Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
14
TimothySnyder
Romanticismitselfhasitshistoricalsources,andinthePolishcasesomeof
theseareofunusualinterest.AlongsideSzaniawski(1764-1843)aspresented
byKról,JoachimLelewel(1786-1861)aspresentedbyPiotrLaskowskiisthe
mostinterestingindividualfigureinthevolume.Lelewelwastheteacherof
anumberofpoliticalRomantics,aswellas,arguesLaskowski,thesource
ofthefundamentalideaofthePolishleft.Laskowskibeginsfromthepremise
thattheleftshouldbedefinedinMarxisttermsastheopponentsofcapital-
istexploitation,butthattheleftitselfmustcorrectlyunderstandMarx.As
Laskowskipresentsthematter,theidentificationofthehistoricalproletariat
withthesocialgroupthatwastobringrevolutionwasofacontingentandnot
anecessarycharacterinMarx’sanalysis.Theremightbesuchasocialgroup,
butitneednotbetheproletariat.Thisisofcourseafamiliarmovelfrom
Lukácstothesocialhistoriansofthe1970s,countlessthinkershaveexplained
thattheproletariatcanbereplacedbyaneliteorbyotheroppressedgroups.
WhatLaskowskiseemstowanttoshowisthelegitimacy,inMarxistterms,
ofLelewel’spoliticalvisionlwhichisinterestingenoughwithouttheMarxist
detour.LelewelbelievedthatSlavicpeasantsdemonstratedthepossibilityof
communalsocialism.Feudalismwasartificialandneednotbedurable.Itcould
beremoved,intheinterestofPolanditself,withoutcapitalismandarevolu-
tionagainstcapitalism.Thusarevolutioncouldtakeplacewithoutmodern
conceptsorindeedmoderntransformations.Indeed,asLaskowskiargues,as
soonasthecommunewastouchedbycapitalism,thesekindsofarguments
ceasedtomakesense.But,hemaintains,Lelewelshouldbeseenasaninspira-
tionnotonlyofPolishRomanticismbutofRussiananarchismandleft-wing
Zionism.Inthislastcase,thecommunitythatistoexemplifysocialismisnot
drawnfromthehistoricalpastbutinventedlJewswerenottoreturntosome
communalpasttobuildthesocialistfuture,butwererathertoreinventthem-
selvesinthecountrysideassocialists.
Laskowski’sassumptionthatMarxismmattersbutthattheagentofsocial
changeisflexibleallowshimtoportrayRosaLuxemburgsympathetically.What
mightseemtobeabasicweaknessinherthought,herinarticulateattraction
toanundefinedproletariat,canseemlikeavirtueifweassumethatMarx-
ismiscorrectandthatitscorrectinterpretationrequiresvaguenessaboutthe
salvationalclass.LaskowskidismissesKazimierzKelles-Krauz,Luxemburg’s
mostinterestingPolishopponent,asanostalgicpragmatist.Butitisprecisely
asaMarxist,andonemuchmoreengagedthanLuxemburgwiththeory,that
Kelles-KrauzrevealedsomeproblemsofLuxemburg’sMarxism,and,relatedly,
herusefulnessforthecontemporaryPolishleftlaconnectionthatLaskowski
isconcernedtomake.
WhereasLuxemburg,likeLaskowski,assumedthatsomesocialclassor
other,somehumangrouporother,wouldbetherevolutionaryclass,Kelles-
KrauzwentastepfurtherandsubjectedMarxismtoMarxistanalysis.Itwas
ofcoursetruethatatacertainpoliticalmomentthatproletariatwouldseem
