62
PARTISAN REVIEW
cel/ent policy. But is it revolutionary?
We answer
Poetry
as follows: our
program is the program of Marxism,
which in general terms means being
for the revolutionary overthrow of cap-
italist society, for a workers govern-
ment, and for international socialism.
In contemporary terms it implies the
struggle against capitalism in al1 its
modern guises and disguises, including
bourgeois democracy, fascism, and re-
formism (social democracy, Stalinism).
As for the role of literature in the
revolutionary process, we are frankly
skeptical of the old imperatives. Novels
and poems, we think, are rarely weapons
in the class struggle in a sense direct
enough to justify the phrase. Marx-
ism is a guide to action, certainly; and
Marxism can be a guide to literature,
but whether literature itself is, can be,
or should be, typical1y a guide to action
is one of the problems that PARTISAN
REVIEW is dedicated to explore. For
the rest, a literature which "led to
action" without at the same time lead-
ing "to more literature," would not,
we are convinced, be literature at all.
The
Socialist Appeal
regards our
break with Stalinism as the most sig-
nificant fact about PARTISANREVIEW.
We are a sign of the times, of "a revolt
against Stalinism among the intel-
lectuals." They concentrate on the poli-
tical implications of Ripostes and the
editorial, and they ignore completely
the 70-odd pages of literary material
between the two departments. Approv-
ing our rejection of the Stalinist
practice of equating literature with
factional politics, they nevertheless
charge us with having "swung over to
the opposite extreme." In their opinion,
we "propose to remain independent, i.e.
neutral and indifferent, not towards
politics in general, but only towards
the revolutionary politics of the labor
movement." A few more paragraphs
and we are "culpable of ignoring, and
thus denying in practice, the close
bond" between literature and politics.
And finally we are charged with hold-
ing a "conception of its (literature's)
absolute independence." So the
Appeal,
by equating indeJ3endence with indif-
ference, lands us in pure estheticism.
All because we have failed editorially
to decide which "among the tendencies
struggling for supremacy within the
ranks of the American working class
most clearly and consistently fights for
the ideas, interests, and aims of Social·
ism and most faithfully carries on the
best traditions of Marxism? Which must
be considered the vanguard of the
revolutionary movement?"
Let a poet who is also a member of
the Trotskyist organization correct
their over-zealous simplifications and
answer their ultimatist demands. The
following is a letter addressed to the
Appeal
by John Wheelwright, who sent
us a copy. So far the
Appeal
has failed
to publish it.
To the Editors of the
Socialist Appeal:
On December 4 you devoted nearly
a page to the PARTISANREVIEW."We
salute," you began, but your salute
turned into a thumbnose. If your in.
tention be to win the Partisans over,
your lack of tact is in sad contrast to
the
Partisan's
handling of Stalinist
centrism in its review of Horace
Gregory's anthology,
New Letters.
Your review shows no knowledge of
more than the first 4 and the last 3
pages of the magazine, and you must
merely have skimmed through these,
for your say that the Editor blames the
New
r
orker
for being petty-bourgeois,
while as a matter of fact, it is the
New
Masses
and the
Daily Worker
which
he thus accurately characterizes. But
where he is mistaken, you do not cor.
rect him.
"Marxism in culture," he says, "is
first of all an instrument of analysis and
evaluation; and if in the last instance
it prevails over other disciplines, it does
so through the medium of democratic
controversy." This fal1s short of a
revolutionary view of letters. Marxism
is, first, a guide to act. It prevails over
other cultural disciplines because its aid
is indispensable to the creative imagina.
tion. Reciprocally, the creative imagina.
tion guides political action. Such simple
corollaries could have got your reviewer
through the body of the magazine.
Abel on Silone and Wilson on
