492
PARTISAN REVIEW
Soviets-not even in Christopher Lasch's very acute comments about
the moral libertarianism of radical groups, which presumably comes out
of consumerism and the psychology of self-gratification.
Other examples, taken at random, are from the January-February
1980 issue of
New
Lift
Review,
a sophisticated Marxist journal. In a piece
on the Soviet Union, Alex Nove assumes that the Russian economy is
socialist, though in need of improvement. In the same issue, an essay on
Afghanistan by Fred Halliday finds a justification for the Russian inva–
sion on the grounds that reactionary forces have to be held in check.
The omission of Russia from the formulation of radical programs,
or the belief that it is still a socialist country, is central, I believe, because
the Soviet Union has changed the entire social scene and introduced a
new factor in political thinking. Earlier, it was possible for socialist and
liberal movements to think only of domestic reform and change. Now, it
seems to me, a program that does not take into account America's for–
eign policies in relation to the Soviet Union, in conjuction with domestic
concerns, simply cannot realize its avowed aims of social justice, democ–
racy, and human freedom. At best, it leads to intellectual blindness. At
worst, it is self-defeating and does not displease the Russians. In the past,
radicals were able to think of politics as an internal affair, and were ready
to challenge their own governments even at the cost of helping foreign
ones. Now the presence of the Soviet Union rules out purely internal
questions, making all questions truly international, which was actually
the starting point of modern politics. Today the fate of America and
Europe cannot be separated from the policies of the Soviet Union. Nor
can one think of democratic socialism without taking into consideration
that Russia is one of the main obstacles, because it is not only antidemo–
cratic but also antisocialist. This is not to say the left does not take inter–
national positions, but it generally does so selectively, arbitrarily, and
without reference to domestic affairs.
If, as I have said, the Soviet Union has been mainly responsible for
the vagaries of the radical mind, the reverse is also true, namely, that if
there is a common denominator of these vagaries it is the failure to think
seriously about the Soviet Union. In this sense, the radical mind, in its
fashionable forms, is politically mischievous: it plays with revolutionary
and socialist ideas without being revolutionary or socialist. We are not in
a situation similar to pre-Nazi Germany; but there is a parallel in that the
communists were strong enough to frighten conservative interests, but
not powerful enough-or willing to unite with the socialists-to prevent
the Nazis from coming to power. So now, on a smaller scale, the left
