t . 'AP-SHOOTERS .sj a rfr. ,— Mr. Hobsbawn is merely absurd. Sociology,
ducit being anything approaching an exact science, es not have terminology laid down by some
Bureau of Standards and with a ban against anyone using the words differently. 'Conservative' may have—more or less—only one meaning, as there is only one way of standing still. But 'progressive' has always been vague: there are many ways of moving, with various ideas about which of them constitutes an advance.
Moreover, even within his own vocabulary, he has got completely muddled up. His own use of the word 'colonialist' seems to be unthinking cant: or does he not regard the powers that supported Mr. Gizenga- rulers of alien territories from Latvia to Tibet—as 'colonialist'? And if so why not?
Mr. Walter's letter further shows that there is in fact no rigour even among those who would agree with Mr. Hobsbawn. He speaks of the reform move- ment within the Soviet Union as 'left-wing.' In fact, throughout the Communist world as well as outside it, the reformists and revisionists are referred to as 'right-wing' and the dogmatists and Stalinists as 'left-wing.'
Let us have a little less of this pretentious pseudo- sociology. The attempt to deal with politics as if it was an area with only one important variable, to be represented on a single axis from left to right, is sufficient indication of the quality of mind involved.
Previous page
