"Downhill All the Way, 2"

Let me conclude the thoughts expressed in the previous posting. Judt writes that Hobsbawm, at the age of 94 (!), no longer had illusions about the Soviet Union, but that he remained reluctant to deny that it had no redeeming features. The reason: it stood "for a good cause, indeed the only worthwhile cause," which, for many in Hobsbawm's generation, mitigated its crimes. Judt introduces a footnote here, quoting the Polish writer Alexander Wat: "The loss of freedom, tyranny, abuse, hunger would all have been easier to bear if not for the compulsion to call them freedom, just, the good of the people."

I can't help thinking that the Soviets were aware of, indeed even took advantage of, the willingness of the Western intellectual class to believe that good could come out of the Soviet experiment. Successful tyrants play on people's gullibility, and Stalin was certainly a successful one. This gullibility stems from a belief that humanity can be corrected, that the world can be changed for the better, if the right conditions are met, if the right people are in charge. Even before the Soviets took over Russia, there was many a "planned economy" and "planned society" -- utopian communities -- yet not even the most benign stood the test of time.

Judt suggests that Hobsbawm was in the grip of what he calls a "secular faith" and, moreover, that he was not aware that he was. It is a striking fact that the professoriate is mostly liberal or left wing; I would not be surprised if most of them also considered themselves unbelievers or atheists. I can't think of a well-known conservative who is an in-your-face atheist. Which doesn't mean conservatives are necessarily believers. Being conservative, they are instead perhaps agnostic or uncommitted. But conservatives don't expect perfection on earth.

Picture credits: UK Media Watch; Quotehd