184
PARTISAN REVIEW
merely a special form of "finance-capitalism," in which case we
lapse into mysticism when asked why nine-tenths of the capitalists
of the nation oppose it. Above all does the second world war leave
us floundering. From its beginning, from the day of the Nazi–
Soviet Pact, in the military, diplomatic, political, social-economic
developments, our assumption makes the second world war unintel–
ligible, and makes impossible an even roughly accurate anticipa–
tion of future events.
3.
When an assumption is made explicit, it becomes possible to
examine it critically, and, if this seems advisable, to reject it.
If
the assumption of "either capitalism or socialism" is merely ver–
bal-that is, if it means only that we are resolved to
call
any pos–
sible change in social organization either "socialism" or "capital–
ism"-then of course the assumption cannot be disproved. We can
at most suggest that this verbal restriction is likely to be confusing.
But this particular assumption may easily be re-interpreted.
We can understand its content not as an assumption, but as two
different descriptive theories or hypotheses· about what is probably
going to happen, to be judged by the available evidence. Thus
translated, the assumption divides into: (I) the theory that capi–
talism will continue for the next historical period (let us say, at
least several generations) ; (.2) the theory that capitalism will be
replaced by socialism in the comparatively near future (let us say,
in the nqt decade or so)_
These two theories are not
contradictories
but
contraries.
That
is, though one of them must be false, both of them may be false.
It
is logically possible that neither of them is true, and that a third
hypothesis may be formulated which, on the basis of the evidence,
is more probable than either of them.
What is at issue here is not, we should note, a question of
program.
Neither of these hypotheses-nor any additional a1tema–
tive hypotheses-raises any problem of what "ought to be," of
whether the continuance of capitalism would be "good" or "bad,"
whether we "ought" to fight for socialism, or what program
"ought" to be adopted by men of good will. The problem is simply
one of fact, of what, on the basis of the evidence now at our dis–
posal, is most likely to happen.
By now, the theory that capitalism is going to continue much
