THE FUTURE
OF SOCIALISM
127
and even earlier radical movements had acquired, he made it clear
to his followers that they were not bound by the moral standards on
which they called. He left a tremendous loophole, and Stalinism is one
of the things that crawled through it.
If
Stalinists were thoroughgoing
Machiavellians, they would be dangerous enough, but they are some–
thing worse, for they have a self-convincing moral justification for
every immorality they commit. Capitalism has contributed mightily
to the degradation of morality, but it is Stalinism- acting, I am afraid,
on good Marxist precedent-that has undone the Left.
The rehabilitation of morality might begin with self-analysis.
That is, the individual Leftist might state his ideas of the good society
as explicitly as he can and then try to discover whence they derive.
For the average intellectual today, this is like baring one's secret sins,
but perhaps we are unnecessarily shamefaced about it. Anthropology,
which has done so much to make relativists of us, does not hesitate to
point out that one form of social organization makes for more fruitful
living than another. Psychology cannot get along without a concep–
tion of the healthy human being. History shows how often fashions
in morality have changed, but it also calls attention to the persistence
of certain ideas of the good life through four or five millennia. To
be sure, morality is and must be relative, but we need not despair of
finding standards that are relevant to our times. Indeed, as I have
already suggested, there is considerable tacit agreement as to the ends
of Leftist endeavor; what is necessary is that we should bring them
into the open, criticize and revise them, and then use the results as
criteria in our choice of means.
My concern here is not with the formulation oi concrete pro–
grams, but something can be said about general attitudes. Any pro–
gram has to take into account both what is desirable and what is pos–
sible. Of the two Leftist positions today that seem to me tenable, one
emphasizes the possible and the other the desirable. The former
may be called critical liberalism and the latter intransigent radi–
calism.
Intransigent radicalism- as expounded, for example, by Dwight
Macdonald in
Politics- takes
its stand resolutely in favor of what the
individual believes to be good, and will be satisfied with nothing else.
It is unqualifiedly critical not only of the shortcomings of capitalism
but also of anything less than an ideal socialism. It is intolerant of
any form or degree of compromise, and is antipragmatic in temper.
When the intransigent radical takes part in organizations, he is usual–
ly a schismatic. His natural tendency is away from organizations, as
