NORMAN MANEA
47
self-destructiveness. And yet, he apparently does not know how to defend
himself effectively against the cynical and catastrophic manipulations of
these ideals. This is not only a question for philosophers, who were once
called the functionaries of mankind; it is also a question for every con–
scious inhabitant of the present in which the past parodies its tragedies as
farces .
When Marx called us to take leave of the past with a laugh, he surely
did not suspect what "real socialism" would look like, nor that its citizens
would come to feverishly desire its complete destruction. The world's
first socialist state- which was to be the Soviet Union and not Germany,
as many socialists believed at the beginning of the century - dissolved
before the new millennium could herald its surprises. Foolish history once
again aimed its sarcasm at the dreams of perfection and the rationalized
schemata of its imperfect guinea pigs. The abandonment of socialism was
not brought about by a "leap forward" into communism, where laughter
would probably have been rationed and collectivized; rather, it occurred
as a " regression" to capitalism, which Marx himself had analyzed and
chastised with unparalleled acuity.
The euphoria of this abandonment followed hard on the heels of a
punishing transition. Perhaps abandoning socialism requires a painful step
back before it can promise two steps forward. The transition, with its
misery, confusion, and humiliation, has provoked pity rather than laugh–
ter. But above all it has inspired well-founded concern - as much in those
who must endure the hardship of the transition as in outside observers.
Mter the utopia, the masquerade, and the terror of totalitarianism, a post–
communist kitsch has sardonically perfected the tragicomedy of our tor–
mented century. Whether they are artists, scientists, or even farmers,
intellectuals are confronting the parody that predestined them to be
heroes, aware of their roles in the farce.
Poverty . Profiteering . Demagogy . Diversionary tactics. Rebirth. Renewal.
Hope.
The burden of the past: mistrust, guilt, vengefulness. The confusion
of the present: new hierarchies and new truths, and with them, the un–
certainty of the future. The isolation and instability of freedom threaten
the ease which succeeded the routine of subjection, a routine which also
brought the comfort of fatalistic apathy. Freedom is what each of is able
to realize out of our fleeting assumptions. Supporters of democracy are
more often motivated by the prospect of wealth than by the complicated
rules of respecting individuality or fostering pluralism. Now, an astonish–
ing number of "heroes" have already replaced an enormous number of
opportunists under the dictatorship. Former activists or political func–
tionaries, now unscrupulous businessmen, hold in contempt their old
comrades who insist on dreaming of restoration. Former dissidents have
