Fall 1989 Vol. 9, No. 4 $4.00
Libertarianism or Socialism: Where Do Secular Humanists Stand?
R. W. Bradford Antony Flew David Gordon Edward Hudgins Tibor Machan Kai Nielsen Murray Rothbard Richard Schmitt Robert Sheaffer
Militant Atheism Blasphemy vs. in Freedom of Britain Conscience Barbara Smoker The Moscow Nicolas Walter Atheist/Humanist Dialogue
Also: The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology by Adolf Granbaum The Future of Abortion • Humanism and Altruism • Eulogy to Sidney Hook
FALL 1989, VOL. 9, NO. 4 ISSN 0272-0701 Contents
3 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 38 ON THE BARRICADES 65 IN THE NAME OF GOD 4 NOTES FROM THE EDITOR Libertarianism or Socialism: Where Do Secular Humanists Stand? ARTICLES 5 New Gods for Old: In Defense of Libertarianism R. W. Bradford 8 The End of the Secular Century Murray N. Rothbard 9 Building Bridges to the Right: Libertarians, Conservatives, and Humanists Edward Hudgins 12 Making a Case for Socialism Kai Nielsen 14 Liberty and Democracy, or Socialism? Antony Flew 16 Humanism and Socialism Richard Schmitt 19 Socialism is Incompatible with Humanism Robert Sheaffer 21 Humanism and Political Economy Tibor R. Machan 22 Libertarianism Versus Secular Humanism9 David Gordon 24 Militant Atheism Versus Freedom of Conscience Paul Kurtz 33 Sex in the Soviet Union Bonnie Bullough and Vern Bullough 36 Eighth Annual Conference a Success 41 Eulogy to Sidney Hook Ernest Benjamin Hook 48 The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology Adolf Grünbaum 44 VIEWPOINTS The Future of Abortion, Tom Flynn / Humanism and Altruism, Tim Madigan 58 READERS' FORUM 60 BOOKS Gnostic Christianity, Randel Helms / Books in Brief
Editor: Paul Kurtz Senior Editors: Vern Bullough, Gerald Larue Executive Editor: Tim Madigan Managing Editor: Mary Beth Gehrman Special Projects Editor: Valerie Marvin Contributing Editors: Robert S. Alley, professor of humanities, University of Richmond; Jo-Ann Boydston, director, Dewey Center; Paul Edwards, professor of philosophy, Brooklyn College; Albert Ellis, director, Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy; Roy P. Fairfield, social scientist, Union Graduate School; Joseph Fletcher, theologian, University of Virginia Medical School; Antony Flew, philosopher, Reading University, England; R. Joseph Hoffmann, chairman, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Hartwick College, Oneonta, N.Y.; Marvin Kohl, philosopher, State University of New York College at Fredonia; Jean Kotkin, executive director, American Ethical Union; Ronald A. Lindsay, attorney, Washington, D.C.; Delos B. McKown, professor of philosophy, Auburn University; Howard Radest, director, Ethical Culture Schools; Robert Rimmer, author; Svetozar Stojanovic, professor of philosophy, University of Belgrade; Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse; V. M. Tarkunde, Supreme Court Judge, India; Richard Taylor, professor of philosophy, Union College; Sherwin Wine, North American Committee for Humanism Associate Editors: Doris Doyle, Steven L. Mitchell, Lee Nisbet, Gordon Stein, Andrea Szalanski Editorial Associates: Robert Basil, Jim Christopher, Fred Condo Jr., Thomas Flynn, Thomas Franczyk, James Martin-Diaz, Philip Mass, Molleen Matsumura Executive Director of CODESH, Inc.: Jean Millholland Chief Data Officer: Richard Seymour Typesetting: Paul E. Loynes Audio Technician: Vance Vigrass Staff: Brent Bailey, Steven Karr, Lisa Kazmierczak, Anthony Nigro, Alfreda Pidgeon, Ranjit Sandhu
FREE INQUIRY (ISSN 0272-0701) is published quarterly by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH, Inc.), a nonprofit corporation, 3159 Bailey Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14215. Phone (716) 834-2921. Copyright ©1989 by CODESH, Inc. Second-class postage paid at Buffalo, New York, and at additional mailing offices. National distribution by International Periodicals Distributors, San Diego, California. Subscription rates: $22.50 for one year, $39.00 for two years, $54.00 for three years, $4.00 for current issue; $5.00 for back issues. Address subscription orders, changes of address, and advertising to: FREE INQUIRY, Box 5, Buffalo, NY 14215-0005. Manuscripts, letters, and editorial inquiries should be addressed to: The Editor, FREE INQUIRY, Box 5, Buffalo, NY 14215-0005. All manuscripts should be accompanied by two additional copies and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or publisher. Postmaster: Send address changes to FREE INQUIRY, P.O. Box 5, Buffalo, NY 14215-0005. More on secular centrism
As you know, the unchurched receive scant Letters to the Editor mass-media attention. We seem to have been almost invisible to journalists, historians, and sociologists (as well as to politicians and the general public) until as recently as 1970. Who wants Swaggart off the air? Another requirement for the existence of Falwell and other preachers have given us blasphemy is that the god so offended some negative publicity during the past two decades, and we began to show up in polls In the March issue of Penthouse, a Louisiana possess enough political power to make the and census reports after 1975. housewife described in graphic detail her insult a criminal offense. It is unlikely that The worst result of this exclusion from sexual romps with Jimmy Swaggart. The a representative of God would have come public knowledge is that we have not known following Sunday Jimmy wept while he to the defense of Zeus, although several have denounced the article as a total lie, contain- come to the defense of Allah, a god with our own strength. ing "not one word of truth." God had told quite some political leverage. Wotan, on the Estimates of church membership are him to sue Penthouse for millions of dollars. other hand, might have been willing to come usually based on church-supplied statistics, A week later, on "Larry King Live," Jimmy's to the aid of his Olympian confrère in which are likely exaggerated. The 1988 attorney expressed pity for the poor distress. Men, all-too-eager to follow the Information Please Almanac states that demented woman and said that the lawsuit example given by their god, have applied there are 142.9 million church members. The would be announced within thirteen days. the divine dictate handed down to them: You population of the United States is 243.8 Several months have since passed, and scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. In million; this means that only 58.6 percent there is no sign of a lawsuit. Not long ago any event, if there is one lesson to be learned are "churched." Jimmy wept while he told listeners that his from all this, it is that it is wise to choose We outnumber those who identify them- entire ministry would go down the tube and carefully the god one blasphemes. selves as Democrats (about 35 percent) or millions of sinners would go to hell unless Republicans (about 30 percent). The 35 he was sent massive amounts of money. Is Henry Darcy percent who don't identify with either party Jimmy responsible for the dire financial Austin, Tex. may be us, though some of us, of course, straits he is in? Of course not! It is all the are Democrats or Republicans. We are devil's work. Satan, Jimmy said, is conduct- already, it seems, numerous enough to ing the "greatest campaign in history" against Paul Kurtz believes that "the right to compete on equal footing with the present the spreading of the gospel. If you don't send blaspheme is a human right that must be political parties—if we organize. him money at once, Jimmy made clear, you protected." will be obeying Satan. It is beyond Jimmy's A human right? It is not in the United Charles M. Selby comprehension that it might be God, not Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Christmas Valley, Ore. Satan, who wants him off the air. which specifies that everyone has a right to Instead of sending Jimmy money, write express opinions subject to respect for the CODESH off to a rousing start him a letter. Ask him when he plans to sue "rights of others" and the just requirements Penthouse. of public order and morality. In other words, We wish to thank the thousands of there is no "right" of outrageous conduct. readers who responded to our invitation Martin Gardner Kurtz goes on to equate blasphemy with to join the Council for Democratic and Hendersonville, N.C. criticism. His editorial critizes Mohammed- Secular Humanism as Charter Associate anism severely but he does not blaspheme. Members. CODESH publishes FREE There's a world of difference. INQUIRY, and sponsors the Academy of On blasphemy Kurtz implies that only "true believers" Humanism, the Committee for the Scien- of Islam find criticism of their "sacred tific Examination of Religion (CSER), Is there such a thing as blasphemy ("In Praise beliefs" to be offensive. I consider Rushdie's Secular Organizations for Sobriety of Blasphemy," Summer 1989)? book quite offensive, and I am not such a (SOS), the Robert Ingersoll Memorial The word "blasphemy," by its very true believer. Committee, secular humanist community nature, is meaningless outside the confines Rushdie's Satanic Verses is not a book groups, and many other activities. of religious parlance. According to my of scholarly criticism. First and foremost it CODESH is a strong and influential dictionary, blasphemy is "(a) the act of is merely a novel, written to sell and make humanist group, and has ambitious plans insulting or showing contempt or a lack of money. The crux of the matter, as I to extend the influence of secular hum- reverence for God, (b) irreverence toward understand it, is that he hit below the belt, anism not only in North America but something considered to be sacred or in- engaging in unfair, indeed scurrilous com- worldwide. violable." Therefore, the existence of ment. No one would object to critical CODESH can only realize its ideals blasphemy requires either belief in an thinking; we desperately need more of it. But by enlisting the grassroots support of anthropomorphic god or a prior agreement insulting and slurring one's ideological those who share in them. We invite those as to the definitions of "sacred" and opponent, and questioning his personhood, of you who have not done so to become "inviolable." What may—or may not—be is not criticism; it's reprehensible conduct. Charter Associate Members by filling out considered a lack of civility or of good taste the membership form on page 66. should not be called blasphemy; nor should Louis Worth Jones the critical evaluation of religion. San Mateo, Calif. (Letters continued on p. 63) Fall 1989 3 Notes from the Editor
Libertarianism or Socialism: Where Do Secular Humanists Stand?
his issue of FREE INQUIRY debates a diversity are encouraged. of fairness emerges. Humanists believe that Tcentral question: Is secular humanism Free inquiry is the starting point of the society must attempt to ensure equality of wedded to a specific ideological political humanist moral agenda. Humanists support opportunity for all individuals; they are program or economic agenda? We are the full range of civil liberties, and insist that opposed to unfair discrimination based on presenting papers pro and con on libertar- no political system can legitimately abrogate race, religion, gender, nationality, ethnicity, ianism and socialism, and ask readers to the right of dissent. The struggle to defend class, or creed. Thus, they wish to help those decide for themselves. political democracy has been long and who, through no fault of their own, are Libertarians maintain that the liberty of difficult. Fortunately, a worldwide consen- unable to help themselves—the mentally or the individual is a basic human value and sus about its merits seems to be emerging, physically handicapped, for example—by that anyone who betrays it is unworthy of perhaps due in part to the lessons learned satisfying basic needs and maximizing the name humanist. Socialists insist that from the totalitarian challenges that opportunities for universal education and humanism is interested primarily in human occurred earlier in this century. Democracy cultural enrichment. Included in this is the welfare and the greatest good, and that it means due process of the law. Laws are guarantee of employment whenever possible, expresses an egalitarian concern for all enacted by majorities, but the rights of Social Security, and health care. persons within society. Libertarians cherish minorities must be respected as well. autonomy of choice, and they consider Humanists are not anarchists, for it is he real dispute concerns how best to oppressive social institutions, particularly difficult to live without some rules—but at Tachieve these worthy goals. The liber- the state, to be the chief enemy of human the same time, as many liberties as possible tarian claims to be sensitive to the needs of rights. Socialists are concerned with satis- ought to be left to the citizens. Humanists others, and maintains that a free market will fying basic human needs, particularly for the have defended moral freedom and the right better provide for individual needs because poor and disadvantaged, and they wish to to privacy: Individuals should have control it is based on incentive rather than on a use the state to achieve a more equitable over their personal lives as long as they do welfare state. Socialists and liberal demo- social system. Different political and eco- not harm others. Decisions regarding career, crats say that government can play a nomic policies follow from these premises. marriage and family, sexual relations constructive role in guaranteeing social Is humanism to be identified with libertar- between consenting adults, abortion, eutha- justice. ianism, socialism, neither, or both? nasia, and so on should be questions of Humanists may be found on both sides The contrast is often made between two private conscience. Humanists believe in of this issue. I submit that the humanist ethical principles—liberty and equality— cultivating reasonable standards of moral should not be ideologically fixated on an both of which, it is said, we cannot have conduct based on some measure of responsi- either/ or situation. In Europe humanists at the same time. The more we increase one bility. tend to be socialists. In America a growing dimension, the more likely we are to decease A controversial issue concerns economic percentage tend to be libertarians. Social the other. Unbridled liberty leads to festering freedom: To what extent should the state policies should perhaps be considered hypo- social inequality. In the name of the egality, regulate commerce, production, distribu- theses to be tested or modified in the light tyrannies may suppress freedom. tion, and the consumption of goods and of their consequences. Today most Western Is there any way out of this impasse? services? I think that most humanists today socialists are opposed to the complete Permit me to offer some clarifying remarks. are skeptical of total planning by the state, nationalization of the means of production. From the standpoint of humanism, both that is, state socialism, as unworkable and They believe in a mixed economy and in liberty and equality are desirable ideals. It undemocratic. Yet some form of taxation, utilizing free-market mechanisms, though is not a question of either/ or, but rather one regulation, and redress of inequalities is they insist that the state be sensitive at all of balance. Extremism in either direction essential in our complex economic and social points to the will of the electorate. The should be avoided. system. veteran secular humanist Sidney Hook, who Humanism begins with the basic liber- That there should be a private sector and considered himself to be a democratic social- tarian principle of freedom: freedom against a free market is not at issue. What is at issue ist or social democrat, has emphasized that repression by the church, state, economy, is the degree to which they may function. what is essential to humanism is democracy. or any authoritarian social institution; free- Many socialists and liberal democrats The real issue then is not so much capitalism dom of thought and conscience in an open, believe that the state can play a useful role versus socialism per se, but whether or not democratic society in which individuality in satisfying the needs that the private sector democratic processes and human rights are may be expressed, and creativity and does not fulfill. In this regard the principle safeguarded in a free society.—P.K.
4 FREE INQUIRY New Gods for Old: In Defense of Libertarianism
R. W. Bradford
eople have abandoned their faith in God, only to for failing to worship God. Water is turned to wine, the sun worship another deity. stands still in the sky, oceans are parted so that "God's chosen p Throughout the ancient and medieval era, the people" can pass to safety, an acorn can grow into an elephant overwhelming mass of people believed that there existed a if God wills it. Events occur that are impervious to noncorporeal miracle-working entity, exempt from the laws understanding. These exceptions to the laws of nature are of nature and of logic. This being they called "God," and called "miracles," and lie at the core of religious belief. expended considerable time and energy thinking about him, At the same time, there grew another tradition: a belief worshiping him, and propitiating him. that each human being can understand reality, that by using God was understood by faith; that is, by willful belief in his senses and his mind, he can fathom the world and improve the absence of evidence. Those who worshiped him lived in the lives of himself and his fellows. By applying his mind, a strange world, filled with things whose natures changed with each human being can understand how things in the world the whims of God. They believed that each human being work, control his own destiny and life, and prosper in this possesses an eternal soul, and is sentenced to eternal torture world. According to this tradition, man gains knowledge by reason, not by faith. There are no miracles in this realm: R. W. Bradford is the publisher of Liberty magazine. He is all entities are what they are, bound by the laws of nature, an investment advisor and has written about precious metals of logic, of reality; an acorn grows into an oak tree, not into and rare coins for such publications as Barrons, Personal an elephant, because of its nature. Finance, and Predictions. Energized by this new consciousness, people applied their minds to seemingly inexplicable events, and discovered
Fall 1989 5 explanations. Fire, it was learned, was no miracle: it was a fealty of its subjects. chemical reaction. The wind, which had frightened primitive But this secularization of politics had drastic consequences people, was a force that could be harnessed to propel boats for political leaders: they no longer could appeal to any power to faraway places, where different people were happy to trade higher than their own abilities, and they were expected by items that you held dear for items that you produced with Enlightenment thinkers to use reason, not religion, to persuade little effort. Harvests could be improved by rotating crops, people of the justice of their activities. With their ideas fertilizing, and the selective breeding of seed stock. desanctified, allegiance to the state became very difficult to Faith became obsolete; belief in God was discredited. obtain from reasonable people, especially if the rulers Reason and science began a long gradual ascent. We are themselves exerted power that was obviously arbitrary, viewing this record of progress from a late twentieth-century favoring some people over others. perspective. Unfortunately, this perspective also reveals Thus political leaders and theorists frantically sought ways another, very ominous trend that has come to occupy a large to incorporate religious forms and attitudes in the ostensibly place in Western culture. It would seem that what many people secularized state. They solved this problem by attributing to did is exchange their ancient god for a more up-to-date variety. the state virtually all the qualities of God. The state is Like the old god, this new god claims a monopoly on omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. It is exempt from the "good" and the "right." It is moral by definition. It confers the laws of nature. It is to be beseeched for its favors. Its meaning on a seemingly chaotic world. It is exempt from wrath against unbelievers and recalcitrants is vengeful. the laws of nature. It is publicly worshiped by its commun- Perhaps the first high literary expression of this new faith icants. It has an extensive clergy that harasses those who is Moliere's Tartuffe, in which the lies of religious fanaticism express doubts about its miraculous powers. Its sacred texts are penetrated by the all seeing, all knowing, benevolent despot, demand respect. Louis XIV. None of the despots of Europe, benevolent or The new god is the state. otherwise, whether Louis XIV or, in the next century, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, or Napoleon, was The state prepared to let the old style of religion challenge the new. How successful have the shrewd innovators been? We have We live under a king who hates deceit, only to look at today's predominant political attitudes to find A king whose eyes see into every heart out. And can't be fooled by an impostor's art. For most people, the state is a mysterious entity that can The keen discernment that his greatness brings perform miracles. We see markets plagued by periodic Gives him a piercing insight into things; Nothing can disconcert his readiness, inflationary trends and business failures. So let the state And his firm reason always shuns excess. prevent all of this by controlling the money supply, regulating He honors all the best of humankind; banks and other financial institutions. Despite centuries of But zeal for virtue never makes him blind: material progress, there still are poor people. So let the state The love that for the truly good he fosters establish minimum-wage laws and a system of tax-funded Does not prevent his hatred for impostors .. . Let's go and kneel before the throne, charitable payments so that poverty will no longer exist. Many And praise him for the bounties he has shown. of our young people are ruining their lives with crack, we observe, just as our parents or grandparents observed that —from Moliere's Tartuffe, many of the youth of their era were ruining their lives with first performed in 1669 alcohol. Let us solve this problem by outlawing crack, by bringing the full force and majesty of government to battle rom the beginning of civilization, political leaders closely drugs on every front. Fallied themselves with religious leaders. The state None of these state actions has achieved its goal. Inflation supported organized religion in a variety of ways: it subsidized has been worse, and business depressions last longer in this the church with tax money, it required a profession of faith century of the "scientific" control of financial institutions than from its subjects, it outlawed acts tabooed by the church. they did in the past century, when the state made hardly any The church supported the state by convincing the faithful efforts to control the economy. According to the state's own that loyalty to the state was required by their god. statistics, the number of poverty-stricken individuals in the The great replacement of the worship of God with the United States has actually increased since fighting poverty worship of the state was a reaction to the secularization became a state program. Crack is gaining popularity at the produced by the Age of Enlightenment. The horrors of same time as the rights of all citizens are being trampled by religious warfare in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries an increasingly expensive police and propaganda attack on resulted at length in the relegation of religion to the drugs. marketplace of ideas, where various religions were compelled Time and time again, state programs fail to achieve their to gain adherents only through peaceful persuasion, not goals. And time and time again, those who point out the through the coercive power of the state. failure of state programs are denounced as political heretics As the old religion fell into disrepute, the church could or cranks. The state itself is never blamed, and its omnipotence no longer deliver the political loyalty of the people. The leaders never challenged. of the state needed a new way to maintain the support and Our elected representatives act as clergymen, exhorting us
6 FREE INQUIRY to greater service to the state ("civic duty"), just as the preacher because it is a system under which individual human beings exhorts us to serve God. We engage in the ritual of voting, can optimize their potential, maximizing their happiness and as though our votes made a difference; the act of voting is prosperity according to their own values. The power of the an affirmation of our fealty to the state. The good citizen state is opposed because it leads to human misery and poverty. votes in off-year elections as well as in presidential ones, just The libertarian idea first flowered at about the same time as the good Catholic attends Mass on weekdays as well as that statism gained ascendancy in the West. In its early days, on Sundays. Politicians act as intermediaries on behalf of advocates of liberty and opponents of state-worship were called the faithful, pleading that the state confer one or another liberals. From David Hume and Adam Smith in the eighteenth benefit on them; just as a priest might offer to pray to God on behalf of a parishioner. (The politician, like the priest, The state is omniscient, omnipresent, and is sometimes paid for dispensing these indulgences.) Even the cadences of the politician's speech recalls the preacher's. omnipotent. It is exempt from the laws of Like the church, the state operates a system of schools nature. It is to be beseeched for its favors. to indoctrinate youth in its dogma. Whether called Its wrath against unbelievers and recalci- "government," "civics," or "citizenship education," catechism exercises differ from those of the old religion only in the nature trants is vengeful.... The power of the of the irrational beliefs propagated. state leads to human misery and poverty. The new god has its sacred ceremonies (presidential inaugurations, funerals, and so forth), its sacred texts (the century, through John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer in Constitution and the laws), its rites of passage (first vote, the nineteenth century, to H. L. Mencken, Albert J. Nock, first legal drink), even its sacred objects. When a guest on and Ludwig von Mises in our own century, their understanding a Soviet television program recently suggested that perhaps of the state grew. The term "liberalism" has been expropriated one day Lenin might be removed from his mausoleum in by moderate statists (the analog of Reform Jews or mainline Moscow and buried, Aleksei P. Myasnikov, a Central Protestants), but the tradition continues today in the works Committee member, responded thus: "What was said . . . of economists like Milton Friedman and James Buchanan about the most sacred thing—about Lenin—is worse than and social thinkers like Jan Narveson and Richard Taylor. incomprehensible." Even in the United States, every president Just as the old god required a response from those is granted a memorial library grander than the tomb of committeed to reason and science, so the new god requires Mausoleus, and the U.S. flag has a sacred character. Just a response today. Just as the irrationalities of the old god as it would be unthinkable for a priest to use undistributed crippled untold lives and fostered the Dark Ages, so the new communion wafer to feed pigeons, so recent events make it god is crippling lives today. At its most consistent, worship clear that most citizens regard any despoiling of the state's of the state takes an absolute form resulting in totalitarian flag as a sacrilege. states like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Like the old god, the new god is not bound by the laws Pol Pot's Cambodia. It took some time, but it is now obvious of nature. What other human enterprise can spend more than that the totalitarian state cannot deliver the goods: absolute its income year after year without suffering a financial crisis? statism is not practical; it results in misery instead of happiness. The U.S. state has not balanced its budget in more than a Statism in its unadulterated form has foundered on the decade; its debt tripled under the fiscal conservative Reagan, rocks of reality; statism advocates now propose adulterating as voters continued to demonstrate a preference for high state statism with a modest measure of liberty. Today statism is spending and low state taxes. more entrenched than ever in its moderate, interventionist The state regulates what we eat, drink, and smoke because form, which tolerates a certain amount of human liberty and it "knows" what is best for us. It sees into the intimate details diversity (which are grudgingly recognized as necessary for of our homes and bank accounts to protect us from evil drug material well-being), but which must be controlled by an ever- pushers, pornographers, and gamblers (though curiously, more-powerful state. state-sponsored gambling is considered virtuous). If our state The growing power of statism is underscored by the fact has not yet achieved omniscience, omnipotence, and that the power of the American state, as measured by the omnipresence, it is only because we have not yet achieved percentage of gross national income that it spends, grew sub- the civic virtue needed to arrive at these blessed conditions. stantially during the Reagan years, despite his widespread per- ception as a critic of the state. In the past five years, for A new secular humanism example, the American state has been granted the power to search your person without a warrant; to confiscate all of ibertarianism is the belief that the role of the state in your property upon accusing you of a crime, leaving you I_Apeople's lives should be radically reduced or eliminated to use a state employee as your defense counsel; to require altogether. But libertarianism is not an article of faith; it is that you present proof of citizenship when applying for a the conclusion of an elaborate chain of reasoning. job. The libertarian idea is profoundly secular and profoundly The struggle against the irrationalities of the old god has humanist: secular in its insistence on the rational and scientific; largely been won; the struggle against the irrationalities of humanist in the value it places on human life. Liberty is valued the new god has just begun. •
Fall 1989 7 The End of the Secular Century
Murray N. Rothbard
he storm over Salman Rushdie provides a vivid and retreated into the hills and rural fastnesses of America, and dramatic illustration of one of the great truths of our into the life of marginal social and economic classes. It was Tera: that the Age of Atheism is ended. During the then easy for sophisticates to dismiss hard-shell Christianity 1960s trend theologians proclaimed that God is dead; but as merely a cult of hillbilly snake-charmers. now we find that God is still (or again?) very much alive, And not only Christianity. The secularist twentieth century and that it is atheism for which burial rites must be conducted. also dealt a grave setback to Islam. Moslem regimes were We have to realize that the secularist age, even though generally secularist and heedless of Islam; the gravest blow seemingly inevitable and eternal at the time, was only a brief came when the Kemal Ataturk regime, after World War I, glitch in the history of mankind. Secularism was born in the brutally forced a Western-style "modernization" on Turkey Age of Enlightenment, in the eighteenth century; it was given by virtually suppressing Islam and outlawing such Moslem great impetus by Darwin in the late nineteenth century, and practices as the chador (the veiled dress for women). it came into its own and dominated Western culture from In every civilization, religion had always been the dominant the 1920s through the 1960s. In the United States, mainstream force in people's values, goals, and very lives. In the twentieth Protestantism had slowly but surely been transformed from century, it was possible for secularist intellectuals to ignore a militant pietism of the mid-nineteenth century into a secular, this overriding fact, and to claim that modern science had barely religious, form of left-liberalism. Preachers would put an end to these "superstitions" of the past. But now, since deliver sermons about the virtues of the Marshall Plan or the 1970s, secularism is rapidly going down the tubes, in the aid to the homeless interlarded with a few small sentimental United States and throughout the world. Religion is back, references to "God" or "Jesus." During the early 1960s a friend and with a vengeance—literally and figuratively. Fundamen- talism has made a remarkable comeback in the United States, of mine rented a room in the home of the Protestant chaplain, and Islam, both Sunni and Shi'ite, is back with a roar. No and told him, "It seems that you and I have identical views longer is it possible to ignore the importance of religion in on religion. The only difference is that I call myself an atheist, human life and culture. whereas you call yourself a Protestant minister." Even though much fuss about the Rushdie affair has been As for pre-Vatican II Catholics, they were scarcely made in the United States, England, of course, has really integrated into American cultural and intellectual life. They been the center of the storm. England, arguably the least were considered a strange breed, a throwback to the Dark religious country in the Western world, is the adopted home Ages, who really believed that stuff. of the ex-Moslem Salman Rushdie and was the original Bill Buckley likes to tell a story of his meeting, as a young publisher of his book. A fascinating article from London in man, with Ayn Rand, with Rand telling him: "Come, come, the L. A. Times (Dan Fisher, "Multicultural Concept Takes Bill, surely you are much too intelligent to believe in God." Beating in Britain," March 1, p. 10), reports a rising tide Ayn Rand, however, was not alone in this attitude of anti-foreign and generally xenophobic attitudes in England compounded of arrogance and naïveté. She was, character- in the wake of the Rushdie controversy. Apparently, in 1966, istically, simply more blunt about it. The dominant secularist Labor Party Home Secretary Roy Jenkins (now a leader of attitude in American culture was precisely that: the only people the Social Democrats) set forth a new policy toward Britain's who could believe in God or Christianity were credulous and racial and ethnic minorities: acceptance of cultural diversity, half-witted peasants. And American life of the 1920s through instead of trying to mold all minority groups into one 1960s seemed to confirm this notion. For, after their defeat homogenous British product. But now, in the wake of increased at the Scopes trial, conservative fundamentalist Protestants Moslem immigration and the Rushdie controversy, Right and Left alike are rapidly rejecting cultural diversity and talking Murray N. Rothbard is S. J. Hall Distinguished Professor again about a stern approach toward imposing one "British of Economics at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada. His culture and its values." books include Man, Economy, and the State; America's Great The trouble is that cultural liberalism was adopted in Depression; and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Britain, and to a large extent in the U.S., by secularists whose benign and naive view of cultural differences is of happy ethnics
8 FREE INQUIRY wearing their quaint folk costumes and going through their government has been nationalized: for the British taxpayer charming little folk dances on national holidays. What they is now being forced to shell out an enormous sum for possible left out of this Disneyfied view of life is real cultural differences lifetime protection for Rushdie and his wife. But why shouldn't and conflicts, and especially the serious commitments of they pay for their own privately arranged protection? Even militant religion. In short, clashing attitudes toward liquor, monarchists surely do not expect to commit government police the role of women, religious blasphemy, and all the rest. forces to extraordinary and expensive measures to protect Cultural diversity is a noble ideal but, to paraphrase Mao, any one person indefinitely. Now that Rushdie's inscrutable it is no tea party; it is an often serious and rugged business, novel—previously the victim of bad reviews—has been made and secularists had better start wising up to this basic fact. into a runaway best seller by Moslem threats; he is certainly There are some interesting and ironic twists to the Rushdie in a position to privatize his own defense. affair that have gone unnoticed. One is that the Ayatollahs The long-term strategic lesson for secularist libertarians of and other angry Moslem leaders have issued their pronounce- the resurrection of religion in the modern world should be ments, not as government officials, but as leaders of private crystal clear. The prospects for the eventual victory of liberty, religious communities. No Moslem government, in Iran or in the United States and in the rest of the world, are excellent; elsewhere, has sent any hit men to get Rushdie; in a sense, the prospects for the triumph of atheism are nil. Secularist enforcement of the Moslem death penalty has been libertarians should stop trying to convert the religious to the "privatized," although methinks it is not the sort of dubious glories of atheism, and should start trying to convert privatization that Bob Poole and others have in mind. At them to the cause of liberty. • the same time, the defense of Rushdie by the British Reprinted with permission from Liberty magazine. Building Bridges To the Right: Libertarians, Conservatives, and Humanists
Edward Hudgins
he modern secular humanist movement in the United off potential allies and sympathizers who might be open to States began in the third decade of this century as a rational approach to life but who do not think that this Ta movement of the political left. Humanists rejected necessarily entails supporting Michael Dukakis or Jesse revealed religion in favor of reason as the only means to Jackson. Libertarians, on the other hand, often pay insufficient knowledge, and accepted the betterment of man as the goal attention to the fact that the preservation of freedom ultimately of ethics, economics, and politics. During that period—and depends on a certain moral order and on supporting social to this day—many humanists believed that a "rational" institutions. As a secular humanist and a libertarian I maintain approach to public policy meant government regulation of that each movement can be strengthened by working with the economy, a welfare state, or even socialism. the other. In addition, cooperation between the two Today, however, the secular humanist movement is finding movements offers an opportunity to build bridges to some more and more libertarians among its ranks. While joining of the supporters of the religious right by demonstrating that the humanists in advocating personal freedom of speech, freedom and reason can help us to deal with many of the lifestyle, and sexual conduct, libertarians also believe that the social evils with which the right is legitimately concerned. government should leave economic matters to the individual. Libertarians, in the tradition of their classical liberal predeces- Defining the movements sors, believe in laissez-faire capitalism. The gradual mingling of secular humanists and libertarians, though not without its ibertarians as a group are united in their acceptance of problems, is good for both groups. At this time in the Lthe political principle that the only legitimate function development of both movements, each side needs the other. of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of The leftist leanings of many secular humanists often scare individuals. They believe that individuals should be free to do as they please so long as they do not violate the equal Edward Hudgins is director of the Center for International rights of other individuals through the initiation of force. If Economic Growth at the Heritage Foundation. He has written the government wishes to limit freedom, it bears the burden extensively on international trade and Third World of proof. Limits can only be justified in light of the protection development. of rights. All libertarians thus believe, with secular humanists, in personal rights and social freedom. One's lifestyle, sexual
Fall 1989 9 preferences, taste in books and movies, thoughts, words, and leftists blindly praised the Soviet regime, Hook denounced religious beliefs or lack thereof are none of the government's the crimes of Stalin. In his later years Hook moved away business. There is some division among libertarians on the from socialism but never made the libertarian leap to support abortion issue, but the small minority who oppose the woman's a completely free market. Yet at that time Hook supported right to abortion base their opposition on libertarian principles, the power of the state to control the economy, that is, to arguing that the fetus is a human life and thus must be regulate material exchanges between cosenting adults. This protected. he justified in the name of humanist principles. Unlike many secular humanists, libertarians also believe Today, many secular humanists are of the American that all voluntary economic transactions and exchanges political left and support contemporary liberal causes that between consenting adults should be legal and are none of involve state actions. They believe that the government should the government's business. Libertarians support the free actively seek to eliminate poverty or bring about what they market as the only means to a prosperous and peaceful society. deem to be a more "equitable" distribution of wealth, by taxing The role of government is not to redistribute wealth from the prosperous and giving handouts to the poor. They support one group to another, or to grant economic favors or impose a variety of regulations for businesses, such as minimum-wage penalties to encourage or discourage certain choices in the laws, mandated health- and child-care benefits, prohibitions market. The government's role is to protect private property. on plant closings, racial and gender hiring and promotion Libertarians are somewhat divided on foreign-policy issues. quotas, and wages based on the government-determined None like communism but most, though not all, oppose U.S. "comparable worth" of the jobs involved. Libertarians would military commitments and adventures overseas. For example, reject such policies, at the very least as inefficient means to many want the United States to pull out of NATO and bring the end, if not as morally unjustifiable. the troops home from Korea. Others disagree. These The 1973 Humanist Manifesto II calls for a world arguments are more over the best tactics for national defense community with international laws and judicial institutions than over fundamental principles. that transcend national borders. While libertarians support Not all libertarians are secular humanists. Some are complete free trade and open immigration, they find the idea religious. Yet Ayn Rand—whose novels Atlas Shrugged and of a world government naïve and a threat to freedom, since The Fountainhead provide a powerful defense of reason, most countries in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and rational self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism—is one of large parts of Asia are dictatorships of one sort or other. the principle influences on the movement. Rand was a vocal The Humanist Manifesto II calls for worldwide "cooperative and uncompromising atheist who maintained that a knowledge planning concerning readily depleting resources." Libertarians of objective reality and human happiness can be achieved deny that this is a matter of concern: There is no limit to only by adherence to reason and to the free and unhindered the earth's resources if resourceful human beings are free to exercise of the human mind. She advocated a free-market exploit them; shortages usually occur due to restrictions on system and personal freedom primarily on moral grounds. the free market. The second manifesto also speaks of the need Many libertarians also are influenced by Aristotle's to promote economic growth in less developed countries philosophy, with its emphasis on a rational and empirical through "massive ... economic assistance." Libertarians would rather than mystical approach to knowledge and life. Finally, point out that statist and socialist policies and lack of private many libertarians take their defense of freedom from John property rights are the real cause of poverty. They would Locke's theory that natural rights are not given by God through maintain that wealth must be created, not stolen and divine revelation but instead arise from man's nature as a redistributed. rational being and are discovered through the same rational capacity. Not all libertarians accept the natural-rights Problems with the movements justification for limited government. Some argue pragmatically that only personal liberty and free markets allow prosperity espite their differences on economic issues, libertarians or allow most people to achieve their various individual Dand secular humanists would both benefit from greater objectives. Even so, these libertarians are also using a rational dialogue, and from cooperation in and sensitivity to matters approach to questions of ethics and politics. of mutual concern. Each movement has faced certain problems of tactics that such cooperation might help to solve. he American secular humanist movement, dating from Libertarians face the problem of how to preserve individual the issuance of the Humanist Manifesto in the 1930s, rights in a society made up of individuals who often are not comes from a different intellectual tradition. The great Sidney consistent advocates of freedom. Libertarians believe that as Hook perhaps best represented the movement in those days. long as individuals do not initiate force against others, they Hook believed that human reason is the only means by which have the right to live their personal lives as they see fit. humanity can understand the world. Free and critical inquiry Individuals are free to follow the principles of Aristotle or was his life's passion. He believed that the good of humanity Rand, Moses or Jesus or Mohammed, Jerry Falwell or the on earth, not in some projected heavenly afterlife, should be Bakkers or the Ayatollah Khomeini, Timothy Leary or Hugh the principle concern of ethics. In politics Hook supported Hefner. Yet some of these world views explicitly endorse democracy and the rights of people to freedom in social areas limitations on personal freedom. And some of these life-styles such as speech, sex, and lifestyle. During a period when many can produce in their adherents the sort of moral character
10 FREE INQUIRY that will not hold back in violating the rights of others. A and rites of passage in life, and to provide support drug addict seeking to rob you at gunpoint—or seeking welfare communities. The understanding of humanism as a euprax- payments, food stamps, and government rehabilitation ophy, that is, knowledge of good or right action or conduct, funds—is unlikely to respond to a recitation of John Locke's is important to promoting this development. The four main Second Treatise. The libertarian would maintain that this is characteristics of humanist eupraxophy are: (1) reason, why we have constitutional limits on government, separation evidence, and critical inquiry as a means to truth and right of powers, checks and balances, a federal system, a bill of conduct; (2) a cosmic or world view based on this method; rights—a representative rather than a directly democratic (3) an ethics dedicated to enhancing humanity's life on earth; regime. Yet in the end the system responds to the will of and (4) a political community based on democracy and the people. And when enough people, for a long enough period personal freedom. of time, seek to limit the personal or economic freedom of others, they usually succeed. Indeed, this is how we have The need for cooperation arrived at the situation we are in today. Libertarians are correct to promote respect for individual ecular humanists and libertarians clearly can further their rights, pluralism, and tolerance. They are correct to point Scommon goals through dialogue, cooperation, and greater out that those who would use the power of the state to restrict emphasis on issues of mutual concern. Humanist attempts one group's freedom forge a weapon that in the end could to promote rational, pluralistic culture through voluntary be used against them. Yet these arguments work only on people institutions strengthen the foundations of personal freedom. with enough self-discipline and reason to restrain their passions Indeed, rational individuals who take responsibility for their long enough to think ahead and consider their long-term self- actions will be in less need of government economic handouts, interest. Freedom in the long-term is best assured in a culture thus removing the burden on economic freedom. Libertarians based on a rational approach to life, in which critical inquiry, should welcome such cultural changes. And the efforts of respect for empirical evidence and logic, and the search for libertarians to limit the powers of government and to truth are widespread. Even the libertarian armed with all of emphasize the importance of personal autonomy are clearly the best evidence and arguments in the world would not get in the interest of secular humanists. very far in Lebanon or Iran. But an obvious question arises: What about the differences Since libertarians support the right of individuals to act between secular humanists and libertarians in the economic or believe in any manner, rational or irrational, in their realm? I would suggest that the focus of dialogue and personal lives, some have tended to shy away from the need cooperation be the area of consensus. In their effort to to promote a rational culture. Adding to the libertarians' cooperate, secular humanists will put less emphasis on apprehension is that when contemporary conservatives or contentious matters of economic policy, and libertarians will liberals speak of the need for cultural or ethical changes in put greater emphasis on the creation of a culture and society society, they often see the government as the agent of reform. that supports individual freedom. And usually the "reforms" are worse than the problem. My own place of employment, the Heritage Foundation, Washington's foremost conservative think-tank, gives me an he secular humanist movement has run into its own interesting perspective on how people of the various ideological tactical difficulties. The first is with its tendency to lean camps on the right can cooperate and work together. toward the political left. On social issues, if "left" means Libertarians are well represented at Heritage. So are traditional favoring the freedom of individuals to live their personal lives conservatives who support the right of the government to without interference from government authorities, then this intervene in some areas of personal morality, for example, is a defining characteristic of the movement. What is incidental to censor pornography or ban abortion. Often, though, these to secular humanism—and, libertarians would argue, in conservatives favor not a national policy on these issues but contradiction to the principles of respect for individual human rather state and local standards, which they see as in rights—is the support by many humanists of an active accordance with our federal system. I, a secular humanist government role in the economy. and libertarian, have former Attorney General Edwin Meese Secular humanism thus is viewed by some people as a as a colleague! kind of package deal. To be an advocate of a rational approach Heritage policy-analysts focus mainly on economic and to life, to reject religious revelation, and to favor personal foreign-policy issues in their policy papers rather than on the freedom in the social realm is assumed by many to imply more emotionally charged social issues. In these areas there support for a welfare state and for substantial government is a consensus, for example, on the virtues of the free market. regulation of the economy. Needless to say, this perception Heritage does provide an outlet for discussion of social issues can drive away potential supporters and audiences. in its quarterly journal, Policy Review, and in its much-used In the past, secular humanists have emphasized personal lecture hall. All shades of views on the right can have their freedom and the intellectual criticism of religion and mysticism. say. For example, I have debated the vice president of the Today, they also are beginning to recognize the need to develop Moral Majority over the virtues of secular humanism. Recently institutions to perform functions that have generally been the I participated in a debate entitled "Freedom Foundation: monopoly of churches; for example, to help raise children Man's Reason or God's Revelation?" Among ourselves we in an ethical manner, to commemorate important milestones discuss our differences; such exchanges often
Fall 1989 11 lead each faction to a better appreciation of others' point its nature. Secular humanists and libertarians, while correctly of view. saying that the government should not be concerned about I do not suggest that secular humanists and libertarians these matters, often fail also to define the issue and address abandon discussion of political differences. That would be the concern of the audience. The religious right can therefore impossible as well as undesirable among such idea-oriented "win" the public relations game by default. and dynamic individuals. What I suggest is that each movement Yet at the base, most of these evils are not caused primarily place greater emphasis on the areas of common interest. by external material factors. Rather, they result from the failure of people to exercise reason and self-discipline, to see meaning Don't write off the right in their own lives, to derive a sense of personal efficacy and self-esteem from their own creative activities. But these are ecular humanists and libertarians, by focusing on just the issues that secular humanists can best address. strengthening the rational foundations of a free society, Humanism has a long moral tradition, both in the West and also have an opportunity to appeal to some of the supporters the East. Aristotle and Cicero asked what is the good life, of the religious right. Conservatives, religious and otherwise, what is the best road to human happiness and fulfillment, have quite legitimate concerns about the evils in our society and what social institutions can best lead to these ends? today. Drug addiction is a waste of human potential. Teen Humanists can be philosophical entrepreneurs by addressing suicide is a senseless tragedy. Sexual indulgence or promiscuity the concerns of conservatives and the religious right on their to the exclusion of all else in life usually do not lead to a own grounds. We can show that superstition and an deeply fulfilling human existence. unquestioning acceptance of tradition will not result in a better The public appeal of religious-right leaders is due in part society and better people. We can continue the creation of to the fact that they are calling attention to real social problems. a culture based on the recognition of humanity's rational But though they see that problems exist, they often misunder- nature and the dignity of the individual. We can offer an stand their nature. They might denounce premarital sex, alternative that will recognize the legitimate concerns of the promiscuity, and divorce, while the real human tragedy is average, decent religious or conservative citizen. And the inability of individuals to form lasting, long-term, loving libertarians should understand that such private, nongovern- personal relationships. The audiences of religious-right leaders mental efforts will go a long way to preserve the foundations perceive that a problem exists, but also are fuzzy concerning of freedom in American society. •
Making a Case for Socialism
Kai Nielsen
ecular humanists (to state the obvious) are either atheists justice, democracy, and respect for persons. These ideals have or agnostics. Being an atheist or an agnostic is a different conceptualizations and, where they clash, different Snecessary condition for being a secular humanist; but weightings; between more pessimistic humanists and less it is surely not a sufficient condition, for Nazis and other pessimistic ones, there is a dispute about whether the quest Fascists and elitist authoritarians have been atheists or for the appropriate mix of these fundamental values creates agnostics. But they surely were not humanists. Thus the clashes that admit no rational resolution.' Humanists can and rejection of belief in God and similar concepts is a necessary— do differ over all of these issues. The question is not which but not the only—condition for being a secular humanist. of them are genuine humanists—they all are. But which child What are the other features that must be part of what it of the Enlightenment, chastened by the Counter- is to be a humanist? Enlightenment and attuned to contemporary realities, has best They are the dominant set of values and associated out- worked out the dialectics of the Enlightenment? Who has looks, inherited from the underlying ideas of the Enlighten- best explicated, best analyzed, and best revealed the underlying ment, that by now have become distinctive of liberal culture, rationale of these fundamental values (if indeed they have including equality, liberty, autonomy, well-being (welfare), one) to show that they are not just an accidental jumble emerging out of certain historically determinate circumstances? Kai Nielsen is professor of philosophy at the University of Who can coherently fit them together in such a way that Calgary in Alberta, Canada. His many publications include they will hold the allegiance of reflective and tolerably well- Why Be Moral? and Philosophy and Atheism. informed people? There can be right-wing libertarian humanists defending
12 FREE INQUIRY laissez-faire capitalism; liberal humanists who are social at least in the weak sense of "one man, one vote." This enhanced democrats; socialist humanists, including Marxists, Marxians, equality of power-sharing applies to the industrial sphere as and Anarchists; and socialists of a less determinate stripe. well as to the political sphere, and makes for greater equality F. H. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, David of condition. And whatever inequality of condition remains Gauthier, Ralf Dahrendorf, Sidney Hook, John Rawls, Isaiah that is at all socially alterable, will have to be democratically Berlin, Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky, Isaac Deutscher, sustained. Unless this is so it is morally unacceptable to Georg Luckacs, Jurgen Habermas, Jon Elster, Joshua Cohen, democrats. Indeed, even then it may not be justified.2 So a G. A. Cohen, Simone de Beauvoir, and Jean-Paul Sartre are socialist society will be more egalitarian than a capitalist one. all humanists. Again, the relevant question is not which of these intellectuals are genuine humanists, but which of them t is commonly believed, at least in capitalist societies, that has the best grip on social reality. Who can best rationalize I although capitalism may not do as well as socialism in the central values of Western civilization and integrate that the area of equality, it certainly does better in the areas of rationalization with a good understanding of human nature liberty and autonomy. I wish to challenge that familiar claim. and with the underlying structure and fundamental dynamics First we need to realize that any society, having norms, of society? constrains behavior and limits liberty in some way or other. Societies need not be democratic to be genuinely capitalist— Given the prohibitions and injunctions of societal mores, no witness Chile and South Africa—though for reasons that one is free to do just as he or she wants; but a society without Marxists are good at explaining, capitalist societies are norms is impossible. So the question is whether capitalism typically democratic. In capitalist societies, the major means or socialism constrains behavior more or in more harmful of production are privately owned and controlled, whereas ways. Socialism does prohibit capitalist acts—or at least most in socialist societies they are publicly owned and controlled. capitalist acts—between consenting adults. But that simply This is not identical with state ownership; moreover, public means that it constrains buying and selling. It says nothing control builds democracy into the very definition of socialism. at all about the really crucial freedoms, namely, civil liberties However, a few publicly owned firms, even very large ones, such as freedom of speech, of voting, of movement, of do not socialism make; public ownership must be society- conscience, and the like. There is no systematic reason at wide. Air Canada and Petro Canada do not make Canada all why socialism should not be at least as hospitable as a socialist society or even a society on the way to socialism. capitalism to such freedoms. That existing socialist systems Pierre Trudeau was not a socialist knight of the north, an have not welcomed them says more about the fact that these old mole working from within. systems emerged from societies that lacked a parliamentary Public ownership and control only catches part, though tradition, were economically backward, and were attacked an essential part, of what socialism means. A socialist society by capitalist powers than it says about socialism itself. is also a classless society: a society in which there is no Capitalism, too, has been hostile to civil liberties in times possibility of being anything, the handicapped apart, but a of stress. There is, however, no reason whatsoever for socialism worker—in the broad sense of the word—or someone who to be hostile to civil liberties; there are very good reasons once was a worker or will become a worker. In a capitalist for it to protect them, given its commitment to democracy. society there are two principal classes: the capitalist class, which Here I speak of models of democracy roughly according to owns and controls the means of production and buys labor- Marx. power in a commodity market, and the working class, which Socialism also comes out better than capitalism with respect sells its labor-power in a commodity market. In a socialist to democracy. Capitalist societies, with a few exceptions, tend society no one can buy and sell labor-power. The means of to be democracies. In them, however, democracy can only production—that is, the means of existence—are commonly be political democracy. Industrial democracy, full democracy owned and controlled. Everyone in the society stands in the in the workplace where work is under public control, is ruled same relation to the means of production, and in that very out by private ownership and control of the means of fundamental sense a socialist society is a classless society. production. The very essence of capitalism excludes full public control, and indeed, often rules out any public influence in enuine socialism best comports with the central values investment, production decisions, and the like. Thus a capitalist Gof Western civilization, and has more potential than society limits democratic decision-making more than a socialist capitalism to integrate human nature with the underlying society does. Genuinely socialist societies—not statist structure of a society. Let us start with equality and liberty. tyrannies—are both political and industrial democracies. A classless society with common ownership and control Capitalist societies are at best political democracies and thus through the usual democratic mechanisms is much more by their very nature are less democratic than socialist societies. egalitarian than a capitalist society in which a small group Capitalist societies, as Marx realized, wondrously controls the means of production, directs labor, and makes developed the productive forces and thus brought more wealth crucial decisions about how the society is to be ordered while into the world—unequally distributed though it is—than the rest of the population, having sold its labor-power, existed before the advent of capitalism. This cannot be denied. essentially takes orders or stands in a passive role while public- But with the development of the productive forces there is policy decisions are made. In a socialist society, authority no reason that socialism cannot build on that. With more and power are shared. Everyone has equal access to them, rational planning than is possible in capitalism and with an
Fall 1989 13 economy structured to meet human needs, socialism can keep firmly in mind that in comparing socialism and capitalism enhance human well-being more than capitalism can. This we are comparing empirically feasible models.3 is not a matter of having a "command economy," but of having To be a humanist one need not be a socialist or even a both a market and a plan; it is not a matter of either, but welfare-state liberal. There are even humanists in good of both. Furthermore, in socialist society, though not in standing who are very conservative indeed; but were they to capitalist society, a plan is arrived at democratically with the adequately rationalize into a sound political sociology the underlying rationale of equitably meeting human needs. ideals of the Enlightenment shared by all humanists, they Libertarians may object that this type of democracy comes would also be socialists. into conflict with individual rights and thus with autonomy. But that claim is not justified. A commitment to autonomy is a commitment to self-direction; what would most Notes notoriously limit that would be limitations on civil liberties, but they are not touched by socialism. What is touched is 1. See Isaiah Berlin, "0n the Pursuit of the Ideal," New York Review of Books (March 17, 1988), pp. I1-18, and his Four Essays on Liberty, the freedom to buy and sell, including to buy and sell labor. (0xford, England: 0xford University Press, 1960), which present a powerful This hardly affects people living self-directed lives, but even statement of a pessimistic humanism. For a less pessimistic humanism if it did, it would mean trading off a lesser liberty for a greater directly opposing Berlin on key points, see Andrew Collier, "Scientific one, given the extensive domination that goes with the Socialism and the Question of Socialist Values" in Kai Nielsen and Steven Pattern (eds.), Marx and Morality (Guelph, 0ntario: Canadian Association inequities of power inherent in capitalist society. for Publishing in Philosophy, 1981), pp. 121-151, and Kai Nielsen, "Coming A society that is freer, that protects rights more extensively, to Grips with Marxist Anti-Moralism," The Philosophical Forum XIX:1 that is more equal, and that makes for a greater welfare for (Fall 1987), pp. 1-22. 2. Kai Nielsen, "Arguing for Equality," Philosophic Exchange (1986), more people is certainly a more just society than one that pp. 5-21, and "On Not Needing to Justify Equality," International Studies lacks those qualities. Socialism does all of these things more in Philosophy XX:3 (1988), pp. 55-71. 3. That in comparing capitalism and socialism we must either compare extensively than capitalism does—so genuinely socialist socie- models or existing systems, but not mix the two, is powerfully argued ties are more just than capitalist societies. It is important to by Andrew Levine in Arguing for Socialism (London: Verso, 1988). •
Liberty and Democracy, or Socialism?
Antony Flew
f we are to employ the expression "secular humanists" democracy. to include all of those whose approach to all issues of Certainly these stipulations are necessary. But still they thought and behavior is through and through secular, are not sufficient. We also must spell out how these two key this-worldly and man-centered, then it must embrace in its words are to be construed. First, freedom: Our prime concern application not only Paul Kurtz and me, Sidney Hook and is, or should be, for the liberties of individuals. We must Thomas Szasz, but also Karl Marx (to say nothing of his never forget that collective emancipations from, for instance, more appealing but unfortunately much less influential colonial rule may be achieved at the price of drastic diminution namesake, Groucho) and J. S. Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche and in the rights and liberties generally available to the former V. I. Lenin. It is obvious that in that most comprehensive colonial subjects. (In this interpretation, anti-colonialist understanding, all manner of quite different and even "freedom fighters" often are—like firefighters and crime- altogether antithetical political and social stances become fighters—fighters against rather than for!) Second, democracy: compatible with secular humanism; but for our purposes, again, with all-too-abundant colonial and post-colonial experi- secular humanism is committed both to freedom and ence in mind, we have to insist that for us the criterion of democratic legitimacy must be not whether some regime was Antony Flew is professor of philosophy at Reading University voted in, but whether in due time it may be voted out. in England. His books include God, Freedom and Immortality; Both of these qualifications are critical to our problem, Politics of Procrustes; and Thinking Straight. for without them almost any political agenda can be made to consist with secular humanism. Suppose, however, that
14 FREE INQUIRY they are both made and aptly understood. Then many of leader Hugh Gaitskell failed to persuade the Labour Party those usually accepted, without protest or question, as card- conference to limit its socialist ambitions. Clause IV of its carrying secular humanists will have to be identified as constitution, since amended only insubstantially, stated that opponents, and therefore repudiated. Obviously all Marxist- its aim was to enforce "public ownership of all the means Leninists and all systematic supporters of Marxist-Leninist of production, distribution and exchange." Gaitskell, in an movements and causes must fall under the consequent unacknowledged borrowing from Lenin, proposed that the embargo, for none of them can be allowed to be, in our party should confine socialism to "the commanding heights properly forward-looking understanding, democrats.' It is of the economy.") equally notorious that there are no individual liberties for Again, anxiety about the practical incompatibility of full any "enemies of socialism" once those whom such people call socialism with individual liberties and political democracy was comrade have established themselves in absolute and certainly one of the main reasons why in the early 1980s Roy constitutionally irremovable power in and over any state. Jenkins, a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, joined But now, what about democratic socialism? Certainly it with three other ex-Labour Members of Parliament in is true, and too often forgotten, that Lenin's October coup founding the Social Democratic Party. Having enjoyed many was achieved against a provisional government that was organizing elections; and that, after those elections had We have to insist that the criterion of returned a huge non-Bolshevik majority, the Bolsheviks dissolved the resulting Constituent Assembly by force, and democratic legitimacy must be not whether forthwith proceeded to construct what was to become Lenin's some regime was voted in, but whether in monstrous legacy—the paradigm totalitarian socialist state. due time it may be voted out. Yet is it not possible, at least in a long and firmly established democracy, to reach full socialism gradually and democrat- ically, and still retain or even perhaps extend and improve political discussions with the late Sidney Hook since we first our treasured democratic institutions? met more than thirty years ago, I am inclined to say that There is a strong case for concluding that it is not possible, it has been primarily for this same reason that most recently that economic pluralism is a necessary, though of course not he was more correctly described as a social democratic than sufficient, condition of political pluralism. This case was as a democratic socialist. perhaps most famously argued in F. A. Hayek's The Road The sincerity and the profundity of Hook's commitment to Serfdom.2 The most decisive refutation of this or any other to both liberty and democracy was, of course, altogether thesis of impossibility is the production of an actual counter- beyond question. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of example. But, although a great many states are now almost many who continue to support the Labour Party; for, though fully socialist, in not one of these has an administration been that party still remains as much as ever a creature of the removed from office as the result of a general election. trade unions, the leading personnel in both party and unions Certainly the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow are very different now from their predecessors in the first is happy to recognize that, in a favorite Soviet phrase, "This postwar decade. Even when the transformation had only just is no accident." In 1971, with its eyes most immediately upon begun, C.A.R. Crosland, a leading Minister and Labour Party Chile and France, the Institute sketched a program for intellectual—who was regarded as being very much on the achieving, through "united front" or "broad left" tactics, right of the party—insisted that "complete state collectivism irreversible Communist domination: "Having once acquired is without question incompatible with liberty and democracy. "3 political power, the working class implements the liquidation Unfortunately, and I fear significantly, even he gave no of the private ownership of the means of production... . indication of the point, if any, at which he would have to As a result, under socialism, there remains no ground for leave a party committed by its constitution to precisely that the existence of any opposition parties counter-balancing the aim, and in practice insisting on ever more and never less Communist Party." With Cuba, South Africa, Nicaragua, and state ownership and control of everything. So it is to be pre- many other fallen or threatened countries in mind we should sumed that Crosland was, for whatever reasons, at one with remember that the future one-party monopolists will not always publicize their Leninism, or even be organized as a ... the virtuous young lady of Kent Communist Party from the beginning. Who said that she knew what it meant Since World War II, anxiety on this count has been one When men took her to dine of the reasons why some persons and even some political Gave her cocktails and wine; parties have abandoned democratic socialism in favor of She knew what it meant—but she went. nonsocialist social democracy. For instance: At its Bad Godesberg conference in 1959 the German Social Democratic Notes Party—which for Marx and Engels and even for Lenin until 1. Former servicemen will recall the prudential maxim: "No names, no 1914 had been the model Marxist party—decided to jettison pack-drill." All too many names, however, can be found in Paul Hollander's the socialist ideal in favor of Ludwig Erhard's more prosperous Political Pilgrims (0xford, and New York: 0xford University Press, 1981). 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1944. and productive "social market economy." (As an Englishman 3. C. A. R. Crosland, Social Democracy in Europe (London: Fabian I must ruefully reflect that in that same year the Labour Party Society, 1975), p. 2. •
Fall 1989 15 Humanism and Socialism
Richard Schmitt
hat must we do to build a genuinely free society constitute a party; there is no set of clearly stated principles for all? A hundred years ago many thinkers were to which a humanist must subscribe. While many humanists Wquite confident that they knew the road to universal today are secularists, for instance, there are also religious human liberation. Today that confidence is being shaken. humanists. But although there are no humanist dogmas, the Certainly in the socialist world, the old certainties have been belief in human freedom and the demand for free institutions rapidly melting away. Hungary has just decided to allow a comes close to being an unalterable humanist principle. It plurality of political parties; the Poles are actively considering is difficult to imagine a Fascist or Stalinist humanist. elected legislative bodies. The Soviets recently voted party According to the Secular Humanist Declaration: functionaries out of office, while the Chinese are experimenting with capitalist economic reforms. In the socialist world, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic orthodox Marxist views about the road to liberation—long freedom.... This means that individuals and groups should out of reach of critical thinking—are now under attack. The be able to compete in the marketplace. ... The right to private property is a human right without which other human promise of Marxist orthodoxy to bring humankind into a rights are nugatory (Italics added). more democratic society, where basic needs are met and everyone is free to develop to the fullest, has not been kept, Capitalism—the marketplace, the right to private property— and socialists understand that more and more clearly. are not only desirable freedoms in a free society, they are In the capitalist West, by contrast, complacency prevails. fundamental—because without them, other human rights are Capitalism is seen as the guarantor of freedom, and, however "nugatory." Capitalism is a necessary condition for a free political theorists differ otherwise, they are all at one on this: society. Free political and legal institutions call for capitalist economic If that appears to be a strong claim, it is by no means institutions. I want to cast doubt on this consensus by arguing unusual. In fact there is a solid consensus among political that while capitalism may provide economic freedom under philosophers that agrees with the Secular Humanist a textbook model, it does not do so in actuality. What is Declaration. Thus Ronald Dworkin believes that in the eyes more, what economic freedom capitalism provides is of the liberal, the best society, one that is genuinely free, allows purchased at the enormous cost of widespread political oppres- each member to follow his or her conception of the good sion. Nor is it clear how we should understand the central life as long as all others are allowed the same freedom. The concept of "freedom." institutions of a society should not favor one conception of Once we see that capitalism is not an obvious guarantor the good life over others. In order to build such a society, of freedom, we can then join enlightened thinkers in the socialist world and ask the most important of all political There are no better mechanisms available, as general political questions: What institutions will guarantee everyone the institutions, than the two main institutions of our own political greatest possible freedom? economy: the economic market, for decisions about what At the very center of humanism are claims that human goods shall be produced and how they shall be distributed beings are free and rational. Freedom, the ability to think ... and representative democracy. ) and choose independently of external and internally distorting forces is the precondition of rationality. But rationality, in Milton Friedman echoes this claim: "Capitalism is a its turn, makes freedom possible. Only if they are rational necessary condition for political freedom."2 Rawls agrees with are human beings truly free. This was the doctrine of the that, as does Nozick.3 A free society, everyone seems to believe, Renaissance humanists, it was the doctrine of Kant, and it requires a free market—that is, a capitalist economic system. is the belief of present-day humanists. Humanism does not If we look a little more closely, however, we see that this consensus conceals some major disagreements. Friedman's Richard Schmitt is professor of philosophy at Brown capitalism is a market system in which individuals contract University. He has written about Phenomenology, Existen- freely with other individuals. Government does no more than tialism, and Marxism, and his latest book is An Introduction keep law and order. The major problem for this free-market to Marx and Engels: A Critical Reconstruction. system is "monopoly—which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals effective alternatives to the particular
16 FREE INQUIRY exchange."4 Friedman's capitalism is competitive capitalism, the further claim that Marxists make, that the governments where no one has a sufficient market share to enable her of countries that are capitalist use their governmental power or him, singly, to affect prices by buying and selling less or to bolster dictatorial regimes as long as that seems in the more. The role of government in the free society is minimal. interest of the capitalists. The Somozas, who held Nicaragua It is restricted to acting "as an umpire."5 as a personal fiefdom for forty years under the protection Others are willing to allow government a more extensive of the U.S. government, are only one example of that. The role. For Nozick, transfers of property that are illegal call connection between this sort of government policy and the for rectification and the government is, thus, in some cases, large corporations is harder to make believable to the liberal allowed to redistribute holdings in order to rectify previous who is skeptical of these Marxists views. But it behooves the fraud, blackmail, or theft. Dworkin allows the government liberal who is dedicated to rational inquiry not to be blind the right to redistribute resources in order to "sharply limit, to these claims. Liberals have yet to produce an argument at least, the inequalities in welfare" that occur in a capitalist that the coincidence between U.S. foreign policy that favors economic system.6 Finally, Rawls' market system is actually dictatorships, as it has done for a long time, and the interests compatible with public ownership of means of production.? of large capitalist enterprises is purely accidental. Which of these versions of capitalism is a necessary Nor have capitalists been unambiguous in their dedication condition for freedom? The widespread agreement we thought to freedom inside their home countries. The largest German we had found before turns out to be largely verbal. Humanists capitalist firms did not hesitate to build plants near must surely be very clear about what sort of capitalism they extermination camps where inmates, many of them Germans, endorse as a necessary condition for freedom. If they are not, could be worked to death. Labor costs were low; profits high: they open themselves to the accusation of merely repeating uncritically the current clichés of American propaganda. ... such famous German firms as I. G. Farben, the Krupp Some of these descriptions of capitalism seem clearly Werke and Siemens-Schuckert Werke [the U.S. equivalents unacceptable. Friedman acknowledges that monopoly inhibits would be Dupont, U.S. Steel, and G.E.] had established plants the effective freedom of exchange and is therefore "a problem." in Auschwitz as well as near the Lublin death camps. Cooperation between the S.S. and the business men was But monopoly is nonetheless real. The large multinational excellent; Hoess of Auschwitz testified to very cordial social conglomerates dominate the capitalist economies. The relations with the I. G. Farben representatives.8 Friedman-Nozick version of capitalism, if it ever has existed, does not exist today. Any arguments that that version of I. G. Farben was said to have invested more than a million capitalism is necessary for freedom have only indirect bearing 1975 dollars at Auschwitz, a construction project that required on the world in which we live. 170 contractors.9 If we want to be serious about the need for capitalism in a free society, we need to look at the connection between During World War II, the great German pharmaceutical actually existing capitalism and freedom. corporation, Bayer A. G. of Leverkusen, made extensive use The reasons for claiming that capitalism is a necessary of death-camp inmates for their experiments on human condition for a free society are not difficult to see: Capitalism— beings.10 text-book capitalism, that is—is said to provide a certain economic freedom by allowing private ownership of property, The poison used in the gas chambers was manufactured by freedom to choose one's occupation, and freedom to enter German chemical concerns—capitalist enterprises all of them. the market. It is debatable whether freedom belongs to all Examples could easily be multiplied. The ones cited might members of the society to the same extent, but for the time be considered exceptions. But such a claim needs proof; it being let us recognize that these claims of liberals and is not self-evidently true. Until such a proof has been provided, humanists have a prima facie plausibility. liberals should pause before they repeat the ritualistic assertion The question is, however, whether capitalism, while it that there can be no freedom without capitalism. There is provides some economic freedom on the one hand, is not very strong evidence that, on the contrary, capitalists use their also a severe threat to political freedom. We must, I believe, economic power in order to curtail the political freedom of answer that question in the affirmative. all those who are not capitalists. As a consequence, we must The capitalists of the Western developed countries have ask whether the economic freedom that capitalism provides repeatedly interfered in foreign countries and have either is worth the bitter oppression for which capitalism is a sufficient helped to install dictatorships to replace popularly elected condition. The price that is paid for the economic freedom governments (as ITT did in 1973 in Chile), or have supported of capitialism may well be much too high. and profited from dire oppression of the majority by the Nor is this all. Capitalism curtails the freedom of the minority (as the large mining concerns, for instance, or U.S. majority by the very mechanisms that are reputed to provide companies like IBM and General Motors are doing in South us with economic freedom. It is a well-known fact that in Africa). the United States, people of color are much more likely to These are pretty clear-cut and powerful examples of direct be poor and much less likely to be rich than whites. Their support by capitalists for depriving large numbers of people chances of being unemployed are much greater than those of their freedom and a significant number of people of their of whites, as are their chances of having low-paying, unskilled very lives. More complex and therefore harder to argue is jobs. The chances that single mothers and their children have
Fall 1989 17 of being poor are much greater than that of any other group. is the difference between those? Women still earn only two-thirds of what a man earns for doing a comparable job. The Rational Man would normally [be willing to] choose One might explain these facts by claiming that people of to make a choice among the alternatives facing him in the color and women do not play the capitalist game as well offer situation, whereas normally he would not [be willing to] choose to make the choice among the alternatives facing as white males, that they are less able, industrious, and so him in the threat situation.13 on. Hence their disproportionate poverty cannot be blamed on capitalism. While there are clearly people who believe that, Any transaction that I enter willingly is one in which I act a convincing, rational case for that belief has still to be made. voluntarily. It is clear, on the contrary, that the capitalist system In this view of freedom, even people of color, whose job systematically encourages uneven distribution of economic opportunities are severely restricted by racism, act voluntarily returns. Men of color and women have a disproportionate because taking a job that pays poorly is still preferable to likelihood of being poor. This indicates a restriction of freedom starving. Women who hire themselves out at two-thirds the in two ways. pay that a man gets for the same job are not being coerced (1) If there are two groups in an economic system whose because, after all, no one is putting a gun to their heads. members are equally able and industrious, and one group They are glad to get the work and the money. consistently is much worse off than the other, the suspicion If that is what we mean by freedom, then capitalism does arises that worse-off group is prevented from availing itself indeed provide us with freedom. But that argument for of relatively more profitable opportunities. We know, of capitalism appears almost too good. The conception of course, that this is true. People of color are systematically freedom seems tailor-made. We define freedom as just the kept out of occupations, or out of the trajectories that end in those occupations. We also know that the same is true sort of freedom of choice that capitalism provides, and then of women. find much to our surprise that capitalism provides freedom The capitalist system, as it actually functions, involves a in that sense. It is true by definition that freedom requires good deal of coercion to restrict competition and to drive capitalism. The claim is tautological. down wages. Racism and sexism are the names we give to Do we need to accept that concept of freedom? It is difficult those forms of coercion. What is more, while morally to accept with a straight face the claim that persons who reprehensible, playing on racist fears is often good business. are victims of racism and sexism are free. Restricting trade unions to whites helps to keep up wages Accordingly, many thinkers embrace a more generous for whites; closing jobs to persons of color or to women conception of freedom that includes not only the absence of increases the relative supply of applicants for the jobs that physical coercion or the threat thereof, but also the capacity are open to them, and thus serves to depress wages. To the to use the formal or legal freedoms one has. In this view, extent that they are good business, capitalism encourages persons require opportunities to avail themselves of freedom sexism and racism, and deprives a majority of American to trade, or to become educated, or to move, or to speak citizens of some of their freedom, specifically, their economic out. Being free is more than being left alone; it also includes freedom. Here capitalism appears as a sufficient condition some capacities for free activity. of lack of economic freedom. Humanists should, in addition, remember their traditions, (2) Even if the preceding point is not granted, we must which speak of freedom as the opportunity to develop fully still admit that the inequalities in income that capitalism brings in all directions: a free person is one who is at the top of in its wake amount to inequalities in freedom—economic as his or her powers, able to be as richly and intricately human well as social and political. The range of options of the poor as possible. This conception of freedom is a far cry from is limited when compared with those of others in the society. the Friedman/Nozick definition of freedom as the absence The poor are less free. Capitalism is not a necessary condition of the harshest coercion. It is the conception of freedom of of freedom for everyone, even within the United States. the young Marx that earned for his early writings the scornful Whether or not one accepts that claim depends, of course, epithet of "humanism" from the Stalinists. on what one means by "freedom." We encounter here one Which of these conceptions of freedom should we adopt? of the central questions in the entire "capitalism and freedom" The question is significant. Freedom is not a natural condition, debate, namely: what do we mean by that word "freedom"? but an aspect of social organization. Societies are not natural; Friedman and Nozick operate with a simple conception they are human creations. Our choice of the meaning of of freedom: A person is free insofar as she or he is not coerced. freedom thus is not determined by objective matter of fact "Freedom as a value ... has to do with the interrelations about the universe, but expresses the sort of society in which between people." 1 The fact that a person has a limited number we choose to live. The choice of the Friedman/Nozick of alternatives is of no relevance to the question of whether definition is a choice of capitalism as it exists—including its she or he is free, as long as alternatives are not limited by racist and sexist and other oppressive strategies. The humanist means of coercion.l» What is meant by "coercion"? Nozick tradition has a more generous view of human society and develops that notion at considerable length. The upshot is of human beings. It must therefore be wary of assuming, that a person is coerced when she or he acts under a threat, without question, that capitalism is a prerequisite for a free but not when someone makes her or him an offer. What society.
18 FREE INQUIRY The widespread consensus that a free society must, inter in the capitalist world must do the same. It is time that we alia, be capitalist is too problematic to be maintained. Different took the question seriously: How can we build a society where defenders of that thesis have rather different conceptions of all are free? It is time that we admitted that we do not have capitalism, as well as of freedom. While there is some abstract an answer to that question. plausibility that capitalism provides us with economic freedom, capitalism restricts political freedom for the majority; economic freedom is paid for by the oppression of the majority. Notes What is more, under the conditions of capitalism as it actually 1. R. Dworkin, "Liberalism," reprinted in M. Sandel, ed., Liberalism exists, even economic freedom is assured only for a minority. and Its Critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), p. 66.. To what freedom do we aspire? Different thinkers define 2. M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of that concept in very different ways. Only if freedom is defined Chicago Press, 1962), p. 10. 3. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, very narrowly is capitalism, defined in equally narrow ways, 1971), p. l0. See also R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: a precondition for freedom. What institutions will yield us Basic Books, 1974). a more generous freedom is at the moment not at all clear. 4. Friedman, p. 14. 5. Friedman, p. 15. The debate over the connection between economic systems 6. Dworkin, p. 69. and political freedom has traditionally been conducted as if 7. Rawls, p. 66. there were only two alternatives: capitalism and socialism. 8. H. Arendt, Eichman in Jerusalem (New York: Viking, 1965), p. 79. 9. R. Rubenstein, The Cunning of History (New York: Harper If we reject capitalism as a basis for a free society, must we Colophon, 1978), p. 58. then endorse socialism? I pointed out at the beginning that 10. Rubenstein, p. 53. people in the socialist world are finally freeing themselves 11. Friedman, p. 15. 12. Friedman, p. 12. from this traditional stereotype and are, thus, thinking more 13. R. Nozick, "Coercion," in S. Morgenbesser, et al., eds., Philosophy. concretely about the problem of building a free society. We Science and Method (New York: St. Martin's, 1969), p. 463. • Socialism is Incompatible with Humanism
Robert Sheaffer
umanism is often defined as simply the absence of If we examine the big picture, and have the courage to theism in the realm of morals; that is, the belief that be ruthlessly honest with ourselves—even if that means Hsince no codes of morality can credibly be traced thinking or saying things that might upset our friends—we back to a divine origin, we humans must create our own cannot escape the conclusion that humanistic values are best moral codes, without the benefit of a celestial anchor. Though realized in societies that allow individuals to buy and sell this is clearly a part of humanism, as a definition it is goods freely, and that they fare worst under socialism. Indeed, incomplete; under it, Stalin qualifies as a humanist. the realities of socialism—with or without a "human face"— Humanists recognize that humanism additionally implies are utterly incompatible with the professed goals of humanism. a concern for the quality of the lives we lead. Humanism, Many humanists see socialism as a vital element of as conceived and practiced, implies a feeling of magnanimity humanism; indeed, at one time, most humanists believed this. and fairness toward one's neighbors. It allies one with what The allegedly warm and caring values of socialism would is best in the human experience against what is worst. replace what were perceived as the "greedy and cold" values Humanists wish to maximize human autonomy and dignity, associated with capitalism, and a paradise on earth would to allow each individual the greatest degree of freedom blossom forth as soon as this occurred. While there are more consistent with securing the rights of others, and to maximize than a few warm-and-fuzzy thinkers for whom this is still one's opportunities for obtaining those material benefits that true, no intellectually honest person today can deny that the are necessary for living a good life—especially decent food, history of socialism is a sorry tale of economic failure and housing, and medical care. crimes against humanity. This is now recognized even in Moscow and Beijing (if not yet at Harvard and Berkeley). Robert Sheaffer is a lecturer and author whose books include All of the glowing promises made by socialists have turned The UFO Verdict and, most recently, Resentment Against out to be mendacity and illusion: the realities of socialism Achievement. are stagnation, shortages, totalitarianism, and the gulag. Even socialism's warmest promise of "free health care for the people"
Fall 1989 19 has turned out to be a cruel fraud: life expectancy in the (After all, under capitalism the proletariat had to earn its Soviet Union today is shorter than in Guyana, Panama, and place at the bottom!) And when in any society absolute power Uruguay, and is still falling. Cuba's claimed reductions in is seized by the angriest failures, it should surprise no one infant mortality, even if true, still lag far behind those of that what follows is plunder instead of productivity, and Panama, Chile, and Barbados. All socialist governments have revengefulness instead of magnanimity. This is why socialism, freshly revalidated the accusation that Edmund Burke brought when unchecked, invariably leads to sickening and inhuman against the French revolutionaries two hundred years ago: violence; the resentful seek not merely to confiscate the wealth They have "bought poverty by crime." of those they envy, but to punish them for having enjoyed But this dismal scenario cannot be blamed on errors in it. the way that socialism was pursued, or on seventy-two The twentieth century, if it thinks of "envy" at all, conceives consecutive years of bad weather in Russia: It is intrinsic to of it as something trifling and inconsequential. We say "I the ideology itself. (Some Christians likewise make the envy you," as if "envy" were a synonym for "admiration." ridiculous claim that their religion's dismal two-thousand-year But those living before the flowering of socialism knew envy history of intolerance and persecution is because "true to be something far more malicious than this—the word derives Christianity" still has never been tried!) Rather, it is because from the Latin invidere, signifying the "harmful stare" of the the ideology of socialism is grounded in the resentments- of envious as they contemplate with envenomed eyes the success those who have failed in open economic competition. It is of others more disciplined and industrious than themselves. a phenomenon of angry failure confronting visible success; In virtually every society, the "evil eye" feared by the socialism is nothing more than resentment against the most superstitious is associated with envy; those who envy us stare successful achievers in the the society. Nothing infuriates a with so much malice that it seems to some that this very socialist as much as the sight of someone else's hard-earned gaze possesses the magical power to inflict harm. Ovid and wealth, and the prevention of individual success is at the very Shakespeare knew envy to signify not "admiration," but an top of socialism's agenda. emotion that renders one sick, green, and repulsive. To envy Thus it should not surprise us that, in any society, when means not merely to covet others' possessions, but to desire the most productive people are systematically arrested and to harm them out of spite; the envious derive pleasure from murdered (or, under diluted forms of socialism, driven scratching a Mercedes. That is why incidents of vandalism elsewhere by high taxes and expropriation), productivity must are highest in poor neighborhoods; those who own no property fall dramatically. When the value system of disciplined envy anyone who owns anything worth having. achievers is declared to be "exploitative" and criminal, no "Socialism" is simply "envy" writ large, and elevated to one dares to follow their example; people learn instead to a moral ideal. It brands the most productive as criminals, emulate the irresponsibility that characterizes the proletariat, and makes heroes of those who have difficulty achieving whose value system has been declared politically "correct." anything at all. The full potential of the human race can never be liberated under such a warped ideal. Free Inquiry But what explains the stranglehold of socialism on modern Western idealism? That the ideals of socialism are parallel to those of Christianity is not difficult to see. Both consider devoted to the ideals of the enemy to be the achiever who produces far more than secularism and freedom is consumed, investing the difference, while both promise a We invite you to subscribe coming millennium in which such achievers will be punished, whether in this life or the next. Clearly, in the morality of ❑ 1 year $22.50 socialism we have the remains of Christianity after its major ❑ 2 years $39.00 superstitions have been exorcised, the grimy residuum at the ❑ 3 years $54.00 bottom of the pot when the Holy Ghost and all of that religion's Subscription includes the Secular Humanist Bulletin lighter spirits have been evaporated by the light of reason. ❑ New ❑ Check or money The humanist holds the highest possible attitudes of ❑ Renew order enclosed benificence and fairness toward the human race. One settles ❑ Visa ❑ MasterCard for nothing less than the best possible environment for Acct. tt Exp. Date promoting human health, prosperity, and freedom: capitalism. The humanist must strive to conquer one's antihumane vices, Name (print clearly) especially the one Cicero proclaimed "the most common and Street universal vice": envy. Socialism, in whatever form, wages war on the most intelligent, disciplined, and productive portion City State Zip of humanity, in the name of the least. Disputes between the Outside U.S. add $6.00 for surface mail, $12.00 for airmail. (U.S. funds on U.S. various factions of socialism boil down to whether achievers bank). should merely be penalized, or expropriated, or murdered. FREE INQUIRY, Box 5 • Buffalo, New York 14215-0005 Such base enviousness is unworthy of anyone who professes Tele: 716-834-2921 the highest aspirations for humanity. Socialism is incompatible Call TOLL-FREE 1-800-458-1366 outside New York State. with humanism. •
20 FREE INQUIRY Humanism and Political Economy
Tibor R. Machan
t has been said that humanism cannot be identified with Today there is a kind of schizophrenia about matters of a political party or candidate or with a specific economic political economy. Intellectuals, including many humanists, doctrine. There is a good deal of truth to this claim. tend to favor the collectivist conception of humanity. Ethically Considering that humanism's deep roots link it with diverse this is traditional—secular and religious ethics tend toward figures from Socrates to Marx, each of whom embraced the notion that we are all of of one piece, and ideally humanity different conceptions of the philosophy, this should not be would be a huge love-fest with all loving all unconditionally. surprising. For instance, to Marx, who saw humanity as a At conventions of political scientists and philosophers in the body or an "organic whole," humanism would naturally imply United States, book exhibits still favor tracts sympathetic a collectivist political-economic outlook. When one considers toward socialism and communalism and declaring the evils humanity a concrete universal—that is, a natural collective— of liberalism and individualism. The love affair that led many then one would regard a society healthy and sound only if intellectuals to swallow either fascism for its championing of its institutions accommodate that position. If, however, one Das Volk, or communism for its aim of creating a worldwide sees humanity as consisting of individual beings, each of whom commune is far from over, though it is a bit defensive. is capable of being whole even while others may not be, then But almost all attempts to implement this ideal have resulted a society's institutions must accommodate this basic fact. in massive tyrannies and inefficient social and economic So though humanism gives us a clear enough clue as to systems. Thus we witness worldwide disenchantment with what some think should be our focus of attention—namely, socialism. At a recent conference in Hungary, Eastern-bloc humanity—it is far from the whole story we need in order economists openly wondered why anyone in the West still to guide ourselves politically and economically, let alone in takes socialism seriously, and noted that there are more other, more specialized areas of our lives. In addition, Marxists in the West than in the Soviet bloc. Even in the humanism has for many thinkers served as a point of contrast, East, governments are experimenting with privatization— distinguishing those who draw on theology as the source of returning to the private sector various projects that enthusiams ethical guidance from those who stress the natural life of with socialism of one or another kind had placed under state human beings as that source. But here again, there is a lack management. of clear determination as to just what is the correct or best So now there is ambivalence about the merits of perspective on human nature. collectivism. Capitalism is still widely regarded as cruel and None of this means that when rounded out, humanism callous, unable to show compassion and generosity to the must remain numb on political and economic questions. extent believed to be necessary for political economic systems. Though philosophical or ethical outlooks need not be explicitly But it is also admitted, even by rhetorical liberals who are committed to any of a variety of political positions, they cannot turning into fiscal conservatives, that somehow the dream escape implicating themselves once certain details are filled easily turns into a nightmare, and at any rate the collectivist in. dream is too expensive and capitalism delivers the goods. For example, if it turns out, as many libertarians think, Does this say anything of importance to humanists? for that the human essence is not, as Marx said, "the true one thing, humanists are not seriously bound to traditions, collectivity" but, on the contrary, "the true individuality" of unlike conservatives and other admirers of collectivism. (Yes, man, then humanism does imply political and economic Virginia, collectivism has mostly conservative origins—see, for answers in which we all have an interest. If, however, Marx example, Plato, Hegel, Rousseau, T. H. Green, and George is right that our nature is to be species-beings—parts of a Will.) Humanists might appreciate that despite the longevity larger collective entity, namely, humanity—then the political of the collectivist ideal—that is, the preference for understand- and economic answers will have to accommodate this basic ing humanity as a concrete universal, at least once it is fully fact. realized—it may be worth reconsidering the matter. It may be important for humanity—understood simply as human life Tibor Machan is professor of philosophy at Auburn Uni- on earth—to rethink what really should be our standard of versity, Alabama. He is senior editor of Reason magazine; human values: individualism or collectivism. he has published widely, and his most recent book is Liberty I regard the correct version of humanism to be indivi- and Culture. dualistic. But this should not mislead anyone into thinking that I wish to resurrect Thomas Hobbes's idea of the human
Fall 1989 21 individual—the atomistic, isolated, utility-maximizing ego. I And while this justifies certain kinds of intolerance in personal believe that a neo-Aristotelian idea makes the best sense; that and social relationships, at the political and legal levels the is, that human beings are essentially rational, self-moving dominant principle is of individual rights. I do not need to beings who can, as a matter of their choices, fully realize accept philandering or prostitution as morally proper to themselves within society. This is as fully humanistic as one understand and act on the principle that no one may force could want, barring some dream about collective human another to comply with any possibly correct moral view. nature. And this would also favor a political economy of Economically this individualism rejects the imperialistic capitalism, with strong protection of individual rights to life, Homo economicus idea of human behavior but accepts that liberty, and property. prudent men and women will generate a substantial I wish to stress that this view of individualism is fully commercial society, and that freedom of trade will most prob- compatible with humanism as a limited vision of gaining our ably help to supply people with what they ought to want, guidelines from an understanding of the natural human being. without denying that it also often supplies them with what In ethics, therefore, this individualism avoids subjectivism. they ought not to want. • Libertarianism Versus Secular Humanism?
David Gordon libertarianism is a political philosophy that addresses the state has a duty to provide for the poor, one will have the problem of when the use of coercion is justified. to reject the libertarian principle that denies welfare rights. I Libertarians believe that individuals have moral But simply because libertarians do not accept the teachings rights—including the right to own property—that limit the of particular religions certainly does not require them to reject proper use of force. People can form protection agencies for belief in God. defense against aggression and for the enforcement of Another complication is that some libertarians adhere to contracts, but such agencies may not use force except for the philosophy of the novelist Ayn Rand. The denial that judicial and police functions. In particular, according to this God exists is one of her main tenets, and her disciples, called view, people do not have welfare rights that allow them to Objectivists, must be atheists. But her system is just one of compel others to transfer money to them. Some libertarians, a number of possible foundations for libertarianism; and as but by no means all, think that a protection agency is justified long as one accepts what libertarians believe to be the correct in monopolizing the use of force in a territory, thus forming political principles, one counts as a libertarian. Thus, while a state. Those libertarians who allow a minimal state do not Objectivists must be atheists, libertarians need not. think it should have the right to tax or even to secure money However, the question facing us is not libertarianism's to perform its legitimate functions. compatibility with atheism; it is its compatibility with secular Are libertarianism and secular humanism compatible? If humanism. But a response to the first question is an essential the question were phrased in a slightly different way, the answer preliminary to the second. would be simple. If the issue were "Are libertarianism and Secular humanism, as I understand it, agrees with atheism atheism compatible?" a mere yes would be enough. Nothing in rejecting belief in God as Judaism and Christianity about libertarianism entails that God exists; atheism and traditionally conceive of him. Unlike atheists, some humanists libertarianism are obviously consistent, though libertarians are need not reject all religious belief: some "liberal" religious not required to be atheists. The two views deal with different thinkers who disagree with orthodox theism might be classed problems, and the question of their compatibility is on the as secular humanists but not as atheists. same order as, "Can stamp collectors be Republicans?" What positive beliefs are characteristic of secular human- This point applies equally well if one asks, "Can one who ism? Humanists look on ethics as aimed at the advancement believes in God be a libertarian?" Here, however, the issue of human welfare, and take an optimistic attitude toward the is a bit more complicated, in that particular religions may potential of human beings for progress. They place great have doctrines inconsistent with libertarianism. If, for example, emphasis on civil liberties and look on the influence of one agrees with certain proponents of liberation theology that organized religion with misgiving. One gathers that the enthusiasm of most secular humanists for the Roman Catholic David Gordon is a post-doctoral scholar at the Social Phi- church is under strict control. losophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. In addition, humanists take positions on particular social He has contributed to Mind, Analysis, and other philosophy issues. They generally favor a prochoice position on abortion journals. and euthanasia and oppose, for instance, the teaching of creationism in public schools. Many favor an end to tax
22 FREE INQUIRY exemption for churches; and practically every American use of compulsion, to libertarians it is a matter on which secular humanist endorses the "wall of separation" reading the state should have no say. Again, most libertarians agree of the First Amendment's religion clauses. that abortion and euthanasia should not be legally forbidden. Are these positions compatible with libertarianism? Once (A minority of libertarians oppose abortion on the ground more, our topic presents no difficulty, except in regard to that the fetus is a person and entitled to full libertarian rights.) specific policy measures. Humanist attitudes toward ethics and The libertarian approach to these questions, however, differs human beings seem entirely consistent with libertarianism. from that of the secular humanist. Libertarians have no official Their favorable attitude toward civil liberties such as freedom position on whether abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and of religion and speech is not only compatible with so on are morally right; their sole concern lies in rejecting libertarianism but required by it. the use of force in these areas. Secular humanists, on the Before turning to some possible sticking points, one other hand, often directly address the morality of these issues, objection demands consideration. So far, I have claimed that not just the ethics of enforcement. libertarianism is consistent with both atheism and secular An area where the two positions do not quite see eye- humanism. But positions can be consistent and still clash with to-eye is, oddly enough, the issue of teaching creationism in one another. The great British idealist philosopher J. M. E. public schools. It is not that libertarians are creationists; rather, McTaggart was both a firm atheist and a regular participant they do not accept public education. This should come as in services of the Church of England. He was not guilty of no surprise, if one recalls the characterization of libertarianism any logical inconsistency—he admired the church because of given at the start of the essay. Educating people does not his strong attraction to ritual and tradition. Most people, fall within the scope allotted minimal state or protection agen- however, would think the combination distinctly odd. Is there cies. Instead, all schools in a libertarian society would be anything strange about accepting both secular humanism and private; in such a society parents who wish creationist instruc- libertarianism? tion for their children would be perfectly free to obtain it. It seems to me that there is not. Looked at historically, I am not suggesting that secular humanists favor banning many well-known American opponents of organized religion, creationist teaching in private schools. But many humanists such as Thomas Paine, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander regard with disfavor the instruction (or as they see it the Spooner, also are regarded by libertarians to be precursors. indoctrination) of children with fundamentalist religious views. James J. Martin's valuable survey of the nineteenth-century For this reason, they tend to look with a skeptical eye on individualist anarchists, Men Against the State, leaves little private schools and welcome public education based on room for doubt about the close association of free thought nonsectarian values. with individualism. No direct clash exists even here. Libertarians are not Unfortunately, not all of these writers are well-known; required to like fundamentalism or creationism, and probably Herbert Spencer, however, ranks as a major figure in both the vast majority do not. Neither is it the case that secular the humanist and libertarian traditions. The near-omniscience humanists on the whole favor banning private schools. There of Macaulay's schoolboy is not required to know Macaulay's does seem to me to be a distinct difference of opinion, though, role as both a classical liberal and a freethinker, and David in how this question should be answered: Is it more important Hume, while ranking foremost among religious skeptics, that children receive a liberal, "progressive" education, or that elaborated a defense of property rights that some libertarians people be able to obtain the education they choose for their today find persuasive. To continue to list name after name children? would serve little purpose; but throughout continental Europe, One other point can be dealt with very briefly, since its nineteenth-century classical liberals were generally regarded treatment parallels what has been said about education. Since as vigorous opponents of the Catholic church. libertarians do not believe in taxation at all, the issue of tax So great is the historical affinity between humanism and exemption for churches does not arise. classical liberalism that there is a danger of pushing our point But taxes are very unlikely to go away, however much too far. There is nothing odd about being both religious and libertarians may think them improper. Should churches be a libertarian. The great nineteenth-century French advocate exempt from taxes when others have to pay them? This of laissez-faire economics Frédéric Bastiat thought that a free- question, though surely important, has not aroused much market economy expressed God's will; and Lord Acton, a discussion among libertarians and there is no "standard" champion of classical liberalism, was also a devout Roman response to it. Similarly, I am unable to say what libertarians Catholic. Turning to another issue, libertarians can be as believe ought to be taught in public schools. Most would pessimistic as they wish. Schopenhauer's political opinions probably favor having public institutions resemble the free were to a large extent in the classical liberal mold. market as closely as they can; but this is a mere conjecture. So far, so good. A few difficulties, in my opinion not insur- Libertarians and secular humanists could both gain from mountable, come up when one considers the social policies discussions of issues like these. that most secular humanists favor. Even here, a large measure In general, then, those who find themselves attracted to of agreement exists between the two groups. Libertarians, like both libertarianism and secular humanism can readily adopt secular humanists, oppose the use of force to require people both positions. The fit between the two is not absolutely to follow religious doctrines that deal with personal morality. problem-free, but it is about as good as one can get between For instance, so long as sexual conduct does not involve the two independently motivated doctrines. •
Fall 1989 23 Union? Had the Soviets succeeded in replacing religion with viable secular alternatives? These questions have intrigued Militant Atheism Versus me because of the staying power of religious orthodoxy and the growth of quasi-religious Freedom of Conscience paranormal and occult belief systems in Western countries. Were similar psycho- sociological processes at work in Soviet Reflections on the Moscow society—after seventy-two years of an official atheist ideology that used the vast Atheist/ Humanist Dialogue powers of the totalitarian state to suppress religion? The dialogue was held at the Institute for Scientific Atheism—a gleaming new Paul Kurtz building, completed in 1984 during the Brezhnev era. The interior was well- he Soviet Union has embarked upon a Institute, and Victor Timofejev, associate appointed, with beautiful chandeliers, mar- Tradical shift in its policies concerning director, had attended the Tenth World ble columns, parquet floor, and red carpets. religious beliefs. If these new policies Humanist Congress in Buffalo in 1988, the As we were taken to our meeting room, continue, they could very well spell an end theme of which was "Building a World Timofejev pointed out a large center hall, to the decades of repression of religion that Community: Humanism in the Twenty-First just beyond a high statue of Lenin overlook- have marked Soviet society since the 1917 Century." As a consequence they invited a ing the entrance. (With some humor, he told Russian Revolution; indeed, they could lead delegation of Western humanists to convene us that this hall had been used by the Russian Orthodox church in 1988 to celebrate the to a revival of religious fervor. in Moscow; this meeting was entitled "A millenia of the founding of Christianity in In the past, the Communist Party of the Dialogue Between Humanists and Atheists: the Soviet Union.) Our dialogue was Soviet Union has waged unremitting warfare Differences and Similarities." Twelve repre- convened in a large, ornate room, and simul- against religion. It has persecuted religious sentatives and two observers from six taneous translation was provided by the believers, confiscated church properties, Western countries participated. Included Russians. executed or exiled tens of thousands of were the three IHEU co-presidents—Levi The Institute was founded in 1963 to carry clerics, and prohibited believers to engage Fragell of Norway, Rob Tielman of the out "scientific research" into religion. It was in religious instruction or publish religious Netherlands, and me; Vern and Bonnie considered to be the Soviet Union's "think materials. It has also carried on militant pro- Bullough of the United States; Harry Stopes- tank" for atheism, and was sponsored by atheist propaganda campaigns as part of the Roe of Great Britain; Steinar Nilsen of the Central Committee of the Communist official ideology of the state, in an effort Norway; Armin Rieser of Germany; Anne- Party. Joining Garadja and Timofejev at the to establish a "new Soviet man" committed Marie Franchi of France; and Nettie Klein, dialogue were five other members of the to the ideals of Communist society. Cur de Ronde, and Ernst von Brakel of the Institute; J. M. Smolentsev, chair of the Mikhail Gorbachev is now in the process Netherlands. There were twelve Soviet Department of Ethics at Moscow State of dismantling such policies by permitting participants, and one from Poland. University; Lev N. Mitrokhin, deputy direc- greater freedom of religious conscience. If There have been fundamental and until tor of the Institute for Philosophy of the his reforms proceed unabated, they could now irreconcilable differences between hu- Academy of Sciences and a member of the have dramatic implications for the entire manists and atheists, particularly Marxist- editorial board of the magazine Voprosy Communist world, for the Soviets may be Leninists. The defining characteristic of Filosofi (Problems of Philosophy); Eugenija moving from militant atheism to tolerant humanism is its commitment to human Jablokova, chair of the Social Psychology humanism. The primary reason for this freedom and democracy; the kind of atheism Department at the Academy for Social change seems to be that the urgent need to practiced in the Soviet Union has consis- Sciences; and Alicija Kutchinska of the restructure the failing Soviet economy must tently violated basic human rights. Human- Academy for Social Sciences in Poland. An enlist the aid of all sectors of Soviet society, ists believe first and foremost in freedom of important observer at the dialogue was including the religious. But it is also a natural conscience, the free mind, and the right of Karen Melik-Simonian, deputy director of concomitant of glasnost and perestroika. dissent. The defense of religious liberty is Nauka i Religiia (Science and Religion), These are the conclusions I drew after as precious to the humanist as are the rights published by Znanie (the Knowledge attending an intensive dialogue with the of unbelievers. Society). Science and Religion was founded Soviets in Moscow during the first week of in 1947 and is now considered to be the July 1989.1 The dialogue was cosponsored lthough I had visited several Commu- Soviet Union's most important journal by the International Humanist and Ethical Anist countries in the past (China, dealing with scientific critiques of religion. Union (IHEU) and the Institute for Scientific Poland, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Cze- It has more than a half million subscribers. Atheism of the Soviet Academy of Social choslovakia), I had never been to the Soviet The first meeting was chaired by Garadja. Sciences. Victor Garadja, director of the Union. Thus it was with a great deal of I read the opening paper, highlighting the interest that I awaited this dialogue. Were similarities and differences between human- Paul Kurtz is professor of philosophy at the perestroika and glasnost genuine? What ism and atheism, particularly Marxist State University of New York at Buffalo, would they mean for secularism and hu- atheism. I pointed out that humanists and and editor of FREE INQUIRY. manism worldwide? Had the "transcendental atheists share some common ground in that temptation" been overcome in the Soviet both are skeptical of belief in God and divine
24 FREE INQUIRY salvation. There are serious differences, moral values. But the philosophical question and we were told that Frolov's daughter was however, that we should not overlook: For emerges: How do we substantiate values? also studying Huxley's form of humanism. humanists it is not enough to reject theism; There is a danger of ethical relativism, where Huxley, the first president of UNESCO, was one must give reasons for one's criticisms. complete freedom runs riot. Freedom is not one of the founders of the IHEU. In Religion Dogmatic atheism—insofar as it merely an end in itself. Values are often irrational; Without Revelation, he maintains that proclaims a priori its disbelief in God—is we cannot use reason alone to justify our humanism is the next stage in human de- insufficient. Many humanists prefer the term values, but we must seek an ontological basis velopment, and that humanistic religion will nontheist to atheist, and some call them- for them. Humanity needs stable social replace theistic systems. The Soviets pointed selves agnostics or skeptics. Accordingly, the norms guided by the need to fulfill the out that classically, many humanists, such key concern is not whether or not one essence of life: to become all that we are as Erasmus, were religious. believes in God, but the grounds for one's capable of becoming. Harry Stopes-Roe of the British Hu- position. Doctrinaire atheism can be as The humanists present agreed that the manist Association attempted to clarify this narrow-minded as dogmatic theism. (Many central issue, once one recognizes that God point: Humanism presents a life-stance, he atheists in the West no doubt agree with the does not exist, is that human beings are alive said, though it is nontheistic. Both religious need to make a carefully reasoned case for and living in the here and now, and that and secular humanists reject belief in God atheism.) The central point at issue is not we need to develop a positive morality. The and consider humanism to be both a cosmic abstract atheism, but the next stage; and this Marxists have said that socialism is the way; outlook and a way of life. I reiterated the is where humanism moves beyond negative humanists have insisted that this must not point that in my view humanism is a atheism to propose a positive ethical out- be at the price of freedom and autonomy. eupraxophy, not a religion; it emphasizes a look. We need to enhance both humanist values naturalistic and scientific view of nature, I introduced the term eupraxophy to and ethical principles, but these should never and, not unlike Marxism, it focuses on praxis show that humanism provides both a cosmic be compromised by the exigencies of power, and conduct. outlook and set of normative ethical as they were by Stalinism. Eugenija Jablo- A central concern expressed in the principles. Indeed, humanism distinctively expresses a "life-stance" or way of life. Its fundamental desire is to preserve and en- If Gorbachev's reforms proceed unabated, they could have hance human freedom; it emphasizes indi- dramatic implications for the entire Communist world, for vidual autonomy in all of its dimensions, from civil liberties and moral freedom to the the Soviets may be moving from militant atheism to tolerant right of privacy. Humanists differ with humanism. But could these radical shifts instead lead to Marxist-Leninists on several points. They believe, for instance, that ethical principles a revival of religious fervor? have a transcultural and universalistic range, no matter what the social system. They kova pointed out that we should not forget discussion was whether human beings can should not be sacrificed at the altar of ideal the Christian principle of agapé, or altruistic live without religion. Are there basic needs ends, nor should they be considered mere love, in any complete ethical theory. I added and functions that only religion satisfy and reflections of the underlying economic and that Anglo-American philosophers in the that cannot be lost? Lev Mitrokhin reviewed social structure. twentieth century have been profoundly the attempt by Soviet atheism to supplant One important question that emerged in concerned about the epistemological basis religion, particularly by providing rites of our discussion was, What is the ethics of of morality. It is widely held today that passage. It introduced "naming celebrations" humanism? In commenting on my paper, although ethical principles are relative to in place of baptism, and civil marriages and Garadja said that the central issue must human interests, needs, and values, in funerals to replace the usual religious concern the foundations of ethics. He developing our ethical standards we appeal ceremonies. These had been designed to pointed out that Marx recognized abstract to criteria that need not be subjective, but serve as substitutes for orthodoxy, but had atheism to be insufficient; Marxist atheism that have some rational basis and may be they succeeded? It was difficult to get was deformed by Stalinism, and Marxists tested by their consequences in experience. accurate statistics from the Soviets. We need to restore moral values to their proper Ivan Frolov, chairman of the Academy of gained the general impression that although sphere. We must go on to another positive Sciences of the USSR Council for Philo- many members of the Communist Party and direction—but true ethics, Garadja said, sophical and Social Problems, recently their families believe that loyalty to the state could best be realized in a Communist published a book called Man—Science— requires the abandonment of orthodox society. Can we find common ground, he Humanism: A New Synthesis, in which he religious ceremonies, many of them still hold asked, with religious theists? The essence of argued for a new moral philosophy of human such ceremonies in private. Although civil humanism, he thought, was to improve life that would be humanistic in its princi- ceremonies are widespread, virtually 100 social conditions for the betterment of ples.2 In it Frolov attempts to fuse Marxism percent of Soviet Muslims and perhaps 50 humanity. with what he calls "real humanism"; the book percent of the Russian Orthodox continue Vladislav N. Sherdakov also focused on is of special interest because Frolov is an to hold religious ceremonies. Clearly, one the problem of ethics. It is not true that influential figure today in the Soviet Union, problem is that militant atheism has been atheists are noble, and believers ignoble, he being one of Gorbachev's three secretaries. rejected by a significant percentage of the said; we must recognize that during Stalin's The relationship of humanism to religion public because it is identified with the time basic human values, including the was raised by several Soviet participants, brutalities of earlier Soviet regimes. sanctity of life, were violated. Atheism can who asked, "Is humanism a religion?" One Another theme discussed at the dialogue be anti-humanist, and the world can see that. professor said that she had read virtually concerned moral freedom for the individual, Thus we must find a solid foundation for everything that Julian Huxley had written, with an emphasis on sexual autonomy. Vern Fall 1989 25 and Bonnie Bullough presented a paper on individuals or seek to legislate moral strictly controlled. Indeed, the Soviet Union this topic entitled "Humanism and Sexual- conduct. One of the charges heard from lags behind Western countries by some fifty ity" (see accompanying article). They pointed right-wing fundamentalists in the West is years in regard to such matters. out that the right to privacy is a basic that atheism and humanism have `cor- After the Russian Revolution there was humanist ethical principle; the state ought rupted" sexual morality—yet in most a good deal of sexual freedom, but Stalin not to interfere in the personal lives of Communist nations, sexual expression is clamped down; one Russian participant Inside the Bureaucratic Quagmire
he dialogue got off to an amusing through and board the plane anyway. "I don't have a room," I said. start. The visa applications of the T Seven minutes before the departure "No problem. We can get you a room Western delegation were being handled time our travel agent ran to the gate, out for one or two hours." by the Wagon Lits, a large travel agency of breath, with our visas! And so we were "How much?" in Utrecht, where the IHEU is head- off. But why the delay? Was it due to "One hundred dollars for each," they quartered. Rob Tielman and Cur de bureaucratic bungling on the part of the replied. Ronde of the Netherlands had visited the embassy, or were the Soviets having "Hmm. Can you get me a room for Russian Embassy in the Hague six weeks second thoughts about our visit? all night?" I asked. before departure and had been assured We arrived in Moscow and retrieved "It can be arranged," they said. "But by the secretary of the embassy that there our baggage, only to encounter another it will cost $150 extra." would be no trouble with receiving visas: disappointment. There was no welcoming I looked at my weary companions We had an official invitation from Boris delegation, though we had been led to strung out all over the hotel lobby. Popov, the Rector of the Soviet Academy believe there would be. And so we hailed "Look," I said, "can you get me seven of Social Sciences. However, departure taxis and directed them to the Hotel rooms? We will pay you $150 a night plus time was approaching and our visas had Kosmos; en route we found, much to our your commission. We are all very tired. not yet been issued, nor were there any chagrin, that our hotel vouchers were not That's all I need." indications from the Russian embassy included in the visa packets we had They replied, "We shall see what we when or indeed if we would actually received from the Soviet Embassy. Later, can do," and left. They never returned. receive them. Our travel agent said this the embassy would say this was the travel Meanwhile, we decided to try the hotel was the embassy's fault. We sent him to agent's fault. At any rate, we weren't too director once again. We were part of an the embassy almost daily to try to correct worried, since the travel agent had official delegation, we said, and we were the situation, but he was met with only assured us that he had made prior desperate. We implored her. Had there blank stares. reservations at the hotel. been any cancellations? We even threat- The day before departure, still with We arrived at 10 P.M., by now quite ened to contact the Dutch and American no visas in sight, Rob Tielman urgently bedraggled. The hotel had no record of Embassies. At last, at 1:30 A.M., the called upon the secretary of the embassy our reservations, and since we did not director said that she had unexpectedly in the Hague for an explanation. The have prepaid vouchers or any Intourist found seven rooms, but only for one secretary apologized: There was no number, they said that there was nothing night. We had to prepay in cash and they problem with our entering the Soviet that they could do. The hotel said this said we must vacate first thing in the Union, except that all of our visa was the fault of our delegates from the morning. Much relieved, we dragged applications had been lost. He doubted Netherlands; later, Intourist would say it ourselves off to bed. that we could complete new applications was the hotel's fault. We would have to The Hotel Kosmos, a "luxury" hotel in time for the next day's departure, and sleep in the lobby that night and most built in 1976 under a contract with the all other flights were booked. He told us likely the next, because, we were told, French, is said to be the best in Moscow. that we had to have all of our documents there were no rooms available anywhere Although comfortable, it was in a bad at the embassy by 9:00 the next morning, in Moscow. Since it was late at night, state of disrepair. The refrigerator did not and not a moment later. We busily no one could be reached at the Institute work in my room; many of the televisions summoned a passport photographer to or at the Academy. Surely we were in were also broken; and the single piece open shop and by 10 P.M. had completed no mood to carry on a dialogue bright of soap that each of us was given was our new visa applications. The next and early the next day. Extensive discus- so small that it could barely be seen. morning our representative was at the sions with the hotel management proved The next morning we departed for the Russian Embassy well before the fruitless. We thought the worst: The Institute hoping to sort things out with appointed time; alas, the embassy per- Soviets did not wish to continue with the the hotel later. (We eventually did, but sonnel did not arrive until 10:30 A.M. Our dialogue. only after protracted negotiations plane was to leave at 12:50 P.M., and the In the hotel lobby, I was approached between the parties concerned.) The Hague was forty-five minutes from by two beautiful Russian prostitutes— dialogue was set for 10 A.M., but we Schipol airport outside of Amsterdam. prostitution is illegal in the Soviet Union, arrived an hour late. We apologized for Tielman again called the Russian they nonetheless ply their trade in the our tardiness and our hosts greeted us Embassy. At 11:30 A.M. we were told that large hotels. at the door and expressed deep regrets the visas were "still being typed by the "Do you want to make love?" one at our difficulties. "It was Intourist's staff." We decided to check our luggage asked. fault," they said. •