Are there lessons to be learned? - the future of socialism

New features of twentieth century capitalism-such as the growing role of monopoly capital, imperialism, internationalization of production and finance, and the spread of the welfare state in the center-affected but did not change what was essential in the laws of motion discovered long ago by Karl Marx. Despite the great advances in science and technology, major wars, and other historic developments, one feature of capitalist development prevailed: the forces of production expanded side by side with the growth of misery; the gap between wealth and poverty among and within nations continued to widen.

The reason for this consistency is that there is a logical connection between the system's achievements and its failures. The market system under the guidance of the profit motive generates an urgent need for capital to accumulate, which by the inner necessity of the system leads to capital's exploitation of most of the people on the planet and of the planet itself. This interconnection is at the heart of capitalism's laws of motion: underlying tendencies which, even though approximate and modified by historical developments, assert themselves as a blind, elemental force, independent of the aims and decisions of those active in the economy.

But what about the postrevolutionary societies of the East? Have they too been subject to blind objective laws that led to the present disaster? What is important to recognize is that if there were "laws" that pushed some of these economies to the brink, they were primarily in the realm of politics and not economics. Every economy is of course limited by geography and the availability of labor, arable land, and other natural resources. Within these practical constraints, however, the countries that undertook revolutionary social transformations sought to create economic systems free of domination by the domestic and international market place, and hence free of blind, objective forces. Instead of a society subservient to the domination of the economy, politics was to be put in full charge.

But whose politics? Ideally, if the economy was to serve society, the people in the society would need to have the final say on what should be done with the available resources and technology. In other words, power would be in the hands of the people. That, as we know, was not the way it came to be. Thus, during the early years of the Soviet Union an attempt was made to get on the road to socialism. Before long, however, the train got off on another track, leading to a social system that was neither capitalist nor socialist. The blind forces of a capitalist economy were in large measure eliminated. Instead, control over the economy was concentrated in a state ruled by a small minority holding a monopoly of political power. Supporting the new rulers at the top were subordinate interest groups, specially created political and economic institutions, and an accommodating ideology-all of which influenced the patterns of accumulation and contributed to reproducing the new social formation.

This unique new society succeeded in achieving a major forward leap in industrialization without the aid of a capitalist economy, and at the same time fulfilling a number of significant social goals, including the elimination of unemployment. But it also produced its own contradictions: a bureaucratic structure which operated at a far remove from the masses and was so rigid and entrenched that it could sabotage economic and political reforms designed at the top to improve the efficiency of production and distribution. This led to wide differences in living conditions among classes, republics, and regions within each republic, upper and middle social strata militantly striving for higher status and a way of life similar to that of the upper classes of the West.

As long as the economy was able to sustain a rapid growth rate, there was enough maneuvering room to keep the contradictions from reaching a boiling point and exploding. But when the growth rate slowed down and the economy finally stagnated, the stage was set for a profound crisis-one that threatened the system's existence. Although the ruling elite recognizes that halfway measures can no longer stave off a major disaster, there clearly are divisions within the elite about what needs to be done. There are those who apparently seek a quick transition to capitalism, even though they are not prepared to put it that bluntly. Others are looking for major transformations short of a return to capitalism-a sort of halfway house. But on one thing they all seem to be agreed: that the Soviet Union and others in the East European bloc had been socialist societies guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Accordingly, in the search for a way out of the crisis and the protection and improvement of their privileged status, the administrative and intellectual elite are abandoning not only the Stalin-to-Brezhnev versions of "socialism " but the earlier socialist vision as well, even though lip service is paid to key words. They are also in the process of throwing out all Marxist analysis along with the hidebound Marxism of the Soviet Academy.