THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
99
as possible, neither is compelled to use military means to this end.
War, revolution, propaganda, and ordinary diplomacy are inter–
mingled in the conflict, but its purpose is the imposition of a partic–
ular form of organization, not the annexation of territory or inhabi–
tants. There is no inherent reason why, after a period of flux and
reflux, the two "worlds" should not tacitly agree to abide by the
eventual outcome, whatever it may be. That they will enter into
formal treaties to this effect is just as unlikely as that they will con–
sent to a mutually satisfactory limitation and control of atomic
armaments. It is sufficient that they should recognize the limits of
their power.
What stands in the way of such an arrangement at present is
the clash of mutually exclusive doctrines concerning the nature of
the process in which we are
all
caught up. Just as there is a school
of thought in the West which regards Communism as a temporary
aberration from a supposedly fixed norm of development, so the Com–
munists believe (even if they do not preach) that Western society
is in decline, being irrevocably tied to a decaying economic system.
On these suppositions, genuine co-existence is only practicable for
brief, limited periods.
If
the non-Communist world is identified with
"capitalism," or "bourgeois society," it becomes possible to project
the image of an irrepressible conflict; and it does not greatly matter
whether such predictions are confirmed by foolish talk in the West.
If
the Communist regimes in Russia and Asia are kept in power
solely by terrorism, and not because Communism has exploited and
travestied
one
particular solution of the modern problem of indus–
trializing backward countries, it becomes equally possible to preach
the inevitability of a head-on clash. Paradoxically, both sides are at
present restrained above all by their common fear of the very tech–
nical means they are trying so hard to develop. But for the universal
dread of the consequences, it is not improbable that they would already
have put their respective notions to the test. But while this mutual
constraint lasts, there is at any rate a chance for different views to
make themselves felt, and perhaps for Western statesmanship to rise
above the level of parochial and melodramatic myth-creation. For the
heavier responsibility lies with the West. The nature of the Commu–
nist system in its present forn1 inhibits the process of critical re–
thinking which would enable the totalitarians to get out of their
