◆ SpookStack

oO i Refleetiohs on the Failure of Socialism. By Mox Eastman. Devin-Adair, 137 pp. $2.75. Max Eaststan begins his book with a candid and appealing account of the process whereby he completely repudiated the idea and the move ment-to which he gave brilliant cerv- ice for the best years of his life. Such an introduction from such a man would lead the reader to expect a book of unusual “depth and signifi- cance. Instead, Mr. Eastman has simply refurbished zome magazine articles and a speech, added a little te them, and etrang thenr together without logical progression of analy- sis or construction, The result is a readable but superficial aral dogmatic version of the now popular thesis that sccialism—which the author nowhere defines—is the enemy of liberty, in itself incompatible with human nature. The- same socialism whick Weld “bring in the servile Stale expects too much of man, ‘From each according to his abilily, to each according to his needs” Mr. Eastman says, “sounds very Just and noble, but if you use your imagination a Nwle:—What a bore it would be. ‘At least let's take time out every afternoan,’ the too- blessed citizen would say, ‘and see what each ean grab.” Gur caavert’s rejection af sovial- ism and socialists includes every type fram Robert Owen to Karl Marx, from the atopians to Lenin, Scien tific sorialists, Christian socialists, democratig socialists, “socialist lib- erals” (adganced New Dealers), how- ever they differ, are failures hy defi- nition. In criticizing Communisin— ~ which Mr. Eastman refuses to classi- fy as a betrayal of socialism—he is somewhat specific. But he brashes April 4, 1955 © WRITERS and WRITING § The Future of Socialism” Reviewed by Norman Thomas Aatl thor, “A Socialist’s Faith,” . “The Test of Freedom™ off the record of demoeratic socialist performance in Britain and else- where with a few derogatory and dogmatic sentences. Whether they know it or not, socialists and “so- cialist liberals” are laying the tacks “slong which another death train will travel.” With the delinquent fib- erals, somewhat more narrowly de- fined as friends or apologists for Communism, Mr. Eastman deals harshly and effectively. is more concerned about “what to call yourself” than about what there is left to justify a name. Bot ove gath- ers that his “radical conservative” would be a maa who honors capital jam for its past performance, believes in some vague “distributive state,” in the necessity of private property with no discrimination In kind of ptoperty—to the continued existence of freedom, and finally in the ex- treme finporiance of birth control. (With this last point 1 would agree, though I wonld protest vigorously the assumption that socialism has been & principal deterrent to intelligent birth central.) His sweeping condeama- tion of democratic socialism, how- ever, Is nut only erroneaus bot dan- gerons. Lf democratic sovialisis are laying the tracks for death, how can anyone conperate with then? But if one can’t couperate with the socialists of Europe and Asia, the struggle against Conumunism is dooned, The question of whether socialism has failed cannot be disniissed by discussiig the inadequacies of this book. To some extent, the answer for socialiam, as in the case of democ- racy and Christianity (and capital. L493 é , deliver utopia Hike a_ Afterall this wvitioion,ourauthan pearl . ism}, must be “yes.” And for much the same reason. Every great theory and theme of social organization has heen frustrated in the achievement of its finest aims by the imperfections of fallible human beings. As Richard Lowenthal has been pointing out in Tre New Leaper, today an effective * democrati¢ sociakem aust be social- ism without vfopis—or at least a socialism which does not. promise to Christmas, Present-day Comninnisn is not socialism, but a perversion even of Marxism. Marx's theory, however, lent itself to such perversion. Yet, the goal which Marx set was a fel Jowship of free men and free nations, and toward that goal men ought ever to strive. The rethinking that democratic so- cialists need to do cannot eimulate Eastman e¢ al, in assuming that free- dom is the only sovial god for whieh men ought to care. Men do indeed want liberty despite their frequent efforty lo escape it, But they also want equity, justice, bread and peace. Max Eastman, as Editor of the old Masses, helped his countrymen to understand that hungry men can’t eat freedom: Indeed, freedom cannot tive in the modern world except as it “keeps house with peace and plenty. The freedom which nineteenth century capitalism afforded was itself a very limited thing. A society which today permits an indispensable re- source like petroleum to be privately owned by men like the Texas billion- aire, H. L. Hunt, sins against free- dom as well ag against-a democratic or truly efficient economy. Denio- SANYINGER ON HFAT FACE V8