Howard Zinn "Too Simplistic"?

[Jimmie Higgins]

While much of the right wing simply misrepresents the Left in the US, the favorite tactic of liberals - particularly intellectual and academic liberals - when they must address radical ideas is to dismiss these ideas.

Since many of these establishment liberals pay lip service to civil rights, labor rights and so on, they don't want to attack radical solutions to these problems so instead they tend to white-wash some of the inconstancies and inadequacies of liberal politics when confronted by a revolutionary perspective.

Here's an editorial from SocialistWorker.org that I thought took on some really common and slimy postmortem critiques of Howard Zinn's work pretty well. Rather than take on the questions that Zinn raised about US history and the nature of the US ruling class, liberal academics tend to dismiss these questions as overly "simplistic".

Then again, their colleagues in Economic departments like to tell us that economic crisis is a thing of the past and Marx is totally wrong and overly simplistic - right before each big slump.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/02/11/defending-howard-zinn

[Kayser_Soso]

Typical liberals- When we are discussing the alleged crimes of socialist nations or states out of favor with the world establishment(though I'm not giving them all a free pass here), suddenly simplicity is just fine. So-and-so was a brutal dictator, a monster, there was no democracy, etc. It's as black and white as a hardcore dittohead's worldview. When it comes to the crimes of liberal democratic regimes, including the US, then we can't be "simplistic" and we need to consider all the surrounding circumstances.

[Demogorgon]

The criticism misunderstands Zinn's work and indeed makes me wonder if they have read it as he always made pains to place it in context. His purpose was to show the "other side" of the story, particularly from the view promoted by "mainstream" history. The goal was never to make grandiose claims that so and so was "evil", but to point out that terrible things were done by celebrated figures and these things are glossed over.

Most importantly, he was writing for the public. He felt that American schools gave an overly rosy picture of history and presented those with power as using it for the cause of good. He endevoured to give the alternative view. He wasn't attempting to write a definitive history that could be read in isolation, but to show the things that were being ignored.

[RadioRaheem84]

When you read Zinn and Chomsky, you get the feeling that their work is simplistic. If you're an academic in a certain specialized field, you will tend to dismiss Chomsky and Zinn which give a broad analysis of the inner workings of LIBERAL academia. Remember that guys like Zinn and Chomsky do not even bother with conservative ideology as even the most simple minded can see that its pure propaganda, but most of the work has been critical of the people in power and the people in power tend to be LIBERALS.

So of course liberals are going to say that Chomsky and Zinn are simplistic. They're summarizing years and years of specialized work into tiny footnotes to educate the common person. Zinn and Chomsky give you the gist of what's going on and the presumed ideas the govern the mindset of the ruling class. Their work is brilliant and informative but to a person within the ruling class or academia, it will seem simplisitc.

And to be honest it is simple. My knowledge of history, economics and politics has grown by leaps and bounds over the last two years and when I go back and read Chomsky and Zinn, it reads pretty clear cut and simple. They are giving abridged versions of the topics they're discussing, but it doesn't mean its not right!

These two men have done a great service for the world. RIP, ZINN!

[Hit The North]

Liberals make my nose bleed.

One day, comrade, it will be us who make their noses bleed :)

[Wolf Larson]

One day, comrade, it will be us who make their noses bleed :)

I've only been working 10 hour weeks so I have more time to waist online so I have, for the past 6 months, spent hundreds of hours trying to spread information online within more generic political forums and liberals have been more vocal in opposition to socialism/communism/anarchism than the conservatives.

The most frequent [ignorant] replies I get are:

1. Capitalism has made the world a better place
2.We need the military around the globe to fight 'terror'
3.Social programs are for lazy people [although I don't advocate social programs anymore- I feel these concessions simply make people complacent/happy with capitalism]
4.Workers cannot manage the work place. We need owners and bosses.
5.Private property keeps me safe
6.Obama is a socialist
7.Marx is now irrelevant because class society no longer exists [this one always warrants my wrath]


and on and on .....The no 1 enemy of revolution besides capitalism itself, as you know, is the capitalists propaganda machine which churns out so many self hating working class John Galt wannabee's. The TV needs to go and many of us thought the internet would marginalize the capitalists propaganda but it's been over 10 years and I don't see it happening on a meaningful scale. What is it that keeps so many Americans loyal to their masters? Materialism is another enemy. Have you seen the BBC documentary "Century Of Self"? It's about Edward Bernays [Freud's cousin] and his tactics in combination with corporations to create a shallow self obsessed consumer society.

Check it out if you haven't seen it. Its in four one hour pats on google:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=6718420906413643126&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

[RadioRaheem84]

I've only been working 10 hour weeks so I have more time to waist online so I have, for the past 6 months, spent hundreds of hours trying to spread information online within more generic political forums and liberals have been more vocal in opposition to socialism/communism/anarchism than the conservatives.

The most frequent [ignorant] replies I get are:

1. Capitalism has made the world a better place
2.We need the military around the globe to fight 'terror'
3.Social programs are for lazy people [although I don't advocate social programs anymore- I feel these concessions simply make people complacent/happy with capitalism]
4.Workers cannot manage the work place. We need owners and bosses.
5.Private property keeps me safe
6.Obama is a socialist
7.Marx is now irrelevant because class society no longer exists [this one always warrants my wrath]


and on and on .....The no 1 enemy of revolution besides capitalism itself, as you know, is the capitalists propaganda machine which churns out so many self hating working class John Galt wannabee's. The TV needs to go and many of us thought the internet would marginalize the capitalists propaganda but it's been over 10 years and I don't see it happening on a meaningful scale. What is it that keeps so many Americans loyal to their masters? Materialism is another enemy. Have you seen the BBC documentary "Century Of Self"? It's about Edward Bernays [Freud's cousin] and his tactics in combination with corporations to create a shallow self obsessed consumer society.

Check it out if you haven't seen it. Its in four one hour pats on google:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=6718420906413643126&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

The number one enemy of the socialist is the liberal. By far, conservatives and fascists and religious theocrats (Islamic, Christian, Hindu, etc.) are but thorns in our side for the most part. The liberal is the guy that's usurping the good deeds of past comrades and stabbing us in the back with neo-liberal reforms (Democrats, New Labour, Social Democrats).

Throughout most of his career Noam Chomsky has written about the LIBERAL establishment. Through out most of our battles today we're rallying against Neo-liberalism, fake ass democratic politicians that are Friedmanites in disguise, etc. Liberals are the ones in power and they're the ones that make policy. Conservative right wingers have and will always be fringe opponents that pop up from time to time when liberals lose control of the populace.

They're the smug, elitist, policy wonkish, pragamatists that endlessly search for the happy medium between free markets and "socialism" (state capitalism). They hate us more than the conservatives do but love being called "leftist" by an idiot right winger.

I think it's about time we focus most of our energy on taking on these post-Keynesian neo-liberal wonks instead of focusing on the crazed right wing fringe.

I am sick of Marxists and Socialists kissing up to liberal like past Marxists kissed up to John Maynard Keynes! Keynes spat at us and wrote several harsh words dinouncing Marxism as a brute's ideology, one that wanted to rid the world of the great bourgeois.

[Wolf Larson]

The number one enemy of the socialist is the liberal. By far, conservatives and fascists and religious theocrats (Islamic, Christian, Hindu, etc.) are but thorns in our side for the most part. The liberal is the guy that's usurping the good deeds of past comrades and stabbing us in the back with neo-liberal reforms (Democrats, New Labour, Social Democrats).

Throughout most of his career Noam Chomsky has written about the LIBERAL establishment. Through out most of our battles today we're rallying against Neo-liberalism, fake ass democratic politicians that are Friedmanites in disguise, etc. Liberals are the ones in power and they're the ones that make policy. Conservative right wingers have and will always be fringe opponents that pop up from time to time when liberals lose control of the populace.

They're the smug, elitist, policy wonkish, pragamatists that endlessly search for the happy medium between free markets and "socialism" (state capitalism). They hate us more than the conservatives do but love being called "leftist" by an idiot right winger.

I think it's about time we focus most of our energy on taking on these post-Keynesian neo-liberal wonks instead of focusing on the crazed right wing fringe.

I am sick of Marxists and Socialists kissing up to liberal like past Marxists kissed up to John Maynard Keynes! Keynes spat at us and wrote several harsh words dinouncing Marxism as a brute's ideology, one that wanted to rid the world of the great bourgeois.

I'm with you 100%. I absolutely unequivocally agree with everything you said.

[Sendo]

The number one enemy of the socialist is the liberal. By far, conservatives and fascists and religious theocrats (Islamic, Christian, Hindu, etc.) are but thorns in our side for the most part. The liberal is the guy that's usurping the good deeds of past comrades and stabbing us in the back with neo-liberal reforms (Democrats, New Labour, Social Democrats).

Throughout most of his career Noam Chomsky has written about the LIBERAL establishment. Through out most of our battles today we're rallying against Neo-liberalism, fake ass democratic politicians that are Friedmanites in disguise, etc. Liberals are the ones in power and they're the ones that make policy. Conservative right wingers have and will always be fringe opponents that pop up from time to time when liberals lose control of the populace.

They're the smug, elitist, policy wonkish, pragamatists that endlessly search for the happy medium between free markets and "socialism" (state capitalism). They hate us more than the conservatives do but love being called "leftist" by an idiot right winger.

I think it's about time we focus most of our energy on taking on these post-Keynesian neo-liberal wonks instead of focusing on the crazed right wing fringe.

I am sick of Marxists and Socialists kissing up to liberal like past Marxists kissed up to John Maynard Keynes! Keynes spat at us and wrote several harsh words dinouncing Marxism as a brute's ideology, one that wanted to rid the world of the great bourgeois.

I would say though, that I consider social dems to be wimpier allies and many left liberals and non-neoliberal sscholars can be great tools. Some of the best indictments of neoliberalism I've read have come from non-Marxists, or those who are influenced by him, but not socialist revolutionaries.

[Wolf Larson]

The liberals, to avoid any substantive policy/debate, constantly point to Sara Palin and other fringe right groups in so creating a false dichotomy of "it's either us or them" and many people hold back on criticizing liberals for both popular culture and the reason above.

The Neoliberal economic agenda is obscene. Too many people who vote for and sycophantically support these fools don't understand how our system really works. They think the IMF/World Bank are fighting poverty [if they even know what the institutions are in the first place]- they think our military is fighting 'terror'- they think, as you said, Keynes is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel and the liberal manages to externalize, excuse and or apologize for every last policy that's literally killing, impoverishing and enslaving millions of people.

They will call us 'unrealistic' or 'irrelevant'...they'll claim their imperialist demigod Keynes fixed capitalism just before each crisis, war or recession kicks in and their bourgeois economists will blame it on anything and everything but capitalism. They mystify the business cycle and confuse the political arena with all manner of lie, half truth and doublespeak. Obama has mastered this. Obama has single handedly marginalized the revolutionary movement. I've caught a lot of flack for strongly criticizing him from day one.

These people control everything. You're right. I've been wasting time lately debating "anarcho" capitalists...I'm going to switch back to focusing on liberals. It can be discouraging online because there so many of them. Revolutionaries need to push a shift in consciousness...we need to not accept or tolerate liberal culture/policy. ZERO tolerance. there's been too much collusion between liberals and revolutionaries. If we're to have any effect we need to cut all ties with liberals and harshly criticize them and their apologetic bourgeois selfish world view.

Many of them will even go as far as to call themselves socialists. What concerns capitalists most is ensuring nothing interferes with their ability to pull in massive profits. They're more or less happy with any state that can make this happen whether it's a democratic republic, a monarchy, military dictatorship or even a fascist dictatorship. If Obama's administration hasn't shown people there is no "hope" with liberals I don't know what will. The even more conservative FOX news crowd doesn't help the situation though- as far as social power/the general consciousness of the collective body we call the USA.

We need to push a shift in consciousness. Liberals are the major force standing in the way.

[Wolf Larson]

We should rightly define them as Democrats. People who formulate, espouse and support Democrat party policy. Even Bernie Sanders has failed miserably. His apologetic support for this corporate health care "reform" has made things even clearer to see.

And yes, the neoliberal economic agenda is opposed by some democrats and is not necessarily tied to the hip of liberals....the Democrat party is more so the "liberal" establishment in Washington. The neoliberal economic agenda is facilitated by both parties.

Also, to the poster above, Chomsky isn't a liberal. He's a libertarian socialist. If all liberals were libertarian socialists we be in good shape. We're talking about the liberal Democrats and their policy wonks who in the end represent US imperialism and the profits of the bourgeois while acting like agents fighting for the working class. Frauds. Yellow bellies. Turncoats. "Reformists". Parliamentary socialists some of them call themselves.

In the end the Democrat party represents big business.

[RadioRaheem84]

These people control everything. You're right. I've been wasting time lately debating "anarcho" capitalists...I'm going to switch back to focusing on liberals. It can be discouraging online because there so many of them. Revolutionaries need to push a shift in consciousness...we need to not accept or tolerate liberal culture/policy. ZERO tolerance. there's been too much collusion between liberals and revolutionaries. If we're to have any effect we need to cut all ties with liberals and harshly criticize them and their apologetic bourgeois selfish world view.Exactly. Liberals took over the mantle of Thatcher and Reagan and ran with the corporate elite and Wall Street moguls, kicking out the unions, all the while still thinking of themselves as the "left". They've usurped every moment that was created by leftist and progressives alike during the Civil Rights Movements, the anti-war movement and the fight against tyranny.

They go wherever they believe they can be on the cusp of things. Dubai, Shanghai, India, Chile, all dungeons for the working class but a paradise for the upper crust. They sell these places like marketing firms sell ciggarettes, in their wonkish mags; the Economist, the Financial Times, Time, NewsWeek, etc.

But most of all I hate them for giving us the most odious of all liberal types; Obama. Jeez Louise, the man reeks of the most elitist form of liberalism known to man. A total wonk with the pedigree too boot. He totally marginalized the left wing in favor of winning points with Wall Street like any other Clintonian clone. He brought back all the Wall Street moguls from the Clinton era, kept the Bush Fed appointee, kept Bush's military men, and continued his wars! And he supposed to be the "most liberal, leftist, socialist" President ever according to right wingers.

So enough ranting. It should be made note on Revleft that liberals are not our friends and are constantly thwarting true revolutionary efforts to change the public's mind. They think of themselves as the be all end all, end of history, we've figured it out, the happy middle, no other way but our way, genius, Ivy trained, lick my boots, elite.

They don't care for us anymore than conservatives do, so we should stop pretending to be their friends. Let the CPUSA kiss their asses and get nothing in return.

[Robocommie]

What I tend to say about liberals, are that they're people who like to rail against the injustices of the system, but don't actually want to do what it takes to change things.

[Robocommie]

We should rightly define them as Democrats. People who formulate, espouse and support Democrat party policy. Even Bernie Sanders has failed miserably. His apologetic support for this corporate health care "reform" has made things even clearer to see.


I do want to say though, that while he's no Eugene Debs, I can't help but like Bernie Sanders, if only because he had the guts to openly label himself a socialist in an American political arena.

[Mather]

What I tend to say about liberals, are that they're people who like to rail against the injustices of the system, but don't actually want to do what it takes to change things.


I'd say that your being to polite and giving liberals too much credit on that point.

Until the revolutionary left finally realises that liberals are just another reactionary, parasitic segment of the ruling class, well will keep making the same mistakes, keep making the wrong alliances and keep fucking ourselves over.

[RadioRaheem84]

Christopher Hitchens once called liberals "dangerous compromisers" and he felt it was an insult to be called a liberal at one time. I really don't know what happened to him.

[Mather]

Christopher Hitchens once called liberals "dangerous compromisers" and he felt it was an insult to be called a liberal at one time.

Being called a liberal should still be an insult to any revolutionary or working class militant worth their salt.



I really don't know what happened to him.


He became a liberal.

[Robocommie]

I'd say that your being to polite and giving liberals too much credit on that point.

Until the revolutionary left finally realises that liberals are just another reactionary, parasitic segment of the ruling class, well will keep making the same mistakes, keep making the wrong alliances and keep fucking ourselves over.

Having been a liberal at one point, I disagree. Many of them have their hearts in the right place, they simply don't understand how the things they dislike about society are not going to change without the system changing.

I mean hey man, here's a thing to consider. While building a revolution, you might find it easier to recruit more people to the Left if you don't begin by denouncing and demonizing people on all sides of the mainstream discourse. We have more in common with liberals than we do with conservatives, and while that doesn't mean we can count on them, it does mean we don't have to make them our mortal enemies.

Socialism has enough enemies as it is. Socialism is a struggle against the governments and entrenched interests of the wealthy and the powerful. We don't need to tack on every single private individual who's not a die-hard revolutionary.

[RadioRaheem84]

We have more in common with liberals than we do with conservatives, and while that doesn't mean we can count on them, it does mean we don't have to make them our mortal enemies.We have more in common with progressives not liberals. As once socialist Christopher Hitchens said, "Liberals have totally capitulated to Clintonism", i.e. Liberals now suport neo-liberalism.

I have no problems with left-liberal progressives. I like Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Erienreich.

I just dislike the conventional liberals like the Clintons, Joe Klein, Eric Alterman, etc.

[Robocommie]

We have more in common with progressives not liberals. As once socialist Christopher Hitchens said, "Liberals have totally capitulated to Clintonism", i.e. Liberals now suport neo-liberalism.

I have no problems with left-liberal progressives. I like Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Erienreich.

I just dislike the conventional liberals like the Clintons, Joe Klein, Eric Alterman, etc.

Ohhhh, shit. In that case, never mind, because I'm with you completely on this. Usually in my walk of life, the word liberal gets slung around in place of progressives, but I understand now.

[RadioRaheem84]

Populist Jim Hightower, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, The Young Turks, Pacifica Radio....all of these progressive people are good people and are a blessing in an extremely right wing country like the US.

They sympathize with socialism but in the end are against our aims.

But you have conventional neo-liberals that slip into the "left" category because they like the label and do not want to be associated with right wingers. Joe Klein and Eric Alterman ripped Ralph Nader a new asshole because he "cost Al Gore the election" and for splitting the Democratic Party, i.e. introducing more democracy into a two party State.

The Tony Blairs of the "Social Democratic" parties abroad shifted left parties to the center. They invited hedge fund managers (Oliver Kamm), war supporters (Hitchens, Nick Cohen, etc.), Investment bankers, corporate lackeys, Economist readers, etc. to join the Labour Party and say they're part of the "left".

The "left" has been co-opted by neo-liberal corporate stooges and it's reflected in their condemnation of true progressives, socialists and Marxists and their praise of places like Dubai, Shanghai and Chile!

[Robocommie]

Populist Jim Hightower, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, The Young Turks, Pacifica Radio....all of these progressive people are good people and are a blessing in an extremely right wing country like the US.

They sympathize with socialism but in the end are against our aims.

But you have conventional neo-liberals that slip into the "left" category because they like the label and do not want to be associated with right wingers. Joe Klein and Eric Alterman ripped Ralph Nader a new asshole because he "cost Al Gore the election" and for splitting the Democratic Party, i.e. introducing more democracy into a two party State.

The Tony Blairs of the "Social Democratic" parties abroad shifted left parties to the center. They invited hedge fund managers (Oliver Kamm), war supporters (Hitchens, Nick Cohen, etc.), Investment bankers, corporate lackeys, Economist readers, etc. to join the Labour Party and say they're part of the "left".

The "left" has been co-opted by neo-liberal corporate stooges and it's reflected in their condemnation of true progressives, socialists and Marxists and their praise of places like Dubai, Shanghai and Chile!

I have to admit I once had the same opinion about Ralph Nader. I have to say Al Gore would have been a better President than Bush.

But we definitely, without question, have to break out of this two-party system. My increasing frustration with the Democrats spinelessness has made me realize that, and while third parties don't have any real clout right now, the only way they ever will is if people actually start voting third party.

[Mather]

Having been a liberal at one point, I disagree.

Before I started to develop a real interest in politics and became politically active, I was a die hard conservative. Upon getting interested in politics I started to change my beliefs and by the time I became politically active at the age of sixteen, I had gone from being an apolitical and unthinking conservative to a communist.

And having seen a good number of posts by other members on Revleft, along with knowing a good number of people on the revolutionary left, I can safely say that ex-conservatives are just as numerous as ex-liberals on the revolutionary left.


Many of them have their hearts in the right place, they simply don't understand how the things they dislike about society are not going to change without the system changing.

This applies only in some circumstances, not all.

In the circumstances where this applies, it is to those members of the working class who have simply absorbed the dominant ideology of the ruling class, ie; of which both liberalism and conservatism belong to.

A working class individual who has his consciousness formed by the values of the dominant ideology of the ruling class, by virtue of simply existing within capitalist society: his consciousness, whilst false, is not his own and fails to relate to the actual material conditions of that individual. The contradiction is exposed as the dominant ideology of the ruling class can only ever exert a fickle hold over that individual, through the bourgeois controlled mass media, education system etc... But by virtue of being a member of the working class, that individual can come across material conditions that will change and alter his consciousness, through such means as strikes and collective action and solidarity amongst fellow workers against their bosses. This development is part of a process known as class consciousness, whereby material conditions will break the working class from the chains of the dominant ideology of the ruling class and enables the working class to develop their own ideology, one that sets them free from all forms of domination.

But there is a big difference between members of the working class who subscribe to either wing (conservative and liberal) of the dominant ideology of the ruling class, and those members of the ruling class who use their power, status and wealth to exert the influence of the dominant ideology of the ruling class on the rest of society.

The likes of liberals such as Congressman Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the likes of a liberal elite that do indeed dominate acedemia, the media, Hollywood and much of the political discourse, these are the liberals I was actually on about. These liberals will never become part of the revolutionary left because that would go against their class interests, the material conditions are such that it is impossible for the likes of the above mentioned to ever be anything but liberal.

Our job is not to try and pander to elements within the ruling class, based upon some idealistic and anti-materialist concept that good arguement and an appeal to the 'rational' will simply make these same elements have a change of heart and join us. Anyone who upholds and applies a materialist analysis, be they Marxists or class struggle anarchists, will know that consciousness is ultimately formed by the material conditions. Given that the above mentioned liberals are all part of the ruling class, their liberal ideology is itself dicated by their material conditions and their own class interests.

Or to put it another way, ideas are not formed in a vacuum.


I mean hey man, here's a thing to consider. While building a revolution, you might find it easier to recruit more people to the Left if you don't begin by denouncing and demonizing people on all sides of the mainstream discourse.

No one, myself included 'builds a revolution'. A revolution is built collectively by the working class based upon their material condtions, anything else is not a revolution. Whether I or anyone else "demonises" liberals or other elements of 'mainstream discourse' is irrelevant to a revolution, as any society in a pre-revolutionary situtation will be a society that is highly polarised and tbh, "demonising" people or ideologies will be the least of it.

The revolutionary left needs to be a movement by and for the working class, small segments of the middle classes and isolated individuals from the middle and bourgeois class may indeed join us, but they can never lead, only support us, for the leading role of a revolutionary movement and of the social revolution itself is solely the task of the working and oppressed class and no one else.


We have more in common with liberals than we do with conservatives, and while that doesn't mean we can count on them, it does mean we don't have to make them our mortal enemies.

One of the biggest issues for me at the moment is the scandal of the bank bail outs, or Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP). These bail outs represent the greatest act of collective theft from the working class by a bourgeois government, and all that money wnt to the most obscene and richest individuals and institutions within the capitalist system. Yet it was/is the liberals who were/are the greatest defenders of this callous act of theft. Barney Frank again comes up, as his House Committee statements show, liberals are the biggest defenders of the bail outs and of Wall Street. On the specific issue of the bank bail outs/TARP, I and most, if not all, of the revolutionary left have much more in common with the fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party protesters and some Republicans, than with the liberals.


Socialism has enough enemies as it is. Socialism is a struggle against the governments and entrenched interests of the wealthy and the powerful. We don't need to tack on every single private individual who's not a die-hard revolutionary.

You contradict yourself here. If you wish to struggle for an egalitarian society that is stateless and is built upon collective direct democracy, then people need to prepare in the sense that such a society would be a more thinking society, using logic, rational debate and scientific methods and materialist analysis. It means that nothing, no idea, no concept is 'sacred' and that everything can and must be examined, questioned, analysed and debated. If thats not the case we would end up with a society similar to bourgeois society, where the mass of people simply are spoon fed a dominant set of ideas in a environment of unthinking stagnation.

Given that liberalism, like conservatism, is a ruling class bourgeois ideology, it cannot be elevated to being above criticism for the sake of making the revolutionary left appear 'approachable'.

The revolutionary left will grow when the following things happen:

1.) The development of a new programme that is relevant to the needs and issues of the working class as it stands today, along with the development of a theoretical approach that is able to fully analysis the current condition that the capitalist system is in and what way this analysis can be used as a guide to the working class for making a revolution.

2.) When the material conditions arise that will dicate to the working class that revolution is now their only solution.

The above two points are what has, does and will determine whether the working class will wage a revolution, not how we verbally treat a few liberals.

[RadioRaheem84]

One of the biggest issues for me at the moment is the scandal of the bank bail outs, or Troubled assest Relief Program (TARP). These bail outs represent the greatest act of collective theft from the working class by a bourgeois government, and all that money wnt to the most obscene and richest individuals and institutions within the capitalist system. Yet it was/is the liberals who were/are the greatest defenders of this callous act of theft. Barney Frank again comes up, as his House Committee statements show, liberals are the biggest defenders of the bail outs and of Wall Street. On this specific issue of bank bail outs/TARP, I and most, if not all, of the revolutionary left have much more in common with the fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party protesters and some Republicans, than with the liberals. G

The Liberal Democrats were very supportive of the bailout bill because during the 90s investment firms and other finance growth dependent sectors went to "left" parties, i.e. Clinton, Blair, Menem of Argentina, etc. Since then they've been very supportive of the new speculative economy over the old productive one. The Republicans represent mostly the interests of the productive economy, i.e. oil, gas, insurance, steel, energy, etc. Anything productive at all that Democrats support would be the creation of a "green sector".

The Democrats are very much in the pocket of Wall Street. Liberals very much believe in the wealth "creation" machine that is finance. During the 90s anyone that even hinted at dissent against bubble growth to prop up an economy was called far-left and anti-growth. That is why you see so many right wingers like the Tories, SarKozy, the GOP in the US using the anti-Wall Street mood to scoop up support and Social Democrats in Europe apologizing for going along with the finance growth hysteria in the 90s.

[Robocommie]

The Liberal Democrats were very supportive of the bailout bill because during the 90s investment firms and other finance growth dependent sectors went to "left" parties, i.e. Clinton, Blair, Menem of Argentina, etc. Since then they've been very supportive of the new speculative economy over the old productive one. The Republicans represent mostly the interests of the productive economy, i.e. oil, gas, insurance, steel, energy, etc. Anything productive at all that Democrats support would be the creation of a "green sector".

The Democrats are very much in the pocket of Wall Street. Liberals very much believe in the wealth "creation" machine that is finance. During the 90s anyone that even hinted at dissent against bubble growth to prop up an economy was called far-left and anti-growth. That is why you see so many right wingers like the Tories, SarKozy, the GOP in the US using the anti-Wall Street mood to scoop up support and Social Democrats in Europe apologizing for going along with the finance growth hysteria in the 90s.

That is a very salient and profound point, it hadn't even occured to me till now, so thank you for pointing that out. I recall hearing that some of Obama's big contributors were the financial industry. Puts quite a bit in perspective.

In that sense alone we have similar interests to the conservatives, because we both believe in productive economies, over finance. Of course, the similarities end there, because the GOP generally want to stimulate the productive economy through tax cuts, supply-side economics, and just trust the CEOs and shareholders to build factories in the US, even though doing so would be a bad business decision from the capitalist perspective.

[Robocommie]

Before I started to develop a real interest in politics and became politically active, I was a die hard conservative. Upon getting interested in politics I started to change my beliefs and by the time I became politically active at the age of sixteen, I had gone from being an apolitical and unthinking conservative to a communist.

And having seen a good number of posts by other members on Revleft, along with knowing a good number of people on the revolutionary left, I can safely say that ex-conservatives are just as numerous as ex-liberals on the revolutionary left.

I've gathered that much on my own, and it's fascinating to me, and has led me to rethink the traditional left/right spectrum of politics, or at least question it. It's also very interesting to me because of some of the basic assumptions that certain members of the Left here make about policy and about society betray some of these origins, both liberal and conservative.



Or to put it another way, ideas are not formed in a vacuum.
I'm not really looking to be lectured and I don't enjoy being preached at. But what I will say is that while it is true that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, if ideology derives solely from material conditions, and can not be shaped or influenced by education or the dissemination of ideas or literature, then I should think it is quite unnecessary to be revolutionaries at all, since as you say, the working class cannot be lead and a revolution can't be built on rational arguments. Should be quite sufficient I suppose to just sit and let the problem take care of itself.

In any case, I don't enjoy having rhetoric spat at me, all sound and fury.



One of the biggest issues for me at the moment is the scandal of the bank bail outs, or Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP). These bail outs represent the greatest act of collective theft from the working class by a bourgeois government, and all that money wnt to the most obscene and richest individuals and institutions within the capitalist system. Yet it was/is the liberals who were/are the greatest defenders of this callous act of theft. Barney Frank again comes up, as his House Committee statements show, liberals are the biggest defenders of the bail outs and of Wall Street. On the specific issue of the bank bail outs/TARP, I and most, if not all, of the revolutionary left have much more in common with the fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party protesters and some Republicans, than with the liberals.I mean, apples are red, doesn't make them inherently Socialist. White nationalists hate capitalism too, doesn't make them our allies. Any similarities we may have with another ideology on single issues, is irrelevant. The fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party protestors, the populist Republicans, do not have much in common with us because they do NOT want to see a cooperative society in which we all work for the common good. They're classical liberals, they want Smithian economics, and a lot of them also happen to want religious moralism and jingoism.

Whereas progressives are at least supportive of gay rights, civil rights, multiculturalism, and don't like imperialism.



It means that nothing, no idea, no concept is 'sacred' and that everything can and must be examined, questioned, analysed and debated.

I'm all for debate and analysis, but when I read your post, I feel more like I'm having dogma stuffed down my throat. I mean for one, I didn't say a god-damn thing about putting liberalism "above criticism." I'd be entirely opposed to that, and in fact, earlier in this thread I made a point about why I thought liberals, or progressives, were wrong.

[RadioRaheem84]

They're classical liberals, they want Smithian economics, and a lot of them also happen to want religious moralism and jingoism.

Smithian? As in Adam Smith? Adam Smith had a labor of theory of value to. Marx is actually the culmination of Smith and Ricardo's classical liberal thinking. He took it to its logical conclusion. These right wingers aren't Smithians. They're neo-classical crooks that wanted to silence the works of Marx, downplay Ricado's LTV in favor of his comparative advantage, and butcher Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Marxists are the sucessors of the continued rational thinking of past men during the Enlightenment.

[Robocommie]

Smithian? As in Adam Smith? Adam Smith had a labor of theory of value to. Marx is actually the culmination of Smith and Ricardo's classical liberal thinking. He took it to its logical conclusion. These right wingers aren't Smithians. They're neo-classical crooks that wanted to silence the works of Marx, downplay Ricado's LTV in favor of his comparative advantage, and butcher Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Marxists are the sucessors of the continued rational thinking of past men during the Enlightenment.

Yeah, Smith had a valuable analysis, but didn't he advocate laissez-faire capitalism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah, Smith had a valuable analysis, but didn't he advocate laissez-faire capitalism?

Yes, I just meant that Marx improved on his LTV. The rest of the time Smith is a classical economist that had some good things to say but mostly pro capitalist. The neo-classicals, neo-liberals and libertarians just totally butcher ALL of his work though to appologize for the tyranny of private corporations.

[Zanthorus]

...didn't he advocate laissez-faire capitalism?

Actually he didn't, Smith was far from a market fundamentalist and advocated a variety of restrictions on the free market (Some of these are documented here (http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-did-not-wear-an-adam-smith-necktie/)). In his day he was a radical egalitarian fighting against the entrenched privileges of the aristocracy, by all rights socialists have a much better claim to his intellectual legacy than right-wingers considering how his thought was developed by later socialists thinkers as well. Chomsky said some good stuff on this here. (http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm)

[Robocommie]

Actually he didn't, Smith was far from a market fundamentalist and advocated a variety of restrictions on the free market (Some of these are documented here (http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-did-not-wear-an-adam-smith-necktie/)). In his day he was a radical egalitarian fighting against the entrenched privileges of the aristocracy, by all rights socialists have a much better claim to his intellectual legacy than right-wingers considering how his thought was developed by later socialists thinkers as well. Chomsky said some good stuff on this here. (http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm)

Really? That's fascinating. I'll have to look into this further, thank you.

[Barry Lyndon]

The attacks by liberal academics against Howard Zinn on his deathbed reveals their true colors. Zinn is a reminder to them of what they should have, and could have been, if they had any consistency or principles and actually believed in a fraction of the empty words that spew forth from their mouths. This explains their vitriol towards him, much like many of the liberal academic honchos display against Chomsky. I can't articulate how appalled I was to see the 'liberal' New York Times run an obituary on Howard Zinn a day late and on page 20 of the BUSINESS SECTION. They have thousands of ready-made obituaries, and the author of one of the best-selling popular histories in modern times had to be one of them. It was a deliberate snub, really disgusting.
Although Howard Zinn was never explicitly a Marxist historian(he did use a lot of the methodology), his unforgivable sin, in the eyes of both the rabid right and the wimpy Quisling left, is that he unapologetically took the side of the oppressed in his account of American history-the chained slaves, the slaughtered Native Americans, the battered women, the ragged immigrants, the exploited workers. He made no pretensions to being 'objective', because no such thing exists and is almost always a cover for mouthing the homilies of the ruling class. The charge that he was 'simplistic' obscures the fact that while history may be complex in its details, it is often simple in its overall content- its pretty clear and stark in the demarcations between oppressed and oppressors, and the inevitable conflict between the two. It also demonstrates, to the hatred of liberal reformists, that even the most brutally oppressed can fight back and WIN victories themselves, and don't need to crawl and beg for crumbs from establishment politicians and intellectuals like them. The heroes of this narrative, the abolitionists, the labor unionists, feminists, Marxists and anarchists, were denounced as 'unrealistic', 'utopian', 'radical' and 'dangerous' by the liberals, who then hypocritically tried to grab the credit for victories in black liberation, labor rights, and womens rights after the fact, after the 'utopian radicals' had paid for it in endless blood, sweat and tears.
The academics who want to make it 'complex' are those who sided with the oppressing class a long time ago and want to drown their historical and moral obligation to fight on the side of the oppressed in a sea of obfuscatory double-talk.
Howard Zinn, historian, champion of the people, RIP.

[RadioRaheem84]

The heroes of this narrative, the abolitionists, the labor unionists, feminists, Marxists and anarchists, were denounced as 'unrealistic', 'utopian', 'radical' and 'dangerous' by the liberals, who then hypocritically tried to grab the credit for victories in black liberation, labor rights, and womens rights after the fact, after the 'utopian radicals' had paid for it in endless blood, sweat and tears.

The true faces of the Civil Rights Struggle are never revealed. The Communists, Socialists, Progressive and Democratic forces that pivoted the movement are always sidelined for the liberal faces that sided with liberal politicians.

RFK was a rat fink who could've cared less about civil rights unless it was politically convenient. I've read that JFK hated MLK and I could only imagine what he thought of Malcolm X. But these two pammpered brothers seem to be at the forefront of the Civil Rights struggle. It's as if Bill Clinton were to become the face of anti-globalization fifty years down the road!

[Barry Lyndon]

You have probably hit upon a real nerve that Zinn struck with bourgeois liberals. He actually brought up in his books positive contributions that Marxists made to American history, people such as Big Bill Haywood, Lucy Parsons, Helen Keller, Elixabeth Gurley Flynn, Paul Robeson etc. What is worse, he effectively presented such facts to a mainstream audience. Many radical historians have written about this, but virtually none were able to break through the firewall erected by 'objective' bourgeois historians. (The great Marxist historian Herbert Aptheker, after decades of trying to get a full-time university position, was allowed to teach one class at Yale in a basement to 15 students!) Zinn succeeded in reaching a new generation.
This is intolerable to liberals who see it as their duty to remind us as to how evil and wrong and discredited Marxism is, from Naomi Klein to Tony Judt and the rest of the self-appointed intelligensia. Their hatred of communism is so intense that they cannot bring themselves to adknowledge anything positive communists ever did.
For instance, the effect of the Cold War on the civil rights movement. The reason that the American federal government began to listen to the demands of Martin Luther King Jr. was in large part to improve its international image. Everytime the U.S. government would deride the Soviet Union for its abuse of human rights, the Russians simply responded by pointing out the racist oppression of blacks in the South, which won it big points with the emerging Third World countries, who were overhwhelmingly black, brown, and Asian and had just emerged from racist colonial oppression. So the American ruling class, if it wished to win the international PR war with its Soviet rival, had to do at least some limited cleaning house by throwing legalized Jim Crow out the window. This was pretty much cynically admitted by people like JFK and other liberal idols.
The same with labor rights. It is not a coincidence that most of the major gains of the American labor movement-the 8 hour workday, an end to child labor, workers health insurance, the right to unionize-all occurred in the aftermath of the Russian revolution of 1917. It is also not a coincidence that 'welfare as we know it' was abolished in the 1990's, after the Soviet Union collapsed, and workers rights have been under non-stop assault for the last 20 years. The existence of a rival economic system neccesitated the capitalist class in the United States to make concessions to its own working class and restrain its own worst impulses, at home at least.
With women's rights too ,as well, it is often left out how many progressive feminists in the early 20th century expressed great admiration for the impressive gains that women made in communist countries. The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and Cuba all saw half the population transformed from brutally oppressed chattel considered fit only for child bearing to teachers, doctors, engineers, political cadres and soldiers. The USSR had women military commadoes sniping Nazis and put a woman in space at a time when in the US any woman who wore slacks was considered a dyke, at best.
Vietnam, too is so obvious it's sickening, with liberals giving all the credit for 'ending the war' to the sign-waving anti war movement while giving none to the Vietnamese communists who heroically laid down their lives, in their millions, to free their country.
Liberals, having spent their whole professional careers attacking the radical left, find themselves shocked at the collapse of the progressive gains that they hypocritically cheered but did little or nothing to fight for. Due to their anti-Marxist blinders, most still don't get it.

[Dimentio]

The reason that the "progressives" are trying to destroy radical leftists by being silent about them, is rather fear than hatred. They basically want the current society, minus a few social ills. Radical leftists on the other hand, want to use the social ills as a battering ram to break the current society. Thus, the "progressives" feel that they are threatened and that the agenda might be forgotten.

[Omi]

The charge that he was 'simplistic' obscures the fact that while history may be complex in its details, it is often simple in its overall content- its pretty clear and stark in the demarcations between oppressed and oppressors, and the inevitable conflict between the two. It also demonstrates, to the hatred of liberal reformists, that even the most brutally oppressed can fight back and WIN victories themselves, and don't need to crawl and beg for crumbs from establishment politicians and intellectuals like them. The heroes of this narrative, the abolitionists, the labor unionists, feminists, Marxists and anarchists, were denounced as 'unrealistic', 'utopian', 'radical' and 'dangerous' by the liberals, who then hypocritically tried to grab the credit for victories in black liberation, labor rights, and womens rights after the fact, after the 'utopian radicals' had paid for it in endless blood, sweat and tears.



And this is the crux of the story. This is what it's all about, and why we are fighting the struggle against oppression this day and many days to come. Very well put!:thumbup1:

[Yehuda Stern]

Regarding the OP: I too find that a lot of people on the left denounce Zinn's "simplistic" approach to the revolution as a way of not sounding like they are ignoring the fact that the American revolutionaries were overwhelmingly slave-owning racists. Which of course, they are; the ICFI (World Socialist Website), for example, is always willing to glorify Thomas Paine and the rest of the revolutionaries, but are a lot less forgiving with groups that are in conflict with imperialism today.

Then again, you have to admit that Zinn does have a somewhat simplistic analysis; saying that the revolution was a mere change of rulers which did not bring about any qualitative change in America is a-historical and ignores the fact that it allowed capitalism to develop there. Capitalism has never developed anywhere in a peaceful way or in a way that was friendly to the oppressed, but it has been a necessary stage in human development.

An anecdote which this reminded me of: I once started reading Lenni Brenner's book, the Lesser Evil. The book's thesis, which I of course agree with, is that the Democratic party is a party of capitalism and racism, not different in essence from the Republican party, and that the left must never support it in elections or in any other way. It starts out interesting; but then, he attacks a black writer who said that it was always a racist party of slave owners. Brenner claims that that view of the party is, surprise surprise, "simplistic".

[Barry Lyndon]

Which of course, they are; the ICFI (World Socialist Website), for example, is always willing to glorify Thomas Paine and the rest of the revolutionaries, but are a lot less forgiving with groups that are in conflict with imperialism today.Thomas Paine was not a slaveowner. In fact, he was an abolitionist and was an avid supporter of the French Revolution, which abolished slavery among other things(even though slavery was re-instated by Napoleon).
Paine is probably the only one of the United States founding fathers which I have almost unreserved admiration for.
Didn't mean to detract from the conversation, just a little clarification.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's true that Paine was not a slave owner. He was, though, very careful not to support any mass action against private property, as Zinn mentiones in his book. I wonder if he could be a very consistent opponent of slavery, given that. But then that's just my logic, and it's very possible that Paine was in fact consistently abolitionist.

[RED DAVE]

Read it! The text is available FREE online. No excuses.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

Quiz on Monday. :D

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeshuda, historians and political analysts like Zinn and Chomsky are very simplistic in their view of history because their target audience is working class people and not historians or political scientists.

Being a history and political buff, I sometimes find Chomsky insultingly simple but nonetheless correct in almost every manner. The point is that these two great men of American academia have de-mystified the jargon of a lot of academics and broke history and politics in the US down to a simple formula; the ruling class runs affairs.

Liberals hate this because they feel it cheapens their profession and now any joe shmoe can run around claiming the US is hypocritical. The conservatives hate them because now any average citizen can walk around knowing the facts of history and the political system and not be easily bought off by right wing patriotism.

Liberals and to some extent progressives are highly hypocritical and elitist in nature and scope. They dislike "simple" analysis of history and politics because they inherently believe in the system. Chomsky and Zinn challenge the presupposed ideals of the system and show evidence that the US has always been and will probably always be run by a ruling class, unless people are informed enough to make social changes.

When I bring up Chomsky in front of my more pro-establishment liberal friends, they scoff as if Chomsky is for dumb sophomore anarchists or something. They think that political/economic issues are more nuanced than what Chomsky relays but they can never get over the fact that the owning class is in fact running things like a ruling class. They admit to the presupposition that Chomsky ascribes to them but keep insisting that there is more to it than meets the eye. But what more is there to it than that? How much more technocratic jargon and wonkish idealism can they throw at me to convince me that the issue concerning political power isn't any more simple than; those who own, govern.

[The Grey Blur]

Chomsky is a liberal.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky is a liberal.

In what way? He's written against the liberal establishment for years. In fact it was the subject of scorn in his earliest writings.

[x359594]

...[Chomsky's] written against the liberal establishment for years. In fact it was the subject of scorn in his earliest writings.

Alas, pasting a label on a writer is a quick way of dismissing all that he or she has said or written without seriously engaging with the writing itself.

Chomsky, Parenti, Arundhati Roy, Naomi Klein and other critics of capitalism and its manifestations also call for its destruction, and that alone separates them from liberalism. They vary on the speed and the methods for dismantling capitalism, and their strategies and tactics are open to criticism but fundamentally they are anti-capitalist writers/critics; they are not liberals.

[Yehuda Stern]

Raheem: I fail to understand why you insist on distorting my name at every chance you got, but leaving that aside, your whole post simply reveals a condescending attitude towards working class people, who supposedly cannot understand complex issues but only "good vs. bad". That, indeed, is an attitude characteristic of leftists like Zinn and Chomsky, and apparently you as well.

[RadioRaheem84]

your whole post simply reveals a condescending attitude towards working class people, who supposedly cannot understand complex issues but only "good vs. bad". That, indeed, is an attitude characteristic of leftists like Zinn and Chomsky, and apparently you as well.I think you're being a little unfair and I apologize for misspelling your name, it was unintentional.

I think that Chomsky and Zinn's attempts to demystify the academic jargon of liberal academics is not because they look down on the average worker, it's because they know the average worker is smarter than the liberal academics give him credit for.

They both come from a family line of working class intellectuals where issues weren't conflated with jargon to disguise bias and what not, it was very much spoken in a language that all could understand. I think that making issues too complex to where it confuses people is a way of making one's field specialized. Chomsky said that this was why he had a disdain for the French intellectual community. He felt they were too busy specializing their field and pumping it with jargon while doing work that amounts to nothing more than clerical. His point is that everyone can analyze topics concerning economic, historical and political issues and there is no need to rely on a certain class of intellectuals to get your information from.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's no issue of concealing jargon; there's the issue of simplifying an issue in a way that makes it impossible to correctly understand its significance. Say whatever you want; to me it just seems like you think workers aren't sophisticated enough to understand sophisticated issues.

[RadioRaheem84]

Say whatever you want; to me it just seems like you think workers aren't sophisticated enough to understand sophisticated issues.Do you not get it? The point is that the workers are smart enough to see through the BS of many establishment intellectuals. You really need to stop making it seem as though I am condescending to the workers. You're making shit up.


There's no issue of concealing jargon; there's the issue of simplifying an issue in a way that makes it impossible to correctly understand its significance.and you believe Chomsky and Zinn are guilty of this? Their argument is the right wing does this while the liberals complicate the issue.

[Yehuda Stern]

I do get it; why do you keep avoiding the issue? The American Revolution was an incredibly important event which did much more than switch the rulers of the colonies. Howard Zinn says otherwise. You say, oh no, he just says that to make it simple for the workers. What's so "smart" about this? How can that not be condescending?

[RadioRaheem84]

I do get it; why do you keep avoiding the issue? The American Revolution was an incredibly important event which did much more than switch the rulers of the colonies. Howard Zinn says otherwise. You say, oh no, he just says that to make it simple for the workers. What's so "smart" about this? How can that not be condescending?

No I didn't say that. You're severely confused because I happen to agree with Zinn and don't think that it's a simplification for the workers. I think that he is deconstructing the jargon many liberals use to expound the utter greatness of the American Revolution. If anything the French Revolution had more ideals embedded in it than the American one.

[Yehuda Stern]

OK, the I misunderstood you, I suppose. It's not an issue of ideals, though: bourgeois revolutions were not supposed to be friendly to the workers and oppressed. They were supposed to bring the bourgeoisie to power.

[RadioRaheem84]

Agreed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's fine and necessary to look at anyone's work critically and I agree there are a lot of PHOUS that might have been done differently or that are ultra-left in some instances (like Zinn's treatment of the American Revolution as essentially a scam by the elites alone and not something that involved all colonial classes).

I think that's much different because there is a political disagreement and point being expressed which can be debated. the academic arguments about "simplicity" tend to be disingenuous because they are attacking his political perspective not on a political level, but dismissing the politics through a criticism of the methodology.

It's like when a comrade makes a point in OI that a right-winger can't overcome and so they say: "show me the statistics to prove it". They could easily do their own Google search, but their goal is to make you look like a liar without having to proove empirically that what you were saying was a lie (either because they can't or they just can't be bothered).

[Sendo]

It's true that Paine was not a slave owner. He was, though, very careful not to support any mass action against private property, as Zinn mentiones in his book. I wonder if he could be a very consistent opponent of slavery, given that. But then that's just my logic, and it's very possible that Paine was in fact consistently abolitionist.

Put him into context. That doesn't mean saying racist slavery was ok because everyone did it, but he was far more principled than say, Thomas Jefferson who is always held up as aprincipled and personally tormented by owning slaves. HA! So he was on the progressive end. Likewise Adam Smith was a progressive for being anti-aristocracy in his time.

[anticap]

his unforgivable sin, in the eyes of both the rabid right and the wimpy Quisling left, is that he unapologetically took the side of the oppressed in his account of American history-the chained slaves, the slaughtered Native Americans, the battered women, the ragged immigrants, the exploited workers.

Indeed. The "people's theory of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_history)" runs directly counter to the "Great Man theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory)," and that cuts to the quick for those who pretend to greatness, even if ostensibly on behalf of the oppressed.


He made no pretensions to being 'objective', because no such thing exists and is almost always a cover for mouthing the homilies of the ruling class.

If I didn't already have a sig that I love, I'd work that into one. Maybe like so:

"Pretensions to "objectivity" -- which does not exist -- are almost always a cover for mouthing the homilies of the ruling class." --Barry Lyndon

[vyborg]

an article about Zinn here http://www.marxist.com/memory-of-howard-zinn-life-and-ideas.htm

[Mather]

I'm not really looking to be lectured and I don't enjoy being preached at.

I was neither lecturing nor preaching at you.


But what I will say is that while it is true that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, if ideology derives solely from material conditions, and can not be shaped or influenced by education or the dissemination of ideas or literature,

Material conditions will shape the general direction of the class struggle and class relations, but of course material conditions cannot be applied to every individual. There are many people who have changed sides during the class struggle for a number of different reasons, some out of ideological conviction and some out of personal opportunism.

Of course education, literature and propaganda can all influence and even change an individuals ideological outlook, a lot of people, including myself are living examples of this.

I don't believe in determinism and likewise I don't take an absolutist approach to materialism, it is not a crystal ball that we can look at to tell the future. I see materialism as more of a guide, a method by which we can analyse the class struggle and then try and figure out what general direction the class struggle may take.

Materialism does not exclude other methods of analysis, it should complement them.


then I should think it is quite unnecessary to be revolutionaries at all, since as you say, the working class cannot be lead and a revolution can't be built on rational arguments. Should be quite sufficient I suppose to just sit and let the problem take care of itself.

I did not say any of that nor do I believe in any of that.

Again, I don't believe in determinism and the worst thing revolutionaries could do is to give up their activism, struggle and work and just wait for things to happen.


In any case, I don't enjoy having rhetoric spat at me, all sound and fury.

Again that was never my intention, you keep trying to make out that my posts are somehow having a go at you, they are not.


I mean, apples are red, doesn't make them inherently Socialist. White nationalists hate capitalism too, doesn't make them our allies. Any similarities we may have with another ideology on single issues, is irrelevant.

I totally agree.

I never said that we should form alliances with any section of the conservative movement, no matter how much we may agree on certain single issues. But I also apply this rule to liberals as well, since liberals are as much part of the ruling class as their conservative counterparts are.


The fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party protestors, the populist Republicans, do not have much in common with us because they do NOT want to see a cooperative society in which we all work for the common good. They're classical liberals, they want Smithian economics,

Again the exact same can be said for all liberals, even the ones who are big supporters of the welfare state, as Adam Smith (as some posters have mentioned) did support social safety nets and the regulation of the market, he was not the crazed ultra-libertarian free marketeer that modern 'historians' and 'economists' have made him out to be.

Adam Smith is after all one of the founders of economic and classical liberalism, the type of liberalism we now see in practice in many of the industrialised democratic capitalist countries. Adam Smith has never really been considered a conservative and Smith is a very different figure in his outlook to say Edmund Burke.


and a lot of them also happen to want religious moralism and jingoism.

Again I agree, given that liberalism and conservatism are simply two sides of the same coin, given that both liberalism and conservatism share the same outlook on all the big political fundamentals (property rights, the state, war and peace, economic planning etc...), social and cultural issues are one of the few things that seperate some of the liberals from some of the conservatives.


Whereas progressives are at least supportive of gay rights, civil rights, multiculturalism,

Agreed, on these issues liberals are more closer to our outlook than conservatives. But these are all 'safe' issues which do not challenge the capitalist system itself, as all these rights can be accomodated with relative ease in any given democratic capitalist society. There are many examples of different countries with very high levels of civil rights, gay rights and official, state sanctioned multiculturalism, but in none of these countries does the capitalist system feel threatened or under attack as these rights do not touch upon the all important question of class relations and class rule.


and don't like imperialism.

I have yet to come a cross a liberal who is opposed to imperialism and a great many more liberals love imperialism, especially the imperialism of the blue helmets (UN).


I'm all for debate and analysis, but when I read your post, I feel more like I'm having dogma stuffed down my throat. I mean for one, I didn't say a god-damn thing about putting liberalism "above criticism." I'd be entirely opposed to that, and in fact, earlier in this thread I made a point about why I thought liberals, or progressives, were wrong.

Again I am not taking aim you at all, just debating with you. As for dogma, I don't do dogma as it is killing the revolutionary left.

[anticap]

Adam Smith (as some posters have mentioned) did support social safety nets and the regulation of the market, he was not the crazed ultra-libertarian free marketeer that modern 'historians' and 'economists' have made him out to be.

Max Beer even suggested that any critic of Marx ought to be dismissed out of hand unless he directed his criticism first at Smith (and Ricardo).

This would put market fundies in a bit of a pickle, since they revere Smith as a prophet, and condemn Marx as a devil! :lol:

[Ztrain]

"Too Simplistic": We need to be simpeler as the average simple man is the most important part of any revolution