Book reviews
To cite this article: Alan Milchman , Joseph L. Walsh , Fred Evans , Randy Martin , Frank
Rosengarten , Felipe Pimentel , Gilbert Schrank , Richard Stauffer & Peter T. Manicas (1987) Book
reviews, Socialism and Democracy, 3:1, 169-200, DOI: 10.1080/08854308908427980
Article views: 10
The translation of the three massive volumes of Ernst Bloch's The Prin-
ciple of Hope, and its "appendix" on natural law, finally makes accessible
to English speaking readers the theories of a philosopher closely as-
sociated with the pivotal figures in the development of the Hegelianized
Marxism that intellectually dominated the late 1960's and the 1970's.
Bloch and Georg Lukacs were youthful philosophical friends in Ger-
many during their formative years just before and during World War I.
Some of Lukacs' most important theoretical debates, over History And
Class Consciousness in the 1920's and the expressionism debate of the
1930's, involved Bloch. In Weimar Germany, Bloch was an important
influence on Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno, who had re-
placed Lukacs as his closest philosophical partners. Herbert Marcuse
acknowledged the profound impact that Bloch's writings had on him
during the 192 O's.
However, if Bloch were simply one of the founding figures of what
Merleau-Ponty termed "Western Marxism," the translation of his work
would hardly constitute the major intellectual event that it is, coming at
a time when that tradition has largely exhausted itself theoretically.
Today, key figures from within the tradition of Hegelianized Marxism
have either completely rejected Marxism (e.g. Lesek Kolakowski) or
turned sharply away from Hegel and Marx in "new" directions (e.g.
Habermas' turn to Mead, Durkheim and Parsons). What makes Bloch
so important is that his work constitutes a thoroughgoing critique of the
very problematic of "Western Marxism," but one made in the name of a
renaissance of Marxism. In fact, Bloch's Marxism, his "open system," is a
refutation of the two basic paradigms that have shaped Marxist dis-
course since the 1920's. A brief—and unavoidably schematic—
presentation of these two paradigms is necessary to constitute a
169
170 Socialism and Democracy
tion of all static conceptions which envisage a fixed and finished content
for the world. Indeed, Bloch insists that the breakthrough made by
Marx is precisely the comprehension of all existence (natural and social)
as process. Bloch's Principle Of Hope has as its basis an "ontology of
not-yet-being," the foundation of which is the primacy of the modal
category of "possibility" over "actuality." It is the fundamental role
given to the category of possibility which marks Bloch's philosophy as a
radical break with the whole Western philosophical tradition, and
which constitutes the ontological basis for socialism, for the break-
through to what has never-yet-existed in history.
In opposition to the rejection of a dialectic in nature characteristic of
"Western Marxism," Bloch puts forward a hylozoic conception of na-
ture, reworking the Renaissance concept of natura naturans into his own
concept of a hypothetical "subject" of nature. On this basis, he argues
that activity, development and possibility belong not only to the human
subject, but to nature as well. As a result, Bloch insists that the world
process (nature and society) constitutes a totality, thereby breaking with
the dualism which has dominated Western philosophy since Descartes
and Kant and which, in the form of a split between the natural and the
social sciences, was bequeathed to Western Marxism by neo-Kantian-
ism and the Lebensphilospbie of Dilthey. This Blochian conception of a
dialectical world process encompassing nature and society has its basis
in Marx' and Engels' assertion that "we know only a single science, the
science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it
into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are
however, inseparable." (The German Ideology) Bloch's conception of a
world process, however, recognizes the specificities of the human and
the natural project as well as their interdependence, and thus rejects the
homogenization of nature and society brought about by Diamat.
Moreover, the Blochian concept of a qualitative—and not just quantita-
tive—nature, worked out in The Principle Of Hope, is a repudiation of the
mechanistic materialism found in Diamat.
In keeping with this conception of a world process, Bloch's Principle
Of Hope moves between the articulation of a Marxist philosophy of
nature and the presentation of a rigorous Marxist philosophical an-
thropology, both grounded in the basic categories of his ontology.
One of the most important elements of Bloch's Marxist theory ar-
ticulated in the pages of The Principle Of Hope is the concept of anticipat-
ory consciousness, which is one of the bases of his philosophical an-
thropology. Bloch begins with the recognition of the fact that mental
172 Socialism and Democracy
able to take the final step and explicitly condemn the Stalinist regimes
as capitalist, socialists today must display no such hesitation.
In the midst of the carnage of World War I, Rosa Luxemburg posed
the stark alternative which faced humanity: socialism or barbarism.
The bloody history of our century led Ernst Bloch to restate this alter-
native at the level of his social theory. However, Bloch also transposed
the alternative of socialism or barbarism onto the level of the world
process itself. According to Bloch, the "world experiment" can end
either in "All" or "Nothing," in the creation of a true "Home" for man
or in the extinction of the human species. Faced with the spectre of
ecological disaster and nuclear holocaust endemic to late capitalism, this
apocalyptic vision of Ernst Bloch coincides with the cold, hard realism
which is one of the components of Marxism. What the Blochian
philosophy can also provide access to is the warm stream of Marxism:
the burning image of the goal of the humanizaiton of nature and the
naturalization of man, no longer an abstract utopia, but in Bloch's terms
an "objective—real possibility" which the struggle of suffering human-
ity can today bring about.
Alan Milchman
Queens College, C.U.N.Y.
Joseph L. Walsh
Stockton State College
During the first half of this century, thinkers such as Wilhelm Reich,
Herbert Marcuse, and Norman O. Brown felt that an amalgam of the
Book Reviews 179
deny it. All Nietzsche's talk about groups dominating one another may be taken
as "images" to elucidate this more profound opposition, and to correctly charac-
terize the class manner in which this opposition has been embodied in most of
human history up to the present day.
People enter social settings uneasily, aware that anything they do can be
labelled and as such might be made socially significant and subject to
interpretation based on information over which they have no clear con-
trol . . . As a result, their orientations to social life are tactical, their
manipulations desperate: they must conceal what they can or be seen as
bearing what may be a 'shameful defect,' or 'stigma,' that would if
disclosed be grounds for their rejection." (p. 116)
In the penultimate chapter on class consciousness, where we might
expect to find the social principle of the society of producers set into a
politics, we are left with critical theories that explain conditions of
domination that result in isolating and competitive individuation with-
out addressing the conditions of collective resistance to that domination.
In this regard, historicizing Goffman and Garfinkel cannot substitute
for an elaboration of the pregnant "society of the producers." Behind
this absence, it would seem, lies a shift in Brown's analytic strategy.
What begins as a problem of totalization (the conditions for realizing an
implicit unity) in the application of value to an historical principle of
labor, shifts to a problem of generalization of individual acts into a
political mobilization. It would seem however that the first eight chap-
ters of the book provide a critique of the prospects of precisely such an
approach. Although Brown subtly and successfully argues against the
premise that such acts could be produced by any psychological process
(conceived of as the agency of autonomous individuals)—they occur in
settings which are always instances of a collectivity—it remains un-
clear, even conceptually, how such moments display evidence of a unify-
ing political mobilization.
What is etched, suggestively and provocatively, at the book's close
however, is a methodological critique that pushes beyond the schisms
and impasses of current Marxisms. The resistance of Marxism and the
academy to the critical insights of ethnomethodology appears
symptomatic of broader impediments to their revision. Marxism's ac-
cessibility to other critical theories is contingent upon the recognition of
the multiple voicings or polyphony to be found in Marx's own work. To
accept the disciplinarization of Marxism implied in the sociology of
tenure and promotion is to risk a curtailment of a dialogue necessary to
the growth of theory and of practice. Conversely, Brown points out that
Marxism has had to be careful of its own success in the academy.
Conventional sociology's borrowing of the categories of consciousness
from Marxism, both elevates the latter to a new paradigm and threatens
to assimilate the Marxist critique.
186 Socialism and Democracy
Randy Martin
Rhodes College
the strength of its pages devoted to a workable political program for late
20th century America. The fundamental and really original contribu-
tion of the book is to be found in the five chapters, based in great part on
skillful interviewing and field work, in which DiFazio conveys the lived
and felt daily experience of 35 high seniority dockworkers on GAI.
DiFazio's findings belie the conventional wisdom of many social
scientists and psychologists concerning the baneful effects of too much
unstructured free time. The book is positively subversive with respect
to the American work ethic. Not only have his tough-talking, fun-loving
subjects not fallen victim to sloth and a loss of identity, but on the
contrary, they have in a sense found themselves through activities that
have brought them a whole new set of rewards. DiFazio makes it clear
that once these men came to realize that automation meant the loss of
solidarity and interdependence that had formerly characterized their
lives as part of a gang of longshoremen, they became unwilling to work
for work's sake, or to enrich the shipowners at their own expense. He
maintains that, as "practical Marxists," these men understood from
their own lived experience what surplus value, exploitation and class
struggle were all about, and refused to accept anything short of the
formula "either work or guaranteed income." Moreover, once the GAI
fight was won (which DiFazio thinks was the result more of workers'
action than of union bargaining or company largesse), the men who are
at center stage in this study discovered that they were capable of becom-
ing involved in family life and community service. They added these
significant realms of activity to their traditional pasttimes such as card-
playing, gambling, socializing and joke-telling.
DiFazio believes that GAI enhanced these men's ability to enjoy life;
it helped them to reconstitute that "community" of interests and shared
values which they had formerly associated only with the work process
itself. In sum, DiFazio's dockworkers learned to thumb their nose at the
work ethic and to relate in a new manner to their neighborhoods, the
schools their children or grandchildren were attending, their homelife.
At the hiring hall, where they must report every morning in order to be
eligible for GAI, they continue to banter, to exchange gossip and news,
to comment disdainfully about the inequities of society, just as they had
always done. The difference lies in their attitudes and self-image, which
no longer depend on the shipping companies, the waterfront commis-
sion, their superiors at the workplace, and the union. They have turned
their backs on Lefebvre's "bureaucratic society of controlled consump-
tion." To an extent, at least, they are masters of their own lives, and
190 Socialism and Democracy
dispose of their time as they see fit, once they "badge out" each morning
from the hiring hall and are free to spend the day as they wish, or as
family and community concerns may determine. In this sense, they
have won a victory of sorts, even if provisional, in the current struggle
for time, which Aronowitz calls "the contested terrain of our age."
DiFazio has written a challenging, unorthodox book. His portrait of
Brooklyn dockworkers is a welcome addition to the literature of social
analysis that thinkers on the American Left have been producing with
impressive consistency since the breakthroughs of the 1960's. Whether
he succeeds in establishing a real linkage between the world of the GAI
dockworkers and the larger socio-political arena of contemporary
America is open to question, as I have tried to suggest above. There is
something appealing in the idea that ordinary workers, without any
evident sources of inspiration and guidance other than their own experi-
ence, can become integral and equal partners in a project of general
emancipation from capitalist domination. Yet I suspect that outside
forces influenced and mediated that experience to a larger degree than
DiFazio would allow. In fact, he alludes now and then to "radicals" in
the ranks of these workers (they are always called "radicals," never
socialists or communists), to a "leftist" newspaper of mysterious origin
called Dockers News, and to the workers' "practical Marxism," (which
implies that Marxism, even if indirectly, has something to do with their
world view), but insists always on the primacy of the workers' subjec-
tive experience and perceptions in shaping their lives. Whatever the case
may be, this is a book that Americans interested in the socialism-
democracy question ought to read. It is a book that lets workers speak
for themselves, and relates what they have to say to the issues that
confront this country at a decisive turning point in its history.
Frank Rosengarten
Queens College, C.U.N.Y.
This is a book about two subjects. On the one hand, it deals with the
relation between the socialist parties and the organization or disorgani-
zation of the workers as a class; on the other, with the relation between
the electoral participation of these parties, and how their historical pos-
sibilities have been conditioned by the strategies pursued once certain
political and sociological preferences were decided. According to the
Book Reviews 191
the next series of choices had to be made within the logic already
established after the first decision was taken. Another dilemma is: why
did the socialist parties, originally working class organizations in a strict
sense, become people's parties after diluting their class appeal and seek-
ing the electoral support of the middle classes? But the really basic
question, as the book wishes to demonstrate, is how and why left-wing
parties have sought a necessary trade-off between the support of work-
ers and the potential middle class voters, depending on the constraints
imposed by the class structures and their internal and external political
environments. The basic assumption is that like other parties the
socialists, as rational political actors, want to win elections too. To do so
they need to find enough electoral support among the available pool of
voters in every new election.
Historically these parties have had to decide whether to pursue a
supra-class electoral strategy or to opt for a primary "class-only" one.
The historical evidence indicates that they had to make one or the other
of these strategical choices, or one after the other, or to find some middle
ground between both. As with other choices previously made, the pos-
sibilities and structure of preferences that these parties encountered in
each electoral campaign were the outcome of strategies they had
adopted in the past. The authors point out that:
Another central question addressed by the book is: why did the
socialist vote stagnate after an initial burst of growth? The most obvious
answer is that the workers never became a majority and the choices
available to the socialist parties were constrained by the class structure.
This was the historical context in which a trade-off had to be sought
between support from the workers and support expected from non-
workers. Put in simpler terms, the problem was how to win support of
non workers without losing too much support from workers.
After analysing the historical patterns of class voting, Przeworski
and Sprague argue that: "Survey studies confirm the prediction that
those countries which experienced a milder trade-off among workers are
the countries where more workers vote socialist and left (p. 161)." Logi-
cally speaking this means that the socialist parties cannot follow a pure
supraclass electoral strategy without, after a certain point, irremediably
undermining their electoral success among workers. In any case, their
electoral possibilities being limited, the socialist parties have been as
194 Socialism and Democracy
Felipe Pimentel
Graduate School, C.U.N.Y.
Book Reviews 195
tion based on perceived interests at its core. . ." Paramount among these
interests is the need to subordinate certain key geographical areas to the
requirements of the U.S. economy. Thus, private interests, presented
as national security necessities, are defended by an ideological system
unparallelled in its sophistication and pervasiveness.
The real danger to 'perceived' U.S. interests in much of the world,
in Chomsky's view, is not Soviet influence but independent economic
development, organized around the satisfaction of domestic needs. In
promoting agro-export economies and multi-national corporate penetra-
tion, the U.S. must seek to forestall any truly meaningful regional
planning. Chomsky identifies as the "invariant core" of U.S. policy the
"Fifth Freedom," i.e. the "freedom to rob and exploit," the ultimate
goal of which is to "maintain the disparity." This ugly reality is pre-
sented to Americans in such a way that it is masked by "idealistic
slogans trumpeted by the media, the schools, the government and most
scholarship." Thus, in order to disguise support for oligarchic and
military power as the pursuit of democracy, national security managers
must ritualistically invoke the Soviet menace in the minds of the U.S.
population. Unfortunately, this is not impossible since we are a people
indoctrinated with over forty years of Cold War imagery. Thus, moral
casuistry becomes a key weapon, as buzz words such as 'democracy' and
'freedom' vie in a global contest with their antithesis, 'Soviet expansion-
sim' and 'terrorism.' Very little of this official vision stands up under
close critical scrutiny.
The author is particularly astute in his analysis of the role played by
the U.S. press in Reagan's Central American policy. Certain formulae
are strictly adhered to. For example, it is de rigeur to disguise the U.S.
role in social manipulation, to eliminate the complicity of the Salvado-
ran government in death squad activities, to reduce the numbers of
Salvadoran dead by a factor of 100, to place all horrendous events in the
near past, to neglect coverage of the air war in El Salvador, to ignore the
carnage in Guatemala, which is the region's analog to Nazi Germany, to
freely cite Sandinista press censorship and human rights violations,
while ignoring the fact that the grievants would have fared infinitely
worse in neighboring countries, etc. In short, Chomsky has shown that
the U.S. government has succeeded in setting the framework for de-
bate, forcing those who oppose its policies to systematically and tedi-
ously refute its spurious allegations. This is unfortunate, for Chomsky
notes that "repeated charges that receive wide publicity create a lasting
Book Reviews 197
image, even if they are disproven point by point in critical analysis that
may subsequently be noted on the back pages."
Present events demonstrate that Chomsky is right on target in his
understanding of the complicity and bovine cowardice of the press. As
Reagan's policy appears to collapse of its own weight, and as élite
consensus disintegrates, the U.S. press now contains torrents of revela-
tions about the quasi-secret role of the National Security Council, Is-
rael's aid to the Contra forces, private funding for the Contras, etc.
However, Chomsky, writing in 1985, was well aware that "U.S. aid to
Israel, diverted to Central America, can thus serve to bypass congres-
sional restrictions." Nor did Chomsky find it difficult to discover the
fact that "when direct C.I. A. supervision of the U.S. proxy army was
terminated by Congress, the Reagan Administration secretly trans-
ferred control to the National Security Council," and that the govern-
ment officer in charge was Lt. Colonel Oliver North. The list of open
secrets that the U.S. press is sitting on is seemingly endless.
Reagan's policy makers are relentless in characterizing Nicaragua as
a 'commie slave state' that exists in sharp contrast to the 'new democ-
racies' of El Salvador, Honduras and, most recently, Guatemala.
Chomsky reveals this to be a fraud, particularly with respect to El
Salvador. However, I do wish he had pursued his analysis further and
included the sorry example of Honduras. In the minds of most Ameri-
cans, elections are tantamount to democracy. However, all political
theories of which I am aware assert that democracy is not viable unless
there is a significant measure of popular control over the local institu-
tions of daily life. Yet as early as 1980, under President Carter, popular
organizations were targeted and destroyed in El Salvador. Union or-
ganizers, peasant cooperative leaders, and refugees described to me the
period 1980-1982 as "years of open terror." With the 1980 assassination
of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the brutal closing of the National Uni-
versity, the destruction of the independent media, the military occupa-
tion of the Archdiocese headquarters, and the smashing of the popular
organizations by the unleashed death squads, the threat of democracy
in El Salvador was sufficiently remote to contemplate elections. In 1982,
the U.S. press loudly proclaimed the success of electoral democracy in
El Salvador. Chomsky makes good use of Edward Herman's astute
study contrasting the New York Times' coverage of the 1984 Salvadoran
and Nicaraguan national elections. The picture that emerges is one of
"media servility to state power."
198 Socialism and Democracy
Chomsky doubts that the U.S. will exercise the military invasion
option against Nicaragua (and El Salvador). He senses a clear élite and
popular resistance to such folly, combined with a recognition that the
task would not be completed in a long weekend, remote from press
coverage. Yet the Contra war, the Honduran war games, and the im-
plied threat, all combine to serve a clear purpose. The social, material,
and educational gains of the Nicaraguan Revolution have been halted
and even reversed, and the dream is tarnished more each day. Chomsky
notes that in Chile the social experiment may have been destroyed but
the dream still lives on. Therefore, in Nicaragua, the pressure must be
maintained "until the errant society cracks under the strain and its
people recognize that in the shadow of the enforcer, there can be no
escaping the miseries of traditional life." A high U.S. official in Man-
agua offered me the analogy of Angola, where U.S. and South African
material support of UNITA has prevented consolidation of the Revolu-
tion. After all, the real threat of the Nicaraguan Revolution is the threat
of a good example.
It is clear that Chomsky accepts the basic premise of what has come
to be known as dependency theory, with its corollary that "the guiding
concern of U.S. foreign policy is the climate for U.S. business opera-
tions." For much of the Third World, this means low wages, no inde-
pendent labor unions, authoritarian governments and, above all, no
social reforms. The U.S. is thus committed to a pattern of economic
growth that impoverishes the bulk of the world's population. Though
Chomsky cites the excellent studies by Lars Schoultz, Michael Klare
and Cynthia Arnson which support this argument, he condemns main-
stream U.S. social science for giving low priority to studies that equate
U.S. policy and Third World poverty and lack of representative democ-
racy. Even scholars, who should know better, succumb to a "touching
faith in American innocence and benevolence."
Had I not made a personal visit to several Central American coun-
tries in 1985 as a member of a faculty human rights delegation and
personally witnessed conditions described by this book, I am certain
that I would have resisted many aspects of Chomsky's argument. So
much of the experience of the Third World is filtered out by the daily
routines of American life. Unfortunately, my memory of my meetings
with Central American politicians, scholars, church leaders, refugees,
human rights activists and U.S. embassy personnel has sharpened my
awareness, but it has also made reading this book doubly painful. If I
am describing the loss of a certain innocence, so be it.
Turning the Tide is far from perfect. The book is repetitious, overly
Book Reviews 199
Gilbert Schrank
Nassau Community College
The New York Times, exhibiting its customary editorial wisdom, re-
cently had on one page a report of Volunteers recently returning to
Spain to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the Spanish Civil War
and along side it, a report from Latin America in which it employed,
uncritically, the President's expression, 'freedom fighters,' in reference
to the Fascistic counter-revolutionaries of Nicaragua. Indeed, it is strik-
ing that several generations of Americans have been denied even the
sketchiest memory of the Spanish Civil War, despite the fact that it was
absolutely critical as regards the disaster of Fascism in our century, and
despite the fact that of the 400,000 to 600,000 non-Spanish who fought
in that war, there are Americans and Canadians who are today not only
very much alive, but who are active politically—living reminders of a
monumental struggle, conveniently forgotten.
It is hardly possible for any one book to treat all the significant
aspects of the Spanish Civil War, to detail what the struggle was about
or the despicable role played by the United States government through-
out its duration, to show how US policies were woven into the fabric of
political life in America, to display what motivated these thousands of
volunteers, to say who they were, how well they fought and what they
believed. But Gerassi's effort must be considered a thorough success. In
our view, it is an enormously powerful book in what it documents and
the lessons about politics that come through. It should be required
reading in any American politics course.
Gerassi's idea was simple enough. He would try to track down all
200 Socialism and Democracy