In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

11. “Alarm for Ghosts—Our Apostasy or Their Nonsense”167 After the party split (1903), Sakŭzov wrote the “Alarm for ghosts,” elaborating on his positions, especially with respect to the issue of class struggle and class cooperation. A major point of contention between the two camps concerned the evaluation of the political situation in Bulgaria, the causal connections underlying political problems, and the means and tactics to be employed for their alleviation. A principal contention of the Narrows—particularly of Blagoev—consisted in explaining the problems of the political structure (personal regime, party coteries, the erosion of constitutionalism, etc.) as a reflex of the constellation of the productive forces (the formation of the bourgeoisie, capitalistic development, the initial accumulation of capital, etc.), expecting concomitantly that a change in the economic structure would lead automatically to a change of regime. The reflex theory was heavily contested by Sakŭzov, who insisted that the problem lay rather in the underdevelopment of the social forces in Bulgarian society. The autocratic interventions of the court were a separate issue and demanded a most immediate and urgent intervention at the political level. He considered it highly problematic to expect—like in a mathematical equation —economic and social evolution to provide solutions for the current problems. Nor could time present be constantly transcended for the sake of a law-abiding apocalyptic time future. These were the considerations that induced Sakŭzov to suggest the alternative of “class cooperation.” It was envisioned as a temporal measure against the Radoslavov regime, and did not have the weight of a thorough theoretical revision. The principal aim was to overthrow an arbitrary regime and re-establish legality and freedom in the country. Two insights conditioned the contents of these specific “tactics.” In the first place, the realization that the BWSDP was too weak a force to alter the situation on its own, and in the second, the experience gained during the struggle against another arbitrary regime: the Stambolov regime . This last case had a “didactic” content. Sakŭzov observed that the enforcement of autocratic rule provoked in society a popular, spon- 241 11. “Alarm for Ghosts—Our Apostasy or Their Nonsense” taneous and democratically inspired resistance movement that went beyond the particular class interests of the actors involved. Despite the fact that they participated for the sake of their own specific interests, as soon as the general struggle started “the specific class interests subsided to a secondary position, according, of course, to who was involved and how much was at stake in this heated struggle. ‘Some sort of common interests’ came to the front—the quest for the personal freedom of the individual, speech, the press, elections; a generally fair financial policy; the modesty and frugality of institutions; equality in the state services; democracy in the educational and military corpus, enforced responsibility of the civil servants, etc.”168 This was also the experience gained from the regional social movements in Eastern Bulgaria. Here “a mixture of people from different, quite antagonistic classes, with most contradictory aims” came together in resistance. It was not class adherence that dictated their action but something else. They came to the defense of something, in a cause that was common for all. Sakŭzov became progressively more theoretical about class struggle . The personal needs and interests of the individual producer were the starting point for what became the consciousness of a community of a whole group of producers embedded in the same conditions, normally called class interests. However, sometimes due to the frustration or dissatisfaction of their interests, the most receptive part of this group or class leaned—either to the left or right—towards the corresponding part of another group of producers, allying themselves in something that was somehow common to both. In other words, a social group suffering under the control of a hegemonic power-group naturally attracted a number of other people, usually producers, who were equally dissatisfied with power and who were forced to formulate common goals with the other oppressed group. In this fashion a temporarily united social group came into being, with common goals, common intellectual and political representatives, and even common programmatic points. In such situations the abstract principle of class struggle became tangible . Although in peaceful periods, especially in an economically underdeveloped society like that of Bulgaria, this principle was hidden below the surface, barely connecting the groups of producers, it surfaced immediately in periods of political and financial crisis. The reactionary strokes of the ruling...

Share