Frases de Leszek Kołakowski
página 2

Leszek Kołakowski foi um eminente filósofo e historiador polonês. Foi mais conhecido por suas análises críticas do marxismo, particularmente por sua famosa obra histórica em três volumes, As principais correntes do marxismo. Wikipedia  

✵ 23. Outubro 1927 – 17. Julho 2009
Leszek Kołakowski: 48   citações 0   Curtidas

Leszek Kołakowski Frases famosas

“É trivialmente verdade que muitas vezes as bênçãos e os horrores do progresso estão inseparavelmente ligados uns aos outros, assim como os prazeres e as misérias do tradicionalismo.”

It is trivially true that very often the blessings and the horrors of progress are inseparably tied to each other, as are the enjoyments and the miseries of traditionalism
Modernity on Endless Trial - cap. 1 - University Of Chicago Press; New edition edition (23 Jun. 1997) - ISBN-13: 978-0226450469

“O marxismo tem sido a maior fantasia do nosso século. Foi um sonho que oferecia a perspectiva de uma sociedade de perfeita unidade, na qual todas as aspirações humanas seriam cumpridas e todos os valores reconciliados.”

Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century. It was a dream offering the prospect of a society of perfect unity, in which all human aspirations would be fulfilled and all values reconciled.
"Main Currents Of Marxism" (1978) - p.1206 - Traduzido por P. S. Falla, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2005, ISBN 978-0-393-32943-8

“Aprendemos história não para saber como nos comportar ou como ter sucesso, mas para saber quem somos.”

We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.
The Idolatry of Politics, palestra dada na Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities (1986)

Leszek Kołakowski: Frases em inglês

“We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.”

"The Idolatry of Politics", U.S. Jefferson Lecture speech (1986)

“To prevent the starving peasants from fleeing to the towns an internal passport system was introduced and unauthorized change of residence was made punishable with imprisonment. Peasants were not allowed passports at all, and were therefore tied to the soil as in the worst days of feudal serfdom: this state of things was not altered until the 1970s. The concentration camps filled with new hordes of prisoners sentenced to hard labour. The object of destroying the peasants’ independence and herding them into collective farms was to create a population of slaves, the benefit of whose labour would accrue to industry. The immediate effect was to reduce Soviet agriculture to a state of decline from which it has not yet recovered, despite innumerable measures of reorganization and reform. At the time of Stalin’ s death, almost a quarter of a century after mass collectivization was initiated, the output of grain per head of population was still below the 1913 level; yet throughout this period, despite misery and starvation, large quantities of farm produce were exported all over the world for the sake of Soviet industry. The terror and oppression of those years cannot be expressed merely by the figures for loss of human life, enormous as these are; perhaps the most vivid picture of what collectivization meant is in Vasily Grossman’ s posthumous novel Forever Flowing.”

pg. 39
Main Currents Of Marxism (1978), Three Volume edition, Volume III: The Breakdown

“As Commissar for the Armed Forces and a member of the Politburo he [Trotsky] still appeared powerful, but by 1923 he was isolated and helpless. All his former tergiversations were turned against him. When he came to realize his situation he attacked the bureaucratization of the party and the stifling of intra-party democracy: like all overthrown Communist leaders he became a democrat as soon as he was ousted from power. However, it was easy for Stalin and Zinovyev to show not only that Trotsky’ s democratic sentiments and indignation at party bureaucracy were of recent date, but that he himself, when in power, had been a more extreme autocrat than anyone else: he had supported or initiated every move to protect party "unity", had wanted – contrary to Lenin’ s policy – to place the trade unions under state control and to subject the whole economy to the coercive power of the police, and so on. In later years Trotsky claimed that the policy, which he had supported, of prohibiting "fractions" was envisaged as an exceptional measure and not a permanent principle. But there is no proof that this was so, and nothing in the policy itself suggests that it was meant to be temporary. It may be noted that Zinovyev showed more zeal than Stalin in condemning Trotsky – at one stage he was in favour of arresting him – and thus supplied Stalin with useful ammunition when the two ousted leaders tried, belatedly and hopelessly, to join forces against their triumphant rival.”

pg. 21
Main Currents Of Marxism (1978), Three Volume edition, Volume III: The Breakdown

“The proletariat thus shared its dictatorship with nobody. As to the question of the "majority", this never troubled Lenin much. In an article "Constitutional Illusions" (Aug. 1917; Works, vol. 25, p. 201) he wrote: "in time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the ‘ will of the majority’ – you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; you must win … We have seen innumerable examples of the better organized, more politically conscious and better armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it." (pg. 503) Trotsky, however, answers questions [in The Defence of Terrorism] that Lenin evaded or ignored. "Where is your guarantee, certain wise men ask us, that it is just your party that expresses the interests of historical development? Destroying or driving underground the other parties, you have thereby prevented their political competition with you, and consequently you have deprived yourselves of the possibility of testing your line of action." Trotsky replies: "This idea is dictated by a purely liberal conception of the course of the revolution. In a period in which all antagonisms assume an open character; and the political struggle swiftly passes into a civil war, the ruling party has sufficient material standard by which to test its line of action, without the possible circulation of Menshevik papers. Noske crushes the Communists, but they grow. We have suppressed the Mensheviks and the S. R. s [Socialist Republics] … and they have disappeared. This criterion is sufficient for us" (p. 101). This is one of the most enlightening theoretical formulations of Bolshevism, from which it appears that the "rightness" of a historical movement or a state is to be judged by whether its use of violence is successful. Noske did not succeed in crushing the German Communists, but Hitler did; it would thus follow from Trotsky’ s rule that Hitler "expressed the interests of historical development". Stalin liquidated the Trotskyists in Russia, and they disappeared – so evidently Stalin, and not Trotsky, stood for historical progress.”

pg. 510
Main Currents Of Marxism (1978), Three Volume edition, Volume II, The Golden Age

“Lenin’ s often-quoted speech to the Komsomol Congress on 2 October 1920 deals with ethical questions on similar lines, "We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’ s class struggle. Morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the working people around the proletariat, which is building up a new, a communist society … To a Communist all morality lies in this united discipline and conscious mass struggle against the exploiters. We do not believe in an eternal morality, and we expose the falseness of all the fables about morality" (Works, vol. 31, pp. 291-4). It would be hard to interpret these words in any other sense than that everything which serves or injures the party’ s aims is morally good or bad respectively, and nothing else is morally good or bad. After the seizure of power, the maintenance and strengthening of Soviet rule becomes the sole criterion of morality as well as of all cultural values. No criteria can avail against any action that may seem conducive to the maintenance of power, and no values can be recognized on any other basis. All cultural questions thus become technical questions and must be judged by the one unvarying standard; the "good of society" becomes completely alienated from the good of its individual members. It is bourgeois sentimentalism, for instance, to condemn aggression and annexation if it can be shown that they help to maintain Soviet power; it is illogical and hypocritical to condemn torture if it serves the ends of the power which, by definition, is devoted to the "liberation of the working masses". Utilitarian morality and utilitarian judgements of social and cultural phenomena transform the original basis of socialism into its opposite. All phenomena that arouse moral indignation if they occur in bourgeois society are turned to gold, as if by a Midas touch, if they serve the interests of the new power: the armed invasion of a foreign state is liberation, aggression is defence, tortures represent the people’ s noble rage against the exploiters. There is absolutely nothing in the worst excesses of the worst years of Stalinism that cannot be justified on Leninist principles, if only it can be shown that Soviet power was increased thereby.”

Fonte: Main Currents Of Marxism (1978), Three Volume edition, Volume II, The Golden Age, pp. 515-6

“The social conditions that nourished and made use of this ideology can still revive; perhaps - who knows?”

the virus is dormant, waiting for the next opportunity. Dreams about the perfect society belong to the enduring stock of civilization.
New Preface, p. vi
Main Currents Of Marxism (1978)

“There is no idea so obscure that someone could not come to regard it as self-evident.”

Fonte: The Alienation of Reason (1966), Chapter Seven, Pragmatism and Positivism, p. 156