ON HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING
of capitalism and even Stalin has apparently changed his mind about the
imperialist character of World War II. In addition, objections to the
Bolshevik, or any other, coup d'etat do not rest merely on the unneces–
sary violence involved but on its undemocratic usurpa tion of power
and the brutalizing results for the culture as a whole. In general, it is
necessary to distinguish between the questions whether socialism should
be
achieved democratically, and whether it can be achieved peacefully.
The first may be answered unqualifiedly, but not the second. But all this
aside, what I
am
maintaining here is that to dismiss this whole complex
of considerations with words like "utterly irresponsible" and "oracular
pretence" is itself a kind of intellectual irresponsibility on Popper's part
which makes one uncomfortable and distrustful even when one finds
oneself in agreement with him. He has no sense of the complexities
and subtleties of historical situations and is more of a moralist than a
scientific historian of events and ideas.
The historical method is no more scientific when it is used to prove
that historical events are necessary just because
these
events took place
and not others. Consider, for example, the way in which Harold Laski
appeals to
the
historical method
in
criticizing socialist critics of Soviet
terror. He maintains that Bolshevik ruthlessness was necessary in order
to build up the country to make the plants to make the steel to make
the guns ... that beat Hitler. And Hitler was beaten. This proves by
the historical approach that the Constituent Assembly and democratic
processes had to
be
destroyed to build up the country, that the purges
were required to insure steel production, and ·that the Hitler-Stalin
pact was necessary to achieve victory. No consideration is given to other
alternatives of action that were open and which would have prevented
perhaps the rise of Hitler, or his declaration of war
if
confronted at the
very outset by a two-front war, or would have insured his earlier defeat if
millions of freedom-loving Russians had not been liquidated or sent to
languish in concentration camps. Laski's "historical method" is merely a
vulgar justification after the event of whatever is, on the ground that
what is had to be. Among other absurd consequences this establishes
that Laski's existence-together with everybody else's-is historically
necessary.
i
I
I<
·~il
I
This historical method is sometimes invoked in order to make a
distinction between the historical laws of the social sciences and the non–
historical laws of the natural sciences. The ambiguities here are not
difficult
to
resolve. Capitalism as a set of institutions is an historical
phenomenon. But the laws of capitalism are not historical. They would
237
