Page:Minority of One January 1961.pdf/10
in the American labor union movement, of all the political characteristics and the vitality of its counterparts elsewhere in democratic societies. These differences are so obvious that there is no need to restate them; a study of (even non-communist) trade unions in England, France or anywhere else will suffice to bring them to the foreground.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
When the political neutralization of American labor is held within the context of the general political trend of American life in the last two decades, the picture begins more and more to resemble that of standard fascist precedents. Political persecutions, tampering with the freedom of speech and association, powerful internal propaganda and political stigmatization, the untouchability of the main features of foreign policy, the phenomenon of political prisoners-all these are supplementary features of a process of fascist encroachment. The uniqueness of the American variety lies in its evolutionary development in contrast to a violent putsch or any other overt revolutionary method.
This evolutionary character of the fascist encroachment upon American life is at least in one respect more damaging than the traditional violent means of power usurpation. No Italian under Mussolini and no German under Hitler needed to guess at the fascist or Nazi character of his government. An Italian and a German supported or opposed fascism and Nazism in full awareness. At the very least, the individual had the unmistakable opportunity to be apprehensive and hostile to the prevailing regime. In present day America the situation is very different. Because fascist encroachments, however substantial and symptomatic, were achieved by evolution, the citizen is never completely certain of their existence. A natural inclination to identify himself with his country may even tend to numb his discriminatory faculty in the never definitely resolved guessing game. He even has an opportunity of bearing democratic slogans, even though socially they are no more than the dead corpses of a no longer embraced national heritage.
THE DARK AGE
In this very article there is a built-in test for the correctness of a part of its thesis. It has been written by a man who, while thoroughly familiar with Marxist teachings, has never embraced them and is acutely aware of many of their fallacies, misconceptions and false Messianism. [1] Yet, it may be presumed, with little chance of error, that the average American reader would totally fail to appreciate that this dissertation could have been written by a non-Marxist. How is that, he would say, didn't you talk about class struggle and exploitation? Didn't you advocate a political role for trade unions? And all this is not Marxism? -No, it is not Marxism! Marxism is a definite, specific historical school that attempts to explain the basic mechanics of society, accordingly reinterprets all human history and claims to envisage its further development, which it welcomes as desirable, as deserving to be expedited by intelligent human effort. Being that comprehensive, Marxism could not possibly fail also to embody true, logical and just concepts. Two times two does not make three just because Marxists claim it makes four. When one embraces some analyses which Marxists have incorporated into their intellectual discipline, he does not necessarily subscribe to that discipline as a whole. Most people, confused on the subject and victims of perversive stigmatization, would probably be inclined to classify as "Marxist" and "Communist" many pages in the writings of such theoreticians of free enterprise as Francois Quesnay, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and many others. Certainly, they would so classify certain of Winston Churchill's speeches, or the writings of Eugen Duehring.
This intellectual perversion grows out of the existing Dark Age of thought in America. Talk against poverty and for social justice; rebel against exploitation, or say that man is and should be capable of other motivations than sheer greed; advocate social measures that benefit the underdog, and you are a "Marxist" if not an outright "Communist" or "agent of the Kremlin." It is unbelievable that an otherwise progressive people should embrace a philosophy that makes a mockery of elementary justice, praises and idealizes a system that tolerates and feeds on exploitation. If Marxism is wrong, it is not wrong on account of its objectives but because its prescription may fail to achieve them. Opposing its objectives as such is, plainly and simply, immoral. These objectives did not originate with Marx. They have been the common denominator of all justice-seeking reformers ever since the 18th century. To oppose those aims is to oppose social justice and to advocate brutality in its socio-economic and political manifestations.
THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL RESTLESSNESS
We live in an era in which exploitation is being challenged on all levels and in all its manifestations. No longer do people condescend to an inferior status because of the sex they were born with. No longer do people comply with being deprived of any of life's benefits because of the color of their skin. People who live in strategically defenseless territories no longer accept it as a reason for being ruled by strangers. No longer do people say "It's God's verdict" when they die of malnutrition; and even when they succumb to natural disasters, their survivors want an accounting from society for its failure to anticipate and prevent such victimizations. For much of this self-asserting struggle we have thorough appreciation. Not only do the victims of Soviet labor camps and of the Hungarian revolution elicit the sympathies of the American people but also those who struggled to free themselves from the colonial rule of our own allies: where for instance, is the American who could in good conscience disclaim all sympathy for the Algerian people's fight for freedom? Is it, then, only poverty, greed and economic exploitation that may not be challenged, that are untouchable values in the American philosophy? How can we let the unjustifiable beneficiaries of most obvious social injustices determine our sense of values and standards of social justice?
Whatever the inspiration that makes people desire more equality and rebel against all kinds of exploitation and solvable suffering, they are the true contributories to mankind's progress. Whether one gains this inspiration from a divine vision, from a deep respect for moral living, or from a rational analysis of how the human species can attain higher levels of experience and value, his postulate is the exercise of a human quality without which man hardly differs from other animals.
However this world was created, it is not a very hospitable world to man. Natural phenomena themselves often pose a treacherous challenge to human life. Even the life-giving fruit of the earth are not reaped without a toll of sweat, toil exertion. But man is endowed with all the faculties and intelligence to cope with these challenges and to turn each of them to his advantage. When he is kept from making the most of his natural life struggle by being subjected to man-invented difficulties, the human species becomes something tragically inferior to what it was comic either intended to be or is capable of becoming.
Those who stand in the way of diminishing any human injustice and suffering, those who stigmatize any such rebellion as illegitimate, irresponsible, subversive and un-American are scavengers from whom we must first of all gain intellectual independence.
Had there never been a great and well-intended but possibly mistaken human being like Karl Marx, and had there never been a ruthless, despotic rebel who perpetuated the very inhumanities he was rebelling against like Josef Stalin, our social philosophers from behind our business counters would have invented them both be to be used as scarecrows against anyone reaching for the broom to sweep out public dirt and injustice.
- ↑ At least in one respect I must admit some serious qualms about the propriety of stating that I am not a Marxist. In the prevailing political atmosphere in America such a denial does not amount to a simple statement of belief or disbelief; by implication it is also a vindication- an assurance that one does not hold views which are considered not quite legitimate or American. Least of all was such a vindicative implication intended by this writer. I do not consider being a Marxist as illegitimate in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, I believe Marxist participation in the discussion of basic social problems to be a highly valuable contribution and an essential stimulation in this day and age. I do not believe that any apologia need to be made for a person who holds Marxist convictions. On the contrary, attempts to stigmatize Marxist thought not only as mistaken but also as illegitimate are in themselves a highly compromising indictment of our alleged intellectual freedom. Furthermore, attempts to identify Marxism with the Soviet Union are an historical as well as a scientific distortion. There are many movements that embrace the Marxist view, at the same time opposing the Soviet Union and its brand of socialism. Certainly, such movements cannot be accused of sympathizing with America's adversary. The perversive insistence upon identifying all Marxism with the Soviet Union is not intended to curtail pro-Soviet sympathies in this country; all too many Marxists criticize the Soviet Union and its Communist Party for not being truly Marxist. Such confusion is used to combat any social radicalism, completely irrelevant of international power relations. Alas, while I state I am not a Marxist, this is a simple statement of disbelief, least of all intended to contribute to the prevailing stigma that being a Marxist is illegitimate or un-American.