"LIBERAL" FIFTH COLUMN
289
in our time. Perhaps they are the most incorrigible of myth addicts
as still to believe that Russia is socialist in fact or tendency? Then
they put themselves beyond the pale of serious consideration, they lose
authority to speak seriously on any issue, since they will obviously
be immune to any and all facts whenever convenient for them. When
J.
A.
del Vayo recently stated that "after all, Russia
is
socialist," he
demonstrated only that
The Nation,
which is currently paying his
expenses for a European tour, might keep a tighter fist on its check–
book. Nobody is going to believe that a man who makes this state–
ment will be able to report on even the most obvious political matters
abroad. But if Russia were really socialist "after all" (after what?
one wonders; even del Vayo cannot make the statement without some
repressed demurrer), and the "liberals" are pro-Russian because they
are socialists, then why shouldn't they be unequivocally and openly
for Russian expansion? Why stop at their present mealy-mouthed
and squirming rationalizations instead of declaring openly they want
Stalinism to engulf Iran; the Balkans; Europe to the Rhine; yes, to
the Atlantic-and then why stop there? Instead of smirking slyly at
their discomfitures, the "liberals" should root
o~nly
for the check–
mate of Byrnes and Bevin whenever this pair goes into conference
against Molotov. 'But you really ask too much of me,' the "liberal"
pops up at this point, 'you ask me to be
unequivocal!
We know that
Stalinism is "after all" socialism, and we "liberals" are all secretly
socialist at heart, and that is why we condone Stalin's socialist im–
perialism; (Stalin showed us there can be "proletarian millionaires,"
and why not then "socialist imperialism"?); but we distinguish be–
tween condoning and declaring openly for expansion, we are careful
only to condone Russian expansion because "after all" Stalinism may
not be socialism and how can we be sure we are really socialists?'
No; however you try to cast up the "liberal" accounts, you can–
not make them come out right, you can find no consistent principle
behind their support of Russia. We are left with the third category
(their behavior obviously removes them from the second) : the
"liberals" can only be described as Russian patriots.
We therefore call them a Fifth Column. We do not mean by
this that they are officially designated and paid by this foreign power;
nor do we claim to say what the term of their services will be. Their
services are probably altogether too spontaneous and "pure." But this
does not mitigate their guilt for a campaign of concealment, misrep–
resentation, and deception in the interest of a foreign power-all the
more reprehensible in being without any other discoverable principle
