To the Editor:
The notion that “anti-anti-Communism” is somehow the mark of progressive thinking and authentic anti-fascism has become part of the current elitist, political vogue. Diana Trilling recognizes the danger this trend poses to liberal values and, therefore—as a matter of moral and intellectual obligation—takes to task its audacious protagonists in her book, We Must March My Darlings. Hilton Kramer, in his otherwise fine review [Books in Review, July], does not put enough emphasis on this . . . aspect of Mrs. Trilling’s critique.
Audacity is good political theater, but no substitute for sound historical judgment and facts. In this instance, the key facts are the events of the Nazi-Soviet collaboration during which Hitler enthusiastically praised Stalin’s statesmanship, while the Soviet dictator reciprocated by handing over German-Jewish Communists to the Gestapo. The zeal of their partnership should have convinced professional observers that the kinship of the two dictators was genuine and, consequently, that fascist anti-Communism and Communist anti-fascism were equally unredeeming; that freedom-loving people must maintain a balanced and consistent anti-totalitarian posture; and that anti-Communism should, by definition, be a legitimate part of the liberal-democratic creed.
Leaders of the “advanced literary community” failed, however, to draw the proper conclusion from the treacherous prelude to World War II. Yet the flow of evidence indicating the savage similarities of the two regimes did not begin—or end—in August 1939.
The vast volume of reports about the horrors of Stalinism, which the revelations of Koestler, Khrushchev, and Solzhenitsyn fully authenticated, has shown that the Soviet dictator was guilty of the essential evil of fascism: the mass murder of innocent people. His rule brought the advance of modern totalitarianism and institutionalized terror, devices that perpetuated violence and injustice and crushed the ideals of revolution.
Moreover, without the excuse of Stalin’s crimes—which were real—Hitler could not have come to power; and without Stalin’s example of mass control—which the Nazi leader emulated—Hitler could not have been so monstrously effective in executing his program of genocide. The ultimate difference between the two tyrants amounts to this: Stalin did not murder children; hardly an excuse, however, since it only shows that he was not entirely mad.
Laszlo T. Kiss
New York City
____________
To the Editor:
Hilton Kramer’s review of Diana Trilling’s We Must March My Darlings is by far the most sensitive and honest criticism of a book that has been accorded in other quarters a political hatchet-job.
Adherence to democratic values . . . has made it possible for Mrs. Trilling to expose and excoriate the Moscow show trials, the Hitler-Stalin pact, the destruction of Yiddish culture by the Soviet regime, as well as McCarthyism. Her anti-Communism is rooted in opposition to all totalitarian and authoritarian trends precisely because of her affirmation of democracy. No foreign policy of either the United States or the USSR dictates her outlook. It is precisely this that sets her apart from Lillian Hellman.
But what astonishes Mr. Kramer about the book, namely, Mrs. Trilling’s opposition to the economic system of capitalism, is the one point which adds moral stature to her outlook. Mrs. Trilling holds that a system which breeds extremes of poverty and wealth, and which destroys so much of the potentially beautiful and creative in the name of the marketplace, is not the inevitable repository of the good life. Her vision is of a society where everyone is assured full employment, adequate housing, decent medical care, good education—a society which is as well indissolubly wedded to the democratic process.
Neither capitalism nor Communism, but social democracy provides that cutting edge of honest criticism and analysis that animates Mrs. Trilling’s work.
Israel Kugler
Long Island City, New York