ism? From Merian's point of
view, it is essentially support of
the capitalist order. And Fascism?
Fascism is essentially support of
capitalism in its period of decline.
Indeed, by the logic of productive
forces, capitalism in its Fascist
form grows . out of capitalism
in
its liberal form. Despite their dif–
ference on relatively minor mat–
ters, on the chief issue,
viz.,
cap·
italism or sociali!!m, a democratic
liberal has more in common with
a Fascist than with a genuine so–
cialist who, by definition, is a
Trotskyist. Let no one think I am
forcing a meaning on Merian.
This
is canonic Trotskyist doctrine and
explains why "as a supporter of
democratic liberalism" I
must
con·
centrate my attack on the Trotsky–
ists as the leading enemy. For,
whether they know it or not, on
this principal issue of the age, lib–
erals and Fascists are allies! Here
is cement enough for any kind of.
amalgam.
(On this theory my compulsion
;o attack feudalism is presumably
due to a pious regard for my
bourgeois revolutionary ancestors
or maybe to a Freudian reversion,
if it is permissible to mix Freud–
ianism with Trotskyism.)
Similarly, Churchill, Hitler, and
Roosevelt must also attack Trot·
skyism as the leading enemy.
Stalin
should
act differently, but
that wicked man refuses to under·
stand that the Trotskyists are all
for the Russian nationalization de–
crees, which is what chiefly counts,
although they oppose his regime
as an unpleasant but passing his–
torical phenomenon.
Now Merian is nothing
if
not a
sober man. He has himself assured
us of this. But if he retains any
political sobriety surely he will
admit this somewhat exaggerates
the menace of Trotskyism. The
fact is that the Trotskyists are not
regarded anywhere as the villians
of the piece, except in that "work-
er's state" so esteemed by Merian.
Why, then, must I, as a "demo–
cratic liberal," pick on Trotskyist
and feudal remnants?
Whatever Merian means, it ap·
parently compels him to invent
his facts. Since Pearl Harbor and
until Merian's attack, I have made
only one passing reference to Trot–
skyism, and that without mention·
ing it by name. I have aimed my
political fire at (a) clerical totali–
tarianism-which Merian foolish–
ly dismisses as a remnant of feud–
alism because this is the only
place provided for it in his scheme
of productive forces--, (b) at
Stalinism, and (c) chiefly at un–
critical support of the Roosevelt
regime by the labor and progres–
sive movement.
As
a "democratic
liberal" it may not be Trotskyist
cricket for me to do this. But
these arc the facts.
As for the charge that I regard
the metaphysicians and theologi–
ans as the greatest menace to our
culture, the readers of PR have the
evidence in their own hands on
p. 8 of the January, 1943 issue:
"The causes of the failure of nerve
in our time are multiple and obvious.
Economic crises, world war, a bad
peace, tragically inept statesmanship,
the tidal waves of totalitarianism, tell
the story of the twentieth century.
These are the phenomena that are be–
hind the interrupted careers, the frus–
trated hopes, the anxiety, the sense of
being lost and alone, the growing be–
wilderment, fear and horror-that feed
the theology of despair and the poll–
tics of wish. It is important to remem–
ber this. The 'arguments' of those who
have been panicked into embracing the
new varieties of transcendental couaola–
tion may be met a thousand times over.
But not- until a democratic, freedom-anti–
welfare-planning economy is built out
of what is left of our world, in which
stable traditions can absorb the con–
ventions of revolt of political man and
the experiments of growth of individual
men, will these intellectual excesseao
subside from epidemic to episodic pro–
portions. Until then it is necessary
to
prevent intellectual hysteria from in–
fecting those who still cling to the
principles of rational experiment and
analysis."
SmNEY
Hooz:
