fHE ORIGINAL SIN OF THE INTELLECT
55
simply, says nothing more than that the end justifies the means.
If
ever this principle has been recognized and put into practice as the
highest principle of all thought and action it has been in the Soviet
system. On the other hand, Hanna Wolf attempted to persuade me
that there had never been an objective truth and that there could not
be such a thing; all philosophy, including the dialectic, is determined
by class structure. Thus objective cognition of the truth is impossible,
just as there is no general human morality, but only Party morality.
She also tried to convince me that occupation with such problems as
transcend the significance of dialectical and historical materialism
from politics was the private affair of the individual, to be carried
on in his "own little chamber," at least at the present stage of develop–
ment. To be sure, she chose an excellent example to demonstrate the
essence of this view to me: "I also like to read Rilke, but I do it in my
little room. Naturally, his language is wonderful-but who is Rilke?
Rilke is a decadent idealist poet." The difference between Hanna
Wolf and me is this:
If
someone were to present to her a death
warrant for Rilke and tell her that he had been convicted of
counter-revolutionary activity, say, in the Civil War, she would
immediately sign it without the least hesitation. But I, an "idealist
philosopher," would no doubt have bourgeois qualms in the same
situation and, instead of signing, would reflect, "This will not do,
this man Rilke is a great poet, a genius," and so forth.
In the course of the year at the Academy I was able to con–
vince myself that this criterion of Communist morality is char–
acteristic, along with the double-entry bookkeeping (political public
vs. the "private little chamber"), not only for Hanna Wolf but for
almost all Communist intellectuals I know, even those in the highest
posts.
If
at first there are still scruples about signing, the longer one
is in the service of the Party, the fewer and weaker they become.
The good is what supports the Party. Everything else is a scruple of
the so-called bourgeois morality, which, however, knows no inhibitions
when the interests of its own class rule are at stake. The Party is a
military organization. Though it was the Soviets who had convinced
me that every single German soldier, not just the highest commander,
was personally responsible for the orders executed by him, I was now
told that I was not to think about Politburo orders but to carry them
