cow. I visited him there with a Rus Books sian friend when I was in Moscow some vears ago, shortly after his dispute with the Artists’ Union. The place was cluttered with carvings, plaster casts and models; at the back was a small furnace in which he made his bronze castings, the bigger ones in many parts.
There is a second and even more ART AND REVOLUTION: poignant irony about Neizvestny’s Ernst Neizvestny and the Role name. In 1942, at the age of 16, he of the Artist in the USSR, volunteered for the army and became lieutenant of a commando platoon by John Berger. which was dropped behind German Penguin, 191pp., $2.10, lines. He was gravely wounded by a illustrated. bullet which exploded in his back EVEN in his surname there is an irony and was left on the battlefield for of particular aptness for such a man dead. Twenty years later he was award as Ernst Neizvestny: its literal mean ed the order of the Red Star for his ing is “unknown". part in the battle. As John Berger says, in this first account and analysis of Today, this sculptor who might in Neizvestny and his work for the Eng all modesty claim a front-line place in lish-speaking public, “In the interven the ranks of Soviet art is virtually ing years no one had made the con “unknown” in his own country. One of nexion between Lieutenant Neizvestny the few artists to have stood up defi — missing patriot, presumed dead — antly to a Soviet Premier to his face and a notorious, officially condemned, and got away with it, he has been decadent and ‘unpatriotic’ sculptor of reduced almost to anonymity through the same name.” Andrei Vosnesensky, his suspension from the Artists' Un a close friend of Neizvestny, seized ion. Membership of that Union is upon the significance of the incident essential for any professional artist in his poem The Unknown Soldier a in the USSR, perhaps more so for a couple of years ago. sculptor than a painter. Through the Union he obtains a studio, official com Many stories embellish the circum missions and, most importantly, mat stances of Neizvestny’s confrontation erials. A painter can buy most of his with Khrushchev over the famous “ab requirements in a shop, but if a sculp stract” art exhibition at the end of tor cannot get his stone or bronze 1962. Berger gives a full and authentic through official channels, then he will account of this extraordinary episode, have to obtain it illicitly — even on which could have happened only in the black market — as Neizvestny has the Soviet Union. A group of young been forced to do. In addition, the experimental artists had arranged an Union is the only avenue through exhibition of their work, containing which exhibitions can be arranged. by Western standards nothing particu Without membership of the Union, larly daring, under the auspices of the then, an artist is virtually unable to Moscow City Soviet. After a few days communicate with a mass public. the exhibition was closed by the Artists' Union and moved to a small annex Lacking the facilities and privileges in the huge Manege building near Red endowed upon members of the Artists' Square, where a vast and comprehen Union, Neizvestny uses as a studio a sive retrospective display of the work tiny disused shop in a back street off of Moscow artists over the previous 30 Marx Avenue in the centre of Mos years was on show. 68 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW December, 196!)
Khrushchev and other government Russian and Soviet art, culminating in and party leaders came to “inspect” the the emergence in the late 20’s and early “abstract” exhibition at the invitation 30 s of an artistic orthodoxy which des of conservatives in the Artists’ Union, troyed completely the revolutionary who led the Soviet leader and his en dynamism and experimentalism which tourage around the hall, pointing out put early Soviet art in the forefront ol what they considered to be the most world art. The establishment of the offensive items. The artists were lined Soviet Academy of Fine Arts — an up beside their works and Khrushchev elite body of some 30 members — and abused them in the most insulting per later of the Artists’ Union itself in sonal terms, most of them cringing be the early 30’s enshrined this orthodoxy fore the lash of his tongue. W'hen he in the mystique of “Socialist Realism" got to Neizvestny, who was branded as — which Berger regards as little the ringleader of the project, the sculp more than an extension of the tradi tor stood his ground, telling the burly tional Russian naturalism of the 19th statesman: “You may be Premier and Century Chairman but not here in front of my works. Here I am Premier and we shall In effect, what Berger is challenging discuss as equals”. A minister with is the whole system of patronage ol Khrushchev threatened to send Neiz the arts and literature in the Soviet vestny “to the uranium mines” and Union and other socialist countries. two security men seized his arms. The This system has indeed brought the sculptor then announced: “You are arts down from their ivory tqwer, has talking to a man who is perfectly cap made culture the property of the peo able of killing himself.” As Berger ple and has created a vast new literate says, “the formality of the statement and, in varying degrees, educated pub made it entirely convincing”: Neizvest lic brought up to regard art and the ny was released and he and the Soviet artist with hitherto unknown respect Premier engaged in a reasonably dis and even veneration. passionate and rational discussion. The material security which social Why has Soviet art officialdom adopt ism has provided for practitioners in ed such a hostile attitude to Neizvest the arts has not yet solved the question ny? According to Berger, it is not be of artistic freedom; in many respects cause he counterposes “private” and it has obscured and complicated it. “public” art. In fact, he does not: he And until socialism can guarantee the believes profoundly in sculpture as writer or artist not only the freedom “monumental” art, being intended for to write or paint what he likes but also wide, open spaces and constant public the opportunity to publish or display perusal. Rather, says Berger, they see his product, the tensions and conflicts a threat to themselves in both the which have plagued the arts under nature of his work and the way in socialism for the last 30 years will re which he goes about it. It is his gen main and we can only unhappily ex eral refusal (there are exceptions) to pect more examples of the tragic Pas adopt a conventionally declamatory ternak, Kuznetsov and Neizvestny kind. and rhetorical style and his pursuit of his own individual themes — as well as The most interesting and certainly his indifference to the bureaucratic sys the most controversial sections of Ber tem of the official art world — which ger’s book are those in which he as irritate the powers-that-be. sesses Neizvestny's work and its signi ficance. By contemporary western Berger traces the roots of this official standards, he writes, and even by those attitude through the development of of Soviet sculpture in the 1920’s, there 69 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW December, 1969 is nothing innovatory or way-out in mination necessary to overcome it, that Neizvestny's style (this in itself makes Ernst Neizvestny, unknown and un the hostility of the Soviet art estab sung, records and celebrates. lishment to him even more incompre hensible). Rodin is obviously one of R o c e r M il lis s his major influences, and the nearest western parallel Berger can draw is with Henry Moore. In fact, he con NEO-CAPITALISM IN siders that, historically, Neizvestny’s AUSTRALIA, by John style could be placsd in the period of Playford. Area Publications, 1915-25. He thinks, too, that there is a 55 pp., 85c. considerable unevenness in the sculp tor's work and that often it is unsuc THIS EXCELLENT empirical survey cessful and unsatisfactory. But Neiz reads as if it were written with two vestny’s peculiar significance he sees wellknown injunctions of Lenin in as lying in his attitude to death. Berger mind: “politics is the concentrated ex contends that his hair’s-breadth escape pression of economics . . . politics can from its clutches made Neizvestny see not but have precedence over econom death as not an end but a “starting- ics” (“Once again on the Trade Un point’’ — in other words, that life is ions,” .S'.ir. New York Vol. 9, p. 54), and to be measured not by its proximity “few questions have been so confused to death, but its distance from it. In deliberately and undeliberately, by rep the bulk of his work, exemplified by resentatives of bourgeois science, phil the torments and conflicts wracking osophy, jurisprudence, political eco the bodies of his figures, Neizvestny is nomy and journalism as the question basically concerned with the struggle to of the State” (A Lecture on the State). stay alive, to survive: his theme “is Indeed after reading Playford one is the theme of endurance”, says Berger, tempted to conclude that members of and again: “Today the hero is the man Australia's power elite work on the who resists being killed”. principle enunciated by Mao Tse-tung that “political work is the lifeblood of Berger concludes from this that Neiz economic work, this is particularly true vestny’s sculpture represents “a phase at a time when the social and economic in the struggle against imperialism”. system is undergoing fundamental Though he covers himself by allowing change.” (Quotations p. 35). that Neizvestny’s art also “reflects both his own personal experience and a gen W hat are Playford’s own views on eral situation in the U.S.S.R.”, and these questions? In the first place, he does not attempt to maintain that is convinced that Australian capitalism Neizvestny himself is consciously aware has definitely entered a new phase: a of the relationship of his art to the corporate system interlocked with the struggle of the third world, neverthe state machine which if unchecked will less the statement is too sweeping. see the creation of a consensus which Rather it could be said that what includes only the powerful and the Neizvestny has succeeded in portraying ruthless. True, the new phase — "neo are the dilemmas, conflicts and suffer capitalism” — is relatively underdevel ing of people everywhere, whether oped by comparison with France, but caused by the pressures of frenetic it has a strong ideological backing " capitalism, the naked plunderings of from both Gorton and Whitlam, with imperialism, or the bureaucratic aber their obsession with “modernisation rations of the contemporary socialist and centralisation. Moreover, neo states. It is this universal agony it capitalism is flourishing in the fertile seems, and the endurance and deter seedbeds of a non-revolutionary trad*- 70 AUSTRALIAN' I.EI T REVIEW Dcccmbcr, 1060 tion, early embourgeoisfication of the hierarchy and maintained 011 the out majority of the working class, and the side as a closed corporation.” (K. Marx, complexity of modern public adminis “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of the tration and economic planning. State” (1843) in L. D. Easton and K. H. Guddat, Writings of the Young Marx In the second place, Playford is on Philosophy, and Society, p. 185). particularly scornful of the “social- democratic'’ theory of its State. As he What Playford’s work shows is that says, “the achilles heel of the social a theory of the state today, while in democratic theory of the state is that its essence complying with Lenin’s view it separates politics from economics. that politics is the concentrated ex Labor leaders present a false picture pression of economics, needs to cover of two contending social forces — eco situations of fluidity in relations be nomic power concentrated in the hands tween the corporate bureaucracy anti of a small group of people not res the state machine. This involves a ponsible to public control, and demo judicious mixture of the best insights cratic political power to be found in of Marx, Lenin, C. Wright Mills (on the Parliament, Cabinet and the Public Power Elite) and J. K. Galbraith (with Service.” Playford does two things to reservations, on the New Industrial this theory. He demonstrates that when State). What this means in practice Whitlam talks about the Labor Party is that despite Playford’s impressive "getting into power” he is really talk empirical contribution as set out in ing only about “getting into office.” this monograph we still lack a sophisti Power lies not with parliament, but cated study of Australian bureaucracy with the various sectors of the econom in sociological terms. Whoever em ic power elite which run neo-capital barks on this project will have the ism. Second, he shows that economic benefit of Playford’s monograph as well power dominates political power. Here, as Caiden’s Commonwealth Bureau however, he does not relapse into a cracy. The missing link, so far as the crude view of the state as simply the internal economic system is concerned, “Executive committee of the ruling is the analysis of the detailed account class.” Rather, as Marx and Engels of the working of individual organs of both pointed out, there are periods in the state bureaucracy in their relation which the State bureaucracy exercises ships with corporate and trade union a fair degree of autonomous power, and bureaucrats, as well as the many quasi that in certain situations the public — legal “islands” such as tariff board, service can obtain support from trade various boards anad commissions, etc. unions to implement policies which may meet the disapproval of corporate This is not to deny that Playford capital. One quotation from Karl Marx has got a fair way along the road to would have been very useful to guide a full analysis. In parts 4 to 7, he Playford’s analysis at this point: sketches the growth of “co-ordinating” and "advisory” committees with mem “Bureaucracy is a circle no-one can bership drawn from the main echelons leave. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of of monopoly-capital, encouraged by information. The top entrusts the low Commonwealth aggrandisement and er circles with an insight into details, pre-emption. while the lower circles entrust the top with an insight into what is universal, This is a piece of research on which and thus they mutually deceive each the author is to be warmly congratulat other . . . the universal spirit of bur ed. But the volume as a whole still stops eaucracy is the secret, the mystery sus short of being a full Marxist or neo- tained within bureaucracy itself by Marxist ajialysis a£ “neo-capitalism” in 71 AUSTRALIAN I.FTT REVIEW December, 1969 its analytical aspect. What importance and esoteric studies in quantitative for example, are we to attach to the methods. notion of a "rising surplus" in the corporate sector? How is the level of In the coming months there is likely surplus determined and how is it dis to be considerable discussion in this tributed among industries? Since Play- journal and elsewhere of a new pro ford does not like Galbraith's notion gram of the Communist Party. One of a leading role of the "technostruc- section of this analysis considers mod ture", with what would he replace it ern capitalism and another discusses under Australian conditions? the state and political power. From this angle, Playford’s Neo-Capitalism in Playford has been criticised by Ted Australia is absolutely essential back Wheelwright (Outlook, October 1969) ground reading — and not only on the for giving insufficient attention to the “empirical” front. penetration of the Australian economy R o b e r t K ir k by foreign capital and the consequent exertion of pressure on government THE SOCIAL AND from foreign capitalists. Certainly such pressures exist, as Jack Kelly's Struggle POLITICAL THOUGHT for the North demonstrates in the case OF KARL MARX, of the Vestey meat empire. It is also by Shlomo Avineri. true that in the future, a great deal Cambridge University Press, of state action will be directed towards 270 pp., $7.40. guaranteeing monopoly surplus profits for foreign corporations. However, IN THE GENERAL VIEW, Karl considering that Playford has been Marx is the founder of the present concerned mainly with bringing the social systems of the communist world. story of neo-capitalism up to the pre Most of those calling themselves sent time, this is not an important “Marxists” know only the vulgarisa criticism, since the new system is as tions of marxism constituting the offi yet underdeveloped. Australia still has cial communist ideology of “Marxism- many aspects of the traditional system Leninism" or Dialectical Materialism. of vested interest group organisations If Marx is read, it is often against operating on a number of central eco this background. nomic command posts and on ad hoc The writings of the “young" Marx, agencies of regulations. These are still which have only recently become the hub of the system. True, the de widely known, show Marx as the true velopment mentioned by Wheelwright heir to Hegelian thought. Marx’s con is now growing up, side by side with cern here is with a philosophy whose this system. But the older system still realisation demands its abolition, with persists and Playford was right, as a a class of alienated men whose own political scientist, to concentrate on it. emancipation means the emancipation of all. The dogmatic marxist ideolo Playford has returned to the high gists claim that Marx was not then yet tradition of Smith, Ricardo and Marx a marxist, and that it was only with in joining economic and political con the Communist Manifesto that Marx cerns into political economy. Students attained maturity. In this way the of economics who are tired of fashion “young” Marx can be neatly tacked able economic toys (“multipliers,” ac on to the “m ature” Marx some of celerators etc.) will learn more about whose writings, together with anno the Australian economy from this mon tated selections from Engels and ograph than from more fashionable Lenin, form Marxism-Leninism. 72 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REMEW December, 1969
In the book under review, Dr. relations are reified — a man is first Shlomo Avineri, a well-known Hegel a “capitalist”, “labourer”, “scientist ", and Marx scholar, at the Flebrew Uni etc., who incidentally is also a human versity of Jerusalem, conclusively being. Marx writes, “Man is not a shows to be false the bifurcation of subject (in modern society), but is Marx into a young, humanist liberal being identified with his predicate and a revolutionary devoted solely to class.” Avineri adds, “Marx has thus the study of political economy. Avi arrived at the discussion of social class neri demonstrates that Marx's change purely through a Feuerbachian critique in emphasis from philosophy to cri of philosophy.” (p.27) tique of political economy indicated the fulfilment of a plan sketched WThere Hegel rationalises the mod out in his early writings. In 1843, ern state through the agency of a “uni Marx wrote his Critique of Hegel’s versal class” of bureaucrats, as em Philosophy of Right in which the bodying the interests of everyone, Marx distinctive patterns of his later work finds in the bureaucracy a licence for were evident. (Avineri provides the particular interests. The section of con first major discussion of this Critique temporary society which does embody to be published in English.) Accord man’s universal interests is the “class ing to Avineri, Marx, in this work, of concrete labor” — the proletariat. made much use of Feuerbach’s "trans For Marx, says Avineri, “the pro formative method’’ which substituted letariat was never a particular class “man” for “God”, immanence for but the repository of the Hegelian Hegel’s transcendence, thereby turn universal class”, (p. 62) In his later ing Hegel on his head. writings this view remains. For Marx, “What was at the outset a philosophi However Avineri overrates the im cal hypothesis is verified by experience portance of Feuerbach in the devel and observation. The universalistic opment of Marx’s views since Marx nature of the proletariat is a corollary had used “Feuerbach’s transformative of the conditions of production in a method’’ two years before he became acquainted with Feuerbach’s work. In capitalist society which must strive for Marx’s Letter to his Father (1837) universality on a geographical level Marx wrote — and this passage is as well.” (p. 61). actually quoted by Avineri — “If the Gods have dwelt till now above Labor, in Marx’s view, is man's the earth, they have now become its specific attribute. Future society will centre.” (p. 8) not abolish labor, but alienated labor, which is the subsumption of man un The aim of the Critique is, accord der the conditions of work. Avineri ing to Avineri, “to prove that Hegel’s points out that “even if the division inverted point of departure made it of labor will after all be necessary, one impossible to reduce theory to prac man can find joy and satisfaction in tice” (p. 14) Marx finds that "the another’s occupation, provided the need to look into the contradictions social structure is oriented to such of social life is a direct outcome of possibilities.” (p.232) Man is a social the inner contradictions of Hegelian animal. The relationship of lovers in philosophy as they come to light which the satisfaction of the one is through transformative criticism.” dependent on that of the other, may (p.16). represent in microcosm the eroticisa- The primary criticism of contem tion which will be man in commun porary society for Marx is that m an’s ism. AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW December, 1969
Avineri's discussion on Marx’s atti Despite its price this book should tudes to revolution is most instructive. be read by all considering themselves Marx opposes terror, which is, to “marxists.” Avineri looks afresh at quote Avineri, “less a means towards what Marx actually wrote, without the realisation of a revolutionary aim confusing his work with that of his than a mark of failure.” (p.188) disciples such as Engels. Avineri The communist revolution will abolish througli a fascinating and thorough civil society by realising that univer examination of Marx’s work (includ sality which civil society itself cannot ing the Grundrisse as yet untranslated realise. Jacobinism, however, only ne into English), has found in it an gates civil society since it does not essential unity. totalise its achievements. Marx viewed D o u g l a s K ir s n e r . the substitution of one elite no matter whether it called itself “socialist” or not, for another, as no advance to FROM ODESSA TO ODESSA, wards communism since man and soc by Judah Waten. Cheshire, iety are still juxtaposed to one another. 198 pp., $4.75. JUDAH WATEN was born in Odessa, Marx opposed the Paris Commune in what was then Imperial Russia, in which he considered “in no way soc 1911. W hen he was a fortnight old ialist, nor could it be,” although he his parents migrated to Palestine and called it an epoch-making break then, three years later, to Australia. through in organisation. Unlike En The family settled in Perth and Judah gels, Marx never called it a "dictator Waten has been an Australian ever ship of the proletariat.” Avineri’s de since. lo r some time in the 1930’s he scription of the stand Marx, as a leader lived in London and in 1958 he visited of the International, took on practical the land of his birth for the first time, issues shows Marx to be a far more as a member of an Australian writers’ cautious revolutionary than his pre delegation. Professor Manning Clark, sent “disciples” might believe. In fact one of the other members of that dele the relation between marxian theory gation published his impressions some and its practical implications is seen years ago in a book called Meeting by Avineri to point to a basic weak Soviet Man, and now Mr. Waten, who ness. The theory which called for a has since 1958 revisited the USSR sev proletarian movement could not guide eral times, has published a sort of it without vulgarisation of the theory. composite account of his Russian ex The political movements "had to periences. emancipate themselves from many of the most outstanding and brilliant of From Odessa to Odessa describes the Marx’s intellectual achievements and Watens’ journey to the USSR, the long replace them by simplified vulgarisa train journey from Berlin through tions and a wholly uncritical rever country-side that still shows the scars ence towards the father of the move of the German advance and retreat in ment.” (p.251) But Avineri is right the last war, their experiences in Mos here only if Marx is wrong about cow: the meetings with Yevtushenko man. Authoritarian political struct and Ehrenburg, the visits to the theatre ures cannot bring socialism, but are and the lunches at the Writers’ Union. these the only possible structures for T he rest of their trip to Odessa is re revolutionaries whose associations with counted via Leningrad and Kiev, and one another should represent those of again they meet and talk with writers the state of affairs for which they and prominent Jewish intellectuals. strive? Obviously the visiting Australian writ 74 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW December, 1969 er was something of a celebrity in the him can still be regarded as viable; USSR, and this sentence, describing simply that “it isn’t good policy to the Watens’ arrival in Kiev, is a good jail promising poets who happen to be indication of the sort of people they unorthodox." met: “Quite a delegation was waiting for us, including Mr. Kazimirov from There is no mention of Sinyavsky the foreign department of the Ukrain and Daniel, the two most widely pub ian Writer's Union and Yechiel Falik- licised jailed writers, at all. Perhaps man the Yiddish novelist.” A few pages their case wasn’t “good policy” either, later a conversation between Waten, a but they are still in prison. Ukrainian journalist and Kazimirov is As Mr. Waten says at the end of recounted: his book: “I did not think that the “The poet-journalist said rather an Soviet Union had solved the problem grily: ‘Yevtushenko’s Babi Yar is a of the relationship that should exist memorial, a finer more living memorial between a Socialist society and its crea than a monument. Everybody can see tive artists.” it, in all lands. Where in the West has L e o n C a n t r e l l a famous poet mourned the loss of five million Jews? If I am not wrong the much celebrated English poet T. THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN S. Eliot wrote an anti-semitic poem FOREIGN POLICY: AN before the war. Didn't he write: ANALYSIS OF POWER AND The rats are underneath the piles PURPOSE, by Gabriel Kolko. The jew is underneath the lot. Beacon Press (Boston), Kazimirov said: 166 pp., $US5.95. ‘There is a new book written about SEVERAL YEARS AGO a young Amer Babi Yar by Anatoly Kuznetsov.’ ican radical scholar Gabriel Kolko I had not heard of Kuznetsov. He briefly held a lectureship in economic was very talented the poet-journalist history at the University of Melbourne. said. We must look out for his book.” Rather strange developments were then taking place in the department In view of what has happened to Kuz «nd he soon resigned to return to the netsov presumably since this book went United States where he has since emerg to press, this is a quite remarkable ed as one of the New Left’s most bril passage. The defection to the West, liant historians. His Wealth and Power the widely publicised and bitter de in America, (1962) effectively challeng nunciation of conditions under which ed and demolished the “income revolu Soviet writers must work, these events tion” myth celebrated by such well- are not foreseen by such a passage; known bourgeois economists as J. K. nor, in fact, by the book as a whole. Galbraith and Simon Kuznets. There is a discussion of a young poet, Unfortunately, it was in a few places Joseph Brodsky, “who had first been marred by the pathological anti-Com- sentenced to five years forced labor munism of the American social-demo and exile and later released after serv cratic group around Dissent with which ing less than eighteenth months”, and he was associated at the time. The ex Mr. Waten speaks strongly of the sort tensive bibliography did not refer to of anti-Communist effect such actions the work of any Marxist or Left social produce in the West, even among left scientists who had previously covered ist elements. Unfortunately we are not the same ground, e.g. Victor Perlo’s told why Brodsky was sent to prison The Income ‘Revolution’ (1954) and C. or to what extent the charges against Wright Mills’ The Power Elite (1956). 75 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW December, 1969
His The Triumph of Conservatism America. It is the final arbiter and (1963) demonstrated that big business beneficiary of the existing structure of was one of the main driving forces of American society and politics at home the statist dynamic in twentieth- and of United States power in the century America. More recently, in world. The Politics of War (1968), Professor In Chapter Two it is shown how the Kolko presented a brilliant critique of economic ruling class have utilised the the liberal accounts of the origins of Military Establishment as a tool for the postwar Cold War put forward in advancing their own interests. Busi the past by D. F. Fleming, Frederick nessmen and their political cohorts L. Schuman et al. have defined the limits within which In The Roots of American Foreign the military formulates strategy, ex Policy Kolko has demonstrated that tending their values and definitions American barbarism in Vietnam can of reality over docile generals. The only be comprehended in the larger sources of American foreign and mili context of the relations of the United tary policy are not a mythical “military- States to the Third World. Superfluous industrial complex” but civilian auth notions of capriciousness and chance ority and civilian-defined goals. C. as the causal elements in American for Wright Mills and other radicals who eign and military policy must be eli popularised the notion of the "military- minated from the analytic framework industrial complex” were seriously at of the scholar. The logical and deliber fault in not realising that the military ative aspects of American power at conforms to the needs of economic in terests. Of course, other Left critics of home and its interest abroad show the Mills, such as Paul Sweezy, have pre irrelevance of the notions of accident viously shown that the military serves and innocence in explaining the appli the purposes of capitalists and poli cations of American power throughout ticians but Kolko’s critique is more the Third World. fully worked out and richly docu To understand policy one must know mented. the policy-makers and define their ideo A discussion of the United States and logical view and their background. w e ld economic power follows in Chap This Kolko does superbly in Chapter ter Three. It is shown that American One where political power in Ameri objectives and interests lead to global can society is shown to be an aspect interventionism. This gives some ra of economic power. Bourgeois plural tional basis for understanding the ob ist theory, stressing the diversity and jectives of the United States in Viet conflict within the ranks of business nam which is dealt with in Chapter and politicians, simply leads to amoebic Four. Vietnam grotesquely highlights descriptions of the phenomenon of the interests and objectives of the men inter-business rivalry in a manner that of power who direct America’s foreign obscures the much more significant di policy. It is, to quote the author, “a mensions of common functions and futile effort to contain the irrepressible objectives. The American ruling class belief that men can control their own controls the major policy options and fates and transform their own societies, the manner in which the state applies a notion that is utterly incompatible its power. That disagreements on the with an integrated world system order options occur within the ruling class ed to benefit the United States’ material is less consequential than that they welfare.” circumscribe the political universe. This work is polemical scholarship This dominant class determines the at its best. nature and objectives of power in J o h n P l a y f o r d 76