Erich Fromm - May Man Prevail?: An Inquiry into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy

EARLY BIRD BOOKS

FRESH EBOOK DEALS, DELIVERED DAILY

LOVE TO READ ?

LOVE GREAT SALES ?

GET FANTASTIC DEALS ON BESTSELLING EBOOKS

DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX EVERY DAY!

There is little disagreement among responsible political leaders that the United States and the whole Western world are passing through a dangerous period. Even though opinions vary on the degree of these dangers, there is a widely shared conviction that we have a clear and realistic picture of the situation, that we are meeting it as adequately as we can, and that there is no essentially different course of action we can take. The premises on which this opinion of the world situation is based are largely the following:

Communism, represented by the Soviet Union and China, is a revolutionary-imperialist movement out to conquer the world by force or subversion. Its industrial and military development has made the Communist camp, and particularly the Soviet Union, into a powerful rival, capable of destroying our human and industrial potential to a considerable degree. This bloc can be restrained from executing its wish for world conquest solely by the knowledge that any such attempt would be met with a counterblow that would destroy or cripple its human and economic potential. In this deterrent capacity lies the only hope for peace since Russia will abstain from her attempt at world conquest only because of fear of our deterrent. As long as we have a sufficiently strong deterrent power and military allies around the world, peace is secured.

Within this general concept, opinions vary widely. There are those who consider that while nuclear warfare may kill 60 to 70 million Americans it will not destroy or seriously transform our form of life. There are others who consider the probability of losses of 100 to 150 million casualties as being more realistic. There are those who are in favor of disarmament negotiations from a position of strength, while others look at any kind of disarmament negotiations as a futile exercise in propaganda. There are those who are for limited steps toward arms control, like the cessation of nuclear tests, while there are others who consider any such step a threat to our security. There are those who favor a nuclear strategy of counterforce aimed at the enemys missile bases, and those who favor a second strike stable deterrent, aimed at the population centers, and still others who try to combine both strategies. (Although this combination may deprive both approaches of their alleged advantages.) Views also differ in various sectors of our policy-making groups. Under the Eisenhower administration, the State Department and the President took a somewhat more conciliatory line with regard to the cessation of testing and arms control, while the military and the Atomic Energy Commission have then and now taken a less conciliatory stand. The various armed services differ among themselves in strategic concepts. Each espouses a concept that provides the most room for its own expansion and at the same time makes some compromises with its two competing services.

In spite of these differences, however, most responsible political leaders and the majority of the population seem convinced of the correctness of the basic premises of our policy and appear willing to continue in the direction we have taken. Indeed they are certain that there is no other possible coursein fact, that every other course is more conducive to war than the one we are taking. This position is buttressed by the conviction that our policy is not only the sole hope for physical survival, but that it is also the only one recommended by moral and spiritual considerations. They believe that we and our allies represent freedom and idealism, while the Russians and their allies represent servitude and materialism. The assumption is made that the risk of even war and destruction must be taken because it is better to die than to be slaves.

When executing a policy based on these premises, anyone who knows the dangers involved for us and for the whole world will have a heavy heart, but few doubts. He will be convinced that we are doing the best we can, and that there is no other course of action which can protect us better from war or enslavement.

If, however, the premises on which our policy is based are erroneous then, indeed, we would be taking a course of action that no human being with some sense of responsibility and duty could dare to recommend. Hence, we have the intellectual and moral obligation to question the correctness of these premises again and again. I wish to contribute to this questioning. I shall try to demonstrate the reasons for my conviction that many of the premises on which our policy is based are untrue, that many of our assumptions are fictitious or distorted, and hence that we are running with confused minds into the gravest danger for ourselves and the rest of mankind.

Many a reader may be surprised or shocked by some of my statements and conclusions; all I ask of him is that he keep an open mind, and that he follow my argument with a minimum of emotional bias. After all, most of us share two concerns: we do not want an all-destructive war, and we do want the ideas of human dignity and individualism to be kept alive on this earth. I will try to demonstrate that peace is still possible and that the humanist tradition has, still, a future.

I want to express my gratitude to Roger Hagan who has not only helped me in the gathering of historical material but has made many important critical and constructive suggestions in reference to the whole manuscript. I also owe sincere thanks to Michael Maccoby who has contributed valuable suggestions, especially to the chapter on disarmament; and to Harrop Freeman who took time out of a heavy schedule to read the manuscript thoroughly and to make important suggestions. I also thank David Riesman and Stewart Meacham for reading the manuscript shortly before the final printing and for making significant suggestions and criticisms.

E. F.

Societies have lives of their own; they are based on the existence of certain productive forces, geographical and climatic conditions, techniques of production, ideas and values, and a certain type of human character that develops under these conditions. They are organized in such a way that they tend to continue existing in the particular form to which they have adapted themselves. Usually, men in each society believe that the mode in which they exist is natural and inevitable. They hardly see any other possibilities and, in fact, they tend to believe that a basic change in their own mode of existence would lead to chaos and destruction. They are seriously convinced that their way is right, sanctioned by the gods or by the laws of human nature, and that the only alternative to the continuation of the particular form in which they exist is destruction. This belief is not simply the result of indoctrination; it is rooted in the affective part of man, in his character structure, which is molded by all social and cultural arrangements so that man