BOOK REVIEWS • 79 of capitalism, the traditional religious consciousness serves as basis for a conservative reaction to the newly-emergent phenomena and processes. At the same time, no narrow class ideology, including bourgeois nationalism in a more or less 'pure' form, can take the place of the religious world outlook as the'working', everyday ideology of the masses of the people.5513 Tn^ reason for it is obvious. In the era of socialist revolution, with the wars of national liberation led by the working class as the most striking experience of our times, bourgeois nationalist ideology is a played out force which falls back into the arms of revivalism in opposition to socialism, just as the bourgeoisie itself makes peace with the landlords and imperialists in the face of the aspirations of the working class and peasantry. Reads to Modernisation That this work is primarily an idealistic ideological exercise is evident from the way in which the author deals with change, the central subject of his book. He starts out with the complaint that "change ceases to be viewed as a normal social process; it is transformed into an ideology that change is in itself desirable and must be sought for'5.4 This condemnation of all ideology is not as unideological as it looks. While it is true that all ideologies are biased, what the author chooses to ignore is the fact that the ideologies of different classes do have varying degrees of scientific potential depending on their specific historic role. Thus Singh lumps together all the "nationalistic aspiration55 in ex-colonial societies, failing to distinguish bourgeois, national liberation and its perspective from that of the workers and peasants. But his exercise fails in its application as his discussion on "intsitutionalization55 and "structural breakdown55 reveals. He notes that in many developing countries in Asia modernization contributed to a structural and cultural breakdown in society. The cases of China, Indonesia, Burma and Pakistan could be cited. The only successful case of modernization in Asia is that of Japan, but there too its institu' tionali^ation has not been without a breakdown following the Second World War5. (Emphasis added). Not only is he unable to prove that the possibility of modernization without tears exists, but his schematization fails to distinguish the radically different class content of the developments he chooses to subsume under the label of 'modernization5. That this is more than merely a problem of nomenclature is evident from the fact that from his perspective • we cannot explain why Chinese modernization has dealt with the crucial problems of unemployment and inflation while its apparently 'successful5 Japanese counterpart continues to be plagued by both. Behind this lies the fundamental fact that radically different and opposed production relations obtain in these two countries which no social scientist can ignore. Chinese modernization, taking place as it did under the leadership of the working class, did away with the relation of the owner of the means of production