Tag Archives: communism

Dialogue

A school playground

A hut

Rain drumming

“Are they coming?”

Debating

“Escaping?”

“From what?”

“From the crowd which stifles”

“But you want to be part of the herd, to play and run with the pack”

“Do I?”

“You long to be lost in the waves, to become part of the great tide”.

“But the tide is impersonal with neither heart nor soul. It sweeps all before it battering the weak and the vulnerable”.

“Oh, but to be part of the whole, to feel the power of the mass, the banners waving, torches blazing”.

“Thank you kindly but I would rather sit, alone in my hut”.

Grandson Of Joseph Stalin Defends His ancestor’s Reputation

An article in The Daily Mail in which the grandson of Joseph Stalin berates those who criticise his grandfather. Stalin is, according to his grandson a much maligned figure. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. On reflection I think laughter is the only sensible response to such a risible view of history. Stalin ranks alongside Adolf Hitler as one of the 20th century’s mass murderers and no attempt to whitewash his reputation is going to fool anyone with an ounce of objectivity. For the article please visit, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2923188/Stalin-no-bloodthirsty-cannibal-Putin-lacks-brains-Grandson-Soviet-tyrant-defends-tyrant-s-reputation-rambling-rant.html

Communal Living Anyone?

Can people live together in a state of equality by which I mean a society in which resources are shared equally and each individual contributes to the good of the whole community? The collapse of the former Soviet Union together with it’s former satelites in Eastern Europe has lead many to contend that such a state of afairs is pie in the sky. States which aim at equality inevitably degenerate into dictatorships which are neither equal or free the argument goes. But what about small communities or communes? Can groups of like minded individuals come together and live in a state of equality in which each person contributes to the common good? In any case how should we define the common good? Does it exist?

I have an idea for a story in which the above themes will be explored. I envisage a group of idealistic people joining together to farm the land in common and escape from what they perceive to be the materialism and corruption of capitalist society. Will their little community work or is it doomed to failure? Watch this space.

Man does not live by bread alone

Today I fell into conversation with a young Polish lady. We conversed about a variety of topics and during our conversation I asked her whether any Poles looked back with nostalgia to the time when Poland was ruled by the Communist Party. I must confess to being somewhat taken back by the answer to my question which was, in the words of my acquaintance that

“you can have to much freedom”.

The lady then went on to say that she thought that things had in some respects been better when Communists governed her country.

For reasons which I will not go into here I was not able to tease out what exactly my companion meant by her statement that people can have to much freedom. Her comment did however get me thinking about why I prize freedom, by which I mean the right of the individual under law to live their life, broadly speaking as they choose without undue interference from the state or society as a whole. As a writer I value the freedom to write what I please without the fear of the midnight knock on the door. We in democracies take freedom of expression for granted, however we should remember that the Nazis burned books by Jews and others they believed to be undesirable while Communist states prohibited works (fiction and non-fiction) which criticised the ruling ideology. Indeed Communist states have banned works by fellow Marxists who happen to have a different interpretation of Marxism from that held by the ruling elites.

I don’t want to live in a society in which books are censored. At the very least this would lead to a truncated intellectual climate and in it’s most extreme manifestation to tyranny.

It is postulated by apologists for various authoritarian systems that they maintain order by fostering equality by, for example ensuring full employment and universal social welfare. The argument often seems to boil down to “sacrifice freedom of a few intellectuals for the greater happiness and prosperity of the community”. Those who argue in this manner tend to downplay or deny the Soviet gulags and the intellectuals confined to mental institutions for criticising the regime. It is a delicious irony that apologists for tyranny frequently reside in democratic societies which (quite rightly) leave them free to express their views so long as they do not advocate violence. The freedom enjoyed by those who express contempt for democracy would be denyed by them to their opponents (oh irony of ironies).

Man does not live by bread alone and if intellectual freedom is sacrificed in the name of economic security we will, in all likelihood, ultimately end up with neither prosperity or freedom.

Poetry Makes Nothing Happen

In his poem, In Memory of W B yeats, the poet, W H Auden wrote

“For poetry makes nothing happen: it survives

In the valley of its making where executives

Would never want to tamper, flows on south

From ranches of isolation and the busy griefs,

Raw towns that we believe and die in; it survives,

A way of happening, a mouth.”

 

Auden is one of the 20th century’s greatest poets, I do, however take issue with his view that poetry (and writing more generally) makes nothing happen.

In Oliver Twist Dickens portrayed the English poor law in all it’s brutality. He laid bare the cruelty of the workhouse and the corruption of those who, like the fictional Mr Bumble the Beadle grew fat by abusing the system. Oliver Twist is unremitting in it’s highlighting of the abuses perpetrated by Bumble and his ilk, however Dickens humour also helps to ensure that the novel remains widely read to this day. Who can forget his description of little Oliver daring to ask for more gruel in the workhouse? Dickens was not responsible for bringing about the abolition of the workhouse, however Oliver Twist undoubtedly stirred the conscience of Victorian England, indeed the novel continues to move our conscience in the early years of the 21st century.

To take another example, George Orwell’s terrifying portrayal of totalitarianism in Nineteen Eighty-Four, a world in which much of the population of Oceania is constantly observed by the telescreen, influenced and continues to influence those who oppose totalitarianism. Although a man of the left Orwell has been cited by people of both left and right in defence of pluralism. Auden’s view that “poetry makes nothing happen” was not shared by the regimes who banned Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and his much shorter novel Animal Farm. The former Soviet Union and other authoritarian states believed that writing can make things happen, why else would they have prohibited the works of Orwell and other critics of authoritarianism?

Doubtless the greater prosperity enjoyed by democratic societies had a profound impact on the populations of Communist societies. Despite the attempted jamming of western media pictures of life outside the Communist bloc did penetrate behind the iron curtain. The inhabitants of Czechoslavakia, Poland and other states which came under Soviet influence wanted consumer goods, however the intellectuals among the populace desired freedom and the writings of Orwell, Kafka and others kindled in them this desire for democracy.

In conclusion it can be said that Auden is right in the sense that writing in and of itself makes nothing happen. However the influence of authors such as Dickens and Orwell should not be underestimated. When combined with political and economic forces words can (and are) powerful tools  for good or ill.