tion of a dissident Marxist, MilovannDjilas, who in the 1950s criticized thencommunist functionaries and technocratsnin his native Yugoslavia. Djilasndesignated them as the true beneficiariesnof modern communist revolutions,nrather than the proletariat.nLater Irving Kristol apphed the samenterm to America’s anticapitahst educators,njournalists, and social engineersnwho were forming a common frontnagainst the mercantile community. Onnthe basis of surveys and electoral returns,nKristol recognized that neithernmaterial poverty nor low social standingncontributed substantially to America’sncurrent political radicalism. In 1972nthe leftist McGovern fared better thannthe relatively conservative Nixon runningnas a presidential candidate in manynwealthy communities. Conversely,nNixon held the edge in his contest withnMcGovern in numerous districts thatnhad low median incomes and were traditionallynDemocratic. In one detailednstudy, Seymour Lipset demonstratesnthat the appeal of liberal politicians hasnbecome much greater among the educatednand affluent than among the poornand less literate.nDaniel Bell ascribes this phenomenonnto the fact that culture more than economicsnshapes modern social and politicalnallegiances. Approval of feminism,nsexual liberation, and anticapitalismnserves to set apart today’s educated personnin much the same way as an Oxfordnaccent might have done for a man ofnbreeding in generations past. Kristolnand Phillips, on the other hand, stressnprimarily social interest in their assessmentnof new class behavior. Educators,nwriters, and consultants are motivatednby a desire for power; above all, theynseek to replace America’s commercialnregime by one formed in their image.nThus they construct opportunistic alliancesnwith porno peddlers, politicizednlesbians and reactionary opponents ofneconomic growth. What cements allnthese alliances are hostility to middleclassncivilization and social resentmentnagainst supposedly philistine merchants,ntechnologists, and doctors. These rancorsnbring the new class directly intonthe counterculture and cause it to identifynwith the misnamed consumernmovement.nAlvin Gouldner, a self-styled Marxistnand former classmate of Kristol’s,ndefends the new class as an historicalnforce, the totality of which he finds morenimpressive than any of its parts. At timesnhe writes about it like one describingnthe effect of an irresistible power beyondnhuman control. All about himnGouldner sees the emergence of a “worldnsocioeconomic order, a New Class composednof intellectuals and technical intelligentsia.”nIn advanced industrialnregions this group is already at war forn”control of the society’s economy.” Itnexerts influence through writing andncommunication, while instilling in itsnmembers a sense of “obligation to thencollectivity as a whole.” Since the newnclass is usually found in teaching andnpublic service, its members can claimnwith justification to be “representativesnof the whole society and guardians of itsnnational traditions.” In the developingnnations the new elite often finds itsnsocial ascendancy unchecked. Placednamong a largely illiterate population, itnhas the opportunity to take charge innsocial and national revolutions. Nonetheless,nin the more educated West,nthe intellectuals are engaged in a strugglenfor a fixed number of academic andnbureaucratic posts. Many feel thwartednin their professional and idealistic hopesnand vent their resentment against thenold class of businessmen and entrenchednpoliticians.nTo his credit, Gouldner does mentionnthe excesses to which the new class goesnin flaunting its contempt for bourgeoisnvalues. Nonetheless, he believes thatnthe new order will triumph and freenmankind in the process. Its membershipncontinues to swell with each passingnyear, and no temporary setback has thusnfar reversed this process. The access ofnits members to “the full spread of culture”nenables them to claim “that ‘non-nnnpartisanship’ which is the essence of allnpolitical legitimacy.” In America theynattack the banking and industrial elitesnand are helping to reform a countrynwhich still remains “the worldwide centernof the old class.” Meanwhile, thenoppositionist intellectuals in the communistnstates, the counterparts to ournsocial critics, embarrass their governmentsninto tolerating dissent. Indeedneven the Soviet new class, so oftennscorned as betrayers of the Revolution,nare the ones now laboring for detentenand “against the restoration of Stalinismnand against the ‘hards.’ ” Gouldner,nhowever, interrupts this tale of bliss toncall attention to the inadequacy ofnAmerica’s new class as coherent spokesmennfor change. He prescribes the adoptionnof Marxism, which Americannintellectuals are urged to take morenseriously: “With its special accent onn’the unity of theory and practice’ andnon the contextual analysis of historicallynconcrete situations, Marxism is anspecific corrective for the political limitsnbuilt into the ideology of discourse commonnto the new class.”nIronically, Marxism may explain thenideological confusion that besets thenauthor of these lines and the honorednjournals that lavish praise upon hisnanalysis. Gouldner and his eulogists arenled by their own class consciousness intona distorted view of reality. And so henwrites in praise of all those who buy hisnbooks and provide him with grants tonteach in Europe while holding an endowednchair at an esteemed Americannuniversity. Shunning the honest discoursenof barroom brawlers, he nevernrefers spontaneously to his benefactorsnand associates as “buddies” or “swellnguys.” Rather, he writes of prodigiousnresearch, of ideas slowly taking shape,nand of the train of thought by which hencame to realize that his own class—henand his pals—would redeem the historynof mankind.nVTouldner’s book is not only intellectuallynvacuous, but its only possiblenredeeming feature is something whichnwm^mmmmmmmmmm^:^nIVovember/December 1979n