AN EXCHANGE
I cannot give Burke credit for his socialist intentions--not yet. I
am preparcd to give him credit, if he asks for it, for not taking pennies
from a blind man's c.uP or not scalping his grandmother. But I refuse
to give him credit for his
"socialism"-until
I know what kind of social-
ism he believes in!
Does he believe in a socialism in which judicial and extra-judicial
frame-ups are the order of the day? If not, why does he accept and
defend the most monstrous frame-ups in all history-the Moscow trials?
Does he believe in a socialism in which the dictatorship of a minority
party, subject to the dictatorship of a bureaucracy, subject in turn to
the dictatorship of its secretariat, enjoys a monopoly of
all
political
power? If not, why his impatience and scorn for those whom he calls
Utopians-who affirm that socialism without democracy is not socialism?
Does he believe in a socialism in which all art, science and philoso-
phy are regimented by party-dogmas, imposed by authority and imple-
mented by the threat of force? If not, why has he failed to protest the
literary pogroms of the Communist Party, of which he is a leading
fellow-traveller, against socialist intellcctuals who hold that critical in-
tegrity is part of the socialist way of life?
Does he believe in the apotheosis of Stalin to a point which makes
every political cult of adoration in the past, including that of Czarism,
pale in comparison? If not, why does he write of him as he does? Why
does he add his stammering note of spite to the Communist Party abuse
of socialists who hold that Stalin's actions must be evaluated by socialist
ideals? Why, when I charge him with accepting the political perspective
of Stalinism, does he retort that he loves the U.S.S.R.? Are Stalin and
the U.S.S.R. one and the same to him? What would he think of an
American patriot who would meet a political criticism of Roosevelt with
the retort that he loved America?
There are many other questions I would like to have answered be-
fore I can give Burke credit for his socialism.
In closing I wish to repeat the conclusion of my review. There are
some social and political perspectives to-day which a critic cannot take
without doing great harm to his craftsmanship. We have a right to ex-
pect more from Burke than from people like Granville Hicks whose intel-
lectual reach, by a divine charity, extends no further than their near-
sighted piety. That is why I took Burke seriously.
SIDNEY HOOK
47
