BERLIN CONGRESS
719
The very title of Koestler's second paper-"The False Dilemma"–
indicated how far he was from universalizing dilemmatic situations. He
denied that the choice between "Left" and "Right" was any longer
cognitively meaningful because of their varying emotive effects. He
denied that we are confronted by a genuine choice between capitalism
and socialism, not as conceptual structures, but as historical movements.
He claimed that on a number of vital issues, the so-called capitalist op–
ponents of socialism have adopted a more socialist policy than the exist–
ing socialist parties. He showed that the non-socialist governments of
France, Italy and Germany are in some respects more "internationalist"
than Socialist Britain. He criticized England for creating obstacles to
European unity and drove his point home by quoting from the Labor
Party statement "No Socialist government in Europe could submit to the
authority of a body whose policies were decided by an anti-Socialist
majority."
This criticism was unfortunate because it was misinterpreted, despite
Koestler's warnings, as an attack on socialism and an apology for capital–
ism instead of a plea for the abandonment of the antithesis. Koestler
also overlooked the fact that greater equality had been produced
III
England under a Socialist regime than elsewhere.
To an audience rapidly growing restive, Koestler then went on to
assert that insofar as domestic freedom, civil rights and even economics
were concerned there is no relevant difference between Capitalist United
States and Socialist Britain. "The alternative is no longer nationalization
or private economy in the abstract: the real problem is to find the proper
balance of State ownership, control, planning, and free enterprise. And
this is an empirical question." He concluded by summing up the present
conflict between Communism and democracy as "total tyranny against
relative freedom."
Except for the unfortunate historical references to England, which
provoked Mr. Trevor-Roper to fury, there was little in what Koestler
said that had not been previously said in this country by Corey, Niebuhr,
myself, and sometimes even Norman Thomas. But Koestler can recite the
truths of the multiplication table in a way to make some people indignant
with him. He also overlooked the fact that although all large terms have
been kidnapped by the enemies of freedom, one could still justify his–
torically the use of the phrase "democratic socialism" for the economic
set-up he advocated.
The discussion was quite heated and, up to the point that a Herr
Grimme spoke, on a high plane. Haakon Lie replied to Koestler and
reminded
him
that he had neglected to take the achievements of Scan-
