Lets get going with the next references to Marx. It is in a chapter called Experimental Social Revolution (pp.27-31) The whole chapter is littered with references to Marx, Lenin, and revolution, I need to quote the whole section.

In this chapter Moreno wants to use his methods to further revolutionary causes. I almost want to say Comrade Moreno but quickly the chapter deteriorates. Moreno sneers at Marx and and revolution. He does not see history through a post Marx lens. The chapter reveals the emptiness of Moreno’s grasp of history and revolution.

Here is the chapter in full….

EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL REVOLUTION

A social revolution has all of humanity in a test tube. If one could be a participant-actor in it and, at the same time outside of it, an observer, this might make a good beginning for a research of revolutions in statu nascendi. The great French revolution may be called the “cradle of sociology”. It is the outstanding contribution which France has made towards the development of the social sciences. It started a chain reaction from Saint Simon, Fourier, Comte, Proudhon to Durkheim. The same distinction goes to the socialistic revolutions culminating in Russia. The Paris Commune of 1871, the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 are the three cradles of Marxism. In spite of their mental confusions, distortions of precept and madness of leadership, these experiments of nature and history—though to a great extent unplanned and uncontrolled—did more to seduce people into thinking about the major social problems of humanity than all the Departments of Sociology since established. But what has such irrational thing as a social revolution to do with thinking and science? The explanation is simple: in the emergent phase of a revolution humanity is in a highly productive phase; similar to a man of genius in a state of inspiration, ideas which have been dormant come suddenly to the fore and form new, exciting and creative constellations; similar to a mental patient in the sudden outbreak of an acute phase, or the outpouring of elevating ideas and actions in the initial phases of a new religion.

I played with the idea of putting revolutions on an experimental basis. They seemed to be much more rewarding for gaining knowledge than the writing of comprehensive sociological systems and scholarly critiques of revolutions. It appeared to me also that making revolutions on a very small scale would be more advantageous than the global ones. They could be more concentrated and thoroughgoing, the phenomena could be studied as if under the microscope. It would be the quickest and most direct way of learning about problems which look very different post mortem; they look like every other corpse after life has vanished. What I dreaded most, however, was to fall into the abyss of make— believe and the artificiality of contrived experiment. The small revolution had to be as real as the global one. In the course of years several opportunities offered themselves, communities of people who were willing to engage themselves in a total change of their social relationships, a cooperative revolution, and I was able to see with my own eyes how a society can be changed and what happens after the change is accomplished . In the course of microscopic experiments I encountered many of the problems which have been described about revolutions on a big scale, the idea stage, the propaganda stage and the stage of violent action ; the various types of social revolution, the Christian kind of “introverted action”, accompanied by a minimum of social involvement, the Marxist type of “extroverted action”, accompanied by a high degree of social involvement, the “all out” type of revolution as in the sociometric scheme . (In the Marxist revolution only the working classes are “all out”, the bourgeoisie is on the defense.) In the microscopic forms as in the global ones the existing social order is confronted by a new one. The existing order is rejected by the prophet of the new order or by the majority of the revolutionary group. The new social order must be visualized with a reasonable degree of clarity and intensively wanted by the prophet (in the religious case) or the leaders of the group (in the social case) in order for such a revolutionary experiment to become meaningful and effective. If these conditions exist the crucial problem for the leaders is how to get the masses ready for action and for the acceptance of the new order; how to mobilize the spontaneity of the masses, to turn them into spontaneous actors in behalf of the project of replacing the existing social order. Some methods of “warming up” are indispensable to get them ready. We see here three categories operating which sociometry has pointed out with particular emphasis: the category of creativity, a clear vision of the new order; the category of spontaneity, the masses arousing themselves and being aroused to make the visionary order a reality and the category of the warming up, to get the prophet or the leaders and the masses ready for action.

I tried to clarify in my mind what the modus vivendi of a social revolution might be and arrived at the following tentative hypotheses: a) it is the degree of the impact of the social groups as historical forces upon the current situation; b) the degree to which the smallest functional units of society, the socioatomic structures are directly affected by the political rebellion and integrated into the official sect or party organization; c) the degree to which the leader or leaders of revolution are “intuitive” sociometrists-adequately able to gauge the sociodynamic forces operating in the immediate present within the population involved—thus the chances for a successful revolution rise and fall. This applies to every type of revolution whether religious or political, bourgeois or proletarian. The Christian revolution tried to bring certain religious values and intellectual properties of the Jewish intelligentsia, the Pharisees, and of a few, exclusive saints to poor and rich alike, to Jews and non-Jews alike, to all people of all nations. However lofty and mystical the Scriptures are, there are many clues which can be used to draw sociometric and role diagrams of personal and ideological forces criss-crossing the emerging Christian revolution. If leaders like Jesus of Nazareth and Saint Paul would not have had a clairvoyant’s sense for the actual forces operating at the moment, the potentialities of the social unrest within the masses might have taken a different course, a military or political revolution might have succeeded instead of the religious one. The imagination of the leaders must have been sensitive to the now and here forces in order to transform the potential into real achievement. The American revolution of 1776 proclaimed: “All men are created equal” and the French revolution raised the banner of: “Egalite, Liberte, Fraternite”. These two revolutions tried to extend the influence of the many and reinforced the principle of universality. At first sight the Russian revolution of 1917 with its “Dictatorship” of the Proletariat may seem to be of a different order. Like Marx, Lenin was hardly aware of the sociometric nature of society, but he was convinced that the economic forces of the class struggle were pushing human society inevitably towards a socialistic form of government. He felt that he had the mission at this moment of history to bring to conclusion, as it were, this unavoidable experiment of Nature. But there were two Lenins, the loyal servant of dialectic materialism and the other, the practical Lenin, besieged by enormous difficulties and more than ever by the realization that many of the communist promises are impossible to attain. He recognized that there were not two classes sharply separated, fighting each other-as it is with the armies of two states at war-but that there were innumerable shades and degree of class distinctions. Class is sociometrically not only a specially qualified social group, it has a quantitative distribution. Social classes like bourgeoisie and proletariat are metasociological constructs, the tangible thing is the “party organization”. He had to make a decision to win for the party with whose cause he had identified his life. Like a general he began to survey the present field of action before him. Without an intuitive, quasi-sociometric analysis of the total situation in Russia from day to day and without letting his insight move his decisions, the opportunity for a successful revolution might have gone astray, notwithstanding that ideal political conditions for victory existed. In his mind he drew the picture of the sociograms of the persons and groups and ideological and military forces operating for or against him and his people and then he started the proletarian war which preceded the proletarian dictatorship. He may have said to himself: “The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is ruthless, tyrannical and murderous when it comes to suppressing the working class. Therefore, the war of the proletariat cannot be won by soft talk, it will have to use warlike weapons; it will have to be equally ruthless, tyrannical and terroristic.” What bolstered Lenin’s courage to lead a social revolution with all its brutalities was full of ethical and moral implications: “It is true,” he may have said to himself in moments of honest cynicism, “that we are merely reversing the order of who is suppressing whom, reversing one government of terrorism and suppression with another, but at least the government which will suppress from now on represents the producing masses, the many against the few.”

A sort of ethical motive, the idea of universal participation, which we found implied in the development of scientific method apparently also plays a role in the makings of social revolutions. There is a similarity in sociometric position between Lenin, the Tartar, the tribune of the masses bringing political power to the people, and Prometheus, the tribune of science, bringing scientific power to them .

Humanity in a test tube

Moreno has a good insight here: Test tube. Science. Participant-actor observer. Note he adds in the word “actor”, this is more than being there, he is advocating being an agent.

Moment of Birth

… research of revolutions in statu nascendi.

Statu nascendi, moment of birth. Moreno believes that in order to understand something it is good to go to its moment of birth. But in a revolution one can’t study the moment of birth, that moment has passed. Moreno’s musings are about sociodramas of revolutions. Yes we can be there at the moment of birth, we can be participants and observers but that is sociodrama

Humanity in a highly productive phase – when much is revealed.

But what has such irrational thing as a social revolution to do with thinking and science? The explanation is simple: in the emergent phase of a revolution humanity is in a highly productive phase; similar to a man of genius in a state of inspiration, ideas which have been dormant come suddenly to the fore and form new, exciting and creative constellations; (p.28)

Revolution is a phase when much is revealed, making it a time ripe for study. Again, the science on his mind is exploration on the stage, sociodrama. The human productivity can be produced on the stage by actors in the world of sociodrama the actors are group participants. A person Moreno evokes at the opening of the paragraph, someone who is a “participant-actor in it and, at the same time outside of it, an observer”.

Small Scale Revolutions

It appeared to me also that making revolutions on a very small scale would be more advantageous than the global ones. They could be more concentrated and thoroughgoing, the phenomena could be studied as if under the microscope.(p.28)

He does not enter into the reality of revolution, he is avoiding something. These “small scale” events are not revolutions. I see small-scale “revolutions” in every psychodrama group. I think Moreno is conflating actual revolutions and psychodrama. The study can happen and be potent, but it is a sociodrama not a revolution.

It takes better Marxism to know what a revolution is. A change in the ownership of the means of production!

He doesn’t mention the word sociodrama in this chapter, strange.

“Cooperative revolution”

In the course of years several opportunities offered themselves, communities of people who were willing to engage themselves in a total change of their social relationships, a cooperative revolution, and I was able to see with my own eyes how a society can be changed and what happens after the change is accomplished.

What is he talking about? Huson school for girls? a cooperative revolution is not a revolution. To say “the existing social order is confronted by a new one.” in one school? Effective OD but not revolution.

Moreno describes his efforts

In the course of microscopic experiments I encountered many of the problems which have been described about revolutions on a big scale, the idea stage, the propaganda stage and the stage of violent action; (p.29)

His framing of stages is oversimplified. A revolution isn’t planned in neat stages. That approach suggests imposing change rather than involving people deeply in the process. Instead of “idea-propaganda-action,” I prefer the psychodrama framework: warm-up, spontaneity, and creativity.

Visualising the outcome

The new social order must be visualized with a reasonable degree of clarity. (p.29)

No. People can unite about what they don’t want. they have a ‘”No!” with no consensus for the outcome.

AND

Perhaps Moreno wants to align or compete with the Marxist idea of revolutionary consciousness, “consciousness raising”?

Moreno asks the right question

If these conditions exist the crucial problem for the leaders is how to get the masses ready for action and for the acceptance of the new order; how to mobilize the spontaneity of the masses, to turn them into spontaneous actors in behalf of the project of replacing the existing social order. Some methods of “warming up” are indispensable to get them ready. (p.29)

His answers

We see here three categories operating which sociometry has pointed out with particular emphasis: the category of creativity, a clear vision of the new order; the category of spontaneity, the masses arousing themselves and being aroused to make the visionary order a reality and the category of the warming up, to get the … leaders and the masses ready for action.

It is valuable that he identifies two groups: “the leaders and the masses”

I don’t like the word “masses”… how about people. From a groupwork perspective the two groups are different. Without being grandiose, the small groups planning and reflecting as we are doing here could be called the leaders.

Are the people a self healing group? Do leaders ’emerge’. What is the place of theory? What about the readiness of society?

Moreno continues, with a tentative hypothesis…

Let me paraphrase, I think he is saying something important:

What is the life energy of a social revolution? The chances for a successful revolution rise and fall on these factors:

a) the impact of the historical forces playing out in the current situation;

b) the impact of the political rebellion on small units like families;

c) the ability of the leaders of the revolution to gauge the social forces operating in the population

Point three sums it up. That is the sociometric question for the leader group: What are the the social forces operating in the population?

We can do sociodrama to explore these questions. I’m not sure that Marx ever went into the depths of how to get the solidarity needed. Moreno knows that too and grapples with how to bring his group work skills and insights into the realm dominated bt Marx.

The “Two Lenins” Narrative

Here are Moreno’s words:

But there were two Lenins, the loyal servant of dialectic materialism and the other, the practical Lenin, besieged by enormous difficulties and more than ever by the realization that many of the communist promises are impossible to attain. He may have said to himself: “The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is ruthless, tyrannical and murderous when it comes to suppressing the working class. Therefore, the war of the proletariat cannot be won by soft talk, it will have to use warlike weapons; it will have to be equally ruthless, tyrannical and terroristic.” What bolstered Lenin’s courage to lead a social revolution with all its brutalities was full of ethical and moral implications:

“It is true,” he may have said to himself in moments of honest cynicism, “that we are merely reversing the order of who is suppressing whom, reversing one government of terrorism and suppression with another, but at least the government which will suppress from now on represents the producing masses, the many against the few.”

…

There is a similarity in sociometric position between Lenin, the Tartar, the tribune of the masses bringing political power to the people, and Prometheus, the tribune of science, bringing scientific power to them .

Moreno sets up a false dichotomy between an ideological Lenin and a pragmatic Lenin, as if Lenin’s actions were a betrayal of his own theory rather than an application of dialectical materialism.

The way he phrases Lenin’s internal dialogue—“moments of honest cynicism” about reversing oppression—reads as denigration of Lenin rather than an assessment of his position.

“Communist promises”. Who makes promises in a revolution? I imagine here is hope that a thousand years of tyranny will end.

Class nature of the Russian revolution

He [Lenin] recognized that there were not two classes sharply separated, fighting each other-as it is with the armies of two states at war-but that there were innumerable shades and degree of class distinctions. Class is sociometrically not only a specially qualified social group, it has a quantitative distribution. Social classes like bourgeoisie and proletariat are metasociological constructs, the tangible thing is the “party organization”. He had to make a decision to win for the party with whose cause he had identified his life. Like a general he began to survey the present field of action before him. Without an intuitive, quasi-sociometric analysis of the total situation in Russia from day to day and without letting his insight move his decisions, the opportunity for a successful revolution might have gone astray, notwithstanding that ideal political conditions for victory existed. In his mind he drew the picture of the sociograms of the persons and groups and ideological and military forces operating for or against him and his people and then he started the proletarian war which preceded the proletarian dictatorship.

One thing we can say is Lenin recognized clearly that this was not only a capitalist revolution to overthrow the aristocracy but a proletarian revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. There was a dilemma that split the party. Mensheviks who wanted a bourgeoise revolution and the bolsheviks who could see a path to socialism. I’ve said in earlier in this monograph, if there were no Marx the revolution in Russia might have been a more predictable and successful bourgeois revolution, but there was a Marx. A layer of distortion was removed that was present in, say the French revolution. At that time freedom meant freedom to be a capitalist. Moreno is wrong when he saysa;

The American revolution of 1776 proclaimed: “All men are created equal” and the French revolution raised the banner of: “Egalite, Liberte, Fraternite”. These two revolutions tried to extend the influence of the many and reinforced the principle of universality.

The proletariat and the peasantry could unite and abolish both their oppressors. A socialist revolution. The success of this revolution would depend on worker’s victory in other countries. It is only a socialist revolution that can structurally remove the class divisions.

The ethics of revolution

He may have said to himself: “The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is ruthless, tyrannical and murderous when it comes to suppressing the working class. Therefore, the war of the proletariat cannot be won by soft talk, it will have to use warlike weapons; it will have to be equally ruthless, tyrannical and terroristic.” What bolstered Lenin’s courage to lead a social revolution with all its brutalities was full of ethical and moral implications: “It is true,” he may have said to himself in moments of honest cynicism, “that we are merely reversing the order of who is suppressing whom, reversing one government of terrorism and suppression with another, but at least the government which will suppress from now on represents the producing masses, the many against the few.”

Of course, of course, the writing that Moreno is doing about revolution brings in the reality of revolution, the reality of its violence. It would be easy to be like the Quakers that this could all be resolved without violence. Moreno would be inclined that way, thus he talks of “cooperative revolution”. No, the owners of the means of production will fight in a revolution over which class rules.

We call it the dictatorship of the proletariat and we call it the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

In the western countries we have experienced that largely in my lifetime as ideological oppression. And the oppression using the state as a legal apparatus, under which everyone is nominally equal under the law, it is a symbol of civility that it doesn’t have in practice. And there is mute compulsion. For the people in the colonially oppressed countries in the global south, the violent aspect of the capitalist state oppression is more evident. Look at the occupation of Palestine

But the passages here about Lenin’s reflections on the ethics are more like Moreno’s own reflections on the ethics, he does not understand the class nature of the revolution. He wants to maintain a distance from the revolution. he likes to think there is equality between The dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. No, one is the oppression by the few of the many. The other is implementing a change in the system.

Moreno’s disposition in this chapter

Moreno has a distaste for revolutionary violence, the whole chapter has a moralizing tone when he discusses Lenin’s use of force, as if revolutionary violence is reprehensible while bourgeois violence is just part of the background. This is classic liberal condescension—denouncing the revolutionary violence while ignoring the violence that made it necessary in the first place.

I don’t want to engage with Moreno uneducated in Marxism and revolutionary history. He doesn’t understand bourgeois or socialist revolutions. He thinks they “tried to extend the influence of the many and reinforced the principle of universality”. He doesn’t understand class and that these nice slogans were a sham. He doesn’t understand Lenin. This Chapter is a testament to Moreno not understanding Marx or the social forces of revolution. Maybe I need to come back to it. But maybe it’s obvious to anyone who reads it. I don’t know.

Moreno’s language suggests he sees his sociometric method as superior to Marxism. My response is that they address something different, but that they could work together. The sneering tom Moreno has here does not help.

Where to Go from Here?

The key challenge is: how do we engage with Moreno’s framework without rejecting him for his anti-Marxist bias? There is something useful in thinking about revolutions in terms of spontaneity, sociometry, and experimental processes. But his dismissal of Marxism is rooted in misrepresentation.

❋

This post is part of a series.

See Intro Marx and Moreno Monograph

Tag: Monograph

Monograph 12: Experimental Revolution.