344
PARTISAN REVIEW
different subject matter. And the method of a scientific approach
to humane social systems-a system
sui generis
as compared to
natural scientific subject matter-cannot be understood, con–
ceived, with the terms and concepts and methods of thinking of
the natural sciences. And it was also a pseudo-ideology, because
on the one side it did emphasize ideology or values, but on the
other side, the materialization of the so-called ideology was based
on a science meaning the end of ideology.
So, consequently, when I parted with Marxism, I could not
accept capitalist theories that, from the very beginning, starting
with the physiocrats up to the classics, also saw in the economy
part of the natural system. They did not perceive the economic
system as
sui generis.
And though I had, in order to survive, to
try to develop a theory whose point of departure was a society's
human system, I realized that we must accordingly create a dif–
ferent method of thinking than both capitalist and socialist
theories.
At the time when we had the great advance, the attempt to
create socialism with a human face, I did publish a book in
Czechoslovakia that I had written in my memory in solitary con–
finement. And there was a period when there was no censorship,
so it has been published. The title of the book was
Mental Work
as a Source of Wealth,
as opposed to the Marxist concept of
manual work as a source of wealth, which both Adam Smith and
Karl Marx applied as their point of departure. But anybody who
observed what went on in Czechoslovakia could see that those
who organized the reforms, who were actually former Stalinists
(including Dubcek) and remained Marxists, put great emphasis
on socialism, while the people had accepted the reform movement
with the far greater emphasis on the human face. And if the Soviets
had permitted us to develop our system, the conflict between the
human face and socialism or Marxism would have been manifest.
But the Soviets came. And long before the invasion of Czech–
oslovakia took place I had been invited by the organizers of a re–
markable international seminar in Princeton (where we also
met, Professor Bell) and it so happened that on the trip to New
York and Princeton I read his book,
The End of Ideology.
A
highly sophisticated book, Mr. Bell, which demonstrates fantastic
knowledge and intellectual honesty, but I was very deeply dis–
turbed by this book. I left one end of ideology and came into
