CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM
1111
To which Stalin would promptly reply, "You are perfectly
right. I will give you better ones."
"We don't want better ones," retorts the critic at this point, "we
want none at all."
"You are a pessimist, a negativist, a destructive critic," is Stalin's
reply. "You do not believe that I am here to help you.
If
you tell me
all your grievances
concretely,
I may help you, but if you insist on
asking for the impossible, I will have to eliminate you."
Obviously enough, the "impossible" here is the hypothesis that
Stalin eliminate himself. But long before .any discussion may reach
this danger point in Russia, there is always someone whose specific
job it is to steer the debate in the direction of "concrete objectives,"
that is, on how to best fasten the chains so that the individual limb
may suffer least, and they really talk as if that were a kind of progress
toward freedom. The mere hypothesis that there may have been a
time when chains were simply not fastened on to people's limbs, is
discredited as "unscientific" or "unrealistic." (In our democratic
world we would get the same answer from an Immigration official
if we told him the fairy tale that once upon a time there were no
passports.) Now, in Russia, right after the debate has finished sub–
verting all sense of proportions in the debaters themselves, so that
they don't understand what they are talking about, there is always a
speech in which the "findings" are authoritatively summarized by
those in charge. In the hypothesis invented
qy
us, some great Professor
of Sociology would say: "In former centuries the science of chains
was in its infancy. Useless cruelty, sadism and inefficiency accom–
panied this social function. Besides, some people thought that they
themselves needed no chains, and that is why they were indifferent
to the well-being of those kept in chains by them. Now, with our
socialized chains, we have made great progress, and we will make
more. This is the way to freedom. Weare all here for the same pur–
pose, so let us do our work efficiently. Anyone is welcome to suggest
improvements and denounce errors, but we will not tolerate those
idle elements who seem unable to say anything but 'We want freedom
now.'
»
After which, everyone will agree that the disturbers must be
executed on the spot, as subversive elements. And subversive elements
