THE POLITICS OF DESPERATION
itarian groupings strong enough to play a political role will emerge.
But in principle it might be stated that French radicals should be
able to ally themselves with any anti-Stalinist movement however
conservative or bourgeois its leanings are, so long as it is committed
at least to the prevailing forms of democracy.
Clearly, then, the question of supporting in France any such
figure as De Gaulle is one of
expediency,
being largely a matter of
weighing the threat of Stalinism against the political risks of Gaullism.
But this is a far cry from accepting the Gaullist movement .as an end
in itself. And when Malraux goes overboard, hailing De Gaulle as
the savior of France and the guiding spirit behind a revitalized
Europe, he has committed himself to a new social philosophy and
perhaps a new social order. He has in fact broken completely with
all socialist and radical traditions.
What is this new social philosophy? Frankly Malraux's presen–
tation is extremely vague-suspiciously so. On the whole it is a great
tour de force, dramatizing the decay of Europe, and carried along
by a rhetoric of spiritual and political rejuvenation. But most of the
crucial questions are deftly sidestepped, or buried in some invocation
to history.
When, fer example, Malraux is asked about the program of
l~c
Gaulle, he answers that it has objectives rather than programs.
A purely semantic distinction. But let us not quibble-what are its
objectives? The objectives cited by Malraux turn out to be marginal,
and, besides, according to Malraux, they have already been realized.
We should have liked to have Malraux tell us about the position of
De Gaulle on the nature of capitalism and the kind of economy he
envisages for France, on the relation of classes, the form of democracy
he would preserve or institute, and, above
all,
the means he would use
to enforce his rule. We should like to know, too, whether De Gaulle
aims to take power in the name of a single party or to maintain a
multiparty government. Yet all that Malraux has to say about these
questions comes down to a few marginal references and innuendos,
as when he remarks that democracy has to be fought for, which is
just about as illuminating as the statement that the good society must
be striven for. At various points, however, Malraux seems to imply
that politically and economically much of the status quo will be
retained, except, of course, that it will be administered by the iron
453
