614
test of morality has always been
the concern over and the willing–
ness to assume responsibility for the
immediate fate of humanity. Mac–
donald's "morality" is simply a
misnomer, being little more than a
cover for a flight from politics.
Besides, as suggested before,
Macdonald's moral postures rest
on some of the assumptions of the
Trotskyites. For in refusing to make
a distinction between democratic
capitalism and Stalinism he is
merely echoing the Trotskyite idea
that both are equally vicious and
must be overthrown by the "third
camp." But since Macdonald no
longer believes in the "third camp,"
he must immediately
somers~ault
out of politics into morality, and
try to prove that his partial-and
inconsistent-Trotskyite position is
somehow at the same time a prod–
uct of the eternal and absolute
laws of morality, whatever they
may be.
The Liberals: the "Mediators"
Mr. Eulau skitters about so much
from point to point, like a young
foal tu·rned out to pasture, that it
is sometimes hard to know whether
he is defending the liberals or prov–
ing that they are much worse than
we said they were. But he does
seem to put his finger on what
is perhaps the central confusion of
the liberal consciousness when he
remarks that the American liberals
conceive of their role as one of
mediating between capitalism and
socialism. The trouble with any
such attempted "mediation" is that
it gives away the game at the
start when it agrees that Russia
is socialist. Do the liberals really
PARTISAN REVIEW
·want to mediate between capital–
ism and state serfdom, which is
the true description of Russian
society? The heart of the liberal
confusion has always been that
they have never once paused to
ask what kind of a regime it is
that now exists in Russia. They
admit from time to time that poli–
tical liberties are not all they should
be in Russia, but always as
if
this
were a superficial and passing
blemish that would inevitably dis–
appear with time. But the absence
of political liberties follows inexor–
ably from the central fact about
the Russian state-namely, that it
is the most complete and ruthless
dictatorship in history, which has
moreover shown itself now to be
greedy for new conquests and ex–
pansions. Mediation between a
monolithic dictatorship and adem–
ocratic regime can only mean in
fact a complete submission to the
former.
It is hard to tell what Mr. Eulau
hopes to prove by his reference
to
The Protestant,
and to the fact
that the liberals are often attacked
in Stalinist publications. Obvious–
ly, the Stalinists, with their usual
habits of monolithic assent and no
disagreement, want the liberals to
be 100 per cent for Stalin, and
attack them for being only 80 or
90 per cent for him. But would
the liberals ever have considered
it a serious defense of any fascist
to say he was only 80 or 90 per
cent for Hitler?
The above criticism of the vari–
ous positions on Stalinism now cir–
culating among the Left ought to
