February 17, 2010
Revolutionaries
Tony Judt on the oppositional movements in 1960s Europe, in the NYRB blog:
[I]n Germany, politics was about sex—and sex very largely about politics. I was amazed to discover, while visiting a German student collective (all the German students I knew seemed to live in communes, sharing large old apartments and each other’s partners), that my contemporaries in the Bundesrepublik really believed their own rhetoric. A rigorously complex-free approach to casual intercourse was, they explained, the best way to rid oneself of any illusions about American imperialism—and represented a therapeutic purging of their parents’ Nazi heritage, characterized as repressed sexuality masquerading as nationalist machismo.
The notion that a twenty-year-old in Western Europe might exorcise his parents’ guilt by stripping himself (and his partner) of clothes and inhibitions—metaphorically casting off the symbols of repressive tolerance—struck my empirical English leftism as somewhat suspicious. How fortunate that anti-Nazism required—indeed, was defined by—serial orgasm. But on reflection, who was I to complain? A Cambridge student whose political universe was bounded by deferential policemen and the clean conscience of a victorious, unoccupied country was perhaps ill-placed to assess other peoples’ purgative strategies.
I might have felt a little less superior had I known more about what was going on some 250 miles to the east. What does it say of the hermetically sealed world of cold war Western Europe that I—a well-educated student of history, of East European Jewish provenance, at ease in a number of foreign languages, and widely traveled in my half of the continent—was utterly ignorant of the cataclysmic events unraveling in contemporary Poland and Czechoslovakia? Attracted to revolution? Then why not go to Prague, unquestionably the most exciting place in Europe at that time? Or Warsaw, where my youthful contemporaries were risking expulsion, exile, and prison for their ideas and ideals?
What does it tell us of the delusions of May 1968 that I cannot recall a single allusion to the Prague Spring, much less the Polish student uprising, in all of our earnest radical debates? Had we been less parochial (at forty years’ distance, the level of intensity with which we could discuss the injustice of college gate hours is a little difficult to convey), we might have left a more enduring mark. As it was, we could expatiate deep into the night on China’s Cultural Revolution, the Mexican upheavals, or even the sit-ins at Columbia University. But except for the occasional contemptuous German who was content to see in Czechoslovakia’s Dubcek just another reformist turncoat, no one talked of Eastern Europe.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:14 PM | Permalink




















Comments
Judt seems a little hard on communism, but the truth is that at least the communists were trying to create a better world. If some innocent people got killed, well, you have to remember, the revolutions had a lot of real enemies, for example the CIA and the Nazis. Furthermore, communism failed because it in a way didn't go far enough: middle-class things like greed and selfishness weren't wiped out enough. Next time around, let's make damn sure they are!
Posted by: Stop the Madness | Feb 17, 2010 8:22:51 PM
"Furthermore, communism failed because it in a way didn't go far enough: middle-class things like greed and selfishness weren't wiped out enough."
How precious, they're actually still making them!
Posted by: Jesse | Feb 17, 2010 9:09:17 PM
"Had we been less parochial..., we might have left a more enduring mark."
Let's try not to make the same mistake again.
Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Feb 17, 2010 11:48:03 PM
" the truth is that at least the communists were trying to create a better world"
Which is what all those people who equate Nazism and fascism with communism don't seem to (or want to) understand. Funny thing is, in the alleged 'War on Terror' the same people are usually very capable of drawing a sharp distinction between those who target civilians and those who claim not to target them but still don't give a shit and bomb a heavily populated area anyways.
Posted by: Pepito | Feb 18, 2010 8:24:52 AM
And who's to say the Nazis did not want to create their "version" of a better world. The truth is that "practical" implementations of Utopian visions always seem to lead to the proverbial hell-on-earth.
I have no desire to live under maniacal Communists, Nazis (or free-marketeers, for that manner). Call your pet political dogma what you will, but to me, it still smells like sh*t!
Posted by: Bill | Feb 18, 2010 9:04:57 AM
Sorry, but a vision of 'better world' that contemplates the obliteration of other ethnic groups and the goal of 'racial purity' is not in the same league (at least in theory) as one that claims to represent social justice, no matter how mistaken its methods to achieve it might be. So I reccommend a careful examination of your sense of smell.
Posted by: Pepito | Feb 18, 2010 10:42:12 AM
Do you desire to live under maniacal capitalists? 'Cause I would argue that you do.
What if you decide not to live 'under' any ideology?
Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Feb 18, 2010 10:42:40 AM
Pepito's right. All mass graves are not created equal. Anyway, I'd say most of the so-called "victims" of communism had it coming. For example, many were priests, and we know what they're about, and many others hoarded grain for selfish reasons. This sounds harsh, but how exactly were the revolutionaries supposed to make that stuff go away without using "terror" as the West insists on calling it?
Posted by: Stop the Madness | Feb 18, 2010 10:52:06 AM
I would choose to avoid any political system that presumes to have all the answers to what ails the world. That would include Communism, Nazism, Catholicism or practically any other "-ism" you could come up with. The victims of Stalin are just as dead as those of Hitler. Just because you say Stalin's motives were somehow "purer" than Hitler's because he embraced Marxism (in theory) smacks of pure hypocrisy.
The two great "-isms" of the 20th century are rightly consigned to the dustbin of history... It saddens me when I hear this tired old communist/capitalist political dichotomy trotted out. Can no one come up with any new ideas? Or are we condenmed to repeat the same old stupid mistakes again and again?
Posted by: Bill | Feb 18, 2010 11:11:14 AM
I believe it was Hayek that said the quest for a perfect society inevitably leads to the gulag.
Posted by: BobbyV | Feb 18, 2010 11:13:29 AM
Sorry, Bill, I reread your post, and you answered my first question.
We don't assume because of the 'Christian' Crusades, the witch trials, the pogroms, the destruction of indigenous cultures everywhere 'Christians' went, that 'Christianity' is a totalitarian ideology. (Well, some of us do.)
We're much more tolerant of fascism than of communism, because our rulers are fascists, and because fascism doesn't require the masses to take action, it requires that they do nothing of their own volition.
The story immediately above "Revolutionaries" is quite relevant to this topic; maybe that's why Robin posted them together.
Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Feb 18, 2010 11:18:27 AM
"Just because you say Stalin's motives were somehow "purer" than Hitler's because he embraced Marxism (in theory) smacks of pure hypocrisy. "
I said that communism aimed to address social justice concerns, not that Stalin's motives were 'purer' than Hitler's. You might not like its results, but any cursory reading of the Communist Manifesto will show that its goals were very different from those of Nazism. The implementation of communism and its consequences are a different issue.
Posted by: Pepito | Feb 18, 2010 11:25:19 AM
Let Soviet-style communism rot,
but I'm wondering if one shouldn't nonetheless mourn some part of Marxism's desire to aggressively uproot injustice; the fact that it ended in mass graves is tragedy of high order, but in its wake, one has to wonder what remains for a progressive politics. I'm not sure that I have much time for Badiou's attempt at a 68-redux, nor for whatever Leninist fantasy that Zizek is after, but given that what passes for a left politics in the US at least might best be summed up with the phrase "Equal bourgeois integration for all!" accompanied by some mostly-vain attempts to combat the symptoms of capitalist injustice without aiming at the disease, I can at least see why they do what they do.
Reading Judt's piece is like coming across a work of science fiction, inasmuch as the vitality of the protest movement that he describes definitely belongs to the past and is, at least in the West, difficult to imagine, at least from the perspective of the left (the populist right may have something of it today, but directed towards the wrong ends entirely).
One wonders what it would take to set in motion a new spirit of radical criticism (for which the tools of the 60s are certainly unsuited), but as I think about it, if Bush couldn't inspire one, maybe I don't want to know.
Posted by: markst7 | Feb 18, 2010 3:50:38 PM
Post a comment