108

p Although the interest shown by Marcuse, Mills and other radical ideologists in the West in the intellectuals stemmed directly from their pessimistic assessment of the revolutionary role of the working class, it was also linked with various objective trends characteristic of the capitalist society of today.

p The controversy over the problem of the intelligentsia now so prominent in bourgeois sociology is, after all, a result of the fact that in modern capitalist society processes are at work which are leaving a deep imprint on the intelligentsia’s function and role in society and in the system of social production. These processes include: the gradual transformation of science into an immediate productive force, the change of the correlation between mental and manual labour in the process of social production and the creation of a "culture industry”.

p In the past while functioning within the framework of industrial society, the intelligentsia (above all that concerned with the humanities) remained for the most part non- involved in the system of the production of capital. This, 109 position ensured it relative freedom, that very same freedom which enabled it to combine previously dovetailed functions of the scholar, that is functions of creator, custodian and reproducer of knowledge (society’s memory, as it were), and the intellectual proper, i.e., the barometer of society’s “ sensitivity” (society’s “conscience”). This last function was so essential and self-evident that Lenin drew special attention to it: "the intelligentsia are so called just because they most consciously, most resolutely and most accurately reflect and express the development of class interests and political groupings as a whole.”  [109•* 

p Standing aloof from organised industrial production and at the same time remaining the master of his labour tools, the intellectual was not alienated from that individualised craft industry which provided the basic content of his socially useful activity. From start to finish he would control all his “technological” links and himself come forward to sell the product he had created. In so far as his production was for the most part not designed to satisfy clients but on the contrary was executed "at the bid of his heart" this meant that the production process carried out by the intellectual appeared as creation not subject to the rationality then predominant in industry and sheltered from the regulating action of external mechanisms.

p Karl Marx was to write: "In this sphere for the most part a transitional form to capitalist production remains in existence, in which the various scientific or artistic producers, handicraftsmen or experts work for the collective trading capital of the book-trade—a relation that has nothing to do with the capitalist mode of production proper and even formally has not yet been brought under its sway. The fact that the exploitation of labour is at its highest precisely in these transitional forms in no way alters the case.”  [109•** 

110

p The fact that the intellectual could be mercilessly plundered by the entrepreneur with whom he was after all obliged to enter into a buying and selling relationship; that his non-alienation did not extend beyond the limits of individual craft production and immediately vanished as soon as he came into contact with the market; that his “free” activity finally came to be moulded by the demand mechanism (the supply of non-material commodities on the capitalist market)—all this the intellectual either failed to notice or else it played a role of only secondary importance for him, since these circumstances did not lead to any fundamental changes in either his position as fashioner of culture or his function as the "conscience of society". The nature of the exploitation of the intellectual was designed to conceal from the latter his contradictory position as "free artist" and exploited employee. In these conditions the gulf between the intellectual’s consciousness and being could not, on a mass scale at least, reach such a critical level as to lead the overwhelming majority of brain-workers to come out against the domination of capitalist relations.

p This state of affairs was the source of the sense of elitist exclusiveness, typical for the intellectual, which from time to time led him to the barricades in the name of “truth”. However, more often than not this feeling merely made large sections of the intelligentsia far removed from the people and ready to compromise and enter the service of the "top ten thousand" defending the existing system of social relations or silently accepting it.

The direct invasion of science into the sphere of industrial production, and that of the services, into the organisation of management demanded the broad involvement of brainworkers. A shortage of purely economic levers for influencing the working masses so as to maintain existing relations of domination and subordination and the need for a direct (and moreover scientifically evolved) impact on their minds led to the creation of a ramified "culture industry" ( advertising, press, cinema, television, radio, “mass” literature, etc.)

111 organised according to the latest models of industrial production and run by persons traditionally regarded as part of the intelligentsia. This inescapably led to a drastic swelling of the once narrow stratum of the intelligentsia, turning it into a constantly growing group and also to stratification within the group and a change in the very nature of the intellectual’s work.

p The “noncommitted” artist hovering freely above ordinary mortals’ heads is becoming still more of an anachronism, in so far as capitalist relations extend to those fields of labour earlier dominated by, to use Marx’s phrase, "forms which represent a transition to capitalism". In his book Intellectuals Today T. R. Fyvel attempted to present a comparative analysis of the position of the West European intelligentsia “ today” and “yesterday” and to this end examined the character of the activity engaged in by 80 "young intellectuals" in Britain, France and West Germany. He arrived at the conclusion that radical changes have taken place in their status. He comments, ". .. not so long ago the picture of a writer was largely that of a free intellectual, solitary in his room with his sense of ennui or rebellion. Today 90 per cent of writers are essentially literary technicians, turning out a precisely requisitioned product for advertising, for magazine, film or television editors, taking their work and status as part of a technical team for granted.”  [111•*  There is room for discussion as to how far the intellectual "takes for granted" his new status, but there is no denying the fact that he is becoming “part” or a “pawn” in a "technical team". The process of the transformation of knowledge into a direct productive force leads to increasing social stratification within the ranks of the intelligentsia: one part of it is absorbed into the ranks of the bourgeoisie or comes very close to it, and another much larger section is drawn directly into the sphere of production of surplus value and subjected to exploitation by capitalists. This applies above all to those intellectuals, whose work not only creates surplus value, but at the same time in a context of ideological manipulation appears as the essential prerequisite for the production of surplus value by the industrial proletariat.

112

p In this situation the intellectual who has ceased to be a version of the lone craftsman, who is bereft of his tools of labour and has when all is said and done lost the right to organise his own activity, has, as far as his social existence is concerned, objectively drawn nearer to the position of the working class. Instead of being the representative of a narrow corporation of "free artists" the intellectual becomes just another employee of the large capitalist corporation, a hired worker carrying out narrowly defined functions and completely bereft of the privilege of controlling what he produces. "To a considerable extent all this," as was pointed out by the communists at their International Meeting in Moscow in 1969, "is changing the intelligentsia’s attitude to the capitalist system and bringing its interests closer to those of the working class.”  [112•* 

p However this drawing together of the intellectual, now involved in the process of the production of capital, and the proletariat is by no means immediately reflected fully in the consciousness of the mass of exploited intellectuals. Long since eroded as an integrated group, the intelligentsia for the most part (both those who in their actual life-styles stand close to the bourgeoisie, and those who stand close to the proletariat) continues to think in terms of a group mentality. This explains the gulf between the actual social existence of the intelligentsia which is close to that of the working class, and the state of its consciousness which often stands between it and the proletariat.

p It is precisely this gulf which determines the contradictory nature of the social behaviour of that section of the intelligentsia. Having been subjected to the immediate power of capital, it comes out against the system of capitalist relations which robs it of its traditional “free” status and at the same time of those privileges which it used to enjoy as a group bound up with the "form which represents a transition to capitalist production". In the minds of those intellectuals "the negation of the conditions of the proletariat’s existence" (of which Sartre writes), that finds expression in anti- capitalist actions is attributable first and foremost to negation of its 113 own modus vivendi as proletarian. But despite this whether it likes or not, its actions extend far beyond the framework of "intellectual discontent" and emerge as a converted manifestation of the revolutionary spirit peculiar to the working class itself, while its demands—in so far as they are not bound up with any romantic attempts to return to the past— as a manifestation of proletarian demands. The change in the social status and social function of brain-workers underestimated by Marcuse, makes any attempt to contrast the intelligentsia as a "revolutionary force" with the proletariat as a “conservative” one quite unjustified. The social activity of the exploited intelligentsia does not negate, but, on the contrary, bears out the Marxist thesis concerning the proletariat as a revolutionary class, as the agent of the historical process.

p At the same time the gulf between the social existence and the state of the consciousness of this section of the intelligentsia means that, in the conditions of bourgeois society, its role as an independent revolutionary force and its class demands are limited, as it warns against the blatantly false conclusion that the “traditional” industrial proletariat has once and for all yielded its revolutionary functions to new categories of exploited toilers.

p New features of the life led by the intelligentsia in advanced capitalist society are to a large extent also characteristic of the present-day student population, the intelligentsia to come. In recent years the student body as a social group has undergone substantial changes, not only of a purely quantitative, but also of a qualitative nature.

p The first thing that meets the eye is the growth in numbers of those receiving higher education (the student population has more than doubled over the last decade). Yet the size of this population is continuing to increase in most countries which reflects the tendency for an extension of society’s need for a highly qualified labour force.

p Yet the increase in numbers of students inevitably leads to changes in the quality of that social group. The composition of the student body cannot help but become more democratic. In so far as the need for an increased student body can no longer be satisfied by relying on students of bourgeois origin, the ruling class is obliged to open the doors of 114 the universities at least part of the way for representatives of a variety of strata and classes of society. In respect of French students Georges Cogniot commented that "they are no longer almost exclusively children of the minority constituted by the ’grand bourgeois’. The sons of the working class do not, it is true, account for a large proportion of the students and the democratisation of education is still to come. However most students are now from the middle strata, i.e., the petty and middle bourgeoisie. The heirs of the great bourgeois dynasties are now lost among the sons of petty entrepreneurs, technicians, artisans, dealers, civil servants, professional men, etc.”  [114•*  The increase in numbers and the more democratic composition of the student body leads to two major consequences: the “fathers” are now by no means always in a position to provide for the future of their “children”, and secondly the bourgeoisie is not in a position to absorb any considerable part of the university graduates, for the need for a highly qualified labour force increases much more quickly than the number of vacant "key posts" in all spheres of material and non-material production. As a result the students are losing the once firm ties with the bourgeois strata, from which for the most part they were recruited and to which they used to return after graduating from the university. Nowadays after completing their higher education young people to varying extents swell the ranks of all classes and strata including the category of the unemployed.

p This situation, as remarked upon earlier, creates a conflict for a considerable section of the student population stemming from the discrepancy between their expectations bound up with their former social status and the actual prospects confronting the university graduates. This conflict is one of the causes behind the student revolt.

p Like the revolt of the intelligentsia, the revolt of the students emerges as the negation of the most probable type of existence awaiting them, which will bring them nearer to the position of the proletarian. This fact once apprehended by the students gives rise to spontaneous protest against the system which has prepared such an undesirable future for them.

p However this situation does not yet give us grounds, as is 115 the practice of certain New Left ideologists, to maintain that the students in revolt are the embodiment of a new revolutionary force, which is supposedly replacing the working class,  [115•*  or of a new man—the symbol of the society of the future. Yet student protest does reflect certain contemporary trends to be discerned in social development and which bear witness to the growth of revolutionary potential of both the student body itself and the working class, which is growing as a result of the influx into its ranks of brain- workers. Students, until very recently, constituted a relatively small privileged corporation of clearly defined extent, which on the whole stood aloof from the working people. Today when the flood of information is growing fast it is becoming increasingly imperative constantly and systematically to update knowledge so as to ensure the functioning of modern production and the working people themselves as an effective productive force. Nowadays each generation, to an ever increasing extent will be obliged, under direct pressure from social production, constantly to up-date previously acquired knowledge, to return again and again to the class-room, that is to assume the role of “students” from time to time. This is why even today student needs are undeniably beginning to echo the needs of wide strata of the working people in advanced capitalist society. This underlies the revolutionary implications of student action and student demands which create objective preconditions for a drawing together 116 of the students and the working class, the need for which was pointed out by Engels. When addressing the International Congress of Socialist Students in 1893 Engels wrote: "May your efforts succeed in fostering among the students awareness of the fact that it is precisely from their ranks that the intellectual proletariat should go forth, that proletariat which is called upon to play an important role in the coming revolution, side by side and in the midst of their brothers, the manual workers.”  [116•*  Engels compares the revolutionary role of the students (as future intellectuals) with the revolutionising role of knowledge, for which the intellectuals provide the vehicle, and stresses the inseverable link between the liberation of labour and the assimilation of culture as the prerequisite for the successful implementation of the revolution: "All the bourgeois revolutions of the past needed from universities were lawyers as the best raw material for political leaders; the liberation of the working class requires in addition doctors, engineers, chemists, agronomists and other specialists, for now it is a question of taking over the organisation of not only the political machine, but also the whole of social production... .”  [116•** 

p Naturally the involvement of students in the revolutionary movement is a complex process, resulting not only from the lack of inner homogeneity within the student population, but also from the gulf that exists between the students’ consciousness and their actual existence. Workers are often mistrustful of students whom they see as pampered children who have never tasted the bitter cup of wage slavery. The students, on the other hand, as they are transformed into wage labourers have not yet attained proletarian consciousness. Admittedly, after recognising that his destiny has much in common with that of the wage worker, the student begins to link his own liberation to the revolutionary liberation movement of the working class, and this perhaps constitutes one of the most remarkable shifts in his outlook. Yet, since he links his own destiny with the workers and at the same time endeavours to avert the undesirable prospect of proletarianisation, the student often expects of the worker action corresponding to his own conception of the "revolutionary 117 proletariat", a conception which is often neither the result of scientific analysis of trends discernible in the evolution of the proletariat in modern society, nor even the expression of an ideal of the proletarian he has conjured up in his own mind. For the student in revolt who has no links with the working class and who only has a vague idea of what the latter really is, the ideal of the revolutionary is ... the student in revolt himself, as a “new” and socially active proletarian. For this reason everything in the political behaviour of the working class which does not correspond to his own model of what that behaviour should be, the student rejects not only as “non-revolutionary”, but even as “ nonproletarian”. This type of orientation found among radical students cannot help but stand in the way of their political alliance with the working class. Georges Cogniot notes: "The liaison between the movement of the intelligentsia and the movement of the working class as such is quite natural and necessary. The student movement has no future unless its action becomes a part of the general strategy of the class struggle led by the working class—naturally while retaining a proper degree of autonomy in the process; in other words, it cannot and must not regard itself as a substitute for the workers’ party, the avantgarde. It cannot and must not play a splitting role and oppose itself to the labour movement, for otherwise it may well find itself playing into the hands of the capitalist system!"  [117•* 

It is no mere coincidence that Marcuse regards the problem of the "agent of historical action" as “deferred” and in the final analysis draws up such a pessimistic evaluation of the role of the intelligentsia and the students, as indeed of the role of the working class. Any other conclusion would be impossible if in conditions of the formation of the present conglomerate working class, of which Marx spoke, certain of its sections were to be torn away-from the rest and the material force for revolutionary upheaval to be sought in some specific sector or regarded as “scattered” throughout the whole of society. In his eyes the "agent of historical action" incorporates all social groups directly exploited by capital, the nucleus of which is the proletariat in large-scale industry.