610
vocal representative of this sect;
(3) And, finally, the position of the
liberals, to which Mr. Eulau's re–
buttal gives a rather rambling ex–
pression. Our criticisms of each of
these may serve to define more
clearly the position which was im–
plicit in our editorial.
The Trotskyites: The Eternal
Third Camp
The Trotskyites, let us begin by
paying them that compliment, are
entirely logical-unfortunately, it is
the logic of lunacy, a logical struc–
ture which does not correspond at
any point with reality as we know
it from the disasters of the last de–
cades.
If
you believe, as the Trotskyites
still do, that the masses are at
present capable of overthrowing
both capitalism and Stalinism, then
it is entirely logical for you to de–
clare a "plague on both their hous–
es" and attack both democratic
capitalism and totalitarian Stalin–
ism as equivalent evils. The obvi–
ous facts, however, are that the
masses have nowhere shown them–
selves capable of overthrowing a
modern dictatorship, with its de–
veloped police systems and its high–
ly refined instruments of suppres–
sion, and that, moreover, the mass–
es-in America and even more in
Europe-have shown but little ca–
pacity for distinguishing between
Stalinism and socialism. And even
if by some miracle the old order
could now be completely destroyed,
there still remains one of the basic
questions of our period: what rea–
son is there to believe that the
new society will not repeat the pat–
tern of Stalinism by creating a new
PARTISAN REVIEW
ruling elite and a new form of
oppression? Not only have the
Trotskyites failed to present a
sin–
gle scrap of evidence-or theory
-to show that the masses are able
to accomplish
their own revolution
and retain control of it, but they
do not even seem to be interested
in the question.
All the Trotskyites have to of–
fer is a monotonous repetition of
Lenin's precepts, which came out
of an earlier and totally different
historical situation, and which they
now flaunt as some kind of "revo–
lutionary purity." Hence the con–
temptuous reference we hear once
again from that quarter to "the
choice of the lesser evil." By this
verbal sleight of hand they sur–
reptitiously place democratic capi–
talism and Stalinist totalitarianism
on the same plane, as if the evils
of the two systems were really com–
parable, when in fact no compari–
son is possible. Between the two
the·re is the incommensurability of
life and death: the difference be–
tween life with all its continuing,
that is to say, historical, evils, but
still with some possibility of deli–
verance, and the final and an–
nihilating rigidity of death.
These epigones who invoke the
name of Trotsky so often and with
such awe would do well to ponder
the fact that, shortly before his
murder, Trotsky declared that if
the Second World War passed
without bringing about a general
socialist revolution then the whole
Marxist scheme would have to be
recast from the bottom up. And he
added that some program of mini–
mum demands would have to be
