Stalin and Lenin's
Herit~ge:
A Controversy
I.
Beat Me, Daddy
DWIGHT MACDONALD
II
.
L
ENIN's HEIR"* is an extraordinary article. It is a unique com–
bination of the worst scientific and ethical features of two philoso–
phies generally considered incompatible: pragmatism and Marxism.
From the former it takes a worship of What Is which makes any
scientific understanding impossible, since it excludes the principle of
change, and which destroys the basis for ethical discrimination, since
whatever "works" is justified by that very fact. From Marx-or
rather from his more doctrinaire followers-Burnham borrows that
dogmatic schematism which forces history into a rigid and "inevitable"
pattern and that determinism (based in his case on Original Sin
rather than economics ) which paralyzes the will to resist evil, for
what is the use of fighting the inevitable? With unerring instinct,
Burnham avoids the useful qualities of these two philosophies: here
is
neither the pragmatist's scrupulous amassing and interpretation of
data, nor the Marxist's understanding of historical change and his
social idealism.
Yes, an extraordinary article. And a significant one. (Not its
least significance is that
it
should appear in a magazine with the
political and cultural traditions of PARTISAN REVIEW-and that, too,
without a word of dissent-in that issue, at least-by the editors. )
Significant not as serious political analysis-for as I shall show, it is
pretentious, ambiguous, and self-contradictory-but rather because
of its author's propagandist talents. In a recent article in
The Amer–
ican Mercury,
Fred Rodell makes the excellent point that Walter
Lippmann is popular because he gives his readers the impression that
he (and they) are doing some profound thinking, while actually he
(and they) are just coasting along in a haze of unfounded assump–
tions, prejudices, and confusions. James Burnham is the Lippmann
*
"Lenin's Heir"
by
James Burnham
(PARTISAN REVIEW,
Winter 1945.)
