Raymond Aron Quotes

The intellectual ... must try never to forget the arguments of the adversary, or the uncertainty of the future, or the faults of one’s own side, or the underlying fraternity of ordinary men everywhere.

Skepticism cannot be revolutionary, even though it speaks the language of revolution.

Freedom flourishes in temperate zones; it does not survive the burning faith of prophets and crowds.

The man who no longer expects miraculous changes either from a revolution or from an economic plan is not obliged to resign himself to the unjustifiable. It is because he likes individual human beings, participates in communities, and respects the truth, that he refuses to surrender his soul to an abstract ideal of humanity, a tyrannical party, and an absurd scholasticism. . . . If tolerance is born of doubt, let us teach everyone to doubt all the models and utopias, to challenge all the prophets of redemption and the heralds of catastrophe. If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

In essence, France no longer existed. It existed only in the hatred of the French for one another.

Communist interpretation is never wrong. Logicians will object in vain that a theory which exempts itself from all refutations escapes from the order of truth. —RAYMOND ARON, L’OPIUM

Europeans would like to escape from their history, a "great" history written in letters of blood. But others, by the hundreds of millions, are taking it up for the first time, or coming back to it.

There is no apprenticeship to misfortune. When it strikes us, we still have everything to learn.

Are revolutions worthy of so much honour? The men who conceive them are not those who carry them out. Those who begin them rarely live to see their end, except in exile or in prison. Can they really be the symbol of a humanity which is the master of its own destiny if no man recognises his handiwork in the achievement which results from the savage free-for-all struggle?

the liberal believes in the permanence of humanity’s imperfection, he resigns himself to a regime in which the good will be the result of numberless actions, and never the object of a conscious choice. Finally, he suscribes to the pessimism that sees, in politics, the art of creating the conditions in which the vices of men will contribute to the good of the state. —RAYMOND ARON, L’OPIUM

Profoundly moralistic in regard to the present, the revolutionary is cynical in action. He protests against police brutality, the inhuman rhythm of industrial production, the severity of bourgeois courts, the execution of prisoners whose guilt has not been proved beyond doubt. Nothing, short of a total ‘humanisation’, can appease his hunger for justice. But as soon as he decides to give his allegiance to a party which is as implacably hostile as he is himself to the established disorder, we find him forgiving, in the name of the Revolution, everything he has hitherto relentlessly denounced. The revolutionary myth bridges the gap between moral intransigence and terrorism.

Walter’s escape had been built on his initial conviction that facts could save lives, that information would be the weapon with which he would thwart the Nazi plan to eliminate the Jews. Witnessing the fate of the Czech family camp, and its residents’ immovable faith, despite the evidence all around them, that they would somehow be spared, had led him to understand a more complicated truth: that information is necessary, to be sure, but it is never sufficient. Information must also be believed, especially when it comes to mortal threats. On this, if nothing else, he and Yehuda Bauer might eventually have found common ground: only when information is combined with belief does it become knowledge. And only knowledge leads to action. The French-Jewish philosopher Raymond Aron would say, when asked about the Holocaust, ‘I knew, but I didn’t believe it. And because I didn’t believe it, I didn’t know.

The so-called socialist societies rediscover, under modified forms, the necessities inherent in any modern economic system. There, just as under capitalism, the ‘boss class’ lays down the law. (...) Up to now the planners, by reason of penury and of the decision to develop economic power as rapidly as possible, have not concerned themselves either with the productivity of the various investments or with the consumers’ preferences. It will not be long before they experience the perils of slump and deflation and the exigencies of economic arithmetic.

Constitutional government, the balance of power, legal guarantees, the whole edifice of political civilisation slowly built up over the course of the ages and always incomplete, is calmly pushed aside. They accept an absolute State, allegedly in the service of the Revolution; they are not interested in the plurality of parties and the autonomy of working-class organisations. They do not protest against lawyers bullying their clients and accused persons confessing to imaginary crimes. After all, is not revolutionary justice directed towards the ‘radical solution of the problem of coexistence’, whilst ‘liberal justice’ applies unjust laws?

A party which is always right must constantly define the correct line between sectarianism and opportunism. Where is this line situated? At an equal distance between the twin pitfalls of opportunism and sectarianism. But these pitfalls were themselves originally placed in relation to the correct line. The only way out of the vicious circle is a decree by the central authority which defines truth and error alike. And this decree is inevitably arbitrary, since it is made by a man who decides autocratically between individuals and groups; the disparity between the world as it would be if the original doctrine were true, and the world as it is, subordinates the truth to the equivocal and inscrutable decisions of an interpreter whose only qualification is his power.

One of the best means of preserving the balance of political community and promoting the necessary social and political changes is by keeping the dialogue open with all the political actors who accept the basic rules of the game and are committed to preserving the basic values of the society. This ... explains why many of the thinkers studied in this book, from [Raymond] Aron and [Norberto] Bobbio to [Adam] Michnik, successfully practiced the art of dialogue across the aisle and refused to see the world in black-and-white contrasts. If they adopted the role of committed or engaged spectators, they also maintained a certain degree of detachment and skepticism in their attitudes and political judgments. Their invitation to dialogue and their willingness to speak to their critics illustrated their courage and determination not to look for 'safe spaces' and lukewarm solutions. Instead, they saw themselves as mediators whose duty was to open a line of communication with their opponents who disagreed with them. The dialogue they staged was at times difficult and frustrating, and their belief in the (real or symbolic) power of discussion was an open act of defiance against the crusading spirit of their age, marked by political sectarianism, monologue, and ideological intransigence. Aron and the other moderates studied here were convinced that we can improve ourselves not so much by seeking a fictitious harmony with our critics as by engaging in an open debate with them, as long as we all remain committed to civility and rational critique. In this regard, they all acted as true disciples of Montaigne, who once acknowledged that 'no premise shocks me, no belief hurts me, no matter how opposite they may be. ... When I am contradicted it arouses my attention not my wrath.' This is exactly how Aron and other moderates felt and behaved. They were open to being challenged and did not shy away from correcting others when they thought fit. Yet, in so doing, they did not simply seek to refute or defeat their opponents' arguments, being aware that the truth is almost never the monopoly of a single camp or group.

La poderosa Unión Soviética contra la que Aron se batió toda su vida se ha extinguido, víctima de su propia incapacidad para satisfacer las ambiciones de sus millones de ciudadanos y la ha reemplazado un régimen autoritario e imperial, de capitalismo gansteril y mercantilista, que parece la continuación del viejo zarismo autoritario y prepotente. La China dejó de ser comunista para convertirse en un modelo de capitalismo autoritario. Sin embargo, decir que la historia ha dado la razón a Raymond Aron sería apresurado. Porque, aunque la amenaza del comunismo, contra el que él se batió sin tregua, ha dejado de serlo para la democracia en el mundo —sólo un demente tendría como modelos para su país a los regímenes de Corea del Norte, Cuba o Venezuela—, ésta no ha ganado la partida y es probable que nunca la gane del todo.

Writing during the heyday of Modernization Theory, the French critic Raymond Aron, though resolutely anti-communist, termed American-style individualism the product of a short history of unrepeatable national success, which ‘spreads unlimited optimism, denigrates the past, and encourages the adoption of institutions which are in themselves destructive of the collective unity’.

Anyone who does not see that there is a ‘struggle for power’ element is naïve; anyone who sees nothing but this aspect is a false realist.

L’ennemi d’hier est l’ami d’aujourd’hui. Il n’y a pas de politique raisonnable sans capacité d’oubli.

Si el universo en que han vivido los hombres de los tiempos pasados no tuviera nada en común con éste en que vivo; si esos dos universos no aparecieran, para un cierto grado de abstracción, como variaciones de un mismo tema, el universo del otro me resultaría radicalmente extraño y perdería todo significado. Para que la historia entera me resulte inteligible, los vivos deben descubrirse un cierto parentesco con los muertos.

only when information is combined with belief does it become knowledge. And only knowledge leads to action. The French-Jewish philosopher Raymond Aron would say, when asked about the Holocaust, ‘I knew, but I didn’t believe it. And because I didn’t believe it, I didn’t know.’ All this Rudolf Vrba understood, and yet he was not ground down by it.

In the course of the last forty years, the only part of the world that has enjoyed peace is the continent divided between two zones of political civilization both of them armed with atomic bombs. —RAYMOND ARON, LES DERNIÈRES ANNÉES DU SIÈCLE (THE LAST YEARS OF THE CENTURY), P. 68

El historiador es un experto, no un físico. No busca las causas de la explosión en la fuerza expansiva de los gases, sino en la cerilla del fumador

The massacres which accompany the struggle of States and of classes will not have been in vain if they clear the way to the classless society. The idolatry of history is born of this unavowed nostalgia for a future which would justify the unjustifiable. (...) ... ... The idolater of history (...), convinced that it acts with a view to achieving the only future which is worthwhile, sees, and wants to see, the other merely as an enemy to be eliminated, and a contemptible enemy at that since he is incapable of wanting the good or of recognising it.

As Raymond Aron, that rarest of things, a modern French liberal, noted, in Clive James’s translation, “the liberal believes in the permanence of humanity’s imperfection; he resigns himself to a régime in which the good will be the result of numberless actions, and never the result of conscious choice.”10 You could call it the invisible hand, noting that it is true also of other systems, such as language.

In the 1950s, at the very beginning of the integration process, Raymond Aron wrote that “the European idea is empty, it has neither the transcendence of messianic ideologies nor the immanence of concrete patriotism.” Aron was half right. The idea of Europe did not evoke emotional commitment. It did not stir people’s hearts as nations sometimes had done. It was not something for which many would have been willing to give their lives. But the European idea was not empty—or rather, it only seemed empty when compared to the traditional idea of the nation. The European idea was full, not of national enthusiasm and patriotic passion, but of a widespread commitment to escape the destructive antagonisms of the past..

I did not deny the fact that there was a distinction between the right and the left in the National Assembly. What I denied was that there was an eternal left, the same in various historical circumstances, inspired by the same values, united by the same aspirations.

Tal vez exista, a pesar de todo, una solución autentica, la única solución. Incluso en los periodos de catástrofes, incluso en los períodos de las religiones políticas, hay una actividad del hombre tal vez más importante que la política: la búsqueda de la Verdad

الماركسية أفيون المثقفين

The rationalist is not unaware of the animal impulses in man, and of the passions of man in society. The rationalist has long since abandoned the illusion that men, alone or in groups, are reasonable. He bets on the education of humanity, even if he is not sure he will win his wager.

(EL POLÍTICO Y EL CIENTÍFICO - MAX WEBER. INTRODUCCIÓN) La mayoría de los hombres del siglo XX no saben explicar los fenómenos que en otro tiempo hubieran sido considerados como milagrosos (el vuelo de los objetos más pesados que el aire, la transmisión a distancia del sonido y de la imagen), pero saben que estos fenómenos tienen una explicación racional. Solo para los niños es un hada la electricidad. En cambio, el capitalismo, el comunismo, o Wall Street son demonios para millones de personas. La historia incita a la mitología por su estructura misma, por el contraste entre la inteligibilidad parcial y el misterio de la totalidad.

(EL POLÍTICO Y EL CIENTÍFICO - MAX WEBER. INTRODUCCIÓN) La Historia es la tragedia de una humanidad que hace su historia, pero no sabe la Historia que hace. La acción política es pura nada cuando no es un esfuerzo inagotable para obrar con claridad y no verse traicionado por las consecuencias de las iniciativas adoptadas.

(EL POLÍTICO Y EL CIENTÍFICO - MAX WEBER. INTRODUCCIÓN) ¿Cuáles son las exigencias del concepto de igualdad? (...) ¿Es preciso favorecer al grupo más selecto y ayudarlo a desarrollarse con plenitud? O bien, por el contrario, ¿debe actuar la legislación en sentido opuesto a la naturaleza y restablecer sin cesar la igualdad que la naturaleza tiende con igual constancia a destruir?

Raymond Aron wrote of Sartre in his schooldays that ‘his ugliness disappeared as soon as he began to speak, as soon as his intelligence erased the pimples and swellings of his face’. Another acquaintance, Violette Leduc, agreed that his face could never be ugly because it was illuminated by the brilliance of his mind, as well as having ‘the honesty of an erupting volcano’ and ‘the generosity of a newly ploughed field’.