Who was right? Was Communism the best choice to improve the lives of working class people? Was a revolutionary stance key to having
commitment toward embracing individualism? Or was Sartre's view of Communism romantic and truly a backwards attempt leading toward its opposite end - self-inflicted acquiescence to a sort of intellectual slavery?
In retrospect, it is easy to look at Communism as greatly misguided. And in its current state, I can't say much for capitalism or democracy in this macro-society spanning 300 million Americans and billions of consumers.
Camus took a lot of crap for his anti-violence stance. It wasn't absolute, and it wasn't Gandhi-esque - but it was principled. Revolutionary violence, which often leads to many deaths generally does not ensure widespread prosperity for anyone. Look at the Soviet Union - none of their promises related to minimal housing and food were met. But even so - is the means justifiable to the end?
Gandhi argued that even NAZI Germany could have faltered under the weight of non-violent resistance. I disagree, but I think there's a point. Revolutionary movements generally lack creativity. Murder and violence is the outlet of the uncreative. Not only that, it is alienating and generates bad blood.
Camus was very good at abstract thinking, but struggled at taking global ideas and breaking them down for even the most scholarly people (like Sartre) to digest. Taking the stance of a reformist, we have to ask ourselves - what can be reformed? What are the limits and boundaries of reform?
Toward radical change, reform is possible but requires a large constituent of active, vocal, and persistent followers
as well as a strong leader. That a strong leader is needed is unfortunate, but given the scope of the size of our society it is an unmistakable reality.
Capitalism is a distribution scheme meant to reward production that is deemed meaningful by society. The more meaning the product has, the more consumption ensues, and thus the more capital flows back to the producer. There is a catch however, because a true free market does not exist and thus the government, trade agreements, and third party investments (particularly loans) create terms and incentives that are unnatural and tend to benefit those who already have power.
Any reformation aimed at redistribution of wealth and resources from those with power will be met with heavy opposition. This reality may lead toward violence, as has been seen time and time again from the owners against labor trying to organize from the Appalachians to Wal-Marts across the country.
Capitalism maintained by invested agents with the control to manage the system in the government and other influential parties (banks such as the IMF and policing groups like the WTO) will always skew the system away from the working class toward the ruling class. In this sense, capitalism is entrenched with implicit violence that is enacted upon the poorest among us day-by-day because they are powerless to fight against it. Progress has been made, and it often happens in spurts and then falls back. But this is also the several-hundred-year history of Europe.
Exploitation is the foundation of empire. Colonization was an explicit attempt at exploitation. Slavery was founded by the Dutch and mastered by the Belgians in the Congo and also lead to foundation of America's agricultural economic dominance in the South. Slavery falls away to an explicit or implicit caste system. At what degree in this chain of events does slavery fall away to something that isn't violent? When the slave loses his physical bonds? When he can buy his house? When he can comfortable afford to live on an equal platform with everyone else in society? Or when everyone in society is guaranteed by words and actions equality?
The problem is that what is justifiable is relative to the individual and his or her conditions. Camus and Sartre started down opposite paths and ended up polar opposites of each other, likely in some ways as a way to define themselves and their philosophy. Sartre won in his time because he picked the position most palatable to the public, which I don't think was an accident. Camus also seemed to have some sort of rebellious streak that extend to picking unpopular positions and defending them to his detriment.
Regardless... who was right?
In my opinion, Camus's abstract view which may not have been a philosophically sound in its complexity of argument and historical referencing still won out against Sartre. Sartre's view of history and idealizing the perspective that we can jump on the trajectory of history to improve its ends strikes me as totally wrong.
Understanding history is important for creating a sense of place and understanding the context of your existence. Projecting yourself in a way that works toward shaping your reality is a natural human activity. But, relating this to an overarching ideal that extends well beyond us into a metaphysical plane.
One thing at a time, that is how everything needs to be approached. You can have an end in mind, but don't let the process be hijacked because you're ethically or philosophically weak enough to allow atrocities for the greater good.
Sartre wrote against the Communists camps, and yet he still supported the Communists. And Camus, perhaps due to his upbringing as a pied-noir from a poor neighborhood in Algeria knew too well the contradictions that lead to justifying in deeds that which is unjustifiable.
Camus was criticized for his silence about the Vietnamese situation with Communism and French occupation. But what could he say? He certainly realized the futility of the situation - he could support neither France nor the Vietnamese. An absurd stand-off. He probably asked himself - what is either side truly fighting for?
Strangely enough, this is what happens when the philosophical and the political collide. No philosophical argument is safe from finding an exception. But that does not mean the argument is false... and that is why we must struggle to continue thinking and challenging ourselves to our limits.
