Q. For our readership, perhaps you could discuss something of the world-historical significance of the Revolution. Of course, we are under no illusion that it represented a socialist transformation. Yet it was a powerful revolution in its time.There’s a lot to like here. It’s worth reading to see how much the actual Communists object to the assumptions that the Times is making.
A. It was very important that the American colonial crisis, the imperial crisis, occurred right at the height of what we call the Enlightenment, where Western Europe was full of new ideas and was confident that culture—what people believed and thought—was man-made and thus could be changed. The Old World, the Ancién Regime, could be transformed and made anew. It was an age of revolution, and it’s not surprising that the French Revolution and other revolutions occur in in the wake of the American Revolution.
The notion of equality was really crucial. When the Declaration says that all men are created equal, that is no myth. It is the most powerful statement ever made in our history, and it lies behind almost everything we Americans believe in and attempt to do.
A Considerable Irony
The World Socialist, that grand elder of anti-American Communist propaganda outlets, publishes an interview with noted historian Gordon Wood on how unfair the New York Times “1619 Project” is to the Founding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I noticed that several days ago. They have published a number of putdowns of the NYT's 1619 Project.
Ironic to have wingnuts use a Socialist website to put down the NYT. But you evaluate what is written before you look at the source. Most of what Bernie says, especially on Latin America, can be dismissed with appropriate fact and logic instead of merely saying, "This is stupid- look at who said it."
Some years back, in a online discussion about Chavista Venezuela, some commenter, in an attempt to dismiss my points, replied that I got my Venezuela information from Fox News. No, I replied, I got my Venezuela information from English language blogs run by Venezuelans, such as Caracas Chronicles or Devil's Excrement.
Well, communists who have actually read history, anyway. Journalists gravitate to summaries that tell them what they want to hear. Actual events are messier than that.
Fair. I’m just accustomed, from decades’ exposure, to WSWS running the most aggressive anti-American nonsense. This isn’t just ironic, it’s scholarly. My objections to it are wholly within the realm of interpretations about which reasonable thinkers might differ, except for the general sense that Communism is not one of those things. This is a legitimately good interview.
The Wood interview was posted several days after I combed the WSWS for 1619 Project-related postings, so I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Here are some that I previously found, but haven't yet read. They interviewed James McPherson, who is the walking definition of authoritative, as is Gordon Wood.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/09/mast-s09.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/30/bynu-o30.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/01/amer-n01.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/09/lect-n09.html
The Old World, the Ancién Regime, could be transformed and made anew.
I think this is the key phrase. At its root, the 1619 project argues that man is permanently wicked, that nothing in race relations has changed since 1619 or, maybe more importantly can be changed. There is no post-racial future. There is only a future where the right people are permanently in charge of organizing society.
Any one who believes in the ability of Communism to create the New Man to bring about The Dictatorship of The Proletariat is going to reject that philosophy root and branch.
There's an interesting background mindset revealed by casual comments about how the revolution wasn't socialist, but "nevertheless" was kind of important or valuable. There's also a casual conflation of "equality" with "socialism." I sense people struggling with the idea that the American Revolution has any value, in the absence of a frankly socialist approach, which obviously it just about 100% lacked. You have people confused by the difference between "all men are created equal" and "I have an equal right to your stuff."
I finding myself often shaking my head over the notion that the American Revolution failed because it didn't usher in socialism. If I'd been there, and the idea had been to usher is socialism, I'd have had to be a Royalist.
Marx wasn’t born until 1818. He saw it as a necessary step on the way to inevitable socialism; to demean it as having ultimately changed nothing is to reject his dialectics.
Far be it from me to pass up any opportunity to reject Marx's dialectics.
At its root, the 1619 project argues that man is permanently wicked....
That, at its own root, is the essential difference between modern liberals/18th century monarchists and modern conservatives/18th century liberals: the former believe that man is irretrievably fallen and must be led by our Betters in government, while the latter believe that man is fallen but redeemable, and so can be trusted much more to lead himself, with only minimal government to help protect him from outside evils.
...significance of the Revolution. Of course, we are under no illusion that it represented a socialist transformation.
I would hope not, but maybe not for WSWS' reasons. If Johnson's Dictionary, roughly contemporaneous with our Revolution, can be taken as a guide, the concept did not exist then: "socialist" and "socialism" are nowhere to be found in the dictionary. Nor was the concept extant 40 years later in Noah Webster's dictionary. In both cases, too, "social" meant merely "to get along with people."
Eric Hines
Very interesting.
Christopher B..." There is no post-racial future." In my view, Marxism is a bastard child of the Enlightenment, whereas Fascism, especially in its Nazi incarnation, is explicitly counter-Enlightenment. The "progressive" Left's obsession with race/ethnicity is one reason I think it is closer to Fascism than to Marxism (although it has elements of both), other reasons are its weird mysticisms (magical crystals! homeopathic medicine!) and its general worship of 'feelings.'
C.S. Lewis “I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
Post a Comment