There are some
things I haven’t made up my mind about.
And one of the
things came up in conversation the other day and I can't think and talk at the
same time, so I couldn't articulate anything.I have thought about it since and
I have been back and forth and it still hard to say. Anyway, in my own confused
and unorganized way, I'd like to write down my thoughts.
So the thing
was Arun said that he hated Che for what he did after they overthrew Batista in
1959. That he killed all those people and everything. And I said, "but he
went and got himself killed as well" which is not what I meant to say and
isn't really any moral ground to kill people at all (is there really a moral
ground that lets you kill people? 007) Anyway, what has always bugged me is
whether he sort of hardened up when he got power and started pushing his
Marxism down dead people's throats and stuff. But then I always think, he could
have stayed in Cuba and enjoyed it(all the power and all) a bit more, but right
after the coup he said, "The battle is over, the revolution begins
now" and everywhere he was talking about the common history and sameness
of the American countries and he left being a minister and went to Bolivia
because he really wanted to free those people and it was pretty evident he
didn't really have a chance. And it wasn't very nice to be in there, I have
read the Bolivian Diaries. He left and got himself killed. So it may not be
that he was blinded by his authority and power. Maybe he thought of the whole
thing as an ongoing war against imperialism, do you know what I mean? However
at the same time, the fact that he was the minister in charge of executing
Batista sympathizers and stuff still really makes me uncertain. I
am a pacifist and I don't believe in killing people whatever the reason (John
said that). But the thing is, they did the coup, right? And there were only a
few of them. And I dunno, maybe sometimes violence is the only answer? I mean,
I think otherwise, but we are such little twerps, how do we know what it is
like to live under such a regime? Maybe "A revolution without guns, Mial?
It will never work." I just can't bring myself to believe everything
the (western?) media says about Cuba and it's revolutionary leaders. But that's
about it really. If Che really killed 2000 anti-communists at La Cabana, then
it's a NO from me. Just NO. No matter how much poetry you have in your pocket[1].
I don't think
that freedom should be given more importance over all the other stuff that is
there, like equality or something, I mean, maybe it is not the topmost ideal
above all others, like Camus says, but it is quite important. Hard to
envisage one without the other. And anyway, killing anti-communists isn't
communism. I read this book at home which talked about this phrase "Aadyam
manushyan, pinne Marxism" which in translation means roughly and less
beautifully "First Man, then comes Marxism", or something like first
comes humanity and then comes Marxism. I agree with that.
But the fact
remains that my views will always be colored by the fact that Che Guevara has
always been sort of like I dunno Jesus or something for Communists, which
everybody is at home. The fact remains that my conclusions and views will
always be colored and narrowed down because I read poetry about the jar in
which they sent Che's hands to Cuba, after they hacked them off after capturing
and killing him.
The fact also
remains that my views on communism will always be colored by images of that soldier
playing Russian roulette with Victor Jara in Chile in September.
(I am not
saying this is a good thing.)
It's all
'kitsch', I suppose, like Milanku says in the "Unbearable lightness of
being". I try hard to keep my mind free. Again, it may be because I
believe that conformity does not belong on the Left. I think I agree with what
Camus says in "Socialism of the Gallows" that it is on
the left today (whenever that was, at that time) :
"To be sure, the Right is not brilliant. But
when the left is in complete decadence, a prisoner of words, caught in its own
vocabulary, capable of merely stereotyped replies, constantly at a loss when
faced with the truth, from which it nevertheless claimed to derive its laws.The
Left is schizophrenic and needs doctoring through pitiless self criticism,
exercise of the heart and clear reasoning.[ ….] Meanwhile the intellectual's
role will be to say that the king is naked when he is, and not go into raptures
over his imaginary trappings."
If I go by my favourite definition of an
intellectual, which is Peter's, when he said that:
"I don’t really know what “intellectual” means, but if it means you’ve got a desire to learn, you’ve got a desire to look for things that
haven’t
been presented to you, then, maybe. "(on being asked whether he considered
himself and Carl as 'intellectuals')
…then that (the intellectual's role according to
Camus) becomes my role too, at least I want it to be, and I try hard to free my
mind.
In any case, I can be a communist and still not
approve of everything communist leaders did in their lifetime. Anyway it isn't
all about individuals. What about Unamono? He "looked upon Marxism
more as a moral and humanitarian ideal compatible with Christian values than as
an economic theory or blueprint for violent revolution."
These are the things I have been thinking about. Among other things.
[1] 69,
incidentally. Che’s green notebook that they found among his personal
belongings after his murder had 69 poems of poets like Neruda, Vallejo and
Felipe, written in his own hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment