Rejected by the New Reasoner

[p031] Rejected by the’ New Reasoner The following is an abridged version of a communication sent to the New Reasoner and rejected by the editors of that journal. IN his article, Thompson set out to explain from the stand- point of one who wishes to be a Marxist and a communist what happened to him and thousands of others when they saw the real repulsive visage of Stalinism exposed. Despite the Sharp emotional shocks he had experienced, he restrained the impulse to throw overboard the whole structure of Marxism on which Stalinism has for so long falsely claimed to rest. This does him all the greater credit, in that a spectacular ‘conversion’ from Marxism is, nowadays, a paying proposition. Hanson, on the other hand, has completely rejected Marxism. His full-scale attack follows lines familiar since the 1890s, but Hanson has aimed shrewdly at weak points in Thompson’s case. He does not always miss the mark, for at several points Thompson has left himself quite unnecessarily exposed. It is odd to see how Hanson, vibrating with moral revulsion from Stalinism, still bases his case not on facts but on Stalin- ist assertions. He accepts as true the claim that the ‘negative features’ of the Stalinist ‘élite’ were the inevitable results of the work of people inspired by Marxist ideas. Hanson argues that Thompson has no right to criticize, on moral grounds, the atrocities committed by Stalinism as long as he professes and wishes to adhere to Marxism. Further, Hanson argues that Thompson is in effect condoning these atrocities, when he accepts the argument that ‘anyway, good came out of it’. Hanson even appears to believe that this is 92 May-June-July 1958 well-conditioned tight-rope walker! For capitalist society with its poverty amid plenty, its chronic insecurity and its stench of war is irrational and a potent source of neurosis, which Freudian therapy seeks to ‘cure’, not by changing the social environment (nor of course by changing man’s allegedly im- mutable instincts) but by changing man’s attitude to his diffi- culties. The Freudian ‘solution’ is the prescribing of an effici- ent pair of blinkers. (Don’t let these problems worry you, brother! They are here to stay! Learn to recognize them and live with them!). Thus does Freudian theory envisage the problem, hiding from mankind the ultimate source of its un- happiness and frustrations and preventing it from seeking salva- tion along radical lines. One might legitimately conclude on a somewhat cynical note. The alienation and insecurity of capitalist society con- front men and women with problems which are insoluble within the present social framework. Under such circum- stances ‘strengthening the ego’ is likely to be an ever interesting proposition (for the psycho-analyst). For the experiences of everyday life will ensure an abundance of ‘neurotics’ to be ‘treated’ and will moreover ensure that any benefits derived from therapy will be short-lived. The whole arrangement re- calls to mind the devices of Penelope, the wife of Ulysses, who every night undid the weaving she had completed the previous day.