6
PARTISAN REVIEW
is a critical complement to "leftism" in poetry and fiction. Schachner
fails to see literature as a procc!'s,
!'O
much so that he absurdly identifies the
"commg of age" of American literature with the unemployed demonstra–
tion of March 6, 1930.
Thou~h
he shuttles from a purely literary to a
purely political point of view, never integrating the two, his emphasis
throughout is schematically political.
"Leftism" is not an accidental practice, nor can it be regarded merely
as youthful impetuosity. Its literary "[ne" sterns from the understanding
of Marxism as mechanical materialism. In philosophy, mechanical ma–
terialism assumes a direct determinism of the whole superstructure by the
economic foundation, ignoring the dialectical interaction between conscious–
ness and environmcnt, and the recipro: al influence of the parts of the
superstructure on each other and
0:1
the economic determinants. The
literary counterpart of mechani<;al materialism faithfully reflects this vul–
garization of Marxism. But its effects strike even deeper: it paralyzes
the writer's capacities by creating a dualism between his artistic conscious–
ness and his beliefs, thus making it impossible for him to achieve anything
beyond fragmentary, marginal expression.
At the ether extreme wc find a right-wing tendency, which is equally
unsuccessful in imaginatively recreating the proletarian movement. The
right-wing writer is usually very productive, but his work differs but
slightly from that of liberal bourgcois writers. His acceptance of the
revolutionary philosophy is half-hearted, though he makes sporadic use
of it. The source of his attitude and practice is political fence-straddling,
disinterest in Marxism, and lack of faith in the proletariat.
In fiction the novels of Dos Passos are a prototype of this viewpoint.
Several of our younger poets have adopted the obscurantism of the verse
in the bourgeois-esthetic little magazines. Horace Gregory's criticism, not
to mention his attempts at revolutionary poetry, clearly exemplifies this
semi-revolutionary approach, which really amounts to little more than
liberalism. He is very open-minded to revolutionary ideas, but that alone
does not constitute a Marxian orientation.
We realize, of course, that on their way to the revolution many
fellow-travelers must inevitably tread this path. Nor would it be correct
for Marxists to taunt and bludgeon them when their pace is slow. But
passivity is equally incorrect. It must always be remembered that the
fellow-travelers are trailing, not leading the literary movement, and our
critics must not only make this clear but must give them concrete direc–
tion in order to help them overcome their backward views as quickly as
possible.
No doubt many fellow-travelers resent criticism, especially
