EDITH KURZWEIL
223
JK:
I know there is a difference between the Eastern countries and
Western socialism, but when the French were attracted by the so–
cialist government, they did not properly perceive this difference. I
think they thought that in France they could not have an Eastern
rf!–
gime, but they also thought that some of its practices could be im–
plemented.
It
appeared impossible, for instance, to retain a liberal
economy, in a liberal state whose administration increasingly would
take care of everybody. Also, one of the early aims of Mitterrand's
government was to do away with unemployment. But this meant
more centralization of the state, and it supposed that France would
withdraw from the European market. Such policies could not be
realized along with the idea of tolerant Western socialism. Hence the
socialists were in an unresolvable contradiction.
EK:
You mean they mixed up the Marxist ideal of socialism with the
actual type practiced in the Soviet Union?
JK:
There was a sort of mixture between components of Marxist
socialism, and their possible implementation in a Western liberal
country. Because this contradiction couldn't be overcome, they first
went somewhat too far in the Marxist direction and then had to go
back to a liberal capitalist economy. Now, some polls show that even
people who, for instance, were for Petain during the war, also voted
for the Socialist party. Its platform is very imprecise intellectually,
ideologically, and politically .
EK:
In other words, French socialism isn't working the way it was
meant to?
JK:
No. That's why intellectuals have the impression that politics no
longer is essential. For a while they thought that socialism was co–
herent ideologically. But socialist policy turned out to be a perma–
nent compromise. Intellectuals did not know what to do with it, so
they stayed in their own fields of expertise .
It
doesn't mean that they
turned to the right, which already has been severely criticized and
which doesn't propose any consistent program.
EK:
But in a way this situation could have been predicted.
JK:
For me it was predictable. But intellectuals in bourgeois coun–
tries don't have much political experience and therefore suffer from a
sort of naive enthusiasm. They are idealistic and think that some
ideals, because ideally good, can be applied without compromising.
This type of politics, in fact, is the end of what some call political
religion . But we are familiar with the failure of religious ideas, al–
though there may be a return to an interest in sacred experiences.
Essentially, religion in politics replaced religion . Everything was to
