THE FUTURE OF SOCIALISM
125
view of human nature that is not flagrantly at odds with the facts we
have experienced in these recent decades.
It;
is unnecessary, however, to accept the dogma of original sin
in order to explain the human predicament. Human beings, as a rule,
have not reached a state of development suitable for living in a com–
plex world society. This is a matter of everybody's observation and
experience. The more one knows of the men who are running the
world's affairs, the more clearly one sees that they are not up to the
job they are trying to do.
As
for the intellectuals, their writings testify
daily to their sense of their own inadequacy. Nor is this state of. affairs
surprising. Mankind required hundreds of thousands of years to reach
the stage of social and technical development that we know as civil–
ization. Moreover, even in the six thousand years or so since the race
emerged from the stone age, the majority of people have lived in small
communities and under conditions that changed but little in a lifetime.
It is no wonder that we have difficulty in coping with a constantly
changing technology and the system of worldwide economic relation–
ships it has created. It will take time for men to learn to think and
act as members of a world society, and there may not be time enough.
All this is a commonplace, but it is the kind of commonplace
many intellectuals find it convenient to ignore. I do not say that
Western civilization is doomed, for I do not know and I think no
one else does, but it is fatuous not to take the possibility of failure
into account. One of the things that make so many radicals seem
superficial and even silly is their conviction that a remedy can be found
for any evil if they succeed in working up enough excitement. I know
that skepticism may be an excuse for doing nothing, but we do not
have to be pushed into foolish actions just because some people are
smug. The neo-liberals tell us that it is later than we think, but that
makes it all the more important for us not to waste time in doing
the wrong things.
IV
In their preliminary statement the editors of
PARTISAN R EVIEW
assume that there can be--and, indeed, is-such a thing as a non–
socialist Left. Of course they are right, but how, then, are we to define
Leftism? Are, we to say that nonsocialist Leftists are merely individuals
who once embraced socialism in some form or other, have since rejected
it, but refuse to surrender the name of Leftist though they have given
up the substance? Many of the persons who think of themselves or are
