p What then are the results and prospects of the New Left movement, what does the future hold for the philosophy of revolt? Today it is presumably too early to give a final assessment of the protest movements in the developed capitalist countries against the establishment which broke out in the ’60s: they are still in the process of evolution. The same applies to the new type of non-proletarian revolutionary who is now being moulded within these movements and modern forms of the ideology of protest. Admittedly in the movements of young people which provided the basic social foundation and nutritive medium for the New Left there is now a certain decline to be observed. Yet in so far as these movements represent not a passing political fashion, but a specific expression of the crisis now afflicting modern bourgeois civilisation, a manifestation of the disfunctions inherent in present-day capitalism, there is no ground for the conclusion that they have exhausted their potential, or that the process of the involvement of the non-proletarian mass in the struggle against capitalism is a closed chapter. The social contradictions of developed capitalist society and the problems resulting from them remain unsolved, considerable strata of the nonproletarian mass continue to occupy a marginal position in society, and the trends towards change in the character and role of brain-work resulting from the technological revolution are making themselves increasingly felt. This means that the objective basis for new outbreaks of protest is still there.

p Of course the concrete forms of struggle which were typical of the ’60s and early ’70s may well not repeat themselves, and new ideologists will take the place of Marcuse, Adorno and Reich and their fellows. Yet it is still possible that a similar set of problems will take shape and the methods of that period will again be used, and finally that the mistakes of that period will be repeated as well: there may well be a return to certain of the conceptual schemas put forward by the ideologists of the radical Left in the ’60s, which all goes to show that critical examination of the phenomenon of the New Left and the ideology of the radicals is a relevant undertaking.

p However, today the conclusion can already be drawn that many of the theoretical and practical “obligations” which the New Left took upon itself (and which found more or less systematic expression in the writings of those philosophers and sociologists who played the part of the movements’ ideologists) have not been fulfilled, and that the New Left’s conceptions have proved ineffective as a tool of negation of the bourgeois establishment. This applies above all to the promises to formulate a "new revolutionary theory" and define a "new type" of proletarian revolutionary, to plot the contours of a new social alternative, not to mention the intention of certain groups of the radical Left to transform in practice modern capitalist society. This result was to have been expected since these claims and promises were not rooted in any comprehensive analysis of modern capitalism and the trends of our age, but were simply put forward by various strata and groups, whose immediate socio-political experience was not sufficient to enable them to find correct answers to the questions they set themselves or to resolve them in practice. The New Left clearly demonstrated its incapacity to solve fundamental contradictions of advanced capitalist society independently, without a firm alliance with the working class and its revolutionary party, all the more so since it did not represent a force that was homogenous either in the social or the political respect. Moreover, the stereotypes its members had in common, concepts of the “happy” society, and indeed the New Left’s very type of behaviour, all bore the mark of the very same society which the movement demonstratively rejected.

p Yet it is already quite clear that the political action of the New Left exerted a conspicuous influence on the intellectual climate of Western Europe and America. The New Left exposed in practice all the optimistic forecasts put forward by the ideologists of “integration” with regard to the conflictfree development of neo-capitalist society, and it forced many people to stop and think about the fate of society in which they lived and about their own place in that society: the New Left cast doubt on the ideals which official institutions claimed to be in step with the times; and stressed the importance of struggle, social action and the search for a historical alternative. It may well have proved unable to come forward with a correct solution for these problems, but it did show that they were infinitely topical and that, until they are solved, man’s happiness will remain a fragile illusion that could well vanish into thin air at any moment, like a mirage.

p Yet in what direction is the New Left movement likely to develop in the future, and what influence might it exert on the course of political struggle in the capitalist countries, or indeed in the world as a whole? Today many philosophers, sociologists and politicians are asking themselves this question—both those who were anxious to hold in check the protest movement, and also those who are sincerely concerned about the movement’s destiny and fear lest the young shoots (to use Roszak’s expressions) might perish under the onslaught of the hostile wind that comes roaring down at them. The latter group is particularly alarmed at the possibility that movements of the radical Left might degenerate into movements of a fascist variety (in this respect reference is made to the cult of violence propagated by certain members of the New Left, the nihilistic attitude to culture and the impulsive urge for action without clearly defined goals and objectives). This danger does indeed exist, at any rate in respect of certain groups within the New Left. In general it is hardly likely that such radical critical movements ( anticapitalist as regards their overall direction) that grow up out of the emotional and moral negation of the establishment but are not based on any scientific theory could be insured against regressive tendencies. Yet it is precisely through this type of movement that the initial involvement of the non- 245 proletarian mass in the struggle against capitalism takes place. Hence the point at issue is how to neutralise these tendencies, how to organise work with the young rebels and help them to shake off their illusions. In order to solve this problem it is very important to differentiate our approach to the separate detachments of the New Left, particularly since the danger of their veering towards the right and the effectiveness of their political action vary in different countries. They depend on the correlation and dynamics of class forces, the level of maturity attained by the working class, the role and influence of the communist party, and also the nature of historical, political and cultural traditions and the trends dominating in the sphere of social consciousness. Where authoritarian, anti-democratic traditions fanned by neofascist forces are strong, there is greater danger, naturally, of the disintegration and engulfment of certain groups of the radical Left by these forces. Yet at the same time precisely in those countries where traditions of totalitarian thought are deep-rooted the movements of the radical Left embracing non-proletarian masses can play a positive role in undermining and destroying those traditions, in preparing the ground for the formation of a new intellectual climate, and they therefore deserve particularly close attention from progressive political forces. Experience of political struggle makes it clear that the intensification of regressive trends in “left” movements takes place precisely when progressive forces, aware only of their mistakes and identifying the ideologists of the radical Left with the rank- andfile rebels, simply wash their hands of them and ignore the causes which called these movements into existence, adopting a mentor’s pose and eventually losing their influence upon the rank-and-file members of such protest movements. What is the lesson that progressive forces within capitalist society, and particularly communists, should glean from this historical experience in order to impede the possible switch of part of the New Left to the standpoint of the reactionary bourgeoisie, to win over protesting youth to their side? That is the question which the liberal political purists forget to ask themselves, as they look warily at the young members of the New Left, and the quasi-revolutionaries as well as they sit back and wait for the appearance of a "nice, 246 pure little youth movement" free of any vacillations or mistakes.

p While not flattering the New Left, openly criticising its mistakes and pointing out the illusory character of its conceptions of present and future society, the communists recognise militant youth as a force, whose sympathies are worth fighting for, for its actions serve to extend the front of the anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist, general democratic movement. Ignoring this section of the mass movement would be to weaken the impact of the anti-imperialist struggle, and complicate the creation of a united front against monopoly capital.

The stratification which has taken place within the ranks of the New Left, as a result of which a section of it is now drawing nearer to the working class and the communists, is a development that still has a somewhat accidental air about it. How deliberate and intensive this new trend will be in the future will depend not only on changes in the correlation of class forces, but also on constructive criticism of the theoretical conceptions put forward by the ideologists of the radical Left, on the thoroughness with which the Marxists elaborate alternative solutions to the questions raised by the practical experience of the protest movements.