You say,” says the Intellectual to his opponent, the Revolutionary, “that at a certain historical moment the specific interest of the working class becomes completely identified with the interests of all of mankind and not only preserves human values but is the only force capable of saving them. But what proofs do you have for this assertion, apart from a vague historico-philosophic speculation? What right do I have, in the name of that speculative dialectic of the future, to renounce at present the highest values of human existence? And experience so far does not confirm your optimism—on the contrary, it shows that this specific interest, as you understand it, is often realized contrary to all human values. And here are examples … The first, the second, the thousandth….
“If you represent a certain historical reality, on what basis do you ask me to affirm it morally? Just because it is a reality? I will not support any form of historical existence solely because somebody persuades me that it is unavoidable—even if I believed in its unavoidability, for which at present there is no evidence. If crime is the law of history, is the realization of this law reason for me to become a criminal?...
For just $19.95 a year, get access to new issues and decades' worth of archives on our site.
Print + Online
For $35 a year, get new issues delivered to your door and access to our full online archives.