The Ghost of StalinJean-Paul Sartre The Ghost of Stalin aay fra wed VATS TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH py MARTHA H, FLETCHER with the assistance of John R. Kleinschmidt GEORGE BRAZILLER / New Yorkverre Fd nae ara SAP OER a & een Fo i. peat gam &4 Cra ee (42 f RM is fy gence ress i i fe perk wyhee This essay, Jean-Paul Sartre's protest against the Soviet inter- vention in Hungary in 1956, first appéared in a series of articles in Lus TEMPS MOopERNES, Nos. 129, 130, 131 (November, December, 1956—January, 1957). English translation and Glossary, copyright © 1968, by George Braziller, Inc. Originally published in France under the title, “Le Fantéme de Staline,” in Situations, VI, © 1965, Editions Gallimard ¥ All rights in this book are reserved. For information, address the publisher: George Braziller, Inc. One Park Avenue New York, New York I0016 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67—19872 Printed,in the United States of AmericaThe Ghost of StalinI have received many letters recently. Among the questions asked me are two recurring from very diverse pens, to which T think it is useful to respond publicly, “BY WHAT RIGHT?...” This one addresses itself, over my head, to all Frenchmen who condemn the Sovict intervention: “By what right? In the name of what principle? Of what philosophy? Of yours, doubtless- ly. Then you should know that it commits (engage) only you.” Some readers will be surprised, I know, that one requires philosophical references to permit them to detest this slaughter. However, if they reflect, I think they will find the question proper. Some Communists have objected and, moreover, Mr. Denis de Rougement: it must not be for the same reasons. The game is so complex, in this affair, that it is necessary to an- nounce one’s color and one’s stakes, The proof of this is that a provisional distinction has been hastily made: the Left con- denons the Suez affair and that of Budapest; the Right that of Budapest only; L’Humaniré that of Suez. In truth, the links between the two massacres—in the midst of a world situation where everything depends on everything—lon’t seem to be * A Glossary of etsential names aed terms will be found on pp, 143.148 rparticularly close: the Hungatian. insitrection 1 surprised: the ‘Russians, the . Suez attack had been : arranged for several \ months. It's possible that our great: politicians. precipitated: ‘the.’ ‘landing, in spite of the advice of generals; “to ‘take: advantage of the U.S.S.R.’s difficulties in Central Europe. "7 think’ they”: are stupid enough, in fact, not.to have understood that ‘it had’: _ the strongest army in ‘the world, that it could crush Hungary and throw 200,000 men into Suez, that its difficulties are not of a military order and that it would be only too content to'be . able to raise its great voice loudly enough to-cover the death-, ° rattle of Budapest; but all that doesn’t lead anywhere. Since. _ then,-Mr. Mollet and. L’Huma have made the most touching - attempts to establish a profound tie between these disparate events. T he former declares: “The Hungarians in Budapest, . ; the French i ‘in Egypt, have come up against the same arms, ma and the latter: “The- same fascists demolished Port ‘Said and: ° : hanged the Hungarian workers: » Let them talk; the sad truth’ is: that: the French Left can a define itself today ony *Y a double” '. refusal. a | | "Nevertheless these t two indettakings have this ; in. comriion, that they, ‘are both political i in nature-and ‘that’ they ‘canriot: be * - appraised. without taking into account. the objectives’ to” be ob-~ . tained and the interésts: to be defended, in- short. without pass- *. 5 ‘ing. a political judgrient’ ‘whose repercussions.’ ‘can “be: > only * “political: mee ae Be Ce och Tknow Mr. De Roiigemedt he? S a + gentler man; » well brought Op. arid; “into. the bargain, a ‘Swiss;. ‘the. imilitary: prestige : “of: France: deesn’t dazzle him: It: ‘seems ‘probable: ‘then’ that’ this”, -“Buropean” considered. ‘the. Suez. affait as a: rather’ ‘sinister. blunders; however, | he. didn't, say. ‘anything. ‘On’ n Budapest J he me “a. ithe French, must also. have run: up apatist French: arms:: “And Hala a Iti is- Rot 80 > Jone. ABO that" We weré, Nasser’s armaments suppliers... Sshas expressed himself abundantly It's because he’s anticom- munist by taste, by role, by profession Now, his condemna- tion remains purely and simply moral he nses up in the name of miternational law It’s hus silence which as political Or rather this mixture of tmuteness and declamations He wont touch the hands of the Communist intellectuals ah, there, you think, 1s a very idealistic reaction But no, tt gives fiself an appearance of idealism, but one will discover its real sigmi- ficance sf one considers that De Rougement would shake Guy Mollet’s hand without any disgust. Here s what one of my cor- respondents says to me “Only they, the advocates of absolute non violence are able to yudge " Which means only they who put the refusal to spill blood above everything else have the night to take & moral position Of course But it’s precisely be cause they condemn political action a poor By the same token the Soviet and French leaders have the nght to chal- lenge them these moralists didn’t defend France against Hit- ler, they didn’t resist under the occupation, or, if they did, they contradicted their own principles Politics 1s necessary and no one can get mixed up in 1t—be it the ordinary citizen who votes for a party every four years—if he doesn’t accept at the outset that violence, in some cases, 15 the lesser evil I summarize the letter of a progressive who puts the question rather clearly * You're not Chnstian, the Communists aren't either, can you say to them Thou shalt not kill? No more than they, do you believe in the virtues of passive resistance, con- Scientions objection absolute pacifism Can you reproach them for ther violence? You conssder—as they do—the Rughts of Man and of the Citizen as abstract principles of the bourgeoss Republic Can you condemn the Manusts in the name of out- worn guarantees which have never prevented misery nor ex- ploitation?” He's mght at worst, the moral stance covers up a polsti- 3cian’s operation; at best, it doesn’t come to grips with the facts, the moralist is out of it. But politics, any politics, is an action conducted in common by some men against other men. Based on convergences or divergences of interests, the relations of solidarity like the relations of combat and hostility define a total attitude of man towards man, the immediate objectives are clarified by long-run objectives, the praxis is controlled by the value judgments which it engenders and which are indis- tinguishable from factual judgments; thus true politics con- tains within it implicitly, it’s own moral appraisal. And the best way to judge totally the undertaking of a government or party is to judge it politically. By that I don’t claim that just any of the French parties has the right to pass judgment on just any other. For more than a century, under forms which change in the course of history, only one movement impels the exploited to claim for themselves and for all the possibility of being men fully and totally; only one movement reveals society itself in all its reality and defines the bourgeoisie by exploitation when all the others are making it the universal class; only one pro- duces, through action and by means of it, an ideology which allows it to understand itself and to understand the others: this is the socialist movement taken as a whole. It is the absolute judge of all the others because the exploited encounter exploi- tation and the class struggle as their reality and as the truth of bourgeois societies: it sees the inner meaning of maneuvers and operations because it can’t help but relate them to the 1On August 10, 1792, after the victory of the uprising, the crowds invade the Tuileries; several persons try to pillage, they are hanged. This condemnation is a political act in that it is first of all concerned with the effect which these thefts would produce on the adversary and with the advantage which the counterrevolutionary propaganda would get from them if they remained unpunished. But it is inseparable from certain values of the people: disgust with royal luxury and the consequent refusal to benefit from it, the revolutionary requirement of purity, etc. i 4