Sartre-vs-Camus: Who had the better plan for political reform?

This is a general question for anyone who is familiar with the political philosophies of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, both French liberals who were associated with Socialism and Existentialism in the middle part of the 20th century. I'm most interested in your opinions about Sartre's embracing of violence as a legitimate tactic to compel political change (along the lines of Marx), as compared to Camus' eventual dismissal of these ideas and his embracing of pacifist notions of political reform. Who is right? And (completely separate question, really) whose method is more successful?

(The Stranger affected me more than any book when I was young), I just have to believe that Camus' way is ultimately the way to exact lasting changes rather than changes at the end of a gun barrel.



Remember the opening words of the Stranger -
'Mother died today, or maybe yesterday; I can't be sure.'

But it's awfully heavy stuff at its core, especially for a teenager. When I first starting reading Camus, Sartre, Hegel and others heavily, it put me in a really dismal and horrible mood for a long time. But they still remain some of my favorites. Also, I tend to agree with you that Camus' ideas of peaceful revolution are better at face value. History shows that violent coups don't always last. However, sometimes peaceful demonstrations and the like aren't enough to catalyze change. Overall I agree with Camus, but I don't think either one's ideas are completely infallible.

If you haven't read the more recent translation of The Stranger, you should definitely give it a look. It changes the book in ways you couldn't imagine, it has a whole different feel. The opening sentence in the new translation is "Maman died today," which is used instead of "mother" throughout the book. It's supposed to highlight the strange and complicated relationship that he has with his mother, and everyone around him really. Definitely check it out.

Sartre tended to ignore the crimes of the Soviet Union against its people. Camus thought it immoral to ignore them.

I think that Sartre ignored the crimes of the Soviet Union in public, but part of me believes he actually thought they were excusable. He always seemed like somewhat of a violence fanatic, especially toward the end of his life. It almost seemed like he enjoyed violence as an entity in itself.

but Camus' humanity also shone through in his philosophical writings and really impressed me. He's someone I've been meaning to go back to, and this thread puts me in mind to do it.

I used to think that Marx was more of a realist than pacifist socialists, in that he saw that change could not come without sacrifice. But his theory went from dictatorship to anarchy, leaving no room for democracy. Also, the kind of anarchy he described would have required a drastic change in human nature. Which may have been the reason so many "Marxist" governments turned out to be so repressive: they weren't just there to rule, but to transform human nature. It was such a godlike role that they could- and did- get away with atrocities.

So thinking about it that way, Camus was probably more realistic than Sartre in his ideas of reform rather than revolution as a means of change.