64

p Having briefly examined some of civilisation’s threats, let us go over to the second, socio-political, range of problems in the set of anxieties—to the most disquieting area for the sense of contentedness, an area in which it most frequently loses its self-control. In this area it endeavours to fence itself off from political storms with an armour of loyalty, of approved ideals and standards. But in our dynamic age with its volcanic social upheavals these problems make themselves felt every day. Which of them disrupt tranquillity most of all, sap energy and instil fear?

p As a preliminary it must be noted that the sense of contentedness is sometimes not averse to lay it on thick. But, as we shall now see, the gloomiest admissions are made in a spirit which always leaves room for a happy ending. In characterising how the sense of contentedness interprets social anxieties we cannot help recalling the sarcasm of Voltaire’s words, when he said “that the more private misfortunes there are, the whole is the better”. A suspicious attitude to social problems is by no means dictated by cognitive, much less by altruistic, interests. Things are much more simple: the sense of contentedness reacts quickly to anything that may so much as even brush its material foundation.

p However, the economy of the capitalist world gives more than enough reason for anxiety. Even the much-trumpeted economic booms cannot end unemployment (among whitecollar workers as well), halt the rising prices of necessities, avert the growth of public debts, relax the pressure of taxation and solve the housing problem. Inflation continues unabated. The richest capitalist countries have been unable to wipe out poverty, concealed and open hunger, root out slums and effectively solve the problem of pensions. Anxiety is aroused by the chaotic operations on the stock 65 exchange, the monetary crises, the sweat system of labour, the growth of debts on consumer credits and the brutal competition.

p The sense of contentedness cannot help seeing that in the capitalist system the class struggle is not dying downs: economic disorder is aggravating the social conflicts. Pressure irom the bureaucracy is becoming unbearable. The arms race, the unceasing local wars, the expansion of the militaryindustrial complex, the eruptions of racism and semi-fascist tendencies are arousing apprehensions and fear. Social disorganisation of all kinds is making itself felt every minute. The vices of the capitalist system are much too glaring to be unnoticed. Exposures appear even in the servile bourgeois press.

p How then does the sense of contentedness, which itself experiences the consequences of these anxieties, manage to be true to its platform? This would have been a paradoxical question had we lost sight of the fact that being unreservedly bourgeois it does not and cannot in its analysis get to the actual causes and factors giving rise to the abovementioned social processes. Despite its empirical keenness, the sense of contentedness is unable to appreciate the entire volume of anxieties and suffering that life under statemonopoly capitalism brings the working people. Besides, it does not wish to look behind the fafade of that system, confining itself to viewing the coloured stage props where everything appears to be more or less dignified.

p Let us assume, however, that having finally brought everything into focus the sense of contentedness more or less accurately records all the manifestations of anxiety and suffering. This would bring it to the decisive phase, namely, the interpretation of what it has seen. This is precisely where it proves to be entirely in the grip of the optimistic official myths about the origin, scale and, above all, nature of social suffering and the ways and means of eliminating it. These myths are permeated through and through with unbounded faith in the bourgeois economic and sociopolitical system, with the belief that its potentialities are inexhaustibbe. They spring from the postulate that these factors are survivals and, by and large, non-obligatory, accidental, in other words, that they are not implicit in the 66 given system. But what are they survivals of? Of capitalism, the myths conscientiously reply, but of the capitalism that has receded into the past, of the capitalism with inadequately developed productive forces and limited social wealth, with primitive management of production and social processes. The myth-makers of the sense of contentedness assert (with the secret hope that their “scholarly impartiality" will be properly appreciated) that Karl Marx had accurately indicated the consequence of uncontrolled capitalist economy. But in the past 100 years a series of spontaneous transformations has allegedly taken place in this chaotically developing economy: capitalist society has entered a new phase of development. Today capitalist society is simply a technical civilisation, an industrial society or, to use the latest terminology, a post-industrial civilisation, a technotronic society, a super-industrial society.

p Regardless of the preferred name, this society, we are told, is in principle a harmoniously balanced organism. It is characterised by deeply echeloned industrialisation that is going over to the phase of automation, unparalleled labour productivity and high consumer standards. True, it is admitted that’ in this society there are still elements of private enterprise and, consequently, of social inequality, but they are used for the general weal as stimulants of the economy, while chaotic development and self-interest are curbed by state regulation founded on the nationalisation ol some key industries, on a system of crediting, on the centralisation of huge funds in state budgets, on a special tax policy, and so forth. Indicative (as distinct from directive) planning will beyond doubt produce the ways and means of ending unemployment and economic instability. In the opinion of the sense of contentedness the “social symmetry" between labour and capital will yield fabulous dividends: surplus labour power will be absorbed by the fantastically huge market in the services sphere, while labour monotony and tedium will be abolished by internal humanisation of production and with the aid of technical aesthetics. The absence of incentives will be surmounted by a system of participation in profits and “democratic” planning. The industrial accident rate will be brought down by incorruptible state inspection. The currency discords will be settled by 67 interstate compromises. Government building projects will make an end of slums. The high cost of medical attendance will be offset by a flexible combination of private and municipal health services. The dying regions will be reanimated by new investments. And so on and so forth.

p In the case of private ownership, the assurance is given that it has already become largely a symbol as a result of the division of the function of ownership and management. Power has allegedly passed from owners to managerial experts—technocrats, managers, “social engineers"—impelled not by ideological, egoistic motivations but by the common good, by the interests of technological progress; arbitrary rule by them is reliably precluded by “industrial democracy".

p In industrial society the class and ideological struggles are allegedly dying down with the growth of the middle class, the incomes revolution and the enhanced social mobility. Where conflicts flare up their roots, the sense of contentedness believes, must be sought not in the sphere of social structures but in the shortcomings in labour legislation, in breaches of “administrative ethics”, of the “ethics of business”. The social groups that in the past had different and even conflicting interests are now supposedly fusing into a homogeneous mass with a common consciousness and becoming united by “social bulldozing”,  [67•*  in other words, the intensive integrational processes will lead to the emergence of a homogeneous society. This society will have a ruling elite but, the sense of contentedness asserts, partnership and equality of social groups will predominate.

p All the necessary reforms will allegedly be put into effect by the bureaucratic apparatus; with trustworthy information at its disposal, the science of management will ensure the uninterrupted efficient operation of this apparatus. True, the swift growth of the bourgeois bureaucratic machine is giving rise to the problem that the bureaucrats and technocrats may usurp power. But the sense of contentedness has taken care of this as well: industrial society, you see, brings democratic management to perfection by means 68 of the election system, by forms of controlling the executive power, and so forth. “Social engineers" and psychotechnicians will work out and introduce new moral standards and rules that will open up unlimited possibilities for regulating social processes in the spirit of fetishised efficiency and productivity.

p But if this ideal society, this “technocratic paradise" has been created, how is one to explain all that today evokes such serious anxiety and brings people suffering? The sense of contentedness regards this merely as a deviation from norms or accidental miscalculations that, while not setting off the beauty of the achieved social harmony, do not in any case harm it too much. The organisation that has resolved fundamental problems is, we are told, quite capable of coping with minor problems. The main thing is not to lose hope! The greater the loyalty of the individual or of the group to the organisation, the sooner and more fully will these hopes be realised, says the sense of contentedness.

p Let us follow the thinking of the sense of contentedness to its logical conclusion. If industrial society’s socio-economic foundation offers the most painless ways of rectifying individual miscalculations and provides the incentives for production activity and socially pliant behaviour, while group conflicts evolve into co-operation, political revolutions in this case become anachronistic. It is asserted that capitalist society is now free from social upheavals, “wasteful” revolutions, that only delay the advance towards the ideals of universal satiety and contentedness. Support for the forces of law and order thus gets moral sanction. On the other hand, any spontaneous or organised disaffection, civil disobedience, “undemocratic” opposition are regarded as indisputable evidence of anti-social egoism: people must be content with what is and, especially, with what will be. Disaffection, according to the sense of contentedness, is directed against the social organisation; it is neither more nor less than irresponsibility and threatens stability, law and order, security and the contentment of the majority. The disaffected must be blacklisted. In the drive for unity, says the sense of contentedness, there must be a positive stratification, in other words, dissidents and disaffected people must be quarantined ideologically, psychologically and 69 organisationally, isolated from the masses, and the masses must be made to regard them as the source of all evil. The institutional use of force, legal acts of violence with the object of suppressing such disaffection are said to be quite normal, justified and reasonable. “Order!" thundered the cannon of Cavaignac, drowning in blood the rising of the Paris workers in June 1848. “Order!" echoes the sense of contentedness more than a century later.

p The sense of contentedness magnanimously admits that disaffection may be evoked by bio-psychological reasons. In this case it willingly accepts the theory of cultural backwardness that sees the roots of social disorders in stress, unsatisfied instincts observed only as a result of a gap between the dynamically developing technical civilisation and the adaptability of man’s bio-psychological nature, that is hardly able to keep up with it. Evolution has not produced in man the need and ability to curb his atavistic instincts. The disharmony between social development and individual adaptability, which gives no respite and time for adaptation, is allegedly the cause of all mass hysteria and neuroses, nihilism, melancholy and dissoluteness. The “violators” and “deviators” are thus those who simply find it difficult to adapt themselves to present-day conditions and cultural standards. From the standpoint of the sense of contentedness, sociological prophylaxis and certain Freudian manipulations are therefore all that is necessary to remove or allay disaffection. If this disaffection has an ideological undertone, recourse must be had to counter-ideological indoctrination or direct pressure: disaffection will be given a psychological outlet (the possibility to “wear itself out”) or denied the possibility of serious social action. First and foremost, of course, communist activity must be suppressed.

p We thus get the following prognostic picture of capitalist society. Political and moral conformism will become the absolutely predominant form of consciousness. Dissidencc will be eradicated once and for all. Ideological battles will become as outdated as kerosene lamps, barricades and dynastic and religious wars. There will no longer be a Bastille that will have to be taken by assault. There will only be minor differences in views on tactical issues: this will give “independent political thinking" the respectability so 70 eagerly sought by the downcast wretchedness and stereotype monotony of the political legalism of the sense of contentedness.

In this way does the sense of contentedness explain the modern bourgeois world and itself in it. The means of surmounting the social threats suggested by its myths are founded on an overestimation of the capitalist system’s stability. The future is represented merely as an improvement of the functioning of the currently operating system or, more simply, as the perpetuation of capitalism. These myths, which, to quote Hegel, are as dull as the repetition of a trick whose secret is known to everybody, have been considered more or less in detail in Marxist literature. We shall therefore confine ourselves to general remarks.