BOOKS
477
rhetoric and indignation based on the same assumptions. Between
two economic treatises, one defending, the other attacking capi·
talism, we could make only an arbitrary or emotional choice, since,
according to Wilson, values cannot be "ultimately proved."
The difficulty arises, I think, from the failure to see the con–
nection between the values and the facts analyzed by Marx. The
critique of capitalism is an objective matter; it rests on scientific
observations that this economy is incapable of satisfying the wants
of the great mass of the people, and the prediction that because of
its structure and operation, the capitalist system will continue to
beget crises, wars, poverty and class conflicts. It is with reference
to these wants and conflicts and the available resources that we
evaluate objectively the capitalist order and the socialist proposals.
If
by the "basic human rights," Wilson means the elementary bio–
logical needs, these do not have to be "proved"; they are every–
where observable, as are also the consequences of their frustration;
and if he means such ideals as liberty and equality, these too
require no more "ultimate proof" than the hypotheses of natural
science. These rights are values discovered and tested in experience
under given conditions; we have learned that where men have cer–
tain rights, they are better able to promote their interests and to
resolve conflicts; and the conception of these rights, their actual
content, changes with new conditions and desires, which may be
foreseen, observed, criticized and controlled. To oppose the bio–
logical factor in values to scientific methods of valuation is to
open the way to just that irrationalism and dogmatism that Wilson
condemns.
It
is, of course, often hard to know in advance the con–
sequences of our actions, but experience is the final ground of
judgment. In devising a form of society which is more likely to
promote human satisfactions than the present one, we are still
within the realm of objective criteria. Wilson argues that since we
cannot prove that "the progress of human institutions involves a
process of progressive democratization," we have to make "moral
and emotional" appeals. But the socialist doesn't have to prove
that the economic changes going on before his eyes will by them–
selves produce a more democratic society. He has rather to show
that by a democratic organization of society, the economic machine
is likely to function better and to satisfy the wants now frustrated,
and he has to devise a successful method for bringing this about.
