with
security" was the ambition of the first major liberals. At the end of the
18th century and the 19th century, liberalism was already playing a
progressive anti-feudal role, destroying the feudal remnants and opening the
way to civil rights.
For the liberals freedom alone was the basis of social stability.
Following the traditions of A.Smith and considering himself a devout
follower, Jean Battiste Sei idealised the system of free enterprise in the
conviction that the market alone was sufficient to form balance. According
to Sei's well-known law the crises of over-production are temporary and
economic balance is equivalent to the existence of free market relations.
All classical economic doctrines were developed on the basis of such
fundamental conclusions. A century after the appearance of the economic
views of Adam Smith (1776), the basis of the liberal idea - the very idea of
free competition - was consigned to the graveyard. At the end of the 19th
century with the appearance of large monopolies and the worsening crisis of
capitalism, liberal doctrines began to lose their prestige and influence.
Two world wars in the 20th century and the success of more radical and
totalitarian regimes further limited their influence.
Of course, during the first half of the 20th century, liberal ideas
were still exerting influence on many thinkers and politicians. Some of them
followed in the footsteps of William Jevens explaining all phenomena on the
basis of the laws of subjective logic. Others by default became elementary
apologists of the dominant bourgeois views and yet others became advocates
of the views of Menger and Von Viser. All of them, however, were obliged to
recognise that ideas of the automatic self-regulating and stabilising nature
of the free market were mistaken. The world wars, colonial conflicts,
imperialistic conflicts and totalitarianism dealt heavy body blows to the
ideas of liberalism which lost much of its influence for a long time.
Limited, reduced in influence and almost underground, the tradition of
liberal thought continued into the 20th century. This was mainly due to the
hard work of two "long-distance runners" of theoretical liberalism: Ludwig
von Mizes and Friedrich von Haiek. Von Mizes in his "Human Activities"
offers a series of ideas which contribute to the consolidation of the idea
of individualism and individual freedoms. For Mizes the freedom of choice is
at the basis of social development. He believes that economic theory and
structure are entirely subjective. Every expansion of the structure of the
state was regarded by Mizes and Hajek as an anomaly. In the opinion of Mizes
the protection of the rights of hired labour limits freedom and in the
long-term - the natural development of society. He was very critical of
communism and in his work "Socialism" he brilliantly predicted many of the
imperfections of the "socialist experiment".
In the 19th century Liberalism was a strongly progressive science. It
destroyed the foundations of absolutism and opened the way to civil and
political freedoms. It was the theoretical crown of laurels of the modern
age and an expression of the Third Civilisation. Liberalism was the hope of
the ordinary citizen, the bourgeois, the craftsman, the small and medium
scale land owner. It was the ideology of the struggle against the
"unjustified privileges" of the aristocrats and monarchs, the ideology of
those who guarantee the power of the bourgeois above the other members of
society. There is no doubt that in the 19th century one particular rule was
valid - the more widespread the ideas of liberalism, the greater the
authority of the bourgeois class.
Liberalism was a victim of its own success and gave birth to its own
antipathy - Marxism. Someone had to defend the interests of hired labour.
Someone had to bring attention to the plight of a new repressed class with
its own role and problems in society. The freedom of some had turned into
the lack of freedom of others. This was the law of the Third Civilisation,
of the level of progress that had been reached at that moment in the
development of mankind. The collapse of the feudal societies had given birth
to the bourgeoisie and the proletariate and the ideological doctrines which
corresponded to their interests.
Marxism developed as a new wave of intellectual thought but soon turned
into a class doctrine. It was based on the idea of the value manufacturing
output and the capitalist accumulation of wealth which arises from it. Marx
was an undisputed theoretician and thinker. He not only developed the ideas
of Smith but turned them in a completely new direction. While J.B. Sei and
John Stuart Mill absolutised the idea of free enterprise and "Laissez Faire"
economics, Marx took things in a new direction. He looked for the
contradictions inherent in the free market and "proved" that sooner or later
they would lead to monopolism, class conflicts and the objective
transformation of private ownership into public ownership. While Sei and his
followers promoted the capitalism of the 19th century and considered it as
an eternal and balanced system, Marx, on the other hand, described its vices
and called for the replacement of this society with a more just system.
At the root of the theory of the value of labour, he emphasised that
one part of society unjustly exploited the other part in contradiction with
the natural rights of man. The struggle for added value, in the opinion of
Marx, was at the root of class division between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariate. Here Marx is in his role as a theoretician and political
revolutionary. He undoubtedly believed that at some time during the process
of capitalist accumulation, the "Laissez Faire" formula would collapse since
competition would lead to centralisation, monopolisation and eventually,
political and class conflicts. Marx, and later Lenin, frequently reiterated
that monopolisation was a logical consequence of competition. These
conclusions by Marx were indisputedy true of the 19th century and a
significant part of the 20th.
In Chapter 23 of the first volume of "Das Kapital", Marx comes to his
most significant theoretical conclusion. For years to come it was to serve
the interests of Lenin and later Stalin as the keystone of "state
socialism". He believed that the processes of natural accumulation of
industrial capital would not only lead to high levels of concentration but
also objective and inevitable centralisation which would kill the ideas of
"Laissez Faire" and would set preconditions for the transfer of private
ownership to the state. "In a given area", writes Marx, "centralisation will
attain its extreme limit when all the capital invested in it merge into a
single capital. In a given society, this limit will be attained only when
the entire social capital is united in the hands of a single, individual
capitalist or a single group of capitalists."[27] This leads to
the basis thesis which was to be further developed by Lenin - historical
development and progress gradually lead to the increase in the level of
socialisation, in the concentration and centralisation of production.
This conclusion and the conclusion on the historical role of the
working class and its rights to added value (logically - to the sum of
social wealth) are the keystones of Marxist theory. The main conclusion was
that private ownership would be destroyed in order to concede its place to
public ownership. Later on the followers of Marx were to become divided over
this issue. Kaustski considered that the priority of Marxist thought was
that the capitalist society would reform itself and that parliamentary
democracy would stimulate such a process. At the other extreme Lenin and his
followers, motivated by the dramatic situation in semi-feudal Russia were to
raise the flag of the revolutionary struggle for the rights of the poor in
the belief that before capitalism could be transformed into anything else,
inter-imperialistic conflicts would lead to its death and the inevitable
world victory of the proletariate.
This was the main reason why the Marxist tradition divided at the
beginning of the 20th century into two major movements - social democracy
and communism. In both cases, however, they share the same political
doctrines and common theoretical views. Both communism and world social
democracy in the 20th century placed the emphasis on the protection of the
rights of the workers and the socially weak strata of the population and at
the same time the strong regulatory role of the state. Under communism the
role was taken to absurd extreme via the total nationalisation of
production. In social-democracy the role of the state was reduced to its
"natural" dimensions defined by the need for it to protect the interests of
the socially weak.
In 1989-1991 with the collapse of the Eastern European totalitarian
structures Marxism suffered a terrible blow. Of course, it is hardly
possible to identify Eastern European totalitarianism with Marxism, Marxism
with Stalinism, Maoism or Potism. Marx was complex and occasionally even
contradictory but his name will remain forever in the annals of the history
of economic and social disciplines. His conclusions canbe disputed, and only
some of them are valid for the period in which he lived. Others arouse our
admiration even today. Amongst the latter, I would cite his philosophical
ideas of dialecticism and analyses of market prices and competition. Toffler
is correct when he says that to ignore the writings of Marx today is
tantamount to being semi-literate. In my book, I do not reject Marx as a
thinker, but I do reject the practical implementation of his ideas and their
politicisation and transformation into dogma.
The globalisation of the world, the universal crisis of the two bloc
system and the appearance of new technology struck Marxist political
practice a blow to the heart. The total nationalisation of society was in
fact in divergence with the realities of world development. The idea that
capitalist accumulation would lead to a unified, centralised society, to a
single system of production for all workers and to a global proletarian
state were mistaken. The first reason for this was because the consolidation
of the proletarian state as a rule was achieved via violence and secondly,
because such views lead to the repression of individual rights and freedoms
and the limitation of human creativity.
The Marxist intellectual tradition lost its influence to new
technologies and social developments in the 1970's and 1980's which were at
odds with the structures of state property. The West had begun to overcome
class contradictions and they had reached entirely new levels of social
development. Modern generations are now witnessing the disappearance of the
traditional working class, the appearance of new social groups and new
social structures. In actual fact both the politically charged "intellectual
discoveries" of Karl Marx - the theory of added value and the universal law
on capitalist accumulation - have been overtaken by history. Neither his
views on expropriation by expropriators, nor the struggles of the world
proletariate correspond to what is happening in the world at the moment.
This does not mean that the Marxist intellectual tradition has to be
forgotten or rejected. It has played an essential role in the development of
the world during a long period of its development. Marx correctly predicted
that the period of free competition would not last long and that it would
lead to imperialism and the increase in inter-imperialist conflicts. Marxism
became a powerful gravitational force for many people during the second half
of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th since it offered a true
reflection of the tragic position of workers during this period and defended
their interests. "State socialism" as it was called was the transitional
type of social progress combined with exalted utopian views and violent
methods for attaining them. On the other hand state socialism guaranteed
social security (work, wages and a basic standard of living) for millions of
people. There is no other reasonable way to describe the popularity of these
teachings and its influence throughout a large part of the world's
populations in the 19th and 20th century.
The Western European social democratic version of Marxism played a role
as a balancing force, a bridge between the different classes. In Eastern
Europe, Asia and Africa it was a series of generally unsuccessful
experiments. The total nationalisation of Stalin in the 1930's, reformed by
Khrushchev and supported by Brezhnev, the "great leap forward" of Mao Tse
Tung at the end of the 1950's and the senseless purges of Pol Pot were all
justified under the banner of Marxist ideas and the struggle for a global
communist future.
The historical fate of Marxism reveals one important truth. When a
teaching imposes itself mechanically on different cultures and traditions or
when it used simply as a banner, it automatically turns into dogma. Every
attempt at reform in the 1970's and 1980's in Eastern Europe was justified
with quotes from Marx and Lenin and supporting quotations from the works of
the great leaders could always be found even in the most contradictory
situation. This was absurd. We were obliged at every turn to refer to the
classic works. Marxism lost its authority and was turned into an compulsory
state religion.
At first glance with the collapse of the totalitarian regimes in
Eastern Europe liberalism seemed to remain the only gravitational force for
the development of mankind, with no recognition of gratitude to Marx or
Lenin. The semi-statism of the world's social democrats is in crisis,
neo-Keynesianism is under pressure from market expansion in the open world
and modern communications seem to be whispering, "less state intervention,
more freedom". The followers of Mizes and Von Hajek hastily declared after
the death of Marxism that there is nothing left but liberalism. This
illusory triumph found its fullest expression in the work of F.Fukoyama,
"The End of History". In the style of Sei's eternal doctrines of the
"eternal" market balancing force, Fukoyama declared the intransigent
superiority of liberal ideas and subsequently the end of history. He seems
to believe that the market, individualism and the private entrepreneur are
the only quantifiable categories.
For Hegel and now Fukoyama, the "end of history" is the fear of the
unfathomable great future, something which needs to be defined now, despite
the fact that by rights it belongs to future generations. Hegel's
long-dreamed-of modern world will appear at the end of history in the same
way as Fukoyama asserts that the most perfect system is liberal democracy
and that it will bring with it the "last man" and the "end of history".
What I cannot accept in these concepts is that history and its
philosophy have a perceivable end and that social schemes and doctrines can
be written in stone for eternity. I prefer to believe that history is
cyclical and that its follows the laws of the great natural systems of the
universe. We still know too little, to be able to give an adequate answer to
this question. We know so little about our own planet and about the galaxies
which surround it and especially the connection between this and the history
of mankind. Despite the poverty of human knowledge it is clear that there is
no proof of the inevitable end of mankind and earthly nature.
The explanation seems to suggest that the end of history will be
accompanied by the universal domination of liberalism. The modern world is
colourful and diverse enough to support the belief that a traditional
ideology can transform itself in a dominant philosophy. Even the elementary
claims that after the collapse of Eastern European totalitarianism and "a
short, sharp shock" liberal doctrines would win the hearts and minds of
Russians, Bulgarians, Poles or Slovaks were hasty. This did not take place
and because of the inherited economic and cultural realities clearly will
not. However, are the Eastern countries of Japan, South Korea or China
symbols of liberal democracies? Will the countries of Latin America, Asia
and Africa be able to develop in this way? The trends prevalent at the
moment in Western Europe and the USA give no grounds for such "liberal"
optimism. Modern liberal doctrines do not correspond to the most significant
modern processes of globalisation, socialisation or the opening-up of
countries and the mutual interaction of different cultures. The very nature
of private property has changed. It is more socialised and integrated than
at any other time. Humanity is faced with completely new problems which fall
outside the domain of liberalism.
Today's global world is disproportionately developed and traditional
liberalism will hardly be able to change this. If we apply its traditional
ideology universally, the world economy will mutate even further. The
wealthy countries will become even more wealthy and the poor even poorer.
The God of wealth for some will be at the same time the God of poverty for
others, leading to a renewal of liberalism and a revitalisation of some new
form of Marxism and defender of the socially weak.
Today practically no-one has any doubts that classical liberal thought
is part of the glorious past. There is, however, another hypothesis that
after the collapse of totalitarian socialism liberalism will be born again.
Some modern liberals assert that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher with
their typically liberal policies brought about the collapse of
communism.[28] Others consider that neo-liberalism is but a
rationalist deviation in the era of violence, typical of this century.
"However, if there is any kind of hope for the future of freedom", wrote
John Grey in 1986, " then it is hidden in the fact that towards the end of
century of political insanity, we are becoming witnesses of a return to the
wisdom of the great theorists of liberalism."[29]
With respect for these views, I would, all the same, like to express my
view that history never repeats itself. We must accept the market, human
rights, individual freedom and so on, but will this alone solve the problems
of the modern world or provide a solution to the challenges with which we
are faced? On their own these liberal doctrines are inadequate for the
processes of globalisation. They will as a matter of course lead to the
development of a number of social conflicts for a relatively long time to
come. They will lead to a deformation of world development and a
consolidation of the division of humanity into the rich and the poor. This
will create a new reaction in the poorer countries and the appearance of new
utopias and local wars. A century ago liberalism very rapidly changed from a
doctrine of spiritual freedom into a doctrine of the rich. Today it is
hardly able to return freedom to the poor, or the freedom taken away by the
electronic media. In the context of the global world liberal doctrines are
rather a refuge for those who want to expand their historical advantages and
the historical lead they have over the others and to dominate the world.
The greatest danger in the context of the global world is that
liberalism will be transformed into a bridge for the domination of cultures
leading to the disappearance of national traditions and entire peoples. In
combination with globalisation market liberalism might easily mutate into
cultural elitism. If we follow the ideological concept of liberalism in the
context of the global world we will be faced with the dangers mentioned in
the previous chapter - chaos and disorder, nationalist and ethnic crises,
the reactions of the poor and all the manifestations of the universal crisis
of the Third Civilisation. Both historically and currently the idea of
liberalism is different from the present state of the world. The worst thing
is that with such ideas we will primitivise world development and we will
turn globalisation into a bridge for the mechanical imposition of one
culture onto another. In practice this means the Americanisation of Russia,
the Germanisation of the Czech Republic and Hungary and China and India
simultaneously to imitate the United States and the United Kingdom and so
on. Least of all we want to resemble ourselves. The world can only lose out
and become ashamed of itself.
Of course, it would be absurd and superfluous to ignore the strengths
of liberal theories. Freedom, human rights, private initiative and property
are things which we have inherited through the centuries and which we will
take with us into the future. The problem is, however, that in the modern
world this is far from enough. Neither liberalism nor Marxism-Leninism can
explain the modern processes of world integration, the reduction of the role
of national states, the appearance and the principles of the global world,
mutual interaction of cultures in the context of internationalisation.
These two doctrines appeared during the industrial era, in the
conditions of strong class division and inequality. They served the needs of
the Third Civilisation with their inherent structures - nations and nation
states. Their basic laws and categories were connected to the problems faced
by mankind during the 19th and 20th century. Today, however, all this has
changed as a result of modern technological processes, as a result of modern
social structures and the evolution of ownership.
Marx's working class does not exist, there is no class hegemony,
proletarian revolutions are senseless. At the same time the ideal private
owner in the conditions of the intermingling of millions of private
activities and the increase in the dependence of each individual does not
exist. Just like the new technologies did not find their place within the
shell of state bureaucratic "socialist" governments, in the same way the
socialisation of private property and the globalisation of the world have
destroyed the basic values of liberalism.
It is true that each of these doctrines can adapt and take on board new
ideas. However, this would be a perpetration ofviolence against history and
academic morals. Such attempts are being carried out at the moment stemming
from the political ambitions and inherited from the past but as a rule they
serve only to delay the reform process. Their hypocrycy will be quickly
perceived. In the early period of my academic research I also allowed myself
to indulge in such illusions attempting to imagine the ideas of sweeping
reform in Eastern Europe as the revitalisation of socialism. At that time
this was about as far as we were allowed to go. Today, when we are
relatively free it would much more honest to confess that the time of
ready-made ideas has long since passed. New generations have the right to
their own ideas and the logical progress of history does not mean the
acceptance of old cliches. Neither Marxism-Leninism can be successfully
adapted to individualism, the market or private enterprise, nor can
liberalism accept within its own systems the international and internal
associations created by new communications. It is equally absurd to believe
that ideological doctrines can be based on a priori class status - theories
about capitalists, theories about workers and peasants. This approach was
suitable in the 19th and 20th centuries when the integration of society was
at a much lower level and social stratification was much more acute and
significant.
I expect political liberals and "socialist" movements to begin to adapt
to the new realities. It is sometimes amusing that those who call themselves
socialist may carry out anti-socialist politics in support of the major
monopolies. There may even be liberals and conservatives who preach politics
in the name of the people and social economic ideas. The comedy of make-up
and disguise will continue for another 10-15 years and maybe more. We will
hear more and more frequently that the changes have only served to confirm
the ideas of Karl Marx and L.Von Mizes. This is, however, to insult these
two great thinkers.
This is why I cannot announce the end of Marxism or liberalism, but can
only give forewarning that the end will come - about that there can be no
doubt. History teaches us that new eras give rise to new ideas. We are now
entering such an era.
2 A RETURN TO THE ROOTS OR THE MAIN THESIS
The theory and the practice of liberalism stresses the absolutism of
the individual and private property and hence the monopoly of power of the
strong over the weak. Marxism-Leninism created the total monopoly of the
state by absolutising socialisation and state ownership. I have come to the
conclusion that neither socialisation not autonomisation can be achieved
individually or absolutely...
I
n 1982 when I was writing my doctoral dissertation, I wanted to find an
answer to the question, "Does state socialism justifiably exist?" Why were
its ideas dominant at that time in a number of countries including Bulgaria?
According to Lenin, "State socialism is based on the socialisation of
capitalist production."[30] By the world "socialisation" Marx,
Engels and Lenin meant the development of the social character of autonomous
social processes. In their opinion humanity was progressing logically from
individual to larger mass forms of production, passing through the stages of
primitive labour to slave owning and feudal manufacturing processes, the
development of the factory eventually to reach the large scale monopolies.
Subsequently Marxism-Leninism states that the next step in socialisation
after monopolies is the creation of social ownership or property controlled
by the state itself.
At first glance, this might appear logical: in the stages of its
progress, humanity passes from primitive individual production to enormous
factories and eventually state control within the framework of the entire
society. Marx and Lenin frequently come back to this emphasising that
private property is too limiting for the new productive forces and that it
gives rise to wars and violence subsequently conceding its position to state
control. There is no difference in principle here between Marx, Lenin,
Stalin, Trotski or Mao Tse Tung. They all saw socialisation as a global
process, the basis and pre-condition for the establishment of a world
communist society, of a "single factory for all workers and peasants"
(Lenin). Taking this as the basis and putting to one side (briefly) the
Marxist thesis of the decay of the state, the pioneer politicians of state
socialism unified life and put up barriers to motivation and the progress of
people.
In order to analyse this process, we can take the most simple example -
the example of natural organisms. Organic cells do not only grow when they
develop (unless they are cancerous) but divide and become autonomous. If
they separate from the main body of cells they die. If larger natural
systems attack their independent development, the cells die or cease to
exist in the same form. All growth of organisms in nature is associated with
autonomous development. The other option is decay and inevitable death.
Similarly, if socialisation and centralisation are viewed as a
unilateral process, they (like cancer cells) will automatically lead to the
mutation of the system. It is true that each subsequent stage of human
development leads to the greater homogeneity of human civilisation. However,
if this thesis is not further developed, it become transformed into a
rejection of its own self. For Stalin and his followers, for Mao and Pol Pot
progress meant socialisation, equal to unification, military discipline and
universal obedience to superiors.
This was the very basis for the doctrine of state socialism and the
gradual unification of society. In the 1920's and 1930's the USSR and in the
1950's the countries of Eastern Europe underwent the total nationalisation
of their industry and agriculture. There was a belief in the theory that via
state regulated homogeneity the differences between village and town,
intellectual and physical work and classes would disappear and that this
would be the basis for subsequent "social homogeneity" and
"nationalisation". This was the model for state socialism. It meant death
for individual activities, creativity and motivation. To a lesser extent it
suffocated the diversity of social life. Naturally it also delayed and in
certain circumstances halted social development.
The most important element in my understanding of this matter is that
integration (socialisation) and autonomation are not mutually exclusive but
a pair of categories which develop in parallel and are mutually conditioned.
The same can also be said of other pairs of processes such as globalisation
and localisation, integration and disintegration, collectivisation and
individualisation, massification and demassification etc.. However
paradoxical this might appear at first glance, I believe that these pairs of
processes have developed in parallel and not to the detriment of one
another. Of course, the phases of socialisation and autonomation,
unification and collapse cannot appear simultaneously.
At each stage in the development of human history the socialisation of
production replaces a particular level of autonomy and in its turn gives way
to another. The slave owning state socialised the labour of thousands of
slaves and gradually within the very heart of the system new centres of
autonomy began to appear setting the preconditions for the appearances of
colonies and the early stages of feudalism. Capitalism destroyed the feudal
divisions but in its place a new type of autonomy appeared. However hard it
tried to suppress autonomy, the totalitarian regimes could not destroy the
autonomy of social groups and individual people were eventually to destroy
the monopoly of power.
Let us take the elementary example of the single division of labour.
The idea of the socialisation of labour is based on the fact that the
individual units of labour complement each other within the processes of the
creation of a final product. Craftsmen are divided from the agricultural
worker, the trader from the craftsman etc.. On the one hand they all are
dependent on each other but on the other (and this is particulary important)
they achieve greater professional autonomy and greater freedom of action.
Similar processes develop in relation to the forms of unified labour -
certain economic units are absorbed up by others while at the same time in
the process of capital accumulation yet others become more powerful and more
independent. At a certain stage in their development they divide into
individual autonomous structures. Large companies as General Motors for
example transfer a number of their activities to smaller independent
companies. Each larger production unit is then obliged to autonomise its
internal departments. Moreover, the more developed and bigger the unit is,
the greater the autonomy of its component parts. This process is confirmed
by the decentralisation of management in transnational corporations. In
general the growth of the whole cannot help but bring with it the growth of
its individual parts. The increased process of integration will at a certain
stage in its development lead to division and a certain level of
autonomisation.
Thus, the growth in socialisation does not lead to the death of
autonomisation but to its reproduction and change in its forms. The growth
in integration leads to another type of disintegration, globalisation and
another type of localisation etc.. Each human activity is a form of
accumulation. On the one hand the process of accumulation as both a material
and spiritual process leads simultaneously to two effects: firstly, it
concentrates the material and social forces in one area making them socially
and naturally more independent and autonomous, secondly, this accumulation
leads to millions of new types of manufacturing, economic and social links
between human communities, countries and continents.
If we take the level of autonomy of individual structural units, then
in certain cases their levels of autonomy increase, others decrease and
disappear while yet others appear and continue to develop. In general terms
the socialisation and autonomisation of structures are linked by a complex
series of relations which complement each other at the same time. The main
element is that during the development of the historical processes they
follow a common line of development and growth. Moreover, it is clear that
neither individualism nor collectivism can of their own accounts express the
richness of human interdependence. Separated from one another, these
categories create deformation. Pure individualism without any idea of the
community is antipathetical to the idea of the objective integrational
processes while forced collectivism kills diversity and initiative. By the
same logic, the state socialist collective societies limit individualism and
creativity and delay progress.
I am convinced that history will lead us to a combination of the
elements of the individual and the social: the integration of human
activities unify a series of autonomous production processes, countries and
peoples making the world more united and more mutually dependent. At the
same time there will be growth in the social role of the individual,
autonomous groups and ethnic communities. Material accumulation and the
growth in wealth available to civilisations makes man wealthier better
informed and consequently freer and more independent. The more humanity
develops the more this trend will continue. It will be more difficult to
"entrap" such a person within the monopolistic structures of managed
societies.
I, therefore, believe that in global terms it is possible to speak of
the disintegration of historical distances between the individual (private
relations) and the collective (public relations). History has indisputedly
shown that objective integrational processes are ineffective without some
form of administrative compulsion. The higher the level of civilisation
within society the greater the harmony between the individual and society.
3 MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND A MESSAGE TO A.TOFFLER
Since the 1960's the technological basis of world manufacturing has
changed out of all recognition. So much new technology has entered every day
life that social relations have also changed. One of the best modern
philosophers, A.Toffler, maintains that new technology leads to the
emassification of production. My belief is that the effect is somewhat
different.
I believe that it gives rise to the parallel processes of integration
and disintegration,
massification and demassification and that it is this dual effect which
has influenced the world in this extraordinary way.
T
he existence of a dialectic link between integration anddisintegration,
globalisation and localisation can be summed upin three basic conclusions.
The first conclusion is that these pairs of categories of historical
development are not antipathies but develop in parallel and are mutually
conditioned. This concept is equivalent to the rejection of utopian liberal
theories of absolute independence and the "purity" of private ownership.
However, this is also a rejection of the notions of a future society as a
world without individualism, internal autonomy, local characteristics and
without economic, political and cultural diversity.
The second conclusion is that socialisation, or integration is not the
same is nationalisation or centralisation. If this was a unilateral process
(the persistent unification of autonomous units) then this concentration
would lead to centralisation and would lead to the growth in
nationalisation. The view that autonomisation goes hand in hand with
socialisation means that socialisation is above all a "horizontal" process
based on man, the market and private property. Consequently centralisation
has certain permissible limits beyond which it is ineffective and provokes
reactionary processes. The theoretical conception of the state in the modern
world has changed significantly. It is clear that in modern conditions the
borders of the state have undergone considerable changes. The greater the
level of development on the one hand, the more civic society will be
absorbed up by the state - and vice versa.
My third conclusion[31] is that from an international point
of view, socialisation (integration) gives rise to new phenomena connected
firstly with globalisation and secondly with the appearance of increased
local autonomy and localisation. On the one hand, new communications unite
humanity, on the other hand they create national and ethnic self-confidence
leading to the struggle for the survival of nations and cultures as a
reaction to cultural imperialism.
Liberalism and Marxism-Leninism are unable to provide explanations for
the new realities. Liberal doctrines emphasise individualism, personal
freedom, while Marxism places the emphasis on class and collectivism. When
liberalism and Marxism appeared on the historical stage, their one
dimensional nature was to a certain extent entirely understandable. The
liberals defended the rights of free, private entrepreneurs while the
Marxists defended the working class and the poor. The level of
stratification within civilised societies was so clear and so developed that
such doctrines were inevitable. They were a historical necessity and their
mark in history.
It will be interesting to see whether these conclusions will be
confirmed by the modern technological revolution which is apparently taking
shape at the moment and which will continue to shape the face of the world
for some time to come.
In a number of his books the famous American philosopher and
futurologist, A.Toffler, concludes that new technologies lead to the
demassification of production. "At the present moment", he writes, "We are
passing from an economy of mass production and mass consumption to what I
would call "the demassed economy".[32]" In the opinion of the
great American futurologist, large scale mass production will be replaced by
individualised or small scale production. Identical components will be
assembled in more and more individualised end products.
I wanted to draw attention to this thesis not because it is original
but rather that it has lead to the revival of the illusion that liberalism
and free trade will triumph. The basic idea of Toffler is that the modern
technological revolution will return the demassification of production as
the leading form of economic relations which will in turn mean the collapse
of the large trans-nationals corporations or at least the reduction of their
role, the domination of the small and medium scale sector and the rebirth of
free competition