In December 1965 Daniel Guerin published, in his pamphlet L'Algerie caporalisee?, a curious analysis of Boumedienne's regime. According to him, nothing happened in June. Faithful to an old schema, he sees only a "Bonapartism" in power both before and after the coup d'etat, struggling classically on two fronts: against the "counterrevolution of the indigenous propertied classes" and against the threatening enthusiasm of the self-management workers. And in foreign affairs he finds "the same desire on the part of both regimes for an adroit equilibrium between capitalist and socialist countries" (p. 6). "None of the declarations of the so-called 'Council of the Revolution' contains any innovations whatsoever or any hints of an original program" (p. 10). However, when he drafted his main text, dated 5 November, Guerin thought he detected some potential new developments -- as the putschists were being pushed, as if despite themselves, to the "right" -- which developments "seem to foreshadow an antisocialist policy" (p. 11, our emphasis). One might suppose that Guerin disregards the considerable differences between the two regimes because he is carried away by the equal contempt that Ben Bella and Boumedienne can inspire in a revolutionary who is a declared partisan of "libertarian socialism" and self-management. But no, not at all! He has no other revolutionary solution to recommend than the restoration of Ben Bella: "To rally a popular opposition to the colonels' regime in Algeria today without reference to Ben Bella, or while making a total political critique of Ben-Bellaism, would be an undertaking doomed to failure" (p. 17). And before 19 June the Ben Bella regime's numerous attacks on the workers, the exploits of its police and army -- the same ones as today, in fact -- were for Guerin only "mistakes, weaknesses and omissions" of an acceptable orientation. The king was badly advised, misinformed; never responsible. Since Guerin cannot be unaware of the open struggles of Ben Bella's regime against the masses (he himself provides some excellent documentation of them, notably apropos of the Congress of Agricultural Workers) he has to reconstruct history by totally separating Ben Bella from his regime. Page 12: "The sabotage of self management, organized, of course, without Ben Bella's knowledge" Page 2: "As we can see more clearly today, Ben Bella never had his hands free: for nearly three years he was the tool, the prisoner, the hostage of Boumedienne." In short, people thought Ben Bella was in power but his downfall has shown that he wasn't at all. This astonishing retroactive demonstration could just as well be applied to the czar, who was believed to be an autocrat before 1917. But Guerin over. looks this question: Who besides Ben Bella made Boumedienne, by hoisting himself into power with the aid of Boumedienne's arms? That Ben Bella later made some half-hearted and particularly clumsy attempts to get rid of his tool is another matter. It is because he was above all a bureaucrat that he was at first essentially in solidarity with, and eventually the victim of, bureaucrats more rational than he.
What then is the secret of this aberration of one of our famous leftist intellectuals, and one of the most ostensibly "libertarian" among them at that? With him it is no different than with all the others: it is the decisive influence of their common vainglorious participation in high society; their common tendency, even meaner than a lackey's, to be swept off their feet with joy because they have spoken with the greats of this world; and the imbecility that makes them attribute this greatness to those who have condescended to talk to them. Whether they are partisans of the self-managing masses or of police-state bureaucracies, the "leftist intellectuals" of the period from which we are just emerging always have the same rapt admiration for power and government. The closer they are to a governmental position, the more the leaders of the "underdeveloped" countries fascinate these ridiculous professors of leftist museography. In Simone de Beauvoir's memoirs, so revealing of the fundamental baseness of a whole generation of intellectuals, her narration of a dinner at the Soviet Embassy exposes a pettiness so irremediable and shameless that she isn't even aware of the avowal she is making.
So here is the secret: Guerin "knew" Ben Bella. He "listened" to him from time to time: "When I had the privilege, at the beginning of December 1963, of a brief audience at the Villa Joly in order to present to the President a report resulting from my month of traveling around the country observing the self-managed enterprises, I had the impression that he had been prejudiced against my conclusions by All Mahsas and the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Bachir Boumaza" (p. 7).
Guerin really is for self-management but, like Mohammed Harbi, it is in the pure form of its Spirit incarnated as a privileged hero that he prefers to meet it, recognize it and aid it with his wisdom. Daniel Guerin met the Weltgeist of self-management over a cup of tea, and everything else follows.
[LETTRIST INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVE] [SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVE]