Communism: A Literary Analysis

The opening line of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto claims that communism is a specter haunting Europe. This specter, however, was lively, not only in global history, but in literature. As communism took root in Russia and continued into Eastern Europe, allusions to communism became more present in literary works, not only from intellectuals in those areas, but Western intellectuals as well. Czeslaw Milosz, a Polish intellectual, claims that this increase in communist nations is a natural byproduct of the state’s requirement that literature relate to the Leninist-Stalinist doctrine. Despite this, there were multiple instances in which intellectuals utilized literature as a means to critique communism inside and outside the Bloc. In regards to historiography, there are a plethora of resources which detail the history and critiques of communism. This does not apply to the study of intellectual’s literary critiques of communism. While pursuing research regarding intellectuals’ literary critiques of communism, there were surprisingly few sources. In fact, when intellectuals’ critiques are mentioned it is generally focused on the intellectual individual, compacted into a few paragraphs, or included as a subsection in chapters about dissidence. Even then, little to no mention is made of their literary works or the critiques which those works express. The secondary source which I found to best recognize the critiques of intellectuals is Steven Saxonberg’s The Fall: A Comparative Study of the End of Communism in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, and Poland. In this work, Saxonberg compares the various factors which led to communism’s collapse while paying particular attention to the economic causes. Despite this, Saxonberg makes multiple references to the role of intellectuals in regards to the dissident movements that contributed to communism’s collapse. In Saxonberg’s descriptions of intellectuals, he defines them as intelligentsia: “educated people who in different ways and degrees contribute to the creation, development, maintenance, and distribution of cultural goods.” Saxonberg draws the connection between intellectuals and dissident movements by explaining that intellectuals dissented due to their personal outrage at creative repression and the dissenting tastes of their audiences. He also makes the claim that intellectuals tended to dominate dissident movements, especially given that their comments were likely to be heard due to their station and their role in ideological production. In addition to this, Saxonberg stresses that the intellectual held a vital position in dissident movements because they were able to communicate their audiences and workers’ expectations, discontent, and critiques of communism. Be that as it may, Saxonberg’s work is problematic as it does not express what those critiques are. The purpose of this research paper, therefore, is to add on to Saxonberg’s claims by exposing the critiques of communism that intellectuals presented in their literature. The rationale for pursuing this study of intellectuals’ literary critiques is, as Saxonberg’s work shows, the limited recognition of the topic. In fact, throughout my research of the topic, Saxonberg’s work contained one of the most mentions of intellectual critiques. The fact that this is true and yet Saxonberg still failed to explicitly state what those critiques were suggests that there is a hole, not only in the research of the topic, but in the historiography itself. As a result, my purpose for this research paper will be to fill this hole by clarifying …show more content…
These critiques include ideas such as the communist states’ lack of respect for life, its use as a substitute for religion, the claim that communism is another form of consumerism, and many more. However, the two main critiques present in all include the ideas that communist states dictate what is to be considered true or moral and that communism restricts free thought and expression. These two critiques demonstrate that there were major criticisms of communism that transcended the intellectual individuals, nationalities, and time periods. Nonetheless, in comparing the works it became evident that the intellectuals’ nationalities and time periods determined other aspects of the criticisms: what the critiques emphasized and how the intellectuals’ characters respond to communism in light of the criticisms. As this suggests, intellectuals’ criticisms of communism had obvious overlaps regardless of nationality and time period, yet the aspects which the intellectuals emphasize and the reactions they present in their literature depends on their nationality and time