PARTISAN REVIEW
which lumps together conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists, which
sees the "one original feature" of fascism not in the fact that it rests
on a mass base but in the fact that it makes no open appeal to the
supernatural? Put in its mildest terms, we shall say that it violates well–
known canons of scientific procedure--examination of negative evidence,
analysis of alternative hypotheses.
Although Popper is kinder to Marx's intentions than to those of
other thinkers, his explication of Marx's meaning converts his sentences
from propositions that might be true or false into statements that are
empirically meaningless. Thus, "Marx's historical philosophy substitutes
for (the chosen race) the chosen class ... to inherit the earth." But
it was not a mystical or religious belief which led Marx to conceive of
socialism as primarily a working-class movement. His analysis of capital–
ism led him to the conclusion that the working class had the greatest
interest in the abolition of capitalism, that whereas all other social
groups could solve or adjust their problems short of the transformation
of the system, this was not possible for the working-class_, especially
in
respect to continuous employment and achievement of a civilized
standard of living. Marx's reasons may have been wrong. But at this
point he has not been victimized by unanalyzable abstractions.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the kind of brashness which
mars Popper's discussion is found in his dismissal of the traditional
Marxist claim that the evils incident to capitalism outweigh the evils of
revolution. Popper airily rejects this view as "an utterly irresponsible
piece of oracular pretence." Yet the argument on which it is based is
familiar, and during the early years of the Russian Revolution both
Lenin and Trotsky made effective use of it. According to them, not
only were poverty, insecurity, and unemployment recurrent consequences
of capitalism;
war,
too, was endemic to capitalism. In response to those
who condemned revolution on the ground of its costs, they scornfully
pointed to the holocaust of millions in World War I and predicted further
wars
if
capitalism survived. Some latter-day orthodox Marxists have
repeated the argument on the assumption that World War II was an
imperialist war. And certainly, we would all agree that if World War II
could have been avoided by a violent uprising agaim;t Hitler, the con–
sequences of civil war in Germany could hardly have been any worse
for Europe than what actually occurred.
I am not here maintaining that this argument in its traditional
form is sound. On the contrary if it is universalized, it is false. Obviously
one can deny that world wars are historically necessary consequences
236
