◆ SpookStack

os } = ys Reflections on the Failure of Socialism. By Mox Eastman. Devin-Adair.. IS7 pp. $2.75. Max Easrsan begins his book with a candid and appealing account of the process whereby he completely repudiated the idea and the srove- mentta which he gave brilliant eerv- ice for the best years of his [fe Such an introduction from such a man would lead the reader to expect a bouk af unusual depth and signifi- eance. Instead, Mr. Eastrian has simply reforbished seme magazine articles and a apeech, added a little te them, and etrang then: ingether without logical progression of analy- ais or Consttuction, The result is @ readable but superficial and dograatic version of dhe now popular thesis that sccislisea—which the author nowhere defines—is. the enemy of Hherty, in itself incompatible with human nature. The same socialism whick Would “bring in the servile stale expects foo niuch «f man. "From each aesording ta Ws éhiliiy, to each ‘according to. his needs Mr. Eastivan. says, “sounds very just and noble, bet if you use your intagination a Nule:—What a bore it would be. ‘At least let's teke time out every afternoon, the tos- blessed citizen would say, ‘and see what each can grab? ” Gur caavert’s rejection af snvial- ism and socialists includes every type fram Rebert Qwen to Karl Marx, from the atepians to Lesin, Scie tie sorialists, Christian socialists, democratiq. socialists, “socialist Hb- evals” Cadganced New Dealers), how- ever they differ, are failures. hy defi- tition. ly criticizing Communism— - which Mr. Eastyian refuses to classi- fy as a betrayal of soclahsm-—he is somewhat specific.. But he brashes April 4, 1985 WRITERS and WRITING: The Future of Socialism” Reviewed by Norman Thomas Aathor, “A Socialist’s Paith,” . "The Test of Freedom” off the record of democratic socialist performance in Britain and else: where with a few derogatory and dogmatic seniences. Whether they know it or not, socialists and “eo cialiat Hiberals” arelaying the tracks “slong which anolher death train will travel.” With the delinquent 42)- erals, somewhat more narrowly de- fined as friends sr apdlogista for Cammanism, Mr. Eastman deals harshly and effectively. is. mare concerned about “what. to call yourself” than about what there 1s left to fustify a name. Bat ave gath- ers that his “radical conservative” would be aman whe honors capital jam for its past performance, believes Mm some vague “distributive state,” inthe necessity of private property —with vie disorhnination is kind of preperty—to the continued existence af freedom, and. finally in the ex: treme hoporiance of birth control. (WHA this last potat T would agree, though I would protest vigorously the assumption that scclalism has been 4 principal deterrent to: intelligent birth central.) His sweepiag condenma- tion af democratic socialism, how- ever, is not anly errenecus but dare perens. UF democratic Acrialisis are isying the tracks for death, how can anyone conperate with thea? But if one cant compersie will the sovialists of Eurape ant Asia, the siruggle against Communism is doerued. The question of whether sociation hae failed cannat be disnissed by discussiig the inadeqracies of this’ hook, To aome-extenl, the answer for socialiam, as in the case of democ- racy and Christianity (and capital 4 ~ oA fieruall thisoitivhve,aur- author _.preciole oe a jam), wiust be “yes.” And for much the sume reason. Every great theory and theme of social organization has heen frustrated in the achievement af its finest aims by the imperfections of fallible human beings. As Richard Lowenthal hag been pointing out in Tre New Leaper, today an effective * democratic sociakein wust be soclal- ism without vfepia—or at least a socialism which does not promise to deliver utopia like a Christwnas, Sar Present-day Comninnisnry is not socialism, but a perversion even of Marxism. Marx's theory, however, lent itself to sech perversion, Yet, the gual which Marx set was a fel lowship of frec men and free nations, and toward that goal men ought ever to strive. The rethinking that democratic so- cislists need te do cannot emulate Eastman et.al, in assuming that free- doni is the only social god for which men oaght to care. Men do indeed waut Hherty despite their frequent efforts lo escape it, But they alsa want equity, justice, bread and peace. Max Eastman, as Editor of the ald Masses, helped his couutrymen to audersiand that hungry men can’t eat freedom. Indeed, freedom cannot live im the modern world except as EH “kecps house with peace and plonty. The freedom which nhietcenth century capitalism aflarded was fiself a very fiuiled thing, A-society which today permis an indispensable re: source like petraleui te be privately owned hy men like the Texas billion- aire, H. L. Hunt, sing againat free- dom. ay well ag agalast- a democratic or truly efficient, economy, Denio- PAN Yates ON BRAT PAck 8 en