Soviet Marxism A CRITICAL ANALYSIS By Herbert Marcuse 4" NEW YORK \tlf/ COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS The transliteration system used in this series is based on the Library of Congress system, with some modifications COPYRIGHT © 1958 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK First printing 1958 Fourth printing 1969 Published in Great Britain by Routledf^e Sc Kegan Paul Ltd. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 57-10943 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Acknowledgments THE FIRST PART of this work is the result of my studies as a Senior Fellow at the Russian Institute, Columbia Uni- versity, during the years 1952-53. The second part was prepared at the Russian Research Center, Harvard Uni- versity, in 1954-55, under a special grant from the Rocke- feller Foundation. I am much indebted to the Russian Re- search Center, and especially to its Director, William L. Langer, and Associate Director, Marshall D. Shulman, for their kindness in relinquishing to Columbia University Press their publication rights to the second part. I also wish to express my thanks to George L. Kline, Columbia University, who prepared some of the material used in the second part of this essay; to Alfred E. Senn, for his assistance with Russian references; and to Arkadii R. L. Gurland, who offered valuable help and comments. My friend, Barrington Moore, Jr., read the manuscript and helped me as usual with his incisive criticism. The index was prepared by Maud Hazeltine. HERBERT MARCUSE Brandeis University June, 1957 Contents Introduction 1 Part I: Political Tenets 1. The Marxian Concept of the Transition to Socialism 17 2. Soviet Marxism: The Basic Self-Interpretation 38 3. The New Rationality 78 4. Socialism in One Country? 93 5. The Dialectic of the Soviet State 101 6. Base and Superstructure—Reality and Ideology 120 7. Dialectic and Its Vicissitudes 136 8. The Transition from Socialism to Communism 160 Part II: Ethical Tenets 9. Western and Soviet Ethics: Their Historical Relation 195 10. Soviet Ethics—The Externalization of Values 210 11. The Principles of Communist Morality 231 12. Ethics and Productivity 248 13. The Trend of Communist Morality 258 Index 269 Soviet Marxism Introduction THIS STUDY attempts to evaluate some main trends of Soviet Marxism in terms of an "immanent critique," that is to say it starts from the theoretical premises of Soviet Marxism develops their ideological and sociological consequences and reexamines the premises in the light of these conse quences. The critique thus employs the conceptual instru ments of its object, namely, Marxism, in order to clarify the actual function of Marxism in Soviet society and its historical direction. This approach implies a twofold as- sumption: (1) That Soviet Marxism (i.e., Leninism, Stalinism, and post-Stalin trends) is not merely an ideology promul- gated by the Kremlin in order to rationalize and justify its policies but expresses in various forms the realities of Soviet developments. If this is the case, then the extreme poverty and even dishonesty of Soviet theory would not vitiate the basic importance of Soviet theory but would itself provide a cue for the factors which engendered the obvious theoretical deficiencies; (2) That identifiable objective trends and tendencies are operative in history which make up the inherent ra- tionality of the historical process. Since this assumption is 2 Introduction easily misrepresented as acceptance of Hegelian meta- physics, a few words may be said in the way of defense and explanation. Belief in objective historical "laws" is indeed at the very core of Hegel's philosophy. To him, these laws are the manifestation of Reason—a subjective and objective force, operating in the historical actions of men and in the ma- terial and intellectual culture. History is thus at one and the same time a logical and teleological process, namely, progress (in spite of relapses and regressions) in the con- sciousness and the realization of Freedom. The sequence in the principal stages of civilization is thereby ascent to higher forms of humanity—quantitative and qualitative growth. Marx has retained this basic notion while modify- ing it in a decisive sense: history progresses through the development of the productive forces, which is progress, not in the realization of Freedom, but in the creation of the prerequisites of Freedom; they remain mere prerequisites in the interest of class society. Thus, for Marx, history is certainly not the manifestation of Reason but much rather the opposite; Reason pertains only to the future of class- less society as a social organization geared to the free de- velopment of human needs and faculties. \^'Tiat is history to Hegel is still prehistory to Marx. The assumption of historical laws can be separated from all teleology. Then it means that the development of a specific social system, and the changes which lead from one social system to another, are determined by the structure which the respective society has given itself, that is to say, by the basic division and organization of social labor, and Introduction 3 that the political and cultural institutions are generated by and correspond to this basic division and organization. The manifold dimensions and aspects of societal life are not a mere sum-total of facts and forces but constitute a clearly identifiable unit so that long range developments in any one dimension must be comprehended in their relation to the "base." On the ground of such structural unity, con- secutive social systems can be distinguished from one an- other as essentially different forms of society whose gen- eral direction of development is in a demonstrable sense "predetermined" by its origins. The very impossibility to fix an exact date (even within a century or more) when the one social system ends and the other begins (for exam- ple, feudalism and capitalism) indicates the underlying trend which transforms one system into another. The new society emerges within the framework of the old, through definable changes in its structure—changes which are cumulative until the essentially different structure is there. In the last analysis there are no "extraneous" causes in this chain, for all apparently outside factors and events (such as discoveries, invasions, the impact of far distant forces) will affect the social structure only if the ground is prepared for them, for example, if they "meet" cor- responding developments within the respective society or if they meet social wants and needs (as the barbarian in- flux into the weakened Roman empire, or as the influence of international trade and commerce and of the discoveries on the internally changing feudal societies from the thir- teenth to the sixteenth century). The basic form of societal reproduction, once institu- 4 Introduction tionalized, determines the direction of development not only within the respective society but also beyond it. In this sense the historical process is rational and irreversible. As an example of the development within: The present stage of Western industrial society, with its increasing pri- vate and governmental regulation of the economy (in other words, with its increasing political economy and culture) appears as the "logical," i.e., inherent, outcome of the free enterprise and free competition prevalent at the pre- ceding stage. No Marxist categories are necessary in order to elucidate the connection between the concentration of economic power and the corresponding political and cul- tural changes on the one hand and the capitalistic utiliza- tion of growing productivity of labor and technical progress on the other. As an example of the development beyond: The emergence of the feudal system from the basic institu- tions of the agricultural economy in the late Roman empire under the impact of the barbarian tribal-military organiza- tion provides perhaps the clearest example of inherent his- torical rationality and irreversibility. By the same token, it seems a reasonable anticipation that, whatever the next stage of industrial civilization may be, the basic institu- tions of large-scale mechanized industry and the explosive growth of the productivity of labor commanded by it will bring about political and cultural institutions irrevocably different from those of the liberalist period—a historical tendency which is likely to supersede some of the present most conspicuous differences between the Western and the Soviet system. This brief outline of the notion of objective historical Introduction 5 laws may serve to show the ateleological character of the hypothesis. It implies no purpose, no "end" toward which history is moving, no metaphysical or spiritual Reason underlying the process—only its institutional determina- tion. Moreover, it is a historical determination, that is to say, it is not in any sense "automatic." Within the institu- tional framework which men have given themselves in in- teraction with the prevailing natural and historical condi- tions, the development proceeds through the action of men —they are the historical agents, and theirs are the alterna- tives and decisions. In applying the hypothesis to the interpretation of Soviet Marxism, one qualification imposes itself from the beginning. It seems that the determining trend cannot be defined merely in terms of the structure of Soviet society, but that it must be defined in terms of the interaction be- tween Soviet and Western society. Even the most cursory survey of Soviet Marxism is confronted with the fact that at almost every turn in the development Soviet theory (and Soviet policy) reacts to a corresponding Western develop- ment and vice versa. This seems self-evident and hardly worth mentioning were it not for the fact that it is usually taken too lightly, taken into account merely with respect to diplomacy and propaganda, or understood as arrange- ments of expediency, short-term adjustments, and so on. However, the interaction seems to go much further and to express an essential link between the two conflicting sys- tems, thus affecting the very structure of Soviet society.