BOOK REVIEW

THE CONTRADICTIONS OF “REAL SOCIALISM”: THE CONDUCTOR AND THE

CONDUCTED

Subject: Sociology

Submitted to:

Dr. T. Kannan

Submitted by:

Deeksha Pokhriyal

2019-5LLB-016

I Year, I Semester

NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD

1
 Table of Contents
INTROUDUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3

SUMMARY AND REVIEW..................................................................................................... 4

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 8

2
 INTROUDUCTION
The b00k C0ntradicti0ns 0f Real S0cialism by Michael A. Leb0witz aims t0 reflect up0n the
c0ncept 0f ‘real s0cialism’. The b00k talks ab0ut the nature and tendencies 0f th0se societies
where ‘real socialism’ did in reality played a part. Lebowitz here tries to find inner relation,
which he is specifically able to find in vanguard relations of productions a relation where
workers benefit from the society but are turned incapacitated as they are unable to take
decisions and think for themselves, that generate patterns of shortages in ‘real socialism’.
“Vanguard party is an authoritarian, anti-democratic organisati0n that substitutes itself f0r the
w0rking class.”1 The b0ok brings forth that although these societies were able to achieve
greater achievements the main contention was the divide that was created between the thinking
and the doing. It had a negative impact as it prevented people from becoming fully capacitated
human beings. The relationships between people within “real socialism” did not only deform
workers but also led to situation in which managers emerged as capitalist class.

Lebowitz mainly concerns himself with Marxian idea of human development and practice.
Thus, the researcher p0ints 0ut that Leb0witz’s Marxism deals with pr0cess 0f “j0int
pr0ducti0n” which says that a lab0ur b0th pr0duces and is pr0duced by the system. The
summary of the book will further provide details about how the society transformed from a
socialist one to the communist even after following the concept of socialism. The review gives
a detailed account of the loopholes in the authors reasoning and theories.

1
Jamie Woodcock, The Contradictions of Real Socialism, October 2012.

3
 SUMMARY AND REVIEW
Lebowitz introduces the topic of the book by arguing that real socialism did produce economic
growth and helped in increasing unquestionable profits for the working class of the society for
decades, but that it also led to contradictions between the three major classes that is, “the central
planners, the plant managers and the workers”2. These contradictions ultimately led to the fall
of economic growth which pushed the society back to capitalism. He reasons out that this
concept of real socialism crumpled because it did not follow Karl Marx’s version of socialism
but a deformed one that he names as “vanguard socialism”.

The term Real Socialism fr0m the title has a hist0ry attached t0 it. In the earlier peri0d, the
c0mmunist used the term “actually existing s0cialism” f0r s0cialist states 0f S0viet Uni0n and
Eastern Eur0pe. The term was used to imply that those people who opined that the above-
mentioned states were not socialist were living by the ut0pian, anti-Marxist definiti0ns 0f
s0cialism and rather the phrase “actually existing” highlights the present state 0f materialist
transiti0n fr0m s0cialism t0 communism. The title uses the terms “conductor and conducted”
to indicate Marx’s approach that management must exist under socialism. Lebowitz here,
although agreeing with Marx attaches a negative connotation that these terms as used in the
title indicate that individuals of the group “lose the opportunity to develop their own capacities
by exercising knowledge, judgement and will collectively”3. This case as explained above is
indicative of the fact that Lebowitz attempts to use Marx against Marxism and ‘real socialism’.

Lebowitz, has in this book, tried t0 disengage the key c0mp0nents and draw 0ut their
relati0nships and m0vement as he aspires t0 d0 f0r Real S0cialism what Marx did f0r
capitalism. But he c0uld n0t achieve what he had aspired f0r because we see he has n0where
in the b00k pr0vided any detailed abstracti0n f0r s0cialism and he rarely migrated fr0m his
ideas 0f the real w0rld. The b0ok d0es n0t pr0vide any details ab0ut h0w the S0viet Union
collapsed and lacks information about the “actual members of the vanguard, the plant managers
and workers”. The bo0k als0 sh0ws fusi0n 0f K0rnai’s (the pers0n referred t0 as Hungarian
analyst 0f ‘real s0cialism’ wh0 later became a ne0-liberal admirer) critique 0f socialism on a
neo-liberal basis and Lebowitz’s own “anarchism and social democracy”.

Lebowitz exhibits ideals of those who call themselves social democrats in Europe. Social
democracy can be best defined as the political trend which plays a major role in class movement

2
Michael A. Lebowitz, The Contradictions of Real Socialism: The Conductor and the Conducted, 2012.
3
Roger Keeran and Joseph Jamison, The Contradictions of Real Socialism, August 28, 2015

4
as it denies and devalues importance of ‘class struggle, socialist revoluti0n and w0rking-class
state p0wer’.4 S0cial dem0cracy als0 adv0cates class c0llab0rati0n and mitigates capitalism by
several ref0rms. Leb0witz pr0p0ses that in a s0ciety s0cialism acts as t0 give precedence t0 the
timeless and ethical idea 0f ‘human devel0pment’. We als0 n0tice that all thr0ugh0ut the b00k,
the auth0r has Eur0centric s0cialist visi0n with0ut taking into consideration socialist
construction in other states like China, Vietnam. Lebowitz edition upholds some specific
features of social democracy. He acknowledges that problems concerning Real Socialism
developed after the Stalin era which is in contradiction to what other thinkers say as they relate
the problems of Soviet Union back to Stalin. He is also seen as one who rejects ‘vanguard
socialism’ and averts the crude anti-Communist p0siti0ns. Considering all the loopholes in the
reasoning and facts provided by the author we still cannot deny the fact that he did deal with
three central questions. First, what exactly were the characteristics of ‘Real S0cialism’, here
c0ncerning itself with s0cialism 0f Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Second, how did this
system of new kind 0f s0cialism repr0duce itself? Third, why did the system, surprisingly, yield
t0 capitalism and that t00 with0ut any resistance fr0m the working class of the society?

Lebowitz, as we proceed through the book, contends that the issues that induced the reforms
were not due to situations alien to socialism but were rather fundamental in the working of the
system. He argues that the main feature of ‘real socialism’ was “omnipresent” sh0rtage. There
was evident sh0rtage 0f c0nsumer g00ds and investment which were a result n0t 0f retardati0n
but 0f the way the system at that time functi0ned. The central planners ( 0ne divisi0n 0f three
maj0r classes) presupp0sed that in s0cialism what was demanded was steady gr0wth, j0b
protection and profits for the workers what they overlooked was that for growth to occur it was
required of the plant managers to abide by the plan goals which in turn demanded material
incentives for managers and workers.

The system, the author alleges, got caught up with internal disturbances and conflicts as it
started appearing that the managers interest was in conflict with the interest of both the plant
planners and the workers. The planners here agreed to provide the material incentives for
fulfilling plan goals as they expected growth. The workers on the other hand demanded ‘full
employment, rising wages, job security and a comfortable pace of work’. All these demands
on the part of planners and workers forced the managers to manipulate and they started
undermining the proportions, couched plants’ goals, started prioritising quantity over quality

4
. Keeran and Jamison, supra 3.

5
and hoarded manual labour and capitalistic materials. As a result of all these actions undertaken
by the managers, shortages and economic stagnation creeped into the system. Thus, it is evident
here that the managers, though not the capitalist proprietor, matured the capitalist like
mentality. The managers had responsibility, as they were required to meet the plan goals on
which their material well being depended, but without control. Simultaneously, the managers
could manage neither the goals, nor the price quality of products, nor the capital invested, nor
the manual labour. The managers, because they had to realise the expectation and rights of the
working class, were not able to allocate freely the allowances or relocate or dismiss the
workers. All this led to the managers develop a capitalist like class mentality. Now, the
managers focused on working towards the interests of their class, increase their own autonomy
and control the workforce. The author contends that the idea of public ownership instilled in
the workers the feeling that they owned everything and had the right to take away whatever
they wished for. Lebowitz here again fails to acknowledge that this behaviour as portrayed by
the workers was against morality and norms of socialistic society as laid down by communist
leaders.

Lebowitz answers the question as to why were the workers not able to resist capitalism when
he says that Real Socialism, although helped the workers benefit, was a “system of
exploitation”. He says that Marx had conceptualized socialism as a democratically run and
controlled system but this system was divided the ‘thinking’ and ‘working’ activity between
leaders and workers respectively as the workers were not allowed to think and they had no
power to make their own decisions. He says that “deformed Marxism denied the workers the
power to make decisions and to develop their capacities through their activity”.

Lebowitz again faces a critique when he simply denies Marx’s concept of stages in socialism.
He argues that in spite of restricting the thinking activity at the top there was no improvement
in the divide that was created and thus it does not exhibit Marx’s view of socialism. This theory
as given by the author fell flat on the ground as Marx had already explained as to why should
socialism develop in stages. It is only after when socialist society has produced plenty
development and abundance so much so that it can be divided between people according to
their skills and interest can a communist society emerge. Marx also asserts that to eliminate the
division between thinking and doing the condition that need to be fulfilled first is meeting the
requirement of basic human needs.

6
Another loophole as examined in the book is the conflict between Lebowitz and Marx’s ideas
in relation to “vanguard socialism”. The researcher deals with it in two parts. First, Marx talks
about socialism in terms of workers attaining political power and that the cooperative man
force should be developed to national ambit whereas Lebowitz promotes the idea of
autonomous worker and community cooperative. Second, although socialism did benefit the
workers but it also rendered them incapacitated because of which they could not stop the exit
of socialism and entry of communist society.

7
 CONCLUSION
The researcher has clearly critically examined the bo0k and thus we see that in spite of the
conspicuous flaws pointed out, whether it be the absence of proper details ab0ut the ideas held
0r the c0nflict 0f ideas between the0ries given by different thinkers, the auth0r, Leb0witz’s
c0ncept 0f the manager and w0rker the0ry and the vanguard party d0 identify relevant s0cietal
pr0blems. Real S0cialism depicts perfectly h0w things can g0 wr0ng when the c0ncept 0f
s0cialism is used 0nly t0 view things fr0m an 0bjective and ec0nomic perspectives without
taking into consideration the essential feature which get ignored such as moral and ethical
development of human beings. Going through the concepts explained in the book we can also
derive that it is of no use to divide and socialize the means of production if the social structure
itself is hierarchical as it would ultimately not allow the worker class to derive benefit from it.
This however, hardly outweighs his disingenuous dist0rti0n 0f Marxist the0ries and the hist0ry
0f s0cialism t0 pr0m0te the c0ncepts 0f anarchism and idealistic s0cialism. The researcher
theref0re c0ncludes that Leb0witz 0n ackn0wledging the issues faced because 0f the ‘real
s0cialism’ the0ry claims that vanguard Marxism sh0uld be d0ne away with and the new
c0ncept 0f s0cialism (“S0viets+ electrificati0n+ human kindness”) sh0uld be followed.