208
PARTISAN REVIEW
2. Reply by Mr. Farrell
Sirs:
Partly because I characterized him as a Philistine, Max Eastman is
fearful lest I some day execute him without trial. He seems to believe that
I am capable of becoming such a moral monster, and such a fool, that I
might one day want to shoot people for the "crime" of "Philistinism"–
in other words that I might in the future desire practically to depopulate
the globe. He also accuses me of concocting amalgams. But it seems to
me that Eastman himself, in his letter, has forged a double amalgam. The
first one is a self-amalgam, apparently calculated to bolster his own posi·
tion and prestige. With or without authority, he names himself spokesman
for the following intellectuals-Lewis Corey, Louis Hacker, Sidney Hook,
John Dos Passos, James Burnham, Alexander Harmine, Boris Souvarine
and Max Nomad. He presents himself and these men as a group devoted
"to the cause of the exploited and the ideal of democracy." His second
amalgam consists of the editors of PARTISAN REVIEW, myself, and others
un-named, presumably both wings of the Trotskyist movement. My group
is a "little gang of sectarian bigots" which cares nothing for the workers
or for human freedom: we are merely interested in our own ideas and
emotions. Thanks to these amalgams, Eastman permits himself to estab·
lish himself as a democrat who is fighting totalitarianism. He can thereby
turn his answer to my criticism of him into a defense of democracy.
Forcing the issues into this framework is ridiculous on its face. The men
whom Eastman lists form no cohesive group. Among them, there are
serious disagreements which are basic in character. Some of these men,
for instance Louis Hacker and James Burnham, have attacked each other
most sharply. It is even doubtful whether or not some members of this
group would even say hello to one another. And neither is my "little gang
of sectarian bigots" a gang or a group. It is well known to readers of this
magazine that the editorial board of PARTISAN RF:'VIEW is split on the war
question. One of the editors, Philip Rahv, is decidedly more in agreement
with Max Eastman on the war than he is with either Dwight Macdonald or
myself. While Macdonald and I are in agreement concerning the proposi·
tion that socialism is the only solution to the problems posed by contem·
porary society, we do not agree on the character of fascist economy. The
Trotskyist movement is split, and both wings of it attack PARTISAN REVIEW.
I•inally, I bear no responsibility in the editing of this magazine, and I
speak only for myself. Nonetheless, Eastman turns us all into a group
which wants, practically, to take power, establish totalitarianism, and
even to muifer him.
Max Eastman once defended the basic programme of socialism: he
no longer does. In the past, his criticism of Marxism was methodological.
He criticized Marxism with the expressed aim of freeing it from the in·
fluence of German metaphysics and thereby, of giving it a more grounded
scientific validity. He now criticizes Marxism in order to save the human
