p Bourgeois sociology is the daughter of the greatest crisis in the life of the West, and it must consider at least some of the most acute contradictions in modern capitalism. But in so doing it puts the wrong interpretation on these, because it springs from that crisis and fears to allow that these contradictions lead the capitalist mode of production to destruction and substitution by a new, socialist social system. Bourgeois social thought has ceased to understand the fact that the present is a stage in the historical process, and that is something without which social thought cannot develop. Thus, the theory of social development turns out to be breached at its most important link, so that the whole chain of the historical process falls apart and the conception of its law-governed progressive stages disappears.

p Take some social facts from present-day capitalist society showing the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production, facts which some bourgeois sociologists analyse, without discovering their real significance.

p Their conclusions are characteristic of their view of the historical process as propounded by the present-day bourgeois philosophy of history.

p William Ogburn, a founder of present-day US sociology, put forward a theory in 1922 according to which in present-day, that is, bourgeois, society there is a gap between scientific and technical development and spiritual development. This theory, called the “cultural lag" theory, has become very popular. Let us note one of its aspects: technology under modern capitalism, the development of the productive forces have outstripped the spiritual culture produced by that system. This has made many sociologists ponder. Of course, from here one may very well go on to hurling accusations against technology and science, whose effect is “inhuman” and whose power should be moderated. That is exactly what many bourgeois sociologists have done, attacking scientific and technical progress, “the machine civilisation" which is allegedly at variance with human nature. This carries them straight into the bog of reactionary Utopias about the “disurbanisation” of social life, and the restraining of scientific and technical progress. Others have concentrated on the “defects” of modern man’s intellectual and moral development and have tried to invent recipes to remedy these defects. Ogburn himself did something similar by urging the need, after Spencer, for man to “adapt” to his “technical environment”.

p One American sociologist raised the question of “the disparity between modern science and technology, on the one hand, and our social institutions, on the other".  [349•1  He held that the social institutions of 350 capitalism were unable to cope with the problems put forward by modern “industrial civilisation”. But he, too, does not say in so many words that the development of the social relations of capitalism has lagged behind the development of productive forces. The same half-house approach will be found in the writings of West German sociologists who have reached the conclusion that the “social structure" tends to lag behind technical development. Consequently, modern capitalism has not been developing at all smoothly: its spiritual life and social structure have lagged. But having put their finger on one contradiction of capitalist society, bourgeois theorists evade the question and are afraid to tell the truth about capitalism’s eventual doom.

p The English philosopher A. D. Ritchie blames the gap between technology and spiritual culture on man’s intellectual and moral development, declaring that the term “conquest of nature" is a most misleading one. He says: “Wild nature remains unconquered as always. The scene of the conquest is an artificial world of machines; and those who are really conquered are the men who, in one way or another, are subjected to the power of the machines."  [350•2  He reaches the following pessimistic conclusion: “...the process of human evolution will mean no more than that men were once a small and simple herd and now they are a large and mechanized herd."  [350•3  A roughly similar view was expressed by Bertrand Russell, who said that human nature and man’s fatal lusts remained unchanged, while science and technology merely provided new means for satisfying the old lusts. That is why such glaring disproportions have appeared in mankind’s development, but the blame for this falls on imperfect human nature.

p Thus—and this must be stressed—as the role of capitalist relations of production in slowing down and distorting the development of the productive forces, science and technology becomes clearer, bourgeois theorists are forced to admit, in their own way, the existence of this most acute contradiction of capitalism. Indeed, many of them have started a search for remedies that could ease the ills of capitalism and maintain it at this stage.

This purpose is served, for instance, by some of the basic ideas of modern “industrial sociology" which starts from Ogburn’s “cultural lag" postulate. A group of “industrial sociologists" has reached the conclusion that their main task is to help the workers’ mentality to “adapt” to the conditions of “technical environment”. The old idea expressed by Spencer about man adapting to his environment has been revived. Numerous recipes for this kind of “adaptation” have been invented. Sociologists and psychologists went off into the plants and factories to give the employers the benefit of their advice. These sociologists are engaged in tackling the practical tasks of organising 351 labour, and some of their specific observations are of some scientific interest. However, they have also spread among the workers the bourgeois ideology which claims that class interest can be reconciled with the “right approach”. Thus, Ogburn’s proposition which could become a scientific bridge ultimately leading to the right way has, in effect, had the opposite effect, leading bourgeois sociologists ever farther away from any scientific analysis of the contradictions of present-day capitalism.