p I should like to start by quoting a few lines from Wilhelm Liebknecht’s reminiscences of Karl Marx which date to 1850 and well show Marx’s attitude to the revolutionary changes in science and technology. He says: “Soon we were talking about natural sciences and Marx scoffed at the victorious reaction in Europe, who imagined that they had stifled the revolution and had no idea that natural science was preparing a new one. King Steam, who had revolutionized the world the century before, had lost his throne and was being superseded by a still greater revolutionary—the electric spark.”  [177•51 

p Let us recall that Marx saw such changes as an ally of the proletariat in the revolutionary transformation of society, and a symptom of the growing historical necessity for such transformations. For many decades, the development of natural science prepared a new scientific 178 and technical revolution. First, the power of electricity was to develop to vast proportions, while other branches of natural science were also to prepare for a fresh leap by a series of discoveries.

p On the eve of the scientific and technical revolution, when capitalism had solved highly intricate technological problems and many remarkable discoveries were made in natural science, Lenin wrote: “On all sides, at every step one comes across problems which man is quite capable of solving immediately, but capitalism is in the way."  [178•52 

p Years later, Lenin’s plan for the electrification of the USSR would be drawn up for the purpose of putting the great revolutionary power of electricity and various other scientific and technical achievements at the service of the victorious socialist revolution. Under the leadership of the CPSU, the Soviet people fulfilled and overfulfilled this plan, and a mighty industrial power, confidently challenging capitalism in the field of science and technology, appeared on the map of the world. The other socialist countries, working to enhance the efficiency of production and secure the ever fuller realisation of the advantages of socialism, also became a scientific and technical force to be reckoned with. The socialist countries have set themselves the task of harnessing the scientific and technical revolution and advancing it on the basis of social property.

p Facts drawn from contemporary history suggest the conclusion that the scientific and technical revolution, as a social phenomenon, is connected with the fundamental contradiction of the modern world, the struggle between the two systems: socialism and capitalism. This struggle is not only a condition of the historical situation in which the scientific and technical revolution has been going forward as an immanent process in the development of science and technology. This historical situation also exerts a definitive influence on the advance of the scientific and technical revolution and the application of its achievements in practice, in the first place. It is hard to say how the scientific and technical revolution would have run if only one system—capitalism in its final stage, that is, imperialism,—continued to dominate the globe. The bourgeois press has made no secret of the fact that the mainspring of scientific and technical progress under capitalism today is its fight against the socialist system, when it comes to manifestations of the scientific and technical revolution like space exploration or the latest types of weapons.

p This question arises: is it right to limit the impact of the struggle between the two systems to the field of technology? Should not the approach be a much broader one?

p We feel that if the struggle of the two systems is ignored, it is altogether impossible to analyse the scientific and technical revolution correctly as a historical phenomenon. Indeed, there is no justification for 179 artificially separating the scientific and technical revolution from the cardinal issue of present-day world history. It is impossible either to consider or solve the problem in some artificial vacuum. Of course, the scientific and technical revolution has been prepared by the development of a number of sciences, which enable man to use new instruments in harnessing the mighty forces of nature. In its knowledge of natural phenomena, mankind has reached a culminating point at which the possibilities for exerting a conscious influence on the forces of nature are unprecedented in scope. That is undoubtedly so. But this process is a social phenomenon, a fact in the social life of the nations, and that is how it should be considered. If we are truly intent on making a correct study of present-day world history, we shall have to learn above all to see its phases and phenomena in the light of the struggle between the two systems.

p I think that Soviet writers have not yet dealt adequately with, among other things, the influence of the struggle between the two systems on the internal development of capitalism. Of course, capitalism develops in accordance with its own laws, but the struggle between the two social worlds exerts a powerful influence on its development. The capitalist system, deeply involved in this struggle, cannot be understood if it is considered as an isolated system not subject to the influence of the strident requirements of the struggle against a powerful and growing world socialist system.

p In this connection we could ask the following question: how has it happened that the possibilities for applying scientific and technical achievements in production have been extended within the imperialist system, a decaying system, whose whole economic and political life is oppressed by the monopolies? The Social Democrats and the revisionists keep shouting that capitalism has changed its spots, that it has ceased to be a decaying society and has become a progressive social system. No, monopoly capitalism has not changed. It is the world situation that has changed.

p Today, in the presence of socialist society, the capitalist monopolies, however strong, are unable to take over any industry lock, stock and barrel, to share it out among themselves on a world scale, etc. Lenin quoted one bourgeois economist to the effect that at the turn of the century there were “two electrical ‘great powers’~”, and that there were “no other electrical companies in the world completely independent of them".  [179•53  It is now clear to everyone that the situation today is radically different. There is now in the world an “electrical power" which is not only independent of the capitalist monopolies, but which has in fact issued them a challenge. If the monopolists decided to shelve all the important inventions, these would still be realised in the socialist world.

p Socialism develops production on the basis of social property, advancing science and technology and carrying on extensive research in these fields. Labour, which for centuries acted as no more than wage-labour for capital, joined in the struggle for power with the establishment of the highest form of the proletariat’s political organisation, the new type of party. Having won state power, it now stands on sizable territories of the world as a mighty rival of capital in organising and developing production. This does not change the nature of capitalism, but it does change the world situation in which it has to operate. Lenin wrote: “It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies."  [180•54  With the fierce struggle between the two systems ranging not only over politics and ideology, but also over production, the key sphere of human activity, the monopolies can no longer afford to stem the scientific and technical revolution and block scientific discoveries and technological inventions.

p The main conclusion this suggests is that the scientific and technical revolution does not damp down or eliminate the struggle between the two systems, as some advocates of the convergence theory claim, allegedly leading to a common-type structural development in the two systems until they “meet”. Actually, the struggle between capitalism and socialism has been gaining in acerbity and depth, because in this sphere capitalism has no intention of surrendering without a fight.

p Capitalism has certainly been casting about for new means in its fight against socialism by making use of scientific and technical achievements. But what are the long-term prospects for capitalism in realising these achievements in production?

p Let us, first of all, note briefly an idea that has been expressed in Marxist writings. It is the influence of the scientific and technical revolution on the basic contradictions of capitalism. The main thing here, I feel, is that mass production based on the latest scientific and technical achievements calls for a high level of organisation, efficiency and continuity. Sooner or later, this requirement runs into contradiction with the blind forces of a convulsive market. The strict logic of technology in production cannot be reconciled with any breaks in its smooth rhythmic flow. The Uncontrolled market forces produce impulses which tend to disrupt the smooth rhythm and high organisation. Consequently, the scientific and technical revolution is bound increasingly to demand the introduction of socialist relations of production, the establishment of social property, scientific planning, and scientific coordination and cooperation in industry. That is an important aspect of 181 the scientific and technical revolution which bourgeois theorists try to ignore. The scientific and technical revolution, far from abolishing, in effect bears out the Marxist-Leninist thesis that present-day capitalism is ripe for social change, and that imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution.

p Of course, the conflict will not be spasmodic, but will take a long time to develop. There will be a great many frauds and illusions about “state democratic planning" under state-monopoly capitalism. It will take a long time for the working class in the capitalist countries to realise that capitalist society needs to be eliminated and not cured.

p But the important thing to see is that the tendency is there and that it will make itself known in various forms. The point is that as the conflict develops the working class is ever more actively involved in it. This produces a relatively new arena of the class struggle: this is a struggle against all the burdens of the scientific and technical revolution being thrown on the working class.

p Some bourgeois theorists regard the scientific and technical revolution as a means of expelling the working class from the sphere of production, so as to deprive it of its role in society and its political importance. They have visions of returning to the ancient period with a lumpenproletariat living at the expense of the society. Of course, the attempt to push the modern proletariat, with its high skills and high labour standards, into the status of the ancient lumpenproletariat, which required no more than “bread and circuses"—and this means a corresponding level of consciousness—must inevitably explode the social system which dares to undertake such an experiment. Concerning idleness as a social ideal of present-day capitalism, one must say that a close look at spiritual life in the capitalist West clearly shows a growing protest against the “leisure society”, as a social ideal. It is true that protests against this piece of social ugliness also frequently assume ugly forms, but the important thing is that these protests are there and keep growing.

p This question also has another aspect which is perhaps equally important. At whose expense will capitalist society then live? Bourgeois theorists suggest that the technical intelligentsia will become the main productive force.

p Capitalism, carrying on the scientific and technical revolution, tends to sharpen its social conflicts, above all the conflict with the working class, which is inherent in capitalism at every stage of its development. The threat of unemployment facing the whole working class, instead of some of its sections, general unemployment may become a law of its life. Is it not clear that this approach to the working-class question will generate a most acute social conflict which will shake the capitalist system to its foundations and give the working class a clear insight into the great advantage of the socialist system? Can man and mankind live without working, without applying and developing their capacity for 182 work? In our age this would undermine the very basis of the human community. Socialism restores the spiritual content of the worker’s labour of which capitalism has deprived it. Capitalism deprives the worker of the right to work, which socialism realises and guarantees. Bourgeois writers have admitted that the capitalists have been slowing down the extensive introduction of automation and remote control because they fear that this would build up a powerful social explosion.

p There is also another conflict in the making, that between statemonopoly capital and the intelligentsia. The recent student protests have made one look closer at the maturing and development of this conflict as well. Even the bourgeois press has said that the substance of these movements is that the intelligentsia, especially the younger generation, has refused to lie in the procrustean bed into which the monopolies seek to drive it. The inflated hierarchy established by the monopolies at the enterprises and in research institutes does not hold any promise for the young generation in extensively applying their capacities. This is especially true today, under the scientific and technical revolution, when the monopolies seek to convert the generation of young intellectuals into the same kind of “cogs” in the laboratories and the shops as the workers. This has aroused protests by young intellectuals who are as yet unable to realise and formulate their demands. But I think that this is essentially a struggle for the right to work in accordance with one’s capacities, the right to express and develop these capacities in labour. Monopoly capitalism stands in the way. Its levelling bulldozer has not spared those who come from the middle classes either. In this respect, monopoly capitalism once again appears as the eve of the socialist revolution.

p Petty-bourgeois radicalism is an unstable phenomenon. Fascism is known to have succeeded in confusing many petty-bourgeois radicals, befogging their minds with diverse types of demagogy and turning them against the working class.

p Once again attempts are being made to direct petty-bourgeois radicalism against the working class. Let us recall, as an example, the theory of Professor Herbert Marcuse. Consequently, the subjective aspect of the matter, the battle of ideas, the struggle for the unity of action by the working class and the nonproletarian sections acquire tremendous importance.

p In the past few years, the integration of the capitalist system, especially in Western Europe, is a question that has been ever more frequently considered within the context of the scientific and technical revolution. The bourgeois press has suggested that the scientific and technical revolution promotes this integration, leads to ever clpser interweaving of the national economies, etc. This tendency cannot be denied, but the form in which it is expressed is typically capitalist. Here everything rests on domination and subjugation, on hegemony, on the allocation of influence by strength, by capital, as Lenin used to say.

p However, this strength now takes on a different form, being covered with a scientific and technical shell. There is no doubt that the scientific and technical revolution tends to become a component part of world politics and acquire political importance. US monopoly capital seeks to restore its positions in the capitalist world by harnessing the scientific and technical revolution. The bourgeois press has carried reports that there is mounting alarm in Western Europe over the growing US investments in the West European countries, especially over the nature and areas of these investments. Those who invest seek to gain control or dominant positions for US monopoly capital in the new technology areas. A new term—technological colonialism—has even been coined to describe the US attitude to Western Europe. This purpose is also served by the so-called “brain drain”.

p Incidentally, even within the capitalist countries the scientific and technical revolution causes a sharpening of the struggle between the monopolies. The “young” monopolies frequently carry on a fight against the “old” ones. Under state-monopoly capitalism this develops into a struggle for the instruments of state power and assumes the form of acute political conflicts and crises.

p In world politics, monopoly capital has pinned other hopes on the scientific and technical revolution, notably, hopes of re-equipping colonialism. On the one hand, the monopolies assume that the scientific and technical revolution, with its new technology, will markedly ease their dependence on some types of raw materials extracted in countries with a low technical and economic level. On the other hand, they expect the scientific and technical revolution to create new and powerful means for an offensive against the colonies they have lost, so as to intensify their technical and economic dependence and, consequently, to preserve the political master-and-servant relations.

p Such are some of the lines along which capitalism has tried to use the scientific and technical revolution. These attempts to bolster the positions of capital ultimately tend to aggravate the contradictions of capitalism, quite apart from the use of science and technology for the arms race, for fabricating mass destruction weapons. Such use of science and technology by capitalism, of course, presents the greatest danger to mankind.

p What I have said suggests that the anti-imperialist struggle in the period of the scientific and technical revolution cannot and must not die down, but that it will develop and that there is an objective basis for its development. Such is the logic of life and its objective necessity. It is now largely up to the subjective factor. Consequently, the ideological struggle of the working class and the Communist parties is of tremendous importance.

Ever greater historical importance attaches to the struggle for the scientific and technical revolution in the Soviet Union and the other 184 socialist countries. Scientific and technical progress in the socialist countries, the extensive application of new technology in production, its growing efficiency, the scientifically grounded management of the economy, and the most effective realisation of the vast potential of socialism—all add up to an earnest of fresh victories for socialism in the economic, political and ideological sphere in its struggle against capitalism. That is one of the key questions of world history.