 Mass graves of idealism
Flirting too much with utopia
By R. Zia-Ebrahimi
January 12, 2003
The Iranian
I have never been able to bring myself to doubt the intellectual integrity of
humanists such as Marx, Herzl or Shariati: three philanthropic personalities whose
highest concerns were the liberation and emancipation of the proletariat, Jews or
Iranians.
All of them developed theories and social projects in order to achieve highly humanistic
and praiseworthy goals, which have unexpectedly resulted in venerated ideologies
that have been implemented after the death of their fathers.
The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 brought Marxism out of Marx's mental laboratory
to its first nationwide experimentation. Herzl's followers migrated to Palestine
in order to establish the State of Israel. Lastly, the hijacked Iranian revolution
of 1979 resulted in the establishment of a Shiite Islamic State, the very one theorized
by Shariati.
With a more accurate vision that spatio-temporal distance can offer the historical
observer, I can only lament the sad landscapes left behind by these ideologies.
I see a devastated post-Communist world with disintegrated, corrupted, and starved
societies (specially some Central Asian states or North Korea) as a result of the
crystallization of Marxist ideals and their overt experimentation on actual human
masses.
I see the state of Israel built on the devastation of an Arab society, trying appallingly
to accomplish its betrayed original goal: the survival of Jews.
I see an Iranian society on the edge of implosion with increasing cases of suicide,
drug addiction, and prostitution unknown in any other Muslim country.
Can we blame the founding fathers or should we bring to the court of human morality
only those who tried to animate these theories, and then betrayed them?
I see a commonality between Marx and Engels' Communist
Manifesto Herzl's The Jewish State and Shariati's Marxism
and other Western Fallacies: An Islamic Critique: unacceptable and (now) unforgivable
blindness to human nature; predatory instincts, egotism, and diabolic dimension hindering
the materialization of such ideals.
The only morally justified reproach towards our theoreticians is made on the basis
of their idealism. In all cases, idealism becomes a tragic mistake, the Achille's
heel of extraordinary intellectual makeup, amplified a million-fold at the point
of confrontation with reality.
The result is not only the failure of a philosophical, social, theological, political,
and economical system and the collapse of millions of followers' hopes and utopias,
but (much worse and typically the very result of the latter) bloodshed, suffering,
and drastic decline in human welfare and well-being.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels naively imagined that abolishing private property
would be tantamount to building a society in which class struggle would disappear,
consequently opening the way to equality and ultimately leading to history's end.
But by promoting the abolishment of private property, they preached for the elimination
of the only mainspring of human innovation and progress: egoistic profit.
It seems almost incredible that well-versed philosophers such as Marx and Engels
with their knowledge and intellectual accomplishment could be blind to such a fundamental
quality (or let's say vice) of human nature. Idealization of human nature
invariably results in the failure of humanistic projects. Neglecting human
in the word humanistic will inexorably render the intended significance meaningless.
Theodore Herzl theorized the creation of a Jewish state in a 19th century when the
persecution of Jews seemed common. As a "nationalist" Jew (if such a word
is suitable in this context), nourished by the mystical nostalgia of the Promised
Land, he preached the re-elaboration of a Jewish state where the persecuted Jews
of Europe could find refuge. Herzl's theories named Zionism (return to Mount Zion
in Jerusalem) led to land purchases in Palestine and after the Holocaust to the ultimate
foundation of the State of Israel.
Nowadays, when one is encountered by the life of an Israeli in a Spartan nation,
confronted with daily survival and moral dilemmas, surrounded by self-created enemies,
again an obvious conclusion must be reached: that Herzl perhaps overlooked a piece
of information which has been the pre-existence of an Arab society in the Promised
Land.
One cannot rationally and genuinely argue for a split second that a massive population
can be settled on a pre-occupied land without injustice, atrocity, and bloodshed.
Perhaps Herzl thought this coexistence would have been possible but now the contrary
has been proven. In his era, there were examples of colonies where coexistence between
the colonized and the colonizers were not peaceful.
Two possibilities may be drawn from this miscalculation: either Herzl's proclamation
was based on purely sentimental analysis based on the desperate state of Jews (an
emotionally altered perception that can precisely lead to certain idealism), or he
was willing to conciliate with all probabilities of bloodshed and utter devastation.
The case of Shariati is very much similar. A modern religious intellectual who had
studied sociology in Paris and developed the concept of an Islamic State out of the
maelstrom of his meditations on God, faith, the perfect State, and the ultimate happiness
of the Iranian nation. Shariati thought that if the rule of God is implemented in
Iranian society, prosperity can be achieved (believing that liberty and happiness
are only possible under the direct rule of God and Holy Scriptures).
Again, idealism, this very heroic notion with its total ignorance of the human nature,
propelled itself to a reverse state, a society devoured by suicide and drug addiction
where death and slavery to such artificial paradises are more favored to the asphyxia
generated by the supposedly sacred theocracy.
Exertion of an ideal state on an ideal nation and reaching an ideal society without
regard for individuality and diversity in human conception and devotion of the Divine
resulted in the failure of this third idealist's aspirations. The problem with these
idealisms, once they failed, is that they do not become aware of their failures or
easily dismiss them. They still (continue to) destroy lives.
The most unknown thinker, trying to find a definitive solution that will lead to
the happiness of human community, should be aware: if he is flirting too much with
utopia, he risks having crowds of good-willed people one day believing in him and
transposing his idealism to the real world. Finally he would be perceived by the
next generations as partly responsible for a massive, bloody failure that would,
however, open the way for the next one.
But this is only a part of this formidable human adventure, its scientific will to
experiment, to challenge and escape the staus quo, and strive for perfection. History
is only a (vicious) cycle of experimentations and disasters followed by more of the
same experimentations.
We are far from history's final breath; as can be concluded. There will be more idealists
bearing paths similar to those of Marx, Herzl, and Shariati and there will be more
avid followers and more inevitable transformations in our socio-political consciousness
as a race. However, will we ever as theorists or devotees, conscientiously venture
to delve deeper into the nature of humanity before we are convinced of the indisputability
of our causes, sacrifices, and answers?
* Printer
friendly
Does this article have spelling or other mistakes? Tell
me to fix it.
 |
|
|
