The Essays consisting of Neither Victim nor Executioner contain Camus' economic and political ethics. His apoliticism is interesting but haphazard; it is the brackish water that results from revering Dostoevsky but also being an Atheistic Materialist. Dostoevsky was the reason he did not become an advocate for Marxism and the Soviet Union, unlike his friend Sartre who argued no human rights would ever be violated under The Great Experiment in the North. It seems like this is one of the reasons Camus is widely read and Satre is not today; Camus was vindicated in many of his political views he gained from Dostoevsky.

Camus, like Dostoevsky, saw Marxism, whether expressed in Communism or Socialism, as the result of a radically desacralized society that made itself the object of its own adoration; a blind self-deification. It is a metaphysical revolution, not merely political and humanitarian as it sees itself as. This is thoroughly Dostoevskian. Dost developed in him a recalcitrant suspicion of Marxism which was embraced by his contemporaries. His fascination with Dostoevsky is what saved him from falling into the popular insanity of his time. His apoliticism and critique of Materialism and subsequent Socio-Political ideologies of his time made him unpopular in the Liberal press at the time, but history has vindicated his suspicions. Consider his clear condemnation of Utopianism, clearly taken directly from Dost:

While advocating for a trans-national advancement past Westphalian sovereignty, he does see the problems with Internationalism as it can maintain no democratic basis. He does not really take dogmatic political stances; he simply regurgitates Dostoevskian politics into his contemporary revolutionary debates. He writes;

"The goal, in short, will be to define the conditions for a modest political philosophy, that is, a philosophy free of all messianic elements and devoid of any nostalgia for an earthly paradise... Whatever the desired end my be, as noble and necessary as it conceivable is, and regardless of whether or not it seeks to bring happiness to humankind or to establish justice and freedom, the means to that end represent a risk so conclusive, so disproportionate to the likelihood of success, that we objectively refuse to run it."

He talks about the Marxist underpinnings of all types of Socialism, including deeply Democratic Socialism:

"Therein lies the problem faced by French Socialists. They have discovered that they have scruples. They have seen violence and oppression at work, after having had only a fairly abstract idea of what those things were... Indeed, hope resides in this contradiction itself, because it is forcing or will force the Socialists to Choose. Either they will admit that the end covers the means, hence that murder can be legitimized, or else they will renounce Marxism as an absolute philosophy and limit their attention to the critical aspects, which is often still valuable.

His opposition to political violence has a lyrical foundation, not a moral one. He argues that the goodness of an individual must be rooted in an Absurd adherence to an illogical extemporal fantasy that they must stay in. Camus' writings are a nice thought experiment, but really have no philosophic value. He writes in Neither Victim nor Executioner:

"All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murders, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked. Over the expanse of five continents throughout the coming years an endless struggle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in which, grated, the former has a thousand times the chances of success than that of the latter. But I have always held that, if he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward. And henceforth, the honorable course will be to state everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful and munitions"

Socio-politically, he is trying to return to a Hellenistic political ideology, but disagrees with the search for Goodness itself; he selectively applies the Platonic logic he likes, and uses The Absurd as an excuse to dismiss any Platonic logic that contradicts his semi-Nihilism. This tension in his thinking leads him to political aporeticisim. While Neither victims nor executioners is my favorite non-fiction from Camus, his writings are nice thought experiments but have no real value in moving these philosophic or socio-economic debates forward beyond what Dostoevsky already argued. ( )

Not much to say about Camus that can actually match his brilliance, work as a writer and a man who wanted peace, freedom, brother of all men. ( )