D Sudipta Kaviraj can say of Weber — and I take Weber as an example of the bourgeois argumentation in social theory of the nature and fate of capitalism in history — that he, in effect, offers a theory about the self-perpetuation of capitalism. It can perpetuate itself because there is a logic of reformism built into its state and its social organization, and this is hinged on the ever-recursive character of rational action. Now obviously Marx's argument is opposite to this in some ways. Marx also has a theory of the end of history; he makes similar claims about socialist society. But he says capitalist society would not be able to achieve this ever-recursive action; this is possible only when you cancel the 63 capitalist and move into the socialist form. I sketch this out in order to make a Gramscian argument out of this, because I think Gramsci's theory of the intellectual relates very clearly to these theoretical ideas. This piaces the intellectual, or the intellectual group as a collectivity in capitalist society, in a particular way, because they are supposed to be the bearers, or actors, of this particular function. They perform what Gramsci would call the directive function in society. But intellectuals, I would argue, should be divided into two categories, and part of my argument would depend on this distinction, on what happens to the relationship between these two types of intellectuals. In Gramsci's argument about the economic organization of capitalist society you find distinctions made of this kind, but he doesn't actually give it a nomenclature. I think you can see the distinction very easily between individuals whose function is directive but who act primarily in the field of culture—like artists, writers, filmmakers, etc., and other intellectuals who exercise directive function in other fields: managers, bureaucrats, decision-takers at different levels. Now, I want to show another connection very briefly, because this seems to be one of the most crucial but neglected developments in marxist social theory. Marxist economists give a lot of attention to differences between the first way and the second way of the development of capitalism; if you read Marx's work, it seems to be in a way waiting for a political complement of the first way-second way division, which Marx doesn't have time to develop but which is crucial to his entire enterprise. And if we look at Marx's political writings, one article. The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution', I think provides a complement of this; but it is developed only later by Lenin and Gramsci. What is important to Gramsci is the difference between the first way and the second — and he gives the second a term, he calls it the "passive revolution'. I would sketch out very briefly the theory of the passive revolution, and try to connect it with the distinction between what I called the functional intellectuals and the cultural intellectuals. The trajectory of the passive revolution is something like this: that whereas the social transformation of the bourgeois revolution happens in the first-way capitalist countries essentially in the form of a movement, the social transformation in the second-way capitalist countries happens essentially in the form of a state-directed change. This applies to a whole lot of things — e.g. the transformation in people's commonsense, to use the Gramscian term, and the sequence of changes that occur: in one case you have the commonsense transformation preceding the capitalist revolution, and in the other you have the capitalist revolution preceding a change in the Number 19