April 2nd, 1950
Dear Comrade Burns,
Thanks for your communication, however I must say I cannot agree with much of what you say. For example, you seem to think that my criticism of Caudwell deals only with his biological errors, yet I criticised his work quite awhile before the Lysenko controversy broke out. In fact my criticism of certain aspects of Caudwell’s writings happened to be incorporated in a Paper on Ideology submitted to you about three years back–it was about ten-thousand words in length and probably never read. I only attacked Caudwell from the biological angle for practical reasons, because the Party has made a fetish of Caudwell’s writings and has thus made the task of removing his influence a delicate one, one to be undertaken with some degree of caution.
You admitted to me in your personal interview–and I liked you for it–that your knowledge of literature was limited, your knowledge of poetry nil. Hence, your approach to aesthetics can only be governed by the views of other comrades upon whom you are forced to place reliance. I assure you, comrade, that a critical examination of Caudwell’s attitude to art in general, and to poetry in particular, will bring you into immediate conflict with Professor George Thomson, for one. Caudwell’s approach is not that of dialectical Marxism, it is mechanical and subjectivist in the extreme, is cloudy with eclectic thought.
But even from the narrow angle of approach which I adopted –and I handled Caudwell as gently as possible–it still allowed room for showing up mercilessly bourgeois rottenness typical of a certain strata–when I dealt with Lawrence of Arabia. If you are serious in your intention of bringing Marxist criticism to bear surely this paper that I submitted would have done the least harm in ’offending’ aesthetes and others–although I personally believe that the sooner we get over this fear of giving offence, of possible ’losing’ this intellectual or that, the better. There is a disease from which certain comrades have been known to suffer called drifting, Lenin polemicised against it on a number of occasions, as he also condemned its twin narrow practicalism. Our Party suffers acutely from both, and inevitably surgery comes to mind.
About Dobb. I stated clearly, and I state now, Maurice Dobb is a distorter of history. Kuczynsky’s arguments are valid, correspond to reality. His tables of statistics, contrary to your assertion, were broken down as far as humanly possible. You are treading dangerous ground, Comrade Burns, in denying that the living standard of employed workers failed to fall, or fell little, during the years of pre-war crises and depression. I myself took a wage cut of from 50 to 35 dollars per week in the first six-weeks. During the ensuing period I was an organiser among the unemployed and if you fail to agree with Kuczynsky’s figures I feel sure the American comrades research department can supply you with figures.
But more, you completely ignore the fact that Dobb advances no figures to back up his series of ’surprises’! When Dobb states that the living standard of the workers failed to fall in those years he knowingly lies. Surely, comrade, that state of affairs by an avowed economist, one who prides himself on his knowledge of Marxism is, to say the least, somewhat queer. No figures to back up his surprises–from an economist! I have not read your own review of Dobb’s “Studies etc.” You may be right in stating that those chapters dealing with capitalist development are on a high level, but when you apologise for him, when you state it is a question of poor presentation, of attempting to express Marxist thought within bourgeois terminology, I disagree. It is not a question of methodology but of accountancy, honest accountancy.
About Comrade Pollitt. We expect more than simplification and popularisation from the Head of our Party–and I have yet to find better popularisers than Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Comrade Pollitt thinks confusedly, eclectically; he thinks in terms of the moment, fails to understand that often it is impossible to carry the political struggle direct to the worker, that the historical fact of the narrow and limited understanding of the working class must be considered, and that a Branch of N.U.G.&M.W., is not a place in which to prove how devoted you are to world revolution.
The ’optimists’ who held illusions in 1947 were the same comrades who upheld Comrade Derek Kartun’s views on what was taking place in Poland. Did he not see the working class taking power in a gradualist fashion, stating openly that the dictatorship of the working class was a thing of the past? I am afraid that the views, likewise, of Comrade Pollitt, are very well known, for example, our Party’s ugly approach to the Australian Party. Washing one’s face does not alter its contour.
About my letter to you on our attitude during the war. You have-misread one part of my letter–or interpreted wrongly. I would like to clear this matter up. You say: “But you make it clear that this (increased share of surplus value, A.E.) was to be obtained without strikes since you speak of pressure to which the capitalists would have given way.” But that is not what I said. I stated that the capitalists would have given way to determined pressure. But how can one bring about such pressure, determined pressure, without a readiness to use force? To strike? The fact that the capitalists were willing to grant concessions in order to keep production at top speed is beside the point. I would have increased the workers’ share to a much greater degree, for I would not have hesitated to call strikes. You and the Party were bluffing and the bosses soon found that out. You would not have called a strike under any circumstances! In fact, when the history of our Party is written, it will be seen that our Party used its influence to prevent strikes. And did so for years after the war, when the Party was forming Committees on the job to increase exports.
A few remarks in conclusion. To me the Pianist, “even though he is doing his best,” is of no use if he constantly plays off-key; constant discord is not music. Criticism, if it means anything at all, is, above all else, self-criticism. I have been more than ready for you comrades to submit my criticism to others than ourselves. I have asked, begged, that the work of Maurice Dobb be handed over for analysis to Comrade Winternitz. I am more than willing that you contact such a magazine as Soviet Literature, I have criticised possibly overharshly, the Party’s Letter to the Australian Party, but here again there is a place where this matter too can be cleared up in comradely fashion. But my suggestion has been rejected on the ground “That the Communist Information Bureau is not an Adjudicator.” God help us, indeed.
If I had no standard of comparison, no criteria to act as guide, I could understand and acknowledge your attitude. But my questions about Varga were put when you all regarded Varga as expressive of Soviet opinion. My opinion on the question of the Dictatorship of the Working Class, on the class struggle going on in the New Democracys was expressed in contradiction to those of the Party leadership–and I was in the right. My criticism of the Yankee, Sweezy, was upheld by Winternitz, again in contradiction to that of a prominent member of the Political Committee. My criticism of Caudwell was placed before yourself. Comrade Burns, almost three years ago.
Finally, I would like to remind you that the history of Marxism is a history, first and foremost, against internal enemies, against the influence of the class enemy as it unfolds within our ranks. Surely you agree with this? The struggle of Lenin against Bernstein, against Martov; by Comrade Stalin against Trotsky, against Bukharin and their ilk; against the motley crowd of renegades, spies and conceited fools brought before the People’s Courts in the New Democracies. Does this not mean that we, too, must possess such people? Surely you cannot regard the British Party as exceptional, we with our long history of comparative peaceful class relations?
You seem to hold the opinion that our mistakes are of the past, and have been, or are, in process of rectification. But are they? I doubt it. For example, the recent work of Comrade Palme Dutt possesses a glaring weakness, while our tactics in the recent election, tactics of wide dispersion against a powerful enemy, running candidates all over the place, needs a most thorough examination. When your forces are weak and you have decided to engage the enemy you choose the ground upon which to fight, you concentrate all your power where the ground is most favourable, else you suffer defeat in isolation. Then, last of all, the attitude of the Party toward literature, its narrowness of outlook, its inability to see the complexity of our society, to judge everything in terms of direct political activity–heedless of the warning of Lenin on this subject.
Yours fraternally.
ARTHUR EVANS.
Evans Note: The above letter was sent to the Soviet Union with the following comment.
“Soviet Comrades;
Since the above letter was sent nothing more has been heard from Comrade Burns. One thing is certain: he is incapable of objective analysis, his defence of Dobb is not honest or sincere. Comrade Burns is only interested in defending reviews written by himself which praised Dobb to the skies. It is evident that the historical chapters of Dobb’s work are as full of rubbish as the part I subjected to analysis. One cannot falsify economic history in one place and be a true Marxist historian in another.”