360 polities equaly"typical"succeeding"stage,"andtoconceiveofhis RadicalmovementintermsoftheMarxistmovementofthe previous"stage."Ascepticismoftheconventionaldoctrine ofprogressshouldleadhimtobedoubtfulofsuchananalysis. Thatgreatmovement,inclusiveofNewtonianscience,the IndustrialandFrenchRevolutions,andtheexpansionofEurope,whichbrokeoutoftheWestupontheworldatlarge insotorrentialafashionastodeservethename"theWestern Revolution,"wasaphenomenonnotlightlytobecompared withanyearlieronetillwegetbackperhapstotheintroductionofagricultureitself. Itbearsthemarksofatremendous event,ratherthanthoseofanordinarystageofhistory throughwhichsocietyaftersocietymightconceivablygo.It dominatestheworldforthreecenturies,fromthebeginning ofFrench,Dutch,andEnglishexpansionabout1600,tillthe warof1914whichsplitopentheVictorianworldorderin whichthewholehadclimaxed,andputtheWesternpowers andtheireconomyonthedefensive.Butitslimitsarenotthe limitsofadistinctiveage:ititself,rather,formsadividing line,arevolutionarytransitionfromoneconditiontoanother. Duringitswholedevelopment,themovementvitallyafected everypartoftheworld;andthegreaterpartoftheworld wasafectedbyitinaverydifferentmannerfromthewayit afectedEurope—India,forinstance,lostitsindustryandlowereditsstandardoflivingthruthesameeventswhichpro- ducedthereverseefectinEurope.Theeventhasleftusall atremendousheritagewhichwillpermanentlyafectus;but thepresentindustrializationofChina,forinstance,mustof necessitybeaquitedifferentthingfromtheoriginalindus- trializationofWesternEurope;thelatteroccurredduringthe closeofapreviousage,andblasteditapart;theformeris occurringinthenewconditionswhichtheWesternRevolutioncreated. ToMarx,however,andtotheotherfoundersofProgressivism,livinginthemidstofVictorianEuropeinal itsglory, thesituationseemedquitediferent.NotlookingseriouslybeyondEurope,excepttosmileatthe"backward"peopleson theperiphery,hetooktheinternalcourseofEuropetheconqueroroftheworldtobeonlythecontinuationofaninternal localdevelopmentwhichhetracedintheEuropeofthepast. Notrealizinghowperipheralanddependentonmoreadvanced culturestheolderEuropehadbeen,heerectedcertain"stages" thatappearedinlocalhistoryintogeneralpredecessorsofthe "stage"ofcapitalism,andinvitedtherestoftheworldto passthroughthesame"stages."Hisprovincialismwentsofar astocomparetheworld-widetransformationsinwhichhe foundhimselfwiththatlocalaberrationonafrontierinvolved inthelossofitswesternprovincesbytheRomanEmpire, which,asthe"Fal ofRome,"theEuropeandescendantsof thosewesternprovincialswereaccustomedtociteasprime exampleofsocialtransformation. TheconsequencesofMarx'inabilitytoseebeyondthelocal conditionofEuropearecarvedinhiswholeanalysisofhistory. Thesuddennes ofthechangeswithinexpandingEuropehe tooktoindicatethedivisionofallhistoryintostages,each withawel-definedspeciesofclass-exploitationtomarkit. Thepredominanceoftheindustrialcapitalistsintheexpan- sionthatmarkedtheagehetooktoindicatethateveryage musthaveitsparticularlypredominantexploitingclass.Living inthe"hundredyearspeace"thatprevailedinternalyas Europemadewarontherestoftheworld,hesawclass- struggleasthechiefformofconflict,andignoredthesignificanceofwars.Atlast,ridingthetideofprosperitywiththe restoftheOccident,helikeeveryoneelsewasledtoassume thatallthesechangesmustbeprogressive,andthenext changemustleadto.theideal. Bililieteoren (*Biome,expansiononwhichEurope's kindofprogresswasbasedwasindeedcomingtothenext changewhichMarxsoincisivelyforesawincertainofits aspects;butthatchangemarkeditsend.TheoldConcertof Europe,disposinginfraternalfashionoftherestoftheworld; theoldcapitalistdemocracy,indulginginlaissez-faireathome andpromotionabroad—aregone.NotonlydidMarx'revolutionfailtomaterialize,butthewholecircumstancesunder whichhetheorizedvanished.Europeishumbled,andher supermensuferfaminelikeanybackwardrace;theworld hasgoneglobal,andweareallinthepottogether. Now,therefore,justasweseethattheinternalclassstrug- glemaybenomoresignificantthanotherrelationssuchas thoseofwar;justasweseethatprogress,whileitmaycome, isbynomeanswrittenintothenatureofthings;sowemay doubtwhetherexploitationmosttypicalyprogressesby stages,takingclearlydefinedformsofsystematicclassdominance;ratherthanforming,ordinarily,ahopelesslyinter- wovenwelterofproperty,caste,andjurisdictionalrights, varying,butnotdistinctlyenoughtowarrantdivisioninto speciesexceptforthebroadestmethodologicalpurposes.The webofhumanexploitationiscontinuousandindefinitely varied,andtheemergenceandsubsidenceofthecapitalists duringtheWesternRevolutionwasapassingemphasisrather thanaspecificform. Inthislight,Macdonald'sinsistenceonspeakingofBureau- craticColectivisminMarxoidterms;hisuseoftheword Bureaucratic, asiftoemphasizeaclass,ratherthanthemore generalword State, morecommonlyassociatedwithwhathe speaksof'theseseemtoindicateafailuretoescapefromthe provincialismoftheMarxiananalysis.Similarly,Macdonald placestheturnineventsin1928,whenMarxismmaybesaid tohavebeenfoundlacking,ratherthan,say,in1914,when theconditionsintermsofwhichMarxismmustproveoutof datearrived.HethinkswithinMarxism,takinghisdatefrom aMarxistpointofview,andnotfromapointofviewin termsofwhichMarxismitselfisviewedasahistoricalphenomenon. Inthesameway,helooksonhisRadicalismexclusively as aheritagefromtheoldsocialism;hispairingitwithmodern Progressivismismorethanpoeticcontrast.Disregardingthe MarxoidoriginofhisconceptofProgressivism—aconcept verydifficulttoapplybeyondtheWesternnationswhichare heirsoftheoldVictorianorder,andintermsofwhichhe conceivestheRightist-Progressivistalignment—onecanpoint outthathisRadicalismishardlytheheironlyoftheold socialism.Thoreauisalsoanancestor,butheishardlyeither acolectivistorafounderoftheLeft. . .onthecontrary! Macdonalds'Radicals,oncedivorcedfromaMarxoidanalysis whichstilthinksintermsoftheoldinternalEuropeanpoliti- calrightandleft,haveadangerouskinshipwithmanydiversegroupsfromJWstoGandhistsandTolstoyans.His Radicalsmayfromonepointofviewbelookedonasradical libertariannonconformistsusingtheterm"nonconformist" tocharacterizeallthatancientsuccessionofextraordinarily diversemovementswhich,onthebasisofanethicaljudgment oftheformsofsociety,havegoneontoasumepersonalresponsibilityinrelationtothem. IdonotmeantosuggestthatMacdonald'sRadicalismmust formonlyanothernonconformistsect,ofalessreligiouscast thanmost(thoughtheclosesimilarityincertainrespectsof hisprogramtothatoftheFelowshipofReconciliation,and ofhispersonalhistorytothatofA.J.Mustemightsuggest it).Socialforcesactinmanyplanesandindiversedirections, andarelationshipononeleveltoonegroupofmovements nednotcategorizeanewgroupexclusively.ButasaQuaker, IfeelboundtowelcomeboththeradicalismandthelibertarianismofMacdonaldintononconformistlines.Thereligious
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==