8
PARTISAN REVIEW
read with pleasure"; in fact, "when he is teasing Stalin he is ex–
tremely amusing." But this writer fears that the opponents of Stalin
are only "armchair critics"; and he inquires, profoundly: "Was
there ever a critic who couldn't do better than the man in power?"
We are not going to try to assess the degree to which Eliot is
responsible for this sort of frippery from his contributors; and
if
we
were to attempt such an estimate, it would not constitute our last
word on Eliot. Let us merely record our regret at the disappearance
of
The Criterion,
and our fear that its passing will not alter, for
worse or better, the literary situation in England. "It will perhaps
need more severe affliction than we have yet experienced," Eliot says,
"before life can be renewed."
HELLO, REFORM!
In 1931 John Chamberlain wrote a book
called
Farewell to Reform,
in which he pro–
nounced a valedictory-backed up by some excellent historical docu–
mentation-to reformism as an effective technique for social change
in this country. He showed pretty convincingly why Bryan's populism,
T.R.'s trust-busting, and Wilson's "New Freedom" hacl come to
naught in the end. Since then, much has happened both to this
country and to Mr. Chamberlain. The former has enjoyed six years
of the New Deal, and the latter has enjoyed an increasing reputation
as a liberal journalist. Not so long ago, Mr. Chamberlain publicly
recanted his youthful heresies and publicly hailed the Roosevelt
Revolution. The criticisms he once directed against reformism he
now, logically enough, turns full blast against Marxism.
For a time, after his recantation, Mr. Chamberlain was merely
one more general dealer in scepticism-a commodity that is finding
a ready sale among liberals these days. Lately, however, he seems to
have been working towards something which, if it cannot be called
a positive program, at least represents a systematization of his doubts.
His new slogan, and a most intriguing one, too, is: "Towards a Per–
manent NEP !" The theory of the permanent NEP is worth ex–
amining, less for its intrinsic value, than because of the extraordinary
range of its author's journalistic influence. The left liberals he
reaches through the
New Republic,
in whose literary section he writes
leading reviews. He speaks to the centrist liberals in frequent con–
tributions to
Common Sense.
Every month he communicates
with
some hundred thousand right liberals via
Harper's,
whose book sec–
tion he has just taken over. And he talks-though in the muffied
tones of well-paid anonymity-to another hundred thousand captains
