Disclaimer: Nothing within this page or on this site overall is the product of Panagiotis Kondylis's thought and work unless it is a faithful translation of something Kondylis wrote. Any conclusions drawn from something not written by Panagiotis Kondylis (in the form of an accurate translation) cannot constitute the basis for any valid judgement or appreciation of Kondylis and his work. 






Dedicated by the Translator especially to those (human) Individuals and Groups (Collectives, Collective Subjects,...) who and which Overestimate their own Abilities and Strength, Powers, and, Underestimate Other (human) Individuals and Groups' Abilities and Strength, Powers, whilst being Totally Blind to the Heterogony of Ends and Live in the Dark in Hubris.







"... the tangible continued existence of institutions able to rule and dominate was, in any case, the reason why the utopian plan for the society concerned was taken at all seriously and instils respect – precisely as the actual political and military power of the Soviet Union demanded and imposed a more detailed and thorough activity or preoccupation with regard to Marxist theory, even of and on those who were not in the slightest deluded about, or deceived by, the true relationship between Soviet ideology and Soviet reality. The far-reaching, extensive calling off and abandoning of this activity or preoccupation after the disintegration and dissolution of communistic institutions and relations of dominance, constitutes a clear reminder of the priority of the real-political (= real, i.e. practical politics), and confirms ex negativo our conclusion or finding: just as communism was constituted as a real-political phenomenon or manifestation, i.e. a phenomenon of real politics (or realpolitik), so too communism’s collapse is not due to the misfiring, ineffectiveness, and failure of the utopian promise in itself, but to real-political reasons, which could have brought, forced to its knees any other imperial construct or empire whatsoever."



"The liberal Utopia of the free market, of the state under the rule of law (or constitutional state), of public dialogue as a process for the arbitration and settlement of social conflicts and of autonomous subjects has been able to be realised in the best case scenario only approximatively, and very often it has constituted merely the facade behind which tangible particular interests became entrenched and fortified themselves, or, games of power politics were played and raged. This had, nevertheless, not hindered liberalism as a social-political movement at all from dominating in most of the large and rich nations, from encompassing and embracing almost the entire planet through imperialistic expansion, and finally, under the pressure of new forces and relations of production – but outwardly always under the influence of the same mottos and slogans loaded and charged in terms of utopian language –, from being transformed into modern Western mass democracy; the conservatives, who after 1789 invoked the thousand-year-old reality of rule and dominance of societas civilis, and denounced or mocked the utopian essence or character of liberal natural rights, saw that they were bitterly disappointed in their prophecy that such alien/strange-to-men and unrealistic teachings would never be able to stand up to close examination in practice. Nonetheless, the liberal utopia did not at all need to be realised (and be taken) at (its) face value and pass by or circumvent, so to speak, reality; in order to fulfil its historical function it was sufficient for it to mobilise men for liberal goals, and after the social victory, ascendency and domination of its representatives, to live on and survive in the form of an ideology for the legitimation of existing institutions. For the continued existence of these institutions, the full realisation of the initial, underlying utopian plan was superfluous – indeed, it can or is to be presumed that such full realisation would have been in fact a hindrance and or harmful; the tangible continued existence of institutions able to rule and dominate was, in any case, the reason why the utopian plan for the society concerned was taken at all seriously and instils respect – precisely as the actual political and military power of the Soviet Union demanded and imposed a more detailed and thorough activity or preoccupation with regard to Marxist theory, even of and on those who were not in the slightest deluded about, or deceived by, the true relationship between Soviet ideology and Soviet reality. The far-reaching, extensive calling off and abandoning of this activity or preoccupation after the disintegration and dissolution of communistic institutions and relations of dominance, constitutes a clear reminder of the priority of the real-political (= real, i.e. practical politics), and confirms ex negativo our conclusion or finding: just as communism was constituted as a real-political phenomenon or manifestation, i.e. a phenomenon of real politics (or realpolitik), so too communism’s collapse is not due to the misfiring, ineffectiveness, and failure of the utopian promise in itself, but to real-political reasons, which could have brought, forced to its knees any other imperial construct or empire whatsoever." 



"The long waves of historical action, which come to rest temporarily only after the formation and development of a new social formation, come into being, therefore, out of action which in its course and its consequences cannot be kept track of and controlled by any individual actor (active subject); it is in fact not surprising that the supra-individual stems from the supra-individual. Action in which the means and ends can be co-ordinated and harmonised with one another through rational weighing up, unfolds, on the other hand, in short waves, which in the course of time are absorbed by the long waves of collective action. The subjective intentions of individual actors, and the rational action plans are, so to speak, estranged from their initial goals and ends, and in accordance with or through and within the frequently and in many ways opaque effects of the heterogony of ends, are led, guided into channels, which flow into the great collective creations or debacles. It is, nevertheless, not for starters necessary that the short waves of action spring from rational plans in order to be able to bring forth and shape the long waves of collective action. Because it is not at all true that only rational action brings about the desired results in good time or, the other way around, that irrational action – namely, such an action that “passes or misses, i.e. ignores realities” – only brings about the undesired, i.e. has unwished-for consequences. But regardless of how rational their corresponding components are: the long waves of historical action are set in motion through the energies which are contained in the short waves, and with the diversion, detour, rerouting, channeling or dispersal and scattering of these energies through the heterogony of ends, the energies are used up, consumed, spent very often more by the heterogony of ends than it would be absolutely necessary – purely mechanically or end(goal)-purposefully-expediently-rationally seen – for the achievement of the end result or the realisation of conscious intentions. Just as the accumulation of smaller endeavours and in themselves particular goals (ends) can change (abruptly) or lapse into a new historical quality, so too can the search for the absolute be put at or in the service of a new historical relativity."



"It cannot in fact be contested or doubted that the component or dimension of the uncompromising dream inheres in every utopian plan; this component gives the utopian plan wings and it drives the utopian plan in the final analysis to the act (deed). The said component cannot be comprehended with words, it however is behind or hides inside everything, which is comprehended, in Utopias, in words. It blends with longings which go beyond the wish for the conclusive harmonic regulation of human living together and co-existence, and concern the realisation of very subjective and very intimate desires, that is, these longings set their sights on inner rest and bliss, and not seldom even want to conquer the biological frailty of man and death. To this dimension of Utopia, an, as it were, supra-historical or anthropological character can be ascribed, because here not merely individual concrete evil (and trouble) is supposed to be overcome, but evil (and aching) in general and as such; oppression, struggle, suffering, pain have, however, marked the human situation in all periods and in all places, and that is why the desire for their definitive putting aside and effacement contains a desire for the overcoming of History and every finiteness (finite limit); in this desire, again, a statement on the true nature and the ultimate possibilities of man is articulated."                



[[Translator: If you can understand this in depth, as to all of its implications, then this will definitely wipe that smirk, smile, grin off your Face:]]
"For the new-times Utopia as a time-determined or historically determined construct, it remains in general characteristic that early on it placed its hopes on science and technology, and saw in them a central precondition for the realisation of its own plan for (the restructuring of) society. Under the aegis of science and technology, Utopia detached itself and broke away from the From There (i.e. That World or Life) [[= life on the other side = the afterlife]], but also from primitivistic notions; Utopia was not supposed to simply be a dream of the return to a Golden Age already having beaten everything [[that came after it]], but was supposed to represent and constitute an essentially new achievement of history. As a result, new-times Utopia embraced and appropriated the idea of Progress, which – just like belief and faith in technology – not only inspired utopists. From this narrower perspective, the meaning of our thesis becomes clearer, that Utopia anticipates the future exactly because of the fact that it is articulated in the language of fundamental contemporaneous (with it) social-historical tendencies. Many are enthused and inspired by the sometimes astonishing, amazing prognoses which they find in technological Utopias, and stunned, they ascertain how (so very) much has been realised, in the meantime, compared to what was conceived and dreamed of a long time ago on a more or less speculative basis and as the daring extrapolation of still then embryonic attempts, approaches, undertakings. Often, however, the sense and keenness or readiness and willingness for similar ascertainments in the sector of political Utopia are lacking, missing." 




[[Kondylis does the historical-sociological-conceptual analysis, grosso modo, and anyone interested in the actual correlation(s) of forces, crystals of forms of power, distributions of forms of power amongst groups, elites, etc.,... is to do the more specific historical research = by translator (and of course nothing to do with P.K.)]]
"On the other hand, the communists through their impact or their indirect influence inside of the large industrial nations helped to bring about the disintegration and dissolution of oligarchic liberalism, and the transition to egalitarian mass democracy. In these nations, important premonitions of or demands for the utopian plan for (the restructuring of) society were realised in modified form – not of course on the political road which Marxism had anticipated, but no doubt through the development of forces, to which Marxism had attached world-historical importance and key functions. That means: technology (technique) and industry developed an until then inconceivable, unimaginable dynamic; however, this did not lead to social polarisation and proletarian revolution, but to the defusing and easing of class conflict(s), and to the formation of an in principle egalitarian social formation – which represents and constitutes an astonishing world-historical novum. Material social inequality was of course not put aside, eliminated or abolished, nonetheless, the overcoming of the shortage of goods and the new necessities of the division of labour entailed or dragged along with them, gradually, the simultaneous disintegration and dissolution (decomposition) of the traditional bourgeoisie and the traditional proletariat. But not only was the Marxist insight into the interrelation between the development of the forces of production, and the inevitable collapse of the class structure of bourgeois society, proven true: the principle of material equality, which socialism summoned and mobilised against the formal freedoms of the bourgeoisie, dominates today – despite actual inequality – the ideological field, and drives constantly towards the furthering of the process of democratisation. The interweaving of the utopian (elements) with the long waves of historical change makes it, incidentally, clear that the great turn from bourgeois liberalism to mass democracy was accompanied by complementary intellectual(-spiritual) movements, as for instance the artistic avantgarde at the beginning of the 20th century or the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, which had an intense utopian streak, element or hue, and in domesticated form deeply influenced the mentalities and daily life in mass democracy." 
[[I vaguely hope to translate Kondylis's book and ideal-typical analysis on the decline of the bourgeoisie and the rise of mass democracy, "God Willing", sometime in the mid to late 2020s, after Theory of War... I further note that the extensive and very dense - unique in the history of scholarship - historical-sociological comparative ideal-typical analysis undertaken by Kondylis in Der Niedergang... (The decline...) does not contain a bibliographical list of sources, and whilst there could be many reasons,... or just one simple reason... for this, I personally see that such a bibliography would show that in the transition from Oligarchic Bourgeois Liberalism to Mass Democracy, overall - not as much c. 1900 (though still quite or even very prominently), but absolutely at the time of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the input of people from a particular (broadly defined) group is GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE, and of course a Social Scientist of the calibre of P.K. (in Germany of all places!) would never ever want to get involved in the Sewer with Them... it's up to others and other times to Decide Their Fate... and those times, sooner or (much)(, much, much) later... will come, as they come to an End for all.]]                




"The classless society, on the basis of the overcoming of the shortage of goods, was therefore realised – and if it was realised only as a caricature, then the reason for that lies simply in the fact that it could only be realised as a caricature. It can in general be said that utopias can be transmuted or implemented in(to) social praxis (practice) as to their time-determined (i.e. historically bound or conditioned), not as to their absolute dimension. Presumably, all the elements in a utopian plan can be realised – only not its real matter of concern, i.e. apart from its deeper and more authentic, genuine intention: the dream of the complete and definitive overcoming of struggle(s) and of suffering, troubles, pain. Nonetheless, this matter of concern, intention or longing is not a concrete historical magnitude, but rather an anthropological constant. Action or the act remains, however, historical and concrete, and that is why in the area of action or of the act, the deeper and authentic, genuine utopian matter of concern or intention does not decide the issue, or is determinative; such a matter of concern or intention functions only as the absolute motivation for necessarily and inescapably relative historical act(ion). Seen thus, Utopia suffers an unavoidable, direct defeat every time, and, all the same, in an indirect manner, Utopia carries itself to victory – and furthermore, that (element) which in it must be defeated, is its anthropologically ineradicable dimension, which cannot be eliminated by any historical defeat. That is why the collapse of communism does not mean a definitive farewell of world history to Utopia, but it is the defeat of a great nation (Russia), which in its struggle for world domination (or the world setting and positing of power) and world dominance (or rule) made use of Utopia – just as every other modern world power must also come on the scene as the herald of universal(-historical) ideas. At the time of the Cold War, the anti-communists often and rightly pointed out the instrumentalisation in terms of power politics of Utopia on the part of the Soviet Union. They commit today a logical error when they reverse the order and sequence of things, and declare the Soviet Union to be the sword or armed defender of Utopia to which the defeat that occurred actually applies (i.e. the anti-communists concluded that the defeat of the Soviet Union constitutes the defeat of Utopia). On the other hand, they overlook that communism in the East was defeated exactly because of the mass-democratic realisation of Utopia in the West, which despite all its shortcomings, bound and tied the masses to the “system”, and took the wind out of the sails of revolutionary movements. 
   Utopia appears to have historically run out of steam and become exhausted in the post-communistic present, and to be without a recognisable or discernible function; that, however, is not due only to the eye-catching, strikingly obvious failure of its absolute matter of concern or absolute goals, but also to the imperceptible prevailing of its own relative objectives and aim settings. Regarding Utopia, in whatever shape or (a or b) form, a dynamic re-appearance can be reckoned on and is not to be precluded in the future, as long as historical action or the historical act with specific features unfolds in long waves and stamps or moulds entire epochs. Yet Utopia could fall silent forever should the movement of planetary history reach a dead end, in which political action would be restricted and limited to basically the distribution of material and ecological goods becoming scarce on a densely populated planet. Then that sense of a new era, or the rejuvenating and radical disposition, which characterises the circumstances and conditions of Utopia’s coming into being, would tire and become paralysed over the long term; rather, ideologies, which would legitimise hard disciplining and rigid hierarchies would be in demand and flourish. After the fulfilment and realisation of the positive Utopia in Western mass democracies, the fulfilment and realisation of so-called “negative Utopia” could, at a planetary level, loom."           




                                                                                                                                                                                               


The translator, not P.K., says: The greatest mistake Ideologues make is that they forget or are simply not aware that all societies are charcterised by a dominant ideology or dominant ideologies (and often also by attendant Utopias or utopian plans), through and behind which individuals and groups with tangible, concrete interests wield forms of (grossly disproportionate) Power, and that all societies are absolutely eventually prone to transformation: hence, yesterday's values become today's anti-values, and today's values become the Anathema of tomorrow. (So stop being so Smug and Complacent, IDEOLOGICAL R????D!! - particularly if you're planning on pulling billions Out of Poverty when the Planet and Technology cannot Sustain so many billions Out of Poverty, and in the Light of, as it were, Human Nature, and Human Interactions (real, concrete human-social relations of the political and politics), from the geo-political and man-to-man to the Geo-Political (and perhaps even back to ape-to-ape)... Your "Colourless" Utopia with a "Special Place" for a "special" group of people, sooner or later - be it 50 or 500 years (I very much doubt the latter) - is surely going to put you in your place - where we are now - (human) A?????S!!!). 






Make a free website with Yola