ENRIQUE KRAUZE
211
on Jesus Christ's saying, "Render to Caeser ..." whereas the
communist power tries to monopolize all sides of human life.
Such concentration of power has no precedent in history. It is
supposed to be both a spiritual and secular power embracing all
areas of life including economy, information systems, political
relationships and ideology. To this extent, the analogy doesn't
hold. Besides, however intolerant the Church might have been in
various historical periods, its very existence was based on real
faith in the doctrine. Communist faith did exist as a living faith in
some historical periods, to be sure. But now it can be said safely
that it has evaporated, at least in communist countries, so that it
is now a power system without the substance of a living faith. The
ideology is necessary to legitimize the power system, but neither
the rulers nor the ruled any longer take it seriously in communist
countries. This is then a second point where the analogy doesn't
hold. The third is this: although communism, as long as it was a
real and living faith, showed certain similarities to a religious
creed and the Party had some similarities to a church, I would say
it was rather a caricature of religion than a religion proper. Cer–
tainly, it functioned in minds in a way similar to a religious faith;
it provided a kind of invulnerable system of thinking which no
facts and no knowledge might have shattered or destroyed; it was
immune to facts, to history, to reality. But, at the same time it
made claims to 'scientific knowledge.' In this sense the analogy
has a limited value.
EK:
You have had different views on the place of utopia in society.
What are your views now? Is it an inevitable idea? Is it a healthy
idea? What is the historical balance sheet of utopia?
LK:
As long as utopia is simply a vision of a perfect world, a world
without suffering, without struggle and conflict, such a vision is a
harmless literary exercise. A utopia becomes sinister once we per–
suade ourselves that we have a kind of technique to bring about
our fantasies ; that we acquire a technique of apocalypse, a device
by which we can implement our dreams; then there is nothing
that should not be sacrificed to this noble goal. Utopia implies an
ultimate goal, however vaguely defined, and absolutely all meth–
ods are good if we believe that they will bring about this goal. To
the rulers of the communist countries this utopian fantasy gives a
very convenient conceptual framework within which everything is
allowed. There will be a perfect world of unity and happiness; it
might come in a hundred years, perhaps in a thousand years, but
