T R O I S I È M E P A R T I E RAPPORT GENERAL
Anatoli Z vo rykin e
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS
F rom among th e im m ense num ber of problem s relatin g to social aspects of technological progress, th re e have been approached in th is w ork: 1) theoretical investigations concerning connections b etw een technology and social life; 2) some social problem s of th e scientific and technological revolution; 3) th e influence of science and technology on m an ’s sp iritu al life.
THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL LIFE*
The effect of science and technology upon society has in rece n t y ears become a m uch-discussed issue in th e w orld press, if n o t th e m ost discussed. There are a n um ber of reasons fo r th is in terest in th e social consequences of technological progress. O n th e one hand, profound changes in science an d technology an d accelerated technological develop m ent ex ert a n enorm ous influence upon people in both socialist and capitalist countries. On th e other, technological progress u nd er capitalist conditions, like ev ery scientific and technological inv en tio n o r discovery, leads to th e accentuation of capitalist contradictions. A nd th e utilization of science an d technology in th e m ilitary sp h ere casts a n om inous shadow over th e world.
M any books and countless articles have been appearing in capitalist countries about th e social coinsequences arising from th e use of atom ic energy, about the economic, social and m oral effects of technological progress as a w hole and, particularly, of in d u strial autom ation. In th e U.S.S.R. — the real aim of building a m aterial and technological basis
* This chapter has been published in The Evolution of Science Readings from, the H istory of Mankind, edited by Guy S. M6traux and P. Crouzet. New York 1963, pp. 322—339.
100 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
for Communism d ictates high speeds an d scales of scientific and tech nological progress, resulting in its grow ing influence o n all economic and social aspects of life. Speaking at th e Ju n e P lenu m (1963), of the Soviet Comm unist P a rty C entral Committee, N. S. K hrushchev laid em phasis upon th e social aspect of technological m eans. In a socialist society, he said, autom ation possesses n o t only economic b u t also, vast social significance. Technological progress changes th e character of labour, raises th e cu ltu ral a n d technological level of w orking people, an d creates th e prerequisites of elim inating th e difference between m anual and m ental labour; w ith autom ation, m a n ’s ro le is to direct the autom atic equipm ent and instrum ents, to set them up, and establish th e ir program s and w orking conditions.
From the foregoing, th e theoretical a n d practical aspects of investi gation into th e economic and social consequences of technological progress a re Clear. In capitalist countries, th e heightened ro le of tech nology in contem porary society combined w ith th e contradictions its
developm ent brings about h ave m ade the question of th e social conse quences of technological progress not o n ly a c u rre n t topic b u t a very confused one.
The first and characteristic feature found in most lite ra tu re w ritten abroad on this su b ject is th e attem p t to rep resen t technological advance as the cause of social disorders in m odern bourgeois society. Some say th a t it m u st be cu rb ed o r even h alted as som ething en tirely evil. O thers hail it and spealk of th e need to m ake social relations correspond to the m odern technological level, b u t this is n ever to be understood in th e sense of getting down to rebuilding the w hole economic basis of m odem bourgeois society, of liquidating p riv ate p ro p erty in th e m eans of pro duction; w h at th e y have in m in d is some vague capitalist refo rm that, allegedly, w ould m ake it possible to use all th e benefits o f technological progress to raise m a n ’s w elfare w ith in th e fram ew ork of capitalism.
Typical of th e views of those w ho reg ard technology as hell-born is th e Swiss theologian E. B ru n n er’s book Christianity and Civilization, in w hich he says th a t m odern technology m eans countless millions huddled in huge, soulless cities, a p ro letariat cut off fro m N ature, with no real home o r friendly neighbours. It m eans an asp h alt culture, monotony, and standardization. These are people, B ru n n er says whom th e m achine has freed from th e need to th in k an d desire, an d wiho' in th e ir tu rn m ust serve it a t a prescribed speed and in a stereotyped m anner. It m eans u n endurable noise and bustle, unem ploym ent and insecurity, the concentration of productive forces1, w ealth, an d prestige in th e hands o f a few or th e ir m onopolization b y state bureaucracy. In B ru n n er’s opinion, iit also m eans th e rap id standardization of all national cu ltu res and the destruction of th e ir historic roots. We have cited B ru nn er ra th e r fully because he shows clearly how phenomena
S ocial A sp ects of th e S cien tific and T echn ological P rogress 1Q1
born of m odern capitalism, w hich develops technology in th e in terests of p rofit and no t of man, a re ascribed n o t to th e ir real a u th o r b ut to technological m eans in them selves.
B ru n n er an d scientists of like m ind have fallen fa r behind M arx and Engels in th e ir understanding of social phenom ena. M arx a n d Engels gave an -even clearer p ic tu re of the disastrous resu lts m achinery b ro ught to the w orker, but a t th e sam e tim e stressed th e fact th a t th e cause of th e tro ub le lay not in th e m achine itself ibut in its application u n d er capitalist conditions. “There cannot be the slightest doubt — M arx w rote in Capital — th a t m achinery as such is n o t responsible for «setting free» the wofffcman from th e m eans of subsistence... m achinery, considered alone, shortens th e hours of labour, but, w h en in th e 1 service of capital, lengthens them... in itself it lightens labour, but, w hen em ployed by capital, heightens th e in ten sity of labour... in itself it is, a victory of m an over th e forces of N ature, but, in th e hands of capital, it m akes m an the slave of those forces... in itse lf it increases th e w ealth of the producers, but, in the hands of capital, malkes th e m p aupers...” 1
The G erm an scientist A lexander Riistow tak es m uch th e sam e a ttitu d e as B runner. He w rites: “The enthusiasm for technological progress so w idespread in o u r day... is1 assum ing th e ch ara cter of a demoniac, soulless religion of deliverance, som ething in th e n a tu re of an u n restrain ed urge to a tta in record achievem ents a t a ll costs. A nd like every theology, this w idespread religion of rationalism , by m eans of paradox and illusory principle, in the final analysis breaks down in tellect” 2.
W hen m anipulating his ideas of a n antagonistic society, Riistow sees only the undesirable aspect of technological developm ent, w hich undoubtedly exists, b u t only in cap italist society: the dulling of th e w o rk er’s intellect, th e fanatical p ro fit — seeking b y th e capitalist to th e detrim ent of oth ers according to th e law of capitalist com petition, etc. H ere once m ore we find th a t th e contradictions b o m of technological developm ent u n der capitalist conditions are ascribed not to a social system w hose fram ew ork has become too n arro w for technological progress, b ut to this progress in itself.
It is typical th a t a ll th ese w ritings, w ith th e ir lack of un d erstan ding of th e connection betw een technological and social phenom ena, arise to a considerable ex tent out of, th e pessim istic lite ra tu re th a t trie s to rep resen t th e crisis of contem porary capitalist society w ith its m ilita ry and economic shocks a n d its unem ploym ent as being a crisis of m ankind, lite ra tu re asserting th a t m o d em civilization, culture, a n d m ankind itself are sliding down to inevitable ruin.
1 K. M a r x , Capital. Moscow 1955, vol. I, p. 446.
102 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
A num ber of scientists in d ifferent countries try to penetrate more deeply into th e problem s arising from scientific a n d technological prog ress. B ut in stead of seeking th e social and economic roots of these prob lems, th ey generally tailk about th e “lag ” of th e h u m an itarian sciences behind technological progress, a “lag” th ey consider to be the cause of the social, ethical, an d ideological conflicts an d 'difficulties caused by scientific a n d technological advance. One of th e m ost typical rep resen tatives of th is point of view is th e F ren ch economist and sociologist Jean Fourastié, whoise w orks a re v ery rwidely re a d in F rance and o ther European countries. In his Le grand espoir du X X siècle h e says th a t: “Le retard des sciences économiques et sociales sur les sciences de la m atière est l’une des causes des m alheurs actuels de l’hum anité. La technique em porte l’hom m e vers des horizons im prévus. Placé entre un passé qui lui paraît entièrem ent périm é et un avenir inconnu, l’hom m e, privé des traditions, des morales et des religions... et n ’ayant pas encore trouvé la philosophie valable pour le nouvel âge, agit au jour le jour, selon les incohérentes sollicitations du court term e. Il a perdu la sécurité et l’efficacité des longs pensers et des ferm es propos. Il a perdu la m esure du possible et de l’im possible.”
F ourastié considers th a t “L ’analyse systém atique du «progrès tech nique» sera pour nous le fil d ’Ariane qui nous servira de guide pour l’explication de notre tem ps” 3.
The w ell-know n G erm an scientist F riedrich D essauer gives an enthusiastic estim ate of technological progress, linking u p profound social changes (with the use of n uclear energy, the advance of n a tu ra l science, and technological developm ent:
“M an w ill have g reater knowledge, g reater abilities. The far distances are draw ing close, th e tim e expended on communication lessens. M en can live longer, be stronger. The num ber of those w ho are poor, undernourished, an d sick w ill lessen. D eserts w ill become cu lti vated land, steppes will blossom into gardens, All this a n d more w ill b e «for man», not for one single nation, one state o r one continent. E verything th a t historically divides, th a t politically sunders, everything th a t is opposite in h u m anity is of no im portance for n a tu ra l science an d technology. For them , no political colorings exist. They tu rn th e ir face to all people, n ot to individual nations an d n o t to w arrin g social form s w hich are handed down from form er days.”4
As w e can see, D essauer — unlike F ourastié — sim ply re tre a ts from the task of m aking the social aspect conform to scientific an d technolog ical development. He is not, however, en tirely successful in this. Passing on to the technological problem s connected w ith autom ation, he describes
3 J. F o u r a s t i é , Le grand espoir du X X siècle. Paris 1:958, pp. XVII, XIX. 4 F. D e s s a u e r , S treit um die Technik. Frankfurt am Main 1956. Quoting from The Evolution of Science, op. cit., p. 325.
Social A sp ects of the S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 103
th e “in flated optim ism of th e Américains” w ho claim th a t now already, a n d in th e fu tu re, autom ation brings benefits to th e w orkers, a n d also th e restrain ed a ttitu d e of Europeans. He refers to th e M argate confe ren ce atten ded b y 1.100 B ritish and foreign heads of factories, engineers, scientists, an d trade-un ion officials, w h ere it w as clearly show n th a t social conditions do n o t a d a p t themselves; au to m atically to scientific an d technological possibilities h u t in a n u m b e r of cases becom e a hind rance to the victorious progress of technological innovation.
R epresentatives of m o d em Social-Dem ocratic tho ug ht h av e ta k e n up a ra th e r peculiar position o n this question. M any of th e m a r e quite w illing to concede th a t technology tod ay is outgrow ing th e economic relations of capitalism, th a t it can develop succesfully fo r th e b en efit o f m an un d er socialist relations. B u t th e y do n o t w an t to ta k e th e p ath of th e socialist countries, th ey offer ideas of th e elim ination o f oomtrar dictions betw een technological m eans a n d the social sy stem w ith in th e fram ew ork of th e m o d em bourgeois state, w hich in th e ir opinion is even today no longer a class state, b u t expresses th e in terests o f a ll s tra ta of society. All th is w as expressed to a g reater o r lesser ex ten t a t th e M unich Congress of th e Social-Democratic P a r ty of G erm any in 1956.
P rofessor K arl Schmidt, one of th e m ain speakers, said: “Technolog ical m eans... rad ically change o ur social system , o u r political form s an d in general all forms of hum an existence”. A pprehensions w ere expres sed a t th e congress th a t the new technology w o uld Ibe utilized b y th e m onopolists; H einrich Deist am ong o th ers spoke of this: “It is necessary — h e said — to prevent atomic en erg y a n d th e possibilities of its use from falling in to th e hands of p riv a te cap ital”.
It w ould seem th a t such statem ents should lead o n to a form ulation of th e purpose of tak in g the m eans of production o u t of th e hands of p riv a te capital, or developing th e n ew technological m eans u n d er con ditions of socialism. B ut instead, it led only to a dem and to h an d over th e leadership of society to those forces to w hom th e fu tu re belonged — i.e. to Social-Democracy. This was th e sp irit th a t filled th e m essage o f greetings from th e p a rty leadership to th e delegates at th e congress, em phasizing th a t th e resu lts of th e Second In d u strial R evolution could be fru itfu l only i t Social-Democracy stood a t th e h ead of society. A nd this in spite of the fact- th a t th e re exists trem endous h isto ric experience in the utilization of science a n d technology in the- in terests of m a n u nder socialist relations.
The M unich Congress of th e Social-D em ocratic P a r ty of G erm any d id n o t wiish to m ake use of this experience a n d adopted a v ery hazy resolution w hich gave no re a l answ er to th e u rg e n t questions arising fro m th e course of developm ent of m od em society. More th a n th a t, th e trad e-u n io n theoreticians of W estern G erm any are try in g to m isrep resen t th e policy of the Communist P a rty of the Soviet U nion on establishing
I
104 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
th e m aterial and technological basis of Comm unism an d in d u strial autom ation.
A larm ab out th e social consequences of autom ation is expressed in the latest w orks by w riters w hose aiim is a p u rely scientific an d techno logical exposition of autom ation, b u t w ho n ev ertheless express th e ir apprehension about its. social consequences. One m ight quote endless exam ples of th e various ideas about th e path of social developm ent in view of scientific and technological advance, rang in g from appeals to check th is advance to assertions th a t it is this w hich will save m odern capitalism a n d enable m an to enjoy ail scientific a n d technological benefits w ith in th e capitalist fram ew ork. B u t th is is n o t th e im p o rtan t point; th e p o int is th a t th rough all this discordant chorus sober voices are rising w ith increasing frequency, th e voices of m ore far-sig h ted investigators.
Capitalism as a social system, th ey w rite, has come in to a sta te o f irreconcilable contradiction w ith thie level, a n d still m ore im portant — the possibilities — of m odern technological developm ent; only socialism as a new and higher social system affords th e o p p o rtun ity to utilize th e achievem ents of science and technology in th e in terests a n d for th e w ell-being of man. A utom ation and Social Progress, by th e English scientist S. Lilley, is typical in this respect. A fter draw ing a clear picture of th e contradictions arising o ut of autom ation in a capitalist society an d tracin g concrete w ays for easing these contradictions in respect of B ritain, Lilley w rites at th e e n d of his book:
“There is no ultim ate escape from th e fact th a t capitalism, w ell though it w orked in its time, is not a su itable economic stru ctu re for m aking beneficial use of th e advanced techniques of today an d th e even m ore advanced techniques of to-m orrow . W hatever tem p o rary solutions w e m ay find fo r presen t difficulties, these solutions w ill in tu rn c re a te fu rth e r problem s. T u rn an d tw ist as w e may, th e re is n o u ltim ate w ay forw ard except th a t of changing th e w hole economic system in to a socialist one” 5.
The fate of capitalism under conditions of th e technological develop m ent an d advancing productive forces of m odern society finds veiled an d peculiar expression in general theoretical discussions on th e i n t e r ' action of technology and social relations. There are several ty p ical tren d s to be observed. Some claim th a t social phenom ena are the d irect re su lt of technological development. O thers, on th e contrary, assert th a t social phenom ena play th e leading role, and technological developm ent arises ou t of them. Others, again, seek a m ore intricate connection. L et us exam ine th ese th re e tren d s in greater detail.
There exists a ra th e r w idespread affirm atio n th a t social life as 5 S. L i l l e y , Automation and Social Progress. London 1957. Quoting from The Evolution of Science, op. cit., p. 328.
Social A sp ects of th e S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 105.
a w hole is a function of the developm ent of technology. Such a view is tdken by rep resen tativ es of varied trends, beginning w ith th e techno crats in whose w orld-outlook th e conception of “technological d eterm in ism ” occupies a k ey position, and ending w ith rep resen tativ es o f various scientific circles w h o deal little w ith th e social aspects of science an d technology, b u t w ho believe th a t th e ir developm ent, especially in th e long run , has a wholesome effect on m ankind. The views of “techno logical determ inism ” w ere v ery clearly expressed by Leslie W hite, according to whom:
“Social system s are in a very real sense secondary and subsidiary to technological system s. In fact a social system m ay be defined realistically as th e organized effo rt of h u m an /beings in the use of the in stru m en ts of subsistence, offence a n d defence, a n d protection. A social system is a function of a technological system ... The technology is th e independent variable, th e social system is th e dependent variable. Social system s are th erefo re determ ined by system s of technology” 6. The same opinion is developed by th e W est G erm an physicist Pascual Jo rd an — one of th e few scientists th a t fra n k ly declare for th e possibility of using atom bombs. As e a rly as 1956, Jo rd an published his book The Failed Uprising, w here he h ad form ulated, am ong others, his conception reg ard in g th e decisive ro le of discoveries and inventions for social an d political changes. He illu strates h is tho ug ht by quoting th e exam ple of Liebig’s discoveries:
“One can h ardly foresee ain event of g reater im portance w ith in th e n ex t centuiry th a n Liebig’s discovery of artificial fertilizer. Thanks to artificial fertilizer, a n d to th is alone, it w as possible to« increase th e population of Europe. Liebig’s discovery w as n o t a result, b u t on th e contrary a condition of the in d u strialization of Europe a n d th e fo und ation of all subsequent social a n d political changes” 7.
Also belonging to th e group of the follow ers of technological d e te r minism are the scientists, who although not disregarding th e social aspects of science an d technology, do n o t reflect upon th e m 'v e ry m uch. A striking exam ple m ay be offered b y the A m erican scientist, George H arrison o f the M assachusetts In stitu te of Technology, w ho has p ublish ed his in teresting book W hat Man Can Be? The H um an Side of Sciences. H arrison’s pronouncem ents a re Characteristic of th e du p licity of th is group of thinkers. O n th e one hand, h e looks optim istically a t th e future,, considering th a t the scientific an d technological revolu tio n w hich is setting in (or w hich has allready done so) wiill provide happiness to m an. On th e o th er hand, he becomes anxious — a s o th e r scientists also do — about th e fortunes of people an d of m an, who m ay be endangered a s a consequence of this revolution.
6 A. L. W h i t e , The Science of Ciüture. New York 1949, ip. 365.
106 A n atoli Z vo ry k in e
Believing deeply in th e m ight of th e science, H arrison w rites th a t ■“ Science is coming to determ ine how m uch m en can eat, how confortable th e y are, how h ard th ey m u st w ork”, and h e says fu rth e r: “T here is overw helm ing evidence th a t m a n ’s scientific achievem ents w ith m aterial th in gs can and, because of /his n atu re, will, in th e long run , con trib u te g reatly to- his sp iritu al w elfare” 8.
P arallel to th e defense of technological determ inism , and to th e attem pts to avoid contem plating, in a theoretically deep m anner, th e social aspects of scientific a n d technological development, there appear w orks endeavouring to prove th a t direct connections betw een technology a n d economy on th e one hand, and social relatio ns o n th e other, do not ex ist. C haracteristic from th is point of view are the pronouncem ents of one of th e m ost em inent G erm an philosophers and sociologists, K arl Jaspers, w ho in his book A to m Bomb and M ankind’s Future tries to prove th a t the economic (system an d th e social stru ctu re a re o f n o consequence for th e developm ent of technology. W hile ad m ittin g M arx’s statem ent about th e dom inant ro le of economic 'phenomena in th e life of societies to be o f im m ense im portance amd to be u niversally recognized, he asserts th a t an equally im p ortant role is played by th e m oral factors, no one of th e factors,how ever, being ab le to determ ine th e social o rd er autom atically. A t th e end Jasp ers w rites:
“Economy, o r a n y o th er form it m ay possess, is no t absolute. It is n o m easuring rod w hat w e are and can become. Economy is probably a s necessary as w a te r for a n organism , w ithout w hich th e organism w ould perish. But economy is not everything, ju st as w a te r does not com pose th e w hole organism . Economy gains m eaning only th rough th a t for w hich it exists, and Which of course it in itself is not. Economy in itself is perm eated by th e m otives for th e sake of w hich it exists. Therefore, various social orders axe possible a n d ex ist u n d er an ' equal technological level” 9.
H ere reveals itself a tendency characteristic for w estern science, th e ten d en cy to ru n aw ay from studying th e social aspects of technology un d er th e pretence th a t th e phenom ena are complex and th a t th e re supposedly exists no possibility to find, in th e ir v ariety , the leading factors, especially w hen those are economic factors.
A rece n tly published book Social, Economic and Technological C hange (A Theoretical A p p ro a ch )10 in its p articu la r articles (in French an d English) opposes to th e technological determ inism the “social
8 G. H a r r i s o n , What Man Can Be: The Human Side of Sciences. New York 1956, pp. 1, 18.
9 K. J a s p e r s , Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. München 1958, pp. 238—239.
10 Les im plications sociales du progrès technique. Changements techniques, économ iques et sociaux (étude théorique). Paris 1959.
S ocial A sp ects of th e S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 107
determ inism ” (provided such a definition is acceptable), th e social conditioning of technology.
A fter denouncing the scientists who consider science to be th e first cause of th e changes in th e economic situation, th e authors in troduce th e notion of “aim ”, an d emphasize th a t it is n o t th e technology w hich determ ines such or o th er social o r economic stipu lation of aims, b u t — o n th e contrary — th e social aims as well as th e economic theories are d eterm in ed by th e developm ent of technology.
One of th e au th ors of th a t collective w ork, S téphane B ernard, discusses th e m u tu al connections b etw een technology and social relatio n s in his v ery interesting article The Critical A nalysis of Notions Concerning the Social Conditionings of Technological Progress: “...l’action de la technique sur les phénom ènes sociaux — he w rites — s’accompagne toujours d’une action en retour des phénom ènes sociaux sur la tech - ' n iq u e”. The a-uthor m aintains th a t th ere exists a close interactio n betw een technical an d social phenom ena “en form e de cercle, ou plus exactem ent de spirale, puisqu’il reste ouvert dans le tem ps et dans l ’espace”.
This interaction of technological developm ent and society in a u th o r’s opinion can be expressed as follows: “...l’une, ascendante, qui va de la technique à la société et qui exprim e les changem ents sociaux en fonc tio n des changem ents techniques, l’autre, descendante, qui va de la société à la technique et exprim e les changem ents techniques en fonction des changem ents sociaièx” n . I t is from such considerations th a t th e a u th o r derives th e contents an d th e object of his “sociotechnical investi gations”.
-The -article of W ilbert E. Moore of P rin ceto n U niversity en titled M easurem ent of Organizational and Institutional Im plications of Changes in Productive Technology deals as w ell w ith th e in teractio n of techno logical an d social factors. By stressing th e great im portance of research o n m utual links betw een those factors, M oore states th a t “If changes in productive technology have social consequences, th ey also have social sources. Technological determinism , including th e fam ous conception o f «culture lag», m ay be dism issed sim ply a n d categorically as having n e ith e r em pirical nor theoretical su p po rt w o rth a n y sm all fractio n o<f the attention it has been accorded” 12.
Such is the varied picture of judgm ents on connections of techno logical progress w ith economic and social phenom ena. It m ay be seen th a t th e scientists dealing w ith this problem a re co rrectly perceiving, a t th e ibest, only one o r another aspect of it. A ttrib u tin g to technology a decisive significance in the present w orld, th e follow ers of
techno-11 Ibid., pip. 33—34. 12 Ibid., p. 232.
108 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
logical determ inism lay stress on th e im m ense possibilities given to m ankind by science a n d technology. Since th e y do n o t u n d erstan d th e dialectical connections of technology w ith economic and social relations, their point of view, how ever, does n o t m ake it possible to detect th e real a n d objective character of the m u tu al links existing betw een technology an d social relations.
N or do- the represen tativ es of social determ inism see the dialectical connection betw een technology an d social relations. W hile stressing rig h tly on m any occasions th e social aspects o f technology a n d - th e influence of social life upon it, w hile denouncing correctly th e repre sentatives of technological determ inism , th e y do not' perceive, however,, th e objective reg u larities of th e developm ent of technology.
The characteristic feature of th e num erous pronouncem ents on th e subject of social aspects of technology is th e ir reference to M arx’s works. Jaspers, for instance, as m entioned above, afte r having kow tow ed to M arx’s theory — th e n sim ply rejected it.
The director of th e B u reau Intern atio nal d e Recherche su r les: Im plications sociales du P rogrès Technique, Georges Bailandier, in his: interesting preface to th e above-quoted book Social, Economic and. Technological Change also discusses about M arxism, although — to te ll the tru th — in a v ery nebulous form : “...des com m entateurs de la théorie m arxiste ont-ils été incités à sim plifier et déform er cette dernière en la considérant essentiellem ent comme l’affirm ation d’un déterm inism e technologique. Ceci nous m ontre combien la tentation de recourir à un tel et unique mode d ’explication des m ouvem ents com plexes affectant les sociétés modernes, peut être fo rte” 13.
I t w ould be difficu lt to give a re p ly to such a critical rem ark, since it re fe rs to th e com m entators of Marxism, and among th e m — as is - generally know n — th e re m ay be also subh as give to- M arxism a sense
opposed to th e tru e one.
The attitu d e tow ards M arxism is given a m ore d eterm ined u tteran ce by the authors of an o th er article composing th e assem blage in question (H. Th. Chabot, J. A. Ponsioen, J. In ’t Veld, L. J. Zim m erm an, C. A. O. van N ieuw enhuijze, E. A. Campo). They say th a t th e M arxist system “sub jects historical events and social in stitu tio ns them selves to th e exp lanato ry process of economic analysis” t4. The au th o rs seem n o t to have stud ied M arx’s works, b u t to- re fe r to S chum peter’s comments; it is to be stated, therefore, th a t such a general and undeterm ined form ulation of the M arxist system is quite incom prehensible. The English scholars R. F irth, F. J. F isher a n d D. G. Mac Rae (from th e London School of Economics and Political Science) w rite in th e ir article Social
13 Ibid., (p. VII. 14 Ibid:, p. 5.
Social A sp ects of the S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 1Q9
Im plications of Technological Change as Regards P atterns and Models a s fo llo w s :
“To M arx technology is n e arly alw ays p a r t of th e to tal social s tru c tu re in tim e: a p a rtly dependent variable. Like W eber, he reg ard s m odern industrial technology as a late consequence ra th e r th a n a cause o f «prim ary capitalist accum ulation». P resu m ab ly it cannot be in tro d u ced into societies w here such accum ulation has n o t ta k e n (or is n o t
taking) place. A nd yet M arx very fre q u en tly — though less th a n E ngels — w rites as a technological determ in ist” 15. A nd fu rth e r to continue: “At least Mairx gives us one clue w hich is, how ever obvious, im portant. Innovation req u ires innovators; a special, som etim es m arginal, group o r class, able — potentially a t least — to influence and/or do m in ate in th e ir society. W ithout such a group... a society w ill rem ain passive (or b e resistant) to technical change a n d innovation” 16.
We have discussed in detail the various in terp reta tio n s of the problem of the connections betw een th e social a n d technological factors, as w ell as the attem p ts to utilize M arx’s: w orks w ith a view of explaining those connections. It is to be observed here th a t M arx’® a n d Engels’s approach to technology had, of course, nothing to do w ith technological determ inism . Both of th em reg ard ed technology as sudh, a n d first of all as an indicator of social relations. This idea w as form ulated by M arx, a t length a n d precisely, in th e first volum e of Capital w here he points out th a t “th e economic epochs d iffer from each o th e r not by •What is being done, b u t b y how i t is being done, by help of What in stru m en ts of labour”. W ith that, M arx em phasized th a t “in stru m en ts o f labour n o t only sup ply a stan d ard of th e degree of developm ent to which hum an labour pow er has attained, b u t th e y are also indicators o f th e social conditions u nder w hich th e labour is c arried o u t” 17.
Technological progress is considered by M arx as a u n ity of techno logical an d social factors. He shows how th e developm ent of technology conduces to the developm ent of productive forces; how, in consequence o f th a t, the relations of production, the economic relations, a n d th e re upo n various ideological relations, as w ell, a re changing; a n d how, sim ultaneously, the economic an d ideological: relations a re acting in th e inverse direction — upon technology. M arx shows, then, th e deep in fluence of social relations upon technology. Let us exam ine, for th e sake of exam ple, th e above m entioned th e o ry deriving th e devel o p m ent of technology from th e economic a n d social determ ination of objectives.
The very notion “determ ination of objectives” tells us b u t v ery little, the conditions engendering them being not defined. It is long ago
15 Ibid., ip. 287. 16 Ibid.
110 A n a to li Zvo ryk in e
th a t M arx exam ined th a t question and included th e determ ination of objectives, as a leading force of technological progress, in to the expla nation of th e developm ent of technology. B ut M arx derives th e objectives’ determ ination from th e regularities, underlying eith er form ation.
Since the production of su rp lu s value is th e basis of the social s tru c tu re in capitalist conditions, th e technological progress, too, is in those conditions connected w ith th e capitalists’ aspiration for obtaining su rp lu s value. T hat is w h at determ ines th e objectives of capitalists w ho constitute a class ex ertin g a decisive influence upon th e technological progress.
By determ ining th e objectives, the capitalists are not at lib erty to give up technological progress: “It is th e compelling force of anarchy in social production th a t tu rn s th e lim itless perfectibility of m achinery un d er m odem in d u stry into a com pulsory law by w hich ev ery individual ind ustrial capitalist m u st perfect his m achinery m ore a n d more, u nder penalty of ru in ” 18.
As is obvious from all w e said above, th e form of M arx’s and Engels’s conception is based on th e fact th a t th e y 'b o th explain the w hole v ariety of th e determ ination of objectives although it is in th e m ain a concrete expression of economic laws. M arx shows, for instance, how in th e U nited S tates in view of m anpow er sh ortage an d of wages being higher th an in Europe th e capitalists took a special in terest in introducing m achines into th e production plants, o r how un der th e concrete historical conditions in England — the conflict betw een em ployers and w orkers becoming aggravated more a n d m ore — th e capitalists w ere developing technology, aim ing to m ake use of it in ord er to bring th e w orkers to th eir knees.
“From 1825 onw ard — M arx w rites — alm ost all th e n ew inventions w ere th e re su lt of collisions betw een th e w o rkers an d em ployers who sought at all costs to depreciate th e w o rk er’s specialized ability. A fter each new strik e of any im portance, th e re appeared a n ew m achine” 19.
T h at is above a ll how th e determ ination of objectives is taking place. There m ay be quoted, tru e enough, an infinite n u m b er of o th e r objectives connected for d ifferen t people w ith different m otivations. However the com prehension of th e principal line of developm ent depends on the capacity to distinguish the m ain directions of th e determ ination of objectives, these directions being in the en d connected w ith economic laws of society's development. A correct com prehension of links existing betw een technological and social factors requ ires a correct philosophic in terp retatio n of technology itself.
Technology is tools an d in stru m en ts of labour, developing in the process of social production. Technology is an elem ent of productive
18 F. E n g e l s , Anti-Diihring. Moscow 1957, pp. 257—258. 19 K. M a r x , The P overty of Philosophy. Moscow 2nd ed., p. 157.
Social A sp e c ts of th e S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 111
forces th a t in conjunction w ith th e relations of production form th e economic base o f society. The utilization of n a tu re ’s law s is th e basis of technology, its developm ent, however, a n d its social effects cannot be understood a p a rt from th e relations of production a n d th e law s o f social developm ent. Science deals w ith th e possibilities of u tilizin g n a tu re ’s law s b y m eans of technology. However, to w h at purposes, in w h at direction, ait W hat ra te does technology develop, how does i t influence m an — these an d sim ilar questions can be understood o n ly w hen social conditions of th e developm ent o f technology are taiken in to
account. ~
The m ain deficiency of th e theories, w idespread in w estern co u n tries and concerning th e connections betw een technology ad social factors, consists ju st-in th a t th e y forget th e social conditions of th e develo p m en t of technology a n d a ttrib u te to it pro p erties th a t en sue from th e social conditions of its application.
The first group o f social relations, inseparably connected w ith technology, is con stitu ted b y th e economic relatio n s of p rod u ction w hich n o t only change in connection w ith th e developm ent of technology and of productive forces as a whole, b u t also exercise by them selves an influence upon th e character, the direction and the ra te of the develop m en t of technology.
M an is inseparably linked With technology as a n active p a rtic ip a n t of th e process of production, as a, m ain elem en t of productive forces, which sets technology in motion. It is th erefore evident th a t changes of technology have a direct influence upon m an, upon th e ch a ra c te r a n d object of his labour, upon his professional sik'ill an d o th er aspects of his life, b u t th a t th e direct influence of technology upon m an m u st n o t be isolated from the social conditions o f his life. The sam e alteratio n s of technology will have a d iffere n t influence on m a n in th e 'Conditions of socialism a n d in those of capitalism.
Technology, moreover, affects m an n o t only directly, b u t also th ro u g h th e developm ent of .productive forces. The le v e l of their developm ent determ ines — as is generally know n — the ch aracter of m an’s rela tio n to th e m eans of production, th a t is to say th e form of property. A nd th a t is how technology exercises its m ain influence — through productive forces upon th e social relations of man, th e form of social relations- varying u n d er th e influence of th e developm ent of productive forces in a rev o lutionary w ay in th e antagonistic societies, and in a n evolutionary way in socialism W here the change of th e c h ara cter of technology a n d th e transform ations of productive forces lead to th e replacem ent of th e state and co-operative form of p roperty by a single com m unist form.
This aspect of the influence of technology — th ro u g h productive- forces upon th e social relatio ns — is to b e 'emphasized no t only because th e relatio n to the m eans of production ran g es am ong th e m ost im p o rta n t
1 1 2 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
social relations, b u t also because it is im possible to com prehend th e deve lopm ent o f technology an d its influence on oth er kind s of social rela tions w hen ignoring the p revalen t form s of property. T here are some o th e r relatio n s th a t ran g e am ong th e economic relatio n s of production, being th e most im po rtant group of social relations. The developm ent of technology entails a change of th e proportions o f social labour and a Change — as M arx said — of the .social com bination of th e production process. So th e re appear n ew branches of 'production, th e relations bet w een th e p a rtic u la r branches get changed, th e geographical distribution of production g ets altered, technology conduces to a n alteratio n of enterp rises as regards th eir k in d an d character, and so forth.
B ut all th a t finds — so to. say — its m irro r reflectio n w ithin the social life and leads n o t only to the reco nstruction of th e production ap p aratu s in space an d time, b u t also to a n a lteratio n o f m en ’s; standing, to a n alteratio n of th e ir plaice in life, to a n alteratio n of th e character of th e ir la b o u r and to m an y o th e r effects, all these changes an d m ore especially th e ir characteristic and concrete m arks being com prehensible only w ith d u e re g ard for th e m ain relations of production, w ith in which these changes occur.
The group of economic relations connected w ith changes of th e social com bination of th e production process is bordered upon by a special group of social relations — relatio ns of m en in th e process of everyday life. Ju st as production em braces also consumption, so th e economic reflations em brace both relations in the production sphere and those in the sphere of everyday life. The m an who w orks at a factory, m ust restore his forces and have a t his disposal conditions indispensable for satisfying his m aterial and sp iritu al w ants. The influence of tech nology upon th a t group of relations proves to> be som ew hat different th a n th e influence exercised upon th e relatio n s form ing directly a t the factory. The profound alteration s m ade by technology in th e ch aracter of towns, in th e tran sp o rt and in th e everyday life — are here of great im portance.
The following group of social relations is of an essentially different ch aracter. If th e economic relations a s described above m ay be called m aterial, form ing beyond the hum an consciousness, th e others a re ideo logical, existing in m en ’s consciousness. The la st group includes: political relations connected w ith sta te activities; juridical relations; m en’s rela tions bound u p w ith various form s of ideology — m oral, aesthetic ones — as w ell as w ith different branches of art.
The influence of th e scientific a n d technological progress upon th a t group of iso'Cial relatio n s is of an even m ore com plex character. The foundation of ideological relations is constituted by the class relations developing on a determ ined economic basis, technology, however, ex
er-Social A sp ects of the S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 113
cises its direct influence not so m uch on th e contents, as on m eans an d form s of ideological relations.
On the o th e r hand, th e (scientific an d technological rev o lu tio n exerts a pow erful, though indirect influence on th e contents of ideological social relations, nam ely th ro u g h th e developm ent of productive forces a n d [relations of production, as well as th rough developm ent of economy an d everyday life. W hen developing, th e production le ts e n te r o n to th e historical aren a new social classes, b earers of a n ew ideology. It is then th a t is taking place a destruction o r tran sfig u ratio n of the old tenor of life and old traditions, th is finding its reflection w ith in th e ideological relations.
W hat is then th e concrete ‘^mechanism” of the influence of tech n o logy over economic and social relations? G reat pu b licity has been given to a theory of th e A m erican sociologist, W. F. Ogbuirn. T hat theory, not long ago critically review ed in an article by N. I. O sm ova20, can be recap itu lated as folloiws: m an lives in a trip le environm ent — a n atu ra l, social a n d technological o r technical one. The la st of th em — th e m a te ria l elem en t of cu ltu re — is to (be reg ard ed as a n independent variable. U nder its influence, th e non-m aterial environm ent (economic an d p o liti cal categories and institutions, m orals, religion, ideology) is Changed.
According to O gburn’s theory, the mechanism concerning th e ad ap ta tio n of social environm ent to technology functions in th e following way: th ere occurs a t first a local adaptation of th e life of one or another collective to one or another change in technology, th e re is also v ary in g one o r an o th er social institution. The sum of th e transfo rm ed conditions gives rise, thereupon, to* a new and m ore sweeping adaptation, an d so on. T h ere occurs in fact som ething like a chain reaction. At a n y rate, it is technology th a t gives prim itive im pulses to Changes. Thereupon, techno logy, tog eth er w ith th e sum of changes alread y realized, gives the second impulse, and a still greater circle of changes gives rise to a th ird im pulse. The theorists of th a t tre n d emphasize th a t th e m anifold im pul ses, coming from various,sides, become entang led a n d ex ert an influence o n e upon another.
F or a n o u tw ard onlooker, th a t image is convincing enough. The influence of technology upon all aspects of m an ’s life (for in stan ce a t ' a factory, in agriculture, in tran sp o rt, in tow n a n d village, in th e every day life) is not to be ignored indeed. Once spread, ev ery invention a n d every innovation affects both p articu la r m en an d such o r o th er collective bodies. The task facing science, how ever, consists in th a t — a p a rt from those phenom ena th a t tak e place on th e surface — th e reg u larities underlying th e interaction of technological progress a n d social
20 H. И. О с ь м о в а , О так называемом «технологическом детерминизме» (N. I. O s m o v a , Concerning «Technological Determinism»). “Вестник Истории Ми ровой Культуры” (“Review of the History of World Culture”) N. 4/1059.
114 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
conditions be revealed, in tlhat th e specific ch ara cter of this in te r action be disclosed. In (the light of th e above-indicated M arxist th eo ry of technology, of its scientific and social basis and of its place am ongst th e productive forces, th e m echanism of th e interactio n of technological an d social factors looks som ew hat different. The effect of technological progress upon social conditions can be — as shown above — direct a n d indirect. B ut ev ery -direct action of technology upon social life depends — as w e already em phasized — n o t on ly on technology, b u t also on th e social conditions under w hich m an lives. T hat in teraction m anifests itself in different w ays u nder d ifferen t social conditions, a n d exercises a diverse influence on people an d th e ir living conditions.
The m ain a n d decisive p a rt is p layed — as w e h av e ju st said — n o t by th e direct influence, bu t by those most profound changes th a t are occasioned b y technology w ith in th e productive forces and corres ponding relation s of production. Such o r o th e r production, property an d p.laigs relatio n s exert, w ith th a t, a stro n g reverse influence on th e technological progress.
SOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION
I t is usual, w hen w e speak of the scientific and technological revolu tion, to en um erate its various aspects — the staggering progress m ade by n a tu ra l sciences, th e ir m erg er w ith technology, autom ation, elec tronic equipm ent, atomic pow er and its uses, the great leap in th e m anu factu re of synthetic m aterials, etc., etc. The social im pact of all the big a n d sm all developm ents bound up w ith th e scientific an d tech nological revolution m erits equal attention, since ev ery developm ent in science, a n d especially in technology, concerns hum an com munities, tends to a lte r th e ir condition, th e ir w ay of living, an d th e social relatio n s in production, society an d the home.
The num erous investigations of th e social m icro-world, w hich is in a sta te of flu x u n der the im pact of various scientific a n d technological developm ents are therefore highly welcome. B ut it seem s th a t investi gations of th is so rt w ould be far m ore fru itfu l if th e p articu lar w e re tre a ted in them against th e setting of th e general, i.e. if the stu d y of the social m icro-w orld w ent h an d in h an d w ith investigations of th e social m acro-w orld, inasm uch as th e life of every individual, of each cell, is a composite elem ent of large h u m an com munities an d depends on the general s ta te a n d developm ent of society as a whole.
It is th e fashion these days to d raw comparisons betw een n a tu ra l and social phenom ena. Comparisons, w e know, are n ot proof ag ain st error, b u t v e ry tem pting. The first th in g th a t strik e s th e eye is th e indissoluble connection betw een th e phenom ena of the m icro- and th e
Social A sp ects of th e S cien tific and T echnological Progress 116
m acro-worlds. F or years th e various provinces of n a tu ra l science ap p eared to exist independently of each other. Today, th is notion is changing rapidly. The am azing w orld of fundam ental particles, th e ir associations and relationships, th e w orld of atoms, w as ait first view ed by scientists as .something qu ite ap art from all th e o rd in ary physical phenom ena know n to m an th rough d irect observation. The previously discovered laws of n a tu re w ere inapplicable to th e n ew phenom ena. Q u an tu m me chanics replaced classical mechanics. N ew conceptions w ere called for and developed.
S trang e as it m ay seem, th e w orld’s u n ity is being m ore and m ore conclusively dem onstrated in o u r time, when, dm effect, we w itness th e greatest counter-position of th e m icro- a n d m acro-worlds, a n d accord ingly, of th e various objective lawis th a t govern them . The physics of fundam ental particles, n u clear physics, know ledge of th e s tru c tu re of the atom, yields a deeper and m ore accurate u n d erstanding of the phenom ena tran sp irin g in th e visible w orld, a b e tte r un d erstan d ing of the physics of solids, the age of m o u n tain rocks and th e earth , th e laws governing the form ation of crystals, conductivity and, last b u t n o t least, of th e life of cells, of living tissue. The m odern n a tu ra l .sciences set out from th e m icro-w orld and its law s to u n derstand, explain a n d utilize th e w orld of visible n atu re in a n ew w ay.
Has not th e realization grow n on u s today thait th e m en tal an d spiritual w orld of th e m odern main w ith a ll its notions, convictions an d infatuations, th a t th e stru c tu re of th e p rim ary h u m an com munities, are indivisibly associated w ith th e social m acro-w orld, w ith society as a whole, w ith th e change occurring in society u n der th e im pact of deve lopm ents in m odern science, technology and th e productive forces.
Yet, in com paring n a tu ra l phenom ena w ith social ones w e m u st also em phasize th eir distinctive traits. In stu dy in g n a tu ra l phenom ena w e go from th e m icro-w orld to the m acro-w orld. In probing .social phenom ena it is m ore correct to go from th e changes in m o d em social life to changes in th e life of individuals, fam ilies o r com m unities. It is th erefo re essential first to probe the influence of the scientific a n d technological revolution on th e s tru c tu re of m odem society a n d th e n to go on to a stu d y of the indirect (via society) a n d direct in fluence ex erted by th e scientific an d technological revolution on th e individual, his mind, m entality, code of behaviour, and all th e o th e r factors considered to be p u rely personal an d individual. The th ing to begin w ith is a general description of th e scientific an d technological revolution.
It is usual, as I have alre ad y observed, w hen speaking of th e scien tific a n d technological revolution, to view th e various aspects of it — physics, chem istry, th e application of theoretical science to technology, autom ation, atomic energy, etc., b u t th e prim e significance of th e various p articu la r scientific and technological discoveries lies in th a t
116 A n atoli Z vo ry k in e
th e ir ag g reg ate produces a new and different technology, the system of autom atic m achines sw iftly adaptable to m odifications of operating conditions (elastic, pliable, an d possessing unlim ited sources of power). We do no t as y et have such a com pounded universal system adapted to different branches of production, b u t w e a re fast approaching it.
L et us dwell briefly in to the w ays and means; of its development. To' begin w ith, les us look into th e problem s of autom ation. People argue w h eth er autom ation is a new o r an old development. N um erous exam p le s of autom ation are cited th a t go back hundreds of years. Yet au to m ation in its p resen t slbape is unquestionably a n en tirely new develop m ent. T h at is easily seen w h en we com pare th e old a n d th e new au to m ated m achines o r autom ated system s of machines. In the past, there w ere three-elem ent machines* o r system s of machines, i.e., machines consisting of three elem ents — th e activating m echanism, th e d riv e and th e generating mechanism. In its incipient stage autom ation was effected through m odifications in th e design of th e transm ission device. This was a .simple and incom plete solution, w hereby autom ation could not have w rought any decisive technological progress o r Changed the func tions of m an in production.
Today, m eans of autom atic control are, so to speak, self-sufficient. F our-elem ent m achines h av e replaced three-elem ent ones. In th eir developed form th e devices and in stru m en ts th a t constitute the fourth elem ent autom atically execute a set cycle of operations and, w h at is more, m aintain th e most su itable operating conditions for the cycle. A n electronic incoming inform ation, com pares th e re su lts of the analysis w ith p re-set criteria, selects (or appropriately modifies) th e most desirable program m e for th e m an u factu re of products of th e desired quality. Devices of th is k in d a re used in research, for economic com puting a n d are being rap id ly developed and im proved. All this furnishes the clue to th e principle underlying th e new ch aracter of autom ation.
But th e re is also this o th e r aspect to th e scientific an d technological revolution, perhaps less prom inent, -bound up w ith the im provem ent of technology a n d its adaptation to th e req uirem en ts of au tom ated produc ti o n . That is probably the key to the question of how autom ation will
spread, from th e technological and economic standpoint, to various b ran ches a n d tran sfo rm m odern in d u stry as a whole.
W hen F ord first introduced straig h t-lin e autom obile assem bly me thods in 1912>, he made a technological advance of incalculable im pact. It laid the foundation for m ass assem bly-line production, w ithout which th e developm ent o f autom ation is inconceivable. In th e last fifty years straig h t-lin e production developed along the principles of flow, unifica tion, standardization and mechanization. These respond perfectly to th e challenges of autom ation. B ut they have th e ir w eak p o in t as well, for they produce mechanical system s th a t a re rigid a n d inflexible. It is
Social A sp ects of th e S cien tific and T echnological P rogress 117
h ard to convert them from producing one product to- producing an other. This lim its th e ir usefulness. M odern technology, in th e m eantim e, lays increasing em phasis o n adaptability. Scientific an d technological disco veries, new m aterials an d th e m a rk e t dem and comped technologists, w h ether th e y like it o r not, to re p a tte rn th e m echanical system.
The developm ent of sufficiently flexible form s of m echanical m eans has been one of th e greatest technological advances of the last few decades. In a w orld o f mass production lines, conversion from a ll-p u r pose to specialized m achine tools w ith interchang eab le pow er heads was found to b e a good w ay out. The principle of m ounting m echanical system s of stan d ard units, though th is d id n o t e n tirely se ttle th e m a tter, m ade th em m ore pliable in certain conditions an d facilitated conversion to au tom ated production lines. But this applied to ce rta in conditions of mass production only. T here is: still th e w idespread sm all-lot produc tion to- cope w ith. So 'long as a w ay is no t found to ad just m achines an d system s of machines to th e changing objects of production quickly enough, th is vast province of m odern technology will n ot be able to convert to au tom ated m achine system s.
W hat cannot be done in th e case of individual enterprises, how ever, is quite possible w ith in th e fram ew ork of large scale economic d istricts o r a country as a whole. Unification an d stan dardization of machines, th e developm ent of aligned series of m achines, and th e unification a n d standardization of the elem ents of various m achines projects th e mass production line principle to branches w here, it w ould seem, th a t p rin ciple had no fu tu re, blazing th e tra il for autom ation. Conversion in m echanical operations from m etal cutting to casting, forging and form ing, and, last b u t n o t least, to chemical production processes w hich b y th e ir v ery n a tu re respond id eally to th e principle of continuity, flow an d intensiveness, i.e., to conditions in w hich autom ation is most effective, paves the w ay for autom ated system s of m achines.
But th a t is n o t all. A utom ation does n o t alw ays w a it un til technology is re a d y for it. Often, it helps technology along. P rogram m ed control of m achines and system s of m achines h a s a good fu tu re. It w ill m ake it possible to autom ate all-purpose m achines as well as specialized ones, and subsequently all-purpose system s oif m achines as, well. In th e past, adjusting them to n ew 'products was a labour-consum ing affair, w hile autom ated system s w ith program m ed control w ill red u ce a d ju stm en t to a sim ple change of program m e. A fter it is new ly program m ed, a m achine ad ju sts itself and m anufactures new products. Technology an d au to m a tion develop along one and the sam e line, helping each other, as it were, an d main, as a result, g radually ceases to b e th e im m ediate agent of production.
The auto m ated system of m achines w hich is now evolving 'will be electrically pow ered. Speaking of electricity, it is not going to p la y th e
118 A n a to li Z vo ry k in e
passive role of m ere pow er supplier. The m ost w o nderful thing about it is th a t electricity v irtu ally transform s all branches of technology, from m etallurgy an d chem istry to mechanics. E lectricity is th e k ey technolo gical ag ent for th e conversion to casting, form ing a n d forging. It paves th e w ay for new m etals a n d m aterials, and prom otes chem istry. This is w h y electrification of production called for by th e grow ing consum p tion of electric pow er is a k ey d eterm in ativ e factor of th e technological revolution.
It m ay be recalled th a t a series of forecasts has been made in th e U nited S tates concerning pow er production in th e coming ten to tw en ty years. The F ederal P ow er Commission bases these forecasts on a n average ann ual grow th of pow er ;produotion of 6.75 per cent; th e Edison In stitu te on 7.7 per cent, and the jo u rn al “Electric W orld” on 9 p e r cent. Accordingly, electric pow er o u tp u t is expected to clim b to- 2,084, 2,795 and 3,184 m illion kW h b y 1980. The 1980 power o u tp u t in th e Soviet Union has been set a t 2,700—3,000 m illion kWh.
W ith tim e pow er production will ap p aren tly rise at a still higher rate, a n d autom ation a n d im proved technology based on growing power consum ption w ill offer un precedented opportunities for th e grow th of labour productivity. A lthough long-term forecasts a re largely hypo thetical, they are of considerable in terest. A m erican literatu re infers th a t by 2050 th e 7-hour d ay ’s o u tp u t of a w orker w ill equal a 40-hour w eek’s o utput by the present-day A m erican w orker.
The rap id rise in pow er consum ption -poses th e question of power resources, renew able an d unrenew able, such as gas, oil a n d coal. According to some specialists th e resources of n a tu ra l gas in the U nited States will, in th e main, be exhausted before th e end of th is century. O ther specialists do not th in k th e y will be, but estim ate th a t th e oil reserves w ill be to tally consumed. There will still be coal, b u t its resources are also expected to dwindle. (Besides, ooal extraction u n d er unfavourable n a tu ra l conditions an d low -quality coal may, it is feared, add to th e cost of electric power. The w ay o ut lies in th e use of new power resources, the power of the sea tides, of geo-therm al, so lar and atom ic energy.
W hat is th e role of atom ic energy in th is deep-going historical tra n sform ation of production w hich characterizes th e substance of th e mo dern scientific and technological revolution?
P roduction of electric pow er through th e fission of nuclei of heavy elem ents has already begun. The first sections of large atom ic electric power stations in th e Soviet Union, a t Voronezh an d Beloyarsk, a re soon to be -completed. The Beloyarsk rea c to r of 100 MW will, experts believe, have th e w orld’s best param eters. The No-vo-Voronezh atom ic pow er station is to have aqueous reactors of 210 MW each. It is estim ated th a t atomic pow er stations w ith an aggregate electrical ra tin g of 100,000 MW,
