ALEKSANDER GELLA

T H E C H A N G I N G R O L E OF I N T E L L E C T U A L S IN T H E R E V O L U T I O N A R Y

ORDER

In addressing the place of 'intellectuals' in the 'revolutionary order', it would be well to first define terms. In particular it is necessary to clear up some confusion in sociological and political literature between the term 'intellectuals' and the term 'intelligentsia'. There is an essential difference between these two groups of people. In short, 'intellectuals' designates collectively the members of certain occupations, while 'intelligentsia' is a social stratum encompassing among others the intellectuals together with their wives and children. 1 Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoi, for example, is called "an intellectual among the intelligentsia in prerevolutionary Russia", and the author of a book about him wrote: "The distinction between the intelligentsia and the intellectuals is always tenuous and depends as much on the person using the characterization as upon the object of the discussion." 2 At the turn of the century, the Russian and Polish intelligentsia possessed such a high standard of general education that the revolutionary intellectuals differed from the members of the intelligentsia only by some particular specialization. For example, although Lenin and Trotsky were intellectuals, they were primarily Russian intelligenty, whereas Bogdanov 3 and Lunacharsky 4 were intelligenty but primarily intellectuals. It was a matter of degree. We should remember that while intellectuals in their main role as "the explorer of the sacred"S do revolutionize social life (even when they are the most faithful supporters of the establishment), the intelligentsia may or may not be revolutionary, depending on social and historical circumstances, and never as an entire stratum. Nevertheless, in certain cases we have to treat intellectuals and the intelligentsia collectively. In revolutionary movements (particularly that of the Marxist type), the entire stratum was needed to prepare the ground for the revolution, as well as - later to construct the new social order. The intellectuals have been recruited mostly from the intelligentsia both before and after the revolution. Therefore in this analysis we do not need to distinguish too carefully between those two categories.

Studies in Soviet Thought 29 (1985), 1-10. 0039-3797/85/0291-0001 $01.00. © 1985 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.

2

ALEKSANDER GELLA

A term which also needs to be defined is 'revolution'. Out of many types o f revolution, that of interest here is political revolution. Among a number of existing definitions let us choose a simple one, which says that political revolution is a "Large-scale change in the leadership o f a society (or of some fundamental part or institution of society, such as the political institution) and a successful restructuring of those aspects of society in a way deemed in the interests of the new ruling class. ''6 It indicates two stages of revolution: first, an upheaval, and second, the construction of the new revolutionary order. For our purposes we have to consider one previous stage of revolution. It is the social and political ferment which makes the very act of revolution possible. Thus, if there are these three stages o f revolution, then the role of intellectuals is the most significant in this first stage which paves the way for revolutionary change. The greatest enigma of any political revolution is the fact that the three different stages of revolution need three different types of actors, three different mentalities of revolutionary intellectuals, related to the particular needs of the three stages of revolution: preparation, upheaval and stabilization of the revolutionary order. The great French Revolution can serve as a classical example. It was prepared for a long time by intellectuals; it was carried out by the leaders of the masses; and finally certain achievements of the Revolution were permanently fixed with the help of a n e w generation of intellecuals under the Convention and later under Napoleon (who is often treated as the gravedigger of the French Revolution, but who also defended and saved the basic revolutionary changes and spread revolutionary ideas over all Europe). Alexis de Tocqueville, one of those few French aristocrats well known in the United States, noted: The French made surprising advances in the exact sciences at the very time when they were finishing the destruction of the remains of their former feudal society. 7 More than a century later, Lewis S. Feuer, an American sociologist, wrote about the period o f French history during which the essential achievements of revolution were evident: France in the early nineteenth century shone with the lustre of Laplace, Lagrange, Poneelet, Ampere, Fresnel, Monge, and Berthollet . . . . The scientific intellectual in France assumed a position of eminence he had never known in any other country . . . .

INTELLECTUALS AND REVOLUTION

3

In France, the scientific elite provided the cabinet ministers for the political elite; Lazare Carrot, the mathematician, brilliantly organized armies under the Convention, and later served Napoleon as Minister of War; Chaptel, the chemist, Lavoisier's friend, was Minister of the Interior; George Cuvier, the renowned paleontologist, served as Minister of Public Instruction; Joseph Fourier was prefect of L'Isgre and a Count of the Empire; and eminent Laplace was President of the Senate. 8 Nevertheless, Count Tocqueville was right, as we know today, when he concluded his observation: "What happened at that period was a special incident and it would be unwise to regard it as the test o f a general principle." 9 (Let us make a digression though. This historical example of the successful service of the intellectuals in governmental positions should effectively give answer to all consciously or unconsciously anti-democratic speakers who in various ways repeat the German slogan: "Acht-und-achtzig Professoren? Vaterland, du bist verloren.") The example of the French Revolution is, however, not typical in the history of revolutions. If we take into account the twentieth century revolutions: Russian, Yugoslavian, Chinese, Cuban and many others, we can notice that the same people who prepared the revolution were the main actors o f the revolutionary violence and later built the revolutionary order o f their new states. In other words, the same revolutionists have played three social roles: the role of the intellectuals who propagated (or even developed) a new ideology, and were able to exercise a powerful influence on that part of their society, which was inclined to listen to or read the works of revolutionary intellectuals; then the role of actual leaders of revolutionary upheaval and finally the role of administrators of a new society that emerged from the ruins of the old one. One should be a man o f thought as well as a man of action, and in the end a man of great administrative talent to be a good actor in all three phases of revolution. These qualities, however, are rather incompatible and usually do not coexist within the same individual, although some exceptions to this rule are known. The intellectuals who serve revolutionary ideas, who prepare the ground for a deep social change should and often actually do possess great intellectual ability. Their educational training, however, usually deprives them of the more instinctive talent o f action. Intellectual reflection creates within a human being an inclination to doubt and to hesitate. The great virtue o f a man of thought is carefulness; he tries to liberate himself from emotions

4

ALEKSANDER GELLA

and the more objective his statements are the more probable are his successes. The career of an intellectual depends, in large extent, upon his respect for scientific procedure and avoidance of unverified theories. He must trust only his own independent mind and be most suspicious in dealing with ideologies, even when they appeal to him because of his social background, life's experience, religious views etc. The intellectual of the preparatory period of the revolution is often characterized by a 'double personality': that of scholar, scientist or thinker, and that of politician. The grandfather of the Communist Revolution, Karl Marx, was the best example of this double intellectual personality. As a thinker and a scientist, which he wanted to be, he kept over his desk a Latin watchword for all thinkers: "de omnibus dubitandum" (one should doubt everything). But as a revolutionary politician, he neither hesitated to use emotionally loaded slogans nor avoided presenting his views without any shadow of doubt as a final, unquestionable answer to the contemporary and future social problems of mankind. Most of the revolutionary intellectuals have inherited this double personality. However, to be convincing and influence others in the conditions of a more or less democratic, prerevolutionary society, they have to observe the principles of scholarly procedure and appeal to reason rather than to emotions, when they work beyond their revolutionary groups. Sometimes the mixture of scientific work with value-loaded and strongly appealing emotional statements produces a highly explosive message or an ideology. Marx' works are the most convincing example of how this kind of mixture may be powerful. (I do not diminish the greatness of Marx' social analysis, but am only pointing out the fact that Marx the philosopher lived with Marx the politician in the same body.) Another type of intellectual is most needed for the period of the violent act of revolution. He should possess quite different characteristics. His intellectual capacities are important, but psychologically he must be a man of action who does not doubt or hesitate. He should be ready to commit any violence, to be rough in dealing with his political opposition and enemies. Not carefulness but courage, not objectivity but total attachment to his political ideology - should dominate his character. He should be ready to answer all questions and solve all problems without losing time for scientific certainty. He is led by the goals which he desires to achieve. In contrast to the intellectual needed for the preparatory stage of revolution, he should not be afraid to use slogans, as he knows that his career depends upon direct

INTELLECTUALS AND REVOLUTION

5

achievements and not the expression o f well-balanced views. He does not need to hide his emotion and strong attachment to a political ideology. He should be able to manipulate people, and in the name o f revolution forget about their individual freedom, human rights and all other decadent products of the bourgeois society. Of course, he must believe that this is only a temporary state of mind and a suspension of the ideals for which the revolution is conducted. The demands of the Party and the prescription for the intellectuals' social role in the second and the third periods of revolution are similar and in some points even identical. In 1905, Lenin instructed the writers: Literature must be Party literature . . . . Down with non-partisan literature! Down with superman literature! Literature must become a part of the general cause of the proletariat, 'a small cog and a small screw in the social-democratic mechanism, one and indivisible - a mechanism set in motion by the entire conscious vanguard of the whole working class'. 1o This directive was extended to science, as well, after 1917 - a particular merit of Stalin. The intellectual became a soldier of that deadly disciplined army: the Communist Party. The new revolutionary order needs and most highly appreciates a third type of intellectual. Not courage but obedience is one of his fundamental characteristics. He participates in the restructuring of the social system according to the blueprint of a victorious ideology. He also does not need to search for objectivity. More important than his intellectual criticism is his 'talent' for adapting his personal views to the needs o f the new regime which he is serving. The higher his position in political institutions, the more appreciated are his administrative capabilities. In this stage of revolution the talent of interpretation and popularization of political ideology is more important than originality. Independent views are harmful to his personal career, as well as to the imposition of political dogmas on the entire society. If his intellectual skill were to bring him to a position in the decision-making centers, then he should possess a sense o f order and justice, not from a universal standpoint, however, but from the dogmatic viewpoint of the victorious revolution. The social role of the intellectual at this stage of revolution is "restricted by its role expectation, obedience to the demands and wishes of the power elite". 11 Using medical terminology and analogies one can say that the intellectual

6

ALEKSANDER GELLA

of the preparatory period of revolution should be able to make a critical diagnosis of his society. The intellectual participating actively in the violent upheaval should possess some characteristics of a surgeon, i.e., not be afraid of a bloody operation. The intellectual of the last period should behave like a specialist in rehabilitation. One can rightly say that we have outstanding examples of intellectuals who served well in all three stages of revolution. There is no doubt, at least, as concerns Lenin and Mao. But who can deny that they were unique personalities? The question of how successfully they played all three roles of the intellectual does not belong to our consideration. Studying intellectuals as a social group we can defend the thesis that their role in the three stages of revolution presents a serious social problem, worthy of sociological consideration. The intellectuals who work to prepare the revolution need to have a talent for sharp criticism. It is intellectual criticism which leads them to support or join the revolutionary parties. However, the deeper their involvement in revolutionary activity, the less faithful they can be to the principle of intellectual procedure. Marxism - the main revolutionary theory of our times, solves the problem with the help of dialectics, at least in the eyes of Marxists. This method absolves ideological believers from the accusation of betrayal of the principles of intellectual procedure when the procedure comes into conflict with the political demands of the revolution. However, this solution helps revolutionary intellectuals only psychologically. Socioeconomic reality is less susceptible to the logic of dialectics which proposes to explain and to build the world while discarding the principle of noncontradiction. Adam Schaff, a Marxist philosopher, himself a victim and user of this method for years, alleged in 1955 that Hegel led Marx, Engels and Lenin astray by imposing on them his conviction that there are no differences between logical contradictions and dialectical oppositions. 12 The fact that in every object and phenomenon of nature one can find antagonistic forces or tendencies does not mean that 'yes' can be 'no' at the same place and time. The conflicting roles of the revolutionary intellectuals are common to all revolutions. They appear with particular strength in all Marxist revolutions because the intellectuals were involved in this type of revolution by the very nature of the Marxist movement, and by the promises which this revolution offered to the intellectuals particularly. The great promises of

INTELLECTUALS AND REVOLUTION

7

Marxist ideology have corrupted intellectuals during the process of revolution. They were corrupted equally by flattering promises concerning their role in the revolutionary process and especially in the future Marxist state, and by the promises of the great romantic dream of the final liberation of mankind from the contradictions of its social existence. Marxism is the first concept of social order since Plato which has offered power to the intellectuals. Marxists - by the nature of the movement have to be philosophers of a sort. 13 Although Marx and his followers used the slogan 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a 'derivation' of great appeal to the masses, it was obvious even to some revolutionaries that the proletariat had to exercise its 'dictatorship' only by placing it in the hands of the Party leadership) 4 The Platonic idea of 'philosopher-kings' was revitalized, although the followers of modern Communism could not openly speak of this consequence of the Marxist revolution. It was unavoidable that a movement of the masses based on a highly intellectual system of ideas had to place power into the hands of a tiny group of 'philosophers'. (The fact that their 'philosophy' rejected philosophy in favor of politics is another matter.) The internal drama of the Marxist restructuring of the society that emerged from the ruins of the revolution, is a political process during which the intellectual-politicians are struggling for power. By the nature of political struggle, the victors are those who are more politicians than intellectuals. It happens on all levels of power. As a result, the Marxist states are run by those who use Marxist philosophy as a smoke-screen for their drive for power. Even before the Russian Revolution there were revolutionists who like Machayski, ~s realized, that the future Communist state would be built up not for the proletariat but for the intelligentsia, because it has been the intelligentsia, who have occupied all significant positions within the Party apparatus and would build up the Communist social order according to its own taste and interest. Such views had no chance of hampering the course of events. The point is that Marxist revolutions have been and, in the future, will be carried out by intellectuals who will use the workers, peasants, students or clerks, depending upon historical circumstances. Today even more than in the past, the Marxist type of revolution needs intellectuals. It was so sixty years ago and it is even more so today, because of the complexity of modern industry and because of the dependency of technological civilization upon high levels of specialized knowledge.

8

ALEKSANDER GELLA

Marxist revolutions have so many supporters among intellectuals because they see opportunities in a system which not only promises to build a scientific socialism, one in which everything is based on scientific knowledge, but which needs thousands of educated people for planning institutions, where all social policy is expected to be the implementation of Marxist philosophy. In 1910 Leon Trotsky wrote: The biggest influx of intellectuals into the socialist movement - and this applies to all countries in Europe - took place in the first period of the party's existence, when it was still in its childhood. This first wave brought with it the most outstanding theoreticians and politicians of the International.16 If later, especially after 1917, this wave of intellectual supporters decreased, this has been a result of our knowledge about what happened to the intellectuals and the entire stratum of the intelligentsia after the revolution. We do not need to refer to all the well-known political trials and the terror o f the Stalinist period. It is more instructive to analyse the general situation of the intellectual in the service of political institutions in the third stage of the revolution. According to the Marxist view any public institution has political character and cannot be excluded from the political control of the Party. Thus, the intellectuals who first criticized and fought against the old establishment, should now change their character, as well as the principles of intellectual conduct. However, not everyone is able to subjugate himself to orders, even those of his own Party. Those who try to be faithful to themselves and continue to work independently, as an intellectual should, have no chance. Even the Party intellectuals if they oppose the policy imposed by the collective or central power on their own sphere of activity or profession risk physical liquidation or a transfer to a position in which their activity has no social significance. Their fate depends upon the period of time: terror, 'thaw', or 'small stabilization'. Many intellectuals - as well as the majority of the committed intelligentsia who did not accept the new ideology - were condemned to at least compulsory silence by rough administrative measures. More interesting i s what happens to those who accept the "law o f absolute affirmation". 17 They pass through an interesting process of total corruption because their support for the revolution and post-revolutionary social reconstruction did not guarantee their personal careers. Therefore,

INTELLECTUALS AND REVOLUTION

9

they had to develop in themselves some new characteristics: moral and intellectual flexibility. They have to be like good theatrical performers, ready to e m b o d y any role demanded b y the political authority, is During the Stalinist period in Eastern Europe, they were called 'courtiers', for like the members o f a royal court each possessed " . . . a talent for flattery, blind obedience, and a highly developed capacity to avoid a collision between his courteous service and his professional ideas". 19 These traits have been the most important for the members o f the revolutionary intellectuals in the last stage of the revolution. When is the end of this period? When Marxist revolutionary reconstruction is completed? The answer to these questions depends upon one's ideological standpoint. Closing these remarks let me point out that even in the country under the most pragmatic and perhaps most successful Communism, Yugoslavia, one of the greatest revolutionary intellectuals, a founder o f the Yugoslavian Communist state, cannot publish in his own country, and spent nine years in prison for his independent views. 2° NOTES 1 See: A. Gella: 'An Introduction to the Sociology of the Intelligentsia', in A. Gella (ed.): The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals, Theory, Method and Case Study, Sage Publications, London, England and Beverly Hills, California, 1976. Martha Bohachevsky-Chomak: Sergei N. Trubetskoi, An Intellectual Among the Intelligentsia in Prerevolutionary Russia, Nordland Publishing Co., Belmont, Mass., 1976. 3 Alexander Bogdanov (1873-1928) professionally a physician. As a philosopher he formulated a theory of 'empiriomonism'. One of the earliest revisionists of Marxism. 4 Anatol V. Lunacharsky (1875-1933), philosopher; author of Outlines of Collective Philosophy, 1909. s Paul Clay Sorum: Intellectuals and Decolonization in France, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1977, p. 12. 6 George A. Theodorson and Schiller G. Theodorson: A Modem Dictionary o f Sociology, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1969, p. 349. 7 Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, New York, 1953, Vol. 2, p. 42. s Lewis S. Feuer: The Scienttfic Intellectual: The Psychological and Sociological Origins o f Modern Science, Basic Books Inc., New York and London, 1963, p. 276. 9 Alexis de Tocqueville, ibid., p. 43. lo I. V. Lenin inNovaia Zhizn', Nov. 1905. 11 Aleksander Gella and BogdanMieczkowski: 'Reflexions on Intellectual Independence of Scientists in Eastern Europe', Nationalities Papers, Vol. VI, No. 1, p. 59. 12 Adam Schaff, 'Dialektiyka marksistowska i zasada sprzeczno~ci', Studia Filozoficzne, 1955.

10

ALEKSANDER GELLA

13 Aleksander Gella: 'Le conflict entre l'61ite dirigeante et ~lite culturelle: l'exemple de l'Europe de l'Est', Revue d'~tudes comparatives est-ouest 9, No. 3, 1978. 14 Lenin: What Is to Be Done? (published 1902). 15 Waclaw Machajaski (1866-1926), a Polish revolutionist, pseudonym A. Wolskij, his most important work Umstvienny] Raboczij (Mental Worker). See: 'Machajski: The Anti-Intellectual Tradition', Survey 62, Jan. 1967. 16 Leon Trotsky: The Intelligentsia and Socialism, New Park Publications, London, 1966 (a review written for the St. Petersburgh review Sovremenny Mir in 1910, of Der Sozialismus und die Intellektuellen, by Max Adler, Vienna, 1910). 17 Jacek Bochehski tried to justify the behavior of the young Communist intelligentsia during the Stalinist period as obedient to this 'law' in an article published in Przeglad Kulturalny 36, Warsaw, 1956. My answer to this was an article 'Sprawy Ludzi Opornych', Zycie Literackie 49/254, Krak6w, Dec. 2nd, 1956. 18 See: Czeslaw Milosz: The Captive Mind, Knopf, New York 1953. 19 A. Gella, B. Mieczkowski, op. cit., p. 59. 20 Leopold Unger: 'Widziane z Brukseli i z Belgradu', Kultura 3/390, 1980, pp. 11-31 (concerning Milovan Djilas).

Sociology Department, SUNY, Buffalo, N Y 14261, U.S.A.