640
DAVID T. BAZElON
is no longer even consistently prejudiced. The paradoxical result of this
formulation, in place of the more conventionally romantic one, is that
the writer and artist - if only he can, by leap of genius or benefit of
accident or circumstance, find a live nerve among the animal debris of
the audience - is immensely powerful: as powerful as that nerve. The
deteriorated audience of disconnected nerves will buy anything: fashion
is all. A second, not less important, result is that artificial simplicity with
a fresh smell- what might be called beefed-up simplicity - is nearly
irresistible: is now a primary form of modem herding.
What then, in this context, is the price of simplicity for the Prince
of Popularizers in that one area of awareness (economics) where cal–
culated miseducation takes its greatest toll? The price is personal depres–
sion running so deep that, self-deprived of poetry, it becomes rigidly
willful and eventually fatuous. When a knowledgeable and talented
writer strenuously and precisely limits himself to his own awful idea of
the audience, the result is a success
only it a nerve is touched.
And that
will be the result of luck or genius primarily - the hard, ugly work of
simplifying is really secondary. Any willing talent can sneak into televi–
sion; but only a Rod Serling can take and hold it by storm.
The nerve touched in
The Limits of Capitalism
is, unfortunately,
the same one that was overmassaged in an earlier and rather more
interesting book by Mr. Heilbroner,
The Future As History.
It
is some–
how very important to him to demonstrate that nothing very much is
going to happen. I doubt that; but maybe. In any event, why the big
effort to elevate this so-so sentiment to the level of Firm and Convincing
Proof? Because if the future bites, the present may wiggle: it is, after
all, the same animal. And a wiggling present does not simplify so
readily.
The willed clarity which the author enforces on a very twitchy (in
my opinion) present, requires large doses of old-fashioned nominalism
dispensed in a heavily judicious manner. So the American system is
called "capitalism" - which will not last forever, but is not apt to
disappear overnight either. The supreme difficulty of getting anywhere
while terming our system capitalist is overcome by equating "capitalism"
and "business" and using the latter word to discuss whatever needs to
be discussed, and the former to predict the future so as to ensure that
the discussion amounts to as little as possible. Business is a fascinating
process which changes daily, while capitalism of course is an historical
entity that can be displaced only by revolution. We can eat our cake
while mushing it around in our plate. "It is certainly beyond the
present limits of capitalism to replace the guiding principle of produc-
