PARTISAN REVIEW
595
restoration. They must certainly be grasped as a new phenomenon, not
to be assimilated with any past form. But how does he know that this is a
"transitory" society on the path toward a "genuine" socialism? Since
he refers to the early Marxian notion of socialism he cannot fail to
notice that, measured with these criteria, the existing "socialist" slavery
is more remote from the Marxian utopia (labor as self-expression; free
creativity of all; self-management of the society, etc. ) than any bourgeois
democracy. To say that individuals of privileged strata do not derive
their position from their previous individual property and that there–
fore the class division is less sharp is not a convincing argument, since
this is what may be said about the bureaucracies of old oriental satra–
pies : the position of subordinated members of the oppressive apparatus
depended rather on the whims of their superiors, not on their property.
One wonders what is peculiarly socialist (or "more socialist") in this
system. And what historical law assures us that the "real" socialism and
the "real" workers' power will emerge from this regime? How does the
author know that the revolutionary socialist idea dominates the mass
consciousness in so-called socialist countries, since all the evidence shows
that the real forces of disintegration in those countries come from
national consciousness, material demands, liberal claims and Western
models? (I am not saying that 1 am happy about this ; 1 am saying
that this is what happens to be.) To answer to this that people have
the "false consciousness" is only to give opportunity to more unsolvable
questions: who decides about the distinction between false and "correct"
consciousness, and on what basis? Who is in the enviable position of
having a guarantee that his own consciousness is not false? And why
should it be certain or even likely that the "correct" consciousness - as
conceived in the mind of a prophet or a leader - is ultimately bound
to prevail? 1 do not find good answers to these questions.
1 am certainly simplifying, but not distorting. the content of this
book when I say that it supplies us with good examples of four basic
variants of Marxist dogmatism : the Stalinist (Mr. Johnstone), the
Trotskyist (Mr. Mandel), the Leninist (Mr. Krasso ) and the Marx–
ian proper (Mr. Arthur ). Consequently. all disputants share a certain
common stock of beliefs which, they think, are so obviously true that no
further inquiry is needed . This is what makes their discussion less ex–
citing to less pious minds.
Leszek Kolakowski
