Upside Down History

[Red Clydesider]

I'd like to introduce a topic that takes us away from 20th century revolutionary history. It's a very simple idea, though not systematic the way Marxist history usually is.

Ask the question: 'Who are the great men and women in history?' And answer in a new way: not Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Elizabeth I or Napoleon. Instead, let's make an alternative list.

Who are on this list? That's the whole point: according to conventional history, the 'great' figures are power-holders, builders of nations and empires. Countless others whose obscure lives can often inspire us, are forgotten or half-forgotten. Often there's no record of their names.

Jack London in his book 'The People of the Abyss' tells the story of an old sailor, who had won the Victoria Cross for outstanding bravery and had fought for 'Queen and country' for many years. One day on board ship, an officer called him (as London puts it) 'a name that referred to his mother'. The sailor reacted, knocking the officer overboard. For this one offence, his first and only offence, he was given fifty lashes, discharged from the navy, had to give up his VC, and was sent to prison for two years.

Who deserves to be famous? Queen Victoria? The Admiral of the Fleet? The government navy minister of the time? Or this nameless man? Who deserves our respect?

Does anyone else know a similar story? An example of a more or less unknown person who should get into history's roll of honour?

Red Clydesider.

[CatsAttack]

So you think some sailor is a greater historical figure than Caesar and Napoleon?

[Invader Zim]

'Great man' history is drivel, and from the point of view of actually understanding events in the past, pretty worthless.

This whole exercise is pointless.

[Akshay!]

'Great man' history is drivel, and from the point of view of actually understanding events in the past, pretty worthless.

This whole exercise is pointless.

I think that's the whole point of the OP.

[Invader Zim]

I think that's the whole point of the OP.

I get the point, to look to individuals typically overlooked as important figures - but it still buys into the same tedious idea.

[Hit The North]

The problem is that many of these figures will be nameless, given that most history is written from the point of view of 'great men'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My screen-name is the name used by early u.s. socialists to stand in for the unsung rank and file socialist who organizes locally and makes socialism a living thing in communities and workplaces. I think it was a flawed but interesting way to try and get at both the importance of the individual, but as an individual working for a common or collective project. Radical and folk culture has many examples of sort of mythical "common men" who stand in for larger collective forces.

[Invader Zim]

Of course, the OP might be interested to know that there is an actual 'field', I suppose you might call it a 'field' though it is much broader than that, of history called 'history from below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_history)', that invested all of this 'great man' crap decades ago.

[Geiseric]

My screen-name is the name used by early u.s. socialists to stand in for the unsung rank and file socialist who organizes locally and makes socialism a living thing in communities and workplaces. I think it was a flawed but interesting way to try and get at both the importance of the individual, but as an individual working for a common or collective project. Radical and folk culture has many examples of sort of mythical "common men" who stand in for larger collective forces.

Exactly like joe hill, Tom joad, or miss Pavlichenko. Those are more symbolic than literal though.

[Astarte]

I think Invader Zim is actually completely off-base in his snide and rather unnecessarily coarse comment to the original poster. The OP has actually nothing to do with the great-man theory, but rather is trying to evoke the memory of the NAMELESS (after all, how can this have anything to do with the great man theory when the influence of the nameless on history is completely forgotten and diminished to such an extent that their name is not even remembered for posterity), be they individuals or masses who either stood up against state power or were instrumental in the creation, progress and course of history. Some that come to mind in my thinking are the countless slaves and corvee'd peoples of the ancient world who built for example the aqueducts of Rome, or dug the irrigation canals of the the Mesopotamian empires, or the 'Great Canal' of the Sui Dynasty.

[Lee Van Cleef]

The overwhelming majority of Revleft recognizes that "Great Man Theory" is bunk. Not every discussion about historical events has to have crude Marxist dogma forced down its throat till it chokes. By your logic, discussions such as this one shouldn't even take place. How can you not understand the appeal of a human interest story? It makes history much more exciting when you're able to relate to people who lived the events.

To kick things off, I'd like to mention Jeon Tae-il. He was a textile worker who died in 1970 at the age of 22, and the first to really put his life on the line for the labor struggle in South Korea.

The factory where he worked had no ventilation, and people were getting sick with tuberculosis. They were also forced to work sometimes for days without sleep. The average working day in the ROK at the time was 16 hours, and these workers were pushed even harder.

At the time, all laws in South Korea were written in Chinese. Jeon and other workers started teaching each other how to read Chinese so that they could understand their rights under the labor law. Jeon went to the Ministry of Labor and reported his employer, but they refused to hear what he had to say. A journalist took a big risk in agreeing to print the story, and the factory workers began to agitate for ventilation.

The protests went unreported by the media, and eventually the workers tired of fighting the police. In desperation, Jeon lit himself on fire and ran down the street of a Seoul market district screaming, "We are not machines! Enforce the labor laws!" His death inspired people around the country to agitate and begin a real labor movement in Korea, which remains strong to this day.

[Invader Zim]

I think Invader Zim is actually completely off-base in his snide and rather unnecessarily coarse comment to the original poster.

My comment is not snide, nor is it coarse. It is, however, something I believe to be true: that reverentially listing otherwise overlooked 'great men' is a boring waste of time which doesn't teach anybody anything of historical value.


The OP has actually nothing to do with the great-man theory

The OP: "Ask the question: 'Who are the great men and women in history?' And answer in a new way: not Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Elizabeth I or Napoleon. Instead, let's make an alternative list."

It is a call to focus on individuals and their intentions. If you like that kind of thing then good for you - there are plenty of history forums populated by rightwingers playing these kinds of games where you can indulge yourself to your hearts content - but there is a reason why politically the focus on individuals ('great' or otherwise) is in the purview of the rightwing. It is the manifestation of individualism vs structuralism in historical analysis. In my view, far more interesting are societies, and on a lower level organisations, as a whole, and how individuals react to the political, social and economic ebb and flow of those wider bodies of humanity. That is what history is about - not trading anecdotes about individual sailors who were flogged and imprisoned.


Not every discussion about historical events has to have crude Marxist dogma forced down its throat till it chokes.

This has nothing to do with 'Marxist dogma'. It is about the fact that promoting various 'important' individuals you think have been overlooked is a waste of time, and traditionally an indulgence of rightwingers. It involves no analysis, it brings us no closer to understanding the societies in which these people lived, and basically is not something we can learn anything meaningful from. Moreover, there is already an 'upside down' history, but that is actually valuable.


How can you not understand the appeal of a human interest story?

Consideration of individuals is interesting providing their experiences are used as examples of wider phenomenon. Failing that it isn't history, just a series of anecdotes with no purpose. And no, that isn't appealing, not even remotely. It debases history to the level of Trivial Pursuit cards.

[Astarte]

It is a call to focus on individuals and their intentions. If you like that kind of thing then good for you - there are plenty of history forums populated by rightwingers playing these kinds of games where you can indulge yourself to your hearts content - but there is a reason why politically the focus on individuals ('great' or otherwise) is in the purview of the rightwing. In my view, far more interesting are societies, and on a lower level organisations, as a whole, and how individuals react to the political, social and economic ebb and flow of those wider bodies of humanity. That is what history is about - not trading anecdotes about individual sailors who were flogged and imprisoned.


As Leevancleef mentioned, we understand that individuals are not the motor force of history, but rather the struggle of classes are. But likewise, these are human interest stories that express the individual as members of a class, and I am not sure why Marxists should disavow themselves from taking interest in individuals in history who stood against oppression and the status quo, or likewise the entire mass of individuals collectively known as the oppressed classes throughout history who are entirely nameless to posterity - are these people not "great"? Are not the nameless thousands and their own individual lives which were spent toiling away on massive irrigation systems that provided the increases in foodstuffs which allowed society to expand not "great"? Is not the story of Jeon which Leevancleef illustrated an example of a "great" individual?

Marxists do not gloss over the importance of the individual in creating history, but merely point out it is only the role of that individual in so far as he or she is a part of a class that is important - through that individual's actions as representative and member and part of the effort to end the oppression of that class, or fight the status quo of oppression as revolutionarily expressed by way of their own personage do they become "great" - this concept is miles away from the bourgeois and ruling class conception of the "great man theory" which claims it is solely the will power of the individual divorced from their class position that creates history or themselves. The Marxian conception of the "great individual" conversely rests on the individual being considered "great" in regards to how his or her actions expressed the will and outcry or productive force of an entire collective class, which Jeon's story indeed did.

[Invader Zim]

I'm just going to repeat what I said last time, as it addresses your post entirely:

"Consideration of individuals is interesting providing their experiences are used as examples of wider phenomenon. Failing that it isn't history, just a series of anecdotes with no purpose. And no, that isn't appealing, not even remotely. It debases history to the level of Trivial Pursuit cards."

Oh, and Marx defined in strikingly clear terms how he perceived individuals in history and what he believed to be interesting and important:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

Karl Marx, Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, (1859).

And he was right, and there is nothing dogmatic about saying so. It isn't just Marxists who have reached the same conclusion, but practically every historian worth reading, regardless of their politics, for the past 60-80 years. It is what separates a historical biography from mere political hagiography.

[Lee Van Cleef]

My comment is not snide, nor is it coarse. It is, however, something I believe to be true: that reverentially listing otherwise overlooked 'great men' is a boring waste of time which doesn't teach anybody anything of historical value.

It is a call to focus on individuals and their intentions. If you like that kind of thing then good for you - there are plenty of history forums populated by rightwingers playing these kinds of games where you can indulge yourself to your hearts content

It involves no analysis, it brings us no closer to understanding the societies in which these people lived, and basically is not something we can learn anything meaningful from.

You sound like a barrel of fun. If I can't discuss interesting people in history without being branded a right-winger, then I'll tear up my Marxist Club membership card right now. Your claim that every thought and every breath must be used to conduct some sort of analysis or solve a philosophical problem is utterly ridiculous.

Try going out in the streets and convincing people to listen to you with this attitude. Marxism is about building a society for the working class, but we're not allowed to share stories about workers who made a difference in the world?


Consideration of individuals is interesting providing their experiences are used as examples of wider phenomenon. Failing that it isn't history, just a series of anecdotes with no purpose. And no, that isn't appealing, not even remotely. It debases history to the level of Trivial Pursuit cards.

Come now, you're just sore that you're no good at Trivial Pursuit! Honestly, your positions sound like you think every leftist should be duty-bound to the fanatic philosopher's No Fun Club. Sorry, but I think we all need a break every once in a while. How about I bring some board games to the next meeting? If you don't like Trivial Pursuit, I've also got Stratego and Chinese checkers!

[Astarte]

I'm just going to repeat what I said last time, as it addresses your post entirely:

"Consideration of individuals is interesting providing their experiences are used as examples of wider phenomenon. Failing that it isn't history, just a series of anecdotes with no purpose. And no, that isn't appealing, not even remotely. It debases history to the level of Trivial Pursuit cards."

Oh, and Marx defined in strikingly clear terms how he perceived individuals in history and what he believed to be interesting and important:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

Karl Marx, Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, (1859).

And he was right, and there is nothing dogmatic about saying so. It isn't just Marxists who have reached the same conclusion, but practically every historian worth reading, regardless of their politics, for the past 60-80 years. It is what separates a historical biography from mere political hagiography.

That is a good quote by Marx, but it in no way pertains to this argument since I already mentioned that the Marxian consideration of the individual hinges on their class associations and furthermore material conditions, so nice straw man - which is what your whole argument in this thread is and was from the start.

[Invader Zim]

You sound like a barrel of fun.

Really, because I could say the same of you.

Consider it this way, which is more interesting, noting that Alan Turing was gay and ended his own life by deliberately consuming a poisoned apple. Or, understanding what it was about British society and its intelligence agencies, to which Turing was heavily affiliated, that pushed Turing into such a tragic and final decision? In my view it is obviously, and always going to be the latter which is interesting.

If you think that makes me humourless or boring, then I posit that its actually you who is missing out, not I.


If I can't discuss interesting people in history without being branded a right-winger

I didn't call you, or anybody else, a rightwinger. I said that what you are trying to do is traditionally in the purview of the rightwing, and for clear ideological reasons, and that if you really want to engage in this kind of thing there are plenty of better places to do it on the internet. But this forum, on this board, is here to discuss history from 'a revolutionary viewpoint'. So, I doubt that this thread will go very far.


Honestly, your positions sound like you think every leftist should be duty-bound to the fanatic philosopher's No Fun Club.

Again, you miss the point. The issue is that hagiography, whether it is about otherwise under recognised leftists or otherwise, is not something I think is even remotely interesting or fun.

[Invader Zim]

That is a good quote by Marx, but it in no way pertains to this argument since I already mentioned that the Marxian consideration of the individual hinges on their class associations and furthermore material conditions, so nice straw man - which is what your whole argument in this thread is and was from the start.

It pertains precisely to your argument, which essentially boils down to overstating the "importance of the individual in creating history", and then spouting only superficially leftwing sounding cliché's, such as that 'great' men are 'representative and member and part of the effort to end the oppression of that class' - which of course is to totally misunderstand Marx. Marx was saying the precise opposite of the rubbish you're coming out with. Fo Marx, superstructures are what create and drive the tides of history, and that people play functionary roles within those superstructures - that they are products of these super-structures and their behaviour is reflective of their social-experience.

[Astarte]

It pertains precisely to your argument, which essentially boils down to overstating the "importance of the individual in creating history", and then spouting only superficially leftwing sounding cliché's, such as that 'great' men are 'representative and member and part of the effort to end the oppression of that class' - which of course is to totally misunderstand Marx. Marx was saying the precise opposite of the rubbish you're coming out with. Fo Marx, superstructures are what create and drive the tides of history, and that people play functionary roles within those superstructures - that they are products of these super-structures and their behaviour is reflective of their social-experience.

What a load of nonsense you claim - all of your arguments rest on putting words in other peoples' mouths and constructing strawmen. There is nothing superficially leftist in recognizing individuals are the component parts of classes, and that at key junctures in history individuals indeed do play decisive factors in the course of history, namely when they are in positions of leadership and influence among the class they have come to represent owing to being the most organic and most complete representation of the collective aspirations of the class they are a part of, or have come to represent in a single individual, as say was Lenin. You seem to believe that superstructures, which rest on the economic base mode of society and in turn the classes they produce are independent of the individuals that compose them, which is nonsense, since it is the mass sameness in the production roles of an oppressed class which an economic mode imprints on hundreds, or thousands, or millions of individuals which creates a class. You seem to think a class is a homogeneous consciousness, similar to your Borg or something, without any kind of heterogeneity at all in either random life events or temperament, so much so that the mere mentioning of an individual story of opposition to coercion seems to be repulsive to you. Why is that?

[MarxArchist]

The black death, or, the plague. That guy was responsible for the 1381 peasant revolt in England. I'm hoping to meet severe global economic crisis soon. Or maybe a continuing authoritarian capitalist state than steps too far and sparks an end to capitalism. Another world war as WW1 set the stage for the Russian attempt? The ghost of immiseration is the greatest being ever.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/The_Exorcist.jpg

[Invader Zim]

all of your arguments rest on putting words in other peoples' mouths and constructing strawmen.

This is hilarious, you contend that I place words in your mouth and strawman your position, while coming out with this:

"namely when they are in positions of leadership and influence among the class they have come to represent owing to being the most organic and most complete representation of the collective aspirations of the class they are a part of, or have come to represent in a single individual, as say was Lenin."


You seem to believe that superstructures, which rest on the economic base mode of society and in turn the classes they produce are independent of the individuals that compose them

You have this entirely inverted from the historical reality. It is not a relevant question to ask whether superstructures are independent of the individuals which comprise them, (you might as well ask whether the ebb and flow of the pacific ocean is as a whole is independent of molecules of which it is comprised, it is a ludicrous question) but rather to debunk the fairytale that suggests that individuals and their actions are divorced from the superstructures which produced them and shaped their consciousness.


You seem to think a class is a homogeneous consciousness, similar to your Borg or something, without any kind of heterogeneity at all in either random life events or temperament, so much so that the mere mentioning of an individual story of opposition to coercion seems to be repulsive to you. Why is that?

I never suggested any such thing, you accused me of developing strawman arguments -which I have not - and you then proceed to construct this scarecrow? Too funny. I never suggested that everybody from the same background thinks the same thing. However, it is certainly the case, as Marx argued over 150 years ago, that a person's experiences determine their outlook - and not the other way around.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the Marxist view of this question is summed up in a pretty useful, if overused (by marxists), quote that people make history but not in conditions of their choosing.

History is not created by great men through the power of their will (as held by nearly any pro-capitalist "bootstrap" believer) or superiority. The objective material situation deals the cards, but people do have subjective influence or cards to play. Otherwise there's no importance to class struggle and this relationship of the subjective and objective is what separates Marx's materialism from more deterministic versions.

[CatsAttack]

They weren't written in Chinese, they were written in Korean using Chinese characters.

I'm sorry but I just can't stand to read such nonsense. A less informed individual than myself might be left scratching his head, "why were South Korean laws written in Chinese, in 1970!"

My goodness. Carry on gentleman.

[Red Clydesider]

I'm grateful to Astarte and Lee van Cleef especially for rebutting the cold assertion that individuals don't count. The story of Jeon Tae-il is inspiring. And it proves a point because I had never heard of him. At school I was taught about Julius Caesar et al but never about people like him. My history teachers had probably never heard of him.

What I'm saying is that people like Jeon Tae-il should be in the foreground of history. Even someone like Jack London's sailor, who (unlike Jeon Tae-il) did nothing to change history, but whose story makes us aware of what ruling class oppression really meant for people at various times in the past.

James.

[Red Clydesider]

Of course the key to understanding history isn't 'great men' but the concept of class struggle. But how can we dismiss human interest stories like that of Jeon Tae-il? To do so is an insult to the memory of these individuals.

Another story is that of Tacky. He was the leader of what is known as 'Tacky's Rebellion' in Jamaica in 1760. As so often, his real name is uncertain - perhaps Takyi, a name from his African origins in what is now Ghana.

His story is told in detail in the left historian Richard Gott's book 'Britain's Empire' Briefly, Tacky managed to organise slaves on plantations all over Jamaica - in total secrecy, so that owners had no idea what was about to happen - in a co-ordinated uprising on Easter Monday 1760. The rebellion was not finally defeated for over a year, and during this time news of it reached the North American colonies and Europe. It was much talked about in anti-slavery circles.

Tacky and other leaders were finally shot or committed suicide before execution, but, as Richard Gott says, their uprising 'was to feed into the anti-slavery movement of the 18th century that eventually secured the end of the slave trade'.

Tacky can be compared with Jeon Tae-il, because his individual act, the thing he gave his life for, is historically significant. The uprising wouldn't have been as effective as it was, or lasted as long, or fed into the anti-slavery movement, had it not been for Tacky. He was an individual who made a difference.

James.

[Fred]

Well, here's the thing: certain individuals play significant roles in history. Nobody ever exists outside of a specific set of material conditions, e.g., time, place, social circumstances. Within those constraints, certain people play relatively pivotal roles. It is silly to view it otherwise. Individuals are no less "material" than the nameless masses and class members that make up the vast majority of humankind. Is it really reactionary to say that Alexander the Great had more of an impact on history than one of his galley slaves? Now to understand these "great men" outside of an historical context, as happens frequently among bourgeois historians, esp. the bad ones, is completely idiotic. But to eschew the great thinkers, innovators and leaders in history is also pretty foolish.

[Astarte]

Invader Zim, I think my last post stands as I don't see how you have rebutted anything I have said. In fact, you are making the exact same mistake Plekhanov explained here in his pamphlet "On the Role of the Individual in History":


"The adherents of the new trend in the science of history began to argue that history could not have taken any other course than the one it has taken, notwithstanding all “atoms.” Striving to emphasise the effect of general causes as much as possible, they ignored the personal qualities of historical personages. According to their argument, historical events would not have been affected in the least by the substitution of some persons for others, more or less capable. [29] But if we make such an assumption then we must admit that the personal element is of no significance whatever in history, and that everything can be reduced to the operation of general causes, to the general laws of historical progress. This would be going to an extreme which leaves no room for the particle of truth contained in the opposite opinion. It is precisely for this reason that the opposite opinion retained some right to existence. The collision between these two opinions assumed the form of an antinomy, the first part of which was general laws, and the second part was the activities of individuals. From the point of view of the second part of the antinomy, history was simply a chain of accidents; from the point of view of the first part it seemed that even the individual features of historical events were determined by the operation of general causes. But if the individual features of events are determined by the influence of general causes and do not depend upon the personal qualities of historical personages, it follows that these features are determined by general causes and cannot be changed, no matter how much these personages may change. Thus, the theory assumes a fatalistic character."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html

And:


But let us return to our subject. A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. Carlyle, in his well-known book on heroes and hero-worship, calls great men beginners. This is a very apt description. A great man is precisely a beginner because he sees further than others, and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought up by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero. But he is not a hero in the sense that he can stop, or change, the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Herein lies all his significance; herein lies his whole power. But this significance is colossal, and the power is terrible.

I think your problem with what I say is actually that you, in a knee-jerking fashion assume anything that comes forth from me is non-materialistic drivel since I have openly described myself as a "mystic" before, which I believe makes your blood boil - but you should know once upon a time I was a staunch atheist and am extremely well versed in Marxism and Leninism, so please try to show a little respect to myself, and some of the newer comrades (the "jump down your throat and pull out your spleen" culture of revleft seems a bit trite, and you are one of the best at it) ... or at least feign some.

And lastly, it would do you well to read this pamphlet, or at least re-read it if you already have...

[Invader Zim]

But how can we dismiss human interest stories like that of Jeon Tae-il?

Because, unless they are related back to actual historical processes, and thus presented as case studies of those processes, they don't actually tell us anything.


certain individuals play significant roles in history.

Correction: certain individuals play significant functional roles in history.


Invader Zim, I think my last post stands as I don't see how you have rebutted anything I have said.

I pointed out precisely where your position is fundamentally flawed.

"It is not a relevant question to ask whether superstructures are independent of the individuals which comprise them, (you might as well ask whether the ebb and flow of the pacific ocean is as a whole is independent of molecules of which it is comprised, it is a ludicrous question) but rather to debunk the fairytale that suggests that individuals and their actions are divorced from the superstructures which produced them and shaped their consciousness."

And your quote mining of Plekhanov misses the point being made here in this thread, and indeed the point he was making. The argument is not that events transpire in spite of what individuals believe and do, but that people behave in the fashion that they do and believe what they believe, because of the realities of their existence; which is precisely what I quoted Marx as having said. You implicitly seem to accuse me of a fatalism which is simply not presented in my post.


I think your problem with what I say is actually that you, in a knee-jerking fashion assume anything that comes forth from me is non-materialistic drivel since I have openly described myself as a "mystic" before, which I believe makes your blood boil -

This is a wholly egotistical argument based on the underlying assumption that I even know, let alone care, what you have said in the past on this boards. You are mistaken. I can't recall ever reading even a single post of yours until this thread. I don't agree with your appeal to hero worship of otherwise unknown figures, because I think the entire underlying historical philosophy misses the important point regarding the motor of history, but far more importantly, because I think to do so is tedious sycophancy.


but you should know once upon a time I was a staunch atheist

So? Your religious views don't interest me in the least, you can believe in whatever supernatural crap you choose.


so please try to show a little respect to myself,

I haven't shown disrespect to you, as an individual, at all. What I've done is state my view of your arguments. You need to distinguish between the two.


and some of the newer comrades

Did I tell anybody in this thread to fuck off? Did I denigrate their intellect? Did I shower them with abuse? No. I disagreed with their views and told them why.


the "jump down your throat and pull out your spleen" culture of revleft seems a bit trite, and you are one of the best at it

What? Because I told a new member that I thought their thread was pointless I 'jump[ed] down [their] throat and pull[ed] out your spleen'? Sorry, but just no.


And lastly, it would do you well to read this pamphlet, or at least re-read it if you already have...

I've read it several times, and it is dry and dust and ceased being of interest to the vast majority of Marxists decades ago for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. However, regarding Plekhanov's interjection between 'fatalists' and those who believed that everything was determined by mere chance consequences of an individuals actions is entirely in keeping with what I've argued here - that individuals play functional roles. As I said:

"superstructures are what create and drive the tides of history, and that people play functionary roles within those superstructures - that they are products of these super-structures and their behaviour is reflective of their social-experience."

Indeed, Plekhanov's running point on the matter is to critique the notion that individuals and structures should be considered separately - as do I. Individuals should be placed within the context of structures and considered as playing functions.

Or to sum it up, Plekhanov considers that individuals can play important roles in the past but only in the context of their social conditions.

To illustrate, let's take Hitler, for instance. Nobody denies that he played an important role in German society, yet it is undeniable that without forces much larger than Hitler himself as an individual came into play which determined that importance. He could not, for instance, have even come to power were it not for the Great Depression, the outcome of the First World War, a willing band of racist thugs ready and willing to lap up his dogma, massive schisms within German conservatism, ad infinitum. Then, once in power, his will required the submission, obedience and collaboration of entire bureaucratic superstructures. It also required the Second World War to follow the path which it did to mould the nature of the final 'final solution' (as opposed to earlier incarnations such as the Madagascar Plan). We then must also consider why it was that Hitler believed what he did. Had Germany been economically prosperous in the early 1930s would he have been as dissatisfied and so keen to look to scapegoats as he was? No, because his consciousness was determined in no small part by his social existence. So, Hitler played a functionary role, and the interesting discussion of any individual in history, is not saying - "oh well, this leftist has been overlooked", it is to examine why they believed what they did and how society came to place them in the position they were in. And that's the point I've been making and you've been ignoring all thread.

[Red Clydesider]

Amid all the argument about how we should regard individuals in history, this is what I was originally saying and still say.

These kinds of people are important in history.

1. People of an oppressed class who achieve something that strengthens the cause of that class against the ruling class. The slave Tacky, who made Tacky's rebellion happen, is an example. His actions strengthened the cause of abolition of slavery.

2. People of the oppressed class who don't make any lasting contribution to the struggle, but whose lives illustrate the reality of ruling class oppression in human terms. They remind us of what we detest about oppressive systems old and new, and of the importance of the struggle for emancipation. The old sailor in Jack London's book is an example.

I'll come back to this thread again to say more about the notion that individuals merely function within a framework of general causes.

James.

[Red Clydesider]

On the individual in history: Invader Zim tells Astarte: 'I don't agree with your hero worship of otherwise unknown figures'.

I don't do any kind of worship, but I do believe that lesser known figures - those who scored points against the ruling class of their time, and those who in spite of their courage and strength of character were defeated by the oppressors - deserve recognition. They deserve to be celebrated and memorialised for their own sake.

They're unknown or hardly known because we have been taught ruling-class history - in relation to modern times, bourgeois history.

Of course individuals are the product of their society. We don't live outside society. But let's beware of seeing individuals as parts of a machine, their acts determined by pre-existing general laws. It's a short step from there to saying individuals don't count - an attitude which can all too easily infect power-holders in a post-revolutionary society.

There's a neat intellectual trick that some can do and others can't. It's to hold two apparently contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Not to think it has to be X OR Y, but that it can be X AND Y. Individuals act within the framework of their society AND some individuals out of their own resources can act in ways that change the course of the struggle for emancipation.

If this thread is still alive I'd like to talk about someone I almost hero-worship - Mary Bryant. She's probably better known than some, but still too much in the shadows.

James.

[blake 3:17]

@RC -- I'm most familiar with certain types of history from below. Best shistory I've read in years is Defying Dixie which looks at the radical, mostly but not exclusively Communist, roots of the civil rights movement in the US before 1950. Amazing stuff and helped rediscover a bunch of pretty wild folks.

Eve and the New Jerusalem by Barbara Taylor is a friggin fantastic read. It covers women and proto-feminists in the English Utopian socialist movement in the early 1800s.

There's lots more. I would suggest that the divide between the Great Men and Women and the masses is much blurrier than is usually presented.

Ernest Mandel wrote a paper on the the individual in history. His case study? Hitler.

A fascinating account of Jewish needle workers in Toronto, many of them Communist or Anarchist, is in Sweatshop Strife by Ruth Frager.

I hated most history because of the way it was taught, and unfortunately many on the Left assume a bourgeois perspective or over correct by laying out 'historical forces' blah blah blah.

I enjoy many memoirs and biographies of people who may be on the wrong side, but find them fascinating.

One of my favourite books of "Great Men" is Seymour Hersh's Dark Side of Camelot which paints the Kennedys in a very unflattering light. Amazing stories in it. The fact that he wasn't sued to death implies he had a lot more he didn't have enough evidence for.

[Red Clydesider]

Blake 317 - I hadn't read 'Defying Dixie' but I certainly will, as soon as I've finished two other books I'm still in the middle of. You don't mention the author, by the way - I didn't know but searched and found that it's Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore.

Yes, I too hated - or was bored by - history teaching. I think you're in Canada; I'm in the UK, where at school we survived on a diet of the doings of the 'great' British royal families, the Tudors and Stuarts. My family were all leftist, and knew some of the other kind of history, especially of the British labour movement. School history seemed irrelevant.

James.

[blake 3:17]

Blake 317 - I hadn't read 'Defying Dixie' but I certainly will, as soon as I've finished two other books I'm still in the middle of. You don't mention the author, by the way - I didn't know but searched and found that it's Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore.

Yes, I too hated - or was bored by - history teaching. I think you're in Canada; I'm in the UK, where at school we survived on a diet of the doings of the 'great' British royal families, the Tudors and Stuarts. My family were all leftist, and knew some of the other kind of history, especially of the British labour movement. School history seemed irrelevant.

James.

I should've included the author, but I think it's the only one out there with the title. She also did with a whole team of assistants -- there was a lot of research that went into it and is well recognized in the book. Very inspiring. I don't have a copy, and will have to paraphrase from memory, but she says in the preface that she has great hope for the future as long as there continue to be people like those that are featured in the book. Amazing details.

In Canada, we got more social history but often so out of context it was meaningless. Got most of the good stuff from my dad who was pretty old when I was born and had lived through a lot. He and my grandfather were part of the liberal side of the Popular Front.

Then later studying movement history.

[Klaatu]

Want to know about some greatly-under-rated great men? How about : Eugene Debs
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/154766/Eugene-V-Debs

[Red Clydesider]

Debs is a man I greatly admire. I have his biography by Ray Ginger, titled 'The Bending Cross'. In the introduction, Mike Davis says Debs 'has been censored from our school curricula, or worse, reduced to a mere curiosity'. But he 'refuses to go away'. The 'dramatic collision between Wilson and Debs...was one of the great moral-political confrontations in modern American history, pitting self-righteous Progressivism against defiant Socialism.'

I certainly recommend Ray Ginger's book.

James.