person:jean-paul sartre

  • How To Become Data Scientist Without CS Degree
    https://hackernoon.com/how-to-become-data-scientist-without-cs-degree-f2b17a79d28b?source=rss--

    Last year of the university, quite hard days you might imagine. Every second pass with the anxiety of future when you turned off the screen of any device and moved away from social media or anything else that killing your time. I was in one of these times. Nausea had begun. But it wasn’t a physical sickness as you thought. I’m about nausea of existence that Jean-Paul Sartre describes very well in his books. I felt like I must find a job directly after graduation and I mustn’t delay it because I’m already in my last year. You often feel that kind of moments if you live in a country which struggles with unemployment. I turned on my pc and started searching about departments I can apply for work after graduation. But there were lots of business departments I can apply to. So better to (...)

    #machine-learning #data-science #how-to #self #data-scientist

  • SPK: Turn Illness into a Weapon
    https://archive.org/details/SPKTurnIllnessIntoAWeapon

    Author(s): Socialist Patients’ Collective, Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv

    Publisher: KRRIM, Year: 2002

    ISBN: 3926491175,9783926491176

    Description:
    This text, if it should result in being completely undigestible not able to beconsumed, then the consequence of this experience can only exist in negating it (negieren!), which means to abolish it into practice dialectically (ihninder Praxis dialektisch aufheben). This text itself is the abolition (Negation) representing the practising of the SPK.

    Startling book on the SPK, (Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv), including theses and principles, chronology of events, essays and an introduction by Jean-Paul Sartre.

    During the times more remote there existed astrological maps in which the governors of your brain took names like moon (luna) or cancer, the governors of your muscles Mars and so on. Those oldy names which nevertheless represent still existing pathways and exchange banks for other demons and devils, possessing and obsessing, interested in imperialism, but enemies of every kind of revolution concerning both, namely cosmic and social matters, for sure (kosmisch-soziale Revolution).

    In future there will exist more and more groups formed by special forces of illness, developing real in-dividuation (MFE). A special force of illness is mania which, if developed collectively, works like a musical species (Musikgattungswesen, nicht harmlos) killing all discipline, by transcendence. The same about a collective which develops its self-chosen addictions (Körpersüchte) exercised body by body, for addiction then is a deadly weapon against drugs, while turning all bodies to a well tempered species (Wärmekörper, wild), thus by immanence. Did you ever divide a melody, a lot of warmth, an illness or some other species? Of course not, for such individualities are either individuals or divisible, thus no individuals.

    Perhaps Plato and Bergson forgot to mention it in the completeness, now necessary to enable the doing it, and Pluto, grouping the imponderable into weight, the weight into imponderability, therefore now is mad at them and resorting to earthquakes. Make use of your own experiences about illnesses and put fantasy into action.

    Those things are meant if there is the question about how to be up to date. SPK - TURN ILLNESS INTO A WEAPON is the first glance to a future to be done free of (Endlösungs-) names, governors, health factories and so on. We call it Utopathie.

  • Les sorcières de Salem | ARTE - Jusqu’au 10 juin
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/075745-000-A/les-sorcieres-de-salem

    initié par le couple Yves Montand et Simone Signoret, porté par des dialogues de Jean-Paul Sartre, le film s’inspire d’une chasse aux sorcières du XVIe siècle pour dénoncer la croisade anticommuniste du sénateur McCarthy.

    1692. Salem, petite bourgade du Massachusetts, un dimanche matin. En ce jour de repos et de prières, les enfants ont l’interdiction de jouer et la petite Fancy éclate en sanglots lorsque sa mère, Elisabeth, lui confisque sa poupée. Après l’avoir consolée, son père, John, refusant le repos, se rend à l’étable où l’attend la jeune et ravissante servante Abigail. Se sentant coupable, il refuse ses avances. Mais son épouse le repoussant depuis des mois, John finit par retrouver Abigail dans sa chambre. Elisabeth surprend les deux amants, et décide de renvoyer la servante, qui, pour se venger, commence à se livrer à la sorcellerie. Dans cette communauté très puritaine, elle est vite pourchassée puis arrêtée.

    Reconstitution historique
    Pendant près de soixante ans, le film fut invisible en salles car Arthur Miller – auteur de la pièce dont il s’inspire –, qui en détenait une partie des droits, s’était opposé à son exploitation jusqu’à sa mort en 2005. Raison officieuse : il était toujours ulcéré de la brève idylle qu’Yves Montand avait entretenue avec son épouse Marilyn Monroe. En 2017, Pathé obtint enfin les droits du film et procéda à sa restauration. Sous l’apparente reconstitution d’un fait historique se cache une virulente charge contre la chasse aux sorcières du sénateur McCarthy à Hollywood. Signoret et Montand sont à l’origine de cette adaptation où les deux acteurs livrent une bouleversante interprétation face à une Mylène Demongeot émouvante en amoureuse éconduite.

  • France, Where Age of Consent Is Up for Debate - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/frances-existential-crisis-over-sexual-harassment-laws/550700

    On April 24, 2017, a 28-year-old-man met an 11-year-old girl in a park in Montmagny, just north of Paris, after which, he took her home where he had oral and vaginal sex with her. When it was over, the girl called her mother and described what had happened, and her mother called the police. “She thought … that she didn’t have the right to protest, that it wouldn’t make any difference,” the mother told Mediapart, a French investigative site which first reported on the allegations of the case. The accusations were of an adult raping a child—a crime that, in France, can lead to a 20-year prison sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is 15 or younger.

    But it initially wasn’t charged that way. When the case first went to court in September, the man faced only charges of “sexual infraction,” a crime punishable with a maximum of five years in jail and a €75,000 fine. Under French law, a charge of rape requires “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise,” even if the victims are as young as the girl in the Montmagny case. When the case, initially postponed, went back to court in February, the man’s attorneys did not deny the sexual encounter but argued that the girl had been capable of consenting. “She was 11 years and 10 months old, so nearly 12 years old,” defense lawyer Marc Goudarzian said. Sandrine Parise-Heideiger, his fellow defense lawyer, added: “We are not dealing with a sexual predator on a poor little faultless goose.”

    Such a defense flies in the face of legal and cultural consensus in most Western nations, and much of the world. “With children there is inevitably coercion,” Ernestine Ronai, co-president of the gender-based violence commission at the government’s High Council for Equality between Women and Men, told me. “It is indefensible that a girl of 11 could be considered consenting with a 28-year-old man. This is shocking,” she added.

    Indeed, the judge did ultimately order that rape charges be filed, in what Carine Durrieu-Diebolt, the attorney for the girl and her family, called a “victory for victims.” The case has been postponed to allow for a more thorough investigation into the allegations. But in the meantime, it has also provoked an unprecedented backlash that has resulted in France considering a change to a longstanding, anomalous feature of its laws: Up to now, there has been no legal age of consent for sex.

    Under French law, “rape” is defined as “any act of sexual penetration, of whatever nature, committed on the person of another by violence, coercion, threat or surprise.” Yet unlike elsewhere, there is no presumption of coercion if a sexual minor is involved. Most other countries in Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Britain, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria, have a legal age of consent. Most of the age minimums range between 14 and 16 years of age. Fixing a specific age of consent means that children and adolescents below that age cannot, regardless of circumstances, be considered consenting to sex; their very age renders them incapable. As a result, an adult in most European nations who has sex with someone under this age would be charged with rape, even if violent force is not used.

    • Most other countries in Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Britain, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria, have a legal age of consent. Most of the age minimums range between 14 and 16 years of age. Fixing a specific age of consent means that children and adolescents below that age cannot, regardless of circumstances, be considered consenting to sex; their very age renders them incapable. As a result, an adult in most European nations who has sex with someone under this age would be charged with rape, even if violent force is not used.

    • After May 1968, French intellectuals would challenge the state’s authority to protect minors from sexual abuse. In one prominent example, on January 26, 1977, Le Monde, a French newspaper, published a petition signed by the era’s most prominent intellectuals—including Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes, Philippe Sollers, André Glucksmann and Louis Aragon—in defense of three men on trial for engaging in sexual acts with minors. “French law recognizes in 13- and 14-year-olds a capacity for discernment that it can judge and punish,” the petition stated, “But it rejects such a capacity when the child’s emotional and sexual life is concerned.” Furthermore, the signatories argued, children and adolescents have the right to a sexual life: “If a 13-year-old girl has the right to take the pill, what is it for?” It’s unclear what impact, if any, the petition had. The defendants were sentenced to five years in prison, but did not serve their full sentences.

      In 1979, Liberation published another petition, this time in support of Gérard R., a man on trial for having sex with girls between the ages of six and 12. It was signed by 63 people, many of them well-known intellectuals like Christiane Rochefort and Pascal Bruckner. It argued that the girls in question were “happy” with the situation. “The love of children is also the love of their bodies,” they wrote. “Desire and sexual games have their place in the relationship between children and adults. This is what Gérard R. thought and experienced with [the] girls … whose fulfillment proved to everyone, including their parents, the happiness they found with him.”

      What the endorsements from prominent French intellectuals suggested was that young children possessed a right to govern their own sexuality. Under this interpretation of liberté, young children were empowered to find happiness in sexual relationships; their ability to consent was a foregone conclusion. Any effort to suggest otherwise would be a condescension, a disrespect to them as fully realized human beings. In a radio interview in 1978, Michel Foucault said of sex with minors that assuming “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.”

      “People have a hard time admitting they were colonized by the discourse of pedocriminals,” Salmona told me. France in the 1970s and 1980s, she said, was an “atrocious” era for children, an active time for a very unapologetic “pedocriminal lobby.”

      Yet it’s hard to know exactly how widespread the so-called pedocriminal lobby’s influence reached. On the one hand, as sociologist and criminologist Patrice Corriveau wrote in 2011, the number of sexual abuse cases involving children in France had been on the rise since 1972. By 1982, he found, sexual offenses against minors had increased by nearly 22 percent—meaning, it seemed as though the stigma against child sex abuse was encouraging victims to come forward. At the same time, while the number of reported cases was on the rise, convictions for homosexual acts with minors were decreasing. As Corriveau explained: “In France … sexual behaviors, homoerotic or not, dropped in importance on the level of judicial intervention as the sexual revolution took hold. In fact, morals offense represented only 0.54 percent of overall criminality in France in 1982.”

      #pedocriminalité #pedosexualité #pedophilie #viol #culture_du_viol #enfance #domination_adulte #domination_masculine #deni #cocorico #liberation_sexuelle #mai68

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 07
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM07.htm

    In The Control Commission

    One afternoon General Shabalin sent for me. When I reported he handed me an invitation from American headquarters, asking him and his coworkers to take part in a conference at Frankfurt-on-Main to discuss the liquidation of the I.G. Farben Industry. “Take my car,” he said, “and drive to Zehlendorf. Hand in the list of our delegation, and find out when the plane leaves. If there isn’t a plane, obtain passes for us to use our cars for the journey.”

    It was five-fifteen when I arrived outside the American headquarters. ’Well, now I shall have to wait an hour for an interview,’ I pondered. ’And I’ve got to see Eisenhower’s economic adviser, but I haven’t any letter of introduction, only my personal documents.’

    I stopped the car at the gate and took out my documents. The American guard, in white helmet, white canvas belt, and white gaiters, raised his white-gloved hand in salute and seemed to be completely uninterested in my documents. To give some excuse for stopping the car, I asked him some meaningless question. Without speaking, he pointed to a board with an arrow and the one word: ’Information’. I drove past the Information Bureau slowly, and glanced back casually to see whether anybody was watching me. ’I’ll find what I want, myself; it’s a good opportunity to have a look round without trouble. I’ll see what sort of fellows these Americans are. They may not pull me up at once. And if necessary I’ll simply say I took the wrong way.’

    I strictly ordered Misha to remain in the car and not stir a step. Who knows whether he might be kidnapped, and then I’d lose my head!

    I went along a corridor. All the doors were wide open, the rooms were empty. Here and there German women cleaners were sweeping the floors. On each door was an ordinary tablet: ’Major So-and-so’ or ’Colonel So-and-so’, and the name of the department. What on earth did it all means? Not a sign of security precautions. We Soviet authorities did not hang out name-boards on the doors to inform our internal and external enemies who was inside.

    I felt a little uncomfortable, almost queer, with anxiety. As though I had got into a secret department by accident and was afraid of being caught. In search of the right room I looked at one nameplate after another and felt as though I was a spy going through the card index of an enemy General Staff. And I was in full Soviet uniform, too!

    One of our officers had once told me there was no point in visiting an American office after five p. m. “After that they’re all out with German girls,” he explained, and I couldn’t be sure whether his words expressed contempt or simply envy of American methods. “They think anyone who sits in an office after office-hours doesn’t know how to work or arrange his time.”

    ’He was right,’ I thought now. ’The Americans obviously don’t intend to work themselves to death. General Shabalin’s working day really begins at seven in the evening. I suppose I must apply to “Information” after all.’

    In the Information Bureau I found two negroes extended in easy chairs, their feet on the desk. They were chewing gum. I had some difficulty in getting them to understand that I wanted to speak to General Clay. Without stopping his chewing one of them called something incomprehensible through a small window into the next room. Even if I had been President Truman, Marshal Stalin, or a horned devil, I doubt whether he would have removed his feet from the desk or shifted the gum from his right to his left cheek. And yet ’Information’ functioned perfectly: a sergeant behind the window said something into a telephone, and a few minutes later an American lieutenant arrived and courteously asked me to follow him.

    In General Clay’s outer office a woman secretary was turning over the pages of a glossy magazine. ’She’ll probably put her feet on the typewriter too,’ I thought, and prudently sat down at a safe distance. While I was wondering whether to remain silent or enter into conversation with the ’Allies’, a long-nosed little soldier burst through the door leading to the general’s room. He tore through the outer office and snatched his cap down from a nail, saying a few hurried words to the secretary.

    ’The general must be a bit of a martinet, if his men rush about like that,’ I thought.

    At that moment the soldier held out his hand to me and let loose a flood of words which overwhelmed my weak knowledge of English. “General Clay,” the secretary said in an explanatory tone behind my back. Before I could recover my wits the general had vanished again. He wasn’t a general; he was an atom bomb! All I had under-stood was ’Okay’; and that the necessary order had already been issued. And in addition, that here it wasn’t at all easy to tell the difference between a general and a GI The privates stretched themselves out with their feet on the desk while the generals tore around like messenger boys.

    Another officer appeared at the same door, and invited me into his room. This time I prudently glanced at his tabs. Another general! Without offering me a chair, but not sitting down himself, the general listened to me with cool efficiency. Then he nodded and went out.

    I looked round the room. A modest writing desk. Modest inkstands. A thick wad of newspapers. A number of pencils. Nothing unnecessary. A room to work in, not to catch flies in. When a writing desk adequate for General Shabalin’s rank was required, all Karlshorst and all the booty warehouses were turned upside down. The inkstands were obtained specially from Dresden for him.

    A little later the American general returned and told me, apparently on the basis of a telephone conversation, when the aeroplane would be ready. I had plenty of opportunities to see later on that where we Soviet authorities would demand a ’document’ signed by three generals and duly stamped, the Americans found a telephone conversation sufficient.

    I did not have to present the list of the Soviet delegation at all. Here everything was done without resort to a liaison service and without any counter-check by the Ministry of Internal Affairs! The general handed me a packet of materials on the I.G. Farben Industry, so that we could familiarize ourselves with the tasks of the conference.

    Next morning the Soviet delegation, consisting of General Shabalin, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov, Major Kuznetsov, two interpreters, and myself went to the Tempelhof landing ground. There the sergeant on duty explained that he had been fully informed concerning us, and spent a little time in phoning to various offices. Then he asked us to wait, as our plane would be starting rather later than arranged. I had the feeling that the Americans were holding up our departure for some reason. Machines rolled slowly on to the tarmac in the distance, but not one of them showed the least intention of taking us with it. The general swore, and, as he did not know whom to vent his anger upon, he turned to me. “What did they really say to you yesterday? Why didn’t you get it in writing?”

    “I was quite clearly informed,” I answered; “this morning at ten, the Tempelhof airground. A special machine would be waiting for us, and the airport commandant was notified.”

    The general clasped his hands behind his back, drew his head down between his shoulders, and marched up and down the concrete road outside the building without deigning to give us another glance.

    To pass the time. Major Kuznetsov and I began to make a closer inspection of the landing ground. Not far away an American soldier in overalls was hanging about, giving us inquisitively friendly glances, and obviously seeking an excuse to speak to us. Now a blunt-nosed Douglas rolled up to the start. During the war these transport machines had reached the Soviet Union in wholesale quantities as part of the lend-lease deliveries; every Russian knew them. The American soldier smiled, pointed to the machine, and said:"S-47."

    I looked to where he was pointing, and corrected him: “Douglas.” He shook his head and said: “No... no. S-47. Sikorsky... Russian constructor....”

    ’Was it really one of Igor Sikorsky’s designs?’ I wondered. Sikorsky had been the pioneer of Russian aviation in the first world war, and the constructor of the first multi-engine machine, Ilya Mourometz. I knew that, like Boris Seversky, he was working in the field of American aviation, but I had not known that the Douglas was his job. It was interesting that Pravda hadn’t taken the opportunity to make a big song of it.

    The soldier pointed his finger first at the clock, then into the sky. With his hand he imitated a plane landing, and explained as he pointed to the ground: “General Eisenhower.”

    ’Well, if General Eisenhower’s arriving,’ I thought, ’that probably explains why we couldn’t start.’

    While we were talking to the soldier a machine grounded just behind us, and a group of cheerful old gentlemen poured out of it. Like a horde of children just out of school they surrounded General Shabalin and began to shake his hand so heartily that you would have thought it was the one thing they had flown from America for. The general was carried away by their exuberance and shook their hands in turn. Later it transpired that they had mistaken Shabalin for General Zhukov. Meanwhile, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov had found out somewhere that these gay old boys were American senators, who were on their way to Moscow. He whispered this news into the general’s ear, but it was too late. Shabalin had already exchanged cordial handshakes with these sworn enemies of the communist order.

    All around them, camera shutters were clicking. The senators seemed to get a great kick out of posing with General Shabalin, holding his hands. The general had little wish to be photographed in such compromising company, but he had to put a good face on it. He was quite convinced that all these photos would find their way into the archives of some foreign secret service, and thence into the archives of the Narcomvnudel. And then the fat would be in the fire.

    Major Kuznetsov asked Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov incredulously: “But are they really senators?”

    “Yes, and the very worst of them all, the Senate Political Commission,” Orlov replied.

    “But they don’t look at all like capitalists.” Kuznetsov still felt dubious.

    “Yes, they look quite harmless; but they’ve got millions in their pockets. They’re cold-blooded sharks,” Orlov retorted. Evidently he regarded it as a mortal sin to have money in one’s pocket. But then, he was a dyed-in-the-wool party man.

    “So they’re the lords of America, and they behave like that. Now if one of our ministers....” Kuznetsov’s reflections were interrupted by the arrival of a column of closed cars, which drove straight on to the landing ground. A group of Soviet officers stepped out. The gold braid on their caps and the red piping on their coats showed that they were generals.

    “Now we’re in for a parade!” Kuznetsov muttered. “That’s Marshal Zhukov and all his staff. We’d better take cover in the bushes.”

    General Shabalin seemed to be of the same opinion. He had not been invited to this meeting, and to be an uninvited guest of Marshal Zhukov was rather a ticklish matter. But his general’s uniform made it impossible for him to hide behind others’ backs.

    In this hour of need the lively old gentlemen from America came to the rescue. With unreserved ’Hellos’, friendly handshakes and back-slayings, an unstained, friendly atmosphere was created. “I like these senators!” Kuznetsov enthused. “They slap hands together like a lot of horse-dealers at a market. Great old boys!” He licked his lips as though he had just drunk to brotherhood with the American senators.

    Marshal Zhukov, a medium-sized, thickset man with a prominent chin, always dressed and behaved with unusual simplicity. He took hardly any notice of the bustle all around him, but seemed to be waiting for the moment when they would come at last to business. Unlike many other generals who owed their career to the war, by all his bearing he clearly showed that he was only a soldier. It was characteristic of the man that, without any encouragement from official Kremlin propaganda, he had become known all over Russia as the second Kutuzov, as the savior of the fatherland in the second great patriotic war.

    The airground grew more and more animated. Forces of military police in parade uniforms marched on. The servicing personnel hurried to and from. A guard of honor took up its position not far from us.

    A four-engine machine landed quietly. The swarm of autograph hunters suffered disillusionment: double rows of guards swiftly and thoroughly cut them off from the landing spot.

    Major Kuznetzov looked at the guards and remarked: “Clean work! Look at those cutthroats. They must have been taken into the army straight from gangsterdom.”

    The first line of military police was certainly an impressive lot. They looked pretty sinister, even though they were clean-shaven. The second line might well have been pugilists and cowboys, mounted not on horses but on motorcycles that made more noise than aeroplanes.

    Meanwhile the guard of honor had begun to perform some extraordinary exercise. The men raised their arms shoulder-high and spread out as though about to do Swedish gymnastics. Decidedly inept and un-military by our standards. “It reminds me of operetta,” Kuznetsov said to the lieutenant-general. “What are they doing that for?”

    Orlov waved his hand contemptuously. “Like senators, like soldiers! They’re chocolate soldiers. Give them black bread to eat and they’d be ill.”

    “Are you so fond of black bread then?” Kuznetsov sneered. “Or are you simply concerned for well-being of your fellowmen, as usual?”

    Orlov ignored the questions. He was attached to our delegation as a legal expert. Also, he was public prosecutor to the military court, and knew well enough what might be the consequences of talking too frankly.

    General Eisenhower stepped out of the plane, wearing a soldier’s greatcoat, the usual broad grin on his face. He greeted Marshal Zhukov. Then he signed a few autographs, asked where they could have breakfast, and took Zhukov off with him.

    Hardly had the distinguished guests departed when the dispatcher announced that our plane was ready to start. Now we knew why we had had to wait so long.

    A man in the uniform of an American brigadier-general addressed General Shabalin in the purest of Russian. Apparently he had learnt that we were flying to Frankfurt, and now he offered us his services. He spoke better Russian than we did, if I may put it so. He had left Russia thirty or more years before, and spoke the kind of Russian common in the old aristocratic circles. Our speech had been modified by the new conditions, it was contaminated with jargon and included a mess of new words.

    I had no idea why Eisenhower and Zhukov were flying to Russia. The Soviet papers carried no official communiqué on the subject. A week later, as I was making my usual report to General Shabalin, he asked me: “Do you know why Eisenhower flew to Moscow?”

    “Probably to be a guest of honor at the recent parade,” I answered.

    “We know how to be hospitable,” the general said. “They entertained him with such excellent vodka that he sang songs all night. Arm in arm with Budionny. They always bring out Budionny as an ornament on such occasions.” Apparently that was all the general knew about Eisenhower’s visit to Moscow; but he put his finger to his lips, then wagged it admonitorily.

    Such small incidents clearly revealed the true position of the man who was deputy head of the S. M. A. He was really nothing but an errand-boy, and only by accident knew what was happening ’above’.

    An American officer stepped into Major Kuznetsov’s room. He thrust his cap in the hip pocket of his trousers, then swung his hand up to his uncovered head in salute. After which he introduced himself in the purest of Russian: “John Yablokov, captain of the American Army.”

    Kuznetsov was a very intelligent man, but he was also a humorist and a bit of a wag. He replied to the American with: “Greetings, Ivan Ivanovich! How do you do!”

    The American Ivan Ivanovich seemed to be no greenhorn, and he did not allow the major’s sneering smile to put him out. In fact, it transpired later that John Yablokov was one of those men who are the life and soul of the party. Either to please us or to show that, although American, he was a progressive; he rejoiced our ears with a flood of Russian oaths that would have brought down the Empire State Building. But that was later. At the moment Captain Yablokov had arrived on an official visit to invite General Shabalin to the first organizational conference of the Control Commission Economic Directorate. The general twisted the invitation and the agenda paper (both were in English) between his fingers. Trying not to reveal that English was all Greek to him, he asked: “Well, what’s the news your way?”

    A second American officer who had accompanied Captain Yablokov answered also in Russian: “Our chief, General Draper, has the honor to invite you to a...” He did not seem very well acquainted with the terminology of Red conferences, and was forced to fall back on the wording of the invitation: “... to a meeting, General.”

    Now the general was seated comfortably in the saddle. He did not know English, but he knew the Stalinist terminology thoroughly. He gave the American the sort of look he had given subordinate Party officials in his capacity as secretary of the Sverdlovsk District Party Committee, and explained in a hortatory tone: “We have to work, not attend meetings.”

    That was a standing Stalinist phrase, which all party officials used as a lash. But at this juncture it sounded rather rude. However, the general held to the principle that too much butter can’t spoil any bread, and that Stalin’s words can never be repeated enough.

    I sat in a corner and enjoyed myself immensely. The general would be starting to give the Americans a lecture on party training next. As was his habit in intercourse with foreigners, he observed the unwritten law never to trust one interpreter and always to apply the method of cross-examination, especially when the interpreter belonged to the other camp. While the Americans did their best to explain what they meant by a ’meeting’, I, too, attempted to help. The general never liked being prompted, but he always snorted afterwards: “Why didn’t you say so before?” So I tactfully observed: “It’s not really important, Comrade General. Let them hold their meeting and we’ll work.”

    After we had settled a number of minor questions the Americans went back to their Chevrolet and drove home. Major Kuznetsov remarked: “But they could talk excellent Russian. The one with the little mustache looked like Douglas Fairbanks.” The general pulled him up: “You can see at once what sort of birds they are. That fellow strikes me as Chinese. They’re spies.”

    The general appeared to fathom the true nature of his future colleagues extraordinarily well! A few days later, during a talk, Captain Yablokov informed me quite frankly that he had formerly worked in the American secret service in China. He did not appear to think he was in any way betraying service secrets. If a Soviet officer had mentioned such a fact he would have been committing a serious breach of his duty.

    Some days later we drove to the first meeting of the Control Commission; we went with the firm intention of working and not holding meetings. The Allied Control Commission had taken over the former Palace of Justice in Elshoizstrasse. The conference hall was almost empty; the delegations were only just beginning to assemble. I felt genuinely afraid that I would be exposed to ridicule: we had no interpreter with us, and I didn’t know English too well. When I mentioned this to the general he told me curtly: “You should know!” Another Party slogan, but it didn’t make things any easier for me. Until the meeting was officially opened we relied on German, for all the Allies without exception could speak German more or less well.

    When the general noticed that I was talking to French and English colleagues he barked at me as he passed: “You wait, Major, I’ll cure you of your mock modesty! You and your ’don’t know English’! Now you’re talking away, even to the French, nineteen to the dozen, but you never told me you knew French.” It was hopeless to think of explaining. And the general would probably stick me in a comer to exercise control over the French interpreters too, as he had done with the Americans.

    That, too, was due to the general’s Party experience. It is a common thing in the Soviet Union for specialists and experts to dodge responsible posts. Gifted engineers, or former directors of large trusts and combines, get appointments as ’technical managers’ to some small factory or a cooperative of war-wounded, which employs only five or six workmen. In such positions they are less exposed to the risk of being flung behind the bars as ’saboteurs’, and so they keep quiet about their abilities and their diplomas. The Party officials are aware of this trick, and do their utmost to round up the ’pretenders’. And so even if you try to escape responsibility you’re in the wrong: you’re a ’passive saboteur’.

    I breathed a sigh of relief when I discovered that the American and British delegations had first-class Russian interpreters.

    Another difficult problem for me was my uniform. I looked as though I had covered the entire journey from Stalingrad to Berlin crawling on my belly. My uniform had been washed in all the rivers of Russia and Eastern Europe, the color had faded from it completely; in addition, I was wearing ordinary military boots. Before we drove to the conference General Shabalin gave me a critical look up and down and snarled: “Haven’t you got any shabbier-clothes you can wear?” He knew quite well that I had left my good uniforms in Moscow as an iron reserve.

    Many of us took the view that, after all, the army wasn’t a puppet-show, and in any case children were running about naked at home. One man had a little sister, another a young nephew. Warm clothes or breeches could be made for them out of a uniform, and the kids would be hugely delighted: “Uncle Gregory has fought in this uniform,” the child would say, pointing proudly to the holes left by the pins of orders. I, too, had left several complete outfits in Moscow. In any case I would be getting the so-called ’Foreign Equipment’ when I reached Berlin. Only I had overlooked the possibility that I would have to take part in meetings of the Control Commission before the new equipment arrived.

    As our Administration for Economy developed its organization and activities, more and more men arrived from Moscow to work with us. Usually, deputies of the People’s Commissars for the corresponding Moscow commissariats were appointed heads of the S. M. A. departments, which in practice were functioning as the ministries of the Soviet zone. One and all, these men were old Party officials, specialists in the running of Soviet economic affairs. When they took over their new posts one could hardly avoid laughing: they were pure crusaders of communism.

    In due course we were rejoiced at the sight of the newly appointed head of the Industrial Department, Alexandrov, and his deputy, Smirnov. They both wore squeaking, highlegged boots of Stalin pattern, which its creator had himself long since discarded. Above the boots they had riding breeches of heavy overcoating material, and to crown this rigout they had dark blue military tunics dating from the period of revolutionary communism. At one time such attire was very fashionable among Party officials, from the local chairmen of Machinery-Tractor Stations right up to People’s Commissars, for it was symbolical not only of outward, but of inward devotion to the leader. For a long time now the People’s Commissars had been wearing ordinary European clothes, and one came across antiquated garb chiefly in remote collective farms. I can imagine what sort of impression these scarecrows made on the Germans; they were exact copies of the Hitlerite caricatures of bolsheviks.

    It was not long before these over-zealous Party crusaders them-selves felt that their historical costumes were hardly suited to the changed conditions, and gradually began to adapt themselves to their surroundings. Later still, all the civilian personnel of the S. M. A. were dressed in accordance with the latest European fashions, and even with a touch of elegance. All the leading officials, especially those occupied in the Control Commission, received coupons en-titling them to ’foreign equipment’ corresponding with their position.

    I stood at a window, talking to the head of the French delegation, General Sergent. Our conversation was on quite unimportant subjects, and I prudently tried to keep it concentrated on the weather. Prudence was always advisable; this Frenchman might be a communist at heart, or in all innocence he might repeat our conversation to someone, and in the end it would find its way... I knew too well from my own experience how thoroughly our secret service was informed of all that went on among the Allies.

    When we Soviet officers working in the Control Commission discussed our impressions some time later I realized why we were all cautioned against talking with foreigners. A captain remarked: “All these stories about spies are only in order to make us keep our mouths shut. It’s to prevent our giving away other secrets.” He said no more; we didn’t talk about those secrets even to each other.

    The Control Commission session began punctually at ten o’clock. After settling the details of the agenda relating to the work of the Economic Directorate, the times of meeting, and the rotation of chairmanship, we turned to drawing up the agenda for the next meeting. The head of the American delegation, which was chairman at this first meeting, proposed that the first item on the agenda should be: ’Working out of basic policy for the economic demilitarization of Germany.’

    The Potsdam Conference had ended the previous week; at the conference it had been decided to demilitarize Germany economically, so that restoration of German military power would be impossible, and to draw up a peacetime economic potential for the country. The decision was remitted to the Allied Control Commission to be put into effect.

    The interpreters now translated the chairman’s phrase into Russian as: ’Working out the policy of economic demobilization.’ Another of those borderline cases in linguistics! The English formula had used the word ’policy’. The interpreters translated this literally into the Russian word ’politik1, although the English word had a much wider meaning, and the Russian phrase for ’guiding principles’ would have been a more satisfactory translation.

    At the word ’politick’ General Shabalin sprang up as though stung. “What ’politick’? All the political questions were settled at the Potsdam Conference!”

    The American chairman. General Draper, agreed: “Quite correct, they were. Our task is simply to translate the decision into action, and so we have to lay down the guiding policy...”

    The interpreters, both American and English, again translated with one accord: “... ’Politick’.”

    General Shabalin stuck to his guns: “There must be nothing about politics. That’s all settled. Please don’t try to exert pressure on me.”

    “But it’s got nothing to do with politics,” the interpreters tried to reassure him. “The word is ’policy’.”

    “I see no difference,” the general objected. “I have no intention of revising the Potsdam Conference. We’re here to work, not to hold meetings.”

    That was the beginning of the first hour-long battle round the oval table. Solely and simply over the awkward word ’policy’, which General Shabalin was not prepared to see in the agenda or in the minutes of the meeting.

    It was often said in the economic spheres of the S. M. A. headquarters that the Kremlin regarded the decisions of the Potsdam Conference as a great victory for Soviet diplomacy. The Moscow instructions emphasized this aspect at every opportunity. At the Potsdam Conference the Soviet diplomats won concessions from the Western Allies to an extent that the diplomats themselves had not expected. Perhaps this was due to the intoxication of victory and an honorable desire to recompense Russia for her heroic exertions and incredible sacrifices. And perhaps it was due to the circumstance that two new Allied representatives took part in the conference, and that President Truman and Mr. Attlee had not yet got to the bottom of the methods of Soviet diplomacy.

    The Potsdam Agreement practically gave the Soviet Union the right of disposal of Germany. Its terms were expressed in very subtle language, and they were open to various constructions later on, whenever it seemed desirable. The task of the S. M. A. now was to extract full value from the advantages won by Soviet diplomacy. “Nothing of politick!” General Shabalin defended himself like a bear threatened with a javelin. And in all probability he was thinking: ’Do you want to send me to Siberia?’ Once more the old reaction of even the highest of Soviet officials, not to do anything on their own responsibility and risk. One reason why all decisions is made from above.

    Subsequently I myself saw that the American or the British delegation could change its decisions in the actual course of negotiations. But the Soviet delegation always came and went with previously formulated decisions, or else with red questionmarks on the appropriate document, which the general kept in a red document-case always under his hand. At the Control Council he acted more like a messenger than an active partner. A question that arose in the course of discussion was never decided the same day, it was only discussed.

    Then the general would return to his office and make direct telephonic contact that night with Moscow. Usually Mikoyan, a member of the Politburo and plenipotentiary extraordinary for Germany under the Ministerial Council of the U. S. S. R., was at the Moscow end of the line. He was in effect the Kremlin’s viceroy for Germany. And during those telephone conversations the decisions were taken, or rather the orders were issued, on which the Allied delegations later broke their teeth.

    Even at that first meeting with the Allies one could not help noticing a great difference between them and us. They welcomed us as joint victors and sincere allies in war and peace. Each of their delegations approached questions from the national aspect. And they considered that there could be no conflict of national interests or antagonisms among us victor powers, neither then nor in the immediate future. They assumed that this was a simple fact that must be as clear to us as it was to them.

    We, on the other hand, regarded the ’Allies’ as the opposing party, as enemies with whom we had to sit at the one table only for tactical reasons. We decided questions from the ideological aspect. The Allies believed that Marx and Lenin were dead. But now the shades of these two men stood behind us in the Control Commission conference hall. The Allies could not understand that? So much the worse for them!

    Generally speaking, the members of the delegations not only represented their state interests, but were also unusually typical representatives of their respective nations. Of course this doesn’t mean that Dimitry Shabalin smoked the coarse Russian Mahorka tobacco or that William Draper chewed gum. Not, at any rate, during the sessions.

    The American delegation was headed by the American director in the Economic Directorate, General William Draper: a thin, athletic figure, with angular, swarthy features-a lively and energetic man. When he laughed, he revealed the spotless white of strong, wolfish teeth beneath his black mustache. Better not put your finger between those teeth! He set the tone at the sessions, even when he was not in the chair. He had an abundance of the healthy energy peculiar to young, self-confident nations. I don’t know how many millions General Draper really had in his pocket, I know only that General Shabalin remarked more than once: “Ah! A millionaire! A shark!” It would have been interesting to know what he based his remark on: his communist beliefs or the reports of our secret service.

    The head of the British delegation and the British director of the Economic Directorate were Sir Percy Mills. A typical Briton. He gave off the smell of fog and Trafalgar Square. He wore a military uniform of thick cloth, with no insignia of rank. From the way everybody deferred to his opinion it was obvious that he was a recognized authority in the economic field. According to General Shabalin he was a director of the large British firm of Metro-Vickers. He was painfully clean-shaven; if he ever thought it necessary to smile, only the folds around his mouth came into action, while his eyes remained fixed on his documents and his ears listened closely to his numerous advisers.

    In the person of Sir Percy Mills, Great Britain worked hard, but always paid attention to the voice of its young ally and victorious rival, America.

    At the conference table of the Control Commission the historical changes that had occurred in the world influence of the various great powers were very perceptible. Great Britain had played out her role, and now, with a pride born of self-confidence, was surrendering her place to the younger and stronger. As befitted a gentleman!

    France was the reflection of all the greatness to be found in European culture. But only the reflection. Her representatives were the successors to Bonaparte and Voltaire, the contemporaries of Pierre Petain and Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism. How to keep one’s head above water. The French director of the Economic Directorate, General Sergent, had nothing better to do than to maneuver as tactfully as possible, and not agree too completely with the West, nor be too much in opposition to the East.

    The great Eastern Ally was represented by General Shabalin, a man who had a mortal terror of the word ’politick’, and by Major Klimov, who simultaneously performed the duties of secretary, interpreter, and general adviser. The Soviet side could have been represented just as successfully by one man to act as a postman. However, in those days I still naively believed that something was really being decided in those meetings. And, although we were armed to the teeth with communist theory, I felt really uncomfortable when I noted the large size of the other delegations and the sort of men who composed them.

    ’Nothing new in the West.’ The Allies, as one man, clung to the word ’policy’, while for three hours General Shabalin repeated: “Nothing of politick... At the Potsdam Conference....” In confirmation of his views he took a newspaper from his document-case and pointed to a passage underlined in red. Then his fellow-members in the commission also brought out newspapers and began to compare the texts. Truly, it was very interesting to take part in one session of the Control Commission; it was more interesting than the operetta. But to take part in them week after week was dangerous: one might easily have a nervous breakdown. Half a day spent in fighting over one word in the agenda for the next meeting!

    The members of the other delegations looked more and more frequently at their watches. The Western European stomach is used to punctuality. At last even General Shabalin lost his patience and he officially demanded: “What is it you really want to do to me: violate me? Yes?” The interpreters wondered whether they had heard aright, and asked irresolutely, not knowing whether to regard his remark as a joke: “Are we to translate that literally?”

    “Of course, literally,” the general obstinately replied.

    Sir Percy Mills tried to indicate that he found it highly amusing, and twisted his lips into a smile. The chairman for the session, General Draper, rose and said: “I propose that we adjourn the meeting. Let’s go and have some eats.” It was difficult to tell whether he really was hungry or whether he was fed up with Soviet diplomacy. Everybody breathed more easily, and the sitting ended.

    We departed as victors. We had won a whole week. The same night General Shabalin would be able to ask Comrade Mikoyan whether the word ’politick’ could be included on the agenda or not.

    While we were holding our meeting, the Special Committee for Dismantling, and the Reparations Department, with General Zorin at its head, was hard at work. The Allies would be faced with an accomplished fact. Okay! In the last resort each defends his own interests.

    The Control Commission gave me my first opportunity to get to know our Western Allies personally. During the war I had come across, or rather seen, many Americans and British in Gorky, and later in Moscow. But I had then had no official excuse for personal contact with them, and without the special permission of the Commissariat for Internal Affairs even the most harmless acquaintance, even a conversation with a foreigner, is sheer lunacy in the Soviet True, there is no open interdiction, but every Soviet citizen knows exactly what unfortunate consequences are entailed by such thoughtless behavior. Give a foreigner a light for his cigarette in the street and you are hauled immediately before the Ministry for Internal Affairs and subjected to strict interrogation. That, at the best. At the worst, one disappears into a Minvnudel camp, for ’spying’, and thus one helps to fill out the labor reserve.

    To stop all contact between Soviet people and foreigners, the Kremlin spreads the story that all foreigners are spies. So anybody who has any contact with a foreigner is also a spy. It’s as simple as that.

    One of the Soviet government’s greatest achievements has been to raise lawlessness to a law, with all the paralyzing fear of ’authority’ that follows from it. Every individual lives in a state of anxiety. The Kremlin exploits this mood as a highly effective means of training and guiding the masses. Not even the members of the Politburo are free from it.

    Once, after one of the usual fruitless debates in the Control Commission, Sir Percy Mills proposed that we adjourn, and then invited the members of the other delegations to lunch with him.

    General Shabalin went and rode with his British colleague. I had received no instructions whatever so I got into the general’s seat in our car and ordered Misha to drive immediately behind the one in which our chief was traveling. I entered Sir Percy’s house with decidedly mixed feelings. All the guests left their hats and document-cases on a small table or on the hallstand. The maid-servant took my cap from me, and held out her hand to take my document-case. I was at a loss to know what to do; it was the general’s red case that I was carrying. It had nothing of importance in it: just the minutes of the last sitting, which on this occasion had been sent to us by the British. I couldn’t leave the case in the car, but to leave it on the hall table with the others would have been a crime against the State. Yet to take it with me looked rather silly.

    General Shabalin himself rescued me from my awkward situation. He came across to me and said quietly:

    “What are you doing here. Major? Go and wait for me in the car.”

    I felt relieved, went out, got into our car, and lit a cigarette. A few minutes later a British captain, Sir Percy Mills’ adjutant, came to the door and invited me in again. I tried to get out of it by saying I wasn’t hungry, but he stared at me in such bewilderment that there was nothing to be done but follow him. As I entered the hall where the guests were waiting the general gave me a sidelong look, but said nothing. Later it transpired that our host had asked his permission to send the adjutant for me. The British are justly famous as the most tactful people in the world.

    I gave the document-case to the general. Of all the idiotic possibilities that seemed the most harmless. Let him feel a fool!

    I stood at a great Venetian window looking out on to the garden, and talked to Brigadier Bader. The brigadier was a real colonial wolf. Sandy, sunbleached hair and eyebrows, gray, lively eyes behind bleached eyelashes, a complexion dry with the tropical sun. According to General Shabalin’s amiable description he was nothing less than one of the cleverest of international spies. And now I had the honor of chatting with this distinguished person. We talked in a mixture of English and German.

    “How do you like being in Germany?” he asked.

    “Oh, not bad!” I answered.

    “Everything’s kaput,” he went on.

    “Oh yes, ganz kaput,” I agreed.

    After disposing of German problems we turned to others. The summer of 1945 was unusually hot, and I asked:

    “After the English climate, don’t you find it very hot here?”

    “Oh no, I’m used to the heat,” he smiled. “I’ve spent many years in the colonies, in Africa and India.”

    I carefully avoided addressing my companion directly. What form of address was I to use? ’Herr’? That was rather awkward. To our ears ’mister’ sounds contemptuous. ’Comrade’? No, for the time being I kept off that word.

    Just then I noticed General Shabalin’s eyes fixed on me. In all probability my chief was afraid the brigadier was already enrolling me as his agent. At that very moment a maid came up to us with a tray. Bader took one of the small glasses of colorless fluid, raised it to eye-level, and invited me to help myself. I put the glass to my lips, then set it down on the windowsill. While the brigadier had his eyes turned away for a second I threw the whisky out of the window. Stupid, I know, but it was the only thing to be done. And the worst of it was that the general would never believe I had performed such a patriotic act. Whether flung down my throat or out of the window, that whisky would be put to the debit side of my personal account.

    An air of open cordiality and hospitality reigned in the room where we were waiting for Sir Percy Mills to take us to lunch. This inter-national assembly felt no constraint in face of that variety of uniforms and babel of tongues. Only the Soviet delegate Kurmashev, head of the S. M. A. Fuel and Power Department, sat alone in his easy chair, one leg crossed over the other, and apparently suffering torments. He felt more uncomfortable than a missionary among cannibals; he wiped the sweat from his forehead and looked again and again at the clock. When we were invited to the dining room he clearly heaved a sigh of relief. I am sure he would have been only too glad to talk to his neighbor, even if he had had to resort to sign language; he would have been delighted to laugh and toss off a couple of whiskies. But he was not a man like other men. He was the representative, and the slave, of communist philosophy.

    At table General Shabalin sat on the right hand of his host, who conversed with him through an interpreter. His uniform gave him confidence and certainly more sureness than was possessed by Kurmashev, who was a civilian. But in his civilian clothes Kurmashev tried to show that he was completely indifferent to all that went on around him, and tackled his food with the utmost ferocity. It was no easy task to fill your mouth so full that you couldn’t talk with your neighbors.

    My chief smiled formally and forced out a laugh at Sir Percy’s jokes. But for his part he made no attempt to keep the conversation going. No wonder the British think it difficult to talk to Russians not only at the conference, but even at the dining table. At one time we contemptuously called the English narrow-minded; now the boot is on the other foot.

    I was sitting at the far end of the table, between Brigadier Bader and the British adjutant. As I chanced to look up from my plate I met General Shabalin’s eyes gazing at me keenly. The longer the lunch continued the more the general eased his bolshevik armor plate, and finally he went so far as to propose a toast to our host. But meanwhile he gave me frequent interrogative glances.

    Of course I knew the general was in duty bound to keep an eye on me. But I noticed that he was not so much watching me as attempting to decide whether I was watching him. He was firmly convinced that I had been set to watch over him. Kurmashev was afraid of the general, the general was on his guard against me, and I distrusted myself. The higher one climbs in the Soviet hierarchy, the more one is gripped by this constant fear and distrust.

    And the one who suffers most of all from this remarkable system is its creator. When one observed how Soviet higher officials suffered from fear and distrusts one lost all desire to make a Soviet career. General Shabalin had been unquestionably a much happier man when he was minding sheep or tilling the soil.

    After lunch we all gathered again in the hall. Brigadier Bader offered me a thick cigar with a gold band, and wrapped in cellophane. I turned it over curiously in my fingers. A real Havana! Hitherto I had known them only from caricatures, in which millionaires always had them stuck between their teeth. With the air of an experienced cigar-smoker I tried to bite off the tip, but that damned cigar was tough. I got a mouthful of bitter leaf, and to make matters worse I couldn’t spit it out.

    “How did you like the food?” the brigadier asked genially.

    “Oh, very good!” I answered as genially, carefully blowing the bluish smoke through my nose.

    At that moment General Shabalin beckoned to me. I asked the brigadier’s pardon, prudently stuck the cigar in a flowerpot, and followed my chief. We went out into the garden, as though we wanted a breath of fresh air.

    “What have you been talking about with that...?” the general muttered, avoiding mention of any name.

    “About the weather, Comrade General.”

    “Hm... hm....” Shabalin rubbed his nose with the knuckle of his forefinger, a trick of his during conversations of a semi-official nature. Then he unexpectedly changed his tone:

    “I think there’s nothing more for you to do here. Take a day off. Have my car and go for a drive through Berlin. Take a look at the girls....”

    He made a very frivolous remark, and smiled forcibly. I listened closely as I walked with him about the garden. What did all this condescension and thought for me mean?

    “Call up Kuznetsov this evening and tell him I shall go straight home,” was the general’s final word as he went up the verandah steps.

    So he had no intention of returning to the office today. There all the ordinary routine was waiting for him, to keep him as a rule till three in the morning. That was not compulsory, it was his duty as a bolshevik. He must be around in case the ’master’ called him up in the middle of the night. But now, after a very good lunch and a few glasses of wine, he felt the need to be a man like other men for a few hours at least. The comfort of the villa and the open cordiality of the company had had its effect even on the old Party wolf. Just for once he felt impelled to throw off the mask of an iron bolshevik, to laugh aloud and smack his colleagues on the shoulders, to be a man, not a Party ticket. And he thought of me as the eye and ear of the Party. So he was dismissing me on the pretext of being kind to me.

    I returned to the house, picked up my cap as unobtrusively as possible, and went out. Misha was dozing at the wheel.

    “Ah, Comrade Major!” He gave a deep sigh as I opened the door. “After a lunch like that, what man wouldn’t like to stretch himself out on the grass and sleep for an hour or two!”

    “Why, have you had some lunch too?” I asked in surprise.

    “What do you think! I’ve eaten like a prince.”

    “Where?”

    “Why, here. A special table was laid for us. Like in the fairy story. And do you know what, Comrade Major?” He looked sidelong at me, with all the air of a conspirator. “Even our general doesn’t have such good grub as I’ve had today.”

    After seeing Sir Percy Mills’ house, I could not help comparing it with General Shabalin’s flat. In the Control Commission the habit developed for the directors to take turns in inviting their colleagues home. The first time it was Shabalin’s turn to issue the invitations he ignored the habit, as though he had forgotten it. The real reason was that he had no place to which he could invite the foreigners.

    Of course he could have requisitioned and furnished a house in conformity with his rank. But he could not bring himself to do this on his own responsibility, while the head of the Administrative Department, General Devidov, simply would not do it for him, since under the army regulations such luxury was incompatible with the position of Soviet generals. The authorities had got to the point of providing special ’foreign equipment’, but nobody had yet thought of suitable residences. Shabalin had exchanged his small house for a five-roomed apartment in the house where most of the workers in the Administration for Economy were accommodated. Nikolai, his orderly, and Misha, the chauffeur, had collected furniture and all sorts of lumber from all over the district for the apartment, but it looked more like a thieves’ kitchen than a general’s home. It was impossible to receive foreign guests there: even Shabalin was conscious of that.

    Once more, the contradiction between bolshevik theory and bolshevik practice. The Kremlin aristocracy had long since discarded the proletarian morals they still preached, and lived in a luxury that not every capitalist could afford. They could do so without embarrassment because their personal lives were secured from the people’s eyes by several walls. The smaller leaders tended to follow the same course. The Party aristocracy, men like Shabalin, lived a double life; in words they were ideal bolsheviks, but in reality they trampled on the ideals they themselves preached. It was not easy to reconcile these two things. It all had to be done secretly, prudently, one had continually to be on guard. Here in Germany there was no Kremlin and no area forbidden to the public, here everything was comparatively open. And supposing the lords of the Kremlin started to shout!

    At first General Shabalin had taken his meals in the canteen of the Soviet Military Council-in other words, in the generals’ casino. But now Dusia, his illegal maidservant, was taking the car to the canteen three times a day and bringing the food home. Yet even in such circumstances the general could not invite any guests to his apartment, and visitors, especially foreigners, were not allowed in the canteen.

    Even here, in occupied Germany, where we were not restricted by problems of living space or rationing, and where we could literally pick up everything we liked, even here we kept to our Soviet way of life.

    A little later the S. M. A. staff accommodated itself to circumstances and solved the problem in the old Potiomkin fashion. (Prince Gregory Potiomkin, favorite of Empress Catharine, who organized show-places and even ’model villages’ to impress the Empress. - Tr.). A special club was set up, in which the leading officials of the S. M. A. could hold receptions for their western colleagues. In each separate case an exact list of the proposed guests had to be sent in advance to the S. M. A. liaison service, to be carefully checked by the Narcomvnudel, and to be countersigned by the S. M. A. chief of staff". Of course such a simple form of invitation as that of Sir Percy Mills-"come and have lunch with me, gentlemen", and including even the chauffeurs-was quite impossible in such circumstances.

    During those early meetings with the Western Allies I was seriously afraid that I would be asked too many questions that I could not, or rather that I dared not, answer. But the longer I worked in the Control Commission the less was I able to understand their behavior. The representatives of the democratic world not only made no attempt to ask us political questions, as I had thought was simply bound to happen when representatives of completely opposed state systems came together, but they displayed a perfectly in-comprehensible indifference to the subject.

    At first I thought this was out of tactfulness. But then I felt sure it must be due to something else. The average western man was far less interested in politics and all that goes with it than the average Soviet man. The men of the West were much more interested in the number of bottles of champagne that had been drunk at a diplomatic reception in the Kremlin, and in the evening gown Madame Molotov had worn on the occasion. This was in the best case, but usually they confined their interests to sport and the beautiful girls on the covers of magazines. To any man living in normal conditions this seemed perfectly natural. If the Soviet men could have chosen they would have done the same.

    At that stage the West had no idea of the extraordinary dichotomy of Soviet existence. In thirty years we have changed fundamentally, to a certain extent we are Sovietized. But while becoming Sovietized we have simultaneously become immunized against communism. The West has no suspicion of this. It is with good reason that the Politburo has begun to underpin the Soviet edifice with the old national foundations, which proved themselves so well during the war. After the war the process of giving the rotting state organism a blood transfusion was continued. The method will doubtless meet with success for a time; it will confuse some and arouse illusory hopes in others. But the Kremlin’s plans will not be modified to any extent.

    A small but characteristic example: in occupied Germany all the Russian soldiers and officers suddenly began to use the word ’Rossiia’-’Russia’. The movement was quite spontaneous. Some-times out of habit one would let ’U. S. S. R.’ slip out; but it was corrected to ’Rossiia’ at once. We ourselves were surprised at this fact, but it was so. Yet for twenty-five years anyone who used the word ’Rossiia’ was liable to be accused of chauvinism, and quite possibly to be charged under the corresponding article of the Narcomvnudel code. One could not help noticing this seemingly small detail when one found the word ’Rossiia’ coming to every soldier’s lips.

    Unconsciously he was emphasizing the difference between the concepts ’Soviet’ and ’Russian’. As though in spite, the foreign press confused these concepts. What we ourselves couldn’t stand they called ’Russian’; all that was dear and precious to us they described as ’Soviet’. The Soviet people neither wish to nor do they need to teach foreigners their political ABC. Why risk one’s head simply to satisfy a stranger’s idle curiosity?

    How constrained Soviet people feel in intercourse with ’foreigners’ is shown by the following incident.

    One day, during an interval in the sittings of the Control Commission, several members of various delegations were discussing what they would like to do on the following Sunday. Kozlov, the chairman of the Soviet delegation in the Industrial Committee, let slip the unwise admission that he was going hunting with a group of colleagues. Kozlov’s foreign colleagues were enthusiastic at the idea of spending a Sunday all together, and said they would gladly join the party. Kozlov had to behave as though he were delighted beyond measure.

    On the Sunday the hunters set out in several cars. During the journey the Soviet members of the party racked their brains over the problem of how to give their Allies the slip. But the need to show some courtesy, plus the excellence of the western cars, gave Kozlov no chance of getting away from his unwanted friends. At the rendezvous the Allies got out and lay about on the grass, with the idea of having a little snack and a little chat. To avoid this, Kozlov and the other Russians slipped off through the bushes, and wandered about the forest all day, cursing Fate for pushing such politically unreliable companions on to them.

    In order to secure himself against the possibility of being reprimanded, Kozlov spent all the following week cursing and swearing to other members of the Administration for Economy about his bad luck, and carefully emphasizing his own ’vigilant* conduct. We could not enter freely into intercourse with the West. But what was the West doing to obtain information on Soviet problems?

    I had several opportunities of observing how the West obtained knowledge of Soviet Russia from ’reliable and competent’ sources. Those sources were usually journalists. The American and British journalists went to great trouble to get together with their Soviet colleagues, for they were convinced that these colleagues could and would answer their questions exhaustively and truthfully. Naive fellows! One can no more expect truth from a Soviet journalist than chastity from a prostitute.

    The American journalists in Berlin tried hard to get together with their Soviet brothers, free of constraint. But the Soviet journalists did their best to avoid any such meeting. Finally it had to be arranged: they had to invite the foreigners to their Press Club. It was at least a step forward that the Americans took the opportunity to ask questions which even the very adroit Soviet journalists could not easily answer. All they could do was keep their mouths shut. It was also very good that the Americans gradually realized the true meaning of ’Narcomvnudel’; they thought their Soviet colleagues were victims of the Narcomvnudel and were ringed about with spies, and that a dictaphone was built into every desk. Of course it would have been even more sound to assume that their hosts were themselves Narcomvnudel agents. My experiences in the college had taught me that all the Soviet Union’s foreign correspondents were coworkers of that organization.

    The Americans took their Soviet colleagues’ silent reserve as indicating their anxiety. This was pretty near, but not quite, the truth. Once the Americans even raised the subject of the ’Soul of the Soviet Man’, but they made the mistake of discussing the soul as such. The Soviet soul is a function of the Soviet reality; it cannot be analyzed in isolation from its milieu.

    Our work in the Control Commission was very instructive. From the very first sittings I realized that the widely held view that a diplomat’s life is easy and carefree was false. In reality it is a devilishly hard, or rather a tedious, occupation. One needs to have the hide of a hippopotamus, the sensitiveness of an antelope, nerves of manila rope and the endurance of a hunter. An English saying has it that it is the highest achievement of good manners to be bored to death without showing it. Now General Shabalin gave his colleagues extensive opportunities to demonstrate the truth of this remark. It was astonishing to see how earnestly earnest people could struggle for hours and days on end with an insoluble problem before they would admit that it was insoluble!

    In selecting their diplomats the British act on the principle that the least suitable of all candidates is one who is energetic and stupid; one who is energetic and clever is not very suitable, and the most suitable of all is a man who is clever and passive. The British prefer to be slow in drawing the right conclusion, and they fear nothing more than precipitate unsound decisions.

    This same rule applies to Soviet diplomats, only in reverse. The ideal Soviet diplomat must be exceptionally energetic and exception-ally stupid. He needs no intelligence, as he may not take any independent decisions in any case. On the other hand, energy is a quality needed by every commercial traveler, whether it is razor blades he is trying to sell, or his master’s policy. General Shabalin was an out-standing example of this type of Soviet diplomat. For that matter, all Soviet diplomats are distinguished by their enormous activity. The Kremlin can be charged with anything rather than passivity.

    Our first encounters in the Control Commission were quite educative. Despite my skeptical attitude to the policy of the western powers, I could not help reaching the conviction that they were genuinely anxious to work together with us for the solution of post-war problems. The creation of the United Nations Organization testified to the western democracies’ desire to secure peace to the world.

    Outwardly, we, too, gave out that we were interested in the same thing and wanted to take the same road. But the very first practical measures proposed indicated that the opposite was the truth. Our readiness for collaboration on the problem of world peace was nothing but a tactical maneuver with the object of maintaining the democratic mask, winning time for the reorganization of our forces, and exploiting the democratic platforms in order to sabotage world public opinion. The very first sittings of the Control Commission opened my eyes to all this.

    I recalled Anna Petrovna’s remark, which had so astounded me, when I was in Moscow. From her words I could only deduce that the Kremlin was thinking of active operations for the Soviet fighting forces in the post-war period. Yet it seemed absurd to think of any kind of war plans when we had only just ended terrible battles, and all the world wished for nothing more urgently and passionately than peace. Now, after those first sittings of the Control Commission it was clear, to me at least, who was neither diplomat nor politician, which the Kremlin had not the slightest desire to collaborate with the democratic West.

    The representatives of the western democracies racked their brains to find an explanation for their eastern ally’s extraordinary conduct. They sought persistently for a modus vivendi with the Kremlin. They sought a key to the enigma of the soul of the East, they turned over the pages of the historical tomes; but it never occurred to them to study the million-copy editions of Lenin’s and Stalin’s works. They attached too much importance to the dissolution of the Comintern. They are not acquainted with the winged words by which the Soviet leaders justify their every deviation from the Party general line: “A temporary deviation is completely justified if it is necessary for reorganization and the accumulation of new strength for the next advance.” The inflexible general line can wind like an adder.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • La seule façon d’apprendre, c’est de contester
    https://la-bas.org/4953

    La grande historienne Suzanne CITRON, qui vient de disparaître à 96 ans, aimait répéter la phrase de Jean-Paul Sartre. Pas seulement une phrase, toute sa vie elle a contesté l’enseignement de l’histoire comme un puissant moyen de propager la manière de voir de la classe dominante dans l’éducation comme dans la vie publique. Son livre majeur, LE MYTHE NATIONAL (1987), qui démonte cette construction idéologique, a marqué une rupture et une prise de conscience face aux détournements de l’histoire.Continuer la lecture…

    #Vidéo #Portrait

  • #Cuba, ouragan sur le siècle | « Manière de voir » #155 (octobre - novembre 2017) https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/mav/155 #st

    « Il faut que les Cubains gagnent ou que nous perdions tout, même l’espoir », a écrit Jean-Paul Sartre en 1960. Près de soixante ans plus tard, où en est l’île qui a bousculé le XXe siècle ? Pour répondre à cette question, « Manière de voir » propose une plongée dans les archives du « Monde diplomatique », sans doute l’une des publications qui a le plus attentivement suivi la révolution cubaine, documentant ses réussites comme ses échecs. Changer sans se perdre, le défi cubain ?

    http://zinc.mondediplo.net/messages/84668 via Le Monde diplomatique

  • #Raymond_Aron « La #politique est amorale et, dans un grand nombre de cas, immorale »

    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/les-nuits-de-france-culture/raymond-aron-la-politique-est-amorale-et-dans-un-grand-1


    1975 |En novembre 1975, Raymond Aron était invité par Jacques Paugam dans son émission « Parti Pris ». Il expliquait pourquoi il se considérait plus comme « un voyeur » de la vie politique que comme un acteur de la politique.

    En 1975, Raymond Aron était invité par Jacques Paugam dans son émission « Parti Pris ». Il évoquait sa situation de « voyeur » et non d’acteur de la politique, son anti-totalitarisme. Il revenait sur ses divergences avec Jean-Paul Sartre. Il expliquait son refus de considérer le régime stalinien comme un régime de gauche et ses espoirs dans la dissidence soviétique.

    #france

  • Israël-Palestine, une histoire française (1967-2017)
    Alain Gresh > Hélène Aldeguer > 10 mai 2017
    http://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/israel-palestine-une-histoire-francaise-1967-2017,1840

    C’est une histoire dessinée des relations entre la France, Israël et la Palestine depuis la guerre de juin 1967 que nous offrent Alain Gresh et Hélène Aldeguer. Les principaux protagonistes en sont Charles de Gaulle, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maxime Rodinson, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Serge Gainsbourg, Georges Pompidou, François Mitterrand, Alain Finkielkraut, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Hollande... Leur propos, fidèlement rapportés, permettent de mesurer la violence de cette « passion française » que constitue le conflit israélo-palestinien. Extraits.

  • Portrait de Chantal Mouffe, la philosophe qui inspire Hamon et Mélenchon
    http://www.lesinrocks.com/2017/01/24/actualite/politique/chantal-mouffe-philosophe-reveille-gauche-11904741

    A 73 ans, Chantal Mouffe, celle qui a théorisé avec son époux Ernesto Laclau le “populisme de gauche”, n’a jamais été aussi influente. De Podemos à Jean-Luc Mélenchon en passant par Benoît Hamon, tous s’en réclament.

    “Gauche cherche intellectuels désespérément.” C’est le titre d’une enquête s’étalant en pleine page du Figaro le 28 décembre dernier et concluant à leur disparition. Une femme contredit ce constat. De Jean-Luc Mélenchon à Benoît Hamon en passant par Nuit debout, son nom revient avec insistance comme une référence théorique à gauche. C’est celui d’une Belge de
    73 ans, dont les thèses – défense d’un populisme de gauche, nécessité de la conflictualité en politique, appel à “radicaliser la démocratie” – ont mis du temps à germer dans le débat public. Autrefois marginales, ces idées constituent désormais le socle idéologique du mouvement La France insoumise (qui l’invite à débattre à Sciences-Po le 27 janvier) ou encore de Podemos en Espagne. Mais qui est cette professeure de théorie politique à l’université de Westminster qui réarme intellectuellement une gauche que l’on croyait définitivement convertie au social-libéralisme ?

    “Mon propre pays m’a découverte”

    Début janvier, elle nous accueille chez elle dans le quartier cossu de Cricklewood au nord-ouest de Londres. Dans sa maison en briques rouges, ses étagères surchargées de vieux livres et de bibelots témoignent d’une vie de voyages et d’études à travers le monde. Sous le regard éberlué de plus de trois cents figurines de chouettes, qu’elle collectionne, elle savoure le retour de hype dont elle est l’objet depuis la publication en France de L’Illusion du consensus, en mars 2016 : “Je l’ai publié en anglais il y a maintenant onze ans, mais tout le monde m’en reparle, s’amuse-t-elle. Il faut croire que le constat que je tirais est très actuel. Mon propre pays m’a découverte à la faveur de cette traduction !” Dans cet ouvrage paru chez Albin Michel, celle qui fut l’épouse du philosophe Ernesto Laclau (décédé en 2014) analyse la montée de l’abstention et le succès des partis populistes de droite en Europe comme “la conséquence directe de l’absence d’un vrai débat démocratique”, et plaide pour la “production d’une représentation conflictuelle du monde, avec des camps opposés auxquels les gens puissent s’identifier”...

    • Il faut dire que la philosophie politique de Ch. Mouffe n’a pas non plus de quoi effrayer le bourgeois de la Ve République. Du haut de sa chaire de sciences politiques, Ch. Mouffe annonce tous azimuts, comme on l’a vu, la bonne nouvelle : la lutte des classes, c’est fini ! Mais voilà de quoi ravir également une petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle progressiste, « radicalisée » ou non, qui, à la différence de l’intelligentsia révolutionnaire des siècles antérieurs, a rejeté dans l’impensable toute éventualité de dépassement du capitalisme. Jean-Paul Sartre était convaincu, lorsqu’il jouait les compagnons de route du PCF, que le marxisme était l’« horizon indépassable de notre temps ». Pour Chantal Mouffe, c’est le capitalisme dûment démocratisé qui demeure cet horizon, y compris, même, pour les temps à venir.

      http://www.librairie-tropiques.fr/2016/10/chantal-mouffe-championne-de-l-esbroufe.html

  • Se faire des amis avec Jean-Pierre Garnier : Chantal Mouffe, championne de l’esbroufe
    http://www.librairie-tropiques.fr/2016/10/chantal-mouffe-championne-de-l-esbroufe.html

    Vous avez dit lutte des classes ?

    « Principale théoricienne de la démocratie radicale, inspiratrice de Siryza et Podemos, de tous ceux qui, à gauche, tentent de secouer la politique contemporaine ». « Analyste radicale de nos démocraties, lucide et engagée »… La manière élogieuse dont les médias français mainstream présentent Chantal Mouffe devrait déjà suffire à tracer les limites de sa radicalité autoproclamée. Il est vrai, entre nous soi-dit, que le terme « radical », que l‘on trouve ces derniers temps en lieu et place de celui de « révolutionnaire », notamment dans la littérature « alternative » dont raffolent les anarchoïdes, est devenu en France un véritable mot-valise destiné à placer le néo-conformisme ambiant sous le signe de la subversion. Cette mise à toutes les sauces d’une « radicalité » postulée ne date évidemment pas d’hier. Rappelons-nous le soi-disant « radical-socialisme » qui a servi tout au long de la IIIe et la IVe Républiques de feuille de vigne progressiste à des formations politiques dont le « centrisme » supposé masquait un ancrage de plus en plus droitier.

    Il faut dire que la philosophie politique de Ch. Mouffe n’a pas non plus de quoi effrayer le bourgeois de la Ve République. Du haut de sa chaire de sciences politiques, Ch. Mouffe annonce tous azimuts, comme on l’a vu, la bonne nouvelle : la lutte des classes, c’est fini ! Mais voilà de quoi ravir également une petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle progressiste, « radicalisée » ou non, qui, à la différence de l’intelligentsia révolutionnaire des siècles antérieurs, a rejeté dans l’impensable toute éventualité de dépassement du capitalisme. Jean-Paul Sartre était convaincu, lorsqu’il jouait les compagnons de route du PCF, que le marxisme était l’« horizon indépassable de notre temps ». Pour Chantal Mouffe, c’est le capitalisme dûment démocratisé qui demeure cet horizon, y compris, même, pour les temps à venir.

  • Il y a 60 ans : le premier Congrès des écrivains et artistes noirs à La Sorbonne

    http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/tendances/il-y-a-60-ans-le-premier-congres-des-ecrivains-et-artistes-n

    Il y a 60 ans exactement, un amphithéâtre de La Sorbonne réunissait le Premier #Congrès_des_écrivains_et_artistes_noirs, entre le 19 et 21 septembre 1956. La décennie des décolonisations donnait visage à une fraternisation d’intellectuels venus d’Amérique, d’Europe et d’Afrique.
    C’est une photographie historique, empreinte de nostalgie et de fraternisation, de reconnaissance et de fierté, une « Sorbonne noire » composée d’intellectuels venus des Etats-Unis, d’Afrique, des Antilles. Une rencontre entre des écrivains et des penseurs dont les pays d’origine sont des colonies.

    #colonialisme

    • Léopold Sédar-Senghor, Alioune Diop, Aimé Césaire, Louis Armstrong, Joséphine Baker, Richard Wright, Frantz Fanon, René Depestre, Édouard Glissant, James Baldwin, mais aussi Jean-Paul Sartre, André Gide, Claude Lévi-Strauss ou Albert Camus...

      Lumières Noires, Bob Swaim, 2006, 52 minutes :
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMGPM4UMhp0


      http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumi%C3%A8res_noires

      « Le 19 septembre 1956, alors que la France se débat avec l’une de ses dernières colonies, alors que les Etats-Unis sont en froid avec le bloc communiste ; alors que les Droits de l’Homme ne concernent pas les noirs, un congrès d’un genre nouveau va bouleverser la face du Monde. Pendant 3 jours, Léopold Sédar-Senghor, Alioune Diop, Aimé Césaire, Louis Armstrong, Joséphine Baker et bien d’autres, vont animer le premier Colloque des intellectuels et artistes noirs à l’amphithéâtre Descartes de la Sorbonne. Leur but, obtenir la reconnaissance de leurs valeurs, de leurs négritudes. Forts des soutiens de Sartre, Gide ou Camus, ils vont allumer la mèche de l’émancipation, pour qu’on laisse enfin entrer l’Homme de couleur sur la grande chaîne de l’Histoire. N’en déplaise au monde occidental.

      Dans ce documentaire qui a été diffusé en octobre 2006 sur France 2 dans le cadre de l’émission Infrarouge, le réalisateur américain Bob Swaim revient sur les circonstances de la tenue de ce colloque et explique pourquoi les grandes puissances de l’époque - la France, les Etats-Unis et l’URSS — ont tout fait pour le perturber, en dénigrer les conclusions et en étouffer la portée. Des images d’archives et le récit de certains participants illustrent le propos. »

  • Six haltes dans la vie de Georges Tarabichi

    http://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/six-haltes-dans-la-vie-de-georges-tarabichi,1431

    Georges Tarabichi (1939-2016) était à la fois journaliste, traducteur, critique, écrivain et l’une des plumes les plus prolixes du monde arabe. Il a notamment traduit vers l’arabe Marx et Lénine, Jean-Paul Sartre et Simone de Beauvoir, et surtout Sigmund Freud. Syrien originaire d’Alep, Tarabichi a vécu à Beyrouth la guerre civile libanaise avant de s’installer à Paris, où il est décédé le 16 mars dernier à 77 ans. Il a été le critique majeur des travaux du philosophe marocain Mohamed Abed Al-Jabri, rejetant sa thèse d’une irrationalité fondamentale de la pensée arabe orientale opposée à un rationalisme maghrébin. Alors que la guerre de Syrie a été pour lui le douloureux temps du silence, l’écrivain a néanmoins rédigé cet article-testament, revenant s

    #littéraure #monde_arabe #syrie

    • Les lecteurs de cpa profitent de la fin de ce texte depuis 4 mois déjà (http://cpa.hypotheses.org/5885) et en prime ils ont un second texte plus sympa encore à mon avis : http://cpa.hypotheses.org/5900.
      Je me permets de redonner mon intro au texte redonné en français par Orient XXI, sur un ton moins compassé que celui d’Orient XXI.

      "Ce n’est pas politiquement correct, mais je me risque à écrire qu’on a souvent l’impression, en France, qu’il suffit de nos jours d’être syrien « de la bonne manière » pour être immédiatement adoubé comme un « grand quelque chose » : écrivain, artiste, penseur, la liste est longue… En revanche, l’oubli est le lot des Syriens qui ne sont pas dans la bonne ligne et qui persévèrent dans leur être, comme ils l’entendent, au mépris des modes…

      On en a une nouvelle illustration avec la mort à Paris, le 16 mars dernier, d’un très grand intellectuel arabe, Georges Tarabichi. Né à Alep en 1939, il a vécu un moment à Beyrouth avant de quitter le Liban au temps de la guerre civile. Pas un média français n’a jugé bon de consacrer quelques lignes au décès de cet écrivain qui laisse derrière lui près de deux cents ouvrages, entre traductions et œuvres personnelles. Pourtant, ce ne sont pas les « spécialistes » de la Syrie qui manquent ! Mais les ouvrages de Georges Tarabichi ont un immense défaut : ils sont en arabe et s’adressent, essentiellement, aux Arabes !

      Pour avoir quelque chose à dire sur « l’Orient compliqué », connaître Georges Tarabichi est pourtant loin d’être inutile comme en témoigne le parcours de cet homme qui s’est engagé très tôt dans les rangs du nationalisme arabe, puis du marxisme, avant de consacrer l’essentiel de sa vie à l’écriture : la traduction (beaucoup de philosophes et surtout l’œuvre de Sigmund Freud dont il fut un des principaux introducteurs dans le monde arabe), la critique littéraire, largement inspirée de ce qu’on appelait naguère la psychocritique, et surtout, la pensée arabe et en particulier la critique des thèses du philosophe marocain contemporain Mohamed Abed al-Jabri, « réfutation » à laquelle il a consacré près d’un quart de siècle de travail acharné.

      Impliqué des années durant dans la vie de revues aussi importantes que Études arabes (دراسات عربية) ou L’Unité (الوحدة ), figure centrale de la vie intellectuelle de la région durant plus d’un demi-siècle, ce défenseur acharné de la raison critique (il fut longtemps le secrétaire-général de la Ligue des rationalistes arabes (رابطة العقلانيّين العرب) s’est éteint sur le sol français, sans le moindre salut de la prétendue « patrie des Lumières ».

      En hommage à son remarquable parcours, quand bien même on ne le suivrait pas sur tout, CPA vous propose un extrait tiré d’un de ses derniers textes (si ce n’est le dernier). Publié un mois seulement avant sa mort et intitulé « Six étapes de ma vie » (ست محطات في حياتي), ce « testament intellectuel » se termine par un rappel du drame syrien. Georges Tarabichi s’y exprime avec une sincérité qui étonnera seulement ceux qui ne sont sensibles qu’au cliquetis des médailles sur la poitrine des grands hommes.

  • #Edith_Thomas (1), lumineuse sœur de l’ombre de #Simone_de_Beauvoir
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/culture-idees/260716/edith-thomas-1-lumineuse-soeur-de-l-ombre-de-simone-de-beauvoir

    Carte de combattante volontaire de la Résistance d’Édith Thomas. © DR Femme engagée, tour à tour romancière et journaliste, poète et historienne, diariste et dramaturge, Édith Thomas est, parmi les figures d’écrivaines françaises d’avant la révolution féministe post-68, la seule à être tombée dans un oubli à peu près total. Premier article d’une série de trois consacrés à cette écrivaine en son temps adoubée par Paul Nizan et Jean-Paul Sartre.

    #Culture-Idées #Littérature #Philosophie #résistance #roman

  • #Edith_Thomas (1), lumineuse sœur de l’ombre de #Simone_de_Beauvoir
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/culture-idees/260716/edith-thomas-1-lumineuse-soeur-de-lombre-de-simone-de-beauvoir

    Carte de combattante volontaire de la Résistance d’Édith Thomas. © DR Femme engagée, tour à tour romancière et journaliste, poète et historienne, diariste et dramaturge, Édith Thomas est, parmi les figures d’écrivaines françaises d’avant la révolution féministe post-68, la seule à être tombée dans un oubli à peu près total. Premier article d’une série de trois consacrés à cette écrivaine en son temps adoubée par Paul Nizan et Jean-Paul Sartre.

    #Culture-Idées #Littérature #Philosophie #résistance #roman

  • Houria Bouteldja des Indigènes de la République, « amoureuse » de Khatibi
    par Jules Crétois | 28 juin 2016
    http://telquel.ma/2016/06/28/houria-bouteldja-indigenes-republique-amoureuse-khatibi_1503368

    Votre livre s’ouvre sur un réquisitoire contre le philosophe français Jean-Paul Sartre. Puis, vous citez l’intellectuel marocain Abdelkebir Khatibi. Que dit, en substance, ce dernier au sujet de Sartre ?

    Il lui reproche d’avoir trahi son propre engagement anticolonial lorsqu’a surgi la question palestinienne. Sartre était incontestablement un grand anticolonialiste qui a fait ses preuves, tant pour ce qui concerne l’Algérie que le Vietnam. Il a achoppé sur la question palestinienne à cause de ce que Khatibi appelle « la conscience malheureuse » et que je préfère appeler « la bonne conscience blanche ».

    Pouvez-vous nous expliquer ce que Khatibi entend par « conscience malheureuse » ?

    Je ne pourrais pas le dire de manière formelle. Mon interprétation c’est qu’il a compris que la gauche française était à la recherche d’un supplément d’âme avec la découverte des camps de concentration en 1945, et qu’elle devait se racheter pour dépasser sa crise morale. Pour ce faire, elle a utilisé le martyr juif au lieu de chercher une solution pour les Juifs d’Europe, comme par exemple remettre en cause le fonctionnement des États-nations qui fondent leur légitimité sur une partie du peuple au détriment d’une autre. C’est ainsi que l’État-nation français privilégie les chrétiens sur les juifs par exemple.

    Qu’avez vous trouvé d’inspirant, en général, dans l’œuvre de Khatibi, dont vous dites qu’elle est trop peu connue ?

    C’est une pensée tonique et radicale qui ne s’embarrasse pas de la critique d’une figure majeure, fut-elle Sartre. Il a décelé les angles morts de la pensée sartrienne, ce qui fait d’ailleurs de Vomito Blanco une œuvre majeure.

    Ce que Khatibi reproche à Sartre, le reprocheriez-vous à des figures de la gauche française aujourd’hui ?

    Plus qu’à de simples figures, à l’ensemble de la gauche radicale française, à quelques exceptions près. Je crois qu’il y a un problème de fond auquel cette gauche ne veut pas faire face. C’est qu’il y a un conflit d’intérêt entre le prolétariat blanc et les peuples du grand Sud puisque le prolétariat occidental tire une partie de ses privilèges de l’exploitation des peuples dominés par l’impérialisme.

    #Houria_Bouteldja

  • La stratégie de l’émotion, par Anne-Cécile Robert
    http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/02/ROBERT/54709 #st

    L’#émotion pose un redoutable défi à la #démocratie, car il s’agit, par nature, d’un phénomène qui place le citoyen en position passive. Il réagit au lieu d’agir. Il s’en remet à son ressenti plus qu’à sa #raison. Ce sont les événements qui le motivent, pas sa pensée. Les marches blanches n’ont aucune conséquence pratique : la justice demeure sans moyens, la société continue de se décomposer. D’ailleurs, on n’a encore répertorié aucune marche blanche pour le suicide d’un chômeur ou l’assassinat d’un inspecteur du travail. « L’émotion est subie. On ne peut pas en sortir à son gré, elle s’épuise d’elle-même, mais nous ne pouvons l’arrêter, écrivait Jean-Paul Sartre. Lorsque, toutes voies étant barrées, la #conscience se précipite dans le monde magique de l’émotion, elle s’y précipite tout entière en se dégradant (…). La conscience qui s’émeut ressemble assez à la conscience qui s’endort. »

    A la « stratégie du choc » décryptée par Naomi Klein, faut-il ajouter une « stratégie de l’émotion » ? La classe dirigeante s’en servirait pour dépolitiser les débats et pour maintenir les citoyens dans la position d’enfants dominés par leurs affects. L’émotion abolit la distance entre le sujet et l’objet ; elle empêche le recul nécessaire à la pensée ; elle prive le citoyen du temps de la réflexion et du débat.

    http://zinc.mondediplo.net/messages/27303 via Le Monde diplomatique

  • Laurent Joffrin, chien de garde de l’« antiracisme à papa » | Etat d’Exception

    http://www.etatdexception.net/laurent-joffrin-chien-de-garde-de-l-antiracisme-a-papa

    « Ces visages contestés de l’antiracisme ». C’est le titre du journal Libération du 04 avril 2016, qui consacre un dossier spécial à ce que le quotidien appelle « le nouvel antiracisme ». Un dossier qui s’accompagne évidemment d’un éditorial de son rédacteur en chef, Laurent Joffrin, qui met en garde ses lectrices et ses lecteurs contre un « Piège grossier ».

    « Le « nouvel antiracisme » que nous décrivons pose plusieurs questions. D’abord parce qu’il est délibérément communautaire. »

    Voilà le souci premier de Joffrin, le communautarisme sous couvert d’antiracisme. Lutter contre la négrophobie en tant que Noir-e-s, mais quelle idée absurde ! Ces militant-e-s brisent le pacte républicain colorblind qui veut que nous soyons tou-te-s des citoyens libres et égaux en droit, mais isolés, atomisés, et sans autres attaches qu’une vague identité de citoyens.

    Et effectivement, la situation avait déjà été décrite par un certain Jean-Paul Sartre, qui à ses heures perdues avait fondé avec des ami-e-s au début des années 1970 un quotidien appelé… Libération :

    « L’antisémite reproche au Juif d’être Juif ; le démocrate lui reprocherait volontiers de se considérer comme Juif ». (Réflexions sur la question juive, p.69)

    En quelle année ces lignes ont-elles été écrites ? 1946 ? Ah ouais, quand même. Bon, poursuivons.

    « Les musulmans défendent les musulmans, les Noirs défendent les Noirs. Ainsi chacun s’occupe de sa paroisse, de son clocher, de son origine. Au nom d’une légitime autodéfense ? Certes.
    Encore faut-il le faire aussi au nom de valeurs communes, et non de simples réflexes communautaires. »

    Voilà comment des luttes collectives, des initiatives pensées et réfléchies, qui se matérialisent sur le terrain pratique et théorique, sont totalement dépolitisées et ramenées à de simples « réflexes communautaires », opposés aux valeurs communes. Communes à qui d’ailleurs ? Faut-il emprunter aux valeurs de l’hégémonie bourgeoise-blanche pour lutter contre l’hégémonie bourgeoise-blanche ?

    • Laurent Joffrin, le journaliste le plus bête de France !
      source : http://www.homme-moderne.org/plpl/n24/p8.html
      Le procès de Laurent Joffrin - LePlanB.N°5
      http://bernard-gensane.over-blog.com/article-laurent-joffrin-et-tonton-le-pen-103349702.html
      L’imagination au pouvoir
      Que le PDG de Libération censure un journaliste dans un numéro spécial titré "Quarante ans après. Vive 68. [...] Libération s’engage pour revendiquer un héritage que certains aimeraient « liquider » (1.2.08), même Serge July ne l’aurait pas imaginé. Laurent Joffrin, si. Après avoir supprimé la chronique de Daniel Schneidermann consacrée aux déboires du Monde , Joffrin a expliqué qu’il ne fallait pas critiquer trop durement

      « un journal que nous respectons »

      . Puis il a ajouté sur France Inter (1.2.08) :

      « On a le droit à une opinion, mais pas n’importe laquelle. »

      Monarchie élective ou dictature barbichue ?
      source : Le PlanB.N°12 page15 - février 2008
      Joffrin, chien de garde et bichonnet de salon, servile, rampant, obséquieux ... Rasons le sur la place publique !

  • Frémir plutôt que réfléchir
    La stratégie de l’émotion
    Anne-Cécile Robert

    Illustration : Jean-Baptiste Greuze. - « Une jeune fille, qui pleure son oiseau mort », 1765 Bridgeman Images - Scottish National Gallery, Edinburgh

    Il en est de la démocratie comme des grenouilles. Une grenouille jetée dans une bassine d’eau bouillante s’en extrait d’un bond ; la même, placée dans un bain d’eau froide sous lequel le feu couve, se laisse cuire insensiblement. De multiples phénomènes se conjuguent pour « cuire » insidieusement les démocraties, à rebours de l’effet que produit un coup d’Etat avec ses militaires et ses arrestations d’opposants sur fond de Sambre-et-Meuse tournant en boucle à la radio. Tel l’innocent frémissement d’une eau qui bout, les dégâts occasionnés n’apparaissent jamais qu’au fil d’une juxtaposition dédramatisante. Les combustibles qui alimentent le feu sous la marmite ont été abondamment décrits ici et là (1). On s’est, en revanche, assez peu arrêté sur le rôle que joue l’invasion de l’espace social par l’émotion. Les médias y contribuent abondamment, sans qu’on mesure toujours ce que ce phénomène peut avoir de destructeur pour la démocratie et la capacité de penser.

    Il suffit de taper « l’émotion est grande » sur un moteur de recherche pour voir défiler une infinité de nouvelles, du banal fait divers aux attentats qui ont récemment ensanglanté l’actualité de Beyrouth à Ouagadougou. Ainsi, « l’émotion est grande » dans le monde après les crimes du 13 novembre dans la capitale française ; mais elle l’était aussi quelque temps auparavant à Petit-Palais-et-Cornemps après l’accident de bus qui a coûté la vie à 43 personnes (FranceTV Info, 24 octobre 2015), à Calais lors de la démolition des bâtiments du vieil hôpital (France 3, 20 novembre 2015) ou encore à Epinac, d’où est originaire Mme Claudia Priest, enlevée en Centrafrique début 2015 (Journal de Saône-et-Loire, édition d’Autun, 21 janvier 2015). Elle l’était également en fin d’année « pour Brigitte, enfin locataire d’un appartement, qu’elle a pu meubler grâce aux clubs de services du Mont-Dore » (Les Nouvelles calédoniennes, 6 janvier 2016).

    On pourrait prolonger à l’infini une liste d’exemples qui ne traduit aucune hiérarchie autre que celle du ressenti réel ou supposé des populations et de ceux qui les observent. Les médias ne sont pas seuls à jouer de l’accordéon émotionnel. Les responsables politiques s’y adonnent également, notamment lorsqu’il s’agit de masquer leur impuissance ou de justifier, comme si elles relevaient de la fatalité, les mesures qu’ils s’apprêtent à prendre. Il en est ainsi en matière migratoire, où la précaution compassionnelle est de mise avant de se lancer dans l’explication alambiquée de l’impuissance européenne. De M. François Fillon, député du parti Les Républicains, au premier ministre Manuel Valls, « insoutenable » fut sans doute le mot le plus employé pour qualifier l’image du petit réfugié syrien Aylan Kurdi gisant sans vie sur une plage de Turquie, le 2 septembre 2015, avant qu’on décide de ne rien faire pour tarir les sources du désespoir migratoire. Dans un registre moins tragique, les commentateurs ont souligné l’« émotion » du ministre des affaires étrangères Laurent Fabius scellant, des larmes dans la voix, un accord pourtant bien fragile à la fin de la 21e conférence des Nations unies sur le climat (COP21) à Paris (2). Enfin, devant les maires de France, le 18 novembre 2015, le président François Hollande eut un lapsus révélateur : il évoqua « les attentats qui ont ensangloté la France ».

    Foules mutiques des marches blanches

    Paravent de l’impuissance ou de la lâcheté politique, le recours à l’émotion peut avoir des conséquences dramatiques immédiates. Ainsi, l’avocat de M. Loïc Sécher, Me Eric Dupont-Moretti, a qualifié de « fiasco dû à la dictature de l’émotion » l’erreur judiciaire dont a été victime son client. Ouvrier agricole, M. Sécher avait été accusé de viol par une adolescente. Après des années d’emprisonnement, il s’est finalement vu innocenter par le témoignage de celle-ci, devenue majeure, qui a reconnu avoir tout inventé. Comme dans l’affaire d’Outreau, la justice a rencontré les plus grandes difficultés à revenir sur une décision erronée, prise sous l’empire de récits aussi imaginaires que spectaculaires et du souci, bien légitime, de protéger des mineurs de mauvais traitements. Les simplifications médiatiques, le culte du « temps réel », les réseaux sociaux n’encouragent pas la sérénité dans ces affaires délicates.

    Au-delà de la simple sortie de route politico-médiatique, l’émotion devient l’un des ressorts majeurs de l’expression sociale et du décryptage des événements. Même les chefs d’entreprise sont incités à faire de leur « intelligence émotionnelle » un outil de management, tandis que leurs salariés peuvent y recourir pour obtenir une augmentation (3). L’un des symboles les plus visibles de l’invasion de l’espace public par l’émotion est le phénomène grandissant des marches blanches. La plupart du temps spontanées, celles-ci rassemblent, à la suite d’un accident ou d’un crime particulièrement odieux, des foules parfois immenses à l’échelle des villes et des villages où elles se déroulent. La première eut lieu en 1996 en Belgique, lors de l’arrestation du pédophile Marc Dutroux. Elles sont dites « blanches » car elles renvoient à la non-violence et à l’idéal de paix. Elles expriment l’indignation face à des agissements aussi insupportables qu’incompréhensibles.

    Aucun slogan, aucune revendication ne les accompagne. Des foules délibérément mutiques s’ébranlent, plaçant souvent en tête de cortège des enfants, symboles d’innocence et de foi dans l’avenir, portant parfois des bougies. Le philosophe Christophe Godin y voit l’expression d’une « crise de société » caractérisée par l’« empire des émotions » auquel « cette pratique donne un écho considérable » (4). Ces processions des temps nouveaux sont à rapprocher de la valorisation omniprésente de la figure de la victime, parée de toutes les vertus et à laquelle on rend un hommage absolu, sans s’interroger, par un processus d’empathie. « Cela aurait pu être moi », répètent significativement les personnes interrogées sur un fait divers tragique ou criminel. Toute catastrophe s’accompagne ainsi du déploiement théâtral de cellules d’aide psychologique. Les procès de la Cour pénale internationale prévoient désormais des espaces de parole pour les victimes, sans lien avec les nécessités de la manifestation de la vérité dans une affaire donnée, ni interrogation sur les chocs préjudiciables à la sérénité des délibérations que peuvent provoquer ces témoignages souvent aussi sensationnels qu’inutiles.

    Le culte de la victime a trouvé en France une illustration symptomatique dans le projet - finalement abandonné - de transfert au Panthéon des cendres d’Alfred Dreyfus, objet d’une campagne antisémite d’une rare violence dans les années 1890. Ne confond-on pas ici victime et héros ? Le capitaine n’a fait que subir douloureusement les événements ; à aucun moment il n’a agi d’une manière qui le distingue. A l’opposé, le lieutenant-colonel Georges Picquart, congédié du ministère de la guerre et radié de l’armée pour avoir dénoncé le complot ourdi contre Dreyfus, pourrait bénéficier à bon droit de l’attention des panthéonisateurs les moins regardants et rejoindre Emile Zola. Autre exemple de confusion victimaire : le choix de rendre hommage aux victimes des attentats de Paris dans la cour des Invalides, lieu pensé par Louis XIV pour les soldats blessés au front. La cérémonie a accordé une large place à l’émotion, mise en scène devant les caméras. Le psychologue Jacques Cosnier va jusqu’à parler d’une société « pathophile (5) ». La philosophe Catherine Kintzler s’inquiète quant à elle de la « dictature avilissante de l’affectivité (6) ».

    L’émotion pose un redoutable défi à la démocratie, car il s’agit, par nature, d’un phénomène qui place le citoyen en position passive. Il réagit au lieu d’agir. Il s’en remet à son ressenti plus qu’à sa raison. Ce sont les événements qui le motivent, pas sa pensée. Les marches blanches n’ont aucune conséquence pratique : la justice demeure sans moyens, la société continue de se décomposer. D’ailleurs, on n’a encore répertorié aucune marche blanche pour le suicide d’un chômeur ou l’assassinat d’un inspecteur du travail. « L’émotion est subie. On ne peut pas en sortir à son gré, elle s’épuise d’elle-même, mais nous ne pouvons l’arrêter, écrivait Jean-Paul Sartre. Lorsque, toutes voies étant barrées, la conscience se précipite dans le monde magique de l’émotion, elle s’y précipite tout entière en se dégradant (...). La conscience qui s’émeut ressemble assez à la conscience qui s’endort (7). »

    A la « stratégie du choc (8) » décryptée par Naomi Klein, faut-il ajouter une « stratégie de l’émotion » ? La classe dirigeante s’en servirait pour dépolitiser les débats et pour maintenir les citoyens dans la position d’enfants dominés par leurs affects. L’émotion abolit la distance entre le sujet et l’objet ; elle empêche le recul nécessaire à la pensée ; elle prive le citoyen du temps de la réflexion et du débat. « L’émotion s’impose dans l’immédiateté, dans sa totalité, nous explique M. Claude-Jean Lenoir, ancien président du cercle Condorcet-Voltaire. Elle s’impose au point que toute conscience est émotion, est cette émotion. L’émotion demeure l’ennemie radicale de la raison : elle n’essaie pas de comprendre, elle "ressent". On doit cet état de fait contemporain sans doute aussi à l’influence et à l’émergence des réseaux sociaux. De distance, aucune ! On "tweete", on "gazouille" à tour de bras. Se dégradent le sens critique, la culture, la recherche de la vérité. On "balance". »

    La valorisation de l’émotion constitue ainsi un terreau favorable aux embrigadements guerriers des philosophes médiatiques toujours prêts à soutenir une guerre « humanitaire », à l’instar d’un Bernard- Henri Lévy dans l’expédition de Libye en 2011. Mais aussi un terreau plus quotidiennement favorable aux mécaniques du storytelling (9) et aux fausses évidences du populisme. A la veille de l’élection présidentielle de 2002, l’agression du retraité Paul Voise, montée en épingle par les médias, avait suscité un déluge de discours réactionnaires sur la « lutte contre la délinquance ». Dans son fameux discours de Dakar, en 2008, M. Nicolas Sarkozy avait pu affirmer : « Je crois moi-même à ce besoin de croire plutôt que de comprendre, de ressentir plutôt que de raisonner, d’être en harmonie plutôt que d’être en conquête... »

    Mais la marche blanche vient aussi combler un vide laissé par les formes collectives d’action, comme le syndicalisme ou le militantisme politique. Il n’est sans doute pas anodin, d’ailleurs, que le phénomène soit né en Belgique, aux grandes heures de la décomposition de l’Etat central, et qu’il se soit particulièrement développé dans le nord de la France, où la désindustrialisation a eu des conséquences dévastatrices sur le tissu social. Face aux souffrances et à la crainte de l’avenir, l’émotion réhumanise ; elle s’oppose au cynisme. Elle fait aussi du bien. Elle soulage d’autant plus qu’elle est partagée, comme lors d’une cérémonie aux Invalides. Elle conjure brièvement le sentiment pesant de l’impuissance en permettant une communion, certes un peu primitive, face à la dureté des temps. « Un téléspectateur ému chez lui par un crime ou par le massacre de Charlie Hebdo est seul, explique encore Godin. La marche blanche lui permet de partager son émotion. Le phénomène est évidemment social. Et en même temps très équivoque. » En ce sens, l’émotion ne traduit-elle pas un désir confus de « (re)faire société », de retisser le lien social ?

    Interrogée sur l’absence de processus révolutionnaire dans une France pourtant en pleine régression sociale et politique, l’historienne Sophie Wahnich explique (10) que la révolution de 1789 peut aussi s’analyser comme l’aboutissement d’un long processus de politisation de la société, entamé au sein des assemblées communales de l’Ancien Régime. Les Français avaient pris l’habitude d’y échanger d’abord sur les affaires locales ; ils perpétuèrent cette habitude lors des événements liés à la convocation des états généraux durant l’année 1789. La profondeur de la crise politique actuelle tient aussi au fait que cet espace public a progressivement disparu.

    Si donc la marche blanche est en quelque sorte le stade primaire du ravaudage du tissu politique, la perspective change. Elle est ainsi « implicitement politique », selon Godin ; il y voit une récrimination non dite contre la puissance publique qui « ne protège plus ». On se souvient que la première marche, en Belgique, avait aussi pour but de protester contre l’incurie de la police et de la justice dans la poursuite d’un criminel qui avait échappé à leur vigilance. Pour contribuer à la reconstruction de la démocratie, le processus devrait alors prolonger les liens tissés dans l’émotion et mener à leur politisation progressive.

    La métaphore de la grenouille trouve d’ailleurs un pendant chez Voltaire, qui racontait l’histoire de deux d’entre elles tombées dans une jatte de lait. La première se met à prier sans bouger, finit par s’enfoncer et se noie ; la seconde se débat tant et si bien que le lait devient beurre. Elle n’a plus alors qu’à prendre appui sur cet élément solide pour sauter hors de la jatte.

    Note(s) :

    Jean-Baptiste Greuze. - « Une jeune fille, qui pleure son oiseau mort », 1765 Bridgeman Images - Scottish National Gallery, Edinburgh
    (1) Lire par exemple Jean-Jacques Gandini, « Vers un état d’exception permanent », Le Monde diplomatique, janvier 2016.
    (2) Lire Philippe Descamps, « Le pari ambigu de la coopération climatique », La valise diplomatique, 19 décembre 2015.
    (3) Cf. David Goleman, L’Intelligence émotionnelle, J’ai lu, coll. « Bien-être », Paris, 2003. Lire Manière de voir, no 96, « La fabrique du conformisme », décembre 2007-janvier 2008.
    (4) Christophe Godin, « "La marche blanche est un symptôme d’une société en crise" », L’Obs, Paris, 26 avril 2015.
    (5) Jacques Cosnier, Psychologie des émotions et des sentiments, Retz, Paris, 1994.
    (6) Catherine Kintzler, « Condorcet, le professeur de liberté », Marianne, Paris, 6 novembre 2015.
    (7) Jean-Paul Sartre, Esquisse d’une théorie de l’émotion. Psychologie, phénoménologie et psychologie phénoménologique de l’émotion, Hermann, Paris, 1938 (rééd. : Le Livre de poche, Paris, 2000).
    (8) Naomi Klein, La Stratégie du choc. La montée d’un capitalisme du désastre, Actes Sud, Arles, 2008.
    (9) Lire Christian Salmon, « Une machine à fabriquer des histoires », Le Monde diplomatique, novembre 2006.
    (10) Conférence publique à l’université de Nancy, 26 octobre 2015.

    Source : Le Monde diplomatique - Février 2016, p. 3

    #démocratie

  • « En un mot, quand je vote, j’abdique mon pouvoir − c’est-à-dire la possibilité qui est en chacun de constituer avec tous les autres un groupe souverain qui n’a nul besoin de représentants. Voter, c’est sans doute, pour le citoyen sérialisé, donner sa voix à un parti, mais c’est surtout voter pour le vote […] c’est-à-dire pour l’institution politique qui nous maintient en état d’impuissance sérielle. » Jean-Paul Sartre, « Élections piège à cons », in Les Temps modernes, 1973, n° 318.

    #élections #régionales #FN #abstention

  • L’intellectuel de gauche critique est un collectif
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/philippe-marliere/161015/lintellectuel-de-gauche-critique-est-un-collectif

    L’engagement de l’intellectuel « responsable » et « modeste » est d’autant plus nécessaire aujourd’hui à gauche, que ce sont les intellectuels bavards, narcissiques et réactionnaires qui tiennent le haut du pavé dans les médias et dans l’édition française. Il est impératif que les intellectuels collectifs fassent entendre un autre récit du monde ; dénoncent les dominations et injustices de tous ordres. Les intellectuels collectifs doivent combattre le néo-pétainisme culturel, menaçant, mais qui n’a rien d’inéluctable.

    • La fascination pour la figure de l’intellectuel « généraliste » dont Jean-Paul Sartre représenta la quintessence est un tropisme français. Les autres pays européens connaissent avant tout ce que Michel Foucault appelait l’#intellectuel « spécifique », c’est-à-dire un expert intervenant sur des questions précises qui relèvent du champ de son savoir. En réalité, l’intellectuel sartrien a été terrassé par deux phénomènes : la scolarisation prolongée des classes moyennes et l’essor des nouvelles technologies. Des millions d’individus, de plus en plus instruits et mieux informés, sont devenus des citoyens réflexifs et donc des #intellectuels_critiques. Antonio Gramsci observait à juste titre qu’il existe des travailleurs qui utilisent davantage leur cerveau que leur mains, mais que nous sommes tous des intellectuels, car tout le monde pense, critique et argumente. La figure sartrienne ne reviendra donc pas. Les personnages narcissiques qui, aujourd’hui, tentent de la singer – les BHL et autres Michel Onfray – sont perçus par le public pour ce qu’ils sont : des #bouffons_médiatiques.

      La figure de l’intellectuel organique

      L’opposition traditionnelle entre intellectuel généraliste et spécifique masque une autre figure politiquement plus intéressante. Appelons-la l’intellectuel « organique » qui, contrairement à une idée reçue, n’est pas forcément liée à un parti politique. L’#intellectuel_organique est un individu qui tente d’exprimer les intérêts et les aspirations d’un groupe ou d’une classe sociale.

      #philippe_marlière

  • Andreas Lubitz ou la banalité du mal

    Andreas Lubitz était un homme normal. Tout les gens ayant eu à le cotoyer le disent, il n’y a donc aucun doute là-dessus : on est normal dans la seule mesure où l’on est reconnu comme tel par le plus grand nombre. Il n’était pas musulman, pas anarchiste, pas drogué et pas même alcoolique ! Il était tellement normal qu’il souffrait, comme presque tout le monde en Europe occidentale, de « dépression ». Après tout, quoi de plus normal que d’être dépressif quand on vit dans un pays déprimant ?

    Cet homme normal, qui a entraîné près de 150 personnes vers une mort absurde et atroce, appartenait à cette immense classe moyenne allemande, dont les gouvernants sont capables d’affamer délibérément un petit pays de la Méditerranée -où les gens avaient conservé un certain art de vivre et ne peuplaient pas les salles d’attente des psy- au nom de cette morale de petits-épargnants dont la Merkel est l’incarnation parfaite.

    Le fait que ce terme de « dépression » soit utilisé indifférement dans deux pseudo-sciences qui font autorité en ce monde, à savoir l’économie et la psychiatrie, est en soi significatif. Dans sa version psy, la dépression correspond à la transformation en maladie individuelle d’un fait de société, à savoir l’absence. Les gens que l’on décrète déprimés sont tout simplement des gens que plus rien ne lie aux autres et qui ont donc perdu tout art de vivre. Des gens qui ne peuvent plus habiter un monde. Mais le capitalisme se nourrit du désastre qu’il engendre, et une expérience assez commune dans un monde aussi inhabitable a été transformée en simple problème personnel traité à coups de molécules chimiques, faisant du même coup la prospérité du business pharmaceutique -et tant pis si les anti-dépressifs n’empêchent nullement les suicides, et sont même suspectés de les faciliter...

    Bien sûr, Andreas Lubitz aurait pu simplement se pendre dans son garage, ou s’ouvrir les veines dans sa baignoire. Mais dans un monde où l’imaginaire est de plus en plus formaté par les effets spéciaux de l’industrie audiovisuelle, il eût été dommage de se contenter d’une fin si banale, si anonyme, surtout quand on a la chance de disposer d’un outil aussi puissant qu’un Airbus A320 ! « On ne peut pas appeller ceci un suicide » a dit très justement le procureur en charge du dossier. Ce dont il s’agit là, c’est, tout comme le magnifique et terrifiant snuff movie du 11 septembre 2001, d’une performance. Andreas Lubitz, qui était sportif, était certainement sensible à une telle notion, mais celle-ci a aussi à voir avec la dimension artistique, à une époque où les artistes tendent à réaliser des performances plutôt que des oeuvres. Le copilote s’est offert une expérience digne des plus grands films d’action, qui lui a ouvert les portes de l’éternité -le nom d’Andreas Lubitz est entré dans l’Histoire. Seule une connasse luthérienne comme Angela Merkel peut trouver le geste de Andreas Lubitz « tout à fait incompréhensible ».

    Dans la dernière minute de sa vie, il a sans aucun doute éprouvé une sensation vertigineuse de toute-puissance, quelque chose que les croyants qualifieraient de diabolique. Les auteurs du 11 septembre 2001 ont du ressentir cela, en surmultiplié.

    Ce monde ne cesse d’exciter en nous le vertige de l’anéantissement, et que ce soit en se shootant à l’héroïne ou en s’enrôlant dans les troupes de Daesh les possibilités ne manquent pas de vivre une expérience absolue qui soulage de ce terrible sentiment d’absence. Que le prix à payer pour cela soit une renonciation à la vie même, ouvertement revendiquée chez le junkie comme chez le djihadiste, fait précisément toute l’intensité de cette expérience...

    Tuer revient à exercer le pouvoir absolu, celui de mettre brutalement fin à la vie d’un autre, d’où la fascination que cet acte exerce au-delà de tout critère moral -longtemps, les êtres humains ont considéré que seul Dieu pouvait disposer d’un tel pouvoir, ou à la rigueur des souverains ayant reçus les attributs de la divinité. Mais ce monde, en multipliant les moyens technologiques d’anéantir la vie, a banalisé les attributs divins. Depuis Hiroshima, la possibilité d’un anéantissement venu du Ciel fait que de simples mortels peuvent réaliser ce que d’innombrables prophéties annonçaient jadis comme la vengeance de la divinité offensée.

    Il m’arrive de circuler en avion, et l’idée qu’un clone d’Andreas Lubitz pourrait décider un beau jour de m’entraîner avec lui dans le monde des Morts ne m’est pas du tout agréable, mais elle ne date pas de hier. Cela fait trop longtemps que je considère les gens normaux comme des gens extrêmement dangereux.

    En s’écrasant sur la montagne, l’Airbus de la Germanwings nous ramène à la banalité du mal, qui revient vers nous comme mal de la banalité : de même que Hannah Arendt fut stupéfaite de découvrir dans la figure d’Eichmann un haut fonctionnaire consciencieux et soucieux de bien faire son travail, en lieu et place du fanatique exalté qu’elle attendait, nous découvrons dans l’existence banale et insipide que menait Andreas Lubitz et qui constitue précisément la norme en Europe occidentale la figure même du mal.

    Alèssi Dell’Umbria

    • Il y a vingt-cinq siècles, un autre type nommé #Érostrate, un Grec, avait brûlé le temple d’Ephèse, une des sept merveilles du monde, parce qu’il n’avait pas trouvé d’autre moyen de se rendre célèbre. C’est vrai, on se souvient encore de lui.

      En 1936, Jean-Paul Sartre écrivait une nouvelle, intitulée « Érostrate », qu’il publiera quelques années plus tard dans son recueil « le Mur ». Elle raconte l’histoire d’un homme qui hait les autres et n’ose pas toucher les femmes. Il achète un revolver :

      Un soir, l’idée m’est venue de tirer sur des hommes.

      Il va à la sortie du Châtelet, pour alimenter son fantasme :

      J’avais glissé ma main droite dans ma poche et je serrais de toutes mes forces la crosse de mon arme. Au bout d’un moment, je me voyais en train de leur tirer dessus. Je les dégringolais comme des pipes, ils tombaient les uns sur les autres, et les survivants, pris de panique, refluaient dans le théâtre en brisant les vitres des portes.

      On lui raconte l’histoire d’Érostrate.

      Il y avait plus de deux mille ans qu’il était mort, et son acte brillait encore, comme un diamant noir. Je commençais à croire que mon destin serait court et tragique. Cela me fit peur tout d’abord, et puis je m’y habituai. Si on prend ça d’une certaine façon, c’est atroce, mais, d’un autre côté, ça donne à l’instant qui passe une force et une beauté considérables.

      Quand je descendais dans la rue, je sentais en mon corps une puissance étrange. J’avais sur moi mon revolver, cette chose qui éclate et qui fait du bruit. Mais ce n’était plus de lui que je tirais mon assurance, c’était de moi : j’étais un être de l’espèce des revolvers, des pétards et des bombes.

      Moi aussi, un jour, au terme de ma sombre vie, j’exploserais et j’illuminerais le monde d’une flamme violente et brève comme un éclair de magnésium.

      De fait, « un jour », il prend sa décision, sort sur le trottoir et tue un passant au hasard.

      Cette nouvelle prémonitoire commence par ces mots :

      Les hommes, il faut les voir d’en haut.

      Jacques Drillon