p Developed socialist society, of course, requires a man of a new type, and the formation of the latter presupposes the shaping of a new pattern of consciousness. What is more, qualitative changes in the sphere of consciousness have to be retained in human “nature”. Insofar as this “nature” is social, such changes can assume a mass character and become stable, only if there is an adequate material base such as can be provided by new social institutions and relations.

p This, however, does not mean that new consciousness and attitudes are automatically and spontaneously born of the latter. The material basis is only the final prerequisite and fundamental basis for the emergence of a new man on a mass scale. The actual realisation in practice of opportunities created on that basis depends on the extent to which the work directed towards the formation of the new man is purposeful and systematic, on how far it has been prepared for by the previous struggle of the revolutionary class for the creation of a new culture.

p In this context, if an attempt is to be made to change "human nature"—in accordance with trends of social development already identified and the social ideal which is taking shape on the basis of those trends—the revolutionary party will be well-advised to effect transformations in the field of culture well in advance, i.e., before new institutions and relations take shape and before the social ideal comes close to its practical realisation. Today taking this inversion into account is not merely permissible but even essential, for it reveals the real changes linked with the development of the technical revolution, changes which eventually exert an influence on models for socialist transformations.

p The question of the development of a .new culture is a particularly acute one today for such countries as, for example, the United States, where the intellectual and moral development of a considerable section of the population is subordinated to highly utilitarian interests and where, as noted by Gus Hall, the rejection of accepted thought patterns, a sceptical attitude to established concepts and the elimination of old cliches is an important condition for the 232 elaboration of a social alternative.  [232•*  In these conditions successful work in the “undermining” of conservative and liberalbourgeois consciousness can serve to prepare the ground for subsequent implementation of the social revolution.

p It would appear that the above circumstances might to a certain extent provide historical justification for the persistent endeavour on the part of the New Left (above all in America) to put an end to the preoccupation of the individual within bourgeois society with universalities foisted on him from without and inhibiting his critical consciousness, universalities which would give way to inner mechanisms for regulating his social behaviour; the endeavour to shape— even within the framework of the given society—a new consciousness which in the course of time would spread on a mass scale and oust “old” consciousness, which objectively serves to uphold the socio-political status quo.

p However here another question inevitably arises as to what the correlation between changes in the sphere of consciousness or culture and the social revolution is; whether the inversion already referred to implies only more fundamental preparation for political revolution, which inevitably will require independent implementation, or whether changes in the cultural sphere will automatically lead to the transformation of social structures and make political revolution simply unnecessary? In solutions to these questions the fundamental difference between the Marxists and the New Left comes to the fore.

p The New Left (at least a certain section of it) and some of its ideologists are inclined to exaggerate the significance, the social consequences and indeed the very possibility of implementing radical changes in the sphere of consciousness, culture, and shaping of a new man. This trend that is intensifying, as noted earlier, was expressed particularly clearly in the recently published book "the Greening of America, which brought its author Charles Reich overnight fame.

p Charles Reich, a professor at Yale University, who openly sympathises with those members of the New Left in America who have a fairly sceptical view of the possibility for direct 233 destruction of the socio-political structures which dominate their country, starts out from a fairly distinctly formulated premise: political forms of struggle (both legal and illegal) against the "corporate state" (Charles Reich’s term) are today ineffective, and political revolution is impossible. Moreover, "no such revolution is needed”.  [233•*  Radical transformations, according to Reich, must be effected by means of consciousness and on the level of consciousness. Reich singles but three types of consciousness intrinsic to modern American society: "Consciousness I" which took shape in the nineteenth century and is based on values of individualistic enterprise; "Consciousness II" which took shape in the twentieth century on the basis of the "corporate state" and which reflects the de-personalisation of the individual; finally, " Consciousness III" which expresses the emotions and moods of the new generation and which comes into conflict with the first two types of consciousness. It is precisely "Consciousness III", as a new consciousness which was able, after taking shape in the milieu of militant youth and later becoming widespread, to lead to revolutionary transformations throughout the social structure. "It does not accomplish this by direct political means, but by changing culture and the quality of individual lives, which, in turn, change politics and, ultimately, structure.”  [233•** 

p Reich, as we see, contrasts the "revolution through consciousness" with political revolution, assuming that old political forms die out easily and naturally, once the consciousness fades on which they were based and which provides the nutritive medium for them. And this premise in its turn is based on the assumption that it is possible for a stable new consciousness to take shape within the old society and for the latter to oust "Consciousness I" and "Consciousness II", which still for the moment continue to dominate. Thus the whole question lies in the degree to which such a possibility is feasible and whether it is borne out by the historical experience of liberation movements.

p In their attempts to find empirical confirmation for the possibility of advancing the formation of a new man on a 234 mass scale—the vehicle of a new, revolutionary consciousness and the reverse influence of the latter on socio-political patterns—the new Left and its ideologists often refer to the experience amassed in Mao’s China.  [234•* 

p China’s experience in this respect is indeed instructive, but it obliges us to draw conclusions quite different from those arrived at by the supporters of the "revolution through consciousness". The Maoists succeeded in achieving certain results in the formation of a specific type of “mass-produced” individual by means of mind-manipulation (effected from above). Yet their new man is by no means the kind envisaged and does not possess the new revolutionary consciousness as conceived of by the radical Left in the West and its ideologists. Mao set himself the task of building a “Great” China. However, this task involves a major problem on the path to its implementation: the lack of material prerequisites for accelerated transformation plus the gap between existing human material and the aims that have been set down. This means that it is necessary to force the growth of " revolutionary consciousness", it is necessary to form a man with such a psychological make-up and with such needs as would ensure the solution of the task set by the “Helmsman” and which might on the strength of subjective will compensate for the lack of an adequate material base. Here what is necessary is not the refined intellectual of the Marcusian variety, not a man whose regulators of social behaviour are 235 situated within himself: on the contrary an individual is required with sensibility which is not dominated by receptiveness to the concrete but rather orientation to a universal symbol playing the part of regulation mechanisms for the social behaviour of millions of stereotyped individuals. In accordance with this aim Mao’s new man is moulded, a man whose characteristics are “valour”, “faithfulness”, “ selflessness”, “staunchness”, “asceticism”. This is no gentleman of Marcusian mould but a soldier.

p An individual of this type may at first glance compare favourably with the American corrupted by super- consumerism, yet he is not able to create a superior intellectual and material culture and therefore recreate his own self as a free personality. Admittedly in certain circumstances he may feel happy but this will be a highly unreliable "happy consciousness" which can disintegrate on coming into contact with the outside world (and sooner or later that is bound to happen), just as quickly as a mummy disintegrates on coming into contact with fresh air when taken out of its sarcophagus.

p Neither is the hypothesis of the "revolution through consciousness" borne out by the historical experience of other countries, which testifies to the relative autonomy of transformations in the sphere of consciousness. Of course in his work the revolutionary is bound to take this autonomy into account, especially in those countries where the economic prerequisites of socialist change are present. The higher the level of consciousness attained by the working class and other strata of the working people, the easier it will be to undermine bourgeois consciousness, foster critical attitudes among the working people, and the more profoundly and comprehensively the anti-bourgeois alternative is elaborated, the quicker and the more easily will the proletariat, in alliance with other toiling classes, be able to implement political revolution, and the more confidently it will be able afterwards to advance along the path of socialist construction. However, after starting to shape the new consciousness within the old society, the revolutionary class, as yet without power, has no opportunity to complete that process within the framework of the bourgeois establishment, let alone substitute revolution in consciousness for political revolution. The 236 framework and depth of preliminary transformations in the sphere of consciousness are determined in the final analysis by such objective factors independent of the will of the revolutionary as the correlation of class forces and the prevailing forms of property. The destruction of “archaic” forms of consciousness can only be completed provided that “archaic” forms of property are also destroyed. Therefore for the proletarian revolutionary the struggle on the ideological front is no more than a condition and form of preparation for political transformations. All that is left for Reich to do is to place his hopes in the good will of the powers-that-be and their readiness voluntarily to renounce their power and set out on the path of intellectual and moral regeneration—an unrealistic hope which inspired the activity of the great Utopian socialists of the nineteenth century who were not destined to achieve the results they had been anticipating.

p Assuming that radical political transformation is determined today first and foremost by changes in the sphere of consciousness, Reich places considerable hope in changes in the sphere of culture and supports many of the propositions set out in Theodore Roszak’s conception of the creation of a socalled “counter-culture” within the fabric of developed capitalist society, which might provide the basis for the formation of a new consciousness and a new man.

p In his first book, The Making of a Counter Culture which appeared in 1969, Roszak, giving voice to the mood of protest prevalent among American students and intellectuals, adopted a profoundly negative stand both on culture sanctified by official institutions and authorities, and on the nihilistic attitude to culture. A new culture is required that makes a break with the fetishism of technology, is cleansed from commercialism and which opens before man the path to self-development—sich is the basic idea in Roszak’s first book. He said: "What is of supreme importance is that each one of us should become a person, a whole and integrated person in whom there is manifested a sense of the human variety genuinely experienced.”  [236•* 

p There is no denying that just as the idea of giving priority 237 to changes in the sphere of consciousness the gist of Roszak’s conception, his endeavour to start work on evolving new cultural values within the fabric of the old society is in no way alien to the Marxist revolutionary, for, as was pointed out long ago by Kant, the shaping of culture consists in the cultivation of capacities, a process, which in its turn is linked with the formulation of specific goals, including social ones. This aspect of the revolutionary process has in our times been examined by, for example, the prominent Marxist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci, who stressed that, before assuming political power, the proletariat should endeavour to extend its influence upon all aspects of the life of society—by, among other things, developing and spreading its ideology and culture, which would facilitate its subsequent work (after its assumption of power) in connection with the creation of a new superstructure and the education of the new man.

p Yet on what civilised base should the new culture be built up and from which social forces should it seek its support? Roszak suggests—this is clear fpom his new book Where the Wasteland Ends: Politics and Transcendence in Postindustrial Society (which came out in 1972)—that the new culture will take shape of itself within the framework of present-day protest movements based on religion. ".. .In the course of our generation, many proud traditions of protest and reform have grown as depleted as the life-resources of that environment may soon be. It is the energy of religious renewal that will generate the next politics, and perhaps the final radicalism of our society”.  [237•* 

p Given his understanding of religion or "revolutionary 238 mysticism" as a force capable of destroying the barriers between reason and emotion, and man and Nature set up by bourgeois civilisation, and of engendering a new vision of the world, Roszak links religious regeneration to the rebirth of traditions of American transcendentalism, German romanticism, Buddhism and mystical cults of the East.

p He suggests that the new preoccupation with religion is predetermined by the bourgeois society of today, permeated as it is with a spirit of fetishism, and that the question at issue is therefore how to counter “bad” religion with a “good” one, with symbols that would not set man further apart from the world, from Nature, from men, but would rather draw him nearer to them and allow him to develop the critical dimension of his consciousness.

p Roszak’s conception is essentially a modern variety of “God-building” linked with the contradictions stemming from the technological revolution in bourgeois society, “ Godbuilding” being a frequent adjunct of basically anti- capitalist protest movements, particularly during their critical stages. However “God-building”, which represents a challenge to the established culture, is nevertheless conformist in its very essence, for instead of advocating a radical break with fetishist forms of consciousness, with the cult as such, it favours the creation of new fetishes, new cults and new forms of alienation which in the context of this new version reproduce forms of human existence that are not genuine. “Playing” at religious cults and being preoccupied with transcendent symbols and “spirits”, the God-builder, often despite himself, sets foot on extremely dangerous ground, where the swastika symbol may well be in wait for him, and with implications very different from its original, religious ones. Opposing the “religion” of the technocrats and showing at the same time a predilection for the ideals of the romantics, Roszak eventually adopts a stand that is basically hostile to scientific and technological progress. Yet by so doing, he condemns in advance all his attempts to foster even frail shoots of the new culture to certain failure, for today a culture that is capable of ensuring a free existence for man and the realisation of his inherent potential can take shape and develop not on a basis of negation of the achievements of science and technology, and the changes which they inevitably introduce 239 into society, but on a basis of negation of those consequences of scientific and technological progress which are bound up with the nature of the relations between men which predominate in capitalist society. Yet this side of the question seems to escape Roszak’s attention altogether: he seems to be the prisoner of the concept of "postindustrial society" and displays striking naivete when he starts deliberating on the question of socialism and comparing it with capitalism.

p The illusory nature of Roszak’s preoccupation with the creation of a new religion, as the basis for a new culture, is undeniable since this religion is based on esoteric symbols and cults and therefore predetermines the esoteric, elitist nature of the culture that is to evolve from it. Yet elitist cultures are exclusive and inward-looking. Even if we were to suppose that it might prove possible to foster shoots of such a culture in certain sectors of the protest movement (even on a secular basis) and shape elements of a "new consciousness", then a new, no less complex problem would crop up: how to impart that consciousness to the mass of the people— a question that fills the radicals with a strong temptation to start their forcing the concept of “happiness” on the mass of the population, although that mass does not understand or accept the new values being thrust at it by the radical activists.

p It is of course highly controversial whether it is worthwhile to sacrifice the life of present generations to the hypothetical happiness of future generations, if this sacrifice is not accepted by the former as making for its happiness. One thing however is unmistakable: the masses who do not appreciate and do not sense the actual need for radical change, will not be an active or resourceful agent of historical change. This fact, incidentally, forced Lenin to come out forcefully against foisting “happiness” on peoples by means of revolution, for he was well aware that foisting revolution on any population would mean condemning it to fiasco from the very start.

p Shoots of a new culture, if discussion really centres round the culture of a new socialist society, should be nurtured not in the glasshouses of esoteric ashrams, but on a basis of the actual needs of the revolutionary class and in the midst of that class. It is only when a new culture is moulded by the 240 masses themselves that it can become a real material force increasing their stature and serving as a tool for radical social transformations.

p In the ideology of the radical Left the trend advocating the forcible imposition of “happiness” is very marked and it comes to the fore particularly clearly in the works of Marcuse. This philosopher assures us that the “integrated” individual is objectively unhappy. "Do exploitation and domination cease to be what they are and what they do to man if they are no longer suffered, if they are ‘compensated’ by previously unknown comforts? Does labor cease to be debilitating if mental energy increasingly replaces physical energy in producing the goods and services which sustain a system that makes hell of large areas of the globe?”  [240•*  However "the notion that happiness is an objective condition which demands more than subjective feelings has been effectively obscured"  [240•**  and the ruling class relying on the welloiled mechanism of social control it already possesses forces the individual to feel happy. How in this situation should the vicious circle be done away with, if while acknowledging that man is objectively unhappy, we deny him the right to be "the judge of his own happiness”?  [240•*** 

p Marcuse doubts whether the “integrated” individual is objectively capable of analysing the situation in which he finds himself and maintains that the radical Left should do this for him. It should force the “conservative” individual to feel unhappy and to embark on the path of struggle he proposes for the achievement of “true” happiness and impose upon him new consciousness and a new culture. The radicals thereby place themselves in the role of moral and ideological dictators forcing the masses to accept the “truth” that has been revealed to them, and at the same time dismiss all criticism that is directed at them, for “tolerance”, since it is repressive, must be terminated. Not even the ideologists of the radical Left denied the fact that this is the conclusion to which their ideas lead: when asked whether they set their sights on the Platonic ideal of an aristocracy of 241 philosophers Marcuse commented: "Precisely! But without Platonic cruelty!"  [241•* 

p This stand, which clearly wears the mark of an aristocratic, elitist maxim of the would-be enlightener, came under sharp criticism from philosophers, political writers and politicians of liberal-bourgeois sympathies who accused not only Marcuse, but also the whole of the New Left of indulging in Manichaean messianism  [241•**  and even of resorting to fascist methods.

p Attempts to identify the New Left with "left fascists" are, of course, nothing but a misunderstanding reflecting the fear of the liberal bourgeois faced with mass movements that go beyond the confines of bourgeois legality. Yet at the same time it should be noted that the ideologists of the New Left, who envisage prospects for the forcible introduction of a new consciousness and new culture, find themselves in conflict not only with the social goals and ideals they themselves outlined, but also with the New Lefts’ original openly professed concept of a spontaneous movement of the masses themselves.

The radicals’ conception of the enlightenment and the a priori formation of the subject of future historical transformations reproduces certain elements of pre-Marxian materialism and Utopian socialism. Marcuse with regard to the concept of the comprehensive development of the individual, reproaches Marx with speaking of the man of the new type, as a member, not a builder of the new society. Yet the essential difference between Marxism and Marcusian Utopianism consists in the fact that, according to Marxism, the new man will appear as the product of revolutionary social transformations, in the process of which not only will the old society be turned into a new one, but there will also take place a dialectical self-transformation or “catharsis” of the man building that society. The birth of the new man is not simply the result of pure negation of the old society and a radical break with “old” needs and instincts, as the ideologists of the New Left would have us believe, but the result of these lengthy social transformations.