There’s a question that has been bothering me for as long as I can remember. I can’t quite tell it straight. It has to do with the causes with which we associate ourselves, and the extent to which we will go to justify the means employed to achieve the objectives of said causes. Let me start somewhere in the middle …
After snapping out of the naïvete that is the privilege of pre-pubescence, abandoning the arrogance of adolescence and defeating the doldrums of twentysomething angst, I managed to exorcise most of the heroes of my youth and accepted the ideas and icons that had shaped the core of my beliefs and values. These values coalesce around justice, equality, non-violence and the treatment of humans, always, as ends in themselves, and never as means to an end. Through all of this, there have remained, nonetheless, the nagging thoughts about guilt and innocence.
Innocence, I have come to believe, is terribly over-rated. Who among us can claim, for instance, that crude lust never took control of our loins, or that unrequited love has never led us to that cold and lonely place — the tight space between the toilet bowl and the bathroom wall; reeking of rum, filled with bile and self-defeat, and with the bitter taste of gastric secretions in our mouths and dripping from our nostrils — where we wished upon the one who scorned us a sulphuric bath in Hades? Who among us has not wished them dead? Innocence is not what it’s cracked up to be. Guilt may well be. If only for the headache.
How do we carry the burdens of our beliefs? How many of our fellow travellers are guilty of the basest of crimes against humanity. As I write this, I remember a passage by Arthur Koestler about his own tolerance of the intolerable. During his fiercely Zionist phase, while writing Thieves in the Night, Koestler was deeply troubled by what he described as “an acute conflict between conviction and inclination”. Having had what he explained as his “fill of terror and violence”, he felt “compelled to explain and defend the cause of Jewish terrorists”. He was referring, of course, to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang terrorist organisations that were part of what would become more than 50 years of systematically removing Palestinians from their homes and land.
I recently read an article by one of those super-intelligent beings (I offer no apologies for my sarcasm), those mere mortals who seem to know everything about everything — and who are always right. He is, of course, an economist; a white male from the United States. No, it is not that one; it is the other … In an article this same economist cast the gravest of aspersions on one of the finest historians of the 20th century, Eric Hobsbawm, by drawing attention to the latter’s Marxist affiliations. In a single passage he, the economist, associated Hobsbawm with all the victims of Stalin and Mao; he even provided the numbers of people killed during the reigns of both. I will not direct you to his website because I will not encourage people to reproduce in any form what I consider to be self-righteous blather by the (self-arrogated) innocent.
My immediate thoughts were as follows: Stalin and Mao each killed (let’s say) 50-million people. Stalin and Mao were both communists, ergo communism kills. But then I asked (myself) some questions. (Potentially offensive parts removed following complaints by readers).
1. If I consider myself to be a communist, am I guilty of those murders?
2. Hitler was not a communist (in fact, he hated communists); are all people who hate communists guilty of killing more than 10-million people during Hitler’s reign?
3. If Stalin killed more people than Mao, was the Soviet leader more evil?
4. So, if the economist ranks figures such as Stalin and Mao (trust me, he even referred to “clubs” of mass killers) according to the number of people they killed, were they more evil than Hitler?
Then these questions piled up and started doing my head in … Really, there is no need to even bother with answering such questions. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century; theirs were deeds of unspeakable cruelty. No buts.
However 
are the numbers of victims all that matter? Can we actually say, or should we even bother whether Mao may have been more evil than Stalin because the Chinese leader killed more people? I kept coming back to that question of numbers. Economists love numbers.
Anyway, while wrestling with the numbers and meaning and all that, I remembered another passage that I read elsewhere, written by the Berkeley sociologist Robert N Bellah, about World War II and the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima — which, by most uncritical accounts, brought an end to the war and victory to the Allies.
“But,” wrote Bellah, “is it so entirely clear that we won the war? Wasn’t there a sense in which we were defeated in that war, and I don’t mean only by the early disasters? I would say that we were defeated to the extent that we became like the enemy we opposed. Early in the war we condemned the Germans for their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. By 1943 or 1944 we were engaging in the most terrible bombing of civilians in history.
“Hundreds of thousands died in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and other German and Japanese cities. And then on August 6 and 9 the United States unleashed the only two atom bombs ever to be used, unleashed them on the large, crowded cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As an eighteen-year-old at the time, looking forward to immediate induction into the army, I, like most other Americans, had no doubt that using the atom bomb was the right thing to do. Only considerably later did I come to see it as second only to the Holocaust among the crimes of the twentieth century.”
I remembered, also, a passage by Christopher Coker — the teacher whom I will always remind myself has been the greatest inspiration in my scholarly escapades — who wrote about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sometimes, he explained, we avoid discussing the past because it hurts. Sometimes we do so because it is embarrassing. So we create dissonant discourses — even in real time.
After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US decided not to look at their devastation: “Rather than garrison the two cities they preferred their allies to do so. They spared their own soldiers scenes of what they accomplished.” Citing Eli Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor Christopher Coker explained that the Holocaust could only be understood together with Hiroshima: “The only way for the world to save itself … is by remembering … the Holocaust. There could have been no Hiroshima, symbolically without Auschwitz … only Auschwitz can save the planet from a new Hiroshima … We recall the ultimate violence in order to prevent its recurrence.” (I’m sure I did not misquote Christopher.)
So where does this leave me? Where does it leave my beliefs? Sure, I’m a Marxist. I also believe that Marx had as little to do with what happened in the Soviet Union between 1923 and 1985 as Jesus has with Christianity in the late capitalist period. Eric Hobsbawm, the British historian whom the economist tarred with the same brush as Stalin, was guilty by association of the death of millions of people. I have the greatest respect for Hobsbawm; I probably respect him more than any living scholar and human being. Ergo, I am guilty of the murder of tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, and tens of millions more during Mao’s reign. That’s a lot of dead people. That’s more people than what died in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, in Hitler’s slaughter of Jews, gays, Gypsies and anyone who was considered to be “impure”.
However, if (just to piss of the economists) we removed the numbers and considered all mass murderers as bad people, then all of us (communists and anti-communists) are bad; not just some of us — then we’re all guilty. Also, if we want to find, say, one human being guilty for something that we all are guilty of, are we not compelled to look at ourselves? Or will we continue to labour under the pretence that good people cannot be bad, and that bad people cannot be good?
Oy vey!
Why ruin a good article with a personal attack on your own readers?
B
Again with the defence of Lyndall Beddy. Let me say this.
1. If you are prepared to participate in public discussion and present yourself willingly or unwillingly as a public intellectual, you should be prepared to accept criticism.
2. I don’t consider her to be one of my readers. She has entered the public domain as an intellectual (in a Gramscian sense, I believe anyone/everyone is an intellectual). In a strict Marxist sense, my response is not to her, personally, it is in reply to the particular set of interests she appears to represent.
3. Some of the comments she made were in response to what others have written. Please follow the link in the other post, and you will see that my criticism is about what she said in reply to ANOTHER writer’s submission.
4. You should stop by more often and check for criticism of her. I accept that it may offend people, I accept your criticism, but for as long as she makes statements that are unfounded, deeply lacking in factual evidence or support and based on what are clearly petty prejudices, and asininities more suited to bathroom banter, she will, as a public intellectual, come under scrutiny.
If writers on Thought Leader can be called “clowns” by commentators, (as Bert Olivier has been) then pointing out some of the factual errors and other silly things on the part of commentators is really not an issue.
None of us, on Thought Leader, are beyond criticism.
Ismail
” I also believe that Marx had as little to do with what happened in the Soviet Union between 1923 and 1985…”
The concept of the class enemy is a sine qua non of Marxian thought. Neither was he concerned with averting revolution – it was rather a precondition for his classless utopia. He also prescribed the dictatorship of the proletariat – and dictatorships are violent by definition.
“He is, of course, an economist; a white male from the United States.”
Come on! Don’t leave me twisting in the wind – which one of the horrible white economists in the states are you talking about?
I think about this often in a kind of abstract way…and I’ve come to a relatively squishy conclusion (as opposed to a firm one) that much of the solution to the question is found in an individualistic approach.
We all collect theories and idea(l)s and position ourselves on sides in every micro-debate. We are predominantly eclectic beings, driven by a combination of self-interest (as in wishing to maximise benefits from our existence for ourselves or others we perceive to be extensions of ourselves) and…self-interest (not really, but as in things which interest/entertain us, in a positive or negative sense, and hold our attention for a period of time).
Some of these eclectic idea(l)s will solidify and become more enduring positions that we will hold for longer periods of time – perhaps a lifetime or until someone proves to us that our position isn’t what we thought it was (very difficult with solidified positions, easier with fleeting ideas).
The tighter we tie ourselves to an idea(l) or philosophy (such as Marxism), the more difficult it becomes for us to let go and the more likely we are to also take on board other parts of that philosophy which by themselves we would otherwise dismiss or find offensive. The purveyors of such philosophies can enable the more offensive minutiae to be carried along by ensuring that they are tied tightly to the attractive core ideals and dissent is strongly discouraged; all-or-nothing approach.
Which means that the more tightly we hold on to a philosophy, the more likely it is that we can be held, to some hypothetical extent, liable for things done in the name of that philosophy, if we become more unquestioning of those sub-features which we do not interest us personally (in any sense) but we have begun to accept without reason.
Then also the collective (ie the individuals within the collective) must take responsibility for accepting the unacceptable subtext underneath the broadly acceptable philosophy. So if I am a member of a religious body which has a broad philosophy of moral righteousness, giving to the poor, all things that I feel are of interest and benefit to myself and my community, I accept that. If this body then has an idea that people should be put to death instantly for, say, adultery then I can choose to accept that (in a positive or negative sense) or I can choose to dispute it. If I accept it, I am as liable as any other member when that doctrine is applied.
For things which occurred before one’s birth or before one’s miraculous conversion? If you continue to accept the same offensive subtext then perhaps you are guilty – in both the sense of denying the responsibility of the collective as it was then, and in directly or indirectly continuing to pursue those same aims.
So if a member of a group which preaches racial hatred accepts the same conventions that have resulted in massive discrimination and breaches of human rights – that person is not guilty of the actual breach but is guilty in the sense of supporting it, directly or otherwise.
That’s my theory on this – which theory leads me to believe that there’s an inherent danger in any community overriding individual thought and disallowing personal opinion on any matter, no matter how trivial. Now that’s self-interest talking.
kit
your last comment brought a smile to my face – which was much needed since i just had my students sit through a documentary on darfur. actually, the documentary was uplifting. so i am talking out of the wrong place.
anyway, with regard to your comment on the other post…. my coming back is really a separate issue, and not one i want to discuss in an open forum; it might get to sound like i am applying for jobs. but let me (nonetheless) say this i have no political or even economic reasons for NOT returning to south africa. if the truth be known i will be better off, financially, if i did return to south africa.
the only obstacles are practical.
there has to be a firm job offer, this would help me get my own place to stay. believe it or not but i am a very, very private person; i will not even stay with any of my siblings – not that they have space, and my parents live in “backrooms” which were once a garage at the back of someone’s house somewhere.
you suggest that check out with friends; trust me, the ONLY reason I am still on facebook is because I have the most wonderful friends, anyone could wish for. for example, the “family” i have in minnesota will move the earth for me! their children are like my own – i kid you not. one friend in south africa, the great herby, has said i would be welcome to stay with him “for six weeks, three months whatever”… but i want to know that I can pay my own way and cover some of my debts.
so, thanks for your positive comments and let this be the last time I have to discuss this matter. as it goes, i have accepted an extension to teach until next august. in fact i was asked to design a course on Islam in the World/International Relations… lubbly jubbly.
ismail
Congrats on the extension! And yes, understand totally about the privacy thing and probably a lot of other people do so no further need to cover the details of how and why – since that’s something you can easily figure out for yourself if that day arrives.
I think the whole idea of fora like these are great but they do gravitate towards really biting and difficult issues or really divisive issues – obviously, as there would be little to talk about anything probably if we were all just mutually back-patting about the good stuff that’s going on around us.
But I wasn’t entirely surprised by the results of the raw data either. It’s probably about how it looks but I think you do need to think about filtering it through the who-has-access-to-the-internet lens. It would probably read a bit differently.
Glad the random ramble above gave you some amusement. I have to admit that I enjoy the vast majority of your posts because they give me topics to think about in a way that is just about tolerable for my small mind without having to automatically accept your conclusions nor anyone else’s without first chewing them over a bit. It’s a good talent to have for a prof I’d imagine; I hope your students make good use of it.
hi
enjoyed reading this.