What do you think?
Rate this book
Il dio che è fallito: Sei testimonianze sul comunismo
The God That Failed is a classic work and crucial document of the Cold War that brings together essays by six of the most important writers of the twentieth century on their conversion to and subsequent disillusionment with communism. In describing their own experiences, the authors illustrate the fate of leftism around the world. André Gide (France), Richard Wright (the United States), Ignazio Silone (Italy), Stephen Spender (England), Arthur Koestler (Germany), and Louis Fischer, an American foreign correspondent, all tell how their search for the betterment of humanity led them to communism, and the personal agony and revulsion which then caused them to reject it. David Engerman's new foreword to this central work of our time recounts the tumultuous events of the era, providing essential background. It also describes the book's origins and impact, the influence of communism in American intellectual life, and how the events described in The God That Failed provide important lessons today.
280 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
43 people are currently reading
2693 people want to read
About the author
Ignazio Silone
81 books123 followersFiglio di una tessitrice e di un piccolo proprietario terriero, perde assai presto il padre e la madre, nel terremoto che nel gennaio del ‘15 distrugge gran parte della Marsica. Interrotti gli studi liceali, si dà alla politica quale socialista attivo e prende parte alle lotte contro la guerra e al movimento operaio rivoluzionario; nel 1921 partecipa a Livorno alla fondazione del Partito Comunista (che rappresenta a Mosca, con Togliatti, nel Komintern), ma se ne stacca nel 1930, in disaccordo con le purghe staliniane. Antifascista, resta in esilio in Svizzera dal 1930 al 1945, anni durante i quali matura la sua vocazione di scrittore. Pubblicato in traduzione tedesca a Zurigo nel 1933, “Fontamara” è il suo romanzo d’esordio, che lo impone all’ attenzione generale: oltre ad essere una straordinaria analisi della cultura centro-meridionale, “un documento su una civiltà ormai definitivamente morta” (Fofi), è pure con ogni probabilità il più bel libro sui contadini italiani che sia mai stato scritto. Il successivo “Pane e vino” del ‘36 riprende, in una chiave più sentimentale, meno ironica, i temi del fortunato predecessore, laddove “Il seme sotto la neve” (1942) sembra stazionare tra manierismo e ritualità. Frattanto, nel periodo 1932-'34 egli è redattore del mensile in lingua tedesca, edito a Zurigo, «Information», cui collaborano artisti ed intellettuali del calibro di Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Robert Musil. Fiorente, pure, la sua attività saggistico-culturale, che annovera il saggio “Il fascismo, le sue origini e il suo sviluppo” (1934) ed il trattato di filosofia politica “La scuola dei dittatori” (1938). Nel 1944, rientrato in Italia, si stabilisce a Roma, ove aderisce al Partito Socialista Italiano di Unità Proletaria. La sua produzione letteraria continua con il lavoro teatrale “Ed egli si nascose” (1944) e con i romanzi “Una manciata di more” (1952), “Il segreto di Luca” (1956), “La volpe e le camelie” (1960): meno originali dei precedenti, più legati ad un modello di letteratura tardo-ottocentesca, esprimono una sorta di conversione del nostro, che approda qui ai lidi di un socialismo ibridato col cristianesimo. Di grandissimo interesse, invece, “Uscita di sicurezza” (1965), raccolta di saggi politici in cui egli racconta il doloroso travaglio che lo condusse infine a distaccarsi dall’ ideologia comunista, e “L’avventura di un povero cristiano” (1968), sua ultima fatica apparsa in vita, un intrigante romanzo - saggio incentrato sulla figura di papa Celestino V, in seguito trasformato in testo teatrale. Ebbe a dire di lui Albert Camus: "Guardate Silone. Egli è radicalmente legato alla sua terra, eppure è talmente europeo".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
January 8, 2022
The Devil once lived in Heaven, and those who have not met him are unlikely to recognize an angel when they see one.
In The God That Failed six intellectuals explain their reasons for joining the Communist Party and the whys and wherefores for leaving it.
“A harmful truth is better than a useful lie.”
-Thomas Mann
This is not an anti- communist propaganda or a setting for personal apologetics. These are uncomfortable contemplations and self-analyses about the state of mind of the Communist convert.
How could these intellectuals accept the dogmatism of Stalinism?
The only link, indeed, between these six very different personalities is that all of them- after tortured struggles of conscience- chose Communism because they had lost faith in democracy and were willing to sacrifice "bourgeois liberties" in order to defeat Fascism. Their conversion, in fact, was rooted in despair- a despair of Western values.
After becoming disillusioned with Communism the author Richard Wright writes:
“I remember the stories I had written, the stories in which I had assigned a role of honor and glory to the Communist Party, and I was glad that they were down in black and white, were finished. For I knew in my heart that I should never be able to write that way again, should never be able to feel with that simple sharpness about life, should never again express such passionate hope, should never again make so total a commitment of faith…
I headed toward home alone, really alone now, telling myself that in all the sprawling immensity of our mighty continent the least-known factor of living was the human heart, the least-sought goal of being was a way to live a human life. Perhaps I thought out of my tortured feelings I could fling a spark into this darkness. I would try, not because I wanted to, but because I felt that I had to if I were to live at all.
I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo; and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to match, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human.”
In The God That Failed six intellectuals explain their reasons for joining the Communist Party and the whys and wherefores for leaving it.
“A harmful truth is better than a useful lie.”
-Thomas Mann
This is not an anti- communist propaganda or a setting for personal apologetics. These are uncomfortable contemplations and self-analyses about the state of mind of the Communist convert.
How could these intellectuals accept the dogmatism of Stalinism?
The only link, indeed, between these six very different personalities is that all of them- after tortured struggles of conscience- chose Communism because they had lost faith in democracy and were willing to sacrifice "bourgeois liberties" in order to defeat Fascism. Their conversion, in fact, was rooted in despair- a despair of Western values.
After becoming disillusioned with Communism the author Richard Wright writes:
“I remember the stories I had written, the stories in which I had assigned a role of honor and glory to the Communist Party, and I was glad that they were down in black and white, were finished. For I knew in my heart that I should never be able to write that way again, should never be able to feel with that simple sharpness about life, should never again express such passionate hope, should never again make so total a commitment of faith…
I headed toward home alone, really alone now, telling myself that in all the sprawling immensity of our mighty continent the least-known factor of living was the human heart, the least-sought goal of being was a way to live a human life. Perhaps I thought out of my tortured feelings I could fling a spark into this darkness. I would try, not because I wanted to, but because I felt that I had to if I were to live at all.
I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo; and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to match, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human.”
December 16, 2019
A book that has stuck with me over the years, in part because of its historicity and its personal touch. I especially loved Koestler's contribution, though every author's' contribution managed to capture the insanity of the age through the lens of their own experience. Above all else, it's a seminal read on the phenomena that took place during the interwar years and seemed to embrace the life of every intellectual in West. In an age where liberalism and capitalism were on the outs, idealists and reformers needed a new cause to turn to.
Communism seemed the natural choice, especially considering that it was the only ideology that seemed to be taking the rise of fascism seriously. Naturally, those who embraced this new ideology quickly became disillusioned. For some, it happened as a result of visiting the Soviet Union and witnessing the Show Trials, the Purges and the Great Terror firsthand. For others, it came from being subjected to the ideological conformity and brutality that Stalinism inspired among its followers.
In the end, they could only come to the conclusion that human nature is what it is, and any ideology that promises salvation is a lie. They also concluded that the most precious thing we have is the freedom to think for ourselves. The message is timeless, but it's especially meaningful in an age characterized by polarization and entrenched views.
Communism seemed the natural choice, especially considering that it was the only ideology that seemed to be taking the rise of fascism seriously. Naturally, those who embraced this new ideology quickly became disillusioned. For some, it happened as a result of visiting the Soviet Union and witnessing the Show Trials, the Purges and the Great Terror firsthand. For others, it came from being subjected to the ideological conformity and brutality that Stalinism inspired among its followers.
In the end, they could only come to the conclusion that human nature is what it is, and any ideology that promises salvation is a lie. They also concluded that the most precious thing we have is the freedom to think for ourselves. The message is timeless, but it's especially meaningful in an age characterized by polarization and entrenched views.
December 4, 2024
The God That Failed contains a collection of essays by writers who were once enchanted with communism but became disillusioned with its ideology. Although each writer uniquely reached a state of disillusionment, they all traversed many of the same ideas and ideological conflicts. The book features essays by the following writers and their respective regions: Andre Gide (France), Richard Wright (United States), Ignazio Silone (Italy), Stephen Spender (England), Arthur Koestler (Germany), and Louis Fisher (American foreign correspondent). Taken together, the perspectives and experiences of the essayists can be grouped into the following categories: ideological conformity and the self-delusion of communism, as well as communism and stages of history.
The Ideological Conformity and Self-Delusion of Communism
Ignazio Silone
As a member of the Italian Communist delegation, Ignazio Silone made repeated trips to Moscow between 1921 and 1927. His essay provides eyewitness observations of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. These were pivotal years in which Lenin selected Stalin to head the Soviet Communist Party; Lenin died, and Trotsky was expelled from the party and exiled. In his autobiography, My Life (1930), Trotsky described Stalin as “devoid of creative imagination” and pointed out Stalin’s “ignorance of foreign languages,” giving readers the impression that the scholarly and presumably creative Trotsky would have been a more enlightened, open-minded leader than Stalin. (1) However, Silone’s essay cast doubt on the idea of Trotsky as a more enlightened leader. “What struck me most,” Silone writes, “about the Russian Communists, even in such really exceptional personalities as Lenin and Trotsky, was their utter incapacity to be fair in discussing opinions that conflicted with their own. The adversary, simply for daring to contradict, at once became a traitor, an opportunist, a hireling.” (2)
Soviet political close-mindedness extended to literature and the arts. Silone tried to impress upon a Soviet publishing house director the importance of intellectual freedom for Soviet writers. He explained that “Liberty” for a writer should include “the possibility of doubting, the possibility of making a mistake, the possibility of searching and experimenting, the possibility of saying ‘no’ to any authority—literary, artistic, philosophic, religious, social, and even political.” Silone’s admonishment fell on uncomprehending ears and was dismissed with the revolutionary platitude of “that is counter-revolution.” (3)
Arthur Koestler
Arthur Koestler was a German communist party member in the waning days of the Weimer Republic. He observed first-hand the fateful refusal of the German communist party leadership to back Paul von Hindenburg for the presidency. Out of ideological purity and miscalculation, the communists backed German communist party leader Ernst Thälmann because the socialists supported Hindenburg. This split the overall vote in a way which favored the Nazis. As Koestler observed, the idea of partnering with the socialist and backing Hindenburg as a “lesser evil” was dismissed outright as “counter-revolutionary” and “a philosophical, strategical and tactical fallacy.” (4)
Koestler traveled to the Soviet Union in 1932 and spent a year there. Although nearly fluent in Russian, he found few people willing to talk with a foreigner. And if they did, it was in carefully scripted language. Koestler records numerous ways in which his communist zeal allowed him to accept official explanations for harsh living conditions in the Soviet Union. A maid in his hotel fainted due to lack of food. Yet, at the time, Koestler deluded himself into believing that a “technical hitch” had prevented the maid from receiving her “ration cards.” At the train station, he saw hordes of starving Ukrainians with “drumstick limbs, big cadaverous heads” and “puffed bellies.” Confronted with these horrors, Koestler “was told that these were kulaks who had resisted the collectivization of the land” and “were enemies of the people who preferred begging to work.” (5)
Louis Fisher
Louis Fisher was an American correspondent in Russia in the 1930s. Fisher observed first-hand the change in Russia in 1934 from embracing revolutionary ideology to glorifying Russia’s past in an attempt to rally the population in defense of the Nazi threat. The dramatic shift left the Russian population in a state of bewilderment. “Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Czarist princes, anti-revolutionary Czarist generals like Suvorov, and monks of the Middle Ages were lifted out of cobwebs, dusted off, refurbished as national saints, and presented for worship to a startled people who had earlier been taught to abhor them.” (6) As the decade wore on, the Communist party line could change overnight. Before the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact, “Communists and their fellow travelers had denounced anybody” who predicted that such an agreement could take place. “On the eve of its signing, they heatedly refused to believe it. When it became official, they defended it.” (7)
Andre Gide
Enforcing political conformity in Russia required creating fear and suspicion using the threat of constant surveillance backed by the reality of continuous surveillance. The result was a near-mechanical servility on the part of Russians, as French writer Andre Gide observed in his book Return From the USSR (1936). Gide was financially independent and wrote for its intellectual challenge and enjoyment, not because he needed the income. He found in communism the hope of an independent-minded community of writers and an economically secure proletariat enjoying the arts—like him—based solely on intellectual satisfaction. However, his hopes of such a promising future were dashed upon his visit to the Soviet Union. He witnessed frightening levels of political conformity and suspicion.
At one point, Gide eagerly drafted a telegram to Stalin, thanking him for his hospitality. Gide was disappointed to learn that his telegram was insufficiently servile, as he addressed Stalin as “you” instead of “You leader of the workers” or “You Lord of the people.” Gide protested that “Stalin must surely be above such flattery,” only to be assured that Stalin was not. (8) Gide would later visit a model community of convicts whose factories and libraries impressed him. That is until he discovered that the convicts in the community had been granted the privilege of living there because they were “informers—those who had betrayed their fellow convicts to the authorities.” (9)
Richard Wright
The militant conformity the communist party imposed on its members in the Soviet Union reverberated to communist parties elsewhere. In 1930s Chicago, American novelist Richard Wright was invited to join the party. Wright was a largely self-taught writer, his formal education ending with grammar school. Yet, he became a published novelist through hard work and perseverance in reading and honing his writing and storyline development skills. Wright was attracted to communism “by the similarity of the experiences of workers in other lands” and “by the possibility of uniting scattered but kindred peoples into a whole.” Relating this to the plight of black Americans, Wright reasoned that “here at last, in the realm of revolutionary expression, Negro experience could find a home, a functioning value and role.” (10)
The radical groupthink of the Chicago-area party turned Wright against communism. Within the party, Wright was derided as an intellectual who asked too many questions and failed to use revolutionary stock phrases with appropriate zeal. Local party members compared Wright to Trotsky in his stubbornness to follow the party line. Wright further angered party officials, refusing to abandon his writing plans and travel to Switzerland and Russia as ordered.
Wright’s final break with communism came during a party meeting in which a party member was publicly denounced, confessed, and accused himself of disloyalty. In his essay, Wright compared the event to the Moscow show trials (1936-1938), depicted in Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon (1940). In these trials, the accused had endured a marathon interrogation session, leaving him so psychologically defeated that he would be willing to confess to any crime, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Similarly, at the Chicago party meeting, the accused had been so thoroughly and collectively denounced that he believed in his guilt. “The Communists had talked to him until they had given him new eyes with which to see his own crime. And they sat back and listened to him tell how he had erred.” (11)
Communism and Stages of History
Stephen Spender
In his essay, British writer Stephen Spender reflects on the historical theorizing and abstraction communists used to justify violence and depravation as temporary stages on the road to the Eden of a classless society. That the dictatorship of the proletariat would “wither away” of its own accord was a necessary assumption in this historical framework. However, as Spender observed, “a dictatorship established in the modern world, with all the modern resources of secret police, propaganda, terror, etc. is extremely difficult to remove,” which is even truer today. (12) Furthermore, the supposed temporary nature of this dictatorship permitted communists to ignore the realities of its mass starvation, imprisonments, and bloodshed. Communists “did not consider that they were in any way answerable for the actions of the Cause which they supported.” (13)
Similar to the natural withering away of communism’s dictatorship phase was the idea that the culture represented by bourgeois writers would also fade into history of its own accord. This theoretical framework was applied to critiquing the lives and works of writers. Hence, although not Marxist, communists could view Keats as “a victim of capitalism” and worthy of attention as a writer due to the state’s failure to treat his tuberculosis. Similarly, a Marxist literary theorist could interpret the language in James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake as illustrative of “the disintegration of thought and language of the bourgeois individualist world.” Finally, one Marxist-inspired critic gallingly viewed the suicide of Virginia Woolf as a “historic necessity” in that her death represented a step forward in the decline of bourgeois literature. (14)
Closing Thoughts
The events described in these essays influenced the lives (and cost the lives) of millions of people. At one time, in many countries, the military, intelligence agencies, and diplomatic service were all organized in support of or opposition to communism. Yet, thankfully, the god that failed the writers in this book is, to a large extent, a historical artifact. A future classless society is seemingly no longer the dream of any nation, even those remaining communist ones.
Arguably, though, the ideology described in these essays has found a new home in the modern surveillance state, as well as radical environmental, gender, race, and LGBT ideologies. The decline of free speech in Western countries and the rise of cancel culture (with its sabotage of livelihoods and reputations) can be attributed to the influence of these ideologies. As the writers in these essays challenged the communism of their time, so too can we challenge related ideologies in ours.
Notes
Trotsky’s Struggle Against Stalin;, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war.... Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
The God That Failed. Edited by Richard Crossman, Columbia University Press, 2001, p. 101.
The God That Failed, p. 102.
The God That Failed, p. 45.
The God That Failed, p. 60.
The God That Failed, p. 214.
The God That Failed, p. 222.
The God That Failed, p. 192.
The God That Failed, p. 185.
The God That Failed, p. 118.
The God That Failed, p. 156.
The God That Failed, p. 266.
The God That Failed, p. 264.
The God That Failed, p. 267.
The Ideological Conformity and Self-Delusion of Communism
Ignazio Silone
As a member of the Italian Communist delegation, Ignazio Silone made repeated trips to Moscow between 1921 and 1927. His essay provides eyewitness observations of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. These were pivotal years in which Lenin selected Stalin to head the Soviet Communist Party; Lenin died, and Trotsky was expelled from the party and exiled. In his autobiography, My Life (1930), Trotsky described Stalin as “devoid of creative imagination” and pointed out Stalin’s “ignorance of foreign languages,” giving readers the impression that the scholarly and presumably creative Trotsky would have been a more enlightened, open-minded leader than Stalin. (1) However, Silone’s essay cast doubt on the idea of Trotsky as a more enlightened leader. “What struck me most,” Silone writes, “about the Russian Communists, even in such really exceptional personalities as Lenin and Trotsky, was their utter incapacity to be fair in discussing opinions that conflicted with their own. The adversary, simply for daring to contradict, at once became a traitor, an opportunist, a hireling.” (2)
Soviet political close-mindedness extended to literature and the arts. Silone tried to impress upon a Soviet publishing house director the importance of intellectual freedom for Soviet writers. He explained that “Liberty” for a writer should include “the possibility of doubting, the possibility of making a mistake, the possibility of searching and experimenting, the possibility of saying ‘no’ to any authority—literary, artistic, philosophic, religious, social, and even political.” Silone’s admonishment fell on uncomprehending ears and was dismissed with the revolutionary platitude of “that is counter-revolution.” (3)
Arthur Koestler
Arthur Koestler was a German communist party member in the waning days of the Weimer Republic. He observed first-hand the fateful refusal of the German communist party leadership to back Paul von Hindenburg for the presidency. Out of ideological purity and miscalculation, the communists backed German communist party leader Ernst Thälmann because the socialists supported Hindenburg. This split the overall vote in a way which favored the Nazis. As Koestler observed, the idea of partnering with the socialist and backing Hindenburg as a “lesser evil” was dismissed outright as “counter-revolutionary” and “a philosophical, strategical and tactical fallacy.” (4)
Koestler traveled to the Soviet Union in 1932 and spent a year there. Although nearly fluent in Russian, he found few people willing to talk with a foreigner. And if they did, it was in carefully scripted language. Koestler records numerous ways in which his communist zeal allowed him to accept official explanations for harsh living conditions in the Soviet Union. A maid in his hotel fainted due to lack of food. Yet, at the time, Koestler deluded himself into believing that a “technical hitch” had prevented the maid from receiving her “ration cards.” At the train station, he saw hordes of starving Ukrainians with “drumstick limbs, big cadaverous heads” and “puffed bellies.” Confronted with these horrors, Koestler “was told that these were kulaks who had resisted the collectivization of the land” and “were enemies of the people who preferred begging to work.” (5)
Louis Fisher
Louis Fisher was an American correspondent in Russia in the 1930s. Fisher observed first-hand the change in Russia in 1934 from embracing revolutionary ideology to glorifying Russia’s past in an attempt to rally the population in defense of the Nazi threat. The dramatic shift left the Russian population in a state of bewilderment. “Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Czarist princes, anti-revolutionary Czarist generals like Suvorov, and monks of the Middle Ages were lifted out of cobwebs, dusted off, refurbished as national saints, and presented for worship to a startled people who had earlier been taught to abhor them.” (6) As the decade wore on, the Communist party line could change overnight. Before the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact, “Communists and their fellow travelers had denounced anybody” who predicted that such an agreement could take place. “On the eve of its signing, they heatedly refused to believe it. When it became official, they defended it.” (7)
Andre Gide
Enforcing political conformity in Russia required creating fear and suspicion using the threat of constant surveillance backed by the reality of continuous surveillance. The result was a near-mechanical servility on the part of Russians, as French writer Andre Gide observed in his book Return From the USSR (1936). Gide was financially independent and wrote for its intellectual challenge and enjoyment, not because he needed the income. He found in communism the hope of an independent-minded community of writers and an economically secure proletariat enjoying the arts—like him—based solely on intellectual satisfaction. However, his hopes of such a promising future were dashed upon his visit to the Soviet Union. He witnessed frightening levels of political conformity and suspicion.
At one point, Gide eagerly drafted a telegram to Stalin, thanking him for his hospitality. Gide was disappointed to learn that his telegram was insufficiently servile, as he addressed Stalin as “you” instead of “You leader of the workers” or “You Lord of the people.” Gide protested that “Stalin must surely be above such flattery,” only to be assured that Stalin was not. (8) Gide would later visit a model community of convicts whose factories and libraries impressed him. That is until he discovered that the convicts in the community had been granted the privilege of living there because they were “informers—those who had betrayed their fellow convicts to the authorities.” (9)
Richard Wright
The militant conformity the communist party imposed on its members in the Soviet Union reverberated to communist parties elsewhere. In 1930s Chicago, American novelist Richard Wright was invited to join the party. Wright was a largely self-taught writer, his formal education ending with grammar school. Yet, he became a published novelist through hard work and perseverance in reading and honing his writing and storyline development skills. Wright was attracted to communism “by the similarity of the experiences of workers in other lands” and “by the possibility of uniting scattered but kindred peoples into a whole.” Relating this to the plight of black Americans, Wright reasoned that “here at last, in the realm of revolutionary expression, Negro experience could find a home, a functioning value and role.” (10)
The radical groupthink of the Chicago-area party turned Wright against communism. Within the party, Wright was derided as an intellectual who asked too many questions and failed to use revolutionary stock phrases with appropriate zeal. Local party members compared Wright to Trotsky in his stubbornness to follow the party line. Wright further angered party officials, refusing to abandon his writing plans and travel to Switzerland and Russia as ordered.
Wright’s final break with communism came during a party meeting in which a party member was publicly denounced, confessed, and accused himself of disloyalty. In his essay, Wright compared the event to the Moscow show trials (1936-1938), depicted in Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon (1940). In these trials, the accused had endured a marathon interrogation session, leaving him so psychologically defeated that he would be willing to confess to any crime, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Similarly, at the Chicago party meeting, the accused had been so thoroughly and collectively denounced that he believed in his guilt. “The Communists had talked to him until they had given him new eyes with which to see his own crime. And they sat back and listened to him tell how he had erred.” (11)
Communism and Stages of History
Stephen Spender
In his essay, British writer Stephen Spender reflects on the historical theorizing and abstraction communists used to justify violence and depravation as temporary stages on the road to the Eden of a classless society. That the dictatorship of the proletariat would “wither away” of its own accord was a necessary assumption in this historical framework. However, as Spender observed, “a dictatorship established in the modern world, with all the modern resources of secret police, propaganda, terror, etc. is extremely difficult to remove,” which is even truer today. (12) Furthermore, the supposed temporary nature of this dictatorship permitted communists to ignore the realities of its mass starvation, imprisonments, and bloodshed. Communists “did not consider that they were in any way answerable for the actions of the Cause which they supported.” (13)
Similar to the natural withering away of communism’s dictatorship phase was the idea that the culture represented by bourgeois writers would also fade into history of its own accord. This theoretical framework was applied to critiquing the lives and works of writers. Hence, although not Marxist, communists could view Keats as “a victim of capitalism” and worthy of attention as a writer due to the state’s failure to treat his tuberculosis. Similarly, a Marxist literary theorist could interpret the language in James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake as illustrative of “the disintegration of thought and language of the bourgeois individualist world.” Finally, one Marxist-inspired critic gallingly viewed the suicide of Virginia Woolf as a “historic necessity” in that her death represented a step forward in the decline of bourgeois literature. (14)
Closing Thoughts
The events described in these essays influenced the lives (and cost the lives) of millions of people. At one time, in many countries, the military, intelligence agencies, and diplomatic service were all organized in support of or opposition to communism. Yet, thankfully, the god that failed the writers in this book is, to a large extent, a historical artifact. A future classless society is seemingly no longer the dream of any nation, even those remaining communist ones.
Arguably, though, the ideology described in these essays has found a new home in the modern surveillance state, as well as radical environmental, gender, race, and LGBT ideologies. The decline of free speech in Western countries and the rise of cancel culture (with its sabotage of livelihoods and reputations) can be attributed to the influence of these ideologies. As the writers in these essays challenged the communism of their time, so too can we challenge related ideologies in ours.
Notes
Trotsky’s Struggle Against Stalin;, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war.... Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
The God That Failed. Edited by Richard Crossman, Columbia University Press, 2001, p. 101.
The God That Failed, p. 102.
The God That Failed, p. 45.
The God That Failed, p. 60.
The God That Failed, p. 214.
The God That Failed, p. 222.
The God That Failed, p. 192.
The God That Failed, p. 185.
The God That Failed, p. 118.
The God That Failed, p. 156.
The God That Failed, p. 266.
The God That Failed, p. 264.
The God That Failed, p. 267.
September 15, 2020
Although published seven decades ago it is probably more relevant today than it was in 1949. These six men talking of the failure of a particular political ideology impart why that ideology failed. Not that Communism as a political concept was bad, but the godless way in which it was implemented destroyed any good that should have come from it. A must read for everyone to help understand the struggles we face today - the same struggles we faced late in the second decade and again in the middle of the 20th Century. The same fight. The same abuse of the common man to gain power that is then again used to abuse the common man. Can't recommend this book enough.
December 23, 2016
The God That Failed consists of six essays by disillusioned Communists and fellow travelers. All six are small masterpieces, as is the editor's introduction.
It is an anti-Communist book put together in 1949, at the beginning of the Cold War and just before the most paranoid period of the Red Scare. The tone of this book, however, is very different and superior to that of most anti-Communist rhetoric of the period. Credit for that should go firstly to the editor, who was then a Labour backbencher and a former Oxford don who specialized on Plato (he would later hold various ministerial posts in the first Wilson government before becoming editor of the New Statesman). Crossman assembled an extraordinary range of intellectuals who had previously been either members of the Communist party or else at least sympathetic to it, but were now prepared to denounce it.
Of the contributors, Arthur Koestler and Ignazio Silone had been fairly senior Communists in their day, whilst Richard Wright had been an active but fairly peripheral member. The other three contributors — André Gide, Louis Fischer, and Stephen Spender — had all visited the Soviet Union as initially sympathetic observers only to return horrified.
All six men write beautifully. All six are uncompromisingly honest, which leads to a portrait of the Communist Party that reads as being at once damning and surprisingly fair-minded. This is not a book of Red Scare rantings. Like Orwell, the assembled authors are able to critique the Stalinist-dominated Party because they knew too well.
It is an anti-Communist book put together in 1949, at the beginning of the Cold War and just before the most paranoid period of the Red Scare. The tone of this book, however, is very different and superior to that of most anti-Communist rhetoric of the period. Credit for that should go firstly to the editor, who was then a Labour backbencher and a former Oxford don who specialized on Plato (he would later hold various ministerial posts in the first Wilson government before becoming editor of the New Statesman). Crossman assembled an extraordinary range of intellectuals who had previously been either members of the Communist party or else at least sympathetic to it, but were now prepared to denounce it.
Of the contributors, Arthur Koestler and Ignazio Silone had been fairly senior Communists in their day, whilst Richard Wright had been an active but fairly peripheral member. The other three contributors — André Gide, Louis Fischer, and Stephen Spender — had all visited the Soviet Union as initially sympathetic observers only to return horrified.
All six men write beautifully. All six are uncompromisingly honest, which leads to a portrait of the Communist Party that reads as being at once damning and surprisingly fair-minded. This is not a book of Red Scare rantings. Like Orwell, the assembled authors are able to critique the Stalinist-dominated Party because they knew too well.
February 9, 2019
A collection of essays by six authors who had been Communist Party members or fellow travelers who had become disillusioned by the Communist ideology and the Soviet regime. Well written and damning.
March 29, 2011
I’d read a lot about this book, in which six authors in the 1950s told of their disillusionment with Communism. But I’d never been able to track down an affordable copy of it. The one I got literally fell apart as I read it, and the essays were, in the end, disappointing. In general, I’d say they offered no more insight than any standard account of why intellectuals abandoned the Party after the heady days of its early fight against Fascism.
Of all the pieces, I liked the most that of Louis Fischer, a journalist who lived in the Soviet Union for a time.
Here was how he characterized Communism’s attraction to him:
“Before long, I realized that my choice was made. A choice depends on the available alternative to it. I preferred fresh sweeping winds to stale stagnant air, and well-intentioned pioneers to proven failures. I liked the Soviets because they were an experiment in the interest of the downtrodden majority, because they destroyed the privileges of the powerful few, because they were weak, and because the world’s reactionaries and conservatives opposed them. “
Here was how he explained his ability to accept Stalinism:
“At the time, I did not realize that Stalin’s bad taste and the GPU’s bad behavior were deadly germs. I thought they were sores on a healthy body which was building new cities and creating new values. I thought the favorable was fundamental and the unfavorable ephemeral. Hope distorted judgment. Seeing did not interfere with believing.”
Finally, his basic conclusion:
“Some are so obsessed with the crimes of the capitalist world that they remain blind to the crimes and bankruptcy of Bolshevism. Not a few use the defects of the West to divert attention from the hideous horrors of Moscow. My own prescription is: Double Rejection. A free spirit, unfettered by economic bonds or intellectual bias, can turn his back on the evils of both worlds and strive, by improving his own, to create a condition of peace, prosperity and morality in which dictatorships on both sides of the Iron Curtain would suffocate and perish.”
Of all the pieces, I liked the most that of Louis Fischer, a journalist who lived in the Soviet Union for a time.
Here was how he characterized Communism’s attraction to him:
“Before long, I realized that my choice was made. A choice depends on the available alternative to it. I preferred fresh sweeping winds to stale stagnant air, and well-intentioned pioneers to proven failures. I liked the Soviets because they were an experiment in the interest of the downtrodden majority, because they destroyed the privileges of the powerful few, because they were weak, and because the world’s reactionaries and conservatives opposed them. “
Here was how he explained his ability to accept Stalinism:
“At the time, I did not realize that Stalin’s bad taste and the GPU’s bad behavior were deadly germs. I thought they were sores on a healthy body which was building new cities and creating new values. I thought the favorable was fundamental and the unfavorable ephemeral. Hope distorted judgment. Seeing did not interfere with believing.”
Finally, his basic conclusion:
“Some are so obsessed with the crimes of the capitalist world that they remain blind to the crimes and bankruptcy of Bolshevism. Not a few use the defects of the West to divert attention from the hideous horrors of Moscow. My own prescription is: Double Rejection. A free spirit, unfettered by economic bonds or intellectual bias, can turn his back on the evils of both worlds and strive, by improving his own, to create a condition of peace, prosperity and morality in which dictatorships on both sides of the Iron Curtain would suffocate and perish.”
December 14, 2015
Give it 4.5 stars. Very valuable both for historical perspective and for relationship to current conditions.
All six writers have something to say that's illuminating and fresh, even though the book is nearly 70 years old. They all were attracted to Communism for different reasons, but repelled by it for similar reasons -- largely because it was inhumane and didn't begin to deliver on the promises.
There are several nice reviews on Goodreads, so I won't go on. Definitely would recommend it and would read it again. If I run across a copy, I'll buy it. And will look into reading more from each writer. Have read Koestler (several times) and Silone once -- may read "Bread and Wine" again, plus some Wright and some Spender.
All six writers have something to say that's illuminating and fresh, even though the book is nearly 70 years old. They all were attracted to Communism for different reasons, but repelled by it for similar reasons -- largely because it was inhumane and didn't begin to deliver on the promises.
There are several nice reviews on Goodreads, so I won't go on. Definitely would recommend it and would read it again. If I run across a copy, I'll buy it. And will look into reading more from each writer. Have read Koestler (several times) and Silone once -- may read "Bread and Wine" again, plus some Wright and some Spender.
October 14, 2017
Quickread of six essays from ex-communists about their disillusion with communism. Arthur Koestler's first essay is the most interesting. Seems like the Andrew Wright one is taken from his book "American Boy". It uses the same fictional name of Buddy Nealson for a CP recruiter. The Andre Gidé book is also taken from his earlier works.
October 23, 2024
این کتاب شرح اعترافات کمونیستهای سابقیه که فکر میکردن در کمونیسم و شوروی آمال آرزوهاشون رو پیدا کردن و دیگه از این طریق میشه بهشت رو به زمین آورد ولی این افراد که چهرههای مطرح و روشنفکر و متفکری هم بودن وقتی با حقایق پشت پردهي کمونیسم آشنا شدن نتونستن دیگه خودشون رو گول بزنن و بهش پشت کردن و سعی کردن دیگران رو هم روشن کنن تا گولش رو نخورن. البته بعضی از اونا هنوز به ایدههای اصلی سوسیالیسم باور داشتن و ظاهرا فقط فکر میکردن اشتباه اجرا شدن ولی بیشترشون به این نتیجه رسیدن که واقعا راهش این نیست و همون حرفهایی رو زدن که لیبرالها همیشه دربارهی کمونیسم میزدن، این که کمونیسم تمرکزگراست، این که یه دیکتاتوریه که به هیچ وجه کوتاه نمیاد، مایه رشد در هیچ زمینهای نمیشه و اصلا باعث بهبود وضعیت معیشت مردم نمیشه و در نهایت به این نتیجه رسیدن که رفاه و خوشبختی فقط از راه آزادی به دست میاد.
July 21, 2018
The God That Failed: Six Studies in Communism (1949) by Silone, Koestler, Fischer, Gide, Wright, and Spender.
Remarkable accounts of conversion by the most independent, earliest ex-Communists. From where we stand, it's easy to downplay the conversions - because, well, "obviously Stalinism was fucked" - but many of the most brilliant people kept clinging on to it through Kronstadt, through Pitchfork, through the Volksaufstand, through Hungary, through Prague, and even today (Carr never acknowledged the genocides; Hobsbawm knew the death tolls and kept betting on red; Grover Furr is still teaching) even in Russia .
Foreword, by a peculiarly intellectual MP (by today's standards), is careful to set itself apart from the red-bashing of the time and lay out its humane purpose: to understand the emotional appeal of communism (: a religious one) and the disillusionment that the very most independent communists had already suffered.
Silone's testimony about the Comintern's sick irrationality would be enough to make the book prescient. Richard Wright's account of the fucked-up parties outside Russia is another really chilling bit: the rot was deep and wide. This was my great-grandfather's copy.
(Form warning: Arthur Koestler was himself a monstrous man.)
Remarkable accounts of conversion by the most independent, earliest ex-Communists. From where we stand, it's easy to downplay the conversions - because, well, "obviously Stalinism was fucked" - but many of the most brilliant people kept clinging on to it through Kronstadt, through Pitchfork, through the Volksaufstand, through Hungary, through Prague, and even today (Carr never acknowledged the genocides; Hobsbawm knew the death tolls and kept betting on red; Grover Furr is still teaching) even in Russia .
Persuasion may play a part in a man's conversion; but only the part of bringing to its full and conscious climax a process which has been maturing in regions where no persuasion can penetrate. A faith is not acquired; it grows like a tree.
Foreword, by a peculiarly intellectual MP (by today's standards), is careful to set itself apart from the red-bashing of the time and lay out its humane purpose: to understand the emotional appeal of communism (: a religious one) and the disillusionment that the very most independent communists had already suffered.
no one who has not wrestled with Communism as a philosophy, and Communists as political opponents, can really understand the values of Western democracy. The Devil once lived in Heaven, and those who have not met him are unlikely to recognize an angel when they see one... The Communist novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of the Kremlin, felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings to the intellectual, wearied and worried by the privilege of freedom.
Silone's testimony about the Comintern's sick irrationality would be enough to make the book prescient. Richard Wright's account of the fucked-up parties outside Russia is another really chilling bit: the rot was deep and wide. This was my great-grandfather's copy.
(Form warning: Arthur Koestler was himself a monstrous man.)
April 27, 2022
It's a good book club when the book that was chosen is one that you would have never picked up and would never have read if you had picked it up - and still when you HAVE read it you know that you have been enlightened and even thrilled and you debate between giving it four stars and five stars.
Seven people from different countries, different generations, write about their experience of being enthralled by the early promise of Communism and then being disillusioned and leaving it. My favorite was the section by the Black American writer Richard Wright. But each of the essays was quite wonderful in different ways.
For me, the experience was quite personal. I missed out on the whole Communism bit and only knew one Communist personally (I think). That one was John Sanford, whose wife was blacklisted in the 50s. I published his last book. One morning, I asked him if he was still a Communist and he said, "Oh, yes. The only problem is I don't know where to send my dues." Then he laughed.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home in Iowa and I was always inpressed with the early Christian communism (with a small "c"). So, the whole philosophy of sharing our possessions, caring for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, etc. came naturally to me. I think I would have made a reasonably good communist - although, like most of the writers in this book, I would have chafed and ultimately rebelled at the authoritarianism.
I recommend this book for lots of reasons - but it is not easy. It will make you think and question.
Seven people from different countries, different generations, write about their experience of being enthralled by the early promise of Communism and then being disillusioned and leaving it. My favorite was the section by the Black American writer Richard Wright. But each of the essays was quite wonderful in different ways.
For me, the experience was quite personal. I missed out on the whole Communism bit and only knew one Communist personally (I think). That one was John Sanford, whose wife was blacklisted in the 50s. I published his last book. One morning, I asked him if he was still a Communist and he said, "Oh, yes. The only problem is I don't know where to send my dues." Then he laughed.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home in Iowa and I was always inpressed with the early Christian communism (with a small "c"). So, the whole philosophy of sharing our possessions, caring for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, etc. came naturally to me. I think I would have made a reasonably good communist - although, like most of the writers in this book, I would have chafed and ultimately rebelled at the authoritarianism.
I recommend this book for lots of reasons - but it is not easy. It will make you think and question.
Read
August 27, 2022In his essay, Richard Wright recounts how on a visit to an all-black Chicago section meeting of the US Communist Party, he was met by a cadre who laughed at him and dismissed him as a bourgeoise intellectual. The party clearly trained its people well.
Between the years of the Bolshevik revolution and World War Two, the Soviet Union and the international communist movement drew the admiration and unalloyed love of the brightest minds of their generation. But if this book shows anything, it's how these intellectuals motivated by antisocial feelings of guilt, individualism, mysticism, and religion were poor additions to a movement that demanded total faith and subjugation. Communism, in a sense, was incompatible with these original and nuanced intellectuals.
One more point. The best essays in this collection were written by the fellow travelers, not the former members. The latter were too consumed by residual sorrow and misgivings. It was clearly a hard life to quit, and life post-Communism was a deeply lonely experience.
Between the years of the Bolshevik revolution and World War Two, the Soviet Union and the international communist movement drew the admiration and unalloyed love of the brightest minds of their generation. But if this book shows anything, it's how these intellectuals motivated by antisocial feelings of guilt, individualism, mysticism, and religion were poor additions to a movement that demanded total faith and subjugation. Communism, in a sense, was incompatible with these original and nuanced intellectuals.
One more point. The best essays in this collection were written by the fellow travelers, not the former members. The latter were too consumed by residual sorrow and misgivings. It was clearly a hard life to quit, and life post-Communism was a deeply lonely experience.
July 16, 2007
This was one of the best books I have read in a long time. Originally published in 1949, it consists of six essays from intellectuals who had been either members of the Communist Party or "fellow travelers." The essays are personal narratives of why they had initially supported Communism and then what led them to abandon the movement.
The essayists included are: Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, Andre Gide, Louis Fischer, and Stephen Spender. While Silone's essay did not hold my attention, the other five did--and in quite a remarkable manner. Wright's account of why he as a black man felt particularly drawn to Communism and then of how he was pushed out is heartbreaking.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political history, the interwar period, or just plain good writing.
The essayists included are: Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, Andre Gide, Louis Fischer, and Stephen Spender. While Silone's essay did not hold my attention, the other five did--and in quite a remarkable manner. Wright's account of why he as a black man felt particularly drawn to Communism and then of how he was pushed out is heartbreaking.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political history, the interwar period, or just plain good writing.
Want to Read
May 14, 2009This looks good...but my priorities are drifting elsewhere. This book contains the stories (written by themselves) of six individuals who strongly and openly embraced Communism, and later came to see its tragic and evil flaws. They write of the difficulty and the psychological pain involved in revising their world view.
Of the six, I only recognized Richard Write, author of Native Son and Black Boy. I need to put this back on my to-read list for now but look forward to the time I can finish it.
Of the six, I only recognized Richard Write, author of Native Son and Black Boy. I need to put this back on my to-read list for now but look forward to the time I can finish it.
Read
May 3, 2012it's a very interesting book and its particularity is that it gives the views of six prominent writers on communism.
what bothered me was the date of its publishing. 1950. right in the middle of the storm of mccarthy in the usa. although i couldn't agree more with the views those writers argue, and by now, history proves them right, it does sounds a lot like they were sitting in front of a jury.a maccarthy commission,trying to convince them that their love story with communism was an error from the past and explain why they found out later it was actually evil.
what bothered me was the date of its publishing. 1950. right in the middle of the storm of mccarthy in the usa. although i couldn't agree more with the views those writers argue, and by now, history proves them right, it does sounds a lot like they were sitting in front of a jury.a maccarthy commission,trying to convince them that their love story with communism was an error from the past and explain why they found out later it was actually evil.
July 3, 2007
An anthology of articles by Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender, Richard Wright, Andre Gide and some other ex-pro-Soviet European intellectuels, published in 1950.
April 24, 2014
richard wright and louis fischer stand-out stories, the rest is too dry/hyper-specific to be engaging
November 28, 2022
A breathtaking collection of six autobiographical essays, each about their author's infatuation with and gradual disillusionment of Communism. Written in 1949, it provides an essential look into the culture of the Left at that time.
Spanning a diverse range of cultures and locations, from Germany to Italy to Chicago to France to living in the USSR as an American to England, a common thread across all of these essays is the chronicling of a Party that was built on a promise of a Revolutionary future that would soon become ever-deferred, slipping further and further into tomorrow the more tomorrow came. With this, they chronicled the dogmatic authoritarianism and groupthink endemic in their local Parties, the violence, slander, and leaps of logic necessary to maintain the Party line and faith in the glorious future, and the gradual dimming of liberties, compassion, and authenticity that accompanied all this.
These stories serve as a heartfelt plea against the allure of extremes, of thinking that the ends ever justify the means, and appeal to a common human condition we all share, based not upon potential futures or gains, but upon current needs, both material, but also cultural and social, where someone may have enough bread to eat but does not have to sacrifice their speech for it.
Common themes that the authors touch on include the spread of Fascism across Europe (especially relevant since two of the contributors experienced it in their very neighborhoods, Koestler in Germany and Silone in Italy), as well as the Spanish Civil War and the general political infighting, dogmatism, and ass-kissing endemic within the Communist Parties the authors were in, as well as those Parties attempts to take over all other groups, crushing dissent and opposition of any kind whatsoever, in the name of "unity" or to "heard others towards the true path of progress".
There is so, so much more to be said, but this is genuinely one of the best books I've read all year.
Spanning a diverse range of cultures and locations, from Germany to Italy to Chicago to France to living in the USSR as an American to England, a common thread across all of these essays is the chronicling of a Party that was built on a promise of a Revolutionary future that would soon become ever-deferred, slipping further and further into tomorrow the more tomorrow came. With this, they chronicled the dogmatic authoritarianism and groupthink endemic in their local Parties, the violence, slander, and leaps of logic necessary to maintain the Party line and faith in the glorious future, and the gradual dimming of liberties, compassion, and authenticity that accompanied all this.
These stories serve as a heartfelt plea against the allure of extremes, of thinking that the ends ever justify the means, and appeal to a common human condition we all share, based not upon potential futures or gains, but upon current needs, both material, but also cultural and social, where someone may have enough bread to eat but does not have to sacrifice their speech for it.
Common themes that the authors touch on include the spread of Fascism across Europe (especially relevant since two of the contributors experienced it in their very neighborhoods, Koestler in Germany and Silone in Italy), as well as the Spanish Civil War and the general political infighting, dogmatism, and ass-kissing endemic within the Communist Parties the authors were in, as well as those Parties attempts to take over all other groups, crushing dissent and opposition of any kind whatsoever, in the name of "unity" or to "heard others towards the true path of progress".
There is so, so much more to be said, but this is genuinely one of the best books I've read all year.
November 8, 2025
Somewhat depressing overall, The God That Failed shows 6 different perspectives of writers joining local Communist organizations only to leave disillusioned and downtrodden. I think the overall lesson is that any dogma, political or religious, is a cancer that eventually eats its own. Great stories, but I finished this with a slight sense of hopelessness. The world is complex and there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the political and class issues of our time.
February 19, 2026
It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This statement holds true after reading The God That Failed, a collection of testimonials from six 20th-century intellectuals who originally supported Communism and the Soviet Union, only to become disillusioned after its myriad contradictions and broken promises. The book's most evident revelation is the fact that all of these intellectuals joined the Cult of Marx not from a lust for power, a desire to lead the workers in revolution, or from sociopathy. Rather, they joined from a self-effacing and, in many cases, religious desire to help those less fortunate than themselves ascend to a higher state of existence. In the face of crippled Liberal Democracy during the Great Depression and the civilizational threat posed by Fascism, Communism appeared the only viable path to a better future for mankind.
Cracks appeared from the doctrinaire attitude espoused by Communism toward the issues of free speech, civil liberties, and towing the Party line, among other issues. At first, this dogma played on the intellectuals' desire to sublimate their individuality in service of a greater cause. With the passage of time, however, the problems posed by Communism's wavering attitudes toward Social Democracy, its intolerance for divergence of opinion, and incapacity to demonstrably improve the living standards of its people proved too much for these men to handle, even if they continued to latch onto a utopian vision of the future.
The would-be defenders of Liberal Democracy must understand the perspectives shared in this book in order to defend freedom. After all, intellectuals are notable for their societal influence and capacity to influence the masses - a feature well-recognized by the Communists of the interwar period. In trying times such as ours, a conscious effort must be made to apprehend and anticipate the causes of radicalization among the intelligentsia, for the very fate of democracy could hang in the balance.
One more thing I'll say: To describe the book as an impeachment of Communism and/or Marxism alone would be incorrect. The book itself is an impeachment of ideology, particularly that which treats itself as a religion and demands absolute obedience from its followers. Whether that be Communism or its hyper-chauvinistic cousin on the opposite end of the spectrum does not matter, for they ultimately seek the same goal. Ideology, in its purest form, seeks to attain the status of a religion without the accompanying moral code. And that, in my opinion, is the most important lesson to be taken from this book.
Cracks appeared from the doctrinaire attitude espoused by Communism toward the issues of free speech, civil liberties, and towing the Party line, among other issues. At first, this dogma played on the intellectuals' desire to sublimate their individuality in service of a greater cause. With the passage of time, however, the problems posed by Communism's wavering attitudes toward Social Democracy, its intolerance for divergence of opinion, and incapacity to demonstrably improve the living standards of its people proved too much for these men to handle, even if they continued to latch onto a utopian vision of the future.
The would-be defenders of Liberal Democracy must understand the perspectives shared in this book in order to defend freedom. After all, intellectuals are notable for their societal influence and capacity to influence the masses - a feature well-recognized by the Communists of the interwar period. In trying times such as ours, a conscious effort must be made to apprehend and anticipate the causes of radicalization among the intelligentsia, for the very fate of democracy could hang in the balance.
One more thing I'll say: To describe the book as an impeachment of Communism and/or Marxism alone would be incorrect. The book itself is an impeachment of ideology, particularly that which treats itself as a religion and demands absolute obedience from its followers. Whether that be Communism or its hyper-chauvinistic cousin on the opposite end of the spectrum does not matter, for they ultimately seek the same goal. Ideology, in its purest form, seeks to attain the status of a religion without the accompanying moral code. And that, in my opinion, is the most important lesson to be taken from this book.
April 29, 2018
An interesting range of perspectives on how communism failed as an ideology to achieve its claims of ending inequality, poverty etc. From those who once believed in it, only to see the horrors of Stalinism and the errors in general of the communist ideology that favoured conformity to free individual self expression. Favoured catchy slogans repeated over and over to thoughtful discourse. And worst of all, naively, assumed an innocence to the oppressed groups in society that would not lead to corruption once they had power. Of course, it did lead to corruption, because there is no such thing as an innocent group of people. This is a false romanticism.
Any structure of power, particularly one as centralised and ruled over by so few people without accountability, as a communist one, is bound to lead to the corruption of those at the top of the tree. The God of Communism failed, because it forgot that human nature has corruption inside it, and we need humility always in the face of this, not arrogance and false veneers of moral superiority. We cannot assuage our guilt by projecting onto a romanticised innocent group. For no such group exists. We must learn to face up to our own guilt as illustrating our own weaknesses, our own sins. Not to project this on to others in some repeating narrative of oppressors and oppressed. If we cannot even face our own flaws, we are in no position to pronounce assuredly about the flaws of the world. The God that failed here was a misplaced faith in human innocence that simply does not exist outside the fairy tales and romantic stories we tell to children.
Any structure of power, particularly one as centralised and ruled over by so few people without accountability, as a communist one, is bound to lead to the corruption of those at the top of the tree. The God of Communism failed, because it forgot that human nature has corruption inside it, and we need humility always in the face of this, not arrogance and false veneers of moral superiority. We cannot assuage our guilt by projecting onto a romanticised innocent group. For no such group exists. We must learn to face up to our own guilt as illustrating our own weaknesses, our own sins. Not to project this on to others in some repeating narrative of oppressors and oppressed. If we cannot even face our own flaws, we are in no position to pronounce assuredly about the flaws of the world. The God that failed here was a misplaced faith in human innocence that simply does not exist outside the fairy tales and romantic stories we tell to children.
February 7, 2018
A collection of personal essays published in 1949 by famous ex-communists or communist sympathizers who became disillusioned and ended up rejecting it. I have become increasingly left wing over the years so I wanted to read some criticism to test my thinking and see if I could be convinced that Communism is inherently wrong.
I felt that all of the essays offered persuasive arguments and stark indictments against the dictatorial, oppressive, murderous Communism practiced and demanded by the Soviet Union under Stalin, but they didn't convince me that a better version of a Communist state was impossible.
That's not to say that there may not be other books which will persuade me that some form of Communism is practically impossible without suffering the failings of countries like the Soviet Union, the P.R.C or Cuba, but this book isn't it.
I felt that all of the essays offered persuasive arguments and stark indictments against the dictatorial, oppressive, murderous Communism practiced and demanded by the Soviet Union under Stalin, but they didn't convince me that a better version of a Communist state was impossible.
That's not to say that there may not be other books which will persuade me that some form of Communism is practically impossible without suffering the failings of countries like the Soviet Union, the P.R.C or Cuba, but this book isn't it.
October 11, 2014
The best part of this book was the fact that these six authors were all originally attracted to communism.
The Initiates, the first section of the book, is written by three authors that were closely involved with the communist parties in pre-Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Italy. The next section of this was the Distant Admirers, those involved with the communists far away, in the United States, or merely visitors to these countries.
Much of this was dry, and hard to keep focus. Some experiences were interesting, but there were a good few sections where it was extremely boring. The biggest reason to read this is if you want specific examples of the flaws of communism. If I were to summarize the book in a single sentence, Communism just isn't as good as it originally appeared.
The Initiates, the first section of the book, is written by three authors that were closely involved with the communist parties in pre-Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Italy. The next section of this was the Distant Admirers, those involved with the communists far away, in the United States, or merely visitors to these countries.
Much of this was dry, and hard to keep focus. Some experiences were interesting, but there were a good few sections where it was extremely boring. The biggest reason to read this is if you want specific examples of the flaws of communism. If I were to summarize the book in a single sentence, Communism just isn't as good as it originally appeared.
October 7, 2017
"Avendo potuto sperimentare le possibilità pressoché illimitate dell’acrobazia mentale sulla corda tesa della propria coscienza, so quanto quella corda elastica possa tendersi prima di rompersi." - Arthur Koestler (p. 90)
"Ogni organismo totalitario, ogni regime di unanimità coatta, implica una buona dose di menzogne, di doppiezza, d’insincerità." - Ignazio Silone (p. 134)
"L’umanità è complicata, bisogna riconoscerlo, e ogni tentativo di semplificazione, di irreggimentazione, ogni sforzo dall’esterno per ridurre ogni cosa e ogni persona allo stesso denominatore comune sarà riprovevole, pericoloso e sinistramente ridicolo." - André Gide (p. 208)
"I totalitari di tutti i colori si comprendono." - Louis Fischer (p. 240)
"Ogni organismo totalitario, ogni regime di unanimità coatta, implica una buona dose di menzogne, di doppiezza, d’insincerità." - Ignazio Silone (p. 134)
"L’umanità è complicata, bisogna riconoscerlo, e ogni tentativo di semplificazione, di irreggimentazione, ogni sforzo dall’esterno per ridurre ogni cosa e ogni persona allo stesso denominatore comune sarà riprovevole, pericoloso e sinistramente ridicolo." - André Gide (p. 208)
"I totalitari di tutti i colori si comprendono." - Louis Fischer (p. 240)
October 6, 2015
The falsity of the Utopian ideology stands exposed in this work. The reason a communist agenda will fail and is bound to be rejected by people over time is the reason why Communist regimes have fallen by the side. The ideology purported by Marx is in a Utopian world is a fact and can never work in the diverse world where people cherish their culture,traditions and history. The authors also note personal experiences of people who experienced Communism first-hand and the reasons for abandoning it.
January 30, 2019
Thoughtful first-hand accounts that capture both the early moral zeal these writers felt toward Communism--their sense that it was the only theory of social organization that made moral sense--and then their path to disillusionment. Koestler's observation that he had time to become a Communist only after he found a job with a living wage was enlightening, as was Wright's bafflement at being labeled an "intellectual" at Party meetings--even though he made his living as a street sweeper--because he wore shoes to the meeting that he had shined beforehand.
Read
July 23, 2011Very interesting collection of essays by 6 writers explaining how they got involved with Communism, then rejected it, in the 1930s. Most of the pieces were written expressly for this collection, Andre Gide's was compiled from his earlier writings about Communism and his experience touring the USSR. I especially liked Richard Wright's contribution, but the entire book is of historical interest, while its warnings on the perils of embracing ideology remain relevant today.
July 29, 2017
Classic anti-communist black propaganda. Much of it reiterates crude diatribes from the McCarthy period and can be readily refuted. Silone, for instance, has been later exposed to be a government agent. Reveals more about the author's subjectivity (an unremoulded individualism coupled with pessimism/false idealism re the former Soviet Union/overoptimistic impetuosity leading to disillusionment) rather than the real flaws of its subject.
November 14, 2016
We are easily duped by political ideologies, the consequences of which are life altering. Being a Hungarian myself, and having lived under Communism, I was riveted to read Arthur Koestler's autobiographical essay on him joining forces with Leftist ideologues and then finding out the true nature of those "gods."
A must read for our times!
We need to be very cautious about political alliances; Conservatism's questioning nature and realism is the right antidote.
A must read for our times!
We need to be very cautious about political alliances; Conservatism's questioning nature and realism is the right antidote.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews