Mr. Liu Mingjiu's article (hereinafter referred to as Liu Wen) said of Sartre's tendencies toward politicization: "It was the color and nature of his thirty years of socio-political activity that earned him such a reputation as a fellow traveler in the Socialist camp of the French Communist Party and the Soviet Union. "This generalization is inaccurate." For more than 30 years since World War II, Sartre's political positions and attitudes have changed with the international and domestic situation and his own understanding of the problem, and there have been different emphases at different times, which cannot be covered by a "fellow traveler of the French Communist Party and the Socialist camp of the Soviet Union".
Roughly speaking, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, his political attitude was that in the confrontation between the two major political and military blocs of the United States and the Soviet Union, he did not side with either side, opposed the Cold War, opposed the theory of the inevitability of the Third World War, and hoped that the two would coexist peacefully.
From about 1952 until the events in Hungary in 1956, he had reserved support for the French Communist Party and the Soviet Union, becoming a fellow Communist Party.
From the beginning of the Algerian War to the gain of independence in 1962, his main political focus was on the national liberation movement of the Algerian people against the French colonialists, and he resolutely sided with the Algerian people and contributed to their liberation cause.
After that, from about 1965 onwards, Sartre actively participated in the struggle against the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, in particular presiding over the Russell Trial of the International War Criminals Tribunal.
During the Storm of May 1968, Sartre strongly supported the student movement against the government and the old education system. After this, he established contacts with the young leftists and did a great deal of work with them until his death.
In addition, the relationship between Israel and Palestine has always been a matter of deep concern to him. He hoped that the two would be able to resolve the existing problems through peaceful means and do their part to facilitate peace talks between the two sides.
Liu Wen's "coffin thesis" of Sartre's work is that Sartre's politicization tendencies "do not add any weight to the balance of his literary value"; "he has invested too much carelessly in specific political and social events and ultra-left ideological trends, leaving himself with the slightest appropriate distance that a writer should best keep"; "the political and social events and social trends in which he relies, the political and social events and social trends in which he has fully intervened, have become a passing cloud in historical development", and "he has been overshadowed by the exposure of serious historical limitations". "The cornerstone on which he stood tragically collapsed," and "almost all of the passion, years, energy, thinking, and writing he devoted there was in vain." "All in all, it's a complete negation.
Is this really the case? In terms of the main political attitudes of Sartre in each period listed above, I cannot agree with Liu Wen's conclusion.
The first thing to say is that Sartre does not depend on any "political faction" or "camp" in his intervention in any socio-political event, but, as he himself says, he is not determined by anyone, but acts only according to his own theories and political beliefs, and is completely free to intervene.
Sartre took a stand against the Cold War, supported the Algerian people's national liberation struggle, and opposed the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, and even from today's perspective, I do not see any "historical limitations."
When the right-wing forces and other left-wing forces in France took a stand against the French Communist Party and the French Communist Party was in a difficult situation, Sartre reservedly supported the French Communist Party and said its good things; internationally, the Soviet Union was relatively weak, and Sartre also adopted a supportive attitude, thus becoming a fellow traveler for 4 years; this political choice is difficult to say that it is wrong.
In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the right took a pro-Israel position, the left took a pro-Palestinian stance, and Sartre's position was that he did not particularly side and wanted the two to coexist in peace; because of this unique position, he was not only opposed by the right, but also his left-wing friends did not understand, leaving himself in a very isolated situation; his efforts to seek peaceful coexistence between the two sides were like Don Quixote's fight with the windmill in the situation at that time; now we look back at Sartre's position, Looking at his unremitting efforts to this end, we cannot but marvel at his perseverance and foresight.
Liu's reference to "ultra-leftist thought" presumably refers to the May 1968 student movement supported by Sartre and the "Maoists" that followed, and this reference is also inaccurate. There are several levels of problems that need to be clarified.
First, the "Cultural Revolution" in China should be distinguished from the Student Movement in France in May 1968. The most fundamental difference between the two is that the former is not spontaneous, it is a mass movement in form, in essence it is from top to bottom, it is carried out under the call of the upper echelons and under the control of either explicit or implicit, while the latter is entirely a spontaneous student movement, which leads to a rebellion of the broad masses of the French people.
Second, we should distinguish between Maoist Thought in China and Maoism in France. In 1975 Sartre had a conversation with several Sartre researchers about his philosophy, which talked about the Maoists in France. "The Maoists in France have 10% of the ingredients mao, while the remaining 90% of the ingredients are not easy to determine," the interviewer said. Sartre agreed.
Finally, the Maoists in France should be distinguished from Sartre. In the same conversation, when the interviewer said "some commentators tried to find out that you are a Maoist philosopher," Sartre replied: "It's ridiculous." I'm not a Maoist. There is no point in doing so. Sartre was only willing to discuss some problems with these young people, to do with them what he thought should be done, but did not equate himself with them. He still retained his independence of thought.
[This article is excerpted from the article "Also on "What is sartre's eternal value" (published in French Studies, No. 2, 2006, by Huang Zhongjing)]
As a first-class writer, didn't Sartre have any particularly astonishing pioneering work in the art form?