This
unexpected but welcome book with its intriguing title question “Is God Happy?”
immediately caught my eye and attention. It is a selection of essays
written by the Polish intellectual Leszek Kolakowski who had taught
and lived under the restraints of Soviet communism until his
expulsion from the Communist Party.
This
book is both heavy in weight and ideas and is broken up into two
parts (three actually, but the third one with its undecided and
unfocused title of “Modernity, Truth, The Past and some other
Things” could have simply been shelved under Miscellaneous).
The first half under the title “Socialism, Ideology and the Left”
contains various essays dealing with the ideology and impact of
communism, while the second part “Religion, God and the Problem of
Evil” is mainly concerned with religious topics, mostly from a
historical and philosophical perspective. Since this is quite a long and comprehensive book,
spanning essays written over a lifetime, I decided to offer a
two-part review with the second part appearing soon. So here we go with Part 1:
On
the Failures and Shortcomings of Communism
From
the get-go, Kolakowski does not mince his words and attacks communism
and leaves no ground of criticism unturned. He claims it is
impractical, cruel, bloody, manipulative, totalitarian, and
ideologically bankrupt. In his lifetime, living under communist rule,
he had to endure censorship and disciplinary measures on various
occasions.
At
the same time, Kolakowski equally attacks ex-communists, communist
sympathizers, and a number of socialist thinkers. Not even Marx is
spared from this critical rampage; Kolakowski claims
and admits that Marx may make good reading in the same way an
atheist might approach and enjoy the Bible.
Socialism
may have kennels of truth, but as a political way of life, it fails.
It fails because humankind is essentially born capitalist carrying
the seed of greed within them, but moreover and more importantly,
fraternity cannot be enforced upon others. You cannot force someone
to care about others.
Certainly,
Kolakowski has a point there, and he makes astute observations. His
own first-hand experience of living under communist rule in Poland
and later as an exile add a personal and emotionally-charged
touch to his writings. At the same time, it may embitter his view.
Although
I do not mean to justify communism or the communist state or any
government that suppresses human rights, Kolakowski struck me as
someone who is both biased and one-sided in his attacks, and, on some
occasions, he may accidentally throw out the baby with the bathwater
as he nixes most, if not all of Marxist writings; in fact, utopian
ideals are dismissed as childish wishful thinking or even damaging.
Depending on one's point of view this could be interpreted as either
cynical or realistic, or both.
I
found the first half of the book extremely interesting, and it filled
various gaps in my knowledge on the issues discussed. In fact,
Kolakowski closely and carefully analyzes the different spins,
interpretations and additions Marx's teachings have been given by
Lenin, Chairman Mao and others. However, he claims that each of their
readings and realizations are not necessarily incompatible with Marx.
Put
differently, they may not follow Marx to the letter but are faithful
to his overall spirit on the matter, something that would then entail
the dangerous possibility of totalitarian rule. Or, not
having read the primary source Das
Kapital
myself I am somewhat blindly putting my trust in Kolakowski's
scholarship, Marx does not unequivocally and clearly explain how such
a revolution and state would look like and how they could be
maintained, hence opening up a host of different speculations and
interpretations, including the totalitarian apparatus and state.
Totalitarianism
can come in different forms; that means it can be clothed in
different ideology, though the end effect is usually the same. For
instance, in one of his essays, he compares the German Nazis with
Stalinism. Both ideologies subject people to slavery. In the former,
they are driven by the cult of the leader towards a feeling of racial
superiority, an über-national sentiment of chauvinism.
Under
the rule of Stalin, they equally wanted to preserve the cult of the
leader, but in this case towards a united front versus the perceived
enemy, often vaguely referred to as imperialism. This was mainly
achieved and fostered by feelings of fraternity, harmony and unity
among all its citizens.
As Kolakowski remarks, fraternity that is
imposed by force lacks any merit and is, in fact, dysfunctional.
Also, he claims that while the Nazis were upfront and “honest”
(!) about their plans, intentions and philosophy, communism under
Stalin and others resorted to and freely used lies, deception, and
manipulation to control their people.
As
the term itself implies, totalitarianism includes total and complete
control over the political and social lives of its citizens. The best
example would be Orwell's dystopian book 1984
in which individuality was seen as suspect, subversive and even
harmful to the collective identity and was hence subjected to
approval and control by the ominous Big Brother.
As
in 1984,
in such a government the truth becomes a relative matter, namely what
the leader considers as true at a given moment. There is no such
thing as absolute truth, only what the leader deems as acceptable and
appropriate; hence truth becomes a fluid, malleable and
interchangeable matter.
Totalitarianism
also has its fair share of paranoia. It is paranoia both within and
without its borders. The Cold War, incidentally on both sides of the
spectrum, meant fortifying oneself against the negative influences
from the other. Totalitarianism hence needs a closed-border policy to
protect itself from the outside threat.
But
the threat can also be internal, emanating from its own citizens.
They too can be “infected” by the ideas of the enemy, hence the
necessity to create a state police and a flexible law system to
imprison and execute anyone who stepped out of line with the leader's
teachings and pronouncements. Censorship becomes just a matter of
fact, an essential and necessary tool for such a closed system, while
people become distrustful of each other and are encouraged to spy on
others and to report suspicious persons to the police.
All
of this is clearly unacceptable under democratic and
human-rights-oriented principles. The communist state then becomes a
life of servitude where the hired labor of capitalism may have been
eliminated only to be replaced by “forced” labor. Citizens in a
communist state then lose their fundamental rights and freedoms and
become puppets, or worse, slaves in a system in which they have no
say.
What
it is like to live under communist rule, I do not know but listening
to most people's accounts, I would rather pass. I cannot criticize
Kolakowski's ideas for what they are worth since I lack the necessary
background experience. It is similar to people who give me their fair
share of knowledge on parenting without ever having had children
themselves.
To those I would reply that although their intentions may
be good, they simply do not know what it is like to be a parent.
Studying something and experiencing it may complement each other, but
they certainly are not one and the same. For instance, French writer
and intellectual André Gide was a supporter of communism until he
actually visited the then-Soviet Union with its horrifying conditions
and misery.
I
often wonder why communism, which is based on humanitarian ideals of
equality should be so ignorant and dismissive of human rights. Again
the term of communism is an umbrella term including many factions and
styles; yet what may happen is that those who control the state will
fall prey to their own ambitions, a necessary and unavoidable human
by-product. The same way, there are few, if any, “good” dictators
as power does corrupt.
In
the Western world, communism has had a bad rap. Anybody who spoke of
support for the poor or any remotely socialist idea was often seen as
a threat to the status quo. Even though the Soviet Union has been
soundly laid to rest, there are still fragments of the paranoia
within the Western soul. We need to make sure that we also put to
sleep the McCarthy area and do not accuse our neighbors of
communism, although this has been mostly replaced by the new fear of
terror. The paranoia may be similar but they are two completely
different entities and ideologies.
It
is also interesting how there are often polarized views and opinions
on one person. Although most people would clearly condemn the actions
and behavior of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, the case of Hugo
Chavez was altogether different. Chavez also did not mince his words,
but there was some truth in them, and he had sympathizers and
followers all around the world.
It
seems to be a complex and difficult, but I think not impossible, task
to implement socialist ideals in a state that essentially guarantees
freedom and respect of human rights. Europe has had more success with
it on some grounds than North America, especially when it comes to
welfare and education.
The
United States, the self-declared land of the free, is often referred
to as a champion of human rights, especially if we exclude the Second
Amendment and Guantanamo from its current record, and the horrible
stain of slavery from its own dark ages.
However, there are currents
of idealism and democracy that have served as a model for the rest of
the world. Yet the reality is also that the gap between the rich and
the poor has probably never been as wide as it is nowadays. For
better or worse, capitalism favors those who have capital to begin
with, while communism, as we know it, is not an adequate antidote to
this problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment