186
PARTISAN REVIEW
comes the former's legitimate successor-provided he gets away with
it, of course.
But there is more than Philistine success-worship here. There is
a strongly-felt necessity to present the triumph of Stalinism as his–
torically inevitable
under any circumstances,
and thus a pheno–
menon which it is not only not dishonorable to yield to but even
ridiculous to oppose. "There is not any longer the slightest reason to
believe that the development of communism in power could be ex–
pected to take any course differing except in lesser details from what
it has
in
fact taken in Russia." (Note the usual over-emphasis-"not
the slightest"; and why "not any longer"? Here is another merry–
go-round: Russian communism
had
to tum out as
it
has because it
now can be seen to have "in fact" turned out as it has.) Even if the
"revolutionary regime" had been able to spread to Germany
in
1922-33 (I take "1932-33" in the text as a misprint, since the other
references hereabouts are to the earlier period and since even Bum–
ham would not have the heart to call 1933 Stalinism a "revolutionary
regime"-or would he? Alas, another ambiguity) -even this would
have changed nothing. To state that the extension of communism in
the early years of the Ru&<iian revolution to the most powerful and
industrially advanced nation in Europe would not have altered the
later course of that revolution "except in lesser details"-here is an
almost theological determinism. Revolutions
must
always tum into
their opposite, regardless of any temporal, earthly or merely historical
circumstances. Why must they? The only answer is that human nature
is intrinsically evil ("love of power", etc.) and the only ultimate
basis for a concept of human nature as having innate and unchang–
ing qualities apart from all historicaL and social conditioning is ...
the theological concept of Original Sin.
This final section is necessary to the strategy of the article, is in
fact the crucial "point." For if Stalin has fate on
his
side, if Stalin–
ism is inevitable, then (a) Burnham is morally justified in coming
to terms with it, and (b) those who are fighting and have fought
against
it
in the name of a social ideal can be dismissed as just plain
silly. Trotsky thus becomes a literary romantic, as against the serious
Bolshevist Stalin; and Burnham's animus is directed against the de–
feated revolutionary with whose moral values he agrees, while his
enthusiastic admiration is reserved for the successful butcher of re–
volution, whose morality appalls him. For Burnham simply cannot
conceive a political leader taking his program seriously, any more
than he can imagine an individual acting
in
accordance with
his
per–
sonal values. (I can quite understand his terming my own attitude
