Fear of the Laws of History

p While historical materialism reveals the objective laws of social development and points the way to their comprehension and application in the interests of society, bourgeois sociology tries in all kinds of ways either to prove that there are no historical laws, or to distort the nature of these laws.

p Bourgeois sociologists did not acquire this attitude by chance. At one time, when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class, its ideologists regarded society as a part of nature and tried to discover the "natural laws" of its development. And although these attempts never ultimately went beyond the limits of the idealist view of history, they had a progressive significance for the development of the social sciences. It is quite a different matter in modern times, when capitalism is nearing its end.

p How is one to explain the highly important events that have made world history in modern times, such as the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the formation of the world socialist system, the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, and so on?

To acknowledge them as historically necessary would be to acknowledge the inevitability of the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism, i. e., to break away from bourgeois ideology. But that would mean ceasing to be a bourgeois sociologist. Denial of the part played by objective laws in contemporary events inevitably leads, however, to rejection of the idea of historical necessity in general, to abandonment of the scientific investigation of social relations. It is this, above all, that is a characteristic feature of modern bourgeois sociology. Fear of the laws of history, which spell the doom of capitalism, causes bourgeois sociologists to make violent attacks against Marxism-Leninism, and to distort the real situation.

Description Instead of Explanation

p A distinguishing mark of modern bourgeois sociology, especially in the U.S.A., is its pronounced descriptive and empirical character. Bourgeois sociologists describe a multitude of the most diverse forms and phenomena of social life, including extremely insignificant ones. They regard this descriptive character as the chief guarantee against the subjectivism and speculation characteristic of sociological theories in the past. We^o not put forward any positive programme, they say, we merely set out the data we have obtained, and this is the most that "objective science" can give.

p Thus, they pay lip-service to the scientific, objective investigation of social relations. Their “scientific”, attitude, however, means nothing more than a mere description of isolated facts that does not 142 rise to the level of any broad generalisations. This is frequently justified by means of highly plausible references to the complexity of social life, the danger of schematism, and so on. Since there are no two persons in the world who are exactly the same, and no two events have ever occurred in exactly the same way, there cannot be any general laws of historical development, say these sociologists.

p But this line of argument is quite unfounded. Of course, every historical event is unique, unrepeatable. There cannot be a second Napoleon, there cannot be a second suicide of Hitler. But the uniqueness of any given event or process does not exclude the fact that this individual process contains certain general, repetitive features, the generalisation of which makes it possible to discover a definite law. No matter how different the concrete circumstances of the origins of the First and Second World Wars may be, scientific analysis reveals that they were ultimately both due to the same causes—the sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers due to the unevenness of their economic and political development. Study of the general, repetitive features of social development does not lead to schematism and dogmatism, as bourgeois sociologists assert. On the contrary, it is an essential condition for the investigation of social phenomena, since it provides the scientific basis for comparing them.

Bourgeois sociology, however, fears such generalisations because they inevitably reveal that the capitalist system is doomed. The investigation, however, of isolated details or statistical tendencies divorced from general laws of historical development not only diverts attention from very important social problems but often even obscures them. Moreover, the majority of the investigations made by bourgeois sociologists serve the needs of the ruling class in capitalist society. The bourgeois sociologists conceal glaring class inequality behind average figures of the distribution of the national income and disguise the rule of monopoly capital by calling it the "welfare state”. They regard capitalist society as eternal and immutable and make it their aim to help individuals to “adapt” themselves to the needs of this society. Usually such investigations prove of "practical value" to the capitalists, being of assistance to them in the better organisation of propaganda, advertising and so on. But it would bo useless to seek in them a scientific answer to the burning questions of the present day.

The Search for a Generalising Theory

p The bulk of the works of modern bourgeois sociologists consists of particular empirical investigations. But these sociologists themselves more and more frequently admit that they need some sort of generalising theory for successfully combating Marxism. Almost every month it is triumphantly announced in the West that such a 143 theory has been found. But it soon becomes clear that these sensational “discoveries” are destined to live only for a day.

p Some bourgeois sociologists try to make biological data a substitute for historical laws (Social-Darwinism, Malthusianism, racism). Since man, they say, is a part of nature, the development of human society must, therefore, obey the same laws as the development of other biological species. In nature, we have natural selection, the survival of the fittest through the struggle for existence; consequently, the same thing must happen in society. From this the conclusion is drawn that the class struggle is only a manifestation of the eternal struggle for existence, and that the system of capitalist exploitation, colonial oppression, and so on, are phenomena inherent in the very biological nature of man. The strong must always vanquish the weak, and it cannot be otherwise. Thus, the laws of the capitalist jungle are given a biological justification and are proclaimed inevitable and eternal.

p Yet there could be nothing more false than such theories, which form the basis for the most repulsive racist and other kinds of prejudice. "Nothing is easier,” wrote Lenin, "than to tack an ‘energeticist’ or ‘biologico-socio’.ogical’ label on to such phenomena as crises, revolutions, the class struggle and so forth, but neither is there anything more sterile, more scholastic and lifeless than such an occupation.” ^^68^^ The laws of the development of human society are special laws, qualitatively different from the laws of nature. Unlike animals, who adapt themselves passively to natural conditions, man himself produces the material comforts he needs. For this reason in particular all attempts to explain by the laws of biology the disasters which capitalism brings upon the working people are beneath criticism. Despite the assertions of some bourgeois sociologists, disciples of the reactionary Malthus, about the “over-population” of the earth, mankind has every opportunity of satisfying its growing material requirements. The system of exploitation of man by man, and the class struggle that it engenders, are not an expression of the "struggle for existence" but the result of a definite, historically transient, socio-economic system. As the experience of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the countries of People’s Democracy has shown, the socialist system destroys both the class inequality and the competition that bourgeois sociologists proclaim to be the eternal driving force of progress, not to mention unemployment, which these sociologists regard as a proof of over-population. In exactly the same way, the awakening of the colonial and dependent peoples of the East and their rapid progress in the socio-economic and cultural sphere is a fact that makes sheer nonsense of the repulsive “theories” of the “inferiority” of the “coloured” peoples, and of the "biological right" of the white race to rule the world.

p Sensing the shakiness of biological analogies, the majority of modern bourgeois sociologists look to psychology for the key to 144 undcrstanding social life. Moreover modern bourgeois sociology deals with the human mind itself in the spirit of irrationalism, depicting man not as a conscious being, but as a creature who acts mainly under the influence of unconscious impulses and biological instincts. From the point of view of the Austrian psychiatrist and sociologist, Sigmund Freud, who had a powerful influence on bourgeois sociology, all human behaviour is determined by animal instincts, above all the sexual instinct, and human consciousness forms merely a superstructure on unconscious instincts and urges. Hence bourgeois sociologists conclude that it is impossible to exert a conscious influence on social relations, to prevent wars, and so on. Revolutionary movements are declared to be manifestations of "mass hysteria”.

p Bourgeois sociology not only slanders the masses who are consciously waging a struggle for democracy and socialism, but also seeks to discredit the very aim of this struggle by trying to prove that man’s animal nature cannot be changed. We have already seen, however, that the individual psychology of people does not delermino their social relations but itself depends on historical conditions. The "savage instincts”, such as greed, the "property instinct”, etc., of which bourgeois sociologists write, are in fact the product of a definite social environment. The remoulding of human consciousness in the course of the socialist revolution in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies, the appearance of new spiritual traits (collectivism, for example, as opposed to bourgeois individualism) convincingly refute the bourgeois sociologists’ assertion that human nature cannot be changed.

p As Lenin pointed out, "the expulsion of laws from science means, in practice, dragging in the laws of religion".‘” The empiricism prevailing in bourgeois sociology is supplemented by the revival of an openly mystical, religious philosophy of history. The well-known British historian, Arnold Toynbee, in his twelve-volume work A Study of History, writes plainly of "the mysterious power of Providence" that directs the course of history. The neo-Thomist philosophers argue seriously about "divine predestination" in the historical process and its "transcendental meaning”. Innumerable Catholic sociologists and publicists vigorously discuss the question of the "end of history" and even undertake to forecast when it will take place. All this is obviously anti-Communist in its tendency.

Like idealist philosophy with which it is closely connected, bourgeois sociology will not stand the test of history and cannot give a scientific answer to the problems that life raises. Ideological justification of the rule of the monopolies and of their aggressive, antipopular policy, justification of exploitation, attempts to discredit social ownership and collectivism—such are the basic ideas of all bourgeois social science today.