111

p In the political context the principal manifestation of the imperialist bourgeoisie’s ideological crisis is the deepening crisis of mankind’s confidence in capitalism, in all its economic and sociopolitical institutions and ideals. The most obvious evidence of this crisis is that a considerable part of mankind has broken completely with capitalism and linked its destiny with the socialist system. But that is not the only evidence.

p As socialism proves its historical superiority in the great competition between the two systems, capitalism steadily loses the trust of the peoples. It has lost its attraction for the peoples who have shaken off the fetters of colonialism or are fighting for national liberation. Faced with the choice 112 of the road of further development, these peoples do not see in capitalism an acceptable social model. Moreover, as time moves on the crisis of confidence in capitalism grows more pronounced in its own citadels, in the imperialist countries. In recent years the rate of this process has been steadily increasing. One of its most vivid manifestations is that parallel with the activation of the working-class movement in a number of countries, youth actions have been shaking the entire capitalist world.

p Even in “classical” bourgeois countries capitalism is having to hide its face, to give itself out for what it actually is not. This concerns not some individual features, the most glaring crimes of capitalism (the bourgeoisie has always taken the trouble to hide these crimes) but the social system itself.

p Precisely this is the gist of the debate that has been raging for many years round the problem of the “identification” of the capitalist system. The substance of this debate has been quite eloquently expressed by Dan McLellan, an American missionary in Peru, whose television interview in the autumn of 1962 created a stir. "Some smart boy on Madison Avenue,” he said, "ought to dream up another word for capitalism, because capitalism has become a dirty word all over the world."  [112•* 

p This is the opinion not only of an unsophisticated American missionary. In a book entitled Just Friends and Brave Enemies, in which he gave his generalised impressions of a tour of Asia and Europe, the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy likewise noted that capitalism had become "the dirty word of the Orient" in spite of all American propaganda and economic aid.  [112•** 

p The fact that this has become a major problem is testified to by many other bourgeois politicians and theorists. They are particularly alarmed by the circumstance that while capitalism is being discredited, the prestige of socialism and communism, which can no longer be used as a bugbear and an invective, is steadily soaring. Here is what, for example, Strausz-Hupe, Kintner and Possony write: "If the Soviets 113 are successful in convincing the bulk of the world’s population that the Soviet-American confrontation is primarily a struggle between economic systems—between socialist co- operation and capitalist exploitation—our task in the ideological conflict will be rendered more difficult. For in the underdeveloped areas an acceptance of some measure of socialism and state planning is the rule. By and large, the general concept of a free enterprise society, associated in many parts of the globe with the United States, does not command many adherents in Asia, Africa and much of Latin America."  [113•* 

p This idea is put in even more categorical terms by Walter Joyce, who writes that "the greatest service we may be performing for the communist cause is to promote capitalism.... The second greatest service we may be performing for them is to call them Communists. Communism may be a dirty word to us.... The Communists, however, picture it as an economic system that can be quickly attained by political means".  [113•** 

p Many efforts have been made in the West to resolve this problem of “identification” (the best known of these attempts are the "stages of growth" theory of Walt W. Rostow, and the “convergence” and "affluent society" theories). But this has proved to be an incredibly difficult task, and by no means because the bourgeois theorists lack imagination. For them the biggest headache is that not only the word " capitalism" but many of capitalism’s basic institutions have been discredited and can no longer be defended.

p The time has gone long ago when the high priests of capitalism unanimously eulogised private ownership of the means of production, which underlies the bourgeois system. Today in a number of countries many of them have had to give if not actual then at least formal recognition to socialisation in the form of nationalisation, to agree, at least in words, that the concentration of property in the hands of a few threatens the interests of society, and in some cases to back up this agreement with legislation against the practice of monopolisation. One can understand, of course, that these acts on no account change the character of capitalism’s economic system. As a rule, they only affect the form, not 114 the substance of capitalist ownership. Nonetheless, it is a fact that capitalism is finding it increasingly difficult to defend its positions, and not only because the relations of production and the forms of ownership and appropriation intrinsic to it have come into conflict with the development of the productive forces but also because in one way or another this contradiction is being recognised by the broad masses.

p The same may be said of the principle of free enterprise and its socio-ethical double, the principle of bourgeois individualism. Less and less is being said of “healthy” natural selection, of the benefits of a society in which each looks after himself and "the devil take the hindmost”, of a society which allegedly creates the most perfect social harmony and moulds the most perfect human specimens. At the same time, it is becoming the fashion to talk of a "welfare society" that allegedly undertakes to look after everything and everybody, of the “socialisation” of more and more spheres of life.

p The open defence of colonialism is irreversibly receding into the past, and not only because it is extremely damaging to the imperialist countries on the international scene. Even in the metropolises fewer and fewer people now believe the talk about the "white man’s burden" and about the "beneficial mission" of colonial oppression. The experience of Vietnam and Algeria, Congo and the Suez, the Dominican Republic and Cuba has shown the world that this talk is only a cover for colonial wars and piracy that benefit the capitalists but cost the peoples dear in lives, high taxes and intensified political reaction.

p In our epoch it is quite impossible to defend war, a classical institution of capitalism. The bourgeoisie has always been careful to withhold the truth about war from the masses, giving the defence of “national” interests, freedom and so on as the justification for it. But whereas formerly, by juggling with these slogans, the bourgeoisie could quite easily make the masses accept war, fan chauvinistic passions and arouse a willingness to bear sacrifice, today this is becoming increasingly difficult to do. Of course, even today war is still glorified by various diehard militarists, but this "ideological platform" can no longer be adopted officially by any imperialist country. Everi the most aggressive ruling groups are finding they have to plead they want nothing 115 but peace. It cannot be otherwise in an epoch when a social system is assessed by its attitude to the question of war and peace.

p All this is additional evidence that the capitalist system has outworn itself, that it no longer meets the requirements of social development. Naturally, it is not insusceptible to change. In order to preserve its fundamental exploiting, oppressor principles it has to adapt itself in many ways to the new realities of history, to the class struggle, and to its defeats in the competition with socialism.

p This adaptation is expressed also in certain concessions to the spirit of the times, to the pressure of the class struggle. Inconceivable only two or three decades ago, these concessions embrace the economy, social and political relations, the attitude to colonies, domestic and external policy, and other spheres. But however considerable they sometimes may be, only incorrigible apologists of capitalism and politicians lacking vision can, under the impact of these concessions, harbour the illusion that capitalism has changed its nature and begun to sprout shoots of socialism. Actually, neither these concessions, much less the new labels invented by bourgeois ideologists, alter the fact that capitalism remains an exploiting social system that brings the working masses incalculable suffering.

p However, what is unquestionable is that the functions of bourgeois ideology are undergoing a change in the epoch of the general crisis of capitalism. Whereas formerly its functions were, above all, to whitewash capitalism, justify the expediency of its institutions and win for it the support of the masses, today an increasingly important function is to portray capitalism as some non-capitalist system and camouflage the real substance of the existing system, of its social nature and institutions.

This reveals also the weakness of the bourgeoisie’s ideological principles. As a matter of fact, the bourgeois ideologists are" faced with the insoluble problem of simultaneously defending and repudiating the ideals and institutions of capitalism, and in trying to tackle this problem they inevitably come into conflict with reality. In collisions of this kind reality always wins in the long run, while ideology, losing its link with reality, disintegrates and becomes unable to ensure a stable influence on the masses.

8* 116

p This is exactly what is currently happening to the ideology of imperialism, and it is glumly acknowledged by a number of bourgeois theorists and politicians. One of them, for example Daniel Bell, writes in a book symptomatically titled The End of Ideology that "ideology, which once was a road to action, has come to be a dead end".  [116•*  "We are,” echoes Ronald Steel, "the last of the ideologues.... We live in a time of dying ideologies and obsolete slogans."  [116•** 

p The ideological problems confronting imperialism are growing so complicated and insoluble that one frequently hears that social life should be generally “deideologised”. This is evidence that many bourgeois leaders are aware of the difficulties involved in creating an integral and allembracing ideology capable of countering the ideals of communism. Hence the striving to avoid a direct collision between the two ideologies. And hence the talk about the " special" character of modern Western ideology, that as a " democratic" ideology, which absorbs the entire diversity of views and interests, it is not called upon to give its own comprehensive explanation of the world in opposition to communism. This is the view, for instance, of the American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., President John F. Kennedy’s biographer (he was special adviser in the Kennedy Administration). His contention is that any integral ideology is not a vision of reality but only an "abstraction of reality" which replaces reality itself.  [116•*** 

p A similar view is enunciated by John H. Bunzel, author of the book Anti-Politics in America. He argues that politics has to be “deideologised” on the grounds that ideology distorts the "perception of political reality" because the "certitude of an ideology stands in sharp contrast to the ambiguities of democratic politics. There can be no freedom when everything is inevitable and certain".  [116•****  Practical conclusions are drawn on these grounds by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading “expert” on East European socialist countries. 117 Maintaining that the United States has "traditionally been the pragmatic society, free of ideological shackles”, he warns that it "would be unfortunate" if it succumbed belatedly to ideologisation.  [117•* 

p Interesting in this respect is the comment of Edward R. Murrow, director of USIA, one of the United States’ principal propaganda agencies, on a message of the US President: "Ours is a land of the multiple ideology. Democracy is not simple but complex. We allow, even encourage dissent. Variety is our hallmark. We have made it a national credo not to have one belief, one rationale, one guide, one dogma. We have made a veritable dogma of having no dogma."  [117•** 

p All these arguments are nothing more than an attempt to make a virtue out of modern capitalism’s fundamental ideological weakness. But the bourgeois ideologists are themselves frequently forced to look for the reason of the West’s ideological weakness, of its lack of an integral ideology, not in “democracy” and "spiritual freedom”. For instance, Frank J. Johnson writes: "It is said that we have no American ideology. The charge is true. We have no ideology because we have largely lost faith in the principles which made us a great nation. As a people, we have developed, individually and collectively, an inferiority complex. We are ashamed of ourselves."  [117•***  Much could be added, of course, to this characteristic, but the point is that it completely refutes the theories we have mentioned earlier.

p As regards the attempts to identify ideology with dogma, the existence of an integral ideology on no account presupposes dogmatism or an ossified world outlook. Ideology is a system of ideas expressing the world outlook of one class or another, and its understanding of aims and tasks of society. In this sense modern capitalism, too, unquestionably has an ideology even if it does not have the shape of a single, generally accepted concept. But many of capitalism’s ideologists are now well aware that the capitalist class cannot openly come forward with its real programme, with its 118 real symbol of faith. Hence the “multiplicity” of ideology, i.e., the attempt to offer some interpretation, acceptable from the propaganda point of view, of each individual problem in isolation from the general picture of social development and political events. This most certainly remains a major weakness of modern bourgeois ideology, particularly in face of an adversary like scientific communism.

p Bourgeois politicians and ideologists are very much alive to this weakness, and if anybody they are the ones who know the worth of the arguments to the effect that the absence of an integral and dynamic system of ideas is almost an advantage of the West.

p In this connection we can quote the pronouncements of the American author Saul K. Padover, who during the Second World War was an intelligence officer with the US Office of Strategic Services in Europe assigned to psychological warfare activities. He says that many of the USA’s political setbacks were due to the fact that its policy "has been largely negative: against communism, against Sovietism, against dictatorship. But for what?" This question,.he says, remains unanswered because the USA has not given the world an "inspirational ideal or positive social programme”, i.e., something ideology is called upon to give. "And it is an axiom,” he declares, "that you cannot beat something with nothing. In consequence, our psychological warfare, even as our foreign policy, which it reflects, suffers from intellectual and spiritual emptiness. Perforce it must continue to do so until such a time as the United States shall have formulated a positive programme for action, an ideal around which to rally men."  [118•* 

p We could quote many admissions of this kind. And not only admissions. One hears of more and more appeals and concrete proposals for the “creation” of an ideology that would strengthen imperialism’s position in the struggle for people’s minds. One of these appeals was made by Robert F. Kennedy.  [118•**  Murray Dyer, a noted American propaganda expert bluntly states that it is the task of the philosopher to 119 formulate an ideology that could compete with communism.  [119•*  Congressman Barrat O’Hara urged looking for such an ideology in the works of the "classics of democracy" and suggested publishing these works in massive editions for dissemination in foreign countries, believing that this would help to surmount the "free world’s" principal weakness in that "it has had no common or universal fund of political doctrine".  [119•**  To achieve this aim the French Right Socialist Suzanne Labin, a notorious anti-Communist, has succeeded in setting up the Institute for Ideological Resistance.  [119•*** 

Can one, in this light, believe that the absence of an integral and intelligible ideology is almost a virtue of the West? No. And imperialism will not succeed in evading a comparison and collision of ideologies. As a matter of fact, not even the bourgeois leaders are seriously pinning their hopes on this. They are directing their efforts towards somehow patching the gaping rents in their ideology and making it a suitable weapon in the great battle for people’s minds that has unfolded throughout the world today.