LIONS AND FOXES
195
he admits ca.o;ually that "Trotsky underestimated Stalin and that he
did not understand the historical nature of Stalinism," but he im–
mediately drops this question, which is after all, one of the chief
points in Burnham's article, by implying that he prefers Trotsky's
errors to Burnham's; he exhumes Burnham's false predictions as
though his own record in the matter of predictions were spotless;
and he glosses over the rather interesting fact that he shares some of
Burnham's basic theories, especially on the nature of the Russian and
German bureaucracy. And throughout his piece is the implicit as–
sumption that socialism
is
coming soon, that its theory and practice
are basically sound-all we need is a little patience.
Before going into these questions, however, I should like to
comment briefly on some relatively minor aberrations:
1. Macdonald's references to the philosophy of pragmatism are
shockingly misinformed, stemming apparently from the vulgarized
notion that pragmatists believe everything that "works" is true. Nor
does pragmatism exclude the principle of
change.
The pragmatic
theory of knowledge
is
perhaps best stated in Dewey's concept of
"operational consequences," according to which the meaning and
validity of ideas are to be understood ·in terms of their relevant
theoretical and practical effects.
2. The suggestion that Burnham's politics are to be explained–
or rather, explained away-by some father urge
is
question-beggmg,
and dangerous besides. How mqny times have I heard Lenin's revolu–
tionary activities reduced to a need to avenge his brother's execution!
Also, it might be noted that the great doctrine of psychoanalysis was
not intended either by Freud or his legitimate followers as a method
of
exposing
people, but rather as a means of illuminating certain
areas of experience.
3. Macdopald . makes some fuss over the fact that Burnham's
piece appeared in
PARTISAN
REVIEW without an editorial comment
in the same issue.
Surely Macdonald cannot be
sd
insecure in his posi–
tion as to fear that all might be lost
if
our dissent appeared some
months later! It must be that Macdonald has not gotten over the
old sectarian practice of party organs, which dictated that when a
piece disagreeing with the "editorial line" was published, the editors
must immediately warn their readers to pay no attention to it and
explain that it was printed only for decorative purposes.
I said earlier that Macdonald disposed of Trotsky's underestima–
tion of Stalin by suggesting that he preferred Trotsky's errors to Burn–
ham's. Actually,
this
is not true, for Macdonald patently prefers those
of Burnham. On innumerable occasions Macdonald has challenged
