1110
PARTISAN REVIEW
at least, the substitution of the critic's own work for the one criticized
by him is an act of intellectual despotism of the worst kind rather
than an act of constructiveness.
Unfortunately, this is just what most magazine editors, forum
moderators and other such people exact from the critic as a proof
of his respect for the people or theories he criticized. But if the despotic
character of this kind of constructiveness has escaped the attention of
the well-meaning but weak defenders of the democratic process in
such matters, it has certainly not escaped the attention of those who
so successfully work to kill all freedom and whose past successes cost
the world so many lives.
In fact, this very type of constructive criticism was developed by
Mussolini, Hitler, and, much more efficiently than by those two, by
Stalin, into a perfect safety-valve of thought control. It is called
"criticism
within
the system" as opposed to "criticism
of
the system."
As
a form of cheating, it is practically as old as the world itself, but,
given the tools of Progress, like all the bad things in the world,
it
has
progressed magnificently in modern times. The great advantage of this
form of criticism lies in the fact that, by its very nature, it presupposes
and reaffirms, each time it is exercised, the assumption that it is in
the power of the authorities to correct the "mistakes" which form the
object of criticism. Besides, it rules out from the very beginning the
hypothesis that the presence of those authorities is in itself the mis–
take behind all the "mistakes." Thus, for example, the laziness and
inefficiency of bureaucracy is harshly criticized in Russia, but no one
is allowed to say that the bureaucratic state itself is a crime, and he
who instituted it a criminal.
In fascist Italy the thing took on the form of a real comedy.
Anyone could invent
his
own personal brand of fascism, and attack
public officials, even violently, for believing that fascism was some–
thing else. On one point alone they were not allowed to disagree:
fascism was good and indispensable. While in reality it was neither,
and the only criticism worth a thinker's salt would have been precisely
this.
To illustrate the constructive double-talk that works so well in
Russia, we may summarize it into an imaginary dialogue between a
serious critic and Stalin. The serious critic would say only one thing
to Stalin: "We, the Russian people do not want these chains."
