|
|
The Other View |
||
|
Issue No.7 Winter 2001
Like their censorial counterparts in India the
Free Presbyterian bigots claimed that the subject of their wrath - Scorsese's
film - was 'a perversion'. They, as self-appointed moral guardians, would
protect the rest of us from our own intellectual filtering mechanisms. And then
from the puritanical sanctity of their Old Testament godly little hearts would
sweetly permit us to rely on their own morally righteous interpretive frameworks Despite being reviewed favourably at the Cannes
film festival Taurus was subject to attack with Taliban type fervour by Indian
Communist leaders Jyoti Basu and Biman Bose who objected to the film being
considered for viewing at the Calcutta Film Festival. Bose said: 'the film is
not based on historic facts. It is highly improper to distort such personalities
without ascertaining the facts.' As if the Communists have a laudable track
record in matters of providing the facts. In the main what the Indian Left object to is
Sokurov's depiction of Lenin as anti-Semitic. It also takes umbrage at the
dictator's personal character being subject to a less than fulsome
interpretation. While such objections may be solidly based this must not become
the justification for censorship. What would then happen to humour and
caricature premised as they are on distortion? The Indian Left, just like the Free Presbyterians
of Belfast now plan to disrupt any future attempt to screen the film. These
authoritarian censors are set, in the manner of their predecessors, to continue
threatening the only creativity out of which a genuine socialist project can
emerge. In large part the suppression of intellectual and political life under
Marxist dictatorships has helped make a lame duck of the Left and ensure the
prevalence of those types of conditions in which capitalism has a greater appeal
than it otherwise might. For those of us who continue to subscribe in one form
or another to a Marxist perspective - even if restricted to the descriptive -
and who share Chomsky's belief that the crimes of Marxism in its Stalinist form
clearly had their origins in Leninist authoritarianism, charges against Lenin of
anti-Semitic ranting or dallying with prostitutes appear mild by comparison. We
require more rather than less interpretations of Lenin. Is there really a great deal of difference
between the Indian communists seeking to suppress the work of Sokurov and those
Iranian fundamentalists who issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their
Bangladeshi fellow travellers who persecuted Taslima Nasreen, and the Pakistani
judiciary who under pressure from the mullahs sentenced Professor Muhammad Yunus
to death? Theocratic, communist or any other form of authoritarianism is anti-emancipatory.
Any liberation under such auspices will be illusory. If this is left unsaid now
the chance to say it outside of a prison cell once the authoritarians are in
power will, like socialism, have passed. |
|||