[lit-ideas] Re: Beard's The Rise of American Civilization
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:55:53 -0800
Robert,
The following is In the interest of sorting out nuances of belief better
than the media does (as you recommend):
This issue of where we are politically is interesting to me. In saying that
you, in fact everyone who posts regularly on Lit-Ideas, are closer to Marx
than I am isn?t calling any of you Marxists. The only person on Lit-Ideas
whom I am fairly sure is a Marxist, and incidentally has studied Marx more
than I have is Judy. I don?t want to match Marxist swords with her, but I
do know something about him and as a result of studying the labor movement
in America, something about his influence here. Not only have I studied
Marx and Leftist materials, but I grew up with Leftists and Marxists in the
Los Angeles Harbor area. I considered myself to be on the left except in a
few areas, the most notable one involved enlisting in the Marine Corps and
going off to fight the commies in Korea. I was loyal to my country. I
didn?t mind Leftists who were opposed to Capitalism, but I didn?t agree with
Leftists who chose to be loyal to the USSR rather than the US.
During the Vietnam War (and before I studied it) my Leftist gut reaction was
to think we shouldn?t be over there, that we didn?t have justification for
fighting that war. However, since that belief didn?t conflict with my
loyalty to my nation, I very much disapproved of draft-card burners and
those who were fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft. Interestingly, one of
my best friends at the time was a Longshoreman who was a Communist. He also
looked down on those who were avoiding the draft. We both disapproved of
being disloyal to our nation.
I personally don?t mind being labeled if the label is accurate, but if it
isn?t I try to correct the perception. For example, you had a perception
that I didn?t understand the viciousness of capitalists. I thought that a
fair misconception in that I am to the right of you on a number of matters,
it isn?t impossible that I would be to the right of you on all matters.
However on this particular one you weren?t correct. I knew quite a lot
about the viciousness of capitalists.
If we classified everyone posting on Lit-Ideas on a spectrum from Right to
Left, I would put everyone to the Left of me except for Eric. I don?t
consider myself on the far right, just right of everyone whom I recall
posting recently on Lit-Ideas. So in saying that the people who were
arguing with me about my somewhat Marxist interpretation of the causes of
the Civil War were people I would ?normally consider closer to Marx than I
am,? I was saying nothing more (in my understanding of Marx and his
influence on America) than that these people are those I would normally
consider closer to the Left than I am.
I believe Marx is the ultimate inspiration of the American Left. He has
been filtered to a large extent through Lenin?s writings and a variety of
others inspired and created by intellectuals in sympathy with some form of
Marxism or Marxism/Leninism. Thus, for me (based upon my studies) it is
logical to say that those to the left of me are also closer to Marx than I
am. However, I wouldn?t go so far as to say that is true on every issue.
Obviously I am closer to Marx than some others on the causes of the Civil
War. But in the matters we have been discussing most recently, the war in
Iraq and what to do about Iran, I see everyone but Eric to be Left of me.
What would the Marxist/Leninist position be on America?s actions in Iraq and
potential actions on Iran? This position probably isn?t being formally
maintained since the demise of the USSR, but I?m very familiar with it:
America is a capitalist nation and has capitalistic motives. It is
interested in Iraq and Iran solely for materialistic, capitalistic reasons.
Its motives favor the rich in America. The poor who go off to fight the
wars are dupes. If you?ve heard some of those same things on Lit-Ideas, so
have I.
I know not everyone takes those traditional Marxist/Leninist positions, but
to describe Bush?s motives in terms that are Marxist/Leninist clichés shows
that influence still in existence. Again, not everyone does that but some
do and the only people on Lit-Ideas I can think of who think that Bush is
correctly fighting the ?war against terror,? are Eric and I.
It is true that you can oppose Bush from a different position on this war
than the Left. Pat Buchanan, for example, opposes him from a Libertarian
(Isolationist) position, but I haven?t heard that position on Lit-Ideas.
You can also oppose him from a pacifist position, and some claim to be
pacifists and I would be more ready to accept that if so much of their
language didn?t sound as though it was coming from the Left. Austin
Meredith who doesn?t post here often is one I would consider a genuine
pacifist not tainted with Leftism . . . unless he has given that position
up. I haven?t heard his opinions on the threat of Islamism.
Yes, you have objected to the term Marxist on more than one occasion. I
have attempted, from time to time, to engage various people into expanding
on their beliefs, especially the political philosophies or presuppositions
that inspire their beliefs, but I haven?t gotten any very interesting
responses.
The most recent ?let us reason together? dialogue was with Mike Geary, whom
I consider (closer to Marx) to the Left of me. We apparently wrote past
each other. I attempted in another note to address that issue but got no
response.
I believe in having a strong military. I believe that Islamism is a serious
threat. I believe that preventive war is preferable to allowing nations to
send out groups and individuals to fight against us asymmetrically with
weapons of increasing potency.
Lawrence
Lawrence wrote:
> It strikes me as a bit ironic that I seem to be presenting something of
> a Marxist interpretation of the Civil War and those whom I would
> normally consider . . . closer to Marx than I am are arguing with me.
> I?m not complaining ? just finding it ironic.
Robert replied:
To return to your second paragraph. Lawrence, you keep calling everyone
to the left of the Forbes family Marxists. (You and I have discussed
this in a past life.) I am not 'close to Marx.' I think Marx was an
idiot who managed to coin some snappy slogans and to shock le bourgeois
in a serious way. It doesn't follow, as you seem to have implied this
afternoon, that if Marx was for the eight hour day, the eight hour day
was a 'Marxist' idea. As far as I know, Irene is not 'close to Marx'
either. (Judy has already spoken for herself, but she did not claim that
there were no economic reasons for the American Civil War.)
It's a distraction from serious discussion to view people as belonging
to a group the members of which have been pre-judged. 'Well, you would
say that, because you're a Materialist (Cartesian, Behaviourist,
Methodist, a member of the milles feuilles, or the camicie nere).' It's
inevitable that people get sorted out this way in the media. But on
lit-ideas it might be more useful to take longer views.
Other related posts:
