184
PARTISAN REVIEW
evaluates the past by extending the present backward. Thus Stalin,
it appears, has always been a Great Man- Burnham gracefully
acknowledges that he discovered Stalin's immanent greatness "rather
late in the day"- because he
is
now successful.
If
the Red Army had
continued to retreat instead of being able to take the offensive; or
if, in future, Russia's onward course
is
checked (for even Great Men
sometimes fail,
vide
Hitler), then Burnham will once more have to
reinterpret the past. The similarity of this kind of thinking to Stalinist
history-writing is obvious.
That Trotsky underestimated Stalin and that he did not under–
stand the historical nature of Stalinism- here I am in agreement with
Burnham. But if I had to choose between Trotsky's estimate of Stalin
and Burnham's, I should choose the former as closer to the truth.
Aside from the banquets and frame-ups, Burnham gives two main
reasons for thinking that Stalin is a Great Man on the scale of Lenin:
( 1) His "geopolitical vision," which is described in so flimsy
and pretentious a paragraph that it is hard to believe Burnham wrote
it for a presumably sophisticated audience. This "geopolitical vision"
resides, first, in the fact that Russia is Mackinder's "heartland" (but
I think God, not Stalin, should get the credit for that), and, second,
in the equally indubitable fact that Russia is now extending her
power in all directions. (Again the logical merry-go-round: Stalin is
a genius because Russia is powerful, and the fact that Russia is power–
ful proves his genius.)
· (2) The alleged theory of "multi-national Bolshevism" which
is said-with Burnham's usual scientific caution-to rank with Trot–
sky's theory of permanent revolution and Marx's theory of the state.
On definition, this simmers down to the use of indigenous political
movements inside various countries to further the imperialistic inter–
ests of Russia. It is thus not a theory but a tactic. And even as a
tactic, it has been standard practice at least since the Peloponnesian
War (see Thucydides on the siege of Megara for a specially striking
example) . But perhaps the novelty is the use of
Bolshevist
parties for
such work? The point, however,
is
precisely that the various Com–
munist movements are
not
Bolshevik by any reasonable definition.
In which of all the countries Burnham mentions--from China to
Greece and the USA-can he show us a C.P. which aims even at
collectivized economy, let alone the workingclass socialism which the
Bolshevists tried to realize? Of course, by
his
definition of Bolshevism,
which reduces it to a simple conspiracy to seize power, he can show
Bolshevism everywhere. But then if he uses
his
definition, he has no
right to praise Stalin for the "theory of multi-national Bolshevism,"
