92 p o l i t i e s behindhercritique,allthatshehastobaseherselfonis thesameoldvagueandundefinedafirmationofanAbsolute. Frankly,whydopeopleaskthattimebewasteddiscussing sucLhoco lake imd sa ?tmerelyfromthepointofmethodology,one canexposethenatureofyouranti-Marxistcriticisms.You andyourcontributorsatackMarxism.Youchargeitwith beingimmoral,withlackinginscientificcapacity,andyou nibbleatisolatedMarxianstatements.Butyougiveno alternatives.YouaccuseKarlMarx,andothersofnot knowinghowtothink.Youaccuse.Andthenyousay defendyourselves.Butyouoffernoalternatives.Thus, onehasnomeansofcheckingyourownstatements.You baseyourselvesonAbsolutes,andcan'ttelluswhatthese are,howwearetoapplythem,howtheyconcretelyafect humanactionsandhumanhistory.Andsinceyouarehid- ingbehindAbsolutes,youmoreorlesswillclaimthatyou don'thavetodefendyourselves. Inconsequence,wemust takeyouseriouslyonfaith.Whyshouldwe? I f youdo notofferalternativeexplanationswhichareempiricaly serifiable,wecannotcheckandevaluateyourcriticisms. ThisisoneofthemereABC'sofmethodology.But,literal- ly,your"unanswerable"argumentsdragusdowntothis level.Andtorepeat,youandyourcontributorsareyet toshowyourcapacitytoexplainandanalyzeeventsin termsofyourvalidassumptions,yourAbsolutes,and,in thecaseofsome,yourpsychiatry. I f oneshouldagree withyou,onewillremaininjustaboutthesamesituation ashewaswhenhewas,presumably,aMarxist.Hewon't knowwhattodo,otherthantalk. Inotherwords.thereis noperspectiveinyouranti-Marxistcriticisms.Theonly practicalproposalsyouhave,then,arethoseofself-better- ment.Onecantrytobetteroneselfwithouthavingto dredgethewritingsofDwightMacdonaldandNicola Chiaromonteinordertotryandmakealittlesenseoutof them. Inconclusion,letmeaskyoutoansweraquestion. Where,preciselywhereisPOLITICSgoing? NEWYORKCITY J A M E S T. FARRELL SomeofFarrelPsgeneralpoints,suchasthediffer- encebetweenhisandmyviewofmorality,willbediscussed in"TheRootIsMan"nextmonth,soIwon'tgointothem here.But Icannotresisttakingadvantageofafewofthe manyopeningshisletterpresents: (1)WhenIspokeofMarxistssuferingfromparalysis astotheorytoday, I didn'tmeantoimpugnFarrel'sliter- aryproductivity,whichiscertainlyenormous.Nordid I meanthatMarxistsdon'tapplytheirdoctrinestocurrent events. I meantthattheyseemunableeithertodefendthe basicassumptionsoftheirthinking, iftheyareadequate, or,ifnot,toreshapethemtofitthepresentworldbetter. Specificaly,theyseemunabletohandlethekindofbasic criticismsour"NewRoads"serieshastriedtomake.Farrell'sletteritself IsubmitasExhibitA. ("2)ThediferencebetweenFarrellandmyselfisthathe Izasfoundcertaintymanyyearsago,'whileIamstilllook- ing. I am,therefore.forcedtopleadguiltytomanyofhis charges. I adrift I havebeen"constantlychangingmy mind"andhopetocontinuetodoso.Whynot?Onlythose whohavestoppedthinking,orneverstarted,boastofnever changingtheirminds.Prestunably,itisonlythelastchange thatFarrelobjectstoat least, Iassumehedoesnotcon- demnmychangedattitudetowardscapitalismandtheLucepapers. IconfessIamnot"arealMarxist"andhavenever been,butthiswashardlyasecretevenwhenIwasinthe Trotskyistmovement. I alsopleadguiltytohavingmade ffeitsfetuàurnt6Midittercealedthem.Onthecontrary,thoseluckypeoplelikeFarrelwhoareinpossession ofafoolproof,money-back-guaranteeSystemusualyinstancemyfrequentadmissionsoferrorasonemoresign ofmyincompetence. (3)FarrelPsestimateofPOLITICSisconfusing. It is clearhedisapprovesofit,andhescoressometelingpoints, asthechargethatPOLITICSwriterssometimesgoinforthe bourgeoispracticeofbeingfunny.(Hemighthaveadded thatitisfrequentlypossibletoreadtheirarticleswithsome pleasureandinterest,anothercapitalisticcorruptionfrom whichtheMarxistpressisfree.) .Butjustwhathedislikesis notatallclear.HechargesthatPOLITICSis(a)"cliqueish", (b)aone-manorgan,(c)"notindependent",(4)"charac- terless."Sinceacliqueimpliesseveralpeople,it ishard toimagineanorganthatisboth"one-man"and"cliqueish." Also,cliqueorone-manorganswouldbydefinitionsemto beindependent(otherwise,dependentonwhomorwhat?on theeditor?theclique?inthatcase,themagazinedepends on. . . itself).Andadefinitecharacter,ofhoweverre- voltingaquality,wouldseemtobetheveryleastonemight expectfromacliquemagazine.Thereisalsosomecon- fusionastohowseriouslyFarreltakesPOLITICS.Heprotests,ontheonehand,thatitisawasteoftimetoanswer ourimbecilitiesandisindignantthatweexactsuchalabor fromhim(hesomewhatexaggeratesthemoralobligation iveintendedtolayonhim,butnomatter).Butthenhe composesatrulyntassiveanswer;infacthisrepeatedcom- plaintsastotheabsurdityoftakinganynoticeofour"rubbish"isonereasonfortheextraordinarylengthof the noticehedoestake.(Afterthis,bytheway, I trustnoone trillcomplainthatthedefendersofMarxismareexcluded fromourpages.) (4)WhatconfusesFarrellaboutPOLITICSisthat its articlessometimesareMarxistincharacterandsometimes non-Marxist;suchamagazine,fromhisparochialstand- point,isjust"characterless."Thusheisbewilderedbythe factthatinanalyzingsuchthingsastheBritishLaborParty, wetalkinpoliticalratherthanmoralterms.Butwhynot? Ourcontentionisnotthateventscannotbeprofitablyana- lyzedfromapoliticalstandpoint,includingaMarxistone, butratherthatit isonesidedtomakethisone'sexclusive concern,andthattodayespeciallymoreemphasisneedsto beplacedonethicalfactorsthanMarxistsputthere.In- cidentally, I cannotseewhyFarrell,whocanworkup plentyofmoralheatabouttheliesandinjusticesofStalin- ism,shouldbesodisturbedwhenPOLITICStalksinmoral termsunlessbeca_usethebladeissometimesturnedagainst his ( s5 i ) d-PeO. LITICSmustalsopleadguiltytooferingnosystematicalternativetoMarxism;thisispartofthat"nega- tive"and"purelydestructive"characterthathasaroused complaints,andcongratulations,sincethemagazinebegan. Butthefactthatwehaven'tyetfoundorworkedout—and maynever—asystembeteradaptedtotheneedsoftoday thanMarxismdoesnotinanywaymakeMarxismtitself adaptedtothoseneeds.Oneshouldnotmakea"lesserevil" choiceamongsocialphilosophiesanymorethanamong beligerentsinaworldwar.Someofushavecornetothe sadconclusionthatMarxismisnolongeradequatetothe socialistendswehaveinview.Wearegropingaround, changingourminds,doubtlessoftenmakingfoolsofourselves,butuntiladrasticbreakismadewiththeoldtradi- tion—whichinvolvestheriskanddiscomfortofbeingso tospeakideologicallyhorneless—anewapproachwillnot befound.Peoplearelazyandwon'treallybestirthemselvesuntiltheyloseconfidenceintheoldways.Thisdoesn't meanthatMarxismwassimplyavastmistake,tobeforgotten,castaside.Onlycrackpotswithapanaceabehave
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==