Durante la primavera y el verano de 1932, Kostler vivió en una zona suburbial de Berlín, el llamado Rote Block, el Bloque Rojo. Se trataba de una colonia de artistas levantada al sur del barrio de Wilmersdorf, tocando la frontera del barrio de Steglitz. Fue erigida en 1927 por dos asociaciones de escritores y trabajadores de las artes escénicas con el fin de dar cobijo a sus miembros más necesitados.
Si nos situamos en el centro de la colonia, en el parque infantil donde un pequeño monumento honra a los artistas y escritores que vivieron allí y fueron perseguidos por los nazis, un breve paseo de quince minutos nos dejará a las puertas del Titania Palast, un edificio que hoy alberga un centro comercial y unos cines, pero que fue sede en 1950 del Congreso por la Libertad de la Cultura. Dieciocho años después de su residencia en el Rote Block, Koestler regresaba a Berlín como excomunista. Había dejado atrás el mundo de las células clandestinas, su trabajo en París con ese monstruo de la propaganda que fue Willi Münzenberg, su viaje a la URSS, sus publicaciones sobre sexualidad, la delación al partido de una mujer a la que amaba, su estancia en España y su encarcelamiento en la zona franquista, sus paseos en el patio de la prisión junto a Agapito García Atadell, su desencanto y la ruptura final con el partido.
Manifesto of the Congress for Cultural Freedom
Voted unanimously at Berlin, 30.06.1950
- We hold it to be self-evident that intellectual freedom is one of the inalienable rights of man.
- Such freedom is defined first and foremost by his right to hold and express his own opinions, and particularly opinions which differ from those of his rulers. Deprived of the right to say “no,” man becomes a slave.
- Freedom and peace are inseparable. In any country, under any regime, the overwhelming majority of ordinary people fear and oppose war. The danger of war becomes acute when governments, by suppressing democratic representative institutions, deny to the majority the means of imposing its will to peace. Peace can be maintained only if each government submits to the control and inspection of its acts by the people whom it governs, and agrees to submit all questions immediately involving the risk of war to a representative international authority, by whose decision it will abide.
- We hold that the main reason for the present insecurity of the world is that policy of governments which, while paying lip-service to peace, refuse to accept this double control. Historical experience proves that wars can be prepared and waged under any slogan, including that of peace. Campaigns of peace which are not backed by acts that will guarantee its maintenance are like counterfeit currency circulated for dishonest purposes. Intellectual sanity and physical security can only return to the world if such practices are abandoned.
- Freedom is based on the toleration of divergent opinions. The principle of toleration does not logically permit the practice of intolerance.
- No political philosophy or economic theory can claim the sole right to represent freedom in the abstract. We hold that the value of such theories is to be judged by the range of concrete freedom which they accord the individual in practice. We likewise hold that no race, nation, class, or religion can claim the sole right to represent the idea of freedom, nor the right to deny freedom to other groups or creeds in the name of any ultimate ideal or lofty aim whatsoever. We hold that the historical contribution of any society is to be judged by the extent and quality of the freedom which its members actually enjoy.
- In time of emergency, restrictions on the freedom of the individual are imposed in the real or assumed interest of the community. We hold it to be essential that such restrictions be confined to a minimum of clearly specified actions; that they be understood to be temporary and limited expedients in the nature of a sacrifice; and that the measures restricting freedom be themselves subject to free criticism and democratic control. Only thus can we have a reasonable assurance that emergency measures restricting individual freedom will not degenerate into a permanent tyranny.
- In totalitarian states restrictions on freedom are not longer intended and publicly understood as sacrifice imposed on the people, but are on the contrary represented as triumphs of progress and achievements of a superior civilization. We hold that both the theory and practice of these regimes run counter to the basic rights of the individual and the fundamental aspirations of mankind as a whole.
- We hold the danger represented by these regimes to be all the greater since their means of enforcement far surpasses that of all previous tyrannies in the history of mankind. The citizen of the totalitarian state is expected and forced not only to abstain from crime but to conform in all his thoughts and actions to a prescribed pattern. Citizens are persecuted and condemned on such unspecified and all-embracing charges as “enemies of the people” or “socially unreliable elements.”
- We hold that there can be no stable world so long as mankind, with regard to freedom, remains divided into “haves” and “have-nots.” The defense of existing freedoms, the reconquest of lost freedoms, and the creation of new freedoms are parts of the same struggle.
- We hold that the theory and practice of the totalitarian state are the greatest challenge which man has been called on to meet in the course of civilized history.
- We hold that indifference or neutrality in the face of such a challenge amounts to a betrayal of mankind and to the abdication of the free mind. Our answer to this challenge may decide the fate of man for generations.
- The defense of intellectual liberty today imposes a positive obligation: to offer new and constructive answer to the problems of our time.
- We address this manifesto to all men who are determined to regain those liberties which they have lost and to preserve and extend those which they enjoy.