Suicide of the rest

 

It seems I´m not a fascist after all. So I took the test linked below and became "Mostly Liberal", since I agreed with 29 of 39 statements. Note that the test was devised by none other than the Devil himself (James Burnham) in 1964! Clearly, something´s wrong with the questions, I mean, come on...

Are you a liberal?

 

Burnham´s Cold War

An old gem previously posted here on September 21, 2018...

In Trotskyist circles, the US in­tellectual James Burnham is often regarded as *the* apostate extraordinaire, sometimes together with Max Shachtman, with whom Burnham collaborated during one phase of his political career. During the 1930's, Burnham supported radical leftist politics, playing an important role in A J Muste's American Workers Party. Burnham then joined the Trotskyist movement, where he and Shachtman soon formed a faction critical of American Trotskyist leader James P Cannon. From his exile in Mexico, Trotsky backed Cannon. As the supposed theoretician of the opposition, Burnham was singled out for special attention by Trotsky in a series of blistering polemics. These are collected in “In Defense of Marxism”, which also contains Burnham's somewhat peculiar response “Science and Style”. When the Shachtmanites broke with Cannon's Socialist Workers Party to form their own group, simply called the Workers Party, political differences between Shachtman and Burnham led the latter to resign from the party and completely break with Marxism. The Trotskyists triumphantly included Burnham's farewell letter in “In Defense of Marxism”. Burnham then turned sharply right, becoming a prominent Cold Warrior during the 1940's and 1950's. I know less about this part of Burnham's career. Apparently, he worked with William F Buckley on the National Review and eventually received a medal from a certain Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Shachtman also became a Cold Warrior, but in contrast to his erstwhile colleague, always claimed to be a democratic socialist. It's also interesting to note that George Orwell's novel “1984” is inspired both by Trotsky's anti-Stalinism and by Burnham's most famous book, “The Managerial Revolution”.

By contrast, “Struggle for the World” seems to be one of Burnham's lesser known works. It was published in 1947 and lays out a militant Cold Warrior program. Much of it is anti-Communism 101, which may explain why the book has been mostly forgotten. Burnham argues that the Soviet Union and its allies are preparing for World War III, and intend to literally conquer the world. Communists in all nations are gearing up for the war by shedding the “moderate” popular front policies of the last phase of World War II, when the West and Stalin were allies. New purges are to be expected. The United States is heavily infiltrated by Communists and their fellow-travelers, who are working around the clock to undermine the nation and its defense capabilities. While Burnham admits that the Soviet economy is in bad shape, he nevertheless regards the Soviets as an ascendant force. Totalitarian regimes can make up for economic failures and low productivity by forced mass mobilizations of the populace, all the while taking over the productive capacity of conquered territory. Above all, the Soviets and the world Communist movement capitalize on the weakness and confusion of the Western powers, principally the United States. Burnham doesn't oppose the purely military alliance between the West and the Soviets during World War II, but believes that the Roosevelt administration went too far, turning it into a de facto political alliance, with disastrous consequences in China, Iran and elsewhere. He wants a fast-track transition from cooperation to confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Interestingly, Burnham believes in Mackinder's geopolitics, which argues that control of the Eurasian Heartland is the key to world domination (rather than, say, control of the seven seas á la the British Empire). Since most of the Heartland is already under Soviet Communist control, Burnham believes that the Soviet regime objectively speaking had the best position in the struggle for the world. Geopolitically, America is peripheral. Therefore, isolationism is suicidal. The US must engage in the Coastland (Africa and the “outer” areas of Eurasia) and hence become an interventionist world power. This is the only way to stop the Communists from establishing world domination.

Burnham admits that Communism was originally oriented to the working class and peasantry, but regards it's subsequent evolution not as a “betrayal” but rather as a logical progression away from the toilers (who were only a battering ram to begin with). Firmly in control of Russia, the Communists could broaden their foreign appeal to other strata of society: first, towards liberals and other “progressive bourgeois” forces, later also to reactionaries (including Balkan monarchists, defected Nazi generals, etc). This expresses not a weakness of Communism, but rather proves that its much stronger than during its initial “proletarian” period. Communist “multi-nationalism”, whereby local nationalisms are co-opted and used by the conquering Soviets rather than discarded outright, also strengthens the Communist system. As for Communism evolving in a more “moderate” direction (in the United States, under the leadership of Earl Browder), Burnham believes that the Communist movement will always oscillate between “left” and “right” phases, depending on tactical exigencies. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: totalitarian world domination.

The author's anti-Communist program is almost breathtakingly honest. He explicitly wants the United States to create a World Empire based on monopoly of nuclear power. The US and Britain should form an outright political union with common citizenship. Continental Europe should unite in a federation. The World Empire will be formed through a combination of voluntary union, economic pressure, and outright force. Since everything is subordinate to the struggle for the world against Communism, non-democratic anti-Communists must also be supported (such as Chiang Kai-shek in China). Burnham informs his readers that an empire is compatible with democracy in the *imperial* nation, using ancient Athens and modern Britain as examples. At one point, he even implies that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union is preferable to inaction, since Western civilization will survive such a war! (Burnham was writing before the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb in 1949.)

Since the Communists are a highly disciplined force bent on undermining Western-style democracy, Burnham proposes that the Communist Party should be officially banned. Communist-led unions, civil right groups and other campaigns should be “treated differently” than non-Communist ditto. A similar policy to the one proposed by Burnham was later implemented by Joe McCarthy…

One reason why “Struggle for the World” is forgotten today may be that it deals with contemporary politics as they looked in 1947. Already two years later, the US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, creating an entirely new world situation. Burnham argues that a free market economy is obsolete, and writes from the perspective of a world not yet fully “globalized”. The book fails to predict the centrifugal tendencies in the Communist bloc, since the author doesn't regard Communist movements as truly nationalist. On other points, Burnham did hit the mark: great purges did indeed start in the Eastern bloc a few years later, Communist regimes (except maybe the post-Stalin Soviet bloc) have oscillated between “left” and “right” phases ever since, and the struggle for the world could ultimately only end with one side being thoroughly defeated. Burnham was also right that the majority of the people of the Soviet Union and its satellites opposed Communism, but it's interesting to note that the Russian Communists “managed the transition” after 1991 by officially morphing into Greater Russian nationalists. Burnham would no doubt have seen this as a stunning confirmation of his idea that Communism evolves by broadening its appeal – now, it's so broad that it even includes the very political forces the Bolsheviks once overthrew!

With that, I end this review.

Burnham's Cold War

In Trotskyist circles, the US in­tellectual James Burnham is often regarded as *the* apostate extraordinaire, sometimes together with Max Shachtman, with whom Burnham collaborated during one phase of his political career. During the 1930's, Burnham supported radical leftist politics, playing an important role in A J Muste's American Workers Party. Burnham then joined the Trotskyist movement, where he and Shachtman soon formed a faction critical of American Trotskyist leader James P Cannon. From his exile in Mexico, Trotsky backed Cannon. As the supposed theoretician of the opposition, Burnham was singled out for special attention by Trotsky in a series of blistering polemics. These are collected in “In Defense of Marxism”, which also contains Burnham's somewhat peculiar response “Science and Style”. When the Shachtmanites broke with Cannon's Socialist Workers Party to form their own group, simply called the Workers Party, political differences between Shachtman and Burnham led the latter to resign from the party and completely break with Marxism. The Trotskyists triumphantly included Burnham's farewell letter in “In Defense of Marxism”. Burnham then turned sharply right, becoming a prominent Cold Warrior during the 1940's and 1950's. I know less about this part of Burnham's career. Apparently, he worked with William F Buckley on the National Review and eventually received a medal from a certain Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Shachtman also became a Cold Warrior, but in contrast to his erstwhile colleague, always claimed to be a democratic socialist. It's also interesting to note that George Orwell's novel “1984” is inspired both by Trotsky's anti-Stalinism and by Burnham's most famous book, “The Managerial Revolution”.

By contrast, “Struggle for the World” seems to be one of Burnham's lesser known works. It was published in 1947 and lays out a militant Cold Warrior program. Much of it is anti-Communism 101, which may explain why the book has been mostly forgotten. Burnham argues that the Soviet Union and its allies are preparing for World War III, and intend to literally conquer the world. Communists in all nations are gearing up for the war by shedding the “moderate” popular front policies of the last phase of World War II, when the West and Stalin were allies. New purges are to be expected. The United States is heavily infiltrated by Communists and their fellow-travelers, who are working around the clock to undermine the nation and its defense capabilities. While Burnham admits that the Soviet economy is in bad shape, he nevertheless regards the Soviets as an ascendant force. Totalitarian regimes can make up for economic failures and low productivity by forced mass mobilizations of the populace, all the while taking over the productive capacity of conquered territory. Above all, the Soviets and the world Communist movement capitalize on the weakness and confusion of the Western powers, above all the United States. Burnham doesn't oppose the purely military alliance between the West and the Soviets during World War II, but believes that the Roosevelt administration went too far, turning it into a de facto political alliance, with disastrous consequences in China, Iran and elsewhere. He wants a fast-track transition from cooperation to confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Interestingly, Burnham believes in Mackinder's geopolitics, which argues that control of the Eurasian Heartland is the key to world domination (rather than, say, control of the seven seas á la the British Empire). Since most of the Heartland is already under Soviet Communist control, Burnham believes that the Soviet regime objectively speaking had the best position in the struggle for the world. Geopolitically, America is peripheral. Therefore, isolationism is suicidal. The US must engage in the Coastland (Africa and the “outer” areas of Eurasia) and hence become an interventionist world power. This is the only way to stop the Communists from establishing world domination.

Burnham admits that Communism was originally oriented to the working class and peasantry, but regards it's subsequent evolution not as a “betrayal” but rather as a logical progression away from the toilers (who were only a battering ram to begin with). Firmly in control of Russia, the Communists could broaden their foreign appeal to other strata of society: first, towards liberals and other “progressive bourgeois” forces, later also to reactionaries (including Balkan monarchists, defected Nazi generals, etc). This expresses not a weakness of Communism, but rather proves that its much stronger than during its initial “proletarian” period. Communist “multi-nationalism”, whereby local nationalisms are co-opted and used by the conquering Soviets rather than discarded outright, also strengthens the Communist system. As for Communism evolving in a more “moderate” direction (in the United States, under the leadership of Earl Browder), Burnham believes that the Communist movement will always oscillate between “left” and “right” phases, depending on tactical exigencies. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: totalitarian world domination.

The author's anti-Communist program is almost breathtakingly honest. He explicitly wants the United States to create a World Empire based on monopoly of nuclear power. The US and Britain should form an outright political union with common citizenship. Continental Europe should unite in a federation. The World Empire will be formed through a combination of voluntary union, economic pressure, and outright force. Since everything is subordinate to the struggle for the world against Communism, non-democratic anti-Communists must also be supported (such as Chiang Kai-shek in China). Burnham informs his readers that an empire is compatible with democracy in the *imperial* nation, using ancient Athens and modern Britain as examples. At one point, he even implies that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union is preferable to inaction, since Western civilization will survive such a war! (Burnham was writing before the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb in 1949.)

Since the Communists are a highly disciplined force bent on undermining Western-style democracy, Burnham proposes that the Communist Party should be officially banned. Communist-led unions, civil right groups and other campaigns should be “treated differently” than non-Communist ditto. A similar policy to the one proposed by Burnham was later implemented by Joe McCarthy…

One reason why “Struggle for the World” is forgotten today may be that it deals with contemporary politics as they looked in 1947. Already two years later, the US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, creating an entirely new world situation. Burnham argues that a free market economy is obsolete, and writes from the perspective of a world not yet fully “globalized”. The book fails to predict the centrifugal tendencies in the Communist bloc, since the author doesn't regard Communist movements as truly nationalist. On other points, Burnham did hit the mark: great purges did indeed start in the Eastern bloc a few years later, Communist regimes (except maybe the post-Stalin Soviet bloc) have oscillated between “left” and “right” phases ever since, and the struggle for the world could ultimately only end with one side being thoroughly defeated. Burnham was also right that the majority of the people of the Soviet Union and its satellites opposed Communism, but it's interesting to note that the Russian Communists “managed the transition” after 1991 by officially morphing into Greater Russian nationalists. Burnham would no doubt have seen this as a stunning confirmation of his idea that Communism evolves by broadening its appeal – now, it's so broad that it even includes the very political forces the Bolsheviks once overthrew!

With that, I end this review.

Worth reading for Burnham

"In Defense of Marxism" is one of the most boring books ever written. Yet, it's considered a classic of the Trotskyist movement.

The book is a collection of documents written by Trotsky during an intense factional struggle within the American Trotskyist movement, the Socialist Workers Party, between 1939 and 1940.

Most editions also contain two texts written by James Burnham, "Science and Style" and "Letter of Resignation to the Workers Party". Burnham's texts are the only interesting ones in the entire book! Burnham was a factional opponent of Trotsky and later left the socialist movement entirely. He is most known for his conservative books "The Managerial Revolution", "The Machiavellians" and "Suicide of the West". When he wrote "Science and Style" and the letter of resignation, however, he still regarded himself as a socialist (at least broadly).

The factional struggle within the SWP was triggered by the Hitler-Stalin pact and the subsequent Soviet attacks on Poland, Finland, Romania and the Baltic republics. Trotsky, while maintaining his political opposition to Stalin, nevertheless took up positions which could be interpreted as tacit support for the Soviet attacks. (It's somewhat unclear what his real position was.) He also insisted that the Soviet Union was still a "degenerated workers' state" due to its nationalized economy and central planning. While calling for a "political revolution" to overthrow Stalin, he nevertheless called for the defence of the Soviet Union against the capitalist powers. Trotsky's ideas where supported by the SWP majority, but met with opposition from a rather heterogenous minority group around Max Shachtman and James Burnham. They argued against support for the Soviet Union. Expelled from the SWP, the "petty bourgeois opposition" formed the Workers Party, which later split into a plethora of groups, each moving in a different direction.

That most editions of this Trotskyist work also contain two anti-Trotskyist articles by Burnham is probably a revenge of some sort. The SWP regarded Burnham's articles as extremely bad, and published them as proof positive that Trotsky had been right about this renegade all along!

In my opinion, Burnham's two articles are interesting and even funny. Burnham was a confused and eclectic intellectual, who was no match for the old revolutionary Trotsky in terms of hard-hitting arguments. Indeed, Burnham even admits as much, ironically paying tribute to Trotsky's "wonderful style" which he even claims to have "analysed at considerable length" in a review article. Frankly, "Science and Style" is a slightly frivolous text. And yet, despite his frivolity and self-professed profligacy, Burnham manages to corner Trotsky at several points in the debate.

Burnham never accepted Marxist dialectics, something Trotsky attempted to use against him in the factional struggle. Trotsky argued that Burnham's opposition to dialectics was the cause of his "petty bourgeois" politics, including his refusal to defend the Soviet Union and acknowledge it as a "degenerated workers' state". In response, Burnham points out that Trotsky never raised the issue of dialectics as long as he and Burnham were on the same side in various earlier factional squabbles within the Trotskyist movement. Burnham further points out that Plekhanov, the so-called father of Russian Marxism and a first rate defender of dialectics, was actually a Menshevik, while some Bolsheviks and other revolutionary Marxists refused to accept dialectics. Further, he sarcastically reveals that all works on dialectics distributed by the SWP were written by "Mensheviks", "Stalinists" and "Brandlerites", i.e. political opponents of the SWP and Trotskyism!

Burnham also expresses surprise at Trotsky's (ridiculous) statement that workers in some spontaneous and instinctive manner think dialectically. If so, how come most of them aren't socialists?

Still, Trotsky in a sense won the debate with James Burnham. When he wrote "Science and Style", Burnham somehow believed that one could be a revolutionary Marxist without subscribing to dialectical materialism. In his letter of resignation to the Workers Party (Shachtman's new organization), Burnham admits that he was wrong and Trotsky was right.

Wrote Burnham: "I reject, as you know, the "philosophy of Marxism", dialectical materialism. I have never, it is true, accepted this philosophy. In the past I excused this discrepancy and compromised this belief with the idea that the philosophy was "unimportant" and "did not matter" so far as practice and politics were concerned. Experience, and further study and reflection, have convinced me that I have been wrong and Trotsky--with so many others--right on this score; that dialectical materialism, though scientifically meaningless, is psychologically and historically an integral part of Marxism, and does have its many and adverse effects upon practice and politics."

Burnham thus broke with Marxism. Personally, I strongly disagree with the political positions he took up afterwards. Still, the man had a point: dialectical materialism is indeed a mostly psychological device, with little or no real empirical content. Why, one could argue *against* the defence of the USSR using "dialectical" arguments!

I hope that the Pathfinder edition of "In Defense of Marxism" contain Burnham's articles. If not, they are available on-line at the - wait for it - Trotskyist Encyclopedia.

The rest of the book is firewood.