MARCH,1946 91 Thus,wecanseepresentedthediferencebetweensocial moralityandindividualmorality.Marxismpresentsapositionofsocialmorality.Thepremiseforthispositionis thatthemajorevilsinthisworldaretheconsequenceof theexploitationofmanbyman.Humannatureisaffected bythisexploitation,andsothehumanbehaviourthatresults insocietiesbasedonexploitationcausesneedlessmisery, sufering,injustice,brutality,war,bestiality,andinconsequence,humannatureisdeformed—deformedfor the worse.In thissense,wecansaythatthereisimplicitin Marxismadistinctionbetweenaconceptionofhumannature andhumanbehaviour.Medievalists,amateurinstinctpsychologistslikeMaxEastman,devoteesof anundefined AbsoluteJustice,andothersoftenconfusehumannatureand humanbehaviour. ThishappensinPOLITICS.Tocontinue,Marxismpresents themoralproblemasthesocialproblem.Asthesocial problem,thatwhichiscaledforischange,theelimination oftheconditionsandcircumstanceswhichenforcethecon- tinuedpracticeoftheexploitationofmanbyman.Thus, thesocialproblembecomesthepoliticalproblem.This viewrequiresthatthetestofconsequencesbeappliedto action:Itrequiresthatmenbejudgedbymorethantheir assumptions,nomaterhowvalid,bymorethantheirstatementsofgoodintention,nomaterhownoble. Contrastedtoaviewofsocialmorality,therearevarious doctrinesofindividualmorality.Allsuchindividualdoc- trinesarepremisedontheideathatthemoralproblemis thatoftheregenerationoftheindividual.WhereasMarx- ismclaimsthatbetterindividualswillbesociallycreated, inthelongrun,ifabetersocietyiscreated,thiscounter- doctrinearguesthatabettersocietywilleventualyresult, oncewestartmakingbettermen.Onetypeofindividual moralityisChristian,andthisseesthecreationofbeter individualsintermsoftheideasofeternalsalvation.There aremanyvariationsofthis,oneofwhichisTolstoyism. It claims,inthelastanalysis,thatbetterindividualsare createdbymenlovingoneanother,practicingnon-violence, politicalnon-resistance,and(althoughTolstoy'sdisciples usualydon'tadoptthiskeyproposalofhis)absolutecontinence.TheendofTolstoyanmoralityistheattainment ofhumanperfectability:humanperfectabilitywillresultin mans'h2rmonizinghimselfwiththeWillofGod,inhisat- tainmentofpurity,andinthenecessarilyconsequentialdyingoutofthehumanrace.Anothervariationofindividual moralityonewhichispopularinthesepagesbasesitself onAbsoluteMorality,AbsoluteJustice.Neitherofthese isdefined.Inconsequence,onecannotsay,withanyexactness,whateitherofthesemean.However,theseundefined Absolutesarepresentedasidealswhichmustbefolowed. Undefined,theymustguidepoliticalactions;theymust encourageustoengageinundescribedcommonstruggle andcommoneffort,althoughusualycommonstruggleand commoneffortmustbecarriedonoutsideofany andeven all organizations.AbsoluteJustice,AbsoluteMoralitymust, here,beacceptedasahumanmotiveandasanideal. It ispresumablytheconsequenceofsomeneedinman'snature. Inavagueway,theexponentsoftheseAbsolutestryto warranttheirposition,then,onthebasisofavagueneed. Further,theyaskustoaccepttheirviewsontheground thattheyhavevalidassumptions.Butthisisagroundless argument.ManhasavagueneedforanAbsolute.That vagueneedgiveshimavalidassumption.Becauseofthis, hiswordsandactionsmustbetakenseriously,andtheconsequencesofthesewordsandactionsaresecondary.(In passing,itshouldbeaddedthatonmorethanoneoccasion, ourAbsoluteMoralistswillabandontheirpositionhere, andtheywilljudgeMarxistsintermsoftheconsequences BibliotecaGinoBianco oftheiractions.Theydothiswithoutmakingclearand iluminatingco-relations:thus,as I havenoted,Dwight MacdonaldhasforseveralyearsbeensayingthatLenin isresponsibleforStalin,buthenevertellsusjusthow thisisthecase.)Stillanothervariationofthisindividual moralityisbasedonpsychiatricwritings.Here,theregenerationoftheindividualreallymeanspreventativepsy- chiatryandthecureofpsycho-neurosis.Andthisisusualy developedintoadoctrineofsexualemancipation.Before societycanbeemancipated,theindividualmustbeemancipated.Hemustbesexualyfree.Andsexualfreedomin- cludesthecreationofmoralatitudesandmaterialconditionswhichwillpermitboysoftenandeleventohave afairswithoutfeelingguiltyafterwards.Here, insubstance,aratheattitudeswhichunderlythepresumablyun- answerablecriticismsofMarxismprintedinPOLITICS. POLITICSnowclaimsthatthesocialproblemisreducible toaseriesofpersonalproblems.Insofarasitproposes anything,itproposesthatpeoplebecomebeter,andsome- times,moresexualyfree. Inanswertothis,letitbesaid thatthemoralistsandtheamateurpsychiatristsmightgo aheadandpracticewhattheypreach.Theymightbecome beterandmorefree.Buttheirprescriptionsgiveusno leversforsocialchange.Fortheydonotdealintheterms inwhichtheseriousproblemsoftherealworldareposed. Theseareproblemsofpower.Theseproblemscannotbe evadedbydescribingpowerasevilandcorrupting.All thatonedoeswhenonemakesthischargeistocalnames. Tosaythatpowerisevilislikesayingthatlifeisevil.Be- causethebreadandbuterproblemsofhumanityarefought out,generalized,concretizedthroughpoliticalstruggles: andoncewedealwithpolitics,theproblemsthatconcern powerarise.Thepoliticalnatureoftheanti-Marxistwrit- ingsinPOLITICSamountstolittlemorethanmodernized andbohemianincantation.Youcalnames. Withyourname-caling,youadopttheairofbeingmoralysuperiortowhomeveryoucriticize.Themoralsuper- iorityofPOLITICS,infact,threatenstobecomemerelythe moralpriggishnessofalittleclique. Thereisasharpcleavageinthewritingswhichappearin POLITICS.Whencontemporarypoliticaleventsareanalyzed, MoralAbsolutesdisappear.Thus,theeditordoesnot analyzetheBritishLaborPartyanditspoliciesbytesting theirconductintermsoftheseAbsolutesand,withthese, ofbasichumanvalues.Hetriestomakeapoliticalanaly- sis.Similarly,heandothersdonotacceptLaborpoliticiansonthegroundthatthesemencanstatevalidassump- tions,andthatthey,also,believeinjustice. I f theyare questioned,youwillundoubtedlyfindmanyofthemmore thanwilingtoafirmtheirbeliefinAbsoluteJustice.Moral Absolutismandfrivolouspsychiatryarereservedfora critiqueofMarxistwritings.Andthesecritiquesrevealan utercarefreenesswithfactandtheory.Often,Marxism wilbe"annihilated"inthemostcasualandincidental sentences.Casualy,incidentaly,theeditororoneofhis contributorswillmerelytellusthatthelawofthefaling rateofprofithasbeenrefuted,thatMarxismdoesnotunder- standimperialism,thatMarxcouldn'tprovewhyitwas necessaryfortheretobeaclassstructureinsocietieswhich havedevelopedhistoricalyonthebasisofariseinthe levelofproduction.HelenConstas,whomadethislast charge,misstatedwhatitwasnecessaryforMarxtoprove. Marx,inhishistoricalanalysisofsocialevolution,was strivingtogiveasequentialpictureofwhathappened.She wouldcriticisehishistoricalanalysisanddescriptionsby degradingtheorytothelevelwhereonediscussesfruitless historical asifs. Thus,shedeclaredthatsocialismwas possibleinthetimeofCaesarandofCharlemagne.And
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==