The article titled ‘Intellectuals in
he Socialist World” by Ernst Fischer
N the May 17 issue of the Tribune
fads the reader into a maze of con-
Usion and downright contradictions.

One becomes overwhelmed by the
accuracy of its statements and the
sing of controversial questions which
‘ischer chooses to leave unanswered.
erhaps that was the object of his
iterary dissertation. If it is, then he
May be grudgingly forgiven. On the
ther hand, not all things mean the
same to all people. Fischer’s views,
and his superficial analysis of socialist
Society in particular, should arouse

arxists to challenge his concept of
the role and function of the intellectual
Under socialism. Only in this way will
the polemics of debate be objective and
its conclusions fruitful.

_ Can one truthfully claim that the
Intellectual... does face ‘a. much less
exible apparatus” under socialism
han his colleague in the Western, so-
Called “free” world? Fischer accompa-
Nies his assertion with a recital of
Many evils that tend to restrict the
Tee expression of the intellectual under
Socialism. | :

“Surrounded by all-embracing cen-
Sorship . . . a situation in which he is
kept under constant surveillance... his
Normal condition . . . is weaker than
that of his Western colleague . . . (the
Intellectual) is constantly questioned,
Tejected . . . undermined and frontally
attacked...under uneasy surveillance
-.. the proof of his potential power.”
Fischer continues that the writer, “may
© proscribed . . . no publication...no
Publishing house will touch him. He
May lose his place of employment. He
'S maligned, put on trial, convicted,
Jailed.”

These revelations of the malpractices
that allegedly stifle the intellectual—
the free expression of his normal
COndition” as Fischer defines it, is in

Sharp contrast to what is purported to
a s :

strives to avoid a direct confrontation
with the reader. He does this by neatly
side-stepping logic by smacking it on
its backside this way — “the special
interests of the intellectual — especially
of the writer — freedom of expression
as a prerequisite for his existence as
an intellectual — coincides with the
general interests of the emerging so-
cialist society.”

The point is do “special interests”,
which are not always confined to the
term “freedom of expression”, coincide
with the “general interests” at all
times? One would hesitate for instance,
to accept on the merits of “freedom
of expression”, the literary concept of

snobbery.” Prior to this he has endea-
vored to impress upon the reader that,
“Intellectuals have formed the vanguard
of all great revolutions, and Marxism
. . . presupposes great _ intellectual
qualities.”

The three great historical world fi-
gures, Marx, Engels and Lenin, main-
tained an uncompromising struggle for
the purity of scientific socialism against
the alien ideas engendered by the
“sreat intellectual qualities” of others:
Kautsky, whose class-collaboration po-
licies were to epitomize the thinking
of the socialist 2nd. International;
Trotsky, the incorrigible leftist, oppos-
ed’ the building of socialism in the

A reply to

Ernst Fischer

Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago as being a
true picture of Soviet society and its
intellectuals. To agree without question
to the pleas of “special interests”
(without spelling them out) means in
effect elevating the writer-intellectual
to a pedestal of privilege. The writer’s
area of “special interests” needs al-
ways to be turned in. It can only be
viable and creative when its threads
are woven into the fabric of socialist
humanism.

Fischer also claims that, “Marxism-
Leninism, the official ideology of so-
cialist countries, is, in many respects
a distortion.” Continuing further, he
avows, “Yet because it encloses a

- wealth of ideas, a critical approach, a

social utopia (?), it continues to be an
effective force.” How can a distortion
of Marxist-Leninist ideology also be
at one and the same time an effective
force? In an attempt to elude questions
which he anticipates may be forming
in the reader’s mind, Fischer proceeds
to engage in a form of mental carousel
with . himself. He modestly asserts,

A discussion article
by William Turner

‘Sees

be the lot of the intellectual in the
estern world. Fischer’s rebuke of its
®Vils is tempered by mildness and a
Series of flippant conclusions. In fact
ne might be persuaded to the view
hat the intellectual’s “lot is not a
appy one” — but not bad either com-
Pared to life under socialism.
_The Western world emerges as an
‘dyllic fool’s paradise goverened by a
€nign tolerance, while the socialist
tates are portrayed as a virtual pri-
SOn-house of knowledge. This is the
lcture that Fischer’s wordy miasma
tempts to convey. Sensing that this

see

ae

“es

1 is a little too bitter to swallow he." *

. eae
ALA

“This idea (the idea of socialism) did
not originate with the so-called ‘simple
people’ but with highly educated intel-
lectuals.”

Fischer is oblivious to the fact that
he is now on a sticky wicket unaware
that his game of words is showing
signs of bogging down. Not to be
stymied, he strikes out: “Marx and
Engels, Kautsky, Gramsci, Plekhanov,
Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Bucharin,
were all intellectuals. Even Stalin, the
terrible simplifier (?) . . .” Suddenly
realizing he is caught with his thoughts

down, Fischer unblushingly confides:
“This must not be taken for intellectual. _ .

U.S.S.R. by his call for permanent
revolution, a theory that has a con-
temporary echo in some circles today;
Bucharin, associate of Trotsky, whom
Lenin was to characterize as being
scholastic, ‘“‘never studied, and, I think,
never fully understood dialectics.” (Let-
ter to Xth. Congress, C.P.S.U.) Stalin,
fought against Right deviation and his
valuable contributions to Marxist theo-
ry and practice were to be sullied by
his personification of the cult of the
individual.

Gramsci, founder of the Communist
Party of Italy, fought a relentless battle
against Rightist attempts to distort
Marxism. Plekhanov and Luxemburg,
on occasion strayed but were able to
refurbish their ideas and faith anew
by their close affinity with the people.

Trotsky and Bucharin were bound
by a common denominator—their lack
of faith in the working-class to build
socialism. It is therefore no accident
of history but one of deliberate design
that such reasoning led them into one

of opposition towards the U.S.S.R.

They concentrated their efforts, with
other enemies of the world’s first so-
cialist state, in the formation of an
anti-party Right bloc of conspirators

-and assassins. The vigilance of the

Soviet people were able to thwart the
nefarious plans of this group in their
plot to restore capitalism in the
U.S.S.R. Fischer’s omission of this his-
torical fact, when he names Trotsky
and Bucharin in the same circle of
revolutionary intellectuals, is unpardon-
able.

It would have been far more appro-
priate for Fischer to have included in
his list of intellectuals the names of
some truly Marxist revolutionaries.
People of the imposing stature of Di-
mitrov, Thorez, Thaelmann, Foster,
Pollitt, Gallagher, to name a few intel-
lectuals of the working-class. There
are many more whose names are
legends.

Fischer has already stated that one
must recognize and accept his conten-
tention: “Intellectuals have formed the

vanguard of all, great revolutions.” —

intellectuals
and socialism

Which is only a half-truth, because his
real intention is to prepare the reader
to accept the idea that the intellectual

- who has lost his place, should be re-

stored to his former exalted position
of being the vanguard. This, Fischer
sets out to do in his criticism of the
attitudes displayed by “tacticians”,
“practioners.” He terms them the
“power elite.’ He pooh-poohs their
proletarian origin as being the basis
of their biased outlook towards the
intellectual. :

Fischer ruefully comments that they
have “taken the place of the intellectu-
al vanguard of the past.” (my emphasis,
W.T.) Here he lets the cat out of the
bag. Which is understandable because
in his article he cautiously refrains
from mentioning the vanguard role of
the party. Instead, he tries to persuade
one to accept his version of the van-
guard as being either the ‘“‘tacticians”
“practitioners”—-or the intellectual. In
this setting the vanguard role of the
party is minimized.

Throughout his article Fischer liter-
ally sprinkles gems of shallow thinking.
His estimation of the role of the intel-
lectual savors more of Existentialism
than Marxist philosophy. This subjec-
tive idealism shines through the plea of
“special intersts”, the power of “the
idea”, the disdain of the. individual for
people.

Throughout his article Fischer di-
vests himself of what appears to be
irrational smatterings of learning. This
is obvious in the example he gives of
Marxism when “it wins over: the mas-
ses.” He points out “it becomes an
ideology”, thereby loses its dynamic
character. One surmises Fischer’s view
of the world is one-dimensional and
consequently is unable to observe the
history-making achievements of the
socialist states that surround him.

Towards the end he voices righteous
indignation that “no one must ever
be given the right to interfere with art
and with science.” However, the intel-
lectual in the course of exercising his
freedom of expression, assumes respon-
sibility to society for his interpretation
of art and science. Interference, one
would suggest criticism, is justifiable
when it becomes necessary to take
steps to correct the propagation of
ideas that are of an alien non-Marxist
character.

The late Brendan Behan, never one
to tip-toe delicately around words, was
once asked why he avoided reading his
own works in public. He replied he
considered it a form of mental incest.
This could aptly describe as being the
usual form of activity indulged in by
the pictured type of intellectual Fischer
creates. It also depicts an individual
who imagines that he is himself the
embodiment of socialism, endowed with
all of its virtues yet assuming none
of its faults.

The intellectual in his continuing
struggle to clarify his socialist perspec-
tive must draw in full measure his
inspiration and fortitude from the rich

heritage and wisdom of the working- nee