DOCSLIB.ORG

The Internal Conflict of Eastern European Communist Intellectuals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Internal Conflict of Eastern European Communist Intellectuals Oberlin Digital Commons at Oberlin Honors Papers Student Work 2005 The Mistakes of the Infallible: The Internal Conflict of Eastern European Communist Intellectuals Monica M. Lee Oberlin College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/honors Part of the Sociology Commons Repository Citation Lee, Monica M., "The Mistakes of the Infallible: The Internal Conflict of Eastern urE opean Communist Intellectuals" (2005). Honors Papers. 468. https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/honors/468 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Digital Commons at Oberlin. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Oberlin. For more information, please contact [email protected]. !It • •, • • " " " •It It The Mistakes of the Infallible: It The Internal Conflict of Eastern European Communist Intellectuals • Senior Honors Thesis • Department of Sociology .> Advisor: Professor Veljko Vujacic .\ • By Monica Lee ,•~ t t t t ~ t ~. ~. ~ • •D • • • • ...,fIlM Table of Contents fir Chapter 1: Introduction 1 .. fIlM Chapter 2: Arthur Koestler 24 .,• Undetermined Socia-Economic Class 27 ., Uncertain Homeland 33 Lack of Social Relationships 37 • Comfort in Intellectual Circles 40 .. The Spiritual and Social Need for Communism 42 The "Closed System" of Communist Logic 44 "• Koestler's Justification of the Party 48 • The "Closed System" Expressed in Darkness at Noon 52 Rubashov's Use of the Logical System 57 ".- Rubashov's Dialogues with Ivanov 59 .-.. The Power of Reason in the Mind of the Intellectual 64 .- I' Chapter 3: Czeslaw Milosz 68 Confused Class Membership 70 .. Unceitain Homeland and Culture 72 .. The Instability of his Home Town 78 ..e- Lack of Social Relationships 80 .. Comfort in Intellectual Groups 83 .. The Captive Mind 87 .. The Pill of Murti-Bing 89 ... Ketman 91 .. Alpha, the Moralist 97 .. Beta, the Disappointed Lover 101 ... Gamma, the Slave of History 104 $Ii Delta, the Troubadour 108 .. Devotion to Party Logic and Practice of Ketman Among Polish .. Intellectuals 111 .. Chapter 4: Conclusion 121 .. ~ Works Cited 128 .. 2 .. ~. ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ Chapter 1: Introduction ~ • In this thesis, I will explore the reasons why intellectuals, who are thought to be critical •~ of all governmental regimes, historically espoused revolutionary politics and communism. I will •~ also elucidate how the "closed system" oflogic in communist theory compels "free-floating" ~ D intellectuals to adhere to a dogmatic belief in the historical mission of the proletariat and justifY ~ revolutionary violence and the violent means used by the Communist Party to transform society. •~ In order to answer these questions, I will examine the literature and autobiographies of two Central European authors-Arthur Koestler and Csezlaw Milosz. First I will show that both •~ t authors were in fact "free-floating" intellectuals, who were not firmly based in a socio-economic ~ class or a single profession. Neither author came from or drew the influence of a single ~ ~ " homeland. Each writer spent extensive time outside of his home country and was exposed to a ~ variety of cultures. Finally, neither man had solid interpersonal relationships that inhibited his •~ travels and adventures or anchored him firmly in a location or social circle. This unique social ~ position provided them with no definite class or national interests. Thus, Koestler and Milosz ~ ~ depended on logic and the consensus of intellectual circles to develop their political positions. Theories of communism, which were rational and logical, became their political guide . .•~ ~ Using the same works of both authors, I will investigate the significance of the "closed ~ ~ system" of logic within communist theory that allowed intellectuals to justifY revolutionary ~ violence and the violent deeds of the Party. When witnessing and even practicing the violence· ~ • required of revolution and a transition to communism, both men referred back to their belief in • / the historical mission of the proletariat. So long as the Party represented the interests of the ~ • • ~ 3 • rl .'~: J't proletariat, it could be "formally" wrong but not "dialectically" wrong. Intellectuals, therefore, .,; had a moral and intellectual obligation to support and obey tbe party, whether or not it made .,: rl mistakes. For these intellectuals, the only true logical error or political mistake was to disobey I .1I the Party. .1 The intellectual role has been performed by thinkers, writers, and artists in all but the .'! .1. I most primitive human societies, but the "intelligentsia" as a status group did not appear until the .,.tJl!1 seventeentb and eighteentb centuries. In the late nineteenth century, tbe intelligentsia became an 1IIIIIifi;.. ; V"'-, undeniably potent social and political force when.tbeories of revolution, liberation, and . •fIE communism offered ideological guidelines for social change. Sociologists have examined intellectuals from a variety of perspectives, yet these "enlightened" individuals have proven f!P'" ", difficult to describe as a cohesive social group. •, Most sociologists agree that the intellectual's task in society is to produce, evaluate, and ., distribute culture and advocate moral standards. They should view tbe world objectively, expose • the lies and hidden motives of those in power and criticize the malevolent actions of the • government. Intellectuals have often functioned as tbe "conscience" of society and have • opposed established authority. •f!Jfi' Analytically, however, the debate about intellectuals is much more fractious. •r Sociologists have offered a multitude of explanations of what type of social group intellectuals -. •<iIF comprise and thus, why intellectuals take a critical stance toward autbority. For instance, Lewis -. S. Feuer proposes in his article "What is an Intellectual?" tbat the intelligentsia is a section oftbe •~-.'. 1 ., educated or professional class. George Konrad and I van Szelenyi argue that the Eastern • -,.,--" 'Lewis S. Feuer, "What is an Intellectual?" in The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals, ed. Aleksander Gella (London: SAGE, 1976),49. .,• 4 • European intelligentsia formed its own "government-bureaucratic ruling class.,,2 However, since · \ I intellectuals come from a variety of class backgrounds, do not practice a common religion, and do not participate in the process of production, these positions do not seem tenable. Since the intelligentsia is difficult to define in terms of class, religion, profession, or other conventional criteria of social stratification, an understanding of the sociological condition of the intelligentsia requires a thorough examination. Lewis Coser's account of the historical development of intellectual society, Karl Mannheim's analysis of free-floating or "socially unattached" intellectuals, and Alvin Gouldner's examination of the discourse of intellectual circles, enables us to define intellectuals sociologkally as a status group. Intellectuals exemplify Max Weber's definition of a status group because they are united by high regard for their education and common ideas rather than a shared economic situation. According to Weber, "In contrast to the purely economically determined 'class situation' we wish to designate as 'status situation' every typical component of the life fate of men that is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation of honor. This honor may be connected with any quality shared by a plurality.,,3 Both propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group. Although ascribed social position and occupation are often considered criteria for membership in status groups, they are not necessarily criteria for all status groups. What is important is that the individuals in the group share a specific style of life. Intellectuals demonstrate their cohesion as a status group specifically in the way they exhibit solidarity: they form a community around self-ascribed honor on the basis of their common educational and ideological heritage, and exclude outsiders in order to form a cohesive group: 2 George Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi, The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power, trans. Andrew Arata and Richard· E. Allen (New York and London,: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), 10. 3 Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in SOCiology. trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 186·187. 5 Lewis Coser states that intellectuals occupy a unique place in society because of their detachment from the process of production and a world view dictated by their social situation. He argues that intellect, as distinguished from the intelligence required in the arts and sciences presumes a capacity to move beyond the pragmatic tasks of the moment and commit to comprehensive values transcending professional or occupational involvement. Whereas intelligent individuals seek to "grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, the intellectual examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, and imagines.,,4 Unlike men in the professions and elsewhere who concern themselves with finding concrete answers to concrete problems, intellectuals feel compelled to look beyond immediate tasks and penetrate the more general realm of meanings and values. They are more concerned with understanding the type of society that should exist than functioning within the boundaries and according to the standards set by any current regime. According to Coser, the social position
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ar Thur Koestler and Mysticism
    AR THUR KOESTLER AND MYSTICISM by NILS BJORN KVASTAD ARTHUR Koestler was an influential writer during the first years after the war. His attacks on communism got a world-wide echo, in particular among intellectuals. To the reading public he was in the first place a political writer. But according to himself the political content is only one aspect of his literary production from his first years as an author. As important were some mystical experiences he had while sitting in one of Franco's prisons awaiting execution during the Spanish Civil War. These experiences had for him certain ethical impli cations, and an important theme in his first books was the contrast between the ethics derived from his mystical experiences on the one hand and Marxist-Leninist ethics as well as the ethical implications of Freudian psychoanalysis on the other. In his autobiography Koest­ ler writes about how his first books were influenced by his mysti­ cal experiences, or the 'hours by the window' as he called them: 'In the years that followed I wrote a number of books in which I at­ tempted to assimilate the (mystical) experiences of cell no. 40. Ethical problems had hitherto played no part in my writing, now they became its central concern. In 'The Gladiators', ( ...), and 'Darkness at Noon', ( .•. ), I tried to come to intellectual terms wi th the in tuiti ve glimp ses gained durin g the 'hours by th e win­ dow'. Both novels were variations on the same theme: the problem of Ends and Means, the conflict between transcendental morality and social expediency.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost in Back-Translation
    24 The German Times October 2018 ARTS & LIFE Lost in back-translation The rediscovered original manuscript of Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon allows for a new interpretation of a literary and political classic Rubashov, who is arrested and The book does not reveal the be resold for up to eight times works were all translated from one of the interrogation scenes, BY LUTZ LICHTENBERGER soon thereafter imprisoned. In country in which it is set. At the retail price. By mid-year, the the English. Scammell notes that Rubashov scoffs that “our lead- captivity he is interrogated to several points in the novel there novel had sold 300,000 copies, German-speaking readers would ership [is] more grotesque than t’s the political novel of the excruciating effect by two exam- are indications it may be Nazi and after two years, two million. have regarded the novel as “testi- that jumping jack’s with the little day, a warning signal, a reck- ining magistrates, Ivanov, an erst- Germany, or perhaps communist With the escalation of the Cold mony of a foreign culture.” This, mustache” – a direct reference to Ioning with all forms of totali- while friend and fellow traveler, Soviet Union. Scammel writes War, however, Koestler’s anti- perhaps, encouraged many of Hitler. However, the phrase in tarianism, a riveting literary dys- and Gletkin, a hostile and ruth- that early on, more astute critics totalitarian – indeed universal – them to overlook the passages Daphne Hardy’s original transla- topia. As a matter of fact, Dark- less inquisitor. The two officials called attention to the generally message passed nearly unnoticed.
    [Show full text]
  • HE CONTRIBUTION of GEORGE ORWELL and ARTHUR KOESTLER to the POLIT- ICAL THEORY of TOTALITARIANISM ~Oland James Wensley
    ~HE CONTRIBUTION OF GEORGE ORWELL AND ARTHUR KOESTLER TO THE POLIT­ ICAL THEORY OF TOTALITARIANISM ~oland James Wensley ·A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts , Department of Economies and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal. August, 1964. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i-v CHAPTER I: The Men and the Age 1-18 Situation in the 1930's Pl-2; Koestler's personal background P3-6; Koestler's background related to his thought P6-10; Orwell's personal background Pl0-12; Orwell's background related to his thought Pl2-16; Koestler and Orwell compared in general terms Pl7-18. CHAPTER II: Spain 1937 - The Impact of Totalita­ rianism on Koestler and Orwell 19-34 Situation in Spain 1936-37, Pl9-20; Koestler's Spanish experience P21-26J Orwell's Spanish experience P26-30; meaning of the Spanish experience for Koestler and Orwell as defined in terms of ''li.m.ited '' and "luxuriant r• totalita­ rianism P31-34. CHAPTER III: Arthur Koestler and Limited Totalita­ rianism 35-61 Koestler's view of man and society P35-38J Koestler's idea of the genesis of totalitarianism P39-41; attraction of Communism for Koestler P41-43; Koestler's conception of Stalinism P44-48; Koestler's theory of history P47-48; Koestler's idea of totalita­ rianism P48-56; the meaning of '' limi ted '' totalitarianism in Koestler's work ex­ pounded P56-61. CHAPTER IV: George Orwell and Luxuriant Totalita­ rianism 62-83 Orwell's view of man and society P62-64; Orwell's ideas compared with Koestler's on this P65-69; Orwell's extension of the anomalies of the modern age P69-73; Orwell on totalitarian stability1 distortion of reality, and the in­ vasion of the human personality P73-80; Orwell's conception of luxuriant totalitarianism P80-83.
    [Show full text]
  • View: "Koestler"
    Books Book Review: "Koestler" The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth-Century Skeptic. By Michael Scammell '85GSAS. By Michael Kimmage | Winter 2009-10 Arthur Koestler in New York City. (Bettman / Corbis) When Arthur Koestler arrived in New York City in March 1948 to launch an American speaking tour, his visit was front-page news. An audience of 3000 filled Carnegie Hall, eager to hear Koestler’s thoughts on “the radical’s dilemma” and on America’s pressing need to confront Soviet communism. Koestler had gained worldwide fame for his novel Darkness at Noon, published in 1940. The hero of the novel is Nicholas Rubashov, a devout communist caught in Stalin’s net in the 1930s for straying from the party line. Before his inevitable execution, he is interrogated and forced to confess to ludicrous crimes. At the heart of his ordeal is an “absolute faith in History”: Stalin may be fallible, but the Soviet cause is infallible and can be made to justify countless deaths, including Rubashov’s own. The novel’s taut, philosophical style made it a staple of international literary culture, damaged the Communist Party’s global reputation, and made its author an icon of the engagé intellectual. For much of the Cold War, Koestler was a celebrity anti- communist. Yet when Koestler, the author of some 30 books, died in 1983, his chosen legacy was detached from political parties, movements, and causes. In his will, he left most of his estate to endow an academic chair in parapsychology. This unorthodox evolution can now be traced in Koestler: The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth-Century Skeptic, a new biography by Michael Scammell ’85GSAS, professor of creative writing at Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragicomedy of Romanian Communism
    RESEARCH REPORT T O NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE : THE TRAGICOMEDY OF ROMANIAN COMMUNIS M AUTHOR : Vladimir Tismanean u CONTRACTOR : Foreign Policy Researc h Institute PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Vladimir Tismanean u COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 903-0 4 DATE : September, 198 9 The work leading to this report was supported by funds provided b y the National Council for Soviet and East European Research . Th e analysis and interpretations contained in the report are those o f the author . a NOTE This report, based on an article to be published i n Eastern EuropeanPolitics andSocieties, is an inciden- tal product of the Council Contract identified on the title page . It is not the Final Report, which wa s distributed in August, 1989 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Stalin's Romanian Disciples 1 1 The Comintern and the RCP 1 6 Stalinism for All Seasons 3 4 The Anti-De-Stalinization Platform 3 9 The Road to Absolute Power 43 The Manipulated Manipulator 47 Assault on the Party Apparatus 5 2 Notes 57 The Tragicomedy of Romanian Communis m Vladimir Tismanean u Un monde sans tyrans serait aussi ennuyeux qu'un jardi n zoologique sans hyenes . E . M . Cioran, Histoire et utopi e Now, despite eternal cabals in the inner clique and unendin g shifts of personnel, with their tremendous accumulation o f hatred, bitterness, and personal resentment, the Leader' s position can remain secure against chaotic palace revolution s not because of his superior gifts, about which the men in hi s intimate surroundings frequently have no great illusions, bu t because of these men's sincere and sensible conviction tha t without him everything would be immediately lost .
    [Show full text]
  • The Prisoner Intellectuals
    Published on The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com) The Prisoner Intellectuals • Paul Berman • May 5, 2010 | 6:34 pm Koestler: The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth Century Skeptic By Michael Scammell (Random House, 689 pp., $40) I. The opening pages of Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon are thrilling to read. In a very few sentences, Koestler managed to wrap his arms around one of the huge and mysterious philosophical master-themes of the last two centuries, and, in a muscular feat of poetic compression, to reduce his giant theme to a handful of simple images: The cell door slammed behind Rubashov. He remained leaning against the door for a few seconds, and lit a cigarette. On the bed to his right lay two fairly clean blankets, and the straw mattress looked newly filled. The wash-basin to his left had no plug, but the trap functioned. The can next to it had been freshly disinfected, it did not smell. The walls on both sides were of solid brick, which would stifle the sound of tapping, but where the heating and drain pipe penetrated it, it had been plastered and resounded quite well; besides, the heating pipe itself seemed to be noise-conducting. The window started at eye- level. And Rubashov observes the vista beyond the window bars: the snow, the moon, the Milky Way, a marching sentry, the yellow light of electric lanterns. You will remember that Rubashov is a hardened militant of the Communist revolution. In the old days, when he was a high-ranking commissar, he used to enforce Communist discipline on the party rank-and-file in different parts of the world, in the interest of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Infallibility Complex: the British Left and the Soviet Union, 1930-1950
    Infallibility Complex 31 Infallibility Complex: The British Left and the Soviet Union, 1930-1950 Greer Rose Gamble Third Year Undergraduate, Macquarie University In his 2003 Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million, British novelist Martin Amis asks a pertinent question: why. Why ‘everybody knows of Auschwitz and Belsen’ but ‘nobody knows of Vorkuta and Solovetsky’, why ‘everybody knows of Himmler and Eichmann’ but ‘nobody knows of Yezhov and Dzershinsky’; and crucially, why ‘everybody knows of the 6 million of the Holocaust’ but ‘nobody knows of the 6 million of the Terror Famine’.1 Comparative historians have attempted to remedy this disparity, but the situation remains such that even Robert Conquest, Cold War era chronicler of the Stalinist Terror, replied when asked why he considered Hitlerism to be “worse” than Stalinism, ‘Because I feel it to be so.’2 This article intends not to challenge the elevation of the Third Reich over the USSR in historical comparisons of evil, but rather to look at why the Terror has not been granted the same prominence. I argue that a portion of responsibility for the disparity, as it applies to the Anglosphere at least, can be ascribed to a deliberate campaign of misinformation undertaken by parts of the Western literary Left, including of course the Communist and fellow-travelling but also occasionally the liberal democratic Left, in the 1930s and 40s. We will see that members of these groups took an active interest in the Soviet Union, and through their travels and researches were often among the first Westerners to discover information about state atrocities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Different 'Darkness at Noon'
    The New York Review of Books April 7, 2016 A Different ‘Darkness at Noon’ by Michael Scammell Rene Saint Paul/RDA/Everett Collection Arthur Koestler, circa 1950 Last July a German doctoral student named Matthias Weßel made a remarkable discovery. He was examining the papers of the late Swiss publisher Emil Oprecht for a dissertation on Arthur Koestler’s transition from writing in German to writing in English at the end of the 1930s. Oprecht was a left-wing fellow traveler who had founded his famous publishing house Europa Verlag in Zurich in 1933, and was well known for his anti-Nazi views and support for writers in exile, including Thomas Mann, Stefan Zweig, Ignazio Silone—and the young Arthur Koestler. Weßel told me that at the time, “I was looking for letters and royalty reports, because I wanted to know how many copies were printed of the first German edition of Koestler’s Spanish Testament.” He failed to find the answer to his question, but while looking over the Europa holdings in the Zurich Central Library he came across a cryptic entry: “Koestler, Arthur. Rubaschow: Roman. Typoskript, März 1940, 326 pages.” This was extremely odd. Weßel knew of no such novel (Roman) in Koestler’s German writings, but the name Rubaschow rang a bell. Rubaschow (in English, Rubashov) is the hero of Koestler’s finest novel, Darkness at Noon. Weßel hardly dared think about what he had found, suspecting a sequel or perhaps a false entry, for it was well known that the original text of the novel—the last one Koestler wrote in German before he switched to English—was lost during his flight from France at the start of World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde of 20Th Century Intellectual History
    The Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde of 20th Century Intellectual History ANYONE INTERESTED in intellectual history from the great depression of the thirties to the post war 1980s will be familiar with the impact of Arthur Koestler, whose famous assault on Stalinism and the Soviet Union in his novel Darkness at Noon was a widely praised international bestseller. There was a vehemently critical biography written by David Cesurani, Arthur Koestler—The Homeless Mind published in London in 1998. It was an opinionated attack on Koestler’s personality and moral stature. It also portrayed him as a brutal womanizer and a self-loathing Jew. A more scholarly biography has now appeared written by Michael Scammell, the well-known biographer of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Scammell’s work does not have the polemical, hyperbolic prose of Cesurani but it too is a strongly opinionated defense of Koestler, seeing him as one of the greatest intellectual journalists and writers of the 20th century. Scammell describes Koestler as a Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, both intellectually brilliant and often mean-spirited, a bourgeois in domestic habits, bohemian in public, both idealistic and cynical, generous and kind on the one hand and brutal and even violent on the other. Books about Koestler are not likely to be written with a detached scholarly disinterest. Scammell’s biography is nearly 700 pages long. It has been acclaimed as a masterpiece of intellectual history. Koestler had an extraordinarily full life participating in nearly every intellectual, cultural, and scholarly debate and controversy of his time as well as being an actual participant in many major events including the Spanish Civil War, World War II and as a dissident voice throughout the post war years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tenacious Liberal Subject in Soviet Studies*
    The Tenacious Liberal Subject in Soviet Studies* Anna Krylova American scholars of Soviet Russia have demarcated their scholarship of the 1990s as a distinct period in Soviet studies. Scholarly work set itself off from the previous academic period by the events of 1991, newly available documents from Russian archives, and innovative interpretive frameworks. “New” has become the defining word of the decade. The emphasis on novelty announced the break with the past and, simultaneously, admonished contemporary scholars to distance themselves from previous schools of interpretation. In a review article in the Journal of Modern History, entitled “1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, Conceptual Categories, Analytical Frameworks,” Stephen Kotkin exemplifies this tendency and exhibits its problematic consequences. His stated project, to reinterpret the entire Soviet period against previous scholarship rather than in dialogue with it, results not only in a dismissive vocabulary regarding the “caricaturish notions” of the totalitarian school of the 1950s and the 1960s and the “clumsiness” of the revisionists of the 1970s and the 1980s, but in simplifications of the pre-1991 conceptual legacy.1 However, attempts to efface the past often backfire: by obscuring from the reader (and perhaps the author himself) intellectual indebtedness to the discipline, they reduce the conceptual escape to empty rhetoric. While appreciating the innovative contributions of scholarship on the Soviet Union of the 1990s, this chapter questions the claims of sharp “epistemological breaks” with the scholarly past and explores conceptual continuities in Soviet studies since World War II. My vehicle for this investigation is the genealogy of the category “Soviet man.” I focus on the ways that American scholars researching the 1930s have conceptualized the Stalinist subject, and particularly on the political and cultural roots of their conceptualizations.
    [Show full text]
  • “What Sort of Communists Are You?” the Struggle Between Nationalism and Ideology in Poland Between 1944 and 1956
    Edith Cowan University Research Online Theses: Doctorates and Masters Theses 2017 “What sort of communists are you?” The struggle between nationalism and ideology in Poland between 1944 and 1956 Jan Ryszard Kozdra Edith Cowan University Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses Part of the European History Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Kozdra, J. R. (2017). “What sort of communists are you?” The struggle between nationalism and ideology in Poland between 1944 and 1956. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1955 This Thesis is posted at Research Online. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1955 Edith Cowan University Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. Where the reproduction of such material is done without attribution of authorship, with false attribution of authorship or the authorship is treated in a derogatory manner, this may be a breach of the author’s moral rights contained in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Courts have the power to impose a wide range of civil and criminal sanctions for infringement of copyright, infringement of moral rights and other offences under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
    [Show full text]
  • How Should One Evaluate the Soviet Revolution?
    A&K Analyse & Kritik 2017; 39(2):199–221 Vittorio Hosle*¨ How Should One Evaluate the Soviet Revolution? https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2017-0013 Abstract: The essay begins by discussing different ways of evaluating and making sense of the Soviet Revolution from Crane Brinton to Hannah Arendt. In a sec- ond part, it analyses the social, political and intellectual background of tsarist Russia that made the revolution possible. After a survey of the main changes that occurred in the Soviet Union, it appraises its ends, the means used for achieving them, and the unintended side-effects. The Marxist philosophy of history is inter- preted as an ideological tool of modernization attractive to societies to which the liberal form of modernization was precluded. Keywords: Ethical evaluation of social events, Soviet revolution, continuities be- tween pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia 1 Introduction We may want to let the short twentieth century begin in 1914 or in 1917, but the So- viet Revolution will remain one of the most important events in the past century. To its comprehensive evaluation a century after the fact, perhaps a philosopher may contribute something useful. For the Soviet Revolution is, first, such a com- plex phenomenon that the perspectives of a single discipline, and even of various single disciplines juxtaposed to each other, will miss something important about this historical event. A philosopher, although a dilettante concerning each indi- vidual facet of the phenomenon, may enjoy a bird’s eye view, which can never replace but can maybe complement the specialists’ analyses. There is, second, the need for a normative evaluation of what happened to the Soviet Union and Russia in the course of the last hundred years.
    [Show full text]