274
ture of permanent literature in your
chosen field, the political-intellectual
field, can you not draw the necessary
conclusions from it in your future poli–
cies? Instead of hopelessly clinging to
the infantilism, the cheat, the nothing–
ness of leftism ... why can't you be–
come simple and clear even in the
measure of your ignorance? . . . "
Zack Edward (Brooklyn) insists that
Burnham "defies refutation. What is
one to do with an argument that states
'Stalin has openly flouted every prin–
ciple of communism-yet Stalin is
communism'? It may be that Stalin's
success is due to his departure from
the forms of communist thought.
If
so,
how can these forms be held respon–
sible for their own inversion at Stalin's
hands? ... Burnham comes fairly close
to advocating abandonment of conscious
political principles as such and to a
quasi-masochistic prostration (the while
he protests) before the sheer vulgar
might of anti-rational forces which are
enjoying (at what a cost to Man!)
what any hillbilly will recognize as
"success."
"Lenin left no heir. . . . While he
did not bequeath his leadership to
Trotsky, the only putative will extant
(unfortunately not admitted to pro–
bate) specifically disinherited Stalin.
Let us not bemuse ourselves with the
narrow question of transmission of the
actuality of political power, which
Lenin, in any case, did not possess dur–
ing the last year of his life. Of far
greater importance, he left a body of
ideas . . . summing up a lifetime of
political thinking and experience. This
body of knowledge Lenin neither as–
signed nor bequeathed but left in trust,
as it were, in perpetuity to whosoever
could best make use of it for the bet–
terment of society. . . . "
Henry M. Paechter (New York) sent
a long communication, entitled "In
PARTISAN REVIEW
Defense of Don Quixote," from which
we quote a few paragraphs: "Being no
Trotskyite or former Trotskyite, I feel
that I am the right person to protest
against Mr. Burnham's article. . . .
Trotsky refused to admit that Stalin,
by the fact of having occupied Lenin's
place, is Lenin's heir. He called him
mediocre because a man who is given
a chance to liberate humanity and is
satisfied with extending the frontiers of
Russia, is, by all standards of Quixotic
thinking, mediocre. He called him a
traitor because a man who was as–
signed the duty of administering a
Quixotic party and chose to usurp pow–
er for himself is a traitor.
"Whether Trotsky was right or
wrong in his charges against the wis–
dom and efficiency of Stalin's policy is
indifferent. He was right in applying
the standard of judgment by which a
man is great or mediocre according to
the historical conception which he tries
to realize. . . . Mr. Burnham now en–
joins us to abandon these useful cate–
gories of mind. . . . In exchange he
offers the categories of achievement and
efficiency. We are to accept them on
pain of ridicule. His criterion of effi–
ciency is enormousness. History, he says,
is made by gigantic criminals, and
everything else is a literary squabble....
"Mr. Burnham still professes to dis–
like the managers and Stalin. But he
likes efficiency and admires efficient men.
He believes in making "History," "great–
ness," "objective Law." Dostoevsky
16ved Christ and hated the Grand In–
quisitor; hence he was able to expose
victorious mediocrity. Burnham at his
best has hate-love for his efficient man–
agers. Hence his value-judgments are
at variance with his historical appre–
ciation, his categories are confused and
his surrender to "realism" is disgust–
ing."
