In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

53 2 CONFRONTING THE COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT The American Response, 1944–1947 Utopias The absolute and overreacting nature of the struggle between the United States and Western European Communism after World War II soon became apparent to most American officials. The self-assigned identity and role of the French and Italian Communist Parties clashed profoundly with the self-image and international role of the United States.Washington’s specific options on dealing with the Communists in those two nations came to be framed in a broader context not only because of the looming Soviet threat, but also because communist success in the West would test the resilience of American visions of Europe. In order to comprehend why Western Europe’s communist confrontation with America caused the United States to reflect on itself, it is necessary to clarify how this clash became one of visions, even of utopias, affecting the style of U.S. foreign policy and even the definition of U.S. national security. Following years of material and moral devastation, France and Italy naturally embraced views that, from either domestic or foreign traditions, promised immediate improvement. The two countries became particularly susceptible to Soviet myths, American dreams, and a renewed faith in human perfectibility. For all the pragmatic compromises the French and Italian Communists made to retain power and legitimacy, their appeal remained in large part anchored to the promise of attaining a socialist society, a utopia divested of the term’s derogatory connotation as “dreamland.” Pragmatism, with its denial of perfectibility, was arguably the main strength of the United States. But by confronting ultimate promises from the other side, the United States stressed its own countervailing proselytizing nature, and re-evoked its vision of exceptionalism that combined a sense of moral superiority, uniqueness, and universalism. It offered the vision of a promised land, which, under a “permanent revolution”1 would deliver ultimate freedom and self-fulfillment to its own people and the rest of the world. The United States’ faith in its exceptionalism defined its national identity. As historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote, “It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one.”2 Hence, even before the onset of the CONFRONTING THE COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT Cold War, anti-Americanism and anticommunism both included utopian elements mirroring opposite images. Most American officials and intellectuals emphasized the utopian and propagandistic nature of communist influence. Dogma and demagogy were indeed the two sides of the same communist coin: a certain faith that the avant-garde of communism could educate and elevate the masses, together with a keen capitalization on the masses’ discontent. Further, that combination expressed a belief that the avant-garde itself, the intellectuals or the party leaders, would, through communism, attain greater, and even purer knowledge, which meant no esoteric endeavor but a capacity to recast their whole existence through a social project, a stronger involvement with everyday realities. The task was not easy. The pressing need prominent intellectuals and communist leaders felt for certainties involved considerable soul-searching. Perhaps this mood is best illustrated by the reflections of Jean-Paul Sartre, who never enlisted in the party but served the cause of Marxism. In 1945 Sartre described the end of the war as having occurred “among indifference and anguish. . . . it’s not peace. Peace is a beginning. But we are living an agony. . . . the future has not started: we no longer believe in the end of wars.” As I noted in chapter 1, Sartre denounced orthodox communism for its optimism, determinism, and denial of individual choice. Though he had high praise for the Soviet Union, he did not consider it the workers paradise the PCF made it out to be; nor did he shy from criticizing the Stalinist regime. Nevertheless, Sartre and other existentialists shared with many communist intellectuals the belief that any engaged thinker had to remain aware of the constant struggle for progress. This very commitment proved that they were on the side of progress and History, interpreted as Marxism and the Revolution. Communism had discovered class struggle as the engine that moved History forward.3 It was during the early Cold War, and in spite of Stalinism, that Sartre saw this project unfolding best. Soviet camps were a bad thing, but in the pages of Les Temps modernes both Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty cautioned the public against suggesting a moral equivalence between Stalinism and Nazism, and, even more, between the Soviet Union and America’s flawed, imperialist...

Share