Behaviorists
for SocialActionfournal- Volume4, Number1, 1983
17
TOWARD A UNITED FRONT:
A CLASS ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ACTION
JerryUlman*
Ball State University
Introduction
In an earlier article (Ulman, 1978) I made the following
proposal to the readers of the Behaviorists
for SocialActionf ournal:
At the theoretical level, expand behaviorism's perspective by
means of a cross-fertilization with scientific socialism. At the practical level, apply the techno logy of behavior to advance the class
struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat. (p. 6).
The present article represents an attempt to implement
that proposal.
As a vehicle for pursuing this goal, I have responded to
three articles which were subsequently published in the Behavioristsfor SocialAction fournal. I selected articles by Rakos (1980),
Pittaluga and Roberts (1982),and Nevin (1982)solely on the basis
of the political significance of the subject matter they dealt with.
All of these authors exemplify behaviorists who are "committed
to the application of behavior analysis in the struggle against
social injustice" (BFSA Statement of Purpose).
At the present time, obviously, only a few members of
BFSAwould agree with the proposal to" advance the class struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat" (i.e., to establish a
workers and farmers government). But we can all agree on the
goals of combating social injustice and preventing future wars.
Effective social activism depends upon the adoption of an appropriate strategy, however. In responding to the above authors my
purpose is to propose such a strategy-one that can be accepted
by Marxists and non-Marxists alike-the strategy of the united
front. History has already demonstrated it's effectiveness.
A Response to Rakos
Richard F. Rakos has raised many politically critical issues
in his article, "Toward Cooperative Behavior Between Prag matic Behaviorists and Marxist Behaviorists" (1980), issues
which I shall attempt to address from the combined perspectives
of radical behaviorism and revolutionary Marxism. I have argued elsewhere (Ulman, 1978) that these two perspectives are
complementary, despite the fact that many Marxists reject behaviorism and vice versa.
I enthusiastically support Rakos' concrete suggestions for
cooperation between pragmatic and Marxist behaviorists (or
any other type of progressive behaviorist). Rakos' suggestions
have the dual potential of (a) helping to "behavioralize" society,
the marching order issued by Jack Michael (1980)in his presidential address to the Association for Behavior Analysis; and (b)
encouraging others outside of BFSA to get involved in social
activism. However, I totally reject the arguments which constituted the bulk of his paper. According to Rakos:
(1) Behaviorism is compatible with ma ny significant aspects of both philosophical approaches [Marxism and
Pragmatism] and can serve as the "umbrella philosophy,"
and (2)for behaviorists, a focus on the very real differences
between the philosophies is currently unwarranted on
empirical grounds. (p. 10)
For a United Front, Not a Popular Front
If may be true that behaviorism is compatible with certain
aspe~ts of Pragmatism (capitalized to denote a particular philosophical school of thought) and Marxism such as sharing the
goal of "human liberation" as Rakos noted. Butit does not follow
that behaviorism can therefore serve as an "umbrella philosophy". To illustrate the absurdity of this line of reasoning, imagine BFSA joining forces with the Klan because they proclaim
"li~erty, justice, and fraternity among all mankind" (p. 1,
Kmghts of the Ku Klux Klan, Note 1). The goal of "human liberation" is simply much too global to serve as an issue for joint action
between Marxists and non-Marxists, irrespective of the latter's
professional endeavors.
The political error I am pointing out corresponds to the
mistake of confusing a unitedfront with a popular(peoples)front.
"The united front consists in an agreement reached between two
or more ... organizations, which have differentprograms,forjoint
action on specific issues" (Socialist Workers Party, 1972, p. 19).
In a united front it is agreed that each organization maintains the
integrity of its entire program and the right to criticize other
organizations in the united front. United fronts can m0bilize
effective political action because each participating organization, while guarding its full independence, can join other organizations in carrying out mutually desired actions , such as supporting a strike, resisting an attack on democratic rights,
organizing a demonstration, etc.
In contrast, a popular front is not an agreement for joint
action ona specificissue. Rather, it involves the acceptance by all
o~ a common program. In practice, the popular front has had
disastrous
consequences
for revolutionary
workers
movements-to name two, the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's
and the CIA-engineered Coup in Chile in 1970-73.In both tragic
cases the common program was for the defense of bourgeois
democracy ; i.e., for the defense of a particular form of capitalism. Because a popular front, by definition, requires agreement
on a common program between working-class and nonworkingclass organizations, and since the latter cannot agree on a proletarian program without themselves becoming a revolutionary
workers' organization, a popular front must of necessity abandon a revolutionary program and incorporate procapitalist elements . But a political program can no more be semiproletarian
than a woman can be semipregnant. "Reduced to simplest
terms, the program of the bourgeoisie is the defense of the capitalist order; the program of the proletariat, its overthrow" (Socialist Workers party, 1972,· p. 22).
Rakos' proposal that behaviorism serve as an "umbrella
philosophy" is tantamount to call for a peoples front between
*Sothatmy polemicsmaybeunderstoodin themannerintended, a briefaccountofmy leaming historymaybeinorder.Thethoughtsexpressedin thisarticlearetheresultof
my conditioninghistoryin two scientificverbalcommunitie-lbeit, communitieswith negligibleoverlap-those of professionalbehavioranalystsand of professional
revolutionaryMarxists.My goalin thisarticlewasto remainconsistentwith theradicalbehavioralpositionwhileat thesametimeperformingsoundMarxist theoretical
analyses.Whetheror not I was successfulis for both my colleaguesand my comradesto determine.
Requestsfor reprintsshould be sent to: Jerry Ulman, Departmentof SpecialEducation,Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana47306.
18 I JerryWman I TOWARD
A UNITED FRONT
Pragmatism and Marxism. As such it would have the effect of
injecting a particularly virulent kind of bourgeois ideology,
Pragmatism, into the ranks of the working class. Ironically
enough, in one of the books Rakos cities-Pragmatism versus
Marxism (Novack, 1975)--a revolutionary Marxist philosopher
explains in great detail why Pragmatism, America's unofficial
national philosophy, is the ideology of the most advanced stage
of capitalism. Thus, Rakos' invitation for Marxist behaviorists to
adapt to the reactionary ideas of Pragmatis m is a bellwether for
getting us corralled into an ideological popular front. Marxists,
whether they are behaviorists or not, do not cross class lines ,
ideological or otherw ise, without becoming something other
than Marxists . This fundamental principle is thoroughly documented by Trotsky (1940/1973) in In Defenseof Marxism an explains why revolutionary Marxists must treat matters of philosophy with utmost seriousness .
Philosophy presupposes theory and theory directly affects practice. For Marxists, there is no such thing as, in Rakos'
words, merely "a problem of pure philosophy" (1980, p . 10).
"Marxist'' Defined
Perhaps my disagreement with Rakos stems from our differences in the definition of a Marxist. It may be useful to elaborate. In my view, following Lenin's (1917/1932) defin ition, "a
Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of class struggle to the
acceptance of the dictatorshipof theproletariat"(p. 30, emphasis in
the original) . Note that Lenin did not state" dictatorship overthe
proletariat;" that is, the domination of workers by a bureaucratic
cast as is found in deformed workers states.
If a Marxist is defined as one who accepts "the dictatorship
of the proletariat" just what is it that a person accepts? A synonym is a workersandfarmersgovernmentsuch as can be observed
today in revolution ary Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada. The
scope of this paper does not permit a detailed discussion of the
nature of a workers and farmers government. Perhaps one examplewill suffice. In a capitalist society we can predict with great
accuracy which side the govemmen twill defend in a labor strike.
Cops hit strikers over the head while they escort scabs throug h
picket lines ; judges impose injunctions demanding that workers
return to the job or go to jail, etc. Under a workers and farmers
government such as that of Nicaragua, the government is on the
side of workers and defends the just struggles of workers. In a
strike situation the police may arrest the boss; or, when neces sary, the government may nationalize the firm . The political
orientation of a workers and farmers government is epitomized
by the slogan, "Human needs before profits." The government
orientation under capitalism is the exact opposite, "Profits before human needs."
Where Marxist Behaviorists Cannot Cooperate with
P agmatic Behaviorists
For Rakos a workable model for cooperation is for us to" act
as behaviorists
first and Marxists or pragmatists
only
secondarily-at least at this juncture in time" (p. 13). Why? He
gives this rationale: "If neither philosop hy has successfully attained its goals, and indeed , if both have encountered unpre dictable difficulties, it ma y be premature to assert the superiority
of one or the other" (p. 13). In contrast, I think tha t his assessment of Marxism is wrong , and that his model for cooperation is
completely moribund. It seems absurd to argue, as Rakos appears to, that since Marxism has not achieved its goal-"human
liberation", or more precisely, the establishment of the classless
society-it is therefore no better than any other social-change
philosophy. In reality, Marxism is vastly superior to Pragmatism . In fact, Pragmatism, with its make-shift approach to
problem-solving, subjective criteria of "whatever works (satis-
fies) is fine," and inherentidealism, serves to maintain the status
quo. Pragmatism is the philosophy of liberal reformism, and
therefore limited to working with the structure of monopoly
capitalism (Novack, 1975). Marxism, on the other hand, provides the theoretical means to replace that structure with an other, socialism.
Rakos' Empirical Setbacks
Rakos states that Marxism has suffered serious empirical
setbacks and then proceeds to enumerate four "unpredictable
difficulties" :
1. Marx's historical stages are in disarray.
2. The socialist concentration of power obstructs democracy.
3. The working class continues to be acquiescent.
4. It has been disconfirmed that violent revolution is necessary .
1. Are Marx's historicalstages in disarray? According to
historical materialism, societies evolve as a function of changes
in particular modes of production . Marx expected that feudalism
would be replaced by capitalism, which can be called the main
sequence. What Marx did not anticipate was that the time period
between capitalism and socialism would be so prolonged. In the
sense that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky use the term, there
are at present no true socialistsocieties. There are, however ,
post-capitalist societies or worker states-one
third of the
world's population lives in them. Worker states are characterized by state ownership of the major means of production, state
monoply over foreign trade, and a planned economy.
Worker states have socialist economies but have not devel oped sufficiently to become transformed into socialist societies.
Moreover, not all worker states are of equal revolutionary quality. Cuba, for example-because of its revolutionary leadership,
its proletarian internationalism, and the great extent to which its
working masses participate in political decision-making-is
qualitatively more advanced than, say, the Peoples Republic of
China. Unfortunately, most worker states ha ve become deformed. The quality of their leadership is on par with those misleaders who dominate the trade unions in this country, bureau crats who put their privileges ahead of the needs of workers. As
Trotsky (1936/1972) has explained in great detail in Revolution
Betrayed,this bureaucratic cast is responsible for the fact that
worker states have not progressed toward socialism . He also
explains what is required before a deformed worker state can do
so: the workers must rise up and overthrow the bureaucracy, a
political revolution. In this regard, the recent events in Poland
are instructive (see Frankel, Rathbun, & Harsch , 1981).
Marx was a scientist, not a prophet. Based upon the
knowledge that was available to him at the time , there was no
way he could foresee the counterrevolutionary role that would
be played by the Stalinist bureaucracies of this century. It is true
that most worker states are heavily stratified , with the anti democratic bureaucrats sitting on top with their privileges protected by the repressive forces of the state. But, Marx's main
sequence is not in disarray.
2. Does socialist concentration of power obstruct
democracy? To assert that there is a contradiction between the
building of socialism and instituting democracy is to confuse
socialism with bureaucratism. Democ racy is a word with many
meanings and few Americans know much about its evolution. In
Democracyand Revolution,Novack (1971) provides a comprehensive Marxist historical analysis of the development of democracy
from ancient Greece through the twentieth century. Especially
noteworthy is his discussion of the nature of bourgeois
A TOWARD A UNITED FRONT I ]my UIIIIIUIt
democracy-a luxury reserved for the wealthy who enjoy it at
the expense of the poor; and the conflict between the bureaucratic and democratic forces in worker states. Novack concludes
that the full emancipation of humanity can come about only
through the combined action of the great majority of people
acting in their own collective interest against all forms and forces
of oppression.
There is abundant empirical evidence, both historically
and currently observable, which refutes Rakos' claim. During
brief periods in modern history-the few months following the
Paris Commune in 1871and the few years following the Russian
Revolution of 1917-workers and farmers governments based
on proletarian democra cy came into being. Albeit, the former
ended in a blood bath when the city was recaptured from the
workers and the latter subsequently degenerated into an antidemocratic Stalinist state. Rakos also overlooks the recent develop ments in revolutionary Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada, all three
being workers and farmers governments based on proletarian
democracy.
In Cuba, for example, with the ratification of their new
constitution in 1976,Organs of Peoples Power (OPPs) have been
instituted. OPPs are not legislative bodies as found in capitalist
governments. Rather OPPs are working bodies that combine
legislative and administrative functions. They are built from
grass roots up, from electoral bodies of no more tha n 3000 people. The Cuban government system has effective safeguards to
prevent the formation of a privileged bure aucratic cast. Delegates to the OPPs must make monthly reports of their accomplishments, are paid no more than a skilled worker, and are
subject to immediate recall by a simple majority vote . Foremost
in engendering proletarian democracy is the depth of mass participation of the Cuban people in the politics of their country.
The primary mechanisms for mobilizing participation are the
mass neighborh ood organizations (Committees for the Defense
of the Revolution or CDRs) and organization s of trade unionists,
women, youth, and farmers. Cuba is more powerf ul todayeconomically, politically, and militarily-than ever because of,
not in spite of, its historic expansion of democracy. As such,
Cuba is a cogent counterexample to Rakos' assertion that the
socialist concentration of power obstructs democracy. For any
behaviorist who wishes to study a living example of democratic
countercontrol, I would recommend Harnecker's (1980) Cuba:
Dictatorshipor Democracy?as well as articles by Beauvais (1981),
Holland (1980), and LeoGrande (1981).
3. Is theworkingclassin theU.S. acquiescent? Rakos argues
that "in the last hundred years the control of workers and the
oppressed has shifted from . . . aversive means to ... positive
reinforcement. Such a contingency arrangement would be expected to stimulate very little countercontrol behavior" (p. 12).
Nothing could be further from the truth. In a sentence or two
Rakos writes off such labor struggles as the formation of the
Industrial Workers of the World under "Big Bill" Haywood; the
dramatic rise of the Socialist Party under Eugene Debs preceding
the First World War; the rise of the industrial unions and the CIO
during the 1930s' depression (see Pries, 1964); the struggles for
civil rights and women's liberation of the last two decades; as
well as a growing fight-back trend within the U.S. labor movement today. Evidence of this fight-back trend includes the demands by rank-and-file trade unionists for more democracy in
their unions and more responsiveness from their leaders; opposition in the labor movement against any military adventures in
Third World countries; growing resistance against concession
contracts; also, the recent rebellion of Blacks in Miami, prison
uprisings, struggles by working farmers and truckers, and the
growing antiwar movement.
19
Class struggles come in waves; there are gains and there
are losses. However, someone would have to be completely out
of contact with the labor movement to believe that workers in
this country are acquiescent. Workers' standard of living gradually improved following World War II. But that period of relative
calm in the labor movement has ended. The world crisis of capitalism has created entirely new, radicalizing conditio~s. We are
currently in a preparatory period, a period of accelerating class
polariz ation.
In the current period of world-wide economic crisis, conditions of intensified competition for profits have motivated the
capitalist class to take the offensive against workers here in the
U.S. and abroad. The slashing of funds needed for social services
domestically, and the enormous transfer of funding to the Pentagon, are economically linked to the U.S. military support of
reactionary pro-capitalist regimes such as those in Central
America. Workers here are now learning what workers in the
Third World have known for many years- they are all facing a
common enemy in Washington. We can anticipate huge class
battles in the near future as workers learn that the only option
available is that of independent political action. We can also
anticipate that the next historic development on the agenda in
the U.S. will be the formation of a mass labor party based on the
power of democratized trade unions. Only the foolish would
assign time-lines to these predictions, however. Nevertheless,
under the hammer blows of unemployment, inflation, and attacks on democratic rights, the U.S. working class can learn the
essential lessons of solidarity at an explosive rate. They did in the
1930s and the occasion is being set again. Based on the knowledge of the scientific study of history, Marxists are optimistic
about the potential for revolutionary change, internationally,
including creation of a workers and farmers government in the
U.S.
4. Has the necessity of violent revolution been
disconfirmed? The question of violence is a highly sensitive issue for Marxists-especially concerning the manner ir• which
the question is formulated . For a revolutionary party operating
in a capitalist state to advocate violence against that state would
be self-destructive. It would provide an excuse for the repressive
apparatus of the bourgeois government to attack the party and
drive it underground, thereby greatly diminishing its ability to
function. The question must be formulated as a defensive measure. That is, no Marxist worthy of the designation would pursue violent revolution when revolution by nonviolent means
could be possible. Unfortunately, as Cannon (1969) had observed in Socialismon Trial,based on the record of history there is
no good reason to expect that a socialist revolution can be anything other than violent. Cannon calls attention to the fact that in
revolutionary insurrections violence has been initiatedby the
ruling minority, not the oppressed majority-in which case the
majority is justified in defending itself by any means necessary.
Rakos does not believe that every socialist revolution must
be violent. But for some undeclared reason he offers as support
for his opinion "Nyerre's election in Tanganyika and Allende 's
election in Chile" (p. 13)! In actuality, these two elections dem onstrate the exact opposite: tha t the crucial task of a socialist
revolution is to completely dismantle the bourgeois state-- the
essential point of Lenin's (1917/1932) State and Revolution.
Hirschbein (1981)has detailed recent political developments in
the United Republic of Tanzania (the present name of the country since Tanganyika united with Zanzibar in 1964). He states:
Tanzania, despite its well-meaning efforts, is not
becoming socialist; in fact, ... it has continued developing
capitalist forms and aligning itself with the advanced capi-
20 I JerryUlman I TOWARD
A UNITED FRONT
talist countries . My assessment may be significant in
strengthening the ideological position that there is no
non-Marxist, independent course to achieving socialism,
particularly for underdeveloped Third World countries.
(p. 38).
As for Allende 's election in Chile, anyone who saw the
movie Missing may be aware of the bloody consequences of that
event. A popularly elected government, Popular Unity (Unided
Popular-UP), was destabilized as the result of the direct role
played by U.S. imperialism. This CIA-engineered coup again
demonstrates the mortal danger of the popular-front strategy
and shows once more that the capitalist class will stop at nothing
when its property relations are threatened. Subsequent history
in Latin America does not provide hope for a peaceful revolution
either. (For further reading regarding the disaster in Chile see
Evans, 1974; Johnson, 1982-83; Smirnow, 1979; Socialist
Workers Party, 1982).
In sum, the empirical setbacks to which Rakos alludes are
his, notthose of Marxists. Without a firm foundation in a Marxist
understanding of history, and access to information about political events which have not been distorted by the capitalist media
(in the CIA's lingo, "disinformation") it is assured that we will
not arrive at correct conclusions about the international proletarian movement. 1
As further illustration of how a class-struggle perspective
leads to conclusion contrary to" common sense" -the manner in
which life in capitalist America has conditioned us to see current
event&-! now tum to the report by Pittaluga and Roberts (also
see Bramel & Friend, 1981).
A Response to Pittaluga and Roberts
Carlos Pittaluga and Sherman Roberts ' (1982) intriguing
report of a behavioral team-building program in a Third World
industrial setting serves as a very useful resource for illustrating
how class analyses can complement our behavior analyses. Pittaluga, Roberts, and their colleagues at the Universidad Sim6n
Boh'var (USBteam) deserve praise for the careful consideration
they gave to the economic, political, and social context in their
report. The thrust of their project was the building of problemsolving teams of workers who would apply behavioral procedures designed to promote cooperative, task-oriented, productive behavior among the workforce.
A unique feature of the USB project was that it was conducted in a somewhat politically volatile environment of a sta~eowned steelworks referred to as SIDOR, located in an isolated
region of Venezuela. As reported, the living and working conditions as SIDOR were deplorable, reminiscent of those described
by Engels (1845/1973)in The Conditionsof the WorkingClassin
England. My purpose is not to comment upon the merits of their
total efforts-Vargas' (1982) thorough response has already
given the authors due credit for that . Rather, I will restrict my
comments to the reported outcomes of their initial team building project involving an electrolytic cleaning production
line at SIDOR' s Flat Rolled Products plant. Of particular interest
is their report of managerial reaction to the success of the initial
project. Pittaluga and Roberts' explanation of the antagonistic
relations between the SIDOR management and workers (i.e., "a
history of discriminated punishment"-p.
12) seemed superficial and unconvincing. I have attempted to provide a fullaccount of the observed behavior at SIDOR from a perspective
combining revolutionary Marxism and radical behaviorism.
An important advantage of a Marxist analysis is that it
brings into question what is often overlooked or taken for
granted by non-Marxists. To bring this analysis to bear on the
labor process at SIDOR, it is first necessary to grasp the nature of
the "profit motive" in the "free enterprise system."
Contingencies of Profit Maintenance
The capitalist mode of production depends upon organized production and markets to make profits. Profits are invested to make still more profits . The overriding consideration
in capitalistic decision-making is profit maximization or at least
the maintenance of an acceptable rate of profit. Few bourgeois
economists would disagree here. Where they part company
with Marxist economists is in their view of where profits come
from. Basic to Marxist economics is the position that profits derive from the exploitation oflabor, expressed in terms of surplus
value. The value of the commodities that workers produce
which exceed the value of the wages they receive is termed surplus value (i.e., unpaid labor). Space limitations preclude an
exegesis on Marxist economics but two exceptionally readable
accounts of this system of exploitation are Marx's classic pamphlets, Wage-Labor
and Capital(1884/1933)and Value, Priceand
Profit(1899/1961).May it suffice to point out that both the behaviors of capitalists and workers are under the control of these
contingencies of profit maintenance. Capitalists whose firms are
not sufficiently profitable lose their positions to other
capitalists-the big fish eat the little fish as Marx used to say. By
the same token, because capitalists own the major means of production, workers have no choice other than to sell their laborpower to capitalists for subsistence wages or join the ranks of the
unemployed. The point here is that a basic understanding of
profit contingencies in the capitalist workplace is essential to
comprehend the behaviors observed at SIDOR, particularly
those associated with managerial reaction to team-building.
Alienation in the Workplace
One of the effects of the profit contingency on workers can
be observed as alienation in the workplace. An indication of the
importance of this topic is suggested in the widely cited HEW
report (Department of Health, Education , and Welfare, 1972)
which states that nearly half of the American workers are dissatisfied with their jobs because of "dull, repetitive, seemingly
meaningless tasks, offering little challenge or autonomy" (p.
40). The Marxist theory of alienation may help us comprehend
these effects and what really happened at SIDOR.
The Marxist concept of alienation-unlike the mentalistic
personality-trait notions found in bourgeois social science-is
expressed in materialistic terms which appear amenable to behavior analyses. According to Marx (1844/1964),there are three
forms of alienation, all of which result from the private ownership of the means of production: alienation from the product,
from the process of production, and from our "species being".
Although the Marxist theory of alienation is much too complex
to be summarized here, a few major points can be highlighted.
First, because they have little if any control over what is produced or how , workers in the capitalist workplace are alienated
from the product and process of production. As Skinner noted,
"The behavior of the production line which has no important
consequences except a weekly wage suffers in comparison with
behavior of the craftsman which is reinforced by the things produced . The separation of workers from the natural products of
theirworkwas .. .whatMarxmeantby'alienation"' (1979,p. 39).
Second, alienation is an inherent aspect of the entire structure of
capitalist relations and is much more involved than Skinner's
comment above might suggest . Third, alienation is not an incur able condition of humanity, nor primarily a psychological problem. Rather, alienation is a social problem that is specific to a
particular form of social and economic organization. Finally, the
elimination of alienation is predicted on the abolition of the pri-
A TOWARD A UNITED FRONTI /DT)J
UlmanI
attempt to trans late a feature of Marx's theory of alienation into
behavioral terms and to show how this behavioral reconceptual ization may be applied in un derstandi ng alienated labor in the
workplace, with SIDOR serving as an illustration .
In conventional language, historians say that the factory
system in England destroyed craft skills and the enjoyment of
work by alienating workers from the end products of their labor.
In Skinner's words , the factory system "destroyed the naturally
reinforcing consequence of making things , for which the contrived reinforcers of wage were a poor substitute" (1974, p. 163);
that "labor no longer had the reinforcing consequences which
generate the conditions felt as joy; the contingencies sustained a
very narrow repertoire" (p. 240).
Skinner seems to consider alienation to mean a deprivation of automatic reinforcement;
a type of reinforcement that is
contrasted with "mediated" or "contrived" reinforcement. In a
review of Skinner's use of this term, Peterson (undated) states
that "practical behavior is automatically reinforcing because it
alters the environment in such a way that another response can
be successful" (p. 8). A further indication that Skinner believes
that automatic reinforcement is inherent in certain forms of productive behavi or is this comment: "When a craftsman spends a
week in completing a given object, each of the parts produced
during the work is likely to be automatically reinforcing because
of its place in the completed object" (Skinner, 1969, p. 2; emphasis added.) In spite of the fact that the Marxist theory of
alienation covers a much wider expanse than th e above behavioral view would suggest, to conceive of alienation as the deprivation of automatic reinforcement in itself raises portentious
questions about capitalist work relations.
Taking this speculative analysis a step further, alienated
labor may also involve automaticpunishment(see Peterson, un dated) . As the craftsman that Skinner referred to performs a
chain of various partial operations in the production of a finished
article, each component in the chain interrupts the flow of work
and creates temporal gaps in the working day. When the craftsman is tied to a single operation (performs on ly one component
in the chain) all day, the gaps diminish. As Marx (1867/1976)
observed, "the resulting increase in produ ctivity is due either to
an increased expenditure of labor-po wer in a given time-i.e. ,
an increased intensity [speedup] oflabor-or to a decrease in the
amoun t of labor-power unp roductively consumed ." (p. 460).
Against this increase in productivity , however, the "constant
labor of one uniform kind disturbs the intensity and flow . . .and
delight in the change of activity itself" (p. 460). Thus, the monotonous repetition of the same beha vior not only becomes devoid
of automatic reinforcing value but may become automatically
punishin g. Diminishing this aversive stimulation would constitute negative reinforcement, a possibility with important implications for the so-called ,;work humanization" movement such
as that of team-building at SIDOR.
"Work Humanization"
A key to understanding the relative success that has been
obtained through "wor k humanization"-alias
"job enla rgement," "job enrichment," etc.-may lie in the behavior analyse s
of the phenomenon of alienation. "These [work humanization]
programs range anywhere from allowing AT&T telephone operators to go to the bathroom without first raising their hands to
fully self-managing and self-recruiting work teams" (Zimbalist,
1975, p. 50). The "work humanization" movement is an attempt
to deal with the production problems that resulted from the" scientific management" movement (Taylorism); notably, job dissatisfaction. Scores of studies show that when worker s are given
control over their work , including making production decisions,
productivity has dramatically increased (Espinoza & Zimbalist,
21
1978). In the HEW report (Department of Health, Education ,
and Welfare, 1972), 34 cases of work reorganization were cited,
all demonstrating that increases in worker participation correlate with increases in productivity and worker satisfaction.
Managerial Reaction
All of the above cited instances of worker control, however, were instituted in marginal industries and the firms were
about to go under. They were despe rate for any means that
might increase the ir productivity. Even then, Zimbalist (1979)
observed, job enrichment programs were invariably introduced
top-down and all stimuli were management controlled . Power
relations within the firms remained essentially unchanged. Of
particular interest is his observation tha ti n a number of cases the
initiation of the experiment in worker control
unleashed a degree of wo rker involvement and enthusiasm that could not be contained. Power relations began to
change and, despite their economic success, the experimen ts were quickly terminated by management. (p. xxi)
So, management resistance is not unique to the situation at SIDOR.
Bosquet (1973) asks a profound question that gets to the
heart of the matter: How far can job enrichment be taken? The
answer: not to the point where management control is threatened. Thus, if taken too far, "job-enrichment spells the end of
authority and despotic power for bosses great and small" (p. 26).
When workers themselves identify problems, discuss possible
solution s, and then reach collective decisions, work relations
will no longer be between superiors and subordina tes. Bosquet
concludes that "in reality, the bosses' hostility is not motivated
by technical or economic factors; it is political" (p. 26).
What Really Happened at SID OR?
What really happpened at SIDOR was that Pittaluga and
Roberts were unknowingly bumping into class antagonisms inherent in the social structure of SIDOR. Under de plorable working conditions the workers were given a modicum of "wo-·\ humanization". But soon even this extremely modest degree of
disalienation reached an uppe r limit imposed by the profit contingencies, the maintenance of which rests upon the autho rity of
management. Whereupon, management reacted. The core of
the problem was apparently a power struggle between members
of the proletariat and representatives of the bourgeoise. The
question that Pittaluga and Roberts never raised (and for good
reason, given their relation to SIDOR) was: Who needs the SIDOR management ? Certainly not the workers. Profit contingen cies were the underlying controlling variables at SIDOR, the
maintenance of which required that management authority remain inviolate. Only when behaviorists address the material
conditions of class struggle will they see such conflict. The same
holds true of psychologists in general (Bramel & Friend, 1981).
Disalienation: The Cuban Model
Alienation is not a permanent curse of humanity; it can be
eliminated. The prerequis ite for progressive disalienation is the
replacement of capitalist property relations with the collective
management of production by the producers themselves, by
workers (Mandel & Novack , 1970). Cuba provides a clear illustration of the process of disalienation . With the enactment of
their 1976constitution and the rem arkable expansion of the pro letarian democracy through Organs of Peoples Power (seep. 8
herein), each Cuban citizen is guaranteed the right to employment, education, health care, and housing. In addition, discrimination based on race, sex, or national origin is prohibited and
civil liberties (including freedom of religion) are assured. As for
concrete accomplishments, Cuba has the lowest rate of infant
22 I JerryUlman I TOWARD
A UNITED FRONT
concrete accomplishments, Cuba has the lowest rate of infant
mortality in Latin America, places greater emphasis on education then p erhaps anywhere else in the world, and has surpassed other countries, capitalist or postcapitalist, in the level of
mas s participation in national politics (LeoGrande , 1981). At the
same time, it mu st be recognized that there are serious problems
the Cuban peop le must deal with (i.e ., shortages of housing,
consumer goo ds, etc .) and the standard oflivingis still relatively
low. But th e fair compariso n is that between Cuba and other
Latin Ame rican countries, such as the U.S . colony of Puerto
Rico-still replete with shanty towns , crime, undernourished
children, and illiteracy.
In the Cuban workplace , the process of disalienation may
also be observe d. Working conditions in the Cuban factory are
coming increasing ly under direct worke r control. As mandated
by Cuban law , workers discuss how national produ ction plans
should ap ply to their factory; then elected workers' representatives an d n ation al planners must negotiate until a realistic proposal has been developed. Finally proposals mus t be ratified by
the wo rkers in the plant .
As the Cuban leadership (Socialist Workers Party , 1979)
points out , there is still a long way to go before it can be said that
Cuba n law has been carried out fully in all workplaces; that will
require a long educational process over many years. Direct participation by workers in organizing pr oduction is still uneven
from on e plant to another. But direc t worker participation has
increased substantially in recent years as the unions have been
strengthen ed along industrial lines . Clearly , the barriers that
prevent the advancement toward disalienation have been removed in Cuba. Imagin e th e governments of Venezuela or the
United States promoting democracy in the workplace by helping
to strengthe n the industrial unions! Q.E .D. 2
Having attempted to illustrate the scientific value of a
Marxist analysis by reinterpreting the behavioral observations
repo rte d by Pittaluga and Roberts, I will now try to show how a
Marxist analysis can lead to a program for effective social action .
It is a program of utmo st importance-a program for successful
movement to preve n t nuclear war .
A Response to Nevin
Tony Nevin's (1982) essay , "On Behavior Analysis and
Nuclear Extinction," is a forceful plea for action to prevent the
destruction of humanity by nuclear war. He recounts the all too
familiar litany of gruesome statistics about the possible consequences of nuclear war, pointing out the darker meaning of the
word "extinction" . Then, quoting Ferster , Nevin reminds us
tha t "if you don't behave, you won' t get reinforced." Here Nevin
raises the most pressing question of all: if we are to effectively
resist extinction , exactly what behaviors should we emit? It is
true tha t the danger of total destruction will not diminish if we do
not act. But it is also true that inappropriate behavior will be
equally ineffectual. Nevin offers several important suggestions
regarding actions we can take as private citizens.
I wish to focus on his suggestions for the professionals;
specifically, he calls upon professionals to "examine the deter miners of the arms race" (p. 3). Hour extin ction-resisting behavior is to be effective it must be based on a realistic appraisal of the
dangerous situation in which we find ourselves today. Most
important , we must examine the variables which influence the
behavior of those in positions to make the decision to fire a nuclear weapon; those are, of course, political positions.
The terms that politicians use in discussing nuclear poli cies obscure the very controlling relations that we must discriminate if we are to understand the nature of the problem. These
terms are fraudulentabstractions
, terms which divert our attention
away from the concrete situation. Let us examine some commonly heard terms that are in reality fraudulent abstractions :
"arms race," "nuclear disarmament," and "freeze" .
The term "arms race" -as when Schell (1982) tells us th at
"all prior history is irrelevant since the armsracehas its own logic"
(p. 2; emphasis added)-is a perfect example of a frau dulent
abstraction. Arms do not race. People pull triggers and push
buttons that fire weapons. We must analyze the stimul us conditions which may set the occasion for such behavior .
The term "nuclear disarmament" side- steps the question,
Disarm whom for what purpose? The term "freeze" implies that
the world will be safe again if no more nuclear weapon s were
produced. We should review the use of" doublethink" in George
Orwell's 1984 as a reminder of how political terms (distorted
tacts) can insidiously influence out thinking and action.
A Marxist analysis (I draw heavily from Sheppard, 1982)
will enable us to penetrate the deceptions promoted by politicians . The starting point for the analysis is the realization that the
bilateral freeze proposal , a central aspect of the Democratic
Party's current election effort (e.g ., the recent book by Senator
Kennedy and Hatfield, 1982), will not bring world peace any
closer, though, as Sheppard observes, "the freeze proposal is
designed to give these Democrats 'peace mask' , while th ey
plunge ahead with further wars and massive military budgets in
agreements with the Republicans" (p. 10). Effective extinctionresisting behavior must be based on recognition of the fact that
the militarily aggressive foreign policy of the U.S. government is
a bipartisan
policy , the Democrats and Republicans being the two
parties of the U.S. capitalist class. Sheppard underscores the
importance of reviewing recent U.S. history.
Since World War II the U.S. has been able to maintain its
position of dominance by means of nuclear weaponry. This policy of nuclear extortion has from the onset been a bipartisan
policy. It was under a Democratic administration , with Republican backing , that the bomb was dropped-probably
needlessly~n
the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations
the U.S. has continued to build the nuclear stockpile. This collosal U.S. military buildup has always been aimed at the Soviet
Union and other countries where capitalism has been abolished
and against peoples of the Third World fighting for their national
liberation. The main thrust of this bipartisan U.S. foreign policy
is to attempt to contain the spread of revolution and perhaps
reverse the process . The Korean War , the Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba, the Vietnam War, and the military aid currently being
supplied to the counterrevolutionary armies of Central America
are all products of the same imperialistic policy . Sheppard points
out that "there is no way to wage an effective fight against the
threat of nuclear annihilation without taking up the fight against
the counterrevolutionary imperialist wars that are going on and
being prepared right now" (p. 11). The Democratic or Republi can politicians who support the freeze have rarely refused to
support wars to guard capitalist interests around the world . It is
in the interest of the capitalist class and the two parties that
represent them to continue the nuclear threat so that their domination and exploitation of the world can be maintained. But it is
not in the interest of the great majority; it is in our interest that
these weapons of mass destruction be eliminated.
As Sheppard states, "the only way tha t goal can be
achieved is through the political mobilization and organization
of working people independent of and against the exploiters and
warmakers." (p . 11). Furthermore , workers and farmers need
their own foreign policy , "their own political alternative to the
capitalist parties and politicians, a labor party based on the trade
unions" (p. 11).
..
A TOWARD A UNITED FRONT I ferryUllfWlI
From a Marxist perspective, therefore, the fundamental
fallacy of the freeze proposal is that it is bilateralism,directed
against both the Soviet Union and the Un~ted State~. ~s Sheppard notes , "it places blame' evenhandedly on the cnmmal and
the victim." In essence, the "freeze" campaign keeps working
people trapped in the political framework of two capitalist parties that are responsible for war. Marxists therefore assert that
the dangerof war will not be eliminated until the capitalist
system of world domination itself is overthrown by the
workers and farmers through a socialist revolution in the
imperialist countries--above all here in the United States.
(Sheppard, 1982, p. 12.)
.
There are extinction-resisting beha viors we can engage m
short of fighting for a socialist revolution, _howe".er. With t~e
understanding that peace will not come u':1-hlworkmg peopl~ m
the U.S. force a change in government pohcy, Sheppard advises
that we can
get out the truthabout and mobilize oppositi?n t? the wars
that Washington is carrying on and supporting m Cent~al
America and the Middle East, its plans for future wars, its
massive nuclear and nonnuclear weapons buildup, and
its nuclear blackmail. (p. 12).
.
Thus, a Marxist analysis demands that we oppose bilateralism and work for a complete and unconditional unilateral
disarmament of the U.S. war machine .
What Nevin has brought to our attention is, in the most
terrifying sense, the existence of a "doomsd~y con~ngency."
We either act effectively orwe, the human speaes, p~nsh. ~nthe
above analysis, I have argued that there are two diametnc~lly
opposed programs for action--a program of class collaboration
and a program of class struggle-only one of which can lead to
success. It is maladaptive to our species to donate money, push
doorbells, and dial phones in an effort to get out the vote f<?r
"peace candidates" of either the R~publican or Democr~bc
party, for both serve the establishe~ ~nterest_s.The alterna~ve
program calls for independent P?htical ~cbon on a mass~ve
scale-a united front. As for me, I m putting on my marching
shoes .
23
Conclusion
Because behavior analysis developed within the context of
bourgeois ideological hegemony (see Gramsci, 1948-51/1971),its
growth as a comprehensive account of social behavior in capitalist society has been profoundly stunted. Behavior analysis has
been applied to large-scale social phenomena in such areas as
behavioral ecology, organizational behavior management , and
behavioral community psychology . Yet few behaviorists evidence a scientific understanding of the real nature of the society
in which they conduct their analyses (Holland, 1978). In responding to Rakos (1980), Pittaluga and Roberts (1982), and
Nevin (1982) I have attempted to illustrate how class analyses
can enhance our behavior analyses . I take issue with Skinner's
(1971)pronouncement that "class struggle is a crude way of representing the ways in which men control each other' ' (p. 134).
Much of what behaviorists say about society is cast in a positivistic mold, a frame of reference that is invariably a historical,
fragmented , and individualistic. Germane to this pointis Bramel
and Friend's (1981) enlightening discussion of class bias in pys chology. On the other hand, Marxists , when attempting to account for the behavior of individuals, typically use mentalistic
concepts and show no understanding of the contingencies of
reinforcement (Ulman, 1978). With deference to Rakos (1980), I
suggest that both Marxist and non-Marxist behaviorists form a
united front and continue to develop ~ conceptual framewo rk
which will incorporate the best of both perspectives. In doing so,
we must apply our scientific training and draw from the lessons
of history.
24 / JerryWman I TOWARD
A UNITED FRONT
ReferencesNote
1. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. ConstitutionandlawsoftheKnightsoftheKu
Klux Klan, undated.
References
Beauvais, J. The Cuban revolution today. IntercontinentalPress,March
30, 1981, 310-315.
Bosquet, M. The prison factory. Workingpapersfor a new society,1973, 1,
20-27.
Bramel, D., &:Friend, R. Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and
class bias in psychology. AmericanPsychologist,1981, 36, 867-878.
Cannon, J.P . Socialismon trial. New York: Pathfinder Press. 1969.
Engels, F. The conditions of the working-class in England. (f. KellyWischnewetzky, trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1973.
(Originally published, 1845.)
Workersparticiaptionin
Espinosa, J., &:Zimbalist, A. Economicdemocracy:
Chilellnindustry, 1970-1973.New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Evans. L. (Ed.), Disaster in Chile: Allendisstrategyandwhy it failed.New
York: Pathfinder Press. 1971.
Frankel, D., Rathbun, D., &:Harsch, E. Poland:Workersin revolt.New
York: Pathfinder Press, 1981.
Gramsci, A. Selectionsfrom the prison notebooksof Antonio Gramsci(Q.
Hoare&: G.N. Smith, eds. and trans.). New York: International
Publish ers , 1971. (Originally published, 1948-51.)
How PeoplesPowerworks.
Harnecker , M. Cuba:Dictatorshipor democracy?
(5th ed., rev. and expanded; P. Greanville, trans.). Westport,
Conn. : Lawrence Hill, 1980.
Health, Education, and Welfare, Report to a Special Task Force. Workin
America,Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1973.
Hirschbein, S. Tanzania: The non-Marxist path to socialism? Monthly
Review,1981, 32, 24-40.
Holland, J.G. Behaviorism: Part of the problem or part of the solution?
Journalof AppliedBehaviorAnalysis, 1978, 11, 163-174.
Hollan d, J .G. Alternative social systems: An analysis of behavior change
in China and Cuba . In D. Glenwick &:L. Jason (Eds.). Behavioral
CommunityPsychology.New York: Praeger, 1980.
Johnson, D.L. Chile: Before and during . Scienceand Society,1982-83, 46,
461-476.
Kennedy, E., &:Hatfield, M. Freeze:Howyou canhelppreventnuclearwar.
New York: Bantam Books, 1982.
Lenin, V.l . State and revolution.New York: International Publishers,
1932. (Originally published, 1917.)
Leo Grand , W. Republic of Cuba. In B. Szajkowski (Ed.). Marxistgovernments:A worldsurvey(Vol. 2). New York: St. Martin ' s Press, 1981.
Mandel, E., &:Novack, G . The Marxist theoryof alienation.New York:
Pathfinder Press, 1970.
Marx, K. Wage-labor
andcapital(F. Engels, ed.) . New York: International
Publishers , 1933. (Originally published, 1849.)
Marx,K. Capital:A critiqueof politicaleconomy(Vol. 1, B. Fowkes, trans .)
New York: Vintage Books, 1976. (Originally published, 1867.)
Marx, K. Value, price and profit (E.M. Aveling, ed.). In Theessentialleft:
Four classictexts on theprinciplesofsocialism.New York: Barnes and
Noble, 1961. (Originally published, 1899.)
Marx,K. The economicandphilosophic
manuscripts of 1844(D .J. Struik, Ed .,
M . Milligan, trans .). New York: International Publishers, 1964.
(Originally published , 1932.)
Michael j.L. Flight from behavio r analysis: Presidential address ABA
1980. BehaviorAnalyst, 1980, 3, 1-22.
Nevin , J. A. On behavio r analysis and nuclea r extinction. Behavio
risrsfor
SocialActionJournal,1982, 3, 2-3.
Novack, G. Democracy
andrevolution.New York: Pathfinder Press . 1971.
Novack, G. Pragmatismversus Marxism. New York: Pathfinder Press .
1975.
Peterson. M.E. Automatic reinforcement: An important concept in the
analysis of verbal behavior. WesternMichiganUniversityBehavioral
MonographSeries,undated, 10.
Pittaluga, C., &:Roberts, S. D. Behavioral team-building in a Third-World
for SocialActionJoursteelworks: Efficiency and ethics. Behaviorists
nal, 1982, 3, 8-16.
Preis, A. Labor'sgiantstep:TwentyyearsoftheCIO.New Yorker: Pathfinder
Press, 1964.
Rakos, R.F. Toward cooperative behavior between pragmatic behaviorists and Marxist behaviorists: Philosophical, empirical, and social
for SocialActionJournal,1980, 2, 10-17.
considerations. Behaviorists
Schell, J. Thefate of the earth.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982.
Sheppard, B. Why bilateral nuclear freeze will not bring world peace.
Militant, October 29, 1982, pp. 10-12.
Skinner, B.F. Contingencies
of reinforcement:
A theoreticalanalysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Skinner, B.F. Beyondfreedomand dignity. New York: BantamNintage,
1971.
Skinner , B.F. About behaviorism.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.
Skinner, B.F. Reflections
onbehaviorism
andsociety.Englewood Cliffs, N .J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1978.
Smimow, G. The revolutiondisarmed.New York: Monthly Review Press,
1979.
Socialist Workers Party, National Education Department (Ed.), Educationfor socialists:Unitedfront vs. people's front (Enlarged ed.). New
York: Pathfinder Press. 1972.
Socialist Workers Party, National Education Department (Ed.), Educationfor socialists:Selectedspeechesby FidelCastro, New York: Pathfinder Press. 1979.
Socialist Workers Party, National Ed ucation Department (Ed.), Educationfor socialists:FidelCastroon Chile.New York: Pathfinder Press.
1982.
Trotsky, L. Therevolutionbetrayed(M. Eastman, trans.). New York: Pathfinder Press, 1972. (Originally published, 1936.)
Trotsky, L. In defenseof Marxism. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1973.
(Originally published, 1940.)
Ulman, J.D. A critique of "Skinnerism: Materialism without the dialecfor SocialActionJournal,1979, 1, 1-8.
tic." Behaviorists
Vargas, E.A. Benefits and behavioral technology: Some thoughts on
Pittaluga' sand Roberts' paper. Behaviorist
sfor SocialActionJournal,
1982, 3, 17-19.
Zimbalist, A. The limits of work humanization . Reviewof RadicalPolitical
Economics,1975, 7, 50-60.
Zimbalist, A. (Ed.). Casestudieson the laborprocess.New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1979.
Footnotes
'Wecanbesurethatadvancesofworkingpeoplehereorelsewhere
willnot
receive favorablecomment in the big business press. The antidote that I
recommendfor those who have becomepessimistic or cynical about the
revolutionary
potentialofworkers is to readnewsanalyseswritten in theinterest
of workingpeople.My preferenceis the Militant for domesticnews and the
Intercontinental
Press for international news. Cuba's Granma and
Nicaragua'sBarracada arealsohighly informativenewsweeklies.
2 Unfortunately,U.S. law forbidsus from visiting Cuba to see these
accomplishments
for ourselves.However,I canrecommenda subscriptionto the
for U.S.
Englishlanguageversionof the Granma Weekly Review (available
$10.00per yearfrom EdicionesCubanas,Empresade ComercioExteriorde
Publicaciones,
O'Reilly407-Apartado605-Cindadde La Habana,Cuba)and
literaturefrom the Centerfor CubanStudies(200East23rd Street,New York,
NY10010).