Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Bureaucratic Ideological Hells - The Future of Neoliberalism

 

Slavoj Zizek, "Freedom Without Justice"

At the end of European Communism, there was a widespread, euphoric hope that freedom and democracy would bring a better life; eventually, though, many lost that hope. The problem, under both Communism and the new liberal dispensation, was that those pursuing grand social projects had embraced ideology instead of philosophy.

LJUBLJANA – Lea Ypi’s Free: Coming of Age at the End of History has met with a hostile reception in her home country of Albania, and it is easy to see why. Her self-description as a “Marxist Albanian professor of political theory at the London School of Economics” says it all.

Reading Ypi’s book, I was struck by the parallel between her life and that of Viktor Kravchenko, the Soviet official who defected while visiting New York in 1944. His famous bestselling memoir, I Chose Freedom, became the first substantial eyewitness account of the horrors of Stalinism, beginning with its detailed description of the Holodomor (famine) in Ukraine in the early 1930s. Still a true believer at the time, Kravchenko had participated in enforcing collectivization, and therefore knew of what he spoke.

Kravchenko’s publicly known story ends in 1949, when he triumphantly won a big libel suit against a French Communist newspaper. At the trial in Paris, the Soviets flew in his ex-wife to testify to his corruption, alcoholism, and domestic abuse. The court was not swayed, but people tend to forget what happened next. Immediately following the trial, when he was being hailed around the world as a Cold War hero, Kravchenko grew deeply worried about the anti-Communist witch hunts unfolding in the United States. To fight Stalinism with McCarthyism, he warned, was to stoop to the Stalinists’ level.

As he spent more time in the West, Kravchenko grew increasingly aware of its own injustices and became obsessed with reforming Western democratic societies from within. After writing a lesser-known sequel to I Chose Freedom, entitled I Chose Justice, he embarked on a crusade to discover a new, less exploitative mode of economic production. That quest led him to Bolivia, where he invested in an unsuccessful effort to organize poor farmers into new collectives.

Crushed by that failure, he withdrew into private life and ultimately shot himself at his home in New York. And no, his suicide was not due to some nefarious KGB blackmail operation. It was an expression of despair, and further proof that his original denunciation of the Soviet Union had always been a genuine protest against injustice.

Ypi’s Free does in one volume what Kravchenko did in two. When Albania descended into civil war in 1997, her whole world fell apart. Reduced to hiding in her apartment and writing a diary while Kalashnikov shots clattered outside, she made an extraordinary decision: She would study philosophy.

But what is even more extraordinary is that her engagement with philosophy brought her back to Marxism. Her story attests to the fact that the most penetrating critics of Communism have often been ex-Communists, for whom the critique of “actually existing socialism” was simply the only way to remain faithful to their political commitments.

Free grew out of an earlier treatise on how socialist and liberal notions of freedom are interrelated, and it is this perspective that structures the book. The first part, on how Albanians “chose freedom,” provides an eminently readable memoir of Ypi’s childhood in the last decade of communist rule in Albania. While it includes all the horrors of daily life – food shortages, political denunciations, control and suspicion, torture and harsh punishments – it is also punctuated by comical moments. Even under such harsh and desolate conditions, people found ways to preserve a modicum of dignity and honesty.

In the second part, which describes Albania’s post-communist turmoil after 1990, Ypi recounts how the freedom chosen by – or, rather, imposed on – Albanians failed to deliver justice. It culminates in a chapter about the 1997 civil war, at which point the narrative breaks off and is replaced by snippets from Ypi’s diary. The strength of Ypi’s writing is that, even here, she is tackling the big questions, exploring how ambitious ideological projects usually end not in triumph but in confusion and disorientation.

In the 1990s, one such project was replaced by another. With communism toppled, ordinary Albanians were subjected to “democratic transition” and “structural reforms” designed to make them more “like Europe” with its “free market.” Ypi’s bitter conclusion in the last paragraph of the book is worth quoting in full:

“My world is as far from freedom as the one my parents tried to escape. Both fall short of that ideal. But their failures took distinctive forms, and without being able to understand them, we will remain forever divided. I wrote my story to explain, to reconcile, and to continue the struggle.”

Here we have an ironic rebuttal to Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach, which famously observes that, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” The counterpoint is that one cannot change the world for the better unless one first understands it. This is where the great initiators of both the Communist and liberal projects fell short.

The conclusion Ypi draws from this insight, however, is not the cynical stance that meaningful change is either impossible or inevitable. Rather, it is that the struggle (for freedom) goes on, and always will. Ypi thus feels that she owes a debt to “all the people of the past who sacrificed everything because they were not apathetic, they were not cynical, they did not believe that things fall into place if you just let them take their course.”

Therein resides our global predicament. If we believe that things will fall into place by just letting them take their course, we will end up with multiple catastrophes, from ecological breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism to social chaos and disintegration. Ypi channels what philosopher Giorgio Agamben called “the courage of hopelessness,” his recognition that passive optimism is a recipe for complacency, and thus a hurdle to meaningful thought and action.

At the end of Communism, there was a widespread, euphoric hope that freedom and democracy would bring a better life; eventually, though, many lost that hope. That is the point where the real work begins. In the end, Ypi does not offer any easy way out, and therein lies the strength of her book. Such abstinence is what makes it philosophical. The point is not to change the world blindly; it is, first and foremost, to see and understand it.

30 comments:

  1. \\“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

    Yap!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem, under both Communism and the new liberal dispensation, was that those pursuing grand social projects had embraced ideology instead of philosophy.

    ...The counterpoint is that one cannot change the world for the better unless one first understands it. This is where the great initiators of both the Communist and liberal projects fell short.\


    ...At the end of Communism, there was a widespread, euphoric hope that freedom and democracy would bring a better life; eventually, though, many lost that hope. That is the point where the real work begins. In the end, Ypi does not offer any easy way out, and therein lies the strength of her book. Such abstinence is what makes it philosophical. The point is not to change the world blindly; it is, first and foremost, to see and understand it.

    I only have the beginnings of a prescription (of the goal). Not an end, or a completed identification the means.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Technology -- it's discipline of setting Goals, and then resolving em. (c) Stanislav Lem via Golem XIV

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess it similar as that russian cartoons I was giving to you -- kinda like Rorshah test for other side. :-)

    I have neither knowledge nor interest to take ANY side in this your inner quarrel.

    All I can suggest... around my interests and expertise -- that such a modern wonder as production of microchips and microprocessors... would not be possible ANY other way.

    That is kind of thing that only globalized market can sustain to produce...

    What to take out of it -- is up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry. I'm out. I don't need microchips or microprocessors to live a less "artificial" life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. \\Sorry. I'm out. I don't need microchips or microprocessors to live a less "artificial" life.

    Then... Russians is your friends. ;-P

    They suggested to use EMP blast -- to eradicate ALL computers. Recently.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Then ... Russians are your friends? They suggested using EMP blast -- to eradicate ALL computers recently.

    It's a reminder that Russians know how to shut down an enemy. I also suspect they know all about EMP Shielding. Not at all cheap, but it’s doable. Caution is a wise course of action. One belligerent forcing another into extreme measures so as “not to lose” a war may not be the wisest course. It's a pity we no longer have anyone capable of intelligent diplomacy. And it’s a shame that the US always seems diplomatically inept. There is no benefit to US involvement in Ukraine, evidenced by our loss of millions of dollars coerced from working Americans by tyrannical democrats who control the government. All of it, nearly every penny – flushed. I say almost every penny because I’m sure some of that money returned to certain high-ranking officials. Hmmm. Maybe they aren’t so inept after all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. \\It's a reminder that Russians know how to shut down an enemy. I also suspect they know all about EMP Shielding.

    H-I-lardious! :-)))))

    Are you one of that gullible westerners? Or are you russian troll? ;-P


    \\ One belligerent forcing another into extreme measures so as “not to lose” a war may not be the wisest course.

    No. U R idiot.

    WHY you attacked Hitler, then? Why you throwed TWO a-bombs on Japan? Why you waged M.A.D. at USSR during Cold War?



    \\ It's a pity we no longer have anyone capable of intelligent diplomacy.

    Like Ray-Gun?

    "We begin bombing in five minutes"?


    ReplyDelete
  9. FYI,

    Mustang, Q (anon) is most likely a Ukrainian (or Polish) national who's very bright and interested in technology and SciFi.

    Q, Mustang is a former US Marine and an avid history buff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. \\At the end of Communism, there was a widespread, euphoric hope that freedom and democracy would bring a better life;

    Because...

    that is not democracy which brought that better life... but development of techs.

    Now pace of technological progress slowing down... and we have all this problems -- like imperialism rising its head.

    Previously it was bothered with trying to catch up to more developed West.

    But now... and democracies, and most stupid despoties -- have access to all the same set of goodies.

    So, "why we need to become democracy" they start screaching, "if we ALREADY can have ALL goodies???".

    "That is nasty oppression!", they scream, "We want to stay independent... and continue our cannibalistic practices".

    "And you -- West, have nothing to threat (or treat) us with. So, you better GET OUT OUR LAWN!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  11. \\Q, Mustang is a former US Marine and an avid history buff.

    And that's why his words is so outrageously... incomprehensible. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's like having a dog.

    While you feeding it, it is flaffy tail-wagging pile of pleasute.

    But... if it'll gone astray, hungry, combining in packs, rabbied...

    And you West, stopped feeding that dogs. So now, they seeking for food themself...

    and if you'd wait for longer... they will start recalling that once they was wolfs...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I did not find Mustang's comment incomprehensible at all. And I'm pretty sure that you know what a Faraday Cage is for. But I'm not so sure you know when "diplomacy" is required.

    ReplyDelete
  14. btw - I see you understand our NATO Cold War Generals.

    We started feeding them again in Ukraine, only they're destroying your army, not ours.

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\But I'm not so sure you know when "diplomacy" is required.

    For Chamberlain's Ostrich Politics of Appeasing of Aggressor.

    All Europe have it in their bones. But USA, as country that payed only 200 (or something) thousands lives in WW2 still thinks that is the game?

    I dunno.

    I didn't see that in your country culture at all.

    Like, it was properly painted blakk -- like in first "Die hard" that cocain-brain that tryed to "make deals" with terrorists. And how it played out... shortly.

    I only saw in your (Hollywood, I know) culture eagerness to fight against evil. Not collude with it.

    So... this kind of talks -- is totally mistery to me. If you'll permit such a my foreigner's bewilderment. (shy)

    ReplyDelete
  16. For Chamberlain's Ostrich Politics of Appeasing of Aggressor.

    Insisting that your surrender be "unconditional" isn't helping. You'll be like the Germans sitting in the back of the railway car parked at a town similar to Versailles (WWI).

    America didn't want to get into WWI or WWII. In both cases, the war had been going on for years, and in the latter case, we were directly attacked. Short of a direct attack, we're not falling for European foolishness anymore. Settle your own disputes.

    ps - I was a merchant marine. At the start of WWI and WWII, my government refused to protect me. During the Iran-Iraq war, my country didn't blink when US flag ships were sunk. They (our government) only act/ get involved when THEY (the government or US Navy) get "embarrassed" by an attack. THAT is their nature.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You've heard of "perfidious Albion"? Nothing is more perfidious than an American politician making promises to people that he never intended to keep. And your country, my friend, unfortunately... listened to them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. \\America didn't want to get into WWI or WWII. In both cases, the war had been going on for years, and in the latter case, we were directly attacked. Short of a direct attack, we're not falling for European foolishness anymore. Settle your own disputes.

    It... do not work like that...

    There is NO stupid agressor that would ignore lessons of history and would not attack you first.

    Well, as it was in WW2. Why japs and fritzs started attacking you?

    Out of desire to "deter" you.

    Stupid? Indeed.

    But who said that ones that starting wars are wisemen? ;-P



    ReplyDelete
  19. liliPut not punished -- and now MORE scumbags trying to use its tactics...

    did you heard what they said? "We killed over thousand Jews... but now it's time to start to NEGOTIATE... because? because we need to save lives"!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. You're right. The people who start wars are seldom the brightest bulbs in the carton. They're mostly started by people's who's emotions have surpassed the bounds of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Naaaah.

    There is NO emotions behind what liliPut doing. As well as Xi, I presume, but cannot be sure because sheer distance in culture and experience.

    liliPut is perfectly rational.

    He have trespassed it MANY times. In 90th -- when they slaughtered Chechnia and West gave only mild reacton.

    Then Georgia... and you know what reaction was too, isn't it?

    Then Ukraine and Syria.

    West are to blame -- for its negligance.

    liliPut -- doing what it ALLOWED, or even ENCOURAGED to do.

    Well... in case of Hitler it was understandable for at least -- through seeing him as tool against commies.

    What is liliPut for the West today?

    "Tool against China"??? Bu-ga-gah!


    Well... I understand that much -- that it was too hard to sell to the voters idea of need to suppress Rush'A... from doing evil deeds.
    On such a background as "War against Terror". Facepalm!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree to disagree. Putin wanted to join the club. Our greedy leaders refused to share "their world' with him. So he's building his own w/ BRICS.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ps - BRICS offers its' members a much better trade deal. I can understand why so many want to join it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. \\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
    I agree to disagree. Putin wanted to join the club. Our greedy leaders refused to share "their world' with him. So he's building his own w/ BRICS.

    Same as Hitler you forgot to say?



    \\ps - BRICS offers its' members a much better trade deal. I can understand why so many want to join it.

    @@

    Russians have that saying: "one dime for enter, but whole ruble(their dolar ;-P) for exit".


    PS You just have that illusion that all other World is just the same... as your neighbourhood.

    While it same time and yes, and no. And same, and VERY different.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The point is, all the world we need lies in our lower 48. The rest... meden agan!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yep.

    Especially that winds that come with taifu... err, harricanes. And fresh air.

    And that rich waters of the oceans.

    And that dark deep crust.

    Only tiny slice.

    Meden Agan!

    ReplyDelete