Camus and Sartre : The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It

Rating:
Summary: The review right above this one ...
Review: is way off the mark. There's more to say about this book, but for now, let me just say that the guy above doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

Rating:
Summary: More academic leftst revisionism
Review: While this book is supposedly meant to be a "balance" between the "fundamental legitimacy" of the philosophies of these two men, it is more an apology for Sartre than any kind of a balanced introspective of two men who shaped much of French intellectual debate after WWII.
Sartre essentially sat out WWII and offered up "Being and Nothingness" in 1943 while Camus not only wrote "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" in 1942, but was an active resistance fighter who fought the Nazi occupation of France. Sartre seems to have been quite envious of Camus' courage, but could never seem to be able to do anything but convert his loathsome cowardice during WWII into attacks (in the safety of salons of Paris) on Camus after publishing the venomous review of Camus' "The Rebel".
Aronson's greatest failure in this book is to try to find a moral equivalency between Sartre, who supported violence in overthrowing colonial regimes except the colonialism of the Soviet Union which he supported, and Camus, whose virulent anti-communism was way out of the "mainstream" of much of European thought after WWII. While Sartre found every reason he could to support communist regimes around the globe, he ignored the fact that the Soviet system was really an evil empire far worse than any created by the West. Stalin's forceful death by starvation of over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union went un-noticed by Sartre as he condemned the "Imperialists" of the West. Only after the Hungarian uprising of 1956 did Sartre abandon his blind allegiance to the Soviet Union, while still supporting communist hegemony elsewhere.
Camus, on the other hand is condemned for not supporting the overthrow of regimes installed by Western European nations, even though none of them came close to the brutal nature of Soviet imperialism in the Ukraine, Chechnya, and the other conquered satellites.
Aronson's book however is really just another attempt by admitted academic leftists in the USA and other Western universities to hang onto a discredited economic system which has failed in every country it has been tried. This book is essentially not about Sartre vs Camus, but about how Marxism and its supporters have been given a bum rap. It isn't the system that is bad, but it was only implemented improperly. If only someone would just do it "the right way" then the utopia promised by Marx and his followers would be able to blossom and relieve us of the ills of capitalism. By offering a theory which places Camus and Sartre as moral equivalents, where a supporter of freedom of thought like Camus is equal to an opponent of freedom like Sartre, the left tries to level the playing field of history where the lessons to be learned are ignored or dismissed as an aberration. Only tenured professors who have never worked for a living or experienced the ravages of the philosophy he espouses could possibly write such a book. If you are looking for a book that deals with the issues that divided Camus and Sartre, you would be far better off reading "In Denial" or one of Jean Francois Revel's books.