EASTMAN VS. FARRELL
211
the principles of socialism at a time when these are under violent assault
from reactionary quarters. I must decline the invitation.
Eastman presents himself against me as the champion of democracy,
and he declares that he has defined democracy as a "political system, and
a system of social habits." First of all, while Eastman now cheers for
democracy as much as he does for science, it must be observed that his
trend of thinking is far from democratic. F<ir years, he has, in a muddled–
headed way, been trying to develop some idea of the social engineer who
will
furnish the proper blueprints for the proper organization of society.
If
this means anything, it means that he has been developing a conception
of the elite. He appeals always to the social engineer of the future, and
never to the masses of the people of the present. Aside from the social
tngineers, his practical proposals are the usual stuff that one reads con–
cerning science and politics in countless dreary books written by second
rate professors. You get the same stuff done with more expertness in such
hooks as Dr. Charles E. Merriam's
New Aspects of Politics.
Science in
_such writings generally plays the role of concealing those factors in a
capitalist democracy which militate against the extension of democracy
itself-the basic conflicts and contradictions in our society. It is because
of the incompatibility of capitalism and democracy that I have placed my
faith in socialism.
It seems to me rather ironical that Eastman should solidarize himself,
in his Open Letter, with James Burnham. Although Eastman thereby
declares that Bur:"ham is devoted to the ideal of democracy and the cause
of the exploited, Burnham disagrees with him. Burnham's book,
The
Managerial Revolution,
is a high-falutin' thesis on "the wave of the
future." Burnham declares that capitalism is dead, and that socialism is
impossible: the society of the future is ·to be that of "the managerial revo–
lution." Burnham cites Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union
as examples of this "man:::;?:erial revolution": he also describes the New
Deal as a primitive form of the same revolution. Is it that Max Eastman
has not read this book? Is it or is it not purely accidental that he soli–
darized himself with Burnham? Does he think that Burnham's book is one
of the blue prints which the social engineers of the future will draw upon
when they lead the new radical movement which Eastman considers to he
inevitable? I do not know the answers to these questions. All I know is
that Eastman solidarizes himself with Burnham as a deserving democrat,
and opposes Burnham to myself and my "little gang of sectarian bigots."
When Eastman tells us that we have lost faith in democracy, he is
using the wrong word: we have long ago lost faith in capitalism. Further,
he helps create a metaphysics of the war by his concealment of issues, by
his failure to discuss the practical questions involved in the war, particu–
larly the question of war aims. What he calls faith in democracy amounts
to a blank check to those who now conduct the war effort. I do not
believe in writing blank checks. His letter to
The New York Times
was
formal and abstract.
Alon ~side
of thi s letter, the writings of such men as
Harold Laski since August 1939 are models of realistic analysis. A plati–
tude about democracy and a statement that his life-attitude has been one
of scientific scepticism is, to me, no substitute for a discussion of issues.
