First and foremost I need to preface my post with a confession: I have limited (ie. almost zero) experience with East European history. That being said, in the introductory pages of The Walls Came Tumbling Down, Stokes characterizes the revolutions of 1989 and the years leading up to it as definitive moments in the 20th century. The collapse of communism in 1989 represented the death of a social experiment that, coupled with the death of fascism in 1945, meant the triumph of what Stokes refers to as ‘pluralism’ and what I would refer to as ‘the other types of governments.’ As we learned in class, 1989 came as a great surprise to the global audience. Stokes’ work does a phenomenal job of tracking the ongoing forces at work in East European society in the two decades leading up to 1989, and shows us that anti-socialist sentiment had existed as a powerful social impetus since 1968.
The first argument made by Stokes is that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 by the Warsaw Pact countries marked the end of any hope that communism could ever work. Stokes presents a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the “mature Stalinism” that threatened any hope for reform and progress in those countries. Furthermore, he presents a convincing argument backed by substantial economic evidence that by shooting down the “intensive strategy,” Soviet leaders chose their own doom.
The next step in Stokes’ analysis is that with the realization of how hopeless the situation was, a counter-culture movement of anti-politicians emerged in Eastern Europe. With his citation of many intellectuals of the period, Stokes shows that in response to the overwhelming presence of socialist government, a movement emerged emphasizing the use of “honesty” and “living in truth” in personal life. Such action could act as a shield against the false moralities and indignities forced by the socialist regimes. The appeal and success of such a movement is believable to me, because there clearly existed a disrespect for human dignity in the actions of the socialist governments, and a response was to be expected… especially from educated intellectuals. Stokes’ next point is also believable, which was that the people of Eastern Europe had coexisted with socialism in an unspoken agreement where indignities were suffered in exchange for the low cost of basic needs. This was clearly evident in Poland with the timing of strikes following a raise in the cost of food, and the seemingly apologetic reaction of the government following such public outcries (even if the unrest was put down by force). Furthermore, I can believe that with mounting economic pressures and agitation from intellectuals as well as other sources (eg. Pope John Paul II), public disillusionment with socialism grew at an increasingly fast rate during this time.
However, I remain deeply skeptical in regards to Stokes’ implied argument, which is that movements such as Solidarity were at their core rooted in the anti-political tradition and that they evolved from this form of thinking to become true political forces. Although I am sure anti-politician thinkers played their role in agitating public discontent with the socialist powers, I did not see any convincing evidence that this role was the definitive factor. For instance, in Poland the rise of Solidarity was described by Stokes using a quote from Adam Michnik: “…but the workers didn’t know. That’s how Solidarity arose, without us and against us, although we always considered it to be our child. An illegitimate one, you might say” (37). In other words, the real drive and impetus behind these grass-roots movements was not a fantastical embarkation on a “hopeless enterprise” after all. Rather, there were other forces at work outside the intellectual counter-culture of the anti-politicians. This is further demonstrated by Lech Walesa’s numerous tours for strike prevention and his eventual inability to control the local elements of that Union.
I think that Stokes has attempted to create a history of a people’s movement through an analysis of individual thinkers and leaders, and this is my main criticism of his work thus far. The types of questions I would like answered are: Did the average factory worker in Poland really care about living in truth and abandoning hope for spiritual freedom? Or was he just pissed off that he had to wait a really long time in line to get some crappy meat? Instead of detailing the inability of Walesa to control Solidarity, why not examine the self-organization of the union on lower levels? Of course, Stokes is not ignoring these types of questions entirely, and the individuals and ideas he details are undoubtedly important in understanding this history. However, I suspect that they are overemphasized in his account, though I have absolutely no proof!
Despite my skepticism, I do feel some empathy towards the anti-politicians described by Stokes. Although I am far from politically disabled, I feel that there is a great gap between what I believe is morally correct and what I choose to live with on a day-to-day basis. Like the anti-politicians, I attempt to live a life of honest interactions, and for me these interactions are a shield against becoming completely jaded and apathetic. Attacks on human dignity have hardly ceased since 1989, so the quotes in Stokes’ book from Havel and others definitely resonated with me. So even though I think the evidence joining anti-political thought and the social movements could be stronger in Stokes’ argument, I could see how the same ideology might compel myself to political action if the opportunity presented itself.
Cheers,
-Pin