510
PARTISAN REVIEW
these differences of opinion, not of course to deplore them, but to indi–
cate that such a rallying of intellectuals, being without programmatic
agreement, is most effective when confined to matters of specific action.
At the Waldorf it was possible for anti-Stalinists of various liberal and
radical hues to work together on the basis of one common denominator:
a defense of democratic rights and intellectual freedom. This basis has
been used in the past for civil liberties cases, and can be used for de–
marcated action against the Stalinists, as well as other opponents of
democratic liberties. Apparently, some sort of similar cooperation
amon~
anti-Stalinist intellectuals is to be organized in France to oppose the
much more dangerous "peace conference" soon to be held there.
At the panels into which the conference divided, it was possible
to study the behavior of both Stalinists and fellow-travelers when con–
fronted by radical or democratic opposition. Several anti-Stalinist intel–
lectuals, some affiliated with the AIF and some not-Peter Blake, George
Counts, Robert Lowell, Dwight Macdonald, Mary McCarthy, Jean Ma–
laquais, and Nicholas Nabokov-spoke for two minutes each. Not all were
effective; it takes considerable skill to be able to express a political opin–
ion in two minutes, and most intellectuals, accustomed to more indul–
gent audiences, lack that skill. Counts began to document his charge
that there was no intellectual freedom in Russia, but could not finish.
Macdonald asked Fadeyev several sharp questions about the fate of
Russian writers. McCarthy asked F. O. Matthiessen if he approved of
Fadeyev's answers. Malaquais told how the French Stalinists had abused
Andre Gide after his book on Russia appeared.
Fadeyev spoke with the shrill ferocity and brutality of a bureau–
crat who, at the moment, lacks prisons and labor camps and must there–
fore confine himself to less persuasive means of action. There is no rea–
son to believe that he is any sort of intellectual, even of the unhapy
variety of which the rest of the Russian delegation was composed; he is
simply a privileged bureaucrat; and it is remarkable that he looked, be–
haved and spoke so very much like the bureaucrat of one's imagination.
Fadayev seemed to enjoy himself more than anyone e'se at the COllference :
he did not have to worry about maintaining good relations with Schuman
or Rogge and just let loose berating those stupid Americans.
At the beginning of the writers panel, F. O. Matthiessen had made
an incredibly simplistic speech about "the American tradition," quite
worse than anything concocted by Granville Hicks. (He had praised
Melville for making the hero of
Moby
Dick
a "common man.") When
forced to comment on Fadeyev's remarks, he did not take the easy out
of pleading ignorance of Russian literary conditions. As if driven by
