It is often said that Sartre supported Stalin

[jacobin1949]

It is often said that Sartre supported Stalin, however all I have been able to find after extensive research is secondary sources. Does anyone have a direct quote from Sartre where he states his opinion of Stalin?

[Lamanov]

Sartre - probably - wouldn't have supported Stalin even in a joke. I think it's free to say that such a thing was not possible, because it would have pretty much contradicted his views (even in their changing: from his early 'nausée' to his late 'raison dialectique').

[Socialist Dave]

I think TC is right, Satre was anti authotarian throughout his life, if you look at his first play for example, or that whole thing about subjectivity none of it is remotley stalinist. The only reason people say that is because he was involved with the communist party for a while. who at that time would have been Stalinist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sartre was no kind of "anti-authoritarian" in any way that you mean it.

He was a supporter of the "authoritarian" Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara, who he called "The most complete human being of our times." He also helped in the "authoritarian" struggle against French imperialism in Algeria.

As for Stalin, Sartre was indeed a "supporter" of the Soviet Union (yes even during the Stalin period).. He had a lesser view of Stalin's methods after the Red Army invaded Hungary; but he never became "anti-Stalin". He wrote an article called "Stalin's Ghost" after the incident in Hungary in which he stated "Although Stalinism had been a historical neccessity in the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, this does not mean that Marx was wrong or that revolutions based on Marx's idea are doomed to failure."

In 1961, he wrote "Whatever its crimes, the USSR has one redoubtable superiority over bourgeois democracies: it wants to bring about the revolution."

[Janus]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that he fully supported Stalin but he certainly justified the USSR and its actions.


Does anyone have a direct quote from Sartre where he states his opinion of Stalin?
Try this work.
Bureaucracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/critic/ussr.htm)

[SPK]

Stalin didn't die until 1953 and the "de-Stalinization" process didn't begin until the 1956 CPSU Congress and Khruschev's revelations. Sartre was closest to the Communist Party of France basically during this period. He became a fellow traveller in support of the PCF after the arrest and harassment of party leader Jacques Duclos in 1952. He didn't make a decisive break until the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 -- Stalin's Ghost was one of his responses to those events.

Some of his key writings during this period, from Les Temps Modernes, are collected in The Communists and Peace, With a Reply to Claude Lefort. It is available in English translation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 02:38 am
Sartre was no kind of "anti-authoritarian" in any way that you mean it.

He was a supporter of the "authoritarian" Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara, who he called "The most complete human being of our times." He also helped in the "authoritarian" struggle against French imperialism in Algeria.

As for Stalin, Sartre was indeed a "supporter" of the Soviet Union (yes even during the Stalin period).. He had a lesser view of Stalin's methods after the* Red Army invaded Hungary; but he never became "anti-Stalin". He wrote an article called "Stalin's Ghost" after the incident in Hungary in which he stated "Although Stalinism had been a historical neccessity in the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, this does not mean that Marx was wrong or that revolutions based on Marx's idea are doomed to failure."

In 1961, he wrote "Whatever its crimes, the USSR has one redoubtable superiority over bourgeois democracies: it wants to bring about the revolution."
Let's put this into historical perspective.

Sartre publically broke from Castro in 1971; in 1976 he led 50 noble peace prize winners in opposition to the detention of Mikhail Stern and denounced the Soviet Union doing the same for Marxism in an internview with Lotta Coninua in 1977.

He did, for all intent and purpose - 'See the light.'

[bcbm]

Another reason to prefer Camus, perhaps...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 04, 2007 06:22 pm
Another reason to prefer Camus, perhaps...
Are you talking to me?

[Janus]

Another reason to prefer Camus, perhaps...
Right, Camus was much more critical of the USSR while Sartre was a bit more hesitant to criticism. However, these political views still don't affect their philosophies to any great degree.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 05, 2007 04:23 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 05, 2007 04:23 am)
black coffee black [email protected] 04, 2007 06:22 pm
Another reason to prefer Camus, perhaps...
Are you talking to me? [/b]
No, just a general response to the thread.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Let's put this into historical perspective.

Sartre publically broke from Castro in 1971; in 1976 he led 50 noble peace prize winners in opposition to the detention of Mikhail Stern and denounced the Soviet Union doing the same for Marxism in an internview with Lotta Coninua in 1977.

Fuck the Nobel "Peace" Prize. The war criminal Henry Kissinger was given a Nobel "Peace" Prize for fuck's sakes.

As for "breaking" with the Cuban revolution and renouncing Marxism.. he did. It's called selling out late in life, or in the case of people belonging to non-oppressed classes, coming around and acting in one's class interests. The same was seen with Regis Debray and others. So what?

For most of his life, Sarte considered himself a Marxist, and helped liberation struggles and defense of workers' states. He also said existentialism could not replace Marxism, only compliment it. As far as I know, he never reneged on that statement.

It's not something that shouldn't have been expected. Look at people like David Horowitz, and the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie that supported the Nicraguan revolution until their positions of power were threatened.


He did, for all intent and purpose - 'See the light.'

The light beaming from the towers of reaction? Is that the same light the "leftists" who supported the Reagan-backed "Solidarnosc" in Poland and championed the downfall of the USSR?

[TC]

Sartre openly supported Maoism and was even arrested for selling an illigal Maoist newspaper, he also publicaly supported the Red Army Faction...he was no anarchist or liberal and no one whose read his political writing or his specific writing on marxism would think that.


Anyways i think it was quite moronic of DJ-TC and "Socialist" Dave to pipe up as if they knew what they were talking about and supply their own opinions for Sartre's, as if Sartre would automatically agree with them :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 08:33 am
As for "breaking" with the Cuban revolution and renouncing Marxism.. he did. It's called selling out late in life
Clearly that's a matter of opinion and not one Sartre accepted.


He also said existentialism could not replace Marxism, only compliment it. As far as I know, he never reneged on that statement.

So?



He did, for all intent and purpose - 'See the light.'

The light beaming from the towers of reaction? Is that the same light the "leftists" who supported the Reagan-backed "Solidarnosc" in Poland and championed the downfall of the USSR?

No, no. Simply the light to understand that Marxism is a flawed, failed and outdated ideology. That, to your horror i'm sure, does not equal reaction.

Altough let's be clear. For you, anything that disagree's with your opinion is reactionary.

[Lamanov]

Sartre wrote Problem of Method in 1957 (which would later be printed in his Critique de la raison dialectique in 1960, including his famous Marxism and Existentialism) - that's 4 years after Stalin's death - in which he takes up Hungarian revolution of 1956 as an example of Marxist philosophy rebuilding itself in its original humanist ("early Marx") fashion, that is, rejoining itself with its esential being.

We all know what Maoist sect thinks about that revolution, and especially what it had thought then.

P.S.

I wouldn't give a flying fuck if he agreed with me or not.

His political ideas were constantly catching up with concrete issues (besides hopeless "peace" efforts) and his philosophy was, compared with some other people which managed to retrace Marx's original thought through all the garbage (one look at TC's bullshit I still se that same garbage), not that imprortant, at least not utill his "Marxist peak" in the 60's when he did come up with some good concepts (I personally like Critique de la raison dialectique and his concept of "Project").

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For you, anything that disagree's with your opinion is reactionary.

I don't have political "opinions". I have positions based on analyses of facts.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10, 2007 11:57 am
No, no. Simply the light to understand that Marxism is a flawed, failed and outdated ideology. That, to your horror i'm sure, does not equal reaction.
Care to back that up with anything or are you just going to make suspect statements?

And no, I don't find this disagreement to be "reactionary" at all, just "incorrect".