Customer Reviews

The Passing of an Illusion : The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What do Saint-Simon, Szyszko, Reyes, Schafer, and Marx all have in common? According to "The Passing of an Illusion," by Francois Furet, they were all the annointed prophets of the deadly cult of socialism (the deceitfully benign "nom de plume" of communism), which proved itself hostile to the most basic notions of individuality and freedom. These men provided the idealogical cornerstone for the bloody reign of Lenin and Stalin, and fueled the egoism and violence of dozens of more minor dictators and rebels throughout the last half of the Twentieth Century. Who better to expose the truth that our history books will not reveal than a former priest of the Red Religion? As a young man, Furet, a Jewish Creole of Haitian descent, was constantly excluded from social interactions by his French bourgeois peers for no other reason than his heritage. Understandably then, it was the revolutionary writings of the Polish Szyszko and the Belgian Schafer (famous for their simultaneous calls for the liberation of all nations subjugated by the European colonial powers)which first attracted Furet. As he matured, Reyes' ephemeral "Notes on a Libido Theory of Value" became more to Furet's liking, and his political activities in support of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in France grew ever more intense. Thirty years later, and after a story of conversion that absolutely MUST BE READ TO BE BELIEVED, Francois Furet has returned to the world of the rational, and brings to us as his offering of penitence this ecyclopedic survey of the diabolical philosophy of communism in Europe. This book should be mandatory reading for every student and amator of political science in America, where the marxian discipline--sadly--rages on in the halls of some of our greatest centers of learning.

I had high hopes for this book. But as I got into it I found myself having difficulty linking the concepts together. At first I though it was me but after a while I started to parse the sentences. I soon concluded that the sentences are totally unreadable, full of vague terms, run on constructions and, perhaps, paradoxical comparsions that are not readily apparent. Take these two sentences selected at random:

In both cases they were outsiders to the collectivity, thus exacerbating their opprobrium. Even a plurality of opinions had no effect on this second accusation, which followed from the first, since the bourgeois were no less detested on the left than on the right.

Now maybe this makes more sense in the original French. The translation is by Furet's wife, Deborah who may be so intune with her husband so as to assume more from English reader than is usual.

A great disappointment.

This book is a great book, but it is NOT a layman book. I read this for my graduate class in political science, and it was used as the theotical backbone for the class. The sentence structure is a little bit too hard to read at first, but the biggest obstacle, I think, is rather the concepts a person needs to know before he or she can really understand the book.

If you do not understand the book, then may be you are not part of the intended audience of it anyway.

Furet says, in the preface to this book, that "The passing of an illusion" "is not a history of Communism, even less a history of the Soviet Union; it is a history of the illusion of Communism during the time in which the USSR lent it consistency and vitality". In my opinion, this book tells us a story, the story of a myth. That myth is no other that the Communist myth, that was supposed to bring a world of peace and freedom, and instead only brought more chains to those who chose to follow it.

The October revolution was thought to be the continuation of the French Revolution, a new revolution that would finish the task the other couldn`t complete. Many continued to believe so even after it was fairly evident that that wasn't the case: the dictatorship of the proletariat had turned into arbitrary rule of the proletariat by a few. Of course, it was much easier to believe in the Communist myth living far away from the URSS than in that country, having to deal with the reality of oppression.

Furet points out how ingeniously the URSS managed to retain its universalistic appeal even after Stalin imposed the doctrine of "socialism in one state". He also mentions the intelligent identification that the URSS tried to make between Communism and Anti-Fascism, and the realization that "Communism had to conceal its reality in order to remain an 'idea' ". Many intellectuals were almost eager to be mislead: they hated Fascism so much that they didn`t wait much to "establish a subjective connection between Communism and liberty".

"The passing of an illusion" is rather long, but it is more than worth your time and effort. Even though it doesn`t exhaust the subject, it allows the reader to learn a lot about it... Moreover, it was written by François Furet (1927-1997), a well-known French historian that somehow managed to convey wonderfully how important the theme was to him. In his own words, "I have a biographical connection with my subject: in my youth, I experienced the passing of an illusion as a Communist between 1949 and 1956. My subject is thus inseparable from my existence, and I experienced firsthand the illusion that I am attempting to trace back to the time in which it was most widespread".

Why did the myth persist for so long, and how did it finally fall?. The author examines these questions, and finds some answers that I consider very interesting. However, those answers are quite long, so instead of repeating them I advice you to read this book :)

On the whole, I recommend "The passing of an illusion" to all those who want to understand our present. Believe it or not, doing so is impossible without understanding the communist myth and its evolution. Ideas are important, and the impact of Communism over our century is just another proof of that...

Belen Alcat

Whether the skill of his wife's translation or not, this man wrote in this work some of the best historical prose I've ever read. A profundity on every other page in a field that's been exhausted by the historical profession.

Although not an easy book to read, this is history at its best. It is the story of the blindness of too many in the West to what Communisim was about, as written by an erudite and wise man.

Marx's experience in London....The latter part of the 19th Century in England was one of oppression and exploitation of the worker, many of which were children. Conditions were deplorable. Abuses rampant. Marx's response to this and his theoretical solution originated and evolved during this period in London. After this period ended due to public outrage, legislation and union movements, Marxist ideology was not modified by its' followers, but reinforced, with it's (outdated) concepts. After digressing from implementing (the doing of) Marx's major points they erroneously continued to advocate the motto and principles (the theory) of Marx's original critique.

This book by the Furets is not about communism's policies, practices, and affect on certain societies. It's about its' idea, ideology, and vision. This makes it compelling. Because in the future there may be some who claim that communism wasn't "interpreted," or "implemented" correctly. Hence, they may advocate a "new" or "more effective" form or version of communism again in the future. This book takes a look not only at the the origins, interpretations, and implementations of Marxist ideology, but the disastrous ramifications of it. In actuality, Marxism was and still is nothing but heuristic value, becoming as passé as Freud by 1900. Marxism, in its true form, has never existed beyond the political theory in the books of Marx and Engels. Over 100 million people died as the result of this vision, which was never brought to fruition. No one can honestly argue against historical fact that today in 2003, that the altered and diluted form of communism that was implemented imploded, self-destructing from within.

Two Main Communistic Ideas That Never Came Into Existence

1. Marx: "the state will whither away" = State Communism

Did the state dissolve because there was no need for it, as Marx theorized? He wrote that the "state would whither away," because there would be no need for it to exist. But in the Soviet Union, the state was the most ever-present, omnipotent, and omniscient facet of Soviet life. The Soviet government was a monopolistic corporation: controlling, owning, producing, surveying, imprisoning, legislating, decreeing, and supplying, everything. Some claim this was the "Soviet Interpretation." This is impossible because one cannot interpret what was never stated nor implied.

2. Was the communist party representative of the proletariat or the average person?

Membership of the communist party was a very small portion of the population. Those who rose to Apparatchick status had special privilege and practiced and received favoritism in many areas of life. This small group of elites dictated to everyone else what to read, listen to, think, study, and say. Consequences were severe. In addition, most communist nations were rampant with venal bureaucrats, corruption, internecine politics, self-interest, censorship, secret police, and control of the media. Citizens were not allowed to travel. Is this a society based upon equality? Of the proletarian, or "working man?"

Were there various interpretations or Marxist ideology?

The basic principles proposed by Marx (and Engels) were never applied in any of the communistic societies of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, or Cambodia. This makes it as a working, applicable ideology, even less credible. Marxism was never implemented in the real-world. It was an empty dish of critiques that was later filled with food of alien ideas. There is no documentation that Marxism has ever been practiced or has ever existed in recent world history (save agricultural communes).

Marx's critiques of capitalism were critiques and critiques only, offering only limited and vague general theoretical alternatives. These blanks would later be filled in by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Le Duan and Tito among others. Only a few of Marx's tenets, were practiced by communist nations (i.e., atheism, agricultural collectivization).

After the fall of communism, these nations have the audacity to ask for financial aid and business know-how from the United States in particular and and Western Europe and market-economy-based nations in Asia. What strong ideals these people have....

The history of ideas teaches us not only about the particular idea being discussed, but also how our minds and emotions are put together at a basic level. Furet shows us the mechanisms by which humanity kept the idea of Communism alive even in the face of such facts as totalitarianism and raw terror. His conclusion is that we need a hopeful political idea, and capitalism just isn't sexy enough to ticle our fantasies. What idea will fill the role that Communism has played until its recent collapse? My guess is that the anarchists who show up at the international monetary meetings are the dreamers who have filled the gap that the Communists left behind. Unfortunately, just because an idea isn't sexy enough doesn't mean that it isn't the best, least terror-filled way.

The late Francois Furet informs us that this book is not a history of Communism, "it is a history of the illusion of Communism during the time in which the USSR lent it consistency and vitality." (x) The first third of the book first looks at the revolutionary passion and the First World War which made Bolshevism possible, then at the intellectual reaction to the revolution before 1933. The second half of the book deals with how Communism managed to obtain a powerful hegemony in the European Mind by taking the banner of anti-fascism. This was most undeserved, since the two ideologies, though genealogically distinct, were morally similar, and at times were even allies. But after Hitler's death, "During this period, Communism no longer had any open enemies in the West; they were hiding or were silent." (384)

This book has a number of flaws. It is very repetitive and it suffers from incompetent proofreaders. Bela Kun's Communist rebellion is placed in 1910, not 1919 (223). Victor Serge dies in 1974 instead of 1947 (514n14). John Lewis Gaddis' surname is turned into "Gassis," (548n6) while the dates of an essay by Mona Ozouf are moved a century ahead (552n43). Meanwhile interwar Yugoslovia and Romania are wrongly described as republics (58). More importantly, Furet makes sweeping statements about the intellectual climate of Europe based on little or no primary evidence. Statements such as "The Soviet Union was above suspicion" in 1945 (391), that in the sixties "the prohibition on anti-Communism at this time was as strict as ever," (493) and that on the eve of 1989 "anti-Communism was more generally condemned than during the heyday of victorious anti-Fascism" (497) are constantly reiterated. They are not sourced, they are not clearly argued, while the intelligentsia who support them are not clearly delineated, which is not surprising since all three statements are untrue. If they were true the French Communist Party would not have been completely excluded from power from 1947 to 1981. Nor would Communist parties in the rest of the NATO countries by all excluded from power and be, for the most part, marginal, despised and sometimes illegal entities.

Furet also does not deal with opposing arguments. He comments (166) that "There is nothing more incompatible with a Marxist-type explanation...than the unparalleled dicatorships of the twentieth century." Perhaps, but Furet does not discuss such authors as Trotsky, Carr, Deutscher, Neumann, Bauer, let alone the large neo-marxist scholarship of the present day who have sought to provide one. He uses Hermann Rauschning's memoirs to show Nazi sympathy for aspects of Communism (191-92), but Hitler's latest and most thorough biographer states that Rauschning's memoirs are very unreliable. Whether on the Spanish Civil War or the Nazi-Soviet Pact Furet ignores or is unaware of such scholars as Helen Graham, Geoffrey Roberts or Michael J. Carley.

When it suits his purposes he quotes socialist rhetoric by fascists and extreme right-wingers (163-67, 304-09). When it does not he ignores Francoist rhetoric about its fascist and totalitarian character to argue that it is safely "reactionary." (259-60) Nazism is called "anti-bourgeois," apparently for no other reason because of its constant calls for meritocracy (which one would think was a classic trope of bourgeois politics). He quotes David Schoenbaum's argument that Nazism led to a social revolution, but Ian Kershaw notes that this argument has been severly qualified by more recent research. Much is made of the complicity of intellectuals, but the acts of the Italian elites who voluntarily brought Mussolini to power are absolved "as the product of ignorance and incompetenece rather than of complicity." (176)

Fundamentally this is book that tells little about why Communism developed the way it did, or why so many French citizens supported it for so long. Ultimately it is the story of the heroic intellectual who rejected his Communist path and saw the light. Rather than read this self-serving account, scholars of Nazism and Stalinism should read authors such as Christopher Browning, Omer Bartov, Sarah Gordon, Terry Martin and Yuri Slezkine.

It is strange, is it not, that Western books and authors such as this use unusually strong language when referring to Marxism and Communism. Although I am not a communist, and I detest the notion of being one , I equally detest the righteous "goody- goody" hypocrisy, used by the West to combat it. To put it short, the West is guilty of doing many things that they despised the communists for, even worse, in the period of the "New World Order". Not all such accusations belong to the paranoid underworld of conspiracy theorists. They have supported some of the most shamelessly corrupt and wretched client regimes in the world, such as Zia-ul-Haq and Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, the murderous Guatemalan regimes, the Shah of Iran, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, the Arab Sheikdoms, to name but a few...They were responsible for the creation of the Taliban terror of Afghanistan, which is now one of the biggest thorns in their side. Nine years after gaining ascendancy in the world, the West's so-called reforms and ruthless robber capitalism have trashed and impoverished Russian society, despite their theorists' assertions and assurances to the contrary. This is what this book, and others like it, smell strongly of.