What do you think?
Rate this book
Trouble with History: Morality, Revolution, and Counterrevolution
A brilliant meditation on politics, morality, and history from one of the most courageous and controversial authors of our age
Renowned Eastern European author Adam Michnik was jailed for more than six years by the communist regime in Poland for his dissident activities. He was an outspoken voice for democracy in the world divided by the Iron Curtain and has remained so to the present day. In this thoughtful and provocative work, the man the Financial Times named “one of the 20 most influential journalists in the world” strips fundamentalism of its religious component and examines it purely as a secular political phenomenon.
Comparing modern-day Poland with postrevolutionary France, Michnik offers a stinging critique of the ideological “virus of fundamentalism” often shared by emerging democracies: the belief that, by using techniques of intimidating public opinion, a state governed by “sinless individuals” armed with a doctrine of the only correct means of organizing human relations can build a world without sin. Michnik employs deep historical analysis and keen political observation in his insightful five-point philosophical meditation on morality in public life, ingeniously expounding on history, religion, moral thought, and the present political climate in his native country and throughout Europe.
Renowned Eastern European author Adam Michnik was jailed for more than six years by the communist regime in Poland for his dissident activities. He was an outspoken voice for democracy in the world divided by the Iron Curtain and has remained so to the present day. In this thoughtful and provocative work, the man the Financial Times named “one of the 20 most influential journalists in the world” strips fundamentalism of its religious component and examines it purely as a secular political phenomenon.
Comparing modern-day Poland with postrevolutionary France, Michnik offers a stinging critique of the ideological “virus of fundamentalism” often shared by emerging democracies: the belief that, by using techniques of intimidating public opinion, a state governed by “sinless individuals” armed with a doctrine of the only correct means of organizing human relations can build a world without sin. Michnik employs deep historical analysis and keen political observation in his insightful five-point philosophical meditation on morality in public life, ingeniously expounding on history, religion, moral thought, and the present political climate in his native country and throughout Europe.
209 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
9 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
About the author
Adam Michnik
61 books19 followersAdam Michnik, a leading force in the Solidarity trade union movement against communist totalitarianism, is the founder and editor in chief of the largest Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, where he sometimes writes under the pen-names of Andrzej Zagozda or Andrzej Jagodziński. In 1966–1989 he was one of the leading organisers of the illegal, democratic opposition in Poland. A historian, essayist and political commentator, he is the recipient of many awards, including Knight of the Legion of Honour and European of the Year.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 31, 2016
If you're anything like me and you wander into a bookshop looking for bargains at this time of year, then a text with this title is almost irresistible, even if you've never heard of the author, who I found out through reading and an online search was one of the founders of Solidarity n Poland. In some respects, I shouldn't have searched, as I was enjoying the thought and style of this essentially anonymous Polish person on its merits, rather than on his reputation.
The book is in two sections, the first of which contains to pieces, opening with reminiscences and musings of the role of the German politician Willy Brandt in post-war Europe. I knew something of Brandt from my childhood in the Australian distance and Michnik deftly engages with his decisions and activities, the responses to them, and what he may have had in mind – who or what he may have been representing, if you like, in a turbulent Cold War period with the two Germanies, unresolved border issues with Poland and so on. A theme here is identifying those who oppose because the other perspective must be opposed, no matter what it is, which also runs through the rest of the book. The clear writing style and I suppose excellent translation dragged me in to reflection and comparisons with contemporary politics, which I think is the writer's goal.
The second piece carries the book's title, and the trouble with history appears to be that people will attach themselves to the past in such a way that excludes and perhaps demonises other interpretations and experiences. This might be through the idea of a Golden Age, when things were better in an idealised past. There's a lot of this around at the moment, and it's history in an unexamined way, a kind of fundamentalism if you like. There's also the enrichment that comes as the consequence of gaining power and the placemen and careerists that result. Neither side of politics comes out well here. If you think, like me, that the left-right dichotomy in politics is not helpful these days, Michnik's locating his discussion in France in pre- to post-Napoleonic times makes you consider a more nuanced view, whilst still maintaining the opposites.
A thought that cam to mind whilst reading this first part was about the people in politics whose aim is to beat the other side, perhaps even exterminate them, leaving aside the idea of attending to governing. The moral theme expressed here questions those who continually appear on television and elsewhere saying, often virulently and with many ad hominem charges, that they want to defeat the government/opposition, yet say nothing of a philosophy or a plan of governing except that they should be in power, where the spoils are distributed. This particular activity is an obvious reason for the current international difficulties and the low standing of politicians in general.
The second part of the book has three sections that have a theme of the kind of political morality discussed in the first part, focusing on the two opposites ofr Untras emanating from the French Revolution, and the writings of Stendahl, who is familiar only by name to me. There are many perceptive observations and comments, my favourite being that Stendahl was apparently for the people, but didn't really want to meet them. One chapter asks the question "Will You Be a True Scoundrel?" i.e. be in politics or life for what you can personally get out of it. The author intervenes at the end of the chapter to say that he can't do that.
There are lots of interesting phrases and reflections here, as well as some reframing of historical events that make this an agreeable, thoughtful read; I should have written down a few, actually. It's important to state that this is not a polemic, and the author doesn't write in a self-serving manner. He does point out a number of paradoxes that challenge all-too-prevalent black-and-white thinking. This will remain in my permanent library. Adam Michnik has other books, a new one coming out shortly, and I will seek them out.
The book is in two sections, the first of which contains to pieces, opening with reminiscences and musings of the role of the German politician Willy Brandt in post-war Europe. I knew something of Brandt from my childhood in the Australian distance and Michnik deftly engages with his decisions and activities, the responses to them, and what he may have had in mind – who or what he may have been representing, if you like, in a turbulent Cold War period with the two Germanies, unresolved border issues with Poland and so on. A theme here is identifying those who oppose because the other perspective must be opposed, no matter what it is, which also runs through the rest of the book. The clear writing style and I suppose excellent translation dragged me in to reflection and comparisons with contemporary politics, which I think is the writer's goal.
The second piece carries the book's title, and the trouble with history appears to be that people will attach themselves to the past in such a way that excludes and perhaps demonises other interpretations and experiences. This might be through the idea of a Golden Age, when things were better in an idealised past. There's a lot of this around at the moment, and it's history in an unexamined way, a kind of fundamentalism if you like. There's also the enrichment that comes as the consequence of gaining power and the placemen and careerists that result. Neither side of politics comes out well here. If you think, like me, that the left-right dichotomy in politics is not helpful these days, Michnik's locating his discussion in France in pre- to post-Napoleonic times makes you consider a more nuanced view, whilst still maintaining the opposites.
A thought that cam to mind whilst reading this first part was about the people in politics whose aim is to beat the other side, perhaps even exterminate them, leaving aside the idea of attending to governing. The moral theme expressed here questions those who continually appear on television and elsewhere saying, often virulently and with many ad hominem charges, that they want to defeat the government/opposition, yet say nothing of a philosophy or a plan of governing except that they should be in power, where the spoils are distributed. This particular activity is an obvious reason for the current international difficulties and the low standing of politicians in general.
The second part of the book has three sections that have a theme of the kind of political morality discussed in the first part, focusing on the two opposites ofr Untras emanating from the French Revolution, and the writings of Stendahl, who is familiar only by name to me. There are many perceptive observations and comments, my favourite being that Stendahl was apparently for the people, but didn't really want to meet them. One chapter asks the question "Will You Be a True Scoundrel?" i.e. be in politics or life for what you can personally get out of it. The author intervenes at the end of the chapter to say that he can't do that.
There are lots of interesting phrases and reflections here, as well as some reframing of historical events that make this an agreeable, thoughtful read; I should have written down a few, actually. It's important to state that this is not a polemic, and the author doesn't write in a self-serving manner. He does point out a number of paradoxes that challenge all-too-prevalent black-and-white thinking. This will remain in my permanent library. Adam Michnik has other books, a new one coming out shortly, and I will seek them out.
July 31, 2016
A second rereading of these thought provocating essays. Scoundrels abound.
A thoughtful and provocative analysis of post-communist Poland set against the background of late 18 Century France revolutionary and reactionary political -- Jacobin and Girondist -- movements. Michnik reminds us that every revolution breeds beneficiaries and the disappointed.
A thoughtful and provocative analysis of post-communist Poland set against the background of late 18 Century France revolutionary and reactionary political -- Jacobin and Girondist -- movements. Michnik reminds us that every revolution breeds beneficiaries and the disappointed.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews