and says so frequently, that “there isnno undemocratic road to sociahsm;nthere are only undemocratic roads thatncan bring, and have brought, nationsnto barbaric mockeries of the socialistnideas.” Why, then, is relatively littienthought gien to the resistance of thensocialist ideal to the numerous attemptsnto realize it? Why the determinedninsistence that the distortion ofnthese ideals, in the process of theirnattempted realization, is no reflectionnon the alidity, the substance of thenideals themsehes?nI suppose the situation is somewhatnsimilar to the position belieers mayntake toward the ideals of Christianit}’.nThese ideals, too, remain noble aspirationsneen if unrealized, even ifnthere were bloody crusades, inquisitions,ncorrupt popes and bishops. Butnperhaps there is a difference. At leastnin more recent times, the applicationnof religious ideals to personal behaiornhas been a pri”ate matter, one ofnindividual choice rather than organizedncompulsion. Hence the distortion,nor failure of religious alues tonenrich personal and social existencenhad a less obious impact. (Moreover,nChristianity—unlike socialism—hasninspired and created great works ofnart.) By contrast, attempts to translatensocialist ideals into reality have ‘beennhighly organized and coercive,ntouching — indeed wrenching—thenlives of hundreds of millions of people.nHence the issue of the discrepancynbetween socialist theory and practice isnfar more consequential in our times.nAn interesting development prolonging,nand explaining in large measure,nthe survival of socialist ideals andntheories has been their gradual transformationnfrom a public belief and ansocial-political program into a cherishedncode of personal morality. Whilennot many people, including Howe andnHeilbroner, anticipate the realizationnof socialist ideals in the foreseeablenfuture in any existing society or identifiablenhistorical setting, many derivencomfort and a more positive self-conceptionnfrom preserving socialistnideals.nTo profess being a socialist today innthe United States is not so much tonmake a commitment to a specific politicalnparty, movement, or program,nbut rather to bolster one’s self-imagenand self-esteem. It makes some peoplenfeel good to think of themselves asnsocialist, especially if such selfidentificationnreaches back into theirnyouth and is colored by associationnwith youthful vitality and idealism.nFor many people, “socialist” has simplyncome to mean decent, generous,nsharing, or humane, particularly whennsuch values are critically contrastednwith capitalist ones.nThe surviving attachment of Westernnintellectuals to socialism has assumednan irrational, somewhat dutifulnand increasingly emotional character.nHowe’s recollections illustrate thisnpoint: “Even after many of us decidednthat running socialist candidates oncenthere was barely a socialist movementnhad become a humiliating ritual . . .neven then it was still emotionally hardnto go to the polls and pull down annold-partv’ lever. Hie first time I didnthat, voting in 1952 for Adlai Stevenson,nI came out of the voting boothnalmost phvsically sick.”nAlthough Howe is well aware of thenemotional roots of the attachment tonthese ideas, he still clings to them.n”They became socialists because theynwere moved to fervor b’ the call tonbrotherhood and sisterhood; becausenthe world seemed aglow with the visionnof a time in which humanitynmight live in justice and peace.” Thisnbeing said, it is necessary to point outnthat Howe has littie in common withnMarxist-Leninist True Believers; unlikenthem, he is well aware of thenflawed assumptions which shapednmany contemporary socialist systems:n”A ‘complete’ transformation of humanitynis a corrupt fantasy that cannlead to a mixture of terror and apathy.”nHe is also keen on the separation ofnpolitical and economic power and isnwell aware of the incompatibility betweenndemocratic politics and “thenpathos and excitement of revolutionarynmovements.”nIf there is one article of faith Howencontinues to embrace, it is the abolitionnof private ownership over thenmeans of production. He writes: “Socialismnshould be envisaged as a societynin which the means of production,nto an extent that need not be rigidlyndetermined in advance, are collectivelynor socially owned—which meansndemocratically controlled.” It is preciselynthe combination of such “collectivenownership” with democraticnnnEARLY MUSICnby Rudolph SchirmernEarly music, light and pearly.nWoke me by a waterfall:nMusic I remember fondlynAnd whole-heartedly recall.nPearly music, faintiy sounding.nTrimmed the stages of the night.nTuned the moon to milder shiningnAnd the stars to softer lightnEarthly music, bright and early.nNoted when the dew is rife.nWoke me slylv’ and politelynTo the consonance of life.nRudolph Schirmer is a poet andnmusic publisher.ncontrol that has proved the most elusivenin practice.nHeilbroner’s book represents thenother side of the equation necessary fornunderstanding the enduring appeals ofnsocialism: a sophisticated analysis ofnthe ills of capitalism, rooted in Marxiannperspectives and categories. Althoughnmuch of this book isndescriptive-analytical rather thannmoralizing-evaluative, it is not hard tondiscern the judgmental elements.nHeilbroner, like Marx (and more recentiynMarshall Berman), is preoccupiednwith the unique and not altogethernwholesome dynamism ofncapitalism, “its historically uniquensearch for generalized surplus,” or then”endless quest for aggrandizement.” Ansomewhat overdrawn and mystifiednportrait of capitalism emerges—I amnalmost tempted to call it “reified.”nCuriously enough, despite the attentionnpaid to the origins, dynamics,nand attitudes associated with capitalism,nand despite some fleeting referencesnto Weber, Heilbroner skips overnthe Weberian theories of capitalist motivationnand acquisitiveness and theirnreligious aspects. Notwithstanding thengenerally neutral language and thenunderstated approach, Heilbronernclearly envisions capitalism as a rathernmalevolent system, which “characteristicallv”nmasks its functions. He alsonAUGUST 1986/21n