Bourgeois Ideological Manoeuvres

Timur T

Western ruling circles have resorted to various political and ideological strategems in an attempt to shore up their resistance to the international workers’ and national liberation movement and to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. It is possible to grasp, by class analysis, the sources and real intentions of the ideological manoeuvres of today’s anti– communist “theoreticians”: they are trying, by various means, to “de-Leninise” the revolutionary workers’ movement. 

The successes of the progressive, peace-loving forces headed by the working class, together with the broadening and deepening of the world revolutionary process, have driven the opponents of scientific communism to make more and more frequent adaptations to changing circumstances by “remodelling” their arguments. This process of adaptation is apparent both in politics and in ideology itself. 

There was a time when Western ruling quarters placed their bets mostly on political apathy. They cultivated ideological neutrality among the masses, and tried to place this policy line on a certain scientific basis in the form of theories about the “exhaustion” of the world views of antagonistic classes, the “end of the ideologies”, the propaganda of the myth of the “deideologisation” of international relations, etc. But they lost their bets. Events have forced the imperialists to look for other weapons in the ideological struggle. 

A remarkable discussion has been going on for some time among bourgeois authors. Some of them, deploring the weakening of capitalism’s position in the competition with socialism, insist that the old ideology be propounded with new vigour, that frontal counterattacks be mounted against communist ideology and politics from the old position. Others call for a “remodelling” of the “old ideas”. In an editorial entitled “The Pain of Old Ideas" the London Economist develops, in particular, the following thesis: “No pain is so great as that of a new idea.... But the greater pain has suddenly become the tendency for statesmen to flee from the old sensible ideas ... to older...." 

Calls for a “reappraisal of values" are heard more and more often from bourgeois ideologists. 

Echoing Galbraith, Harvard Professor George C. Lodge writes that “America in the mid-1970s is an apprehensive nation, lacking a sense of direction,” and that “the old ideas and assumptions that once made our institutions legitimate are being eroded. They are slipping away in the face of a changing reality.” Under these circumstances, Lodge declares, a vigorous ideological defence of the interests of state– monopoly capitalism is necessary. In a tome pretentiously entitled The New American Ideology he presents recommendations for the re-enforcement of capitalism’s ideological foundations. 

Bourgeois ideologues anxiously searching for methods of fighting Marxist-Leninist doctrines; the old, bankrupt arguments will no longer do. More and more founders of “new” schools of thought are appearing in the West: Alyin Toffler, an American futurologist, calls for the construction of some sort of meta-ideology, which will be “above” the opposing communist and bourgeois philosophies; Professor Edward Wilson proposes a new behaviour theory and insists on a “new synthesis" of sociology and biology for the investigation of the dynamics of human behaviour and consciousness. Acquaintance with his book Sociology. The New Synthesis shows that the task of the vulgar “social-Darwinist” schemes of the adepts of this conception is to justify the capitalist system, employing in particular racist argumentation. As if this were not enough, “ sociobiology" claims to “combine” the ideas of Darwin, Lenin, Freud and Einstein. Others maintain that the “new microtechnology" will, all by itself, transform the system of exploitation into some sort of “post-industrial” or “technetronic” society, where class contradictions will fade away. 

At bottom, however, all these “innovative” ideas are no more than dogged (but futile) attempts to revive old ideas by tricking them out in new presentations. Their purpose remains the same: to substitute scientific and technical progress for social revolution and—most of all—to minimise the international and world historic import of the great revolutionary social transformations that were begun in Russia in October 1917. 

There is much talk in the West about the “reideologisation” of public life. In fact, bourgeois ideologues have simply put aside the mask of “deideologisation”. Ideological conflicts are characteristic of all phases of the international class struggle, but today, both in the international arena and within capitalist society, the ideological aspects of the class struggle are more important than ever. 

Imperialism has been forced to accept the ideological challenge of socialism. Such acceptance does not mean, however, that imperialism is ready for an honest, open confrontation of progressive, socialist ideas with reactionary, bourgeois ideology. The apologists of imperialism have tried various ploys: making a show of “modernising” non-Marxist conceptions, they have brought forth “neo-liberalism”, “neo-conservatism”, “neo-technocratism”, or the “new philosophy" and “neo-internationalism”, as well as an opportunistic “neo-Marxism”, which are opposed to the theory of scientific socialism, and still other doctrines. 

The reason for all these ploys is the fundamental, irreversible change that has taken place in the balance of class forces all over the world, which has extensive ideological and political consequences. 

The intensification of economic contradictions and social antagonisms associated with the unfolding of the general crisis of capitalism has made the system of exploitation less and less attractive to the general masses. Confidence in the capitalist mode of production has been further undermined by the world-wide economic crisis ; mass unemployment; galloping inflation; the aggravation of energy, environmental and other problems; and the inability of Western ruling circles to resolve, through state-monopolist regulation, the social and economic contradictions that arose in the wake of the modern scientific and technological revolution. In the West, F. A. Hayek comments, “it is no longer possible to ignore that more and more thoughtful and well-meaning people are slowly losing their faith in what was to them once the inspiring ideal of bourgeois democracy." These are the words of a scholar who supports “free enterprise”; as such, they bespeak the indisputability of growing disenchantment with the capitalist system. 

The social conflicts of the capitalist world and the chronic difficulties and disorders in its economic base also contribute to the crisis processes in its ideological and political superstructure. The crisis of the political system of capitalism is growing more acute: its basic social and political forces are sharply polarised; the masses are becoming radicalised, their political orientation is shifting to the left, and they are demanding fundamental social change; ever more frequently the machinery of manipulation is frustrated by the behaviour of the majority of voters. As the crisis intensifies, the ruling circles have less and less room to manoeuvre. 

In essence the lack of a clearly defined class position places France’s petty-bourgeois “new philosophers”, as well as other “left”- and right-opportunist “neo-Marxists”, in the camp of the “traditional” reactionary bourgeois and Katheder-socialist ideology which has long since—and unsuccessfully—disputed the international significance of the October Revolution and its world historic consequences. 

Many of these petty-bourgeois ideologies have (like bourgeois historians) belittled the significance of Leninism and distorted the actual social nature of the results of the world’s first successful proletarian revolution. 

Several French authors, among them Maurice Duverger and Roger Garaudy, have vainly tried to “overthrow” Marxism-Leninism. They write of the need to “overcome” Leninism and the theoretical and methodological bases of the integral communist philosophy. 

Marxists-Leninists contrast their own analysis of social phenomena, which is rigorously scientific and dialectical, with the actual petty-bourgeois or bourgeois interpretation of the problems of democracy and government, which pretends to be “above” class considerations. The advocates of pettybourgeois democracy (such as the ideologues of the Second International, for example) are usually characterised, as Lenin noted, by “an aversion to class struggle, by their dreams of avoiding it, by their efforts to smooth over, to reconcile, to remove sharp corners. Such democrats, therefore, either avoid recognising any necessity for a whole historical period of transition from capitalism to communism or regard it as their duty to concoct schemes for reconciling the two contending forces instead of leading the struggle of one of these forces." 

Today capitalism is undergoing a grave ideological crisis; it is totally unable to oppose scientific socialism by offering alternatives that would be attractive to the masses. The ideological decline of the bourgeoisie is a characteristic manifestation of the crisis of capitalism..

Excerpt from Bourgeois Ideological Manoeuvres , by Timur T