In the Paul Hollander reading something I found interesting was the relationship between the intellectuals and their affinity for Joseph Stalin. In the reading Hollander stated two general propositions that explain the durable attraction of communist dictators. The first was the profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions of these dictators and the second was a remarkable capacity for projection and wishful thinking on the part of many intellectuals (of all human beings) for attributing qualities they highly value to individuals they were disposed to admire. Throughout the reading it seemed like all of the intellectuals who had something to say about Stalin talked about how well they were treated when the met him and raved about his character while ignoring what he was actually doing as the leader of the Soviet Union which lines up with the first proposition that Hollander stated about the profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions of dictators. This made more sense when we talked about in class how french intellectuals became communists because of their feeling of emptiness in their vocation of intellectuals because a good amount of the intellectuals who commented on Stalin in the reading were french intellectuals. This also poses the question of, do these french intellectuals that advocated for Stalin believe that he could make utopia possible in this world because we learned in class that communist believe utopia is possible in this world. Also, now that Stalin is no longer alive, do they still believe that they can achieve utopia without him?
Categories
One reply on “Week 6 Blog #1”
I think that Stalin gave the French intellectuals hope for a better future. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they essentially turned a blind eye to his cryptic words and ruthless actions. These French intellectuals, as we have talked about several times in class, were disgruntled with their current status or situation in France and needed some sort of purpose for their lives. I think this is exactly what happens in every society, although in different contexts. At that time it was communism and the socio-economic relief that it was meant to provide. Now it is the idea of wokeism, as Professor Riley has alluded to in class, that is socio-economic relief but not class based but race based. Some parts of the readings from this week go into this a little bit starting in the 60’s.
I agree with you that the intellectuals were looking to fill a void in their lives that would only be filled by what they deemed worthy. Religion and faith were simply a hoax, they were looking for something tangible to better society with. Group mentality is a large part of this aim to get to “utopia”. Self improvement has no place in their mentality, all that you do must be for the Party and nothing else. I think that Stalin was the instigator for many French intellectual’s hope for utopia but his ideology of groupthink and the means that justify the cost is what they believe will lead them to “utopia”.