332 politics thepossibilityofitsachievementwhichisbasedonthede- velopmentofproductiveforcestoadegreewhereasocietyof plentyandleisurecanbebuilt. "They(thatis,Macdonald'sfriends)willthinkinhuman, notclassterms." Macdonaldclarifiesthisstatementbyteling usthattheywillspreadtheirmessageattradeunions,parentteachersassociationsandcocktailpartiesthoughweareinno doubtwhichofthesewillbetheirmainarenaofactivity. Hiscounterpositionofhumantoclassfolows,ofcourse,from hisobjectionto"hurtinganyone i n whichcaseitwould seemthattheonlylogicalconclusionforMacdonald,is,with Saint-Simon,toattempttoconvincethecapitalistsofthe worthinessofSocialism,forcapitaliststooarehumanandare nottobehurt"alwaysandabsolutely."Forthatistheonly remainingpossibilityoncetheconceptofclassstrugglehas beenrepudiated. OnProgressivesandRadicals Insteadoftheterms"left"and"right"whichheconsiders meaninglessbynow,Macdonaldproposes"radical"and"progressives."It istruethatforoneimportanthistoricalphe- nomenon,Stalinism,theterms"left"and"right"arenow meaningless,butthatdoesnotmeanthat"left"and"right" completelylackmeaning,ifonlyasimprecisedirection-pointingdescriptives. Byprogressive,Macdonaldmeansthosewho"seethepresentasanepisodeontheroadtoabetterFuture;whilethe radicalhedefinesasone"whorejectstheconceptofProgress, whojudgesthingsbytheirpresentmeaningandefect,who thinkstheabilityofsciencetoguideusinhumanafairshas beenoverated,andwhothereforeredressesthebalanceby emphasizingtheethicalaspectsofpolitics."Thisdefinition permitsMacdonaldtoindulgeintheeasyamalgamoflump- ingNewDealers,SocialDemocrats,Stalinists and revolutionarysocialistsinonegroup:theProgressives.Macdonald,of course,isTheRadical.It is,however,difficulttoseewhya Southernagrarianwhowouldprobablysubsctibetomostof thepointsinMacdonald'sdefinitionofradicalshouldnot belabeledasone;orwhyaNazi,whoalso"seesthePresent asanepisodeontheroadtoabetterFuture,"couldn'tbe caledaProgressive.Macdonald'snewmethodology,byvirtue ofitsabandonmentofclassconceptions,leadsonlytosuch confusions. Thecounterpositionofviewingthepresentaspreludeto thefutureandlookingonlytothepresentisrealyachildish business.Allactioninthepresenthasarelationshiptothe future,andallschemesforthefuture,ifactedupon,afect thepresent.Thereisaninter-relationship,asofmeansand ends.WhatiswrongwithStalinismisnotmerelyasMac- donaldsuggeststhat it justifiesdebasedpresentpractices inthenameofthefuture.Stalinismdebasesboththepresent andthefuture:nodichotomyispossible. Intheabovediscussionofthepoliticalsectionsof TheRoot IsMan, wehaveconfinedourselveslargelytoobjectionsto massocialactionandthefew"concrete"politicalconclu- sionswhichMacdonalddeducesfromhisrejectionofthe revolutionaryperspective.Hisarticlecontainsagreatmany otherthingssomeofwhicharerelevanttothepoliticalpoints, othersnot.IwanttofinishthiscritiquebydiscussinginbriefB13faregdaftihfotlgrapincss:theMarxisttheoryofProgreswhichisforMacdonaldthevilainoftheplay;histheory ofhumannature;andhisdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenscience,historyandethics. TheTheoryofProgress OneofMacdonald'smostexercisedwhippingpostsisthe MarxiantheoryofProgress.Marxism,heinformsus,seesin "theworkingoutofscience good values(which)areim- plicit." Itseeshistoryasaninevitableprogressiontoconstantlyhigherlevelsofcivilization,theonelodgedasseed intheother,themotiveforceofthisprogressionbeingthe developmentofproductiveforces:abelief"thatthe'real' natureofscientificadvanceistobenefithumanity." Inviewofthiscriticism,letmebrieflyrestatetheMarxian theoryofprogressasitis,notasMacdonaldmakesit tobe. NowhereinMarx'sworkdoesonefindanexplicitandformu- latedpresentationofthistheory,butit ispossibletoderive fromthecontextofhisworkthefolowingideas.Inhisde- velopmentuptillthepresent,manhasbeenfacedwithtwo mainproblems:therelationshipofmantonatureandhisat- tempttodominateit;andtherelationshipofmantoman,in whichdominationofcoursealsowasthedecisiveelement. Untilthelast150yearsorso,allsocietieshavebeenbasedon scarcityinadoublesense:themassesofhumanbeingshave neverhadtheirdesiressatisfied,andsocietyhaslackedthe productivecapacitytosatisfythem.*Capitalism,becauseof itstremendousexpansionoftheproductiveforces,madepossibleforthefirsttimeasocietynotonlywithastandardof living"high"intermsofpresentvaluesanddesires(which previoussocietiescouldnotprovide)butalsomadethisso- cietypossibleonthebasisofleisureforthosewhoworked. Scarcityundercapitalism,whilecontinuingtobefelt,wasno longerhistoricalynecessary. Since,however,untilcapitalism'striumph,man'sstruggles forexistencetooklargelytheformofastrugglewithnature, Marxistsconsideredthosesocietieswhichexpandedthepro- ductiveforcestobe"progressive"thatis,tomakepossible theincreasedcontrolofmanovernatureandtherebyde- creaseman'sdominationoverman.Inthissense,capitalism, forallthehorrorsofthefactorysystem,wasprogressivein comparison withfeudalism.Capitalismmadepossible—it didn'tguarantee—asocialistsociety.Adirecttransitionfrom feudalismtoSocialismwasimpossiblebecausetherewasnothingtosocializeexceptprimitiveagricultureandscarcity. ItistruethatsomeMarxiststendedtomakeofthetechnologicalindex(man'scontrolovernature)afetishwith- outregardforitssocialmeaning.(Thismaypartlyexplain theconfusionintherevolutionarymovementonthequestion ofStalinistRussia.)ButMarxneverdid;hespecificalyrepudiatedthatidea.Andweforourpartneednotindulgein thatfetish. Intheperiodofdecliningcapitalism,whenthetechnologi- caladvancesofscienceareutilizedforreactionaryends,the technologicalindexbecomesquitesecondary.Onceman's relativedominationovernaturehasbeenestablished,it is man'srelationtomanthatbecomesoffirstimportance.That *Itistrueofcourse,thatdesireexpandedalongwithproductivecapacity, thusmakingforwhatmightseemaseeminglyinsolubledilemma.Inprecapitalistsocietieshowever,humanlaborhadtobeexpendedat a completelyrecklessandphysicalyexhaustingrateinordertoprovide subsistenceforthemanyandluxuryforaveryfew.Asocietyofplenty andleisurewasimpossible.Thatisnolongerthecase.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==