BEAT ME, DADDY
185
since if Bolshevism is conceived of as simply a power-grabbing tech–
nique and is stripped of its international socialist program, then there
is nothing very wonderful in "reconciling" it with nationalism.
2.
So far I have confined myself to the first two-thirds of "Lenin's
Heir." It is difficult to say exactly what Burnham is "getting at" in
these pages. Stalin exists, he says, he is powerful and successful, there–
fore we must accept him. In what sense "accept" him?
As
part of the
real world-arid right now a very important part?
It
hardly requires
an article to prove that, and yet that seems to be all that Burnham
is saying if we read him only on the rational level. Scientifically, his
article would seem to be one big platitude (with all sorts of illogical
and self-contradictory sideshows, some of which we have just an–
alyzed).
But Burnham is saying a lot more than that; in fact, the "point"
of
his
article
ic;
not at all in its scientific-rational part but in its moral
evaluations of Stalinism and its opponents. Here we confront a fresh
set of ambiguities. Now ambiguity may be effectively used in litera–
ture, as Henry James shows us, but it is rarely a virtue in political
analysis. There are at least three mutually contradictory "readings"
that may be made of "Lenin's Heir." It can be read as an anti-Stalinist
article; it can be read as a lefthanded apology for Stalinism, designed
to paralyze all opposition by suggesting that Stalin's world triumph
is inevitable; or it can be read as an ironic, even quasi-anarchistic,
debunking of the whole concept of great men and power politics (for
are they not presented as morally repugnant?). It can be read in all
three ways because Burnham has all three attitudes at once: he wants
to fight against Stalinism, he wants to submit to it, and he wants to
complain about it. All three attitudes exist, but it is my opinion that
the second is the one which subjectively motivated Burnham to write
the article and which is conveyed to the reader most strongly and
consistently by the article.
The clue seems to me to reside in the final section, in which
Burnham argues the thesis that gives him his title: that Stalinism is
the direct and organic continuation of Bolshevism. This section ap–
pears at first glance to be irrelevant to the main theme and tacked
on almost as an afterthought. For whether Stalin is a Burnhamian
"Great Man" and whether he is Lenin's heir are separate questions.
But one notices that
for Burnham they are not separate:
"As Stalin
expands in size before us, we can more readily grant his legitimate
succession." Thus if a man is robbed by his partner, the latter be-
