From: Michael Eldred (artefact@T-ONLINE.DE)
Date: Sat May 17 2003 - 11:13:18 EDT
Cologne 17-May-2003 Thanks for that, Nicky. While recommending books, another good one in the same vein is Fernando Claudin _The Communist Movement -- From COMINTERN to COMINFORM_ 1970/eng 1975 Peregrine. As I say, Watching television never made anybody far-sighted. Reading a book never made anybody short-sighted. Our dreams are often revealing; the dreams we set up as ideals obscure. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact@webcom.com _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Nicola Taylor schrieb Sat, 17 May 2003 14:33:27 +1000: > Hi Jerry, I agree with Michael's response to you (below). Especially, I > appreciate his reference to Naipaul (who is on my best-loved author's list). > > Another great book on the debate of means and ends (vis a vis human being) > is Arthur Koestler's 'Darkness at Noon' (1940; Penguin 1947) which came out > of Koestler's own bitter experiences as a communist operative in Spain > during the civil war (probably you will have read this). The book > centers on the interrogation of an old Bolshevik awaiting execution in a > G.P.U. prison: > > "For forty years he had fought against economic fatality. It was the > central ill of humanity, the cancer which was eating into its entrails. It > was there that one must operate; the rest of the healing process would > follow. All else was dilettantism, romanticism, charlatanism. One cannot > heal a person mortally ill by pious exhortations. The only solution was the > surgeon's knife and his cool calculation. But wherever the knife had been > applied, a new sore had appeared in place of the old. And again the > equation did not work out" (p.204). > > In contemplating why 'the equation did not work out' Rubashov arrives > (albeit in different words) at Michael's question which was: > > > The question is rather why > > these kinds of society have never been (and never will be) in a position > > to allow dissenters, never strong enough to bear the freedom of > > individual civil rights. > > To which Rubashov answers: > > "It was a mistake in the system; perhaps it lay in the precept which until > now he had held to be uncontestable, in whose name he had sacrificed others > and was himself being sacrificed: in the precept that the end justifies the > means [the end being precisely the survival of the revolution against > imperialist aggressors, such that 'opposition is a crime and the leaders of > the opposition are criminals' p. 190]. It was this sentence shich had > killed the great fraternity of the Revolution and made them all run amuck. > What had he once written in his diary? 'We have thrown overboard all > conventions, our sole guiding principle is that of consequent logica; we are > sailing without ethical balast'. > Perhaps the heart of the evil lay there. Perhaps it did not suit > mankind to sail without balast. And perhaps reason alone was a defective > compass, which led one on such a winding, twisted course that the goal > finally disappeared in the mist" (p.206). > > Rubashov, in defeat, does of course cling to a new dream: a different > society where 'only purity of means can justify the ends' and where 'the > tenet is wrong which says that a man is the product of one million divided > by one million...' > > If the choice were between dreams, I guess I would opt for Rubashov's > final version. But, since dreams are inherently unattainable (with a > tendency to take a turn towards nightmare) one surely does better to think > through what it means to conceive of a better world. Here one can do > something: one can practically and theoretically argue AGAINST capital > punishment and > torture and, more than that, one can ask openly what possible ends these > means are supposed to serve. Whatever Castro's own justifications, I > suspect that his attempts to *suppress* opposition and drive debate > underground have had the (unintended) consequence of *fuelling* it, both > internally and without. That this opposition includes the voices of > socialists and communists (not only liberals and imperialists) should surely > raise alarm bells for anyone who wants to support the *people of Cuba* > against state aggression (be this internal or external). > > Nicky > > > ME: Jerry, > > > > I don't think that helps (excusing the regime because of threat from > > US). It smacks of the hedging of an ideology. The question is rather why > > these kinds of society have never been (and never will be) in a position > > to allow dissenters, never strong enough to bear the freedom of > > individual civil rights. It is not a question of historical > > circumstances. It is a question of the essence of socialism, i.e. what > > it _is_. > > > > You say, "we have to ask *who* these "dissenters" are". > > > > I find that this comment has the flavour of bitter irony. I've been > > reading V.S. Naipaul's "Among the Believers -- An Islamic Journey" > > (1981). He starts off in the Iran of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and > > is being guided around by a young communist who claims: > > > > "True freedom had existed only once in the world, in Russia, between > > 1917 and 1953. I [Naipaul] said, 'But there was a lot of suffering. A > > lot of people were jailed and killed.' He pounced on that. 'What _sort_ > > of people?' " (p.59) > > > > There's something to be said for abstract-universal individual human > > rights. Why is socialism always caught in apologetics, always in a > > process of deferment?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 18 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT