124
PART I S,A N REVIEW
essary. I do not think that such measures can be easily devised, for
more is at stake than the holding of elections and plebiscites, and
genuinely popular participation in government becomes more diffi–
cult as government becomes more deeply involved in economic affairs.
We cannot take a dogmatic stand against the nationalization of basic
industries or even against large-scale socialization, for socialization
may be preferable to the chaos of an unplanned economy or the
tyranny of monopoly control; but we can refuse to deceive ourselves
about the consequences. The prevention of evil is one thing; the
creation of good is another.
Discussions of the problem of ends and means frequently assume
that both means and ends are simple, isolated entities. In practice,
however, human ends are ·never simple, and they are never fully
stated and, for that matter, never fully understood. Furthermore, any
human act has not one but many consequences. Those who insist that
the end justifies the means and those who condemn certain means
as absolutely wrong are guilty of the same error. Our task is to dis–
cover, as well as we can .amid all the complexities and contingencies
of human society, the means that will achieve the ends we desire.
In particular we must recognize that an action may be necessary
without being good. It may have been necessary-! think it was–
to meet the force of German fascism with armed force, but it was
folly to believe that the successful suppression of Nazism would, in
itself, produce peace or democracy. Persons who are concerned with
achieving mass action naturally invoke as many sanctions as possible,
and raise all kinds of hope, careless of the disillusionment that will
certainly follow. Marxists are peculiarly guilty on this score, since
they are committed to the idea of doing evil that good may come.
We must avoid this confusion, and yet our clear perception of the
consequences of evil actions must not lead us into the paralysis of
absolutism. Rather we should do what has to be done, but without
self-deception. Though destruction may be a prerequisite, a good
society can only be the result of creative effort.
If
this seems to be a rather bleak view of our dilemma, so much
the better. Many Leftists are so afraid of being called pessimists that
they fail to reckon with the difficulties of their tasks and thus doom
themselves to defeat. The kind of optimism that is worked up in Com–
munist and nco-liberal circles makes straight thinking impossible.
That is why the writings of certain religious authors-Toynbee, Nie–
buhr, Eliot-are so often more impressive than the writings of radi–
cals and liberals. Orthodox Christianity at the very least presents a
