DEFENSE OF BRITAIN
407
It seems ungracious, at a time when London and perhaps HORIZON'S
own offices are being daily laid waste by Nazi bombs, to quarrel with the
logic
of Mr. Spender's eloquent letter. The importance and urgency of the
matters under discussion must be my excuse for attempting a few words
of reply.
Let us first clear up a misconception that runs all through Mr.
Spender's letter: those of us who think bourgeois democracy historically
obsolete and therefore predict fascist victory are motivated by either
"wishful thinking" or "excessive fatalism." He also implies our attitude
is
one of "political purism,'' so that we reject anything short of perfection
and,
like sulky children, won't play "unless things happen exactly as you
want them." These psychological judgments seem to me, in the language
of the courts, "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial." Mr. Spender will
allow that it is at least theoretically possible that one might arrive at our
conclusions through a process of objective, scientific anlaysis of the rele·
vant social, ecor:wmic and historical data. (It is even conceivable that an
observer who himself desires neither socialism nor fascism but rather a
preservation of the democratic status quo might also arrive at the conclu–
sions stated above.) The arguments must be considered by themselves. It
merely confuses the issue to introduce the sort of moral-psychological
interpretations Mr. Spender throws in.
Coming to the issues, Mr. Spender apparently accepts my three main
conclusions: the bankruptcy of bourgeois democracy ("I agree
...
with
your view of Chamberlain"), the superiority of fascism as a way of organ–
izing modern capitalism ("You say, quite rightly in my opinion, that
fascism represents a more advanced stage of organization of capitalism
than
democracy.") and the necessity for a socialist defense ("I agree also
tluu
a social revolution is necessary in England.")
How from these premises Mr. Spender reaches the conclusion that we
can beat fascism by supporting the Chamberlain, or the Roosevelt, System,
this
is not clear to me. He seems to propose both supporting the Chamber–
lain
System as a "lesser evil" to Hitlerism and also overthrowing it by
revolution at the same time. Thus he notes "the growing demand for social
revolution'' in wartime England, and says it doesn't take the form of sur–
rendering to Hitler but rather of pressing Churchill to throw out the
Munichmen and socialize industry. (In passing, I cannot understand why
Mr. Spender thinks I am for surrendering to Hitler; the program in my
article
was
proposed as a method of defeating Hitlerism, both abroad and
at home.) Of course the Munichmen must be thrown out (and, by the way,
lulve not yet been!) but Mr. Churchill must also be thrown out, since he
differs from them only in being more energetic, able, and more realis–
tically aware of the threat offered by Hitler to British imperialism. As
his
1peeches as lately as 1938 reveal, Mr. Churchill
has
nothing much against
Hitlerism as a social system. But I am afraid if Mr. Spender took steps to
llarow out Churchill and the Munichmen and socialize British industry-by
