BOOKS
163
analyses meant to explain and highlight the entangled transition from
Bolshevik-style monolithic authoritarianism to an open and diverse
society. Compared to the previous volume, as well as to his other writ–
ings dealing with the relationship between the Catholic Church and the
secular Left in Poland, this book is more fragmented, reflecting in a way
the extreme diversity of the post-communist
problematique.
As a whole,
however, the book confirms Michnik's intellectual formula: he is, to use
Isaiah Berlin's classic metaphor, a hedgehog, a thinker who knows one
big thing.
In
his case, this thing is that communism was one of the two
main evils of the twentieth century (the other one being fascism), and
that the struggle to overthrow it and eliminate its legacies is a most
noble human endeavor. From this main premise, Michnik derives his
political and intellectual agenda regarding the role of democratic intel–
lectuals in the struggle to establish a liberal order based on truth, civil–
ity, and tolerance.
What makes this new volume particularly fascinating is Michnik's
readiness to challenge any form of cultural taboo as he explores the
tribulations of the transitions and the often difficult choices faced by
former heroes in new political environments. This is a book written by
a passionate participant in the cultural polemics of the first post-com–
munist decade, a man who has had the courage to confront many of his
former friends in the name of values he strongly believes in, even if this
sometimes means isolation and vilification. Michnik, a man who did his
utmost to subvert totalitarian domination, is now the main exponent of
the search for democratic invention. As Jeffrey Goldfarb suggests in his
important recent book
Civility and Subversion: The Intellectual in
Democratic Society,
Michnik's lifelong effort has been "to make a
coherent politics possible among those who differ: before the fall of
communism, a democratic opposition; after the fall of communism, a
non-authoritarian alternative to the totalitarian left and to the newly
emerging authorita ria n right." Whatever one th inks a bout the relevance
of Michnik's fears, one thing is certain: he has never given up his inde–
pendent thinking. Joining any majority only because it is popular is not
Michnik's style. On the contrary, he has made it a point of honor to
oppose any type of witch-hunt and to promote a politics of morality,
whatever personal price this may entail. When one compares Michnik's
views to the more rancorous ones of his critics, one is tempted to para–
phrase a famous saying that it is more honorable
to
be wrong in Mich–
nik's company than right in that of his foes.
In
several essays, Michnik
returns to his early reflections on the destiny of revolutionary values
after the victory of anti-communist forces, the impact of nationalism
