, il ne peut y avoir de renaissance européenne. Pour qu'il y ait une renaissance allemande, il faut permettre à l'Allemagne d'exister, de se nourrir, de travailler. Mais, si on lui permet, à cette Allemagne martyrisée et écrasée, d'exister, de se nourrir et de travailler, elle se soulèvera contre l'impérialisme français. Et voilà pourquoi l'impérialisme français ne veut savoir que ce seul commandement : paie tes dettes. Que l'Allemagne paie ses dettes, que la Russie paie. Les usuriers français n'hésiteraient pas à mettre le feu aux quatre coins du monde pour recevoir, en temps voulu, les intérêts qui leur sont dus. Ils ne peuvent permettre à l'Allemagne de travailler, parce que l'Allemagne qui pourrait travailler et se redresser serait une Allemagne indépendante qui marcherait contre eux. Et ils n'ont qu'une ressource. Pour faire exécuter les clauses du traité de Versailles, ce sont les Sénégalais, ce sont les noirs de l'Afrique, se sont les Arabes, qu'ils envoient sur la rive droite du Rhin pour occuper les villes allemandes. Et lorsque l'on reçoit en France trop peu de charbon d'Allemagne, lorsque l'or allemand n'arrive pas au terme fixé, la bourgeoisie française s'écrie en grinçant des dents : pourquoi ne paient-ils pas à temps ? Est-ce que l'on manque de noirs dans l'armée du maréchal Foch ? Camarades, nous saluons à ce Congrès le camarade Roy, qui représente les masses laborieuses de l'Inde. (Applaudisements).J'espère, camarades, qu'au 3e. Congrès de notre Internationale, nous aurons parmi nous des communistes africains, arabes, sénégalais, et des représentants des autres peuplades des colonies françaises et anglaises.

Aujourd'hui même, dans le port d'Odessa, quatre ou cinq cents Sénégalais nous ont amené nos soldats russes qui ont été pendant des années les esclaves de la France. Quelques précautions qu'on ait prises pour tenir à l'écart des Russes les Sénégalais, nous savons que pas un régiment étranger, pas une compagnie étrangère n'a pu entrer jusqu'ici impunément dans un port de Russie. Voilà pourquoi, camarades, la politique du maréchal Foch, qui fournit des hydravions à Wrangel, qui soutient la Pologne dans sa lutte désespérée, cette politique ne pourra rétablir la situation économique de l'Europe. C'est la politique d'un joueur décavé qui a déjà perdu des milliards. Car récemment, le Parlement français a découvert que sur quatre milliards destinés à restaurer les départements français dévastés, Clémenceau n'en avait dépensé à cet effet qu'un million et demi, et que trois milliards neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-huit millions et demi avaient servi, non à restaurer les départements du Nord de la France, mais à dévaster les provinces et les districts de la Russie. Cette politique de distribution des milliards à droite et à gauche, c'est la politique d'un joueur qui ponte pour la dernière fois dans l'espoir de regagner ce qu'il a perdu et qui, habituellement, ne regagne jamais rien. Et nous pouvons dire, nous pouvons affirmer tranquillement, que le moment n'est pas loin où, aidés par le prolétariat français, nous ferons sauter la banque du croupier français, qui a perdu la tête. (Applaudissements.) Les Sénégalais sont à Odessa... Les généraux français sont à Varsovie : ils y sont peut-être aujourd'hui, mais leurs regards sont tournés non pas vers l'Est, mais vers l'Ouest. (Applaudissements.)

Tous ensemble, ils ne réussiront pas à augmenter d'un poud la quantité de charbon, de matières premières, et de blé, qui sont nécessaires à la France. Le trait essentiel de la situation, c'est une crise des plus aiguës, c'est le manque de matières premières et de combustible ; ce n'est pas impunément que pendant plusieurs années de carnage mondial, toute l'énergie humaine a été employée, non à créer, mais à détruire. Le travail essentiel, le véritable travail, consiste en ceci que l'homme applique toutes ses pensées et emploie ses machines à tirer des entrailles de la terre les matériaux dont il a besoin, le blé, le charbon. Ce travail a diminué, est tombé graduellement. Actuellement, toute la politique du capital mondial, de la production mondiale, devrait consister à donner la liberté du commerce à l'Allemagne, à la Russie et à l'Autriche-Hongrie. Mais jusqu'à présent, les pays d'Europe n'ont pu augmenter leurs réserves. Et maintenant, toute la politique de l'impérialisme mondial se ramène à ceci que, l'année prochaine, il devra y avoir partout une politique de protectionnisme commercial. Actuellement, ce qui se réalise, c'est la politique du pillage à main armée. Nous l'avons vu lorsque les Anglais étaient à Bakou ; pendant de longs mois, ils n'ont réussi à exporter que quelques millions de pouds de naphte , alors qu'ils auraient pu en exporter des dizaines de millions. Voilà ce qui cause du dommage à l'économie mondiale. Lorsque les satellites de la France et de L'Angleterre ont détruit le bassin de Donetz, lorsque les Français ont détruit les ponts et les chemins de fer, lorsque les autos blindées, les trains blindés des Anglais barraient toutes les issues, ils s'opposaient ainsi à la prospérité de l'Allemagne, de l'Angleterre, de l'Irlande et de l'Ecosse, ils sapaient les basses de l'industrie. Tel est le dernier mot de la politique économique de l'Entente.

Voilà pourquoi, camarades, après avoir jeté un regard sur notre travail économique, sur l'œuvre soviétiste de ces derniers dix-huit mois, après en avoir constaté tous les défauts, après nous être rendu compte de tous nos besoins, sans songer à les dissimuler, au contraire, en déroulant ce tableau sous les yeux de nos frères d'Occident, de nos camarades américains, et des représentants de toutes les parties du monde, je pense que nous sommes dans la bonne voie. Il est possible de sortir de là, de remédier à cette indigence en mettant en commun d'une façon rationnelle, en organisant sur un plan général l'économie mondiale, ce qui permettra de surmonter tous les obstacles artificiels, toutes les barrières que les gouvernements ont accumulés, et de mettre en œuvre un système unique d‘économie. Maintenant, camarades, si, en dépit du blocus et de la guerre, nous avons été en état, non seulement de nourrir notre armée, mais de subsister durant ces trois ans, et surtout pendant ces derniers dix-huit mois, c'est là un fait des plus remarquables dans l'Histoire, et nous le devons à ce que toute notre économie a été basée sur les principes du communisme.

Enfin, camarades, si, laissant là les questions de politique internationale et d'économie, nous en venons aux questions de lutte révolutionnaire, nous devons dire encore une fois que la route indiquée par le 1er. Congrès de la 3e. Internationale était la bonne route, et que cette opinion a été justifiée par les faits. S'il y a encore des ouvriers qui pensent honnêtement et qui peuvent espérer quelque chose de la démocratie, c'est en vain. Où trouverons-nous en Europe une véritable démocratie ? Voyez la jeune démocratie allemande, dont le droit électoral est tout ce qu'il y a de plus démocratique, à la tête de laquelle se trouve le social-démocrate Ebert. Cette démocratie massacre les meilleurs ouvriers, assassine les chefs du parti au nom duquel a parlé tout à l'heure le camarade Lévy, elle assassine l'élite des représentants de la classe ouvrière allemande. Qui est le maître de ce pays ? Ce sont les magnats du capital qui règlent leurs affaires les plus importantes dans les antres de la Bourse.

Pendant la guerre, la bourgeoisie française et celle des autres pays tenaient encore à conserver quelques restes de l'ancienne idéologie démocratique, la bourgeoisie avait besoin de duper les ouvriers, elle leur parlait de défense nationale, elle leur disait que cette guerre serait la dernière, elle leur annonçait la constitution d'une Ligue des Nations. Mais maintenant, la guerre est finie ; la paix a été signée à Versailles ; le bourreau est là, debout sur l'échafaud, merveilleux d'impudence ; les masses laborieuses sont dépouillées, toutes leurs illusions sont détruites, l'esclavage les menace ; les derniers restes d'idéologie ont été mis de côté. La bourgeoisie demande maintenant une volonté d'acier ; voyez n'importe quel compte rendu parlementaire, dans n'importe quel pays ; le dernier des ministres bourgeois, un fonctionnaire de troisième ordre, lorsqu'il veut se faire à tout rompre par la majorité bourgeoise, tend le poing dans la direction du prolétariat révolutionnaire. La bourgeoisie exige de ses satellites, de ses commis, de ses ministres, du fer et du sang, car elle a bien compris que nous sommes entrés dans l'époque non d'une entremise parlementaire entre les classes, mais d'une lutte implacable. En effet, qu'a trouvé dans son pays, chez elle, la classe ouvrière, c'est-à-dire ceux de la classe ouvrière qui ont pu revenir du front ? La classe ouvrière a trouvé une nouvelle bourgeoisie encore plus insolente et plus assoiffée de sang que celle qui était restée dans les villes et les villages, lorsque l'ouvrier partait pour le front. Ce sont les fournisseurs de la guerre, les maraudeurs, qui occupent les premières places, ce sont des parvenus, d'anciens repris de justice qui ont volé des millions, des dizaines, des centaines de millions, des milliards, en spéculant sur le sang des peuples. Toute cette canaille avide de jouissances, effrénée dans ses appétits, a infecté de son haleine l'atmosphère des villes européennes et américaines. Le luxe a pris le caractère d'une fièvre enragée, d'une fièvre blanche, d'une surexcitation nerveuse ; les ouvriers sont revenus des tranchées chez eux et ils voient cette bourgeoisie impudente, cette bourgeoisie dorée qui s'est emparée de tout, qui foule tout aux pieds, qui veut jouir de tout, qui est prête à massacrer à coups de canon la classe ouvrière de son pays, si cela est nécessaire, pour qu'elle puisse continuer à dominer et à jouir. Et l'indignation des masses ouvrières s'élève partout comme un bûcher, dont la flamme brille et monte de plus en plus haut. La cherté de la vie est une cause de grèves et de manifestations de la part des ouvriers et des ouvrières affamés. Enfin, dans le mouvement ouvrier, dans l'histoire de l'humanité, ce qu'il faut remarquer comme un fait de la première importance, c'est que les femmes, ces esclaves, se réveillent, et que la jeunesse prolétarienne, qui représente l'avenir, se dresse en masses de plus en plus nombreuses et vient à nous pour nous aider et nous remplacer. Avec les femmes, avec la jeunesse prolétarienne, c'est un nouveau courant de lave révolutionnaire qui vient s'ajouter au mouvement du prolétariat mondial, et qui donnera de nouvelles réserves inépuisables d'énergie dans la lutte que mène l'Internationale Communiste. (Applaudissements.)

Camarades, sans aucun doute, le prolétariat de tous les pays se serait déjà emparé du pouvoir si, entre lui, entre la masse révolutionnaire et les groupes avancés de communistes et de révolutionnaires ne s'interposait encore une grande machine solide et compliquée, - les partis de la 2e Internationale et des trade-unions, qui ont mis leur appareil au service de la bourgeoisie , à l'époque de sa décadence, à l'époque où la bourgeoisie se meurt. C'est précisément la 2e Internationale (qui s'est rendue solidaire de la bourgeoisie à l'époque de la guerre) qui s'est chargée de cette responsabilité, qui a repoussé le premier choc de l'indignation des masses laborieuses. Son autorité est tombée. La 2e Internationale s'est disloquée. Des groupes de plus en plus nombreux, des millions de travailleurs se détachent d'elles. Mais le premier élan du prolétariat qui allait se jeter sur la société bourgeoise, la première explosion de ses colères, c'est la 2e Internationale qui l'a arrêté. Et si la classe ouvrière allemande compte les victimes par milliers et se prépare à de nouveaux sacrifices, la faute en est à la social-démocratie allemande. Celle-ci, au moment décisif de l'histoire mondiale, s'est transformée en un appareil contre-révolutionnaire, comme les partis dirigeants de la 2e Internationale se sont transformés en un appareil révolutionnaire au service de la société bourgeoise. Si nous jetons un regard sur le passé, si nous cherchons où sont les forces contre-révolutionnaires, nous n'en trouverons point qui ressemblent à celle-ci. Nous connaissons la démocratie bourgeoise. Nous savons l'histoire de l'Eglise catholique qui, comme les autres Eglises, a été un instrument puissant, mais plus que les autres s'est mise au service des classes opulentes pour défendre leurs privilèges et leur domination. Or, les services qu'ont rendu aux classes opulentes l'Eglise et le catholicisme mondial, ne sont rien en comparaison du rôle qu'ont joué les partis de la 2e Internationale au moment le plus critique de l'Histoire. Pendant des dizaines d'années, ils ont conduit la classe ouvrière, se sont introduits dans sa confiance, lui ont donné une organisation, et ensuite, au moment où la classe ouvrière aurait dû employer toute son énergie à s'affranchir du joug du capital. Ils ont employé cet appareil à paralyser les ouvriers ; ils en ont fait les esclaves du capital, non pas seulement au sens matériel, physique du mot, mais dans le sens spirituel. Et, tandis que nous sommes ici assemblés avec vous, à l'occasion du 2e Congrès de Moscou, un Congrès de la 2e Internationale siégeant à Genève oppose son programme au nôtre, à celui de l'Internationale Rouge de la Commune prolétarienne. A partir d'aujourd'hui, à dater de ce Congrès, de ces deux Congrès, la direction de la classe ouvrière ira dix fois plus vite. Programme contre programme, tactique contre tactique, méthode contre méthode ; nous avons obligé le Parti indépendant allemand, qui vacillait, hésitait, et dont les chefs hésitent encore, nous, la 3e. Internationale, par la pression des masses ouvrières allemandes, nous l'avons obligé à envoyer ici ses représentants. Et le parti du socialisme parlementaire français, mis au pied du mur par les masses prolétariennes, a été obligé de nous envoyer ses ambassadeurs . Mais nous ne faisons aucune concessions. La 3e. Internationale n'admet ni les compromis, ni aucune entente. Nous avons notre drapeau, nous avons notre programme, que ceux qui le veulent se rangent sous ce drapeau. C'est ainsi que nous avons parlé aux représentants des partis allemand indépendant et français parlementaire. Nous leur avons demandé : espérez-vous, par l'entremise de votre parlement, obtenir peu à peu les réformes qui nous conduiront dans le royaume du socialisme ? Notre question était ironique, car les faits ont malheureusement répondu pour eux..

Et si le parti indépendant allemand et même le parti du socialisme parlementaire français n'ont pas encore appris à conduire les prolétaires dans la voie de la dictature prolétarienne, ils ont appris du moins à ne plus croire au réformisme parlementaire. Les ouvriers allemands et français ont appris à ne plus croire à des chefs qui vacillent et qui hésitent.

Ce Congrès, qui coïncide avec celui de la 2e Internationale et, ce qui pour nous est encore plus important et remarquable, pour nous et pour les ouvriers du monde entier, qui coïncide avec la lutte terrible qui s'est engagée entre l'Entente, servie par la Pologne blanche, et la République soviétiste, ce Congrès, qui coïncide avec les glorieuses victoires de l'armée rouge sur les fronts de l'ouest et du sud-ouest, ce Congrès plantera des jalons sur la voie de la révolution prolétarienne mondiale. Ce Congrès a fait, dans ses résolutions, le bilan de l'expérience collective de la classe ouvrière mondiale. Vous avez lu ces résolutions. Ce Congrès adresse un manifeste aux ouvriers et ouvrières du monde entier. Ce manifeste dont je vous ai fait connaître la teneur en substance, dans mon rapport, ce manifeste qui sera publié dans toutes les langues, qui résume l'œuvre de l'impérialisme dans le domaine des relations internationales et de l'économie publique, qui apprécie à leur juste valeur les vestiges de la démocratie bourgeoise, du parlementarisme bourgeois, ce manifeste montre aussi une voie nette, bien définie, au prolétariat du monde entier, aux travailleurs exploités des colonies.

Et quelle joie, quelle fierté pour nous, camarades, ouvriers de Moscou et de toute la Russie, d'avoir pu recevoir pour la seconde fois, chez nous, l'élite des militants de la classe ouvrière mondiale, d'avoir pu, forts de notre expérience, les aider à forger l'arme dont ils ont besoin pour combattre. Dans notre forge de Moscou, grâce à vous, par vos mains, camarades prolétaires, nous avons attisé le feu, nous avons chauffé à blanc l'acier prolétarien, nous l'avons forgé avec le marteau de notre révolution prolétarienne soviétiste, nous l'avons trempé dans l'expérience de la guerre civile, et nous en avons fait une arme merveilleuse, incomparable, pour l'usage du prolétariat international. Cette arme, nous la prenons en mains et nous la remettons aux mains de nos frères. Nous vous déclarons, ouvriers du monde entier : dans notre forge de Moscou, sur notre feu moscovite, nous avons fabriqué une lame des plus solides, prenez-la et enfoncez-la dans le dos du capital mondial. (Applaudissements.).

Lénine :

Rapport sur la situation internationale et les tâches fondamentales de l'I.C.
19 juillet 1920

(Ovation. Toute la salle se lève et applaudit. L'orateur essaie de parler, mais les applaudissements et les exclamations dans toutes les langues continuent. L'ovation se prolonge.)

Camarades, les thèses sur les questions relatives aux tâches fondamentales de l'Internationale Communiste ont été publiées dans toutes les langues et (surtout pour les camarades russes) elles n'apportent rien de bien nouveau, puisqu‘elles ne font qu'étendre dans une large mesure à divers pays occidentaux, à l'Europe occidentale, certains traits essentiels de notre expérience révolutionnaire et les leçons de notre mouvement révolutionnaire. Aussi dans mon rapport insisterai‑je, ne serait‑ce que sommairement, sur la première partie de mon sujet, à savoir : la situation internationale.

A la base de la situation internationale, telle qu'elle apparaît aujourd'hui, se trouvent les rapports économiques de l'impérialisme. Dans le courant du XX° siècle, cette phase nouvelle, suprême et ultime du capitalisme, a pris son aspect définitif. Vous savez tous, bien entendu que le trait le plus caractéristique, le trait essentiel de l'impérialisme réside dans le fait que le capital a atteint de vastes proportions. A la place de la libre concurrence est apparu le monopole, aux proportions gigantesques. Un nombre infime de capitalistes ont pu concentrer entre leurs mains parfois des branches entières de l'industrie ; celles-ci sont passées aux mains d'ententes, de cartels, de syndicats, de trusts, de caractère souvent international. Des branches entières de l'industrie, non seulement à l'intérieur des différents pays, mais également à l'échelle mondiale, se sont ainsi trouvées accaparées par les monopolistes, sous le rapport financier, sous celui du droit de propriété et pour une part, sous celui de la production. Sur ce terrain s'est affirmée la suprématie sans précédent d'un nombre infime de grandes banques, de rois de la finance, de magnats de la finance qui transformaient en fait les républiques, même les plus libres, en monarchies financières. Dès avant la guerre, la chose était reconnue publiquement par des auteurs nullement révolutionnaires, comme Lysis en France.

Cette domination d'une poignée de capitalistes atteignit son point culminant au moment où le globe terrestre se trouva partagé, non seulement au sens de l'accaparement des différentes sources de matières premières et des moyens de production par les plus grands capitalistes, mais également au sens de l'achèvement du partage préalable des colonies. Il y a quarante ans, on comptait un peu plus de 250 millions d'habitants de pays coloniaux dominés par six puissances capitalistes. A la veille de la guerre de 1914, les colonies comptaient près de 600 millions d'habitants. En y ajoutant des pays comme la Perse, la Turquie, la Chine, qui étaient déjà à ce moment des semi‑colonies, on obtenait en chiffres ronds une population d'un milliard d'hommes asservis aux pays les plus riches, les plus civilisés et les plus libres, en vertu du régime de dépendance coloniale. Et vous savez qu'en dehors d'une dépendance directe politique et juridique, la dépendance coloniale implique toute une série de rapports de dépendance financière et économique, toute une série de guerres que l'on ne considérait pas comme telles parce qu'elles n'étaient souvent que des carnages, à une époque où les armées impérialistes d'Europe et d'Amérique pourvues des moyens d'extermination les plus perfectionnés, massacraient les habitants sans armes et sans défense des pays coloniaux.

C'est de ce partage du globe, de cette domination des monopoles capitalistes, de cette omnipotence d'un nombre infime de grandes banques (deux, trois, quatre ou cinq, pas plus, par Etat), que devait naître inévitablement la première guerre impérialiste de 1914‑1918. On s'est battu pour un nouveau partage du monde, on s'est battu pour savoir lequel de ces groupes infimes de grands Etats, l'anglais ou l'allemand, aurait la possibilité et le droit de piller, d'opprimer, d'exploiter la terre entière. Vous savez que la guerre a tranché cette question au profit du groupe anglais. Mais elle n'a fait qu'exaspérer à l'extrême toutes les contradictions capitalistes. Elle a rejeté d'un coup une population d'environ 250 millions d'habitants dans une situation analogue à celle des colonies. Elle y a rejeté la Russie, qui compte environ 130 millions d'habitants, l'Autriche‑Hongrie, l'Allemagne, la Bulgarie, qui en comptent au moins 120 millions. Un quart de milliard d'hommes, dans des pays qui, comme l'Allemagne, sont parmi les plus avancés, les plus éclairés, les plus cultivés, les plus à la hauteur, sur le plan technique, du progrès moderne. Par le traité de Versailles, la guerre leur a imposé des conditions telles que des peuples avancés sont tombés dans un état de dépendance coloniale, de misère, de famine, de ruine et d'asservissement, car ils sont liés par ce traité pour plusieurs générations et réduits à des conditions qu'aucun peuple civilisé n'a jamais connues. Telle est l'image du monde après la guerre : un milliard et quart d'hommes au sont soumis au joug colonial, à l'exploitation d'un capitalisme bestial, qui se vantait d'aimer la paix et qui, il y a une cinquantaine d'années, avait quelques droits de s'en vanter, tant que la terre n'était pas partagée, tant qu'il n'y avait pas la domination des monopoles, tant que le capitalisme pouvait se développer d'une façon relativement pacifique sans provoquer d'immenses conflits militaires.

Aujourd'hui, après cette époque « pacifique », nous assistons à une aggravation monstrueuse de l'oppression, nous constatons le retour d'une oppression coloniale et militaire beaucoup plus dure qu'avant. Le traité de Versailles a placé l'Allemagne et toute une série d'Etats vaincus dans des conditions qui rendent matériellement impossible leur existence économique, les privent de tous droits et les humilient.

Quel est le nombre de nations à profiter d'un tel état de choses ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous devons nous rappeler que la population des Etats‑Unis d'Amérique, qui sont seuls à avoir tout gagné à la guerre, qui, de pays endetté au possible, sont devenus le pays auquel tout le monde doit de l'argent, ne dépasse pas 100 millions d'hommes. La population du Japon, qui a beaucoup gagné en restant à l'écart du conflit Europe‑Amérique et en s'emparant d'une énorme partie du continent asiatique, est de 50 millions. La population de la Grande‑Bretagne, qui a profité le plus après ces deux pays, atteint 50 millions Et si nous y ajoutons les Etats neutres dont la population est très faible, qui se sont enrichis pendant la guerre, nous obtenons ‑ en chiffres ronds ‑ un quart de milliard.

Cela nous donne, en ses traits généraux, le tableau du monde tel qu'il apparaît après la guerre impérialiste. Un milliard et quart d'hommes dans les colonies opprimées, les pays démembrés comme la Perse, la Turquie, la Chine ; et les pays vaincus, réduits à l'état de colonies. Un quart de milliard d'hommes, tout au plus, pour les pays qui se sont maintenus dans leur situation d'antan, mais qui sont tous tombés sous la dépendance économique de l'Amérique, et qui, durant toute la guerre, furent sous sa dépendance militaire, car la guerre s'est étendue à tout l'univers et n'a permis à aucun pays de rester neutre en fait. Enfin, l'on compte encore un quart de milliard d'habitants, tout au plus, dans les pays dont, bien entendu, seul le haut du panier, seuls les capitalistes ont profité du partage du globe. Au total, près d'un milliard trois quarts d'habitants composant la population du globe. Je tiens à vous rappeler ce tableau du monde, car toutes les contradictions fondamentales du capitalisme, de l'impérialisme, qui mènent à la révolution, toutes les contradictions fondamentales du mouvement ouvrier qui ont amené la lutte acharnée contre la Il° Internationale dont a parlé le camarade président, tout cela est lié au partage de la population du globe.

Bien entendu, ces chiffres ne donnent qu'une idée générale et sommaire de la situation économique du monde. Et naturellement, camarades, grâce à ce partage de la population du globe, le pouvoir d'exploitation du capital financier et des monopoles capitalistes s'est accru dans de très grandes proportions.

Ce ne sont pas seulement les pays coloniaux, les pays vaincus qui se trouvent réduits à l'état de dépendance ; à l'intérieur même de chaque pays victorieux, des contradictions plus aiguës se sont développées, toutes les contradictions capitalistes se sont aggravées. Je le montrerai brièvement par quelques exemples.

Voyez les dettes d'État. Nous savons que les dettes des principaux Etats européens ont augmenté, de 1914 à 1920, au moins sept fois. Je vous citerai encore une source économique, qui prend une importance particulièrement grande ; c'est Keynes, diplomate anglais et auteur du livre conséquences économiques de la paix, chargé par son gouvernement de participer aux négociations de paix de Versailles, il les a suivies sur place, d'un point de vue purement bourgeois, il a étudié la question pas à pas, en détail, et, en sa qualité d'économiste, a pris part aux conférences. Il a abouti à des conclusions qui sont plus incisives, plus concrètes et plus édifiantes que celles d'un révolutionnaire communiste, parce qu'elles sont celles d'un bourgeois authentique, d'un ennemi implacable du bolchévisme dont il se fait, en petit‑bourgeois anglais, une image monstrueuse, bestiale et féroce. Keynes en est arrivé à cette conclusion qu'avec le traité de Versailles, l'Europe et le monde vont à la banqueroute. Il a donné sa démission ; il a jeté son livre à la face de son gouvernement et dit : « Vous commettez une folie ». Je vous citerai ses chiffres qui, dans l'ensemble réduisent à ceci :

Quels sont les rapports de débiteurs à créanciers qui se sont établis entre les principales puissances ? Je convertis les livres sterling en roubles‑or, au taux de 10 roubles-or pour une livre sterling. Voici ce que cela donne : les Etats‑Unis ont un actif de 19 milliards ; leur passif nul. Jusqu'à la guerre, ils étaient les débiteurs de la Grande‑Bretagne. Au dernier congrès du Parti communiste d'Allemagne, le 14 avril 1920, le camarade Lévi notait avec raison dans son rapport qu'il ne restait plus que deux puissances indépendantes de par le monde : la Grande-Bretagne et l'Amérique. Mais seule l'Amérique est restée absolument indépendante du point de vue financier. Avant la guerre, elle était débitrice ; aujourd'hui elle est créancière. Toutes les autres puissances du monde sont endettées. La Grande‑Bretagne en est réduite à la situation suivant : actif 17 milliards, passif 8 milliards, elle est déjà à moitié débitrice. De plus, dans son actif figurent près de 6 milliards que lui doit la Russie. Les fournitures militaires que la Russie avait achetées pendant la guerre font partie des créances anglaises. Il y a quelque temps, quand en sa qualité de représentant du gouvernement des Soviets de Russie, Krassine a pu s'entretenir avec Lloyd‑George au sujet des traités financiers, il fit ressortir aux yeux des techniciens et des politiciens, dirigeants du gouvernement anglais, que s'ils comptaient se faire rembourser ces dettes, ils se trompaient étrangement. Et le diplomate anglais Keynes le leur avait déjà prédit.

Cela ne tient pas seulement au fait, et il n'en est même pas question, que le gouvernement révolutionnaire russe n'a pas l'intention de payer ces dettes. Aucun gouvernement ne saurait accepter de les régler, pour la bonne raison qu'elles ne représentent que les intérêts usuraires de ce qui a déjà été payé une vingtaine de fois, et ce même bourgeois Keynes, qui n'a nulle sympathie pour le mouvement révolutionnaire russe, le dit : « Il est clair qu'il n'est pas possible de tenir compte de ces dettes. »

En ce qui concerne la France, Keynes cite des chiffres comme ceux-ci : son actif est de trois milliards et demi, son passif de 10 milliards et demi ! Et c'est le pays dont les Français eux-mêmes disaient qu'il était l'usurier du monde, parce que son « épargne » était colossale et que le pillage colonial et financier, qui lui avait fourni un capital gigantesque, lui permettait de prêter des milliards et, des milliards, en particulier à la Russie. Ces prêts procuraient à la France des revenus énormes. Et malgré cela, malgré la victoire, la France se trouve dans la situation de débiteur.

Un auteur bourgeois américain, cité par le camarade Braun, communiste, dans son livre Qui doit payer les dettes de guerre ? (Leipzig 1920), définit de la façon suivante le rapport qui existe entre les dettes et le patrimoine national : dans les pays victorieux, en Grande-Bretagne et en France, les dettes représentent plus de 50 % du patrimoine national. En Italie, ce pourcentage est de 60 à 70 ; quant à la Russie, il est de 90, mais ‑ comme vous le savez – ces dettes ne nous inquiètent nullement, étant donné que quelque temps avant que ne paraisse le livre de Keynes, nous avions suivi son excellent conseil : nous avons annulé toutes nos dettes. (Vifs applaudissements.)

Seulement Keynes révèle ici son habituelle bizarrerie de philistin : en conseillant d'annuler toutes les dettes, il déclare que, bien entendu, la France ne fera qu'y gagner, que bien entendu, la Grande-Bretagne n'y perdra pas grand-chose car, de toutes manières, on ne pourrait rien tirer de la Russie ; que l'Amérique y perdra pas mal, mais Keynes compte sur la « générosité » américaine ! A cet égard, nous ne partageons pas les conceptions de Keynes et des autres pacifistes petits‑bourgeois. Nous pensons que pour obtenir l'annulation des dettes, il leur faudra trouver quelque chose d'autre et travailler dans une direction quelque peu différente de celle qui consiste à compter sur la « générosité » de Messieurs les capitalistes.

Il ressort de ces quelques chiffres que la guerre impérialiste a créé également pour les pays victorieux une situation impossible. L'écart énorme entre les salaires et la hausse des prix l'indique également. Le 8 mars de cette année, le Conseil supérieur économique, institution chargée défendre l'ordre bourgeois du monde entier contre-révolution montante, a voté une résolution qui se termine par un appel à l'ordre, au travail, à l'épargne, à la condition évidemment que les ouvriers restent les esclaves du capital. Ce Conseil supérieur économique, organe de l'Entente, organe des capitalistes du monde entier a dressé le bilan que voici :

Aux Etats‑Unis, la hausse des prix des denrées alimentaires a été en moyenne de 120 %, alors que les salaires n'ont augmenté que de 100 %, En Grande‑Bretagne, les denrées ont augmenté de 170 % et les salaires de 130 %. En France, les denrées ont augmenté de 300 %, les salaires de 200 %. Au Japon, les prix ont augmenté de 130 %, les salaires de 60 % (je confronte les chiffres indiqués par le camarade Braun dans sa brochure et ceux du Conseil supérieur économique donnés par le Times du 10 mars 1920).

Il est clair que dans une telle situation l'accroissement du mécontentement des ouvriers, l'accentuation de l'état d'esprit et des aspirations révolutionnaires, l'essor des grèves spontanées de masse sont inévitables. Car la situation des ouvriers devient intolérable. Ils se convainquent par leur propre expérience que les capitalistes se sont enrichis prodigieusement du fait de la guerre, dont ils rejettent les charges et les dettes sur leurs épaules. Récemment, une dépêche nous apprenait que l'Amérique veut rapatrier en Russie encore 500 communistes, pour se débarrasser de ces « dangereux agitateurs ».

Mais même si l'Amérique nous envoyait, non pas 500, mais 500 000 « agitateurs » russes, américains, japonais, français, cela ne changerait rien à l'affaire, car le décalage des prix subsisterait, contre lequel ils ne peuvent rien. Et ils n'y peuvent rien parce que la propriété privée est chez eux strictement respectée, parce qu'elle est chez eux « sacrée ». Il ne faut pas l'oublier, la propriété privée des exploiteurs n'est abolie qu'en Russie. Les capitalistes ne peuvent rien en ce qui concerne le décalage des prix, et les ouvriers ne peuvent pas vivre avec les anciens salaires. Contre cette calamité, aucune vieille méthode ne peut servir, aucune grève isolée, aucune lutte parlementaire, aucun scrutin n'y peut rien, car la « propriété privée est sacrée », et les capitalistes ont accumulé de telles dettes que le monde entier se trouve asservi à une poignée d'hommes ; cependant, les conditions d'existence des ouvriers deviennent de plus en plus insupportables. Il n'y a pas d'autre issue que l'abolition de la « propriété privée » des exploiteurs.

Dans sa brochure : La Grande‑Bretagne et la révolution mondiale, dont notre Courrier du Commissariat du Peuple aux affaires étrangères de février 1920 a publié des extraits très précieux, le camarade Lapinski indique qu'en Grande‑Bretagne, les prix du charbon à l'exportation ont été deux fois plus élevés que ceux prévus par les milieux industriels officiels.

Dans le Lancashire, on en est arrivé à une hausse des actions de 400 %. Les bénéfices des banques sont de l'ordre de 40 à 50 % au minimum, encore faut‑il noter que lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer les bénéfices, tous les banquiers savent en camoufler la part du lion en ne l'appelant pas bénéfices, mais en la dissimulant sous forme de primes, de tantièmes, etc. De sorte que là aussi, des faits économiques indiscutables montrent que la richesse d'une infime poignée d'hommes s'est accrue d'une manière incroyable, qu'un luxe inouï dépasse toutes les bornes, tandis que la misère de la classe ouvrière ne cesse de s'aggraver. En particulier, il faut encore noter une circonstance que le camarade Lévi a soulignée d'une manière particulièrement frappante dans rapport mentionné plus haut : la modification de la valeur de l'argent. En raison des dettes, de l'émission de papier‑monnaie, etc., l'argent s'est partout déprécié. La même source bourgeoise, que j'ai déjà citée, c'est‑à‑dire la déclaration du Conseil supérieur économique du 8 mars 1920, estime qu'en Grande‑Bretagne, la dépréciation de la monnaie, par rapport au dollar, est de l'ordre d'un tiers ; en France et en Italie, des deux tiers ; quant à l'Allemagne, elle y atteint 96 %.

Ce fait montre que le « mécanisme » de l'économie capitaliste mondiale est complètement détraqué. Il n'est plus possible de continuer les relations commerciales dont dépendent, en régime capitaliste, l'approvisionnement en matières premières et l'écoulement des produits manufacturés ; elles ne peuvent continuer précisément du fait que toute une série de pays se trouvent soumis à un seul, par suite de la dépréciation de l'argent. Aucun des pays riches ne peut vivre ni commercer parce qu'il ne peut vendre ses produits, ni recevoir des matières premières.

Il arrive ainsi que l'Amérique elle-même, le pays le plus riche, auquel sont soumis tous les autres, ne peut ni acheter ni vendre. Et ce même Keynes, qui a connu les tours et détours des négociations de Versailles, est contraint de reconnaître cette impossibilité, en dépit de sa décision bien arrêtée de défendre le capitalisme et malgré toute sa haine du bolchévisme. Soit dit en passant, je ne pense pas qu' aucun manifeste communiste ou, d'une façon générale, révolutionnaire, puisse jamais égaler, quant à sa vigueur, les pages où Keynes dépeint Wilson et le « wilsonisme » en action. Wilson fut l'idole des petits bourgeois et des pacifistes genre Keynes et certains héros de la II° Internationale (et même de l'Internationale « deux et demie ») qui ont exalté ses « 14 points » et écrit des livres « savants » sur les « racines » de la politique wilsonienne, espérant que Wilson sauverait la « paix sociale », réconcilierait les exploiteurs et les exploités, et réaliserait des réformes sociales. Keynes a montré avec force comment Wilson a été joué comme un niais, et comment toutes ces illusions s'en sont allées en fumée au premier contact avec la politique pratique, mercantile et affairiste du capital incarné par MM. Clemenceau et Lloyd‑George. Les masses ouvrières voient maintenant de plus en plus clairement par leur expérience vécue, et les pédants savants pourraient le voir à la seule lecture de l'ouvrage de Keynes, que les « racines » de la politique de Wilson plongeaient dans l'obscurantisme clérical, la phraséologie petite‑bourgeoise et l'incompréhension totale de la lutte des classes.

De tout cela deux conditions, deux données fondamentales découlent tout naturellement et inévitablement. D'une part, la misère, la ruine des masses se sont accrues d'une façon inouïe, et tout d'abord en ce qui concerne un milliard et quart d'êtres humains, soit 70 % de la population du globe. Il s'agit des pays coloniaux, dépendants, dont la population est privée de tout droit juridique, des pays placés « sous mandat » des forbans de la finance. Et, de plus, l'esclavage des pays vaincus a été sanctionné par le traité de Versailles et les accords secrets concernant la Russie, qui ont par moment ‑ il est vrai ‑ autant de valeur que les chiffons de papier sur lesquels il est écrit que nous devons tant et tant de milliards. Nous sommes en présence, dans l'histoire mondiale, d'un premier exemple de sanction juridique de la spoliation, de l'esclavage, de la dépendance, de la misère et de la faim d'un milliard et quart d'êtres humains.

D'autre part, dans chaque pays devenu créancier, la situation des ouvriers est devenue insupportable. La guerre a aggravé au plus haut point toutes les contradictions capitalistes, et c'est là l'origine de cette profonde effervescence révolutionnaire, qui ne fait que croître, car pendant la guerre les hommes étaient sous le régime de la discipline militaire, envoyés à la mort ou menacés des représailles immédiates de la justice militaire. Les conditions imposées par la guerre ne permettaient pas de voir la réalité économique. Les écrivains, les poètes, le clergé, toute la presse glorifiaient la guerre. Aujourd'hui que la guerre est finie, les révélations commencent à se faire jour. Démasqué, l'impérialisme allemand, avec sa paix de Brest‑Litovsk. Démasquée, la paix de Versailles, qui devait être la victoire de l'impérialisme et qui s'est révélée comme sa défaite. L'exemple de Keynes montre, entre autres, comment des dizaines et des centaines de milliers de petits bourgeois, d'intellectuels ou simplement de personnes tant soit peu évoluées et cultivées d'Europe et d'Amérique ont dû prendre le même chemin que lui, qui a donné sa démission et jeté à la face de son gouvernement le livre qui le démasquait. Keynes a montré ce qui se passe et se passera dans la conscience de milliers et de centaines de milliers d'hommes, quand ils comprendront que tous les discours sur la « guerre pour la liberté », etc., n'ont été que mensonge et que la guerre a abouti qu'à ce résultat : enrichir une infime minorité, alors que les autres étaient ruinés, réduits en esclavage. En effet, le bourgeois Keynes déclare que, pour sauvegarder leur existence, pour sauver l'économie anglaise, les Anglais doivent obtenir la reprise de relations commerciales libres entre l'Allemagne et la Russie ! Mais comment l'obtenir ? En annulant toutes les dettes, ainsi qu'il le propose ! C'est une idée qui n'appartient pas au seul savant économiste Keynes. Des millions d'hommes y viennent et viendront. Et des millions d'hommes entendent les économistes bourgeois déclarer qu'il n'y a pas d'autre issue que l'annulation des dettes, qu'en conséquence « maudits soient les bolchéviks » (qui les ont annulées), et faisons appel à la « générosité » de l'Amérique !! Je pense qu'au nom du Congrès de l'Internationale Communiste, il y aurait lieu d'envoyer une adresse de remerciements à ces économistes qui font de l'agitation en faveur du bolchévisme.

Si, d'une part, la situation économique des masses est devenue insupportable ; si, d'autre part, au sein de l'infime minorité des pays victorieux tout‑puissants a commencé et s'accélère le désaccord révélé par Keynes, nous sommes bien en présence du mûrissement des deux conditions de la révolution mondiale.

Nous avons maintenant sous les yeux un tableau un peu plus complet du monde. Nous savons ce qu'est cette dépendance à l'égard d'une poignée de richards d'un milliard et quart d'hommes placés dans des conditions d'existence intolérables. D'un autre côté, quand on a présenté aux peuples le Pacte de la Société des Nations, par lequel celle-ci déclare mettre fin aux guerres et ne point permettre à quiconque de rompre la paix, quand ce pacte ‑ ultime espérance des masses laborieuses du monde entier ‑ entra en vigueur, ce fut pour nous la plus grande victoire. Tant, qu'il n'était pas en vigueur, on pouvait dire : il est impossible de ne pas imposer à un pays comme l'Allemagne des conditions particulières ; quand il y aura un traité, vous verrez que tout ira bien. Mais quand ce pacte fut publié, les pires adversaires du bolchévisme ont dû le renier ! Dès son entrée en vigueur, il s'est trouvé que le petit groupe des pays les plus riches, ce « quatuor des gros » ‑ Clemenceau, Lloyd‑George, Orlando et Wilson, ‑ fut chargé de régler les nouveaux rapports ! Et quand la machine du pacte fut mise en route, ce fut la catastrophe générale !

Nous l'avons vu par les guerres contre la Russie. Faible, ruinée, accablée, la Russie, le pays le plus retardataire, lutte contre toutes les nations, contre l'alliance des Etats riches, puissants, qui dominent le monde, et elle sort victorieuse de cette lutte. Nous ne pouvions opposer des forces tant soit peu équivalentes, et nous fûmes pourtant les vainqueurs. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'il n'y avait pas ombre d'unité parmi eux, parce que chaque puissance agissait contre une autre. La France voulait que la Russie lui payât ses dettes et devînt une force redoutable contre l'Allemagne ; la Grande‑Bretagne désirait le partage de la Russie, elle tentait de s'emparer du pétrole de Bakou et de conclure des traités avec les pays limitrophes de la Russie. Parmi les documents officiels anglais, il existe un livre qui énumère très consciencieusement tous les Etats (on en compte 14) qui, il y a six mois, en décembre 1919, promettaient de prendre Moscou et Pétrograd. La Grande‑Bretagne fondait sur eux sa politique et leur prêtait des millions. Mais aujourd'hui, tous ces calculs ont fait et tous ces prêts sont perdus.

Telle est la situation créée par la Société des Nations. Chaque jour d'existence de ce pacte constitue une excellente agitation en faveur du bolchévisme. Car les partisans les plus puissants de « l'ordre » capitaliste nous montrent comment, à propos de chaque question, ils se font des crocs-en-jambe

Le partage de la Turquie, de la Perse, de la Mésopotamie de la Chine donne lieu à des querelles féroces entre Japon, la Grande‑Bretagne, l'Amérique et la France. La presse bourgeoise de ces pays est pleine des attaques les plus véhémentes et les plus acerbes contre leurs « collègues » qui leur font passer le butin sous le nez. Nous sommes les témoins du total désaccord qui règne parmi cette poignée infime des pays les plus riches. Il est impossible qu'un milliard et quart d'hommes, représentant les 70 % de la population du globe, vivent dans les conditions d'asservissement qu'entend leur imposer le capitalisme « avancé » et civilisé. Quant à l'infime poignée de puissances richissimes, la Grande‑Bretagne, l'Amérique, le Japon (qui a pu piller les pays d'Orient, les pays d'Asie, mais qui ne peut avoir aucune force indépendante, financière et militaire sans l'aide d'un autre pays), ces deux ou trois pays ne sont pas en mesure d'organiser les relations économiques et leur politique tend à faire échouer celle de leurs associés et partenaires de la Société des Nations. D'où la crise mondiale. Et ce sont ces causes économiques de la crise qui constituent la raison essentielle du fait que l'Internationale Communiste remporte de brillants succès.

Camarades, nous abordons maintenant la question de la crise révolutionnaire, base de notre action révolutionnaire. Et ici, il faut avant tout noter deux erreurs très répandues. D'une part, les économistes bourgeois représentent cette crise comme un simple « malaise », selon l'élégante formule des Anglais. D'autre part, des révolutionnaires s'efforcent parfois de démontrer que cette crise est absolument sans issue.

C'est une erreur. Il n'existe pas de situation absolument sans issue. La bourgeoisie se conduit comme un forban sans vergogne qui a perdu la tête ; elle commet bêtise sur bêtise aggravant la situation et hâtant sa propre perte. C'est un fait. Mais il n'est pas possible de « prouver » qu'il n'y a absolument aucune chance qu'elle endorme une minorité d'exploités à l'aide de petites concessions, qu'elle réprime un mouvement ou une insurrection d'une partie des opprimés et des exploités. Tenter d'en « prouver » à l'avance l'impossibilité « absolue » serait pur pédantisme, verbiage ou jeu d'esprit. Dans cette question et dans des questions analogues, seule la pratique peut fournir la « preuve » réelle. Le régime bourgeois traverse dans monde entier une profonde crise révolutionnaire. Il faut « démontrer » maintenant, par l'action pratique des partis révolutionnaires, qu'ils possèdent suffisamment de conscience, d'organisation, de liens avec les masses exploitées, d'esprit de décision et de savoir‑faire pour exploiter cette crise au profit d'une révolution victorieuse.

C'est avant tout pour préparer cette « démonstration » que nous nous sommes réunis en ce congrès de l'Internationale Communiste.

Pour montrer à quel point l'opportunisme règne encore dans les partis qui désirent adhérer à la III° Internationale, à quel point le travail de certains partis est encore loin de préparer la classe révolutionnaire à mettre à profit la crise révolutionnaire, je citerai le chef du « Parti travailliste indépendant » de Grande‑Bretagne, Ramsay Mac Donald. Dans son livre le Parlement et la Révolution, consacré précisément aux questions essentielles qui nous occupent aujourd'hui, Mac Donald dépeint la situation à peu près dans l'esprit des pacifistes bourgeois. Il reconnaît qu'il existe une crise révolutionnaire, que l'état d'esprit révolutionnaire grandit, que les masses ouvrières manifestent de la sympathie pour le pouvoir des Soviets et la dictature du prolétariat (notez qu'il est question de la Grande‑Bretagne), que la dictature du prolétariat vaut mieux que la dictature actuelle de la bourgeoisie anglaise.

Mais il reste profondément un pacifiste et un conciliateur bourgeois, un petit‑bourgeois qui rêve d'un gouvernement en dehors des classes. Il ne reconnaît la lutte des classes que comme un « fait descriptif », à l'exemple de tous les menteurs, sophistes et pédants de la bourgeoisie. Il passe sous silence l'expérience de Kérenski, des menchéviks et des socialistes‑révolutionnaires de Russie, l'expérience similaire de la Hongrie et de l'Allemagne, etc., concernant la création d'un gouvernement « démocratique » et soi‑disant en dehors dos classes. Il endort son parti et les ouvriers qui ont le malheur de prendre ce bourgeois pour un socialiste et ce philistin pour un chef, en leur disant : « Nous savons que tout cela (c'est‑à‑dire la crise révolutionnaire, la fermentation révolutionnaire) passera, s'arrangera ». La guerre, voyez‑vous, devait inévitablement provoquer la crise, mais après la guerre, peut‑être pas d'un seul coup, « tout s'arrangera » !

Voilà ce qu'écrit un homme qui est le chef d'un parti désireux d'adhérer à la III° Internationale. C'est là une révélation d'autant plus précieuse qu'elle est d'une sincérité exceptionnelle, de ce que l'on peut observer non moins souvent dans les milieux dirigeants du parti socialiste français et du parti social‑démocrate indépendant allemand, à savoir non seulement l'incapacité, mais également le refus d'utiliser dans un sens révolutionnaire la crise révolutionnaire ou, en d'autres termes, l'incapacité et le refus de procéder à une préparation réellement révolutionnaire du parti et de la classe à la dictature du prolétariat.

C'est le mal le plus grave dont souffrent maints partis qui abandonnent actuellement la II° Internationale. Et c'est précisément pourquoi j'insiste surtout, dans les thèses que je présente au congrès, sur la définition la plus concrète et la plus précise des tâches qu'implique la préparation à la dictature du prolétariat.

Encore un exemple. Un nouveau livre contre le bolchévisme vient de paraître. Il paraît actuellement des quantités extraordinaires de livres de ce genre en Europe et en Amérique, mais plus on en publie et plus la sympathie des masses pour le bolchévisme grandit et se renforce. Il s'agit du livre d'Otto Bauer : Bolchévisme ou Social-démocratie ? Les Allemands y apprennent clairement ce qu'est le menchévisme, dont le rôle honteux dans la révolution russe est assez connu des ouvriers de tous les pays. Otto Bauer a donné là un pamphlet profondément menchévik, bien qu'il ait dissimulé sa sympathie pour le menchévisme. Mais il est aujourd'hui indispensable de répandre en Europe et en Amérique une connaissance plus précise de ce qu'est le menchévisme, car c'est le nom générique de tous les courants soi‑disant socialistes, social‑démocrates, etc., hostiles au bolchévisme. Il nous paraîtrait fastidieux à nous, Russes, d'écrire pour expliquer à l'Europe ce qu'est le menchévisme. Otto Bauer l'a montré dans son livre et nous remercions à l'avance les éditeurs bourgeois et opportunistes qui le publieront et en feront la traduction en différentes langues. Le livre de Bauer sera utile, ne serait-ce qu'à titre de complément aux manuels de communisme. Prenez n'importe quel paragraphe, n'importe quel raisonnement d'Otto Bauer et démontrez en quoi consiste le menchévisme, quelles sont les racines des idées qui ont pour aboutissement l'action pratique des traîtres au socialisme, des amis de Kérenski, de Scheidemann, etc. ; cette question pourrait être posée utilement et avec profit aux « examens » probatoires du bon communiste. Si vous ne pouvez pas y répondre, c'est que vous n'êtes pas encore communiste et il est préférable que vous n'adhériez pas au parti. ( Applaudissements. )

Otto Bauer a parfaitement exprimé le fond même des conceptions de l'opportunisme mondial dans une phrase pour laquelle, si nous étions les maîtres à Vienne, nous devrions, de son vivant, lui élever un monument. L'emploi de la violence dans la lutte de classe, au sein des démocraties modernes ‑ a‑t‑il déclaré sentencieusement ‑ serait « une violence exercée sur les facteurs sociaux de la force même ».

Vous trouverez sans doute que cela rend un son bizarre et incompréhensible ? C'est le modèle de ce à quoi ils ont réduit le marxisme, à quelle banalité et à quelle défense des exploiteurs on peut dégrader la théorie la plus révolutionnaire. Prenez la variété allemande de l'esprit petit-bourgeois et vous aboutirez à la « théorie » suivant laquelle « les facteurs sociaux de la force » sont le nombre, le degré d'organisation, la place que l'on occupe dans le processus de la production et de la répartition, l'activité, l'instruction. Si le salarié de la campagne, si l'ouvrier de la ville exercent la violence révolutionnaire contre le propriétaire foncier ou le capitaliste, ce n'est nullement la dictature du prolétariat, ce n'est nullement la violence sur les exploiteurs et les oppresseurs du peuple. Pas du tout. C'est de la « violence sur les facteurs sociaux de la force ».

Peut‑être mon exemple paraît‑il un peu humoristique. Mais la nature de l'opportunisme contemporain est telle que sa lutte contre le bolchévisme prend une allure humoristique. Entraîner la classe ouvrière, tout ce qu'elle compte d'hommes doués de réflexion, à la lutte du menchévisme international (des Mac Donald, des O. Bauer et Cie) contre le bolchévisme, c'est pour l'Europe et l'Amérique la chose la plus utile, la plus urgente.

Ici, nous devons nous demander ce qui explique la persistance de ces tendances en Europe et pourquoi cet opportunisme est plus fort en Europe occidentale que chez nous. Mais parce que les pays avancés ont bâti et bâtissent leur culture grâce à la possibilité qu'ils ont de vivre aux dépens d'un milliard d'opprimés. Parce que les capitalistes de ces pays ont des profits bien supérieurs à ceux qu'ils pourraient tirer de la spoliation des ouvriers de leur pays.

On estimait avant la guerre que les trois pays les plus riches ; la Grande‑Bretagne, la France et l'Allemagne, tiraient de la seule exportation de leurs capitaux à l'étranger un revenu annuel de 8 à 10 milliards de francs sans compter les autres revenus.

On comprend qu'il soit possible de prélever sur cette jolie somme au moins un demi‑milliard à distribuer en aumône aux dirigeants ouvriers, à l'aristocratie ouvrière, comme dessous‑de‑table de toute espèce. En effet, tout est dans la corruption. On s'y prend de mille façons ‑ en élevant le niveau de culture des grands centres, en créant des établissements éducatifs, des milliers de sinécures à l'intention des dirigeants des coopératives, des trade‑unions, des leaders parlementaires. Cela se fait dans tous les pays de civilisation capitaliste. Et ces milliards de super‑bénéfice constituent la base économique de l'opportunisme dans le mouvement ouvrier. En Amérique, en Grande‑Bretagne, en France, nous assistons à une résistance infiniment plus forte des chefs opportunistes, des couches supérieures de la classe ouvrière, de l'aristocratie ouvrière ; ils opposent une résistance plus grande au mouvement communiste. C'est pourquoi nous devons nous attendre à voir les partis ouvriers européens et américains se guérir de cette maladie plus difficilement que nous. Nous savons que depuis la fondation de la III° Internationale, des progrès énormes ont été réalisés en ce qui concerne la guérison de cette maladie, mais nous n'en sommes pas encore à la guérison définitive : l'épuration des partis ouvriers, des partis révolutionnaires du prolétariat du monde entier de l'influence bourgeoise et des opportunistes qui se trouvent dans leur propre sein, est encore loin d'être achevée.

Je ne m'arrêterai pas sur la façon concrète dont nous devons le faire. Il en est question dans mes thèses, qui ont été publiées. Ma tâche consiste à indiquer les causes économiques profondes de ce phénomène. Cette maladie est devenue chronique ; sa guérison se fait plus attendre que les optimistes ne pouvaient l'espérer. L'opportunisme, voilà notre ennemi principal. L'opportunisme des couches supérieures du mouvement ouvrier, c'est un socialisme non prolétarien, mais bourgeois. La preuve est faite que les militants du mouvement ouvrier qui appartiennent à la tendance opportuniste sont de meilleurs défenseurs de la bourgeoisie que les bourgeois eux-mêmes. S'ils n'avaient pas eu main la direction des ouvriers, la bourgeoisie ne pourrait, pas se maintenir. Ce n'est pas seulement l'histoire du régime Kérenski en Russie qui le prouve ; la République démocratique d'Allemagne, avec à sa tête un gouvernement social‑démocrate, le prouve aussi de même que le comportement d'Albert Thomas à l'égard de son gouvernement bourgeois. La preuve est faite enfin par l'expérience analogue de la Grande‑Bretagne et des Etats‑Unis. L'opportunisme est notre ennemi principal et nous devons en venir à bout. Nous devons quitter ce congrès avec la ferme résolution de mener cette lutte jusqu'au bout dans tous les partis. C'est là notre tâche essentielle.

Comparée à cette tâche, celle qui consiste à redresser les erreurs de la tendance de « gauche » dans le mouvement communiste sera aisée. Nous observons dans maints pays un antiparlementarisme qui n'est pas tant le fait d'hommes issus de la petite‑bourgeoisie que celui de certains groupes avancés du prolétariat, mus par la haine à l'égard de l'ancien parlementarisme, haine légitime, juste et nécessaire, provoquée par le comportement des parlementaires de Grande‑Bretagne, de France, d'Italie, de tous les pays. Il faut distribuer les directives de l'Internationale Communiste, éclairer mieux et davantage les camarades sur l'expérience russe et le rôle véritable d'un parti politique prolétarien. Notre travail consistera à résoudre ce problème. Et la lutte contre ces erreurs du mouvement prolétarien, contre ces insuffisances, sera mille fois plus facile que la lutte contre la bourgeoisie qui, sous le couvert du réformisme, pénètre dans les vieux partis de la II° Internationale et oriente toute leur activité dans un esprit prolétarien, mais bourgeois.

En conclusion, camarades, je m'arrêterai encore sur un autre aspect de la question. Le camarade président a dit que ce congrès méritait bien le titre de congrès mondial. Je pense qu'il a raison, surtout parce que nous avons ici pas mal de représentants du mouvement révolutionnaire des pays capitalistes avancés et des pays arriérés. Ce n'est qu'un petit commencement, mais l'essentiel est qu'il y ait un commencement. L'union des prolétaires révolutionnaires des pays capitalistes avancés avec les masses révolutionnaires des pays où il n'y a pas ou presque pas de prolétariat, avec les masses opprimées des colonies, des pays d'Orient, cette union devient une réalité dans ce congrès. Il ne dépend que de nous – et je suis convaincu que nous le ferons – de la consolider. L'impérialisme mondial ne pourra que s'écrouler quand l'offensive révolutionnaire des ouvriers exploités et opprimés au sein de chaque pays, surmontant la résistance des éléments petits‑bourgeois et l'influence de cette minorité infime qu'est l'aristocratie ouvrière, fera sa jonction avec l'offensive révolutionnaire des centaines de millions d'hommes qui, jusqu'à présent, étaient en dehors de l'histoire et considérés comme n'en étant que l'objet.

La guerre impérialiste a aidé la révolution : la bourgeoisie a tiré des colonies, des pays arriérés, de l'isolement où ils étaient, des soldats qu'elle a lancés dans cette guerre impérialiste. La bourgeoisie anglaise a inculqué aux soldats hindous qu'il était du devoir du paysan hindou de défendre la Grande‑Bretagne contre l'Allemagne, la bourgeoisie française a inculqué aux soldats de ses colonies que les Noirs devaient défendre la France. Elle leur a enseigné le maniement des armes. C'est une science extrêmement utile, et nous pourrions en remercier la bourgeoisie du plus profond de nous‑mêmes, au nom de tous les ouvriers et de tous les paysans russes, au nom surtout de toute l'Armée Rouge de Russie. La guerre impérialiste a fait entrer les peuples dépendants dans l'histoire du monde. Et l'une de nos tâches les plus importantes est de réfléchir aujourd'hui à la façon poser la première pierre de l'organisation du mouvement soviétique dans les pays non-capitalistes. Les Soviets y sont possibles ; ce ne seront pas des Soviets ouvriers, mais des Soviets paysans ou des Soviets de travailleurs.

Cela exigera un travail énorme ; des erreurs seront inévitables ; de grosses difficultés se dresseront sur notre chemin. Une tâche essentielle du Il° Congrès est d'élaborer ou d'indiquer les bases pratiques qui permettront que le travail qui se faisait jusqu'à présent d'une manière inorganisée parmi des centaines de millions d'hommes, se fasse dorénavant d'une manière organisée, cohérente et systématique.

Un peu plus d'un an après le I° Congrès de l'Internationale Communiste, nous voilà vainqueurs de la II° Internationale ; les idées soviétiques ne sont pas aujourd'hui répandues uniquement parmi les ouvriers des pays civilisés, qui les connaissent et les comprennent ; les ouvriers de tous les pays se moquent des beaux esprits, parmi les quels il y en a bon nombre qui se disent socialistes et qui font des dissertations savantes ou presque sur le « système » soviétique, comme aiment à s'exprimer les Allemands systématiciens, ou sur « Vidée » soviétique, comme s'expriment les partisans anglais du « ghilde‑socialisme » ; ces dissertations sur le « système » et sur l'« idée » soviétiques en imposent parfois aux yeux et à l'esprit des ouvriers. Mais ils rejettent tout ce fatras de pédants et se saisissent de l'arme que les Soviets leur offrent. Et la compréhension du rôle et de la signification des Soviets s'est maintenant répandue jusque dans les pays d'Orient.

Les bases d'un mouvement soviétique sont maintenant jetées dans tout l'Orient, dans toute l'Asie, parmi tous les peuples coloniaux.

L'idée que les exploités doivent se soulever contre les exploiteurs et former leurs Soviets n'est pas trop compliquée. Après notre expérience, après deux ans et demi d'existence de la République des Soviets de Russie, après le I° Congrès de la III° Internationale, cette idée devient accessible à des centaines de millions d'hommes opprimés par les exploiteurs du monde entier, et si aujourd'hui, en Russie, nous sommes souvent contraints d'accepter des compromis, de temporiser, étant plus faibles que les impérialistes internationaux, nous savons pourtant que nous défendons les intérêts de cette masse d'un milliard et quart d'hommes. Des barrières, des préjugés, de l'ignorance, qui d'heure en heure reculent dans le passé, nous gênent encore, mais plus nous avançons et mieux nous représentons et défendons dans les faits ces 70 ¨% de la population du globe, cette masse de travailleurs et d'exploités. Nous pouvons dire avec fierté : lors du premier congrès, nous n'étions au fond que des propagandistes, nous ne faisions que jeter au prolétariat du monde entier des idées essentielles, nous ne faisions que lancer un appel à la lutte, que demander : où sont les hommes susceptibles de s'engager dans cette voie ? Aujourd'hui, il y a partout un prolétariat avancé. Il existe partout une armée prolétarienne, parfois mal organisée il est vrai, et qui demande à être réorganisée, et si nos camarades de tous les pays nous aident maintenant à organiser une armée unique, rien ne pourra plus nous empêcher accomplir notre œuvre. Cette œuvre, c'est la révolution prolétarienne universelle, la création de la République universelle des Soviets.

(Applaudissements prolongés)

Rapport sur le rôle du Parti Communiste
23 juillet 1920

Camarades, je voudrais faire quelques remarques concernant les discours des camarades Tanner et Mac Laine. Tanner dit qu'il est pour la dictature du prolétariat, mais celle-ci est présentée d'une manière quelque peu différente de celle dont nous la concevons. Il dit que nous entendons en réalité par dictature du prolétariat celle de sa minorité organisée et consciente.

En effet, à l'époque du capitalisme, quand les masses ouvrières sont soumises à une exploitation continue, et ne peuvent développer leurs capacités humaines, le trait le plus caractéristique des partis politiques ouvriers réside précisément dans le fait qu'ils ne peuvent toucher qu'une minorité de leur classe. Le parti politique ne peut rassembler qu'une minorité de la classe, de même que dans toute la société capitaliste les ouvriers réellement conscients ne sont qu'une minorité parmi les ouvriers. Force nous est donc de reconnaître que ce n'est que cette minorité consciente qui peut diriger les larges masses ouvrières et les entraîner avec elle. Et si le camarade Tanner dit qu'il est l'ennemi du parti, mais qu'il est en même temps pour que la minorité des ouvriers les mieux organisés et les plus révolutionnaires indique la voie à l'ensemble du prolétariat, je dis qu'en réalité il n'y a pas de différence entre nous. Qu'est‑ce que cette minorité organisée ? Si cette minorité est vraiment consciente, si elle sait entraîner les masses, si elle est capable de répondre à chaque question à l'ordre du jour, alors elle est, en réalité, le parti. Et si nous attachons tant d'importance à l'opinion de camarades comme Tanner qui sont les représentants d'un mouvement de masse, ce que l'on ne saurait dire, sans trop forcer les choses, des représentants du parti socialiste britannique, si ces camarades sont pour qu'il y ait une minorité qui lutte résolument pour la dictature du prolétariat et qui instruit les masses ouvrières dans cet esprit, cette minorité n'est pas autre chose, en réalité, que le parti. Le camarade Tanner dit que cette minorité doit organiser et entraîner avec elle toute la masse ouvrière. Si lui et les autres camarades du groupe Shop‑Stewards et de l'Union des ouvriers industriels du monde (I.W.W.) l'admettent - et nous constatons tous les jours dans nos conversations avec eux qu'ils l'admettent effectivement –s'ils approuvent cette situation où la minorité communiste consciente de la classe ouvrière entraîne avec elle le prolétariat, alors ils doivent convenir aussi que tel est le sens de toutes nos résolutions. Et alors, l'unique différence existant entre nous consiste seulement dans le fait qu'ils évitent le mot « parti » parce qu'il existe parmi les anglais une certaine prévention contre le parti politique. Ils ne se représentent pas un parti politique autrement qu'à l'image des partis de Gompers et de Henderson, des partis d'affairistes parlementaires, de traîtres à la classe ouvrière. S'ils ne voient le parlementarisme que tel qu'il existe aujourd'hui en Grande‑Bretagne ou en Amérique, alors, nous aussi, nous sommes les ennemis d'un tel parlementarisme et de partis politiques. Nous avons besoin de partis nouveaux , d'autres partis. Nous avons besoin de partis, qui soient constamment et effectivement liés aux masses et qui sachent diriger ces masses.

Je passe à la troisième question, dont je voudrais dire deux mots à propos du discours du camarade Mac Laine. Il est partisan de l'affiliation du Parti Communiste anglais au Labour Party. Je me suis déjà prononcé à ce sujet dans mes thèses relatives à l'admission à la III° Internationale. Dans ma brochure, j'ai laissé cette question ouverte. Cependant, après avoir discuté avec plusieurs camarades, j'ai abouti à cette conviction que la décision de rester au Labour Party constitue la seule tactique juste. Mais voilà que le camarade Tanner prend la parole et déclare : ne soyez pas trop dogmatique. Cette expression me semble ici tout à fait déplacée. Le camarade Ramsay dit : veuillez nous permettre, à nous, communistes anglais, de résoudre nous‑mêmes cette question. Que serait l'Internationale si chaque petite fraction venait lui dire : certains d'entre nous sont pour, d'autres contre ; laissez‑nous le soin de régler cela ? A quoi servirait alors l'Internationale, le congrès, toute cette discussion ? Le camarade Mac Laine n'a parlé que du rôle du parti politique. Mais cela concerne également les syndicats et le parlementarisme. Il est parfaitement exact que la majeure partie des meilleurs révolutionnaires est contre l'affiliation au Labour Party, parce qu'ils répudient le parlementarisme en tant que moyen de lutte. Peut‑être serait‑il mieux alors de renvoyer cette en commission. Cette commission devra la discuter et l'étudier, et l'affaire devra être réglée dans tous les cas par le présent congrès de l'Internationale Communiste. Nous ne pouvons pas admettre qu'elle ne concerne que les communistes anglais. Nous devons dire, en général, quelle tactique est la bonne.

Je m'arrêterai maintenant sur certains arguments du camarade Mac Laine, concernant la question du Labour Party anglais. Il faut le dire nettement : le Parti communiste ne peut se joindre au Labour Party qu'à la condition de garder son entière liberté de critique et d'être à même de poursuivre sa politique propre. C'est le plus important. Quand le camarade Serrati parle à ce propos de collaboration de classes, j'affirme pour ma part : ce n'est pas de la collaboration de classes. Si les camarades italiens tolèrent dans leur parti des opportunistes genre Turati et Cie, c'est‑à-dire des éléments bourgeois, c'est là, effectivement, de la collaboration de classes. Mais en l'occurrence, en ce qui concerne le Labour Party anglais, il ne s'agit que de la collaboration de la minorité avancée des ouvriers anglais avec leur écrasante majorité. Les membres du Labour Party sont tous membres des syndicats. Il s'agit là d'une structure très originale, que nous ne trouvons dans aucun autre pays. Cette organisation embrasse 4 millions d'ouvriers sur les 6 ou 7 millions de membres des syndicats. On ne leur demande pas quelles sont leurs opinions politiques. Que le camarade Serrati me prouve que quelqu'un nous empêchera d'y user de notre droit de critique. Quand vous l'aurez prouvé, alors seulement vous aurez prouvé que le camarade Mac Laine se trompe. Le Parti socialiste britannique peut dire délibérément que Henderson est un traître et néanmoins rester au sein du Labour Party. Ici se réalise la collaboration de l'avant‑garde de la classe ouvrière avec ouvriers arriérés, avec l'arrière‑garde. Cette collaboration a une importance tellement grande pour l'ensemble du mouvement que nous insistons catégoriquement pour les communistes anglais soient le chaînon qui relie le parti, c'est‑à‑dire la minorité de la classe ouvrière, à toute la masse des ouvriers. Si la minorité ne sait pas diriger les masses, se lier étroitement avec elles, elle n'est pas un parti, elle ne vaut rien en général, qu'elle s'appelle Parti national des Shop Stewards Committees, pour autant que je sache que les Shop Stewards de Grande‑Bretagne possèdent un Comité national, une direction nationale, ce qui est déjà un pas vers le parti. Par conséquent, si le fait que le Labour Party anglais est composé de prolétaires n'est pas infirmé, alors il s'agit de la collaboration l'avant‑garde de la classe ouvrière avec les ouvriers arriérés et si cette collaboration n'est pas systématiquement poursuivie, alors le Parti communiste ne vaut rien, et il ne saurait. être question de la dictature du prolétariat. Et si les camarades italiens n'ont pas d'arguments plus probants, nous devrons plus tard trancher ici définitivement la question sur la base de ce que nous savons et nous serons amenés à conclure que l'adhésion est une tactique juste.

Les camarades Tanner et Ramsay nous disent que la majorité des communistes anglais n'accepteront pas l'affiliation, mais devons‑nous nécessairement être d'accord avec la majorité ? Pas du tout. Si elle n'a pas encore compris quelle est la politique juste, peut‑être pouvons‑nous attendre. L'existence parallèle de deux partis pendant un certain temps serait même préférable au refus de répondre à la question : quelle est la tactique juste ? Naturellement, compte tenu de l'expérience de tous les membres du congrès et sur la base des arguments produits ici, vous n'insisterez pas pour que nous prenions séance tenante la décision de créer sans délai dans tous les pays un parti communiste unique. Cela est impossible. Mais exprimer franchement notre opinion et donner des directives, cela nous pouvons le faire.

Nous devons examiner dans une commission spéciale la question soulevée par la délégation anglaise et dire ensuite : la tactique juste, c'est l'adhésion au Labour Party. Si la majorité est contre, nous devrons organiser la minorité à part. Cela pourra être utile sur le plan éducatif. Si les masses ouvrières anglaises continuent à avoir confiance en leur ancienne tactique, nous vérifierons nos conclusions au prochain congrès. Mais nous ne pouvons pas dire que cette question ne concerne que la Grande‑Bretagne, ce serait imiter les pires habitudes de la II° Internationale. Nous devons exprimer ouvertement notre opinion. Si les communistes anglais ne parviennent pas à s'entendre et si un parti du masse n'est pas créé, la scission sera de toute façon inévitable.

Rapport de la commission nationale et coloniale
26 juillet 1920

Camarades, je me bornerai à une brève entrée en matière, après quoi le camarade Maring, qui fut secrétaire de notre commission [1], vous présentera un rapport détaillé sur les modifications que nous avons apportées aux thèses. Le camarade Roy, qui a formulé des thèses complémentaires, prendra suite la parole. Notre commission a adopté à l'unanimité les thèses initiales avec les amendements et les thèses complémentaires. De cette manière, nous avons pu aboutir l'unanimité complète sur toutes les questions importantes. Je ferai maintenant quelques brèves remarques.

En premier lieu, quelle est l'idée essentielle, fondamentale de nos thèses ? La distinction entre les peuples opprimés et les peuples oppresseurs. Nous faisons ressortir cette distinction, contrairement à la II° Internationale et à la démocratie bourgeoise. A l'époque de l'impérialisme, il est particulièrement important pour le prolétariat et l''Internationale Communiste de constater les faits économiques concrets et, dans la solution de toutes les questions coloniales et nationales, de partir non de notions abstraites, mais des réalités concrètes.

Le trait caractéristique de l'impérialisme est que le monde entier, comme nous le voyons, se divise actuellement en un grand nombre de peuples opprimés et un nombre infime de peuples oppresseurs, qui disposent de richesses colossales et d'une force militaire puissante. En estimant la population totale du globe à un milliard trois quarts, l'immense majorité, comprenant plus d'un milliard et, selon toute probabilité, un milliard deux cent cinquante millions d'êtres humains, c'est‑à‑dire près de 70 % de la population du globe, appartient aux peuples opprimés, qui ou bien se trouvent placés sous le régime de dépendance coloniale directe, ou bien constituent des Etats semi‑coloniaux, comme la Perse, la Turquie, la Chine, ou encore vaincus par l'armée d'une grande puissance impérialiste se trouvent sous sa dépendance en vertu de traités de paix. Cette idée de distinction, de division des peuples en opprimés et oppresseurs, se retrouve dans toutes les thèses, tant dans les premières parues sous ma signature et publiées antérieurement, que dans celles du camarade Roy. Ces dernières ont été écrites principalement à partir de la situation des Indes et des autres grands peuples d'Asie opprimés par la Grande‑Bretagne, et c'est en cela que réside leur grande importance pour nous.

La deuxième idée directrice de nos thèses est que, dans la situation internationale d'aujourd'hui, après la guerre impérialiste, les relations réciproques des peuples et tout le système politique mondial sont déterminés par la lutte d'un petit groupe de nations impérialistes contre le mouvement soviétique et les Etats soviétiques, à la tête desquels se trouve la Russie des Soviets. Si nous perdons cela de vue, nous ne saurons poser correctement aucune question nationale ou coloniale, quand bien même il s'agirait dit point le plus reculé du monde. Ce n'est qu'on partant de là que les questions politiques peuvent être posées et résolues d'une façon juste par les partis communistes, aussi bien des pays civilisés que des pays arriérés.

En troisième lieu, je tiens à attirer tout particulièrement l'attention sur la question du mouvement démocratique bourgeois dans les pays arriérés. Cette question, précisément, a provoqué certaines divergences. Nous avons discuté pour savoir s'il serait juste ou non, en principe et en théorie, de déclarer que l'Internationale Communiste et les partis communistes doivent soutenir le mouvement démocratique bourgeois des pays arriérés ; cette discussion nous a amenés à la décision unanime de remplacer l'expression mouvement « démocratique bourgeois » par celle de mouvement national‑révolutionnaire. Il n'y a pas le moindre doute que tout mouvement national ne puisse être que démocratique bourgeois, car la grande masse de la population des pays arriérés est composée de paysans, qui représentent les rapports bourgeois et capitalistes. Ce serait une utopie de croire que les partis prolétariens, en admettant qu'ils puissent en général faire leur apparition dans ces pays, pourront, sans avoir des rapports déterminés avec le mouvement paysan, sans le soutenir en fait, poursuivre une tactique et une politique communistes dans pays arriérés. Mais des objections ont été faites : si nous parlons de mouvement démocratique bourgeois, toute distinction s'effacera entre mouvement réformiste et mouvement révolutionnaire. Or, ces temps derniers, la distinction est apparue en toute clarté dans les pays arriérés coloniaux, car la bourgeoisie impérialiste s'applique par tous les moyens à implanter le mouvement réformiste aussi parmi les peuples opprimés. Un certain rapprochement s'est fait entre la bourgeoisie des pays exploiteurs et celle des pays coloniaux, de sorte que, très souvent, et peut‑être même dans la majorité des cas, la bourgeoisie des pays opprimés soutenant les mouvements nationaux, est d'accord avec la bourgeoisie impérialiste, c'est‑à‑dire qu'elle lutte avec celle-ci, contre les mouvements révolutionnaires et les classes révolutionnaires. Ceci a été démontré d'une façon irréfutable à la commission, et nous avons estimé que la seule attitude juste était de prendre en considération cette distinction et de remplacer presque partout l'expression « démocratique bourgeois » par celle de « national‑révolutionnaire ». Le sens de cette substitution est que, en tant que communistes, nous ne devrons soutenir et nous ne soutiendrons les mouvements bourgeois de libération des pays coloniaux que dans les cas où ces mouvements seront réellement révolutionnaires, où leurs représentants ne s'opposeront pas à ce que nous formions et organisions dans un esprit révolutionnaire la paysannerie et les larges masses d'exploités. Si ces conditions ne sont pas remplies, les communistes doivent, dans ces pays, lutter contre la bourgeoisie réformiste, à laquelle appartiennent également les héros de la II° Internationale. Les partis réformistes existent déjà dans les pays coloniaux, et parfois leurs représentants s'appellent social-démocrates et socialistes. La distinction indiquée figure maintenant dans toutes les thèses et je pense que notre point de vue se trouve ainsi formulé maintenant d'une manière beaucoup plus précise.

Ensuite, je voudrais encore faire une remarque au sujet des Soviets paysans. Le travail pratique des communistes, russes dans les colonies qui ont appartenu à la Russie tsariste, dans des pays arriérés comme le Turkestan et autres, a amené la question suivante : comment appliquer la tactique et la politique communistes dans les conditions précapitalistes, étant donné que le trait caractéristique essentiel de ces pays est que les rapports précapitalistes y prédominent encore, et que, par suite, il ne saurait y être question d'un mouvement purement prolétarien. Dans ces pays, le prolétariat industriel n'existe presque pas. Malgré cela, là aussi, nous avons assumé et nous devons assumer le rôle de conducteurs. Notre travail nous a démontré qu'il faut dans ces pays surmonter d'immenses difficultés, mais les résultats pratiques ont montré également que, malgré ces difficultés, il est possible d'éveiller dans les masses une aspiration à la pensée politique et à l'activité politique indépendantes, même là où le prolétariat est presque inexistant. Ce travail a été plus difficile pour nous que pour les camarades des pays d'Europe occidentale, le prolétariat de Russie étant surchargé de besognes intéressant l'Etat. On conçoit sans peine que les paysans qui se trouvent placés dans une dépendance semi‑féodale puissent parfaitement, assimiler l'idée de l'organisation soviétique et la faire passer dans les faits. Il est également évident que les masses opprimées, exploitées non seulement par le capitalisme marchand, mais également par les féodaux et par l'Etat, bâti sur des bases féodales, peuvent employer cette arme, cette forme d'organisation, même dans la situation qui est la leur. L'idée de l'organisation soviétique est simple ; elle peut être appliquée non seulement dans le cadre de rapports prolétariens, mais également dans celui de rapports paysans, de caractère féodal ou semi‑féodal. Notre expérience dans ce domaine n'est pas encore bien grande, mais les débats en commission, auxquels prirent part plusieurs représentants des pays coloniaux, ont prouvé irréfutablement qu'il est indispensable d'indiquer dans les thèses de l'Internationale Communiste que les Soviets de paysans, les Soviets d'exploités sont un moyen valable non seulement pour les pays capitalistes, mais également pour ceux où prédominent rapports précapitalistes, que le devoir absolu des partis communistes et des éléments qui sont disposés à constituer des partis communistes est de faire de la propagande en faveur des Soviets de paysans, des Soviets de travailleurs toujours et partout, dans les pays arriérés, dans les colonies ; là où les conditions le permettent, ils doivent tenter immédiatement de créer des Soviets du peuple travailleur.

Nous voyons ici s'ouvrir pour nous un domaine très intéressant et très important de travail pratique. Jusqu'à présent notre expérience commune à cet égard n'est pas très grande, mais petit à petit nous réunissons une documentation de plus en plus abondante. Il est tout à fait hors de discussion que le prolétariat des pays avancés peut et doit aider les masses travailleuses arriérées, et que les pays arriérés pourront sortir de leur stade actuel de développement quand le prolétariat victorieux des Républiques soviétiques aura tendu la main à ces masses et sera en mesure de leur prêter son appui.

Sur cette question, des débats assez vifs ont été suscités par nos thèses signées par moi, mais bien plus encore par celles du camarade Roy, qu'il va défendre ici et pour lesquelles certains amendements ont été adoptés à l'unanimité.

La question se posait ainsi : pouvons‑nous considérer comme juste l'affirmation que le stade capitaliste de développement de l'économie est inévitable pour les peuples arriérés, actuellement en voie d'émancipation et parmi lesquels on observe depuis la guerre un mouvement vers le progrès ? Nous y avons répondu par la négative. Si le prolétariat révolutionnaire victorieux mène parmi eux une propagande systématique, si les gouvernements soviétiques les aident par tous les moyens à leur disposition, on aurait tort de croire que le stade de développement capitaliste est inévitable pour les peuples arriérés. Dans toutes les colonies dans tous les pays arriérés, nous devons non seulement constituer des cadres indépendants de militants, des organisations du parti, non seulement y poursuivre dès maintenant la propagande en faveur de l'organisation des Soviets de paysans, en nous attachant à les adapter aux conditions précapitalistes qui sont les leurs, mais encore l'Internationale Communiste doit établir et justifier sur le plan théorique ce principe qu'avec l'aide du prolétariat des pays avancés, les pays arriérés peuvent parvenir au régime soviétique et, en passant par certains stades de développement, au communisme, en évitant le stade capitaliste.

Il n'est pas possible d'indiquer à l'avance les moyens qui sont nécessaires à cet effet. L'expérience nous les soufflera. Mais il est nettement établi que l'idée des Soviets est accessible à toutes les masses travailleuses des peuples les plus éloignés, que ces organismes, les Soviets, doivent être adaptés aux conditions du régime social précapitaliste et que le travail du parti communiste doit être entrepris immédiatement en ce sens dans le monde entier.

Je voudrais encore souligner l'importance du travail révolutionnaire des partis communistes non seulement dans leur propre pays, mais aussi dans les pays coloniaux et, notamment, parmi les troupes que les nations exploiteuses utilisent pour maintenir sous leur domination les peuples de ces pays.

Le camarade Quelch, du Parti socialiste britannique, en a parlé à notre commission. Il a déclaré qu'un simple ouvrier anglais considérerait comme une trahison le fait d'aider les peuples asservis dans leurs soulèvements contre la domination anglaise. Il est exact que le jingoïsme et le chauvinisme de l'aristocratie ouvrière de Grande‑Bretagne et d'Amérique constituent le plus grand danger pour le socialisme, qu'ils forment le rempart le plus solide de la II° Internationale, et que nous avons affaire ici à la plus grande trahison de la part des chefs et des ouvriers appartenant à cette Internationale bourgeoise. La II° Internationale a également discuté de la question coloniale. Le Manifeste de Bâle en parle à son tour en termes parfaitement clairs. Les partis de la II° Internationale avaient bien promis d'agir d'une façon révolutionnaire, mais nous ne remarquons pas que la II° Internationale et, je suppose, la majorité des partis ayant quitté celle-ci dans l'intention d'adhérer à la III° Internationale, fassent un travail effectivement révolutionnaire et apportent une aide aux peuples exploités et dépendants dans leurs soulèvements contre les nations qui les oppriment. Nous devons le déclarer hautement, et c'est irréfutable. Nous verrons si l'on tentera de le démentir.

Ce sont ces considérations qui ont été mises à la base nos résolutions incontestablement beaucoup trop longues ; j'espère cependant qu'elles seront utiles et contribueront au développement et à l'organisation d'un travail effectivement révolutionnaire dans les questions nationale et coloniale qui constitue précisément notre tâche essentielle.

Notes

[1] La commission nationale et coloniale fût constituée lors du congrès par les représentants de partis pour lesquels cette question était cruciale (France, Grande-Bretagne, Chine, Inde, Perse…). Elle débattit de thèses soumises par Lénine et adoptées par le congrès le 28 juillet. Cette commission avait été rendue nécessaire à cause de la faiblesse des acquis théoriques dont disposaient les P.C. pour guider leur activité en la matière – la II° Internationale s'étant toujours largement désintéressé de la question.

Discours sur les conditions d'admission à l'Internationale Communiste
30 juillet 1920

Camarades, Serrati a dit : nous n'avons pas encore inventé le sincéromètre, désignant par ce néologisme français un instrument destiné à mesurer la sincérité ; un tel instrument n'a pas encore été inventé. Nous n'en avons d'ailleurs nullement besoin ; par contre, nous possédons déjà un instrument permettant d'apprécier les tendances. Et le tort, dont, je parlerai plus loin, du camarade Serrati a bien été d'avoir fait fi de cet instrument connu depuis fort longtemps.

Je voudrais dire quelques mots seulement à propos du camarade Crispien. Je regrette beaucoup qu'il soit absent (Dittmann : « Il est malade ! »). Dommage. Son discours est un document des plus importants, car il exprime d'une manière précise la ligne politique de l'aile droite du Parti social‑démocrate indépendant. Je ne parlerai ni de personnalité, ni de cas particuliers, mais des idées clairement exprimées dans ce discours. Comme je l'espère, je saurai prouver que tout ce discours a été un discours essentiellement kautskiste et que le camarade Crispien partage les conceptions kautskistes sur la dictature du prolétariat. A une remarque, Crispien a répondu : « La dictature, ce n'est pas une nouveauté, il en était déjà question dans le Programme d'Erfurt ». Ce programme n'en dit rien ; et l'histoire a prouvé que ce n'est pas un hasard. Quand, en 1902‑1903, nous élaborions le premier programme de notre parti, nous avions toujours sous nos yeux l'exemple du programme d'Erfurt, à une époque où Plekhanov, le même Plékhanov qui disait alors avec juste raison : « Ou bien Bernstein enterrera la social‑démocratie ou bien c'est la social‑démocratie qui enterrera Bernstein. » Plékhanov soulignait tout particulièrement ce que si le programme d'Erfurt ne disait rien de la dictature du prolétariat, c'était une erreur sur le plan théorique sur le plan pratique, une concession pusillanime faite aux opportunistes. Aussi la dictature du prolétariat a‑t‑elle été incluse dans notre programme dès 1903.

Quand le camarade Crispien dit maintenant que la dictature du prolétariat n'est pas une nouveauté, et qu'il ajoute « Nous avons toujours été pour la conquête du pouvoir politique », cela signifie éluder le fond du problème. On admet conquête du pouvoir politique, mais pas la dictature. Toute la littérature socialiste, non seulement allemande, mais française et anglaise, prouve que les chefs des partis opportunistes, par exemple Mac Donald en Grande‑Bretagne, sont partisans de la conquête du pouvoir politique. Ils sont tous ‑ ce n'est pas peu dire ‑ des socialistes sincères, mais ils sont contre la dictature du prolétariat ! Dès l'instant que nous avons un bon parti révolutionnaire, digne de porter le titre de communiste, il faut faire de la propagande pour la dictature du prolétariat, à la différence des anciennes conceptions de la II° Internationale. Le camarade Crispien a masqué et dissimulé cette vérité, et c'est la faute fondamentale propre à tous les partisans de Kautsky.

Le camarade Crispien continue : « Nous sommes des chefs élus par les masses ». C'est un point de vue formel et faux car, au dernier congrès du parti des Indépendants allemands, la lutte des tendances nous est apparue clairement. Point n'est besoin de rechercher un sincéromètre et de plaisanter à ce sujet, comme le fait le camarade Serrati, pour établir ce simple fait que la lutte des tendances doit exister et existe ; l'une des tendances groupe les ouvriers révolutionnaires, récemment venus à nous et adversaires de l'aristocratie ouvrière ; l'autre tendance, c'est l'aristocratie ouvrière guidée dans tous les pays civilisés par les anciens chefs. Crispien fait‑il partie de la tendance des anciens chefs et de l'aristocratie ouvrière ou de la tendance de la nouvelle masse ouvrière révolutionnaire, qui est contre l'aristocratie ouvrière ? C'est précisément ce que Crispien a laissé dans l'ombre.

Sur quel ton le camarade Crispien parle‑t‑il de la scission ? Il dit que la scission constitue une navrante nécessité qu'il a longtemps déplorée. C'est tout à fait dans l'esprit de Kautsky. Se séparer de qui ? De Scheidemann ? Mais, bien sûr ! Crispien a dit : « Nous avons fait la scission. » Premièrement, vous l'avez faite trop tard ! Du moment qu'on en parle, il faut le dire. Deuxièmement, au lieu de pleurer à ce sujet, les indépendants devraient dire : La classe ouvrière internationale est encore sous le joug de l'aristocratie ouvrière et des opportunistes. C'est le cas en France et en Grande‑Bretagne. Le camarade Crispien conçoit la scission non pas en communiste, mais tout à fait dans l'esprit de Kautsky qui, soi‑disant, n'a pas d'influence. Ensuite, Crispien a parlé des hauts salaires. En Allemagne, voyez‑vous, les circonstances sont telles que, comparativement aux ouvriers russes et, en général, aux ouvriers de l'Europe orientale, les ouvriers vivent assez bien. D'après lui, on ne pourrait faire la révolution que dans le cas où elle n'aggraverait « pas trop » la situation des ouvriers. Je pose la question : est‑il admissible de tenir un tel langage dans un parti communiste ? C'est un langage contre‑révolutionnaire. Le niveau de vie en Russie est incontestablement inférieur à celui de l'Allemagne, et quand nous eûmes institué la dictature, les ouvriers souffrirent davantage de la faim et leur niveau de vie tomba encore plus bas. La victoire des ouvriers est impossible sans sacrifices, sans une aggravation momentanée de leur situation. Nous devons dire aux ouvriers le contraire de ce qu'a dit Crispien. Quand, pour préparer les ouvriers à la dictature, on leur parle d'une aggravation « pas trop » grande de leur situation, on oublie l'essentiel, à savoir que l'aristocratie ouvrière s'est précisément constituée en aidant « sa » bourgeoisie à conquérir et à opprimer le monde entier par des moyens impérialistes, afin de s'assurer ainsi de meilleurs salaires. Si les ouvriers allemands veulent faire aujourd'hui œuvre de révolutionnaires, ils doivent consentir des sacrifices et ne point s'en effrayer.

Du point de vue général, du point de vue de l'histoire universelle, il est exact que, dans les pays arriérés, un simple coolie est incapable de faire la révolution prolétarienne, mais dans un petit nombre de pays plus riches où, grâce au pillage impérialiste, on vit plus à l'aise, il serait contre-révolutionnaire de dire aux ouvriers qu'ils ont à redouter un « trop grand » appauvrissement. C'est le contraire. Il faut dire. L'aristocratie ouvrière qui a peur des sacrifices, qui redoute un « trop grand » appauvrissement pendant la période de lutte révolutionnaire, ne peut appartenir au parti. Autrement, la dictature est impossible, surtout dans les pays d'Europe occidentale.

Que dit Crispien de la terreur et de la violence ? Il dit que ce sont deux choses différentes. Probablement, une telle distinction est‑elle possible dans un manuel de sociologie, mais elle n'est pas possible dans la pratique politique, surtout en Allemagne. Contre les hommes qui agissent comme ont agi les officiers allemands lors de l'assassinat de Liebknecht et de Rosa Luxemburg, contre des hommes comme Stinnes et Krupp, qui soudoient la presse, contre ces gens‑là nous sommes bien obligés d'employer la violence et la terreur. Bien entendu, il n'est nul besoin de proclamer à l'avance que nous aurons certainement recours à la terreur ; mais si les officiers allemands et les partisans de Kapp restent qu'ils sont ; si Krupp et Stinnes restent ce qu'ils sont, le recours à la terreur sera inévitable. Non seulement Kautsky, mais également Ledebour et Crispien parlent de la terreur, de la violence dans un esprit tout à fait contre‑révolutionnaire. Un parti qui s'accommode de telles conceptions ne peut pas participer à la dictature, c'est l'évidence même.

Ensuite, la question agraire. Là surtout Crispien s'échauffe et croit pouvoir nous confondre en décelant chez nous un esprit petit‑bourgeois ; faire quelque chose pour la petite paysannerie aux dépens des gros propriétaires d'après lui relèverait d'un esprit petit‑bourgeois. Il faut exproprier et remettre la terre aux communes. C'est une conception de pédant. Même dans les pays hautement développés, y compris l'Allemagne, il y a pas mal de latifundia, et il y a des domaines cultivés non pas suivant les méthodes de la grande exploitation capitaliste, mais suivant des méthodes semi-féodales ; on peut en prélever quelque chose au profit des petits paysans sans porter atteinte à l'économie. On peut maintenir la grosse production tout en donnant aux petits paysans quelque chose de fort substantiel. Malheureusement, on n'y pense pas, mais dans la pratique on est bien obligé de le faire, sinon on commettrait une erreur. Cela se trouve confirmé, par exemple, par le livre de Varga (ancien commissaire du peuple à l'Economie Nationale de la République des Soviets de Hongrie), qui écrit que l'instauration de la dictature du prolétariat n'a presque rien changé à la campagne hongroise, que les journaliers ne s'en aperçurent pas et que la petite paysannerie ne reçut rien. En Hongrie, il y a de vastes latifundia, une économie semi‑féodale règne sur de vastes domaines. On trouvera toujours et on devra toujours trouver des parties de vastes propriétés dont on pourrait donner quelque chose aux petits paysans, peut-être pas en toute propriété, mais à bail, de manière que le petit paysan parcellaire gagne quelque chose à la confiscation du domaine. Autrement, le petit paysan ne verra pas de différence entre ce qu'il y avait avant et la dictature des Soviets. Si le pouvoir d'Etat prolétarien n'applique pas cette politique, il ne pourra pas se maintenir.

Bien que Crispien ait dit : « Vous ne pouvez pas contester nos convictions révolutionnaires », je répondrai : je les conteste catégoriquement. Je ne dis pas que vous ne voudriez pas agir d'une façon révolutionnaire, mais je dis que vous ne savez pas raisonner en révolutionnaire. Je parie que l'on pourrait désigner n'importe quelle commission formée d'hommes cultivés, lui donner dix ouvrages de Kautsky et le discours de Crispien, et que cette commission dirait : « ce discours est du Kautsky tout pur, il est imprégné de bout en bout des conceptions de Kautsky ». Toute l'argumentation de Crispien est foncièrement kautskiste. Après cela, Crispien vient nous dire : « Kautsky n'a plus aucune influence dans notre parti. » Aucune influence, peut‑être, sur les ouvriers révolutionnaires qui ont adhéré récemment. Mais il faut considérer comme absolument prouvé que Kautsky a exercé et exerce jusqu'à présent une énorme influence sur Crispien, sur toute la marche de sa pensée, sur toutes ses conceptions. Son discours le prouve. C'est pourquoi, sans inventer le sincéromètre ou l'appareil de mesure de la sincérité, on peut dire : l'orientation de Crispien n'est pas celle de l'Internationale Communiste. Et en disant cela, nous définissons l'orientation de toute l'Internationale Communiste.

Si les camarades Wijnkoop et Münzenberg ont exprimé leur mécontentement du fait que nous avons invité le Parti Socialiste Indépendant et que nous discutons avec ses représentants, je considère qu'ils ont tort. Quand Kautsky nous attaque et publie des livres, nous lui répliquons comme à un ennemi de classe. Mais lorsque le Parti social‑démocrate indépendant, grossi par l'afflux des ouvriers révolutionnaires vient ici pour des pourparlers, nous devons discuter avec ses représentants, car ils représentent une partie des ouvriers révolutionnaires. Il ne nous est pas possible de nous entendre immédiatement sur l'Internationale avec les Indépendants allemands, les Français et les Anglais. Le camarade Wijnkoop prouve dans chacun de ses discours qu'il partage presque toutes les erreurs du camarade Pannekoek. Il a déclaré qu'il ne partageait pas les conceptions de Pannekoek, mais ses discours prouvent le contraire. C'est là l'erreur essentielle de ce groupe de « gauche », mais c'est, une façon générale, l'erreur d'un mouvement prolétarien en plein développement. Les discours des camarades Crispien et Dittman sont de bout en bout pénétrés d'un esprit bourgeois qui ne saurait permettre de préparer la dictature du prolétairait. Si les camarades Wijnkoop et Münzenberg vont encore plus loin en ce qui concerne le Parti social‑démocrate Indépendant, nous ne nous solidarisons pas avec eux.

Bien sûr, nous n'avons pas de sincéromètre, comme l'a dit Serrati, pour éprouver la bonne foi des gens, et nous sommes entièrement d'accord pour dire qu'il ne s'agit pas de juger des hommes, mais bien d'apprécier la situation. Je regrette que Serrati ait parlé pour ne rien dire de nouveau. Son discours était de ceux que nous entendions dans la II° Internationale.

Il a eu tort de dire : « En France, situation non révolutionnaire, en Allemagne, situation révolutionnaire, en Italie, situation révolutionnaire ».

Quand bien même la situation serait contre‑révolutionnaire, la II° Internationale se trompe et porte une lourde responsabilité en ne voulant pas organiser la propagande et l'agitation révolutionnaires, étant donné que même dans une situation non révolutionnaire, on peut et on doit faire de la propagande révolutionnaire : toute l'histoire du Parti bolchévik l'a prouvé. La différence entre les socialistes et les communistes consiste précisément dans le fait que les socialistes refusent d'agir de la manière dont nous, agissons dans toute situation, quelle qu'elle soit, à savoir : poursuivre le travail révolutionnaire.

Serrati ne fait que répéter ce qui a été dit par Crispien. Nous ne voulons pas dire qu'il faille sans faute exclure, Turati à telle ou telle date. Cette question a déjà été abordée par le Comité exécutif et Serrati nous a dit : « Pas d'exclusions, mais une épuration du Parti. » Nous devons dire simplement aux camarades italiens que c'est bien l'orientation des membres de « l'Ordine Nuevo [1] » qui correspond à celle de l'Internationale Communiste, et non pas l'orientation de la majorité actuelle des dirigeants du Parti socialiste et de leur fraction parlementaire. On prétend qu'ils veulent défendre le prolétariat contre la réaction. Tchernov, les menchéviks et bien d'autres, en Russie, « défendent » également le prolétariat contre la réaction, mais cela n'est certes pas une raison suffisante pour les admettre parmi nous.

C'est pourquoi nous devons dire aux camarades italiens et à tous les partis qui ont une aile droite : cette tendance réformiste n'a rien de commun avec le communisme.

Nous vous prions, camarades italiens, de convoquer un congrès et de lui soumettre nos thèses et résolutions. Je suis convaincu que les ouvriers italiens voudront rester dans l'Internationale Communiste.

Notes

[1] « Ordre Nouveau », courant du P.S.I. dirigé par A. Gramsci.

Discours sur le parlementarisme
2 août 1920

Le camarade Bordiga a visiblement voulu défendre ici le point de vue des marxistes italiens, mais il n'a néanmoins répondu à aucun des arguments avancés par d'autres marxistes en faveur de l'action parlementaire.

Il a reconnu que l'expérience historique ne se, crée pas artificiellement. Il vient de nous dire qu'il faut reporter lutte dans un autre domaine. Ignorerait‑il que toute crise révolutionnaire s'accompagne d'une crise parlementaire ? Il a dit, c'est vrai, qu'il faut reporter la lutte dans un autre domaine, dans les Soviets. Mais il a reconnu lui-même qu'il n'est pas possible de créer artificiellement des Soviets. L'exemple de la Russie prouve qu'on ne peut les organiser que pendant la révolution ou bien juste à la veille de la révolution. Du temps de Kérenski, les Soviets (les Soviets menchéviks) étaient organisés d'une telle manière qu'ils ne pouvaient en aucune façon constituer le pouvoir prolétarien. Le parlement est un produit du développement historique, que nous ne pouvons éliminer tant que nous ne sommes pas suffisamment forts pour dissoudre cette institution bourgeoise. Ce n'est qu'en en faisant partie que l'on peut, partant des conditions historiques données, lutter contre la société bourgeoise et le parlementarisme. Le moyen dont la bourgeoisie se sert dans la lutte doit être aussi utilisé par le prolétariat, dans des buts tout autres évidemment. Vous ne pouvez pas affirmer qu'il n'en est pas ainsi,et, si vous voulez le contester, vous devez effacer l'expérience de tous les événements révolutionnaires du monde.

Vous avez dit que les syndicats aussi étaient opportunistes et qu'ils constituaient un danger ; mais, d'un autre côté, vous avez dit qu'il fallait faire une exception en leur faveur, étant donné qu'ils sont des organisations ouvrières. Mais cela n'est juste que jusqu'à un certain point. Il existe aussi dans les syndicats des éléments très arriérés. Une partie de la petite bourgeoisie prolétarisée, les ouvriers arriérés et les petits paysans, tous ces éléments croient réellement que leurs intérêts sont représentés au Parlement ; il faut lutter contre cela par l'action parlementaire et montrer aux masses la vérité dans les faits. Les théories n'ont pas prise sur les masses arriérées ; elles ont besoin de l'expérience.

Nous l'avons bien vu en Russie. Nous avons été obligés de convoquer l'Assemblée constituante, après la victoire du prolétariat, pour montrer à l'ouvrier arriéré qu'il ne pouvait rien obtenir d'elle. Afin qu'il puisse comparer les deux expériences, nous avons dû opposer concrètement les Soviets à l'Assemblée constituante, et lui montrer ainsi que les Soviets étaient la seule issue.

Le camarade Souchy, syndicaliste révolutionnaire, a défendu les mêmes théories, mais la logique n'est pas de son côté. Il a dit qu'il n'était pas marxiste, alors cela va de soi. Mais lorsque vous, camarade Bordiga, affirmez que vous êtes marxiste, il est permis d'exiger de vous plus de logique. Il faut savoir de quelle manière on peut briser le Parlement. Si vous pouvez le faire par la voie de l'insurrection armée dans tous les pays, c'est très bien. Vous savez qu ' en Russie nous avons montré notre volonté, non seulement en théorie mais également en pratique, d'abolir le Parlement bourgeois. Mais vous avez perdu de vue que cela est impossible sans une préparation relativement longue et que, dans la plupart des pays, il est encore impossible d'abolir le Parlement d'un seul coup. Nous devons donc poursuivre la lutte au soin même du Parlement pour détruire le Parlement. Aux conditions qui déterminent la ligne politique de toutes les classes de la société contemporaine vous substituez votre propre volonté révolutionnaire, et c'est pourquoi vous oubliez que, pour détruire le Parlement bourgeois de Russie, nous avons dû d'abord convoquer l'Assemblée constituante, même après notre victoire. Vous avez dit : « La vérité est que la révolution russe est un exemple qui ne correspond pas aux conditions de l'Europe occidentale. » Mais vous n'avez produit aucun argument de poids pour nous le prouver. Nous sommes passés par une période de démocratie bourgeoise. Nous l'avons traversée rapidement, à l'époque où nous étions obligés de faire de l'agitation en faveur des élections à l'Assemblée constituante. Et par la suite, lorsque la classe ouvrière a pu s'emparer du pouvoir, la paysannerie croyait encore à la nécessité d'un Parlement bourgeois.

Tenant compte de ces éléments arriérés, nous dûmes faire les élections et montrer aux masses, par l'exemple et dans les faits, que cette Assemblée constituante, élue au moment de la plus grande misère générale, n'exprimait pas les aspirations et les revendications des classes exploitées. Par là même, le conflit entre le pouvoir des Soviets et le pouvoir bourgeois apparut très clairement, pour nous, avant‑garde de la classe ouvrière, mais aussi pour l'immense majorité de la paysannerie, pour les petits employés, pour la petite bourgeoisie, etc. Dans tous les pays capitalistes, il y a des éléments arriérés de la classe ouvrière, qui sont convaincus que le Parlement est la véritable représentation du peuple et qui ne voient pas les procédés malpropres auxquels on y a recours. On dit que le Parlement est l'instrument à l'aide duquel la bourgeoisie trompe les masses. Mais cet argument doit être retourné contre vous et il se retourne contre vos thèses. Comment révélerez‑vous aux masses vraiment arriérées et trompées par la bourgeoisie le véritable caractère du Parlement ? Si vous n'en faites pas partie, comment dévoilerez‑vous telle ou telle manœuvre parlementaire, la position de tel ou tel parti ? Si vous êtes marxistes, vous devez reconnaître qu'au sein de la société capitaliste les rapports des classes et les rapports des partis sont étroitement liés. Comment, je le répète, montrerez‑vous tout cela si vous n'êtes pas membres du Parlement, si vous répudiez l'action parlementaire ? L'histoire de la révolution russe a montré clairement qu'aucun argument n'aurait pu convaincre les larges masses de la classe ouvrière, la paysannerie, les petits employés s'ils ne l' avaient pas appris par leur propre expérience.

On a dit ici que nous perdons beaucoup de temps en participant à la lutte parlementaire. Peut‑on concevoir une autre institution intéressant autant toutes les classes que le Parlement ? On ne peut pas créer cela artificiellement. Si toutes les classes sont amenées à participer à la lutte parlementaire, c'est que les intérêts et les conflits de classe se reflètent au Parlement. S'il était possible d'organiser d'emblée partout, mettons, une grève générale décisive capable d'abattre d'un seul coup le capitalisme, la révolution se serait déjà faite dans les différents pays. Mais il faut, compter avec les faits, et le Parlement est toujours l'arène de la lutte des classes. Le camarade Bordiga et ceux qui partagent son point de vue doivent dire la vérité aux masses. L'Allemagne est le meilleur exemple du fait qu'une fraction communiste au Parlement est possible, et c'est, pourquoi vous devriez dire ouvertement aux masses : nous sommes trop faibles pour créer un parti solidement constitué. Telle serait la vérité qu'il faudrait dire. Mais si vous reconnaissiez votre faiblesse devant les masses, elles deviendraient non pas vos amies, mais bien vos adversaires, et elles se rallieraient au parlementarisme.

Si vous dites : « Camarades ouvriers, nous sommes si faibles que nous ne pouvons pas créer un parti suffisamment discipliné pour obliger ses députés à se soumettre à sa volonté », les ouvriers vous abandonneront, car ils se diront : « Comment pourrions‑nous instaurer la dictature prolétarienne avec des gens aussi faibles ? »

Vous êtes bien naïfs, si vous vous imaginez que le jour de la victoire du prolétariat, les intellectuels, la classe moyenne, la petite bourgeoisie deviendront communistes.

Mais si vous ne vous faites pas cette illusion, vous devez dès maintenant préparer le prolétariat à s'engager dans la voie qui est la nôtre. Vous ne trouverez aucune exception à cette règle dans aucun domaine du travail d'Etat. Le lendemain de la révolution, vous verrez partout des avocats opportunistes, qui se diront communistes, des petits bourgeois qui n'admettront ni la discipline du parti communiste, ni celle de l'Etat prolétarien. Si vous ne préparez pas less ouvriers à fonder un parti vraiment discipliné, qui impose sa discipline à tous ses membres, vous ne préparerez jamais la dictature du prolétariat. Je pense que vous ne voulez pas admettre que précisément la faiblesse d'un très grand nombre de nouveaux partis communistes les amène à contester la nécessité du travail parlementaire. Et je suis convaincu que l'immense majorité des ouvriers vraiment révolutionnaires nous suivra et se prononcera contre vos thèses antiparlementaires.

When banks and finance collapse, what do we do ?

Karob, Robert Paris — 2026-06-14T03:38:00Z

What will happen, why, and what we need to do

It's possible that in the coming months, your bank card could stop working. That you could go to the ATM and find no cash dispensed. That your salary wouldn't be deposited. That your rent payments would be blocked. It may sound like science fiction. It isn't. It already happened in Argentina in 2001. In Cyprus in 2013. In Greece in 2015. Closer to home, in the United States in March 2023, three American banks collapsed in a matter of days. In Europe, Credit Suisse, one of the world's largest banks, disappeared in the aftermath.

What's coming next is on a different scale. This article explains why, and what you need to prepare for.
What's happening in finance today

Economist Frédéric Lordon, research director at the CNRS, recently gave an interview in which he sounded the alarm. His diagnosis can be summarized in a few simple points.

• First point : private credit. For the past fifteen years or so, a new segment of finance has developed under the radar of regulation. It's called private credit. The principle is simple : wealthy investors entrust their money to hedge funds, which then lend to struggling companies. These companies pay very high interest rates, allowing investors to pocket 10% per year when everything goes well. Today, two trillion dollars circulate in this system. That's three times more than the subprime mortgage bubble that triggered the 2008 crisis.

• Second point : default rates are skyrocketing. Companies that borrowed from these funds are starting to find they can no longer repay. In 2024, the default rate was 1%. A Swiss bank, UBS, now predicts it could climb to 15%. Investors are getting scared and demanding their money back. But this money was lent for five to seven years to companies that can't repay immediately. As a result, the funds are refusing to return the money. This is called a fund run. It's the equivalent of a bank panic applied to investment funds.

• Third point : the artificial intelligence bubble. Trillions of dollars have been invested in companies like OpenAI (the one behind ChatGPT). The problem : OpenAI has never made a single cent. It loses six to eight billion dollars a year. Yet, it is valued at over 800 billion dollars based on the promise that it will become profitable by 2030. If this promise doesn't hold true, the entire pyramid will collapse.

• Fourth point : other debts. In the United States, payment delays are skyrocketing across the board. On auto loans. On student loans. On credit cards. On commercial real estate loans. Each category represents a trillion dollars. And in each one, the warning lights are flashing red.

• Fifth point : the war in the Middle East. The oil shock triggered by the events around the Strait of Hormuz is, according to the head of the International Energy Agency, more severe than those of 1973, 1979, and 2022 combined. It will cause both recession and inflation. It will accelerate business failures. It will make traditional crisis management by central banks impossible.

Lordon concluded that he found no precedent in the history of capitalism for this simultaneous collision of crises. Neither did we.
Why this time the state won't be able to save the banks

In 2008, when American banks collapsed, governments rushed to bail them out. They gave, lent, and guaranteed trillions of dollars and euros. In France, Sarkozy's government implemented a massive aid package. In return, we were told we would have to "tighten our belts." The five years that followed were marked by austerity, cuts to public services, mass unemployment, and Greece being placed under supervision.

The bailout was paid for twice by the workers. First, by the public money used to save private banks. Then, by the austerity measures that followed to repay the resulting public debt.

This time, the mechanism will no longer be able to function in the same way. For three reasons.

• States are already heavily indebted. In 2008, French public debt stood at 68% of GDP. Today, it is at 113%. American debt is at 123%. Italian debt at 137%. Japanese debt at 260%. Each new crisis forces states to borrow more, and each new indebtedness reduces their room for maneuver for the next. Financial markets are beginning to grow wary. Interest rates on public debt are rising. Rating agencies are downgrading.

• Central banks are at their breaking point. They have printed astronomical amounts of money since 2008 to keep the system afloat. The European Central Bank's balance sheet has grown from €2 trillion in 2008 to €6.5 trillion today. The US Federal Reserve's has increased from €900 billion to €7 trillion. Continuing down this path risks massive inflation. Stopping would mean letting the house of cards collapse.

• Wars empty the coffers. The militarization of Europe, rearmament, and exploding arms spending absorb considerable public resources at the very moment when the financial crisis will require massive funds to save the real economy.

Lordon himself, despite remaining a benevolent reformer of the system, acknowledges this. He even cites the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, who responded with an awkward silence to a journalist from The Economist who questioned her about the political consequences of the coming crisis. This awkwardness speaks volumes.
What Lordon doesn't see, and what we say

Up to this point, Lordon accurately describes the situation. His material analysis is sound. But when it comes time to conclude, he falls back on the 2008 scenario. He hopes that the population will revolt and that the crisis will open a "historic window" to impose a re-regulation of finance and a return to a "boring and disciplined" banking profession. In short : he dreams of a reasonable left wing coming to power and putting its foot down.

We believe this model is outdated given the facts it describes. If governments no longer have the means to bail out banks, it's not an opportunity for re-regulation that's opening. It's a much more brutal collapse that's looming, with only two possible outcomes.
What will actually happen when it breaks down ?

Imagine an ordinary week. A Monday morning. You turn on the television, or rather, you receive an alert on your phone. A major French bank has gone bankrupt over the weekend. Asian markets are plummeting. European stock exchanges open in a catastrophic crash. The government announces emergency measures.

Here is what can happen in the hours and days that follow.

• ATMs are limited or empty. Withdrawal limits are set at 50 or 100 euros per day, as in Greece in 2015. Then some ATMs stop working completely due to a lack of cash.

• Card payments are becoming unreliable. Some go through, others don't. Merchants are starting to refuse cards and demand cash. But there's no more cash.

• Transfers are blocked. Salaries are not being paid on the scheduled dates. International transfers are interrupted. Businesses can no longer pay their suppliers.

• Supply chains are blocked. Without payment, trucks stop leaving. Without trucks, supermarkets go unsupplied. Shelves are emptied within 48 hours.

• The state declares a state of emergency. The army is deployed in the cities to "maintain order." Prices are frozen by decree. Exchange controls are imposed : you can no longer transfer money abroad. Borders are reinforced.

• The bourgeoisie is rushing headlong into war. Seeing the situation slipping out of its control economically and socially, the French and European bourgeoisie is accelerating foreign military involvement. What was merely preparation is becoming direct engagement. Conscription is back on the table. Armament factories are running at full capacity while the rest of the economy collapses.

This scenario may seem exaggerated. It isn't. Each of its elements has already occurred, somewhere, in the last twenty years. The unique aspect of the present moment is that they could all happen simultaneously, in Europe, on a scale unseen since 1945.
The two paths : barbarism or socialism

In such a situation, there is no third way.

• The first path is that of the bourgeoisie. It consists of salvaging what can be saved of capital by imposing the full burden of the catastrophe on the workers. Rationing. Increased police and military control. Forced wage cuts through inflation. Massive increase in working hours. Requisitioning of property for the war effort. Repression of social movements. And, to provide an outlet for popular anger, a headlong rush into foreign war against a designated enemy : Russia, China, or Iran, depending on the circumstances.

This is barbarism. It is already being prepared. One only has to look at the exploding arms budgets, the tightening of internal security laws, the war rhetoric that invades the media, to understand that the bourgeoisie knows what is coming and is actively preparing for it.

• The second path is that of the workers. It consists of not waiting for the bourgeois state to orchestrate the catastrophe, but of directly taking control of the material circulation of society. This path has a name, a history, and concrete precedents.

In 1871 in Paris, when the bourgeois government collapsed before the Prussian armies, the workers of the Commune organized their own supply, defense, and distribution. In 1917 in Russia, workers' and peasants' soviets took charge of production and distribution when the Tsarist system crumbled. In 1936 in Spain, the workers' committees of Catalonia kept the industry and agriculture of an entire region running during the Civil War. In 1974-1975 in Portugal, after the Carnation Revolution, workers' committees occupied factories, farms, and empty housing, and brought them back to life.

These experiments were all defeated militarily or politically. But they proved that it is materially possible. That when the capitalist system collapses, workers are not condemned to passively await the return of bourgeois order. They can organize production and distribution themselves, provided they have prepared the necessary tools.
What needs to be built now : the Federation of Working People's Committees

No one spontaneously forms a neighborhood committee on a Monday morning when the banks are closed. No one creates a works council for food supplies on a Tuesday when the supermarkets are empty. These mechanisms are built before a crisis, not during one.

These instruments have a name in the history of the workers' movement. They are called committees, or councils, or soviets. They are not a theoretical invention. They are not a whim of revolutionary intellectuals. They are the material form that workers' self-organization has taken, on several occasions, in the face of the collapse of bourgeois power. Before stating what we propose, we must recall what has already existed. Because what has existed can exist again.
What the Paris Commune of 1871 demonstrated

In March 1871, Thiers' bourgeois government collapsed before the Prussians. The workers of Paris seized control of the city. For 72 days, they established a new type of power, unprecedented in history. Marx analyzed it in *The Civil War in France* as the first historical form of workers' power. What were its principles ?

• First principle : all civil servants, all elected officials, all leaders are elected by universal suffrage by the workers themselves. No civil servants appointed from above. No permanent bureaucracy. No administrative careers.

• Second principle : all elected officials are recallable at any time by those who elected them. If a delegate betrays their mandate, if they deviate from the intentions of those who appointed them, they can be dismissed immediately and replaced. This is the exact opposite of the bourgeois parliamentary system where, once elected for five years, a representative can do almost anything without being held accountable.

• Third principle : the binding mandate. A delegate does not decide according to their own whim. They carry out the decisions made by those who mandated them. They report regularly on their actions. They are bound to their constituents by a precise list of demands.

• Fourth principle : equal pay. Elected officials of the Commune do not receive more than a skilled worker. No more material privileges, no more political career as a means of personal enrichment.

• Fifth principle : abolition of the standing army and police, replaced by the people in arms. The workers themselves ensure the defense of their power, in democratically controlled militia units.

The Commune was crushed in blood by the Versailles bourgeoisie—30,000 dead during the Bloody Week. But it bequeathed to the world workers' movement the model of a new type of power, which is not an improvement on bourgeois parliamentarism but its material negation.
What the Russian Soviets demonstrated in 1905 and 1917

In October 1905, in the midst of a general strike against Tsarism, the workers of Saint Petersburg elected a Council—in Russian, a Soviet—composed of delegates sent by each striking factory. One delegate for every 500 workers. The Soviet took control of the strike, the armed defense of the strikers, supplies, and the revolutionary press. Trotsky became its chairman. He was crushed by Tsarist repression after a few weeks, but the model had been established.

In February 1917, the Tsar fell. Immediately, throughout Russia, soviets sprang up again. Factory soviets. Neighborhood soviets. Soldiers' soviets. Peasants' soviets. At each level, elected, recallable, mandated delegates. The soviets sent their delegates to regional soviets, which in turn sent their delegates to the Petrograd Soviet, and then to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

For eight months, two powers coexisted in Russia : the Provisional bourgeois government on one side, and the soviets on the other. The soviets effectively controlled the factories, the regiments, and the workers' districts. The bourgeois government controlled nothing. This is what is called the dual power structure. It could not last. In October 1917, the Second Congress of Soviets seized power and proclaimed the Soviet government.

What exactly did these soviets do ? They elected factory committees that took charge of production. They organized the supply of goods to the cities. They controlled railway transport. They led the workers' militias. They settled labor disputes. They managed requisitioned vacant housing. They kept running what the bourgeois state had ceased to run.
What the German workers' councils demonstrated in 1918-1919

November 1918. Germany loses the war. The sailors of Kiel mutiny. The revolution spreads throughout Germany in a matter of days. Everywhere, Arbeiter- und Soldatenräte—workers' and soldiers' councils—are formed, modeled on the Russian system. In Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Bremen, Stuttgart, and all the major industrial cities. The Kaiser abdicates. The Republic is proclaimed.

The movement could have led to a council government, as in Russia. This was prevented by the betrayal of German social democracy, which allied itself with the Prussian army and far-right Freikorps to crush the councils in a bloodbath. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were assassinated in January 1919 by the Freikorps, on the orders of Friedrich Ebert's social-democratic government. The Weimar Republic that emerged from this, by its very weakness, paved the way for the rise of Nazism fourteen years later.

The lesson is clear : without consistent revolutionary leadership, without a break with the social democrats who want to save the bourgeois state, the councils can be disarmed and crushed. That is why we insist : the building of committees, starting today, is inseparable from a political break with those who will, when the time comes, seek to neutralize them.
What the Catalan committees demonstrated in 1936

July 1936, Spain. Fascist generals Franco, Mola, and Sanjurjo launch a coup against the Republic. In Barcelona, the working class, organized in the CNT (anarcho-syndicalist) and the UGT (socialist), resists with arms and crushes the coup plotters in a matter of days. The Republican state collapses. The workers take control of the city.

For several months, Catalonia functioned through committees. Factory committees took charge of production—Barcelona manufactured munitions, trucks, uniforms, and bread for the front and the population. Supply committees collected and distributed food. Neighborhood committees organized local life, defense, and education. People's militias went to the front against Franco. All this without a boss, without a prefect, without a police force. George Orwell, who fought there, described this experience in Homage to Catalonia.

This revolution, too, was crushed, by a combination of Stalinist repression (which sought to liquidate the committees in order to restore the authority of the republican state) and Franco's military victory. But for a year and a half, it proved that a modern urban economy could function under direct workers' control.
What Portugal attempted in 1974-1975

Closer to our time, after the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974, which overthrew the Salazar-Caetano dictatorship, Portugal experienced eighteen months of revolutionary upheaval. Workers occupied factories abandoned by their fleeing owners and restarted them under self-management. Landless peasants in the South occupied large estates and organized them into cooperatives. Tenants occupied empty apartments. Residents' committees organized themselves in all the working-class neighborhoods of Lisbon. Workers' commissions took control of businesses.

The movement was defeated by the combined forces of Soares's Socialist Party (backed by the entire European social-democratic movement and German money) and the right wing of the army. The movement's material gains were gradually dismantled in the years that followed. But here again, experience shows that in a developed European country, in the heart of the twentieth century, workers' self-organization can take control of entire sectors of the economy.
What we are proposing in concrete terms

We propose to build, starting now, in every neighborhood, in every company, in every city, committees of the working people that explicitly draw on this historical tradition. Not as a nostalgic exercise, but as a tool for the struggle of today.

• These committees operate according to the following principles — these are not inventions of ours, they are the very principles of the Commune, the soviets, the workers' councils and the Catalan committees :

• All delegates are elected by the committee's general assembly, which includes all relevant workers (from the neighborhood, the company, the building). No self-proclaimed delegates. No unelected natural leaders.

• All delegates are recallable at any time. If a delegate ceases to faithfully represent the members who elected them, the assembly can recall them immediately and elect another. There is no need to wait for the end of a term. Recall is immediate.

• All delegates are mandated. They do not decide according to their own whims. They represent the decisions made collectively by the committee assembly. When they participate in coordination meetings, federations, and congresses, they defend the positions of their committee, not their own.

• All delegates regularly report on their activities to the assembly that elected them. There is no separate power that would become autonomous from the grassroots.

• No material privileges. The delegates receive no perks, no inflated allowances, no separate salaries. They maintain their ordinary living conditions. This is essential to prevent the re-emergence of a bureaucracy detached from the working people.

• The committees federate. The committees of the same district elect delegates to a city committee. The city committees elect delegates to a regional committee. And so on, up to a national congress. At each level, the delegates are elected, recallable, and mandated, without privilege. This is the Federation of Committees of the Working People : not an organization that descends from above, but a coordination that rises from below, preserving at each level the sovereignty of the grassroots assemblies.

• Immediate tasks for the committees, starting today. The committees are not discussion groups. They have concrete, practical tasks. Fighting for better wages, rents, and working conditions. Organizing support when a neighbor is threatened with eviction, when a colleague is laid off, when a family lacks basic necessities. Identifying the needs of the neighborhood and the company. Identifying available resources, skills, and tools. Learning to know each other, to trust each other, to make collective decisions. Preparing connections between committees, communication methods, and logistical capabilities. In short, doing today, on a small scale, what will be needed tomorrow on a large scale.

• Tasks in the revolutionary crisis. When the crisis erupts and the bourgeois state proves incapable of running society, the prepared committees immediately take over. Food distribution in the neighborhoods. Requisitioning of stocks in private warehouses. Price control by supply committees. Production maintained or restarted by factory committees. Empty housing requisitioned and allocated by neighborhood committees. Workers' militias to defend workers against the forces of repression and fascist gangs. And, as the movement spreads, the Congress of Working People's Committees seizes political power, becoming the real power in place of the bankrupt bourgeois power.
Conclusion : the historical window that opens

Capitalism is not an eternal inevitability. It is a historical mode of production. It was born at a specific moment in history—Europe from the 16th to the 18th centuries—it imposed itself on the entire world in the 19th century, it entered its imperialist and declining phase in the 20th century, and today it is reaching the material limits of its reproduction. The contradictions accumulating in the financial, productive, ecological, and geopolitical spheres are not mere circumstantial accidents. They are the expression of the fact that this system has entered the final phase of its historical existence.

This final phase could last a long time if we let it. It could end in barbarism—fascism, widespread war, ecological collapse, mass destruction—if we are unable to oppose it with an organized alternative. Conversely, it could pave the way for socialism if we know how to seize the moment.

History teaches us that revolutionary opportunities don't arise every day. The previous one in France was in 1968. Before that, it was the Liberation in 1944-1945. Before that, it was the Popular Front in 1936. And before that, the Paris Commune in 1871. Four opportunities in one hundred and fifty years. Each one partially ruined by the absence of consistent revolutionary leadership, by the betrayal of reformist institutions, and by the disorganization of the workers at the decisive moment.

We are entering a period that could open a new window. Perhaps wider than any before, because the impending crisis is deeper, more systemic, more global. This window must not be squandered.

To prevent it from being wasted, the working class must have its own organs of power when the time comes. These organs will not fall from the sky. They will not spontaneously spring from the minds of the masses the moment the crisis erupts. They must be patiently built, starting now, in the long preparation that always precedes revolutionary moments.

That is why we call on all workers, employees, laborers, technicians, precarious workers, retirees, students who read these lines to get in touch with us, to form committees where they are, to link up with other committees that are forming, to build step by step the Federation of Committees of the Working People.

This is not a matter of personal taste. It is not simply another question of political opinion. In the period that is beginning, it is the material condition for workers not to be victims of the impending catastrophe, but to use it as a springboard for their emancipation.

As Leon Trotsky wrote in 1938, in the Transitional Program, which remains for us a fundamental guiding text : “The historical crisis of humanity is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership.” This crisis has lasted for almost a century. It will not be resolved by mere rhetoric. It will be resolved by the patient and determined construction of a political instrument equal to the times. This instrument is the Federation of Working People's Committees, linked to a substantial revolutionary party capable of giving it a clear vision and firm political leadership.

History is watching us. The workers of the Commune, the soviets of 1917, the German councils of 1918, the Catalan committees of 1936, the Portuguese commissions of 1975, and all the others before and after, are watching us. They did their part. They proved it was possible. They paid the price of their defeat for us, so that we, in turn, could win.

It's up to us to take over.

Neither resignation nor reformist illusion. The building now of the organs of tomorrow's workers' power.

For the Federation of Working People's Committees.

Socialism or barbarism.
Messages

1. When banks and finance collapse, what do we do ?, May 8, 5:09 AM , by Myriam

Global banks and finance are threatened by the international situation caused by the war in the Middle East…

https://www.imf.org/fr/blogs/articles/2026/04/14/war-in-the-middle-east-challenges-global-financial-stability

2. When banks and finance collapse, what do we do ?, May 9, 6:37 AM

All Mélenchon proposes in response to the collapse of finance and banks is a moratorium on debts !

He doesn't talk about a proletarian revolution, but about defunding the world while remaining within capitalism. It's a utopia...

3. When banks and finance collapse, what do we do ?, May 22, 6:23 AM , by Florent

Lenders are getting rich at the expense of the state with the government's blessing !

https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/la-france-emprunte-a-son-plus-haut-niveau-depuis-2008-quelles-consequences-pour-les-credits-et-l-inflation-1526738?utm_source=firefox-newtab-fr-fr

https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/marches-financiers/dette-la-france-emprunte-un-montant-record-a-20-ans-sur-les-marches-2209736

https://www.ouest-france.fr/economie/budget-collectivites-etat/dette-pourquoi-la-france-emprunte-desormais-pour-plus-cher-que-depuis-2011-be1f3882-2121-11f1-9955-6d8ac04e7ab9

We, the proletariat, reject these debts and the interest on those debts : let the capitalists pay ! And if they refuse, we will pay from their capital !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7277

L'Etat policier ne protège pas les enfants et la population

Karob — 2026-06-13T22:03:00Z

Ils s'adressent tous à l'Etat capitaliste pour qu'il agisse aux côtés des enfants violés ou violentés alors que l'Etat n'est nullement de leur côté...

La libération des femmes et des enfants n'est jamais venue et ne viendra jamais des institutions de la bourgeoisie.

Le capitalisme déliquescent et sous perfusion, plus antisocial et sanglant que jamais, est encore plus incompatible avec la liberté des femmes et des enfants…