Theory, myth, and ideology

POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

95

Post-Industrial Ideology in the Soviet Bloc

We have concluded that post-industrial society is in fact an ideology

which rejects Marxism in favor of a capitalist industrialism and

predicts and justifies the coming to power of a knowledge elite ruling

by rationalistic norms. Those who share these value positions and

aspirations will therefore find the theory of post-industrial society

congenial. But what of the "non-capitalist" world? What relevance,

scientific or ideological, does the theory as explicated by Bell and

others have for this large segment of human society?

As noted, Bell and other post-industrial theorists generally confine

their attempts to describe post-industrial society to the United States

and other Western capitalist democracies. There is some material on

the Soviet Union in the Coming of Post-Industrial Society, but vir-

tually all of it is polemical in nature. Yet the clear position of Bell and

the explicit statement of Kahn are that the Soviet Union and the other

"socialist" countries are becoming or may become post-industrial

societies.

Considerations of space and the difficulty of obtaining comparable

data do not permit a close analysis of the empirical aspects of this

phenomenon. But, generally speaking, it would appear that

developments similar to those which post-industrial theorists allege

provide the basis of their arguments seem to be taking place in the

socialist world.

There is a growth in the service industries and the technical middle

class, though there seems to be some tendency for skilled workers to

retain higher social and especially economic status vis a vis lower-level

white-collar workers than may be the case in capitalist countries."

One can also speculate that a swollen government bureaucracy takes

the place in their evolving economies which in capitalist nations is

filled by both private and public workers in the "service" sector. Use

of the computer is growing apace. Increasingly, scientists and techni-

cians are emerging as important elements in society.

But, by the same token, it is quite clear that the same objections can

be made to the assumptions about the upgrading of the skill levels of

81. On class structure in the Soviet Union and other socialist states, see Birnbaum,

op. 

cit;, 

Pp. 

99-105; Bottomore, 

Classes in Modern Society, op. cit., 

Pp. 

56-75; Gid-

dens, op. 

cit., 

Pp. 

223-237; Frank Parkin, Class 

Inequality and Political Order: Social

Stratification in Capitalist and Communist Societies 

(New York: MacGibbon and Kee,

1971); and Murray Yanowitch and Wesley A. Fisher, 

Social Stratification and Mobility

in the USSR 

(New York: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1975).

---

96

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

the work force in the socialist countries as in the West." Also,

whatever may be the case of relative shifts of power from property to

knowledge in the West, the party in socialist states still keeps its

technical intelligentsia in a highly subordinate position." That some

alienation seems to result parallels western data. Lack of open

legitimate political conflict and particular cultural differences

diminish the evidence available of the emergence of "post-industrial

politics" in such nations, but the environment has caused some elite

concern in the Soviet Union and, ironically, rapidly industrializing

Poland is in the throes of a bitter "life style" conflict, but over church

and state. In sum, what can be said is that, if the theory of post-

industrial society had not arisen in the United States and France, it

would probably never have been invented to describe developments in

the Soviet bloc.

Soviet ideologists—which is, of course, to say all members of the

Soviet social science establishment"—explicitly and violently reject

Bell's concept of post-industrial society, clearly recognizing its pur-

pose and function as constituting a post-Marxian theory of social

change. Indeed, they have for some time regarded all "futurology" as

"bourgeois," exemplifying an attempt on the part of capitalist in-

tellectuals to deny the validity of "scientific socialism" and to

substitute technological innovations for the class struggle as the basis

of social change. In recent years, however, their attitude has mellowed

and a school of what might be called "socialist futurology" has

arisen." Many Soviet thinkers have become as bemused by spec-

82. Braverman, 

op. cit., 

P. 12.

83. On relations between party and intelligentsia in the Soviet bloc, see Alfred Parry,

The New Class Divided 

(New York: Macmillan, 1966); Mario Hirszowitz, "Intelligent-

sia vs. Bureaucracy? The Revival of a Myth in Poland," 

Soviet Studies, 

XXX (1978):

Pp. 336-361; and David Jora

y

sky, "Political Authorities in the Soviet State," 

Survey 

23

(1977-1978): Pp. 36-41. Also relevant is Vernon L. Aspaturian, "The Soviet Military-

Industrial Complex: Does it Exist?" 

Journal of International Affairs 

(London) 25

(1972): P. 1-28.

84. However, Eric P. Hoffmann argues for the existence of significantly open inter-

nal discussion on the problems of the Scientific-Technological Revolution within Soviet

intellectual circles. "Soviet Views of 'The Scientific-Technological Revolution',"

World Politics 

XXX (1978): Pp. 615-644.

85. For attacks on Bell's concept see E. Arab-Ogly, 

In the Forecasters' Maze

(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975) Pp. 67-84, 229-231; V. Kosolapov, 

Mankind and

the Year 2000 

(Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1976) Pp. 71-77. See also V. Mikheyev,

"The 'Managerial Revolution' Myth," 

International Affairs 

(Moscow), 9 (September

1972): Pp. 58-61.

For general attacks on "bourgeois futurology" see Arab-Ogly, 

passim, 

esp. Pp. 7-102;

Kosolapov, 

op. cit., 

Pp. 6-192. See also Ralph Hamil, "A Russian Looks at Western

---