66 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
has singled out behaviouralism for a more elaborate treatment because it brings out the class bias of managerialism most clearly.
Management for Peopled Democracy
MohinderKumar is aware that, under capitalism, every advance in science and technology is harnessed for extracting relatively larger surplus value for the owners of the means of production. Extricating science and technology from the constraining influence of the capitalist relations of production has been one of the major concerns of all Marxists engaged in building socialism. As a handmaiden of capitalism managerialism and its various theories are oriented towards blunting the class consciousness of the working class and manipulating their behaviour to promote the interests of capitalists by intensifying surplus extraction. Whereas class struggle in the capitalist countries demands the exposure of the pernicious influence of managerialism, Marxists have been equally anxious to harness all scientific methods and approaches for the service of the masses of the population. Lenin, who was conversant with Taylorism and other contemporary theories of management, had suggested that a distinction should be made between its scientific achievements, reflecting the actual nature of large-scale social production, and those of its standards that were conditioned by the needs of capitalist exploitation. It is true that the socialist mode of production has called to life new forms and methods of organisation and management of social production that correspond to socialist production and differ radically in social content from capitalist methods of management.
Lenin's approach to the theories and practices of the organisation of capitalist production pervades the thinking of Mohinder Kumar when he sounds a note of caution not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Following Lenin's advice Marxists have maintained that a critical analysis of contemporary bourgeois theories of management from positions of Marxist-Leninist science is needed— on the one hand, an exposure of the social and ideological substance of these theories, which serve state monopoly capitalism, and, on the other, a bringing out of the positive aspects in them, which reflect the objective requirements of contemporary social production. Scientific methodological foundations to management theories can be provided by a materialist understanding of the socio-economic process. But, essentially, bourgeois concepts of management are based on sociological empiricism of the positivist brand and on the subjectivist interpretation of the socio-historical process that goes with it. They assume that the psychology of individual participants in production lies outside social and economic relations.
Mohinder Kumar has maintained that the contradiction between social production and private appropriation is the biggest bottleneck in the optimum utilisation of productive potential. No amount of