BOO KS
699
its population
d~ported,
and its demolished
str~~ts lit~rally c~meteries
. . .. There
was no logical reason for Russia to have helped Warsaw. ... The destruction
of Warsaw
repr~sented
certain indisputable advantages. The
peopl~
dying in the
streets were precisely those who could create most trouble for the new rulers, the
young intelligentsia. . .. This traditional capital of revolts ... was undoubtedly
the most insubordinate city in the area that was to find itself under the Center's
influence. All that could have argued for aid to Warsaw would have been pity
for the one million inhabitants dying in the town. But pity is superfluous wherever
s~ntence
is pronounced by History. ... In April of 1945 .. . Alpha and I re–
turn~d
to Warsaw and wandered together over the mounds of rubble that had
once been streets ... we stumbled upon a little plank fastened to a metal bar.
The inscription, written in red paint or in blood, read: "Lieutenant Zbyszek's
road of suffering." I know what Alpha's thoughts were at that time, and they
were mine: we were thinking of what traces remain after the life of man. . . .
Why?"
The quotation is long, but no conceptual resume could give an idea
of the actual context of Milosz's debate with Communism.
Such being the context, the question "Why?" suffers only two clear
answers: one is to be found in the "earthiness" of dialectical materialism,
supported by the verdict of History and organized power; the other is
the "absurd," or maybe the stark "horror and pity" of tragedy. It is im–
portant to notice that both answers have a metaphysical rather than a
political, or even rational, character. The question they are supposed to
satisfy does not bear simply on the means of improving an existing state
of affairs, but on the essence of reality: "Who is the God, if there is
any, who can justify what has happened? What must be His attributes,
if what has happened is to have any meaning at all?" The context out
of which the question arises is, on the other hand, concrete: a series of
violent deeds.
Under such conditions, if dialectical materialism is accepted as an
answer, it is not so much because its tenets are, in themselves, convincing,
or because its practical consequences redeem the horror of the event,
which they certainly do not. It is rather because such a system is endowed
with the quality of being "earthy," while all other answers are "idealistic"
and do not beget, as the system does, a comprehensive plan of action.
The only accepta:ble and true God is a God endowed with the attributes
of "earthiness," and an effective practical will whose ultimate end is
the transformation of a human world which is intrinsically senseless into
one which will make sense, be rationally organized, be rational through
and through. Total rationality, of course, implies total Justice as well as
total Goodness.
This is obviously a metaphysical construction that has very little
to do (except for some crude remnants of Hegelian dialectics) with the
analysis of a given social situation which is the starting point of Marxism.
