Ideologues in Power
The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power: A Sociological Study of the Role of the Intelligentsia in Socialism.
by George Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 252 pp. $10.00.
While the stifling of free expression and the curtailment of intellectual activity are reasonably well-known aspects of cultural life in the Soviet domain, far less is known about the circumstances of those intellectuals who do not dissent but aspire, rather, to rule or to assist those who rule. The co-authors of the present volume, two Hungarian sociologists, have performed a valuable service in shedding light on the position of this group of intellectuals—the unalienated, the assenting, the legitimizers of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union. The book was written in Hungary during 1973-74. It got the authors into some trouble with the authorities, but nothing unduly serious by East European standards. Szelenyi has been living in Australia since 1975, while Konrad, who is also a novelist, is back in Hungary after having spent two years in the West. His two novels have been published both in Hungary and in a number of Western countries.
It is the major argument of this book that in Eastern Europe the intellectuals are—or are in the process of becoming—the ruling class. Such a proposition is somewhat shocking to the received wisdom of the West, which disputes giving the title of intellectual to those ensconced in power, but it is even more heretical from the Eastern point of view, which for decades has not only claimed that the working class is the one in power, but will not even recognize the intelligentsia as a class. On the basis of their own knowledge and experience as insiders, the authors call into question the myth of the ruling position of the working class. They argue further that the workers are not just powerless but constitute “the most underprivileged class in East European society”:
Do workers receive the highest pay? Hardly. . . . Are the workers able to take greater advantage of state-subsidized benefits over and above wages? No; white-collar people live in larger and more comfortable dwellings in pleasanter neighborhoods. . . .
If the leading role of the working class cannot be demonstrated from any tangible aspect of material life . . . are the workers compensated perhaps by a greater voice in the making of decisions? In fact the worker . . . has no voice in deciding . . . what will be produced, what kind of equipment he will use, . . . whether he will work for piece rates or . . . an hourly wage. . . .
Much of the book’s argument hinges on the authors’ definition of the term intellectual, which they are willing to extend to those whom many Westerners would call experts and bureaucrats. Intellectuals in their view are “secular experts” seeking “. . . power and reward . . . by exploiting [their] relative monopoly of complex knowledge. . . .” The distinctive quality of intellectual knowledge derives from the fact that “. . . it is concerned with the values which society accepts as part of its culture.” Elsewhere they describe intellectuals as “monopolistic proprietors of knowledge.” Thus, intellectuals under socialism (unless they are “marginal”) emerge as a mixture of priest and planner, revolutionary and bureaucrat. These apparent contradictions are resolved by stressing the “common element of social teleology . . .” shared by bureaucrats and revolutionaries alike.
_____________
Once one has accepted this definition, the rest of the argument follows smoothly. If being an intellectual involves the possession of expertise and a strong ideological commitment, then it is obviously the intellectuals, or a large segment of them, who run the countries of Eastern Europe. This conception of the intelligentsia differs sharply from the wishful Western theorizing about how the rise of an apolitical technocracy with superior functional rationality might herald both internal liberalization and accommodation with the West, or else the peaceful convergence of the two types of society. Contrary to such hopes, Konrad and Szelenyi point out that in Eastern Europe “economic and technical decisions will always be primarily political decisions and . . . these political decisions will always be correlated with a unitary socialist ideology.”
Thus the book reminds us that ideology still matters—a proposition which many Western politicians and social scientists have been incapable of taking seriously. It also provides a great deal of revealing detail about the operation of socialist bureaucracies which will disappoint those who believe that there is a better prospect for social equality under socialist one-party systems than under Western pluralistic ones. The authors show how socialist meritocracy, by combining technical skills with ideological commitment, actually provides a more enduring justification for inequality than the discredited values of individualism and the profit motive associated with capitalism.
Unfortunately, the book’s message suffers from its style, which is often obscure and laden with jargon. Some of the terminology is not only unfamiliar to Western readers, including social scientists, but of questionable value. Why, for instance, do the authors insist on the term “rational redistributive society” to designate the East European socialist systems, and what is gained by calling intellectuals “teleological redistributors”? A more serious problem is the propensity to lump together all East European societies—along with the Soviet Union—in sweeping generalizations. This leads to a blurring of important distinctions. Surely many of the developments covered here could be attributed as much to the arrival of the Red Army in Eastern Europe during World War II as to some unfolding pattern of East European social and economic history, or to the traditional presence of a strong, centralized state bureaucracy and an underdeveloped bourgeoise.
_____________
Though concerned with East European intellectuals, this book lends support to a rather pessimistic, or perhaps only realistic, view of intellectuals in the West as well. In particular, it suggests that many of the attributes we often take for granted in intellectuals—the critical, detached, alienated stance, the capacity for disinterested moral judgment—are not necessarily inherent in the role or in any personal disposition. Indeed, the appeal of socialism to intellectuals in Eastern Europe, as described by these authors, is very similar to the appeal it has had to generations of Western intellectuals as they succumbed to its various incarnations, first in the Soviet Union in the 30’s, later in Cuba in the 60’s, and in China in the early 70’s:
A scientifically ordered society held great attractions for the Eastern European intelligentsia, as did the fact that intellectuals were called upon for their expert knowledge in the construction of a new social order. They were exhilarated at the opportunity to help eliminate the obstacles which had hitherto prevented the creation of a new society. . . .
From now on the people with the requisite professional knowledge would be the ones to make the decisions. It gratified them to think that knowledge, not property, would legitimize the right to make decisions. . . .
Are Western intellectuals also capable of undergoing the transformation from social critic into functionary-bureaucrat guarding the sacred secular doctrines? The observations of Konrad and Szelenyi call to mind recent American theorizing about a “new class” emerging in Western societies and somewhat similarly propelled by the potent combination of idealism and self-interest. Perhaps a major conclusion one may draw from this book is that, contrary to our cherished beliefs, intellectuals can be comfortable with power and with a political arrangement that gives them and their ideas adequate recognition.
At the same time one cannot help observing that the authors of this complex and illuminating work exemplify a type of intellectual quite unlike the East European prototype they portray. They are not only well informed and knowledgeable far beyond the confines of their specialties, but they also display a moral sensibility and an uncompromising critical impulse which cannot be silenced or reconciled with the legitimation of unchecked power.
