WILLIAM PHILLIPS
9
democracy is itself a hybrid that must be distinguished from classic
socialist and Marxist movements. For social democracy, while seem–
ingly keeping alive the principle of socialism, is actually a species of
welfare statism, with a few traditional socialist programs thrown in
occasionally and often temporarily- but always within the framework
of capitalism. This is why social democnHs in France, for instance,
find no conflict between their party doctrines and the idea of defend–
ing capitalist France against its military and ideological enemies. In
other countries, however, as in Germany, the social democrats are
floundering on the question of national defense, though they, too, do
not advocate revolution to overthrow the existing system.
In any event, the breakdown of one belief and the eoergence of
another in the past produced staggering political contradictions and
intellectual confusions. Today, however, the absence of any idea of
the future leads to intellectual nihilism and a political accommoda–
tion that passes for pragmatism.
• • •
The piece in this issue by Ronald Radosh on Nicaragua illus–
trates some of the problems of maintaining one's political balance.
Radosh provides an impressive account of left-liberal apologetics,
some innocent, some disingenuous, for the Nicaraguan regime. And
the political lesson that comes through very clearly is that the in–
nocents cannot give up their socialist faith, while the communists
shrewdly exploit this reluctance.
But Radosh ends up in a contradiction, which stems, I believe,
from his own lingering left beliefs. For even though Radosh demon–
strates the complete untrustworthiness of Nicaragua in living up to its
promises, he concludes by advocating some kind of deal whereby the
Sandinistas would promise not to support communist revolts else–
where in Central America. And he takes this position, I think, be–
cause he cannot repudiate completely the left view that American
intervention - economic and political as well as military - would rep–
resent a greater evil than does the Nicaraguan regime. He also slurs
over the question of whether it is moral not to oppose the immorality
of the Sandinistas. I say this not to take anything away from Radosh's
penetrating expose of the pro-Nicaraguan mentality, but to indicate
the dilemmas of left or socialist anticommunists.
•
•
•
The November 21, 1985 issue of
The New York Review of Books
has a brilliant piece by Vaclav Havel, the Czech writer, on the po–
litical stupidity and bad faith of the peace movement.
It
is most im-
