Theories Of The New Class: Intellectuals And Power

4. Beyond Bureaucratic Power: Humanistic Intellectuals and Technocrats under State Socialism

66 Four Beyond Bureaucratic Power: Humanistic Intellectuals and Technocrats under State Socialism A new way of thinking about the structure of actually existing socialist societies began to emerge from the mid-1960s onward. A new generation of theorists focused its attention on the relations between the bureaucracy and intellectuals, in a new way. The earlier common wisdom—shared by theorists of state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism , and the New Class theory of Milovan Djilas—that, under state socialism, the power of the bureaucracy is unchallenged and the intellectuals belong to the suppressed and exploited, was being re-thought. The changing relationship between bureaucracy and intellectuals, and the social position of the intelligentsia in the structure of socialist societies, were approached from rather divergent perspectives. Three typical examples are Radovan Richta’s Civilization฀at฀the฀Crossroads, Rudolf Bahro’s The฀Alternative, and Konrád and Szelényi’s The฀Intellectuals ฀on฀the฀Road฀to฀Class฀Power. Let us foreshadow briefly the analysis that follows. Richta was a reformer who recommended a renegotiation of the balance of power between the bureaucracy and the technocracy. He wanted a rationalized socialism in which reason and science would rule. Bahro, while initially attracted to the Richta type of reform scenario, became disenchanted and began to doubt the bureaucracy would ever compromise with the intelligentsia. He proposed a radical “alternative”: Beyond Bureaucratic Power 67 socialism would only be possible if everyone became an intellectual. Richta and Bahro share the view that socialism, the “good society,” is one ruled by reason; thus intellectuals express the essence of this system. These two authors differ in their assessment of how to achieve the “good society”: Richta, writing earlier, still had faith in a negotiated change of balance of power between the bureaucracy and intellectuals , while Bahro believed only a fundamental, “revolutionary”1 transformation of the social order would be effective. Konrád and Szelényi also reconceptualized the relation between intellectuals and socialism, but in a way that fundamentally diverged from Richta’s and Bahro’s ideas. At the core of their analysis is what they—like Foucault—saw as the intimate relationship between knowledge and power. Like Richta, they also saw the rapprochement between the bureaucracy and the technocratic intelligentsia, but instead of recommending this as the coming of a “good society,” they called it “the road of intellectuals to class power.” If the bureaucracy could share power with the technocracy and the humanistic intelligentsia , it would lead to a new type of class domination exercised by intellectuals and legitimated by teleological knowledge. Konrád and Szelényi, following Weber and Foucault, characterize this as a step in the direction of the rationalization of the social order. They see this rational system of domination—in the case of successfully reformed socialism—as one dominated by technocratic intellectuals, thus not a classless society or an emancipated form of social life. For Konrád and Szelényi, the “rule of reason” means that reason legitimates the system of power and privilege. While Richta and Bahro, following the intellectual traditions of Saint-Simon, believe that emancipation can be achieved through science and reason, Konrád and Szelényi were closer to the anarchist critique of socialism2 and they certainly shared with Weber and Foucault an ironic view of rationalization as disenchantment and knowledge as the vehicle of legitimation rather than as the tool of emancipation. Reform Technocrats and Actually Existing Socialism Both Richta and Bahro are critical of actually existing socialism because it did not live up to its promises: it did not create a society where scientific reason rules. Further, neither are New Class theorists . They offer a critical evaluation of the bureaucratic nature of 68 Beyond Bureaucratic Power Stalinism, and they see intellectuals as the only actors capable of correcting this deformation. Neither identifies the intellectuals as a New Class, as a social actor with self-interest. For both, intellectuals represent reason; they are the vessels that carry the interests of all, that carry universal interest. Although neither theorist uses the term, they both think of intellectuals as the real “universal class,” in the Marxist sense.3 Socialism for them is a project of rationalization and enlightenment; therefore the socialist emancipatory project cannot be carried out by the proletariat; only the intelligentsia will be able to implement it. In this respect, Saint-Simon or others in this tradition, like Veblen, Galbraith, or Bell, are more self-reflexive: they...