WALTER LAQUEUR
441
exist in various parts of the world long after it had lost any relevance to
the real world. One could think of many other examples; sectarianism has
almost always flourished. A not inconsiderable part of the Soviet intelli–
gentsia continues to pay respect, after all that happened, to Stalin or, al–
ternatively, has been converted to belief in the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy,
The Protocols oj the Elders oj Zion.
A price, of course, has to be paid for
sectarianism - political influence will be beyond its reach. But most
sectarians do not even want political influence; they are perfectly content
in their own little ghetto.
Isolation is part of the price they will pay, boredom the other. I
find the literary and political magazines published in the Soviet Union
infinitely more interesting these days than anything published in the West.
The Western radicals have had their say, and for years they have been
repeating themselves. Among Soviet intellectuals, on the other hand,
there is an openness to new ideas, a willingness to confront past mistakes,
an intellectual curiosity and sophistication for which one looks in vain
nearer home.
With all this one should end perhaps on a note of cautious opti–
mism. What Max Planck said about the outcome of great intellectual
controversies may apply more to Europe than America. Intellectual fash–
ions have a shorter life in this fickle country than elsewhere, perhaps be–
cause ideas (and ideology) are still not taken as seriously as in other parts.
This may have sometimes welcome consequences; perhaps we shall be
spared some of the intellectual agonies of the latter-day Bourbons.
There is another, more positive aspect. What our American profes–
sor calls "leftist" can mean a great many things. He mentions "scholarship
critical of American capitalism" - something which Mr. Kevin Phillips has
been doing of late with great effect. He also refers to Norway and Aus–
tria as role models for socialists. This is very tame stuff; who does not
admire Norway? A year or two ago, I suspect, we would have been of–
fered far more radical fare. If so, recent events did perhaps have, after all,
some effect.
In the Soviet Union "leftist" or "Ieftwing" refers to the party of
reform, even of revolution, against the existing order and doctrine;
"rightwing" and "conservative" refers to neo-Stalinism and ultranation–
alism, as indeed it should. Despite decades of indoctrination, Soviet in–
tellectuals eventually came to question the basic tenets, first Stalin, subse–
quently Lenin, and eventually Marx. I find it difficult to believe that a
similar process will not take place sooner or later in American universi–
ties. The year 1989 was not the end of the socialist idea and the final, ir–
revocable triumph of the American way of life. The socialist idea may
well have a future but only if those subscribing
to
it are ready to ex–
amine searchingly and honestly what went wrong and why. This is
