Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1944-1956

6. The Blind Force of History: The Philosophical Case for Terror

CHAPTER SIX The Blind Force ofHistory The Philosophical Casefor Terror Q1tJon k veuilk ou non, Pedification socialiste est priPilegiC en ceci quJon doit, pour fa comprendre, Cpouser son mouvement et adtJpter ses objectifs. Like it or not, the construction of socialism is privileged in that to understand it one must espouse its movement and adopt its goals. Jean-Paul Sartre In the period 1944-56, there were four possible responses to Stalinism. The first was simple rejection. This was the position ofRaymond Aron and a few others. It entailed denying that there was any credibility to the claims ofcommunism, whether as the embodiment and protector ofthe interests ofthe working people or as the vehicle ofprogress and human perfection in history. Within such rigorous terms it was possible to be both intellectually consistent and morally coherent; but in the political and cultural context of these years, it also placed one outside of the mainstream ofintellectual life. This does not mean that Aron could not look to a community oflike-minded thinkers; in the pages ofPreuves or Libertide l'espritJ not to mention foreign journals, there were to be found 117 118 THE BLOOD OF OTHERS articles by Denis de Rougemont, Nicola Chiaromonte, Arthur Koestler, Claude Mauriac, Jules Monnerot, Ignazio Silone, Manes Sperber, Czeslaw Milosz, and many others. But however intellectually appealing this body of work, we should not suppose that its impact at the time was especially significant.1 The second response was simple acceptance. This, obviously, was the posture ofCommunist intellectuals like Aragon or Georges Cogniot. For them, at the time, the news from the Soviet Union and East Europe passed through a double filter. In the first place, rumors of concentration camps, torture, rigged trials, and so forth were simply denied. Ex hypothesi a Communist regime did not engage in such practices. But when denial was not possible-as in the case ofthe Soviet camps or the suppression ofdissent in the new "people's democracies"-the events in question were simply redescribed in a language compatible with the selfdescription of communism. This whole process was so unproblematic once one adopted Leninist first principles that its mechanism need not detain us here. In any case, the category "Communist intellectual" is close to being an oxymoron, not because intelligent people could not be Communists (many were), but because their presence in the party qua intellectuals was not welcome. If they joined the Communist movement , they placed their cognitive skills at the service of the party and were required to believe, not analyze. The truly valuable intellectuals were not those who joined but those who remained outside the fold, providing the Stalinists with intellectual credibility by their support and their independent status as thinkers, scholars, or journalists.2 Third, there was a transient class ofCommunist intellectuals who did not really conform to the requirements of their menial status in the movement. People like Edgar Morin or Dionys Mascolo would initially follow the dictates of discipline, only to depart in the face of some intolerable demand. At this point they entered a limbo, peopled by lIotskyists, revolutionary syndicalists, and aging surrealists, who sought somehow to maintain a radical position compatible with opposition to communism. Their writings from the time, notably in the journal Socialisme au barbaric or later in Ar;guments, are important signposts in the 1. Jean-Marie Domenach's attitude was probably typical. Commenting on Milosz's Pensee captive, he wrote: "On se referera [au livre de Milosz] avec bien des reserves, car la satire Ie deforme, et plus encore cette tao;:on de decrire la condition des intellectuels de democratie populaire, en l'isolant de la situation d'ensemble de la population." "Les Intellectuels et Ie communisme," Esprit, July 1955, 1213. 2. See Jeannine Verdes-Leroux, Au service du parti (Paris, 1983), passim. THE BLIND FORCE OF HISIDRY 119 history oflate Marxism and in the private conflicts they reflect, but their impact too should not be exaggerated. It is true that they were often the target of virulent criticism from within the Communist and fellowtraveling press. But this represented less a concern with their impact or the threat they posed within the Left than a sectarian cast of mind, the same way ofthinking that led Stalin to pursue and kill his defeated opponents long after they had ceased to matter. To exercise a monopoly of truth (as distinct from a mere monopoly of power) it is not enough...