Jump to content

Talk:Georges Sorel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The importance of Georges Sorel

I think the subject of Sorel is seriously neglected and overlooked these days. He is a very important philosopher and one almost alone in this age who articulately rejected science and rationalism as the wrong path. How many folks are doing that today? He is a great antidote to the slavish and unquestioning adoration and deification of science as a religion, a church with its pulpit, its cardinals and its faithful multitude. Look no further than folks like Dawkins to see the blind, hardline and dogmatic face of modern zealotry masquerading as science and you begin to see what Sorel was about. Peter morrell 18:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Left wing or right wing?

The politics of communism vs fascism is not the politics of left vs right. Fascism is slightly right of communism, but it is in no way on the right end of the political spectrum. If we are labeling, Sorel was a left wing thinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.198.20 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reading of this article seems to be that Sorel was a left-wing thinker. This hugely underestimates his importance in the development of Fascism. Typically, he praised both Lenin and Mussolini. The article does not adequately cover "Reflections on Violence" and its influence. Sorel believed that political violence in itself, irrespective of its object, had a regenerative effect on those who practiced it and on their society. This idea was taken up by the Fascists and also has reverberations in post-war radical movements. Franz Fanon put forward similar ideas in "The Wretched of the Earth", which was widely read by anti-colonial fighters. Maoists in the 1960s and 1970s shared this idea, so did the Khmer Rouge. It was advocated by Sartre. It is impossible to understand militant Islamism (which is neither "left wing" nor "right wing") without it. More work needs to be done on "Reflections on Violence" and its repercussions in 20th and 21st century politics. Arguably, Sorel has turned out to be more influential than Marx. Marshall46 (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What? Nonsense. Fascism is "The far right". Sorel was indeed for most part a left wing thinker, but he often veered wildly to the right. He was a strange man. Duckmonster (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"... he often veered wildly to the right..." So NOT nonsense. Marshall46 (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Undolph
It is actually not arguable that Sorel turned out to be more influential than Marx. Sorel did *not* believe that all political violence of any kind was morally positive, only that specific kinds could be. It is only slightly less ridiculous to ascribe to him responsibility for all political violence that took place after he wrote than it would be to claim that it had never occurred to anyone before Sorel that killing people was a good way to get what you want. Sartre, in his preface to *Wretched of the Earth*, calls Sorel's writing 'fascist prattle.' I suppose this isn't sufficient to prove there was no influence, but I think it's pretty clear that the dialectical and existential viewpoint of Fanon and Sartre is miles away from Sorel. In as much as the labels are useful, it is true that Sorel was used by the right, but also that he was consistently himself on the left. He died before Mussolini had taken power, and the idea that he somehow supported Italian fascism was simply invented after his death by Variot. Shlomo Sand, among others, has written in English on the persistence of this myth. Sorel did associate himself with monarchist nationalists in 1910-11, some of whom would indeed go on to become fascists. This was a moment in which these monarchists were hoping to fuse the anti-Republican left (Sorel) with their own anti-Republicanism. It was precisely as an advocate for the proletariat that Sorel participated in the *Cite francaise* project, and chose to associate himself with Maurras. I don't say this in order to exonerate him--he did indeed seek support from antisemitic monarchists, and did himself write what amount to antisemitic tracts. He was, in this sense, part of the problem. But it is a historical fact that he consistently self-identified as a 'defender of the proletariat,' and that he was always skeptical of nationalism--for him the myth was *not* the nation, but the general strike. Undolph (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Undolph for that correction and for his authoritative edits to this article, which was, I agree, a mess. It is now much improved. Marshall46 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The question of the "leftness" of Communism and the "rightness" of fascism - has some valitidy these days - especially in the light of the apparent non-contradiction of communism and capitalism (China)and the weird oligarchal/mafia capitalism in post-wall Russia etc... BUT this confusion would be apparent only recently and appears as an absolute APORIA. In normal parlance Fascism and Communism were/are opposites. Certainly this is the way communists understood themselves in the 30's. And fascism was understood to be simply a form of capitalism. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Left and right are mostly meaningless. On what scale? Individual liberty v. state authority? Buorgeois v. proletariat? Monarchy v. anything else? Laissez-faire v. planned economy? Public v. private? Corporate v. unions? Economy v. ecology? Keynes v. Friedman? Supply v. Demand? Empire v. self-determination? All of these conflicts have been given left/right labels that only work in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.225.134 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new things

I added some new things on Sorel. Its taken from his book "reflections on violence" Please dont remove it all if you dont like it, but add and improve sentences, putting in the right quotes and such instead.

Wikipedia-people can be so strict some times....... I didnt see annything wrong with the other things written about Sorel here by the way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.173 (talk) 13:10, December 3, 2008

Sorel on internationalism?

from the text: "He rejected Marxist theories of historical materialism, dialectical materialism, and proletarian internationalism"

This last thing is not true, is it? Sorel was a anti-nationalist, and he criticed the parliamentary left for working towards the "organic state" just like the conservatives do. Isnt Sorel an internationalist? I enterpreted it that way when reading "reflections on violence". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.98.166 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, but i believe that Sorel's view that nationalism can be used as a 'myth' to bring about revolution can be interpeted as nationalist, not that i believe it holds much credibility. 86.29.224.56 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally like this page more than most on wikipedia. Anybody fancy making an online backup if the wiki bureaucrats get on their hobby horses and neuter it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

major changes

This page remains a mess. I am going to do what was suggested earlier, and make a translation from the french wikipage to replace the bulk of this page. This seems more sensible than trying somehow to clean up and adjudicate what is here already. I seem to be the only one working here at the moment, so I'm just going to go ahead and do this. Undolph (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

comments
If you are proposing major changes, then will you please post them here first? Then those 'inactive' folks who watch this article with interest can have a look at them first before you implement them. This procedure, if adopted, would then avoid the grim and tiresome prospect of edits wars. thank you Peter morrell 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems to me that all your recent changes to the article comprise original research without the support of a single citation! Is this the best you can do? well, it isn't really good enough as it just smacks of POV and original research, which may well get mashed up or deleted in the future. I would therefore suggest that you add citations to your new paragraphs so as to avoid that eventuality. Peter morrell 09:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the material I have just added has no citations. I'll work on correcting that. It certainly is not original research. It is for the most part a loose translation from the French wikipedia page on Sorel. It seemed to me better because of its density. I do not think anything in it is especially controversial in terms of the historical consensus on Sorel (since it is mostly about who he talked to and about, and when he published certain things). Indeed, much of the information in what I have added was already scattered throughout the entry. The idea is to condense and clarify rather than change. But, as you say, it has no citations, and that's no good. I've started to add them, and will continue to do so. I will, however, favor more recent work on Sorel, and monographs that treat him specifically, rather than general histories that have just a paragraph or two on his work. Undolph (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fine to me. In fact, anything in wikipedia that is not cited is by definition an opinion or original research, regardless of where it has come from. Articles should pronounce not what we editors think of a subject, but what referenced sources have said about it. However, as you say, you are working towards giving the article more robust citations, which is a good move. I like the Berlin stuff and would not wish to see it removed in toto, but it can be 'dummed down' I guess by other meatier stuff being added as time goes on. This may well, as you suggest, give a fuller and more accurate view of Sorel. thanks Peter morrell 07:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it seems to me now that next some text should be cut. Undolph (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

i think this page should be replaced by a translation of the French page. will anyone be deeply hurt by this? shall i begin to hack away at what is wrong here? (for instance, all the stuff from Isaiah Berlin) Papermoonman (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)papermoonman

Go for it 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't. I would prefer to see the Berlin stuff retained, please. It is an invalubale slant on the man and his views. It comes from Berlin's essay specifically about his place in the history of ideas. thank you Peter morrell 07:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

i respect Berlin a great deal, but this anti-science stuff is both totally out of proportion to what is generally accepted as Sorel's importance, and also, as presented, a distortion of what Sorel thought about science. Papermoonman (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I look forward to seeing your citations that support your POV claims about Sorel. Maybe you should suggest a revised paragraph. thank you Peter morrell 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Marxism irrationalist?

He criticised what he saw as Marx's rationalist and utopian tendencies, believing that at its heart Marxism was a pessimistic and irrationalist philosophy

This appears to a mistake. In the previous sentence it is asserted that Sorel criticized Marx's rationalism, and under irrationalism Sorel himself is mentioned as a believer in this ideology. I am aware of the dialectical nature of the history of ideas, but this sounds wrong to me. Can anyone shed some light? 88.152.198.21 14:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Sorel dismissed the few places where Marx was at his most rationalistic and utopian as being out of keeping with the spirit of the vast bulk of Marx's thought Hanshans23 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Really strange. Sorel thinks exactly like I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorel didn't have an impact on the anarcho-syndicalist movement nor the syndicalist.

This quote from the bock "Black Flame", should be use to show that he wasn't affiliated with the CGT or the (anarcho-)syndicalists.

The Notion that Sorel was the "leading theorist" of syndicalism was assiduously promoted by the man himself, but nonetheless quite baseless. Sorel was essentially a commentator on the syndicalist movement from outside, one who, moreover, tended to see his own convictions - such as an opposition to rationalism, a hostility toward democracy, and the belife in the power of myth and violence - in the CGT[1]. His actual influence on the syndicalist movement was negligible.

For a primary source see "Reflections on Violence" Jennings, Georges Sorel, 146. Here he prided himself on writing 'the principal document of syndicalist literature(sic)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilHenriksen (talk • contribs) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-elitsm??

I am not very familiar with Sorel, but just read A study on authority by Herbert Marcuse (1936) in which he claims Sorel "transformed" socialism "into the theory of revolutionary 'elites'". After the revolution Sorel envisaged an elite of 'social merit', although 'growing organically' out of social life, that enjoy "a moral hegemony, a correct feeling for tradition and in a rational mannner care for the future" (Marcuse:105). Marcuse claims he makes a basic distinction between the discipline of workers needed for a general strike and the discipline needed for the production process, also after the revolution. Marcuse, then, claims that Sorrel's anti-authoritarian attitude is transformed into an authoritarianism. I find this hard to equal with the claimed 'anti-elitism' in the wiki-article - also in relation to myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.179.200 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"antirealist" or constructivist?

I don't think he denied an objective reality, but rather that institutions like science can faithfully describe it. Phenomenon v. Noumenon IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.225.134 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on "anti-nationalism" is inaccurate, Sorel himself was a French integral nationalist beginning in 1909

The section claiming "anti-nationalism" is misleading. Sorel became a French integral nationalist in 1909, influenced by the Charles Maurras, due to the mobilizing capacity of his right-wing integral nationalist Action Francaise, which demonstrated to Sorel the power of nationalism as a mobilizing myth. For instance, Sorel was a founder of the national syndicalist Cercle Proudhon political movement in 1911.--R-41 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the "anti-nationalism" section is misleading. The article should also discuss Sorel's collaboration with Action Française. However, some of the facts you mentioned are not entirely correct:
If you wonder why Sorel did not participate in Cercle Proudhon, please read
Sternhell, Zeev; Sznajder, Mario; Asheri, Maia (1995). The birth of fascist ideology (Third printing, and first paperback printing ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 87–91. ISBN 0691032890.
The "anti-nationalism" section seems also dubious: it contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references. Should it be deleted?
Sapere aude22 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
personally i feel it far more informative to keep the warning and allow discourse on its disputed elements

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.118.12 (talk) 23:50, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Do you have any suggestions?

Sapere aude22 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Very poor, ideologue-type quality

We are not supposed to take ideologic sides, simply state the facts. This article makes it sound like Sorel is a misunderstand, harmless theoretician of "different" socialist ideas, instead of the authentically PROTO-FASCIST PHILOSOPHER, almost point by point, Sorel actually was--he embraced Mussolini in the early 1910's; and he only selectively and critically praised Lenin, exactly where Lenin destroyed the purity of "official" Marxist theory. Sorel was a proto-Fascist, then finally embracing the real thing he helped to create in the end--there should not be lop-sided text of how Sorel was in love with Lenin, because it is not the factual state of affairs. As I said above, Sorel *critically* highlighted and almost sarcastically analyzed and approved Lenin, exclusively only where Lenin TRANSCENDED MARXIST SOCIALISM! He was with Mussolini in his sympathies, if sometimes trying to act the fraternally correcting teacher (and who thinks a teacher is an "enemy"?) to Mussolini and when Sorel criticized Mussolini, he criticized as a LOYALIST of Mussolini and Fascism.

So the whole revisionist tone alters the historical reality here, and the supportive nature between Mussolini and Sorel is under-emphasized deceitfully and the relationship so important not educationally presented. Sorel was what established scholarship knew him to be--the creator of Fascism in Europe. Sorel was NOT A BOLSHEVIK RUSSIAN COMMUNIST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorel inspired...

The lead paragraph cites Sternhell for the statement that Sorel "inspired Marxists and Fascists." Sorel also inspired anarchists, as Sternhell makes abundantly clear. Sorel's anti-materialist, anti-intellectual bent shared more with anarchism than Marxism. Therefore, I am adding "anarchists," changing the sentence to read "inspired anarchists, Marxists, and Fascists." AECwriter 03:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georges Sorel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georges_Sorel/Archive_1&oldid=1142393433"