What are you currently reading?

[Ken B]

Have you read Vassily Grossman's Life and Fate?

No. Is it good?

[Florestan]

No. Is it good?

It isn't good, it is excellent. 

[bwv 1080]

http://www.nybooks.com/books/imprints/classics/life-and-fate/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/john-lanchester/good-day-comrade-shtrum

There was also a radio serialization of life and fate on the BBC a few years back but I have not listened to any of it

[Florestan]

http://www.nybooks.com/books/imprints/classics/life-and-fate/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/john-lanchester/good-day-comrade-shtrum

There was also a radio serialization of life and fate on the BBC a few years back but I have not listened to any of it

None other than comrade Joseph Stalin kept Grossman in high esteem by considering him "even more dangerous than Boris Pasternak" --- and he was right. This book is one of the most devastating critiques of communism I've ever read, more direct, more explicit and more vivid than Doctor Zhivago --- and that's quite an achievement. The pages in which the Nazi officer Liss shows the bolshevik prisoner Mostovskoy that they should in fact be on the same side of the fence and not at all opposed are magical, but the whole book is really a masterpiece, both literary and political.

And it's also greatly and appropriately funny. For instance, one Russian sniper during the Siege of Leningrad confronts a political commissar (politruk) by asking him: "Comrade, I've always wanted to ask someone from the Party about that. If 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' was implemented, wouldn't most of them be drunk by noon?"

IMNSHO this book is the "War and Peace" of the 20th century.

[Ken B]

None other than comrade Joseph Stalin kept Grossman in high esteem by considering him "even more dangerous than Boris Pasternak" --- and he was right. This book is one of the most devastating critiques of communism I've ever read, more direct, more explicit and more vivid than Doctor Zhivago --- and that's quite an achievement. The pages in which the Nazi officer Liss shows the bolshevik prisoner Mostovskoy that they should in fact be on the same side of the fence and not at all opposed are magical, but the whole book is really a masterpiece, both literary and political.

And it's also greatly and appropriately funny. For instance, one Russian sniper during the Siege of Leningrad confronts a political commissar (politruk) by asking him: "Comrade, I've always wanted to ask someone from the Party about that. If 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' was implemented, wouldn't most of them be drunk by noon?"

IMNSHO this book is the "War and Peace" of the 20th century.

So, not a book you'd read when going through one of your Left phases the?

[Florestan]

So, not a book you'd read when going through one of your Left phases the?

 

My leftist phases are very short and in any case I sympathize (on a purely theoretical level, mind you) with such non-Marxist, non-Communist, non-Soviet left such as Proudhon, Oscar Wilde or Christian Anarchism. In the real life and at the bottom of my heart I am a convinced liberal (small l), with strong christian-democratic overtones.

[milk]

 

My leftist phases are very short and in any case I sympathize (on a purely theoretical level, mind you) with such non-Marxist, non-Communist, non-Soviet left such as Proudhon, Oscar Wilde or Christian Anarchism. In the real life and at the bottom of my heart I am a convinced liberal (small l), with strong christian-democratic overtones.

Ever read Jacques Ellul?

[Florestan]

Ever read Jacques Ellul?

Yes.

[milk]

Yes.

Speaking of Christian anarchy.

[Florestan]

Speaking of Christian anarchy.

Exactly. He has some interesting views on technology, too. And he pretty much sums up my own views on anarchy:

No society can last in conditions of anarchy. This is self-evident and I am in full agreement. But my aim is not the establishment of an anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. Here I differ from anarchists. I do not believe that it is possible to destroy the modern state. It is pure imagination to think that some day this power will be overthrown. From a pragmatic standpoint there is no chance of success. Furthermore, I do not believe that anarchist doctrine is the solution to the problem of organization in society and government. I do not think that if anarchism were to succeed we should have a better or more livable society. Hence I am not fighting for the triumph of this doctrine.
On the other hand, it seems to me that an anarchist attitude is the only one that is sufficiently radical in the face of a general statist system. (The Ethics of Freedom)

[milk]

Exactly. He has some interesting views on technology, too. And he pretty much sums up my own views on anarchy:

No society can last in conditions of anarchy. This is self-evident and I am in full agreement. But my aim is not the establishment of an anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. Here I differ from anarchists. I do not believe that it is possible to destroy the modern state. It is pure imagination to think that some day this power will be overthrown. From a pragmatic standpoint there is no chance of success. Furthermore, I do not believe that anarchist doctrine is the solution to the problem of organization in society and government. I do not think that if anarchism were to succeed we should have a better or more livable society. Hence I am not fighting for the triumph of this doctrine.
On the other hand, it seems to me that an anarchist attitude is the only one that is sufficiently radical in the face of a general statist system. (The Ethics of Freedom)

Thanks for the quote. I guess I never read this one. Yes, I like what thoughts I've understood of his about technology, propaganda, freedom, violence, etc. - I've been interested in some of his theology also although I am not a Christian. Sometimes I get a bit pessimistic thinking over his ideas. I was interested a few months back in the opposite view espoused by Richard Rorty, that liberal humanism has made progress and that, absent a dirty bomb, progress can continue towards more just and free societies. It's easy to think the sky is falling when we look at the state of things. Yet I come back to a kind of pessimism I feel in Ellul about the nature of the technological society and its imperatives. 

[Ken B]

Exactly. He has some interesting views on technology, too. And he pretty much sums up my own views on anarchy:

No society can last in conditions of anarchy. This is self-evident and I am in full agreement. But my aim is not the establishment of an anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. Here I differ from anarchists. I do not believe that it is possible to destroy the modern state. It is pure imagination to think that some day this power will be overthrown. From a pragmatic standpoint there is no chance of success. Furthermore, I do not believe that anarchist doctrine is the solution to the problem of organization in society and government. I do not think that if anarchism were to succeed we should have a better or more livable society. Hence I am not fighting for the triumph of this doctrine.
On the other hand, it seems to me that an anarchist attitude is the only one that is sufficiently radical in the face of a general statist system. (The Ethics of Freedom)

Except on your Leftist days.

[Florestan]

Except on your Leftist days.

It's more like hours, really. 

[Ken B]

It's more like hours, really. 

Be careful!

For, if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing, and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.

[Florestan]

Be careful!

Who is that quote from?   

[Moonfish]

Who is that quote from? 

It is inscribed on the BRO's shopping cart....

[Florestan]

Thanks for the quote. I guess I never read this one. Yes, I like what thoughts I've understood of his about technology, propaganda, freedom, violence, etc. - I've been interested in some of his theology also although I am not a Christian. Sometimes I get a bit pessimistic thinking over his ideas. I was interested a few months back in the opposite view espoused by Richard Rorty, that liberal humanism has made progress and that, absent a dirty bomb, progress can continue towards more just and free societies. It's easy to think the sky is falling when we look at the state of things. Yet I come back to a kind of pessimism I feel in Ellul about the nature of the technological society and its imperatives.

Well, Ellul says (and he is not alone in saying it) that it is exactly the progress of liberal humanism that brought us into the current state of things.

I think you might find this essay by Ernesto Sabato quite interesting: Man and Mechanism

[milk]

Well, Ellul says (and he is not alone in saying it) that it is exactly the progress of liberal humanism that brought us into the current state of things.

I think you might find this essay by Ernesto Sabato quite interesting: Man and Mechanism

Right. And Richard Rorty attacks this aspect of post-modernism (while agreeing with other aspects of it). I think Rorty is right that the ideas of individual rights and freedoms created through humanism have brought more people out of misery than, say, the Buddha ever dreamed of. Yet I look at noxious aspects of modernism that Ellul examines and feel pessimistic. I will check out the essay. I look forward to it.   

"The first element of awareness in the context of sociological propaganda is extremely simple, and from it everything else derives. What starts out as a simple situation gradually turns into a definite ideology, because the way of life in which man thinks he is so indisputably well off becomes a criterion of value for him. This does not mean that objectively he is well off, but that, regardless of the merits of his actual condition, he thinks he is. He is perfectly adapted to his environment, like 'a fish in water'. From that moment on, everything that expresses this particular way of life, that reinforces and improves it, is good; everything that tends to disturb, criticize or destroy it is bad."
- Jacques Ellul, "Propaganda: The formation of Men's Attitudes."

[Florestan]

Right. And Richard Rorty attacks this aspect of post-modernism (while agreeing with other aspects of it). I think Rorty is right that the ideas of individual rights and freedoms created through humanism have brought more people out of misery than, say, the Buddha ever dreamed of.

Buddha never dreamed of liberating people from physical, political or social misery, which is what Rorty means by "misery" --- he knew that all these were just symptoms and consequences of the most important misery there is, namely spiritual misery. One can debate whether the cures Buddha proposed for it are adequate (I think they aren't, at least not all of them), but to compare them with liberal humanism and find them wanting, as Rorty seems to do, is to completely misunderstand them. Just saying.

"The first element of awareness in the context of sociological propaganda is extremely simple, and from it everything else derives. What starts out as a simple situation gradually turns into a definite ideology, because the way of life in which man thinks he is so indisputably well off becomes a criterion of value for him. This does not mean that objectively he is well off, but that, regardless of the merits of his actual condition, he thinks he is. He is perfectly adapted to his environment, like 'a fish in water'. From that moment on, everything that expresses this particular way of life, that reinforces and improves it, is good; everything that tends to disturb, criticize or destroy it is bad."
- Jacques Ellul, "Propaganda: The formation of Men's Attitudes."

This sounds as if written precisely with Rorty and his liberal humanism in mind. 

[milk]

Buddha never dreamed of liberating people from physical, political or social misery, which is what Rorty means by "misery" --- he knew that all these were just symptoms and consequences of the most important misery there is, namely spiritual misery. One can debate whether the cures Buddha proposed for it are adequate (I think they aren't, at least not all of them), but to compare them with liberal humanism and find them wanting, as Rorty seems to do, is to completely misunderstand them. Just saying.

This sounds as if written precisely with Rorty and his liberal humanism in mind. 

For the sake of argument: what is it that's led to people to being lifted up en masse out of grossly miserable conditions in terms of overall well being? Liberal humanism. Perhaps Buddhism or some other "religions" did not seek to inspire fairer, perhaps even less violent, physical conditions of humanity. In any case, they did not succeed generally. Maybe they even opposed it although their is no shortage of people like Thich Nhat Hanh that interpret religion to be applicable to physical well-being presently.
Rorty's pragmatism proposes that people should and can be educated to be engaged in creating their own future. I still think their is something to be recommended in individual development and the pragmatic ideal of each generation creating a new and better future - in democracy generally and humanistic education specifically. However, where I live people are put through a mill of de-education propaganda a la Ellul where freedom and a different future are not thought of at all. Deep propaganda feeds the belief in what spreads the "same," as Ellul says, like fish in water, without much thought to new horizons, to making things better or to the possibility of things being different. Maybe it's just a matter of degree and Europe and the U.S. are also on the way. Rorty thought we should all be more like Sweden. But I'm sure some people here will say how Sweden is not all its cracked up to be. I don't know. I've never been there.