Sirs:
I've been getting PARTISAN REVIEW
for some time now and have increas–
ingly thought that PR, with
Hori<;on,
represents an authentic cultural voice,
one the voice of the very-consciously–
liberal American and the other of the
cynical but trying-very-hard-to-be-lib–
eral
"ciVilize~'''
Briton. There is a
similarity. I like both magazines and
have constantly urged my friends to
read them.
A few moments ago I finished Philip
Rahv's "Disillusionment and Partial
Answers" in your May issue-a very
excellent piece, and I want to com–
ment on it.
I think it an excellent article, as I
say, and more so a timely one. As a
reader, I have long recognized the fact
that you must have your little horse to
ride-Stalinism-and I agree with you
in this except that I wish you would
just quietly become aware of the fact
that when you get excited about Stalin–
ism you often indulge in a cliche ap–
proach, going over and re-emphasizing
ground that many of your readers
know about and recognize. It is true,
all true, but I sometimes do feel, not
by any means that you haven't con–
vinced me, but just that "the boys are
at it again." Say it, make your point
and go on. However, it is likely, I am
aware, that you will continue to do so,
and I am ready to put up with it, be-
BOOKS TOO EXPENSIVE?
Choose your own and save 25%
Order the book you want.* Pay for it
after you get it. Receive 25% credit on
its price. Do this four times. Then use
your credit for further books.
*No text books or VeJ"t technicel books.
Send for brochure, or order now.
BONUS BOOK CLUB
Dept. R-4
61 WEST 56 ST., NEW YORK 19, N. Y.
730
cause you usually do get on and get
to the point.
I liked Rahv's article because he
does come out strongly for some cen–
tralization of thought amongst liberals.
Just yesterday I read in the most re–
cent
Hori<;on
a somber piece by Ber–
trand Russell, a kind of mathematician's
analysis of what-type-of-war-or-peace–
will-it-be. This is all very well but
surely there must be something other
than cold logic or scattering for shelter
(Rahv's point about Dos Passos, Mac–
donald). There must be, surely, now–
adays, the possibility of a calm, intelli–
gent, and precise gathering of socialist
forces without
bicke~ing
and particu–
larly without hair-splitting. God knows
I don't want to chant the Atom Bomb–
or-else because I cannot believe in such
dogmatic alternatives. I think, just on
this point, that you missed one of the
valuable qualities of the thirties. That
was an essential belief in man's ability
to think things out, an inherent belief
in the quality of reason. But reason
alone will not get us very far if it wan–
ders off into the lush green pastures
of the thirties and overfeeds.
As I see it, looking at Rahv's article,
and thinking about it, there are three
alternatives, which can be stated
briefly:
(a)
reactionary escapism, whe–
ther passive (Dos Passos) or active
(Malraux?); (b) Excelsior! (Macdon–
ald) ; (c) a positive dynamic socialism.
The third point I want to discuss,
but I am not at all satisfied that it
should be put as I have put it or that
indeed it can be summed up so briefly.
I do not quite go all the way with
Rahv's rather cold advocacy of a
dis–
enchanted socialism.
We must have the
"scientific" acceptancy of socialism but
surely there must be a human dynamic.
At this crucial stage of the game, you're
going to have trouble hawking such
an intellectual conception. A "socio·
economic project of twentieth-century
man" is too sterile and
refeened
a
